We review recent empirical efforts to understand human tolerance for large, terrestrial carnivores, and highlight how psychological theory on hazard acceptance can help conservation scientists explain, and ultimately increase, human tolerance for these species. For hazards in general, and for carnivores in particular, the majority of variation in acceptability judgments can be explained by the perceptions of risks and benefits associated with the hazard. Factors such as affective (emotional) reaction to a species, personal control over the risks, and trust in managing agencies are important, but secondary factors. Experimental research highlights the importance of communicating the benefits of a species to increase tolerance. In combination, these findings point to a need to rethink communications about carnivores that focus solely on lowering perceived risk by increasing individual control over the hazard. Such efforts may inadvertently decrease tolerance by overlooking the distinct and important role that the positive outcomes (i.e., benefits) associated with carnivores can play when evaluating the acceptability of a particular population or management action.

Can individual tolerance toward predators affect the success of predator conservation?

From the late Pleistocene to the Holocene and now the so-called Anthropocene, humans have been driving an ongoing series of species declines and extinctions (Dirzo et al. 2014). Large-bodied mammals are typically at a higher risk of extinction than smaller ones (Cardillo et al. 2005). However, in some circumstances, terrestrial megafauna populations have been able to recover some of their lost numbers because of strong conservation and political commitment, as well as human cultural changes (Chapron et al. 2014). Indeed, many would be in considerably worse predicaments in the absence of conservation action (Hoffmann et al. 2015). Nevertheless, most mammalian megafauna face dramatic range contractions and population declines. In fact, 59% of the world's largest carnivores (more than or equal to 15 kilograms, n = 27) and 60% of the world's largest herbivores (more than or equal to 100 kilograms, n = 74) are classified as threatened with extinction on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (supplemental tables S1 and S2). This situation is particularly dire in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, home to the greatest diversity of extant megafauna (figure 1). Species at risk of extinction include some of the world's most iconic animals—such as gorillas, rhinos, and big cats (figure 2 top row)—and, unfortunately, they are vanishing just as science is discovering their essential ecological roles (Estes et al. 2011). Here, our objectives are to raise awareness of how these megafauna are imperiled (species in tables S1 and S2) and to stimulate broad interest in developing specific recommendations and concerted action to conserve them.

The objectives of this study were to: (a) determine the acceptability of several methods of lethal and non-lethal wolf control, (b) identify factors that explain acceptability of lethal control, and (c) test a model for predicting acceptability of lethal control. Data were obtained from a mail survey of Utah residents (n = 709). Non-lethal forms of control were more acceptable than lethal forms control. Acceptability of lethal controls varied among stakeholder groups. No such variation existed for non-lethal methods, suggesting these methods are less controversial. Stakeholder group identification (i.e., agricultural, environmental, hunting, wildlife advocacy) impacted acceptability of lethal control. These effects, however, were reduced when beliefs about wolf impacts and attitude toward wolves were controlled. These two factors explained 42% of the variance in the acceptability of lethal wolf control. Path analysis supported the proposed model, suggesting effects of stakeholder identification on acceptability of lethal control are mediated by cognitive factors.