The Interactions between Some Free-Ranging Animals and Agriculture—A Review

Abstract

When humans began interfering with the environment to produce food, some free-ranging animal species adapted to live on typical farmland, sometimes choosing it as their main habitat. They use it on the basis of symbiosis or as a pest. The animals affect farms in different ways, and the same concerns farms affecting animals. There are negative, from a human perspective, as well as positive aspects of this interaction. The aim of this study was to review and propose the solutions to reconcile these two factors, agriculture and wildlife, using Poland as an example. Two major problems were observed: the negative impact of agriculture on the occurrence or abundance of certain species, and wildlife damage caused mainly by wild boars (Sus scrofa) and Cervidae. The most important issue for agricultural economy is the strict control and limitation of the wild boar population, while the farmer’s approach to cultivation and the environment are important for the wildlife. For years, man has been undertaking various activities using and subordinating elements of the environment, and each even small interference in the system that creates a harmony will have far-reaching consequences.

1. Introduction

The development of civilization, increased urbanization, and general technological progress observed in recent years have an impact on many aspects of life, including agriculture and the natural environment with animals inhabiting it. The increase in the human population size has resulted in an increase in the amount of food produced, which in turn has contributed to a lower production diversification, and thus an increase in the number of large-scale farms forming a monoculture of crops. This phenomenon has had tremendous consequences not only on the landscape formation, but also on the animals living in it, and even on humans themselves. The increase in the human population has also forced the need to build up land at the expense of wildlife habitats [1,2,3]. As some agricultural areas create ideal habitats for many animal species (mosaic of crop varieties, green areas with forests or single trees, wooded areas, and water sources), it is inevitable that certain interactions between all these elements will occur [4,5,6,7]. When considering the relationship between agriculture and wildlife, negative phenomena resulting from the impact of agriculture on animals or vice versa usually come to mind first. However, there are also positive aspects for both groups. In fact, the negative aspects of this interaction are more widely known and publicized, and have a greater impact on both sides, while the positive impacts are rarely discussed. They are often overlooked and forgotten, even though they are also very important, as they can affect the way crops are grown, the costs incurred, and even the yields.

The aim of the work was to present the influence of free-ranging animals (wild game, small rodents, birds) on agricultural farms and vice versa, based on circumstances of Poland, while taking into account the requirements that are necessary for the development and existence of these animals. Bearing in mind that in a given environment there are constant interactions between its elements, it was also necessary to consider the ways in which agricultural activities affect these animals. This work attempts to reconcile these two factors, proposing solutions to reduce the negative impacts of agriculture on the environment and the animals living nearby, and of free-ranging animals on agriculture. The article was based on a literature review and the authors’ own observations, as well as on discussions with farmers.

2. The Impact of Free-Ranging Animals on Agricultural Farms

Farming and food production are two of the most important and concurrently the most difficult forms of professional activity in the world, especially if, in doing so, one takes into account the welfare of animals, the natural environment, and people, and not just profit. Farmers are exposed to losses due to weather conditions, such as hail, floods, or increasingly frequent droughts, as well as various types of plant and animal pathogens and pests, which include wild boars (Sus scrofa), Cervidae, lagomorphs (Lagomorpha) such as hares (Lepus), wild European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and small rodents such as, for example, mice (Apodemus agrarius), and to a lesser extent rats (Rattus norvegicus). Some of the damage they cause may be considered insignificant on a larger scale, but they still contribute to lower yields, and thus to losses by the farmer.

2.1. Negative Effects

2.1.1. European Wild Boar (Sus scrofa scrofa)

Wild boar (Sus scrofa), or the European wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) found in Poland, is considered to be the main pest in agriculture. These animals belong to the even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla) order and the Suidae family [8]. They most willingly live in mixed forest complexes, with the share of wetlands, swamps, and marshes. They also inhabit habitat types with a low forest cover. As late as the second half of the 20th century, they were rarely found outside their preferred complexes. They mainly chose large forest complexes as their habitat, not field areas characterized by a low share of trees, and shrubs. Currently, even the opposite tendency is observed, as the species can adapt quickly to a wide range of habitats [9,10]. Consequently, wild boar has chosen abundant, easily accessible cropland over the original forested area, and is gradually transitioning to a new habitat. The large-scale cultivation of cereals, mainly maize, had a great impact on an increase in the wild boar population, as an easily accessible food source allowed for rearing large numbers of offspring. Migration is encouraged not only by the attractiveness of the feeding ground, but also by the possibility of permanent residence there from spring to autumn. These animals stay in the forest during the greatest drops in temperature, and with the increase in temperature, they return to the areas where they stay during spring and autumn [11,12].

