Should we feed wildlife? A call for further research into this recreational activity

Abstract

Independent human-wildlife feeding interactions (i.e., the feeding of wildlife by the public outside of organized ecotourism activities) represent an increasingly common way in which humans and wildlife are engaging with one another. It is important to determine what effects these interactions are having on the wildlife involved in order to ensure that optimum coexistence scenarios are being achieved, however the nature of these interactions makes them notoriously difficult to study. Extrapolation from ecotourism activities has suggested detrimental impacts on the health and fecundity of the populations involved. Moreover, recent findings indicate that bold individuals may actually gain reproductive advantages from this excess food supply, driving artificial selection of risk-taking behaviors within human-dominated landscapes.Humans may, therefore, be unknowingly manipulating wildlife populations, forcing them into unnatural states, and potentially decreasing future viability. Here, we outline key literature pertaining to the potential impacts of these self-led interactions on wildlife and address the need for further research into the associated effects. Due to the associated safety risks to the humans involved in these interactions, and by applying the precautionary principle until further research can be performed, we recommend that management actions be employed to actively reduce their occurrence. We address current management practices in use and make recommendations for further research to adapt and improve them. Ultimately, we make a call for further research addressing two fundamental key areas: (i) to explore the effects of these interactions on the wildlife involved, across different species and habitats experiencing this phenomenon, with emphasis on the potential role of artificial selection, and (ii) to work to improve the management practices currently employed to reduce the occurrence of these interactions, at least until such time as the effects of these interactions on both humans and wildlife have been thoroughly disentangled, with the overall goal of improving coexistence.

Methods to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts involving common mesopredators: a meta‐analysis

“…Although our measure of the effect size from a single paper is imprecise, sound waste disposal appears to be very effective in reducing conflicts with the red fox (Bino et al 2010). Generally, feeding wildlife poses high risks of causing conflicts and should be avoided in most cases (Dubois andFraser 2013, Griffin andCiuti 2023). Management already integrates this principle in some contexts (national parks, campgrounds, cities), but more research is required to validate this approach.…”

Do human–wildlife interactions predict offspring hiding strategies in peri-urban fallow deer?

“…Human–wildlife interactions can be classified as extractive, where resources are removed from the ecosystem by humans, or non-extractive, where interactions occur but nothing is taken away [ 12 ]. Extractive interactions like hunting and fishing involve the removal of animals from the ecosystem, and the impacts of these activities have been extensively investigated [ 13 , 14 ].…”

“…Human perception of wildlife has particularly changed within urban and peri-urban settings. People have started to interact with and provide food to birds and mammals and this has been increasing steadily across the globe [ 12 ], with unknown ultimate effects on population dynamics and inter-species interactions.…”

“…While the public perception may be that feeding wildlife is beneficial for animals, research is now focusing on exploring the potentially harmful and unseen impacts [ 7 , 18 , 19 ]. The implications of these activities are twofold, with consequences for both humans and wildlife [ 12 ]. Considering that the health and fitness of an individual are heavily linked, it is important that we understand how being fed by people impacts the well-being and physiology of an individual [ 26 ].…”

“…Examining the effects of human–wildlife interactions on parental care and offspring fitness can provide insight into future impacts on offspring if these activities continue and help to inform management and mitigation strategies. Urban and national parklands are popular tourist sites and many provide ample opportunities for hand-feeding and close interaction between visitors and wildlife [ 12 ]. The Phoenix Park, situated within the Dublin metropolitan area in Ireland, is Europe’s largest enclosed urban park.…”