REDUCING NUISANCE CANADA GOOSE PROBLEMS THROUGH HABITAT MANIPULATION

Urban populations of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) cause considerable problems when large numbers congregate in parks, playing fields, and backyards. In most cases, geese are drawn to these sites to feed on the lawns. I tested whether geese have feeding preferences for different grass species. Captive Canada geese preferred Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and disliked tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae) over colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis cv. Highland), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and red fescue (Festuca rubra). They refused to eat some other ground covers such as pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalis) and English ivy (Hedera helix). These results suggest that goose numbers at problem sites could be reduced by changing the ground cover. I also compared the characteristics of foraging sites used by geese to other foraging sites that geese avoided. Occupied sites were more open so that geese had clearer visibility and greater ease in taking off and landing. This suggests that goose numbers at problem sites also could be reduced by planting tall trees to make it harder for the geese to fly away, and planting bushes and hedges to obstruct a goose's visibility.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRIVATE NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK

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.

COMPLETE CONTROL OF NUISANCE BIRDS IN AIRPORT HANGARS

Fogging of ReJeX-iT7 TP-40 offers a very efficient method for the control and dispersal of nuisance birds from many diverse areas. The amount of the repellent is greatly reduced over any other control method. The method is direct and is independent of the activity of the birds. The applications with any fogger, thermal or mechanical, that can deliver droplets of less than 20 microns, can be manually or fully automated and pose only minimal risks to operators or animals. All birds that became a nuisance and safety problem in the hangars of TWA and AA at LaGuardia, and TWA warehouse at Newark Airport were successfully driven out by fogging ReJeX-iT7 TP-40 with a Curtis Dyna-Fog AGolden Eagle@ thermal fogger.

Translocation of nine-banded armadillos

During the last 150 years, nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) have increased their range and abundance in the southeastern United States. When foraging, armadillos cause damage to agricultural crops as, as well as cause structural damage to driveways and foundations. Homeowners frequently use translocation to reduce local armadillo abundance. Despite its popularity with the general public, however, the appropriateness of nuisance wildlife translocation presents concerns for biologists. Our objective was to address some of these concerns by examining survival and movements of translocated armadillos. We translocated 12 armadillos (9 male, 3 female) equipped with radio-transmitters and compared their survival and movements to that of 29 (11 male, 18 female) resident armadillos. Most (92%) of the translocated animals dispersed from their release site within the fi rst few days after release. Resident armadillos generally maintained stable home ranges. We found evidence that translocated animals were abl to return to their original capture sites. We, therefore, recommend against translocating nuisance armadillos.

BLACKBIRD AND STARLING ROOSTING DYNAMICS: MPLICATIONS FOR ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL

Each winter an estimated 350 million starlings, red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) congregate in roosts in the southeastern United States (Meanley 1971, Meanley and Royall 1976). These birds have been of increasing concern because of agricultural damage claims (Stickley et al. 1976, Dolbeer et al. 1978), reputed health hazards (Monroe and Cronholm 1977), and other nuisance problems associated with them. Historical population trends (Dolbeer and Stehn 1979) and the source of winter-roosting blackbirds (Meanley 1971, Meanley and Dolbeer 1978, and Dolbeer 1978) have been summarized, but little information on the number of consecutive nights a bird returns to the same roost (roost fidelity) or the dynamics of a winter roost is available. The purpose of this paper is to present information on roost fidelity and population dynamics needed to better understand and manage winter blackbird and starling roosts.

The Probe, Issue 167 – July 1996

Techniques and Expertise in Wildlife Damage Control: A Survey Among NADCA's Membership, by Dallas R. Virchow, University of Nebraska, and J. Russell Mason, Utah State University NADCA Membership Survey Rats' Rights Repealed in New Jersey Texas Predators Dine on Exotics Recipes for Nutria Wildlife Damage to Aircraft Tallied Airplane Hits Deer Golfers Get Teed Off at Coots Japanese Technologist Tackles Rodents ADC To Tackle Gophers Booklet Review: Missouri's Beaver: A Guide to Management, Nuisance Prevention, and Damage Control by Ron McNeely. Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri, 1995. Elk Reintroduction and Meningeal Worms South African Puppy, "Licky," Barely Survives Eagle Attack Publications Available: The Proceedings of the 12th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop (1995); The proceedings for a conference, "Private Property Rights and Responsibilities of Rangeland Owners and Managers"; Proceedings, 6th Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1993); Rangeland Wildlife (1996), edited by Paul R. Krausman, and published by the Society for Range Management New "Animal Talk" Radio Program in Los Angeles, CA — Animal Issues Today NWRC Announces Bird Research Leader Sick Boy Who Wishes for Dream Hunt Incites Wrath of Animal Rightists A Picture Speaks A Thousand Words: From the WDAMAGE listserv: by Fred Lyass (pseudonym used by request)

HIGHLIGHTS OF BIRD CONTROL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND, FRANCE, HOLLAND, AND GERMANY

The purpose of this paper is to present a brief review of the research being conducted in England, France, Germany, and The Netherlands on problems caused by nuisance and depredating birds. Much of the information presented has been obtained through correspondence with collaborators. In the fall of 1962, I discussed depredating bird and bird-airport problems with research workers in these countries, and also attended the meeting of the International Union of Applied Ornithology held in Frankfurt/Main. In November 1963, I attended an international symposium about the bird-airport problem, held in Nice, France. This paper will draw attention to the current research which I think will interest American investigators, but will not report every aspect of the foreign investigations. Details appear in the publications that are listed.

