Review of issues concerning the use of reproductive inhibitors, with particular emphasis on resolving human-wildlife conflicts in North America

This manuscript provides an overview of past wildlife contraception efforts and discusses the current state of research. Two fertility control agents, an avian reproductive inhibitor containing the active ingredient nicarbazin and an immunocontraceptive vaccine, have received regulatory approval with the Environmental Protection Agency and are commercially available in the USA. OvoControl G Contraceptive Bait for Canada Geese and Ovo Control for pigeons are delivered as oral baits. An injectable immunocontraceptive vaccine (GonaCon Immunocontraceptive Vaccine) was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency for use in female white-tailed deer in September 2009. An injectable product (GonaCon Immunocontraceptive Vaccine) is registered for use in female white-tailed deer. Both products are labeled for use in urban/suburban areas where these species are overabundant. Several other compounds are currently being tested for use in wildlife in the USA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand that could have promise in the future. The development and use of reproductive inhibitors for resolving human–wildlife conflicts will depend on a number of factors, including meeting the requirements of regulatory agencies for use in the environment and on the biological and economical feasibility of their use. Use will also be dependent on health and safety issues and on public acceptance of the techniques.

Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota

In 1975, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in Minnesota was protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (USA). At that time, there were 500-750 wolves. By 2004, the population had grown to an estimated 3,020 wolves. Over time, conflicts between wolves and livestock increased. Wolf depredation control programs have been conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1975-1986) and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program (1986 to present). In 1978, Minnesota’s wolves were reclassified from endangered to threatened which allowed authorized federal agents to lethally remove wolves that had depredated on livestock or pets. A State funded wolf compensation program was also established in 1978. Wildlife Services’ wolf damage management approach utilizes both nonlethal and lethal methods of control. Currently, wolf depredations are verified at 60-85 farms annually and 125-175 wolves are taken each year. Wolf compensation payments to livestock producers have averaged $67,111 per year during the past five years. Most livestock losses occur during spring and summer. Selective removal of depredating wolves, coupled with improvements in animal husbandry practices, has potential for reducing wolf-livestock conflicts. Minnesota’s wolf population is currently considered to be fully recovered and federal delisting is expected to occur in the near future.

Wildlife Master Volunteers: A Multi-County Approach to Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts

The Wildlife Master (WM) Program in Colorado was modeled after the highly successful Master Gardener volunteer program. In 10 highly populated suburban counties with large rural areas surrounding the Denver Metro Area, Colorado State University (CSU) Cooperative Extension Natural Resources agents train, supervise and manage these volunteers in the identification, referral, and resolution of wildlife damage issues. High quality, research-based training is provided by university faculty and other professionals in public health, animal damage control, wildlife management and animal behavior. Inquiries are responded to mainly via telephone. Calls by concerned residents are forwarded to WMs who provide general information about human-wildlife conflicts and possible ways to resolve complaints. Each volunteer serves a minimum of 14 days on phone duty annually, calling in from a remote location to a voice mail system from which phone messages can be conveniently retrieved. Response time per call is generally less than 24 hours. During 2004, more than 2,000 phone calls, e-mail messages and walk-in requests for assistance were fielded by 100 cooperative extension WMs. Calls fielded by volunteers in one county increased five-fold during the past five years, from 100 calls to over 500 calls annually. Valued at the rate of approximately $18.00 per volunteer hour, the leveraged value of each WM was about $450 in 2005, based on 25 hours of service and training. The estimated value of the program to Colorado in 2004 was over $45,000 of in-kind service, or about one full-time equivalent faculty member. This paper describes components of Colorado’s WM Program, with guides to the set-up of similar programs in other states.

Resolving conflicts with Canada geese: an animal welfare perspective

The scope and significance of human conflicts with urban and suburban Canada goose populations has been growing rapidly since the mid 1980s. A lack of basic understanding about the biology and ecology of locally abundant goose populations has led, in part, to argument between opposing camps over the appropriate approaches and methodologies to resolve human-goose conflicts. Animal welfare interests have focused on the humaneness of roundup and slaughter programs, and advocated non-lethal approaches coupled with what they view as the more benign population control activity of egg addling. Some traditional wildlife managers have argued that non-lethal approaches have been tried and have failed, and that procedures such as addling do not work quickly or effectively. Differences have led to legal confrontations that absorb considerable energy and effort and may make cooperative involvement more difficult. This paper articulates some of the arguments that comprises the basis for the perspective of animal welfarists. It ends with a call for greater cooperation and involvement between all interests concerned with Canada geese.