Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation

REYNOLDS, J. C., TAPPER, S. C.·1996·Mammal Review

Abstract

Wildlife management in modern environments has to contend with an inheritance of faunal and landscape changes caused by humans which affect the relationships between predatory and prey species. In both game management for harvesting, and in species preservation, this leads to difficult decisions about whether and how to manage predation. Predator control by humans is as old as livestock husbandry. The deliberate, often organized, destruction of many mammalian predator species has been a feature of human development in Europe ‐ and later in countries to which Europeans spread ‐ for centuries. Destruction to the point of extinction was practised for a number of reasons (self‐protection, protection of domestic stock, protection of wild game, fur, adventure, sport) which were rarely distinguished. Reduction of predator numbers specifically to allow an increased harvest of some game species was mainly a nineteenth century development, while the adoption of predator control to benefit endangered species for their own sake belongs to recent decades. We review scientific literature relevant to predator control in game management and in conservation. Understanding of the role of predation in prey population dynamics has changed considerably during the last 20 years, and predation is now credited with a much more powerful role than in the past. Increasingly it becomes possible not merely to understand what predator control achieves, but to predict when it might be valuable in management, and what strategy will best achieve the aims. Examples of conservation problems involving predation illustrate the complexity of decision‐making in management. Because of habitat loss, habitat degradation, altered predator communities, or altered predator‐prey ratios, predation losses often have increased significance in modern environments. Novel approaches potentially offer non‐lethal ways to manage mammalian predators. However, most are still in an exploratory phase and there have been no unqualified successes. The best tested approach, excluding predators from small areas by fencing, is discussed. In Britain, predator control to benefit small game populations and allow harvesting has been practised for nearly 200 years, and has undoubtedly played a role in shaping the present‐day fauna. Although earlier gamekeeping severely reduced the geographical range of several mammalian (and avian) predator species, nowadays predator control is subject to legal restrictions based on species' conservation status and humaneness. However, illegal persecution of species protected by law remains a persistent and significant conservation problem. The predator species legitimately targeted are successful, common and increasing in the modem environment, while wild populations of gamebirds and many other ground‐nesting birds are declining seriously in most areas.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00150.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
REYNOLDS, J. C., & TAPPER, S. C.
Venue
Mammal Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-06
Volume
26
Issue
2-3
Pages
127-155
ISSN
  • 0305-1838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2907
OpenAlex
W2089510712
Cited by
299
References
2
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00150.x
The paper
REYNOLDS, J. C., & TAPPER, S. C. (1996). Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00150.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.