Wildlife Damage to Agricultural Crops in Pennsylvania: The Farmers\u27 Perspective

Agricultural damage by wildlife is a major concern for both agricultural and wildlife agencies at the state and federal level. Our objective was to estimate wildlife damage to agricultural crops on a statewide basis. We sent questionnaires to 4,958 farmers and 1,003 were returned after 2 mailings. Twenty-five percent of farmers responding to our survey rated the level of wildlife damage to their crops as severe or very severe, 46% as moderate, and 29% had none or very little. Mean levels of crop loss to wildlife ranged from 6% for wheat to 10% for corn grain, and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were the most commonly reported cause of damage for all crops except soybeans. Farmers estimated the economic value of damage caused by wildlife to 6 crops (corn grain, silage, alfalfa, soybeans, oats, and wheat) as \u3e $70 million. Ninety-one percent of Pennsylvania farmers allowed deer hunting on their farms, but 62% of the farms were bordered at least partially by land that was posted (no hunting or limited hunting). Fifty-six percent of farmers whose land was bordered by posted land believed adjacent posted land made it difficult for them to control deer numbers and damage on the land they farmed. Thirty-one percent of farmers responding to the questionnaire reported that they had changed farming practices (i.e., no longer farmed a particular field or raised a particular crop) as a consequence of deer damage. Additional methods used to control deer damage included shooting (28%), chasing (13%), fencing (9.3%), repellents (7%), and noise devices (5%). Fencing and shooting were the only methods rated as being at least moderately effective

Ecology of an Isolated Muskrat Population During Regional Population Declines

Evidence indicating a decline in Ondatra zibethicus (Muskrat) populations in the United States during the past 40 years has led to speculation regarding factors influencing Muskrat survival. In order to understand population dynamics and survival, it is important to first define the ecology of local populations. We investigated the dwelling structure use, movements, home range, and survival of radio-tagged Muskrats (n = 14) in an urban wetland complex in central Pennsylvania. We used locations collected from intensive radio-telemetry monitoring to determine number of lodging structures used, hourly movement, and size and percent area overlap of home ranges. Muskrats shared an average of 9 lodging structures, and on average, 68% of a Muskrat’s home range overlapped home ranges of other Muskrats. We used 4 home-range estimators (kernel density estimator [KDE]href, KDEad hoc, KDEplug-in, and local convex hull estimator) to assess the ability of each estimator to represent Muskrat home ranges. The KDEplug-in that constrained the estimate of home range to habitat boundaries provided the most appropriate home-range size for Muskrats in a linear–non-linear habitat matrix. We also calculated overwinter survival estimates using known-fate models. Our top model indicated a positive effect of the average weekly precipitation on survival, with an overwinter survival estimate of 0.59 (SE = 0.16). The main cause of Muskrat mortality was predation by Neovison vison (American Mink; n = 6). The small sample size and uncertainty surrounding our model selection led to weak estimates of survival; however, our model suggests that snowfall may be an important factor in Muskrat survival. Our study provides novel data on Muskrat ecology in Pennsylvania as well as preliminary evidence for future investigations of factors affecting Muskrat survival during the winter months

Resource Use by American Black Bears in Suburbia: A Landholder Step Selection Approach

Range expansion of American black bears (Ursus americanus; bear) and residential development have increased the bear presence in suburbia. Suburban landscapes exhibiting patchworks of variable-sized parcels and habitats and owned by landowners with diverse values can create large areas of suitable habitats with limited public access. These landscapes may limit the effectiveness of hunting as a traditional bear population management tool. Managers require better information regarding landowner attitudes about hunting before implementing harvest regulations intended to mitigate conflicts in suburban areas. To address this need, in 2013, we surveyed landowners to identify properties that allowed bear hunting in 3 suburban areas of Pennsylvania, USA where bear sightings or human–bear conflicts have increased. We then used location data obtained for 29 bears equipped with global positioning system transmitters from 2010 to 2012 to model their resource selection in the study area. We assessed the influence of hunting access, housing density, land cover, and topographic variables on radio-marked black bears monitored 10 days before, during, and after the bear hunting season. We found that resource selection of radio-marked bears was similar for all 3 periods and bears selected for forested land in all 3 seasons and herbaceous cover in the pre-hunting and hunting periods. Resource selection by bears was not influenced by hunting access in the pre-hunting and hunting periods. For the post-hunting period, lands closed to hunting had support as the second-best model. All of the radio-marked bears in our study were vulnerable to harvest. However, they did not change resource selection during the hunting season, nor did they avoid areas open to hunting. Integrating human dimension data with bear habitat use studies, especially in suburban landscapes, has the potential to address bear space use and population management needs often overlooked by traditional research designs

