1

Creating Co-existence Between Crop Farmers and Wildlife in

Ontario

Undergraduate Thesis

Researched and Written by Leeza Shabekova

Advised by Stephen Murphy, Professor

Submitted December 16, 2013

2

Table of Contents

Page 3………… I. Introduction

Page 6………… II. Methods

Page 7…..……. III. Results

Page 16………..IV. Discussion

Page 21.….…… V. Results-oriented Wildlife Conservation Incentives for Ontario Crop Farmers

Page 37……….. VI. Compensation for Wildlife-related Crop Damage

Page 46……….. VII. Putting Down the Guns

Page 60……….. VIII. The Participatory Approach for Preventing Conflict & Co-managing Human-

Wildlife Impacts

Page 72……….. IX. Conclusion

Page 72……….. X. References

Page 83……….. XI. Appendix

3

I. Introduction

Human-wildlife impacts occur when wild animals negatively impact humans, or vice versa

(Madden 2004; Madden 2004b; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008). Although this is a concern

for society in general, it has certainly become a major problem in the agricultural industry. Crop farmers

strive to use every possible acre to maximize production and their revenue, while wildlife often depend on

these same spaces to meet their survival needs (Brethour, Mussell & Stiefelmeyer 2001; Treves 2008).

This results in destructive, undesirable interactions where crops are damaged and wildlife are killed.

Unfortunately, this trend is increasing, including on Ontario crop farms (Bruggers, Owens & Hoffman

2002; OFVGA 2013b; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008b; OSCIA 2000). While Ontario white

tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations, for instance, have increased by tens of thousands since

the 1980s, in the last 30 years the human population has simultaneously increased by nearly 50 percent.

Meanwhile, changes to farming have also significantly reduced natural habitat (Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources 2008b). Hence, this issue has also recently begun to gain a great amount of attention,

including in academia, with an overwhelming focus on wildlife’s economic impacts (Bruggers, Owens &

Hoffman 2002). In Ontario, efforts to create a strategy to deal with human-wildlife conflicts started in

2008 (Grain Farmers of Ontario n.d.). Today, the province has a Strategy for Preventing and Managing

Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario and an Agricultural-Wildlife Working Group has also been created

(Environmental Registry 2011; Grain Farmers of Ontario n.d.; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

2008).

Unlike the rest of society, farmers are the only ones that consistently view wildlife negatively and

with a focus on their economic impacts (Hegel, Gates & Eslinger 2009).The purpose of this thesis is to

better understand how the all too often negative relationship between Ontario crop farmers and wildlife

can be transformed into a more positive, mutually beneficial one where farmers and wildlife can

peacefully coexist and even benefit from their interactions. At the very least, I explore some of the factors

needed for the hostility of farmers towards wildlife to be mitigated for the benefit of wildlife

4

conservation. The chance that the agricultural industry will revert to a more organic way of farming, that

is fundamentally more harmonious with nature, is unlikely to happen soon (Burger et al., 2006). Hence, I

have chosen to focus on measures that can be applied to the current system of food production. In

particular, four issues are explored: effectivity of agri-environmental schemes in helping farmers value

wildlife and the advantages of taking a results-oriented approach, the merits of providing monetary

compensation to farmers who deal with wildlife-related damages and the importance of preventative

tactics, the implications of using hunting to eliminate unwanted wildlife and the need for alternatives, and

lastly the importance of farmer participation in making wildlife-related decisions and co-managing

human-wildlife impacts.

A survey-based case study involving a small sample of Ontario crop farmers was also conducted

to determine how the issues explored in this thesis are perceived by and effect farmers. The insight and

real-world experiences of Ontario crop farmers is invaluable in better understanding how to improve their

relations with wildlife in this province. This case study is presented prior to the literature reviews on the

themes of this thesis; to get a better understanding of the basis of the survey questions, the results, and

especially the implications discussed in the ‘discussion’ section and how these are connected to the

literature, it would be helpful for readers to look over sections V-VIII first.

Human-Wildlife ‘Conflicts’? A Note on Terminology

Vocabulary creates terministic screens where words interact in a way that brings focus to some

parts of reality, while removing focus from others. Ultimately, these terministic screens come to affect

perception, limiting how people respond to environmental issues (Peterson et al., 2010). There has been a

huge shift in wildlife professionals towards using the term ‘human-wildlife conflicts’ to what they

previously described as, for instance, ‘wildlife damage management.’ However, one study that examined

academic literature found that most situations labeled as human-wildlife conflicts (greater than 95 per

cent) are actually those where there are ‘perceptions among people that wildlife threaten something that

they care about, such as crops’ (Peterson et al., 2010). Rarely was this terminology used in situations

5

where there really was conflict (less than 4 per cent), and these were actually reflecting human-human

conflicts, such as over how to address the threats wildlife pose to property, safety etc (Peterson et al.,

2010). As a matter of fact, the actual human-human nature of what is so often referred to as human-

wildlife conflicts also fits perfectly into the definition of ‘conservation conflicts,’ which occur between

people as well. Conservation conflicts are defined as ‘situations that occur when two or more parties with

strongly held opinions clash over conservation objectives and when one party is perceived to assert its

interests at the expense of another’ (Redpath et al., 2013).

There are serious consequences to framing human-human conflicts as human-wildlife conflicts.

Because wildlife are implied to be conscious antagonists, it makes sense for people, and especially

farmers, to perceive them as enemies and direct anger and frustration at them (Peterson et al., 2010). This

can also lead to physical retaliation against them, which has implications for conservation. For example, it

is the U.S. Endangered Species Act that has created resentment towards relatively harmless species like

the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), not the owls themselves (Peterson et al., 2010). Framing issues as

human-wildlife conflicts rather than human-human conflicts may reduce the potential to effectively

address problems by moving attention away from the socio-political factors that cause them. Additionally,

the terminology reinforces peoples’ notion that humanity is separate from nature and that we do not

depend on its wellbeing to survive. A label used to frame problematic situations involving humans and

wildlife should address these issues while also paving the way for the possibility to co-exist (Peterson et

al., 2010). Hence, for the purpose of this thesis, I turn to terminology that has been used by, for instance,

Redpath et al., (2013) and Decker, Lauber & Siemer (2002). To maintain a distinction, the term ‘human-

wildlife impacts’ will be used to refer to the impacts resulting from undesirable interactions between

humans and wildlife (i.e. damage), and ‘conflict’ will refer to human-human dimensions (Redpath et al.,

2013).

6

II. Methods

The research portion of this thesis is a survey-based case study involving a small handful of

Ontario crop farmers. The purpose of this case study was to better understand the issues explored in this

project from farmers’ perspectives. This is crucial given that farmers are at the heart of the human-

wildlife impact and conflict scenarios and their needs and views must be taken into account when

discussing conservation incentives, damage compensation, hunting alternatives and co-management. The

survey was distributed through the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (OFVGA) which

consists of 28 member organizations, altogether representing 7, 500 farmers in the province. The

associations mandate is to advance Ontario’s horticultural industry and its farmers and represent them on

a provincial, national, and even international scale (Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association

2009b).

Before the survey was to be distributed, it went through and received clearance through the

University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee. The two major steps taken to ensure the wellbeing of

participants was to exclude any personal and potentially identifying questions, as well as avoiding

terminology such as ‘conservation’ when referring to wildlife because this can potentially create a

negative emotional response for some farmers. Instead of conservation, wording such as ‘measures for the

benefit of wildlife’ was opted for. Of course, the survey and its aims were also discussed and approved by

Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association committee members prior to its distribution. The only

form of advertising that occurred was through the Ontario Fruit Vegetable Growers Association’s

monthly newsletter, The Grower, in the August 2013 edition (see Appendix A).

The survey was made accessible through a SurveyMonkey.com link. This particular format was

chosen because it ensured easy and quick access and submission, was quick and cost effective to

distribute, all while ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. An email consisting of the link as well as an

information letter (see Appendix B) were sent to Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association

member organizations on August 23rd, 2003, from which point they were able to decide whether to

7

forward this email to their own members. The survey was open until September 20th and consisted of 24

questions, and included multiple choice, ranking, partially structured, and open ended questions. The

survey was targeted towards any conventional Ontario crop farmer that grew all a portion of their crops

without the protection offered through greenhouses. Farmers were encouraged to answer every applicable

question and read through all possible answers before making their decisions. Respondents were allowed

an unlimited amount of time to spend on the survey.

III. Results

The participation rate for this case study was smaller than anticipated. Only seventeen Ontario

crop farmers responded to the survey, a relatively small sample size. Four participants did not fully

complete the survey. Two of these stopped at the third last question which asked whether or not they used

lethal methods on their farm, so this could possibly be due to the sensitive nature of this matter in terms of

rules and regulations in Ontario (despite the fact that participants were assured anonymity and that the

question was too broad to reveal potential unlawfulness). This means that the total number of responses

per question varied throughout the survey (aside from questions that were answered by fewer participants

due to applicability restrictions).

The majority of farmers that participated grew multiple types of crops. Field crops, vegetables,

and fruit were each grown exclusively on the farm by one, two, and three farmers. Two farmers grew both

fruit and vegetables and another two grew both field crops and vegetables. Field crops, fruit, and

vegetables were grown together by three farmers, and field crops and fruit were grown in combination by

another three. Finally, one farmer grew both field crops and ginseng. Altogether, field crops were grown

by ten (58.82%) farmers, fruit by eleven (64.71%), and vegetables were grown by nine (52.94%) of them.

One (5.88%) farmer grew a root crop.

8

Incentives

Farmers were asked how important they felt that farm management practices were in preventing

crop damage from wildlife. Of seventeen respondents, four (23.53%) indicated that they were ‘extremely

important,’ for 6 (35.29%) it was ‘important,’ while 5 (29.41%) said that they were ‘somewhat

important.’ One person (5.88%) said that they were unimportant, while another indicated that they were

‘not important at all.’

Of sixteen respondents, thirteen (81.25%) felt that crop farmers are capable of contributing

innovative human-wildlife impact management solutions to sustain a balance between the needs of

wildlife and farming. Not a single person said that they weren’t while 3 (18.75) were not sure.

Of sixteen respondents, nine (56.25%) said that meeting the needs of wildlife on the farm was

less important than meeting other types of environment-related objectives such as soil, energy, and water

conservation. Six (37.5%) respondents said it was equally important, and one person (6.25%) was not

sure. None of the respondents felt that it was more important (Figure 1).

Participants were asked to rank the importance of wildlife to them. Altogether fifteen farmers

responded, five (33.33%) of whom said that wildlife were extremely important to them, eight (53.33%)

said that they were important, while two (13.33%) found them to be somewhat important. None of the

respondents chose ‘unimportant’ or ‘extremely unimportant’ (Figure 2).

9

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Lessimportant Equally

important Moreimportant Not sure

Number of Farmers

Importance Level

Importance Level of Wildlife Relative to Other Environmental Objectives for Sixteen OFVGA Crop

Farmers

0

2

4

6

8

Number of Farmers

Importance Level

Wildlife Importance to Fifteen OFVGA Crop Farmers

10

When asked whether they wanted to see more voluntary incentive programs made available to

help them incorporate wildlife conservation methods into their farm management practices, ten of fifteen

respondents (66.67%) said yes, while five (33.33%) were not sure. None of the respondents answered

‘no.’

Respondents were asked what their opinion was on the statement that ‘the ability of crop farms in

Canada to support wildlife has diminished in the last few decades due to intensification of agricultural

management and the reduction of natural and semi-natural land cover’ (Javorek et al., 2007). Of 15

respondents, seven (46.67%) indicated that they agreed, while another 7 indicated that they disagreed.

One (6.67%) person felt unsure (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Compensation

Of 15 respondents, twelve (80%) respondents said that they had taken measures on their farm for

the benefit of wildlife and three (20%) said that they had not. Out of the twelve, ten (83.33%) said that

they would take more measures for the benefit of wildlife on their farm if reasonable monetary

compensation existed for wildlife-related crop damage. Two (16.66%) indicated that they were not sure,

but would probably consider it. Out of the three respondents that said they had not taken any measures for

the benefit of wildlife, one (33.33%) said that they would take measures on their farm for the first time if

7 7

1

The Perception of Fifteen OFVGA Crop Farmers on Whether Canadian Crop Farms

Have Diminished in Ability to Support Wildlife

Agree

Disagree

Not sure

11

reasonable monetary compensation existed for wildlife-related crop damage, whereas two (66.66%) said

that they were not sure, but would probably consider it (Figure 4). From all fifteen respondents, nine

(60%) said that 100 per cent re-imbursement of monetary losses due to wildlife damage to crops would be

needed in order to ensure that taking measures for the benefit of wildlife on their farm could remain a

possibility. An additional three (20%) respondents wanted 60 per cent of losses to be compensated, two

(13.33%) wanted 80 per cent, while one (6.67%) wanted a 20 per cent compensation rate.

Of thirteen respondents, nine (69.23%) said that they used lethal methods (e.g. hunting, trapping,

poison etc.) to deal with problematic wildlife on their farm, while four (30.77%) said that they did not. Of

the nine that used lethal methods, four (44.44%) said that they would stop using lethal methods on their

farm if highly effective non-lethal solutions were made more readily available to them, with the same

number of respondents indicating that they would reduce their use of lethal methods. One (11.11%)

person said that they would not stop using lethal methods (Figure 5). If reasonable financial compensation

for wildlife-related damages was provided, one (11.11%) respondent would stop using lethal methods,

five (55.56%) would reduce their use, while three (33.33%) would not eliminate their use of lethal

methods at all (Figure 5).

Respondents were asked to select what they considered to be major barriers to incorporating

conservation measures for the benefit of wildlife into crop farming. They were able to mark of as many or

as few of the choices that were listed. Fifteen farmers responded to this question. At thirteen (86.67%)

respondents each, an equal number of people selected lack of monetary compensation for wildlife-related

crop damage and having to pay for expenses associated with implementation. With ten (66.67%)

respondents, the next most frequently selected choice was ineffective crop damage prevention techniques.

Five (33.33%) respondents indicated that lack of knowledge about wildlife needs was a major barrier.

Community opposition and lack of technical assistance were perceived as major barriers by three (20%)

and two (13.33%) respondents each. Respondents were also provided the opportunity to list additional

factors that they perceived to be major barriers in a slot labeled as ‘other’. One respondent indicated ‘food

safety regulations’ while another listed ‘uncooperative neighbors’ (Figure 6).

12

Figure 4.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ants

Willingness to take more on-farm wildlife conservation efforts or for the first time

Effect of Monetary Compensation on Willingness to Take More Wildlife Conservation Measures or for the First Time for Fifteen

OFVGA Crop Farmers

Group 1: No previous measursetaken to conserve wildlife onthe farm

Group 2: Measures previouslytaken to conserve wildlife onthe farm

13

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Eliminate Continueuse

ReduceNot sure

Number of farmers

Farmer response

The Willingness of Nine OFVGA Crop Farmers to Eliminate Lethal Force Against Wildlife Under Two Scenarios

Scenario 1: Damagecompensation

Scenario 2: Non-lethalsolutions

Other

Lack of technical assistance

Community opposition

Lack of knowledge about wildlife needs

Ineffective crop damage prevention techniques

Lack of compensation for damages

Paying for implementation expenses

2

2

3

5

10

13

13

Number of Farmers Barriers

Major Barriers to Incorporating Wildlife Conservation Into Crop Farming As Indicated by Fifteen OFVGA Farmers

14

Hunting

Respondents were asked to respond to the statement that ‘Reducing wildlife-related crop damage

is important, but finding ways to create as many benefits as possible from wildlife presence on the farm

should also be a priority.’ Of seventeen respondents, more than half, or nine (52.94%) agreed, while at

four respondents (23.53%) each, an equal number of respondents disagreed and were not sure.

Of sixteen respondents, one person (6.25%) stated that the publics’ acceptance level of how

problematic wildlife are dealt with on their farm was extremely important to them, nine (56.25%) said it

was important, two (12.5%) found it to be somewhat important, for two (12.5%) it was unimportant and

another two (12.5%) felt it was extremely unimportant (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Human-wildlife impact management

Out of seventeen respondents in total, an overwhelming majority (fourteen or 82.35%) felt that it

was extremely important for farmers to be able to participate in and influence wildlife-related government

decisions that affect the agricultural sector. Another two (11.76%) said that it was important, and only one

person (5.88%) felt that it was extremely unimportant. None of the respondents indicated that it was

‘somewhat important’ or ‘unimportant.’

1

9 2

2 2

Importance Level of Publics' Acceptability Level on Problematic Wildlife-Management Choice to

Sixteen OFVGA Farmers

Extremely important

Important

Somewhat important

Unimportant

Extremely unimportant

15

Of seventeen respondents, only two (11.76%) felt that the Ontario government had done enough

to help crop farmers prevent issues with wildlife. Eight (47. 06%) felt that the Ontario government had

not done enough, and seven (41.18%) were not sure (Figure 8). Those that felt that the government had

not done enough were asked to briefly explain where the Ontario government needs to improve and/or

what it needs to do that it hasn’t to date. Three people pointed to funding: one wanted the government to

pay farmers for protecting at risk species, another said that it should pay for deterrents such as deer

fencing and enhance crop insurance (e.g. providing coverage for the whole year), and finally one farmer

wanted compensation for wildlife-related damages. One person said that they wanted to see government

going out to farms where damage was occurring to witness it ‘firsthand.’ Four respondents, the majority,

wanted fewer restrictions on lethal means of dealing with wildlife. For example, one person said that after

being repeatedly denied a permit to remove deer out of season, they wanted more consistency in

approvals, while another echoed this by stating they wanted ‘reduced red tape for removal permission.’

Another respondent indicated that they wanted out of season harvesting to be permitted, while yet another

stated that they wanted the government to simply allow farmers to shoot any wildlife that is seen ‘eating

or distorting’ their crops. It should also be noted that the respondent that indicated they wanted

compensation for damages, also said that they would like to see ‘less rules around dealing with wildlife.’

Participants were asked whether the Ontario government has done enough to help crop farmers

effectively deal with human-wildlife impacts when they occur. Only one person answered yes (5.88%),

while at eight respondents (47.06%) each, the same number of respondents answered no and not sure

(Figure 8). Again, the eight that answered that the government had not done enough to help farmers deal

with damages were asked to explain where they felt Ontario needed to improve/ and or what it needed to

do that it hasn’t to date. Two of these people skipped this question, but six did answer it. Two people

pointed to prevention. One respondent said that the government had done nothing at all to help them

prevent deer-inflicted damage, while another wanted money put into prevention such as subsidizing

fencing for high value crops. Three people wanted much faster approval times for permits to remove

wildlife; one person indicated that six week waits are unacceptable, while another said that ‘permission

16

takes time, geese eat fast.’ One farmer stated ‘investigate how nature and farmers can live in harmony and

reward those farmers that do implement these practices.’

