Understanding the Conflict between Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) and Humans in the Department of the Moselle, France

Transcription

1 Understanding the Conflict between Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) and Humans in the Department of the Moselle, France Introduction RYAN, Mark C. & ANTHONY, Brandon P. Department of Environmental Sciences & Policy, Central European University Nador u. 9, Budapest 1051, Hungary As human populations and the concomitant use of resources increase worldwide, so too do human-wildlife conflicts (HWC), including those where conservation efforts have led to an overabundance of game populations [1]. Though wildlife is often highly valued by humans, particularly as a resource or for cultural and social reasons [2], the increased frequency of encounters may be viewed as either positive or negative [1]. Positive perceptions are evident with regards to game species due to their hunting, economic, and social values [3]. Negative views, on the other hand, may result from damage which wildlife inflict, resulting in both direct (e.g. human life, livestock, wildlife, crops) and indirect costs (e.g. time and money) [1].The way in which HWC are managed depends not only on individuals but on political decisions, the institutional apparatus designed to manage such conflicts, dialogue between stakeholders, and other social factors [4, 5, 6]. France, like many countries in Europe, has seen an extraordinary increase in the numbers of wild boar (Sus scrofa) during the last thirty years [7, 8]. With the species being highly adaptive and capable of inflicting damage to natural areas, croplands, urban areas, vehicles, human and animal health, concern has risen amongst segments of the French population surrounding their increasing numbers. Considered both a pest due to the damages wild boar cause and a resource because of its value for hunting, wild boar-human and human-human conflicts have been receiving growing attention in France. The Department of the Moselle, located in north eastern France, is no exception. Although attempts have been made by stakeholders implicated in the HWC to ease the level of conflict, including a National Wild Boar Action Plan (PNMS), conflicts still persist between and amongst humans and wild boar. The objectives of this research were to identify and analyse the views of relevant stakeholders implicated in the human-wild boar conflict surrounding the five domains below: 1. Wild boar damage levels (Fig. 1) and other associated impacts; 2. Factors influencing wild boar damage and the causes of conflict; 3. Wild boar management by hunters, including supplemental feeding; 4. Role of hunting rights/hunting licenses; 5. Dialogue and power relationships between stakeholders.

2 Figure 1. Wild boar damage to crops in the study area (communes highlighted in yellow). Adapted from IGN BD CARTO Study Area and Methods The Department of the Moselle (Fig. 2) is located in the Lorraine region in northeast France, bordered by the Departments of the Meurthe-et-Moselle to the west and Bas-Rhin to the east, as well as Luxembourg and Germany. The Department covers approximately 6250 km 2 [9], with a total population of around 1,043,000 inhabitants [10]. The Department is divided into 9 districts, which are divided into 51 cantons, and subsequently 730 communes [11]. Figure 2. Location of the Department of the Moselle (in red) (left). Adapted from Google Earth 2010a, Study area (yellow, green and orange points) (top and bottom right). Adapted from Google Earth 2010b. A mixed method approach was undertaken to collect both primary and secondary data from key stakeholders in the human-wild boar conflict (see below). Given the complexity of elements involved in the relationship between humans and the environment, there is an array of risk factors (environmental and social) which contribute toward conflicts between humans and wildlife, the perceived and actual costs of conflict, the responses manifested by humans, and the consequences for wildlife from this riposte [6]. Here, we utilise a conceptual framework developed by Dickman [6] to organise these risk factors to understand the intricate

