BIRD CONTROL UNDER A STATE FISH AND GAME PERMIT SYSTEM

I guess the impetus for laws in our state, really was the action of the city of Boston in 1963, when the Parks and Recreation Department felt that it was time to do something about massive populations of pigeons on the Boston Commons and in the city. The Parks Department came to our agency to find out what could be done. We immediately found as a result of a reorganization and recodification of the laws some 20 years before, that it was illegal to use or apply poisons for the purpose of killing any birds or mammals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Property owners were given the privilege to destroy animals that were doing damage to their property, but only through mechanical means, certainly not by the use of toxicants. We helped the city of Boston draft a bill in 1963, which allowed our agency, the Division of Fisheries and Game, the agency responsible for all wildlife species in the state, the opportunity to issue certain permits for the use of poison, giving full authority to the director of Fisheries and Game with, of course, approval of my board. This allowed certain discretion on our part.

Agriculture at the Crossroads

What a pleasure it is to have this opportunity to welcome you all to this thirteenth annual Agriculture at the Crossroads Conference sponsored by the Nebraska AgRelations Council and the Department of Agricultural Economics here in the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln.

THE HANDBOOK OF WILDLIFE DEPREDATION TECHNIQUES: A SYNOPSIS

In 1979, the Game Division Administration of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) appointed John Demaree and Tim Fagan to develop a handbook that would address the ever increasing problem of wildlife depredation. Field personnel were often times at a loss on how to deal with or evaluate the assorted types of damage situations they were encountering. Because Wyoming requires landowners to be reimbursed for damage done by big and trophy game and game birds to their crops and livestock, an evaluation and techniques handbook was desperately needed. The initial handbook, completed in January 1981, was 74 pages, and both John and I considered it a masterpiece. It did not take long, however, for this handbook to become somewhat lacking in information and outdated. In 1990, our administration approached us again asking this time for an update of our ten-year-old handbook. John and I went to work, and with the assistance of Evin Oneale of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research unit, and Bill Hepworth and John Schneidmiller of the WGFD, have just completed the second edition. This edition is over 600 pages and titled "The Handbook of Wildlife Depredation Techniques." Neither of us care to be around when a third edition is needed. In this handbook we have attempted to cover any type of damage situation our personnel may encounter. Although the primary function of this manual is to inform department personnel about proper and uniform damage prevention and evaluation techniques, it also provides relative and pertinent information concerning the many aspects of wildlife depredation. Information for this handbook has been compiled from techniques developed by our personnel, personnel from other states and provinces, and published data on wildlife depredation. There are nine chapters, a reprint, and Appendix section in this handbook. We will briefly summarize each chapter regarding its contents.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF PLAGUE IN CALIFORNIA

At the first Vertebrate Pest Control Conference in 1964, I traced the history of plague control in California and outlined a revised approach, based on newer concepts of plague ecology. In our state of relative ignorance, this required a number of unproved assumptions about plague occurrence in California that verged on crystal ball gazing. These were principally that (1) plague persists in relatively resistant rodent species in certain favorable locations, (2) ground squirrels and chipmunks experience periodic epizootics, but are not permanent reservoirs, (3) plague "foci" of the past were merely sites of conspicuous epizootics, they did not necessarily correspond to permanent foci, and could result from epizootic migrations over considerable distances, and (4) a number of assumptions about areas of greatest epizootic potential can be made by analyzing the pattern of recurrent plague outbreaks in the past. Since then the validity of these assumptions has been tested by the largest outbreak of plague since the early 1940's. We believe that the results have proved the crystal ball largely correct, resulting in much more precise and efficient epizootic surveillance and deployment of control measures than in the past. The outbreak was for us an administrative emergency that exceeded the capacities of the State Health Department. We greatly appreciated the vital help and cooperation of other agencies and individuals. The U.S, Public Health Service accepted a heavy burden of laboratory testing through its San Francisco Field Station, and provided emergency field personnel. The contributions of State Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Weed and Vertebrate Pest Control; U.S. Parks, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management; local health and agriculture department; and State Division of Parks personnel were essential in accomplishing control work, as well as epizootic surveillance.