Figure 8.

IV. Discussion

Given that only seventeen Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Grower Association crop farmers

responded to the survey that was administered, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the results that can

accurately represent trends in the mentalities of Ontario crop farmers as a whole. A similar survey would

need distribution and completion at a much larger scale in order to confirm the small-scale trends

observed in the seventeen farmers in this case study. However, the survey results obtained thus far are a

good starting point in beginning to better understand how the issues explored in this thesis effect the

perspectives and lives of Ontario crop farmers and by extension their implications for the wildlife with

which they are so interconnected.

0123456789

10

Enough has beendone

Not enough hasbeen done

Not sure

Num

ber o

f far

mer

s

Farmer response

The Perspectives of Seventeen OFVGA Crop Farmers on Ontario Governments' Performance in Helping Prevent and Deal With Human-Wildlife Impacts on Crop Farms

Prevention

Dealing with impacts

17

The fact that the majority of respondents have already taken some measures on their farm to

support wildlife populations and generally found wildlife to be of importance to them indicates that at

least some farmers do value wildlife and have an understanding of their own interconnectedness to these

animals. This may explain why the farmers in this survey indicated that they wanted more voluntary

conservation schemes despite the fact that wildlife is seen as less important than other environmental

objectives. Compensation, evidently, may also have a positive effect on wildlife that is not often touched

on by the literature in that almost all of these respondents said that they would increase their conservation

measures if it were provided, while the few that were not sure whether they would or not would still

consider it. This suggests that a requirement of participating in a results-oriented conservation schemes,

for instance, would fit nicely into a compensation plan as previously suggested.

The downside, however, is that most of these respondents wanted full compensation of damages

for this scenario. In one study, farmers also showed more support for very comprehensive compensation

payments. For example, of 234 farmers, 58.1 per cent wanted 76-100 per cent compensation, and only 7.3

per cent thought that none of the loss should be reimbursed (Mcivor & Conover 1994). This is

problematic because funds are difficult to secure (Bulte & Rondeau 2005; Treves et al., 2009). It may also

be problematic from the public’s perspective; of 196 non-farmers, 30.6 per cent thought that nothing

should be reimbursed to farmers and only 19.4 per cent thought that 76-100 per cent of losses should be

reimbursed (Mcivor & Conover 1994). Full or very high compensation may however be a possibility if

damage prevention programs are implemented in addition to compensation programs and this may also

help justify this practice in the eyes of the public.

Most farmers in this survey reported use of lethal means of dealing with wildlife, which is

consistent with what has been previously reported (Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association 2000).

This survey suggests that although damage compensation would be effective at creating a reduction in

lethal force against wildlife, providing highly effective non-lethal solutions would be significantly more

effective for both eliminating and reducing it. This makes sense given that farmers have sited the reduced

effectivity of prevention techniques as the second biggest cause for damages (Fitzgerald 2012; Ontario

18

Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association 2000). If this second biggest reason for damages is removed,

than, as it appears from this small scale survey, so would the need to kill wildlife. Compensation is not as

effective at doing this likely because of reasons cited in literature, such as that it does not improve

perception of wildlife (Stier & Bishop 1981). With compensation, farmers still have to endure the stress

of losing crops, dealing with authorities to prove loss and obtain funds, whereas with preventative

measures this is inherently eliminated.

Taking into account a person’s self-efficacy and what factors they believe might prevent them

from taking part in wildlife conservation efforts is very important (Burton 2004). Perceived behavioral

control, where a person may feel that attaining a conservation goal is beyond their power, may be

especially true in the agricultural industry which is subject to what happens politically, economically, and

in the physical environment (Burton 2004).Perhaps unsurprisingly, farmers in this survey pointed to

monetary issues as the two biggest barriers to incorporating wildlife conservation into their practices. This

is reflective of the fact that farmers in general often find it problematic that they have to bear the cost of

helping sustain something that is considered a ‘public good’ (Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement

Association 2000). Ineffective crop damage prevention techniques, however, came as a close second. The

results for this survey points to a need in what was discussed in this paper: compensation programs that

incorporate preventative measures as well as results-oriented conservations scheme. A results-oriented

scheme would help address many of the barriers which farmers that participated in this survey found

highly problematic, such as paying for implementation expenses, lack of knowledge about wildlife needs,

lack of technical assistance, and community opposition (if a landscape approach is incorporated as well).

The fact that more than half of respondents agreed that finding ways of creating as many benefits

as possible from wildlife presence on the farm may indicate that the focus in Ontario on merely dealing

with damages is not the right, wholesome approach and is actually detrimental to the human-wildlife

relationship on farm. It can be detrimental both in that it moves focus away from truly pro-active

solutions and conditions farmers to continue seeing wildlife only for their downsides. This means that

more results-oriented conservation initiatives are needed that help provide ecological and hence

19

productivity benefits on farms, as well as means of gaining economic benefits through tourism or other

creative means.

The fact that most respondents placed importance on the public’s acceptance on how problematic

wildlife are dealt with is important to note. The way in which agricultural land is used is influenced by a

variety of factors, which include the producer’s values, but societal values as well (Burger 2006).

However, a greater number of non-farmers prefer nonlethal control methods, whereas farmers tend to say

that they are open to any control method that gets the job done (Mcivor & Conover 1994). Hence, societal

values can be the force that positively influences human-wildlife impact management on crop farms,

given that the general public’s attitude has shifted towards animal welfare (Bruggers, Owens, & Hoffman

2002). All of this means that the public has a responsibility in what happens on the farm in terms of

treatment of wildlife, not just farmers. However to truly influence farmers’ management decisions the

public must be assertive and vocal about how wildlife are to be treated.

The fact that an equal number of respondents felt that the ability of crop farms in Canada to

support wildlife has diminished as those that did not is somewhat concerning. This is despite the fact that

a drastic decrease in habitat and habitat quality on farms has in fact been documented in Ontario and

Canada alike, and even globally (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Biodiversity Working Group 2012;

Javorek et al., 2007). These survey results may be capturing a certain level of disconnect between some

crop farmers in Ontario and their effects on wildlife and the environment, or perhaps these farmers are

simply in denial as a defense mechanism. Disconnect or denial can be detrimental to wildlife conservation

on the farm because if farmers do not acknowledge the negative effects they have on wildlife, than there

is less incentive for them to conserve wildlife as well. The problem must be truly acknowledged and

understood before it can be solved.

Although some farmers in this survey believed that wildlife and other environmental objectives

were of equal importance, the majority of respondents said that meeting the needs of wildlife were less

important. This is consistent with the fact that the majority of those that participate in the Environmental

Farm Plan prioritize soil and water health over wildlife habitat (Smithers & Furman 2003). This stems

20

largely from the utilitarian view that farmers tend to hold towards wildlife; soil quality, for instance has

direct benefit to productivity whereas many wildlife species do not (Hegel, Gates & Eslinger 2009). This

points to a variety of needs such as focusing more on creating benefits from wildlife, both ecological and

economic, and creating results- oriented incentive programs that will help change attitudes by helping to

develop a value system in farming culture into which wildlife can finally fit in.

The fact that the majority of farmers in this survey acknowledged that farm management practices

played a major role in preventing crop damage from wildlife is a positive sign that, at least some farmers,

understand the power that they hold in preventing damage. It also points further to the fact that

compensation programs where preventative measures are a prerequisite can be useful. The farmers

surveyed already believe that they can prevent damage, now they need a helping hand from the

government to put this into action at full force. However the fact that one farmer thought it was

unimportant while another thought that it was not important at all may mean that there is a need for more

education and technical assistance to help address a knowledge/perspective gap.

Participants’ view of themselves as potential agents of change is also evident in the fact that they

said they are capable of contributing innovative impact management solutions to meet the needs of both

wildlife and farming. This reinforces the value of a results-oriented conservation approach which leaves

farmers plenty of room to be innovative and contribute to the preservation of species in an active and

more independent way. It is hence unsurprising that an overwhelming majority of respondants also felt

that it was extremely important for them to be able to participate in and influence wildlife related

government decisions. Clearly the farmers surveyed want to play an active role in wildlife conservation

and wildlife-related decisions that affect them as well.

The survey points to the fact that the government, by the standards of at least some farmers, has a

lot of work to do in helping prevent human-wildlife impacts as well as dealing with them when they

occur. The farmers in this survey who felt this way, largely desired for the solutions that were discussed

in this thesis. Payments/rewards for farm-based wildlife conservation, fencing, and compensation for

wildlife-related damages were all cited, as well as the need for authorities to actually actively engage in

21

the issues facing farmers. For dealing with impacts, farmers actually largely pointed back to a need to

prevent them in the first place. These responses re-affirm the important role that results-oriented

conservation schemes and government support for damage prevention and compensation can play in

helping farmers better co-exist with wildlife. These are not merely theoretical, academic concepts; the

surveyed farmers actually want these things.

The fact that more opportunities to use lethal force against wildlife were brought up frequently

also reaffirms the frustration of farmers and the lack of alternative means of preventing impacts and

creating a scenario where wildlife can be of more value. To help farmers switch their thinking, multiple

actions need to be taken, as previously discussed. Damage needs to be prevented through government

supported preventative measures, damages must be compensated, a results-oriented scheme is needed to

help farmers value and conserve wildlife, a context-specific approach must be taken to deal with wildlife

and farms that are at the root of the problem, and non-lethal solutions must become available for when

there is little choice but to deal with problematic wildlife. Until these various measures are taken, farmers

will continue to rely on lethal force to deal with wildlife.

V. Results-oriented Wildlife Conservation Incentives for Ontario Crop Farmers

Damage to Wildlife by the Agricultural Industry

As the largest industry and land user, the agricultural sector affects wildlife at every level of

biological organization through physical, chemical, and biological disturbance (Burger et al., 2006;

Freemark 1995). Unsurprisingly, it has been consistently identified as a leading cause in biodiversity loss

all over the world (Mineau & McLaughlin 1996; Perlut, Strong, & Alexander 2011; Stonehouse 2004). In

Canada, agriculture takes up 7 per cent of the land which is home to 550 species of terrestrial vertebrates.

22

In 2004, it also provided habitat to half of ‘at risk’ species in the country (Federal-Provincial-Territorial

Biodiversity Working Group 2012; Javorek et al., 2007). These agricultural landscapes are mosaics of

crops, hay, and grazing lands, which also include riparian areas, grasslands, wetlands, and woodlands

(Javorek et al., 2007).

Cropland, the type of land cover dominating agricultural fields, rank lowest in biodiversity and

can only meet the needs of 13 per cent of wildlife, whereas natural lands can meet all breeding and

feeding needs for 75 per cent of wildlife (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Biodiversity Working Group

2012). Between 1986 and 2006, the ability of farms to provide habitat for wildlife dropped dramatically

throughout the country and the amount of space taken up by crops went up from 46 to 53 per cent

(Federal-Provincial-Territorial Biodiversity Working Group 2012). Between 1981 and 2001, habitat

capacity saw a drop by an entire 94 per cent on Ontario farms alone (Javorek et al., 2007). Part of the

problem is that food production now relies on heavy chemicals like acutely toxic pesticides, fast growing

crops that can be harvested earlier (thereby killing nesting birds), and has become increasingly

mechanized (Boutin, Freemark & Kirk 1999; Freemark 1995; Freemark & Kirk 2001; Mineau &

McLaughlin 1996; Perlut, Strong & Alexander 2011).

Wildlife are an integral part of nature and preservation of biodiversity, but many species are also

essential for farm productivity as well. There have been many studies that demonstrated that birds

significantly reduce insect pest numbers on farmland (Jobin, Choiniere & Belanger 2001). They do this

by creating longer-term depressions in insect populations, thereby reducing the need for pesticides. For

example, woodpeckers (Picidae) have reduced populations of European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis)

larvae and codling moths (Cydia pomonella) in orchard, cut-worms (Agrotis spp.) in cereal crops, and can

have a huge impact on grasshopper (Caelifera) populations (Mineau & McLaughlin 1996). The benefits

of woodpeckers alone are economically significant within intensive agricultural landscapes (Mineau &

McLaughlin 1996). In Ontario, the survival rate of European corn borer larvae was diminished by half in

crop fields that American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were allowed to frequent in, in comparison to

fields where they were excluded (Jobin, Choiniere & Belanger 2001). Burrowing owls (Athene

23

cunicularia) that nested near farmland in California where rodents numbers were low were found to

depend almost entirely on invertebrates for food, meaning that they kept both rodent and insect

populations in check (Wossink et al., 1999). However, birds can only function as pest control if they have

enough habitat to sustain their own populations (Mineau & McLaughlin 1996).

Financial Support for Farm-based Wildlife Stewardship

The Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario states that, ‘the

people of Ontario recognize that wildlife has intrinsic, ecological, economic, social and cultural values’

and that, ‘Ontarians desire healthy and sustainable wildlife populations’ (Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources 2008).There are many actions that farmers can take to incorporate the needs of wildlife into

their operations, such as: planting hedgerows, shelter beds, and fencerows, buffering riparian areas,

practicing conservation tillage, as well as intercropping with trees (Freemark 1995; Hess & Bay 2000;

Javorek et al., 2007; Moulton, Brady & Belthoff 2006; Thevathasan & Gordon 2004). These practices not

only benefit wildlife, but also improve farm health and productivity (see ‘check list’ on next page).

Indeed, the future of wildlife is in the hands of private landowners; in Southern Ontario, for instance,

most species that are at risk rely on privately owned properties (Burger 2006; Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario 2009). The conservation of wildlife will depend on how well conservation

practices are integrated into current production methods (Burger et al., 2006).

If a farmer takes actions to conserve wildlife, they have to bear the costs. However, their actions

benefit society at large (Burger 2006).The purpose of agri-environmental schemes (AES) is to balance the

needs of farmers along with the needs of ecosystems, including wildlife and their habitats, by providing

monetary incentives for on-farm conservation measurse. These policies take one of two approaches: the

wildlife friendly farming approach or land-sparing (Kleijn & Sutherland 2003). The former reduces the

intensity at which production occurs and strives to boost heterogeneity in the land, while the latter allows

for the continuation of intensive farming and homogenization to bring in the maximum amount of yield,

but leaves islands and corridors for wildlife use. These schemes can be found in various countries,

24

including the US and Europe (Kleijn & Sutherland 2003). Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy (2005)

acknowledges that, ‘Well-designed incentive programs to support biodiversity conservation and the

How Exactly Do Conservation Measures that Benefit Wildlife Help Farmers?

Planting cover crops during the winter, for example, reduces soil erosion that occurs due to runoff and wind and absorbs excess nutrients that are released later and benefit the growth of the next crop. Moreover, the contamination and sedimentation of surface water is reduced, while the danger of groundwater contamination due to leaching of fertilizers is also reduced. This, in turn, creates a positive feedback loop as well where natural habitats like wetlands and riparian areas are kept pristine for the benefit of wildlife (Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre n.d.).

When it comes to conservation tillage, not only does it provide small mammals and birds refuge and a food source from cereal and

weeds, but it also helps store soil moisture, increase SOM, better water infiltration, and boost soil biodiversity, all of which help boost crop growth as well (Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre n.d.).

Intercropping with trees has been shown to not only boost biodiversity by increasing bird and insect biodiversity, but it also increases

soil organic carbon content and earthworms which improve soil health, reduce the need to use fertilizers, and improve N-cycling. It has been shown to be highly successful in Southern Ontario and there are 57 million ha of land in Canada that is marginal or degraded, but is suitable for agroforestry (Thevathasan & Gordon 2004).

The planting field margins with trees not only provides habitat for wildlife, but also serves as a windbreak to reduce windblown soil erosion and has been a frequently employed in southern Quebec where between 1989 and 1994 alone, 2500 km were planted (Jobin, Choiniere & Belanger 2001). Windbreaks began to be planted in the Great Plain region after the Dust Boal of the 1930’s, and they have become an important tool where there is a lack of woodland. In Nebraska for example, trees cover only 2% of the land, and 25% of those trees were planted as windbreaks (Hess & Bay 2000).

Wetlands and waterfowl habitat are able to generate ecological services such as flood control and improvement of water quality. In

California’s Central Valley, farmers and waterfowl interest groups collaborated to create wintering habitat for the birds, which in turn created weed control and improved air quality. The city of Boston too over 5, 000 acres of wetland in one watershed to save $100 million for constructing flood control, while New York City purchased many thousands more to protect water quality and avoid the construction of water treatment plants (Environment Canada 2005).

Crop rotations help increase crop yields, diminish soil erosion, benefit soil structure, control pest populations, and boost helpful micro-organisms in soil. In turn, this also reduces input costs by requiring less fertilizers and pesticides (Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre n.d.).

Land that may not be useful to farms can become of use to wildlife, too. Not all agricultural land is able to produce yields effectively. This

can be caused by a variety of reasons such as slope, water retention, light, and soil texture. Land that is marginally productive, continuously brings forth yields that are below average and provide low gross margins over time. They tend to be very erodible and sit next to bodies of water, forest, wetlands or other features that are important for environmental and wildlife health. These same features are able to provide both habitat/environmental benefits as well as benefits to agriculture (Brethour, Mussell & Stiefelmeyer 2001). One study suggests that lands where gross margins are less than the fixed cost, an agricultural land should be retired for conservation purposes. Out of the 5 fields they studied, 3 fields had a lot of areas that met this criteria for retirement. By retiring such lands, wildlife obtain benefits due to increased habitat, but the farmer benefits as well from improved environmental quality in and around their farm and cost saving from not having to spend money of growing where returns are below par (Brethour, Mussell & Stiefelmeyer 2001).

25

sustainable use of biological resources are important tools on private property and can be supported by

legislation when necessary’ (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2005).

In Ontario there are a variety of incentive schemes that farmers can tap into. These include both

the wildlife friendly and land sparing approaches and utilize monetary incentives in the form of cost-share

and tax savings. These schemes include the Species at Risk Stewardship Fund, Species at Risk Farm

Incentive Program, Grassland Habitat Incentive Program, Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, and

the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2009; Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources 2010; Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Association 2013b). The most

versatile and widely accommodating, as well as agriculture-specific, is the Canada-Ontario

Environmental Farm Plan (EFP). The Environmental Farm Plan is a cost-share program that helps

farmers implement a large variety of best management practices (Ontario Federation of Agriculture 2009;

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2013).