In relation to purely arable farms, Sus scrofa causes damage to fields with root crops (potato, beet, or carrot), cereals, or leguminous plants, and to grasslands (meadows and pastures). It eats crops (root crops) and crushes the plants, making harvesting difficult or impossible (cereals), and as it has a natural digging reflex in its search of food (earthworms, insects, rodents), it destroys the topsoil and turf of meadows, which is most troublesome for farmers [8,12,13].

The damage caused by wild boars to agricultural fields ranges from 5 to 100%, with the compensation for this damage being the responsibility of the lessees or managers of the hunting districts in the area. The amount of compensation depends on the time of notification/occurrence of the damage. In addition, the compensation for damages caused by wild boars on meadows is reduced by the uncovered costs of harvest, transport, and storage, taking into account the necessary expenses that the farmer would have to incur [14]. Certain deficiencies and shortcomings also may be noticed in other legal acts that concern damage estimation and compensation. There is lack of, among others, a method of estimation when the crops are not harvested but animals are grazed on them. In case of damages, the animals need a new source of food, which generates costs that would not be necessary without the damage. In addition, the costs of building maintenance are borne even when they stand empty, and in a situation in which the loss does not cover all of the meadow area, but only a part of it, the cost of transport from the given area is borne anyway, but with a smaller yield. Additionally, compensation amounts in Poland are much lower than in other European countries [15].

Consequences related to damaged ground are also troublesome to the farmer. The damage may be severe enough to require additional agronomic treatments (time and labor) to level the ground, but even if additional treatments are not necessary, performing typical treatments on these areas sometimes causes significant damage to the equipment that are beyond the typical wear and tear that occurs when treating level areas. Examples include dulling mower blades, broken rakes, and even damage, shortening the life of the tractor itself [16]. Each operation on such areas takes much longer, which in turn increases its cost. Working on areas damaged by wild boars also has a negative impact on the health of the equipment operator, who is exposed to “turbulence”, oscillations, and tremors, which can cause serious damage; e.g., to the spine [17,18,19]. In addition, a yield that is relatively normal in terms of quantity and quality can be obtained from these areas only after 2–3 years [20]. Another problem occurs in the case of silage, which, when harvested from such a meadow, will not ensilage, or mold will appear because pieces of ditched turf contaminated it, which cannot be avoided during harvesting [21]. However, these consequences and costs are not taken into account when discussing compensation [22]. Some farmers share the opinion of giving up compensation in exchange for taking over the restoration of the field or meadow to its original state. It is also worth noting that damaged parts of the crop, which, due to destruction, begin to decompose and may be considered as contamination, and may lead to development of pathogenic microorganisms and fungi in the field [23,24]. This in turn negatively affects undamaged areas, and ultimately reduces the effectiveness of fungicides or other plant protection products. This is particularly noticeable in potato cultivation. A similar situation occurs when the cohesiveness of the soil is damaged some time after the herbicide application. In such a situation, the applied product loses its effectiveness and weeds begin to grow in the field, which leads to the generation of many losses and costs at later stages. The farmer may decide, if there is a possibility, to reapply the chemical, but this means additional costs, as well as the release of another dose of chemicals into the environment [25,26,27].

The photographs below present damages caused by wild boars on agricultural areas in the municipality of Wołczyn in the vicinity of the village of Wąsice (Poland) in 2018–2019 that made it impossible to harvest the green fodder from the areas covered. Special treatments were also required to level the land (Figure 1).

