Cattle and Carnivore Coexistence in Alberta: The Role of Compensation
Programs
Author(s): Tracy Lee, Kim Good, Winston Jamieson, Michael Quinn and Ashok Krishnamurthy
Source: Rangelands, 39(1):10-16.
Published By: Society for Range Management
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.rala.2016.11.002

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Cattle and Carnivore Coexistence
in Alberta: The Role of
Compensation Programs
By Tracy Lee, Kim Good, Winston Jamieson, Michael Quinn, and Ashok Krishnamurthy

On the Ground

• In Alberta, Canada beef producers share the landscape

with large carnivores where interactions can lead to
negative outcomes. We had 672 Alberta beef producers
complete an online survey in spring 2014 to access the
occurrence and outcomes of cattle-carnivore interactions.
• We found that a majority (64%) reported losses from
carnivore depredation. The average rate of calf
depredation was reported at 2%, but the rate was
highly variable between producers (ranging from 0 to
25% calf loss annually). The direct annual economic
loss to depredation for survey respondents was $2
million. This can be extrapolated with a number of
assumptions provincially to $22 million.
• Albertas Wildlife Predator Compensation Program
(WPCP) paid out an average of $220,584 annually
from 2011-2013. The WPCP was under-utilized,
64% of producers did not report to the program,
and did not adequately address financial burden
experienced by producers from 2011 2013.
• Producers identified a series of challenges with the
WPCP including the excessive burden of proof
and the effort to value ratio being too low.
• We provide recommendations to improve the WPCP
based on a literature review and our survey findings.
Keywords: large carnivores, livestock depredation,
human wildlife interactions, beef producer, cattle
producer, compensation.
Rangelands 39(1):10—16
doi 10.1016/j.rala.2016.11.002
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf
of The Society for Range Management. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

10

A

lberta beef production is big business. The
province produces nearly 40% of all beef cattle
in Canada, contributes $5.87 billion to the
national gross domestic product, and provides
over 62,000 jobs. There are about 20,000 producers with 5.2
million cattle in Alberta. 1 Alberta is also home to numerous
carnivore species, including wolf, coyote, cougar, black bear,
and grizzly bear. Wildlife is an important component
of Alberta’s natural heritage, providing a wide array of
values.
When large carnivores and cattle come into contact the
resulting interactions can negatively impact ranchers, cattle,
and/or the carnivore. 2 The loss of cattle to carnivore
depredation (through kill or injury) 3 is a significant land-use
issue. This problem is not unique to Alberta, it is global in
nature—e.g., leopards in India, lions in Kenya, and wolves in
China all prey on cattle. Carnivore depredation has been
recognized as a significant source of economic loss for producers
globally. 3 In Alberta, many individual beef producers endure
economic losses due to carnivore interactions; however, the
extent and impact of these losses at a provincial scale have not
been adequately quantified and are not well understood.
Producers are aware that human–wildlife interactions are a
risk when living in landscapes shared with carnivores. 4
Borgström noted that the Finnish government acknowledges
the natural risks posed to producers by wildlife and recognizes
an obligation to protect producers through compensation
schemes. 5 The government of Alberta makes a similar
recognition, albeit implicitly, in the establishment of the
Wildlife Predator Compensation Program (WPCP). Despite
a lack of clear articulation of the program objectives, the
Alberta government accepts some obligation to
mitigate economic losses due to carnivore depredation on
livestock.
Compensation schemes and related conservation efforts are
often developed in a top-down manner with limited consultation between wildlife managers and livestock producers. 5,6 As
Boitani et al. assert, it is necessary for those most directly

Rangelands

Table 1. Average compensation payments (CAD dollars) per cattle type (2011-2013)
Cattle type

