<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2007 University of Nebraska - Lincoln All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp</link>
<description>Recent documents in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:22:16 PDT</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>


	



<item>
<title>USING SOUND, VISUAL, AND TACTILE PRODUCTS TO REPEL BIRDS</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/459</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/459</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:38:28 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Birds are typically thought of as beautiful, graceful, tuneful creatures by the general public. However, there are many
reasons to control birds. Birds and their droppings can create unsightly visual conditions and an unhealthy atmosphere that
promotes disease transmission. In addition, cleaning costs including time spent, and property, equipment, or product damage
can cause financial loss. Some bird control products, though widely used, are not suitable in many situations. For environmental
and safety reasons, poison perches, poison grain and shotguns may not be ideal choices under certain circumstances. Because of
high cost and unfeasibility, netting and spikes may be inappropriate. However, effective solutions do exist. These alternatives
include sound, visual, tactile products or a combination of the 3. This paper details how effectiveness can be improved with
careful preparation, planning, and implementation using these various products.
</description>

<author>Mona Zemsky</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>RIPENING FIELD CORN LOST TO WILDLIFE IN 1993</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/458</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/458</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:53:06 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Ripening field corn lost to wildlife was measured in fall 1993 in 10 midwestern states that have produced 83% of the
field corn in the United States over the past 10 years. Sampling of damage was stratified by producer expectation of likely
wildlife damage or unlikely wildlife damage. Damage was assessed immediately before harvest. Two plots that measured 4.5 m
x 2 rows were assessed in each selected field. Of assessed fields, wildlife damage was present in 340 of 1,259 (27.0%) likely
damaged fields and 108 of 1,243 (8.7%) unlikely damaged fields. As a percentage of harvested production, birds (Aves) damaged
an average of 0.19% of field corn while deer (Odocoileus spp.) damaged an average of 0.23% of field corn. Unidentified
wildlife caused the loss of an additional 0.27% of corn. The average yield loss was 1.73 + 0.17 bu/ha. Loss rates were greater
where producers had expected damage (3.7 bu/ha) than where damage had not been anticipated (1.5 bu/ha). Among states, yield
lost to all wildlife differed among 3 groups of states. Wisconsin and Missouri had the greatest wildlife-caused loss rates. Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio had intermediate loss rates. Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota had lower loss rates. In
total, an estimated 35 + 4 million bushels of corn were lost to wildlife in 1993 when harvested field corn production for the 10
selected states totaled 5.14 billion bushels. Total estimated value of field corn lost to wildlife was $92 + 9 million, when the
harvested corn crop was valued at $13.3 billion in the 10 states.
</description>

<author>Alice P. Wywialowski</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>LIVESTOCK HERDING DOGS: A UNIQUE APPLICATION FOR WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/457</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/457</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:53:04 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have caused increasing problems
for people both in urban and agricultural environments. In many instances, traditional methods of resolving conflicts caused by
these species have proven ineffective or impractical. Some property owners and others have begun to use livestock herding dogs
to haze geese and other wildlife from areas where they are not wanted. We report on the applications and effectiveness of this
technique as employed on golf courses, farms, and other areas. The use of trained herding dogs appears to be a feasible and
effective method for reducing wildlife damage in a variety of urban and rural settings.
</description>

<author>Roger A. Woodruff</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>PRIVATE BEAVER MANAGEMENT IN OKLAHOMA</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/456</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/456</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:53:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) estimated the state's beaver (Castor canadensis) population
at 1,245 animals in 1951-52. That same year, ODWC relocated 29 beaver from 5 western counties to Department lands in
4 eastern counties. Beaver populations in Oklahoma have since grown as a result of changes in available habitat. In response to
the growing number of beavers, ODWC opened an annual beaver season from 1 December to 31 January, in 1960-1961. The
season was opened year-round in 1983. Although beaver activities benefit many wildlife species, their activities have had a
negative economic impact on the state. Complicating this problem is the low value of Oklahoma beaver pelts. Restrictions on
trapping devices have also contributed to the limited beaver sport harvest. To help reduce beaver damage, a multi-procedural
approach to beaver control was taken, including preventative measures as well as direct removal of nuisance individuals. Because
harvesting beaver actually increases their reproductive potential, the goal of ODWC's nuisance beaver control program is
to relieve the damage caused by beavers to human property without concentrating on a population reduction scheme. Under
ODWC's program, nuisance beaver control permits allowed beaver to be taken on private or public lands with body-gripping
traps or by night shooting.
</description>

<author>Julianne Whitaker</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>WYOMING&apos;S M-44 PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/455</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/455</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:52:58 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Wyoming's legislation funding predator control has progressed from a bounty system, to a mill levy system, to the
current fee assessment per head. The Wyoming Department of Agriculture administers an M-44 predator control program for
private and commercial applicators' use with livestock depredators. As predatory impacts on livestock have increased, use of M-
44 has also broadened. The M-44 is a mechanical device utilizing a spring-activated ejector, that propels the dry toxicant sodium
cyanide into the mouth of the target species when pulled. Death of the animal is accomplished by inhalation of hydrogen cyanide
which forms when sodium cyanide comes into contact with saliva. Wider use of the M-44 device and increasing skill of applicators
is steadily increasing the take of predators. Successful use of the M-44 device increases with knowledge of predator habits,
use in the proper location, and use of appropriate scent for the season and area.
</description>

