Illegal killing of nongame wildlife and recreational shooting in conservation areas

Todd E. Katzner; Jay D. Carlisle; Sharon A. Poessel; Eve C. Thomason; Benjamin P. Pauli; David S. Pilliod; James R. Belthoff; Julie A. Heath; Kristina J. Parker; Kevin S. Warner; Heather Hayes; Madeline Aberg; Patricia Ortiz; Sandra Amdor; Steven Alsup; Stephanie E. Coates; Tricia A. Miller; Zoe K. T. Duran

doi:10.1111/csp2.279

USGS · 70216653

Illegal killing of nongame wildlife and recreational shooting in conservation areas

Todd E. Katzner·Jay D. Carlisle·Sharon A. Poessel·Eve C. Thomason·Benjamin P. Pauli·David S. Pilliod·James R. Belthoff·Julie A. Heath·Kristina J. Parker·Kevin S. Warner·Heather Hayes·Madeline Aberg·Patricia Ortiz·Sandra Amdor·Steven Alsup·Stephanie E. Coates·Tricia A. Miller·Zoe K. T. Duran

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Illegal killing of nongame wildlife is a global yet poorly documented problem. The prevalence and ecological consequences of illegal killing are often underestimated or completely unknown. We review the practice of legal recreational shooting and present data gathered from telemetry, surveys, and observations on its association with illegal killing of wildlife (birds and snakes) within conservation areas in Idaho, USA. In total, 33% of telemetered long‐billed curlews ( Numenius americanus ) and 59% of other bird carcasses found with known cause of death (or 32% of total) were illegally shot. Analysis of spatial distributions of illegal and legal shooting is consistent with birds being shot illegally in the course of otherwise legal recreational shooting, but snakes being intentionally sought out and targeted elsewhere, in locations where they congregate. Preliminary public surveys indicate that most recreational shooters find abhorrent the practice of illegal killing of wildlife. Viewed through this lens, our data may imply only a small fraction of recreational shooters is responsible for this activity. This study highlights a poorly known conservation problem that could have broad implications for some species and populations of wildlife.

Explore related subjects

Conservation Science and Practice Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 43.14909399920127° to 43.92163712834673° latitude; -116.83959960937499° to -115.323486328125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Todd E. Katzner, Jay D. Carlisle, Sharon A. Poessel, Eve C. Thomason, Benjamin P. Pauli, David S. Pilliod, James R. Belthoff, Julie A. Heath, Kristina J. Parker, Kevin S. Warner, Heather Hayes, Madeline Aberg, Patricia Ortiz, Sandra Amdor, Steven Alsup, Stephanie E. Coates, Tricia A. Miller, Zoe K. T. Duran. 2020-09-23. Illegal killing of nongame wildlife and recreational shooting in conservation areas. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.279

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2026

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest↗

USGS2026

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice↗