Anketna raziskava lovcev o motivih in stroških krmljenja jelenjadi in divjega prašiča v Sloveniji : diplomsko delo - visokošolski strokovni študij

Okršlar, Rok (author), Jerina, Klemen (mentor)

V Sloveniji je krmljenje pogost in priljubljen ukrep upravljavcev lovišč. Pretežno se krmi divjega prašiča (Sus scrofa) in jelenjad (Cervus elaphus), ki ju obravnava diplomska naloga. Cilj naloge je ugotoviti, kaj je najpogostejši vzrok za krmljenje ter kolikšni so stroški same nabave, dostave in proizvodnje krme. Podatke za leto 2011 o višini odstrela in velikosti lovišč smo pridobili iz evidenc lovsko upravljavskih načrtov, vrsto in količino krme, čas in stroške krmljenja, število krmišč in motive pa z vprašalnikom, ki smo ga poslali naključno izbranim upravljavcem lovišč. Pri analizi podatkov se je kot glavni motiv za krmljenje pokazala želja po zmanjšanju škod, ki jih povzročata divji prašič in jelenjad, sledi ji lažji odstrel na krmišču. Najvišji strošek krmljenja pri divjem prašiču predstavlja dostava krme, nato nabava, pri jelenjadi pa je krma dražja. Lastna proizvodnja je pri obeh vrstah najcenejša. Ob ugotovitvi, da znaša strošek krmljenja povprečno 138 EUR/uplenjenega prašiča, odškodnine pa povprečno 43 EUR/uplenjenega prašiča, pri jelenjadi pa je to razmerje 92 EUR/uplenjenega jelena za krmljenje ter 13 EUR/uplenjenega jelena za odškodnino, se dvom o smiselnosti krmljenja z namenom zmanjševanja škod poglablja. Poleg tega je pregled preteklih raziskav razkril zelo verjetni nasprotni učinek krmljenja od namena. Ob naglem povečevanju škod in rasti populacij divjega prašiča in jelenjadi je zdaj skrajni čas, ko je nujno poiskati nov, primernejši pristop h krmljenju, kot ukrepu za zmanjševanje škod po divjadi.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: divji prašiči, jelenjad, stroški, krmljenje
• Work type: Bachelor thesis/paper
• Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
• Organization: BF - Biotechnical Faculty
• Place of publishing: Ljubljana
• Publisher: [R. Okršlar]
• Year: 2016
• Number of pages: 55 f.
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-114926
• UDC: 630*156(043.2)=163.6
• COBISS.SI-ID: 4554918
• Publication date in RUL: 30.03.2020

OKRŠLAR, Rok, 2016, Anketna raziskava lovcev o motivih in stroških krmljenja jelenjadi in divjega prašiča v Sloveniji : diplomsko delo - visokošolski strokovni študij [online]. Bachelor’s thesis. Ljubljana : R. Okršlar. [Accessed 26 April 2025]. Retrieved from: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=eng&id=114926

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Hunting survey research on motives and expenses of supplementary feeding red deer and wild boar in Slovenia

Abstract

In Slovenia, supplemental feeding is a common and popular measure used by managers of hunting reserves. Most often the animals being fed are wild boar (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus), both of which are discussed in this thesis. The aim of the thesis is to find out what the most common cause of feeding is, and what the costs of purchase, delivery, and feeding itself are. Data for 2011 on the number of animals killed and the sizes of hunting grounds were obtained from the records of hunting management plans, while the type and quantity of feed, the feeding costs, the number of feeding sites and the intentions behind feeding were determined with with questionnaires, which were sent to randomly selected managers of hunting reserves. After analyzing the data we found that the main motive for supplemental feeding was a desire to reduce damages caused by wild boar and deer, followed by feeding making hunting the animals an easier task. The highest cost of supplemental feeding of boars represents the delivery of the feed, followed by the purchase cost, while the purchase cost of the deer feed is more expensive. Self-production of both types of feeds turned out to be the cheapest option. Considering that feeding on average costs 138 EUR/hunted boar and compensation for damages caused by boars averages at 43 EUR/hunted boar, while with deer this ratio is 92 EUR/hunted deer for feeding and 13 EUR/hunted deer for compensation, gives rise to doubts about the advisability of feeding in order to reduce losses. In addition, a review of past research revealed a probable adverse effect of supplemental feeding. With the sharp rise in wild boar and deer populations we believe it is high time to start searching for a new and better approach to supplemental feeding if we want to use it as a method of lessening the damage caused by wild animals