PB1908-27 Loss From Cornstalk Disease in Custer County, Nebraska, During the Winter of 1906-1907 (Distributed January 1908, Reprinted December 1930)

"Cornstalk disease" is the name given to the cause or causes of death of cattle allowed to run in fields of standing cornstalks from which the ears have been gathered. It is probable that "many different maladies have been included under this name." In Nebraska, however, there is such a similarity in the symptoms reported by the farmers that it seems probable that the great majority of the losses attributed to cornstalk disease are really due to some common cause. As to the exact nature of this cause nothing is known. However, various theories have been advanced, and methods of prevention or treatment based upon these theories have been described.

Benefit Cost Scenarios of Potential Oral Rabies Vaccination for Skunks in California

Scenario-based analyses were computed for benefits and costs linked with hypothetical oral rabies vaccination (ORV) campaigns to contain or eliminate skunk-variant rabies in skunks (Mephitis mephitis) in California, USA. Scenario 1 assumed baiting eight zones (43,388 km2 total) that comprised 73% of known skunk rabies locations in the state. Scenario 2 also assumed baiting these eight zones, but further assumed that added benefits would result from preventing the spread of skunk-variant rabies into Los Angeles County, USA. Scenarios assumed a fixed bait cost ($1.24 each) but varied campaigns (one, two and three annual ORV applications), densities of baits (37.5/km2, 75/km2 and 150/km2), levels of prevention (50%, 75%, and 100%), and contingency expenditures if rabies recurred (20%, 40%, and 60% of campaign costs). Prorating potential annual benefits during a 12-yr time horizon yielded benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) between 0.16 and 2.91 and between 0.34 and 6.35 for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Economic issues relevant to potentially managing skunk-variant rabies with ORV are discussed.

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.