381

Commentary: ranching in North America arguments, issues, ',, and perspectives

Matthew J. Butler, Andrew P. Teaschner, WarrenB. Ballard, and Brady K. McGee

Abstract The term "wildlife ranching" has been used to describe many commercial activities asso- ciated with wildlife recreation and products. We discuss the advantages and drawbacks of 2 of those activities: fee- and wildlife farming and husbandry. Perhaps the greatest advantage of fee-hunting programs is economic return to the private landowner, which, in turn, provides the landowner incentive and resources to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat. The greatest drawback is privatization of the North American wildlife resource. Many individuals from the general public as well as professional wildlife biol- ogists fear that commercial activities associated with wildlife recreation and products ulti- mately will allow a shift from public to private ownership of wildlife, resulting in dimin- ished public interest in wildlife. The advantages of wildlife farming and husbandry include greater productivity of food animals, healthy alternative food sources, product diversification, and economic gains to private landowners. Because wildlife farming and husbandry activities typically focus on exotic big game, many drawbacks have been sug- gested. Drawbacks include disease introduction, competition and hybridization with native wildlife, range degradation, and pest problems. However, adequate research in many of those areas is lacking. Ultimately, wildlife is a product of the land, subsidized at the expense of the private landowner. Perhaps revenues from wildlife ranching can provide positive incentives to private landowners, resulting in increased wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.

Key words commercialization, exotic big game, farming, fee-hunting, husbandry, incentives, private lands, privatization, ranching, wildlife

Wildlife ranching is an ambiguous term used to Wildlife ranching includes an array of commercial describe the commercial utilization of wildlife activities such as basic fee-hunting to farming and species, including meat, parts, by-products, sport wildlife husbandry (e.g., Hudson 1989b, White hunting, aesthetics, and recreation (Geist 1989, 2000). Hudson 1989b,White 2000). This terminology typ- There are many underlying issues in wildlife ically is applied to big game wildlife (White 2000), ranching, such as high fencing, exotic wildlife, and although waterfowl, upland game birds, and fishes profiting from a public resource (e.g., Benson 1989, have been commercialized to varying degrees Geist 1989, Demarais et al. 1990, White 2000). In (Langner 1987, Schenck et al. 1987, Benson 1989). North America native wildlife is considered a pub-

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(1):381-389 Peeredited 382 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005,33(1):381-389 lic resource (Tober 1981, Bolen and Robinson compensation, encouraging private landowners to 2003). However, private property access rights conduct wildlife and habitat management. The confer on landowners de facto control over wildlife most common aspects of wildlife ranching are fee- (Morrill 1987, Benson 1989, White 2000). hunting and wildlife farming and husbandry for the Approximately 70% of land within the continental production of meat, parts, and by-products,yet each United States is privately owned (Natural Resources requires different management practices, each Conservation Service 1997), and private lands are a imposes different impacts on the ecosystem, and significant source of wildlife habitat and recre- each has different socioeconomic implications. ational opportunity (e.g., Tomlinson 1985, Morrill 1987, Schenck et al. 1987,Arha 1996). Because pri- vate landowners control a substantial amount of Fee-hunting wildlife habitat, it is important to develop and pro- Fee-hunting is a form of direct compensation to mote methods of encouraging sound wildlife man- the landowner and is an incentive to manage for agement on private lands. wildlife habitat (e.g.,Teer and Forrest 1968, Noonan The question of how to encourage private and Zagata 1982, White 2000). White (2000) sug- landowners to conduct on gested that diversification of land activities from their property has been looming for nearly a centu- normal farming and ranching operations could pro- ry. The First American Game Policy, developed in tect private landowners from losses in revenue. 1930, suggested 3 potential ways of promoting Also, fee-hunting revenues may be more stable than wildlife management on private lands: buy the land revenues from (Butler and Workman and become the landowner, compensate the 1993). Leasing private land for hunting access landowner directly or indirectly for producing came into existence inTexas during the early 1920s wildlife and for the privilege of harvesting it, or and now is the most common form of wildlife cede to the landowner title to the wildlife, allowing ranching in North America (Teer and Forrest 1968, ownership and sale (Committee on Game Policy Teer 1975, Thomas and Adams 1985). North 1930). Benson (1989) suggested a fourth alterna- American private landowners utilize several forms tive: remove access controls from the private of fee-hunting with various modifications (e.g.,Teer landowner and allow public access to private land and Forrest 1968,Teer et al. 1983, Payne 1989,White (i.e., legalize trespass). 