Abstract
Efforts to reduce livestock losses to large carnivores are widely regarded as essential for promoting human–carnivore coexistence. Predator‐proof enclosures, compensation programs, improved livestock guarding, and real‐time predator alert systems can reduce depredation and retaliatory killing while enhancing pastoralist livelihoods. However, reducing livestock production risks may also alter livestock management decisions in ways that increase grazing pressure or reshape land‐use patterns. I applied insights from moral hazard theory, rebound effects, and common‐pool resource governance to examine how carnivore conflict mitigation interventions may influence pastoral land use and long‐term conservation outcomes. Reduced predation risk may encourage herd expansion, higher stocking densities, or spatial expansion into areas previously avoided because of carnivore presence. Although such responses may improve household resilience, they may also increase competition for forage with wild herbivores, intensify habitat degradation, or shift conflict spatially rather than eliminate it. Because durable coexistence requires accounting for the broader incentives created by successful risk reduction, I developed a framework integrating carnivore conflict mitigation with grazing management, ecological monitoring, and livelihood diversification.