The Failure of Conservation Incentives

Attitudes, and by extension cultures of farmers, have not always become more favorable towards

conservation, at least in the European Union (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011). This is despite having

spent billions of dollars on agri-environmental schemes (de Snoo et al., 2013). In one study, there was

little variation between how much participants of the Environmental Protection Scheme in Ireland valued

conservation versus those who had not participated (Aughney & Gormally 2002). In the United Kingdom,

a study showed that positive attitudes of farmers influenced their decision to participate in agri-

environmental schemes, but there was almost no evidence to show that the program itself did anything to

change their attitudes through participation. Agri-environmental programs have helped some farmers

improve their thinking, but they have generally not changed thinking on a broad, cultural scale

(Macdonald & Johnson 2000). For example, in Austria, it was found that although farmer’s attitudes were

reportedly improving towards conservation, their actual desire for ‘tidy landscapes,’ which are not

conducive to conservation, remained strong (Schmitzberger et al., 2005). This production oriented

26

mentality was also impeding farmers’ ability to actually boost biodiversity through voluntary agreements

in the Netherlands (Kleijn et al., 2004).

The Importance of Cultural and Social Capital

The best approach to incorporating conservation into farm management is by turning it into a

‘societal moral.’ In other words, conservation must become a social norm that can be passed down from

generation to generation (de Snoo et al., 2013). Incentives must create a cultural shift towards valuing

environmental stewardship, otherwise, conservation will cease when a particular legislation or contract

comes to an end (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008; de Snoo et al., 2013). Therefore, understanding the

psychology of farmers and the ‘social processes’ underlying conservation work should be key in how

incentives are designed (de Snoo et al., 2013). Farmers simply cannot be removed from their social and

cultural contexts (Burton 2004; Fehr & Falk 2002). In fact, there is a broader array of capital, beyond

merely the money that is emphasized by current incentive programs, that is of value to farmers. These

stem precisely from farmers’ social and cultural contexts and are appropriately termed social and cultural

capital (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008).

For a farmer, embodied cultural capital is developed by performing their day to day activities and

becomes apparent in the level of skill that they possess (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008). To transmit

it, ‘identical categories of perception and appreciation’ are used. Embodied skills can be identified and

rewarded with other types of capital, like social capital (i.e. increased status in the community) (Burton,

Kuczera & Schwarz 2008). Hence, in order for a farming activity to transmit embodied cultural capital, it

has to require a certain skill set so that good and bad performance can be differentiated, the skill level has

to be evident in the outcome of that activity, and lastly the outwards signs of this skill have to be visible

to others within the community (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008).

The importance of cultural and social capital cannot be understated; it helps shape the very

perspectives, attitudes, and by extension actions of farmers, and distinguishes them from the rest of

society. For instance, industrial agricultural landscapes have been consistently rated as least appealing by

society, transcending both urban/rural dichotomies as well as cultures. However, they are consistently

27

rated as most attractive by farmers (Burton 2004). Similarly, while natural or semi-natural landscapes are

preferred by most, farmers find these visually least appealing. This is because at every stage of farming,

farmers are able to see the level of skill (and associated cultural capital) that other farmers possess

through various visual cues, cues that non-farmers cannot detect (Burton 2004). For example, in ploughed

landscapes, lack of straw indicates the soil has been turned properly while perfectly parallel furrows

indicate that the tractor work has been done correctly. When crops first emerge, it becomes evident how

well a farmer has mastered drilling machinery. When the crops have matured, high plant densities and

even tramlines demonstrate skill (Burton 2004).

How Have Conservation Incentives Blocked Cultural and Social Capital Development?

The focus in agri-environmental schemes has been on economic capital, or in other words the

purchasing of environmental behavior, because monetary exchange is unambiguous, immediate, and

transparent (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008). This has made embodied cultural capital, which has

largely symbolic value, overlooked. However, the ‘development of systems of symbolic capital

generation and transfer’ is crucial if conservation is to become truly meaningful for farmers (Burton,

Kuczera & Schwarz 2008). To date most conservation incentive programs have not done so, and in fact

have been counterproductive to this purpose.

Farmers’ reverence for tidy landscapes stand as a barrier to on-farm conservation, which the ‘set-

aside’ type of agri-environmental scheme have not taken into consideration. Although agri-environmental

schemes landscapes are visible, their quality cannot be read by merely driving by (e.g. number of nesting

sites of birds) (Burton 2004). Instead, they simply appear messy and their quality is indistinguishable.

Even from close up, most farmers do not have the ecological background, nor have agri-environmental

schemes developed this type of knowledge, to understand the quality of the habitat (Burton 2004). When

farmers set aside land through agri-environmental schemes for conservation, they do not feel a personal

responsibility for it; essentially, it becomes disowned. Consequently, focus on the rest of the farming

operation increases to boost production and gain more ‘productivist symbolic capital’ (Burton, Kuczera &

Schwarz 2008; Burton & Paragahawewa 2011).

28

There are many other barriers to instilling a conservation value in farmers as well. Particular

conditions that farmer must comply with are laid out for them, so development and demonstration of

skills becomes blocked. Farmers have no need or reason to communicate, so they can’t build tacit

conservation knowledge, either (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011). Although some skill is involved in

implementing the agri-environmental scheme, there may be no way for the farmer to display it after the

conservation project is established, making it static, unlike cropping which is done seasonally and enables

the display of skills and improvements every year (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011). Farming activities

help to define the identity of the farmers, but agri-environmental schemes remove the line between farmer

and non-farmer because pretty much anybody can do it. When the skill is removed out of managing the

land, the farmer loses ‘identity-enhancing behavior,’ creating a social cost (Burton, Kuczera, & Schwarz

2008).

When an AES provides a payment based on the production process, this eliminates the chance for

the farmer to show entrepreneurship and innovation in conservation work. The farming industry changes

rapidly (new technologies, diseases etc) and is highly competitive, so being able to respond quickly and

adapt is valued. Studies have shown that innovation, although valued based on its economic benefits,

actually boosts status (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008). As well, farmers are known to constantly

compare the quality of their work against that of their peers, and agri-environmental schemes offer no

chance to gain advantages (Burton 2004; Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008; de Snoo et al., 2013).

The bottom line is that agri-environmental schemes are failing at creating a farming culture that

finds real value in conservation work that is so important for wildlife and their habitats. If the

conservation-based activities and uses of land don’t create symbolic/embodied cultural capital, or worse

yet create a significant loss in it, than financial compensation serves as a loss as well and cannot embed in

the social fabric. Programs that allow farmers to voluntarily do conservation work are needed, but they

require a different approach (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008).

29

One Possible Solution: A Results-oriented Approach

One of the main ways that conservation incentive schemes can be improved is by having them

take a pay-by-results approach (de Snoo et al., 2013; Toombs & Roberts 2009). In Europe, results-

oriented incentive approaches are gaining popularity, but so far relatively few have been undertaken and

focus on preserving biodiverse meadows or particular animal species (Burton & Schwarz 2013). In this

approach, farmers only get funds if they meet certain conservation targets, rather than based on how well

they stick to a management plan (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011; de Snoo et al., 2013; Toombs & Roberts

2009). Essentially, the same kind of ‘productivist social symbolic exchanges’ that farmers already have in

their cultures are cultivated (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011). In turn, this makes conservation more

valuable for farmers, it becomes integrated into their cultural fabric, and benefits for the environment and

wildlife are enhanced:

• A knowledge culture revolving around agri-environmental goods would begin to develop because

farmers would be forced to understand the outcome of their farm management practices (Burton

& Paragahawewa 2011).

• The results-oriented approach allows farmers to fully engage so that they can better understand

the symbols that demonstrate good conservation work and the skills needed to achieve this,

making it relevant and interesting to them (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008). Hence, the

‘roadside’ issue can be overcome; farmers will have a reason to get out of their cars and tractors

to evaluate conservation efforts.

• Benchmarking instruments makes the farmer mindful of their own level of success because they

can gauge their skills by tangible indicators. Additionally, it gives them a means of comparing

their work to others and hence creates pressure to do better to keep up with their peers, which

requires the sharing of information and experiences (de Snoo et al., 2013).

• At first, farmers will have limited knowledge on how to produce wildlife. However, in time their

understanding would increase and they would have a higher level of skill in producing

30

environmental goods, comparable to their ability to excel in conventional crop production

(Burton & Schwarz 2013). Because environmental goods become viewed similarly to the

products that farmers already produce, meeting environmental goals is better integrated into the

farm objective as a whole. Some results oriented schemes have created an obvious increase in

farmers’ interest in nature which is likely attributed to this (Burton & Schwarz 2013).

• A result oriented approach not only promotes innovation, but also allows farmers to innovate in a

way that is context specific, highly specified, and diverse, so that environmental improvements

are reached to a maximum (Burton & Schwarz 2013). Farmers will also be more inclined to pick

lands that will produce the best results to begin with; when given a choice farmers tend to manage

farm margins and hedgerows for conservation purposes, even if this may not be the best approach

in terms of results (Burton & Schwarz 2013). It pushes them to take a whole farm approach,

which researchers suggest is most effective. Ultimately, the entire incentive scheme is more

effective and there is a tighter link between the payment and the outcome (Burton & Schwarz

2013).

• Money is used more effectively because payments go towards actual results. In Europe, some

results oriented schemes have demonstrated cost reduction. Competitive auctions, where contracts

are given to farmers that produce the highest results for the lowest costs can help facilitate this

(Burton & Schwarz 2013).

• A results oriented approach may also help boost support for incentive schemes from the public.

The amount of environmental services that the farmer creates can be communicated and the effort

that goes into the conservation work cannot be brushed off as simply meeting regulations (Burton

& Schwarz 2013).

• As well, by making conservation knowledge important, a unifying goal is created between

farmers and conservationists, and cooperation with conservationists becomes advantageous

(Burton & Schwarz 2013; de Snoo et al., 2013).

31

• A positive change in behaviors can be further facilitated by giving feedback to farmers regarding

their work and providing a means of committing to environmental improvement publicly (de

Snoo et al., 2013). Cultural and social capital can be further facilitated by having awards for

farmers that accomplish the highest level of conservation or by having formal certification where

high and low achievements become distinguished (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011).

Risks of the Results-oriented Approach

So far the results-oriented approach has had ecological benefits and farmers have responded very

positively to them. It should still be noted that because these programs have run for short periods of time

and have had many elements of merely requirement-oriented approaches, it has been challenging to truly

tell the ecological outcome of these schemes (Burton & Schwarz 2013). Risks are present and need to be

understood. For example, in a results-oriented approach, the outcome of a farmer’s work depends on

factors that they may not have control over such as climate, the actions of neighboring farms, and of

species breeding, feeding, as well as migration. As well, if a particular scheme has a small number of

thresholds that it uses to determine payments, a farmer might put in more than they can get compensated

for (Burton & Schwarz 2013).

Certainly, there are challenges to developing such schemes. Farmers would need to be prevented

from managing their farms in ways that favors particular indicator species at the expense of other

elements necessary for conservation. Additionally, being able to actually identify indicators and matching

them with the right amount of payment would be challenging. Monitoring has associated costs, too. There

will be potential for people to free ride since farms are interconnected and short term environmental

benefits might have to be traded for long term gains. Lastly, due to increasing corporatism in the

agricultural sector in more developed countries, behavior is becoming more driven by the cultures of

consumers and shareholders (Burton & Paragahawewa 2011).

Reducing the Risks

On the flip side, result-oriented schemes also reduce risks! For instance, a farmer can decide

whether the possible loss of their income outweighs the possible income that they may receive from the

32

scheme (Burton & Schwarz 2013). In one study, a third of all respondents wanted a fully results-oriented

scheme for the purposes of retaining their freedom to make choices, while only 7 per cent desired a rigid

scheme where payments were secured. This study also showed that from the 27 per cent of respondents

that did not succeed in meeting the specified numbers of target species, only 13 per cent indicated that

they were negatively affected by things that were not in their control and only 5 per cent indicated that

their willingness to participate in the project was reduced. Hence, risk was not a major deciding factor in

participation (Matzdorf & Lorenz 2010). It should be noted that risk goes down as farmers engage in

incentive schemes, since they build experience and skills and form new, helpful relationships with other

farmers and conservationists. In existing results oriented schemes, it was noted by researchers that

farmers showed an increase in skills over time (Burton & Schwarz 2013). As well, being independent

and innovative and hence overcoming risk, in an industry that is full of it, has become an important part

of farmers identity. So, removing all risks actually reduces the ability of a scheme to slowly incorporate

conservation into a farmer’s definition of ‘good farming’ (Burton & Schwarz 2013).

Where need be, risk can in fact be reduced in a variety of ways. For example, providing a base

payment that compensates the work and money a farmer put into conservation work, while also offering

an extra payment for meeting certain target goals, is one option (Burton & Schwarz 2013). Another

avenue is creating multiple performance indicators so that if a certain indicator isn’t met, there are others

to fall back on (Burton & Schwarz 2013). When it comes to monitoring, studies have shown that farmers

are capable of conducting ‘floristic inventories by themselves and to rank their grassland sites according

to the quality-levels of ecological goods.’ One study found that, after farmers participated in an education

program, they were capable of identifying various species with little error (Burton & Schwarz 2013). This

means that farmers can play a huge role in monitoring. Lastly, as conservation begins to hold real value

for farmers, free-riders will begin to lose cultural capital which will serve as a deterrent (Burton &

Paragahawewa 2011).

33

Results-Oriented Approach + The Landscape Approach

Wildlife and their ecosystems are affected by the structure and composition of the land at a

greater spatial scale as well, so conservation has to extend beyond the individual farm (Burger 2006;

Freemark 1995). A results oriented approach can be integrated into agri-environmental schemes that work

on a landscape scale. For example, indicator species that cross field boundaries can be used to determine

payment levels. They would also be perceived positively because neighbors would correlate them with

income. Over time, those that don’t engage in conservation schemes would be seen as freeloaders,

pushing more farmers to engage in conservation (Burton, Kuczera & Schwarz 2008; Burton & Schwarz

2013). In other words, free riders in the farming community would lose cultural and social capital (Burton

& Paragahawewa 2011). In one study, however, community based schemes proved to be unfavorable to

many farmers (mostly for reasons having to do with other farmers, such as the belief that they would not

support community based initiatives, differing management practices, and lack of cooperation). Despite

this, the study also showed that farmers may be open to them if they are flexible, allow farmers to engage

in scheme design, are tailored for the community and have clear objectives, and have clear benefits that

can be tracked to create a record of success (Emery & Franks 2012).

The Failure of the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan without the Results-Oriented Approach

Since the Environmental Farm Plan is the leading agri-environmental scheme available to Ontario

farmers, the rest of this section will assess its potential from a results-oriented approach perspective. The

Environmental Farm Plan is conducted in other provinces as well (Atari et al., 2009). It is supposed to

create not only a change in behavior, but a change in attitude towards conservation (Klupfel 2000). It has

been hailed as a success by some and 90 per cent of respondents in Ontario expressed that participation

boosted their environmental awareness (Klupfel 2000; Smithers & Furman 2003). However, it does not

seem to have created real shift in farmers values towards conservation and wildlife.

In Nova Scotia, for instance, 85 per cent of respondents indicated that promoting and publicizing

farm stewardship was the number one reason for participation in the Environmental Farm Plan, 66 per

cent said that it was to better their relationships with non-farming neighbors, while 62 per cent reported

34

that it was to increase their compliance with environment based regulations (Atari et al., 2009).

Interestingly, reducing the farms environmental risk was ranked lowest; no respondents indicated it was

extremely important or very important as to why they participated. This is despite the fact that the

Environmental Farm Plan is promoted as a means of reducing environmental risks (Atari et al., 2009). In

Ontario, Environmental Farm Plan participants prioritized soil degradation and water contamination. For

example, out of 107 respondents, 54 per cent felt that soil management had major importance and 13 per

cent thought it had minor importance. In contrast, out of 102 respondents, only 17 per cent thought that

wildlife and natural areas had major importance and 41 per cent thought it had minor importance

(Smithers & Furman 2003).

This is reflected in the fact that between 1993 and 2002, wetland and wildlife pond conservation

made up 1 per cent of all Environmental Farm Plan activities, while woodlands and wildlife conservation

constituted 1.5 per cent (Robinson 2006). Since the farmer self-evaluates the environmental risks on the

farm, 55 per cent of farmers that participated in the Environmental Farm Plan said that they did not do an

evaluation for their whole farming operation, 78 per cent of which indicated that they focused on areas

that they felt were a problem (Robinson 2006; Smithers & Furman 2003).Clearly farmers choices are

reflecting their pre-existing values, that, unfortunately, often do not encompass wildlife.

The fact that farmers are valuing soil and water conservation more than wildlife and habitats can

be attributed to the fact that a lot of attention has been paid to these issues in society and soil quality plays

an important role in a farm’s productivity (Smithers and Furman 2003). Additionally, livestock farmers

have participated more in the Environmental Farm Plan than crop farmers, which can be attributed to the

negative press their industry has gotten in terms of water pollution, especially after the Walkerton

contamination (Atari et al., 2009; Robinson 2006). Farmers are coming in with an existing bias, but the

Environmental Farm Plan is doing nothing to change it.

Improvement in the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan Through the Results-Oriented Approach

Essentially, the Environmental Farm Plan has been turned to as a public relations improvement

tool (Atari et al., 2009). A results-oriented approach, however, would mandate a certain level of

35

improvement to the environment and wildlife, rather than merely requiring a process that may or may not

be utilized for true conservation purposes. This, in turn, would necessitate a monitoring system, which

currently does not exist (Atari et al., 2009). As outlined previously, the results oriented approach fits

better into ‘productivist social symbolic exchanges,’ hence making wildlife conservation more valuable to

farmers, and allowing for meaningful and effective innovation, knowledge, and partnership building for

the purpose of successfully producing environmental goods.

The fact that Environmental Farm Plan programs have no monitoring mechanisms delegitimizes

their claims of stewardship (Atari et al., 2009; Robinson 2006). In 1998, the Ontario Soil and Crop

Improvement Association determined that a variety of actions undertaken by farmers through the

Environmental Farm Plan likely benefit wildlife. However, this was merely assumed (Robinson 2006). A

results-oriented approach would help resolve this issue, while helping to improve the environmental

outcomes of the Environmental Farm Plan by providing a means of feedback to farmers to facilitate

learning and improvement.

