Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    35%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal species of using wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts. One study was in Canada and one was in Mexico.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated site comparison studies in Canada and Mexico found more moose in areas with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. The other study found mixed results with only one of five species being more numerous in a non-hunted refuge.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, site comparison study in 1984 of 24 forest blocks in Quebec, Canada (Crête & Jolicoeur 1985) found more moose Alces alces in game reserves with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. Games reserves held 0.28 moose/km2 compared to 0.06/km2 in adjacent hunted areas and 0.14/km2 in hunted areas ≥50 km away. Dispersal from game reserves was reported to sustain moose harvests in adjacent areas. Moose density was estimated by surveying 24 plots of 60 km2 each. Twelve plots were in areas that overlapped between game reserves with limited hunting (108 hunter-days/100 km2/year) and more heavily hunted adjacent areas (518 hunter-days/100 km2/year). Twelve plots were in hunting areas ≥50 km from a reserve (with 315 hunter-days/100 km2/year). Twelve transect lines/plot were surveyed from fixed-wing aircraft in January 1984.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2001 of four forest areas in Campeche, Mexico (Reyna-Hurtado & Tanner 2007) found that one of five ungulate species was more numerous in a non-hunted refuge area compared to in hunted areas and two were more numerous in hunted areas. There were more white-lipped peccaries Tayassu pecari in non-hunted (0.24 tracks/km) than hunted (0.08 tracks/km) areas. White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus were more numerous in hunted areas (non-hunted: 0.24; hunted: 0.88 tracks/km) as was Central American tapir Tapirus bairdii (non-hunted: 0.03; hunted: 0.42 tracks/km). No differences between areas were found for brocket deer Mazama sp. (non-hunted: 6.4; hunted: 6.7 tracks/km) or collared peccary Pecari tajacu (non-hunted: 0.9; hunted: 1.0 tracks/km). Transects were established on land not hunted on since the 1980s, and on three adjacent hunted sites with similar habitat. Transects were ≥3 km from villages and had start points ≥2 km apart. Twenty-eight transects (total 57 km) were walked in the non-hunted area and 18–24 transects (35–70 km/site), were walked in hunted areas. Transects were walked in February–July 2001. Ungulate tracks within 1 m of transects were counted and recorded to species.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust