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.

EXPERIMENTAL TREE TRIMMING TO CONTROL AN URBAN WINTER BLACKBIRD ROOST

Every fall millions of blackbirds come down the Mississippi Flyway to return to their winter roosts in Arkansas, Louisiana, and East Texas. When these roosts are located in urban areas, public pressure makes the more common chemical means of control impractical. A less destructive and more permanent method of control was sought. At Rice University, in Houston, Texas, there has been a blackbird roost of various sizes and durations since 1956. For the past two years we have had the opportunity both to study roosting blackbird biology and experiment with habitat alteration as a control method. This particular report concentrates on the results and interpretation of the tree- trimming program initiated in August 1974. The birds involved are primarily Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater), along with Starlings (sturnus vulgaris), Common and Great-tailed Grackles (Quiscalus quiscula and Cassidix mexicanus), Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoenicus) and Robins (Turdus migratorius). The campus comprises 121 ha and was planted with live oaks (Quercus virginiana) in 1912. These trees retain their foliage throughout the winter and now form a closed canopy over some 5-6 ha. In the 60s and early 70s most of the birds that came to Houston for the winter roosted in a 64-ha woodlot 10 km north of campus. In January 1970, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Roosting Survey reported one million birds at this site we call the North Loop. Fifteen- thousand birds were estimated at Rice.