2000). Teer and Forrest (1968) identified 4 types of Although activities have focused on land pur- fee-hunting programs: season-lease programs, day- chase by federal, state, or provincial governments hunting programs,outfitter or broker programs,and and nonprofit organizations, public trust can not individual animal programs. afford to purchase and manage enough land to pro- vide for the needs of wildlife and the people who Advantages utilize wildlife (Teer et al. 1983). The Committee on Teer and Forrest (1968) suggested several advan- Game Policy (1930:286) realized that ceding title of tages of fee-hunting programs on private lands:eco- wildlife to the private landowner is "incompatible nomic return to the landowner, improved hunter with American tradition and thought." Benson conduct and safety,and better distribution of hunt- (1989) concluded that legalizing trespass was not a ing pressure. Economic return to the private feasible alternative either, perhaps because United landowner from fee-hunting provides incentive to States law traditionally has protected the rights of protect and manage for wildlife habitat and the wel- private property owners concerning land-access fare of wildlife populations (e.g., Teer and Forrest rights (Lund 1980, Stroup and Baden 1983). The 1968, Noonan and Zagata 1982, Teer et al. 1983, Committee on Game Policy (1930), Teer et al. Tomlinson 1985, Benson 1989). People with a vest- (1983), Tomlinson (1985), and Benson (1989) all ed interest in wildlife are more likely to conserve it agreed that landowner compensation was the most (Morrill 1987,White 2000). Morrill (1987) suggest- feasible alternative. Compensation recognizes de ed that private land in Texas was managed better facto control over wildlife and wildlife habitat by during the 1980s than in the 1960s, perhaps due to private landowners due to trespass laws and that the 10- to 20-fold increase in revenues from fee- wildlife is a product of the land often subsidized at hunting during that time period. Also, other the expense of the private landowner (White researchers have noted positive improvements in 2000). Wildlife ranching is a form of landowner wildlife habitat as a result of fee-hunting programs Commentary * Butler et al. 383

(e.g., Wigley and Melchiors 1987, Loomis and able to hunters and provides year-round hunting Fitzhugh 1989, Cordell et al. 1998). Once wildlife opportunities because exotics often are considered gains a tangible value, private landowners begin to livestock (Demarais et al. 1990, Hershey 1998, view wildlife as an asset, not a liability, and begin to White 2000). Other advantages of ranching exotic seek management practices that improve their land big game include the conservation of endangered for wildlife (Morrill 1987). species and aesthetics (Demarais et al. 1990, Teer and Forrest (1968) suggested that private Hershey 1998, White 2000). Aesthetic noncon- landowners act as their own conservation officer, sumptive recreational fee-access for activities such which results in improved hunter conduct. as scenic drives, wildlife viewing, and photography Because wildlife has become economically impor- often is an integral element of many wildlife - tant to the private landowner, and over- ing operations (e.g.,Teer and Forrest 1968, Morrill shooting are discouraged, perhaps prevented. 1987, Hershey 1998, Demarais et al. 1990, White Taylor (1956) reported that poaching exceeded the 2000). Demarais et al. (1990) suggested that con- legal harvest on public lands in the northeastern servation of endangered species can be achieved in United States, but Teer and Forrest (1968) convinc- the United States but is difficult in developing ingly suggested poaching would never reach such nations. Scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), proportions on private lands, especially on long- addax (Addax nasomaculatus), dama gazelle term season-leases because the lease-holders have a (Gazella dama), Pere David's deer (Elaphurus vested interest. Teer and Forrest (1968) suggested davidianus), and Indian blackbuck antelope that lease-holders can influence private landown- (Antilope cervicapra) all are endangered species in ers to develop improved management and conser- their native ranges but are conserved on many vation programs as well. Hunter safety is improved North American (Teer 1975, White 2000, in fee-hunting programs because hunters are Mungall 2004). acquainted with each other and landowners can Perhaps the most important advantage of fee- exercise greater control (Teer and Forrest 1968). hunting is economic return to the private landown- Using various fee-hunting programs, overcrowd- er, which, in turn, provides the landowner incentive ing can be reduced and hunting pressure can be and resources to conserve wildlife and wildlife controlled on private lands (Teer and Forrest 1968, habitat. Other advantages are primarily social in Benson 1989), perhaps improving harvest manage- nature and include potential reduced overcrowding ment. Overcrowding on public lands is expected to on public lands, improved hunter conduct and safe- increase, but the conservation of habitat on private ty, greater diversity of hunting opportunities, lands due to fee-hunting should ensure alternatives improved harvest rates, increases in state wildlife for hunters and recreationists (Morrill 1987). Fee- agency revenues, and increased diversity of recre- hunting also may free hunters on public land from ational opportunities. Other ecological or biologi- some potential competitors (Morrill 1987). cal advantages include the conservation of endan- Fee-hunting programs typically provide greater gered species and greater control of the distribu- opportunities for trophy animals, improved harvest tion of hunting pressure, allowing for better harvest rates, and greater diversity of species (i.e., exotic management. species), creating expanded opportunities for