Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1997)

Wildlife-Caused Losses for Catfish Producers in 1996

Alice P. Wywialowski — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:43:43 PDT

In January 1997, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveyed catfish producers about wildlife-caused losses in 1996, Of the 1,465 catfish producers in 15 states surveyed, 1,008 (68.8%) agreed to complete the survey. Surveys were conducted primarily by telephone, but some producers received mail surveys. The response rated varied among states. The majority of catfish producers were in Mississippi (n=-300), followed by Alabama (n=163), and then Arkansas (n=117). The remaining states each had <100 respondents. Data were analyzed for 6 regions, each with a sample size of >100 respondents. Overall, 69% of catfish producers cited a wildlife-caused loss of catfish. Producers cited losses to wildlife most frequently in Mississippi (81%), followed by states adjoining the Mississippi River and Alabama. Birds were cited most frequently as a cause of the losses and double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) were cited most frequently (53%) as the primary species causing problems. The next most frequently cited birds were herons (48%) of which 42% were cited as great blue herons (Ardea herodius). Egrets (16%) were the third most frequently cited group of birds, followed by pelicans (8%). Muskrats (Ondatra zibethica) were the most frequently cited mammal (primarily for damaging roads and dikes). Other species cited by >2% of producers were otters, waterfowl, gulls, turtles, beaver, and raccoon. Other species or wildlife groups were cited by <2% of producers. Of those citing wildlife-caused losses, the main problem was feeding on catfish (96%). Wildlife also caused losses by injuring catfish (58%), disturbing feeding patterns of catfish (34%), and damaging roads and levees (23%). The total estimated cost of losses was $8.4 million, based on a simple sum of cited loss values. Producers spent a substantial amount of effort and money trying to prevent wildlife-caused losses of their catfish. Loss prevention methods most frequently cited were: shooting (57%), vehicle patrols (55%), frightening devices such as flagging or balloons (36%), roost dispersal (14%), modify pond management (10%), and other methods (8%). Producers <1 mile from a bird roost or refuge were more likely to cite losses than those not so located. Producers surveyed estimated that they spent $4.0 million protecting their operations from wildlife-caused losses. More catfish producers (44%) than other types of agricultural producers were familiar with the federal Animal Damage Control (ADC) program. Of producers familiar with ADC, 55% used information provided by ADC in attempting to reduce their losses, 51% had contacted ADC for assistance, and 40% received assistance from ADC in 1996.

Deer Damage Incurred by Homeowners During 1995 in Virginia

Ben C. West — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:41:07 PDT

Damage caused by white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus) is a problem for some homeowners in Virginia. As part of a broader effort to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of agricultural producers and homeowners toward deer damage in Virginia, a mail questionnaire was developed and implemented during the fall of 1996. The survey yielded 732 useable responses and, of those, 261 individuals indicated they were homeowners and grew at least one planting during 1995. Many homeowners (36%) indicated that deer caused damage to at least one of their plantings during 1995. Of those who had experienced damage, most (61%, n=57) indicated that deer damage had been moderate to severe. A significant linear relationship was found between the reported damage severity and the reported percentage of plants that were affected by deer. A majority (57%) of those who incurred deer damage believed that damage was higher in 1995 than in the previous 5 -year period. Damage occurred most often during the later spring and early summer. Many homeowners (n=119) indicated a willingness to pay for damage prevention, yet fewer (n=71) actually used preventive measures during 1995. Overall, the most often used form of prevention was the use of repellents, followed by fencing. Most respondents (64%) wanted a decrease in the deer population and a significant relationship was found between damage severity and a desire to reduce the deer population in Virginia.

Electric Fencing Reduces Heron Predation at Northeastern Trout Hatcheries

Mark E. Tobin — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:39:39 PDT

Great blue herons (Ardea herodius) are the most common avian predator at commercial trout hatcheries in the northeastern United States. We evaluated a 2-strand electric fence for excluding this species from raceways at 2 commercial trout hatcheries in central Pennsylvania. Fences consisted of high density polyethylene 400-lb strength tape supported by fiberglass posts and energized by either a battery-powered or a solar-powered fence charger. Labor and material for constructing the fences at the 2 sites averaged $1.32/m of raceway. Bird visitation at the 2 sites initially declined, but returned to pre-installation levels. However, bird use of raceways declined (P<0.05) at both sites compared to pre-installation levels for the duration of the study (49-62 days post-installation). Fences must be monitored to detect electrical shortages and to ensure that birds do not gain access to raceways under the bottom strand of the fence or forage between the fence and the shoreline. The 2- strand fence evaluated in this study is a cost-effective method for deterring heron predation at commercial trout hatcheries.

Response from Cooperative Extension Personnel to Citizen Requests for Information about Wildlife (Poster Abstract)

Shannon Thurston — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:36:17 PDT

With the increasing urbanization of rural areas, conflicts between homeowners and wildlife are becoming more common. County extension offices frequently receive telephone calls from individuals who are experiencing problems with wildlife. In most cases, extension staff provides assistance over the phone or by mail. However, there are no guidelines for the distribution of information nor is there training for extension personnel. Each county office collects and distributes information differently. Because there is no follow-up to inquiries, little is known about what the homeowners actually do or whether the problems were solved. With some wildlife species, there is a question of whether we should advise the homeowner to seek help from a resource professional directly, without trying control methods themselves.

Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic: Implications for Predator Management

Johnny Stowe — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:33:46 PDT

The golden rule of Aldo Leopold's land ethic clearly supports active management of predators that harm populations of rare animal species. In the early part of his career, while working as a forester in the American Southwest, Leopold advocated exterminating large predators like gray wolves (Canis lupus lupus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) from the region, but he later changed his mind when he realized that native predators help maintain ecosystem integrity. Philosophically, Leopold's changing views on predators exemplifies John Dewey's customary and reflective morality. But Leopold's dramatic narrative in A Sand County Almanac about his regret for helping kill a female wolf with pups on the Apache National Forest in 1909 should not be misinterpreted to mean he condemned all predator management as environmentally wrong. On the contrary, today, in some situations, the ecosystem integrity Leopold valued actually may be dependent upon active management of certain predator species. And, in some cases, lethal control may be the best option. I examine situations involving rare species that are harmed by predators in which the land ethic's golden rule (i.e., "A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community, and the community includes the soil, waters, fauna and flora, as well as people") mandates predator management. I explain why "letting nature take its course" is not a desirable option, and maintain that, in such cases, the predator management polemic should be focused on how management should proceed rather than on whether it should proceed.

Characteristics of Gray Squirrel Release Sites Selected by Kentucky Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators

Sara Steen-Ash — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:30:11 PDT

A telephone survey of Kentucky nuisance wildlife control operators (NWCOs) (n=66) was conducted in April of 1997 to assess their knowledge and practices regarding nuisance gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) release-site habitat. Thirty-three percent of NWCOs (n=22) trapped and relocated >1 nuisance gray squirrel in the previous year and these individuals/companies were selected for the survey. NWCOs trap and release >1,700 squirrels annually in Kentucky. Sampled release sites varied in size from 18 to 5,200 acres, and >70% were classified as poor to marginal habitat. Three of the release sites sampled provided adequate to optimum gray squirrel habitat. Actual release site habitat quality was in direct contrast to the opinions of NWCOs regarding suitable gray squirrel habitat. NWCOs' responses to questions concerning winter food, cover, and reproductive requirements indicated that they understood and were selecting suitable gray squirrel habitat components. Results of this survey indicate that thousands of squirrels are being translocated to both private and public land annually, with unknown consequences on survival and population demographics. Furthermore, although Kentucky NWCOs have an adequate understanding of the biological requirements of gray squirrel habitat, they are selecting unsuitable release sites.

Do You Have Your Skates On?

