Dept. Forestry and Natural Resources
715 W. State Street
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
(765) 494-3590
FAX: (765) 494-9461

Project Partners

Perception vs. Reality

Several key points emerge in a comparison between landowner perceptions on crop damage and actual field data.

Field crews found wildlife damage in 93% of the fields they sampled. Only 73% of landowners reported wildlife damage to either corn or soybeans within the past year; thus, minor damage may be overlooked by landowners. Landowners underestimated the number of damaged fields, but overestimated the value lost due to damage, especially in terms of dollars lost rather than percent of total crop lost. Farmers reported averages that exceeded observed damage and their highest values often exceeded $1,000. However, regardless of the amount of damage, whether real or perceived, landowners varied on the level of damage that was tolerable to them. For some, no damage was tolerable. It is important for wildlife biologists and educators to acknowledge individual differences in tolerance levels when working with agricultural producers. What is tolerable damage to one individual may not be tolerable to another, and thus, should not be dismissed as insignificant.

---

 

Crop producers correctly identified the wildlife species that caused the most damage for each crop type--raccoon and deer for corn, and deer and groundhog for soybeans. However, they believed that deer caused the most damage to corn, whereas field surveys indicated that raccoons were responsible for the vast majority of the damage. Even so, only about 1 in 5 farmers considered deer a nuisance (2.5 times more landowners thought raccoons were a nuisance and 4 times more thought groundhogs were a nuisance). Raccoon depredation is apparently more problematic to corn producers in the UWB than in other less fragmented corn-producing regions of the U.S. in general.

---

 

Understandably, negative feelings by farmers towards deer and raccoons were related to the amount of perceived damage. This fact reinforces the importance of proper identification of wildlife damage. Misidentification of wildlife damage to crops can lead to negative feelings which in turn may lead to unnecessary and unwarranted management objectives for some wildlife species. See Resources for more information.

 

---

 

Surveys of 160 agricultural fields yielded no cases of measurable crop depredation by wild turkey. Turkey sign was evident in several fields and turkeys were observed often in fields we surveyed. We suspect that turkeys are perceived to damage crops because they are easily observed compared to other species in the UWB landscape. Due to their size, flocking behavior, and daytime activity, wild turkeys often are seen foraging in crop fields; however, they are usually foraging on waste grain and insects rather than damaging crops. Studies of crop use by wild turkey in several midwestern states documented only trivial damage by wild turkeys to agricultural crops. Our study supports previous research and suggests that the occurrence of crop depredation by wild turkey is very low, even though they often occupy agricultural lands throughout the year. Anecdotal evidence of wild turkeys feeding on newly emerged soybeans was observed in a couple fields outside of the 160 surveyed for wildlife damage. However, this observation does not necessarily translate to measurable damage.