Among others, an increasing share of maize in the agricultural crops of Poland caused a significant increase in the population of wild boars (for the years 2000–2016) [25]. However, due to the increase in the number of boars shot per year, the population of wild boars has recently decreased, as shown by data for hunting statistics for 2019 and 2020 issued by the Central Statistical Office [28,29]. One of the reasons for the increase in hunting and population reduction was the ability of wild boars to transmit the disease caused by the African swine fewer (ASF) virus, which, if present, results in the complete elimination of the herd of pigs found or suspected to have been in contact with the virus. This is a major adverse impact on farms that keep animals [30]. The ASF virus belongs to the Asfarviridae family and the genus Asfivirus, and is characterized by very high virulence. Morbidity and mortality in preacute and acute forms may reach 100% [31]. This virus is transmitted by oral or nasal contact with other infected animals or contaminated materials, due to transport of infected animals or contaminated material such as meat or wastes [32,33]. ASF virus circulation among domestic pigs is, to a high degree, related to wild boar populations; however, the mechanism of ASF transmission between these species is not fully understood [34]. There are some hypotheses pointing out direct contact, interbreeding, or ingestion of infected meat [30,35]. In the case of an ASF outbreak in a swine herd, there is a ban on animal movements, and all pigs on a farm where ASF has been detected must be culled, which causes considerable losses [36].

2.1.2. Cervidae

Cervidae are mammals of the order Artiodactyla. Taking into account their occurrence in Poland and their negative impacts on farms, roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), fallow deer (Dama dama), and deer (Cervus) should be mentioned. Their main habitat is lowland and mountainous thick deciduous and mixed forests and their edges. In European areas, roe deer and fallow deer in particular have developed a habit of leaving the woods and foraging in the undergrowth in cultivated fields and meadows [37,38].

Despite the fact that Cervidae are mainly forest pests (they eat the upper part of young trees, inhibiting the trees’ further growth), they also contribute to losses in agriculture. These mainly include foraging in fields and meadows, carrying weeds on their hair coat and with excrements, as well as contamination of fodder for livestock [39]. These losses are considered insignificant; however, for example, a study by Oleksy et al. [40] showed that the yield of rape affected by deer feeding was reduced several times. This had an impact on crop-yield reduction, and losses were particularly visible in the case of winter crops [41]. The problem is less severe in summer when the losses are smaller, which is caused by the social organization of the herd. During this time of the year, the animals live alone or in small groups, and thus create less damage to cultivated plants [42].

Moreover, there are also some diseases that may be potentially transferred to livestock from Cervidae. These include chronic wasting disease (CWD), which may be transmitted from deer to cattle [43,44], or tuberculosis [45,46,47].

2.1.3. Lagomorphs (Lagomorpha) and Small Rodents

The hare (Lepus), and to a much lesser extent, the wild European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), require a mosaic of cereal crops for their development. The latter occurs in Poland in small numbers. The main representative of hares is the European hare (Lepus europaeus). These animals are mostly found in meadow–forest complexes, open agricultural areas, dry meadows, and midfield coppices, and rarely in large forests. They do not like swampy and marshy areas. In winter, they may feed in unfenced orchards [48].

They cause mostly the same damage as Cervidae. They have a greater negative impact on farmers growing vegetables near meadows and forests without fences. According to the National Council of Agricultural Chambers (KRIR), hares cause considerable damage to orchards by biting off the bark of trunks and thicker branches and cutting off twigs, and in fruit nurseries where they bite off eyes and shoots growing out of them. By gnawing through thin trunks, they make it impossible for the plants to continue growing, thus reducing the yield and causing great losses for the orchardist [49].

Small rodents that cause agricultural losses mainly include field mice (Apodemus agrarius Pall.), and to a lesser extent, rats. The mice occur mainly in fields, field margins, and meadows. They can also be found in other habitats such as forest edges, wetlands, reed beds, gardens in rural and suburban areas, and urban green spaces. They prefer moist areas [50].

Depending on the number of individuals present, the natural enemies, and agrotechnical measures used, the losses caused by small rodents can vary considerably, and are often underestimated or even ignored [51]. They eat seeds and roots, thus inhibiting plant growth, and create burrows and tunnels in meadows and fields. A significant downside to their presence is that they may attract wild boars to agricultural areas, which dig through the soil to get to the burrows, causing associated losses. The solution to reduce their associated losses is deep ploughing in agricultural fields, which effectively destroys the nests [52,53]; however, the populations of rodents may be restored quickly [51].

2.1.4. Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)

In the case of the fox, the situation is slightly different compared to the rest of the species mentioned, as it is not an exclusively positive or negative species. The main factor in its usefulness depends on the areas in which it is found. It happens to hunt game birds, threatening their population, which in turn results in an indirect loss for the farmer. However, the main damage it causes affects small and medium-sized farms that keep fowl, mainly free-ranged poultry. These animals can become easy prey for predators when they overcome barriers that stand in their way, if they are present, although hens are more likely to fall prey to martens and weasels. The fox also poses a threat as a source of transmission of infectious diseases to domestic animals [54].

