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.

BADGERS (Taxidea taxus) AS OCCASIONAL PESTS IN AGRICULTURE

The badger (Taxidea taxus). because of its strong propensity for digging, is considered North America's fossorial carnivore, feeding mostly on ground squirrels, pocket gophers, and mice throughout much of the western and midwestern continent. Badger excavations, primarily in search of food, produce mounds and deep holes which can damage alfalfa and other crops and damage farm equipment and water systems. Depredations include poultry, waterfowl, and eggs. Overall, the badger is considered a relatively minor vertebrate pest. As a furbearer it is considered a renewable natural resource. Most local pest problems are currently reduced through leghold trapping and shooting. Habitat modification through continuous rodent control is effective and a long-lasting badger control method.

In-Burrow Application of Rozol to Manage Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs

Our experiment demonstrated that black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) will consume rodenticide underground in their burrows. We demonstrated the efficacy of Rozol Pocket Gopher Bait containing the active ingredient chlorophacione (0.005%) 21 days post treatment for managing black-tailed prairie dogs in their burrows in Kansas. Active prairie dog burrows were reduced 90% when 54 grams of Rozol was placed in the burrow without prebaiting. Results indicate use of this toxicant when placed in the burrow can be an effective means of managing prairie dogs. In-burrow application of rodenticides for black-tailed prairie dog management should markedly reduce exposure of birds to toxic bait.

Defining and Measuring Poverty in Nebraska

Data recently released by the Census Bureau estimate that 47.4 million Americans, or about one-insix, are living in poverty. This latest estimate has drawn criticism from some observers who see it as an attempt to artificially inflate the magnitude of poverty in America. The criticism results from a change in methodology that included not just income (the Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget (OMB) poverty threshold for 2009 is $22,050 a year for a family of four), but also made adjustments, taking into account such things as region, out-of-pocket medical expenses and child care costs, that in total add about seven-million individuals to the poverty population.

EFFECTS OF IMPLEMENTING EPA'S ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS

In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated an effort to comply more fully with the Endangered Species Act. This effort became their "Endangered Species Protection Program." The possibility of such a program was forecast in 1982 when Donald A. Spencer gave a presentation to the Tenth Vertebrate Pest Conference on "Vertebrate Pest Management and Changing Times." This paper focuses on current plans for implementing the EPA's Endangered Species Protection Program as it relates to the USDA Forest Service. It analyzes the potential effects this program will have on the agency, using the pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.), strychnine, and the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) as examples of an affected pest, pesticide, and predator.

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS — THEIR IMPORTANCE IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE BIRD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

We are living in a day of change. Environmental awareness is a part of our everyday life in a way unprecedented in history. The courts, in their infinite wisdom, have initiated the joint and several liability (deep pocket) rules that make everyone at risk in almost all situations. Bird management programs, by their very nature, are extremely sensitive. Any project, if not evaluated, planned, carried out, and documented properly can result in adverse regulatory agency action, bad publicity, and even fines or lawsuits. Proper photographic documentation can play a vital part in helping to provide the necessary records to help prevent problems and/or defend yourself in case of lawsuit or regulatory action. In the preparation of this paper, we surveyed state pesticide lead agencies, state Department of Conservation (Fish and Wildlife) agencies, some U.S. Fish and Wildlife Law Enforcement personnel, and several individuals to get their reaction to and their comments about this concept of supplemental recordkeeping. Of those responding, a majority thought the concept of supplemental photographic recordkeeping would be an asset to individuals and organi¬zations conducting bird management projects.

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)