Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences
Date of this Version
October 1997
Abstract
Program planners of 114 organizations in the Roanoke Valley area of Virginia responded to the likelihood of their scheduling programs on wildlife-related topics. Among the topics offered was “Controlling Wildlife Pests and/or Their Damage.” Responses were organized by type of organization (civic club, neighborhood organization, educational/PTA organization, environmental/hobby organization, garden/plant club) and whether they were “highly likely” (HL), “somewhat likely” (SL), “not likely” (NL), or “not sure” (NS) they would schedule such a program. Results on likelihood of scheduling were as follows: 31 civic clubs (1 HL, 4 SL, 33NL, 4 NS); 26 neighborhood organizations (5 HL, 7 SL, 5 NL, 9 NS); 26 educational/PTA organizations (3HL, 7 SL, 14 NL, 2 NS); 10 environmental organizations (1 HL, 2 SL, 7 NL, 0 NS); and 21 garden clubs (2 HL, 6 SL, 11 NL, 2 NS). Overall, 114 respondents provided 12 HL, 26 SL, 59 NL, and 17 NS responses. Among the 114 respondents, only 8 rated the topic among their “top 3” most desired topics. In the overall survey, wildlife-related topics were not more acceptable than environmental program topics and, within the wildlife program topics, a program on “Controlling Wildlife Pests and/or Their Damage” was not likely to be scheduled by more than half the programs chairs. As only one-third of respondents indicated any likelihood of scheduling a program on “Controlling Wildlife Pests and/or Their Damage,” a challenge in developing proactive programs on wildlife pest management for urban/suburban club audiences seems very clear.
Comments
Published in Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference, Roanoke, Virginia, October 16–19, 1997, edited by James A. Parkhurst. Copyright © 1997 by the authors.