UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars.


Geisser, H; Reyer, H U (2004). Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(4):939-946.

Abstract

Since 1980, populations of wild boar (Sus scrofa) have increased over the species' entire European range. This increase has led to conflicts because wild boars cause crop damage amounting to several million U.S. dollars every year. Wildlife management agencies promote and financially support 3 major methods to reduce the loss: (1) intensive harvest, (2) supplemental feeding in forests to bait animals for easier shooting and to distract them from agricultural fields, and (3) building electrical fences around crops at risk. Our objective was to investigate how effective these methods were in reducing field damage by wild boars. Based on data from 44 hunting territories in the Canton Thurgau, Switzerland, we related damage frequency to harvest success, supplemental feeding, and fencing effort by means of 2 multiple regression analyses. The analysis of mean damage frequency among territories (averaged over 3 years) and changes in damage frequency within territories from 1994 to 1996 showed that only hunting reduced damage by wild boars. Because our results question the effectiveness of wild boar management practices and wild boar populations and damage are increasing throughout Europe, we suggest that control efforts and funds be reconsidered. Because only hunting seems to clearly reduce wild boar damage, we suggest more emphasis be put on the development and introduction of new harvest models among local hunting teams.

Since 1980, populations of wild boar (Sus scrofa) have increased over the species' entire European range. This increase has led to conflicts because wild boars cause crop damage amounting to several million U.S. dollars every year. Wildlife management agencies promote and financially support 3 major methods to reduce the loss: (1) intensive harvest, (2) supplemental feeding in forests to bait animals for easier shooting and to distract them from agricultural fields, and (3) building electrical fences around crops at risk. Our objective was to investigate how effective these methods were in reducing field damage by wild boars. Based on data from 44 hunting territories in the Canton Thurgau, Switzerland, we related damage frequency to harvest success, supplemental feeding, and fencing effort by means of 2 multiple regression analyses. The analysis of mean damage frequency among territories (averaged over 3 years) and changes in damage frequency within territories from 1994 to 1996 showed that only hunting reduced damage by wild boars. Because our results question the effectiveness of wild boar management practices and wild boar populations and damage are increasing throughout Europe, we suggest that control efforts and funds be reconsidered. Because only hunting seems to clearly reduce wild boar damage, we suggest more emphasis be put on the development and introduction of new harvest models among local hunting teams.

Citations

67 citations in Web of Science®
76 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
590 Animals (Zoology)
Language:English
Date:2004
Deposited On:11 Feb 2008 12:16
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:14
Publisher:The Wildlife Society
ISSN:0022-541X
Publisher DOI:10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0939:EOHFAF]2.0.CO;2
Related URLs:http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.2193%2F0022-541X%282004%29068%5B0939%3AEOHFAF%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations