Crop Damages by Wild Animals Global View Country Report and Reviews in 1-10 Sections

Crop Damage by Wild Animalssection i generaland residential location have minor or no impact
discussionson preferences. Property damage, crop loss,
G.M. Wanilandscape damage, and car accidents appear to
Ph.D ; D.V.M (Germany)be the biggest concerns ( Curtis et al 2001).
FN ISSGAPU, FN DAADÂ
Director Extension Education / SAMETI11. Sika deer population in Japan
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences         Sika deer
and Technology of KashmirCervus nippon population in eastern Hokkaido,
Shalimar, Srinagar, 191121Japan, increased rapidly during 1990-1998 . This
Âincrease appeared to have halted in 1999-2000,
Âprobably due to increased hunting and nuisance
Âcontrol. The period of rapid increase was
A brief global review to asses the damage causedassociated with a disproportionately rapid increase
to cultivated crops by wild animals around thein compensation paid for deer damage to crops.
world. The review was attempted in response toWe studied changes in diet during 1990-2000, as
a recommendation of ICAR Regional Committeereflected by stable isotope ratios of C and N in
No.1 held in Oct, 2007 at Solan, H.p. presided overtooth collagen. We hypothesized that isotope
by Hon'ble Director General, ICAR Dr. Mangala Rairatios would demonstrate dietary shifts related to
inauguration was chaired by Hon'ble Agriculturepopulation levels and/or time, and that shifts in
Minister J&K, Jenab Ab. Aziz Zargar.isotope ratios would be consistent with increasing
          Âindividual consumption of pasture grasses at
          Âhigher population levels, delta 13C isotope ratios of
          Âtooth collagen in 3 year-old sika indicated a diet
          Âdominated by C3 plants throughout the period,
          Âand that forage species other than pasture
        Authorgrasses and dwarf bamboo Sasa nipponica ( the
Âmain crop and woodland understory plants,Â
          Ârespectively) were important elements. There
          Âwas a significant decline in the delta 13C isotope
          Âratio during 1990-2000 in both males and
 Âfemales, delta 15N values showed no trend with
Âtime for males, but increased over time in
Âfemales. Indices of population (Sightings per Unit
ÂEffort, SPUE) were negatively correlated with
Published by:Â Director State Agriculturalfemale delta 13C, and positively correlated with
Management and Extension Training Institute offemale delta 15N, values indicating a shift in diet
Kashmir (SAMETI-K) , SKUAST-K , Shalimar ,over the period , especially among females. This
Post Box: 461, G.P.O, Srinagar.shift may be related to population and/or offtake
Âlevels, in particular the rapid increase in female
Âofftake for nuisance control and hunting during the
          Âperiod. The data are consistent with a relative
         Publicationincrease in pasture grass consumption per
No: SAMETI/Pub/3/1000/January, 2008individual at higher population levels, however,
Âother explanations of the data are equally
Âplausible. Possible dietary changes, and other
Âfactors, influencing the observed shift in isotope
P.O.Box: 461, GPO, Srinagar, E.Mail: Â Â Âratios are discussed. Although statistically
      Phone:   Âsignificant, the magnitude of dietary shiftsÂ
 Ânevertheless appeared small, and did not provide
0194-2461317,0194-2463460,0194-2463459Âevidence which would justify modifying the
         Cell: Âcurrent policy, of limiting crop damage through
      09419095342 ;managed population reduction to about 25% of
Residence:0194-2431508,2435741peak levels( Halley et al 2006).
ÂÂ
Â12. White-tailed deer damages
ÂÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Introduction:White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may
Âcause more damage than any other species of
      Wild animal-humanwildlife. These damages include crop loss,
conflicts have started since beginning of humanautomobile and aviation collisions, disease
era from Adam and Eve. This conflict oftransmission, environmental degradation, and
wilderness made man to hide in caves and hedestruction of ornamental plantings. One
was called as "Cave man". Slowly, with hispractical method of controlling deer damage is the
advancement it is he who invented Axe anduse of exclusionary fences. The relatively high
other weapon in stone and iron ages to frightencost of labor and materials required to build
the wild animals, initially. Later on he hunted themeffective fences has limited most applications to
to save himself. This feeling of uncertainty andthe protection of orchards, vegetable farms,
fear of wild animals and wilderness reduced withother high -value resources, and mitigation of
the invention of fire. He made sharp weapons ofhuman health and safety risks. Improvements in
bones and iron. These initial weapons were thefence technology resulting in less expensive, yet
beginning of this conflict, Animal human conflict.effective fence have expanded the use of fence
Thirty thousand years ago, the human populationto manage damage caused by deer. Fence
rose to 6 million. They were still hunters. With thetypically installed to manage white-tailed deer
invention of fire, he set fire a vast majority ofdamage include wire or plastic mesh, electrified
sanctuaries, which scared wild life and theyhigh-tensile steel wire, and electrified polytape or
migrated from his neighborhood. Many forests, hillspolyrope fence. They reviewed the scientific
and difficult terrains were still beyond the reach ofliterature on fencing to determine which fence
man three thousand years before, althoughdesigns would be the most effective for excluding
human population has increased to 60 million. Mandeer in a variety of situations (VerCauteren et al
has already started primitive agriculture. He had2006).
made his terrains and wild life scared by him left         The
his close habitats and searched for fresh abodes.installation of fences to protect agricultural
Man by now had lust for fur, horns, ornamentsproducts, natural resources, or other areas from
and other forest resources. He invented manydeer (Odocoileus spp.) can be expensive and
means to frighten whole wild life. He became apotential benefits of fencing are difficult to
"Danger "not only for wild animals but for his ownquantify. A rational method is needed to help
species, environment and eco-biodiversity.evaluate whether fencing can be cost effective
Three hundred years ago he industrialized cropand which fence designs will be optimal for
production and produced enough food, for nearlyparticular applications. They describe an interactive,
600 million people. This continued and from 30dynamic simulation model that conducts economic
year now he is feeding 6000 million people. Todayanalyses and predicts economic benefit associated
we have a global food security for 7.5 billion.with fences for crops relative to area and
Human food security gains resulted in reduction ofperimeter of protected plot, value of crop,
all other wild species, thus, the origin of wild- life-percentage of crop damaged by deer annually
human conflict is the lust of man for more food,prior to fencing, efficacy of fence, and costs of
more luxury or sometimes fun for hunting or fur.fence materials and labor. Users of the model can
This reduced wild life reserves and now a openeasily adjust these variables to fit their individual
conflict came into existence.situations and needs. By running a series of
Many man-wild life conflicts have been reportedsimulations, model users can answer questions
from Gir forests of Gujarat, Rajaji National Park inrelated directly to fence efficacy and
UP and many other states where forest landscost-effectiveness (VerCauteren K et al 2006).