hunt- ing (White 2000). Fee-hunting programs also can Drawbacks bolster revenues received by state wildlife agencies Many problems associated with fee-hunting have because private landowners often pay annual been identified. Potential problems or drawbacks license fees to operate their business, though this include negative public opinion, hunting becoming varies from state to state (White 2000), and fee- an elitist activity, losses in public interest, reduced hunting programs may attract more nonresident societal value of wildlife, importation of exotic hunters who pay greater license fees to the state species, little gain in habitat quality,and a shift from (Morrill 1987). public to private ownership of wildlife (e.g., Burger Using exotic big game in conjunction with fee- and Teer 1981, Swenson 1983, Geist 1988, White hunting programs also can expand opportunities 2000). Because of the high cost associated with for hunters and landowners (Teer 1975, Demarais fee-hunting, many wildlife professionals fear hunt- et al. 1990, White 2000). Utilization of exotic big ing will become an elitist activity (Geist 1988, game increases the diversity of game animals avail- Nelson and Hawkes 1989, White 2000). Langner 384 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(1):381-389

(1987) found that fee-hunters in 1980 had greater wildlife ranching has the potential to distance many household income than nonfee-hunters but their of the remaining hunters from the issue (Geist income was only approximately $4,000 greater. 1989). Once the public determines wildlife mar- However, one landowner in California reported that keting to be a business venture or one that ignores most hunters on his ranch and similar ranches were the perception of fair-chase,public acceptance may in middle-income brackets (Fitzhugh 1989). Also, decline, allowing public interest and support for Gartner and Severson (1972) suggested that most wildlife research and management programs to suf- fee-hunters in western South Dakota were in mid- fer (Swenson 1983, Geist 1985a). As public support dle-income brackets, and Butler (1991) presented declines, wildlife's values to society may wane. data suggesting that hunting fees did not increase Some wildlife agencies have suggested that eco- during 1978 to 1988 in Val Verde County,Texas. In nomic returns to the landowner from lease-hunting addition, resident hunters may be excluded from do not translate to habitat improvements or fee-hunting activities because nonresident hunters improved hunting opportunities (Wiggers and typically are willing to pay more (Morrill 1987). Rootes 1987, Benson 1989). A survey from Missouri Unfortunately, more up-to-date, objective informa- showed that landowners felt their property con- tion concerning impacts of income and residency sisted of good wildlife habitat, a view not held by on hunter participation in fee-hunting is not avail- local wildlife professionals (Sheriff et al. 1981). able. Also, the introduction of exotics or artificial infla- Though often subjective, public opinion plays a tion of carrying capacity through supplemental major role in the formation of policy and its imple- feeding may overstress the land, causing irreparable mentation. Unfair hunting practices and domesti- harm. Burger and Teer (1981) found that with the cation of hunting stock are concerns not only of exception of waterfowl hunting areas, leased areas the nonhunting public but of many hunters as well typically were not managed for wildlife habitat. A (Ratti and Workman 1976). High fencing of private lack of appropriate education concerning wildlife property to contain public wildlife in order to deny management is a problem with many landowners access to the general public and an increasing trend who lease their land for wildlife purposes. Many in marketing toward sport or trophy hunting are ranchers try to manage wildlife the same way they unfavorable for the general public (Ratti and manage their livestock. However, as wildlife com- Workman 1976, MacDonald 1987, Geist 1989, mercialization becomes more prevalent, landown- Nelson and Hawkes 1989). Potentially detrimental ers and lease-holders may begin to seek education biological and ecological impacts such as disease in order to be more competitive, increase profits, outbreaks, genetic bottlenecks, habitat degradation, and improve wildlife habitats, as evidenced by an overpopulation, and modified animal behavior can increase in the number of educational programs in stem from high fencing (Demarais et al. 2002, The recent years (e.g., Miller and Midtbo 2003). Wildlife Society 2003). High fencing also can pro- As emphasized by Swenson (1983:302), a "weak- vide significant barriers to native game and non- ness of the free enterprise system is the temptation game species movement and behavior; unfortu- to sacrifice long-term economic productivity for nately, little research has focused on this in the short-term economic gain."When private landown- United States. Serious losses from high fences to ers begin to enclose or care for wildlife, their sense the endangered capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and of ownership often shifts to "mine." Perhaps this is other grouse species have been documented in the most important drawback of fee-hunting. Many Scotland (Catt et al. 1994, Baines and Summers wildlife ranchers would like to see complete priva- 1997). However, with proper wildlife management, tization of wildlife, allowing them to set seasons ecological health may be improved within fenced and bag limits and determine who is allowed to habitats (The Wildlife Society 2003). Probably the hunt (Ratti and Workman 1976, Morrill 1987, Geist