Table 2.
Application of the wildlife feeding acceptability framework to reported examples of wildlife feeding based on their ability to be controlled, have beneficial effects on conservation and have a positive long-term effect on animal welfare.
| Feeding activity example | Ability to be controlled | Beneficial conservation effect | Positive long-term effect on animal welfare | Feeding acceptable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research | ||||
| Northern Goshawk study [36] | + + | + | + | Yes |
| Townsend’s Chipmunk study [37] | + + | + | + | Yes |
| Woodland bird study [38] | + + | + | + | Yes |
| Management | ||||
| Kestrel species recovery [42] | + + | + + | + + | Yes |
| Winter deer feeding [57,58,59] | − | − | − | No |
| Boar baiting [60] | − | − − | − − | No |
| Tourism | ||||
| Dolphin feeding [74] | − | − | − | No |
| Primate feeding [61] | − | − | − | No |
| Bear feeding [62] | − | − | − | No |
| Komodo dragon feeding [63] | − | − | − | No |
| Shark feeding [79] | + / −* | + | − | Yes * |
| Opportunistic | ||||
| Backyard bear feeding [31] | − − | − − | − | No |
| Backyard bird feeding [17] | − | + | Neutral | Yes ** |
| Dingo feeding [90] | − | − − | − | No |
Items are rated high (+ +), somewhat high (+), somewhat low (−), low (− −) or neutral; * depends on tourism operator; ** acceptable with conditions: appropriate food by species and season, prevention of non-target species attraction, does not increase the risk of predation (e.g., from cats) or of window strike and does not increase intra- or inter-species aggression.