became cultivable lands. Elephants, wild boars,Â
monkeys, squirrels, deer , birds like crows,13. Corn damage by wild life
parakeets, wild dogs, jackals, gaur, sambur,         Corn
langure, fowls, pea cocks, neilgai, Hippos, biats,damages in USA were estimated at 6.6 per hac
blackbirds, rodents, wild pigs, feral species,due to wild life. The white tailed deer was the wild
primates, beetles, foxes, pigeons, feral hogs and aanimal responsible for loss. The average hacters
variety of other species damage crops. Theowned by farmers were 125 out of which 55
carnivores even attack human too. These attackshectares were sown corn. (Tzilkowsi et al 2002).
are for search of food or their loss of habitat.Â
Many such accidents came to be known in14. Â Deer Damage
Jammu and Kashmir. The bear leopod and other         Deer
wild animals are reducing in number. Their habitats(Odocoileus spp.) can cause substantial damage to
used by human.agricultural crops, resulting in economic losses for
The human causalities are due to carnivorousproducers. They developed a deer activated
species, but herbivores inflict economic and humanbio-acoustic frightening device to reduce
losses too. The crop damages by wild life haswhite-tailed deer (O, virginianus) damage in
been the new threat to agricultural productivityagricultural fields. The device considered of an
throughout the world. This also concerns us ininfrared detection system that activated an audio
Asia and India. This review is aimed to find out:component which broadcast recorded distress and
1.      Extent of damage toalarm calls of deer. They tested the device
crops.against unprotected controls in cornfields during
2.      Nature of cropthe silking-tasseling stage of growth in July 2001.
damageThe device was not effective in reducing damage:
3.      Ways and means totrack-count indices (F1,4=0.02), corn yield
prevent these losses.(F1,9=1.27,P=0.289), and estimated damage levels
4.      A strategic planning to(F1,10=0.87, P=0.374) did not differ between
drive a line between wildlife conservation and farmexperimental and control fields. The size
economics especially in India.(F2,26=1,00,P=0.380), location
Â(F2,25=0.39,P=0.684), and percent overlap
Executive Abstracts and Strategic elementaries:(F2,25=0.20,P=0.818) of use-areas of radiomarked
[EASE]female deer did not differ between during and
1.    Importanceafter treatment periods. They concluded that the
          Âdeer-activated bio-acoustic device was not
       Species causingeffective in protecting cornfields in this study;
crop damages ranges from elephant's wild birds,however, the device may be more effective in
monkeys, squirrels, deer, parakeet, wild dogs,small areas such as gardens or for high value
foxes, deer and many others like Neilgai. On ancrops that do not grow tall enough to offer
average this damage to crops by wild animalsprotective cover (Gilsdorf et al 2004).
amounts to U$ 961 per hectare. It is much more         White
than an Indian Farmer earns from a hacter-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) cause millions
annually. Therefore, by these estimates, theof dollars of damage to agricultural crops annually .
damages are spectacular and economicallyThey tested the effectiveness of propane
important.exploders and Electronic Guards (Pocatello Supply
2.      Human ElephantDepot, Pocatello, Id). For reducing deer damage in
conflicts (HEC):corn fields during the silking-tasseling stage of
         i) Economicgrowth. Track-count indices (F2,7=0.70,P=0.532),
Losses:corn yield (F2,6=0.14, P=0.873), and estimated
          Âdamage levels (F2, 12=1,45 P=0.272) did not differ
       Among elephantsbetween experimental and control fields. The size
crop raiding is common. The crops near their(F2,11=0.08,P =0.924), Location (F2,9=0.30,
home ranges are damaged more. ElephantsP=0.750), and percent overlap (F2,9=0.46,
damaging crops had twice big ranges than thoseP=0.644) of use -areas of radiomarked female
who did not damage the crops. Thus, moredeer in the vicinity of experimental fields did not
proximity of the crops near their ranges arediffer among before, during and after 18 day
prone to crops damages. Train accidents instigatetreatment periods. In a related study, we placed
elephants more to crop or human damages.propane exploders in cornfields within use-areas of
Indonesia saw more frequent raids of elephants12 radiomarked female deer. The deer did not
on crops. Human elephant conflict (HEC) isreact appreciably to the devices; the size (F2,
frequent and poses serious challenges in Africa.17=0.08, P=0.921), location (F2,22=1.37, P=0.275),
Both male groups and family group attacks haveand percent overlap (f2,10=0.47, P=0.636) of deer
been observed. HEC losses in West Bengal wereuse areas did not differ among before, during, and
worth 3.2 croses of Rupees. This damageafter 14 day treatment periods. They conclude
occurred in 3368sq kms.radius. The numericalthat propane exploders and Electronic Guards
number of elephants was 62 only. Assamhave limited potential for reducing deer damage to
observes damages to the woodcutters bycorn at the silking-tasseling stage (Glisdorf et al
elephants Asian wild Elephants raid and damage2004l.
crops in herds of 10-13 individuals or big herdsÂ
comprising 50-74 elephants. In Darjeeling district         A welfare
alone over an area of 200 kms. East to west, inmeasure for wildlife damage to Ontario (Canada)
last two decades 277 houses were demolished byfield crop producers during the 1998 was. The
elephants, killing 66 people in 5 districts. As a resultwelfare measure presented in this study provides
of this conflict 23 elephants lost their lives. Ina more accurate picture of losses from wildlife
2001, economic loss of the order of US fiftydamage to agricultural. Other damage estimates
thousand dollars was estimated to be inflicted bybased on yield loss overstate the damage since
elephants. This scenario necessitatesbenefits from wildlife are netted out. Results for
comprehensive measures to be taken to lessenthe Ontario field crop producers indicate that the
these damage. The review of the measures,magnitude of the difference between the value of
around the world suggest following few studies tothe yield loss and the welfare measure of
be undertaken and resultant measures to bedamage is approximately 50%. This difference
applied to lessen these damages.ii)Â Â Â Âindicates that most farmers were willing to
Mitigation of losses:tolerate the wildlife damage they experienced
         Methods(Heigh et al 2001).
