Elk Responses to Management Hunting and Hazing.

Human‐wildlife conflicts are widespread around the world and result in property damage, disease spillover, financial loss, and decreased tolerance of wildlife. Increasing elk (Cervus canadensis) populations and land‐use changes in the western United States are challenging resource managers tasked with managing conflict. Lethal and non‐lethal management actions are commonly used to remove elk from conflict zones where they are not desired. We used radio‐collar location data collected from female elk in 2 study areas in Montana, USA, from 2017–2020 to evaluate population‐ and individual‐level responses to management actions (i.e., hunting, hazing) and environmental factors (i.e., weather, season, time of day). First, we used a generalized linear model with a logit link to evaluate the effects of hunting, hazing, time period, seasonality, and weather on the proportion of collared elk that used a conflict zone. Second, we used an ordinary linear model to assess the influence of hunting, hazing, seasonality, and weather on the duration of time that individual elk remained away from conflict zones. The proportion of elk using conflict zones was reduced by hunting, modestly reduced by hazing and increasing snowpack for 1 study area, increased at night, and decreased by a seasonal trend across months. The time individual elk remained away from conflict zones increased with the number of hazing events that occurred during an event and showed a modest seasonal trend increasing across months. For 1 study area, time away increased with the number of hunting days during an event and increasing snowpack, but the increase was biologically trivial. Our results indicate mixed responses of elk to hunting and hazing actions and provide evidence that management actions can influence elk use of conflict areas. Agencies trying to reduce conflicts may want to consider a combination of hunting and hazing, while accounting for site‐specific characteristics to keep elk away from conflict zones. © 2021 The Wildlife Society. : Management hazing used to reduce wildlife conflict was most effective when applied with high frequency, and hunting was more effective than hazing in minimizing elk use of conflict zones. Managers trying to reduce conflict should increase the frequency of actions and consider site‐specific characteristics, such as topography, matrix of tolerance and conflict zones, and irrigated fields or feedlines, that may influence the efficacy of management actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]