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

Average over 3 years

Calf

$2,029

$826

$407

$1,088

Cow

$99,921

$126,541

$121,899

$115,787

Feeder/Yearling

$87,782

$107,357

$101,214

$98,784

Bull

$0

$5,165

$9,610

$4,925

Total payout

$189,732

$239,889

$233,130

$220,584

affected to have an active role in the policy and compensation
program development process. In this paper, we focus on three
issues that are important to improve beef producer and carnivore
co-existence: 1) based on survey results we estimate the economic
losses sustained by beef producers in Alberta through carnivore
depredation on cattle; 2) we assess the ability of the current
compensation program (WPCP) to alleviate costs associated with
depredation; and 3) report on the opinions of beef producers
regarding the efficacy of the established compensation program.
Although our research focus is Alberta, Canada, potential
solutions are transferable to other jurisdictions with similar
carnivore and livestock management issues.

Summary of the Alberta Wildlife Predator
Compensation Program
The Alberta WPCP provides payments to ranchers for
livestock killed or injured by wildlife. The program pays for
cattle, sheep, bison, swine, or goats killed or injured by
predators such as grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, cougars, or
eagles. Coyote depredation is not eligible for compensation.
Wildlife officials must verify that livestock were killed or
injured by a predator before compensation is paid. If a claim is
approved, producers can accept compensation at the time of
loss or producers can wait until the end of October and receive
compensation based on the average sale price of an animal
based on a specific weight. The minimum amount paid out is
$400 per confirmed kill. If a Fish and Wildlife Officer is not
able to verify the depredation event as a predator kill it is
labeled a “probable” kill, and the producer is paid 50% of the
loss if a confirmed kill by the same species is found within 10
km and 90 days before or after the incident.
Table 1 summarizes WPCP data provided by the
provincial government and presents the average value paid
out over the 3-year period (2011-2013) for 272 claims. The
mean annual compensation total was CAN $220,584.
The majority of these payouts were for confirmed
depredation on cows or feeders/yearlings (97%), with minimal
compensation paid for calves and bulls. Figure 1 shows the
most common carnivore species reported to be responsible for
confirmed depredation events for the 3-year period. Coyote
depredation is not eligible for compensation and therefore is
not recorded by the WPCP.
February 2017

Surveying Beef Producers
To determine the extent of carnivore depredation, the
economic losses suffered to beef producers and opinions of
producers toward current compensation programming in
Alberta, an online survey was developed in partnership with
representatives from the Alberta Beef Producers (ABP). i The
survey was tested for clarity by the ABP wildlife committee, a
selection of beef producers, representatives from Agricultural
Financial Services Corporation, ii and the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, iii Operations
Division. The survey consisted of 30 fixed-scale questions and
one open-ended question to gather personal opinions about
improving beef producer coexistence with carnivores. The
survey was developed and delivered using online software
(Survey Monkey) and shared broadly via a web link to ABP
delegates, members, and municipal agricultural representatives. Hard copies of the surveys were also made available at
municipal offices and upon request. Open-ended questions
were coded into themes using qualitative data analysis
software (Hyper Research).
A limitation resulting from the online survey approach is
the possibility of selection bias in sampling due to the
“word-of-mouth” promotion approach (compared to a
random mail-out). In particular there is potential for voluntary
response bias, which occurs when a majority of self-selected
volunteers have strong opinions about the main topic of the
survey, resulting in a sample that tends to overrepresent those
individuals over the general population. We are confident that
our relatively large sample size and the broad spatial
distribution of respondents help reduce these concerns.

Analysis of Survey Data
The assessment of the impact carnivores have on beef
producers was performed via the accumulated data collected by
the online survey combined with a literature review. Survey
respondents who reported cattle depredation were asked to
i
Alberta Beef Producers are an organization representing the shared
interests of beef producers in Alberta.
ii
Agricultural Financial Services Corporation is a provincial crown
corporation that provides financing and insurance options for agricultural
related issues/endeavors.
iii
Renamed Alberta Environment and Parks in 2015.

11

responses and the total percentage of cattle per Alberta Beef
Producer Zone within Alberta to highlight that producers
from all of Alberta were represented in the survey.

