The emergence of human±wildlife con¯ict management: turningchallenges into opportunities

Terry A. Messmer

Wildlife Con¯ict Management, Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, 5210 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5210, USA

Abstract

With the increase in wildlife populations in response to protection, human±wildlife con¯icts also have increased. In the past,rural residents, especially agricultural producers, and forestry owners bore the brunt of wildlife damage. More recently, urban

residents and other wildlife stakeholders are increasingly experiencing wildlife damage. The phrases `animal damage control',`problem wildlife management', and `wildlife damage management' have been traditionally used to describe actions taken toreduce economic losses to agricultural produce caused by wildlife. More recently, the phrase `human±wildlife con¯ictmanagement' is being applied to these and other situations that involve any negative interactions between humans and wildlife.

These con¯icts can be either real or perceived, economic or aesthetic, social or political. Human±wildlife con¯icts also mayencompass damages to the individual that result from federal, state, or local wildlife legislation, regulations, or policies that aredesigned to protect or conserve wildlife, public bene®ts, and individual property rights. In this paper, I discuss the emergence of

the ®eld of human±wildlife con¯ict management and identify how public and private wildlife conservation agencies andorganizations can turn these new challenges into opportunities to increase public support for professional management. 7 2000Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Wildlife management has been de®ned as the appli-cation of ecological knowledge to balance wildlifepopulations with human needs. Consequently, man-agers have traditionally sought to maintain or increasedesirable wildlife species (i.e., game ®sh, birds, andmammals) to meet human food and recreational needsby directly manipulating their habitats (indirect man-agement) or the population (direct management).Indirect management approaches implemented toimprove habitat conditions generally result in gradualincreases in the size of desirable population by raisingbirth rates or survival rates. Direct managementapproaches describe those activities (i.e., regulation ofharvest, predation management) that have immediatee�ects on population, birth or death rates. Althoughdirect management approaches remain popular withtraditional constituents, these approaches are contro-versial among public stakeholders and thus their appli-

cation in contemporary environment continues to bequestioned (Messmer et al., 1997a, 1999).

Wildlife population increases typically in response toprotection measures and limitations placed on the useof direct management approaches (Messmer et al.,1997a; Fall and Jackson, 1998). Consequently, becauseof these restrictions, many contemporary rural andurban environments are inhabited by much larger wild-life populations than were present a century ago.Although rural, suburban, and urban residents gener-ally enjoy seeing wildlife, negative experiences associ-ated with overabundant wildlife populations areincreasing public concerns over these species (Conoverand Decker, 1991; Conover 1994, 1997a, 1998; Mess-mer et al., 1997b, Warren, 1997). It is ironic thatalthough these situations may best be resolved bytrained biologists and managers, public funding andsupport for the professional wildlife management con-tinues to decline (Messmer et al., 1999).

Some authors suggest that if wildlife management is

International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45 (2000) 97±102

0964-8305/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0964-8305(00 )00045 -7

www.elsevier.com/locate/ibiod

to survive as a profession, managers must change theirtraditional emphasis from that of managing populationto enhancing wildlife's societal values (Minnis and Pey-ton, 1995; Decker et al., 1996). I argue that to makethis transition, wildlife managers also will need to havea better understanding about how and why human±wildlife con¯icts occur, the magnitude and public per-ceptions of the damage, and the strategies that can beimplemented to address the challenges posed by locallyoverabundant wildlife population.

2. Increasing magnitude of human±wildlife con¯icts

Unfortunately, there are no national or state sum-mary statistics available regarding the damage orsocial and economic losses caused by wildlife in termsof human lives, property, and opportunity costs.Hence, the magnitude of the damage caused in eachcategory by di�erent wildlife species remains speculat-ive. However, available scienti®c survey data suggestthat human±wildlife con¯icts are increasing (Conoverand Decker, 1991; Conover 1994, 1997a, 1998).

