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.

Frontmatter and Contents

PROCEEDINGS: FOURTH VERTEBRATE PEST CCONFERENCE held at El Rancho Hotel, West Sacramento, California, March 3, 4 and 5, 1970. Edited By Richard H. Dana, Conference Chairman. Sponsored by the California Vertebrate Pest Committee

Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Avifauna on Wetlands in the Vicinity of Bush Field Airport, Augusta, Georgia, USA

Responding to a U.S. Federal court order to improve discharged wastewater quality, Augusta, Georgia initiated development of artificial wetlands in 1997 to treat effluents. Because of the proximity to Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern for potential increased hazard to aircraft posed by birds attracted to these wetlands. We commenced weekly low-level aerial surveys of habitats in the area beginning January, 1998. Over a one-year period, 49 surveys identified approximately 42,000 birds representing 52 species, including protected Wood Storks and Bald Eagles, using wetlands within 8 km of the airport. More birds were observed during the mid-winter and fall/spring migratory seasons (1,048 birds/survey; October - April) than during the breeding/post-breeding seasons (394 birds/survey; May - September). In winter, waterfowl dominated the avian assemblage (65% of all birds). During summer, wading birds were most abundant (56% of all birds). Habitat changes within the artificial wetlands produced fish kills and exposed mudflats, resulting in increased use by wading birds and shorebirds. No aquatic birds were implicated in 1998 bird strikes, and most birds involved could safely be placed within songbird categories. Airport incident reports further implicated songbirds. These findings suggested that efforts to decrease numbers of songbirds on the airport property must be included in the development of a wildlife hazard management plan. Seasonal differences in site use among species groups should also be considered in any such plan. Other wetlands within 8 km of the airport supported as many or more birds than the artificial wetlands. With proper management of the artificial wetlands, it should be possible to successfully displace waterfowl and wading birds to other wetlands further from the airport.

METHODS OF CONTROLLING COYOTES, BOBCATS, AND FOXES

In reviewing methods of predator control, it would first seem appropriate to define what is meant "by "methods" and what is meant by "control." Taking the last term first, control, as applied to the predatory coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, may be defined as regulating the numbers of these animals to the point where the economic losses for which they are responsible will be reduced to a practicable minimum. In some situations, area control, i.e., limiting the numbers of the offending predator over wide areas, may be necessary for satisfactory reduction of economic losses; in other situations, spot control or localized reduction of numbers of a certain predator may be called for; in still other situations, elimination of an individual animal may be all the control that is needed. In no sense is control, as applied to coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, intended to mean extermi¬nation of a species. The term "methods" is interpreted as meaning the procedures employed against coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, and not the broader systems of predator control such as the paid hunter system, the extension system, or the much-discredited bounty system. For an excellent review of the systems of predator control, see Latham (l).

HOME RANGES AND MOVEMENTS OF COYOTES IN THE NORTHERN CHIHUAHUAN DESERT

The coyote (Canis latrans) is among the most studied animals in North America. Because of its adaptability and success as a predator, the coyote has flourished and is still expanding its range. Coyotes can now be found throughout most of North America and south into Central America (Voight and Berg 1987). Studies in recent years have been extensive to understand the interrelationships of prey and coyotes (Shelton and Klindt 1974, Beckoff and Wells 1981), as well as demographic relationships (Davis et al. 1975, Knowlton and Stoddart 1978, Mitchell 1979, Bowen 1981) and feeding strategies (Todd and Keith 1976, Andelt et al. 1987, MacCracken and Hansen 1987, Gese et al. 1988a). With the advance of radio telemetry, researchers have investigated lifestyle characteristics spatially with home ranges or temporally with movements in relation to habitat requirements. Researchers have studied home ranges of coyotes in various regions of the United States (Livaitis and Shaw 1980, Andelt 1981, Springer 1982, Pyrah 1984, Gese et al. 1988a) and Canada (Bowen 1982). Some studies of home range were separated by season (Ozoga and Harger 1966) or relation to nearby food sources (Danner and Smith 1980). Home range analysis in relation to social interactions of coyotes has been either neglected, overlooked, or avoided. Gese et al. (1988a) recognized a transient class of coyote by home range size. Coyote social systems are very complex and can vary by season or locality in addition to some reports of group or pack systems (Hamlin and Schweitzer 1979, Beckoff and Wells 1981, Bowen 1981, Gese et al. 1988b). Coyotes maintain communication with conspecifics through vocal and olfactory signals (Lehner 1987, Bowen and McTaggert Cowan 1980). Social interactions may be by far the most complex and least understood aspect related to coyote ecology. Coyote movements can be related to many factors including food, water, cover, and social interactions. Movements in relation to food sources are well documented (Fitch 1948, Todd and Keith 1976, Danner and Smith 1980) although reports on movements in relation to water have not been reported, probably because of limited research in desert situations. There has been some mention of coyotes' movements in relation to cover (Wells and Beckoff 1982). The objectives of this study were to delineate annual and seasonal home ranges, movements, and habitat use of coyotes in the northern Chihuahuan desert.