more relevant issue concerning high fencing is cul- 1988, Nelson and Hawkes 1989). However, main- tural. Many nonhunters and hunters consider har- taining some state control is likely to offset the vesting wildlife within high fences to be unethical. temptation to sacrifice long-term productivity. This sentiment was expressed well by Ballard (2003:12) when he equated this type of hunting with going to the "supermarket." With an increase Wildlife farming and husbandry in (MacDonald 1987), Hudson (1989b) identified 3 forms of wildlife Commentary * Butler et al. 385 husbandry with various modifications: herding, is an important philosophical pursuit. But he real- ranching, and farming. These classifications were ized that exotic big game species already are estab- based on management intensity. In the herding sys- lished in many parts of North America and suggest- tems, animal control (i.e., capture) is based on ed the discussion of appropriate management of behaviors such as migrational patterns and the ani- exotic big game is more relevant. However, we mals are managed as wild populations. In ranching believe wildlife managers and landowners should and farming systems, animals are confined by be aware of the potential impacts exotics can have fences. Farmed animals are intensively husbanded on native wildlife populations, wildlife habitat, and (e.g., selective breeding, supplemental feeding, and the ecosystem before appropriate management and veterinary treatment), but ranched animals are man- control actions can be developed and implement- aged as wild, though confined by fences. ed. Major concerns surrounding exotic big game A growing market exits in North America and ranching include disease introduction and spread, Europe for wild ungulate meat because it is a high- competition with native wildlife, hybridization or protein, low-fat healthy alternative to modern genetic pollution of native wildlife populations, domestics and has high profit potential (Telfer and range degradation, associated predator control, and Scotter 1975, Hershey 1998, White 2000). Sale of uncontrolled spread of exotics resulting in nui- breeding stock (Luxmoore 1989a) and sale of parts sance and pest problems. and by-products (Luxmoore 1989b, White 2000) Many diseases could potentially be introduced can be a large source of income for landowners. from other continents through exotic big game This diversification of land activities from normal species (Geist 1989, Demarais et al. 1990). farming and ranching operations also can protect Although quarantine procedures are in place, exot- private landowners from losses in revenue (White ic disease still could be unintentionally introduced. 2000). Exotic big game normally are used in For example, Demarais et al. (1990) noted that 3 wildlife husbandry and farming because they are tropical bont ticks (Amblyomma variegatum), typically considered livestock in North America known to be a vector of heartwater disease, were (Demarais et al. 1990, Hershey 1998,White 2000). found on black rhinos (Diceros bicornis) released in Texas; these rhinos had gone through the quar- Advantages antine process before their release. Introduction of Teer (1975) suggested the productivity of range- exotic disease into North America could cause lands could be increased by matching wild ungu- death in both wildlife and livestock species lates to vegetative communities to which they are (Demarais et al. 1990), resulting in a potential eco- best suited, thus helping to feed a growing human nomic and ecological disaster. Riemann et al. population. Also, it has been suggested that wildlife (1979) found that 60% of fallow deer (Dama husbandry can use species that have different habi- dama) and 33% of axis deer (Axis axis) at Point tat requirements to balance range utilization and Reyes National Seashore, California,tested positive potentially further increase production (Dasmann for bluetongue virus antibodies. Outbreaks of 1964, Fairall1989). Native wildlife meat or by-prod- malignant catarrhal fever have been reported in ucts in the United States cannot be sold, but exotic axis deer in Texas (Clarket al. 1970) and caused sika big game is typically considered livestock (Geist deer (Cervus nippon) mortality in Canada (Sanford 1988,Yorks 1989). This forces private landowners and Little 1977). Wild hogs (Sus scrofa) can trans- interested in producing and marketing wild ungu- mit cholera, trichinosis, swine brucellosis, bovine late meat to use exotic big game (Yorks 1989). tuberculosis, foot and mouth disease,African swine However, utilization of exotic big game does diver- fever, and pseudorabies to wildlife and livestock sify the products a landowner can produce. The (Wood and Barrett 1979). Also, North American big major advantages of wildlife farming and hus- game may be more susceptible to exotic diseases bandry are greater productivity of food animals, than their original hosts (e.g., Geist 1985b). healthy alternative food sources, product diversifi- Gray wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis cation, and economic gains to private landowners. latrans) appear to be definitive hosts of many ungulate parasites (Telfer and Scotter 1975). Drawbacks Unfortunately,because of economic interests, pred- Teer (1975) noted that the debate of the ecolog- ator control may be necessary to reduce parasite ical morality of the introduction of exotic big game and predation losses (Telfer and Scotter 1975, Geist 386 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(1):381-389

1988, Demarais et al. 1990). However, the potential potentially can reduce the vigor of native wildlife value of some predators as game animals may allow populations (Craighead and Dasmann 1966) and persistence on some wildlife (Telfer and corrupt the integrity of both species (Demarais et Scotter 1975). Unfortunately,minimizing biodiver- al. 1990). For example, red deer (Cervus elaphus sity (extirpation of predators and creation of artifi- elaphus), North American elk (C. e. canadensis), cial agricultural landscapes) most likely will be and sika deer can all hybridize (Dratch 1993). Also, used in order to maximize profit (Geist 1985a, domestic reindeer and caribou (Rangifer tardan- 1988,1989). dus) can interbreed. However, Scotter (1989) Often exotics out-compete native big game noted that most domestic reindeer that enter wild species. Differential susceptibility to infectious dis- caribou herds die from predation, hunting, migra- eases and parasitism has been observed between tion, and inefficient winter foraging. Also, Scotter white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and (1989) suggested the survivors have low breeding sika deer in Maryland and Virginia (Davidson and success and thus trivial influence on caribou genet- Crow 1983), white-tailed deer and fallow deer in ics. However, gradual introduction of domestic Kentucky (Davidson et al. 1985), and among white- reindeer traits in caribou populations over time tailed, axis, fallow, and sika deer in Texas could reduce the vigor of those wild herds, but (Richardson and Demarais 1992). Diseases and par- more research is needed to determine the extent of asites may be playing a role in exotics out-compet- the problem. ing white-tailed deer. In each of these studies, the Because of issues such as competition and genet- exotics were less susceptible to diseases and para- ic pollution of native wildlife populations, it is sites than white-tailed deer. imperative to control the spread of exotic big game On Assateague Island, Maryland, Keiper (1985) species. However, unintentional spread of exotics attributed the decline in white-tailed deer popula- is likely,given the past history of containing species tions to a sika deer population irruption, but differ- within a game-proof fence (Geist 1989). To further ential hunting pressure due to bag limits (1 sika illustrate this point, it has previously been estimat- deer, 2 white-tailed deer) may have contributed to ed that 21-45% of the exotic big game population the white-tailed deer population decline. However, in Texas are not behind game-proof fences more definitive results were obtained by Baccus et (Demarais et al. 1990,Traweek 1995, Exotic Wildlife al. (1985) using enclosures on the Kerr Wildlife Association 1996); perhaps that number is much Management Area, Texas. Their modeling efforts greater today. Though many exotic deer are slow to suggested the competitive interaction between sika disperse (Feldhamer and Armstrong 1993), aoudad deer and white-tailed deer would result in white- (Ammotragus lervia) and reindeer can disperse tailed deer extirpation in 12 generations. However, rapidly (Scotter 1989, Mungall 2000). Exotics even- with intense control of sika deer, predictions sug- tually will escape: storms may break fences; animals gested the white-tailed deer population could be can make holes; and poachers, incensed neighbors, maintained. Henke et al. (1988) suggested that sika or activists may cut fences. deer, fallow deer, and blackbuck antelope were There are several other potential problems asso- more adapted to grass consumption than white- ciated with exotic big game: range degradation, tailed deer, allowing them a competitive advantage poaching, redirection of focus and funds from when forbs and browse are limited. Also, these native wildlife, and commercialization may jeopard- exotic big game species can use grass, forbs, or ize conservation of some species such as predators browse, reinforcing their competitive advantage (Craighead and Dasmann 1966, Demarais et al. over white-tailed deer (e.g., Butts et al. 1982, Baccus 1990,Mungall 2000). In the North American system et al. 1985, Elliott and Barrett 1985). These exotics of wildlife protection, dead wildlife has little or no are more like and goats in deer clothing value. However, creation of legal markets in wildlife (Armstrong and Young 2000). However, competi- products may open the door for poachers. tion can be offset by lower reproductive rates, Poachers may specialize in easily transported,lucra- greater age at first reproduction, and slow dispersal tive items such as teeth, antlers, and hides, leaving rates in many exotic big game species (Feldhamer animals to rot, as in past experiences with bison and Armstrong 1993). (Bison bison) hunters (Geist 1989, Hudson 1989a). Another important problem related to exotics is However, the highly protective nature of many hybridization with native wildlife. Hybridization North American private landowners and high fenc- Commentary * Butler et al. 387

