Action: Cease/reduce payments to cull mammals
Key messagesRead our guidance on Key messages before continuing
- One study evaluated the effects of ceasing or reducing payments to cull mammals. This study was in Sweden and Norway.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
- Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Sweden and Norway found that fewer brown bears were reported killed after the removal of financial hunting incentives.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Financial incentives for hunting particular species of mammal may be awarded for a variety of reasons, including agricultural protection, disease control and human safety. Whilst the intention of making such payments is to increase hunting of focal species, hunter motivations are varied (e.g. Gigliotti & Metcalf 2016) and may include more than financial reward. Hence, removal of payments may or may not have the desired consequence of reducing hunting pressure on species.
Gigliotti L.M. & Metcalf E.C. (2016) Motivations of female black hills deer hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21, 371–378.
Supporting evidence from individual studies
A before-and-after study in 1888–1898 in Sweden and a before-and-after study in 1925–1935 in Norway (Swenson et al. 1995) found that after the removal of financial hunting incentives fewer brown bears Ursus arctos were reported killed. In both Sweden and Norway, fewer bears were reported killed during the five years after the removal of financial hunting incentives (Sweden: average 14 bears/county/year; Norway: average 1 bear/county/year) than during the five years before the removal of financial hunting incentives (Sweden: average 25 bears/county/year; Norway: average 3 bears/county/year). Financial incentives to cull bears were eliminated in 1893 in Sweden and in 1930 in Norway. Additionally, in 1930, bear hunting on someone else’s property was banned in Norway. Numbers of bears killed were obtained from national harvesting records.