Use conditioned taste aversion to reduce human-wildlife conflict in non-residential sites

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

75%
Certainty

50%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Some animals, such as bears, may exhibit “nuisance behaviour” that may bring them into conflict with humans. This may especially be caused by animals attempting to raid foodstuffs, such as at campgrounds, picnic areas or other places that people gather. As well as causing damage to property and spreading rubbish, such individuals may then be perceived as representing a threat to humans. As an alternative to lethal control, attempts may be made to make such animals associate human food sources with pain or discomfort by lacing foodstuffs with substances that cause gastrointestinal upset. If successful, such animals may subsequently avoid seeking out human sources of food.

Studies considered under this intervention are those concerning human-wildlife conflict away from permanent settlements. For related interventions, see also the Chapter, Residential and commercial development.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using conditioned taste aversion to reduce human-wildlife conflict in non-residential sites. Both studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies, in the USA, found that lacing foodstuffs with substances that induce illness led to these foods being avoided by coyotes and black bears.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A study in 1977–1978 at a campsite in California, USA (Cornell & Cornely 1979) found that using conditioned taste aversion reduced the number of coyotes Canis latrans that begged for food. Three months after adding lithium chloride (which induces gastrointestinal discomfort) to bait there had been no reported begging problems at the campsite, compared to >12 coyotes begging for food in the month prior to use of lithium chloride baits. Bait was consumed by coyotes 31 times over a 14-day period. From December 1977 to January 1978, meat bait was mixed with lithium chloride at a rate of 10 g/396 g of meat. Bait was left on paper plates at the campsite or thrown to individual coyotes. Animal calls were used to attract coyotes. During baiting, campsite visitors were asked not to feed coyotes. Methods for surveying coyotes were unclear in the original paper.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Cornell D. & Cornely J.E. (1979) Aversive conditioning of campground coyotes in Joshua Tree National Monument. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 7, 129-131.
A study in 1992–1994 in a predominantly forested area in Minnesota, USA (Ternent & Garshelis 1999) found that inducing conditioned taste aversion through lacing military-issue meals with thiabendazole led to black bears Ursus americanus subsequently avoiding these foods. Consumption of laced meals induced illness in bears in <90 minutes. Thereafter, over 2–122 days post-treatment, bears did not consume military-issue meals offered during 32 of 41 trials and partially consumed such meals during nine trials. Only once did partial consumption comprise >50% of the meal. Other foodstuffs were, at least partially, consumed in 78% of trials. One year later, two of the bears did not consume military-issue meals in any of seven trials. However, one more year later, in a single trial, one of the bears fully consumed a military-issue meal. In May 1992, two adult female bears and three yearlings that were resident on a military reservation were each given a military-issue meal laced with thiabendazole (72–165 mg/kg bear). Bears were habituated to humans and could be studied closely without disturbance. Meals were ready-to-eat and consisted of a range of foods, each in sealed pouches and all in a sealed brown plastic bag. Subsequent trials involved military-issue meals and other foodstuffs (raw bacon, jelly, or peanut butter and jelly on bread).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Ternent M.A. & Garshelis D.L. (1999) Taste-aversion conditioning to reduce nuisance activity by black bears in a Minnesota military reservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 720-728.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use prescribed burning Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	37	Synopsis Link
Provide paths to limit extent of disturbance to mammals Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Exclude or limit number of visitors to reserves or protected areas Action Link	Beneficial	5	Synopsis Link