In a survey of US agricultural producers, Conover(1998) reported that over 89% of the respondents ex-perienced problems with wildlife. Most (80%) experi-enced wildlife damage annually with 54% reportinglosses from wildlife in excess of $500. Over 40% of allagricultural producers reported that wildlife damagewas so severe on their farms or ranches that theywould oppose the creation of a wildlife sanctuarynearby; 26% said damages reduced their willingness toprovide wildlife habitat on their property. Thesedamages occurred despite a mean annual expenditureof over 40 h and $1000 per farmer to solve or preventwildlife damage (Conover, 1998). When extrapolatedto the nation's 2,088,000 farm operators (US Bureauof the Census, 1991), losses exceeded $2 billion despitethe 91 million hours and $2 billion spent on preventivemeasures. Of these losses, over $160 million is to live-stock±poultry; $53 million to fruit, nut, and vegetablecrops; $16 million to other crops; and $30 million tostored crops. Predatory wildlife annually kill over490,000 sheep and lambs, 83,000 goats, and 106,000cattle; resulting in economic losses in excess of $73million (Conover et al., 1995). In addition, wildlifedamage to agricultural productivity can cause anincrease in food costs for consumers and reduce pro®tmargins for many farmers and ranchers.

Wildlife damage to the timber industry also con-tinues to increase. Beaver (Castor canadensis ) damageto tree plantations in the southeastern US is estimatedto exceed $22 million annually. Deer (Odocoileus spp.)browsing causes an estimated $367 million/year lossfor timber production in the northeast. Wildlife-caused

damage to forests in the northwest results in the lossof $378 million/year (Conover et al., 1995).

Wildlife damage traditionally has been thought of asjust `a rural or agricultural problem'. More recently,overabundant wildlife population are causing a myriadof other problems (e.g., residential damage, deer±ve-hicle collisions, disease). Over 60% of urban and sub-urban households in the US annually experienceproblems with wildlife (Conover, 1997a; Messmer etal., 1999). Urban households reported a mean loss of$63 per household or a total loss of $1.9 billionbecause of wildlife damage. Urban residents alsoreported spending over 260 million hours trying tosolve or prevent these problems.

Additional human±wildlife con¯icts include humanillness and fatalities resulting from wildlife-related dis-eases, wildlife bites, attacks, deer±automobile col-lisions, and bird±aircraft strikes. Research suggeststhat in the US, each year, approximately 5000 peopleare injured or taken ill, and 415 people die because ofwildlife-related incidents (Conover et al., 1995). Con-over et al. (1995) estimated the total impact of wild-life-related damage incidents to approach $3 billion,annually.

3. The biology and ecology of human±wildlife con¯icts

Few public stakeholders understand how human±wildlife con¯icts are created, let alone the most envir-onmentally correct way to manage the problems.Increased public awareness and appreciation of the ori-gin, dynamic nature, and ecology of human±wildlifecon¯icts also may provide valuable insights into poten-tial solutions. The reason for most, if not all, human±wildlife con¯icts, can be determined with a basic ap-preciation and understanding of biological and eco-logical relationships.

Typically, organisms that naturally occur together inan ecosystem co-evolved over long periods of time.Consequently, the plant, animal, and disease assem-blages found in an ecosystem exhibit a high degree ofintrinsic stability and resilience to climatic and otherenvironmental factors (Odum, 1971). Thus, nativespecies are better equipped to co-exist with naturalpredators, forage competitors, and wildlife-transmitteddiseases.

When humans entered these systems they began toalter the environments to achieve speci®c purposes. Toexist in natural environments, humans have modi®edthe plant and animal communities by introducing exo-tic plants and animals. Many of the species introduceddid not have the capability to develop an adaptivecoexistence with organisms already present in the sys-tem. Although the speci®c e�ects of these introduc-tions and habitat and management changes that

T.A. Messmer / International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45 (2000) 97±10298

accompany them (e.g., habitat alteration, predatorcontrol, disease) on the population dynamics of native¯ora and fauna are unpredictable, in most cases thebalance and stability of the natural community isaltered.

Exotics may displace native species, frequently rele-gating them to new roles as biological deteriogens iftheir continued existence competes with human valuesystems. In many cases, introduced domestic animalsand plants have not acquired an adequate resistance tonative predators, herbivores, and diseases to sustainthemselves at acceptable economic levels withouthuman intervention. For example, cultivated plantsdeveloped to enhance characteristics desired byhumans (i.e., color, increased yields, resistance to dis-ease, rapid growth), in the absence of native herbi-vores, may lack the necessary adaptations to survivethe herbivory of the locally overabundant wildlifepopulation.