Gary J. San Julian — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:30:10 PDT

It is an honor to keynote this conference as we think about our profession in the next century. Jim asked me to predict what the future of wildlife damage management might look like in the year 2020. I explained to him that I have not been actively engaged in doing wildlife damage work for almost 9 years and I had been in an administrative role. Jim knew that I am going back to a faculty position in the next several months. He thought it was great for a person coming out of retirement to predict the future. Since I left my active work with ADC in 1989, many things have changed in our profession and it looks as if there will be many new concepts and tools on the horizon. However, to look to the future and speculate on what could be or might be is a daunting challenge. I knew I needed help! I immediately went to the administrator's practical guide for long range strategic planning concepts. I consulted the all knowing Swami, the great Carnac, and that never fail tool--the Ouija Board. I also consulted private practitioners, researchers, and biologists and asked them to star gaze with me. This talk is a mixture of all of the above--part fact, fantasy, fiction and fatalism.

What Do Driver's Education Manuals Contain Relative To Wildlife and Animal Dangers on Roads? (Poster Abstract)

A. L. Robinson — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:25:39 PDT

Most states in the U.S. provide driver's education manuals (DEMs) as instructional material for instruction of novice drivers. U.S. territories and other countries also provide DEMs. DEMs were requested from U.S. states and territories and acquired from a number of foreign sources. Content was examined relative to animals and safe driving. Of the 42 U.S. DEMs reviewed, 20 had specific advice about coping with animals on the road, 25 used signs involving animals as illustrations, 6 dealt specifically with deer, and 14 referred to farm animals (i.e., horseback riders, animal drawn vehicles, range animals). The Ontario, Canada, and Victoria, Australia, manuals provided a sizeable range of advice relative to animals and the road, whereas the United Kingdom and Ireland materials provided advice relative to livestock on the roads. The consideration given in DEMs to animal-related risks seems very limited, particularly in giving specific advice to anticipate and deal with potential or existing animal hazards.

Enhancement of Deer Repellent Efficacy With visual Cues

Milo E. Richmond — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:22:24 PDT

Previous research on deer repellents by the authors suggests that visual cues (warnings) coupled with application of an effective repellent may enhance the protection afforded by the repellent. We report the results of 2 separate experiments designed to evaluate and partition the effects of such visual cues in practical applications of 3 candidate repellents. In the first experiment, we established 1-ha plots in late succession old fields in Warren County, New Jersey. Plots were treated with bobcat urine, Deer Stopper�, water, and no treatment. Treatment application was made to 5-cm strips of cotton cloth attached to �-in cotton rope that encircled the entire plot. Strips were placed at 10-cm intervals. Browsing by deer in these plots was monitored for 1 year. The proportion of stems browsed relative to those available was recorded from randomly chosen 1-m x 100-m sample strips (2 per plot per month). Red maple (Acer rubrum), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) predominated in a mix of 16 woody species. Overall, browsing rates showed little seasonal change, but were affected by treatments: control (no treatment)-31%; rope only-18%; bobcat urine-10%; and Deer Stopper� -2%. Duncan's multiple range test indicates a difference between all treatment except bobcat urine and Deer Stopper�. In the second experiment, using Big Game Repellent� (BGR) and Deer Stopper�, these results were confirmed and extended. In situations where deer can make an association of the repellent with a visual cue, they do so. The effect of the combination is both desirable and measurable.

Conservation of a Dinosaur in Modern Times: South Carolina's Alligator Management Program

Walter E. Rhodes — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:18:59 PDT

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) conservation is necessary given the animal's role in wetland ecosystems and its economic value. Although the alligator appears to be no longer threatened with extinction, the reptile's perceived reputation and a burgeoning human population combine to create a management paradox. Alligator management in South Carolina consists of a Nuisance Control Program, a Private Lands Harvest Program, and public education. Annually, over 750 alligator complaints are received by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and harvest averages about 250 animals. To address alligator/human interaction in rural habitats, a harvest on private lands was established in 1995. The program, which has been well received by the public, encompasses over 27,000 acres in 7 counties and is valued over $75,000. Brochures, presentations, and the media have been utilized effectively to educate the public about alligators. A holistic approach is suggested for successful conservation of a species that has mixed attributes.