Customers of Critter Control, Ins, offices were surveyed in 1990 and 1991 to examine their views and experience nuisance wildlife. Most of the survey respondents were having problems with raccoons (Procyon lotor), squirrels (Sciurus),  skunks (Mephitis mephitis), woodchucks  (Marmata monax), and moles (Talpidae). Approximately 25% of the respective attempted to control the nuisance situation themselves before contacting Critter Control. Most customers approved of the control of rats/mice (Muridae), moles, snakes, bats (Chiroptera), pigeons (Columba livia), and skunks. Most disapproves lethal control of deer (Odocoileus spp. ), geese (Branta canadensis), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), squirrels, and raccoons. E eight percent of the respondents described the humane treatment of nuisance animals as either  very  or  moderately  imI to them. The survey results are incorporated into a discussion of attitudes towards wildlife in nuisance situations, and how attitudes affect the control of such problems

Braband, Lynn A.

Clark, Kevin D.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 5 - Fifth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1991) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences February 1991 PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEY Lynn A. Braband Critter Control, Ins. Kevin D. Clark Critter Control, Ins. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc5  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Braband, Lynn A. and Clark, Kevin D., "PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEY" (1991). 5 - Fifth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1991). 8. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc5/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 5 - Fifth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1991) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFEDAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEYLYNN A, BRABAND, Critter Control, Ins., 47 Roslyn Street, Rochester, NY 14619KEVIN D. CLARK, Critter Control, Ins., 640 Starkweather, Plymouth, MI 48170Abstract. Customers of Critter Control, Ins, offices were surveyed in 1990 and 1991 to examine their views and experience nuisancewildlife. Most of the survey respondents were having problems with raccoons (Procyon lotor), squirrels (Sciurus skunks (Mephitismephitis), woodchucks (Marmata monax), and moles ('Talpidae). Approximately 25% of the respective attempted to control the nuisancesituation themselves before contacting Critter Control. Most customers approved of the control of rats/mice (Muridae), moles, snakes,bats (Chiroptera), pigeons (Columba livia), and skunks. Most disapproves lethal control of deer (Odocoileusspp.), geese (Brantacanadensis), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), squirrels, and raccoons. E eight percent of the respondents described the humane treatmentof nuisance animals as either "very" or "moderately" imI to them. The survey results are incorporated into a discussion of attitudestowards wildlife in nuisance situations, and hoW attitudes affect the control of such problems.Pros. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:34-37."You don't send it to heaven, do you? I don't want to send it toheaven. Everything has its time to go to heaven, and this isn't its time."These statements by a person who called us concerning a skunkproblem illustrates one of many attitudes toward wildlife. Thesea t t i t u d e s ,  w h i c h  a r e  f r e q u e n t l y  b a f f l i n g  t owildlifeprofessionals,providethesociologicalcontextwithin whichwildlife damage control, and wildlife management in general, mustoperate. In seeking to better define the subset of society that ourcompany, Critter Control, Ins. (CC) serves, we initiated customersurveys  in  1990.  