2.2. Positive Effects

Considering that during the cultivation of the land, humans interfere with the natural environment, adapting it to their own needs by, among other methods, deciding on the vegetation to be found in the designated area, it is important to keep in mind all the advantages that nature offers and try to take advantage of them, and attempt to find the right limits when changing the original environment. Only if a farmer maintains the proper conditions of the space and allows some animals to live will they be able to take advantage of the positive aspects they can offer. Free-ranging animals that have a positive impact, in some aspects, on farms to a greater or lesser extent include birds of prey (eagles, buzzards, storks), game birds (pheasants, quail, partridges), and foxes.

2.2.1. Birds of Prey

Certain species of birds of prey, such as eagles; for example, the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), buzzards (Buteo buteo), and storks (Ciconia ciconia), help farmers to a great extent in controlling some pests. Unfortunately, due to human pressure, the populations of many bird species, including the golden eagle and stork, have been subject to a decline. The eagle inhabits mountains where there is no human encroachment, and dense forests with a fair share of fir trees. In the mountains, it stays on high points to observe the terrain or to nest. In the lowlands, it often chooses swampy forests in the vicinity of areas convenient for hunting, such as pastures and meadows [55,56].

The common buzzard (Buteo buteo) is found throughout the country, including in the highlands and mountains. It is a moderately numerous species in Poland. In the western part of the country, it mainly inhabits agricultural landscapes. The typical habitat of this bird is open areas near forests, including midfield woodlots, clumps, and sections of trees where it nests. It readily selects the edges of wooded areas or more thinly spaced complexes. It forages mainly in fields, meadows, marshes, lowlands, and mountainous areas. It is also possible to see it in city parks [57].

The white stork (Ciconia ciconia) mainly inhabits open grasslands, especially areas with grass that is not excessively tall, wetlands, or areas with periodic flooding, and to a lesser extent occurs in areas with high vegetation such as forests and shrublands. Storks forage on grasslands, wetlands, and agricultural fields [58]. For a period of the year, they find their main source of food in mowed meadows or freshly plowed fields, thus helping the farmer to eliminate many pests [6,59].

All of the species listed help to reduce the number of pests found in fields and meadows. They eat mice, insects, worms, and even young hares, thus controlling their populations. To a small extent, they also participate in crop pollinations. By hunting pests and controlling their numbers, these birds make a major contribution to maintaining the balance of the ecosystem. This is particularly important in the case of mice living in permanent grasslands, as their presence attracts wild boars, which do damage in the form of hoeing, thus disturbing the cohesive structure of the soil. Deep ploughing is, in this case, unable to combat mice, as it cannot be used in permanent grasslands. However, in some cases birds of prey may also harm the farmed animals; e.g., chickens, which means that they may also negatively affect agriculture to some degree [56,59].

2.2.2. Game Birds

Selected game birds include pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), quail (Coturnix coturnix), and partridges (Perdix perdix). They vary in occurrence range and sensitivity to climatic conditions, but all prefer areas of open grassy plains or semiopen areas, and mainly agricultural areas (cultivated fields, meadows, and pastures) [60]. These birds live in complete symbiosis with farmers. They do not cause any significant damage to crops or green spaces. They are much more beneficial, and just like the previously mentioned category of birds, they feed on crop pests, insects, and worms, thereby preventing crop losses. It is therefore important to take care of these species, as they are sensitive to thoughtless human interference with the environment. These birds also participate to a small extent in the pollination of plants in areas where they occur [61,62].

These birds are very important not only to the environment, but also to agriculture itself. They enrich the landscape and biodiversity, and keep valuable genes in circulation. These birds are an important part of the balance that exists in biocenoses, where they control the numbers of certain animal populations and even insects.

2.2.3. Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)

When this animal chooses the natural environment of fields, meadows, and forest areas, its main food is hares, mice, and other small rodents, thus regulating the abundance of pests, which may highly affect agricultural productivity or pose a risk of damage to food placed in silos or warehouses [63]. In addition, scavenging by foxes is considered to be beneficial, as it cleans the area, increasing sanitary safety [64].

