What Determines the Acceptability of Wildlife Control Methods? A Case of Feral Pig Management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia

Kana, Koichi; Cottrell, Alison; Sangha, Kamaljit K.; Gordon, Iain J.

doi:10.1080/10871209.2013.727523

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wildlife are managed for a variety of reasons such as population size, genetic viability, disease control, and ecological system maintenance (Decker et al ). Conflicts regarding how specific species should be managed can arise when different interest groups have diverse attitudes toward acceptable management protocols (Decker and Bath , Koichi et al ). Managers have historically used lethal control as a cost‐effective method for reducing human–wildlife conflict (Sanborn and Schmidt ).…”

Section: Study Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful wildlife management often depends on public acceptance of wildlife control methods. We explored the acceptability and amount of consensus among local residents, park staff, and visitors for coyote (Canis latrans) management in Cape Breton Highlands National Park of Canada (NPC). We collected data near Cape Breton Highlands NPC, where there has been an increase in human–coyote conflict. Local residents were mailed a questionnaire (n = 578; 72% return rate) in 2011. Park staff completed the questionnaire (n = 124; 85% return rate) during 2011 and visitors were interviewed on trails and given a mail‐back questionnaire during 2011 and 2012 (n = 375; 51% return rate). The Potential for Conflict Index was used to examine differences in acceptability among the 3 groups. Acceptability of different management options was evaluated for 3 situations: 1) a coyote crossed the trail; 2) a coyote approached a person; and 3) a snarling coyote approached a person. All 3 groups tended to prefer nonlethal management options, but as the scenarios increased in threat level, lethal and more invasive options became more acceptable. Understanding which management options were more acceptable in different contexts facilitates informed decision‐making when humans and coyotes come into conflict. Contrasting public(s) views against those of managers highlighted situations whereby problems might occur. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Study Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sus scrofa, Mus musculus, and Oryctolagus cuniculus are other land mammals that are commonly reported as threats in WHS and have several major impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem function (e.g. Koichi et al 2013;Saunders et al 2013;Dawson et al 2014).…”

Section: Invasive Alien Species and Their Impacts Mentioned In World mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological invasions in World Heritage Sites: current status and a proposed monitoring and reporting framework

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) are areas of outstanding universal value and conservation importance. They are, however, threatened by a variety of global change drivers, including biological invasions. We assessed the current status of biological invasions and their management in 241 natural and mixed WHS globally by reviewing documents collated by UNESCO and IUCN. We found that reports on the status of biological invasions in WHS were often irregular or inconsistent. Therefore, while some reports were very informative, they were hard to compare because no systematic method of reporting was followed. Our review revealed that almost 300 different invasive alien species (IAS) were considered as a threat to just over half of all WHS. Information on IAS management undertaken in WHS was available for fewer than half of the sites that listed IAS as a threat. There is clearly a need for an improved monitoring and reporting system for biological invasions in WHS and likely the same for other protected areas globally. To address this issue, we developed a new framework to guide monitoring and reporting of IAS in protected areas building on globally accepted standards for IAS assessments, and tested it on seven WHS. The framework requires the collation of information and reporting on pathways, alien species presence, impacts, and management, the estimation of future threats and management needs, assessments of knowledge and gaps, and, using all of this information allows for an overall threat score to be assigned to the protected area. This new framework should help to improve monitoring of IAS in protected areas moving forward.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, when people are asked whether they care if an animal pest experiences pain when it is killed, they are likely to say 'yes' (e.g. 2,3,4,5). This accords with similar concerns expressed about other interactions that we have with wildlife, such as fishing (6), conservation research and practices (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Welfare aspects of vertebrate pest control and culling: ranking control techniques for humaneness

Littin¹,

Fisher²,

Beausoleil³

et al. 2014

Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of vertebrate pests depends on the use of traps, pesticides, repellents and other methods, each of which can cause varying levels of pain and other negative experiences to animals. Vertebrate pest control is essential for managing the impacts of unwanted or over-abundant animals on human and animal health, ecological balance and economic interests. As the need for this management is unlikely to diminish over time, a framework has been developed for assessing the humaneness of each technique by considering their negative impacts on animal welfare so that these can be included in decision-making about the selection of techniques for a specific control operation. This information can also support evidence-based regulations directed at managing such animal welfare impacts. In this paper, the authors discuss this assessment framework, briefly review two assessments conducted using the framework and discuss ways in which Competent Authorities and others can use it and other means to improve animal welfare in vertebrate pest management.

show abstract

What Determines the Acceptability of Wildlife Control Methods? A Case of Feral Pig Management in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia

Cited by 25 publications

References 16 publications

Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park

Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park

Biological invasions in World Heritage Sites: current status and a proposed monitoring and reporting framework

Welfare aspects of vertebrate pest control and culling: ranking control techniques for humaneness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About