ing may prevent poaching, especially as wildlife Literaturecited becomes economically important to the landown- ARHA,K. 1996. Sustaining wildlife values on lands: a sur- er. private vey of state programs for wildlife management on private Probably the greatest problem with exotic lands in California,Colorado, Montana,New Mexico, Oregon, wildlife and thus wildlife farming and husbandry is Utah, and Washington. Transactions of the North American determining appropriate management and control Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:267-273. ARMSTRONG,W. E.,AND E. L.YOUNG. 2000. White-tailed deer man- actions. Understanding the potential impacts agement in the Texas hill country. Texas Parks and Wildlife exotics can have on native wildlife populations, Department,Austin, USA. wildlife habitat, and the ecosystem is the first step. BAccus,J.T., D. E. HARMEL,ANDW E.ARMSTRONG.1985. Management Ultimately, we must develop and implement sound of exotic deer in conjunction with white-tailed deer. Pages in S. L. Beasom and S. management options. Unfortunately, peer-reviewed 213-226 F Roberson, editors. Game harvest management. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Resources research on management and control of exotic big Institute,Texas A&I University, Kingsville, USA. is game lacking. BAINES,D.,AND R.W SUMMERS.1997. Assessment of bird collisions with deer fences in Scottish forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:941-948. Conclusion BALLARD,W B. 2003. High fences: boon or bane? The Wildlifer 319:12. As expressed by Morrill (1987:540), "wildlife is BENSON,D. E. 1989. Changes from free to fee hunting. not a free lunch to the landowner." Remember, Rangelands 11:176-180. wildlife is a product of the land and often is subsi- BOLEN,E. G., ANDW. L. ROBINSON.2003. Wildlife Ecology and dized at the expense of the private landowner Management. Fifth edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle New USA. (White 2000), which can be a disincentive for pri- River, Jersey, BURGER,G.V, ANDJ. G.TEER. 1981. Economic and socioeconomic vate landowners to participate in the conservation issues influencing wildlife management on private land. of wildlife and wildlife habitat. economic However, Pages 252-278 in R.T.Dumke, G.V Burger,andJ. R. March,edi- gains from fee-hunting and wildlife farming and tors. Proceedings of wildlife management on private lands husbandry provide positive incentives to private symposium. Wisconsin Chapter, The Wildlife Society, landowners to conserve and protect wildlife and Madison, USA. BUTLER,L.D. 1991. White-tailed deer hunting leases: hunter costs wildlife habitat. For many ranchers, raising live- and rancher revenues. Rangelands 13:20-22. stock is not to make ends meet. Fee-hunt- enough BUTLER,L. D., ANDJ. P WORKMAN.1993. Fee hunting in the Texas ing has protected landowners from revenue losses Trans Pecos area: a descriptive and economic analysis. and even land sales. Journal of Range Management 46:38-42. Perhaps economic incentives such as wildlife BUTTS,G. L., M. J. ANDEREGG,W. E. ARMSTRONG,D. E. HARMEL, C. W RAMSEY,AND S. H. SOROLA. 1982. Food habits of five exotic ranching can slow the rate of habitat destruction ungulates on Kerr Wildlife Management Area, Texas. in NorthAmerica. But we must currently underway Technical Series No. 30,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department, maintain some state control in order to help pre- Austin, USA. vent overexploitation. Additional research in the CATT, D. C., D. DUGAN, R. E. GREEN, R. MONCRIEFF,R. Moss, N. PICOZZI, realm of social and economic interactions, the R.W.SUMMERS,AND G.A.TYLER. 1994. Collisions against fences by woodland grouse in Scotland. Forestry 67:105-118. impacts of high fencing as barriers to free-ranging CLARK,K.A., R. M. ROBINSON, R. G. MARBURGER,L. P.JONES, AND J. H. native the associated species, biological impacts .1970. Malignant catarrhal fever in Texas cervids. with supplemental feeding of enclosed wildlife Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:376-383. species, and the proper management of exotic big COMMITTEEONGAME POLICY. 1930. Report to the American game game is needed in order to better understand the conference on an American game policy. Transactions of the American Game Conference 17:284-309. impacts of fee-hunting and wildlife farming and CORDELL,H. K.,J. C. Buss, C.Y JOHNSON,AND M. FLY. 1998. Voices husbandry. from southern forests. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:332-347. CRAIGHEAD,E C.,AND R.J. DASMANN. 1966. Exotic big game on pub- Acknowledgments. Discussions during the lic lands. United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Texas Tech course University "Big Game Ecology Land Management,Washington, D.C., USA. and Management" was valuable to the develop- DASMANN,R. E 1964. African game ranching. Pergaman Press, ment of this manuscript. Also, H. Whitlaw and an Oxford, United Kingdom. W ANDC. B. CROW. and anonymous reviewer provided valuable comments DAVIDSON,R., 1983. Parasites, diseases, health status of sympatric populations of sika deer and on the manuscript. This is Texas Tech University, white-tailed deer in MarylandandVirginia. Journal of Wildlife College of and Natural Diseases 19:345-348. Resources technical publication T-9-1018. DAVIDSON,W.R.,J. M. CRUM,J.L. BLUE,D.W. SHARP,AND J. H. PHILLIPS. 388 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(1):381-389

1985. Parasites,diseases, and health-status of sympatric pop- Resources Conference 52:475-482. ulations of fallow deer and white-tailed deer in Kentucky. LOOMIS,J. B., AND L. FITZHUGH.1989. Financial returns to Journal of Wildlife Diseases 21:152-159. California landowners for providing hunting access: analysis DEMARAIS,S., D.A. OSBORN,ANDJ.J.JACKLEY. 1990. Exotic big game: and determinants of returns and implications to wildlife a controversial resource. Rangelands 12:121-125. management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife DEMARAIS,S., R.W DEYOUNG,L.J. LYON, E. S.WILLIAMS, S.J.WILLIAMSON, and Natural Resources Conference 54:196-201. ANDG.J.WOLFE. 2002. Biological and social issues related to LUND,TA. 1980. American wildlife law. University of California confinement of wild ungulates. Wildlife Society Technical Press, Berkeley,USA. Review 02-3, Bethesda, Maryland,USA. LUXMOORE,R.A. 1989a. Impact on conservation. Pages 413-423 DRATCH,PA. 1993. Genetic tests and game ranching: no simple in R.J. Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, editors. Wildlife solutions. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and production systems: economic utilisation of wild ungulates. Natural Resources Conference 58:479-486. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom. ELLIOTT,H.W., III,AND R. H. BARRETT.1985. Dietary overlap among LUXMOORE,R.A. 1989b. International trade. Pages 28-49 in R.J. axis, fallow, and black-taileddeer and . Journal of Range Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, editors. Wildlife pro- Management 38:546-550. duction systems: economic utilisation of wild ungulates. EXOTICWILDLIFE ASSOCIATION. 1996. Exotic hoofstock survey: May Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1996. Exotic Wildlife Association and Texas Agricultural MACDONALD,D. 1987. Hunting-an exercise in pluralistic democ- Statistics Service, Ingram,USA. racy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:463-465. FAIRALL,N. 1989. Extensive containment systems: game ranch- MILLER,J. E.,AND J. M. MIDTBO,editors. 2003. Proceedings of the ing. Pages 242-247 in R. J. Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L. M. first national symposium on sustainable natural resource- Baskin, editors. Wildlife production systems: economic utili- based alternative enterprises. Mississippi State University sation of wild ungulates. Cambridge University Press, Extension Service and Mississippi State University Forest and Cambridge,United Kingdom. Wildlife Research Center, 28-31 May 2003, Mississippi State, FELDHAMER,G.A., ANDW E.ARMSTRONG. 1993. Interspecific com- USA. petition between four exotic species and native Artiodactyls MORRILL,W.. 1987. Fee access views of a private wildlife man- in the United States. Transactions of the North American agement consultant. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 58:468-478. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52:530-543. FITZHUGH,E. L. 1989. Pros and cons of fee hunting. Pages MUNGALL,E. C. 2000. Exotics. Pages 736-764 in S. Demarais and 303-309 in R.Valdez, editor. Proceedings first international P. R. Krausman, editors. Ecology and management of large wildlife ranching symposium, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA. mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle GARTNER,E R.,AND K. E. SEVERSON.1972. Fee hunting in western River,New Jersey, USA. South Dakota. Journal of Range Management 25:234-237. MUNGALL,E. C. 2004. Submission for the comment period on GEIST,V 1985a. Game ranching: threat to wildlife conservation proposed listing of scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:594-598. gazelle under the endangered species act. Technical Report, GEIST,V 1985b. On Pleistocene bighorn sheep: some problems Exotic Wildlife Association, Ingram,Texas, USA. of adaptation, and relevance to today's American megafauna. NATURALRESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE. 1997. America's private Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:351-359. land: a geography of hope. United States Department of GEIST,V 1988. How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the , Natural Resources Conservation Service, sale of hunting privileges, jeopardize wildlife conservation. Washington, D.C., USA. Conservation Biology 2:15-26. NELSON,P.H., ANDL. E. HAWKES.1989. Public land users and feu- GEIST,V1989. Legal trafficking and paid hunting threaten con- dal lords. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and servation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 54:149-154. Natural Resources Conference 54:171-178. NOONAN,P. E, AND M. D. ZAGATA. 1982. Wildlife in the market HENKE,S. E., S. DEMARAIS,AND J.A. PFISTER.1988. Digestive capaci- place: using the profit motive to maintain wildlife habitat. ty and diets of white-tailed deer and exotic ruminants. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10: 46-49. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 595-598. PAYNE, C. H. 1989. Sport hunting in North America. Pages HERSHEY,M. 1998. Strangers on the range: exotic animals add 134-146 in R.J.Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L.M. Baskin,editors. spice to Texas' ranch economy. Texas Fiscal Notes Wildlife production systems: economic utilisation of wild 1998(April):8-11. ungulates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United HUDSON,R.J. 1989a. Introduction. Pages 1-10 in R.J. Hudson, Kingdom. K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, editors. Wildlife production sys- RATTI,J.T., AND G.W. WORKMAN. 1976. Hunter characteristics and tems: economic utilisation of wild ungulates. Cambridge attitudes relating to Utah shooting preserves. Wildlife Society University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Bulletin 4:21-25. HUDSON,R.J. 1989b. History and technology. Pages 11-27 in R. RICHARDSON,M.L.,AND S. DEMARAIS.1992. Parasites and condition J. Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, editors. Wildlife pro- of coexisting populations of white-tailed deer and exotic duction systems: economic utilisation of wild ungulates. deer in south-central Texas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 28: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom. 485-489. KEIPER,R. R. 1985. Are sika deer responsible for the decline of RIEMANN,H. P., R. RUPPANNER,PWILLEBERG, C. E. FRANTI,WH. ELLIOTT, white-tailed deer on Assateague Island, Maryland? Wildlife R.A. FISHER,O.A. BRUNETTI,J.H.AHO,JR.,J.A. HOWARTH,ANDD. E. Society Bulletin 13:144-146. BEHYMER.1979. Serologic profile of exotic deer at Point LANGNER,L. L. 1987. Hunter participation in fee access hunting. Reyes National Seashore. Journal of the American Veterinary Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Medical Association 175:911-913. Commentary* Butleret al. 389

