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.

FOREST ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL

As a nation we have gained world recognition for our ability to utilize our resources. In forestry our greatest accomplishments have been in the mechanization of harvest methods and in improvements in forest products. The renewal of this resource has been our greatest neglect. Though the end of the 19th Century marked the beginning of the conservation movement, it was not until a half century later that the force of economics through the demands of a growing population made forest re-establishment more than just a desire. Conservation in itself is a Utopian concept which requires other motivating forces to make it a reality. In the post-war years, and as late as the early 195O's, stocked land in the Pacific Northwest could be purchased for less than the cost of planting; the economic incentive was lacking. Only with sustained yield management and increased land values was there a balance in favor of true values. With greater effort placed on forest regeneration there was an increased need for methods of reducing losses to wildlife. The history of forest wildlife damage research, therefore, parallels that of forest land management; after rather austere beginnings, development became predominantly a response to economics. It was not until 1950 that the full time of one scientist was assigned to this important activity. The development of control methods for forest animal damage is a relatively new area of research. All animal life is dependent upon plants for its existence; forest wildlife is no exception. The removal of seed and foliage of undesirable plants often benefits the land managers; only when the losses or injuries are in conflict with man's interest is there damage involved. Unfortunately, the feeding activities of wildlife and the interests of the land managers are often in conflict. Few realize the breadth, scope, and subtilities associated with forest wildlife damage problems. There are not only numerous species of animals involved, but also a myriad of conditions, each combination possessing unique facets. It is a foregone conclusion that an understanding of the conditions is essential to facilitate a solution to any given problem. Though there are numerous methods of reducing animal damage, all of which have application under some situations, in this discussion emphasis will be placed on the role of chemicals and on western problems. Because of the broadness and complexity of the problem, generalizing is necessary and only brief coverage will be possible. However, an attempt will be made to discuss the use and limitations of various control methods.

Wildlife Risk Management at Vancouver International Airport

The Vancouver International Airport (YVR) is the second busiest airport in Canada. YVR is located on Sea Island in the Fraser River Estuary - a world-class wintering and staging area for hundreds of thousands of migratory birds. The Fraser Delta supports Canada’s largest wintering populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors. The large number of aircraft movements and the presence of many birds near YVR pose a wide range of considerable aviation safety hazards. Until the late 1980s when a full-time Wildlife Control Program (WCP) was initiated, YVR had the highest number of bird strikes of any Canadian commercial airport. Although the risks of bird strikes associated with the operation of YVR are generally well known by airport managers, and a number of risk assessments have been conducted associated with the Sea Island Conservation Area, no quantitative assessment of risks of bird strikes has been conducted for airport operations at YVR. Because the goal of all airports is to operate safely, an airport wildlife management program strives to reduce the risk of bird strikes. A risk assessment establishes the current risk of strikes, which can be used as a benchmark to focus wildlife control activities and to assess the effectiveness of the program in reducing bird strike risks. A quantitative risk assessment also documents the process and information used in assessing risk and allows the assessment to be repeated in the future in order to measure the change in risk over time in an objective and comparative manner. This study was undertaken to comply with new Canadian legislation expected to take effect in 2006 requiring airports in Canada to conduct a risk assessment and develop a wildlife management plan. Although YVR has had a management plan for many years, it took this opportunity to update the plan and conduct a risk assessment.