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

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

35%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Within some hunted populations of mammals, certain age or sex classes are favoured targets for hunters. This can result in altered population structures which can be detrimental to breeding success for example (e.g. Torres-Porras et al. 2014). Management of game mammals may, therefore, involve imposing specific hunting restrictions, so as to reduce or prohibit harvests of particular sex or age classes.

Torres-Porras J., Carranza J., Pérez-González J., Mateos C. & Alarcos S. (2014) The tragedy of the commons: unsustainable population structure of Iberian red deer in hunting estates. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 60, 351–357.

Study locations

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)

Reproduction (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that limiting hunting of male deer did not increase the numbers of young deer/adult female.
Population structure (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that limiting hunting of older male elk resulted in an increased ratio of male:female elk.

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 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
Referenced paper
Bender L., Fowler P.E., Bernatouwicz J.A., Masser J.L. & Stream L.E. (2002) Effects of open-entry spike-bull, limited-entry branched-bull harvesting on elk composition in Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 1078-1084.
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
Referenced paper
Bishop C.J., White G.C., Freddy D.J. & Watkins B.E. (2005) Effect of limited antlered harvest on mule deer sex and age ratios. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33, 662-668.

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
Use selective trapping methods in hunting activities Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Ban exports of hunting trophies Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link