Wildlife Damage Management Education Needs: Survey of Georgia County Fasat Agents

The Service and Outreach Program of the Warnell School of Forest Resources at the University of Georgia conducts an annual county agent training program: Forestry: Area Specialty Advanced Training (FASAT). This training is provided to one or more lead agents in each county cluster (2-4 counties) throughout Georgia. At the spring 2002 training, 58 agents were surveyed to assess their needs for wildlife damage management information and programs. Agents were asked to supply information on the type of training programs they would find most useful. Agents were also questioned about the nature of damage calls they received in the past year. In addition to background information on county demographics, they were questioned about the wildlife species group accounting for damage complaints and the number of complaints related to physical landscape (e.g., yard, crops, house, orchard, etc.). Finally they were presented with a list of damage problems and asked to indicate the number of requests they received for each problem. All agents responded to the survey. Agents (52 of 58) indicated that programs in wildlife damage management and food plot management (51 of 58 agents) were most desired. Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) were responsible for most complaints (14% for each). Damage to yards/landscape and gardens (an average of 52 and 36 complaints per agent, respectively) were the categories receiving the most complaints. Agents reported 11,405 complaints or requests for information in 2001. Moles (12.4% of inquiries; 82.8% of agents), armadillo (10.1 % of inquiries; 77.6% of agents) and deer (9.6% of inquiries; 77.6% of agents) ranked highest in total number of inquiries or complaints. Results of this survey will direct efforts in landowner programming, future agent training, and research activities. I will compare this survey to previous agent surveys conducted in Georgia and other states

Wildlife Translocation

Many people enjoy wildlife. It enriches their lives in many ways. Nationwide, Americans spend over $144 billion annually on fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. However, wildlife is not always welcome in or near homes, buildings, or other property and can cause significant damage or health and safety issues (Figure 1). In one study, 42% of urban residents reported experiencing a wildlife problem during the previous year and more than half of them said their attempts to resolve the problem were unsuccessful. Many people who experience a wildlife conflict prefer to resolve the issue without harming the offending animal. Of the many options available (i.e., habitat modification, exclusion, repellents) for addressing nuisance wildlife problems, translocation— capturing and moving—of the offending animal is often perceived to be effective. However, trapping and translocating wild animals is rarely legal nor is it considered a viable solution by wildlife professionals for resolving most nuisance wildlife problems. Reasons to avoid translocating nuisance wildlife include legal restrictions, disease concerns, liability issues associated with injuries or damage caused by a translocated animal, stress to the animal, homing behavior, and risk of death to the animal. Hard release: A release method that simply turns a captured animal loose at a release site. The animal is not allowed to acclimate to the new environment and no additional resources, such as food, are provided. Homing: An animal’s ability to return to the location where it was originally captured following translocation. Reintroduction: Releasing captive bred animals into a wild population, especially with reference to threatened or endangered species. Also used by state fish and game agencies to describe management activities that restore a native species to its formerly occupied habitat or range. Relocation: To move an animal or family group from one location within its home range to another location within the same home range for the purpose of resolving a human-wildlife conflict. For example, a squirrel caught in an attic would be relocated to the backyard of the same home. Soft release: A release method that involves an animal being maintained in an enclosed area or pen at the release site for a period of acclimation before release. After the animal is released, it may be given additional assistance, such as food provisions at or near the release site. Translocation: The intentional capture and release of animals to the wild to establish, reestablish, or augment a population. Often synonymous with restock, augment, supplement, or reintroduction, especially from captive breeding efforts, but does not apply to nuisance wildlife or wildlife damage management situations

Response of Small Mammal Populations to Fescue Hayfield Conversion to Native Warm Season Grasses in Bath County, Virginia