developed and used to mitigate crop damages byÂ
elephants consisted of frightening of animals by15. Grapevine damages
drum beating, firegracks or even air gun fires.         In field
Guarding the crops by fences or even usingtrials in 1999-2000 in Gundla Pochampally, Andhra
electric fencing or raising poles and wiring may bePradesh, India , the incidence of damage to green
effective. Chemical based deterrents, and electricgrapevines was studied. Visits to the vines by
fencing have been found to reduce crop damages.bats begain around 45 minutes after sunset and
High voltage electric fencing using energizers inforaging continued until 1 hour before sunrise.
west have prevented wild animals damaging cropDamage occurred to ripe fruit only, and increased
but this preposition may not be applicable in areasaround harvesting time, percentage damage
where even habitations do not have access toranged from 0 to 100% (Bhargavi et al, 2001).
electricity. However, this method may act as aÂ
temporary boundary separating wild and domestic16. Â Â Hippo damage
habitats. This could prevent intrusions from sly         The
vatic to domestic foci. Guarding fields, diggingintroduction to the paper described the various
trenches, modifying cropping patterns have aecological effects known to result from grazing,
possibility of reducing man elephant conflicts ormovement along paths, and wallowing by the
Human elephant conflicts. A 30% open spacecommon hippo. Hippopotamus amphibious. The
between two habitats may help to avoid HEC.study reported was carried out at Kainji Lake
This means a distance to be maintained betweenNational Park., Nigeria, during  the dry season
cropping fields and elephant habitates. A properperiods {of 1991 and 1992} . The method
investigation on these lines is needed. A grid basedadopted by Agnew, A.D.Q. (East African Wildlife
geographical information system (GIS) with aJournal (1966) 4, 38-46) was used to assess
25Km2 resolution may help to have costhippo foraging footprints at three hippo pool sites.
effective data source to analyze these situations.A total of 32 footpaths were enumerated out of
There is urgent need of identifying spatialwhich 18 were located at Kaii hippo pool site, while
predictors of HEC. On the basis of this study onethe frequency of utilization of paths was also
can suggest or plan mitigation strategies, earlyhigher for this site relative to those in other area.
warnings of attacks, use of barriers andThe upstream-downstream trend in hippo
deterrents. The utility of the methods could beoccupancy of dry  season water pools could
assessed for land use and livelihood strategies toexpose the hippo to crop damage conflicts at the
limit HEC.peripheral areas.
ÂÂ
3.      Dear-Nilgai Damages.17. Hygo-Japan-mammal crop damages
         A surveyÂ
of 2500 farms in UK revealed that 69% (n=192)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Mammals
cereal crops were damaged by deer. Thisinhabiting  Hyogo consist of seven orders, 17
damage costed £500 per annum per farm.families and about 40 species. Except for
Damages varied with deer density. In USA tooLagomorpha and Artiodactyla, the remaining
deer damages comprised of crop loss, landscapefive orders among them include species which
damages, car accidents and property damages.need some protection and they total about 55%
Nilgai damages alongwith deer damages areof all species excluding extinct, introduced and
common in India too. Tree cover of Acacia in theferal species. Ecological information in Hyogo
area is generally used as shelter by Nilgai. Weprefecture has been accumulated in few
have encountered huge crop damage in Mathuraprotection-required species there is no recent
(CIRG) and nearby area by Nilgai visits. Grazinginformation of spatial distribution on Oriental
and browsing of Nilgai inflict losses on farms. Thiswater-shrew, Japanese noctule-bat and Japanese
is regarded as a mammalian crop threat by thedormouse; and little information on Japanese
farmers. This behaviour of their inflict ozone injuryshrew, Japanese horse-shoe bat, Japanese large
to the young sapling, so precious for the growth-footed bat. Schreiber's bent-winged bat, Japanese
of trees in Indian semi-arid farms.tube-nosed bat, common parti-colored bat,
ÂJapanese squirrel, Japanese small flying-squirrel,
         CornJapanese giant flying-squirrel, smith's vole harvest
damages by deer in USA amounts to 6.6.% permouse and Japanese badger. Damage and
hectare. In an area where a farmer owned 125population managements is also necessary in sika
hectare on an average 55 hectares were used todeer and Japanese wild boar, to reduce their
sow corn. There is a 6.6% loss of the productcrop--damaging, and comprehensive management
which is a huge economic loss. Similar damages byin Japanese black bear, an endangered local
deer in Ontario, Canada, Portugal, Japan, Southpopulation, to prevent human-bear fatal accident.
America and other parts of the world have beenHabitat alteration due to human activities,
reviewed. In Virginia too a study involving 1506however, has affected the population sizes and
agricultural producer farmers revealed 58% ofspatial distribution of all these, mammals in Hyogo.
them experiencing deer damages. Ways andHabitat management has priority over damage.
means to prevent such attacks on crops haveFundamental and applied scientific studies and
been reviewed. Most of the possible measures tounderstanding of ecology and wildlife management
be adopted are similar to these described forscience needs promotion by citizens (Mitani M
elephants (HEC).2000).
ÂÂ
4.   Other Mammal and bird damages18. Monkey damage
ÂÂ
         Monkey        Â
damages maize, sweet potato and other crops. ItForty-seven property owners in Entebbe, Uganda
is suggested to reduce or change croppingwere questioned about vervet monkey activities
pattern or alternating with non-agricultural activitieson their property. The objective was to
near location of monkey habitats. Variousinvestigate the interactions between humans and
methods are reviewed. Bat damage, Hygo cropvervet monkeys in an agricultural area adjacent
damages in Japan, Grape wine damages by batsto a forest zone. Other studies have reported
in Andra Pradesh, India have been studied. Cropthat farms located within 300 m of a forested
economic loss assessment has been reviewed inboundary probably incur the greatest risk of
these pages. Clover rather than grass can reducecrop-raiding. Two other factors that may influence
wild mammal damages. Alley cropping of blacksusceptibility to vervet crop-raiding were also
walnuts helped to save soyabean and maize cropexamined: the types of crops grown and the
damages. Pesticide damages wildlife and minimizetypes of direct preventive measures used. The
their attacks, enclosures and other electric fencingeffect of these two factors on vervet
help to avoid such damage. Can one use harmfulcrop-raiding is not straight forward. However, the
means to save crops, need a suitable strategy todistance a property is located from the forest
preserve ecology and biodiversity. Both crops andedge is an important factor influencing vervet
wild animals need security and conservation. Acrop raiding. Surveyed  gardens 200 m from
management strategy is needed to safeguardthe forest edge received significantly less crop
human and wildlife equally.  A policy-raiding than farms located 100 or 50m
framework is envisaged.(P=0.040,< alpha=0.05). In this study, 8 out of 13
Âfarmers (61.5%) said that maize, sweet potato,
         Blackbirdor both, were most likely to be damaged by the
crop damage in USA amounts to 5-8 million dollars.vervets. Other crops singled out by the farmers
A considerable sum of crores of rupees haveare receiving damage by the vervets were
been estimated to be damages in the form ofbananas, mangoes, groundnuts and yam. They
crop, human and property losses by wild animals,suggest that the development of
birds and other rodents in India. Many measuresnon-agricultural activities on land directly
to reduce these losses are needed and haveadjacent to forested areas may reduce vervet
been reviewed.crop -raiding by deterring vervets from traveling
Âgreater distances from the forest edge due to
Âincreased obstacles or risks  (Saj et al 2001).
ÂÂ
Â19. Bait damage
ÂÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The
Reviewlongevity of zinc phosphide (ZP) on whole wheat
1. Wild animals damaging cropsbait  was determined at the end of the "dry"
To elephants wild boar, porcupine, rheus macaqueand "wet" seasons, Â is Western Australia..
(Macaca mulatta), hoary-bellied squirrel, barkingWhile the total rainfall during the two trials was 74
deer (Muntiacus muntjak), red-breasted parakeetmm and 155mm, substantial loss of ZP was
(Psittacula alexandri), and wild dog are wild animalsrecorded only after significant rainfall events.
damaging crops.Irrespective of season, the loss of ZP from bait
Methods developed and being used to mitigateapplied in bait stations was minimal. The maximum
man-wildlife conflict include, frightening the animals;recorded loss was 17% and this occurred
guarding the crops; and using some sort ofafter 21 days' exposure during the wet
scarecrow and traps (Miah et al 2001).season where the bait stations were placed
Accurate estimation of crop damage by wildlifein-crop. Nevertheless, regardless of the application
(raccoons, white-tailed deer, and coyotes) oftenmethod, sufficient ZP always remained on the
requires labour-intensive sampling procedure.wheat bait. Theoretically  it was lethal to rats
Variable area transect (VAT) sampling has beenfor at least 8-14 days (Twigg et al., Â 2001).
identified as a potential labour-saving alternative to20.Venezuela experience:
quadrat sampling ( Engerman et al 2002).         In
ÂVenezuela, lethal control of wintering Dickcissels
2. Wild life Human conflicts(Spiza Americana) is considered a threat to the
Agricultural landowners suffer in the form ofspecies survival. To help farmers protect their rice
damage to crops, livestock, and other property.and sorghum crops from by Dickcissels and to
Some wildlife agencies maintained abatement andminimize the killing of large numbers of these
compensation programmes. A model ofbirds, alternative non-lethal crop protection
deer-inflicted crop damage used to facilitatemeasures are needed. To that end, the responses
agency decisions regarding deer densities andof captive Dickcissels to three bird-repellent
distribution, abatement use, and to forecastchemicals (anthraquinone,methyl anthranilate and
compensation. The model is applied to field-levelmethiocarb) applied to rice seed were evaluated.
compensation claims in Wisconsin, USA. TheIn one-cup feeding trials, treatments of
results are consistent with theory, ( Yoder J,methiocarb (0.05% g/g, applied as Mesurol
2002).75%Â wettable powder) and anthraquinone
Â(0.5%, applied as Flight Control) reduced
3. Crop Economic loss due to wild lifeconsumption of rice by 70% relative to
         People'spretreatment consumption. Other anthraquinone
perceptions were discerned through participatorytreatments (0.05,0.1%) and methyl authranilate
discussions covering 419 households distributed in(0.05%) were inrffective. In two -cup trials, with
10 villages in the buffer zone. Traditional uncodifieduntreated millet as the alternative food,
rights of local people were substantially reducedconsumption of rice treated with 0.05 and
through policy interventions set in since 1860s.0.1%Â anthraquinone was reduced by 90%
Local people as well as tourists have beenrelative to pretreatment levels. Overall, Dickcissels
excluded from the core zone covering an area ofresponded to the repellents similarly to the
625 km2 since 1982. Deterioration of ruralred-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus).
economy due to damage to crop and livestockBecause Flight Control has been used successfully
by wildlife and, termination of opportunities ofto reduce blackbird use of rice fields in the USA,
income from wild medicinal plant resources andthe prospect is good for successful reduction of
tourism in the core zone were the key negativedamage to repening rice by Dickcissels in
impacts of conservation policy felt by more thanVenezuela, particularly if repellent use is coupled
90% of respondents. Mean annual economic losswith the establishment of alternative feeding sites
per household was estimated as Rs.1285, Rs. 1195( Avery et al 2001). Deer selected carrots over all
and Rs.156 due to damage caused by wildlife togreen manure crops.
food crops, fruit trees and beehives, respectively,Â
Rs. 1587Â due to ban on collection of wild21. Nilgai damages in India
medicinal plants for marketing and Rs.7904 due to         Â
ban on tourism in the core zone. The ReserveCrop-damage by nilgai has been widely reported
authority granted compensation for livestock killedfrom India. Â Are give Nilgai is for increasing in
by wildlife but it was hardly 5% of the marketthis region. Lack of natural predators,
value of killed livestock as assessed by thedeforestation overgrazing and the protection of
people. People did not appreciate much thethese animals from Hindu communities are
present benefits from the reserve managementreasons for their overpopulation. Tree cover of
in the form of wages for carrying outAcacia are generally used by nilgai as a day time
afforestation work, partial compensation forshelter but not food, Â therefore it goes for
livestock depredation and availability of solarcrop-raiding in the late evening and at night,
power devices, wool, and spinning devices.jumping across 6-7 feet high stone wall, barbed
Approximately 95% respondents identifiedfencing and fences of dead or live thorny plant
empowerment of local people in respect ofmaterial and any other fencing/barrier made to
realizing income from timber from dead/diseasedprotect the crop-. Due to habit of both grazing as
trees in community forests, income fromwell as browsing they devore every kind of farm
medicinal plants in buffer zone and opening of thespecies (both rabi and kharif crops). It has been
core zone for tourism as potential developmentobserved that eating less but destroying more by
options. Improvement in rural economy, the primetrampling and causing damage are therefore
concern of local people, has not received as muchregarded as serious mammalian crop pest and
attention as legal enforcement of protection byfarmers wants to get ride of this unconventional
the reserve management. There is a need forpest. The farmers chase them away by just
developing policies and management actions thatfollowing them by making loud sound by crackers
serve the economic interests of local peopleor air gun fires, following through tractors, empty
together with enhancement of environmenttin or dried pumpkin filled with small stones and
conservation goal (Maikhuri et al 2001).connected with strings. Technically,
Âcarrots(enclosures), trenching or power fencing
4. Crop selection:are suggested to mitigate the crop damage.
Damage was less (34%) in experimental carrot asSecondly, animals could be translocated to wildlife
multiple crop than carrots as only crop plantedsanctuaries from the sites they seen
(62% damage). Staggered plantings of canola,overcrowded or severe crop raiding problems
which continuously produced flowers, was the(Goyal et al 2000).
