"Conservation of large carnivores can have a negative impact on the economy of local communities in the areas where species survival is successful. The case of brown bears Ursus Arctos L. and wolves Canis lupus L., protected in Italy since 1939 and 1976 respectively, exemplifies this problem in relation to damage caused by predation on domestic livestock."(329)

"In the Abruzzo region there has been a constant predator presence (Boitani & Fabbri, 1993) and, until recently, losses due to predation were compensated only if caused by protected species. In 1995 regional legislation was amended and even dog-provoked losses were listed as eligible for 100% compensation of the market value of dead livestock; a clause set in 1992, that rejected claims whenever the livestock was not proved to have been adequately safeguarded, was abolished in 1994."(329)

"Sheep and goat flocks vary from small on-farm of 2-30 head to flocks of 500-1500 head raised for dairy and meat production. Larger flocks are managed by transhumance, and spend eight months a year in lowland farms within or outside the region, to be moved to the uplands from June to October where they are housed in temporary folds and herded by people and dogs."(330)

"The great majority of cases were ascribed to wolves (94.2%); adult sheep and goats and juvenile equids and cattle were the more heavily predated livestock categories (Table 1). Bear attacks on apiaries were 1.3% of cases. Significantly more cattle or equids were attacked in spring than sheep and goats. Significantly more attacks took place with a guardian present for sheep and goats (28%) than for cattle (4.6%) or for equids (3.3%)."(330)

"Significantly more day-time attacks were on sheep than on cattle or equids. The majority of attacks occurred with the animals at pasture: for sheep and goats this was primarily whilst being herded. In 13.4% of such claims the animals were said to have fallen prey after being mislaid along the grazing route."(330)

"The majority of claimants (87.9%) had been affected by predation less than once per year or on a single occasion (Fig. 1). Only 4.1% (23 claimants controlling 25 MUs (Management Units)) could be considered as chronically affected by the problem though they made up 26.2% (466) of the claims."(332-333)

"Professional and semi-professional claimants had higher levels of predation than non-professional claimants and were more likely to have been subject to high levels of predation in that they held two types of livestock rather than one."(333)

"Large cattle Mus or large equid Mus were significantly more exposed to high predation levels than medium sized Mus. No significant associations were observed between level of predation and prevalent management method for sheep and goats."(333)

"One of the communes, which accounted for 15.8% of all equid claims, was characterized by a high level of industrial development and large extensions of abandoned farmland where private owners allowed pet horses to graze all year, untagged and unattended."(333)

"Claim analysis exposed how the lack of specific professional support, coupled with intrinsic problems in evaluation for canid attacks, may have been responsible for laying the blame for the bulk of predation on wolves for over 20 years, thus maintaining a high level of antagonism towards this species and a generalised indifference towards addressing the widespread problem of dog control. The economic factor (compensation for wolf damage, none for dog until 1995) is likely to have biased this weighting significantly."(334)

"Predation may mask poor dietary and health management of livestock, a problem observed in Quigley and Crawshaw (1992) and measured, for example, by Rowley (1970)."(334)

"For large stock, peaks in predation are associated with the calving and foaling season."(334)

"The relevance of nearby woodland cover in contributing to vulnerability could not be demonstrated in the present work but has been commonly observed as an important factor (Robel et al. 1981; Nass et al. 1984; Fritts et al. 1992; Quigley & Crawshaw 1992)."(334)

"In our study only 23 owners could be considered as being ‘chronically’ affected by predation but these accounted for 30.8% of the claims, which represents a substantial expenditure with an average award per animal lost being of US$ 400."(334)

"Fico et. al. (1993) observed, in a preliminary study in the four provinces which form the Abruzzo region, that equids represented 3.7% of all livestock farmed there but were proportionately more subject to predation. This study shows that in a province where 77% of all equids are concentrated, poor or casual management is also associated with a diverse sociological profile of equid ownership linked with the assumed ease of management of this type of livestock. In such a context, health problems may indeed be responsible for above-average mortality levels."(334)

Suggestions:
"The creation of an advisory service for owners that are genuinely affected by predation would allow pooling of resources and, subtly, increase the awareness among owners of the risks of exposure and strategies available to abate the problem."(335)

"Strengthening the compensation process. Financial compensation is not a solution to all problems: on the contrary, there is growing awareness that it may encourage a state of permanent conflict (Van Erden 1990)."(335)