In some ways, the Environmental Farm Plan already has some of the characteristics of the results-

oriented approach when it comes to farmer participation. Altogether, in North America, Europe, and

Ontario, conservation initiatives have come about in a top-down manner (Smithers & Furman 2003). The

Environmental Farm Plan, however, was developed by farmers and their communities through

involvement in the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and

Rural Affairs 2013; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2005; Smithers & Furman 2003). The farmer

is allowed a self-guided approach where they can make judgment calls. The farmer-led assessment

requires a manual that spans 23 different worksheets on various farm elements where a farmer answers

questions and uses a rating system for answers from 1-4 (1 being a significant problem). This assesses the

level of environmental risk involved in their operation. Guided by the ratings they compile, the farmer

puts together a farm action plan which receives final review by a local peer group, and technical

assistance, if required (Smither & Furman 2003). However, it is evident that because this participation is

36

occurring without a results-oriented approach, this kind of flexibility is actually allowing farmers to avoid

wildlife conservation as well as the whole-farm approach.

Although a results-oriented approach could help farmers develop care for wildlife, it may not do

so given the broad range of farm management practices that the Environmental Farm Plan allows a farmer

to choose from. It may be a better to create a separate program that focuses completely on wildlife

conservation objectives, perhaps as an offshoot of the Environmental Farm Plan (Smithers & Furman

2003). This, combined with a results oriented approach, would likely yield the best outcome for wildlife.

This is because conservation programs that do not have a statutory or program objective to specifically

protect wildlife often struggle to reach their maximum potential (Burger et al., 2006). Proof of this lies in

the United States’ 1985 Food Security Act with the provision of the Crop Reserve Program. Soil erosion

and commodity control were the goals; benefits to wildlife were expected, but not actually intentionally

planned. Consequently, selection of cover crops and management regimes were picked based on soil

erosion criteria. Through this, exotic forage grasses were planted by the millions of hectares and did little

for wildlife (Burger 2006). Even when wildlife were finally elevated to equal status to soil and water

conservation in the 1996 Farm Bill, in practice wildlife habitat conservation remained of lesser

importance; management options that could benefit wildlife habitat like prescribed fires but trade off

some soil erosion goals could lead to ‘noncompliance’ in an agri-environmental scheme, whereas soil

conservation measures that reduced the quality of wildlife habitat could not (Burger et al., 2006). If

farmers are coming in with their existing cultural conditioning, a results-oriented approach that leaves

room to pick and choose between meeting the results that merely reflect their cultural values will simply

reinforce biases.

Another issue that would need to be addressed in the agri-environmental scheme, or an offshoot

of it, is the lack of funding. Only 50 per cent of those that went through with remedial action actually

applied to get financial support through the program, which is likely a reflection of the modest amount of

money that is available (Smithers & Furman 2003). Both in Europe and in Canada, producers receive

much more financial support to produce food than they do environmental goods or services (Atari et al.,

37

2009). Farmers did not view the Environmental Farm Plan incentive as a significant motive for

participation; in 1999, the average sum given to those that reached the planning stage was $1279

(Robinson 2006). In fact, for every Environmental Farm Plan dollar, farmers spend 3-4 more dollars of

their own (Robinson 2006). Some farmers have indicated that more money would improve the scheme

and result in greater participation rates (Klupfel 2000; Robinson 2006). Clearly, if a results-oriented

Environmental Farm Plan or a wildlife-oriented off-shoot of it is not provided with more substantial

funding, then the incentive to get farmers involved to begin with may not be there.

Overall, the results-oriented approach holds great potential to incorporate cultural and social

capital that is so vital to integrating wildlife and conservation values into farming. The focus on monetary

capital promised by Ontario –based incentive schemes and elsewhere, without taking the cultures,

perspectives, and needs of farmers into consideration, is preventing farmers from truly caring for wildlife.

This is demonstrated through the Environmental Farm Plan and its failure to benefit habitats. However,

this could be remediated through the results-oriented approach which helps farmers gain social and

cultural capital as well as monetary funds and facilitating conservation knowledge, innovation,

partnerships, and generally making wildlife conservation more relevant to them.

VI. Compensation for Wildlife-Related Crop Damage

Wildlife Damage to Ontario Crops

In Ontario, farmers have expressed concern over the economic impacts of wildlife in some parts

of the province (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008). The species that cause the most damage for

Ontario crop farmers are deer, a variety of wild birds, wild turkeys, Canada geese, raccoons, as well as

mice, voles and rabbits (Fitzgerald 2013). From 1998 to 2007 the damages caused by wildlife to Ontario

38

crops has gone up by 20 per cent (Mussel & Schmidt 2009). In 1998, wildlife related damages equated to

$41 million whereas the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association reported losses of $46, 923,

075/year collectively for 7 commodity groups in 2012 (Fitzgerald 2012; Ontario Soil and Crop

Improvement Association 2000). Collectively, Ontario farmers spend $7.5 million on abatement measures

every year (Mussel & Schmidt 2009). Damage levels and abatement practices, however, are not

distributed evenly among commodity groups (Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association 2000).

Wildlife become ‘pests’ because modern agriculture consists of, from the perspective of wildlife,

huge areas of uninterrupted feed. It has been reported that damage to crops from birds is actually highest

where the diversity of crops and landscape are at their lowest because birds don’t have alternative food

sources (Dickman 2010; Mineau & McLaughlin 1996). Additionally, damages by wildlife often become a

problem when population density patterns, habitat and forage selection, the arrangement and composition

of the landscape, and activity ranges of wildlife, as well as the choice of crops that are grown, are

completely disregarded (Hegel, Gate & Eslinger 2009). In this way, farmers actually inadvertently set up

a scenario where crops damages become a persisting issue. There are however other factors that are at

play as well, especially when it comes to the increases in damages that are occurring. For instance,

selected harvesting was introduced in the 1980s. This, coupled with warmer winters, have increased white

tailed deer populations in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008b).

Wildlife Damage Compensation: A Popular Choice for Mitigating Financial Losses

Numerous courts have ruled that despite wildlife being publicly shared, the government is not

responsible for paying for damages that they cause (Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997). However,

wildlife damage compensation programs exist around the world for a variety of species (Bulte & Rondeau

2005). They are turned to when government management decisions increase wildlife-related damages or

if a species is of great value, among other reasons (Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997). Essentially,

compensation distributes the cost of wildlife conservation more evenly across society by paying for all or

a portion of farmers’ monetary losses associated with crop damage caused by wildlife (Schwerdtner &

Gruber 2007; Treves et al., 2009; Wagner, Schmidt, & Conover 1997). Its purpose is to support farmers

39

financially, while reducing the need to kill wildlife (especially those threatened and endangered) and

boost support for conservation (Bulte & Rondeau 2005; Muhly & Musiani 2009; Naughton-Treves,

Grossberg & Treves 2003;Treves et al., 2009; Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997). Compensation

programs can also remove the risks of injury to people by wildlife damage management tools such as

traps and pesticides (Wagner, Schmidt, & Conover 1997).

Several Canadian provinces, as well as many US states, compensate damages caused by wildlife

(Muhly & Musiani 2009; Rollins & Briggs 1996; Van Tassell, Phillips & Yang 1999; Wagner, Schmidt &

Conover 1997). Most programs that apply to crop farmers have revolved around compensating for

damages caused by ungulates, deer being most popular. Aside from damages that ungulates cause directly

to crops, some states and provinces include standing hay and pastures, stored hay, and certain property

damage such as to fencing or irrigation systems (Wagner, Schmidt, & Conover 1997).

There are two basic types of compensation methods. Ex-post compensation is compensation that is

provided when damage occurs. This is most frequently used in North America and Europe. Here, there is

a risk that damages can be exaggerated to get the most compensation possible. There is also compensation

‘in advance’ where payments are predetermined based on the statistics of consumption levels and the

number of potential predators in an area. The latter is better suited when damages are more evenly

distributed both in space and time (Schwerdtner & Gruber 2007).

The Lack of Compensation in Ontario

In Ontario, livestock producers have had the benefit of the Ontario Wildlife Damage

Compensation Program, whereas crop producers have not (Fitzgerald 2013b). This is despite the fact that

in Canada, 6 provinces include some level of crop damage compensation from wildlife (Fitzgerald

2013b). Instead, in Ontario, approximately 5 million acres of farmland is insured through Agricorp, made

possible under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Farm Income Protection Act (AgriCorp 2010;

Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000). The insurance plan focuses on damage that can occur from

natural disasters as well as wildlife damage and allows for 80-90 percent maximum coverage (Ontario

Soil and Crop Association 2010). Unfortunately, not all commodities can be covered (Fitzgerald 2013b).

40

As well, damage from wildlife usually occurs sporadically in smaller amounts throughout a crop field;

loss is averaged for an entire acre so it’s rare that enough damage occurs all at once and can trigger a

claim. Worse yet, when wildlife damage results in consistently lower yields for a farmer, the coverage is

actually lowered (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000). In 1999, wildlife-related damage claims were

made by 0.4 per cent of field crop farmers, with zero claims for both fruit and vegetable farmers, and only

0.1 per cent of the total losses were gained back (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000).

On the other hand, the government has actually legislated wildlife damage compensation

programs for Ontario livestock farmers through the Protection of Livestock and Poultry from Dogs Act.

The act makes the municipality liable to repay the farmer for a certain amount of the loss (Protection of

Livestock and Poultry from Dogs Act 1990). The Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program,

which stems from the repealed Livestock, Poultry, and Honey Bee Protection Act, provides compensation

for a variety of farm animals as well as to bee farmers. A farmer is compensated 100 per cent of their loss,

up to the maximum compensation limit (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2011;

Regulatory Registry 2013). For instance, in 1998, compensation programs reimbursed about 21 per cent

of the entire wildlife-related damage for the beef industry with the average amount of losses that were

reimbursed to beef farmers standing at 52 per cent (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000). From

1997/1998 to 2007/2008 claims increased significantly (by 92 per cent for cattle farmers, for instance),

which was accommodated (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunter n.d.).

The Issues with Compensation

Although some successes have been associated with compensation schemes, as with wolf and

grizzly bear conservation in North America, in other places it has had mixed results (Bulte & Rondeau

2005). Compensation programs may actually reduce the desire of farmers to prevent damage from

wildlife in the first place (Bulte & Rondeau 2005; Rollins & Briggs 1996). Compensation may also make

cropping more profitable, increase migration to areas where it is offered, and make it worthwhile to

increase herds. From an environmental perspective, these consequences are counterproductive because

41

they require more space and can spur conversion of habitat to farmland (Bulte & Rondeau 2005).

Fraudulent claims may also become an issue (Bulte & Rondeau 2005; Dalmasso at al., 2012).

In Canada, perceptions of problematic wildlife have not improved where compensation has been

offered. Both full and partial compensation seems to have yielded the same unsatisfying effect on

perception (Stier & Bishop 1981). Studies have shown that, for example, despite compensation, tolerance

for wolves has not improved , especially among herders that are consistently affected (Dalmass et al.,

2012; Muhly & Musiani 2009; Naughton-Treves, Grossberg & Treves 2003). As well, not everyone has

been supportive of compensation schemes. Several US studies found that both farmers and non-farmers

largely disapproved of compensation in their surveys… hunting was the preferred means of dealing with

the damage issue (Wagner, Schmidt, & Conover 1997).

The technicalities of proving wildlife inflicted damages also creates a challenge. For crops,

damage can be even more difficult to identify than it is for domestic animals because tracks can be

blurred, non-distinct, and dissipate quickly (Pechacek et al., 2013; Schwerdtner & Gruber 2007). In

addition, effects from bears, for instance, can be challenging to quantify because patches of lost crop may

be scattered, requiring an aerial view. Meanwhile, the true cost of browsing deer is a major question all on

its own. This is because, for instance, damage often occurs on a continuous basis, limits the ability to

establish young replacement trees, and creates a need to re-prune older trees (Ontario Soil and Crop

Association 2000).

However, many of the concerns associated with compensation can be mitigated. More recently,

compensation programs, such as in British Columbia and Alberta, have been incorporating a behavioral

component where preventative measures are a mandatory prerequisite for recipients (Bulte & Rondeau

2005; Fitzgerald 2013b). Preventative measures on the part of the government, such as legislating the

protection of natural lands, can prevent farmers from expanding their operations (Bulte & Rondeau 2005).

It’s important to keep in mind that certain issues may be more prone to arise in developing countries,

where, for instance, poor administration and bureaucracy is prevalent (Bulte & Rondeau 2005). Helpful

42

tools such as the Ontario Wildlife Crop Damage and Livestock Predation Assessment Manual have now

been developed as well (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunter n.d.). Compensation is not

automatically a bad choice because of its challenges, but rather those creating compensation programs

need to be aware of them and take the necessary precautions.

The Issue of Funding

One of the biggest challenges with compensation is ensuring that it is sustainable long term

(Bulte & Rondeau 2005; Treves et al., 2009). Compensation is most effective at achieving its purposes

when it is provided generously (Pechacek et al., 2013). Damage costs can be both direct and indirect.

Direct damages, such as loss to crops, are easier to assess. Indirect costs are more difficult to assess, such

as emotional loss or time spent dealing with the issue. There are also costs that go into obtaining all of the

information necessary in order to be able to compensate, such as what was damaged and by what specie

(Schwerdtner & Gruber 2007). In Utah, for example, even though most farmers preferred

compensation/incentives to deal with wildlife damages, only 9 per cent of respondents were ever given

financial support (Messmer & Schroeder 1996). In some years compensation has only been given at less

than 25 per cent of market value (Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997). In Wyoming, claim payments that

are approved all too commonly are too great for the damage claim fund to be able to compensate fully

(Van Tassell, Phillips & Yang 1999). In Newfoundland, compensation programs were cancelled due to

budget cutbacks (Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997).

Establishing who should pay for funds is also necessary (Treves et al., 2009). Often, hunting

licenses are used to fund wildlife damage management programs (Messmer & Schroeder 1996; Rollins &

Briggs 1996; Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997). To wean off of hunting (see Section VII for further

details on this issue), creative alternatives are needed. The funds can come out of government pockets or

other sources can be tapped into, such as donors and interest groups (Treves et al., 2009). For example,

Defenders of Wildlife, an NGO, has had compensation programs against losses to livestock caused by

gray Wolfe in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico (Wagner, Schmidt & Conover

43

1997). One interesting option is sponsoring. This is where a person/s pays for a farmer’s losses when an

animal causes damage in exchange for that animal to not be killed (Martínez-Espiñeira 2006).

Prevention First, Compensation Second

In order to reduce an over reliance on compensation schemes and the costs associated with them,

land owners need help getting their hands on resources to prevent damage in the first place (Wagner,

Schmidt & Conover 1997). Making preventative measures a requisite for compensation payments alone

may not be enough to motivate farmers to implement these measures. They can be costly, so separate

initiatives to subsidize them may be needed (Dalmasso et al., 2012; Pechacek et al., 2013; Wagner,

Schmidt & Conover 1997). In fact, in addition to compensation, Ontario crop farmers viewed subsidies

for preventative techniques as one of the four most effective ways of diminishing the wildlife related

losses on their farms (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 20000).

The Peidmont region of Northern Italy serves as a perfect example. There, the program focuses

on wolves and includes three components: compensating losses to livestock caused by wildlife,

subsidizing improved livestock husbandry practices, and pushing for farmers to implement preventative

measures against damage. Where the situation is chronic, a prevention promotion program connects

farmers with technicians to work side by side with them to meet specific farm needs (Dalmasso et al.,

2012). Numerous compensation programs administered in the U.S. require the agricultural producer must

have good agricultural practices to qualify for compensation as well (Wagner, Schmidt & Conover 1997).

In fact, some programs manage wildlife damage by providing agency consultation services, technical

assistance to directly help put in place abatement measures, and subsidies for preventative measures such

as fences and scaring devices (Yoder 2002; Rollins & Briggs 1996). In Canada, Alberta and B.C. offer

compensation under the stipulation that prevention practices are followed, and in Saskatchewan funding is

available for fencing (Fitzgerald 2013b). Prevention does not necessarily have to be paid for fully by the

government; in Wyoming it is cost shared between the land owner and the Wyoming Game and Fish

Department (Van Tassell, Phillips & Yang 1999).

44

The types of prevention measures that should be mandated vary. However, one important factor

that may currently not be receiving enough attention is the influence of field type and location on crop

predation. For example, in one study it was found that Moose damage to crops decreased with distance

from forested areas, increased with distance from roads, and was most associated with alfalfa and cereal

crops such as oats, wheat, and barley (Hegel, Gates & Eslinger 2009). Such information can be

incorporated into compensation requirements. For example, a farmer can only get compensation if they

choose not to plant highly palatable crops, far away from forested areas, and/or closer to roads.

Incorporating such information can help diminish conflicts and improve agricultural practices (Hegel,

Gates & Eslinger 2009).

Compensation: Best Practices

Compensation can become a source of conflict, further adding to the frustration that farmers feel

towards wildlife. It can be perceived as inadequate when a farmer is not compensated because wildlife

damage is not definitive, or when there are hidden losses that are not reimbursed (Muhly & Musiani

2009). Dissatisfaction has in fact been a problem. In Wyoming, 50 per cent of survey respondents

indicated they felt compensation payments were unfair and inequitable (Van Tassell, Phillips & Yang

1999). As well, if the responsible agency takes too much time in reimbursing farmers for their losses they

will be perceived as lacking care and concern for the farmer (Muhly & Musiani 2009; Pechacek et al.,

2013). Hence, it’s crucial that compensation programs prioritize timeliness, transparency, and equitable

distribution (Muhly & Musiani 2009; Pechacek et al., 2013). The development of appropriate

compensation and preventative programs must also require a participatory process where farmers and

associations that represent them help set rules for compensation and subsidies for good management

practices (Dalmasso at al., 2012; Treves et al., 2009).

Ontario Farmers Want Compensation

Despite the mixed reviews and challenges, Ontario crop farmers want compensation which is

demonstrated through their attempts to receive it. Through their surveys of farmers, the Ontario Soil and

Crop Association discovered that Ontario crop farmers viewed compensation as one of four most

45

effective means of diminishing the impact of wildlife, while the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers

Association recognized that a province-wide compensation program to assist farmers in dealing with

wildlife damages needs to be taken into serious consideration for the province (Fitzgerald 2013b; Ontario

Soil and Crop Association 2000). In 2009, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association

delivered a letter to the provincial agricultural minister which asked that the Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs help them develop a compensation structure for farmers that dealt

with crop losses from wildlife. The organization also supported the requests from the Ontario Federation

of Agriculture and other commodity groups when they too seeked a fair and effective compensation

program (Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association 2009).

Frustration over lack of compensation has also been articulated through popular media outlets

representing the Ontario farming community (Mann 2013). Due to the fact that damage from wildlife

increased for the majority of commodity groups from the late 90s to 2009, crop farmers are actually

desiring more compensation than they did a decade earlier (Mussel & Schmidt 2009). Although the

Ontario provincial government has acknowledged that a compensation program where severe wildlife

damage occurs needs to be explored further, it has yet to actually implement it (Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources 2008b).

