You can follow the famous story about Dr. Laurie Marker (founder of Cheetah Conservation Fund), providing Anatolian Shepherd for guarding farmers livestock, to decrease their economic loss and therefore motivation to shoot cheetahs. Introduction is here: http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=dr_laurie_marker.

But I think the crisis and contradiction is the ongoing expansion of protected economic activities. It's the major cause of habitat loss of cheetahs.

Hi Chiyu, in fact I used to work for CCF and am now in collaboration with them for my PhD! I did my Masters on livestock guarding dogs in South Africa and the economic gains farmers achieve through using them.

Am I right in understanding that you do not think protected areas are good for cheetahs? From my research, it seems that they live better in unprotected areas because of less competition from lions and spotted hyenas, which is why I think it is so important to focus our attention on farmlands as well.

Sorry I did not notice your publication or I'll know you're devoted to CCF. It's nice to know you in such the way. All my knowledge about cheetah conservation came from the second source information. Maybe you can tell the first-hand story.

Habitat loss caused too small source populations, then inbreeding depression problems, and cross-coupled with the isolation and risks of dispersal among metapopulations. I admired the contribution of CCF's strategies to make farmers tolerant cheetahs. But I have no idea about the actual "gain or loss " of habitat for cheetahs resulted from the growing farmlands.

The largest carnivore, Formosan clouded leopard, was just declared extinct in my country, Taiwan. The major cause is still habitat loss, resulted from logging and agriculture in common low-mountain zone. We even have no chance to have practical experiences to save such the large, and beautiful species of carnivore.

I know the Swedish state has rather significant damage compensation schemes in place to cover documented damages from brown bear, wolf, lynx and wolwerines to livestock - mainly sheep farmers and rein deer husbandy communities. Given the Swedish research efforts on large carnivores, I think it likely you cold find relevant studies fom Sweden...

Hi Bo, thanks very much! I have heard of the payments that Sweden do for carnivore conservation - that it is payable upon how many wolverine and lynx are in the community, rather than how many reindeer are killed, which is a great idea. I think it may be hard to implement in other areas though due to the specific conditions in that context. But thanks anyway!

The reindeer case is special to that part of the country - somewhat a rural development transfer too. In mid and southern Sweden I believe compensations are contingent on documented damages. In mid- Sweden I think there are also some subsidies for farmers to improve fencing quality to keep out wolfes.

I worked in Italy on a project about wolves for my Master thesis and one of my supervisors is working there on alleviation of the conflict between wildlife and farmers. In Italy wolves were on the verge of extinction but the population recovered greatly due to the protected status they gain during the 70s. Now many individuals are living all over the country, causing quite a lot of problems to the livestock.

The government instituted a fund to repay the value of every sheep killed by wolves. The problem with this system unfortunately is that the farmers receive only the nominal value of the animal, not considering that often these are valuable breeds and the time they have invested breeding those animals, so even with the refund program there's a significant loss for the farmers.

Lately though some project about mitigation of the damages has been started to help reduce this problem. The local government funded entirely the construction of fences (electrical fences seemed to be very effective) and encouraged the breeding and distribution of abruzzo sheepdogs. These in particular proved to be exceptionally effective in prevent wolves attack (quite similar to what happened with cheetahs in south Africa).

It is obviously impossible prevent every killing since it can always happen tat a single animal get lost and therefore attacked, and in this case economic refunds can be a valid instrument to limit the loss.

So, to answer to your question, I don't think economic incentives are the solution on their own, but they are probably very useful in a wider plan of mitigation.

Hi Lisa, thanks that was extremely useful! I've heard that the compensation programme in Italy wasn't that successful (as with anywhere else in the world) but that's good to hear that the government are subsidizing better protection methods. I wonder how we can bring these techniques to countries where the government is not rich enough to support such methods?

