Biological Background on Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in the 'Live-Capture' Trade and Specifically on the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin, T. Aduncus

The most significant cetacean trade items until commercial whaling all but ceased in the 1990s (aside from scientific exchanges of tissues etc.) were meat and blubber from baleen whales for human consumption. Since then, live dolphins and 'small' whales for display (and to some extent for research, military use, and 'therapy') have become the most significant cetacean 'products' in international trade. Trade in live cetaceans is presently dominated by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.), beluga whales (Debhinapterns leucas) and to a lesser extent killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Fisher and Reeves 2005). In the past, most of the dolphins in trade were common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) originating in the United States, Mexico and the Black Sea, but since the 1980s the United States has essentially stopped its capture-for-export activities and in 2001Mexico implemented a moratorium on live-captures. The source countries for dolphins in trade are now geographically diverse, but Cuba and Japan are currently major source nations for common bottlenose dolphins. Russia is the only current source for belugas. Russia and Japan have become the main potential sources for killer whales since Iceland ceased exporting them in the 1980s or early 1990s.

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.

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.

A NEW “PAROTRAP” ADAPTED FROM THE MAC TRAP FOR CAPTURING LIVE PARAKEETS IN THE FIELD

The Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri [Scopdi]) has been reported (Roberts, 1974; Bashir, 1978; Beg, 1978; and DeGrazio, 1978) as a serious bird pest of maize, sunflower, rape seeds, and fruit crops, particularly citrus, mangoes, and guavas, in Pakistan. Estimated annual losses to maize grown for seed alone amount to about 97,000 tons, worth about Pak. Rs. 150 million or US $15 million (Roberts, 1978). Paradoxically, this handsome bright green parakeet is highly esteemed in the pet trade; and limited numbers are also marketed locally and sometimes exported to neighboring countries, particularly the Arab Gulf Emirates, as caged pets. Traditional control methods aimed at scaring or chasing birds from the crops, usually with noise-making devices, are costly; furthermore, they have largely been unsuccessful and time consuming because they require human patrolling before and after normal working hours. They provide at best only temporary relief. The aim of this study was to develop a new decoy trap based on the Modified Australian Crow Trap (MAC), which we propose to call the PAROTRAP, and to evaluate its effectiveness and potential in capturing live parakeets in the field as a possible solution to the parakeet problem, as well as promoting the economic exploitation of trapped parakeets for the pet trade. The study was undertaken during March and June 1979 as a part of the UNDP/FAO Project No. PAK/71/554, assisting Pakistan Vertebrate Pest Control Centre in developing and improving control techniques to prevent or reduce bird damage to important crops. Our earlier trials showed that parakeets could be induced to enter a conventionally designed MAC trap, and that after some time they learned how to escape from it. Therefore, a series of minor modifications were introduced and field tested.