Ontario crop farmers aren’t the only ones; In Utah, 42 per cent of surveyed alfalfa growers

indicated that their most preferred program to manage wildlife related damage in their fields was

compensation and incentives (Messmer & Schroeder 1996). Even livestock farmers showed support for

financial compensation for those who lost farm animals to wolves (Naughton-Treves, Grossberg & Treves

2003). Some of the lack of preference for compensation found in academic journals may be do to the fact

that it often focuses on livestock farmers who have to see their animals suffer in the process, something

that compensation cannot erase (Naughton-Treves, Grossberg & Treves 2003; Wagner, Schmidt &

Conover 1997).

Whether or not some farmers are against it, it has been argued that compensation programs are

needed because they have come to be an expectation from the agricultural sector; removing or preventing

46

it can actually result in retaliation (Naughton-Treves, Grossberg, Treves 2003). Given that compensation

is provided to farmers in many countries and especially in numerous Canadian provinces, that Ontario

farmers have expressed such a strong desire for it, the reality that lack of compensation can actually cause

hostility, and perhaps most importantly, because preventative measures and improved farming practices

can become part of the stipulation, I believe that Ontario crop farmers should in fact be compensated. It

can be an important part in supporting farmers operations while also eliminating a need to kill wildlife.

However the importance of preventative requirements that should be in place alongside compensation

schemes simply cannot be understated; without it compensation is not sustainable nor is it proactive by

any means. Perhaps as a push to engage in wildlife conservation, farmers who want to be compensated

could also be required to participated in results-oriented conservation schemes.

VII. Putting Down the Guns

Hunting as the Prime Wildlife Management Tool in Ontario

In the last century, wildlife researchers and managers have taken up a philosophy that stresses the

need to improve habitats but also justifies and encourages lethal force for dealing with abundant

populations (Fall & Jackson 2002). The reliance on hunting to prevent damage and reduce human-wildlife

impacts is also evident in Ontario where the government has both created and expanded opportunities to

kill wildlife (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008). Today, there are many acts, policies,

management plans, and authorizations/permits that enable hunters, as well as farmers and other property

owners, to use lethal force against many species of wildlife (see Appendix C). In 1980, for instance, 10,

000 white tailed deer were killed, while by 2005 this number increased to 100, 000. This trend is evident

for many other species as well (Mussel & Schmidt 2009). The Ministry of Natural Resources, which

works with municipalities and other ministries to resolve wildlife issues and crop damage concerns, plays

47

a key role in how wildlife are managed and resides over regulated hunting (Mussel & Schmidt 2009;

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2012).Animal welfare and some environmental groups, however,

believe authorities have an ‘unacceptable affinity for lethal solutions’ (Barnes, et al. 2006).

In educating farmers about what can be done to address nuisance wildlife, the Ontario Federation

of Agriculture is merely able to outline the laws that permit them to kill, capture, or harass animals

(Ontario Federation of Agriculture 2012). Although damage prevention techniques and their effectiveness

differ based on farm and commodities grown, hunting was rated by farmers as the number one tool to deal

with all nuisance species within all crop commodity groups (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000).

Since hunting is the easiest and prime tool permitted by the province to manage wildlife, farmers that are

not permitted to use this technique due to local rules and legislations express frustration (Ontario Soil and

Crop Association 2000). It is no wonder why 167 out of 230 eligible municipalities took up Sunday

hunting when it was legalized in 2008 (Mussel & Schmidt 2009).

Hunting: Less than Ideal

Hunting may not always be a viable solution for reducing human-wildlife impacts because of

restrictions in municipalities due to safety issues (Fall & Jackson 2002; Ontario Soil and Crop

Association 2000; Treves et al., 2006). Under the Planning Act, a municipality has the right to create

bylaws that disallow the use of firearms, bows, as well as traps (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000).

Approximately 11 per cent of farmers live in jurisdictions that have no-firearm discharge laws and 7 per

cent are forbidden from using bows and trapping. It’s important to note, however, that 30 per cent of

surveyed farmers did not know whether safety bylaws affected them (Ontario Soil and Crop Association

2000). In one study, for instance, participants that were neither hunters nor farmers, but desired a

reduction in a species like white tailed deer, had concerns about use of firearms (Lischka, Riley &

Rudolph 2008). The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which permits hunting, also acknowledges the

issue of injuries caused by hunting rifles. Although the legislation forbids careless and dangerous

behaviors, no authority can truly prevent it (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 1997). For instance, six

48

people were accidentally shot during hunting activities within a matter of days at the beginning of

November 2013 (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2013).

Hunting is often less than ideal for other reasons as well. Due to the fact that hunting seasons are

regulated for many species, farmers are not always able to rely on this tactic when losses to wildlife are

most severe (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000). Some farmers have concerns about trespassing by

hunters (Lischka, Riley & Rudolph 2008; Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000). Others worry about

liability issues, especially when someone else does the hunting on their behalf. There are also those that

simply don’t prefer this method. The costs of hunting are going up due to increased gun registration fees

and the price of non-toxic ammunition, while the number of people interested in hunting and trapping has

decreased (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000).

The Issue of Ethics

There is a strong case against the reliance of hunting (and other lethal force) for ethical reasons as

well. In the last few decades, the use of lethal methods of dealing with unwanted animals like predators

has become much less accepted (Martínez-Espiñeira 2006; Treves et al., 2006). A study showed that

when deciding on a damage management method, the public rated human safety as the most important

factor to be considered, followed by animal suffering. Non-lethal methods also consistently scored higher

than lethal methods as humane (Reiter, Brunson, & Schmidt 1999). Poison, for instance, an especially

cruel form of control for predator populations like coyotes, is seen least favorable by the public

(Martínez-Espiñeira 2006).

The animal welfare and rights movements have also had an impact (Fall & Jackson 2002).

Animal rights activists challenge the perspectives and approaches of wildlife managers and urge for a

more bio-centric approach, rather than a homocentric one. They argue that the focus on populations at the

disregard for the wellbeing of individuals is utterly wrong (Decker & Brown 1987). Clearly, people’s

perceptions have begun to change and hunting is often regarded as a stain on society’s ability to be

humane and progress forward (Fall and Jackson 2002; Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000).

49

Ethical Issues: Beyond Just Animal Welfare

Hunting and hunting culture is highly controversial and interest in the social and cultural aspects

of it has begun to grow (Bye 2003). It has been analyzed from a variety of perspectives and linked to

issues of race, colonization, patriarchy, violence, and domination over animals and the environment.

Elbert, Weierstall & Schauer (2010), for example, make a link between the hunting of animals and other

people based on their studies of child soldiers in Uganda. They suggest that the hunting of members of

one’s own species was, in part, made possible by the ‘neurobiology of the hunting behavior in men’

(Elbert, Weierstall & Schauer 2010). In his analysis, Olson (2002) brings attention to the ‘power over the

victim’ dynamic in hunting, and draws some disturbing connections. He argues that there are formal

parallels between sport hunters, hate criminals, and stranger rapists in terms of how they construct their

prey/victims on a symbolic front and their relationship to these prey/victims (Olson 2002). These parallels

are as follows:

• An adversarial type relationship is constructed symbolically and instigated on a physical level

with the victim/prey class member whom did not give consent (Olson 2002).

• Victims/prey class members are perceived as interchangeable representatives of their class and in

an impersonal way and are selected in an opportunistic fashion (Olson 2002).

• The victim/prey is impersonalized and distanced while avoiding their full objectification,

reducing their perceived potency, or reducing the status that would result from conquering them

(Olson 2002).

• Lastly there is a ‘desire to physically assert – and take pleasure in exhibiting – dominance and

superior hierarchical status’ (Olson 2002).

There are two origins of violent behavior. The first is the reactive-impulsive form that is

associated with both men and women. Essentially, it is violence for self-defense (Elbert, Weierstall &

Schauer 2010). The other is the controlled-instrumental, also termed ‘appetitive aggression,’ which is

purposeful and goal oriented. Hunting falls under the latter, but the most alarming part is that the latter is

50

also associated with males and the placing of the self in the position of power over the victim (Elbert,

Weierstall & Schauer 2010). Hence, it is not wonder why hunting continues to be a male dominated

activity (Littefield 2010; Olson 2002).

Kalof and Fitzgerald (2003) have also made some disturbing connections through their research.

They examined images of animals in 14 popular magazines dedicated to hunting and found ‘extreme

objectification and marginalization of animal bodies’ and the reinforcing of gender and race stereotypes

(Kalof and Fitzgerald 2003). For instance, some women portrayed with dead animals had their minds on

things other than the trophy (clothing, appearance), many displays placed animal bodies beneath or

behind weapons, the majority of hunters in the images were white, women and men of color that appeared

in images with white hunters never held a gun whereas the white men did, and most black men were

displayed in assistant type roles for while male hunters (Kalof and Fitzgerald 2003). Their findings are

consistent with previous work that has shown that the hunting down and display of wild animals has

historical links to ‘the ideology of domination, patriarchy, and colonialism’ (Kalof and Fitzgerald 2003).

Indeed, feminists have provided some of the most heated criticisms of hunting and hunting

culture. Ecofeminism draws a link between the oppression of women and nature; the same social,

economic, and political hierarchies that have enabled domination and exploitation of the Earth and

animals have also enabled domination and exploitation over women (Littefield 2010). Although the

participation of women in hunting has increased, it remains a predominantly male sport (Olson 2002).

Olson (2002) asserts that hunting is a ‘way of defining, reinforcing, and extending traditional construction

of masculinity, gender roles, and power distribution’ (Olson 2002). In the words of Marks (1991), hunting

is important for men because it defines masculinity ‘in a world where the lines of demarcation between

the sexes are blurred and where the presumptions of male superiority are being questioned’ (Marks 1991).

Hunting is also linked particularly to masculinity in that it associated with meat. Historically, and in

modern culture especially, meat eating has been associated with hegemonic masculinity, something that is

evident in product advertising especially in the linking of beef to manliness (Rogers 2008). Hence meat

51

and the acquiring of meat symbolically links to men’s upper hand over non-human animals and hence

nature, as well as over women who are linked more with vegetarian type foods (Rogers 2008).

Hunting is often depicted as an instinctual necessity to be intimate with nature and has even been

compared to a man’s sexual pursuit (Kheel 1996; Olson 2002). However, any act that is based on

domination and control over the weaker (especially someone that did not or is unable to give consent),

cannot be justified (Kheel 1996). It is interesting to note why a violent form, a false intimacy, would be

sought with nature. It has been observed that as boys grow up, they are conditioned to find their own

identity which includes not only distinguishing themselves from girls but also in opposition to the rest of

the natural world (Kheel 1996). To attain intimacy with nature in a way that truly brings nature and man

together would mean letting go of some of the identity that has been formed, hence hunting is a way to

retain masculine identity while striving to connect with nature. However, if hunters were really becoming

connected to nature, than they would feel the fear and pain of the animals that they were hunting (Kheel

1996).

Many of the connections made by academics and described in the previous paragraphs, such as of

male dominance over women, race, and nature, as well as its connection to violence, are evident even in

Canada’s fairly recent history. Prior to the Great War in English Canada, imperialism spurred growth in

the interest in hunting. Those that advocated rifle shooting believed it to be valuable in turning boys into

‘ideal British men’ (Brown 2012). This, in turn, was connected to militarism, as hunting was also seen as

ideal training for the ‘manly game of war.’ Additionally, hunting was seen as ‘a mark of the fitness of the

dominant race….’Alongside a concern for the lack of discipline boys were supposedly displaying, there

were worries that urban youth were going through a feminization which the use of rifles would help solve

(Brown 2012). The belief that rifles instilled masculinity in boys, and the value seen in this, were so

prominent that even the government began to push for gun training in school-aged boys (Brown 2012).

Aside from safety and other concerns, people began to express environmental concerns as boys began to

indiscriminately shoot any moving thing that crossed them such as birds, squirrels, and chipmunks,

potentially decimating populations (Brown 2012).

52

Today, the hunting agenda frames itself as affectionate of nature and wildlife (Kalof and

Fitzgerald 2003). Hunters have begun to claim that they perform an ecological role of population control

(Kheel 1996). However what is ignored is the fact that one of the main purposes of creating and

maintaining sustainable and productive ‘game’ populations through harvest regulation, for instance, is to

ensure that hunters have viable enough populations to continue doing what they enjoy: killing (Littlefield

2010; Kheel 1996). There are also stark differences between natural predators and human predators.

Human hunters, for instance, prey on the biggest and healthiest animals that will make the best trophies,

whereas natural predators prey on the old, weak, and sick (Kheel 1996). Additionally, it is the fact that

hunters have actually contributed to the ecological issues they claim to help solve, such as the deliberate

removal in many places across the U.S. of natural predators so that they can claim prey to themselves.

However the guise of ecosystem managers is now a refuge from the bad image hunters face in modern

society (Kheel 1996).

Whether it is referred to as ‘culling’ ‘harvest’ or ‘wildlife management,’ hunting is a form of

violence (Kheel 1996). Co-existence, or in other words living in peace with the other, cannot by definition

include farmers picking up guns and aiming them at innocent wildlife. When this is how unwanted

wildlife are dealt with, the lack of value and respect that exists towards wildlife, and animals in human

society in general, is reinforced. To make things even worse, the social issues associated with hunting and

hunting culture are reinforced and perpetuated as well.

Mixed Feelings Among the Public and Wildlife Professionals

Variations in attitudes towards lethal force against wildlife remain. Studies have revealed that

attitudes towards predator control methods are determined by 3 main factors: the particular species at

hand, the socioeconomic status of respondents (including whether they are rural or urban), and the context

in which lethal control is administered (Lischka, Riley & Rudolph 2008; Martínez-Espiñeira 2006).

Education, including among farmers, has been correlated with a higher acceptance capacity of

problematic wildlife and dislike for lethal control methods (Lischka, Riley, & Rudolph 2008; Naughton-

Treves, Grossberg, & Treves 2003). Gender plays a significant role in perceptions as well. For instance,

53

dislike for lethal methods of controlling wildlife, as well as support for wildlife conservation and concern

for environmental degradation on farms, has been most attributed to young, educated females (Boon,

Broch, & Meilby 2010; Filson 1996; Martínez-Espiñeira 2006; Naughton-Treves, Grossberg, & Treves

2003). Scenarios also influence perspectives. In one study, if the wolf was in a rural area, most

respondents believed that authorities should not take any action and monitor the scenario (versus capture

and relocate, destroy, or scare). However, if the wolf killed livestock or a family pet than slightly more

than half now approved of killing the wolf (with the second most popular action being capture and

relocate) (Naughton-Treves, Grossberg, & Treves 2003).

Wildlife professionals generally consider the traditional use of lethal force as the most effective

and inexpensive option to deal with unwanted wildlife. Additionally, it is perceived as a source of

valuable funds due to hunting license fees (Bowker, Newman, Warren & Henderson 2003; Decker &

Brown 1987; Muth et al., 2006).They may feel that the push to diversity their tactics is merely a

complication that they must endure to satisfy the ‘politically correct’, especially when certain previously

endangered species thrive. However, the attitudes of some wildlife managers correlate with that of the

general public. Trapping, which has been a major management tool for fur-bearing animals, has come

under fire by those concerned about its ethics (Muth et al., 2006). In a study that surveyed three major

wildlife management organizations in the U.S., 46.1 per cent wanted trapping to be outlawed while 39.1

per cent indicated that they didn’t, and 14.6 per cent said they had no opinion on the matter. The top two

reasons for wanting it outlawed were the pain and suffering caused to animals and the possibility of non-

target species being caught (Muth et al., 2006). These results likely do not represent a major shift in the

attitudes of wildlife managers because they point to opposing viewpoints on only one lethal tactic, and

one that is particularly pain-inducing and condoned by society. However it does show that perspectives

are beginning to change (even if to a small degree), that some managers are not impressed with all of the

tactics used by their own industry, and that there is some value placed on the humane treatment of

animals by managers in wildlife management organizations. These suggest a need to reevaluate the

wildlife management toolbox currently available to professionals.

54

The Need for Alternatives

The need for alternatives to hunting and other lethal force has received more attention now than

ever before because of the world-wide movement to find a balance between human and wildlife needs

(Treves, Wallace, & White 2009). Clearly, there are still mixed feelings about some lethal methods of

dealing with wildlife both among the public and wildlife professionals. This, however, further stresses the

need for authorities to diversity their tactics. At the very least, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

must increase the amount of humane, non-lethal methods available in the current management toolbox so

that they can be utilized in situations where there is clear disapproval towards lethal force. Dealing with

wildlife is not only a technical problem, it involves a balance between finding solutions that are

acceptable to society and also dealing with multiple stakeholders that have differing points of views

(Chase, Siemer & Decker 2002).The wildlife management profession has to take the preferences of tax-

payers into consideration because people in society have a personal interest in wildlife. If they do not,

conflict and political backlash occurs (Reiter, Brunson & Schmidt 1999). In places where lethal control is

not an option, wildlife managers need to stay clear of controversy and determine which technique/s yield

the highest acceptability (Martínez-Espiñeira 2006). In order for them to be able to do this, however,

alternatives must become more readily available.

Forty seven per cent of surveyed farmers indicated that recreational hunting was ‘not very or not

important at all’ for why wildlife were important to them, while 57 per cent said the same for trapping

(Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000).A large portion of farmers that rely on hunting do not have a

personal attachment to it, but rather they feel that it is the only effective tool that they have in preventing

damage to their crops. Similarly, more than half of those that believed in outlawing leg hold traps also felt

that they were not a necessary tool in wildlife management, whereas those that wanted to keep it legal

most frequently indicated that this was because they felt it was necessary (Muth et al. 2006). In other

words, from their perspective, there are no other options. Hence, if equally or more effective tools were

55

available for both preventing damage and dealing with problematic wildlife, farmers, as well as wildlife

professionals, would be able to reduce or avoid use of lethal force.

Although a high tech approach can be costly and time consuming to create, it may very well be

worth it. Having the widest variety of management tools and techniques while also stimulating

development of new, improved approaches and supporting their use is important (Fall & Jackson 2002).)

Preventing and Managing Human Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario states that, ‘sound scientific and applied

technical knowledge can enhance human-wildlife conflict [i.e. impact] prevention efforts and mitigate

risk to human health and safety’ (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008b). It also states that ‘the

effectiveness of regulated hunting as a means of resolving human-wildlife conflicts involving some game

species is uncertain; additional tools should be considered. For non-game species, the effectiveness of

existing tools and the development of new measures need to be explored’ (Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources 2008). One study that surveyed people in New York and in Colorado where there was concern

over elk found that people preferred that the involvement process in human-wildlife impact management

was ‘high quality’ rather than fast and inexpensive, with the incorporation of scientific information being

highly important (Chase, Siemer, & Decker 2002).

