\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T2A]{fontenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,polish,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{The prohibition of recreational hunting of wild ungulates in National
Parks: what alternatives are there?}



\author[1]{Antonio Carpio}%
\author[1]{Pelayo Acevedo}%
\author[1]{Roberto Pascual-Rico}%
\author[1]{Eduardo Laguna}%
\author[1]{M. Martínez-Jauregui}%
\author[1]{J. Guerrero-Casado}%
\author[1]{J. Vicente}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 17, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


\selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Antonio J. Carpio\textsuperscript{1}, E.
Laguna\textsuperscript{1.*}, R. Pascual-Rico\textsuperscript{1,*}, M.
Martínez-Jauregui\textsuperscript{2}, J.
Guerrero-Casado\textsuperscript{3}, J. Vicente\textsuperscript{1}, R. C.
Soriguer\textsuperscript{4}, E. Delgado\textsuperscript{1}, P.
Acevedo\textsuperscript{1}}

\emph{1 Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos, IREC
(UCLM-CSIC-JCCM), Ronda Toledo 12, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain.}

\emph{2 National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and
Technology (INIA), Forest Research Centre (CIFOR). Ctra. de La Coruña
km. 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain.}

\emph{3 Department of Zoology, University of Córdoba, C-1 Campus
Rabanales, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.}

\emph{4 Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Av. Américo Vespucio, s.n,
E-41092 Sevilla, Spain.}

\emph{*Corresponding authors. Email:}

\emph{Roberto.Pascual@uclm.es eduardo.laguna@uclm.es}

Abstract

On December 5\textsuperscript{th}, 2020, a new regulation prohibited
recreational hunting on estates located within national parks. Before
the ban, ten national parks in Spain had already reported negative
ecological consequences associated with high ungulate densities. The new
situation after the ban signifies that policies to control populations
of wild ungulates should depend exclusively on the parks' authorities,
without the collaboration of recreational hunting, which implies a
series of environmental and social challenges. However, control requires
i) sufficient financial and human resources, and ii) social acceptance
for extracting animals and extractive procedures within national parks.
In this context, a more integrated management and policy plan is
required, including both the protection of natural processes,
conservation of species, and the explanation to the society about
related conflicts to wild ungulates and the need of their population
control. Finally, to improve the acceptance of policies and reduce
conflicts, it is important to involve stakeholders in the
decision-making processes concerning wildlife management.

Keywords: Hunters; Population control; Protected areas; Social
perception; Ungulates

\textbf{Introduction}

Human development and landscape modification along centuries has caused
the modification of wildlife populations and their suitable habitats
(Vitousek, et al., 1997). Currently, there are habitats not sufficiently
large for ecosystem self-regulation, and/or natural predators missed (or
very scarce) being ineffective in regulating prey populations, such as
wild ungulates (van Beeck Calkoen et al., 2020). This mammal group are
key species in many ecosystems by conditioning nutrient cycles or
influencing forest dynamics (Danell et al., 2006). However, due to
ecosystem alteration by human activities and the current increasing wild
ungulate populations throughout a rewilding process in Global North
countries (Carpio et al., 2021; Navarro and Pereira, 2015) different
management strategies are used to avoid or mitigate derived conflicts
from ungulate-human interactions (Pascual-Rico et al., 2021).

Wild ungulate management is mainly focused on regulating and limiting
their populations by fencing (VerCauteren et al. 2006),
supplementary/diversionary feeding (Dunkley and Cattet, 2003;
Pascual-Rico et al., 2018), contraception (Boulanger et al. 2012), or
through individuals' extraction such as relocations (Massei et al. 2010)
or hunting (Simard et al. 2013). The application of each strategy
depends on the problems caused by wild ungulates and the environment.
For instance, fencing or diversionary feeding are used to reduce crop
damages (Pascual-Rico et al., 2018; VerCauteren et al. 2006), whereas
translocations are an option when hunting is not allowed (Massei et al.
2011), such as in urban or peri-urban areas. Instead, hunting is
commonly applied where it is secure for human, even in protected areas
(Kays, et al. 2017), such as National Parks (NPs; usually the legal
figure with the highest degree of protection of a territory due to its
ecological and cultural value).

