Dealing with Wildlife Damage to Crops

Every year wild animals such as deer, bear, wild boar and beaver are destroying thousands of acres of agricultural crops. According to the report, in 2010, North Carolina wildlife lost $ 29.4 million. The destruction of wild animals harms the yield of farmers and may harm the health of plants. They affect almost all of the crop; they are mainly corn, soybean, affect the peanuts, and farmers may result in several hundred US dollars or several thousand US dollars even losing cause in the production. Destruction of wildlife also has an adverse effect on crop health. This can lead to the spread of disease through crops, and rarely to humans.

The effect is often referred to as direct or indirect. Direct impacts include reduced productivity of crops, meadows and forests, increased risk of fire, decreased water levels, increased livestock and wildlife mortality rates, and damage to wildlife and fish habitats It is included. The consequences of these direct effects are indicative of indirect effects. For example, declining productivity of crops, meadows and forests is due to declines in incomes of farmers and agricultural companies, rising prices of food and wood, unemployment, declining taxes due to reduced expenditure, bank loans to farmers and companies Cancel, lead to immigration and disaster relief plan.

Diversity and extent of damage to human crops and property by wildlife is sufficient to require more effective control than currently required and research is urgent. A new situation has repeatedly occurred that wildlife is damaged by changes in agriculture and land use, and wildlife populations and behavior changes. In addition, as public attitudes to wildlife have changed dramatically, it is more important than ever to use non-lethal types of management wherever possible.

In the wildlife policy of Ghana, the government is not responsible for the damage caused by wildlife, but it stipulates that it takes reasonable measures to protect people, crops and property from wildlife. Article 11 and 12 of the policy stipulate that protection of wildlife in parks and protected areas exceeds all other advantages (FC, 2010). Parks and protected areas with serious contradiction with wildlife protection are not permitted. It proposes specific rights to regional access to essential natural resources, regional democracy, participatory management, and protection of forests and wildlife resources (Kotey et al., 1999). This policy is to establish a bio-centric approach to the protection of wildlife, which is a way to make it impossible to access resources by being reflected in exclusive management because deterioration of biodiversity has been confirmed (Caspary, 1999).

This article is provided free of charge from the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management at DigitalCommons of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. It was included in the minutes of the Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Symposium by an authorized administrator of DigitalGemons @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Abstract: In recent years, resource managers are increasingly focused on the concept of managing natural resources for conservation and recovery of biodiversity. Many state and federal land management institutions incorporate the concept of biodiversity into the management plan. As human activities simplify and distribute the natural system, aggressive management of wildlife habitats and populations must be strengthened. Wildlife damage management program is compatible with ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation