Cease/reduce payments to cull mammals

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

61%
Certainty

39%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

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.

Study locations

Key messages

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)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

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.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Swenson J.E., Wabakken P., Sandegren F., Bjarvall A., Franzen R. & Soderberg A. (1995) The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildlife Biology, 1, 11-25.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Temporarily hold females and offspring in fenced area to increase survival of young Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Graze herbivores on pasture, instead of sustaining with artificial foods Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Place orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link