At the same time, the social perception and public support about lethal
management tools applied on wild ungulate populations, such as hunting,
may be viewed as negative by various social groups (Koval and Merting,
2004). Thus, indirect population control without lethal consequences is
preferred by general public (Garrido et al., 2017), since hunting
animals is perceived as inappropriate in NPs (Martínez\selectlanguage{english}-Jauregui et al.,
2020).

At European scale exist a variety of management tools applied to control
ungulate populations, including hunting, but in less than 30\% of NPs
(van Beeck Calkoen et al., 2020). As some North European countries (e.g.
Hiedanpaa and Pellikka, 2015; Rauset et al., 2016), recently in Spain
the Government became `no-go' recreational hunting areas the NPs, since
December 2020, but decided since 2014 (Law 30/2014). According to the
legislation, hunting is considered incompatible with the objectives and
purposes of NPs due to the repercussions on natural processes and its
impact on public use (RD 389/2016). From that moment on recreational
hunting is prohibited, signifying that the wild ungulate population
control policy now depends exclusively on the parks' authorities. This
new situation implies a series of environmental and social challenges.
From an environmental point of view, the inadequate control of
populations may have a series of cascade effects on ecosystems (Cote et
al., 2004). From a social point of view, perceptions and public support
must be considered in addition to any ecological consequences to
increase probability of success of applied management strategy
(Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Jauregui et al., 2021).

In Spain there are 16 NPs (Table S1), in 14 of which inhabit wild
ungulates, including native (\emph{R. pyrenaica} , \emph{C. pyrenaica,
C. capreolus, C. elaphus} and \emph{S. scrofa} ) and introduced species
(\emph{O. o. gmelin, D. dama} and \emph{A. lervia} ), which were
introduced and promoted by hunting societies in those NPs (Nogales et
al., 2006). Eleven NPs have native wild ungulate species, and eight have
exotic species (Figure 1). Twelve parks include ungulate population
control in their management plans (\emph{MITECO}), and 11 have
reported~negative~ecological consequences of high~densities in these
management plans and/or in scientific literature.

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image1.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/470656/articles/631503-the-prohibition-of-recreational-hunting-of-wild-ungulates-in-national-parks-what-alternatives-are-there}

Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of National Parks (red) and wild
ungulate species:\emph{1-Sus scrofa; 2-Cervus elaphus; 3-Capreolus
capreolus; 4-Rupicapra pyrenaica; 5-Capra pyrenaica; 6-Dama dama;
7-~Ovis orientalis gmelin; 8-~Ammotragus lervia} . Number in brackets
indicates the species present in each National Park.

\textbf{Wild ungulates situation in National Parks}

Focusing on three iconic Spanish NPs allow understand management
difficulties on wild ungulate populations. These are Monfrague,
Cabaneros and Sierra de Guadarrama NPs (Fig. 1), and they are allocated
in regions with long and deeply rooted traditions concerning big game
hunting in the centre of the Iberian Peninsula.

Cabaneros NP (408.6 km\textsuperscript{2}) has an average density
of\emph{C. elaphus} that may exceed 20 ind/km\textsuperscript{2}. In the
last five years, an average number of over 1,000 animals were captured
alive on a yearly basis from the public zone of this park. Despite
animal extraction, population are still increasing (own data). In this
park, wild ungulate populations limit tree regeneration (Perea and Gil,
2014), showed important effects of ungulates on the environment
(vegetation and soil characteristics) influencing small mammal behaviour
and population dynamics (Navarro-Castilla et al., 2017).