3. The Impact of Agriculture on Free-Ranging Animals

Agriculture has a huge impact on many elements of the environment, including animals. Agriculture managed in a proper, sustainable way does almost no long-term damage to the ecosystem. However, complete elimination of the threats to agriculture would require abandoning large-scale monoculture farms, significantly decentralizing production, and focusing on producing for quality and not quantity. Higher prices for food when purchased from farmers, and thus in stores, would be inevitable. It would be necessary to return to the cultivation methods of our ancestors, with losses in quantity but gains in the health, value, and quality aspects of the products [65,66]. With this assumption, one would have to overlook the fact that the means of communication and man-made artificial wastes have now contaminated the environment to such an extent that it is almost impossible to produce fully unpolluted food under natural conditions.

3.1. Negative Effects

Plant protection products are a major threat to animals living in areas where they are used. The general public is concerned about residues in the food they eat. All possible precautions related to these substances are prescribed. However, these substances may be also dangerous to animals. The harmfulness and toxicity of these agents and vegetation treated with them concern all individuals inhabiting the farmland, not just the target pests or microorganisms. Free-ranging animals, despite their good instincts, are not aware that the vegetation in an area is going through a withdrawal or prevention period. They are fully exposed to the agent both directly and indirectly through bioaccumulation and biomagnification, as they do not always eat the sprayed plants, but the animals or insects that feed on them. Ingested chemicals can cause reproductive disorders, changes in the fetus or genetic material, general weakening of the exposed individual or its offspring, common symptoms of poisoning or burns in case of direct contact, damage to the gastrointestinal tract, reduction in or cessation of food intake, weight loss, weakness, and eventually death. Plant protection agents also have carcinogenic effects. The most vulnerable are small animals, such as hares and partridges, the populations of which have been significantly decreased due to the use of chemicals in crops [67,68,69,70].

The destruction of the natural habitats of free-ranging animals is one of the consequences of agricultural economy centralization. With huge areas of fields under cultivation, farmers often do not care about preserving field environments or midfield woodlots, as they are only obstacles when operating machinery. For this reason, many natural elements such as ditches, rows of trees, or bushes disappear [11]. From an economic point of view, the space they occupy can be managed in a more useful way, and without having to avoid them and take special care when cultivating near them in order not to damage the equipment, and time is also saved. These activities can lead to reductions in populations or the complete extinction of certain species in an area, as they lose the environmental conditions they need to survive.

Almost all negative consequences begin with an ill-considered decision. An example of a decision fitting this statement may be the restriction of meadow mowing, which is subject to quantitative and temporal limitation in selected areas (agri-environmental program, Natura 2000, Podlaskie, Poland) after establishment by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture [71]. These provisions include prohibition of mowing selected areas of permanent grassland in June, which is the time of the main rearing of stork (Ciconia) offspring, and one of their main sources of food is freshly mowed meadows; i.e., during the creation of rows of grass or hay and their subsequent collection. Mostly storks accompany the farmer while performing these activities in the meadow. Mowing the grass is important because it makes the ground clearer, which makes it easier for the stork to find its prey [64]. Without this agrotechnical procedure, the area where the stork could forage, and thus the amount of food, decreased. These changes resulted in a decline in the population of this bird in some areas due to an inability to raise offspring [59]. On the other hand, mowing the grasslands may be harmful to small mammals inhabiting these areas, as they lose their habitats because they generally prefer longer, dense grass or more vegetated sites [72]. This can also pose some risk to birds that make their nests in the grass, and to their offspring.

3.2. Positive Effects

The biggest positive agriculture impact on free-ranging animals is concurrently a negative impact on farms; i.e., agricultural crops are a food source for many wild animals, especially Cervidae and wild boar (Sus scrofa s.). The populations of these species have increased due to agriculture, as it is much easier for them to find enough food, especially during snowless winters when they feed on winter crops. Thanks to the farms, the animals do not have to make great efforts to obtain food, as there is enough food in the fields, and even in winter periods there is no significant increase in population losses.

