LOW HIGH

Wildlife Population Size

Sta

keh

old

er

Pe

rce

ptio

ns

Op

tima

lTo

lera

ble

Into

lera

ble

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Cultural Carrying Capacity & Compensation Programs

Ch 15

HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS - Althoff LEC-10

Tolerance of human-wildlife conflicts depends on _____________________

• People are ______ tolerant of threats to human health and safety

• People are ______ tolerant of threats to their personal or community economic well-being

• People are ______ tolerant of nuisance problems

Concept of Biological Carrying Capacity (BCC)

• …the number of animals (wildlife) of a specified quality that a ______________ while sustaining a specified, but not progressively increasing, level of impact on habitat resources

• Great “concept”… basis for justifying harvest of a renewable resource (in our interests…wildlife)

• …but, always hard to measure. Why?

Concept of Cultural Carrying Capacity (CCC)

• Differs from biological carrying capacity, which is related to what the “land” (or “sea”) can sustain. Traditional wildlife management, particularly with respect to harvested species tries to take this approach as part of a comprehensive strategy

• CCC is the maximum wildlife population which ________ will _________ within an area….

• ….or the number of animals that can compatibly _________ with the local population.

1

2

Project Coyote – Fostering Coexistence

MISSION STATEMENT--Project Coyote promotes educated coexistence between people and coyotes; we do this by championing progressive management policies that reduce human-coyote conflict, supporting innovative scientific research, and by fostering respect for and understanding of America's native wild "song dog."

http://www.projectcoyote.org/about.html

Key References for CCC

• Decker and Purdy (_______)

• Minnis and Peyton (_______)

1

2

Decker, D.J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlifeacceptance capacity in wildlife management. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 16:53-57.

Minnis, D.L. and R.B. Peyton. 1995. Cultural carrying capacity:modeling a notion. Pgs. 19-34 in J.B. McAninch, editor,Urban deer: a manageable resource? North CentralSection, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, Missouri.

LOW HIGHWildlife Population Size

Sta

keh

old

er P

erce

pti

on

s

Opt

imal

Tole

rabl

eIn

tole

rabl

e

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Optimal and tolerable upper levels of wildlife densities for three different groups of stakeholders(Conover 2002 p359 Fig. 15.7)

When a wildlife population starts to deviate from into the tolerable range….

• Stakeholders become increasingly ____________

• Stakeholders become _______________ of the wildlife

• Stakeholders more likely _____________….

The take action can be….

• __________ themselves by trying to alleviate the problem created by the higher wildlife density

• __________ the wildlife population to an acceptable level

• __________________ to take action on their behalf

• __________________ the stakeholder group (i.e., quit that activity/livelihood)

1

2

3

4

For instance, an Apple Orchard Owner could…

• Insulate – puts up a deer-proof fence (think 10 ft high or high-tensile or 1-4 strand electric fence), or he/she might focus on planting dwarf stock only, and protect each tree with a separate cage

• Reduce – seek a permit from the Ohio Div. of Wildlife to remove “x-number” of deer…anytime of year

• Encourage others – (i.e., adjacent landowners) to allow deer hunting on their property

• Give up and abandon – quit the business…just get out of the fruit production business

1

2

3

4

LOW HIGHWildlife Population Size

Sta

keh

old

er P

erce

pti

on

s

Opt

imal

Tole

rabl

eIn

tole

rabl

e

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

One approach to management…to set the CCC is determine the stakeholder group with the ________ acceptable wildlife capacity…and manage for that density

LOW HIGHWildlife Population Size

Sta

keh

old

er P

erce

pti

on

s

Opt

imal

Tole

rabl

eIn

tole

rabl

e

Group 1

Group 2Group 3

Another approach to management…to set the CCC is determine range for all stakeholder groups to either be at their _________________ level

LOW HIGHWildlife Population Size

Sta

keh

old

er P

erce

pti

on

s

Opt

imal

Tole

rabl

eIn

tole

rabl

e Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

__________ scenario – no CCC level acceptable to all stakeholders…

How Do We Determine CCC? What are Concerns?

• Probably ____ any easier to measure than BCC…to some degree. Still need data, still need “accurate” data, still must allow for unpredictable nature of wildlife AND humans. Can likely survey stakeholder limits more accurately and easily than wildlife density

• “Vocal” individual stakeholders can skew the tolerance level of the group…think “squeaky wheel gets the grease”. That can increase the chances of management decision being based more on politics (i.e., political pressure/lobbying) than the economic or biological consequences

Limitations of the CCC Management Approach• What if wildlife damage _______ a function of

density? If one bases decisions on density, then one assumes that the basic approach requires population reduction of the offending species—not selective removal. Haven’t we mostly concluded that population reduction approach is both costly and difficult to make effective? If not, what species/scenarios would it make sense?

Coyotes? Deer? Elk? Wolves? Beaver?

• Scenarios where density may not be an issue:--__________________ (predators)

causing the damage—then selective removal makes most sense.

Compensation Programs• _______________________ for damages caused by

wildlife is an alternative to lethal WDC

• Compensation programs _____________________ _______ to humans and wildlife (i.e., eliminate exposure to traps and toxicants)

• Compensation _________________________ of problems (aka raise there tolerance from a CCC perspective)

Compensation Programs…con’t

• Compensation may be useful in situations where private lands are adjacent to _______________ for the well-being of the species causing damage

• Payment programs may be useful where the public places a _________________ on games species (causing the damage) and license revenues may be used to pay for damages.

• The ____________ (starting in the 1950s…10 states) state compensation programs were for damages caused by game species.

Problems with Compensation Programs include…

• They do not address the __________ of the problem• Agencies can become ________ in a payment system

for an indefinite period of time. a) can minimize by requiring the landowner

acquire resources needed for damageprevention…think orchardist who mightneed to put up fence for a longer-termresolution b)

assumption for (A) is that there is areasonable damage prevention alternative

Problems with Compensation Programs include…con’t

• Poor awareness of public/landowners that a program exist

• Poor administration of the program: a) long delays in making assessment b) long delays in making payments whenverified c) low-priority of the agency…relative to everything else. Remember that most state wildlife departments don’t want to take on this responsibility

• Large amounts of funds may simply be needed to administer the program (i.e., agency personnel)

Key Determinants of a Success Compensation Scheme

• Accurate and rapid ______________ of damage• Prompt and fair payment embedded in a

“______________” process• A __________________ of funding…capable of

responding to variations of damage amounts over time

• Clear rules and guidelines that ______________ to sound management practices

• ______________ of social (culture) and economic context

• Ability to _____________________ the wildlife popn causing damage

Bottomline…for compensation programs:

• Compensation should _______________________ in the resolution process/management strategy for a particular damage problem…

• In other words, it must be part of a ______________ approach that includes proactive measures to:

a) prevent conflict in the first placeb) options to control offending animalsc) incentives to change land-use practices

and/or husbandry practices