Search

Forests in the United States continue to lose biodiversity and many fail to regenerate due to high deer (family Cervidae) abundance. Declines in biodiversity and overall ecosystem health due to high deer populations increases prevalence of wildlife and human diseases associated with increasing tick abundances and decreases forest resilience and the ability to deliver benefits provided by healthy ecosystems. In the eastern and midwestern United States, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are the main stressor, while in the western U.S. elk (Cervus elaphus) and black-tailed and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) can become equally problematic. Federal and State Wildlife Agencies are responsible for environmental stewardship and management of deer, migratory and endangered species, yet they lack authority to address human health concerns or commercial interests (we acknowledge tribal authority to manage wildlife as an important contributor to conservation). Furthermore, State Wildlife Agencies have retained their traditional focus to manage wildlife for recreational hunters while neglecting their obligations to manage wildlife in the interest of all citizens rather than special interest groups. Fragmented institutional arrangements and widely scattered responsibilities for human health, environmental conservation and management, agriculture, and commerce among tribal, federal, and state agencies have allowed deer impacts to grow into nationwide conservation and human health crises. Given that local, regional, and state-level initiatives have failed to provide appropriate remedies, federal leadership is now essential to integrate concerns among disciplines, policy domains, regions, habitats, and biota. We recommend developing a National Strategy to build strong collaborative efforts and diverse and inclusive relationships across environmental, human health and economic interests. These should reach beyond state boundaries to comprehensively address interrelated deer, human health, forest, and conservation crises. A well-coordinated and collaborative approach has the potential to overcome traditional turf battles between tribal, state, and federal interests by recognizing joint responsibilities and obligations to manage wildlife as a public trust resource. This collective approach can protect species before they become endangered, avoiding further declines in environmental and human health.

Hunting is an increasingly contentious topic. Trophy hunting, whereby people hunt individual animals with desirable characteristics in order to keep body parts (e.g. horns, heads, hides, antlers) as mementos, is especially contested. Political pressure, often in the form of trophy import bans, is being applied in multiple nations, and campaigns to ban trophy hunting, or trophy imports, attract considerable media attention. However, trophy hunting often has conservation value, acting to protect habitat and provide income for local communities. Assuming that media coverage can influence public and political opinion, negative or simplistic media coverage of trophy hunting has the potential to cause adverse outcomes for conservation and local communities. Here, we analyse coverage of trophy hunting from July 2010 - June 2020 (five years before and five years after the death of Cecil the Lion) in the most popular UK media outlets (624 articles in total), assessing the overall sentiment of each article, and the species and countries covered. Ninety percent of all coverage occurred after the death of Cecil the lion, marking this event as a watershed moment in UK mainstream media depiction of trophy hunting. The overall sentiment of articles was largely against trophy hunting (63.1%), and this was more pronounced in tabloids (84.2%) than broadsheets (42.2%). Pro-trophy hunting articles were very uncommon overall (3.5%). Articles that described the complexity of trophy hunting decreased following Cecil and were most common in pre-Cecil broadsheets (35.7%, dropping to 30.6%) and rarest in post-Cecil tabloids (3.1%). Articles focussed mainly on charismatic but rarely hunted species including lion, elephant and rhino, with commonly hunted species (such as impala or Cape buffalo) only rarely being mentioned. When countries were mentioned, southern African nations predominated, with four nations (Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana) being named in 68% of qualifying articles. We conclude that simplistic media depiction of trophy hunting has the potential to cause negative outcomes for conservation through its impact on public perception and political opinion.