Welfare Performance of Three Foothold Traps for Capturing North American River Otters \u3ci\u3eLontra canadensis\u3c/i\u3e

Foothold traps are effective tools for the live capture and restraint of wildlife for management and research. Successful river otter Lontra canadensis restoration programs throughout North America used them extensively. Restoration programs used a variety of methods and models of foothold traps, but comprehensive efforts to describe and quantify injuries associated with river otter captures have been limited. We evaluated injuries of river otters caught in three commercially available models of foothold traps including the number 11 double long-spring with standard jaws, the number 11 double long-spring with double jaws, and the number 2 coil-spring trap. Based on examinations of 70 captured river otters, we classified 78% of the total inj uries detected as ‘‘mild’’ (n=174 injuries) and 17% were classified as ‘‘moderate’’ (n= 37 injuries). We classified less than 3% of the injuries observed as ‘‘moderately severe’’ or ‘‘severe.’’ We focused only on the animal welfare performance of traps; the three trap types we tested met the animal welfare criteria required for inclusion in the best management practices for trapping river otter. The criteria based on International Standards Organization guidelines used in this assessment of trap performance provides a scientific basis for future evaluations of river otter welfare when foothold traps are used for restoration, research, and population management

Anticipatory stress restores decision-making deficits in heavy drinkers by increasing sensitivity to losses

Background: Substance abusers are characterized by hypersensitivity to reward. This leads to maladaptive decisions generally, as well as those on laboratory-based decision-making tasks, such as the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). Negative affect has also been shown to disrupt the decision-making of healthy individuals, particularly decisions made under uncertainty. Neuropsychological theories of learning, including the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (SMH), argue this occurs by amplifying affective responses to punishment. In substance abusers, this might serve to rebalance their sensitivity to reward with punishment, and improve decision-making

Bobcat Behavior and Home Range Use in Northwestern Wisconsin: In Reference to Censusing Populations

Bobcats (Felis rufus) were radio-tagged and monitored in a 288-km2 study area in Douglas Co., Wisconsin to investigate population characteristics and patterns of home range use as they apply to censusing populations. Sixteen adults (5 females, 11 males) and 3 juveniles (females) were captured from 1 May 1991 to 1 June 1993. The adult sex ratio of the sample population was 2.2 males/female. Reproduction was erratic, but at least 5 of a potential 9 litters were reared by 5 resident females. Two natal den sites, each containing 3 kittens, were observed on 28 May 1992, and the sex ratio of kittens was 1:1. Parturition appeared to peak during May, but trapping of juveniles during other periods suggested that some females were reproducing later in the year. Survival in the study population was low; annual survival for all bobcats was 40.4-68.1%. Hunting was the major source of mortality for bobcats, and only 1 case of natural mortality was observed. One instance of dispersal was documented and the minimum distance traveled before radio contact was lost was 40.8 km. I estimated a density of 0.069 + 0.007 bobcats/km^2 within the study area. Annual and seasonal male home ranges extensively overlapped those of other males and females, while females maintained more exclusive areas. Annual male home ranges (60.4 km^2 +/- 23.4 km^2 ) were 112% larger (t = 3.97, P = 0.005) than those of females (28.5 km^2 +/- 3.7 km^2). Females expanded and contracted their home ranges seasonally, with the largest home ranges occurring in winter. Males shifted similar sized ranges seasonally to build larger annual home ranges. Both male and female bobcats used habitats disproportionate to their occurrence within the study area (X^2 = 302.82, P < 0.001 for males; X^2 = 476.6, P < 0.001 for females). On an annual basis, males selected lowland coniferous forest, and avoided upland coniferous forest, upland deciduous forest and mixed savanna. Females exhibited similar preferences but also selected lowland deciduous forest and avoided unforested areas. Seasonal differences in habitat use were evident for males (X^2 = 74.55, P < 0.001) and females (X^2 = 20.96, P < 0.001); both used lowland conifer forest more and unforested areas and upland deciduous forest less during winter. The selection of lowland coniferous forest, regardless of sex or season, suggests that these areas should be preserved as critical habitat for bobcats in northwestern Wisconsin. Bobcats geographically selected home ranges with high densities of trails and low densities of secondary highways. The relationship of road crossing indices to road density for secondary highways and trails appeared linear within established home ranges; bobcats crossed secondary highways, unpaved roads, and trails in proportion to their occurrence. Bobcats crossed paved roads less than expected. Much of the selection/avoidance of these road types seemed to be related to vehicle traffic levels, but habitat alterations associated with roads might have contributed to the inclusion of roads in bobcat home ranges or the extent to which roads types were crossed. Several commonly used census techniques (scent stations and winter track counts) were conducted to provide data for comparisons to future census efforts and to gain information on the relative abundance of other sympatric predators. Nine furbearer species were detected with scent stations, but bobcat visitation was low (2.7%). No difference in visitation rates was detected between years. Tracks of 5 predators were encountered during track count surveys. The number of bobcat tracks detected during track counts did not differ between years.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Safari Club (Milwaukee and Madison chapters), Zoological Society of Milwaukee Co., University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Wisconsin Trappers Association, Tri-State Coon Hunter's Association, Northwestern Houndhunter's Club, and Woodstream Corp