BURROW-BUILDING STRATEGIES AND HABITAT USE OF VOLES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ORCHARDS

Seidel and Booth (1960) wrote that the "life histories of the genus Microtus are not numerous in the literature." In support of his observation he cited 6 publications, all dated between 1891 and 1953. Since then the literature has exploded with a proliferation of publications. An international literature review recently revealed over 3,500 citations for the genus. When Pitymys and Clethrionomys are included another 350 and 1,880, respectively, were found. Over the last 10 years approximately 3 new publications on voles appeared every 4 days; a significant output for what some would consider such an insignificant species. Most of the publications were the result of graduate research projects on population dynamics and species ecology. As such, many do not explore more than the rudimentary ecological relationships between the animal and their environments. Unfortunate, as well, is that all but one confined their observations to only a small part of their total environment. For many of these animals, their life underground may be more important for their survival than that above ground. Trapping studies conducted by Godfrey and Askham (1988) with permanently placed pitfall live traps in orchards revealed a significant inverse population fluctuation during the year. During the winter, when populations are expected to decrease, as many as 6 to 8 mature Microtus montanus were collected at any 1 time in the traps after several centimeters of snow accumulation. During the summer, when populations are expected to increase, virtually no animals were collected in the traps. According to current population dynamics theory, greater numbers of animals, including increasingly larger numbers of immature members of the community, should appear in any sample between the onset of the breeding period, generally in the spring, taper off during the latter part of the production season, usually late summer, and then decline as the limiting factors begin to take effect. For us, we trapped more animals in the fall and early winter than we did during the spring and summer. A review of the above literature did little to answer our question. Where are the animals going during the summer and why?

RELATED LAWS ON EXOTIC AND NATIVE WILD ANIMALS

This paper is submitted in an effort to acquaint the personnel of allied State agencies with related laws which control the public and private possession of live exotic and native wild animals. The need for this common knowledge of related laws by agencies with law enforcement responsibility is readily apparent when the annual number and related problems from imported or resident wild animals in California are examined. In addition to resident wild animal populations, millions of fish and thousands of mammals, birds, and reptiles enter California each year through the utilization of most methods of transportation. Most of these imported animals are exotic species from foreign lands which cannot be readily identified and pose various degrees of potential and actual threat to native wild life, agriculture, and public health if they are introduced into the wilds of this State. For the purpose of this report, a general picture of imported exotic animals is presented in an introduction, and specific animals with related laws are treated individu-ally under the headings of current laws and future regulations.

HAWAIIAN SUGAR CANE RAT CONTROL METHODS AND PROBLEMS

The problem of rats in our Hawaiian sugar cane fields has been with us for a long time. Early records tell of heavy damage at various times on all the islands where sugar cane is grown. Many methods were tried to control these rats. Trapping was once used as a control measure, a bounty was used for a time, gangs of dogs were trained to catch the rats as the cane was harvested. Many kinds of baits and poisons were used. All of these methods were of some value as long as labor was cheap. Our present day problem started when the labor costs started up and the sugar industry shifted to long cropping. Until World War II cane was an annual crop. After the war it was shifted to a two year crop, three years in some places. Depending on variety, location, and soil we raise 90 to 130 tons of sugar cane per acre, which produces 7 to 15 tons of sugar per acre for a two year crop. This sugar brings about $135 dollars per ton. This tonnage of cane is a thick tangle of vegetation. The cane grows erect for almost a year, as it continues to grow it bends over at the base. This allows the stalk to rest on the ground or on other stalks of cane as it continues to grow. These stalks form a tangled mat of stalks and dead leaves that may be two feet thick at the time of harvest. At the same time the leafy growing portion of the stalk will be sticking up out of the mat of cane ten feet in the air. Some of these individual stalks may be 30 feet long and still growing at the time of harvest. All this makes it very hard to get through a cane field as it is one long, prolonged stumble over and through the cane. It is in this mat of cane that our three species of rats live. Two species are familiar to most people in the pest control field. Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. In the latter species we include both the black rat and the alexandrine rats, their habits seem to be the same in Hawaii. Our third rat is the Polynesian rat, Rattus exlans, locally called the Hawaiian rat. This is a small rat, the average length head to tip of tail is nine inches and the average body weight is 65 grams. It has dark brownish fur like the alexandrine rats, and a grey belly. It is found in Indonesia, on most of the islands of Oceania and in New Zealand. All three rats live in our cane fields and the brushy and forested portions of our islands. The norway and alexandrine rats are found in and around the villages and farms, the Polynesian rat is only found in the fields and waste areas. The actual amount of damage done by rats is small, but destruction they cause is large. The rats gnaw through the rind of the cane stalk and eat the soft juicy and sweet tissues inside. They will hollow out one to several nodes per stalk attacked. The effect to the cane stalk is like ringing a tree. After this attack the stalk above the chewed portion usually dies, and sometimes the lower portion too. If the rat does not eat through the stalk the cane stalk could go on living and producing sugar at a reduced rate. Generally an injured stalk does not last long. Disease and souring organisms get in the injury and kill the stalk. And if this isn't enough, some insects are attracted to the injured stalk and will sometimes bore in and kill it. An injured stalk of cane doesn't have much of a chance. A rat may only gnaw out six inches of a 30 foot stalk and the whole stalk will die. If the rat only destroyed what he ate we could ignore them but they cause the death of too much cane. This dead, dying, and souring cane cause several direct and indirect tosses. First we lose the sugar that the cane would have produced. We harvest all of our cane mechanically so we haul the dead and souring cane to the mill where we have to grind it with our good cane and the bad cane reduces the purity of the sugar juices we squeeze from the cane. Rats reduce our income and run up our overhead.