Similar data and population trends for \emph{C. elaphus} are found in
Monfrague NP (184.0 km\textsuperscript{2}), where the hypothetical
carrying capacity is around 17 ind/km\textsuperscript{2}, but there is
already an average density of 26
ind/km\textsuperscript{2}\textsubscript{.} In this NP, annual extraction
is almost 900 animals on both public and private land
(\emph{http://doe.juntaex.es/pdfs/doe/2017/2230o/17062525.pdf}).

In the case of Sierra de Guadarrama NP (339.6 km\textsuperscript{2}), in
2016 existed a management plan to reduce \emph{C. pyrenaica} population
and mitigate vegetation and soil damage caused by the species
(Martinez-Jauregui and Solino, 2021). However, this management plan was
cancelled by court decision due to an appeal filed by the Animalist
Party Against the Mistreatment of Animals (Partido Animalista Contra el
Maltrato Animal, PACMA). The main objective of this plan is the
extraction of 2,700 individuals over the next five years (mainly by
using traps and relocation, or direct culling). Currently, there is
another on-going improved plan to manage \emph{C. pyrenaica} population
with the same objective (Management plan for ibex populations in the
Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, 2022). In this, \emph{C.
pyrenaica}average density estimated is 38 ind/km\textsuperscript{2}, and
the aim is to reduce it to 12 ind/ km\textsuperscript{2}.

In the current no-hunting scenario, NPs authorities should assume
logistical challenges of these management actions. These actions require
huge economic and human resources to carry them out but are more
efficient than hunting (Mysterud et al., 2019). As a reference, for the
use of professional marksmen or women (instead of recreational hunters)
costs run from about \$100 to \$200 per deer in the USA, and spaying can
also be expensive (\$ 500-1,000 per deer), while costs of relocation and
translocation can be as low as~\$150 to 200 per deer (Doerr, 2001).
These numbers are used to contextualize the magnitude of what the
control of ungulate populations in NPs will involve in the following
years.

\textbf{How can population control be implemented in NPs?}

Before the implementation of no-hunting policy (i.e., in December 2020),
hunting was allowed on some Spanish NPs. However, hunting was not enough
to avoid ungulate population increase (Massei 2023). Indeed, some common
hunting practices could contribute to increase ungulate population, such
as supplementary feeding or watering (Milner et al., 2014).

All of the above raises a question, how can population control be
efficiently implemented in NPs? It will obviously require an extra
effort and the provision of a proper budget by the administration.
Lethal-based methods can currently control ungulate population increase
in an efficient manner, even when the way in which they are implemented
is still, in many cases, insufficient (Mysterud et al., 2019). Other
studies indicate that local control of abundant cervid populations
through recreational hunting may be difficult to achieve in many natural
environments (Simard et al., 2013), due to compensatory mechanisms or
inability to remove a sufficient proportion of the population to cause a
population decline (Bengsen et al., 2019). However, no efficient
alternatives with which to control ungulate populations (and the related
conflict) in a long-term sustainable manner have been shown to be
realistically viable, such as state-employed cullers, the relocation of
individuals or fertility control, (Hobbs et al., 2000; Raiho et al.,
2015; Refoyo et al., 2015). It should be noted that an insufficient
control may have relevant economic and ecological consequences (Carpio
et al., 2021). According to Raiho et al. (2015), the combination of
different management strategies should be considered to improve
efficiency on ungulate management.

Besides the combination of classical management tools applied, other
proposals should be taken into account to warrant management plans
success, such as strategies based on ecosystem functioning recovery. As
ecosystem functioning recovery that could be effective on wild ungulate
management, mitigating some conflicts, is the passive recolonization of
top-predators' carnivores (i.e., Iberian wolf \emph{Canis lupus
signatus} ). This implies the return of a trophic interaction
predator-prey that has not occurred in some of the NPs for decades.
Predators can affect directly prey demography by consumption (Gervasi et
al. 2012), but also indirectly by ``landscape of fear'' (Ripple and
Beschta, 2003). When predators are present, ungulates modify their
spatial and feeding patterns, presenting as adaptive response a predator
avoidance behaviour (Tizzani et al., 2022). For instance, it has been
detected vegetation damage reduction when wolf where reintroduced in
Yellowstone (USA; Ripple and Beschta, 2003). Behaviour modification of
ungulates can lead to significant ecological consequences, improving
ecosystem functioning and reducing human intervention (Ripple and
Beschta, 2003).

In Spain, Iberian wolf is recolonizing areas where it was extirpated
(Clavero et al. 2022). Recently, it has been detected in Guadarrama NPs
(\emph{MITECO, 2020}), where it was removed from in the 40s of the last
Century. Currently, \emph{C. pyrenaica} is overabundant in this NP, and
the return of this top-predator offers the opportunity to monitor this
natural experiment in Spain. To evaluate predator's presence effect on
the ungulate population in this NP will allow to understand its
ecological role and if it contributes on ungulate management.

\textbf{Towards an integrative solution: instilling education and
awareness}

Besides the application of management tools on wild ungulate populations
focused on efficacy, it is relevant also to focus on obtaining social
support to increase probabilities of management success
(Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Jauregui et al., 2020). Commonly, non-lethal management tools
applied are preferred by general public (Garrido et al., 2017), for
instance, passive strategies that consist of limiting the access of
ungulates to some resources (e.g., crops, food to livestock) or to
protect susceptible plant species to ungulates (Kalisz et al. 2014; Sabo
et al. 2019).

Experience and research demonstrate that well-designed, well-executed
stakeholder involvement processes can facilitate the implementation of
socially acceptable management actions (Chase et al., 2002). This
situation is particularly contentious in the case of NPs, where the
management of certain ecological situations may be necessary,
particularly when the habitat protected by the NPs has already been
created or is maintained through human activities. Even when, from an
ecological point of view, there is information to design and implement
actions for population control, education and awareness measures may,
therefore, be necessary to stress public awareness of how biological
control should be implemented (Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Jauregui et al., 2020). It is
evident that parts of society have negative perceptions of reducing
ungulate populations by employing lethal methods. However, this
perception improves when they are confronted with technical information
concerning the consequences of overabundance on ecosystems and humans
(Martinez-Jauregui and Solino, 2021). In this respect, involving the
stakeholders (i.e., hunters and visitors of NPs in our particular case)
much more directly in the solutions could help everyone to understand
why these measures should be adopted. In this respect, adaptive ungulate
management plans, including the proper monitoring of populations and
their impacts, should be very well informed, and a sufficient budget
available (Apollonio et al., 2017). Only by communicating objective
information, distinct from any stakeholder pressures, can Spanish
society be a part of the solution for the wildlife management problems
in NPs.

Further involve hunters and visitors of NPs, which are the main
stakeholders regarding hunting on NPs, we must consider education and
awareness regarding wild ungulate management (and wildlife from a
broader perspective), that reaches a greater general public. For this,
promoting science divulgation in other social areas, such as schools,
high schools or universities, together with ecological literacy
promotion, can be very effective (Courchamp et al., 2015; Jordan et al.,
2009). This ecological education should be focused beyond the wildlife
management in protected areas since the management of these species goes
further the physical limits of those spaces (i.e., vehicle collisions on
highways, crop damages, diseases transmission to livestock).

\textbf{Conclusion}

In summary, it is necessary to counterbalance the alternatives of
population control or hunting, with the missions of NPs, more precisely
to preserve wilderness areas (Watson et al., 2016). In addition, more
integrated management and policy plans are required (van Beeck Calkoen
et al., 2020), including both the protection and the promotion of
natural processes and species conservation. Besides, it is essential the
education of society's on management and conservation strategies
(Keigley, 2018). This approach requires science-based resource
management in order to guarantee the efficacy of management plans and
their acceptance by the main stakeholders (Vicente et al., 2019).

\textbf{Declarations}

\textbf{Ethical Approval~}

Not applicable

\textbf{Competing interests~}

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

\textbf{Authors' contributions~}

Antonio J. Carpio, Pelayo Acevedo and Joaquin Vicente conceived the
paper and led its design. Antonio J. Carpio and Eduardo Laguna conducted
the literature research. Antonio J. Carpio, R. Pascual-Rico and M.
Martinez-Jauregui wrote the first draft with input from all the authors.
Jose Guerrero-Casado made the map and provided the pictures.

\textbf{Funding~}

AJC is supported by a `Juan de la Cierva' contract (IJC2020-042629-I)
funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Union Next
Generation. RPR was co-funded by the ESF and Plan Propio I+D+i UCLM, and
FJC2020-045938-I/MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and European Union Next
Generation.

\textbf{Availability of data and materials~}

Not applicable

\textbf{References}

Apollonio, M., Belkin, V. V., Borkowski, J., Borodin, O. I., Borowik,
T., Cagnacci, F., et al., 2017. Challenges and science-based
implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate
populations.~\emph{Mammal Research,~62} (3), 209--217.

Bengsen, A. J., Forsyth, D. M., Harris, S., Latham, A. D. M., McLeod, S.
R., \& Pople, A. (2020). A systematic review of ground-based shooting to
control overabundant mammal populations.~\emph{Wildlife Research,~47}
(3), 197--207.

Carpio, A. J., Apollonio, M., \& Acevedo, P. (2021). Wild ungulate
overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management
recommendations. \emph{Mammal Review, 51} (1), 95--108.

Chase, L. C., Siemer, W. F., \& Decker, D. J. (2002). Designing
stakeholder involvement strategies to resolve wildlife management
controversies. \emph{Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30} (3), 937--950.

Clavero, M., Garcia\selectlanguage{english}-Reyes, A., Fernandez\selectlanguage{english}-Gil, A., Revilla, E., \&
Fernandez, N. (2022). Where wolves were: setting historical baselines
for wolf recovery in Spain. Animal
Conservation.\emph{https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12814}

Cote, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J. P., Dussault, C., \& Waller, D.
M. (2004). Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. \emph{Annual Review
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35} , 113--147.

Courchamp, F., Dunne, J. A., Le Maho, Y., May, R. M., Thebaud, C., \&
Hochberg, M. E. (2015). Fundamental ecology is fundamental. \emph{Trends
in Ecology \& Evolution, 30} (1), 9-16.

Doerr, M. L., McAninch, J. B., \& Wiggers, E. P. (2001). Comparison of 4
Methods to Reduce White-Tailed Deer Abundance in an Urban
Community.\emph{Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29} , (4)1105--1113.

Danell, K., Bergstrom, R., Duncan, P., Pastor, J. (Eds.), 2006. Large
herbivore ecology, ecosystem dynamics and conservation (Conservation
Biology). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dunkley, L., \& Cattet, M. R. L. (2003). A comprehensive review of the
ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of
wildlife. \emph{Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre: Newsletters
\& Publications,} \emph{21} , 1--68

Garrido, F. E., Castro, F., \& Villafuerte, R. (2017). Control hunting
of wild animals: health, money, or pleasure? \emph{European Journal of
Wildlife Research} , 63, 95.

Hiedanpaa, J., \& Pellikka, J. (2015). Adapting moose hunting: a case
study on fragmented hunting grounds around Nuuksio National Park in
Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland. \emph{European Journal of Wildlife
Research} , \emph{61} , 303-312.

Hobbs, N. T., Bowden, D. C., \& Baker, D. L. (2000). Effects of
fertility control on populations of ungulates: general, stage-structured
models. \emph{Journal Wildlife Management} , 473--491.

Jordan, R., Singer, F., Vaughan, J., \& Berkowitz, A. (2009). What
should every citizen know about ecology? \emph{Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 7} (9), 495-500.

Kalisz, S., Spigler, R. B., \& Horvitz, C. C. (2014). In a long-term
experimental demography study, excluding ungulates reversed invader's
explosive population growth rate and restored natives. \emph{Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences} , \emph{111} (12), 4501-4506.

Kays, R., Parsons, A. W., Baker, M. C., Kalies, E. L., Forrester, T.,
Costello, R., Rota, C.T., Millspaugh, J.J. \& McShea, W. J. (2017). Does
hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected
areas?.\emph{Journal of Applied Ecology, 54} (1), 242-252.

Keigley, R. B. (2018). How perceptions about naturalness affect science
in Yellowstone National Park.~\emph{Rangeland Ecology Management,~71}
(3), 395--401.

Koval, M. H., \&Mertig, A. G. (2004). Attitudes of the Michigan public
and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife
management.\emph{Wildlife Society Bulletin} , \emph{32} (1), 232-243.

Law 30/2014, de 3 de diciembre, de Parques Nacionales.

\emph{BOE-A-2014-12588.}

Management plan for ibex populations in the Sierra de Guadarrama
National Park. \emph{In Spanish} : \emph{Plan de gestion de las
poblaciones de cabra montes en el Parque Nacional de la Sierra de
Guadarrama} . 2022. Consejeria de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Agricultura
Direccion General de Biodiversidad y Recursos Naturales. Direccion
General de Biodiversidad y Recursos Naturales

Martinez-Jauregui, M., \& Solino, M. (2021). Society's preferences when
ecological values and health risks are at stake: An application to the
population control of a flagship ungulate (Iberian ibex) in Sierra de
Guadarrama national park, Spain\emph{. Science of Total Environment,
776} , 146012.

Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Jauregui, M., Delibes\selectlanguage{english}-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B., \& Solino, M.
(2020). Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in
national parks.~\emph{Conservation Biology, 34} (4), 868--878.

Massei G, Quy RJ, Gurney J, Cowan DP. (2010). Can translocations be used
to mitigate human--wildlife conflicts? \emph{Wildlife Research} , 37,
428--439.

Massei, G. (2023). Fertility Control for Wildlife: A European
Perspective. \emph{Animals, 13} (3), 428.

Massei, G., Roy, S., \& Bunting, R. (2011). Too many hogs? A review of
methods to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral
hogs.\emph{Human-Wildlife Interactions, 5} (1), 79-99.

Milner, J. M., Van Beest, F. M., Schmidt, K. T., Brook, R. K., \&
Storaas, T. (2014). To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and
unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. \emph{The Journal of
Wildlife Management, 78} (8), 1322-1334.

Mysterud, A., Strand, O., Rolandsen, C. M. (2019). Efficacy of
recreational hunters and marksmen for host culling to combat chronic
wasting disease in reindeer.~\emph{Wildlife Society Bulletin,~43} (4),
683--692.

Navarro-Castilla, A., Diaz Esteban, M., \& Barja, I. (2017). Does
ungulate disturbance mediate behavioural and physiological stress
responses in Algerian mice (\emph{Mus spretus} )? A wild exclosure
experiment. \emph{Hystrix 28} (2), 165-172.

Navarro, L.M., Pereira, H.M., (2015). Rewilding abandoned landscapes in
Europe. In: Pereira, H., Navarro, L. (Eds.), Rewilding European
Landscapes. Springer, Cham, pp. 3--23.

Nogales, M., Rodriguez\selectlanguage{english}-Luengo, J. L., \& Marrero, P. (2006). Ecological
effects and distribution of invasive non\selectlanguage{english}-native mammals on the Canary
Islands. \emph{Mammal Review, 36} (1), 49--65.

Pascual-Rico, R., Morales-Reyes, Z., Aguilera-Alcala, N., Olsza\selectlanguage{polish}ń\selectlanguage{english}ska, A.,
Sebasti\selectlanguage{ngerman}án-González, E., Naidoo, R., Moleón, M., Lozano, J., Botella, F.,
von Wehrden, H., Martín-López, B., \& Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2021).
Usually hated, sometimes loved: A review of wild ungulates'
contributions to people. \emph{Science of The Total Environment, 801} ,
149652.

