| Title |
Coexistence with Large Carnivores Supported by a Predator-Compensation Program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-017-0994-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea T. Morehouse, Jesse Tigner, Mark S. Boyce |
| Abstract |
Compensation programs are used globally to increase tolerance for and help offset economic loss caused by large carnivores. Compensation program funding comes from a variety of sources, and in Wyoming and Idaho, USA and Alberta, Canada this includes revenue from hunting and fishing license sales. We review the patterns of livestock depredation and compensation costs of Alberta's predator-compensation program, and compare Alberta's program to compensation programs in neighboring Canadian and American jurisdictions. Current compensation costs in Alberta are well below historic levels, but have been rapidly increasing in recent years due to an increase in depredation events coupled with increased cattle prices. That increase has caused push back from Alberta's hunting and fishing community that finances the compensation program, although less than 3.6% of Alberta's license levy dollars are used for predator compensation. Hunting effort in Alberta is highest on the same privately owned lands with livestock depredation problems, suggesting that private lands support habitats for hunted ungulate species as well as carnivores. Although compensation programs do not prevent depredation events themselves, compensation programs effectively can support the maintenance of wildlife habitats on private lands. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 15% |
| Ireland | 2 | 10% |
| Canada | 2 | 10% |
| France | 2 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1 | 5% |
| Portugal | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 25 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 35 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 150. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2023.
All research outputs
#273,766
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#10
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,291
of 450,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.