Prohibit or restrict hunting of particular sex/ breeding status/age animals

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    35%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of particular sex, breeding status or age animals. Both studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

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

  1. A replicated, before-and-after study in 1984–2000 in three forest and shrubland sites in Washington, USA (Bender et al. 2002) found that limiting hunting of adult male elk Cervus canadensis resulted in an increase in the numbers of males relative to females, but no change in numbers of calves relative to females. After hunting restrictions commenced, there were more male relative to female elk (6.7–12.9 males/100 females) than before hunting restrictions commenced (2.7–5.7 males/100 females). The abundance of calves relative to female elk did not change (after: 21–37 calves/100 females; before: 30–37 calves/100 females). The strategy of open-entry yearling hunting and limited hunting of elk ≥ 2.5 years old with branched antlers was introduced at one site in 1989 and at two sites in 1994. These sites were monitored in 1984–2000 and 1991–2000 respectively and covered 2,300–4,500 km2. Elk were counted from helicopters, and categorised by age and sex, in late February or early March each year.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, before-and-after study in 1983–1998 of four deer management areas in a largely forested region of Colorado, USA (Bishop et al. 2005) found that restricting the harvest of male mule deer Odocoileus hemionus did not increase the number of fawns/adult female deer. After introduction of hunting restrictions, the fawn:adult female deer ratio declined by 7.5 fawns:100 adult females (absolute numbers not presented). During this time, harvests of male deer fell from an average of 788/management area/year to 209/management area/year and the ratio of male:female deer increased by 4.5:100 female deer. Harvests of male deer were unlimited up to 1990. Commencing in 1991 (one area), 1992 (two areas) and 1995 (one area), restrictions were imposed on harvests of male deer, resulting in a fall in average harvests from 788/year pre-restriction to 209/year post-restriction. Aerial deer surveys were carried out in December–January.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust