Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Fulton, David C.; Skerl, Kevin L.; Shank, Erin M.; Lime, David W.

doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[1166:baatlm]2.0.co;2

Cited by 52 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The response rate was also similar to some other studies (e.g. Fulton et al 2004) but lower than others which achieved rates of greater than 60% (e.g. Kilpatrick et al 2007;Stout et al 1997).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Preferences for wildlife management methods among the peri-urban public in Scotland

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife management remains a matter of considerable controversy amongst many stakeholders, particularly where lethal control (culling) is used. Wild deer provide perhaps one of the best examples of such a management 'problem', especially where they are encountered in peri-urban environments. Faced with potential controversy, decision-makers in public land management organisations need information which clearly differentiates between generally acceptable management objectives and methods, and less mainstream preferences. We conducted a questionnaire survey aimed at assessing the preferences of community members in peri-urban Scotland for management methods in response to specific problems and analysed the results in relation to three social categoriesage, gender and familiarity with wildlife. Active management was broadly accepted. Fencing dominated as the preferred first management response with little variation across social category, or between management problems. Changing human behaviour (e.g. introducing speed limits) was also a highly preferred response by the respondents in this study. In general, the order of preferred management responses stayed the same in relation to different management impacts. Culling (lethal control) had almost no support as a first management response to any problem, although considerably more respondents support it as a third preference. Our results suggest that culling is acceptable as a subsidiary management response in peri-urban areas, but only where other preferred management methods have been tried and failed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Preferences for wildlife management methods among the peri-urban public in Scotland

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is clear that the public wants populations of large herbivores to be managed, but it is also clear that the public favours reactive management using less invasive and course methods. One survey found 62% of people were in favour of limiting human activities in natural areas if it meant reducing pain and suffering to wildlife, and 63% believed wildlife have a right to live a life free from any pain caused by people [53].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, because large herbivore over-populations in protected areas are usually in their highest densities near areas of human disturbance, managers are often able to approach these large and easy targets using roads and trail. The lower costs associated with groundbased culling may compensate for the slightly lower efficiency compared to air-based [53]. An entire herd of ~30 elephants can be culled in a single session of ground-based shooting [54], while sustainable culls of over 1000 elk/year have been estimated for Rocky Mountain NP, USA [55].…”

Section: Strategies For Managing Large Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hwange NP was reluctant to go ahead with this culling program, however, due to negative pressure from the conservation community and its potential to hurt tourist revenue. From a global perspective, public perceptions of wildlife culling programs are overwhelmingly negative [53]. Public pressure led directly to a moratorium on the culling of elephants in Kruger NP, South Africa, despite the inability of park managers to control elephant hyperabundance otherwise (van Aarde et.…”

Section: Strategies For Managing Large Herbivoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing Large Herbivores in Protected Areas

Found¹

2016

Glob J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By nature of their size, grouping behaviour, and central position within most trophic webs, large terrestrial herbivores --namely ungulates and elephants --tend to be both keystone and umbrella species. Their proportionately large impacts on ecosystems extend both top-down (i.e. regulation of vegetation), but also bottom up (regulated their predators). For these reasons, as well as their cultural and economic importance to humans around the world, large herbivores are among the most heavily managed species in any region. Large herbivores have historically been managed by the fact that hunting by humans -or an intentional or forced reduction in that hunting -effectively plays its own top-down role of regulating herbivores. Managing large herbivores in protected areas presents a different set of challenges, however, because where human can no longer hunt large herbivores, the role of humans in the ecosystem is changed dramatically. The necessity of regulating both over and underabundant large herbivore populations remains, however, but we are now challenged to affect this management from outside of our former predator-prey relationships. I reviewed the major approaches to managing large herbivores in protected areas, from a historical perspective, through the development of protected areas and conservation ethics, to more modern methods such as wildlife contraception and behavioural modification. I examine each of these methods from a broader perspective that give further consideration to the impacts on species other than the target species. I synthesize these approaches them from the perspective of holistic ecosystem management, where each method acts to replace a part of ecosystem function that has otherwise been lost by the very fact the herbivore population is in a protected area. As the amount of undisturbed habitat for large herbivores decreases worldwide, these iconic species are increasingly confined only to protected areas, making specific strategies for managing their populations even more important.the consequences of inadequate management. Ironically, because of past human interference, maintaining balanced and "natural" ecosystem function within protected areas often requires further human interference. The objective of this review was to examine the different methods humans have employed to manage large herbivore populations, but synthesize them as reactive approaches to replace natural ecosystem process that have been lost. Protected areas have changed our relationship with what essentially is our former prey, but I argue that sustainable management of large herbivores can only be achieved by restoring intactness to ecosystems in which humans are an active part. Historical large herbivore managementPre-industrial attitudes and actions: The goal of wildlife management is to decide how best to manipulate ecosystems towards specific ecological but also human goals within that protected area. Humans have managed large herbivores for thousands of years, namely as a continuous and important food s...

show abstract

“…Attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders and the wider public may clash with the management options that wildlife managers or wildlife experts may prefer, and so management actions devised without public consultation and involvement may earn little public support and could be undermined by public opinion (Fulton et al 2004(Fulton et al : 1166(Fulton et al -1167. For example, plans to carry out the culling of koalas on Kangaroo Island, Australia, in order to conserve eucalypts and the koalas dependent on eucalyptus have been unsuccessful because of strong public opposition (CNN 2004;Rodgerson 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity conservation and public support for sustainable wildlife harvesting: A case study

Tisdell¹,

Nantha²,

Wilson³

2007

International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Cited by 52 publications

References 11 publications

Preferences for wildlife management methods among the peri-urban public in Scotland

Preferences for wildlife management methods among the peri-urban public in Scotland

Managing Large Herbivores in Protected Areas

Biodiversity conservation and public support for sustainable wildlife harvesting: A case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About