Wildlife damage management research needs: perceptions of scientists, wildlife managers, and stakeholders of the USDA/Wildlife Services program

Bruggers, Richard L.; Owens, Richard; Hoffman, Thomas

doi:10.1016/s0964-8305(02)00042-2

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the USA, for example, urban households lost US$63 per household, or US$1.9 billion total, because of wildlife damage and spent US$5.5 billion to manage wildlife problems during the 1990s, while agricultural producers spent US$2.5 billion over the same period (Bruggers et al 2002;Conover 1997). In the USA, for example, urban households lost US$63 per household, or US$1.9 billion total, because of wildlife damage and spent US$5.5 billion to manage wildlife problems during the 1990s, while agricultural producers spent US$2.5 billion over the same period (Bruggers et al 2002;Conover 1997).…”

Section: Economic Costs Of Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Who’s in Conflict with Whom? Human Dimensions of the Conflicts Involving Wildlife

Marchini

2014

Applied Ecology and Human Dimensions in Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some of the most high-profile wildlife conservation cases in the world have been addressed within the emerging field of human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Although HWC is often defined as any situation where wildlife comes into conflict with humans over common resources, the term HWC has been applied almost exclusively to cases involving charismatic mega-fauna, such as large-bodied herbivores and top predators. What these animals have in common is not the magnitude of the damage they cause or their conservation status, but their power to elicit strong mixed opinions among broad sectors of society, which often results in clashes between groups of people who hold differing values toward these animals and their management. As society becomes more diversified and people hold more varied views on human domination over nature, conflicts involving wildlife will grow in intensity and frequency. In this chapter, I discuss the importance of the human dimensions perspective for effectively understanding and resolving HWC; an approach that goes beyond the traditional ecological and economic considerations about reciprocal negative impacts, by addressing also the complexity of the causal relationship between wildlife damage and human thoughts and actions toward wildlife, and the disagreements between people over wildlife values and management objectives.

show abstract

Section: Economic Costs Of Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Who’s in Conflict with Whom? Human Dimensions of the Conflicts Involving Wildlife

Marchini

2014

Applied Ecology and Human Dimensions in Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many species of wildlife live on agricultural land (Pain & Dixon 1997; Robinson & Sutherland 2002) but the damage to crops caused by a minority of species can pose serious management problems (Bruggers, Owens & Hoffman 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alleviating grazing damage by white‐fronted geese: an optimal foraging approach

Amano

Ushiyama

Fujita

et al. 2004

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1.Agricultural damage by wildlife is a serious constraint on the coexistence of humans and wildlife. Understanding the behavioural processes involved in such agricultural damage will inform management actions. In this study, a linear programming model based on optimal foraging theory was used to formulate management strategies designed to reduce wheat damage caused by white-fronted geese Anser albifrons around Lake Miyajimanuma in Japan. 2. Geese feed on rice grains or wheat leaves. Their choice of food is constrained by their daily energy requirement, daily nitrogen requirement, digestive capacity and daily maximum foraging time. With these constraints, we predicted the proportion of geese that should forage on wheat leaves under energy-maximizing, nitrogen-maximizing and timeminimizing strategies, and compared the results with the observed proportion. 3. Our predictions for the energy-maximizing strategy successfully explained the variation in the observed proportion of geese foraging on wheat leaves. It appeared that nitrogen constraints drove the geese to forage on wheat in autumn, but energy considerations drove the geese to forage on wheat plus rice in late spring. 4. Based on these results, we predicted that by increasing the harvest remains of rice by 30%, a large reduction in wheat damage could be achieved both in autumn and in spring. Damage could be reduced further by supplying protein-rich food, such as grass on fallow fields and on ridges of rice fields in autumn, and by leaving geese foraging in rice fields undisturbed. 5. Synthesis and applications. Optimal foraging models that consider foraging goals and constraints have considerable potential for identifying measures for minimizing agricultural damage problems caused by grazing bird species. Specifically, for geese grazing on wheat fields in Japan, we advocate increasing the availability of alternative protein-rich foods, such as rice harvest remains and grass, and minimizing disturbance to geese foraging on rice fields.

show abstract

“…The entry of WCOs into the wildlife management profession has hastened the development of new methods and tools to control human-wildlife confl icts. This chapter will survey WDM by WCOs because researchers generally have overlooked WCOs in favor of studying the role of USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services or sport hunting (Bruggers et al 2002 ;Conover 2002 ). The authors' insights into the industry that follow fl ow from personal knowledge and interaction in the industry and with WCOs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Wildlife Damage Management Techniques Used by Wildlife Control Operators in Urbanized Environments in the USA

Vantassel¹,

Groepper²

2015

Problematic Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife damage management research needs: perceptions of scientists, wildlife managers, and stakeholders of the USDA/Wildlife Services program

Cited by 19 publications

References 4 publications

Who’s in Conflict with Whom? Human Dimensions of the Conflicts Involving Wildlife

Who’s in Conflict with Whom? Human Dimensions of the Conflicts Involving Wildlife

Alleviating grazing damage by white‐fronted geese: an optimal foraging approach

A Survey of Wildlife Damage Management Techniques Used by Wildlife Control Operators in Urbanized Environments in the USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About