The resul ts  of  these surveysmayprovidevaluableinformationformaintainingandimproving the qualityof our service.METHODSSurveys were conducted during April and May 1990, and July1991. Questionnaires (Appendices A and B) illicited responsesconcerning a customer's views and experiences with nuisance wildlife.The survey form was filled out by a CC technician who read thequestionnaire to the customer, or handed ii to the customer to be filledout at his/her convenience. Participation in the survey was voluntary(all CC offices were not required to participate). The sample obtained isnot statistically valid, so readers should cautiously interpret the results.However, major trends and concerns are apparent.RESULTSIn 1990, 250 questionnaires were completed (Appendix A). In1991,141 responses were received (Appendix B). Most (60.3%, n =391) of the respondents lived in suburban situations, while fewest(13.5%) lived in rural areas. The remainder (26.2%) were city residents.In the 1990 survey, most of the respondents had contacted CCabout either raccoons (31.6%) or squirrels (26.8 %) (Appendix A). Theproblem animals were more diverse in the 1991 survey, with raccoons(20.5%), skunks (15.5%), woodchucks (14.8%), and moles (11.2%)being the most common. Other species listed by respondents werebirds, mice, opossums(Didelphis marsupialis), snakes, bats, voles {Microtus ;muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), chipmunks (Tamias stripbees/wasps, rats, turtles (Chelydridae), domestic cats, gol(Geomyidae), and prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.).Thirty-two percent (n = 80) of the 250, 1990 surve;respondents were currently using a pest control service in scapacity. Another 22% (n = 55) had contracted such service in thepast. One hundred eighty-three respondents (73. approved oflimited pesticide use by professionals. On: individuals (3.6%)disapproved of any pesticide use.hundred-twenty (52%) of the customers indicated they we like tosee more natural or biological control methods. H ever, themajority of customers (76.4%, n = 191), person used pesticides(i.e., insecticides, rodenticides, and herbicideSixty-two (44.3%) of the 1991 survey respondents I 141)stated that humaneness (reduction of pain felt by animal) was"very important," and that they would be will to pay additionalcosts to insure a humane approach for con (Appendix B).Sixty-one individuals (43.6%) described maneness as "moderatelyimportant" (desirable but not will to pay additional costs).Seventeen people (12.1%) considered humaneness to be"unimportant" (having little impact on approach to solving theproblem).When the 1991 respondents were asked to selectpreferred options for handling a nuisance complaint, the ncommonly selected approaches were euthanasia of sick mall(24.5%, n = 35), relocation (24,5%, n = 35), lethal 1r(21.3%,n=30),androdentex te rmina t ion  (18 .9%,n=27) .1respondents picked live-trap then euthanize (6.9%, n =10)live-trap then release on-site (3.5%, n = 5).Combining both years, 24.8% (97 of 391 respondents)attempted to control the nuisance problems on their own becontacting CC. Of these, 26.3 % (n = 26) attempted too repelanimals, 25.8% (n = 25) tried to live-trap, 20.7% (n = 20) r34Most of our survey respondents (n = 391) approved of thelethal control of rats/mice (95.2%), moles (78.5%), snakes (74.3%),bats (71.2%), pigeons (59.9%), and skunks (56.5%). However, themajority of respondents disapproved of lethal control for deer(69.8%), geese (66.7%), woodpeckers (65.2%), and squirrels (59.0%).Respondents were equally divided on approval/disapproval of lethalcontrol for raccoons (55.1% disapproval), and woodchucks andopossum (52.2% disapproval).DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONSHumane treatment of the nuisance animals was important tonearly 90% of the 1991 respondents. Different people, however,tendtohavedifferentinterpretationsofwhatconstitutes humaneness. Forexample, many people equate humaneness with nonlethal control.Field technicians must be prepared to respond to individuals withawiderangeofvalues,and stronglyheld beliefs concerning animalwelfare. An approach that pleases one customer may anger the next.Communication and negotiating skills are equally, if not moreimportant, than technical expertise.Effective communication is vital at both field and organizationallevels, especially when making policy decisions. In April 1991, theMichigan Department of Natural Resources placed a permit restrictionon the relocation of wildlife trapped in the metropolitan Detroit area.The restriction called for mandatory euthanasia of all nuisance speciestrapped. However, strong public opposition and an appeal to theMichigan Natural Resources Commission, resulted in a compromisewhereby only sick and/or diseased animals will be destroyed. While thestate had legitimate concerns about the possible spread of diseasecaused by relocating animals, they underestimated the public's reactionto mandatory euthanasia. There has been no opposition to theeuthanasia of sick and diseased animals.CONCLUSION 'The CC customer surveys can be viewed as a pilot project.Methodology must be refined and expanded to provide morestatistically reliable information and feedback on our company'seffectiveness in nuisance wildlife problem-solving. Becauseenvironmental sensitivity is at an all time high, the information mayalso be useful to government agencies involved in policymakingdecisions.4. Do you object to the extermination of rodents (mice, rats, etc.)