most effective lure crop of the green manureÂ
crops we tested. Carrot producers should use22. Pesticides and wildlife
electric fences or 2.4-m woven wire fences,A range of monitoring activities has shown
perhaps combined with staggered canola plantings,impacts of anticholinesterase pesticides on UK
to reduce carrot depredations ( Schwab et alwildlife, and continued risks are evident from
2001).laboratory and field experiments, together with
         Thethe scale of use in the field. Along with other
colver, rather than fertilized grass, is morebroad spectrum insecticides, many
effective cover crop on AFAs, against damageorganophosphates have adverse direct effects on
by migratory geese. The sward should benon-target arthropods in farmland, and so are
managed to encourage clover growth, whichlikely to contribute towards indirect effects of
would probably involve frequent cutting but nopesticides on farmland biodiversity. The
fertilizer. Further research is needed on cloveranticholinesterase insecticides have both lethal and
replenishment rate over the winter season andsublethal effects on aquatic wildlife, however the
possible benefits of clover leys to other wild lifehistory of recent incidents of damage to river
(McKay et al 2001). Alley cropping of blackecology following the wider use of synthetic
walnuts and percent with maize and soyabeanpyrethroid sheep dips, illustrates the need to
rotations may avoid will animal damages. Treeconsider the implications of changes in the use of
-crop ratio of 1:10 may help( Godsey, 2000).alternative products when reviewing these
Âinsecticides ( Burn 2000).
5. Elephan- human conflicts:Â
Conflicts between elephants (Elephas maximus)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The use
and human occur in Rajaji National Park (RNP),of anthraguinone-based flight control and methyl
Uttar Pradesh, one of eleven reserves designatedanthranilate-based non toxic avian foraging
in India, to conserve Asian elephants.repellent we used to avoid crop damage by
Elephant-human. The conflicts in RNP from 1996sandhill cranes. Thought both repellents were
to 1999 were studied, and all human and elephanteffective at deterring cranes from treated corn,
deaths or injuries caused by conflict wereneither has been tested on corn under field
recorded. The impact of human colonies onconditions. (Blackwell et al 2001).
elephant movement was studied in 18 villages         Oak
along 17 km of the sourthern boundary of theseedlings were scientifically raised. Seedling
study site and 4 village in the Chilla-Motichurmortality and wild life browse damages were
corridor. Three male and four female elephantsminimal when certain herbicide mixture was used.
were radio tracked for 1-2 years. PrimaryBiologically and aesthetically, the procedure was
conflicts included crop raiding, competition betweenextremely successful (Ezell et al 1999).
humans and elephants for vegetation, and        Â
elephant mortality due to train accidents. AdultPre-commercially thinned (forests are less prone
males that raided crops had home ranges twiceto moose damage (McLaren et al, 2000).
as large as adult males that did not raid crops.Â
Elephants only damaged crop of fields that23. Pesticide use in conflicts
occurred within their home ranges. Field trails of         Pesticides
chemical based deterrents and electric fencingcan cause damage to man and beneficial organism.
should be tried to reduce crop damage. TrainSome sub-lethal effects of pesticides were
speeds need to be reduced to prevent accidentalstudied in birds with a view to identifyingÂ
elephant mortality (Williams et al 2001).characteristic biochemical responses that may be
Âuseful for the monitoring of exposure to sub-lethal
Wild Elephant damages:levels in the field. Pesticides were used;
         A rapiddemeton-S-methyl, (DSM),chlorpyriphos,
village and field assessments, data surveychlorfenviphos, triazophos, pirimicarb, methiocarb
showed. Elephants raided crops at a rate of 0.53and permethrin. Blood was collected before dosing,
elephants per day in Indonesia. The frequency ofand 2,6,24,48 and 72 hours after the treatment
crop raiding was related to vegetation type alongfrom the brachial vein of birds. Enzyme, activities
the park border, the size and presence of rivers,were assayed in the plasma or serum samples
and the distance to the park's Elephant Trainingobtained. The assays used were GOT,MHD, GDH,
Centre (ETC), which houses about 150 captiveSDH,GAMMA GT and ChE. The results showed an
elephants. Wild elephants damaged at leastincrease in plasma and serum GOT and
450000Â m2 of maize, rice, cassava, beans andgamma-GT levels were found in all animals
other annual crops, and close to 900 coconut,treated with the previous pesticides. The level of
banana and other perennial trees in the areaChE increased in birds after treatment with
surveyed. Elephants killed or injured 24 .Villagerspermethrin. It was concluded that the pesticides
try to reduce elephant damage by guarding fields,cause structural and functional changes in the liver
digging trenches between the park and their fields,and also, the measurement of the previous
and modifying their cropping patterns.parameter activities may be useful for assessing
Elephants-human conflict decreases the probabilityexposure and sub-lethal effects of pesticides on
of support from local people for conservationthe wildlife (Dahamna et al 2004).
