What would successful deer management look like in Scotland? To some, flourishing populations of native wild deer represent success. But to others, negative impacts such as damage to woodlands and peatlands, agricultural and forestry losses, deer-vehicle collisions, and facilitating Lyme disease spread represent failure. Conflicting interests and incentives among people involved in deer management mean a common definition of success, and therefore clear management targets, remain elusive. While some environmental groups urgently call for an increase in the number of deer culled (shot) each year, other stakeholders aim to maximize deer numbers. Overcoming this governance failure will require clearly articulated, scientifically valid, and socially acceptable socio-ecological objectives to be co-produced by a broad range of stakeholders. Systematic monitoring of deer impacts will also be needed to evaluate the ability of specific management interventions to achieve defined objectives. Reintroducing Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) has been suggested as a means to reduce deer numbers and their negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts. However, evidence of lynx impacts on deer numbers, deer impacts, and social conflicts over deer suggest lynx reintroduction alone would not effectively reduce negative impacts of deer in Scotland, though it could be part of a broader solution. In the short-term, achieving sustainable numbers of deer in Scotland will require a substantial increase in the number of deer culled and effective changes to the way deer management is incentivized, regulated, implemented, and monitored.

The illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is a global issue that threatens the conservation of many species of fauna and flora and affects the livelihoods of people who are dependent upon wildlife. By far the most common approach to tackling IWT is to enhance law enforcement, including arming rangers and tougher penalties for perpetrators. Yet, critics of this approach argue that efforts to reduce IWT in source countries are likely to fail without the involvement of local people. However, little is known about the effectiveness of community-based approaches to tackling IWT or how this is being measured. We used information from the www.peoplenotpoaching.org learning platform to analyze over 100 case studies of community-based anti-IWT interventions to understand what proportion have been effective and how this has been measured. We present a typology of frequently reported outcomes, their indicators and means of verification. We show that effectiveness in community-based anti-IWT interventions is measured by a number of indicators and using a variety of verification means. Our findings suggest that conservation practitioners more frequently implement activities to measure conservation outcomes in comparison to livelihood outcomes, which has implications for how we consider if a community-based anti-IWT project has been effective. We recommend that future community-based anti-IWT projects build in more robust monitoring, evaluation and learning activities to measure how livelihood benefits impact local communities given their support is crucial to achieving long-term conservation success.

Public wildlife management in the United States is transforming as agencies seek relevancy to broader constituencies. State agencies in the United States, while tasked with conserving wildlife for all beneficiaries of the wildlife trust, have tended to manage for a limited range of benefits in part due to a narrow funding model heavily dependent on hunting, fishing, and trapping license buyers. To best meet the needs, interests, and concerns of a broader suite of beneficiaries, agencies will need to reconsider how priorities for management are set. This presents an opportunity for conservation program design and evaluation to be elevated in importance. We argue that success in wildlife conservation in the U.S. requires assessment of both decision-making processes and management results in relation to four questions: conservation of what, under what authority, for what purposes, and for whom?