House Mouse Damage to Insulation

House mice (Mus musculus) were introduced into 20, 4-inch thick insulated panels and provided unlimited food and water for six months. Mouse populations increased 3-to 4-fold inside the insulated panels. Aluminum foil vapor barriers were severely damaged by mice and in all cases, reduced to less than half of their original mass. All of the insulation materials tested (insulation board, fiberglass batt, rockwool, beadboard, and vermiculite) sustained significant levels of damage as measured by increased thermal conductance. Researchers have yet to discover an insulative material that is not susceptible to house mouse damage. Producers should use construction techniques that exclude house mice and other rodents from insulated walls. In addition, house mouse populations in and around buildings should be controlled to minimize economic damage

Educational Opportunities at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

University students, particularly those enrolled in natural resources programs, make up one of the smallest, yet potentially most important and influential audiences for wildlife damage professionals. Considering that these students will be tomorrow\u27s natural resources technicians, biologists, and administrators, I feel that it is critical that we provide them factual information about wildlife damage to increase their awareness of potential problems and solutions, and increase their ability to make well-informed decisions

DEER

Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are probably the most widely distributed and best-recognized large mammals in North America. Deer are even-toed ungulates of the family Cervidae. The white-tailed deer is found in every state in the United States except perhaps Alaska and Utah. Deer are creatures of the forest edge rather than the dense, old-growth forest. Browse (leaves, stems, and buds of woody plants) is generally available all year and is a staple food for deer. Breeding occurs from October to January depending on latitude. Deer damage a wide variety of row crops, forage crops, vegetables, fruit trees, nursery stock, and ornamentals, as well as stacked hay. Deer are protected year-round in all states and provinces, with the exception of legal harvest during appropriate big-game hunting seasons. Where deer are abundant or crops are particularly valuable, fencing may be the only way to effectively minimize deer damage

GOPHER: A Computerized Cost/Benefit Analysis of Pocket Gopher Control

GOPHER is a computer program that can assist landowners, extension agents, and resource personnel in determining the cost-effectiveness of various methods of pocket gopher control. The program is interactive and user-friendly. It allows for the input of variables, including: crop type, acreage, expected yield and value, and acreage infested. Material and labor costs can be assigned or standard default values can be used. Other fixed variables can be changed, including: pocket gopher density and rate of increase, rate of treatment, rate of retreatment, and forage recovery rate. With these variables and values, GOPHER generates the costs, time, and economic feasibility of pocket gopher control. Control methods include: hand baiting, hand probe, gopher probe, burrow builder, and trapping. It also provides estimates of costs for second treatments and pocket gopher expansion without control. Free copies of GOPHER are available from the authors by providing formatted 5 1/4 inch floppy disks or 3 1/2 inch disks

Deer Population Management Through Hunting in a Suburban Nature Area in Eastern Nebraska

The Fontenelle Forest Nature Area (FF) maintained a hands-off management policy for 30 years until it was recognized that white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations had grown to such levels that they were severely degrading native plant communities. In 1995, members of a community task force decided to sponsor annual nine-day hunting seasons on FF after learning that densities exceeded 28 deer/km2. Archers harvested 85 antlerless deer in the FF upland areas adjacent to residential Bellevue, Nebraska during 1996 to 1998. Muzzleloader hunters removed 53 antlerless deer from the FF lowland areas. Archery and muzzleloader hunters harvested 297 deer during the same period in Gifford Point (GP), a state-owned wildlife management area adjacent to the FF lowlands. Overall deer densities declined from 28 deer/km2 in 1995 to 14 deer/km in 1998. Densities were at or near over-winter goals in all areas by 1998, except for the unhunted residential area, which still maintained 20 deer/km. Annual survival rates for radio-marked adult and yearling female deer were 0.70 and 0.59, respectively. Archery was the primary mortality factor (20%) for radio-marked deer across years. Population models predict that densities would increase to 55 deer/km in five years if hunting seasons were abandoned in FF. Hunter behavior in FF has been reported as excellent and little public opposition exists

EFFECTS OF A VISUAL BARRIER FENCE ON THE BEHAVIOR AND MOVEMENTS OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS

Prairie dogs prefer an open view of their surroundings and may abandon an area with visual obstructions. We examined the effects of a visual barrier fence, which had a see-through visibility of 60%, on the foraging, vigilance, and aggressive behaviors of adult female black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in central Nebraska. We expected animals near a visual barrier to spend more time in vigilance and less time foraging. Adult female prairie dogs exposed to a visual barrier spent a greater amount of time foraging and less time in a headbob position than those not exposed to a fence (P = 0.087, P = 0.015). We also examined changes in prairie dog home ranges and use of an area in response to these visual barrier fences, expecting that prairie dogs would move away from fences over a 54-day period. If they invaded other territories, we expected to see more aggression on colonies with a fence. The size, shape, and location of home ranges and core activity areas of adult females did not change over time as a result of the presence of a visual barrier fence. We observed only 1 act of aggression during the study period. This apparent lack of aggression is likely due to the fidelity of study animals to established home ranges. The number of prairie dogs using areas at various distances from a visual barrier fence also did not change over this time (P \u3e 0.90). These results indicate that the visual barrier fence tested did not cause prairie dogs to be more vigilant and aggressive, nor did it affect their pre-established spatial use within the colony

Coyote Food Habits at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge, Nebraska