The economic and environmental sustainability ofthese altered systems depends on achieving and main-taining a balance between human uses, vegetation, andherbivory as modi®ed by predation, disease, and otherdensity-dependent factors (Howard, 1985). To copewith the con¯icts that may result in altered environ-ments, the density or numbers of o�ending species areoften regulated. The o�ending species are managed orcontrolled to protect the other species and reduce thedamage to the desired resources. It is ironic that fre-quently the individual or population of wildlife at thesource of these con¯icts also may be highly valued bythe society. In essence, how wildlife are viewed inhuman±wildlife con¯ict situations depends largely onhow stakeholders are personally a�ected.

4. The socio-economic nature of human±wildlife con¯icts

Any wildlife population can be thought of as aresource that provides a multitude of societal bene®tsand values (Conover, 1997a, 1997b). Some are positiveand increase a person's wealth, security, well being, orquality of life; others are negative and have the oppo-site e�ect. For instance, positive values of deer includetheir recreational value to hunters and wildlife watch-ers; negative values include the economic and humanhealth problems that result from deer±automobile col-lisions. When all these positive and negative values aresummed for any wildlife species, the bene®ts providedto the society by wildlife greatly outweigh the costs(Conover, 1997b). Evidence of this is provided by thefact that most people have a high regard for wildlifeand report that their lives would be less satisfying ifwildlife were not present (Conover, 1997a, 1998). Thisis especially true for rural residents, who often cite the

opportunity to live close to nature as one of the ben-e®ts of a rural lifestyle.

Human attitudes and values about wildlife varyboth among and within di�erent sectors of the society.Given the increased diversity of people who live inrural areas, the views of rural residents about wildlifemay not di�er substantially from urban residentsexcept that they personally experience more of the ben-e®ts and problems caused by wildlife. Farmers, how-ever, remain the one sector of the society whoseattitudes about wildlife continue to di�er from otherstakeholders (Kellert, 1980). They continue to viewwildlife in utilitarian terms and tend to be more con-cerned about how wildlife a�ects them economically.Given the impact that wildlife damage can have ontheir farm production, and, therefore, on their family'sincome, these di�erences are not surprising.

Di�erences in wildlife attitudes may also varyamong rural agricultural producers. Utilitarian ten-dencies increased among farmers with the amount ofland owned or as the person's economic dependencyon the land increased (Kellert, 1981). For example,farmers deriving a greater percentage of income fromtheir farms are less tolerant of deer and deer damage(Tanner and Dimmick, 1983). Farmers producinghigh-value crops which were vulnerable to wildlifedamage (e.g., apples, nursery plants) are less tolerantof wildlife than other farmers (Decker and Brown,1982).

Still, many rural landowners appreciate wildlife.Fifty-one percent of US agricultural producersreported that they deliberately took steps to managetheir property for the bene®t of wildlife (Conover,1998). Agricultural producers reported spending amean of $223 and 14 h annually to help wildlife ontheir property, which when extrapolated to thenation's 2,088,000 occupational farmers, equaled 29million hours and more than $350 million (Conover,1998).

Although, over 60% of urban households experi-enced problems with wildlife (Conover 1997a, Messmeret al., 1999), more (69%) indicate that they actively tryto manage wildlife. Urban residents annually spent anaverage of $60 and 22 h trying to enhance neighbor-hood wildlife population. This amounts to $3.6 billionand 1.3 billion hours when extrapolated to the nation's60 million households in the 100 largest metropolitanareas (Conover et al., 1995).

5. The emergence of the ®eld of human±wildlife con¯ictmanagement

The phrase `animal damage control' has historicallybeen applied to e�orts conducted by managers toreduce economic losses caused by wildlife to agricul-

T.A. Messmer / International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45 (2000) 97±102 99

tural crops and livestock. In the 1980s the phrase `pro-blem wildlife management' was used to describe theseactivities. By the 1990s both phrases had been replacedwith `wildlife damage management' and the focus wasexpanded to address problems caused by wildlife inurban and game management settings. More recently,the phrase `human±wildlife con¯ict management' hasemerged to describe techniques and strategies that arebeing applied to manage all situations that involve anyand all negative interactions between humans andwildlife. These con¯icts and the associated damage canbe either real or perceived, economic or aesthetic,social or political.

Previous attempts to manage damage or con¯icts as-sociated with wildlife did not address the often intangi-ble social and economic costs that may result fromwildlife legislation, regulations, or policies (e.g.,Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act), that areimplemented to protect or conserve speci®c wildlifespecies and their habitats. Although designed to pro-tect and conserve native ¯ora and fauna and theirhabitats in the interest of the public, some rules andregulations implementing wildlife protection can havedirect measurable social and economic impacts on in-dividuals or speci®c groups in society as well as wild-life populations (Fall and Jackson, 1998).