The other positive aspects are closely linked to the way the land is farmed and to other practices. The ecotones (the borderlands between ecosystems), such as wooded or bushy strips between fields, and midfield woodlots, the positive effects of which include slowing down the wind speed or holding moisture longer, are extremely important to animals living in the vicinity of agricultural crops. They are refuges and hiding places for them when hunting field pests, as well as shelters for smaller birds from predators. These ecotones are also a place of birth for the offspring of many species. The presence of both baulks and mosaics of fields are important elements of the agricultural landscape that positively affect the species richness of wintering birds [73]. On the other hand, the preservation by farmers of stubble fields, meadows and pastures, and loose wooded areas, which positively affect the richness and abundance of rodents, contributes to ensuring the populations of birds of prey [74]. Interestingly, a study by Kamiński et al. [75] indicated that agricultural environments may even be involved in the reproductive success of the white stork population in Poland, as they provide a food supply, which counterbalances the negative aspects of human activity.

Finally, another positive aspect should be considered. Based on paleozoological and paleobotanical data, the area of contemporary central Europe previously was a grass-dominated ecosystem with large herbivore communities. These became extinct due to human activity and climate changes, which with time resulted in the formation of dense and uniform forests. Agriculture was a major trigger for an opening of the dense forest in central Europe, and consequently the establishment of habitat types that enabled a strong increase in species diversity in central Europe after the Neolithic revolution. The occurrence of species such as Lepus europaeus, Cricetus cricetus, Otis tarda, Emberiza hortulana, Alauda arvensis, etc. pp., in today’s Poland (and elsewhere in central Europe) is only possible due to agriculture. To preserve the biodiversity, the types of natural moderate disturbances are essential, and both intensification and abandonment or marginalization of agricultural practices are likely to threaten biodiversity in the so-called “semi-natural” areas, which are natural-like areas that resulted from some degree of human influence [76,77,78].

4. Proposed Solutions—An Attempt to Reconcile the Parties

When analyzing the interactions between farms and wildlife, two major, most intractable problems emerged: wildlife damage caused by wild boars, and to a lesser extent by other free-ranging animals, and losses or reductions in populations of significant free-ranging animal species in a specific area due to agriculture (Figure 2).

The first of the above-mentioned phenomena is the main cause of conflicts between farmers and people responsible for game; i.e., members of hunting clubs.

A farmer wishing to avoid losses due to wildlife damage may decide to fence their land [79]. Fencing will stop the animals causing the main damage of feeding on the fields and destroying the grasslands, which is especially significant in the case of permanent grasslands. Unfortunately, fencing has considerable costs and may also increase the effects of wild boars on crops that are unfenced [15]. Moreover, it also has negative consequences. The fencing of farmland would make the migration of some free-ranging species difficult or impossible. They may be forced to look for new routes, which may possibly result in more frequent appearances on roads, and thus an increase in the number of accidents involving wild animals [8,80]. According to Linnell at al [81], the number of traffic collisions with wild ungulates in Poland in 2014–2018 was as much as 18,000 per year. Collisions of this kind cause damage to vehicles and can result in human injuries or even deaths, but they also are one of the main causes of animal mortality. They also pose a problem concerning their welfare, as some of the ungulates may be injured but not found after an accident [81].

A significant reduction in the wild boar population and its strict control is another option to reduce losses in agriculture and the amount of compensation paid by hunting clubs [8,82]. Positive aspects resulting from a reduction in wild boars, as shown in Figure 3, include a partial reduction or decrease in the use of plant protection agents, as nothing will affect their effectiveness, as presented previously. Wild boars destroy nests and eat the eggs of water and land fowl such as partridges, cranes, and mallard ducks. Reducing the occurrence of wild boars would lead to increases in the populations of these animals. This could similarly affect the population of storks, which feed on insects, worms, and mice; while the wild boar is their competition, in addition to being responsible for the destruction of meadows, which further reduces the stork’s feeding grounds. Reducing the population also reduces the risk of spreading the ASF virus [30,82]. The biggest positive effect would be the limited damage to agriculture, or possibly a complete lack of damage, which would be beneficial not only to farmers, but also to members of hunting clubs, who would not have to bear the costs of compensation.

An indirect method of reducing agricultural losses involves reducing the number of large-scale farms specifically for growing maize, as these are the farms most likely to increase wild boar populations. Not only does maize provide a good feeding ground for much of the year, but it is also an ideal refuge from hunters.