HIGHLIGHTS OF BIRD CONTROL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND, FRANCE, HOLLAND, AND GERMANY

The purpose of this paper is to present a brief review of the research being conducted in England, France, Germany, and The Netherlands on problems caused by nuisance and depredating birds. Much of the information presented has been obtained through correspondence with collaborators. In the fall of 1962, I discussed depredating bird and bird-airport problems with research workers in these countries, and also attended the meeting of the International Union of Applied Ornithology held in Frankfurt/Main. In November 1963, I attended an international symposium about the bird-airport problem, held in Nice, France. This paper will draw attention to the current research which I think will interest American investigators, but will not report every aspect of the foreign investigations. Details appear in the publications that are listed.

THE INFLUENCE OF ATTRACTANTS AND REPELLENTS ON THE FEEDING BEHAVIOUR OF Rattus norvegicus

Poison baits are extensively used for commensal rodent control; considerable folk lore exists regarding the use of additives to induce rodents to come to and eat poison baits. This paper describes a rational evaluation of attractants and the influence of different odours in inducing Rattus norvegicus to feed at given locations. The influence of certain repellents was also examined. Tests consisted of attempts to induce rats to feed at non-preferred sites or to repel them from preferred sites. Place preference was the dominant factor in feeding by rats, and odours failed to influence feeding activity significantly.

METHODS OF CONTROLLING STARLINGS AND BLACKBIRDS

Most people have accepted the fact that all living things can be beneficial to mankind in some way or other. This is especially true of our wild birds, since they provide enjoyment and wholesome recreation for most of us, regardless of whether we live on farms or in the city. But despite the fact that wild birds are for the most part beneficial, at times individuals or populations of certain species can seriously affect man's interests. When such situations occur, some measures of relief are desirable and usually eagerly sought. This report is not intended to answer all the questions that may arise concerning problems with blackbirds and starlings; instead, it is merely a summary of measures used to protect agricultural crops from these birds.

ANIMAL POPULATION ECOLOGY AND CONTROL FUNDAMENTALS

Expensive, extensive and apparently lethal control measures have been applied against many species of pest vertebrates and invertebrates for decades. In spite of this, few pests have been annihilated, and in many cases the stated goals have become progressively more modest, so that now we speak of saving foliage or a crop, rather than extermination. It is of interest to examine the reasons why animals are so difficult to exterminate, because this matter, of course, has implications for the type of control policy we pursue in the future. Also, it has implications for the problem of evaluating comparatively various resource management strategies. There are many biological mechanisms which could, in principle, enhance the performance of an animal population after control measures have been applied against it. These are of four main types: genetic, physiological, populationa1, and environmental. We are all familiar with the fact that in applying a control measure, we are, from the pest's point of view, applying intense selection pressure in favor of those individuals that may be preadapted to withstand the type of control being used. The well-known book by Brown (1958) documents, for invertebrates, a tremendous number of such cases. Presumably, vertebrates can show the same responses. Not quite so familiar is the evidence that sub-lethal doses of a lethal chemical may have a physiologically stimulating effect on population performance of the few individuals that happen to survive (Kuenen, 1958). With further research, we may find that this phenomenon occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Still less widely recognized is the fact that pest control elicits a populational homeostatic mechanism, as well as genetic and physiological homeostatic mechanisms. Many ecologists, such as Odum and Allee (1950, Slobodkin (1955), Klomp (1962) and the present author (1961, 1963) have pointed out that the curve for generation survival, or the curve for trend index as a function of last generations density is of great importance in population dynamics.