Search Results (4)

Livestock predation is a global problem and constitutes the main source of conflict between large carnivores and human interests. In Latin America, both jaguar and puma are known to prey on livestock, yet studies in Mesoamerica have been scattered and few have been carried out in Honduras. We interviewed ranchers in a biosphere reserve where jaguars and pumas are present. Local indigenous communities reported livestock predation (average annual loss of 7% from 2010–2019), with preventive and retaliatory killing as their main actions against predation by the jaguar and puma. Other sources of cattle loss included diseases and theft. The extensive management system (free grazing) lets cattle access forests where predators are more common. We found that livestock predation is not random, but rather, related to landscape variables and human influence. Sites farther from human influence and closer to forest cover were more susceptible to predation. Jaguar and puma persistence in the biosphere reserve will require measures that facilitate human–carnivore coexistence and comply with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2 and 15 (zero hunger and biodiversity conservation). We propose management practices to mitigate livestock predation in the presence of large carnivores based on examples of proven human–carnivore coexistence in Venezuela, Brazil, Paraguay, and Nicaragua, such as improving the spatial arrangement of livestock (maintaining a distance from forest areas) and the incorporation of confinement pens for young calves (at least the first three months of life) and their mothers. If the pens are built close to the property’s house and have constant surveillance and/or dogs, the results are likely to be more effective. Deploying these proven tools may help change the current negative perception of ranchers towards large carnivores that is essential to conservation under the aims of SDG 15. We recommend government policies and support aimed to strengthen livestock health to increase productivity and to reduce their vulnerability to predation. Finally, this study represents a baseline to understand the magnitude of the human–carnivore conflict over cattle in one of the largest biosphere reserves in Mesoamerica. Full article

This review regards the management and social problems in European urban and suburban forests linked to their maintenance and human use. They can be divided into major categories: forest management problems (e.g., the low priority of urban forestry, various or diffused urban forest management, lack of management plans or lack of sufficient funds); the social reception of forest works and forests (e.g., emotional reactions to total clear-cutting, negative evaluation of logging traces, negative evaluation of poor tourist infrastructure, specific expectations concerning a model forest: e.g., tall, of low density, mixed, old); and relations between forest users (problems related to e.g., crowding, fast-moving people, the presence of dogs, littering, thefts or noisy behaviour). Here, special attention is paid to problems and negative interactions, as they are challenges to forest management, as well as to the development of plans, strategies, and policies, both in relation to existent forests and those planned in various parts of Europe. Taking into account the feelings and expectations of forest users concerning forests, forest works/management, and infrastructure, as well as their attitude to other forest users, may reduce conflicts concerning various kinds of forest perception and use, and (with the support of societal education) may help to increase the sense of social responsibility for the “shared” forests. The presented findings are expected to be practical and useful for the management of urban and suburban forests, regardless of the location, as a type of checklist of possible problems, that may prove to be important and up-to-date in a particular location. Full article

Dogs are considered property under U.K. law, while current discourses of pet ownership place canine companions as part of an extended family. This means sentences for those who steal dogs are not reflective of a dogs’ sentience and agency, rather in line with charges for those who steal a laptop or wallet. This is particularly problematic as dog theft is currently on the rise in England and Wales, leading to public calls to change the law. Recognising that a more robust analysis of dog theft crime statistics is required, we gathered dog theft data for 2015, 2016, and 2017 from 41 of 44 police forces through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. This paper uses these data to examine how dog theft crime statistics are constructed, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of these data, and categorises, maps, and measures dog theft changes temporally per police force in England and Wales. Our findings reveal there has been an increase in dog theft crimes, with 1559 in 2015, 1653 in 2016 (+6.03%), and 1842 in 2017 (+11.43%), and a decrease in court charges related to dog theft crimes, with 64 (3.97%) in 2015, 51 (3.08%) in 2016, and 39 (2.11%) in 2017. There were police force inconsistencies in recording dog theft crime, which meant some data were unusable or could not be accessed or analysed. We recommend a qualitative study to understand stakeholder perspectives of dog theft crime in different areas, and a standardised and transparent approach to recording the theft of a dog by all forces across England and Wales. This could be achieved by classifying dog theft (or pet theft more generally) as a crime in itself under the Sentencing Guidelines associated with the Theft Act 1968. Full article

Dogs, and other companion animals, are currently classed as “property” in theft sentencing legislation for England and Wales. This means that offenders who steal dogs are given similar sentences to those that steal inanimate objects. This review presents the argument that the penalty for dog theft should be more severe than for the theft of non-living property. Evidence of the unique bond between dogs and humans, and discussion of the implications of labelling a living being as mere “property” are used to support this argument. The review concludes that the Sentencing Council’s guidelines should be amended so that offences involving the theft of a companion animal are deemed to be a Category 2 offence or above. The review further proposes that “theft of a companion animal” should be listed in the Sentencing Council’s guidelines as an aggravating factor. Full article