In response to these new concerns, local, county,and state jurisdictions also have begun to implementmeasures designed to protect individual private prop-erty rights. These actions, while intended to protect therights of the individual, may damage or impact otherstakeholders who place high values on wildlife. Forexample, a county or state action that prevents thereintroduction of extirpated native species or wilder-ness designations as a means of preserving existing orpotential land uses to protect one group's propertyrights may at the same time impact another's ability toenjoy wildlife related experiences.

6. Increasing stakeholder participation in managinghuman±wildlife con¯icts

The dictum, `nothing operates in a vacuum', is es-pecially applicable to the management of human±wild-life con¯icts. Contemporary wildlife managers live andwork in environments that are continually beingreshaped by social, cultural, and political forces. Con-sequently, the success of programs designed to resolvehuman±wildlife con¯icts in this dynamic environmentwill largely rest on the ability of the decision makersand managers to recognize, embrace, and incorporatedi�ering stakeholder values, attitudes, and beliefs inthe policy making process. The task of managing thesecon¯icts will prove more di�cult as the social demo-

graphics of our communities continue to diversify(Decker et al., 1996).

Increased diversity of stakeholders has created newmanagement dilemmas regarding the use of traditionalapproaches to managing wildlife. In some cases, popu-lation management techniques such as hunting, ®shing,and trapping, which were once mainstream, arebecoming increasingly unacceptable. Increased con-cerns for privacy, property damage, and safety mayresult in larger areas being closed to the use of tra-ditional population management options, thus furtherexacerbating the con¯icts (Messmer et al., 1997a,1997b).

Decisions regarding the management of wildlife pro-blem by their very nature tend to be controversial. Asstakeholders' values, attitudes, and beliefs change thecon¯icts regarding these decisions will exacerbate.However, if human±wildlife con¯icts are viewed as are¯ection of societal diversity, they may actuallybecome important positive forces of change if handledconstructively (Schafer and Tait, 1981). When con¯ictsare handled improperly, they can be sources of contin-ued public frustration, further reducing the credibilityof the agency administering the program and detract-ing from long-term objectives (Hewitt and Messmer,1997; Messmer et al., 1997b).

More resource agencies are ®nding that con¯ictmanagement approaches can be used e�ectively tomanage stakeholder disagreements (Bingham, 1997).These approaches are voluntary processes in which sta-keholders seek to achieve a mutually bene®cial resol-ution of their di�erences. Most of these processes areled by a mediator who serves as a neutral third partyin a negotiation process who helps the group to estab-lish a framework within which the negotiations can beconducted. Elements of a successful con¯ict manage-ment process include: (1) identi®cation of clearlyde®ned objectives; (2) establishment of clearly de®nedauthority levels to prevent false expectations; (3) par-ticipant agreement on how group decisions will bemade, prior to dealing with the issues; (4) inclusion ofteam building activities; (5) maintenance of continuityby not allowing substitutes; (6) implementation ofguidelines and activities that promote active listening;and (7) achievement of success with smaller issuesprior to addressing larger concerns (Guynn, 1997).

Although public input processes require more timeand resources, they provide stakeholders with anincreased opportunity to become more knowledgeableabout management options and participate in the de-cision making process. Increased participation will ulti-mately result in more public ownership in theoutcome, enhanced program credibility, and realizationof long term wildlife conservation goals (Hewitt andMessmer, 1997; Messmer et al., 1997b). Lastly, soundscienti®c and technical data are essential for creating

T.A. Messmer / International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45 (2000) 97±102100

workable solutions. Unfortunately, for most human±wildlife con¯icts, the necessary data upon which tomake the decisions are lacking (Bingham, 1997).

