Biodiversity and Conservation

, 18:3503 | Cite as

Carnivore-livestock conflicts: determinants of wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on sheep farms in Finland

  • Salla KaartinenEmail author
  • Miska Luoto
  • Ilpo Kojola
Original Paper


Wolves (Canis lupus) have recently expanded their distribution range into western and southern Finland, which has not hosted breeding wolves for over 100 years. This has raised concerns and public debate over wolf-livestock conflicts. Between 1998 and 2004 there were 45 wolf attacks on sheep on 34 farms. To assess the risk wolves may pose to sheep husbandry, we used data on depredation, sheep management, landscape structure and moose and wolf populations from continental Finland outside the area of reindeer husbandry to build models of the factors that may predispose sheep farms to wolf depredation. Our results provided evidence that sheep farms with the highest risk of wolf depredation were those located in regions where wolves were abundant. These farms were usually located close to the Russian border where the landscape is a mosaic of forest, wetlands and clear cut areas. These regions are sparsely populated by humans and farms are located far from each other. Finally, we generated probability maps based on generalised additive modelling to predict the risk of wolf predation on livestock in farms of southern Finland.


Finland GAM Sheep Depredation Wolf Ovis aries Canis lupus 



Akaike’s Information Criterion


Area under curve of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot


Bayesian Information Criterion


Generalized additive models


Generalized linear models



Volunteers, whose efforts are gratefully acknowledged, collected the wolf track and moose data. Salla Kaartinen was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation, Naisten Tiedesäätiö and University of Oulu Scholarship Foundation. We would also like to thank James Sangster, who helped with correction of the English text.


