Evaluation of Attractants for Live-Trapping Nine-Banded Armadillos

In the past 50 years, the range of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) in the south has been rapidly expanding. As their range expands, armadillos increasingly come into conflict with suburban landowners. When foraging, armadillos often uproot ornamental plants. Their rooting also destroys gardens, lawns, and flower beds. Their burrowing can damage tree roots and building foundations. Most armadillo damage is a result of their feeding habits. Armadillos dig shallow holes, 1- 3 inches deep and 3-5 inches long, as they search for soil invertebrates. A recent survey of Georgia county extension agents by scientists at the University of Georgia found that 77.6% of all agents reported receiving complaints or requests for information on armadillos. Armadillo related inquiries made up 10.1 % all inquiries for all agents across the state, surpassing even the white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Armadillos are often assumed to destroy nests of ground-nesting birds. Armadillo diets have been studied in several states including Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Florida. According to these studies, vertebrate matter, especially bird eggs, made up an minor portion of their diet. The armadillo’s diet often consists of more than 90% insects, grubs and earthworms. Based on these studies, it seems that claims of armadillos being significant nest predators are unfounded.

Potential Attractants for Detecting and Removing Invading Gambian Giant Pouched Rats (Cricetomys gambianus)

BACKGROUND: Native to Africa, Gambian giant pouched rats (Gambian rats; Cricetomys gambianus Waterh.) are a threatening invasive species on a Florida island, Grassy Key. Gambian giant pouched rats shifted from a domestic pet to invading species after suspected release from a pet breeder. Because of the large size of Gambian rats (weighing up to 2.8 kg), they pose a serious threat to native species (particularly nesting species) and agricultural crops, especially if Gambian rats invade mainland Florida. Also, Gambian rats pose a threat from disease, as they were implicated in a monkeypox outbreak in the mid-western United States in 2003. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services has initiated eradication and detection efforts in the Florida Keys, but trapping the sparse population of Gambian rats has proven difficult. RESULTS: Fifteen attractants that could be used in traps for capturing or detecting single or paired Gambian rats were tested. It was found that conspecific scents (i.e. feces and urine) from other Gambian rats were the best treatment for attracting single and paired Gambian rats. Single Gambian rats explored more attractant types than paired Gambian rats. CONCLUSIONS: Effective attractants for use with Gambian rats have been identified, and multiple attractant types should be used to capture or detect the sparse population. It is recommended that mainly urine and feces from Gambian rats be used, but peanut butter, anise, ginger and fatty acid scent could also be useful for attracting the currently small population of Gambian rats on Grassy Key.

A Field-Test of Rhodamine B as a Biomarker in Raccoons

Rhodamine B is a dye that when ingested results in fluorescent bands in growing hair and whiskers of many mammals. Previous research at Wildlife Services’ (WS) National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) found that rhodamine B is a successful biomarker in raccoon whiskers and that raccoons do not have a taste aversion to the dye when it comprises ≤ 3% of a bait. Our study assessed the ease of bait distribution, whisker collection, and evaluation of the biomarker for potential use in the Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) program administered by the WS National Rabies Management Program (NRMP). In collaboration with WS operations personnel from Ohio and Michigan, 750 fishmeal polymer baits each containing 150 mg of rhodamine B were hand distributed at NASA’s Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, Ohio in the summer of 2008. Four weeks after baits were distributed whiskers from 162 raccoons were collected. Wildlife Services biologists and technicians evaluated the whiskers for fluorescence using a handheld UV magnifying lamp. Biologists then sent the whiskers to the NWRC, Ft. Collins, Colorado for confirmation of fluorescence under a UV microscope. Results suggest a high level of agreement between the two methods of evaluation. Surveys completed by biologists confirmed that the ease of use, less invasive sampling techniques and promptness of results obtained through the use of rhodamine B are advantageous to the tetracycline biomarker presently used by the ORV program. All participants recommended further evaluation of rhodamine B for its inclusion in future efforts requiring biomarker evaluation.

Potential Economic Damage From Introduction of Brown Tree Snakes, Boiga Irregularis (Reptilia: Colubridae), to The Islands Of Hawai‘i

The Brown Tree Snake (Boiga irregularis) has caused ecological and economic damage to Guam, and the snake has the potential to colonize other islands in the Pacific Ocean. This study quantifies the potential economic damage if the snake were translocated, established in the state of Hawaii, and causing damage at levels similar to those on Guam. Damages modeled included costs of medical treatments due to snakebites, snake-caused power outages, and decreased tourism resulting from effects of the snake. Damage caused by presence of the Brown Tree Snake on Guam was used as a guide to estimate potential economic damage to Hawaii from both medical- and power outage–related damage. To predict tourism impact, a survey was administered to Hawaiian tourists that identified tourist responses to potential effects of the Brown Tree Snake. These results were then used in an input-output model to predict damage to the state economy. Summing these damages resulted in an estimated total potential annual damage to Hawaii of between $593 million and $2.14 billion. This economic analysis provides a range of potential damages that policy makers can use in evaluation of future prevention and control programs.

Bird Depredation

A survey of catfish producers by the United States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) in 1996 indicated that the two primary sources of catfish losses in commercial operations were disease (45%) and wildlife (37%) (CEAH 1997a). A variety of avian and mammalian predators are amracred to aquaculture facilities in the United States (Parkhurs: er al. 1992) because ponds and open raceways provide a constant and readily accessible food supply for these animals. However, the mere presence of these predators arcund aquaculture faciliries does not necessarily mean that significant depredation problems are occurring. At catfish farms, three species or species groups of birds are primarily cited by catfish producers as causing most depredation problems (Wywialowski 1999). These include doublecrested cormorants, wading birds (herons and egrets), and American white pelicans, in order of importance to catfish producers (Wywialowski 1993). Although all of these species consume catfish, their biology, distribution, dietary preferences dictare the extent of depredation problems they cause and the approaches needed to alleviate their depredations. With the exception of total bird exclusion from ponds, there are no simple solutions for resolving all bird depredation problems in catfish aquaculture. Thus, in most cases, an integrated management approach to alleviating bird depredations must be considered.

Effects of addition of a bird repellent to fish diets on their growth and bioaccumulation

The effects of adding the nonlethal bird repellent methyl anthranilate (MA), at levels of 100 and 1000 mg/kg, to fish feed on the bioaccumulation and growth of juvenile (10 g) hybrid striped bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis) and juvenile (1g) African cichlid fish Aulonocara jacobfreibergi were investigated under laboratory conditions. The bird repellent did not have any effect on the fish growth or survival over a period of 6 weeks. MA residues at low levels of 11.2 ± 2.6 mg/g were found in lipophilic tissues (liver) of MA-fed fish. Control fish, which had no MA added to their diet, had a much lower level of 0.6 ± 0.3 mg/g MA in their liver. Fish muscle was found to contain negligible MA residues, while the outer body surface mucus did not contain any MA. Following a 6-week depuration period, during which the previously MA-fed hybrid striped bass were fed a feed to which no MA was added, the levels of MA residues detected were reduced by one order of magnitude.

Wildlife Tuberculosis in South African Conservation Areas: Implications and Challenges

Tuberculosis, caused by Mycobacterium bovis, was first diagnosed in African buffalo in South Africa’s Kruger National Park in 1990. Over the past 15 years the disease has spread northwards leaving only the most northern buffalo herds unaffected. Evidence suggests that 10 other small and large mammalian species, including large predators, are spillover hosts. Wildlife tuberculosis has also been diagnosed in several adjacent private game reserves and in the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, the third largest game reserve in South Africa. The tuberculosis epidemic has a number of implications, for which the full effect of some might only be seen in the long-term. Potential negative long-term effects on the population dynamics of certain social animal species and the direct threat for the survival of endangered species pose particular problems for wildlife conservationists. On the other hand, the risk of spillover infection to neighboring communal cattle raises concerns about human health at the wildlife–livestock–human interface, not only along the western boundary of Kruger National Park, but also with regards to the joint development of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area with Zimbabwe and Mozambique. From an economic point of view, wildlife tuberculosis has resulted in national and international trade restrictions for affected species. The lack of diagnostic tools for most species and the absence of an effective vaccine make it currently impossible to contain and control this disease within an infected free-ranging ecosystem. Veterinary researchers and policy-makers have recognized the need to intensify research on this disease and the need to develop tools for control, initially targeting buffalo and lion.

