Should bounties be used in wild animal management programs?

A bounty is a predetermined amount of money paid to an individual who provides necessary evidence that a specified species of ‘pest’ animal has been killed. There are many risks with bounties including animals not being killed humanely and being ineffective in reducing impacts of targeted animals. On this basis, the RSPCA opposes the use of bounties in wild animal management programs.

Why are bounties ineffective and inhumane?

Although bounties have been used over centuries as an incentive to reduce the number of different species including wild dogs, foxes and feral cats, and even possums in Tasmania, there is little evidence that they have been effective in reducing negative impacts caused by these species [1,2,3]. Despite this, occasionally pressure from some groups is applied to governments to introduce bounties.

There is adequate evidence to show that bounties are ineffective, encourage inhumane treatment of target species and are open to fraud [1,2,4,5,6]. Bounties are not consistent with principles of humane and effective control programs which are based on monitoring impacts rather focusing just on kill target numbers [7].

A major problem with bounties is that the objective is to encourage as many targeted animals as possible to be killed in a particular location over a specified time period. However, an important principle underpinning contemporary best practice pest animal management is that the primary goal is to reduce or minimise negative impacts rather than just focus on reducing numbers.

An evaluation conducted on a trial Victorian fox bounty scheme in 2002-2003 identified that a bounty system did not provide adequate broad scale or consistent control to achieve a population reduction [2]. No significant statewide reduction in fox populations was achieved with concerns that the bounty system may increase reproductive rates due to moderate reductions in abundance that disrupt social groups. Although the trial aimed to reduce fox predation on sheep, fox collection in sheep areas was not higher than in other agricultural areas. Anecdotal evidence was also noted which indicated that shooters reduced their activity during breeding periods to ensure ‘next year’s crop’ and benefit from bounty incentives.

Evidence from past bounty schemes has revealed a range of deceptive and fraudulent behaviours [4]. For example, fox body parts are often collected from areas other than the targeted control zone, or outside the specified time frame and stored for later presentation. There have also been reports of thefts from collection depots or other hunters. Road kills have also been reported to have been used to claim bounty rewards [2].

A North American study found that bounty hunters use inhumane and non-selective killing methods such as shooting animals in non-vital regions, and killing neck snares and strychnine poisoning, which cause suffering and delayed deaths of target and non-target species [5].

In addition, bounties divert much needed funding from more humane and effective control programs. Several studies have concluded that they are an inappropriate and ineffective control strategy and therefore should not be used [1,2,4,5,6]. Sound and ethical wild animal control programs should be based on demonstrating negative impacts caused by the species of concern, monitoring these impacts to assess effectiveness of control, ensuring that the most humane methods are used by competent operators and that long term systematic planning is in place to help ensure ongoing success [8].