  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Cont AU-19:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Luoto M (2007) The importance of biotic interactions for modeling species distributions under climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:745–753. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00359.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspi J, Roininen E, Ruokonen M, Kojola I, Vilà C (2006) Genetic diversity, population structure, effective population size and demographic history of the Finnish wolf population. Mol Ecol 15:1561–1576. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02877.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangs E, Shivik J (2001) Managing wolf conflict with livestock in the northwestern United States. Carniv Damage Prev News 3:2–5Google Scholar
  5. Berger KM (2006) Carnivore-livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conserv Biol 20:751–761. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00336.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boitani L (2000) Action plan for the conservation of wolves in Europe (Canis lupus). Nature and Environment No. 113. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  7. Boitani L (2003) Wolf conservation and recovery. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves behavior, ecology and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 317–340Google Scholar
  8. Bradley EH, Pletscher DH (2005) Assessing factors related to wolf depredation of cattle in fenced pastures in Montana and Idaho. Wildl Soc Bull 33:1256–1265. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[1256:AFRTWD]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference—understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304. doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cozza K, Fico R, Battistini ML (1996) The damage–conservation interface illustrated by predation on domestic livestock in central Italy. Biol Conserv 78:329–336. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00053-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fritts SH, Sephenson RO, Hayes RD, Boitani L (2003) Wolves and humans. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves behavior, ecology and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 289–316Google Scholar
  12. Gade-Jörgenssen I, Stategaard R (2000) Diet composition of wolves Canis lupus in east-central Finland. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 45:537–547Google Scholar
  13. Kaczensky P (1996) Livestock-carnivore conflicts in Europe. Munich Wildlife Society, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. Kojola I, Määttä E (2004) Suurpetojen lukumäärä ja lisääntyminen vuonna 2003 (The number and reproduction of large carnivores in Finland in 2003). Riistantutkimuksen Tiedote 194:1–7 in FinnishGoogle Scholar
  15. Kojola I, Huitu O, Toppinen K, Heikura K, Heikkinen S, Ronkainen S (2004) Predation on European wild forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) by wolves (Canis lupus) in Finland. J Zool (Lond) 263:229–235. doi: 10.1017/S0952836904005084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kojola I, Määttä E, Hiltunen H (2005) Suurpetojen lukumäärä ja lisääntyminen vuonna 2004 (The number and reproduction of large carnivores in Finland in 2004). Riistantutkimuksen Tiedote 203:1–17 in FinnishGoogle Scholar
  17. Kojola I, Aspi J, Hakala A, Hiekkinen S, Ilmoni C, Ronkainen S (2006) Dispersal in an expanding wolf population in Finland. J Mammal 87:281–286. doi: 10.1644/05-MAMM-A-061R2.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehman A, Overton JM, Leathwick JR (2003) GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction. Ecol Model 160:165–183. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00354-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Linnell JDC, Smith ME, Odden J, Kaczensky P, Swenson SE (1996) Strategies for the reduction of carnivore-livestock conflicts: a review. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. Oppdragsmelding, vol 443, pp 1–118Google Scholar
  20. Linnell JDC, Odden J, Smith ME, Aanes R, Swenson SE (1999) Large carnivores that kill livestock: do “problem individuals” really exist? Wildl Soc Bull 27:698–705Google Scholar
  21. Linnell JDC, Swenson SE, Anderson R (2001) Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Anim Conserv 4:345–349Google Scholar
  22. Luoto M, Virkkala F, Heikkinen RK (2006) The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:34–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00262.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mech LD, Harper EK, Meier TJ, Paul WJ (2000) Assessing factors that may predispose Minnesota farms to wolf depredation on cattle. Wildl Soc Bull 28:623–629Google Scholar
  24. Meriggi A, Lovari S (1996) A review of wolf predation in southern Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? J Appl Ecol 33:1561–1571. doi: 10.2307/2404794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meriggi A, Brangi A, Matteucci C, Sacchi O (1996) The feeding habits of wolves in relation to large prey availability in northern Italy. Ecography 19:287–295Google Scholar
  26. Musiani M, Mamo C, Boitani L, Callaghan C, Gates CC, Mattei L, Vislaberghi E, Breck S, Volpi G (2003) Wolf depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers to protect livestock in western North America. Conserv Biol 17:1538–1547. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00063.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nass RD, Lynch G, Theade J (1984) Circumstances associated with predation rates on sheep and goats. J Range Manag 37:423–426. doi: 10.2307/3899629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robel RJ, Datyton AD, Henderson FR, Meduna RL, Spaeth CW (1981) Relationship between husbandry methods and sheep losses to canine predators. J Wildl Manag 45:894–911. doi: 10.2307/3808098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rushton SP, Ormerod SJ, Kerby G (2004) New paradigms for modelling species distribution? J Appl Ecol 41:193–200. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00903.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruusila V, Pesonen M, Tykkyläinen R, Karhapää A, Wallen M (2005) Hirvikannan koko ja vasatuotto vuonna 2004. (The size and calf production of the moose population in 2004). Riistantutkimuksen tiedote 201:1–8 (In Finnish)Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz G (1979) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sidorovich VE, Tihomirova LL, Jedrzejewska B (2003) Wolf Canis lupus numbers, diet and damage to livestock in relation to hunting and ungulate abundance in northeastern Belarus during 1990–2000. Wildl Biol 9:103–111Google Scholar
  33. Sillero-Zubrini C, Laurenson MK (2003) Interaction between carnivores and local communities: conflict or co-existence? In: Gittleman JL, Funk M, Macdonald D, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, pp 282–312Google Scholar
  34. Stahl P, Vandel JM, Herrenschmidt V, Migot P (2001) Predation on livestock by an expanding reintroduced lynx population: long-term trend and spatial variability. J Appl Ecol 38:674–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stahl P, Vandel JM, Ruette S, Coat L, Coat Y, Balestra L (2002) Factors affecting lynx predation on sheep in the French Jura. J Appl Ecol 39:204–216. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00709.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swets K (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293. doi: 10.1126/science.3287615 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Treves A, Karanth KU (2003) Human carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv Biol 17:1491–1499. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treves A, Naughton-Treves L, Harper EK, Mladenoff DJ, Rose RA, Sickley TA, Wydeven AP (2004) Predicting human-carnivore conflict: a spatial model derived from 25 years of data on wolf predation on livestock. Conserv Biol 18:114–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00189.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2003) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Game and Fisheries Research InstituteOuluFinland
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations