Human-Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter?

Simple Summary Conflicts between humans and wildlife can occur with different types of problematic animals: native pests, dangerous native carnivores, invasive native species and invasive alien species. For conservation biology, the latter are the most damaging and must be managed differently than the first three types. I compared the damage done by native and introduced species in the United States using databases published on the Internet by Wildlife Services (WS), which depend upon the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. They receive thousands of complaints per year from the public and institutions due to wildlife damages, which they try to resolve. I found that human-wildlife conflict events were much more frequent with native species than with introduced ones. This pattern can be explained by at least three factors: because this organization biases their effort toward native fauna due to historical reasons, because people perceive the problems caused by native animals more, or because the impact of native species is greater than that of nonnative species. In any case, it seems reasonable to disregard the origin of species and try to resolve the most serious human-wildlife conflicts regardless of whether they are caused by native or introduced species. Conservation biologists have divided wildlife in two antagonist categories-native and introduced populations-because they defend the hypothesis that the latter acquires or expresses harmful qualities that a population that remains in its original environment does not possess. Invasion biology has emerged as a branch of conservation biology dedicated exclusively to conflicts between introduced wildlife and human interest, including the protection of biodiversity. For invasion biology, the damage caused by native species is different and must be managed differently. However, the consensus around this native-introduced dichotomy is not universal, and a debate has intensified in recent years. The objective of this work was to compare the impacts of native and introduced species of terrestrial vertebrates of the United States using the dataset provided by Wildlife Services (WS), which depend upon the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. Annually, they receive thousands of reports and complaints of human-wildlife conflicts. I analyzed the WS databases and found, against expectations, that native species produce significantly more damage than nonnative ones, especially regarding damage to agriculture, property and health and safety. In the category of impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, the differences were minor. I discuss several potential explanations of these patterns in the results. I also discuss the ecological foundations of the native-introduced dichotomy hypothesis.

Automated summary

This study compares the impacts of native and introduced species on human and natural environments in the United States. Surprisingly, it finds that native species cause significantly more damage than introduced species, particularly in agriculture, property, and health and safety. The differences in impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems are minor.