Game Reserves in Spain : the public management of hunting

In Spain, Game Reserves (GR) are territorial public hunting management units that cover 3.5% of the country and ~ 10% of the Natura 2000 Network. The first GR were established in 1966 and by 2011 there were 49. Their primary purposes were to promote wild ungulate populations, their sustainable use, and to provide social, economic, and recreational benefits to local communities and hunters, generally. During the 1980s following a political federalization process, GR became the responsibility of regional governments and their role has never been evaluated, even though the political, rural ecological, and administrative frameworks underwent substantial changes. In this paper, we present a review of the state of GR in 2011, identify their successes and problems, and provide recommendations for the future. The GR have been fundamental to sustainable hunting and the protection of wildlife, particularly, game species. Currently, their virtues are not widely appreciated and they do not receive sufficient financial and human resources to meet their objective fully. We propose several initiatives that might improve the use of existing resources and increase the profile of these publicly managed areas.


Introduction
In general, populations of wild ungulates in Europe have recovered during last decades (Apollonio et al., 2010).With some exceptions (e.g., García-González and Herrero, 1999), the populations of the vast major-ity of species have increased in number and range (Gortázar et al., 2000), primarily, because of socioeconomic changes associated with the abandonment of rural areas, increases in the tertiary economic sector and agricultural mechanization.Consequently, forests have increased, naturally and artificially, and environ-Game Reserves in Spain improvement.In all but two of the GR in Spain, big game hunting is the primary objective.The other two were designated for the promotion of waterfowl and, therefore, we evaluated those, separately.
The cartography of the GR was derived using a GIS and the original maps of each GR.

Results
Questionnaires were sent to the managers of each of the GR (n = 49) and 40 (82%) replied; however not all of the questions on all of the forms were answered.

The declarations
Following state Law 37/66, the first GR was established in 1966.In 1973, Law 2/73 brought about the establishment of additional GR.Since the 1980s, and following the federalization process, a third period of establishment occurred (Table 1).

Human resources and budget
Among the personnel (n = 399) at the GR (n = 40), 63% worked full-time and 37% worked part-time, and, on average, there were 3.6 employees /10,000 ha -1 .The general trend has been for the change from hunting rangers to non-specialized ones.Seventeen of 37 (75.5%)GR did not have a specific budget, and of those that did have one the average represented 4.4 € ha -1 .

Protected Areas and management of neighboring areas
Forty-eight of the 49 GR, at least partially, lie within a Protected Area (PA).Some of the PAs have been completely (Sierra Nevada and Daimiel), par-mental conditions for those species have improved.In Spain, however, at the beginning of the 1960s there was a massive rural exodus from the country to the large industrial areas, and some territories that provided exceptional conditions for supporting game hunting were declared public hunting grounds; i.e., Game Reserves (GR), which were managed by the state government (Ortuño and de la Peña, 1976).They were designed to promote game hunting, control poaching, provide economic benefits to local communities, promote hunting tourism, and aid the recovery of wildlife populations, which has been successful in sub-Saharan Africa (Lindsey, 2007).Despite the importance of hunting in Spain, one of the countries with a higher hunting demand worldwide (Hofer, 2002), however, the importance of GR in nature conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources has not been thoroughly evaluated.
This paper provides a review of GR in Spain, identifies their achievements, and proposes actions for their success in the future.

Materials and methods
In April, 2011, the first meeting on GR was held in Cofrentes, Valencia, (Spain), which provided a general overview of their state and allowed us to make direct contact with most of the technicians associated with the country's GR.They provided information about specific aspects of the GR including the date when they were established, size, legislation, administrative data, natural attributes, and management practices.Thereafter, we executed the first phase of the Project Cycle Management and Logical Framework (European Commission-Europe Aid, 2001), which is used in the design of environmental projects (Atauri and Gómez-Limón, 2002).We developed a problem tree based on the hierarchical organization of the causeeffect relationships among the various problems faced by each of the GR (Fig. 2), which formed the basis of an objective tree, that included operational objectives, intermediate results, and general objectives.In turn, we created a plan in which choosing the correct measures identifies the correct operational objectives, which lead to intermediate results before achieving the ultimate management objectives as identified by the initial problem analysis (Fig. 3).That approach permits an evaluation of the state of the GR and provides a basis for the development of appropriate strategies for their tially (Viñamala), or simultaneously (Picos de Europa) converted into National Parks.Some of the GR overlap other PAs, particularly Nature Parks, Sites of Community Importance, and Special Protection Areas (all of which form the Natura 2000 Network), Biosphere Reserves, and Ramsar Sites.GR cover ~10% of the terrestrial Natura 2000 Network, and 77% of the area of the GR lies within the Natura 2000.There are extensive territories of neighboring or almost neighboring GR management (Fig. 1 and Table 1) such as the Cantabrian Mountains (590,287 ha), the Pyrenees (344,774 ha), the Sierra de la Demanda, Urbión, and Demanda Cameros (297,996 ha), Sonsaz (68,461 ha), and Els Ports de Tortosa-Beseit (28,741.25 ha).
The ecosystems within the GR have been included in important networks, particularly, Natura 2000, that was created to protect nature.Comparatively to protected areas National Parks, the later occupy 0.8% of the country; 11.8% is part of PA areas sensu lato, and 7.8% are Nature Parks (Europarc-Spain, 2010), while GR are 3.5%.In the GR (n = 39), the most commonly hunted species were wild boar (97%), roe deer (69%), red deer (61%), chamois (59%), fallow deer (41%), Iberian wild goat (31%), mouflon (13%), and aoudad (2%).As many as six large game species and small game species are hunted in a single GR.In some GR, only a single large game species is hunted, and the average is 3.3 large game species.Considering the original species that motivated the declaration of every single GR, in almost all of the GR, the number of species of wild ungulates has increased.

Population monitoring and hunting quota
In most (82%, n = 40) of the GR, the populations of wild ungulates are monitored, primarily, using total counts and, to a lesser extent, the kilometric abundance index, distance sampling, and hunting battues.Some ~18% of the GR monitor the populations of small game species.In addition, some of the GR monitor endan-gered species such as bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus, brown bear Ursus arctos, and capercaillie Tetrao urogallus.Large game hunting quota accomplishment (n = 25 GR) is 78%, with 90% of red deer and 56% for roe deer.Currently, there is not hunting quota for wild boar.

Large game hunting methods
Within the GR (n = 39, 81.2%), the most common hunting methods are, in order of importance: battues, still hunting, and waiting.Battues are most commonly used to hunt wild boar and are not used to hunt aoudad and chamois, which are pursued using a still hunt.Iberian wild goat and wild boar are hunted using a waiting method.In the vast majority (80%) of the GR, hunting plans are used.

Damage compensation and poaching
In 2009, damages totaling 185,063 € were reported (n = 20, 41%), which affected 12 GR.Damages occurred in all of the GR and most of these were to agriculture.In some GR, compensation is paid for losses caused by wolf predation on livestock and, in some cases, compensation is made for losses caused by collisions with automobiles.In the GR (n = 38), poaching is viewed as a moderate (73%), major (18%), or minor (9%) problem.

Capacity building, assistance, divulgation, and participation
In 85% of the GR (n = 39), the personnel training and in general capacity building through different courses (n = 39, 80%) is undertaken (e.g., biology of game and endangered species, new technologies, animal health).In 83% of the GR (n = 33), management received technical assistance from consultancy contracts (51%), public enterprises (42%), or both.
The work done in the GR (n = 25, 51%) has been disseminated through popular publications (16%) and, primarily, a combination of divulgation with reports and scientific publications (68%).Public participation in the management decisions at the GR (n = 36) includes advisory boards, through which all of the interest groups are represented (hunters, farmers, landowners, regions, and municipalities) (57%).

Logical Framework
The survey detected 23 problems, two of which were external to GR management (rural abandonment and lack of predators), and three that were of a general nature (ecological, socioeconomic unsustainability, loss of identity and function), The main problems that affected the daily management of the GR included the lack of human and material resources, poaching, limited public understanding of the existence and role played by GR, and compensation for damage caused by game species.Other problems included the risk of epidemics, the deterioration of ecosystems, and persistent conflicts between the objectives of the GR and human activities.In addition, the lack of understanding by the human population has led to a social rejection that causes their loss of identity and role in society (Fig. 2 and 3).

Discussion
The high proportion of questionnaires that were returned by the GR provided a sound basis upon which to assess the status of the GR in Spain.The establishment of the GR, which was inspired by the need for nature conservation and the wise use of natural resources, has represented an important reference in the management of forests, game hunting, and biodiversity.In that regard, the GR continue to play an important role, but unfortunately, this is not well known in Spain or elsewhere.Most of the wildlife populations that were targeted for recovery have recovered and, some have expanded their range (Gortázar et al.. 2000).
The GR have bodies that represent pioneering experiences in human participatory processes level in territorial management and an important example for protected areas.In addition, they monitor wildlife populations and develop hunting plans, which provide the basis for the management of game species.Some GR and hunted protected areas have provided important long-term data series (García-González et al., 2004;Marco et al., 2011) and valuable research on the effect of hunting on wildlife populations (Milner et al., 2006;Coltman et al., 2003;Rughetti and Festa-Bianchet, 2011).Furthermore, the GR have provided benefits to landowners (Domínguez et al., 2011) as in other similar territories (Harris and Pletscher, 2002), and relatively inexpensive access to hunt.
In most cases, the overlap between PA and GR has not led to the elimination of GR and, usually, the design of the PA has followed or taken into consideration of the existing GR, which had led to a certain degree of coordinated management.
The main problems that affect the GR are the lack of human and material resources, poaching, limited public understanding of the existence and role played by GR (i.e., their visibility), and compensation for damage caused by game species, which is one of the main emerging problems in the management of populations of wild ungulates in Europe (Apollonio et al., 2010).In the GR in Spain, the non-accomplishment of hunting quotas illustrates the difficulties in insuring that these quotas are met and the need for specialized personnel to enforce them.Today, the original objective of promoting hunting must be balanced against the need to constrain it, which is a significant issue elsewhere in Europe (Apollonio et al., 2010;Putman and Moore, 1998).
The dissemination of the work done in GR is not sufficient to inform the public of the importance of GR; therefore, it should be increased following, for instance, the example of Protected Areas, which in Spain receive at least 26 million € per year (Europarc-E, 2010).
The complexities of managing GR, the need for accurate information on the abundance and population trends of game species, and a shortage of permanent staff in the GR are the main reasons why enterprises and consultancies are called on to participate in the monitoring of wildlife populations.This information is crucial for management and represents the main technical and scientific information developed by GR.Some socioeco-nomic information is produced (Domínguez et al., 2011), even if this aspect is relatively new, in spite of its importance together with biological data for a correct management (Gordon et al., 2004).
The main original objective of the GR, to promote populations of game species, has been accomplished.In the last decade, new objectives have had to be developed from within a different political, socioeconomic, and natural context.GR represent important economic investments for the regions and if they are retained, they should have the objectives and resources that are consistent with contemporary views of nature conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources.An appropriate framework might be an Action Plan for GR that aims to achieve ecological, economic, and social sustainability within the context of ecosystem services (Balvanera et al., 2006;Costanza et al., 1987).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Location of Game Reserves in Spain in 2011.