Skip to content
NatureHQ

Claim check

Do predators catch most of the prey they go after?

Not supportedNo good evidence supports this, or the evidence points the other way.

Where hunts have actually been counted, most attempts fail — usually well over half, sometimes far more. A hunt is a sequence of stages, each of which can go wrong on its own.

The claim as it circulates

“A big predator picks a target and takes it. Hunting is what these animals are built for, so they mostly succeed.”

Where you may have met it: Documentary narration and its editing conventions; General writing about apex predators; “Deadliest predator” rankings and similar formats

Taking it apart

What was claimed
That predators succeed in most of their hunting attempts.
What was actually observed
Directly observed wolf hunts of elk in Yellowstone show capture probability rising with the number of participating wolves and levelling off at about four, with most attempts unsuccessful. Telemetry across 367 hunting runs by wild cheetahs recorded most runs ending without a capture. Across the wider literature, quantified per-attempt success rates are typically well below fifty per cent and vary substantially with predator, prey, habitat and group size.
What the evidence supports
That predation is a sequence — find, approach, attack, subdue, keep — with independent failure at each stage, and that failure is the normal outcome. It also supports a less obvious point: most of a predator’s effect on prey populations runs through changed prey behaviour rather than through animals killed.
What it does not support
It does not support ranking predators by success rate. A rate belongs to a particular predator hunting particular prey in particular terrain, measured by a particular method, and studies differ on every one of those — so a league table would compare things never measured the same way. Observed hunts are also biased towards those an observer could see.

Documentary editing is worth naming as a cause here, without blaming it. A sequence showing four failed hunts before a successful one is honest and unwatchable; the convention is to show the one that worked. The cumulative effect across many programmes is an impression of routine success that the field data do not support.

There is also a reason failure is normal rather than incidental. A predator that commits to every winnable-looking attack will eventually be injured by prey defending itself, and for a solitary hunter an injury can be fatal at one remove. Breaking off is frequently the correct decision, and it is counted in the statistics as a failure.

The rest of the answer

The claims underneath

Each one carries its own evidence, scope and caveats. Expand any of them to reach the studies.

A hunt is a sequence — detect, approach, attack, subdue, keep — and it can fail at every stage. Where success has been measured properly, most attempts end without a kill.

Established

Specialists would state this without hedging. Multiple independent lines of evidence agree.

Predation proceeds through separable stages of search, encounter, attack, capture and handling, each with its own probability of failure and its own time cost. Measured per-attempt success rates in quantified field studies are typically well below fifty per cent and vary with predator, prey, habitat and social context.

Who this applies to
A general description of how predation works, supported by quantified hunt series in carnivores, birds and invertebrates.
Studied in
Animalia
Why we rate it this way, and what the caveats are
EstablishedHigh confidence

The stage framework is standard and the failure rates are directly observed. What varies between studies is the exact rate, not whether most attempts fail.

How far it can be extended

The stage structure was established across independent systems, and per-attempt success has been quantified in many predators.

Caveats

  • Success rates are not comparable between species without their conditions. A rate measured on one prey species in open habitat says little about the same predator elsewhere.
  • Observed hunts are biased towards those an observer could see, which in closed habitats means the record is incomplete.

Still unanswered

  • How much of the variation in success between individuals is skill acquired with age rather than circumstance.

Last reviewed 2026-09-03

The evidence (3 studies)

Most of what a predator does to a prey population happens without a single kill. Animals feed less, move differently and stay more alert wherever risk is higher, and those changes have real costs.

Established

Specialists would state this without hedging. Multiple independent lines of evidence agree.

Predation risk induces measurable changes in prey habitat use, activity timing, group size, vigilance and foraging rate. These non-consumptive effects impose energetic and reproductive costs independent of mortality, and in several systems account for a substantial share of the predator’s total effect on prey populations.

Who this applies to
Documented across mammals, birds, fish and invertebrates.
Studied in
Animalia
Why we rate it this way, and what the caveats are
EstablishedHigh confidence

That prey change behaviour under risk is beyond dispute and experimentally demonstrated. The share of total population effect attributable to it is the part that varies by system and remains argued.

How far it can be extended

Risk-induced behavioural change has been measured independently in many taxa and habitats, including under experimental manipulation of perceived risk.

Caveats

  • How much of a predator’s population-level effect runs through behaviour rather than mortality is genuinely contested and differs between systems.
  • Perceived risk and actual risk can diverge, and most experiments manipulate the former.

Still unanswered

  • Whether prey correctly calibrate risk to actual danger, or systematically over- or under-respond to particular predator cues.

Last reviewed 2026-09-03

The evidence (2 studies)

Go deeper

Predation

Where hunts have actually been counted, most of them fail. The famous capabilities — the speed, the venom, the bite — are rarely what decides it.

Related things people ask

Last reviewed 2026-09-03