Wildlife damage to crops: Perceptions of agricultural and wildlife leaders in 1957, 1987, and 2017

Abstract

A national survey of wildlife agency directors was conducted during 1957 to determine their perceptions of wildlife damage to agriculture. This study was repeated in 1987, expanding the sample to include chief executive officers of state Farm Bureaus and state Wildlife Extension Specialists as well as wildlife agency leaders. During 2017, we replicated these studies to determine how perceptions of leaders had changed over the past 30 and 60 years. In the 2017 survey, 21 different wildlife species were reported by ≥1 respondent as causing the most damage in their state. Despite the numerous species causing damage, deer (Odocoileus spp.) were listed by most respondents as producing the most agricultural damage in their state. State Farm Bureaus and Wildlife Extension Specialists overestimated the amount of governmental services and products that were available to help farmers in their state. Most respondents believed that wildlife damage to agriculture was a serious problem in their state and had increased during the past 30 years. When survey results were compared, feral hog (Sus scrofa), goose (Anatidae), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) were listed more frequently in 2017 than in 1987, suggesting that problems caused by these species have increased in severity during the past 30 years. Use of special shooting and trapping permits issued to farmers had increased over the decades. Governmental agencies were more likely to provide fencing material and noisemakers and plant diversionary crops in 2017 and 1987 than they were in 1957. Modern wildlife management has been remarkably successful in increasing wildlife populations, to the point that some species occur in sufficient numbers in some places to cause remarkable levels of damage to crops and livestock. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Beaver: Nature's ecosystem engineers

“…There are real opportunities resulting from beavers, as discussed above, but there are real conflict challenges to be addressed as well, and they should be considered as one within a holistic approach with a closed‐loop between the beneficiaries and the negatively affected. Further, in the case of reintroduced beavers, such management considerations will need early attention if the potential for later conflicts is to be reduced, particularly as challenges may not yet exist but could occur post‐introduction (Auster et al, 2019; Conover & Decker, 1991; Coz & Young, 2020).…”

Isotopic Evidence for Garden Hunting and Resource Depression in the Late Woodland of Northeastern North America

“…Agriculture is another powerful incentive that draws some animals into areas of closer proximity to humans (Conover and Decker 1991). Depending on the animal species, agricultural plants may be consumed at any point in the crop cycle: as seeds that have recently been sowed; growing or mature plants; or the remains left in the field post-harvest, when a field is fallow (particularly under cover of snow).…”

Estimation of wildlife damage from federal crop insurance data

“…irrigation equipment). [1][2][3] Losses due to wildlife are not limited to damage; they also include the costs of mitigation efforts. Farmers may install fences or use scare devices to inhibit access to production areas, or they may employ a variety of lethal and non-lethal removal techniques.…”

“…Negative impacts include damage to planted acreage, consumption of final product, and destruction of infrastructure (e.g. irrigation equipment) 1–3 . Losses due to wildlife are not limited to damage; they also include the costs of mitigation efforts.…”