Book Review of Portraits of the Bison: An Illustrated Guide to Bison Society by Wes Olson

Thundering herds of bison have become synonymous with the pre-European colonization of the Great Plains. As such, they have captured the imagination of countless people, including Wes Olson, a 20-year warden for Parks Canada. Throughout Portraits of the Bison, based on both existing literature and the author's extensive experience observing and managing these animals, Olson's bison fascination is not only obvious but infectious. A remarkably talented artist as well, Olson's line drawings appear throughout the book, accompanied by Johane Janelle's photographs.

Development of Nicarbazin as a Reproductive Inhibitor for Resident Canada Geese

Expanding populations of resident Canada geese that remain in suburban and urban areas year-round often result in increased conflicts with humans. Non-lethal and humane means are needed for managing the size of Canada goose flocks residing near or on airports, golf courses, industrial parks, government sites, and city parks. A side effect of nicarbazin, a veterinary drug used to control coccidiosis in chickens, is decreased egg production and hatching. Exploiting this side effect, studies of nicarbazin for reducing the hatchability of eggs from Canada geese were conducted. An initial study in Coturnix quail verified reduction in hatchability in a species other than chickens. Because plasma nicarbazin was not routinely measured, a study in chickens was conducted to determine the relationship between plasma and egg nicarbazin. A comparative study in chickens, mallards, and Canada geese showed that nicarbazin absorption was lowest in geese. Studies in both penned and wild Canada geese showed that reduction in hatchability was possible but neither study used bait suitable for general field application. Bait development led to the OvoControl-G® (Innolytics LLC) bait, which resulted in reduction in hatchability of 51% at treated sites compared to control sites in the field. Previous studies showed that nicarbazin is practically non-toxic and is environmentally friendly; timing and management of baiting will minimize non-target hazards. OvoControl-G® 2500 ppm nicarbazin bait is recommended for incorporation into a comprehensive management plan as a reproductive inhibitor for use in controlling resident Canada goose flock sizes.

The Use of Digital Motion-Sensor Cameras to Capture Coyote Presence in Western Georgia

Because of their learned avoidance of humans and the dense cover provided by forested areas, observation of coyote activity is often very limited in the Southeast. In this study we used digital motion-sensor cameras to detect activity among coyote populations in various urban and rural habitats. Camera stations were placed adjacent to regenerating clear cuts, forest trails and roads, agriculture fields, residential areas, and within city parks to determine activity and presence of coyotes in these various areas. Cameras were successful in detecting coyotes in all study sites throughout the year. Coyotes appear to show no avoidance of camera stations. Cameras may be helpful in gathering general biological and activity information on coyote populations in an area.

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.

The Probe, Issue 206 – November 1999

Wildlife Damage Conferences: When, Where, and Why? -- Robert M. Timm, Editor, THE PROBE Booklet Review:"The Problem with Skunks!!" by Edward Kellems (34 pages, illustrated. $14.95) New NWCO Web Page url is http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/nwcoa.htm Abstracts from the 2nd International Wildlife Management Congress, Hungary Human Disturbance as a Design Factor to Aid Displacement of Canada Geese from Urban Parks -- P. C. Whitford, Biology Department, Capital University, Columbus, OH Leopard Problems in Nepal -- T. M. Maskey, National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Department, Kathmandu, Nepal Elk-human Conflict Management in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada -- J. A. McKenzie, Banff National Park Wildlife Laboratory The Avoidance of Virtual Barriers by Wolves in Captivity -- M. Musiani*, E. Visalberghi*, andL. Boitani, *CNR Psychology Institute, Rome, Italy Successful Field Trials of a New Slow-Release Capsaicin-Based Animal Repellent for Reducing a Variety of Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Israel -- S. C. Nemtzov, Dept. of Terrestrial Ecology, The Nature and National Parks Protection Authority, Jerusalem, Israel Educational Workshops: A Proactive Approach to Conflict Resolution in Wildlife Management -- K. B. Reis, H. R. Campa III, R. B. Peyton, and S. Winterstein, Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Traps and Trapping in Sweden -- T. Svensson, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden Actual Problems of Predator Management in Hungary -- L. Szemethy, M. Heltai, and Z. Biro, Dept. of Wildlife Biology & Management, Godollo University of Agricultural Sciences, Godollo, Hungary Crop and Livestock Depredation by Wildlife -- N. Udaya Sekhar, Centre for Int'I. Environment & Development Studies, Aas, Norway Conservation of the Iberian Wolf in Portugal—The Everlasting Conflict with Man -- J. V. Vingada*, C. Eira, S. Scheich, C. Fonseca, M. Soares, F. L. Correia, M. Fana* P. Carmo, A. Ferreira, A. Soares, and B. Bobek. *Dept. deBiologia da Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Portugal Barkpeeling Damage in Relation to Red Deer Density and Forest Structure in Austria -- F. H. Voelk, Institute of Wildlife Biology & Game Management, Universitaetfuer Bodenkultur Wien, Vienna, Austria Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution: National Imperatives and Strategies -- P. 0. Wander a Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya An Overview and Evaluation of Deer Herd Management Programs in Urban and Suburban Communities of the USA -- R. J. Warren, Warnell School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA

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.

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.

Community Life and Housing in Rural Nebraska: 2005 Nebraska Rural Poll Results

Many rural communities are experiencing population decline. However, rural residents have continued to show a strong attachment to their communities. How do rural Nebraskans feel about their community? Are they satisfied with the services provided? Do they own their home? What is the condition of their home? This report details 2,851 responses to the 2005 Nebraska Rural Poll, the tenth annual effort to understand rural Nebraskans’ perceptions. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their community and housing. Trends for some of these questions are examined by comparing data from the nine previous polls to this year’s results. For all questions, comparisons are made among different respondent subgroups, that is, comparisons by age, occupation, region, etc. Based on these analyses, some key findings emerged: Rural Nebraskans’ views of the change in their community are similar to those expressed last year. This year, 28 percent believe their community has changed for the better, compared to 26 percent last year. And, in 2005, only 20 percent think their community has changed for the worse, compared to 22 percent last year. The proportion of expected movers who plan to leave the state decreased this year. Last year, 56 percent of the persons planning to move from their community expected to leave the state. That proportion decreased to 47 percent this year. Rural Nebraskans living in or near the largest communities are more likely than persons living in or near the smaller communities to say their community has changed for the better. Thirty-nine percent of persons living in or near communities with populations of 10,000 or more believe their community has changed for the better during the past year, but only 15 percent of persons living in or near communities with less than 500 people share this opinion. The community services and amenities that rural Nebraskans are most dissatisfied with include: entertainment, retail shopping and restaurants. At least one-third of rural Nebraskans express dissatisfaction with these three services. They are most satisfied with parks and recreation, library services, basic medical care services, highways and bridges, and education (K - 12). At least one-half of rural Nebraskans are satisfied with the following items in their community: appearance of residential areas (66%), crime control (61%), maintenance of sidewalks and public areas (57%) and noise (54%). Rural Nebraskans generally have positive views about their community. Sixty percent agree that their community is an ideal place to live and 52 percent say their community has good business leaders. Rural Nebraskans have mixed opinions about the future of their community. Fortyfour percent agree that their community’s future looks bright, but 42 percent disagree with this statement. Fourteen percent have no opinion. Rural Nebraskans living in or near the larger communities are more likely than residents of the smaller communities to think their community’s future looks bright. Fifty-nine percent of persons living in or near communities with populations of 10,000 or more agree with this statement, compared to only 25 percent of residents living in or near communities with less than 500 people. Further, 61 percent of the residents of the smallest communities disagree with this statement, compared to only 28 percent of the residents of the largest communities. Over three-quarters of rural Nebraskans disagree that younger residents of their community tend to stay there after completing high school. Seventy-six percent disagree with this statement, 16 percent have no opinion and eight percent agree that younger residents stay after completing high school. When comparing responses by age, younger persons are more likely than older persons to agree that younger residents stay in their community after high school. Sixteen percent of persons age 19 to 29 agree with this statement, compared to only six percent of persons age 50 to 64. Younger persons are more likely than older persons to be planning to move from their community next year. Fifteen percent of persons between the ages of 19 and 29 are planning to move next year, compared to only two percent of persons age 65 and older. An additional 17 percent of the younger respondents indicate they are uncertain if they plan to move. Most rural Nebraskans own their home. Eighty-four percent of rural Nebraskans own their home. Older persons are more likely than younger persons to own their home. Eighty-eight percent of persons over the age of 50 own their home, compared to only 52 percent of persons age 19 to 29. Housing in rural Nebraska has an average age of 50 years. Twenty-four percent of residences were built before 1930. Another 24 percent were built between 1930 and 1959. Twenty-nine percent were built between 1960 and 1979 and the remaining 24 percent were built in 1980 or later. The housing stock in smaller communities is older than the housing located in larger communities. Over one-third (35%) of the residences in communities with less than 1,000 people were built before 1930. Only 12 percent of the homes in communities with populations of 10,000 or more were built in this time period. Most rural Nebraskans appear satisfied with their home. Only 24 percent say the current size of their home does not meet their needs. The same proportion (24%) say their home is in need of major repairs. Thirty-eight percent agree that their home needs a lot of routine maintenance, but 87 percent like the location (neighborhood) of their home. One-third of rural Nebraskans living in or near the smallest communities say their home is in need of major repairs. Only 19 percent of persons living in or near communities with populations of 5,000 or more are facing this problem. Home ownership is very important to most rural Nebraskans. Eighty-two percent believe it is very important to own their home. An additional 12 percent say it is somewhat important and six percent say it is not at all important. However, persons who do not currently own their home do not feel it is important for them to do so. Only 32 percent of renters say it is very important to own their home, compared to 91 percent of home owners. And, 35 percent of renters say it is not at all important to own their home.