7. Additional knowledge is needed to resolve human±wildlife con¯icts

Contemporary knowledge about the magnitude ofdamage or problems caused by wildlife is inadequateto develop accurate conclusions about the extent ofsocial and economic losses caused by wildlife. Speci®cde®ciencies in our knowledge include little or no dataon: (1) actual versus perceived economic losses foragricultural producers; (2) forestry losses; (3) the inci-dence of human diseases for which wildlife may play arole in transmission; (4) the magnitude and socio-econ-omic consequences of deer±vehicle collisions; (5) theprevalence and consequences of bird±aircraft strikes;(6) damage to rural and urban households; (7) socialand economic damage associated with wildlife protec-tion measures that restrict personal property rights; (8)social and economic costs associated with the elimin-ation or restrictions placed on traditional wildlife man-agement strategies of hunting or trapping or the lossof a registered control technique (i.e., toxicants andrepellents); (9) increased wildlife damage associatedwith limitations or restrictions placed on the use oftraditional harvest management strategies to controloverabundant and nuisance wildlife populations; (10)the impacts of overabundant wildlife populations onother natural resources and the environment; and (11)the social and economic costs associated with lostopportunities for stakeholders to enjoy extirpatednative ¯ora and fauna. These informations are necess-ary for the resource management and conservationagencies and organizations in developing proactiveprograms to address human±wildlife con¯icts. Giventhis information, federal, state, and local governmentswould be able to develop a system to e�ciently allo-cate resources to address human±wildlife con¯icts(Conover and Decker, 1991; Conover et al., 1995).

8. Increasing human tolerance for wildlife damage

Another approach that has been successfully used tomanage human±wildlife con¯icts involves changing theperceptions of people experiencing the damage byincreasing their willingness to tolerate damage. Thiscan be accomplished by enhancing an individual's ap-preciation for wildlife and its non-tangible bene®ts.Agricultural producers already are receptive to thisargument and appreciate the wildlife of their farms, asindicated by the amount of time and money spent bymost farmers to enhance wildlife habitat and their tol-

erance for some wildlife damage. This tolerance can befurther enhanced by providing economic incentives.

Sovoda (1980) identi®ed three types of incentivesthat encourage landowners to manage for wildlife:economic, personal, and social. Economic incentives,such as income derived from leasing the hunting rightsincrease the monetary value of wildlife for landowners.Personal incentives accentuate personal ful®llment, asense of well-being, or achievement of a personal goal.Many landowners, for instance, have a sense of pridethat their farm contains abundant wildlife. Farmerswho hunted deer were more likely to improve wildlifehabitat, more likely to favor an increase in the deerpopulation and more tolerant of deer damage thanthose who did not hunt (Tanner and Dimmick, 1983).Social incentives would include managing wildlife habi-tat to achieve peer-group acceptance, community rec-ognition, or leadership status. For instance, Burgerand Teer (1981) reported in Texas, ``to have wildlife[on your land] is a tradition that is respected, and tohave ®ne cattle and trophy deer is a worthy goal ofmanagement, and a socially desirable activity.'' Kellert(1981) suggested that the best way to motivate occu-pational farmers with large operations was by provid-ing practical, economic, and tangible reasons whilehobby farmers may be more motivated by aesthetics.

9. Management of human±wildlife con¯icts in the future

In the US, within the last few decades, the emigra-tion from rural areas has been somewhat o�-set inmany parts of the country by a movement of urbanresidents into rural areas. Because of these two-waymovements, rural residents are losing some of theirdistinctiveness, and rural society is becoming more het-erogeneous. Yet, rural residents still di�er from urbanresidents by having a greater appreciation for wildlifeand a more utilitarian attitude towards wildlife thanthe newer residents. This trend will likely continue wellinto the 21st Century.

During the last century, many wildlife populationshave recovered largely because of protection fromoverexploitation and the emergence of science and ap-plication of wildlife management. With the increase inwildlife population, human±wildlife con¯icts have alsoincreased. Yet despite these con¯icts, many peoplecontinue to express appreciation for wildlife andactively try to improve wildlife habitat on their prop-erty.

To succeed in this environment, wildlife managersmay need to shift their focus from trying to maximizewildlife population to the more di�cult one of tryingto optimize wildlife values for society. A major di�-culty in trying to achieve this optimization is that thebene®ts and liabilities have not been evenly distributed

T.A. Messmer / International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45 (2000) 97±102 101

between di�erent segments of society. Unfortunately,most of this burden has fallen on private landowners,particularly the agricultural community. This will con-tinue to fuel disagreements regarding ideal wildlifepopulation numbers and their management. To bettermanage these disagreements, wildlife managers, in ad-dition to having better information about the increas-ing magnitude of the human±wildlife con¯icts andstrategies that can be used to increase stakeholder par-ticipation in seeking solutions, must begin to viewthese new challenges as opportunities to gain widerpublic support for professional management.

References

Bingham, G., 1997. Seeking consensus on resource management.

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural

Resource Conference 62, 127±134.