efforts. The approaches are suggested consist ofÂ
elephant trenches, electric fences, externalÂ
support to affected villages, and compensation to24. IPM and crop losses
villagers for any damage caused (Nyhus et al         The
2000).queensland sugar, industry has recently
         This studyimplemented a comprehensive integrated pest
explores land use conflict in south east Kajiadomanagement (IPM) system to minimize crop
District, Kenya. The results of household surveyslosses from two antive rodent species, Rattus
conducted with farmers and herders in 1977 andsordidus (canefield rat) and Melomy burtoni
1996 to examine changes in land management(climbing rat). These species inflicted
strategies are compared. The conflict reflectsapproximately $25M of damage in a major
ongoing competition over access to scarce landoutbreak in the 1999-2000 seasons. Both of
and water resources between herding, farmingthese rodents are listed as common wildlife under
and wildlife are the reason of damage of crops.the schedules of the queensland nature
This man-animal conflict needs understanding theConservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1994. The IPM
conditions that have created the present conflictsprogramme is based on understanding the ecology
(Compbell et al 2000).and biology of each species. It incorporates a
It is, therefore, suggested that 30% open spacelarge-scale monitoring programme aimed at
be used as a basic division for stratifying thicketsproviding early warning of imminent rodent build
into low -use and high-use categories for deerup to avert major outbreaks. The industry has
density estimation. The proportions of each typealso developed a memorandum of
could be derived from grid-square measurementsunderstanding with Queensland State
of aerial photographs (Latham J 2000).Government, which delivers on the industry's pest
Âmanagement needs, while providing an improved
Âsystem of accountability for the taking of two of
Human elephant conflictQueenslands native wildlife species. The consensus
        Âreached between the cooperating parties (The
Human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Africa occursBureau of sugar Experiment Stations,
wherever these two species coincide, and posesCANEGROWERS, regionally-based Cane
serious challenges to wild life managers, localProductivity Services, and the outcomes can be
communities and elephants alike. Mitigation requiresnegotiated between rural industry and
a details understanding of underlying patterns andenvironmental interests (Hunt et al 2004)Â .
processes. Although temporal patterns of HEC are         In Areas
relatively predictable, spatial variation has shownaround Lake Mburo National Park ,large wild
few universal trends, making it difficult to predictanimals wander in close proximity to human
where conflict will take place. Crop raiding wassettlement . This poses serious conflict in terms
further subdivided into incidents involving only maleof crop damage. The integration of conservation
elephants or family groups. A relativelywith other land uses is difficult where densely
fine-resolution, systematic, grid -based methodsettled agricultural land surrounds a protected area
was used to assign the locations of conflictpotentially containing problem animals, as is the
incidents, and spatial relations with underlyingcase for several parks in Africa and Asia. The
variables were explored using correlation analysisintensity of crop raiding was quantified through
and logistic regression. Crop raiding was clusteredthe use of random crop quadrants/plots and area
into distinct conflict zones. Both occurrence andestimation techniques in a portion of raided fields.
intensity could be predicted on the basis of theThe animal species concerned were documented
area under cultivation and, for male elephantfrom observations, footprints and any other
groups, proximity to major settlement.marks left behind. Three variables were tested as
Conversely, incidents human injury and deathpredictors of damage; human population density,
were less predictable but were correlated withdistance from the park boundary and season. In
proximity to roads. A grid-based geographicalthis study data is presented regarding crop loss in
information system (GIS) with a 25km2 resolutionthe different seasons of the year, analysis of
utilizing cost-effective data source, combined withcrop damage variation and animal species involved
simple statistical tools, was capable ofin crop loss. A diverse assemblage of animals
identifying spatial predictors of HEC, At finerforaged on subsistence crops and analysis of crop
resolutions spatial autocorrelation compromiseddamage revealed significant crop depreciation by
the analyses. Synthesis and application. Thesewildlife( Kagoro et al 2004).
results suggest that spatial correlates of HEC canÂ
be identified, regardless of the sex of theÂ
elephants involved. Moreover, the methodÂ
described here is fully transferable to other sites25. Hawai Pest
for comparative analysis of HEC. Using these         The apple
results to map vulnerability will enable thesnail, P.canaliculata, is an aquatic freshwater snail
development and deployment of appropriatenative to South America, Originally imported to
conflict mitigation strategies, such as guarding,Hawai'i as pets for the aquarium trade, they were
early warning systems, barriers and deterrents.soon introduced into wetland plots known as "lo's"
The utility of such methods and their strategicwhere taro (Colocasia esculenta), an economically
deployment should be assessed alongsideand culturally significant crop, is grown. Some
alternative land-use and livelihood strategies thatindividuals reasoned that the snails, being edible,
limit cultivation within the elephant range (Sitati etcould be harvested as food, and that raising the
al 2003).snails along with the taro in the "Io's" would
         Humanprovide income supplemental to the taro harvest
elephant conflicts (HEC) in west Bengal was anwith minimum additional input. This introduction of
economic loss worth 3.2 crores. This muchsnails into the taro "lo'i" however, proved to be a
damage occurred in 3368 sq km radius inhibitingdisaster. Farmers failed to take into account the
62 elephants (Singh et al 2002)voracity , reproductive potential, and rapid growth
Âof the snails. Because of the ideal conditions in the
6.   Kerala Surveytaro "lo'i", the snails multiplied rapidly and fed
Crop damage by wild animals in Kerala, India, washeavily on the taro shoots and corns in many
studied from 1993 to 1996. Data were collectedcases, destroying a complete crop before harvest
from the offices of the Kerala Foresttime. Hindisight has shown that the snails are
Department, field survey and from the intensivedissipated via the irrigation system throughout the
study area at Marayur, Idukki District. Forty-five"lo'i" and then spread to the surrounding wetland
species of crops were destroyed by wild animalsareas. Large breeding populations are now
in Kerala, the species commonly destroyed byestablished in wetland areas on the islands of
wild animals were paddy, coconut plam , plantainsHawai'e, O'ahu, Kaua'I, and Maui. Some ofÂ
, cassava , arecanut, coffee, oil plam , pepper ,these wetlands are wildlife preserves with state
jack tree, mulberry and manago. The mainand federal mandates that restrict the potential
animals involved in crop damage were elephantmethods of eradication. Background information is
(Elephas maximus), gaur (Bos gaurus),sambarprovided on both P.canaliculata and taro to fully
(Cervus unicolor), wild boar (Sus scrofa), bonnetexplain the challenges and opportunities that this
macaque (Macaca radiate), common langursituation presents (Tamaru et al 2006).
