Attitudes of Urban and suburban residents in Indiana on deer management

Abstract

The Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife created urban deer zones in 1996 that liberalize opportunity and bag limits for Indiana (USA) hunters in areas experiencing increased conflict between humans and deer (Odocoileus virginianus); yet, no comprehensive survey of residents in these areas has been conducted to determine whether the regulations have been effective. A survey was distributed to randomly selected residents of Fort Wayne, Evansville, and Lafayette to determine their opinions on the local deer population, to assess their attitudes toward the present deer population levels, and to gather information on their preferences for deer management. Hunters residing in these areas were also surveyed. Over 87% of respondents indicated that the deer herd had either stayed the same or had grown since urban deer zones were established. Nearly 74% of respondents did not allow hunting on their property, despite it being the most acceptable form of management for white-tailed deer. There were noticeable differences in perceptions of the deer population and management techniques between hunters, former hunters, nonhunters who are prohunting, anti-hunters, and animal rights advocates. Additional opportunities (e.g., expanded crossbow use, expanded muzzleloader seasons) were supported by many, while nontraditional techniques (e.g., sharpshooting, trap-and-kill) were not supported. The lack of access to land by licensed hunters will continue to restrict opportunities for state management through traditional hunting and seasons. Nontraditional techniques may be needed in the future; however, substantial work must be done prior to implementation to increase public support for these approaches. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society.

A Flexible Model‐based Approach to Delineate Wildlife Management Units

“…Similar strategies may be possible in agricultural regions, because tolerance of deer damage among producers was related negatively to deer density in New York and Virginia, USA Purdy 1988, West andParkhurst 2002). Views often differ on desirable levels of deer density and management strategies, as a function of stakeholder affiliation (West and Parkhurst 2002, Lischka et al 2008, Stewart 2011; personal experience with deer-related vehicle accidents (Stout et al 1993); and perceived risk to human health (Lischka et al 2008), property (Urbanek et al 2015), or native vegetation ( Johnson and Horowitz 2014). Use of multiple mortality sources provides a broader lens with which to view effects of management decisions.…”

The ratio of inhabitants of large cities to animals living in urban space on the example of Poznan

“…Badania pokazują, że ludzie są skłonni zaakceptować inwazyjne metody redukcji zwierząt, również odstrzał, gdy problemy wynikające z bytności dziko żyjących zwierząt są wystarczająco poważne, kosztowne lub zagrażają bezpieczeństwu mieszkańców (Bandora i Tisdell, 2002;Kӧnig, 2007;Loker i in., 1999). Natomiast większość (74%) nie zgadza się, aby polowanie odbywało się w granicach ich posesji (Stewart, 2011), nawet gdy jest najbardziej akceptowalną formą zarządzania zwierzyną (w celu ograniczenia liczebności populacji).…”

Hunter and landowner views on a peri‐urban deer‐hunting program

“…Individual and community characteristics known to enable deer harvest include absence of time constraints for hunters and access to privately owned land (Holsman and Petchenik , Stedman et al , Brown and Messmer ). Access to private land may be a significant constraint facing hunters in peri‐urban areas because of landowner attitudes and human development patterns that restrict the availability of land to deer hunters (Harden et al , Storm et al , Campa et al , Stewart , Williams et al ).…”