1. Cultural Carrying Capacity & Compensation Programs
HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS - Althoff
LEC-10
Ch 15
Cultural Carrying Capacity & Compensation Programs

2. Tolerance of human-wildlife conflicts depends on _____________________
People are ______ tolerant of threats to human health and safety
People are ______ tolerant of threats to their personal or community economic well-being
People are ______ tolerant of nuisance problems

3. Concept of Biological Carrying Capacity (BCC)
…the number of animals (wildlife) of a specified quality that a ______________ while sustaining a specified, but not progressively increasing, level of impact on habitat resources
Great “concept”… basis for justifying harvest of a renewable resource (in our interests…wildlife)
…but, always hard to measure. Why?

4. Concept of Cultural Carrying Capacity (CCC)
Differs from biological carrying capacity, which is related to what the “land” (or “sea”) can sustain. Traditional wildlife management, particularly with respect to harvested species tries to take this approach as part of a comprehensive strategy
CCC is the maximum wildlife population which ________ will _________ within an area….
….or the number of animals that can compatibly _________ with the local population. 1 2

5. Project Coyote – Fostering Coexistence
MISSION STATEMENT--Project Coyote promotes educated coexistence between people and coyotes; we do this by championing progressive management policies that reduce human-coyote conflict, supporting innovative scientific research, and by fostering respect for and understanding of America's native wild "song dog."

6. Key References for CCC Decker and Purdy (_______) 1
Minnis and Peyton (_______) 1
Decker, D.J. and K.G. Purdy Toward a concept of wildlife
acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57. 2
Minnis, D.L. and R.B. Peyton Cultural carrying capacity:
modeling a notion. Pgs in J.B. McAninch, editor, Urban deer: a manageable resource? North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, Missouri.

7. Stakeholder Perceptions Wildlife Population Size
Optimal and tolerable upper levels of wildlife densities for three different groups of stakeholders
(Conover p359 Fig. 15.7)
Intolerable
Group 1
Stakeholder Perceptions
Tolerable
Group 3
Optimal
Group 2
LOW
HIGH
Wildlife Population Size

8. When a wildlife population starts to deviate from into the tolerable range….
Stakeholders become increasingly ____________
Stakeholders become _______________ of the wildlife
Stakeholders more likely _____________….

9. The take action can be….
__________ themselves by trying to alleviate the problem created by the higher wildlife density
__________ the wildlife population to an acceptable level
__________________ to take action on their behalf
__________________ the stakeholder group (i.e., quit that activity/livelihood) 1 2 3 4

10. For instance, an Apple Orchard Owner could…
Insulate – puts up a deer-proof fence (think 10 ft high or high-tensile or 1-4 strand electric fence), or he/she might focus on planting dwarf stock only, and protect each tree with a separate cage
Reduce – seek a permit from the Ohio Div. of Wildlife to remove “x-number” of deer…anytime of year
Encourage others – (i.e., adjacent landowners) to allow deer hunting on their property
Give up and abandon – quit the business…just get out of the fruit production business 1 2 3 4

11. Stakeholder Perceptions Wildlife Population Size
One approach to management…to set the CCC is determine the stakeholder group with the ________ acceptable wildlife capacity…and manage for that density
Intolerable
Group 1
Stakeholder Perceptions
Tolerable
Group 3
Optimal
Group 2
LOW
HIGH
Wildlife Population Size

12. Stakeholder Perceptions Wildlife Population Size
Another approach to management…to set the CCC is determine range for all stakeholder groups to either be at their _________________ level
Intolerable
Stakeholder Perceptions
Tolerable
Group 1
Group 3
Optimal
Group 2
LOW
HIGH
Wildlife Population Size

13. Stakeholder Perceptions Wildlife Population Size
__________ scenario – no CCC level acceptable to all stakeholders…
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Intolerable
Stakeholder Perceptions
Tolerable
Optimal
LOW
HIGH
Wildlife Population Size

14. How Do We Determine CCC? What are Concerns?
Probably ____ any easier to measure than BCC…to some degree. Still need data, still need “accurate” data, still must allow for unpredictable nature of wildlife AND humans. Can likely survey stakeholder limits more accurately and easily than wildlife density
“Vocal” individual stakeholders can skew the tolerance level of the group…think “squeaky wheel gets the grease”. That can increase the chances of management decision being based more on politics (i.e., political pressure/lobbying) than the economic or biological consequences

15. Limitations of the CCC Management Approach
What if wildlife damage _______ a function of density? If one bases decisions on density, then one assumes that the basic approach requires population reduction of the offending species—not selective removal. Haven’t we mostly concluded that population reduction approach is both costly and difficult to make effective? If not, what species/scenarios would it make sense? Coyotes? Deer? Elk? Wolves? Beaver?
Scenarios where density may not be an issue: --__________________ (predators) causing the damage—then selective removal makes most sense.

16. Compensation Programs
_______________________ for damages caused by wildlife is an alternative to lethal WDC
Compensation programs _____________________ _______ to humans and wildlife (i.e., eliminate exposure to traps and toxicants)
Compensation _________________________ of problems (aka raise there tolerance from a CCC perspective)

17. Compensation Programs…con’t
Compensation may be useful in situations where private lands are adjacent to _______________ for the well-being of the species causing damage
Payment programs may be useful where the public places a _________________ on games species (causing the damage) and license revenues may be used to pay for damages.
The ____________ (starting in the 1950s…10 states) state compensation programs were for damages caused by game species.

18. Problems with Compensation Programs include…
They do not address the __________ of the problem
Agencies can become ________ in a payment system for an indefinite period of time. a) can minimize by requiring the landowner acquire resources needed for damage prevention…think orchardist who might need to put up fence for a longer-term resolution b) assumption for (A) is that there is a reasonable damage prevention alternative

19. Problems with Compensation Programs include…con’t
Poor awareness of public/landowners that a program exist
Poor administration of the program: a) long delays in making assessment b) long delays in making payments when verified c) low-priority of the agency…relative to everything else. Remember that most state wildlife departments don’t want to take on this responsibility
Large amounts of funds may simply be needed to administer the program (i.e., agency personnel)

20. Key Determinants of a Success Compensation Scheme
Accurate and rapid ______________ of damage
Prompt and fair payment embedded in a “______________” process
A __________________ of funding…capable of responding to variations of damage amounts over time
Clear rules and guidelines that ______________ to sound management practices
______________ of social (culture) and economic context
Ability to _____________________ the wildlife popn causing damage

21. Bottomline…for compensation programs:
Compensation should _______________________ in the resolution process/management strategy for a particular damage problem…
In other words, it must be part of a ______________ approach that includes proactive measures to: a) prevent conflict in the first place b) options to control offending animals c) incentives to change land-use practices and/or husbandry practices