In Australia, several macropod species are subjected to commercial harvesting, recreational hunting and population management, using both lethal and non-lethal measures. Some techniques for killing macropods can cause prolonged and/or severe suffering, and of particular concern is the welfare of remaining pouch young or young-at-foot, when females with dependent young are killed. Non-lethal methods are more widely supported by the general public and include reproductive control and relocation. These methods, however, also have significant associated welfare challenges. This review outlines the welfare concerns for each current method, and concludes that an accurate head-shot by an experienced shooter is least likely to inflict suffering. However, this assumes best practice shooting, which may not be representative of field conditions. Furthermore, many aspects of macropod control and killing still require significant research. These include, but are not limited to: accurate statistics for pouch young and young-at-foot mortality and morbidity in Australian states; data on field-based compliance with National Codes of Practice; safe and remote administration of reproductive control measures; and the impact of using dogs and trapping in wallaby destruction and hunting.

The conflict between predators and livestock farmers is a threat to carnivore conservation. Livestock guarding dogs are promoted as a non-lethal, environmentally friendly method to mitigate this conflict. As part of a farmer–carnivore conflict mitigation programme, the Cheetah Conservation Fund breeds Anatolian shepherd (also known as Kangal) dogs to protect livestock from predators. During 2009–2010 we interviewed 53 commercial and 20 subsistence Namibian farmers that are using 83 such dogs. Fewer commercial and subsistence farmers reported livestock losses to predators during the most recent year of guarding-dog use compared to the year before dogs were introduced. All subsistence farmers, but not all commercial farmers, ceased killing predators during the most recent year of guarding-dog use. All farmers ceased killing cheetah Acinonyx jubatus and leopard Panthera pardus during this year, and one dog killed a single cheetah. Conversely, dogs and farmers killed more black-backed jackals Canis mesomelas between them in the survey year than the farmers reported killing in the year before acquiring dogs. Two of the dogs reportedly killed non-target carnivore species, and 15 killed prey species. Thus our results challenge the categorization of livestock guarding dogs as a non-lethal conflict mitigation method. We suggest that the conservation status and body size of wild carnivores relative to the size of the guarding dogs be considered before introducing dogs to protect livestock. Additionally, corrective training for dogs that chase or kill non-target species should be implemented, especially where farmers value these species or where non-target species are threatened.

Livestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than non-lethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally. We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.

Where people and livestock live with predators there is often conflict that can lead to lethal control of predators. We evaluated attitudes of local people towards large predators and developed a novel index of tolerance by quantifying the number of livestock respondents would be willing to lose before killing the predator responsible. We interviewed 416 subsistence livestock farmers (community members) and commercial livestock ranchers in central Kenya. Commercial ranchers had more positive attitudes and higher tolerance than community members. Community members said their tolerance would increase if they were to derive income from ecotourism or trophy hunting. We found that community members with land title deeds were most tolerant of predators, stressing the importance of land security for conservation efforts. Subsistence livestock farming is the primary land use throughout much of Africa and, as a result, identifying strategies to improve tolerance of predators under this land tenure system is of major conservation significance.