Management Options for a Human-Wildlife Conflict: Australian Magpie Attacks on Humans

Abstract

The management of dangerous wildlife often poses complex challenges for wildlife agencies. Managers trained to deal decisively with an aggressive animal, may he surprised and frustrated by public opposition to their actions. Community scrutiny of wildlife management practices and subsequent objections are growing in importance, especially in suburban environments, where a variety of wildlife species are now common residents or regular visitors.

An example of a controversial human-wildlife conflict is attacks on humans by Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen), an endemic crow-sized passerine common in suburban environments throughout Australia (Jones & Thomas, 1999). People are injured each year, some seriously, when magpies attack pedestrians and cyclists passing the nest (Jones & Thomas, 1999). Traditionally, aggressive magpies have been shot and this remains the most common approach in rural areas (Jones & Thomas, 1999). Recently, the use of lethal control methods has resulted in considerable public outcry (Jones & Thomas, 1999). As a result, wildlife agencies are currently rethinking their approaches to this increasingly complex problem. An assumption made by many wildlife managers and agencies has been that community concern over magpie attacks is so high that offending birds must be removed. One of the useful contributions of human dimensions research to the practice of wildlife management has been to provide insights into these complex management situations by assessing manager's assumptions (Enck & Decker, 1997).