Refuge Update – May/June 2009, Volume 6, Number 3

Table of Contents: Recovering the New England Cottontail FOCUS..Ready for Tomorrow Build It and They Will Come CARE: Restoring America’s Wildlife Refuges

Refuge Update – March/April 2009, Volume 6, Number 2

Table of Contents: America’s Birds: In an Alarming State Snakes Alive! Title Sub Title East Coast Wetlands Are Disappearing Chief’s Corner: What We Do Now Extreme Makeover for Bird Sightings by Mike Carlo Taking Care of Our World War II Legacy by Lisa Matlock Whatever Happened to . . . . San Francisco Bay Wetland Restoration Projects Recalling the Battle of Long Island Sound by David Klinger Bold Approaches for Climate Change How Alligator River Refuge Is Planning and Adapting by Mike Bryant Rapid Climate Change Is Transforming the Arctic by David Payer Tracking Change on Wildlife Refuges by Kathy Granillo Where SLAMM Foretells a Wetter Future Reviving the Land – and the Air by Bob Ford and Pete Jerome Connecting the Conservation Landscape a New Priority by Mike Scott and Bob Adamcik Awards for Refuge System Palmyra Atoll Refuge Becomes Ramsar Site Not So Strategic Habitat Conservation: A True Story by David Viker Putting Food on Alaskan Tables by Andy Aderman

Refuge Update – March/April 2007, Volume 4, Number 2

Table of Contents: What’s Melting: Togiak Refuge Sizes Up Its Glaciers, page 3 Focus on Fish Conservation, pages 10-15 Whatever happened to…, pages 16-17 Wildlife Cooperatives, page 20

Refuge Update – July/August 2008, Volume 5, Number 3

Table of Contents: Protecting Borders and Wildlife, page 4 Scientists Puzzle over Great Lakes Die-Offs, page 6 Focus on. . . Strategic Habitat Conservation, pages 8-17 People Who Keep the Wheels Turning, page 22

Refuge Update – January/February 2006, Volume 3, Number 1

Table of Contents: Three New Species in AlaskaConserving Wildlife State by StateFocus on…Incident CommandMushing to Your New Job

Refuge Update – September/October 2008, Volume 5, Number 5

Table of Contents: Rebuilding after Hurricane Ike, page 3 Texas and Louisiana refuges were severely damaged in mid-September. A Crane Species Rebounding, page 5 At a Mississippi refuge, the world’s longest-running crane reintroduction program is succeeding. Focus on. . . Refuge System Wetlands, pages 8-13 The Refuge System manages wetlands to enhance their value for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, threatened and endangered species and a myriad of native fish, wildlife, and plants. Fluttering Close to Extinction, page 17. Antioch Dunes Refuge is out to save the Lange’s metalmark butterfly.

Refuge Update – November/December 2005, Volume 2, Number 6

Table of Contents: Make Way for Ducklings, page 4 With help from refuge experts, roads and bridges can be built to accommodate wildlife. Katrina Heroes, pages 8-9 Extraordinary diaries from refuge staffers who were there when Katrina came calling. Focus on…Reaching Youth , page 10-15 Refuges give young people a chance to learn art, poetry, native culture, service – and stewardship. Nisqually: Growing and Restoring, page 17 The Outstanding Refuge Plan of 2005 opens the door to the largest estuary restoration project in the Pacific Northwest.

URBAN WILDLIFE: CAN WE LIVE WITH THEM?

ABSTRACT: A survey of Extension Wildlife Specialists in the U.S. provided a basis for estimating the magnitude of urban wildlife damage and control in this country. Response to the 9-question mail questionnaire was good (76 percent) following the single mailing to all Extension Wildlife Specialists or people in similar positions listed in the national directory. The majority of questions were answered based upon the experiences and best estimates of these specialists for the interval October 1986-September 1987. Specialists had difficulty providing estimates of damage and costs of prevention and control; 57 percent were not able to provide any data on these topics. Several of the questions dealt with attitudes of people requesting urban wildlife information and/or assistance and wide ranges of responses were received to most of these questions. Most people (78 percent) appeared willing to implement prevention/control measures recommended by these specialists, more than half (61 percent) wanted the animal handled/removed by someone else, and only about 40 percent wanted the damage stopped regardless of cost. Also, slightly over half (55 percent) of clientele represented did not want the offending animal harmed in any way. These results were highly variable from state to state. Several differences were noted in overall responses regarding urban wildlife species. Requests for information were received most frequently for bats and snakes, but both of these groups of animals ranked very low in terms of actual damage reported. The most frequently mentioned groups of animals causing damage in urban areas were roosting birds (including pigeons, starlings, and sparrows), woodpeckers (especially flickers), tree squirrels, bats, and moles. In terms of actual dollar values of damage done, white-tailed deer and pocket gophers apparently caused the most estimated damage. Due to these differences, it is necessary to know which criteria are being used to make an assessment of the relative importance of animal damage control problems. Techniques for controlling urban wildlife damage, such as exclusion, live-trapping, repellents, and poisons, are compared and discussed in some detail in this paper. As urbanization occurs across the nation, concerns about urban wildlife damage will continue; in most cases, we can and will live among these creatures.