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.

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.

A Tool Box Half Full: How Social Science can Help Solve Human–Wildlife Conflict

There is a growing recognition among wildlife managers that focusing management on wildlife often provides a temporary fix to human–wildlife conflicts, whereas changing human behavior can provide long-term solutions. Human dimensions research of wildlife conflicts frequently focuses on stakeholders’ characteristics, problem identification, and acceptability of management, and less frequently on human behavior and evaluation of management actions to change that behavior. Consequently, little information exists to assess overall success of management. We draw on our experience studying human–bear conflicts, and argue for more human dimensions studies that focus on change in human behavior to measure management success. We call for help from social scientists to conduct applied experiments utilizing two methods, direct observation and self-reported data, to measure change in behavior. We are optimistic these approaches will help fill the managers’ tool box and lead to better integration of human dimensions into human–wildlife conflict management.

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.

Two and a Half Cheers for the Midwestern Bourgeoisie: Role of the Virtues in Tempering Business Decisions

A recent book (The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce, D. N. McCloskey), raises the matter of the role of the virtues in business and economic choice, arguing that capitalism can indeed, be virtuous or at least better than the alternative(s). This argument is especially timely in light of the apparent excesses on Wall Street and in some banking/financial institutions. Excessive greed and often the lack of business ethics contributed in substantive ways to the financial crisis and near economic meltdown we have been experiencing. As McCloskey, (2006, pp. 1-2) argues (in setting the stage for the complex argument made in this 616-page book!): “The book … is directed toward you who are suspicious of the phrase ‘bourgeois virtues,’ pretty sure that it is a contradiction in terms. And the book is directed, with less optimism about changing their minds, toward you who think the phrase is worse: a lie. ‘Bourgeois virtues’ is neither. The claim here is that modern capitalism does not need to be offset to be good. Capitalism can on the contrary be virtuous. In a fallen world bourgeois life is not perfect. But it’s better than any available alternative. American capitalism needs to be inspirited, moralized, completed. Two and a half cheers for the Midwestern bourgeoisie (middle-class, small business owners…. yet)… Many a businessman is an ethical shell or worse. Even the virtues of the bourgeoisie, … do not lead straight to heaven.”

The History of the German-Russian Colony in Lincoln

Standing at the corner of Tenth and O streets in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska, any week-day morning between 7:30 and 8 o'clock, you may see pass by you from ten to twenty women with little black woolen shawls on their heads. Ask any citizen who they are, and ninety-nine times in one hundred he will tell you they are "Russians" who live down on the bottoms, that they are going out into the offices and homes to wash and scrub and clean house, and that their husbands are street laborers or work for the railroad. He may then grow confidential and tell you that he "has no use for these people", that "they are only half human", and that he "would just as soon see the Chinese come here as those people". As a matter of fact the greater part of his information is incorrect, partly through race prejudice but chiefly through ignorance of their history. These people, of whom there are about 4,000 in the city (Including "beet fielders"), are Germans, not Russians: they are Teutons, not Slavs; they are Lutheran and Reformed, not Greek Catholics. To be sure they and their ancestors lived in Russia for over one hundred years and they came here directly from the realm of the Czar whoso bona fide citizens they were—but they never spoke the Russian language, never embraced the Greek religion, never intermarried with the Russians, and many of their children never saw a Russian until they left their native village for the new home in America. They despise being called "Russians" just as an Italian resents "Dago"; a Jew, "Sheeny"; and a German, "Dutchman". Ask them where they came from and most of the children and not a few of the grown people will say, "Germany". If you pursue your questioning as to what part of Germany, they will tell you "Saratov" or "Samara" - two governments in the eastern part of Russia on the lower course of the Volga river. The misconceptions concerning the desirability of these German-Russians as citizens arise from their unprogressiveness as compared with those Germans who come to us directly from the mother country. During their century's sojourn in Russia they have been out of the main current of civilization, a mere eddy in the stream of progress. They present a concrete example of arrested development, The characteristics which differentiate them from other Germans are not due to an inherent lack of capacity but to different environment. Notwithstanding this, the German- Russians have some admirable qualities. They bring us large stores of physical energy and an almost unlimited capacity for work. The majority of them are literate although the amount of their education is limited. They are thrifty and independent, almost never applying for public aid. They are law abiding, their chief offenses being those which are traceable to their communal life in Russia. They are extremely religious, all their social as well as spiritual life being bound up in the church which they support right royally. To be sure, the saloon gets their vote (the prohibition vote among them is increasing); but "was not the first miracle that Christ performed the turning of water into wine? If they would shut up the shows (theaters), they wouldn't need to shut up the saloons". The object of this paper is to give the historical setting in which the German-Russians have lived as one means to a better understanding and appreciation of them by our own citizens.

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.

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.