Moving forward: Reducing the Need for Hunting and Increasing the Use of Non-Lethal Solutions

• Context specific

Numerous studies have described situations where only certain wild animals or portions of their

populations are creating damage to crops (Fall & Jackson 2002; Hegel, Gates, & Eslinger 2009).

Currently animals are hunted indiscriminately, with the assumption that if general populations are

reduced, so will damages associated with them. One study, however, revealed that some elk (Cervus

canadensis) subpopulations were being hunted disproportionately relative to the damage they caused

(Hegel, Gates, & Eslinger 2009). For example, one particular subpopulation accounted for only 17 per

cent of the total elk population and the number of its members that were being was in promotion to its

size, but not to the damages it were causing. Another subpopulation was being killed in large numbers

despite the fact that both its population size and associated number of affected fields did not warrant this

56

(Hegel, Gates, & Eslinger 2009). Clearly, indiscriminate hunting is not necessarily affective. Moreover,

selective removal (removal of only those animals that caused damage) has been shown to be more

acceptable to people. Most people in the U.S. thought that indiscriminate shooting and trapping was

wrong (Martínez-Espiñeira 2006).

If more time and resources were being put into understanding populations than wide spread

killing could be avoided and better results would occur because problematic species would actually be

targeted. As well, it would make it much easier to move towards use of non-lethal methods. They tend to

be more expensive than culling (Bowker et al., 2003). So, costs would be more manageable since only

certain subpopulations or individuals would require them. As described in Section VI, a large chunk of

wildlife damage issues can also be put to a stop or mitigated by managing the behaviors of the particular

affected stakeholders (Fall & Jackson 2002). In Cyprus Hills, Alberta, for instance, farmers noticed that

problematic elk were particularly drawn to oats, which led some to switch to planting alfalfa or not

planting oats in areas where they suspected elk, dramatically reducing predation issues (Hegel, Gates, &

Eslinger 2009). Addressing human behavior is also crucial in reducing wildlife related damages and

hence a need to deal with wildlife populations.

Wildlife managers should learn to assess the animal, human, and environment aspects of a

particular issue to better understand the particular situation and tailor their decision making, management

strategy, and monitoring of the situation to this (Hegel, Gates, & Eslinger 2009). Understanding the

spatial behavior of individual animals as well as the ‘spatial structure’ of entire problematic populations is

important and highly valuable when determining appropriate intervention where damage is being caused

(Hegel, Gates, & Eslinger 2009). However, this will requires a greater investment in time and resources

from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources than does culling. For instance, to determine which

subpopulations were causing crop damages, one study required Geographic Information System (GIS)

mapping and high frequency radio collars to track females (Hegel, Gates, & Eslinger 2009). In another

study, radio telemetry and fecal samples identified three North American elk (Cervus elaphus L.)

subpopulations and the extent to which each was causing crop depredation, and to what degree, as well as

57

variations between the seasons (Walter et al., 2010). The creation and availability of modern tools and

methods of dealing with wildlife conflicts will also create a need in boosting the skill and specialization

level of wildlife managers. People involved in wildlife management need to be better trained to analyze

problems to be able to pick the most strategic solutions (Fall & Jackson 2002). Non-selective removal of

coyotes, for example, requires less skill and is less costly than selective removal.

• Supporting Prevention Efforts

Studies determined that it is the impact of a species (rather than its abundance) that determines

how well accepted it is (Lischka, Riley & Rudolph 2008). People that experienced losses by coyotes, for

example, tended to be in favor of lethal methods of removal (Martínez-Espiñeira 2006). Prevention of

damages is the best protocol. Having effective crop damage prevention tools not only reduce losses to

farmers, but can eliminate or reduce the need to deal with wildlife populations and improve perceptions of

wildlife. Unfortunately, Ontario crop farmers indicated that the second biggest reason they experienced an

increase in crop loss due to wildlife was the reduced effectiveness of the prevention techniques they used

(Fitzgerald 2012; Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association 2000). The Ontario Fruit and

Vegetable Growers Association indicates that in Ontario, field trials for a variety of fence types that

exclude deer, including permanent, total enclosure nets that are utilized in the US and Australia, are

needed (Fitzgerald 2013). More initiatives like the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association’s

two- year long Wildlife Action Project that began in 2002 are needed, which aimed at helping to develop

ways of preventing damage from wildlife to farmers and better understand the costs involved and who

should pay for them (Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association 2004).

Technologies useful to prevent wildlife-related damages often take years to advance, which

means that there needs to be a boost in research and budgets in this field to meet society’s needs (Fall &

Jackson 2002). The government must work with private industry since they are the ones largely

researching and selling new abatement measures to farmers (Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers

Association 2000). In the U.S., Congress, which controls the research focuses of the National Wildlife

Research Committee has directed that, at the very least, 50 per cent of their research projects go towards

58

coming up with non-lethal management solutions (Bruggers, Owens, & Hoffman 2002). Setting such

objectives is crucial.

Farmers also need monetary support to be able to take advantage of some of the more effective

damage prevention options available. Fencing and netting are a great example of something that farmers

want but may not be able to afford (Fitzgerald 2012). The Manitoba government, for example, has given

farmers access to abatement tools and supplies on loan such as fencing from elk. This can help farmers

avoid wasting money on things that prove not to work for them (Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers

Association 2000). Based on its survey to Ontario crop farmers, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers

Association recommends that ways of offering financial assistance through Growing Forward are

developed to help farmers learn about what kinds of fencing is effective and how to properly install it.

Another recommendation is to find a way of providing financial assistance to retrofit propane cannons

with electronic automatic timers which would help reduce complaints from neighbors about noise

(Fitzgerald 2012; Fitzgerald 2013b).

Another issue is that Ontario’s laws don’t always permit abatement measures that may be

available in other countries and even in other Canadian provinces. Ontario needs to make sure that

effective and safe measures are allowed (Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association 2000).

Legislations that may be putting limitations on use of existing tools and the development of new ones

needs to be overcome (Fall & Jackson 2002). Existing tools or those that may become available in the

future must be supported, rather than inhibited, by the government.

• Creating economic benefits from wildlife

When private landowners find few benefits from the presence of wildlife, their tolerance

(especially in situations where damage is being caused) toward their presence is low (Hegel, Gates &

Eslinger 2009). In Alberta, for instance, no consideration has been given to create benefits to the public or

private landowners when it comes to how elk are managed. An outdated, 26 year old policy creates a

population target based almost exclusively on agricultural interests with little consideration of the public’s

interest in viewing elk or the role that elk play in the ecosystem (Hegel, Gates & Eslinger 2009). To boost

59

the acceptance capacity of landowners towards wildlife, programs that are innovative are needed which

integrate chances for landowners to benefit in economic terms from wildlife to boost the tangible, positive

impacts of their presence (Hegel, Gates & Eslinger 2009). One of the objectives in the Strategy for

Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario is to look into ways of helping

farmers gain economic benefits from people’s recreational enjoyment of deer (Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources 2008b). Agritourism has become a major and growing trend in the U.S. over the last

decade (Arroyo, Barbieri & Rick 2013). It involves ‘charging fees for access to…property for wildlife-

related recreational activities such as hiking, canoeing, camping, and photography, and from the sale of

items associated with these activities such as maps, foods, canoe rentals., etc.’ (University of Florida

2006). Other tactics can include debt forgiveness and income and property tax deductions in exchange for

not killing animals that consume some crops (Defenders of Wildlife 2006).

• Filling information gaps

Regularly evaluating where research and development needs to be directed is crucial. In the US,

Bruggers, Owens & Hoffman (2002) examined human-wildlife impact management research needs

through the periodic Research Needs Assessment and involved scientists, wildlife managers, and other

stakeholders from the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service Wildlife Service’s Program in 2001. An entire 103 needs became apparent from all areas related

to wildlife management, including agriculture (Bruggers, Owens & Hoffman 2002). One important step in

the right direction in creating development in the field of wildlife damage and conflicts is information

sharing. A good example of this was a conference called, “Future Technology for Managing Problems

with Vertebrate Pests and Over-abundant Wildlife,” which was organized with the 11th Triennial

International Symposium of The Biodeterioration Society in Arlington, Virginia. The conference

conjoined experts from different countries to talk about how problems regarding wildlife can be better

managed into the future and the types of research that is happening to help solve these problems (Fall &

Jackson 2002).

60

Better knowledge of the behaviors of various individual animals from different species within the

particular place where impacts are occurring are needed to help the development and utilization of

technologies that are emerging. More biological information on such species is also needed, such as

behavior and geographic variation, in order to be able to actually take advantage of scientific advances

that come out of research (Fall & Jackson 2002). In North America, the effects of habitat loss and

fragmentation have been well studied for birds, but other wild animals that live in and around croplands

have not, so knowledge on this has been taken from studies done in Europe (Freemark 1995). Wildlife

professionals in the United States have reported a need to create methods of census and studying specific

problem wildlife, as well as being better able to meet species needs for specific areas where they are a

problem (Bruggers, Owens, & Hoffman 2002). In Ontario, reliable and accurate data on wildlife

populations, for instance, does not exist. For example, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources,

there are no estimates of the numbers of raccoons and coyotes. This means that trends in certain wildlife

like deer and geese are determined based on how many animals are hunted/harvested (Mussel & Schmidt

2009).

VIII. The Participatory Approach for Preventing Conflict and Co-Managing

Human-Wildlife Impacts

Conflicts in Ontario

In Ontario, conflicts between farmers and authorities that stem from human-wildlife impacts are not

uncommon. For instance, farmers have found the reintroduction of species by the Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources for conservation purposes problematic (Ontario Soil and Crop Association 2000). Wild

turkeys are just one such specie and were reintroduced from the U.S. in 1984 to 275 different sites

(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2007). In 2012 there were reports of wild turkeys gobbling up

61

grapes from entire vineyards in Ottawa (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2012). It was not anticipated

that they would expand to the range that they have, which has been met with an increase in hunting

(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2007). Other reintroduced species have also become problematic.

In March 2009 approximately 50 farmers and other landowners from the Bancroft-area met with a lawyer

in Ottawa to plan a legal action against the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources because re-introduced

elk were causing crop and feed damage. The president of the Hastings County Federation of Agriculture

asked that the ministry put up better fencing and compensate the damages, asserting that it made a bad

judgment call by reintroducing plains specie in an agricultural area (Hein 2009).

Wildlife conservation legislation has also incited conflict. When a species is added to the Species

at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list, it is automatically protected and so is its habitat (Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act 1997).This can result in lost productivity of farmland, prompting the Ontario Federation

of Agriculture (OFA) to try and amend the Endangered Species Act, 2007. For instance, one amendment

seeks to make reports from the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario a consideration as

to whether a species should be added to the Species At Risk list, instead of a mandate, so that the Minister

of Natural Resources could weigh in potential socio-economic impacts (Ontario Federation of Agriculture

2012c).

A major uproar that resulted from the act involves the Bobolink. The Bobolink is a medium sized

bird that is threatened in Ontario and protected under the Endangered Species Act (Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources 2011). Between 1998 and 2008, 52 per cent of the population was lost at a rate of 7.1

per cent per year (Committee of the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario 2010). A major culprit is the

mowing of hay, particularly during the early-mid July nesting season (Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources 2011). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources proposed a moratorium on the cutting of hay

during late May-July but the Ontario Federation of Agriculture lobbied against this, which resulted in the

farming community receiving an exemption of three years from the Endangered Species Act in regards to

Bobolinks (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2013; Riley 2012; Sonnenberg 2011). Farmers do not

want to delay cutting because they want to get the best quality, most nutritionally dense crop possible

62

(Tilt n.d.).This time period, due to end in 2014, is supposed to give the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources time to hear public input and conduct studies (Riley 2012).

When a conflict is at its peak, its most active stage, impacted stakeholders start calling for a

change in the wildlife management policy or approach through letter writing, public meetings etc. There

is an obvious polarization, with each side claiming to hold the right position (Minnis 2001). One major

commonality between the scenarios described in Ontario is that tensions reached a peak because the

government did not adequately take the farming community into consideration when making their

decisions; indeed, they set up the stage for conflict to occur. The degree to which a conflict escalates is

an indication of the authority’s success level in effectively taking social needs and concerns into

consideration (Minnis 2001). When the conservation authority both prevents and effectively resolves

conflict, this results in more informed parties, a better service to the public, and boosts the public image

of the organization. Although the wide range of interests held by the public makes avoidance of all

conflicts impossible, too much conflict or poor handling of conflict situations can truly put a hamper on

the conservation authorities’ credibility and legitimacy (Minnis 2001).

Preventing Conflict through Farmer (and Other Relevant Stakeholder) Participation

The concept of citizen participation in natural resource management began in the 1970s (Lauber

& Knuth 1999). Interest in public participation in environmental issues, including those pertaining to

wildlife, has risen because of increased skepticism about science and more distrust of government, greater

accessibility to technology and information, more awareness and interest in environmental issues and

decisions, and involvement becoming regarded as a right (Minnis 2001; Reed 2008). Non-experts are able

to identify issues and solutions that experts cannot, and have been shown to have sensitivity for social and

political considerations where they are otherwise lacking (Fiorino 1990). The idea that citizens who are

affected by a policy or decision must also have a say in it is in fact an integral part of democracy (Fiorino

1990; Lauber & Knuth 1999). In other words, farmers and other citizens, at least to some extent, have the

right to influence decisions that affect their lives. Participation also helps develop democratic skills,

eliminating a sense of powerlessness and alienation in citizens (Fiorino 1990). Additionally, public

63

participation legitimizes decisions, especially when they are high risk (Chase, Siemer & Decker 2002).

Wildlife conservation and management efforts must take into consideration the affected public into

decisions to be fully successful. In fact, there have been cases where conservation efforts involving

endangered species have failed due to public opposition (Decker & Bath 2010; Johnson et al., 1993).

There are four criteria that participation theory asserts are essential to a democratic process: citizens must

be allowed to participate in decision making directly, they must have some authority in making decisions,

face-to-face discussions occur, and there is some degree of equality with officials and experts (Fiorino

1990).

Public participation in decision making regarding wildlife can improve relationships between the

managers, stakeholders, and the perceptions stakeholders have about each other (Decker & Bath 2010;

Lafon et al., 2004; Lauber & Knuth 1999). It can also sway the views of wildlife managers regarding

these stakeholders, the value of including them in decision making, and even in the way resources should

be managed (Lafon et al., 2004).Participatory planning is especially helpful in situations where an

alternation of human behavior is required because it is easier for those having to make a change to accept

doing so when they have determined a need for it themselves (Treves et al., 2006). Ultimately, the

participatory approach paves the way for improved results because it improves the acceptability of

decisions that are made and the decision making process which in turn ensures improved implementation

of plans (Fiorino 1990; Lafon et al., 2004; Lauber & Knuth 1999). Clearly, the case is strong for

including farmers and other citizens affected by decisions made regarding wildlife.

The desire of Ontario farmers to be involved in the decisions that affect them is clear, especially

in the issues that have arisen from the Endangered Species Act. For example, one of the amendments that

the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is seeking is to include a representative of the farming community

in Committee on the Status of Species at Risk’s membership (Ontario Federation of Agriculture 2012b).

A multitude of organizations such as the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Ontario

Federation of Agriculture, and the Ontario Cattleman’s Association also became involved in discussions

to create a solution to the Bobolink issue after the government proposed the hay cutting ban (Tilt n.d.).

64

The roundtable was created specifically to find ways of benefiting the specie while also meeting the needs

of farmers, as a means of resolving the conflict that occurred. The recommendations will be presented to

the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2013; Riley 2012).

There are eight elements of best practice in the participatory approach that have been identified

for situations dealing with the environment or its components. Collectively, they stress that participation

is a process (Reed 2008). This process must be followed when dealing with wildlife related issues

involving farmers and other affected citizens in Ontario.

• Empowerment, equity, trust, and learning must be at the core of the participation process. This

means that stakeholders must have the power to affect the decisions made, which has to start with

educating and building confidence first, especially in highly technical situations. As well, all

participants must be given equal voice (despite differences in expertise, gender, experience etc)

and have the space needed to learn from each other (Reed 2008).

• Participation should begin early in the process and continue throughout (Reed 2008). Involving

stakeholders early on leads to higher-quality and more sound decisions. Once in conflict, there is

increased polarization and meaningful communication becomes more challenging, hence also

limiting management solutions (Redpath et al. 2013).

• Groups and individuals with a stake in the issue must be identified (e.g. via interviews, expert

opinion, focus groups etc). Stakeholders are then analyzed (how interested are they and how can

they influence the issue at hand etc), after which point the relationships between the stakeholders

are analyzed as well (e.g. communication, trust levels etc) (Reed 2008).

• Clear objectives for the process of participation must be explicitly identified. The problem and

purpose of dialogues must be defined, which requires an exploration of views and discussion of

trade-offs where they may be necessary (Reed 2008).

• Decisions need to be made regarding the methods of involvement/communication that will work

best for the particular context. This requires an understanding of the type of participants at hand

65

(power dynamics between groups/individuals, literacy levels etc) and the level of engagement of

individuals, after which point the appropriate methods for communicating information,

consultation, and participation can be chosen (Reed 2008).

• Facilitation must be highly skilled. Something as simple as a group discussion needs a

facilitator/s that is approachable and impartial, and is able to encourage questioning of

assumptions while effectively dealing with domineering participants or other problems (Reed

2008).

• Local knowledge should be made relevant in addition to scientific knowledge, which leads to a

more comprehensive understanding of the situation, especially when complex environmental

processes are involved. Although the science-based and local bodies of knowledge are very

different (i.e. systematized versus tacit, informal, and acquired over many generations through

observation and experience), these two forms of knowledge can be merged (Reed 2008).

• Lastly, participation must become institutionalized by the responsible agencies. The participatory

approach must be a consistent and deeply ingrained part of the decision making process (Reed

2008).

The Ideal Participation ‘Type’

In one study dealing with deer management, solicited public participation (surveys and citizen

task force) lead to positive feedback on the wildlife management agency’s approaches, whereas

unsolicited participation did not (Stout et al., 1996). A study conducted by Lafon et al. (2004) dealing

with black bears (Ursus americanus) in Virginia showed that active participants (committee members)

became more tolerant and understanding of other stakeholders, whereas passive participants did not.

