Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting
ABSTRACT The management of overabundant urban fauna is a contentious issue worldwide, particularly for populations of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America and kangaroos (Macropus spp.) in Australia. To be successful, management programs in such settings must be cost‐effective,...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-06-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.656 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850064521344843776 |
|---|---|
| author | Peter R. Mawson Jordan O. Hampton Brendan Dooley |
| author_facet | Peter R. Mawson Jordan O. Hampton Brendan Dooley |
| author_sort | Peter R. Mawson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT The management of overabundant urban fauna is a contentious issue worldwide, particularly for populations of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America and kangaroos (Macropus spp.) in Australia. To be successful, management programs in such settings must be cost‐effective, humane, and publicly acceptable. Here, we describe the management of a fenced, urban population of western grey kangaroos (M. fuliginosus) in southwestern Australia, with an estimated population density of 189 kangaroos/km2. After a period of >12 months of solicited public involvement by key stakeholder groups, a licensed professional shooting team, observing a national code of practice, conducted night‐time sharpshooting. Over an 11‐month period in 2006–2007, 1,009 kangaroos were shot in 43 shooting nights, a mean (±SE) culling rate of 23 ± 3 kangaroos/night or harvest rate of 12 ± 2 kangaroos/hr. Inspectors under the relevant Western Australian legislation functioned as animal welfare observers to ensure that the methods employed for the culling program met the national code of practice and that all license conditions were met. No accidents or injuries occurred during the program. The program produced 17 kg/kangaroo of harvestable meat and biological samples for several research projects. The operational costs of the project were very low, at AU$36/kangaroo, with payments largely limited to incentives paid to commercial harvesters and management staff monitoring public safety and animal welfare. This case study is an example of a publicly acceptable, cost‐effective, humane, and lethal urban wildlife control operation. It demonstrates that public acceptance of a cull of wildlife can be forthcoming with appropriate prior consultation and high professional standards. © 2016 The Wildlife Society. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7ff5f2f29c1f47b0b29b5b4319ab8432 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-7ff5f2f29c1f47b0b29b5b4319ab84322025-08-20T02:49:17ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402016-06-0140225126010.1002/wsb.656Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshootingPeter R. Mawson0Jordan O. Hampton1Brendan Dooley2Perth Zoo20 Labouchere RoadSouth PerthWA6151AustraliaEcotone Wildlife Veterinary ServicesP.O. Box 76InverlochVIC3996AustraliaDepartment of Parks and Wildlife Western AustraliaLocked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery CentreWA6983AustraliaABSTRACT The management of overabundant urban fauna is a contentious issue worldwide, particularly for populations of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America and kangaroos (Macropus spp.) in Australia. To be successful, management programs in such settings must be cost‐effective, humane, and publicly acceptable. Here, we describe the management of a fenced, urban population of western grey kangaroos (M. fuliginosus) in southwestern Australia, with an estimated population density of 189 kangaroos/km2. After a period of >12 months of solicited public involvement by key stakeholder groups, a licensed professional shooting team, observing a national code of practice, conducted night‐time sharpshooting. Over an 11‐month period in 2006–2007, 1,009 kangaroos were shot in 43 shooting nights, a mean (±SE) culling rate of 23 ± 3 kangaroos/night or harvest rate of 12 ± 2 kangaroos/hr. Inspectors under the relevant Western Australian legislation functioned as animal welfare observers to ensure that the methods employed for the culling program met the national code of practice and that all license conditions were met. No accidents or injuries occurred during the program. The program produced 17 kg/kangaroo of harvestable meat and biological samples for several research projects. The operational costs of the project were very low, at AU$36/kangaroo, with payments largely limited to incentives paid to commercial harvesters and management staff monitoring public safety and animal welfare. This case study is an example of a publicly acceptable, cost‐effective, humane, and lethal urban wildlife control operation. It demonstrates that public acceptance of a cull of wildlife can be forthcoming with appropriate prior consultation and high professional standards. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.656animal welfareconsultationhuman–wildlife conflictskangarooMacropus fuliginosussharpshooting |
| spellingShingle | Peter R. Mawson Jordan O. Hampton Brendan Dooley Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting Wildlife Society Bulletin animal welfare consultation human–wildlife conflicts kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus sharpshooting |
| title | Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting |
| title_full | Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting |
| title_fullStr | Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting |
| title_full_unstemmed | Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting |
| title_short | Subsidized commercial harvesting for cost‐effective wildlife management in urban areas: A case study with kangaroo sharpshooting |
| title_sort | subsidized commercial harvesting for cost effective wildlife management in urban areas a case study with kangaroo sharpshooting |
| topic | animal welfare consultation human–wildlife conflicts kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus sharpshooting |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.656 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT peterrmawson subsidizedcommercialharvestingforcosteffectivewildlifemanagementinurbanareasacasestudywithkangaroosharpshooting AT jordanohampton subsidizedcommercialharvestingforcosteffectivewildlifemanagementinurbanareasacasestudywithkangaroosharpshooting AT brendandooley subsidizedcommercialharvestingforcosteffectivewildlifemanagementinurbanareasacasestudywithkangaroosharpshooting |