The Importance of Highlighting Wildlife Conservation Success in Urban Areas

Wildlife professionals in urban areas face many challenges balancing wildlife conservation and managing human–wildlife conflicts. The urban public is often more influenced by news and social media of wildlife than they are by firsthand experiences. The information they hear is typically about high-density urban species in conflict situations. Therefore, it is important to find ways to engage the public through these outlets about wildlife conservation. Recently, Cleveland Metroparks (Ohio, USA) highlighted the return of extirpated wildlife species through news and social media. This offered opportunities to capture media and public attention and share information about wildlife conservation, the value of wildlife, and the importance of natural areas

Evaluation of mirrors to deter nesting starlings

European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) nesting in buildings and other structures can cause health, nuisance, and safety problems. We evaluated effectiveness of flashing lights combined with mirrors, and mirrors alone, as deterrents for starlings nesting in starling nest boxes in northern Ohio, 1998-2000. Each year, 100 nest boxes attached to utility poles were randomly assigned equally among 4 treatments (including untreated boxes): 1998- mirrored (internally placed on the back and 2 side walls of nest boxes), mirrored with red-flashing lights, and mirrored with green-flashing lights; 1999-convex mirror above entrance hole, convex mirror at back of nest box, and flat mirror at back of nest box; 2000-mirrors on 3 sides with exposed surface areas of 263 cm2, 527 cm2, or 790 cm2. Starlings nested in 67% (1 998) and 78% (1 999 and 2000) of the nest boxes. In 1998, boxes within the 3 treatments with mirrors, regardless of lights, had fewer nests and fewer nests with eggs, nestlings, or fledglings than did control boxes (P50.002). Boxes with mirrors and lights had fewer (P\u3c0.05) nestlings than mirrored boxes. No difference was noted in number of fledglings/produced nest with nestlings for each treatment. In 1999 and 2000 there was no difference (P\u3e0.25) among the 4 treatments in proportion of nest boxes with starling nests, eggs, nestlings, and young fledged. However, in 2000, boxes with complete mirror coverage did show the lowest occupancy rate of the 4 treatments. Mean dates of first egg, clutch size, number of nestlings, and number of fledglings/nest also were similar (P\u3e 0.06) among treatments. We conclude that mirrors, although slightly repellent under some configurations, are not a practical method to repel starlings from nesting in structures

Managing Bird Populations at an Incompatible Land Use near an Airport: Dike 10B Confined Disposal Facility

Many airports throughout the world have been built on or adjacent to bodies of water. Due to their location, they are often negatively impacted by wildlife attracted to surrounding areas such as harbors, arenas, beaches, and parks. These same lakes and rivers often serve as shipping channels that support the city to which the airport services. Such is the case at Burke Lakefront Airport (BKL) in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1998, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed Dike 10B, a 64-acre confined disposal facility (CDF) adjacent to BKL to manage contaminated dredge materials removed from the shipping channels of the Cuyahoga River. The facility has become a protected body of water with nutrient-rich sediment and sometimes lush vegetation. Numerous waterfowl and shorebirds are drawn to the facility to loaf and feed. In April 2006, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services entered into a one year Interagency Agreement with the USACE to manage the wildlife in Dike 10B. Through interagency communication, altered project methodology, and an integrated wildlife damage management approach, bird populations using the CDF were reduced, thus promoting safer airspace for aviation operations at BKL

WiIdIife Translocation as a Management Alternative at Airports

Wildlife in urban settings may be a welcome sight for many, but negative interactions between people and various wild species are increasing (Conover et a!. 1995, Conover 2002). Wildlife populations are commonly managed in part to reduce these conflicts, particularly in high-risk areas such as roadways and airports (Conover 2002). However, the public often opposes lethal control or management methods perceived as causing harm to nuisance animals (Reiter et al. 1999, Conover 2002, Treves et al. 2006), and attitudes vary considerably depending on the particular wildlife species involved (Kretser et a!. 2009). Consequently, a variety of nonlethal management approaches are typically integrated with limited lethal control (Conover 2002). Translocation, the transport and release of wild animals from one location to another (Nielsen 1988), is an example of a fairly recent adaptation to wildlife damage management methods. Griffith et al. (1989) provided an overview of translocation as a general wildlife conservation method. Translocation has been demonstrated as an important technique for stocking game species and furbearers, reintroducing extirpated Species, and enhancing threatened or endangered spe~ cies. The black bear (Ursus americanus) is probably the carnivore most frequently translocated to re-establish extirpated populations (Smith and Clark 1994, Linnell et aI. 1997). Based on a survey of 81 wildlife agenCies and organizations (1973-1986), Griffith et aI. (1989) determined that 90% of all translocations were of native game species and were deemed successful 86% of the time. In contrast, translocations of threatened species were successful only 46% of the time

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Chapter 6 Wildlife Translocation as a Management Alternative at Airports

Wildlife in urban settings may be a welcome sight for many, but negative interactions between people and various wild species are increasing (Conover et al. 1995, Conover 2002). Wildlife populations are commonly managed in part to reduce these conflicts, particularly in high-risk areas such as roadways and airports (Conover 2002). However, the public often opposes lethal control or management methods perceived as causing harm to nuisance animals (Reiter et al. 1999, Conover 2002, Treves et al. 2006), and attitudes vary considerably depending on the particular wildlife species involved (Kretser et al. 2009). Consequently, a variety of nonlethal management approaches are typically integrated with limited lethal control (Conover 2002)

Managing Bird Populations at an Incompatible Land Use near an Airport: Dike 10B Confined Disposal Facility

Abstract: Many airports throughout the world have been built on or adjacent to bodies of water. Due to their location, they are often negatively impacted by wildlife attracted to surrounding areas such as harbors, arenas, beaches, and parks. These same lakes and rivers often serve as shipping channels that support the city to which the airport services. Such is the case at Burke Lakefront Airport (BKL) in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1998, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed Dike 10B, a 64-acre confined disposal facility (CDF) adjacent to BKL to manage contaminated dredge materials removed from the shipping channels of the Cuyahoga River. The facility has become a protected body of water with nutrient-rich sediment and sometimes lush vegetation. Numerous waterfowl and shorebirds are drawn to the facility to loaf and feed. In April 2006, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services entered into a one year Interagency Agreement with the USACE to manage the wildlife in Dike 10B. Through interagency communication, altered project methodology, and an integrated wildlife damage management approach, bird populations using the CDF were reduced, thus promoting safer airspace for aviation operations at BKL

Comparison of 2 Vegetation-Height Management Practices for Wildlife Control at Airports

Vegetation-height management is a potential method to reduce bird numbers at airports. Based on studies in Europe, researchers recommended vegetation heights around 25 cm; however, preliminary studies in the United States produced conflicting results regarding the effect of tall (18 to \u3e25 cm) vegetation on bird numbers at airports. From 1999 to 2002, we compared birds and other wildlife use of 4 short-vegetation plots (mean maximum height of 15.6 cm ± 5.1 SE and visual obstruction reading of 4.6 ± 3.0 cm) and 4 tall-vegetation plots (mean maximum height of 26.9 ± 8.4 cm and visual obstruction reading of 10.0 ± 5.0 cm) in Ohio. We surveyed bird use of the plots 2 to 3 times/week and observed 6,191 birds in short-vegetation plots and 5,962 birds in tall-vegetation plots. We detected no difference between short-vegetation and tall-vegetation plots in the probability of avian use of the plots when evaluated as a binary response of presence and absence. Small mammal capture rates in 100 adjusted trap nights were 0.0 in short-vegetation plots and 0.3 in tall-vegetation plots. We found no difference in the number of deer observed in the plots during sunset and spotlighting counts. There was slightly greater insect biomass in tall than in short-vegetation plots. Mowing negatively affected small mammal use. The generalization that tall vegetation (18 to \u3e25 cm) alone would reduce bird use of an airport is not supported by the results of this study. Further research on vegetation density, composition, palatability, and nutritional value is necessary to accommodate airfield requirements for habitat that is pleasing to the public and repellent to wildlife

Wildlife in Airport Environments: Appendix, Index and Back Cover

In 1990, the 190 member nations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted, in Annex 14 to the Convention on Civil International Aviation, three recommended management practices regarding bird hazards to aviation. The recommended practices required that aviation authorities within each nation (1) assess the extent of the hazard posed by birds at and in the vicinity of airports certificated for passenger traffic, (2) take necessary action to decrease the number of birds, and (3) eliminate or prevent the establishment of any site in the vicinity of the airport that could attract birds and thereby present a danger to aviation. Because of the increasing threat posed by birds to aviation worldwide, member states voted to make these recommendations mandatory ICAO standards, effective November 2003. In 2009, ICAO expanded these standards to include terrestrial wildlife such as large mammals and reptiles that pose a risk at airports (ICAO 2009)