Niki: " I'm particularly interested in whether incentives can improve tolerance for livestock and game farmers towards large threatened carnivores."

if you pay for the sheep killed by wolves... the answer is: (in best case) yes or (in worst case) may be

if you do not pay for the sheep... than the answer is: no

Hi Zsolt, thanks for your answer. My worry is that farmers become dependent on these payouts and almost see it as part of their income. Then they won't take the necessary precautions to deter predators but will still get payouts even if it is kind of their fault that their livestock was killed due to not looking after it properly. Also who pays? In many countries in Africa where thousands of large predators roam freely the governments don't have the money to fund it. So I think compensation can be tricky!

Yeap, "compensation" becames (if not already is) a business

our government is paying the farmers to do nothing - for example in some grasslands where there are certain species of butterflies...

Great question, Niki. I think you're right to be wary of the effect these payments may have on ranchers' behavior (i.e., the moral hazard). But there is little question that incentives can and do change behavior. For those interested in carnivore conservation, I think the important question is--what behavior do you want to change. Most programs define the problem as killing of carnivores, and try to subsidize livestock producers for animals lost. However, for many species, once they have learned to kill livestock the game is over, that animal is going to end up being killed (and we often subsidize that killing as well). From my perspective this is akin to treating the symptom of the problem (or the proximate problem) rather than the ultimate problem--which is a failure to adequately protect livestock. If I were to design a program I would start by reimbursing producers for livestock guarding dogs, electric fences, fladry, etc. Then we're encouraging them to take actions that may actually both prevent the loss of their livestock as well as the loss of the life of the carnivore that would have killed them.

Hi Jeremy, all good ideas, thanks! Yes I too think that paying farmers compensation isn't so great and agree that we must think of the problem holistically rather than just treat the symptom. In my experience in developing nations in Africa, farmers don't choose to have poor husbandry; rather, they either don't know how to improve it or don't have the finances to do so. I was part of a scheme in South Africa that gave out free livestock guarding dogs to farmers, and the rate of depredation went down to almost nil. But then again you have to consider the social element, as farmers sometimes kill predators not just because they kill livestock, but because they find it fun, it's a cultural thing, it's a tradition, they can sell their pelts for money, it's retribution and something they can finally control over all the policies and price reductions they've had thrown at them by government, etc. So that is why that I am dubious to think that even if we do pay them to not kill predators, or give them free non-lethal predator tools, that even then it may not stop the killing. There are certainly some very strong factions in the Afrikaans community here in Namibia who just hate predators and they've grown up hating them because their dads taught them that and there's nothing you can do to stop them.

I am interested to read some of your publications though as they sound very interesting! I have a soft spot for wolves :)

Hi Ben, thanks for your answer. I have read Mishra et al.'s 2003 paper and the subsequent one done a few years later that actually said that they were wrong about increasing native prey, because they found that it INCREASED snow leopard attacks on livestock! I've heard varying degrees of success from insurance schemes, and I think the idea will not catch on easily in areas where insurance for houses, cars, health etc. are not used. But I agree; it must be context-specific!

Ben, annoyingly I can't find the reference to that newer paper now! I will let you know when I find it! I think I remember them saying in the paper that the snow leopard's carrying capacity was increased by the increase in wild prey, which meant that livestock depredation was more common because snow leopards opportunistically hunt livestock, not just because the wild prey has been depleted.

Hi Niki, I was just wondering, are you looking specifically at payout-type economic incentives for livestock losses? Or, are you also interested in the economic incentives that can arise as a result of people gaining employment/trade in the wildlife tourism sector? I study sharks in the Bahamas, and the change in attitudes of people who used to be fishers (read: shark-haters) and are now employed in some aspect of the lucrative shark diving industry, is amazing. Just curious as there are some potential parallels here (although fishers could never be reimbursed for fish lost to sharks).

Hi Alexandra, yes I am also looking at other ways to make money from wildlife, e.g. photo tourism, trophy hunting, sustainable offtake for own use consumption, etc. Yes I see your point in fishermen never being reimbursed for fish lost to sharks; it is similar to trophy hunters not being reimbursed for game lost to predators in unfenced areas. Here in Namibia there is a perceived problem with seals eating too many fish so they are allowed to kill quite a number of seals every year for fat and fur, which appeases the fishermen. Are the populations of shark in the Bahamas sufficient to allow a small offtake?