(Presbytis entellus), blacknaped hare (LepusÂ
nigricollis) and pea fowl (Pavo cristatus). Among26. Chemical repellents
these, elephants and wild board gave         Chemical
maximum damage . Of the total compensationfeeding repellents applied to ripening sunflower
claimed by the farmers, only 8.2% wasmight help reduce blackbird (lcteridae) damage,
sanctioned by the Kerala Forest Department. Thewhich is a chronic agricultural problems from seed
highest crop damage (30%) was recorded frominformation harvest. However, cost are high to
the forest ranges coming under the Northerndevelop and register new repellents for agricultural
Circle: pinapple (47%) , sweet potato (47%),use. In 2003 and 2004, we evaluated feeding
tapioca (42%), alocasia (39%) , beans (25%) andrepellency of 8 pesticides registered by the
plantains (23%) recorded highest percentage ofEnvironmental Protection Agency for use in
damage. In the intensive study area at Marayur,sunflower. Caged red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius
28 species of crops were damaged and highestphoeniceus) were fed unshelled sunflower seeds
damage was during the summer months. Attreated with the following pesticides: 5 pyrethroid
maximum damage was due to elephant (72%)insecticides, an organochlorine, an
followed by gaur (62%) , sambar (17%) and wildorganophosphorus, and a gungicide. Compared to
boar (16%) . Tiger (Panthera tigris), pantheruntreated refernce groups, feeding rates were
(leopard) (Panthera pardus) and wild dog (Coninereduced for 4 of the 5 pyrethroid insecticides.
alpinus) were the main cattle lifters in the state. AOnly the organophosphorus (chlorpyrifos),
total of 31 deaths and 64 injuries caused by wildhowever, significantly decreased feeding rates.
animals were recorded from the state during theMore research on repellency effects of this
period 1983 to 1993. Thirteen indigenous methodsproduct in field efficacy trials is probably
used for controlling the crop damage had beenwarranted based on the results of our cage
identified. High voltage electric fencing usingexperiments. Depending on timing of application,
energizer was effective for stopping elephantsregistered insecticides with blackbird feeding
and other herbivores from entering the agriculturerepellency could provide supplemental economic
fields. Crop damage is found to be linked to thebenefits to sunflower producers through dual
cropping pattern and location of the agriculturepurpose use ((Linz et al 2006).
fields. Short term and long-term measures neededÂ
to prevent the crop damage are discussed27. Persistent organic pollutants (POPS)
(Jayson EA,1999).         Persistent
Âorganic pollutants (POPs) have spread throughout
7. Â Bird crop damagesthe global environment to threaten human health
Âand damage ecosystems, with evidence of POPs
Use of non-lethal method to avoid crop damagescontamination in wildlife, human blood, and breast
by bird have been reported. Blueberry damagesmilk documented worldwide. Based on data from
by cedar waxwings (Bombycilla cedrotun werethe US Food and Drug Administration, this article
minimized. (Avery et al 2002).provides a brief overview of POPs residues in
Âcommon foods in the USA food supply. The
8. Wild Bird damageanalysis focuses on 12 chemical compounds now
Âtargeted for an international phase out under the
         In theStockholm convention on POPs. The available
northern Great Plains of USA, conflictsinformation indicates that POPs residues are
between red-winged black birds (Agelaiuspresent in virtually all categories of foods, including
phoeniceus) and sunflower (Helianthus annus)Âbaked goods, fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, and
growers have intensified since the late 1960sdairy products. Residues of five or more
due to the expanded commercialpersistent toxic chemicals in a single food item are
production of sunflowers. We studied the potentialnot unusual, with the most commonly found POPs
population effects of the removal of up to 2being the pesticides DDT ( and its metabolites,
million red-winged blackbirds annually under a 5such as DDE) and dieldrin. Estimated daily doses of
year programme of baiting during spring withdieldrin alone exceed the US Environmental
DRC-1339 (3-choloro-4 methalalanine) treated rice.Protection Agency and US Agency for Toxic
They also examined whether lethal control, inSubstances Disease Control reference dose for
combination with current levels of breeding habitatchildren. Given the widespread occurrence of
management, would be cost effective inPOPs in the food supply and the serious health
decreasing depredation of sunflower cropsrisks associated with even extremely small levels
during late summer. They evaluated the costof exposure, prevention of further food
benefit ration for 4 culling scenarios involving (1)contamination must be a national health policy
variable annual cullus, not exceeding 2 million birds,priority in every country. Implementation of the
with and without density compensation (i.e. ,aStockholm Convention will prevent further
positive density-dependent response) on adultaccumulation of persistent toxic chemicals in food.
survival and (2) culls of 2 million birds annually withEarly ratification and rapid implementation of this
and without density compensation .Wetreaty should be an urgent priority for all
constructed a red -winged blackbird populationgovernments (Schafer et al 2002).
model represented as an age-based matrixÂ
and calibrated to stable growth. We assumed a28. Netherland experiences
total population of 27 million birds on 1 April (week        Â
1), representing the red-winged blackbird breedingTraditionally, pink-footed geese Anser
population staging in eastern Southern Dakota andBrachyrhynchus wintering in Denmark, the
migrating into North Dakota.Under each cullingNetherlands and Belgium have used the Danish
scenario, we reduced the stable red-wingedsites only during mild winter, rapidly moving
blackbird population (Equally for females andsouthwards in case of cold spells. Since the 1980s,
males) and project the population through weekan increasing number of geese have remained on
23 of the annual cycle (2 Sep). We then evaluatedthe Danish wintering grounds despite cold spells,
the associated costs of the management relativeforaging on pastures Because winter wheat
to potential sunflower crop losses, assuming $0.07represented a reliable and profitable food source
in damage per bird and 4% loss to othereven in sever winter, the recent change in
factors. Variable annual culls, likely the moreAgricultural practice has enhanced the
biologically realistic model scenarios, yielded meandevelopment of a new wintering strategy of
annual removals of 1 240 560 (SE=12 328) birdspink-footed geese, allowing a northward expansion
with density compensation and 1 231 620 (SE=28of their winter range. Potentially, this will increase
811) birds without density compensation,, withthe crop damage conflict and may lead to further
cost benefit ratios of 1:2.3 and 1:3.6, respectively.population growth ( Therkidsen et al 2000).
Annual intrinsic rates for the model population         Enclosure
over the 5 year period ranged from 1-4 totrials near Huron, CA in the San Joaquin Valley
4.8%. Considering potential variability in thefrom 12 to 23 January 1999 , determine the
effectiveness of the cull and the combinationefficacy of Flight Control TM (50% anthraquinone)
of direct and indirect costs,we contend thatand Mesurol R (75% methiocarb) in preventing
the realized benefits to sunflower growers byhorned lark damage to lettuce seedlings. Flight
lethal control of red-winged blackbiards via springcontrol TM (FC) and Mesurol R were evaluated as
baiting , in combination with current nonlethalfoliar sprays at application rates of 2.79 and 2.27
management efforts, would likely be negligiblekg ha-1, respectively. Horned lark damage to
(Blackwell et al 2003).lettuce seedlings treated with anthraquinone was
         Thegreater (p=0.015) than for methiocarb R, 60
efficacy of hydrolyzed casein (HC) and retailversus 20% , respectively, and seedlings in control
products that contain HC in reducing deer damageplots were 100% destroyed. While this level of
to trees and shrubs was determined in a fielddamage is probably unacceptable to lettuce
experiments conducted in USA during 2004-05.growers, it should be remembered that the
The results of the experiments indicate theenclosure situation caused an artificially high bird
suitability of HC as a deer repellent. Technicalpressure on the crop. Further studies in open
grade HC completely eliminated browsing damagefields under a more normal bird pressure are
to evergreen shrubs (Gaultheria shallon) andwarranted ( York et al 2000).
