Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

35%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

To help protect or sustain populations of hunted species, refuges may be designated that have limited or not hunting. This intervention covers studies that assess the impact of such refuges where they lie adjacent to hunted areas.

See also: Habitat protection - Legally protect habitat for mammals.

Study locations

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

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
Referenced paper
Crête M. & Jolicoeur H. (1985) Comparing two systems of moose management for harvest. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 464-469.
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
Referenced paper
Reyna-Hurtado R. & Tanner G.W. (2007) Ungulate relative abundance in hunted and non-hunted sites in Calakmul Forest (southern Mexico). Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 743-756.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Commercially breed for the mammal production trade Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link