Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences
Date of this Version
October 1993
Document Type
Article
Abstract
A variety of factors including increased urbanization decreased funding for governmental animal damage programs, and increases in some urban wildlife populations have resulted in a greater demand for urban nuisance wildlife control. Historically, this demand was met by Cooperative Extension Service (San Julian 1987), state fish and wildlife agency, or federal wildlife damage control employees (Bollengier 1981) These agencies provided educational materials, consultations, an-or physically removed animals. Recently, there is an increased demand for physical animal removal evidenced by increasing numbers of private Pest control operators (PCO), companies that do general pest or insect control work, specializing in the removal of urban nuisance wildlife (Braband and Clark 1992). These individuals or companies are referred to as nuisance wildlife control operators (NWCO). A third group of companies, nuisance wildlife and pest control companies (NWPCO) do not specialize in nuisance wildlife control but will respond to customer complaints that involve at least one wildlife species excluding domestic cats (Felis domesticus), house mice (Mus musculus) or rats (Rattus spp.). Previous animal damage survey research focused on the magnitude and distribution of wildlife damage, stakeholders’ tolerance levels, and management preferences for solving human wildlife conflicts (Pomerantz et al. 1986). Much of this research has been directed towards rural landowner attitudes concerning deer (Odocoileus spp.), goose (Branta spp.), beaver for (Castor canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus) or coyote (Canis latrans) damage (reviewed by Craven et al. 1992). Little detailed information exists about the urban nuisance wildlife control industry. One recent study (Associated Market Research 1991) examined the extent of PCO involvement in nuisance wildlife control but did not obtain detailed information about specific attributes of the NWCO business. These results may be unreliable because of a low (18%) response rate. My objectives were to determine 1) the status of the nuisance wildlife control industry in Kentucky, 2) the technical training of NWCO, and 3) the techniques used by NWCO LA prevent, control, or manage urban nuisance wildlife.