<author>Henry R. Uhden</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>FERAL HOGS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS OF TEXAS: PERSPECTIVES, PROBLEMS, AND POTENTIAL</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/454</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/454</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:52:55 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) have expanded their territory in Texas and are now found in all but the extreme western
portions of the state. Perhaps the most dramatic expansion has occurred in the Rolling Plains of northwest Texas. Perspectives on
feral hogs range from definitely for to adamantly against. Problems encountered with feral hogs include: (1) damage to crops
and livestock, or facilities and equipment, (2) transmission of disease to humans and livestock, or (3) interaction with native
wildlife including competition for available resources, depredation and destruction of habitat. The feral hog is also an animal
with economic potential. Revenue can be generated by selling or hunting them. Is the feral hog an ecological unknown, an
economic liability, or an under-utilized asset? The answer remains to be determined and may depend upon one's individual
perspective.
</description>

<author>Douglas R. Tolleson</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>THE PUMA IN THE CENTRAL MOUNTAINS AND GREAT PLAINS</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/453</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/453</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:52:52 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Current status of the puma, Felis concolor, in the central mountains and Great Plains of Canada and the United States
is discussed. Recent specimens and verified sightings are reviewed. Based on growing evidence, the puma has the potential to
recolonize much of this region. Minor depredation problems can be expected, particularly as puma numbers increase and their
range expands. This species is highly adaptable and extremely elusive, and its detection requires special skills. Professional
wildlifers must be prepared to meet the dual challenges of managing both for recovery of this relatively rare carnivore and for its
coexistence with humans.
</description>

<author>Jay W. Tischendorf</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>PROTECTING JUVENILE SALMONIDS FROM GULL PREDATION USING WIRE EXCLUSION BELOW HYDROELECTRIC DAMS</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/452</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/452</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:52:50 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Predation by ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarenis) has been identified as a significant threat to migrant steelhead and
salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) smolt in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Bird predation appears highest immediately below
hydroelectric facilities. Installation of overhead wire/cable exclusion systems over the tailrace area of 12 dams has been completed
to reduce gull predation. Data collected from 1 of the facilities as well as observations from other dams indicate that
overhead wire/cable exclusion systems are effective in reducing predation by gulls.
</description>

<author>John E. Steuber</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>CUE ENHANCEMENT OF LITHIUM-CHLORIDE-INDUCED MUTTON/SHEEP AVERSIONS IN COYOTES</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/451</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/451</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:37:11 PDT</pubDate>
<description>In an enclosure-type study, I investigated the use of odor, auditory, and visual cues to enhance lithium-chloride (LiCl)-
induced prey aversion in coyotes (Canis latrans). Eight adult, male, wild-caught coyotes that killed 2 adult sheep during successive
daily, 1 -hr trials were assigned to LiCl- and sodium-chloride (NaCl)-bait groups. The 4 LiCl-bait coyotes were sequentially
presented with leg-of-sheep and whole-sheep carcasses injected with a 33% LiCl water solution (4.5 ml/kg) 1 -hr daily until bait
shy. The 4 NaCl coyotes were exposed to baits and carcasses injected with 25% NaCl/water solution (4.5 ml/kg) for matched
trials. Additionally, 2 coyotes within each LiCl and NaCl group were presented with baits/carcasses sprayed with cologne and
fitted with a red collar and attached bell, and 2 &#34;reference coyotes&#34; within each LiCl and NaCl group were offered similar baits/
carcasses without these stimuli. Following onset of bait aversion, coyotes were again paired for 1 hr daily with a live sheep that
had either the &#34;stimuli&#34; or &#34;no stimuli&#34; affixed until 2 sheep were killed. Coyotes required 7 to 23 1-hr exposures to LiCl meats
to cease ingestion (develop bait shyness). Coyotes presented both LiCl-baits/carcasses and subsequent live sheep affixed with
stimuli showed greater suppression of predation, but this effect was of limited duration (&#60;9 pairings with sheep).
</description>

<author>Ray T. Sterner</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>DEPREDATION OF CATFISH BY DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS AT AQUACULTURE FACILITIES IN OKLAHOMA</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/450</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/450</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:37:08 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Oklahoma has about 324 ha of surface water in catfish (Ictalurus spp.) production. The state also supports a large
number of migrating and wintering piscivorous birds, particularly double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus). To address
concerns of aquaculture facility operators regarding loss of fish to cormorants, we asked 11 operators to conduct regular
counts of piscivorous birds at each facility. These data were used to determine factors affecting cormorant density at facilities
and to estimate amount of catfish lost to cormorant depredation. Cormorant density (birds/ha/day) was positively correlated with
surface area of water in production at facilities &#60;10 ha (r = 0.621, P = 0.004) and negatively correlated with percentage of
forested shoreline at each facility (r = -0.518, P = 0.016). Distance to nearest major reservoir or river was not significantly
correlated with cormorant densities. To estimate depredation, we assumed a daily intake of 0.4 kg of fish per cormorant and used
the average number of birds counted at participating facilities. Cormorants consumed an estimated 7,196 + 8,729 kg ( x + SE)
of catfish, valued at $13,672-$36,195 (depending on size offish consumed), or about 3-7% of Oklahoma catfish sales in 1993.
</description>