SANFORD,S. E, ANDP. B. LITTLE.1977. The grass and histo-patho- WIGLEY,T. B.,ANDM.A. MELCHIORS.1987. State wildlife manage- logic lesions of malignant catarrhalfever in three captive sika ment programs for private lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: deer (Cervus nippon) in southern Ontario. Journal of 580-584. Wildlife Diseases 13:29-32. WOOD,C. W, ANDR. BARRETT.1979. Status of wild pigs in the SCHENCK,E. W., W.ARNOLD, E. K. BROWN,AND D. J. WITTER.1987. United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 7:237-246. Commercial hunting and in Missouri: management YORKS,T.P 1989. Ranching native and exotic ungulates in the implications of fish and wildlife markets. Transactions of the United States. Pages 268-285 in R.J.Hudson, K. R. Drew, and North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference L. M. Baskin, editors. Wildlife production systems: economic 52:516-524. utilisation of wild ungulates. Cambridge University Press, SCOTTER,G. W 1989. Reindeer husbandry in North America. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Pages 223-241 in R.J. Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, editors. Wildlife production systems: economic utilisation of wild ungulates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Authors' address: Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries United Kingdom. Management, Texas Tech University, P.O. Box 42125, Lubbock, TX e-mail for Butler: SHERIFF,S. L., D. J. WITTER,S. B. KIRBY,AND K. M. BABCOCK.1981. 79409, USA; [email protected]. Missouri's landowners: how they perceive the importance of wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 46:118-124. STROUP,R. L., ANDJ. A. BADEN.1983. Natural resources: bureau- cratic myths and environmental management. Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. SWENSON,J.E. 1983. Free public hunting and the conservation of public wildlife resources. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11: 300-303. TAYLOR,W.P. 1956. The deer of North America. Stackpole Press, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania, USA. TEER, J. G. 1975. Commercial uses of game animals on range- lands of Texas. Journal of Animal Science 40:1000-1008. TEER,J.G., G.V.BURGER,AND C.Y. DEKNATEL. 1983. State-supported habitat management and commercial hunting on private lands in the United States. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 48: 445-456. MatthewJ. Butler is a Ph.D. candidate in wildlife G., ANDN. K. FORREST.1968. Bionomic and ethical (left) currently TEER,J. impli- science at Texas Tech in Lubbock. His dissertation cations of commercial harvest Transactions University game programs. research is focused on estimation tech- of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources evaluating population niques for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle and Conference 33:192-204. southwestern Kansas. He received an M.S. in forest resources TELFER,E. S., ANDG.W. SCOTTER.1975. Potential for game ranch- from the University of Arkansas at Monticello, where he studied ing in boreal aspen forests of western Canada. Journal of the foraging requirements of red-cockaded woodpeckers. He Range Management 28:172-180. received a B.S. in fisheries and wildlife biology from Arkansas THEWILDLIFE SOCIETY. 2003. Wildlife policy statement: confie- Tech University in Russellville. Andrew P. Teaschner (not pic- is an M.S. candidate in wildlife sciences at ment of wild ungulates within high fences. The Wildlife tured) currently Texas Tech in Lubbock. His thesis research is Bethesda, USA. University Society, Maryland, focused on owl He also received a B.S. in AND C. E. ADAMS. Socioeconomic factors burrowing ecology. THOMAS,J. K., 1985. wildlife from Texas Tech Warren B. land access to hunt white-tailed deer. Wildlife management University. affecting Ballard (middle) is professor of wildlife sciences in the Bulletin Society 13:388-394. Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management at TOBER,J.A.1981. Who owns the wildlife? The political econo- Texas Tech University. He received his B.S. in fish and wildlife my of conservation in nineteenth-century America. management at New Mexico State University, his M.Sc. in envi- Greenwood Press,Westport, Connecticut, USA. ronmental biology from Kansas State University, and his Ph.D. TOMLINSON,B. H. 1985. Economic values of wildlife: opportuni- in wildlife science from the University of Arizona. His profes- sional interests include and ties and pitfalls. Transactions of the North American Wildlife predator-prey relationships popula- tion of carnivores and K. McGee and Natural Resources Conference 50:262-270. dynamics ungulates. Brady (right) received a Ph.D. in wildlife science at Texas Tech TRAWEEK,M. S. 1995. Statewide census of exotic big game ani- University in May 2005 and recently accepted a position with mals. Progress Report, FederalAid Project W-127-R-3No. 21, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Lower Rio Grande Texas Parks and Wildlife USA. Department,Austin, Valley. He received an M.S. in wildlife biology from Texas State WHITE, R. J. 2000. Big game ranching. Pages 260-276 in S. University in San Marcos and a B.A. in biology and a B.S. in Demarais and P.R. Krausman,editors. Ecology and manage- zoology from the University of Texas at Austin. ment of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,New Jersey, USA. WIGGERS,E. P.,AND W.A. ROOTES. 1987. Lease hunting: views of the nation's wildlife agencies. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52: 525-529.