Impacts From Carnivores and the Costs of
Depredation

Figure 1. Carnivore species involved in depredation reported to the WPCP.

report the total number of cattle they owned by cattle type (calf,
cow, feeder/yearling, and bull), as well as the number of each
cattle type presumed lost due to carnivore depredation from
2011 to 2013. Survey responses that did not report cattle
numbers were eliminated from the analysis. Data were analyzed
to determine the average number of each cattle type owned and
the mean annual loss by cattle type due to depredation.

Calculating the Loss to Beef Producers by
Depredation and Cost/Value of Livestock
A market value approach was employed to calculate the
economic loss incurred by producers as a result of carnivore
depredations. To determine the value of each cattle type,
average weights were used as generated by Canfax iv and
multiplied by average market price per 100 pounds (Table 2).
The average market value of each cattle type was multiplied
by the number of that cattle type lost to depredation as
determined in the survey. The total cost of livestock lost in
Alberta was estimated by extrapolating the percent loss
generated in the survey to the total number of cattle type
(Statistics Canada) for the same time period (Table 3).
In addition, estimated total loss was compared to the actual
amount paid out in compensation to understand any
discrepancy between beef producer losses and government
payouts.

Results
A total of 672 beef producers satisfactorily completed the
survey. Given a total population of 20,000 beef producers, 672
responses, and using a survey system calculator, we are
confident that experiences of the surveyed population are
representative of Alberta’s beef producer population. In
addition, Figure 2 highlights the distribution of survey
iv

12

Canfax provides market analysis of the North American beef industry.

Seventy-four percent of respondents experienced impacts
from carnivores. The species of most concern was coyote.
The most prominent impact carnivores have on beef
producers is cattle depredation; 64% of producers reported
losing at least one animal between 2011 and 2013.
Depredation predominately occurs on calves, with 61% of
producers reporting losses; 20% reporting losses of cows; 14%
reporting losses of feeders/yearlings; and 4% reporting losses
of bulls.
For the survey period, 2011 to 2013, the total economic
costs were calculated for all survey respondents who provided
adequate data (n = 381). The annual average number of calves
reported for the entire survey group was 88,433. A total of 312
producers reported depredation on calves. The average rate of
reported depredation for producers who experienced depredation events on calves was 2%; thus, approximately 1,769
calves were subjected to depredation. Given the unit price of
$872 per calf (Table 2), the total economic loss of calves for
survey respondents reporting depredation on calves was
$1,543,134 annually. A similar calculation was done for
each cattle type and the results are displayed in Table 3. This
analysis indicates a direct annual loss of $2 million due to
depredation events reported through survey responses (Table 3).
The true value of loss is much greater, as these are reported
losses only from survey participants (representing 3.36% of
Alberta’s beef producers).
Determining the impact of carnivore depredation from a
provincial perspective is more challenging and less accurate
than the numbers presented per individual producer because
of reduced sample sizes in reporting and incompleteness in
data collected (in the survey we did not collect information on
the number of cattle owned by producers who had not
experienced a depredation event). If, however, we make the
assumption that cattle are distributed evenly among producers
and that depredation rates are similar regardless of production
system (feedlot vs. grazing system), then the percentage of
producers who experience depredation per cattle type is the
same as the percentage of cattle that may be subjected to a
depredation event. Based on these assumptions, a best
approximation of depredation during 2011 to 2013, from all
carnivore species, was estimated to be $22 million in Alberta.

Cattle Losses are Uneven Among Producers
Survey results support the notion that depredation impacts
are distributed unevenly among beef producers. For instance,
the results show the distribution of percent loss of calves
ranges from 0% to 25% loss for individual producers, with a
mean of 2% losses annually. This means that 2.6% percent of

Rangelands

Table 2. Average market value (CAD dollars) per cattle type and number of cattle in Alberta averaged from
2011 to 2013 (Statistics Canada)
Cattle Type

Total population

Lbs

$/cwt

Estimated value per animal

Calf

1,626,000

550

$158.60

$872.32

Yearlings/Feeders

1,530,000

850

$130.74

$1,111

Cow

1,720,000

1400

$73.50

$1,029

Bulls

89,000

2400

$83.61

$2,006

producers report a high level of calf depredation events greater
than 10% annually.

Do Beef Producers Use the Compensation
Program?
Beef producers who reported experiencing negative
interactions with carnivores (74%) were asked if they had
reported depredation events to the WPCP. Of 374 responses,
62% had not reported, 24% had reported some depredation
events, and 12% had reported all depredation events.
Producers who participated in the survey were asked to
explain why they did not report depredation events (Fig. 3).
Alberta beef producers identified seven reasons for not
reporting depredation events to WPCP. The most common
reason was the excessive burden of proof to demonstrate
depredation events (34%). Under this theme, producers
mentioned the primary concerns as the carcass being found
too late; the agency not showing up on time; and/or the
carcass not being found. Beef producers were also highly
concerned with the inefficiency of the program (24%).
Respondents identified the following programmatic issues:
the claim and application process was too time consuming; the
return was not worth the hassle of the process; and the
program was not covering losses from coyote depredation.
Beef producers also perceived a certain level of inaction
(18%) and complacency (11%) within the managing agency;
there is a lack of trust between some producers and agency
staff responsible for handling individual claims. Other
producers feel agency staff is non-responsive and considered

this an understaffing issue. Nine percent of producers were
simply unaware of the existence of the compensation program.
Four percent of surveyed beef producers consider economic
losses that result from depredation a ‘cost of doing business’
and therefore do not report. Finally, 4% of the surveyed beef
producers found it sufficient to handle the issue themselves
and did not consider contact with the agency necessary.

Discussion
A purpose of the survey was to support evidence-based
decision-making in the realm of livestock depredation
compensation. The results of the survey and the literature
review provide guidance for improving the existing program
in Alberta; however, the recommendations have application in
similar ex post compensation programs in other jurisdictions.
Here we discuss four key areas from the survey to help foster
dialogue toward improving programming.

The Majority of Beef Producers Experience
Carnivore Depredation
The survey results indicate a majority of beef producers in
Alberta experience losses to carnivores; the most commonly
reported loss was depredation on livestock, with calf
depredation as the most frequent occurrence. These findings
are consistent with other studies that identify depredation on
livestock as the main economic impact from carnivores. 7
Average reported depredation rates were consistent with
other studies. 8 Survey results were also similar to findings in
other research that found costs are borne unevenly among

Table 3. Total annual value of animals reported lost to depredation by survey respondents
Cattle type

Cost per
unit

Total number
lost to
depredation

Total number
of animals
reported in
survey

Average % loss to
depredation from
survey responses

Total value of
animals reported
by survey part.
Lost to depredation

Calf

$872

1,769

88,433

2.0

$1,543,134

Cow

$111

275

18,330

1.5

$305,583

Feeder/Yearling

$1,029

151

30,216

0.5

$155,379

Bull

$2,006

16

320

5.0

$32,096

Total

February 2017

$2,036,192

13

Although higher rates of losses only affected 2.6% of the
producers who report experiencing depredation events, it can
be a significant cause of negative feelings toward predators
within the broader community. 9

Economic Losses From Depredation are Not
Fully Compensated

Figure 2. Distribution of survey responses and percent cattle by Alberta
Beef Producers Zone in Alberta.

producers, with a small percentage of producers reporting
higher rates of loss. 8 For example, in Alberta 2.6% of
individuals reported experiencing calf depredation losses
higher than 10% per year, while the average producer only
experienced 2% annual losses. These producers experiencing
extreme losses are important in the consideration of a
compensation programs’ ability to alleviate losses, helping
maintain tolerance toward wildlife and support coexistence.

Depredation on individual livestock operations can have a
significant monetary impact on beef producers. 2 Numerous
studies have attempted to measure the impact of depredation to
individuals 8,10 and on the beef industry in specific regions. 11
Our results highlight that the current Alberta compensation
program is not well utilized. The survey responses represent
3.36% of beef producers in Alberta with a direct financial loss of
$2 million annually. The estimated losses incurred by beef
producers presented are highly conservative and do not represent
the total losses of cattle to depredation occurring in Alberta.
In comparison, the WPCP paid out an average $220,584
annually in the same time period of the survey (2011–2013).
The discrepancy between actual compensation payout and the
losses beef producers experience as a result of depredation can
be partly attributed to the unwillingness of beef producers to
participate in the compensation programs. In addition, it can
be partly attributed to coyote not being eligible in the current
compensation program even though they were identified as
the most common species of concern.
Other costs borne by producers are not considered within the
compensation program. Direct loss of livestock is compounded by
indirect costs associated with depredation, such as reduced weight
gain due to the stress caused by carnivores being present. 12 Our
estimation of $2 million lost annually addresses only the market
value of lost cattle reported by beef producers in the survey.
Researchers used the market value of cattle to estimate an
annual loss of $2.5 million to beef producers in Colorado. 7 Using
a multiplier this value was adjusted to $10 million to account for
under-reporting and indirect losses. Alberta has approximately
twice the cattle population of Colorado on a similar landscape.
Applying similar multipliers suggests that the economic losses are
far greater than the amounts currently paid out.

Can the Compensation Program Be Improved?

Figure 3. Reasons why beef producers are not reporting depredation
events to the Wildlife Predator Compensation Program.

14

The WPCP is an ex post compensation program, meaning
funds are paid out after a depredation event. A review of the
literature highlighted a number of critiques of ex post
compensation program many of which are supported by our
survey findings. Compensation programs are compromised by
a number of structural problems, including insufficient
funding, excessive time gaps between depredation event and
carnivore verification, overwhelming burden of proof for
producers, and low reporting rates. 13 In addition, ex post
compensation programs are often considered inadequate
because they do not offer incentives to producers to take
preventative measures against depredation events. 14,15 Here
we highlight considerations when reviewing ex post compensation programs to guide discussions around improvements.

Rangelands

Establishing Clear Program Goals
Compensation programs are commonly developed to help
ease the economic impact of carnivores while building human
tolerance toward carnivore species. 16 It is important to outline
the goals of a compensation program to enable evaluation of a
program’s success. Beeland 17 highlights some of the common
goals of compensation programs:
• addressing the economic loss to local people;
• sharing the costs of conserving large carnivores more equitably;
• reducing producer motivation for removing carnivores;
• reducing mortality of livestock;
• increasing tolerance toward carnivores; and
• reducing attractants and promoting husbandry practices.
In the northwestern United States, compensation programs
are designed and implemented to engender tolerance for large
carnivore restoration programs, specifically wolves and grizzly
bears, by offsetting costs of lost livestock and other property. 4
Outlining the goals is important for the Alberta program. In
Alberta, the failure to include coyotes in the compensation
program does not address the largest source of economic loss to
carnivore predation. If the goal is to reduce economic burden,
then the province may want to consider compensating coyote
depredation. If, however, the program is more specifically focused
on species of management concern, such as grizzly bears, then the
program would be evaluated with this objective in mind.

Lessen the Burden of Proof
Survey respondents were dissatisfied with the burden of
proof around verifying an eligible carnivore caused death. A
number of issues can complicate the verification process,
including consumption of the animal by the carnivore and
scavengers leaving little or no evidence. This is further
complicated by the need for the producer to find the kill in
time and the officers responsible for verifying the kill to show
up quickly enough to assess the cause of death.
Compensation program managers identify the verification
process as important to create an audit trail accounting for
compensation payouts. A balance is needed between the burden
of proof and verification process. To achieve this balance,
producers and program managers need to engage in discussions
about program design and process. One suggestion to reduce
the constraints of officers responding to depredation events on
time is to implement a self-auditing process, where spot audits
are carried out by officers to ensure compliance.

Consider a Multiplier
In our survey, producers indicated a low reporting rate
partly because funds received are not a sufficient inducement.
The costs of verifying the kill outweigh the benefits of
receiving a payment. It is starting to be recognized that if one
kill is confirmed likely there are other predations occurring. In
addition, indirect costs (e.g., reduced poundage and weaning
rates to cattle from stress of coexisting on landscape with
carnivores) are not included in compensation programs.
February 2017

Given the challenges around burden of proof and indirect
losses, other jurisdictions have started to consider a multiplier
to account for the likely possibility that if one is confirmed
more were likely lost to depredation.
To address these two shortcomings, some researchers have
applied a multiplier of 3.8 for confirmed grizzly bear
depredation kills while others have applied a 2.5 multiplier
to all confirmed depredation events in Colorado due to
underreporting and then added a 1.6 multiplier to address
indirect costs from depredation. 7,10 In 2013, the Waterton
Biosphere Reserve Association Carnivore Working Group,
with the support of a graduate student, developed a series of
recommendations to improve the existing compensation
program in Alberta. After extensive meetings with landowners, a multiplier of 2.5 of the market value for all
confirmed depredation events was suggested. 18 However,
applying a multiplier also increases the payout associated with
the program, in Colorado confirmed events resulted in a $2
million dollar payout but the addition of multiplier would
have resulted in a $10 million dollar payout. A multiplier is
only a possibility if it does not threaten program sustainability.

Lack of Incentives Toward Prevention
Prevention (e.g., removing cattle carcasses from the
landscape, moving calving grounds closer to home, electric
fencing calving grounds) has been identified as the best way to
reduce the negative interactions occurring between producers
and carnivores. 4 As with many ex post compensation programs,
the WPCP is not directly linked to preventative measures; the
current program is based solely on financial compensation for
verified losses. This means an individual who has not taken
steps to reduce attractants are entitled to the same compensation
for losses as an individual whom has invested in changing
management practices to reduce attractants. Nyrus et al. note
that for compensation programs to be most effective they should
be tied into best management practices as an incentive to reduce
cattle and carnivore interactions. 16
Compensation programming needs to be set in the context
of broader carnivore management, as human carnivore
interactions are a result of land use practices, prey density,
and habitat loss. 14 The goals and specifics relating to
compensation should be tied into broader carnivore management objectives. If the goal of compensation is mainly to offset
financial burden to producers of coexisting with carnivores,
other approaches could be considered. Incentive programs,
whereby the producers are paid to support wildlife populations
providing an incentive to reduce interactions and wildlife, are
becoming more popular.

Conclusion
In this paper, we highlight that carnivore depredation on
cattle has an economic impact on Alberta beef producers. The
average calf loss per producer who reported experiencing
losses is 2% annually, but 2.6% report experiencing greater
than 10% loss, which characterizes a high level of loss to the

15

producer. The Alberta Government does offer compensation
on verified kills, but the program is currently underutilized by
producers and does not adequately address the economic
losses caused by depredation. This is partly due to coyote not
being included in the current program. Areas in which ex post
compensation programs can improve include developing
transparent program goals; improving the balance between
verification and the need for an audit trail; considering a
multiplier to verified kills to account for difficulty in
verification process and to address indirect impacts of
carnivore interactions; and tying compensation to best
management practices aimed at reducing carnivore depredation events.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Alberta Beef Producers –
the Wildlife Working Group, the Environment Committee,
Delegates and Directors, and especially the individual beef
producers who responded to the survey and shared it with
others. Lastly, they would like to thank Paris Afshordy
(Institute for Environmental Sustainability) for assisting with
the qualitative assessment of open-ended survey questions and
Lisa Boyer (MRU, student) for background literature review.