Active participation such as, for instance, taking part in a group discussion, has been shown to influence

knowledge and impact attitudes more than passive forms of participation such as hearing a lecture or

reading informative material (Lafon et al., 2004).

It’s also crucial to detect and address differences in the attitudes between wildlife professionals

and the public in regards to participation preferences. For example, in Germany, whereas members of the

66

public ranked information materials and public meetings as the first and second most preferred types of

involvement methods, experts ranked task forces and advisory groups highest (Decker & Bath 2010).

Other studies yielded different results, but also showed differences between these two groups. Clearly, it

is vital for experts to take the time to understand the people they are dealing with so that appropriate

methods that balance their needs with those of the public can be chosen (Decker & Bath 2010).

The Importance of Fairness

Distributive fairness (the fairness of decisions) and procedural fairness (the process through

which decisions are made) are crucial for the participatory approach (Lauber & Knuth 1999). If the

decision making process is viewed as fair by stakeholders, than they are also more likely to view the

decisions made due to it as fair (Lauber & Knuth 1999). A fair approach also leads to greater support of

the decision makers. Given the importance of participation, it is unsurprising that perceived level of

fairness has been closely correlated with the amount of control that stakeholders have in the process, such

as the ability to voice their views and needs during the decision making stages. However, some earlier

research has also pointed to the level of control that participants have over the actual outcomes as a

determining factor in perception of fairness (Lauber & Knuth 1999).

There are many other factors that influence fairness perception such as how consistently a fair

approach is taken over time and between stakeholder groups, level of bias in decision makers, accuracy

level of the information used, ability to make changes to decisions after they are made, how trustworthy

the decision maker is, and how well represented different perspectives are, among others (Lauber &

Knuth 1999). When New York State wanted to bring in more moose, the public’s opinion was taken into

consideration first. One study found that participants associated four criteria to fairness: how receptive the

authorities were to citizen input, the amount of power that citizens had over the final decisions, the quality

of reasoning and knowledge of authorities that were spearheading the decision making process, and the

level to which relationships between stakeholders improved through engagement in the process (Lauber

& Knuth 1999).

67

Co-Management to Mitigating Human-Wildlife Impacts While Avoiding Human-Human Conflicts

Human-wildlife impacts (and conflicts stemming from them) are one of the biggest threats to

wildlife conservation (Dickman 2010). They can make people unsupportive and create resentment

towards those responsible for protected natural areas (Treves et al., 2006). Conflicts between stakeholder

groups can be cognitive, value based, related to costs and benefits, or behavioral. Cognitive conflicts

involve differing perspectives on what is true, value based disputes occur when a stakeholder does not

perceive the particular issue at hand as relevant as other issues facing them, cost/benefit conflicts are

based on opposing viewpoints on who will bear the costs and reap the benefits, and behavioral conflicts

occur when the authorities that are involved are distrusted (Decker & Bath 2010). The big challenge in

managing human-wildlife impacts is that the benefits of wildlife presence are distributed unequally over

space. In fact, this is a signature of wildlife-related disputes all over the world (Treves et al., 2006). This

is evident even within the farming community alone. The number of Ontario farmers encouraging and

discouraging deer is equal at 12-15 per cent each, and whereas about 5 per cent of farmers discourage

songbirds, nearly 50 per cent encourage them (Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association 2000).

The co-management approach is important because human-wildlife impacts are increasing and

tend to occur on a community level, the public’s expectation that solutions will be tailored to their

communities has increased, and authorities responsible for wildlife continuously face shortages for

funding and personnel (Decker, Lauber & Siemer 2002). The locus of control is in both the hands of

stakeholders and authorities: Stakeholders are allowed to provide input, evaluate input, and help with

implementation which collectively improves the management climate (Decker, Lauber & Siemer 2002).

As one of its goals, The Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario

acknowledges that the province must have leadership in dealing with human-wildlife impacts but that

solutions must be community-based (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008).

The Need for an Interdisciplinary Approach

68

Indeed, one of the biggest advantages to co-management and the participatory approach in

general is that resources, knowledge, labor etc is pooled together when stakeholders such as farmers,

citizens, local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), authorities etc work together (Decker, Lauber

& Siemer 2002). By its very nature, co-management facilitates an interdisciplinary approach. However,

an interdisciplinary approach must be taken in a more deliberate way as well. As noted before, what is

often termed a ‘human-wildlife conflict’ is actually a human-human conflict, drawing attention to the

social components that tie into human-wildlife impacts. Human-wildlife impacts only appear to be about

the impacts of these interactions, but in reality they are rooted in power relations and differences in

attitudes and values, which find their root in social and cultural history (Redpath et al., 2013). The

sociopolitical and cultural setting in which these interactions occur are equally as influential as the

biophysical (Dickman 2010; Treves et al., 2006).

Hence, to resolve conflicts an interdisciplinary approach is needed (Baruch-Mordo et al., 2009;

Dickman 2010;Treves et al., 2006; Redpath et al., 2013). Effective management of human-wildlife

impacts requires a better integration of the social and natural sciences in order to account for the role of

social and political factors in these situations (Redpath et al., 2013). This is especially important since

those dealing with wildlife management are often only trained in wildlife management and the ecological

sciences (Baruch-Mordo et al., 2009; Dickman 2010; Treves et al., 2006). Wildlife managers are forced to

learn on a trial and error basis as to how to deal with the social dimensions of conflict situations (Treves

et al., 2006).

Some examples of people’s biases and perspectives clearly demonstrate the important role that

the social dimensions have in affecting people in their interactions with wildlife. For instance, although it

is generally assumed that people respond proportionately to the damages they experiences from wildlife

and that hence reduction of damages reduces hostility, this is not always the case. In Namibia, for

instance, even after cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) depredation was successfully reduced, it was found that

more than 40 per cent of farmers who no longer faced depredation continued to eliminate these animals

(Dickman 2010). Social factors also influence people’s treatment and perceptions of wildlife. For

69

instance, in the town of Hegins, Pennsylvania, the Columba livia pigeon was shot for, supposedly, pest

control. However, the real reason for this was that conservative residents perceived the pigeon as a city

bird, and cities were associated with moral corruption (Dickman 2010). Rural areas can also be more

hostile towards wildlife damage if they feel that wildlife are being protected by ‘urban elites’ and the

government who have tipped the balance of power in their own favor (Dickman 2010). These examples

capture the complexity of human-wildlife impacts and the conflicts that result from them and point to the

fact that merely reducing damages will not necessarily reduce hostility. By extension, each situation has

to be analyzed on a deeper level where social dimensions are taken into serious consideration (Dickman

2010).

There is no one ‘cookbook’ solution to designing a strategy that is interdisciplinary, effectively

mitigates human-wildlife impacts and shows managers precisely when and how to involve stakeholders

such as farmers (Chase, Siemer and Decker 2002). However, there are three vital steps to effectively co-

managing situations where negative human-wildlife interactions occur and avoid creating or exacerbating

human-human conflicts (Treves et al., 2006). The ideal human-wildlife impact resolution process has a

multitude of stages that, with stakeholder participation at its core, are enabled and made effective. These

include: reaching agreement on what interventions, if any, are appropriate to put an end to the issue,

recruiting the appropriate people to implement these interventions, dividing up tasks, and determining the

best timeline for both implementation and monitoring (Treves et al., 2006). To avoid conflict, the process

must also avoid creating a zero-sum situation for stakeholders (Redpath et al. 2013). The following is

based on Treves et al., (2006) although their process resembles closely those described by other experts in

this field such as Decker, Lauber & Siemer (2002) who also emphasize the importance of co-management

in mitigating human-wildlife impacts.

Step 1: Collecting Baseline Data

The first step involves collecting baseline data relevant to the conflict. This includes three

components: identification of stakeholders, timing, and distribution of the damage caused by wildlife,

conducting experimental/quasi-experimental studies of mitigation techniques, as well as determining the

70

beliefs, attitudes, and responses of stakeholders towards wildlife and the intervening authorities (Treves et

al., 2006). In one study, for instance, managers collaborated with researchers to better understand

stakeholder perceptions in two communities facing deer problems (Chase, Siemer & Decker 2002). Just a

few of the many things they discovered included that: there was a lot of variability on what kinds of

control methods were acceptable, managers had differing views on involvement objectives, there were

differences on how people felt participation opportunities should be structured although both communities

had three main preferences (one-on-one communication, debate and deliberation that included open

meetings, and task forces), and not all respondents were willing to put in the same amount of time into

developing solutions to the elk issue (Chase, Siemer & Decker 2002). This study points to the variation

existing in stakeholder perceptions and needs, and the importance of understanding these complexities

before any decisions can be made.

The role of the scientist is extremely important yet limited. Scientists are needed to assist

authorities in better understanding conflict situations; the responsibility of dealing with the conflict and

making appropriate decisions to resolve the conflict lies with authorities. In fact, conflicts related to

wildlife are often a ‘lightning rod’ for other complaints (e.g. dissatisfaction with the government for one

reason or another) (Treves et al., 2006). Science is also unable to capture everything. Research can

usually only take into consideration smaller areas of study over a relatively short time span, whereas

perceptions are often shaped over years or even decades and large spatial scales (e.g. family history,

friends who live far away etc) (Treves et al., 2006).

Step 2: Participatory Planning

The second step is the actual participatory planning, where joint objectives are defined and

decisions about what interventions must take place are made. Effectiveness, acceptability, and

sustainability must all be taken into consideration (Treves et al., 2006). The collective objective should

include both protecting wildlife and human welfare, which usually demands both incentives for behavior

that tolerates wildlife as well as sanctions that prevent the damage of wildlife and their habitats. Naturally,

sanctions are the most difficult to negotiate; allowing development if often much easier to accept (Treves

71

et al., 2006). A participatory conflict management process that is both transparent and democratic both

during planning and implementation is crucial. The success of co-management rests on setting clear roles

and responsibilities, and shaping expectations. Additionally, it depends on properly defining the collective

objectives, determining obstacles and opportunities (Treves et al., 2006).

It is best to aim for changes/interventions that need the least new technology and change to

behavior, as these are easiest to accept and make happen (Treves et al., 2006). As well, interventions

should not just take care of the human side of the issue because this can make stakeholders feel

victimized. Instead, multiple interventions that address both sides of the issue are needed, which is also

important since projects with a single intervention have been shown to fail long term (Treves et al., 2006).

Whether the issue at hand is human-human conflict or the result of people and wildlife coming into

contact is important to distinguish because each necessitates a different set of solutions (Redpath et al.

2013). A direct intervention is a measure that seeks to diminish the severity or frequency of interactions

between humans and wildlife, while an indirect intervention boosts people’s tolerance of the conflict they

are facing (Treves et al., 2006; Treves 2008). The former can include barriers, deterrents, repellants,

employment of guards, changes to human behaviors, and altering wildlife through relocation or

sterilization. The latter can utilize damage compensation, conservation incentives, insurance, education,

research, and even removal of wildlife protection (Treves et al., 2006; Treves 2008; Redpath et al., 2013).

Step 3: Monitoring

Monitoring is the last step and should aim to find out three basic things: were the interventions

put in place as planned, was the degree of the conflict reduced (was the threat diminished or reduced), and

did the major goal of meeting both human welfare and animal protection achieved (Treves et al., 2006).

Monitoring is best done when some kind of a control is possible, but this is often not attractive to

stakeholders, but may be possible with negotiation or if non-participating members agree to monitoring

on their lands (Treves et al., 2006). It is also best if members from the stakeholder community take an

active role with monitoring to facilitate trust. As well, at least a couple of monitoring options, that do not

72

compromise results, should be developed for stakeholders to choose from. This means that if one is

perceived as too intrusive, the other can be relied upon (Treves et al., 2006).

IX. Conclusion

Farmers and wildlife rely on the same landscapes for their needs and this often results in human-

wildlife impacts that should ideally be avoided. Although the agricultural sector needs to transition to a

way of food production that is more harmonious with nature in order to better integrate and account for

wildlife and ecosystem needs, this is unlikely to occur any time soon. Hence, some actions are needed to

mitigate these impacts, prevent the human-human conflicts that result from them, while also facilitating

wildlife conservation and a new found appreciation of wildlife by farmers. The academic research

conducted for this thesis as well as the farmer’s survey results indicate that results-oriented compensation

schemes, prevention and monetary compensation for wildlife-related damages, a move away from lethal

force to deal with unwanted wildlife, participatory decision making and co-management of impacts

should all be implemented. Collectively, they will help crop farmers better co-exist with wildlife in

Ontario by benefitting both farmers and wildlife simultaneously.

X. References

Atari, D. O. A., Yiridoe, E. K., Smale, S., & Duinker, P. N. (2009). What motivates farmers to participate in the nova scotia environmental farm plan program? Evidence and environmental policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1269-1279.

AgriCorp. (2010). Production Insurance: Overview. In AgriCorp. Retrieved on July 10, 2013,

from http://www.agricorp.com/enca/Programs/ProductionInsurance/Strawberries/Pages/Overview.aspx

Aughney, T., & Gormally, M. (2002). The nature conservation of lowland farm habitats on

73

REPS and non-REPS farms in County Galway and the use of traditional farm methods for habitat management under the rural environment protection scheme (REPS).Irish Journal of Agrienvironmental Research, (?) 2, 1–14.

Barnes, J., MacKay, B., Willock, A., Woodyer, J., Best, S., Aldworth, R.,……. Laidlaw, R.

(2006). EBR Registry Number PB06E6018 – Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario; and EBR Registry Number: PB06E6017 – Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario. Response from 11 environmental and animal welfare orgs.

Baruch-Mordo, S., Wilson, K.R., Broderick, J., & Breck, S.W. (2009). A Tool Box Half Empty:

How social science can help solve human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 219-223.

Boon, T. E., Broch, S. W., & Meilby, H. (2010). How financial compensation changes forest

owners' willingness to set aside productive forest areas for nature conservation in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(6), 564-573.

Bowker, J. M., Newman, D. H., Warren, R. J., & Henderson, D. W. (2003). Estimating the economic value of lethal versus nonlethal deer control in suburban communities. Society and Natural Resources, 16(2), 143-158.

Boutin, C., Freemark, K. E., & Kirk, D. A. (1999). Farmland birds in southern Ontario: Field use, activity patterns and vulnerability to pesticide use. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 72(3), 239-254.

Brethour, C., Mussell, Al., & Stiefelmeyer, K. (2001). Retiring Marginally Profitable Sections of Agricultural of Fields in Ontario Economically Justified. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://www.georgemorris.org/publications/file.aspx?id=88021189-ffca-49b9-bb0a-0dfff9391481

Brown, R. B. (2012). ‘Every boy ought to learn to shoot and to obey orders’: Guns, boys, and the law in english canada from the late nineteenth century to the great war. Canadian Historical Review, 93(2), 196-226.

Bruggers, R. L., Owens, R., & Hoffman, T. (2002). Wildlife damage management research needs: Perceptions of scientists, wildlife managers, and stakeholders of the USDA/Wildlife services program. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 49(2-3), 213-223.

Bulte, E. H., & Rondeau, D. (2005). Why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), 14-19.

Burger, L. W.,Jr. (2006). Creating wildlife habitat through federal farm programs: An objective- driven approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(4), 994-999.

Burger, L. W.,Jr., McKenzie, D., Thackston, R., & Demaso, S. J. (2006). The role of farm policy in achieving large-scale conservation: Bobwhite and buffers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(4), 986-993.

Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Reconceptualising the 'behavioral approach' in agricultural studies: A socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 359-371.

74

Burton, R. J. F., Kuczera, C., & Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmers' cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(1), 16-37.

Burton, R. J. F., & Paragahawewa, U. H. (2011). Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 95-104.

Burton, R. J. F., & Schwarz, G. (2013). Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land use Policy, 30(1), 628-641.

Bye, L. M. (2003). Masculinity and rurality at play in stories about hunting. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 57(3), 145-153.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2012). Gardening: Turkeys Gobble Up Vineyard Grapes. In CBC. Retrieved July, 2, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/ontariotoday/columnists/2012/10/22/gardening-turkeys-gobble-vineyards-grapes/

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2013). Six hunters mistakenly shot as deer hunting season begins. In CBC. Retrieved November 9, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/6-hunters-mistakenly-shot-as-deer-hunting-season-begins-1.2417094

Chase, L. C., Siemer, W. F., & Decker, D. J. (2002). Designing stakeholder involvement strategies to resolve wildlife management controversies. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(3), 937-950.

Committee of the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario. (2010). COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation Form for Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). In MNR. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/research/stdprod_086353.pdf

Dalmasso, S., Vesco, U., Orlando, L., Tropini, A., & Passalacqua, C. (2012). An integrated program to prevent, mitigate and compensate wolf (canis lupus) damage in the piedmont region (northern italy). Hystrix-Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 23(1), 54-61.

Decker, S. E., & Bath, A. J. (2010). Public versus expert opinions regarding public involvement processes used in resource and wildlife management. Conservation Letters, 3(6), 425-434.

Decker, D.J., & Brown, T.L. (1987). How animal rights view the ‘wildlife management: hunting systems.’ Wildlife society bulletin, 15(4), 599-602.

Decker, D.J., Laumber, T.B., Siemer, W.F. (2002). Human-wildlife conflict management. Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Research and Outreach Cooperative. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://wildlifecontrol.info/pubs/Documents/Human-Wildlife/H-W%20Guide.pdf

de Snoo, G. R., Herzon, I., Staats, H., Burton, R. J. F., Schindler, S., van Dijk, J., et al. (2013). Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: Making farmers matter. Conservation Letters, 6(1), 66-72.

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13(5), 458-466.

75

Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre. (n.d.). Enhancing wildlife and biodiversity. In Government of New Brunswick. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://www.gnb.ca/0173/30/EnhancingWildlifeBiodiversity.pdf

Elbert, T., Weierstall, R., & Schauer, M. (2010). Fascination violence: On mind and brain of man hunters. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 260, 100-105.

Emerson, K., Orr, Patricia., Keyes, D., Mcknight, K., (2009). Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating performance outcomes and contributing factors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27, 27-64.

Emery, S. B., & Franks, J. R. (2012). The potential for collaborative agri-environment schemes in england: Can a well-designed collaborative approach address farmers' concerns with current schemes? Journal of Rural Studies, 28(3), 218-231.

Endangered Species Act, S.O. 2007, Chapter 6. Retrieved on July 5, 2013, from ServiceOntario website http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm#BK54

Environment Canada. (2005). North American Waterfowl Management Plan: 2004 Implementation Framework. In NAWMP. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://www.nawmp.ca/pdf/impfr-en-k.pdf

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2009). Stewardship activities and funding in the Endangered Species Act, 2007. In Biodiversity Ontario. Retrieved July 5, 2013, from http://biodiversityontario.com/stewardship-activities-and-funding-in-the-endangered-species-act-2007/

Fall, M. W., & Jackson, W. B. (2002). The tools and techniques of wildlife damage management - changing needs: An introduction. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 49(2-3), 87-91.