Sharks in the Bahamas are now fully protected from commercial fisheries thankfully, but big game fishers and anglers do kill a certain number every year. I don't think it is an issue with regard to population declines however. I'd be very interested in knowing how much of an incentive employment in the wildlife industry is in your study system, as opposed to just being paid for livestock losses. Do you have any data which suggest one is preferable to the other?

In my experience, communal residents here would all LIKE to be employed in the tourism industry, but for most it isn't feasible because they lack even basic education. Many only speak their tribal language and maybe a bit of Afrikaans, but most do not speak English. And then the skills in tourism and hospitality are sorely lacking too. So yes those that are employed in tourism here do value wildlife more, but only a very few amount of communal (or even commercial) residents are actually involved, so it isn't as if you can rely on tourism to change the vast majority of people's opinions - and therefore behaviour. Plus you also have to think of the sustainability of tourism, which is massively affected by any political instability in a country, but also negatively affects the environment too with pollution, noise, litter, disruption, developments of infrastructure, buildings, CO2 emissions, etc. So it's tricky!

"There are certainly some very strong factions in the Afrikaans community here in Namibia who just hate predators and they've grown up hating them because their dads taught them that and there's nothing you can do to stop them." -- Of course you're right about the role of culture, but in my experience changing culture is next to impossible; changing behavior, on the other hand, can be accomplished with the right incentives (and disencentives). A key element to understand here is what level of illegal killing is sustainable. For example, roughly 10% of the wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains has been killed illegally every year since becoming established. This did not prevent population growth or range expansion. However, the added pressure of legalized hunting and trapping (justified largely under the premise of 'protecting big game populations') has resulted in a slight population decline. So some losses to cultural intolerance may be tolerable. :)

"I am interested to read some of your publications though as they sound very interesting! I have a soft spot for wolves " --I have a book chapter (with Adrian Treves and Jon Way) coming out that discusses how incentives associated with sport hunting can ("can" not "must") impede the conservation of carnivores (focused on wolves in the American West). I'll send it along when it's through review.

Both conservancies (incentives for resident members) and state protected areas in Namibia seem recently to have become less ineffective in controlling rhino (horn) and elephant (ivory) poaching. Always difficult to combine a high value export commodity with poor residents in a peripheral area.

Protected areas and freehold game/cattle farms seem to do better in carnivore protection. On the other hand, small stock freeholds (sheep; goat) and conservancies on pastoral commons would seem incompatible with carnivores. Largely because of the herding system, or rather the lack thereof (see earlier Q&A).

For an example how to live and farm with carnivores (wolf and bear) since time immemorial, see my Majella papers.

Thanks for upvote, Niki. On the correlation between culture/language and attitude towards carnivores, I can concur from anecdotal evidence. Statistically, you could test the relationship by correlation of the language of farm names (or year of farm registration) with carnivore occurrence. The data are available, although not necessarily easily accessible. When you subsequently correlate the language of farm name with livestock production system (small stock versus cattle) you may find an explanation. The small stock farms have names in Afrikaans (broadly in Hardap and Karas) and cattle farms German or Herero names. As most Afrikaans speaking settlers arrived later than the German equivalents only the drier pastures (Karroo and southern Kalahari) were left. And dry pasture is less suitable for cattle that can deal with carnivores themselves, while small stock, particularly sheep without herder, is vulnerable to consumption by carnivores. Karroo farms often have carnivore-proof fences.

Correlation is of course not necessarily causation. The ultimate question is whether culture (proxy language) or geography and history (as expressed in landscape) drives farm management against carnivores. Or maybe geography and history have shaped culture.

Hein, actually since my last post there have been a number of published studies on the language/culture correlation with carnivore tolerance (see links).

Interesting stuff!

https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/12722

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378949/

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-013-0508-2

http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/13590/

Article What drives human–carnivore conflict in the North West Provi...

Hi Niki

Thanks for references. And anything from correlation to causation?

Hein, I'm not sure how exactly you could experimentally test this to prove causation?  How would you manipulate culture and language experimentally?