Wildlife Damage to Agricultural Crops in Pennsylvania: The Farmers’ Perspective

Agricultural damage by wildlife is a major concern for both agricultural and wildlife agencies at the state and federal level. Our objective was to estimate wildlife damage to agricultural crops on a statewide basis. We sent questionnaires to 4,958 farmers and 1,003 were returned after 2 mailings. Twenty-five percent of farmers responding to our survey rated the level of wildlife damage to their crops as severe or very severe, 46% as moderate, and 29% had none or very little. Mean levels of crop loss to wildlife ranged from 6% for wheat to 10% for corn grain, and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were the most commonly reported cause of damage for all crops except soybeans. Farmers estimated the economic value of damage caused by wildlife to 6 crops (corn grain, silage, alfalfa, soybeans, oats, and wheat) as \u3e $70 million. Ninety-one percent of Pennsylvania farmers allowed deer hunting on their farms, but 62% of the farms were bordered at least partially by land that was posted (no hunting or limited hunting). Fifty-six percent of farmers whose land was bordered by posted land believed adjacent posted land made it difficult for them to control deer numbers and damage on the land they farmed. Thirty-one percent of farmers responding to the questionnaire reported that they had changed farming practices (i.e., no longer farmed a particular field or raised a particular crop) as a consequence of deer damage. Additional methods used to control deer damage included shooting (28%), chasing (13%), fencing (9.3%), repellents (7%), and noise devices (5%). Fencing and shooting were the only methods rated as being at least moderately effective

Capturing and Handling Wild Animals

The art of capturing wild animals for food and clothing is as old as human existence on earth. However, in today’s world, reasons for catching wild species are more diverse. Millions of wild animals are captured each year as part of damage and disease control programs, population regulation activities, wildlife management efforts, and research studies. Many aspects of animal capture, especially those associated with protected wildlife species, are highly regulated by both state and federal governmental agencies. Animal welfare concerns are important regardless of the reason for capture. In addition, efficiency (the rate at which a device or system catches (he intended species) is a critical aspect of wild animal capture systems. Successful capture programs result from the efforts of experienced wildlife biologists and technicians who have planned, studied, and tested methods prior to starting any new program. State regulations related to animal capture vary widely and licenses or permits, as well as specialized training may be required by state wildlife agencies for scientists, managers, and others engaging in animal capture for research, damage management, or fur harvest. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, required at universities and research institutions by the Animal Welfare Act (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002), often question whether scientists capturing animals for research have ensured that pain and distress are minimized by the techniques used. The information in this chapter will assist wildlife management practitioners to identify appropriate equipment and obtain the necessary approvals for its use. Researchers are encouraged to consult Littell (1993) and Gaunt et al. (1997) concerning guidelines and procedures relating to capture and handling permits. Major reviews of bird capture techniques include Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1977), Day et al. (1980), Davis (1981), Keyes and Grue (1982), Bloom (1987), Bub (1991 ), Schemnitz (1994), and Gaunt et al. (1997). Detailed coverage of mammal capture methods include Day et al. (1980). Novak et al. (1987), Schemnitz (1994), Wilson et al. (1996), American Society of Mammalogists (1998), and Proulx (1999a). Mammal capture usually becomes more difficult as animal size increases. Thus, observational techniques and mammalian sign are often more efficient for obtaining both inventory and density information (jones et al. 1996). Several new techniques to capture mammals ranging in size from small rodents to large carnivores have been developed in recent years