Coyote (Canis latrans) food habits were detennined from 490 scats collected from October 1994 to October 1995 at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR), along the Nebraska/Iowa border. Mammals occurred most frequently, as measured by percent-of-scats (POS) , followed by vegetation, birds, and invertebrates. Mammals also constituted the largest portion of coyote diet, as determined by fresh weight correction factors. Within the mammalian category, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) occurred most frequently and constituted the largest portion of diet by fresh weight correction factors. White-tailed deer occurrence and importance in diet peaked in June, which corresponds to the fawning period of white-tailed deer at DNWR. Mammals occurred in greater than 75 POS in all months except July and August, when mammals occurred in 38 and 30 POS, respectively. In July and August, vegetation in coyote scats, primarily mulberries (Morus spp.), was highest at 88 and 83 POS, respectively. Invertebrate occurrence peaked in May and in September. Bird occurrence peaked in December, which corresponded with the snow goose (Chen caerulescens) migration, and May, which corresponded with the nesting period for several species of ground nesting birds

Deer-Activated Bio-Acoustic Frightening Device Deters White-Tailed Deer

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) damage urban and suburban plantings as well as crops and stored feed. Public demand for non-lethal control methods is high. Several frightening devices are available for deer, but problems exist with most, including: ease of application, cost, acclimation by animals, and public acceptance. Frightening devices that have the greatest likelihood of being effective incorporate mechanisms triggered by animal activation or bioacoustic alarm or distress calls. We tested the efficacy of a frightening device that played pre-recorded distress calls of adult female white-tailed deer when activated by an infrared motion sensor. Potential benefits of the device are that deer are less likely to acclimate to animal-activated and infrequently projected calls and that distress calls may elicit a stronger and longer lasting response. We tested the product in DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR) in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa during late winter 2010. We established 3 treatment sites and 3 control sites, each being 0.004 ha and located \u3e0.6 km apart to reduce the likelihood of dependence among treatments and associated controls. At each treatment site, we deployed deeractivated bioacoustics devices and motion-activated cameras to record deer responses to the devices. We maintained 1 13-day pretreatment period (10 Mar– 22 Mar) and 1 13-day treatment period (23 Mar– 4 Apr) and recorded breaches and consumption of feed by deer. The deer-activated bio-acoustic frightening device reduced deer entry into protected sites by 99.3% (δ = -558.00, P = 0.089) and bait consumption by 100% (δ = -75.20, P = 0.064). Unfortunately, small sample size (n = 3) and a natural decline in motivation of deer to access bait due to spring green-up diminished the statistical significance of results. The deer-activated bioacoustics device was effective, deer did not acclimate to the device, and the device was not invasive. The frightening device we evaluated demonstrated potential for reducing damage in disturbed environments and agricultural settings. The device currently is being marked as DeerShield by BirdGuard (http://www.deershieldpro.com/). We thank Greg Clements, Scott Groepper, Greg Phillips, and Dave Baasch for assistance. We thank Tom Cox, Mindy Sheets, and the staff at DNWR for access and assistance. Funding was provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources

Impacts Of Field-Dwelling Rodents On Emerging Field Corn

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has produced nearly 600,000 ha of exceptional wildlife habitat in Nebraska. Unfortunately, several species of rodents that inhabit CRP grass fields cause damage to agricultural crops. The emergence of corn seedlings in a 4-row strip of no-till field corn, planted in a 64 ha bromegrass field in northeastern Nebraska was examined. The most common rodent species in the study area was the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), of which 18 were captured within 10 m of the planted strip during one evening (400 trap nights). Corn seedling emergence in unprotected control areas [x̅ = 19.2 plants/dekameter of row (dor)] appeared to be lower than in areas protected with welded wire exclosures (x̅ = 23.7 plants/dor). An in-furrow application of 2% zinc phosphide pellets (2.75 kg/ha) also contributed to an increase in emergence (x̅ = 21.9 plants/dor). Differences among the treatments, however, were not significant (P = 0.76). Additional research is needed to develop methods to reduce wildlife damage in crop fields that incorporate conservation tillage practices or are adjacent to or converted from CRP fields

Landowner Attitudes Toward Elk Management in the Pine Ridge Region of North-Western Nebraska

Little is known about attitudes of landowners toward elk (Cervus elaphus) on privately-owned land. We mailed questionnaires to agricultural landowners in the Pine Ridge region of northwestern Nebraska in both 1995 and 1997 to determine attitudes toward elk populations and management of elk. Fifty-six percent (n = 214) of respondents in 1995 and 57% (n = 461) in 1997 were in favor of free-ranging elk. Motivation for those in favor of elk was utilitarian (opportunity to view and hunt elk), ecological (return of a native species), and economic (benefits from increased tourism and leased land for elk hunting). Reasons for opposition to elk were largely economic (damage to crops, competition with livestock, transmission of diseases to livestock) and convenience (dealing with elk hunters). Attitudes toward free-ranging elk were not affected by year or presence of elk on landowners’ property. Attitudes were affected by region and experience with damage from elk. The mean reported cost of damage was $832 and$929 in 1995 and 1997, respectively, with 75 to 80% of landowners reporting damage as minor or tolerable. Respondents who reported damage felt that the population of elk was too high, while landowners who favored elk wanted the population to increase. Most landowners (54 to 63%) were in favor of elk-hunting seasons. Fifty-five percent of respondents in 1995 reported that they would allow elk hunting on their property, compared to 75% in 1997. Management recommendations that stem from this research may apply to landscapes east of the Rocky Mountains in areas that are largely privately-owned and have been recolonized by elk