The Probe, Issue 190 – July 1998

Research, Cooperation Pays Off for Fish Farmers -- Peter Butchko, District Supervisor, USDA-APHIS-WS, Mississippi and NADCA Vice-President, East Thoughts... Robert H. Giles, Jr., President, NADCA Book Review : The Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook, by Stephen Vantassel with Tom Olander; Reviewed by Rex E. Marsh British Fox Hunting Ban Fails Passage Recent Coyote Research From Texas: Diets of Coyotes (Canis latrans) in the Edwards Plateau and Trans-Pecos regions of Texas, by J. Harris Glass, S.K. Canon, and D. Rollins Long-time NADCA Member Robert H. Schmidt Featured in Associated Press Article on Nuisance Animal Control Industry Research Continues in New Zealand and Australia on the Efficacy of Rabbit Calicivirus Disease as Rabbit Population Control Method Latest Rabies Trends Subject of Meeting of State and National Health Experts: Keeping Physicians and the Public Informed on Managing Deadly Disease Bogus Gizmos and Gadgets No Help With Homeowners' Wildlife Problems

OPENING REMARKS - THIRD VERTEBRATE PEST CONFERENCE

To open this Third Vertebrate Pest Conference is a real privilege. It is a pleasure to welcome all of you in attendance, and I know there are others who would like to be meeting with us, but, for one reason or another cannot be. However, we can serve them by taking back the results of discussion and by making available the printed transactions of what is said here. It has been the interest and demand for the proceedings of the two previous conferen- ces which, along with personal contacts many of you have with the sponsoring committee, have gauged the need for continuing these meetings. The National Pest Control Association officers who printed the 1962 proceedings still are supplying copies of that conference. Two reprintings of the 1964 conference have been necessary and repeat orders from several universities indicate that those proceedings have become textbooks for special classes. When Dr. Howard mentioned in opening the first Conference in 1962 that publication of those papers would make a valuable handbook of animal control, he was prophetic, indeed. We are pleased that this has happened, but not surprised, since to many of us in this specialized field, the conferences have provided a unique opportunity to meet colleagues with similar interests, to exchange information on control techniques and to be informed by research workers of problem solving investigations as well as to hear of promising basic research. The development of research is a two-way street and we think these conferences also identify areas of inadequate knowledge, thereby stimulating needed research. We have represented here a number of types of specialists—animal ecologists, public health and transmissible disease experts, control methods specialists, public agency administration and enforcement staffs, agricultural extension people, manufacturing and sale industry representatives, commercial pest control operators, and others—and in addition to improving communications among these professional groups an equally important purpose of these conferences is to improve understanding between them and the general public. Within the term general public are many individuals and also organizations dedicated to appreciation and protection of certain animal forms or animal life in general. Proper concepts of vertebrate pest control do not conflict with such views. It is worth repeating for the record the definition of "vertebrate pest" which has been stated at our previous conferences. "A vertebrate pest is any native or introduced, wild or feral, non-human spe- cies of vertebrate animal that is currently troublesome locally or over a wide area to one or more persons either by being a general nuisance, a health hazard or by destroying food or natural resources. In other words, vertebrate pest status is not an inherent quality or fixed classification but is a circumstantial relationship to man's interests." I believe progress has been made in reducing the misunderstanding and emotion with which vertebrate pest control was formerly treated whenever a necessity for control was stated. If this is true, I likewise believe it is deserved, because control methods and programs have progressed. Control no longer refers only to population reductions by lethal means. We have learned something of alternate control approaches and the necessity for studying the total environment; where reduction of pest animal numbers is the required solution to a problem situation we have a wider choice of more selective, safe and efficient materials. Although increased attention has been given to control methods, research when we take a close look at the severity of animal damage to so many facets of our economy, particularly to agricultural production and public health, we realize it still is pitifully small and slow. The tremendous acceleration of the world's food and health requirements seems to demand expediting vertebrate pest control to effectively neutralize the enormous impact of animal damage to vital resources. The efforts we are making here at problem delineation, idea communication and exchange of methodology could well serve as both nucleus and rough model for a broader application elsewhere. I know we all hope this Third Conference will advance these general objectives, and I think there is no doubt of its value in increasing our own scope of information.