Burger, G.V., Teer, J.G., 1981. Economic and socioeconomic issues

in¯uencing wildlife Management on Private Lands. In: Dumke,

R.T., Burger, G.V., March, J.R. (Eds.), Wildlife management of

private lands. The Wildlife Society, Madison, WI, pp. 252±278

(Wisconsin Chapter).

Conover, M.R., 1994. Perceptions of grass-roots leaders of the agri-

cultural community about wildlife and wildlife damage on their

farms and ranches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22, 94±100.

Conover, M.R., 1997a. Wildlife management by metropolitan resi-

dents in the United States: practices, perceptions, costs, and

values. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 306±311.

Conover, M.R., 1997b. Monetary and intangible evaluation of deer

in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 298±305.

Conover, M.R., 1998. Perceptions of American agricultural produ-

cers about wildlife on their farms and ranches. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 26, 597±604.

Conover, M.R., Decker, D.J., 1991. Wildlife damage to crops: per-

ceptions of agricultural and wildlife professionals in 1957 and

1987. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19, 46±52.

Conover, M.R., Pitt, W.C., Kessler, K.K., DuBow, T.J., Sanborn,

W.A., 1995. Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic

losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 23, 407±414.

Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., 1982. Fruit growers' vs. other farmers'

attitudes toward deer in New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10,

150±155.

Decker, D.J., Krueger, C.C., Baer Jr, R.A., Knuth, B.A., Richmond,

M.E., 1996. From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift

for ®sh and wildlife management. Human Dimensions in Wildlife

1, 70±82.

Fall, M.W., Jackson, W.B., 1998. A new era of vertebrate pest con-

trol? An introduction special issue. International Biodeterioration

and Biodegradation 42, 85±91.

Guynn, D.E., 1997. Miracle in Montana Ð managing con¯icts over

private lands and public wildlife issues. Transactions of the North

American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 62, 146±

154.

Hewitt, D.G., Messmer, T.A., 1997. Responsiveness of agencies and

organizations to wildlife damage: policy process implications.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 418±428.

Howard, W.E., 1985. Vertebrate predators, competitors and disease

carriers of livestock Ð introduction and overview. In: Gaafar,

S.M., Howard, W.E., Marsh, R.E. (Eds.), Parasites, Pests, and

Predators. Elsevier, New York, pp. 389±395.

Kellert, S.R., 1980. Contemporary values of wildlife in American so-

ciety. In: Shaw, W.W., Zube, E.H. (Eds.), Wildlife Values, U.S.

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Instructional Service Report 1, pp. 31±59.

Kellert, S.R., 1981. Wildlife and the private landowner. In: Dumke,

R.T., Berger, G.V., March, J.R. (Eds.), Wildlife Management on

Private Lands. The Wildlife Society, Madison, WI, pp. 18±34

(Wisconsin Chapter).

Messmer, T.A., George, S., Cornicelli, L., 1997a. Legal consider-

ations regarding lethal and nonlethal approaches to managing

urban Deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 424±429.

Messmer, T.A., Cornicelli, L., Deehu, K.J., Hewitt, D.G., 1997b.

Stake holder acceptance of urban deer management techniques.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 360±366.

Messmer, T.A., Brunson, M.W., Reiter, D., Hewitt, D.G., 1999.

United States public attitudes regarding predators and their man-

agement to enhance avian recruitment. Wildlife Society Bulletin

27, 75±85.

Minnis, D.L., Peyton, R.B., 1995. Cultural carrying capacity, model-

ing a notion. In: McAninch, J.B. (Ed.), Urban Deer: A

Manageable Resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of

the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, MO,

pp. 19±34.

Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Saunders,

Philadelphia, PA.

Schafer, R.B., Tait, J.L., 1981. A Guide for Understanding Attitudes

and Attitude Change, North Central Regional Extension

Publication 138. Iowa State University, Ames.

Sovoda, F.J., 1980. Professionalism and wildlife management on pri-

vate lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8, 96±97.

Tanner, G., Dimmick, R.W., 1983. An assessment of farmers' atti-

tudes toward deer and deer damage in west Tennessee.

Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference

1, 195±199.

US Bureau of the Census, 1991. Statistical Abstract of the United

States, 111th ed. US Government Printing O�ce, Washington,

DC.

Warren, R.J., 1997. The challenge of deer over abundance in the

21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 213±214.

T.A. Messmer / International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45 (2000) 97±102102