Experimental test of the efficacy of hunting for controlling human–wildlife conflict
6
Citation
54
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Abstract Human–wildlife conflict can cause major declines in wildlife populations and pose a threat to human safety and livelihoods. Large carnivores are among the most conflict‐prone species because they range widely, eat human‐associated foods, and can pose a risk to human safety. Legal harvest of carnivores by licensed hunters is an attractive method to attempt to reduce conflict; however, there is mixed evidence for its effectiveness. We leveraged a unique management project in Ontario, Canada in which a new spring American black bear ( Ursus americanus ) hunting season was implemented in selected wildlife management units in addition to the existing fall season. We examined human–bear interactions and incidents before (2012 and 2013) and after (2014 and 2015) this implementation in treatment and control areas. Further, using data from 2004–2019, we examined the longer‐term patterns of human–bear interactions and incidents before and after this management project when a spring season was implemented throughout the entire province beginning in 2016. Harvest increased significantly upon the implementation of the spring season in selected units, but there was no concomitant reduction in interactions or incidents, and these were higher in areas with the new spring season relative to control areas. Human–bear interactions, incidents, and harvest were strongly related to the availability of natural foods in all analyses. Regulated, presumably sustainable harvest was ineffective at reducing human–bear interactions and incidents in the near‐term and might have increased both. Our results support a long history of research showing that natural food availability is a primary driver of human–wildlife conflict. Programs promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, including education, capacity building, and management of unnatural food sources are likely to be the most successful at reducing conflicts between people and bears.Keywords:
Human–wildlife conflict
Hunting season
EFFECTIVE wildlife management needs to be based on the application of sound scientific principles and concepts. Both of these books provide a framework for the application of concepts and principles to wildlife management problems and attempt to bridge the gap between research and its application in management. Conservation of Wildlife Populations, by L. Scott Mills, explains theories, concepts and principles developed in the field of population biology, and their management applications. It encompasses population ecology, demography and population genetics. Wildlife Damage Control, by Jim Hone, identifies and explains the application of principles involved in assessing and controlling damage caused by wildlife.
Population control
Bridge (graph theory)
Cite
Citations (7)
Background The influence of policy on the incidence of human-wildlife conflict can be complex and not entirely anticipated. Policies for managing bear hunter success and depredation on hunting dogs by wolves represent an important case because with increasing wolves, depredations are expected to increase. This case is challenging because compensation for wolf depredation on hunting dogs as compared to livestock is less common and more likely to be opposed. Therefore, actions that minimize the likelihood of such conflicts are a conservation need. Methodology/Principal Findings We used data from two US states with similar wolf populations but markedly different wolf/hunting dog depredation patterns to examine the influence of bear hunting regulations, bear hunter to wolf ratios, hunter method, and hunter effort on wolf depredation trends. Results indicated that the ratio of bear hunting permits sold per wolf, and hunter method are important factors affecting wolf depredation trends in the Upper Great Lakes region, but strong differences exist between Michigan and Wisconsin related in part to the timing and duration of bear-baiting (i.e., free feeding). The probability that a wolf depredated a bear-hunting dog increases with the duration of bear-baiting, resulting in a relative risk of depredation 2.12–7.22× greater in Wisconsin than Michigan. The net effect of compensation for hunting dog depredation in Wisconsin may also contribute to the difference between states. Conclusions/Significance These results identified a potential tradeoff between bear hunting success and wolf/bear-hunting dog conflict. These results indicate that management options to minimize conflict exist, such as adjusting baiting regulations. If reducing depredations is an important goal, this analysis indicates that actions aside from (or in addition to) reducing wolf abundance might achieve that goal. This study also stresses the need to better understand the relationship among baiting practices, the effect of compensation on hunter behavior, and depredation occurrence.
Human–wildlife conflict
Hunting season
Cite
Citations (12)
Abstract Human–wildlife conflict can cause major declines in wildlife populations and pose a threat to human safety and livelihoods. Large carnivores are among the most conflict‐prone species because they range widely, eat human‐associated foods, and can pose a risk to human safety. Legal harvest of carnivores by licensed hunters is an attractive method to attempt to reduce conflict; however, there is mixed evidence for its effectiveness. We leveraged a unique management project in Ontario, Canada in which a new spring American black bear ( Ursus americanus ) hunting season was implemented in selected wildlife management units in addition to the existing fall season. We examined human–bear interactions and incidents before (2012 and 2013) and after (2014 and 2015) this implementation in treatment and control areas. Further, using data from 2004–2019, we examined the longer‐term patterns of human–bear interactions and incidents before and after this management project when a spring season was implemented throughout the entire province beginning in 2016. Harvest increased significantly upon the implementation of the spring season in selected units, but there was no concomitant reduction in interactions or incidents, and these were higher in areas with the new spring season relative to control areas. Human–bear interactions, incidents, and harvest were strongly related to the availability of natural foods in all analyses. Regulated, presumably sustainable harvest was ineffective at reducing human–bear interactions and incidents in the near‐term and might have increased both. Our results support a long history of research showing that natural food availability is a primary driver of human–wildlife conflict. Programs promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, including education, capacity building, and management of unnatural food sources are likely to be the most successful at reducing conflicts between people and bears.
Human–wildlife conflict
Hunting season
Cite
Citations (6)
The aim of this study was to examine the values and attitudes held by Australasian wildlife managers as they relate to wildlife management issues, and to gain some insight into possible future directions and priorities for Australasian wildlife management. During December 2002 – February 2003, 138 questionnaires were completed by members of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS) and registrants of the 2002 AWMS annual conference. Threatened species management, threatened communities/habitats, and management of introduced species were the issues rated as needing the highest priority for the Australasian Wildlife Management Society. Issues such as animal rights, genetically modified organisms and timber harvesting on public lands were the lowest-rating issues. Respondents expressed a strong belief in managing and controlling wildlife to achieve wildlife management objectives, a strong belief that wildlife should be protected and that wildlife managers should minimise the pain and suffering of individual animals, and a belief that resources should be directed towards conserving wildlife populations rather than protecting individual animals from non-threatened populations. While respondents held a strong belief that it is important to consult the community when developing wildlife management policies and programs, there was little support for a comanagerial approach where the community has a significant role to play in decision-making processes.
Cite
Citations (13)
This article outlines the importance of exploring farmers’ perspectives of human–wildlife conflicts because people’s perceptions and expectations shape their attitudes and responses to crop raiding by wildlife. A series of factors that influence farmers’ perceptions of risk are examined to help explain why perceived risk of crop loss to wildlife is often significantly greater than any actual risk. This is explored in the context of (1) changing tolerance for wildlife activity on farms, (2) the implications of past conservation policy and practice for farmers’ understanding of “ownership” of wildlife, and (3) how such issues influence farmers’ expectations of who is responsible for protecting crops from wildlife.
Human–wildlife conflict
Risk Perception
Cite
Citations (178)
This study was carried out to document the prevailing situation of human-wildlife conflict in Sundarpur of Udayapur district, Nepal where significant numbers of sloth bear along with other troublesome wildlife species occur. Data about conflict and people's perception towards wildlife conservation was collected using household surveys supplemented by key informant interviews and direct observation method. Monkeys (93%) and elephants (86%) were found to be major animals involved in conflict mostly resulting into crop raiding, which was the major form of conflict as reported by (95%) of respondents. Livestock depredation cases were mostly by common leopard (84%) and sloth bear was involved in majority of human attack cases (90%). According to respondents, the trend of conflict was found to be increasing for elephants (63%) and monkeys (73%) while it was found to be decreasing for sloth bear (64%), wild boar (85%), and leopard (46%), where people believed natural attraction of wildlife towards crops/livestock to be the major driving factor of conflict. Despite the prevalence of conflict most of the respondents showed positive attitude towards wildlife conservation in Sundarpur. This implies a better future for wildlife conservation in this area if the issues associated with human-wildlife conflict are addressed effectively.
Human–wildlife conflict
Sloth
Leopard
Wild boar
Cite
Citations (2)
Abstract We analyzed harvest data to describe hunting patterns and harvest demography of brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) killed in 3 geographic regions in Sweden during 1981–2004. In addition, we investigated the effects of a ban on baiting, instituted in 2001, and 2 major changes in the quota system: a switch to sex‐specific quotas in 1992 and a return to total quotas in 1999. Brown bears ( n =887) were harvested specifically by bear hunters and incidentally by moose ( Alces alces ) hunters. Both hunter categories harvested bears 1) using dogs (37%), 2) by still hunting (30%), 3) with the use of bait (18%), and 4) by stalking (16%). The proportion of bears killed with different harvest methods varied among regions and between bear‐ and moose‐oriented hunters. We found differences between male (52%) and female bears (48%) with respect to the variables that explained age. Moose‐oriented hunters using still hunting harvested the youngest male bears. Bears harvested during the first management period (1981–1991) were older and had greater odds of being male than during the subsequent period. It appears that hunters harvesting bears in Sweden are less selective than their North American counterparts, possibly due to differences in the hunting system. When comparing the 4 years immediately prior to the ban on baiting with the 4 years following the ban, we found no differences in average age of harvested bears, sex ratio, or proportion of bears killed with stalking, still hunting, and hunting with dogs, suggesting that the ban on baiting in Sweden had no immediate effect on patterns of brown bear harvest demography and remaining hunting methods. As the demographic and evolutionary side effects of selective harvesting receive growing attention, wildlife managers should be aware that differences in harvest systems between jurisdictions may cause qualitative and quantitative differences in harvest biases. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(1):79–88; 2008)
Hunting season
Demographics
Odds
Cite
Citations (98)
It is now well established that men and women often differ significantly in their attitudes and responses to workplace situations, challenges and policies. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of gender on perceptions and priorities held by Australasian wildlife managers. Data were collected via a questionnaire distributed during December 2002 – February 2003 to members of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society (AWMS) and registrants of the 2002 AWMS annual conference. The results show that there are now significantly more female AWMS members than there were in the early 1990s, a possible indication of a change in the wider wildlife management profession in Australasia. Consistent with previous research, male respondents held different views from female respondents about wildlife and wildlife management. In particular, male respondents were significantly more likely to express the ‘management/consumptive use of wildlife’ perspective than female respondents. Interestingly, this gap was observed only in the 18–30-year age category. The paper examines what these differences might mean for the future of wildlife management in Australasia.
Cite
Citations (15)
Conceptions of human-wildlife coexistence that acknowledge nonhuman wild animals as fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces are starting to influence urban wildlife management practices. Insofar as at least some wild animals have successfully achieved membership in urban society, how has this revaluation affected how urban wildlife is governed? Our interpretive policy analysis explores this question in two areas of urban wildlife management where practices are becoming less lethal: predator management and rodent control. A directed qualitative content analysis of U.S. urban wildlife management plans and rodent control strategies reveals a shift from conflict to coexistence as the basis for understanding human-wildlife relations in urban settings. Indiscriminate killing of urban wildlife is condemned as unethical as well as impractical, and lethal control figures as a measure of last resort that must be rationally justified. Commensal rodents, however, do not benefit from this shift toward coexistence between humans and nonhuman species. Campaigns to restrict the use of rodenticides are intended to protect carnivores, not the rodents themselves. Though urban wildlife management is consistent with some elements of the vision of multispecies flourishing developed by human-animal studies scholars, not all species benefit equally from this transition, and the legitimacy of wild animals' claims on shared urban spaces often remains contingent on their good behavior.
Human–wildlife conflict
Urban ecology
Cite
Citations (24)
Conservation of wildlife requires an integrated effort from both conservation stewards and support from local communities. In Ethiopia Crop raiding is an increasing problem for communities living along with wildlife such as protected areas, sanctuaries and forest areas. The increases losses of crop by wildlife cause loss of support for conservation by local communities and harm both wildlife and communities. Crop loss due to wildlife suffers farmers as they fail to support their families. Although local formers uses variety of mitigating methods to reduce crop loss caused by wildlife for years they remain less effective to reduce damage incurred by these wild animals. The objective of this work is through undertaking a systematic review on extent of crop raiding conflicts in Ethiopia, traditional methods used to mitigate/ prevent crop damage by wildlife by local communities and the extent of crop loss and its negative impact both on wildlife's and local communities to bring the information into one understanding. This information is important to farmers of rural communities and governmental agencies to implement conservation measures of wildlife animal's and improving the livelihoods of rural communities' lives alongside with wild animals.
Human–wildlife conflict
Cite
Citations (5)