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Biodiversity Working Group. (2012). Key Findings at a glance: Habitat, Wildlife, and Ecosystem Processes. In BiodivCanada. Retrieved on July 10, 2013, from http://www.biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=9CE2301E-1&offset=3&toc=show

Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4-5), 687-724.

Filson, G. C. (1996). Demographic and farm characteristic differences in ontario farmers' views about sustainability policies. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 9(2), 165-180.

Fiorino, D. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15 (2), 226-243.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, S.O. 1997, Chapter 41. Retrieved on August 10, 2013, from

ServiceOntario website http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_97f41_e.htm

Fitzgerald, S. (2012). Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association: Predation Survey Composite Report.

76

Fitzgerald, S. (2013). Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association: Wildlife Damage in the

Horticulture Sector, Mitigation Practices in Other Jurisdictions, Report III.

Fitzgerald, S. (2013b). Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association: Assessing Predation in the Horticulture Sector, Interim Report II.

Freemark, K. (1995). Assessing effects of agriculture on terrestrial wildlife - developing a hierarchical approach for the united-states-epa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31(1-3), 99-115.

Freemark, K. E., & Kirk, D. A. (2001). Birds on organic and conventional farms in ontario: Partitioning effects of habitat and practices on species composition and abundance. Biological Conservation, 101(3), 337-350.

Grain Farmers of Ontario. (n.d.). Agriculture-Wildlife Conflict Working Group. In Ontario Grain Farmer. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from http://www.ontariograinfarmer.ca/MAGAZINE.aspx?aid=436

Hegel, T. A., Gates, C. C., & Eslinger, D. (2009). The geography of conflict between elk and agricultural

values in the cypress hills, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 222-235. Hein, T. (2009). Farmers fed up with elk. In BetterFarming. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from

http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/farmers-fed-elk-1989 Hess, G. R., & Bay, J. M. (2000). A regional assessment of windbreak habitat

suitability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 61(2), 237-254.

Issuance of deer removal/Harassment authorizations of agricultural damage, WilPp.3.2.3., 2004. Retrieved on July 15, 2013, from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/254144.pdf

Javorek, S. K., Antonowitsch, R., Callaghan, C., Grant, M., & Weins, T. (2007). Changes to wildlife habitat on agricultural land in Canada, 1981-2001. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 87(2), 225-233.

Jobin, B., Choiniere, L., & Belanger, L. (2001). Bird use of three types of field margins in relation to intensive agriculture in Quebec, Canada. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 84(2), 131-143.

Johnson, K. N., Johnson, R. L., Edwards, D. K., & Wheaton, C. A. (1993). Public-participation in wildlife management - opinions from public meetings and random surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21(3), 218-225.

Kalof, L., & Fitzgerald, A. (2003). Reading the trophy: Exploring the display of dead animals in hunting magazines. Visual Studies, 18(2), 112-122.

Kheel, M. (1996). The killing game: An ecofeminist perspective critique of hunting. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport. 23, 30-44.

77

Kleijn, D., F. Berendse, R. Smit, N. Gilssen, J. Smit, B. Brak and R. Gröneveld (2004) Ecological effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes in different agricultural landscapes in The Netherlands. Conservation Biology, 18 (3), 775–786.

Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, WJ. (2003). How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology,40(6), 947-969.

Klupfel, E. (2000). Achievement and opportunities in promoting the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan. Environments, 28 (1), 21-36.

Lafon, N. W., McMullin, S. L., Steffen, D. E., & Schulman, R. S. (2004). Improving stakeholder knowledge and agency image through collaborative planning. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(1), 220-231.

Lauber, T. B., & Knuth, B. A. (1999). Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case study of moose management. Society & Natural Resources, 12(1), 19-37.

Lischka, S. A., Riley, S. J., & Rudolph, B. A. (2008). Effects of impact perception on acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management,72(2), 502-509.

Littlefield, J. (2010). Men on the hunt: Ecofeminist insights into masculinity. Marketing Theory, 10(1), 97-117.

Macdonald, D.W. and P.J. Johnson (2000). Farmers and the custody of the countryside: trends in loss and conservation of non-productive habitats 1981–1998. Biological Conservation, 94 (2), 221–234.

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflicts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9,247-257.

Madden, F. (2004b). Preventing and mitigating human-wildlife conflicts: World Parks Congress recommendation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9 (4), 259-260.

Mann, S. (2013). Wildlife’s taste for horticultural crops costs millions of dollars, study says. In BetterFarming. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/wildlife%E2%80%99s-taste-horticultural-crops-costs-millions-dollars-study-says-11778

Marks, S.A. (1991). Southern hunting in black and white: Nature, history, and ritual in a Carolina community. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Martínez-Espiñeira, R. (2006). Public attitudes toward lethal coyote control. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11(2), 89-100.

Matzdorf, B., & Lorenz, J. (2010). How cost-effective are result-oriented agri-environmental measures? An empirical analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy 27 (2), 535–544

Messmer, T. A., & Schroeder, S. (1996). Perceptions of Utah alfalfa growers about wildlife damage to their hay crops: Implications for managing wildlife on private land. Great Basin Naturalist, 56(3), 254-260.

Migratory Birds Convection Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22. Retrieved on July 15, 2013, from Government

78

of Canada’s Justice Laws Website http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/FullText.html

Mineau, P., & McLaughlin, A. (1996). Conservation of biodiversity within Canadian agricultural landscapes: Integrating habitat for wildlife. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 9(2), 93-113

Minnis, D. L. (2001). Issue management: Part and parcel of wildlife management. Wildlife

Society Bulletin, 29(3), 988-994.

Moulton, C. E., Brady, R. S., & Belthoff, J. R. (2006). Association between wildlife and agriculture: Underlying mechanisms and implications in burrowing owls. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(3), 708-716.

Muhly, T. B., & Musiani, M. (2009). Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the northwestern US. Ecological Economics, 68(8-9), 2439-2450.

Mussel, A. & Schmidt, C. (2009). An economic update of the wildlife impact assessment for Ontario agriculture (Prepared by the George Morris Centre on behalf of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association). Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/Wildlife_Update_Report_051109.pdf

Muth, R. M., Zwick, R. R., Mather, M. E., Organ, J. F., Daigle, J. J., & Jonker, S. A. (2006). Unnecessary source of pain and suffering or necessary management tool: Attitudes of conservation professionals toward outlawing leghold traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(3), 706-715.

Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., & Treves, A. (2003). Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens' Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conservation Biology, 17 (6),1500-1511.

Olson, K. M. (2002). Detecting a common interpretive framework for impersonal violence: The

homology in participants’ rhetoric on sport hunting, “hate crimes,” and stranger rape. Southern Communication Journal,67(3), 215-244.

Ontario Federation of Agriculture. (2009). Canada-Ontario Farm Stewardship Program

(COFSP). In Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://ofa.on.ca/issues/fact-sheet/canada-ontario-environmental-farm-plan

Ontario Federation of Agriculture. (2012). Issues: Nuisance wildlife, what can farmers do? In

Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Retrieved August 5th, 2013, from http://ofa.on.ca/issues/fact-sheet/Nuisance-Wildlife-What-can-farmers-do-

Ontario Federation of Agriculture. (2012b). Changes needed in Species at Risk legislation. In OFA. Retrieved Sept 1, 2013, from http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/Changes-needed-in%20Species-at-Risk-legislation

Ontario Federation of Agriculture. (2012c). Preserving biodiversity is naturally part of a farmer’s job. In OFA. Retrieved Sept 1, 2013, from http://www.ofa.on.ca/about/county-federation-sites/russell/news/Preserving-biodiversity%20is%20naturally%20part%20of%20a%20farmer%E2%80%99s%20job

79

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunter (n.d.). Ontario Wildlife Crop Damage and Livestock Predation Assessment Manual. Retrieved July 12, 2013, from http://www.harvesthastings.ca/sites/www.harvesthastings.ca/files/e_WildlifeCropDamage3.pdf

Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. (2009). Wildlife Conflicts. In OFVGA. Retrieved on July 15, 2013, from http://www.ofvga.org/wildlifecontrol.php

Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. (2009b). Mission and Mandate. In OFVGA. Retrieved on July 20, 2013, from http://www.ofvga.org/mandate.php

Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. (2000). Final Report: Wildlife Impact

Assessment for Ontario Agriculture. Retrieved on July 15, 2013, from http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/wildlife%20impact%20assessment%20for%20ontario%20agriculture%20march%202000.pdf

Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. (2004). Probing Problem Wildlife: An Update on the Wildlife Action Project. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/ProbingProblemWildlife.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. (2011). Growing Forward: Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program. In OMAFRA. Retrieved June 25, 2013, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/predation/owdcpover.htm

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. (2013). Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan. In OMAFRA. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/efp/efp.htm

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2007). Wild Turkey Management for Ontario. In MNR.

Retrieved August 25, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/200271.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2008). Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human- Wildlife Conflicts in Ontario. Retrieved on Sept 1, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/244546.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2008b). Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human- Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario. Retrieved, July 1, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/244545.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2010). Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program: Community Conservation Lands Guide. In MNR. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@cltip/documents/abstract/stdprod_068544.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2011). Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). In MNR.

80

Retrieved July 2, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/stdprod_085029.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Wildlife Management. In Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Retrieved on August 20, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/index.html

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2013). Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna): Draft Ontario Recovery Strategy. In MNR. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/stdprod_102881.pdf

Pechacek, P., Li, G., Li, J., Wang, W., Wu, X., & Xu, J. (2013). Compensation payments for downsides generated by protected areas. Ambio, 42(1), 90-99.

Perlut, N. G., Strong, A. M., & Alexander, T. J. (2011). A model for integrating wildlife science and agri-environmental policy in the conservation of declining species. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75(7), 1657-1663.

Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters, 3(2), 74-82.

Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk, WilPo.3.2.6, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2013 from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/stdprod_068303.pdf

Protection of Livestock and Poultry from Dogs Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L. 24. Retrieved August 20, 2013, from ServiceOntario website http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90l24_e.htm

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 100-109.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.

Reiter, D. K., Brunson, M. W., & Schmidt, R. H. (1999). Public attitudes toward wildlife damage management and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(3), 746-758.

Robinson, G. M. (2006). Ontario's environmental farm plan: Evaluation and research agenda. Geoforum, 37(5), 859-873.

Rogers, R. A. (2008). Beasts, burgers, and hummers: Meat and the crisis of masculinity in contemporary

television advertisements. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2(3), 281-301.

81

Riley, M. (2012). Farmers grapple with balancing agriculture and protecting the bobolink. In My

Kawartha. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from http://www.mykawartha.com/news-story/3699000-farmers-grapple-with-balancing-agriculture-and-protecting-the-bobolink/

Rollins, K., & Briggs, H. C. (1996). Moral hazard, externalities, and compensation for crop damages from

wildlife. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(3), 368-386.

Schmitzberger, I., Th. Wrbka, B. Steurer, G. Aschenbrenner, J. Peterseil and H.G. Zechmeister(2005). How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 108 (3), 274–290.

Schwerdtner, K., & Gruber, B. (2007). A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes. Biological Conservation, 134(3), 354-360.

Smithers, J., & Furman, M. (2003). Environmental farm planning in ontario: Exploring participation and the endurance of change. Land use Policy, 20(4), 343-356.

Sonnenberg, M. (2011). Province backs off bobolink hay ban. In Simcoe Reformer. Retrieved August 29,

2013, from http://www.simcoereformer.ca/2011/05/27/province-backs-off-bobolink-hay-ban Stier, J. C., & Bishop, R. C. (1981). Crop depredation by waterfowl - is compensation the

solution. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economie Rurale, 29(2), 159-170.

Stonehouse, D. P. (2004). Sustainability issues in the agri-food sector in ontario, canada. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 23(3), 109-124.

Stout, R. J., Decker, D. J., Knuth, B. A., Proud, J. C., & Nelson, D. H. (1996). Comparison of three public-involvement approaches for stakeholder input into deer management decisions: A case study. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24(2), 312-317.

Thevathasan, N. V., & Gordon, A. M. (2004). Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the north temperate region: Experiences from southern ontario, canada. Agroforestry Systems, 61-2(1), 257-268.

Tilt, N. (n.d.). Farmers struggle with the implications of bobolink’s listing. In Ontario Farmer. Retrieved August 29th, 2013, from http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepages/?aid=3497&cn=AUCTION%20&%20CAREER%20LISTINGS&an=Farmers%20struggle%20with%20the%20implications%20of%20the%20bobolink%92s%20listing

Toombs, T. P., & Roberts, M. G. (2009). Are natural resources conservation service range management investments working at cross-purposes with wildlife habitat goals on western united states rangelands? Rangeland Ecology & Management, 62(4), 351-355.

Treves, A. (2008). The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas. In

82

Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., Perry, J.B., Duke, E.A., & Decker, D.J. (Eds). Wildlife and Society: The Science of Human Dimensions (214-228). Publisher: Unknown.

Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton-Treves, L., & Morales, A. (2006). Co-managing Human–Wildlife conflicts: A review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11(6), 383-396.

Treves, A., Jurewicz, R. L., Naughton-Treves, L., & Wilcove, D. S. (2009). The price of tolerance: Wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(14), 4003-4021.

Van Tassell, L. W., Phillips, C., & Yang, B. (1999). Depredation claim settlements in wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(2), 479-487.

Wagner, K. K., Schmidt, R. H., & Conover, M. R. (1997). Compensation programs for wildlife damage in north america. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(2), 312-319.

Walter, W., Leslie, D., Hellgren, E., & Engle, D. (2010). Identification of subpopulations of north american elk (cervus elaphus L.) using multiple lines of evidence: Habitat use, dietary choice, and fecal stable isotopes.Ecological Research, 25(4), 789-800.

Wossink, A., van Wenum, J., Jurgens, C., & de Snoo, G. (1999). Coordinating economic, behavioral and spatial aspects of wildlife preservation in agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 26(4), 443-460.

Yoder, J. (2002). Estimation of wildlife-inflicted property damage and abatement based on compensation program claims data. Land Economics, 78(1), 45-59 http://www.humanwildlifeconflict.org/Downloads/WPC_IUCN-HDW.pdf \

83

XI. Appendix

Appendix A

Source: http://www.thegrower.org/pdf/TheGrower_August%202013.pdf

Appendix B

Survey on Human-Wildlife Conflict Management for Crop Farmers in Ontario

You are invited to participate in a Senior Honors research study led by Leeza Shabekov, under the supervision of Stephen Murphy, the department chair of Environment and Resource Studies of the University of Waterloo. This email is being sent on behalf of the researchers and has been designed for farmers that grow all or a portion of their crops outdoors. In the last few years, the issues faced on farms due to wildlife presence have gained more attention. The purpose of this survey is to better understand these human-wildlife conflicts as well their management requirements from a crop farmer’s perspective.

If you decide to participate in this survey, it will only take you 10 minutes to complete and your participation will be fully anonymous. The survey questions focus on a variety of wildlife and conflict management issues. Participation is voluntary and you can choose to withdraw at any point during the survey by simply not pressing ‘submit’ and exiting the website.

Please be assured that your answers are completely confidential. There is no way of identifying a participant based on their answers and the results of this study. As well, the web site is programmed to collect responses alone and will not collect any information that could potentially identify you (such as machine identifiers).

To complete the survey, please click on the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Survey4OntarioCropFarmers

84

This survey is administered through Survey Monkey, which is an American company. Due to the Patriot Act, US authorities have the right to the survey data. If you would like to participate in the survey but would like to avoid Survey Monkey, please contact Leeza Shabekov using the contact info provided below so that you can submit your answers through an email or a paper survey. These methods would reduce your anonymity but will ensure full confidentiality.

The data collected will be maintained on a password-protected computer. As well, participant responses will be electronically archived and erased after the survey results have been analyzed.

If you have any questions about this study or would like to receive the study results upon completion please contact Leeza Shabekov at 519-721-7458 or email eshabeko@uwaterloo.ca.

I would like to assure you that this study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee. However, the final decision about participation is yours. If you have any comments or concerns resulting from your participation in this study, please feel to contact Dr. Maureen Nummelin, the Director, Office of Research Ethics, at 1-519-888-4567, Ext. 36005 or maureen.nummelin@uwaterloo.ca.

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this survey!

Appendix C

• The Protection of Livestock and Poultry from Dogs Act enables anybody, including farmers, to kill a dog that is injuring or killing livestock or is expected to (Protection of Livestock and Poultry from Dogs Act 1990).

• Ontario’s Elk Management Plan of 2010 resulted in a change to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to include elk in the list of animals that can be harassed, captured or killed with an authorization from the MNR. The Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk also stems from the plan and includes guidelines for when this authorization may be given (Policy for Protecting Agricultural Property from Elk 2011).

• The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act allows all property owners to kill or harass a wildlife animal on their property. It has a special section for farmers or their families to kill game wildlife during the open season without a license with some restriction on specie type. Body gripping traps are forbidden, but there are exceptions, including for farmers (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 1997). In 2008, this was expanded further by the MNR. Municipalities situated south of the French and Mattawa Rivers are now permitted Sunday hunting (Mussel &Schmidt 2009).

• There are also species of wildlife that are regulated on a federal level in Ontario. Under the federal Migratory Birds Convection Act, people must receive authorization to kill Canada geese from Environment Canada. The act, which is administered by the Canadian Wildlife Service (under Environment Canada) (Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association 2000), gives the protection of migratory birds a legal backbone by outlawing, for instance, pollution of water used by migratory birds and the destruction of nests. However, it also permits migratory bird hunting during the open season when a hunting permit is purchased (Migratory Birds Convection Act

85

1994.;OMNR 2008). When Sunday hunting was introduced, The Migratory Bird Convention Act was changed to reflect this (Mussel & Schmidt 2009). Under the act, farmers are permitted to scare migratory birds away in any fashion without a permit as long as they don’t use aircraft or firearms. Special permits also exist to allow crop farmers to kill and harass with firearms, or collect and destroy game bird eggs, although municipal laws still apply (OSCIA 2000).

• In a multitude of Wildlife Management Units, which delineate hunting zones in major agricultural areas in Southern Ontario, deer hunting seasons are extended. There are also ‘special provisions’ that allow hunters to kills two deer in certain areas. When deer are causing damage outside of the hunting season, farmers can also apply for an Agricultural Deer Removal Authorization (Issuance of Deer Removal 2004).