Perceptions of Wildlife Damage, Tolerance, and Abatement Programs Among Agricultural Producers

Abstract

Agricultural producers experience more wildlife damage than any other occupational group across the world. Damage to crops and livestock can lead to significant monetary loss, negatively impacting a producer’s livelihood. To mitigate damage and improve wildlife tolerance, state and provincial agencies offer wildlife damage programs that offer abatement and compensation assistance. To enroll in a program, producers must first meet eligibility requirements; additional prerequisites for abatement and compensation assistance are required. These program factors may influence a producer’s decision-making process, but other internal factors, such as local culture, may as well. Yet to our knowledge, there is a lack of studies on producer perceptions of wildlife damage and abatement programs.

In Chapter 1, I conducted a literature review on the internal factors: local culture, trust, knowledge, damage compared to hassle, and tolerance by different species. Subsequently, I conducted a literature review on the program factors: hunting requirements, hidden costs, and compensation requirements. In Chapter 2, I determined producer’s perceptions of wildlife damage, their tolerance of wildlife, and the factors that influence their perceptions of wildlife in Wisconsin. I found producer’s inability to protect their crops from wildlife damage led to a low tolerance for white-tailed deer and sandhill cranes. I gathered the most up-to-date information offered by U.S. states and Canadian provinces regarding hands-on wildlife damage abatement and compensation assistance in Chapter 3. I found that 97% of U.S. states and Canadian provinces provided wildlife damage assistance. In Chapter 4, I investigated the factors that influence producer enrollment into the state of Wisconsin’s Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program. I found that internally, a producer’s local culture experiences within wildlife management, as well as the program’s hunting access and compensation requirements, influence enrollment.

The most significant driver of agricultural producers’ tolerance towards wildlife damage is the implementation of wildlife management measures that inadvertently create barriers and conflicts with hunters, neighbors, and landowners. These negative interactions can impact a producer tolerance for wildlife significantly more than the actual animals themselves. These social conflicts driven by an individual’s local culture go in tandem with management perceptions, knowledge of programs, and enrollment. Local culture primarily influences the internal factors affecting producer enrollment. The amount of wildlife damage and the time it occurs also can influence producer tolerance. Program requirements influence enrollment as many participants reported disagreements with the compensation caps and hunting requirements. A participant’s continuance in a wildlife damage program also depends on their perception of the effectiveness of the program, hidden costs, and monetary loss they experienced. Those who are dissatisfied may continue to use the program until reaching a certain threshold. To improve the wildlife damage program, managers should consider reducing hunting requirements and increasing compensation caps.

My research provides a more detailed understanding of producer perceptions of wildlife damage and abatement programs and the factors that influence enrollment. The updated program inventory of North America’s wildlife damage programs through abatement and compensation assistance can be used to better inform wildlife managers of the existing levels of assistance. The knowledge and understanding gained from this research may help inform wildlife management decisions and provide insights into strategies to be used to achieve damage program goals.