Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Action: Cease/reduce payments to cull mammals Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Key messages

Read 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)

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1 

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.

Referenced papers

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.