A cost-benefit analysis of moose harvesting in Scandinavia. A stage structured modelling approach

Olaussen, Jon Olaf; Skonhoft, Anders

doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.01.001

Cited by 28 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contemporary game harvesting systems have relatively few financial inputs yet can generate considerable income from the sale of hunting opportunities, trophies, or meat where it is legal (Gordon et al , Olaussen and Skonhoft ), as well as indirect revenue associated with selling hunting equipment, guiding services, food, fuel, or accommodation (Smith ). Consequently, where supplementary feeding allows larger trophies or more animals to be harvested, it can be profitable despite the costs of feeding, even with expensive high quality feeds (Smith , Peek et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both the costs and risks are likely to increase with the scale and duration of feeding, and may be timelagged, whereas benefits occur immediately. On the other hand, if ungulate feeding is successful in terms of reducing vehicle accidents, it could have important socio-economic benefits to society (Wood andWolfe 1988, Andreassen et al 2005) as well as animal welfare (Olaussen and Skonhoft 2011). Although the effectiveness in reducing collisions is not well studied, even limited success might be economically and morally justifiable where high material costs and loss of life occur.…”

Section: Economic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

Milner

Beest

Schmidt³

et al. 2014

Jour. Wild. Mgmt.

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Storaas, T. (2014). To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates.Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(8) Large ungulates are keystone species in many ecosystems and are a highly valued natural 47 resource for social, cultural, and economic reasons (Gordon et al. 2004). Many populations have grown over recent decades, causing environmental and socio-economic 49 impacts on wider communities and conservation concerns, as well as density-dependent 50 changes in performance (Côté et al. 2004, Putman et al. 2011. Consequently, conflicts 51 arise between stakeholders who benefit economically from high ungulate numbers (e.g., 52hunters, outfitters, tourism operators) and those faced with the costs of their presence 53(e.g., land managers, conservationists, transport users and operators; Austin et al. 2010). 54Manipulating forage availability through the provision of additional food could 60Wildlife can be fed by humans in many different ways, intentionally (e.g., at 61 feeding stations) and unintentionally (e.g., unprotected agricultural crops and rubbish 62 dumps; Oro et al. 2013, Sorensen et al. 2014. In this review, we focus on the effects of 63 intentional feeding of ungulates, specifically considering supplementary feeding (often 64 called winter feeding) and diversionary, or intercept, feeding used to attract animals away 65 from vulnerable vegetation, livestock, or major traffic arteries (defined fully in 66 Supplemental Material). However, many of the issues raised also apply across a broad 67 range of unintentional but predictable anthropogenic food subsidies (Oro et al. 2013). 68Earlier reviews of the consequences of feeding large herbivores, published a decade or 77 METHODS 78We reviewed articles in the peer-reviewed and, to a lesser extent, grey literature that our search terms resulted in 232 articles. 86We identified 5 major management goals of supplementary and diversionary 87 feeding and considered the intended effects of feeding that would allow these goals to be 88 achieved (Table 1). We also identified commonly perceived unintended or secondary 89 consequences of feeding ( Table S1). 152Among adult females, an effect of feeding is complicated by the strong impact of 153 reproductive status on autumn mass (Cook et al. 2013 and higher neonatal growth rates (Jacobsen et al. 1981, Smith et al. 1997). 160The reproductive rate (number of offspring per adult female in summer or 161 autumn) of supplementally fed herbivores increased in 5/7 studies ( were used (Gundersen et al. 2004, Sahlsten et al. 2010 feeding site users and non-users (van Beest et al. 2010b). 282Of 16 controlled studies, 6 showed diversionary feeding to be effective in 283 reducing damage in the targeted areas, whereas 4 showed a significantly increased 284 impact, opposing the management goal ( we found no studies that formally addressed this ( 379In studies addressing the increased probability of browsing or grazing impacts in 380 response to feeding (4/4 studies; Table 2 and Supplem...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Economic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

Milner

Beest

Schmidt³

et al. 2014

Jour. Wild. Mgmt.

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, our model does not include negative aspects of wildlife populations such as traffic risks or browsing damage. Such aspects are included in Skonhoft and Olaussen [], Wam and Hofstad [], Naevdal [], and Olaussen and Skonhoft []. Secondly, in our model we assume that migration is only driven by density differentials and hunting pressures.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife Reserves, Populations, and Hunting Outcome With Smart Wildlife

Jensen

Jacobsen

Strange

et al. 2014

Natural Resource Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We consider a hunting area and a wildlife reserve and answer the question: How does clever migration decision affect the social optimal and the private optimal hunting levels and population stocks? We analyze this in a model allowing for two-way migration between hunting and reserve areas, where the populations' migration decisions depend on both hunting pressure and relative population densities. In the social optimum a pure stress effect on the behavior of smart wildlife exists. This implies that the population level in the wildlife reserve tends to increase and the population level in the hunting area and hunting levels tend to decrease. On the other hand, the effect on stock tends to reduce the population in the wildlife reserve and increase the population in the hunting area and thereby also increase hunting. In the case of the private optimum, open-access is assumed and we find that the same qualitative results arise when comparing a situation with and without stress effects, but of course at a higher level of hunting. We also show that when net social benefits of hunting dominate the net social benefits of populations, wildlife reserves are optimally placed in areas of low carrying capacity and vice versa.

show abstract

“…Hunting cost Cory and Martin (1985) Moose, USA Compared with the literature on population size, that on policy design is smaller. In total, we found 32 studies, and some of them (Skonhoft 2005;Olaussen and Skonhoft 2011;Chen and Skonhoft 2013) overlap with the literature on optimal population sizes where they compare outcomes of different policy alternatives to reach the optimal population size. In the literature, three types of governmental policies for wildlife have been found and analyzed: (i) distribution of property rights (11 studies), (ii) command and control (4 studies), and (iii) wildlife damage compensation and economic incentives for wildlife damage prevention (14 studies).…”

Section: Hunting Value Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of wildlife management—an overview

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study makes an explorative overview on two main research topics in economics of wildlife management: determination of population sizes and policy design. The results point out a large and comprehensive research on each of these issues, in particular on the estimation of values and costs of wildlife, where this information is necessary for the determination of population size. A drawback is that most of the value and cost studies do not relate their estimates to wildlife population size, which limits their usability for efficient policy design. Most valuation studies estimate the recreational value of hunting, which can range between 13 and 545 USD/hunting day (in 2013 prices), and two thirds of the included studies have been applied to wildlife in the USA. A majority of the studies on the costs of wildlife management calculate losses from carnivore predation on livestock and ungulate damage to crops, while a few consider dispersal of diseases and the cost of traffic collisions. Unlike valuation studies, several of the cost estimates apply to wildlife in developing and emerging economies. With respect to policy design the literature, which is mainly theoretical, suggests economic incentives for conflict resolution, where those suffering from wildlife damages are compensated for their losses. However, there are some issues which remain to be addressed by economists: relating costs and benefits to wildlife populations; estimating values and costs of wildlife in developing countries; evaluating wildlife policies in practice; addressing implications of uncertainty in population size, costs, and benefits for policy design; and estimating transaction costs for implementation and enforcement of wildlife policies.

show abstract

A cost-benefit analysis of moose harvesting in Scandinavia. A stage structured modelling approach

Cited by 28 publications

References 8 publications

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

Wildlife Reserves, Populations, and Hunting Outcome With Smart Wildlife

Economics of wildlife management—an overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About