New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption

New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption — What It Means for Wildlife Conservation and True Coexistence

It’s a troubling paradox in wildlife management: many policies continue to permit—or even promote—lethal control of wolves (and other large carnivores) in the name of protecting livestock or reducing human-wildlife conflict. Yet in recent years, a growing body of rigorous science is challenging the idea that killing predators reliably reduces livestock losses or improves coexistence outcomes. A newly released peer-reviewed article “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” (2025) adds substantial fuel to that critique by reviewing the best available studies across multiple countries and contexts.

This paper is a powerful tool for advocates for just, democratic wildlife policies, because it erodes a commonly assumed justification for predator killing and invites us instead toward more reasoned, science-driven coexistence strategies. 

Below, we break down what the study shows, explore its implications for policy and practice, and suggest how this new evidence supports, strengthens, and can sharpen our collective arguments and advocacy.

Making Sense of the Science: What the Paper Did and Found

The authors asked a deceptively simple but deeply consequential question: do we have strong, consistent evidence that removing (killing or otherwise eliminating) wolves leads to fewer losses of livestock or domestic animals? In other words, does lethal control reliably deliver on its promised protection?

Instead of conducting a new experiment, the authors performed a review (a kind of systematic evaluation) of the best available studies, across several countries, that examine the links between lethal wolf control and livestock losses from wolves. In doing so, they examined:

• • The quality of study design (how well the study isolates cause and effect, controls confounding factors, uses proper controls, etc.).
    
  • The consistency, magnitude, and direction of reported effects.
    
  • Whether alternative explanations or unintended consequences (e.g., behavioral changes, compensatory effects, social disruption of packs) were considered.
    

Because many past studies suffer from methodological flaws (lack of controls, failure to account for confounding variables), the authors were especially attentive to whether the evidence reaches a level that justifies policy reliance.

Their central verdict: the evidence is inadequate to support the claim that removing wolves reliably prevents livestock losses. Some of the main findings:

• • Many of the studies that claim success of lethal control have weak design or interpretive problems (e.g., they don’t adequately account for confounding factors, small sample sizes, or changes in livestock management coinciding with predator removal).
    
  • In some cases, livestock losses either did not decline, or even increased, after predator removal (or in neighboring areas). Thus, removing wolves in one area may displace conflict or destabilize predator social structure in a way that backfires.
    
  • The authors emphasize that lethal control may produce unintended negative consequences: for example, destabilizing pack social structure can lead to more unpredictable wolf behavior (or influx of new individuals), or increased risky behaviors.
    
  • Across diverse settings, there is no consistent pattern showing that lethal removal reliably leads to net benefit for livestock protection.
    

In sum, for anyone hoping to defend lethal control on scientific grounds, this review seriously weakens that case.

Implications for Coexistence Practices and Policies
This new review doesn’t just stir academic debates — it has direct, consequential implications for how wildlife agencies, ranchers, communities, and advocates manage carnivores. 

1. Shifting the burden of proof and the default stance
   
   • One of the permanent challenges in wildlife policy is that lethal control is often treated as a default or default fallback—“if conflict increases, kill more predators.” But this paper supports the stronger presumption in favor of nonlethal, precautionary policies, because lethal control has failed to deliver predictable net positive outcomes.
     
   • Advocates can point to this review to argue that wildlife agencies should no longer be allowed to justify predator killing simply by citing tradition or “expert judgment” — countless studies have killed wolves and failed to produce robust, transparent evidence of benefit. It’s time to move on to what we know works and is supported by the majority of Americans: non-lethal coexistence.
2. Strengthening the ethics-based argument
   
   • Wildlife for All’s mission is grounded in the moral belief that wild animals deserve to live freely and be treated fairly. The science helps us go beyond purely moral appeals: when you show that lethal control is not just morally questionable, but also scientifically weak or contradictory, you can reach a broader audience, including those who aren’t initially motivated by animal wellbeing but by evidence-based policy.
     
   • Skeptical stakeholders (e.g., ranchers, rural communities, policymakers) often say “We can’t afford risk — we need the option to shoot wolves.” This paper undercuts that by showing the option may not reliably reduce risk — and may in some cases exacerbate it.
3. Encouraging investment in nonlethal, adaptive strategies
   
   • If the “kill to protect” assumption is undermined, then nonlethal tools — guard animals, electric fencing, range riders, deterrents, improved husbandry, compensation programs, and community-based surveillance — should not be treated as secondary or fallback, but as first-line strategies. This shifts budget, policy priority, and the mindset of wildlife agencies.
     
   • Because lethal strategies may carry hidden costs (e.g., social disruption, unforeseen predator behavior, negative public sentiment, reputational and liability risks), the comparative cost-benefit of nonlethal options becomes more compelling.
4. Improving monitoring, transparency, and accountability
   
   • The article calls out methodological weaknesses and lack of rigorous standards in predator control studies. We can use this as a call to demand stronger monitoring, open data, independent review, and clear metrics of success (or failure) in wildlife policy and agency action.
5. Messaging and persuasion to skeptical audiences
   
   • With this paper in hand, advocates can more confidently engage with policymakers who claim to care about evidence-based decision-making. Our message to such officials: “Scientific review shows that removals are not reliably effective and carry risks — let’s instead prioritize proven nonlethal methods and monitor carefully.”
     
   • In regulatory or legal settings (e.g., comment periods, wildlife commission hearings), citing this peer-reviewed review strengthens the legitimacy of coexistence strategies.
6. Expanding the approach beyond wolves
   
   • Although the focus is on wolves, the logic and methods are relevant to other large carnivores such as coyotes and mountain lions. Lethal control of predators is not a safe “go-to” and must always be justified by strong, context-specific evidence.
     

In short: this study reinforces our collective vision with empirical muscle. Rather than moralizing in a vacuum, we demand that policies rest on defensible science — and because the science is weak in favor of lethal control, most proposals to kill predators must be treated as presumptively unjustifiable unless proven otherwise.

Toward a Future of Just, Evidence-Informed Coexistence

The release of “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” is a timely and powerful moment for wildlife advocacy. It helps shift the narrative from “we must kill predators to protect livestock” to “let’s ask: is killing really helping — and if not, what better tools exist?”

For Wildlife for All, this is more than a research citation — it is a clarion call. It helps us:

• reinforce that coexistence is not a utopian dream but a rational policy option;
  
• press for higher scientific standards and accountability in wildlife agencies;
  
• strengthen alliances between scientists, advocates, and communities; and
• offer a persuasive pathway to those still clinging to lethal control: you don’t have to reject your concern for livestock or safety — but you do have a duty to demand stronger evidence to inform policies and practices.

In the years ahead, it will be essential for us to help translate this kind of science into concrete policy change: biological impact assessments, funding for nonlethal tools, legislative oversight, and public education.

The uphill battle is real, but we carry not just moral conviction, but stronger scientific justification. If the future of coexistence depends on opening minds and shifting practices, this paper gives us one more powerful bridge toward that future — a future in which wolves, other carnivores, and human communities can share the land with more dignity and fewer unnecessary killings.