Pascual-Rico, R., Pérez-García, J. M., Sebastián-González, E., Botella,
F., Giménez, A., Eguía, S., \& Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2018). Is
diversionary feeding a useful tool to avoid human-ungulate conflicts? A
case study with the aoudad. \emph{European Journal of Wildlife Research,
64} , 1-7.

Perea, R., \& Gil, L. (2014). Tree regeneration under high levels of
wild ungulates: The use of chemically vs. physically-defended
shrubs.\emph{Forest Ecology and Management} , 312, 47-54.

Plan de gestión de las poblaciones de cabra montés en el Parque Nacional
de la Sierra de Guadarrama. 2022. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda
y Agricultura Dirección General de Biodiversidad y Recursos Naturales

Raiho, A. M., Hooten, M. B., Bates, S., \& Hobbs, N. T. (2015).
Forecasting the effects of fertility control on overabundant ungulates:
white-tailed deer in the National Capital Region. \emph{PLoS One, 10}
(12), e0143122.

Rauset, G. R., Andrén, H., Swenson, J. E., Samelius, G., Segerström, P.,
Zedrosser, A., \& Persson, J. (2016). National parks in northern Sweden
as refuges for illegal killing of large carnivores.~\emph{Conservation
Letters,~9} (5), 334--341.

Real Decreto 389/2016, de 22 de octubre, por el que se aprueba el Plan
Director de la Red de Parques Nacionales.

Refoyo, P., Olmedo, C., Polo, I., Fandos, P., \& Muñoz, B. (2015).
Demographic trends of a reintroduced Iberian ibex \emph{Capra pyrenaica
victoriae} population in central Spain. \emph{Mammalia, 79} (2),
139--145.

Ripple, W. J., \& Beschta, R. L. (2003). Wolf reintroduction, predation
risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. \emph{Forest
Ecology and Management, 184} (1-3), 299-313.

Sabo, A. E., Forrester, J. A., Burton, J. I., Jones, P. D., Mladenoff,
D. J., \& Kruger, E. L. (2019). Ungulate exclusion accentuates increases
in woody species richness and abundance with canopy gap creation in a
temperate hardwood forest. \emph{Forest Ecology and Management, 433} ,
386-395.

Schusler, T. M. (2004). Ecological impacts of high deer densities.
Teaching issues and experiments in ecology. Vol. 2, 1-7.

Simard, M. A., Dussault, C., Huot, J., \& Côté, S. D. (2013). Is hunting
an effective tool to control overabundant deer? A test using an
experimental approach. \emph{Journal of Wildlife Management,~77} (2),
254--269.

Tizzani, P., Bessone, M., Rossi, L., \& Meneguz, P. G. (2022). Does
predation risk affect spatial use in an introduced ungulate species? The
case of a Mediterranean mouflon alpine colony. \emph{European Journal of
Wildlife Research, 68} (5), 66.

van Beeck Calkoen, S.T., Mühlbauer, L., Andrén, H., Apollonio, M.,
Bal\selectlanguage{polish}č\selectlanguage{english}iauskas, L., Belotti, E., et al. (2020). Ungulate management in
European national parks: why a more integrated European policy is
needed.~\emph{Journal of Environmental Management,~260} , 110068.

VerCauteren, K. C., Lavelle, M. J., \& Hygnstrom, S. (2006). From the
field: fences and deer-damage management: a review of designs and
efficacy. \emph{Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34} (1), 191-200.

Vicente, J., Apollonio, M., Blanco-Aguiar, J. A., Borowik, T., Brivio,
F., Casaer, J., et al. (2019). Science-based wildlife disease
response.~\emph{Science,~364} (6444), 943--944.

Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., \& Melillo, J. M. (1997).
Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. \emph{Science, 277} (5325),
494-499.

Watson, J. E., Shanahan, D. F., Di Marco, M., Allan, J., Laurance, W.
F., Sanderson, E. W., Mackey, B., \& Venter, O. (2016). Catastrophic
declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment
targets.~\emph{Current Biology,~26} (21), 2929--2934.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