References
1. KULSHRESHTHA, S., O. MODONGO, AND A. FLORIZONE. 2012.
Economic impacts of livestock production in Canada - a regional
multiplier analysis. Canfax Research Service. Saskatoon, SK,
Canada: University of Saskatchewan.
2. NAUGHTON-TREVES, L., R. GROSSBERG, AND A. TREVES. 2003.
Paying for tolerance: rural citizens’ attitudes toward
wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology
17:1500-1511.
3. BERGER, K.M. 2006. Carnivore-livestock conflicts: effects of
subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep
industry. Conservation Biology 20:751-761.
4. TREVES, A., AND K.U. KARANTH. 2003. Human-carnivore
conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide.
Conservation Biology 17:1491-1499.
5. BORGSTRÖM, S. 2012. Legitimacy issues in Finnish wolf
conservation. Journal of Environmental Law 24:451-476.
6. BOITANI, L., P. CIUCCI, AND E. RAGANELLA-PELLICCIONI. 2010.
Ex-post compensation payments for wolf predation on livestock
in Italy: a tool for conservation? Wildlife Research 37:722-730.
7. HOAG, D.L.K., R.B. BOONE, AND C.M.H. KESKE. 2011. The
cost for agriculture to coexist with wildlife in Colorado. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 16:318-329.
8. MUHLY, T.B., AND M. MUSIANI. 2009. Livestock depredation by
wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern U.S.
Ecological Economics 68:2439-2450.

16

9. GANGAS, K.E. 2014. Attitudes towards large carnivores and
acceptance of illegal hunting [thesis]. Elverum, Norway:
Hedmark University College.
10. SOMMERS, A.P., C.C. PRICE, C.D. URBIGKIT, AND E.M.
PETERSON. 2010. Quantifying economic impacts of largecarnivore depredation on bovine calves. Journal of Wildlife
Management 74:1425-1434.
11. PACIFIC ANALYSIS INC. & RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES, 2011.
An economic assessment of wildlife predation in British
Columbia. B.C. Agriculture Research & Development Corporation. Wild Predator Loss Prevention Pilot Project. Accessed
May 2016: https://www.bcac.bc.ca/sites/bcac.localhost/files/
An%20Economic%20Assessment%20of%20Predation%
20in%20BC.pdf.
12. RAMLER, J.P., M. HEBBLEWHITE, D. KELLENBERG, AND C. SIME.
2014. Crying wolf a spatial analysis of wolf location and
depredations on calf weight. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 96:631-656.
13. MAHESHWARI, A., N. MIDHA, AND A. CHERUKUPALLI. 2014.
Participatory rural appraisal and compensation intervention:
challenges and protocols while managing large carnivore–human
conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 19:62-71.
14. PETTIGREW, M., Y. XIE, A. KANG, M. RAO, J. GOODRICH, T.
LIU, AND J. BERGER. 2012. Human-carnivore conflict in China: a
review of current approaches with recommendations for
improved management. Integrative Zoology 7:210-226.
15. AGARWALA, M., S. KUMAR, A. TREVES, AND L. NAUGHTONTREVES. 2010. Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and
Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice
to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation.
Biological Conservation 143:2945-2955.
16. NYHUS, P.J., H. FISCHER, F. MADDEN, AND S. OSOFSKY. 2003.
Taking the bite out of wildlife damage: the challenges of wildlife
compensation schemes. Conservation in Practice 4:37-40.
17. BEELAND, T.D. 2008. Information sources, beliefs and values of
key stakeholder groups in Mexican Gray Wolf reintroduction
[thesis]. Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida.
18. MORRISON, C. 2013. Proposed amendment to Alberta wildlife
compensation programs. Wateron Biosphere Reserve. Burnaby,
BC, Canada: Simon Fraser University. Report 2.

Authors are Senior Project Manager Miistakis Institute, Mount Royal
University. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6 (Lee, tracy@rockies.ca);
Executive Director, Legacy Land Trust Society, Olds, Alberta,
Canada T3E 6K6 (Good); Student Research Intern, Department
of Environmental Science, Mount Royal University, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6 (Jamieson); Associate Vice President,
Research, Scholarship and Community Engagement, Mount Royal
University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6 (Quinn); and
Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics and Computing,
Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6
(Krishnamurthy). This work was funded by Alberta Beef Producers
and many individual municipalities in Alberta.

Rangelands