<author>Robert L. Simmonds Jr.</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>AN EVALUATION OF OKLAHOMA&apos;S DEPREDATION PROGRAM FOR HANDLING DEER DAMAGE TO AGRICULTURAL CROPS</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/449</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/449</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:37:05 PDT</pubDate>
<description>A stepwise approach was developed in 1993 to handle agricultural damage complaints caused by white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Results from 2 seasons were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the procedures implemented.
Approximately half of the damage complaints received were handled by prescribing non-lethal techniques such as fencing,
harassment, and repellents. The remainder of the complaints required 1 or more types of lethal control. Although doe harvest
rates were similar under the 2 permit options, Damage Control Assistance Permits (DCAP) provided several distinct advantages
over out of season shooting using Depredation Permits (DEPR). The DCAP permits increased hunting opportunity, eliminated
the need for landowners to expend considerable time and effort shooting deer out of season, and fostered a cooperative relationship
between landowners and hunters. Recipients of DCAP tags tended to continue with the program, thereby providing longterm
control.
</description>

<author>Michael G. Shaw</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGERS AND EUTHANASIA</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/448</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/448</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:37:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Wildlife damage managers regularly are faced with decisions that include whether and how animals will be killed.
Euthanasia refers to death without pain or distress, i.e., a humane death. The American Veterinary Medical Association has
developed guidelines for euthanasia (Andrews et al. 1993). These guidelines affect many of the methods and technologies
involved in wildlife damage management. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, barbiturates, and gunshots are appropriate methods
of euthanizing wildlife when necessary and when applied in the prescribed manner.
</description>

<author>Robert H. Schmidt</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>CURRENT RESEARCH ON IMPROVING CAPTURE DEVICES FOR COYOTES</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/447</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/447</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:36:59 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Nine types of footsnares were tested on captive coyotes (Canis latrans) at the United States Department of Agriculture
Predator Research Facility. Preliminary results indicate that the E-Z Lee, Nelson, Freemont, and Godwin leg snares can be
effective in restraining coyotes while causing only minor leg injuries. Additional testing will be required to determine the
effectiveness of these devices in different field situations. Four types of coyote leg-hold traps were evaluated to determine the
injuries they inflict on captured coyotes. The No. 3 1/2 McBride padded trap caused the least injury in comparison to 3 other trap
models that were tested. Available data on injuries associated with different traps will assist in determining what types of capture
devices meet standards set by the International Organization for Standardization. The potential implementation of International
Trap Standards will most likely determine the future use of traps and snares in much of the world. Wildlife managers should
continue to search for improvements if they desire to maintain the use of traps in the future.
</description>

<author>Robert L. Phillips</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>Participants</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/446</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/446</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:36:57 PDT</pubDate>
<description>List of participants</description>


</item>


<item>
<title>IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION AND POSSIBLE APPLICATION IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/445</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/445</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:36:54 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
lmmunocontraception technology appears to have viable application in wildlife damage management. However, administration
of these vaccines is presently performed by syringe injection or remote delivery by darts or bio-bullets. In order for
immunocontraception to be successful for broad scale application to free-roaming animals, the vaccine must be delivered in an
oral form. Recent advances in molecular biology, immunology, and pathology of mucosal infection gives us tools to develop
effective oral vaccines. Oral immunocontraceptive vaccine encapsulated in adhesive liposomes or non-virulent live vectors
holds promise as a practical approach for immunocontraception of free-roaming wildlife. Issues of safety, species specificity,
regulatory constraints, and field application of the vaccine will need to be addressed.
</description>

<author>Lowell A. Miller</author>


</item>


<item>
<title>RESEARCH PRIORITIES IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/444</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/444</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:22:19 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Based on a survey of 97 wildlife damage management professionals (60% response rate of 161 mailed questionnaires),
field, research, and administrative personnel felt that the top 3 current wildlife damage management (WDM) research needs
were: development of more effective and efficient techniques of damage assessment, effectiveness of education and conflict
resolution programs on WDM issues, and repellent/aversive techniques. Respondents indicated that human dimensions research
related to effectiveness of public education and conflict resolution would be the highest future research need. Large and small
mammals were identified as key species groups needing research with preventive methods and aversive agents as practices
needing research. Respondents also identified deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus elaphus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana),
sheep (Ovis spp.), and ground nesting birds as prey species that should receive research focus. Coyotes (Canis latrans) were the
prevalent predator species identified with high research needs.
</description>

<author>James E. Miller</author>


</item>




</channel>
</rss>
