Removing wolves did not reliably prevent domestic animal losses

Abstract Humans usually try to kill wild animals that they perceive as threats. However, many scientific findings have raised doubts that killing solves wildlife damage to property. With scant, low‐quality data, uncertainty persists. We reviewed recent studies of killing gray wolves to protect domestic animals. Our inclusion criteria set a minimum threshold for robust study design and transparent data sharing. In five studies in five countries, killing wolves typically had no effect, may have had the desired effect, but more often killing wolves had the counter‐productive undesirable effect of elevating domestic animal losses. We quantified the relative rates of the three outcomes and find the balance in favor of no effect to undesirable effects. We discuss potentially confounding variables and the need for an unbiased, reproducible, transparent, randomized, and controlled trial of predator removal. We find and summarize similarities to other situations from disease transmission to crop damage.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Science and Practice
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70388
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Removing wolves did not reliably prevent domestic animal losses

Agrita Žunna, Miroslav Kutal, José Vicente López‐Bao, Igor Khorozyan et al.
Conservation Science and Practice
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
article

Removing wolves did not reliably prevent domestic animal losses

Agrita Žunna, Miroslav Kutal, José Vicente López‐Bao, Igor Khorozyan, Martin Duľa, Adrian Treves, Francisco J. Santiago‐Ávila, Jurģis Šuba, Ari M. Cornman, Miha Krofel, Dror Ben‐Ami, Shlomo Preiss‐Bloom, Rona Nadler Valency
article en

Abstract

Abstract Humans usually try to kill wild animals that they perceive as threats. However, many scientific findings have raised doubts that killing solves wildlife damage to property. With scant, low‐quality data, uncertainty persists. We reviewed recent studies of killing gray wolves to protect domestic animals. Our inclusion criteria set a minimum threshold for robust study design and transparent data sharing. In five studies in five countries, killing wolves typically had no effect, may have had the desired effect, but more often killing wolves had the counter‐productive undesirable effect of elevating domestic animal losses. We quantified the relative rates of the three outcomes and find the balance in favor of no effect to undesirable effects. We discuss potentially confounding variables and the need for an unbiased, reproducible, transparent, randomized, and controlled trial of predator removal. We find and summarize similarities to other situations from disease transmission to crop damage.

Conservation Science and Practice
WWF Colombia (CO), The Wildlife Society (US), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (US), University of Wisconsin–Madison (US), University of Ljubljana (SI), Tel Aviv University (IL), Friends United (US), FloDesign (United States) (US), Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydroecology (AM), Biodiversity Research Institute (US), Biotechnical Educational Centre Ljubljana (SI), Latvian State Forest Research Institute "Silava" (LV), Mendel University in Brno (CZ)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.