3 relationship between cultural, social, and personal elements which fundamentally affect how costly damagecausing animals are understood to be and, in turn, the degree of opposition expressed by individuals towards their presence. Techniques included analysis of existing legislative and policy frameworks, participant observation at the 2011 General Assembly of the Departmental Compensation Fund (FDIDS), a selfadministered questionnaire to farmers in the area, and semi-structured interviews with the following stakeholders: 1. Hunters 2. Farmers 3. Departmental Hunting Federation (FDC) 4. Departmental Compensation Fund (FDIDS) 5. Departmental Federation of Farmers (FDSEA) 6. National Hunting and Wildlife Agency (ONCFS) 7. National Forestry Office (ONF) 8. Animal welfare and nature protection movements 9. Lieutenants de louveteries 10. Prefecture 11. Department Management of the Territories (DDT) Results The following is an aggregation of the main views presented by the various stakeholders implicated in the human-wild boar conflict: 1. Wild boar damage levels (Fig. 1) and other associated impacts The worst damages were said to be those caused to pasture (Fig. 3). There were reports of damages to all crops but especially maize and pasture. Most farmers had taken measures to mitigate damages. Farmers who were not accustomed to damages tended to manifest their discontent the most when damages did occur. Hunters appeared to discount the urgency in the field, and only felt it from a financial point of view. However, compensation alone was stated to be insufficient, with farmers not wanting to see fruits of their labour destroyed. 2. Factors influencing wild boar damage and the causes of conflict Factors influencing wild boar damages included changes in agricultural practices (e.g. less ploughing, removal of hedges), high wild boar numbers, changes in hunting pressures, a parallel reduction in numbers of small game, environmental factors (climate, crop prices, availability of natural food), behaviour and management of wild boar (e.g. hunter demographics), and erroneous signals possibly being sent to hunters who are compensating for damages. In addition, land use and management was shown to play a role in influencing wild boar damages (e.g. urban expansion, natural habitat loss), as well as human behaviour (employment of mitigation measures). Overall, there was said to be a lot of rhetoric about resolving the situation but not enough actions. 3. Wild boar management by hunters, including supplemental feeding It was claimed that hunters generally tend to obey supplementary feeding regulations in place in the department, though many stakeholders argued that the practice should be banned during winter months. The view of the FDC was that linear feeding should be advocated as the preferred method. In addition, they argued that fixed post feeding should continue given the distance of many hunters from where they hunted and their average age. Regarding the National Wild Boar Action Plan (PNMS), only a few farmers had heard about it, though none were confident that it would enable a reduction in the level of damages. Many felt that restrictive shooting orders (i.e. for wild boar) remained in place in many hunts despite the practice being forbidden. 4. Role of hunting rights/hunting licenses Whether or not farmers had reserved the hunting rights on their lands depended on whether they owned enough land (very few), had a hunting licence, or had the time to hunt. Of those that possessed hunting licenses, none were happy with wild boar management practices by hunters. During the last 10 years more farmers were said to have started hunting because of wild boar numbers. Changes included land consolidation in order for farmers to reserve hunting rights on their own land. Hunting in general in the department was said to have become about hunting wild boar, with numerous commercial hunts seeking large hunting bags. In turn, hunting lot prices were said to be too high.

