2 resultados para Control Regions

em DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Up to 1949, the Fish and Game Branch employed personnel, some of whom were temporary, to attempt control of the extremely high wolf pop¬ulations of the central and northern portions of British Columbia. Coyotes were also very numerous in the central and southern regions and had to be considered because of their depredations. The field men were keen and conscientious but their efforts were not co-ordinated. Control areas were severely restricted in size as techniques were not adaptable enough and because of a lack of manpower. Eventually, sheepmen went out of business entirely over wide areas, cattlemen were subjected to huge annual losses, and sportsmen were very concerned. However, stock losses constituted the major complaint and resulted in ranchers demanding action* Two major changes came out of this. First, the bounty on wolves was raised and second, the present Predator Control Division was formed. The administration was convinced that a force of experienced, fully-trained field staff under a single supervision would be far more effective than bounty payments. Unfortunately, bounties were in vogue during that time and forced the necessity of proving the worth of organized controls before any consideration could be given to the elimination of the bounty system.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The nuisance wildlife control industry is rapidly expanding in New York State. To gain additional insight about this industry and the number of animals handled, we reviewed the 1989-90 annual logs submitted by Nuisance Wildlife Control Orators (NWC0s) to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The specific objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the number and species of different wildlife responsible for damage incidents, (2) the cause of damage complaints, (3) the disposition of animals handled, (4) the location of damage events (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), and (5) an estimate of the economic impact of the nuisance wildlife industry in Upstate New York. The Nuisance Wildlife Logs (NWLs) were examined for 7 urban and 7 rural counties (25.5% of Upstate counties), and these data were used to estimate total NWCO activity in DEC Regions 3 through 9 (excludes Long Island). Approximately 75% of NWCOs licensed by DEC were active during 1989-90, and nearly 2,800 complaints were handled in the 14 counties sampled. More than 90% of complaints came from urban counties, and we estimated that NWC0s responded to more than 11,000 calls in Upstate New York. At a conservative estimate of $35/call, revenue generated by this industry exceeded $385,000 annually. Six wildlife species accounted for 85% of the nuisance complaints in urban and rural counties. During 1986 to 1993, the number of NWCOs licensed by DEC nearly quadrupled, and there is no indication that this trend will change in the near future.