• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ursus: an official publication of the International Association for Bear Research and Management >Is diversionary feeding an effective tool for reducing human-bear conflicts? Case studies from North America and Europe
【24h】

Is diversionary feeding an effective tool for reducing human-bear conflicts? Case studies from North America and Europe

机译：导流喂养一种减少人熊冲突的有效工具吗？ 北美和欧洲的案例研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Diversionary feeding uses food to lure animals away from areas where they are unwanted or could cause conflicts with people. With bears (Ursidae) increasingly attracted to human food sources worldwide, diversionary feeding represents a seemingly logical and publicly acceptable means of alleviating conflicts. Feeding wildlife is widely practiced in Europe to enhance hunting and reduce conflicts, but feeding of bears is discouraged across North America. The efficacy and potential side effects of bear feeding remain an open question because of a lack of rigorous studies. Here we examine 5 case studies from which we attempt to draw inferences about feeding as a conflict-mitigation strategy. Studies included U.S. national parks, where after bear feeding was banned conflicts were reduced; Aspen, Colorado, where lucrative dumpsters in town did not divert bears from using human-related foods at other sources; rural Minnesota, where results of intentional feeding of a small sample of bears were confounded with other variables; the Tahoe Basin of California Nevada, where an emergency feeding effort during a drought-caused food failure seemed to reduce conflicts within approximately 1 km of the feeding site; and Slovenia, where a high density of feeders at established locations seemed to divert bears from using settlements during autumn hyperphagia. Although none of these studies were true experiments with treatments and controls, the range of circumstances yielded insights into when feeding could be effective: when food demands are not readily met by natural foods; when the provisioned food is easily found outside the potential conflict area; when the food is attractive; and when bears do not associate the feeding with people. However, long-term feeding may increase bear population size, which may increase conflicts overall, or trigger a demand for population control. Diversionary feeding, if used, should be conducted as an adaptive management strategy by professionals so as
机译：转移饲料使用食物来吸引动物远离他们不受欢迎的区域或可能导致人们的冲突。随着熊（Ursidae）越来越多地吸引了全球人类食物来源，转让饲养代表了一种看似逻辑和公开可接受的缓解冲突手段。喂养野生动物在欧洲广泛实施，以加强狩猎和减少冲突，但熊的喂养在北美泄气。由于缺乏严格的研究，熊饲养的效果和潜在副作用仍然是一个开放的问题。在这里，我们研究了5个案例研究，我们试图吸引有关饲养的推论作为冲突缓解策略。研究包括美国国家公园，禁止熊饲喂后的冲突;科罗拉多州的阿斯彭，镇上有利可图的垃圾箱没有将熊从其他来源中使用与人类相关的食物转移;明尼苏达州乡村，在那里故意喂养小熊样本的结果与其他变量混淆;加州内华达州的太浩盆地，在干旱导致的食物失败期间紧急喂养努力似乎减少了饲养场约1公里的冲突;和斯洛文尼亚，建立位置的高密度饲养剂似乎在秋季过度形状期间将熊转移到使用沉降。虽然这些研究都没有治疗治疗和对照，但在喂养时的情况下会产生洞察力的洞察：当天然食物不容易满足粮食需求时;当拨款的食物很容易发现潜在的冲突区域;当食物有吸引力;当熊没有与人们联系起来时。然而，长期喂养可能会增加承担人口大小，这可能会增加整体冲突，或引发人口控制需求。如果使用的话，转移喂养应由专业人士作为自适应管理战略进行

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号