Impacts of Big Game on Private Land in South-Western Montana: Landowner Perceptions

Abstract

Increasing populations of big game animals are a problem for private landowners in some parts of western North America. Infbrence of big game costs, bunting-related income, noneconomic benefits, size of private land holding, and proportion of total income from agriculture upon landowner management goals as well as perception of damage to forage resources were studied in 1989-1990 using a mail survey of 858 randomly selected soutbwestern Montana landowners. They reported that elk (Cervus canadensis) populations increased, did not change, or decreased on 71%, 25%, or 4% of their private lands, respectively. Similar trends were reported for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginio), and antelope (Antilocapra americana). More than 50% of the respondents thought that big game damaged forage and crop yields, while less than 2% of the respondents thought that big game was beneficial to forage and crop yields. Big game consumed a mean of 511 AUMs per private landowner, which contributed to the mean big game cost of S6,353 per Iandowner. Respondents desiring fewer elk, deer, and antelope outnumbered those desiring more by a 4-to-1 margin. As costs of big game increased and as dependency on agricultural income for livelihood increased, respondents desired fewer big game animals and perceived the impact of big game to be more harmful to forage and crop yields. Landowner attitudes toward big game were not significantly affected by economic returns from big game. Although owners with larger land holdings were more likely to allow bunters access to bunt big game, owners of large-and of small-sized ranches generally regarded big game populations similarly. Results from this survey should be useful in forming natural resource policy.

The geography of conflict between elk and agricultural values in the Cypress Hills, Canada

“…Ungulate damage to agricultural resources has a long history in the field of wildlife management (Berryman, 1992) and is a substantial concern of state and provincial wildlife management agencies (Conover and Decker, 1991) and agricultural producers (Lacey et al, 1993;Conover, 1994;Irby et al, 1997;Wagner et al, 1997). Wildlife damage and its management are complex issues defined by multiple factors interacting at more than one scale (Campa et al, 1997).…”

“…We used available digital road network and forest cover layers from 1:50 000 maps produced by the National Topographic Service (Geomatics Canada, 2003). Finally, a categorical variable was used to represent landowner operation size (Ownership Class), because costs and benefits from wildlife may be related to the size of the land holding (Lacey et al, 1993). Categories were: (1) small: <65 ha ( 1 ⁄ 4 section; reference class); (2) medium: >65 ha and <259 ha (1 section); and (3) large: >259 ha.…”

“…Wildlife damage problems often result from ignoring wildlife density patterns, habitat and forage selection, landscape (habitat) composition and configuration, disregard for the activity ranges of the species, or crop choice by agricultural producers (Matschke et al, 1984;Clergeau, 1995;Lueck and Yoder, 1997;Yoder, 2002). Several studies have shown that crop damage by wild ungulates is directly related to animal density (Matschke et al, 1984;Lacey et al, 1993;Vecellio et al, 1994;Naughton-Treves, 1998). Spatial relationships between cropland and forest cover are an important factor in determining the risk of depredation.…”

“…Crop and fence damage, competition with livestock, and depredation of stored feed by wild ungulates are common, economically significant problems in many regions of North America (Lacey et al, 1993;Wagner et al, 1997;Messmer, 2000). Conover (2001: 109) estimated annual wildlife-related losses to agricultural producers in the United States approaching US $4.5 billion.…”

Characteristics of Ungulate Behavior and Mortality Associated with Wire Fences

“…When ungulates get caught in fences, they often destroy or damage the fences in their efforts to escape. Fence damage causes economic harm to landowners (Lacey et al 1993, Conover et al 1995, Andrews and Rowley 1998 due to both livestock losses and the time or materials required to fix the damaged fences. Unfortunately, few studies have quantified economic losses from these conflicts (Conover et al 1995).…”