Large predators are thought of as ecological keystone species, posterchildren of conservation campaigns, and sought-after targets of tourists and photographers. At the same time, predators kill livestock and huntable animals, and occasionally people, triggering fears and antipathy among those living alongside them. Until the 1960’s government-sponsored eradication and persecution campaigns in the United States prioritized interests of livestock producers and recreational hunters, leading to eradication of wolves and bears over much of their range. Without large predators, subsidized by changes in agricultural practices and milder winters, ungulate populations erupted, triggering negative ecological impacts, economic damage, and human health crises (such as tick-borne diseases). Shifting societal preferences have ushered in more predator-friendly, but controversial wildlife policies, from passively allowing range expansion to purposeful reintroductions (such as release of wolves in Yellowstone National Park). Attempts to restore wolves or mountain lions in the U.S. and protecting coyotes appear to enjoy strong public support, but many state wildlife agencies charged with managing wildlife, and recreational hunters continue to oppose such efforts, because they perceive predators as competitors for huntable animals. There may be compelling reasons for restoring predators or allowing them to recolonize their former ranges. But if range expansion or intentional releases of large predators do not result in ecosystem recovery, reduced deer populations, or Lyme disease reductions, conservationists who have put their reputation on the line and assured decision makers and the public of the important functional role of large predators may lose public standing and trust. Exaggerated predictions by ranchers and recreational hunters of greatly reduced ungulate populations and rampant livestock killing by large carnivores may lead to poaching and illegal killing threatening recovery of predator populations. How the return of large carnivores may affect vegetation and successional change, ungulate population size, other biota, livestock and human attitudes in different landscapes has not been appropriately assessed. Societal support and acceptance of living alongside predators as they expand their range and increase in abundance requires development and monitoring of social, ecological and economic indicators to assess how return of large predators affects human and animal and plant livelihoods.

In Scotland, large deer populations are associated with negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts, such as damage to peatlands and forests, agricultural and commercial forestry losses, Lyme disease transmission, and road accidents. Increasing the annual deer cull might help address these negative impacts, but could be ethically controversial. A stratified sample of adults living in Scotland (n = 1,002) responded to our online questionnaire measuring perceptions of deer management, including the acceptability of increasing the deer cull if doing so would help achieve a variety of ecological and social objectives. Overall, respondents indicated that it would be acceptable to increase the deer cull if doing so would serve public interests by reducing negative impacts of deer, with deer welfare, environmental conservation, and public health and safety being the most relevant ethical considerations. Although rural and urban respondents reported significantly different experiences and perceptions of deer, their values (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, and policy preferences) regarding deer management were very similar. Understanding values of the general public, beyond vocal interest groups, can help inform decisions on contentious wildlife management issues.

What would successful deer management look like in Scotland? To some, flourishing populations of native wild deer represent success. But to others, negative impacts such as damage to woodlands and peatlands, agricultural and forestry losses, deer-vehicle collisions, and facilitating Lyme disease spread represent failure. Conflicting interests and incentives among people involved in deer management mean a common definition of success, and therefore clear management targets, remain elusive. While some environmental groups urgently call for an increase in the number of deer culled (shot) each year, other stakeholders aim to maximize deer numbers. Overcoming this governance failure will require clearly articulated, scientifically valid, and socially acceptable socio-ecological objectives to be co-produced by a broad range of stakeholders. Systematic monitoring of deer impacts will also be needed to evaluate the ability of specific management interventions to achieve defined objectives. Reintroducing Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) has been suggested as a means to reduce deer numbers and their negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts. However, evidence of lynx impacts on deer numbers, deer impacts, and social conflicts over deer suggest lynx reintroduction alone would not effectively reduce negative impacts of deer in Scotland, though it could be part of a broader solution. In the short-term, achieving sustainable numbers of deer in Scotland will require a substantial increase in the number of deer culled and effective changes to the way deer management is incentivized, regulated, implemented, and monitored.

Public wildlife management in the United States is transforming as agencies seek relevancy to broader constituencies. State agencies in the United States, while tasked with conserving wildlife for all beneficiaries of the wildlife trust, have tended to manage for a limited range of benefits in part due to a narrow funding model heavily dependent on hunting, fishing, and trapping license buyers. To best meet the needs, interests, and concerns of a broader suite of beneficiaries, agencies will need to reconsider how priorities for management are set. This presents an opportunity for conservation program design and evaluation to be elevated in importance. We argue that success in wildlife conservation in the U.S. requires assessment of both decision-making processes and management results in relation to four questions: conservation of what, under what authority, for what purposes, and for whom?