A good solution to reduce wildlife damage caused by Cervidae, in addition to supervising population numbers, is to increase herd control; e.g., by establishing deer farms. Animals are not under constant surveillance and are able to fully satisfy all their natural needs, while getting help in time of need. The advantage of this solution, besides the reduction in losses they cause in agriculture, is the economic use of weaker soils not suitable for cultivation. The land should resemble the natural environment as much as possible; i.e., an area of hills and valleys with a forest, a variety of tree and shrub species, pasture and meadow resources, and natural watercourses in the case of deer. Farms are an ideal solution for managing these areas in a productive way without significantly altering the natural space. In addition, there is greater veterinary control of these animals, and their meat has a greater guarantee of safety. The disadvantage is the involuntary taming of species, prolonging in time the gradual loss of certain characteristics while becoming accustomed to the presence of man [83,84,85].

When considering the second problem, it is important to note what caused the extinction or reduced development of a species. In a given environment, all things are dependent on each other; an attempt to graphically present these relationships is shown in Figure 4. Usually, large-scale, monoculture, and highly mechanized farms, which, in order to be as productive as possible, do not care about ecotones and engage in cultivation largely based on plant protection products and artificial fertilizers, are responsible for adverse changes in the abundance of various animal populations [86,87,88]. There is limited control over the adherence to the restrictions of the use of these products, so the question of correct spraying and application depends on the knowledge, awareness, honesty, and attitude of the farmer. The basis for species preservation is the type of prevailing farms. For the sake of the environment, small and medium-sized farms, which do not affect the environment as much as large-area farms, are preferred. It is also important that these farms attempt to maintain a balance with nature, and do not eliminate trees or bushes, interfield belts, or midfield trees for more convenient cultivation. The positive aspects of this proposal include not allowing losses of or reductions in species populations, as cultivation is based on sustainable development and the desire to maintain balance in the environment. The consequence of the transition of Polish agriculture to the predominance of these types of farms would be a decrease in the amount of produced food and an increase in its prices [89,90,91].

An exemplary way to solve the second situation may be an attempt to reintroduce the species to the area or to restore the original population numbers through support (feeding, resettlement, or restriction of harvesting in the case of game) of these species. Attempts have been made to restore the populations of species such as hare (Lepus europaeus), partridge (Perdix perdix), and pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) in the Mazowieckie Province. All animals bred under controlled conditions for the purpose of population restoration were gradually introduced to the selected area after appropriate preparation and the meeting of certain conditions necessary for their survival, so that they could live without human help. The efficiency and effectiveness of attempts to restore, increase, or introduce the species to a chosen area in the case of hares is quite high. In most cases, the so-called method of supplying (reinforcing) local populations is used by means of the introduction of individuals coming from breeding or transferred from another population. Reintroduction (restoration of the population of a given species in the areas where it once occurred) or introduction (establishment of a species that has never been found there before) is a very difficult, labor-intensive, and responsible task [92,93,94].

These methods are also used for many birds of prey that are bred at home and gradually made independent. Just as one of the steps to reintroduce lagomorphs to an area is to get rid of or reduce their natural enemies, to reintroduce, e.g., the white-tailed eagle, we increase the source of its food, which is, among others, the hare. This is a good example of dependence and balance in nature. The hare, due to its great breeding strength, compensates for losses occurring during the rearing of young due to predators, the number of which, in turn, depends on the amount of food, which is mainly the population of hares. Only human interference disturbs the balanced functioning of the ecosystem.

5. Conclusions

When considering the interactions between farms and free-ranging animals, we found many relationships, both negative and positive ones. Unfortunately, at the present time, the negative ones are much more numerous, and they are very troublesome for both sides. In an ecosystem, all things are dependent on each other, and humans as an external factor have the biggest influence on the environment; therefore, it is important to try to maintain a balance when acting in connection with nature and to be aware of the possible consequences of actions. Hunting laws, especially concerning the payment of compensation to farmers due to wildlife damages, needs to be refined. It is possible to harmoniously cocreate the agricultural environment between humans and wild animals, but unfortunately, only with the control and supervision of the population of the biggest pest in agriculture; i.e., the wild boar, as it is responsible for the majority of the most troublesome damages. On the other hand, it is due to agriculture that its population is increasing so drastically, and it is necessary to increase their culling so that they do not cause so much damage and loss to that industry. After analyzing the relationships, we found that any interference with an ecosystem had consequences, even those not visible immediately, but after a long period of time, even years. Farm management with consideration of the natural environment, according to the principles of sustainable development and using what the environment offers, can produce safe food of high quality, as some pests are controlled by animals that can live in the vicinity of fields and meadows, and it is not necessary to use large amounts of chemicals.