Bridging the implementation gap: From predator control to non‐lethal impact‐based intervention

Abstract Attempts by researchers to close the implementation gap include active engagement, co‐production of knowledge and dissemination of findings in academic and non‐academic forums. This is, however, challenging when the focal issues are divisive. To what extent evidence and adherence to best practices could bridge the implementation gap for societally divisive issues remains unclear. Traditional land management often favours lethal predator control, while others oppose it on ethical or ecological grounds. Despite evidence supporting some non‐lethal alternatives, uptake is limited. Through a co‐designed experiment with extensive practitioner and community engagement, we evaluated the effects of diversionary feeding as a non‐lethal strategy to reduce predation, to alleviate conflicts between rare prey (capercaillie) and recovering predators (pine marten) in Scotland. The intervention reduced nest predation and increased productivity by altering predator behaviour. Co‐production, engagement and dissemination led to the rapid implementation of diversionary feeding across much of the capercaillie's range just 3 years after the initial experiment. The project underscored the importance of co‐design and stakeholder engagement for building trust and easing scepticism towards the unfamiliar. Discussions among those who successfully implemented diversionary feeding showed the potential to encourage others to engage. However, uptake was not universal—some landowners resisted the method and continued to advocate for lethal predator control despite their stated commitment to capercaillie conservation. Synthesis and applications . We argue that pushback against diversionary feeding did not reflect disagreement on the validity of the scientific evidence but rather was rooted in deep divides over land management and the relative weight given to tradition, evidence and power. Bridging this divide that manifests in multifaceted ways goes well beyond the scope of evidence alone. It is a learning opportunity for researchers keen to see the implementation of their hard‐won evidence, that you likely cannot win them all.