I investigated the effect on small mammal populations of converting an existing fescue (Festuca arundinacea) hayfield to switchgrass (Panicium virgatum) on the George Washington National Forest at Hidden Valley in Bath County, Virginia. Native warm season grasses are thought to provide better habitat than fescue pastures for Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and several species of grassland birds as well as herbivorous small mammals. I established one live-trapping grid and conducted trapping (pre-treatment) in both the switchgrass (treatment) and the fescue (control) field in March and May 1997. The treatment field was sprayed with glyphosate herbicide (Roundup®) in June 1997, burned and seeded to switchgrass. Live trapping was conducted at approximately 60-day intervals during the growing season from March 1997 until October 1999. I caught significantly more individuals in the treatment field (n=349 individuals of 5 species) than in the control field (n=59 individuals of 4 species; X2 = 196.7, d.f. = 1, P\u3c 0.05). The overall capture index was 14.432 and 2.273 animals per 100 trap nights in the treatment and control fields, respectively. The treatment field had a significantly higher mean plant biomass weight ( =58.24 g/m2) than the control field ( =38.41 g/m2; t=4.323;

Evaluating the Georgia Master Naturalist Program

We evaluated the Georgia Master Naturalist Program using an online survey. Survey participation was voluntary, and the survey addressed areas such as satisfaction, volunteerism, and future training. The program received high scores from survey respondents. They appreciated training on native plants, environmental awareness, and ecological principles but were less interested in training on agriculture, recycling, and butterfly gardens. Most respondents (68%) did not volunteer relative to involvement in the program, and 32% did not want a volunteer requirement as part of the program. Obstacles to volunteering included lack of time and lack of nearby opportunities. A majority of respondents (54.9%) supported the idea of future advanced training opportunities

Wildlife Damage Management Class and Curriculum at the University of Georgia

The Warnell School of Forest Resources at the University of Georgia offers a course in wildlife damage management. The 3-credit hour course is taught at the undergraduate/graduate level. Enrollment is restricted to 10 students. The course is offered in spring semester every year and co-taught by a wildlife faculty member and the State Director of USDA - Wildlife Services (WS), who holds adjunct faculty status. The course consists of 2 hours of classroom lecture and a minimum of 3 hours laboratory time each week. Lectures cover basic principles of wildlife damage control. Lab time is devoted to field exercises related to wildlife damage management activities conducted by Wildlife Services. During spring semesters in 2002 and 2003 students participated in Canada goose and feral duck removal utilizing alph-chloralose, use of explosives for beaver damage control, deer collections at three residential communities, predator trapping and management, pigeon removal with rocket nets, double-crested cormorant collection and food habits analysis, interactive media training, an on-line discussion group with high school students regarding urban deer management, a visit to an aquaculture facility, and the presentation of three 30-minute lessons to a local elementary school science club. In this paper, we will discuss the course philosophy and course outline, review the wildlife curriculum at the University of Georgia, present some results of lab exercises and discuss the course evaluation

Ecological Principles—A Unifying Theme in Environmental Education

Using ecological principles to form the basis of a succinct list of general environmental education (EE) standards will bring unity and strength to EE. Environmental education literature supports the importance of understanding general ecological principles, and general ecological concepts are prevalent in both widely used and locally adapted EE programs. In addition, an understanding of general ecological principles is included in both NSES (National Science Education Standards) and NAAEE Guidelines for Excellence. This article presents an analysis of the frequency of ecological references in several EE programs and discusses the implications of general ecological principles as a common thread in EE

Attitudes of Students in a Wildlife Damage Management Class Towards Nuisance Wildlife Control

Students majoring in wildlife management at the University of Georgia have the option of enrolling in our Wildlife Damage Management course. Students participate in a variety of field activities associated with the laboratory portion of the class while also attending twice-weekly lectures on wildlife damage topics. Each spring at the beginning of the semester, students participate in a short survey to assess their opinions on various topics related to wildlife damage management. The same students participate in the same survey at the end of the semester. We have been collecting pre-and post-course data since 1994. Significantly more students agreed with a variety of coyote (Canis latrans) control activities in the post-class survey except when asked about paying farmers and ranchers for livestock losses. They disagreed with this practice and did not change their view. Students generally agreed with the practice of using poison to control selected species except eagles but there were fewer significant attitude shifts pre-and post-class. As expected, students scored high on knowledge questions related to coyotes. The statement that producers had the right to protect property saw a significant change in attitude (\u3e percentage agreed post-class)

Evaluation of Attractants for Live-Trapping Nine-Banded Armadillos

In the past 50 years, the range of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) in the south has been rapidly expanding. As their range expands, armadillos increasingly come into conflict with suburban landowners. When foraging, armadillos often uproot ornamental plants. Their rooting also destroys gardens, lawns, and flower beds. Their burrowing can damage tree roots and building foundations. Most armadillo damage is a result of their feeding habits. Armadillos dig shallow holes, 1- 3 inches deep and 3-5 inches long, as they search for soil invertebrates. A recent survey of Georgia county extension agents by scientists at the University of Georgia found that 77.6% of all agents reported receiving complaints or requests for information on armadillos. Armadillo related inquiries made up 10.1 % all inquiries for all agents across the state, surpassing even the white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Armadillos are often assumed to destroy nests of ground-nesting birds. Armadillo diets have been studied in several states including Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Florida. According to these studies, vertebrate matter, especially bird eggs, made up an minor portion of their diet. The armadillo’s diet often consists of more than 90% insects, grubs and earthworms. Based on these studies, it seems that claims of armadillos being significant nest predators are unfounded

Effectiveness of Milorganite® as a Repellent to Protect Ornamental and Agronomic Plants From Deer Over-Browsing

When deer populations become locally overabundant, browsing of ornamental and agronomic plants negatively affects plant establishment, survival, and productivity. Milorganite® is a slow-release, organic fertilizer produced from human sewage. We tested Milorganite® as a deer repellent on chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemums morifolium) in an urban/suburban environment, and soybeans (Gycine max) in a rural agriculture environment. Six beds of chrysanthemums at two sites were monitored for 28 to 35 days. Treatment plants received a top dressing of 104 grams of Milorganite® (1120.9 kg/ha). Milorganite® treated plants had more (P \u3c 0.001) terminal buds and achieved greater height (P \u3c 0.002) compared to controls at one site, however damage observed was similar at the second site. In a second experiment, 0.2-ha plots of soybeans (Glycine max) were planted on five rural properties in northeastern Georgia and monitored for ≥ 30 days. Treated areas received 269 kg/ha of Milorganite®. In 4 of 5 sites, Milorganite® delayed browsing on treated plants from 1 week to \u3e 5 weeks post-planting. Duration of the protection appeared to be related to the difference in deer density throughout most of the study areas. Results of this study indicate Milorganite® has potential use as a deer repellent

Wild Pig Hunting Outfitters in the Southeast

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are an invasive nonnative species brought to the United States in the 1500s by Spanish explorers. Because wild pigs are habitat generalists and in combination with high fecundity rates, translocation by humans, dispersal from shooting preserves, and movement through populations, wild pigs can be found in 42 of the 50 states. They are considered the most abundant free-ranging exotic ungulate in the United States. Because wild pigs are expanding throughout the United States each year, there are more opportunities for landowners/outfitters to sell wild pig hunts on their property. The southeast holds the largest continuous distribution of wild pigs is the US. Because of this distribution in the southeast, our objective was to quantify the number of outfitters offering wild pig hunts in the southeastern states and to contact outfitters to learn how effective their operations are in controlling wild pig populations. To determine the number of guided and non-guided wild pig hunting outfitters in 12 Southeastern states (Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and 2 northern states (Ohio and Pennsylvania), we conducted internet searches to locate contact information for advertised outfitters. Data collection included county and state in which they operate, hunters served, hunter success, outfitters fees, pig sightings and other information. Data on the number of wild pig hunting outfitters in the southeast will give us a better understanding as to how many outfitters offer wild pig hunting opportunities and information on their operation and possible impacts (biological and economic)