Literature DB >> 12654279

The current and future management of wild mammals hunted with dogs in England and Wales.

Piran C L White1, Geraldine A Newton-Cross, Rebecca L Moberly, James C R Smart, Philip J Baker, Stephen Harris.   

Abstract

There is increasing concern about the use of lethal methods to control wild mammal populations, especially those methods that may have significant impacts on animal welfare. The continued use of dogs to hunt wild mammals in England and Wales, principally foxes (Vulpes vulpes), red deer (Cervus elaphus), brown hares (Lepus europaeus) and mink (Mustela vison), has become a focus for political debate and has been the subject of a recent UK government inquiry. This paper reports the results of a questionnaire study to quantify the use, effectiveness and acceptability of the different methods currently used to manage these four species, and future changes in management following a possible ban on hunting with dogs. There was no straightforward relationship between culling pressure and perceived pest status of the different species from the questionnaire data. For foxes and brown hares, the proportion of land managers (practitioners) carrying out lethal control was higher than that considering these species to be pests. However, the reverse was the case for mink. The most frequently used and effective control methods, which were most acceptable to practitioners and public alike, were various forms of shooting. The general public perceived hunting with dogs as one of the least acceptable means of control for all four species. Practitioners thought that hunting with dogs for red deer and the use of terriers against foxes were among the least acceptable forms of control, but considered hunting with dogs in other situations and for other species to be relatively acceptable. Most practitioners said a ban on hunting with dogs would make no difference to their management of the four species. A ban on hunting with dogs would have minimal impact on populations of foxes, red deer and mink, but it may be of conservation benefit to hares.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12654279     DOI: 10.1016/s0301-4797(02)00225-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  4 in total

1.  Exclusions for resolving urban badger damage problems: outcomes and consequences.

Authors:  Alastair I Ward; Jason K Finney; Sarah E Beatham; Richard J Delahay; Peter A Robertson; David P Cowan
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  The ethnobotanical domain of the Swat Valley, Pakistan.

Authors:  Kishwar Ali; Nasrullah Khan; Inayat-Ur Rahman; Waqar Khan; Murad Ali; Nisar Uddin; Mohammad Nisar
Journal:  J Ethnobiol Ethnomed       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 2.733

3.  Impact of anthropogenic pressures on wild mammals of Northern Portugal.

Authors:  Andreia Garcês; Isabel Pires; Fernando Pacheco; Luís Sanches Fernandes; Vanessa Soeiro; Sara Lóio; Justina Prada; Rui Cortes; Felisbina Queiroga
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2020-12-18

Review 4.  The Welfare of Pig-Hunting Dogs in Australia.

Authors:  Bronwyn Orr; Richard Malik; Jacqui Norris; Mark Westman
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.