4 5. Dialogue between farmers and hunters Few farmers felt that dialogue between them and hunters had helped manage wild boar damages to their crops. Successful damage mitigation was said to depend on the willingness of both actors to contribute towards a solution. It was said that some hunters tend to act as though they own the hunting lots they are renting (perceived ownership). In return, some farmers felt that they were powerless, having no control over how hunting groups manage wild boar populations, claiming that hunters have their own agenda.the power, according to many farmers, rests with the hunters and what could be termed the hunting lobby. Figure 3. Wild boar damage to pasture. Discussion When analysing the results using the framework developed by Dickman [6], power appears to reside with the hunting lobby. In turn, wild boar populations are not necessarily managed with the concerns of local society in mind. Hunting may be seen as prohibitively expensive for certain individuals. This barrier may increase the vulnerability of individuals who want to hunt but cannot afford to. The subsequent distrust manifested by farmers towards hunters may transcend from individuals through to the administrative level, which in turn may impact upon institutional legitimacy [5]. The main environmental risk factors influencing the costs felt by the stakeholders included climate, habitat loss, urban expansion, crop prices, and the natural fluctuations in the availability of food for wild boar. In addition, the demographics of hunters and their geographical locations are not always conducive to respond to wild boar damages. The actual and perceived costs include a loss of future game (for hunters), financial (e.g. damages to crops and machinery), expected returns (e.g. fodder for farmers), image (e.g. hunters, farmers, institutions), ecosystems, species (e.g. roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and health (physical and mental). The four main responses to these costs were verbal, educational, legislative (PNMS), and financial (compensation scheme). Consequences were both positive e.g. administrative hunts tend to lead to drastic reductions in wild boar numbers, and negative e.g. increase in roe deer damages. Hypothetical consequences include an increased awareness of hunters about the impacts of wild boar, as the number of farmers who hunt increases. There is however a risk that if wild boar numbers continue to increase or remain high and supplementary feeding continues to be practiced at fixed posts, the concentration of animals in small areas may increase the risks of disease. One long term solution may be the successful reintroduction of small game species, potentially drawing wild boar hunters away from large game hunting. Recommendations 1. There should be no restrictions placed by hunting groups on individual wild boar shot (male, female, young, etc.) and enforcement of this should be strengthened. 2. No supplementary feeding during winter months (to test the effects of such a practice would require field trials to be carried out). 3. The hunting federation must focus on promoting more sustainable wild boar hunting which involves lower, more manageable wild boar numbers. 4. Efforts should be made to encourage hunters to hunt closer to the areas where they live, with the hope that the availability of hunters will increase.

5 5. Urban planning improvements are required, and where wild boar are likely to enter into conflict with humans, individuals should be made aware of the risks which they face when moving to these areas. 6. Shorten time lapse between costs and associated responses. 7. Account for beliefs and values of particular movements when designing management strategies. 8. Consider other wild boar control methods if hunting alone cannot reduce wild boar populations, with their potential impacts being examined under trial conditions. 9. All efforts should be made to increase the numbers of small game species. 10. Further research is required to determine the willingness to pay of hunters for the entirety of wild boar related damages. References [1] Thirgood, S., et al The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. In People and wildlife: conflict or co-existence, ed. R. Woodroffe, et al., New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. [2] Robinson, J. G Foreword. In People and wildlife: conflict or co-existence, ed. R. Woodroffe, et al., xiixv. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. [3] De Klemm, C Compensation for damage caused by wild animals. Nature and Environment 84:1-57. [4] Thirgood, S., & Redpath, S Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human-wildlife conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: [5] Anthony, B.P. et al Sitting on the fence? Policies and practices in managing human-wildlife conflict in Limpopo province, South Africa. Conservation & Society 8 (3): [6] Dickman, A. J Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13 (5): [7] Charlez, A Le sanglier, le droit et l'indemnisation de ses dégâts [Wild boar, the law, and compensation for its damages]. Faune Sauvage 282: [8] Schley, L., Dufrêne, M., Krier, A., and Frantz, A. C Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54 (4): [9] Service de la Statistique et de la Prospective (SSP) [Department of Statistics and Forecasting] Statistique Agricole Annuelle [Annual Farming Statistics]. URL: [consulted 21 April 2011]. [10] Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE) [National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies] Population par sex et âge [Population by sex and age]. URL: [Consulted 19 April 2011]. [11] Conseil Générale (CG) [General Council] Les données en chiffres du Conseil Général Moselle (57) [The data in figures of the General Council of the Moselle (57)]. URL: [consulted 19 April 2011]. Google Earth (Version ) [Software] 2010a. Mountain View, CA: Google Inc. Department of the Moselle, France. 46º N and 1º W. Alt km. GOOGLE EARTH Image accessed: May 4, b. Mountain View, CA: Google Inc. Location of study area. 49º N and 6º E. Alt km. GOOGLE EARTH Image accessed: May 4, Institut Géographique National ( IGN) BD CARTO Department of the Moselle Wild boar damages to crops in 2010 per 100 ha of UAA. Map created using source data from the Direction Départementale des Territoires 57 and the Fonds Départemental dίndemnisation des dégâts de Sangliers de la Moselle.