ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2016
Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Changing the Tolerance of the Intolerant: Does Large Carnivore Policy Matter?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of differences and commonalities in wildlife hunting across the Africa-Europe South-North gradient.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Evaluating how management policies affect red wolf mortality and disappearance.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Quantifying anthropogenic wolf mortality in relation to hunting regulations and landscape attributes across North America.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Potential risk zone for anthropogenic mortality of carnivores in Gandaki Province, Nepal.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Article
- Large carnivore hunting and the social license to hunt.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021Article
- Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Assessing the effectiveness of a national protected area network for carnivore conservation.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Shoot shovel and sanction yourself: Self-policing as a response to wolf poaching among Swedish hunters.Ambio · 2019Article
- Article
- Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management.Science advances · 2018Article
- Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors.PloS one · 2018Article
- Reply to comments by OlsonProceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying environmental crime and the effectiveness of policy interventions is difficult because perpetrators typically conceal evidence. To prevent illegal uses of natural resources, such as poaching endangered species, governments have advocated granting policy flexibility to local authorities by liberalizing culling or hunting of large carnivores. We present the first quantitative evaluation of the hypothesis that liberalizing culling will reduce poaching and improve population status of an endangered carnivore. We show that allowing wolf (Canis lupus) culling was substantially more likely to increase poaching than reduce it. Replicated, quasi-experimental changes in wolf policies in Wisconsin and Michigan, USA, revealed that a repeated policy signal to allow state culling triggered repeated slowdowns in wolf population growth, irrespective of the policy implementation measured as the number of wolves killed. The most likely explanation for these slowdowns was poaching and alternative explanations found no support. When the government kills a protected species, the perceived value of each individual of that species may decline; so liberalizing wolf culling may have sent a negative message about the value of wolves or acceptability of poaching. Our results suggest that granting management flexibility for endangered species to address illegal behaviour may instead promote such behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.