conifers (Thuja plicata). Retail sources of HC wereÂ
not as effective as the pure hydrolyzed protein29. Ozone injury
(Kimball et al 2005).         Incidence
Âand severity of visible foliar ozone injury on
Âcutleaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata L.) and
9. Blackbird damagescrown-bread (Verbesina Occidentalis Walt). Were
         Thedetermined .It is thus a matter of consideration
economic impact of blackbirds can be severe tothat zone injury may harm vegetation harmed by
rice producers in the United States. One approachbrowsing or even cutting. Ozone injury was
to managing this damage is the application ofgreatest on the lower leaves for both species
bird-deterrent chemical to the crop. Previous pilotsampled with over 95% of the injured leaves
trials suggested that caffeine offered potential asoccurring on the lower 50% of the plant. This is
a safe, economical bird repellent. In this study,the first report of foliar ozone injury on these
cage feeding trials with female red -wingedplant species in situ, in the Park, illustrating the
blackbirds and male brown headed cowbirdsgreat variability in symptom expression with time,
confirmed that a treatment rate of 25000 ppmand within and between populations ( Chappelka et
caffeine on rice seed reduced consumption asal 2003).
much as 76% . Trials with mixed speciesÂ
blackbirds flocks in a 0.2-ha flight pen resulted30. Protected arrears and humans
in just 4% loss of caffine-treated rice compared         Knowledge
to 43% loss of untreated rice. . Field trials of a 10of conflicts between people and protected areas
000 ppm caffeine treatment in Louisiana revealedis required for the design of sustainable
> 90% of caffeine-treated rice seed remainedconservation strategies for the management of
unconsumed on days 2 and 3 of the studymost protected areas. The study identifies the
whereas blackbirds consumed > 80% of thecauses of conflicts between local people and the
untreated seed. As a rice seed treatment toBenous Wildlife Conservation Area (BWCA), which
deter blackbirds, caffeine appears to be effective,includes the Benous National Park, In northern
economical and environmentally safe, althoughCameroon. Informal interviews and questionnaires
additional aquatic toxicity testing is desirable.were administered to 114 households in three
Improvements in formulation will be needed tocommunities, and to 17 park staff and 7
make the compound practical for generalprofessional hunting guides from July -October
agricultural spray applications and to extend the1997. Crop damage affected 86% of the
adherence of caffeine to rice seeds in fieldsurveyed household, with 31% of crop income
conditions ((Avery et al 2005).lost on average, and with the damage varying
Âsignificantly between communities. Elephants,
10. Deer damagebaboons, patas monkeys. Warthogs and green
A questionnaire was distributed to over 2500parrots accounted for 97% of crop damage, with
farms to know damage caused by lowlandthe staple food maize and millet being most
deer to crops, trees and vegetation. Results fromaffected. Of the respondents 27%
the questionnaire showed that 69% (n=1192) ofexperienced livestock depredation, with 18% of
responding farmers had deer on their holdings andlivestock income lost on average. The civet
that Roe and Fallow were the most frequentlycat was the main predator. The involvement of
seen species. On those farms with deer present,local people in illegal activities, their lack of
cereals were the most commonly damaged cropaccess to natural resources, and damage by
(44%), but only 15% of these farmers claimedwildlife were identified as principal causes of
that the annual cost of damage to cerealsconflicts. Local people, park staff and professional
exceeded £500 each year for the wholehunting guides had diverse and differing
farm. Validation assessments were based on twoperceptions about the causes of the conflicts and
visits to assess deer damage to the crop, with amade various suggestions for reduction of wildlife
deer species/density assessment during thedamage including animal scaring and controlled
March assessment and an assessment of grainshooting. We conclude that, under current wildlife
yield and quality during the August assessment.policy, conflict between people and BWCA Â
Respondents were generally accurate in the(Bonous Wildlife Conservation area) is difficult to
density and species of deer reported. Theresolve. To reduce conflicts and promote
percentage of the farm suffering damagesustainable conservation, we suggest
attributable to deer was very variable, generallyco-management of wildlife involving all
being higher at the first assessment than thestakeholders, establishment of crop damage
second. The figures calculated for yield loss werecontrol teams, and promotion of tangible benefits
generally low, Farmers were poor at estimatingto  local people. There may be a requirement
the economic impact of deer damage whenfor site -specificity in management strategies
compared to validation data, but a number of(Weladji et al 2003).
parameters may have changed in the two yearsÂ
between the questionnaire distribution and31. Low technology use to avoid damages
validation, including changes in deer density, crop          It is
rotations, and the marked drop in grain prices,suggested that an integrated, community-based,
which may account for some of the inaccuracies.low technological approach will be the most
There were no statistically significant relationshipssustainable solution to this conflict ( Osborn et al
between deer damage assessments and yield2003).
loss, either for individual species or both species         Blackbirds
combined. The relationship between Roe deer(lcteridae) annually damage US$5-8 million of
damage at the harvest assessment and Roe deerripening sunflower in the northern Great Plains.
density was significant (Post et al, 2001).Baiting blackbirds with avicide-treated rice during
Wildlife managers must consider the public'sspring migration might reduce the regional
preferences for wildlife population levels whenbreeding populations. birds can be successfully
determining management policies. 849 farmers,baited with avicide-treated rice placed in corn
hunters and the general public of Maryland. USA,stubble (Linz et al 2003).
were surveyed in 1996 to determine their          Â
preferences for increasing, maintaining, orPlant debris accumulation is viewed as a key
decreasing deer population numbers. Using afactor determining small mammal abundance and
random utility theoretic framework, the factorspotential damage in low-till agricultural ((Stermer et
that explain preferences such as residentialal 2003) areas.
location, socioeconomic characteristics, landscape         The
damage, agricultural yield loss and vehicle accidentsprojected total value of crop yield losses due to
were analyzed. Results suggested that thewildlife damage for buffer zone villages located in
majority of people benefit from deer and want toGarhwal Himalaya in about Rs.5 38 620 (US$15
keep deer population at current levels. Other389). Besides food grain, horticultural crops i.e
characteristics such as age, income, education,apple, also suffered.