?4.8% - Yes.95.2% - No.5. What animal did you call Critter Control about?31.6% - raccoon 6.8% - mice2.4% - snake 8.4% - bird6.0% - skunk 2.8% - opossum2.0% - bat 26.8% - squirrel5.6% - mole 7.6% - other (voles,groundhogs, muskrats,chipmunks)6. Did you attempt control of this problem on your own?20.0% - Yes.80.0% - No.If yes, what method did you attempt?6.4% - repel4.8% - live-trap4.8% - poison2.8% - kill-trapAppendix A. 1990 Critter Control customer questionnaire and1990 sum-wary statistics (°k), (n = 250).1. Do you use a pest control service?32.8% - Yes.22.0% - Not now (used to).45.2% - Never have had 1'C service.2. What is your attiude towards pesticides? (Check all that apply.)3.6% - Don't approve of any pesticide use.73.2% - Approve of limited use by professionals.20.0% - Approve of more regulations in agriculturepesticide use.17.6% - Approve of more regulations in pest controloperator pesticide use.52.0% - Would like to see more natural or "biological"control methods.3. Do you use any over the counter pesticides (insect sprays, rodentbaits, garden dusts)?76.4% - Yes.23.6% - No.poisons, and 16.4% (n = 16) attempted lethal traps. Based on the1991 survey, only 16.7% (24 of 141 respondents) tried to exclude theproblem animal.WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL • Braband and Clark 3536 WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL - Braband and ClarkAppendix B. Critter Control customer survey questionnaire and 1991 summary statistics (%) (n =141).1. What animal did you call Critter Control about?Animal Overall _QX Suburb RAULSquirrels 7.0 2.7 9.4 5.3Bats 9.1 16.2 5.9 10.5Moles 11.2 8.1 11.8 15.7Raccoons 20.5 16.2 24.7 10.5Skunks 15.5 10.8 16.5 21.1Birds 4.8 10.8 2.3 5.3Woodchucks 14.8 16.2 14.1 15.7Opossum 2.0 2.7 1.2 5.3Mice/Rats 3.4 8.1 2.4 0.0Snakes 2.7 0.0 4.8 0.0Bee/Wasp/Hornet 4.8 2.7 5.9 5.32. Did you attempt control of the problem on your own?Yes/No Overall Suburb R101Yes 33.3 55.5 24.7 26.3No 66.7 44.5 72.9 73.7If yes, what method did you use?Method Overall Chi Suburb RuralLive-Trap 26.7 18.2 33.3 16.7Repellent 13.3 13.6 15.2 0.0Poison 13.3 18.2 12.1 0.0Exclusion 16.7 18.2 9.1 49.9Kill-Trap 16.7 13.6 18.2 16.73. How frequently do you have nuisanceldamage problems with wild animals?Fry Frequency ncv Overall "y Suburb RuralOften 15.2 25.7 10.6 15.8Occassionally 45.6 42.9 44.7 52.6First Time 39.2 31.4 43.5 31.64. In general, do you approve or disapprove of lethal control of the following animals when they are damaging property or posina risk to human health and safety?Overall Suburb Rural.Animal (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove)Deer 30.2 - 69.8 32.4 - 67.6 26.5 - 73.5 42.1- 57.9Geese, 33.3 -66.7 33.3 - 66.7 33.7 -66.3 31.6 - 68.4Snakes 74.3 - 25.7 67.6 - 32.4 72.6 - 27.4 68.4 - 31.6Moles 78.5 - 21.5 81.1 - 18.9 78.6 - 21.4 78.9 - 21.1Pigeons 59.9 - 40.1 68.6 - 31.4 56.0 - 44.0 63.2 - 36.8Raccoons 44.9 - 55.1 52.8 - 47.2 40.5 - 59.5 47.4 - 52.6Bats 71.2 - 28.8 73.9 - 27.0 72.3 - 27.7 63.2 - 36.8Squirrels 42.0 - 58.0 44.4 - 55.6 37.8 - 62.2 55.0 - 45.0Woodchucks 47.8 - 52.2 48.6 - 51.5 46.0 -54.0 52.6 - 47.4Woodpeckers 34.8 - 65.2 38.9 - 61.1 30.1 - 69.9 47.4 - 52.6Opossum 47.1 - 52.9 50.0 - 50.0 46.4 - 53.6 47.4 - 52.6Skunks 56.5 - 43.5 56.8 - 43.2 54.9 - 45.1 63.2 - 36.8WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL • Braband and Clark 37S. What should be the role of humaneness (reduction of pain felt by the animal) in solving a wild animal problem?Very orv tant - I would pay additional costs to insure humane treatment. Should control the approach to solving the problem.Overall - 44.3 City - 42.1 Suburb - 42.2 Rural - 44.4Moderately                  orv taut - humane treatment is a priority, but I would not be willing to pay additional costs.Overall - 43.6 City 39.5 Suburb - 42.9 Rural - 55.6unimportant rQO rant - I would prefer the most cost effective alternative regardless of the impact on nuisance wild animals. Lowpriority, having little impact on the approach to solving the problem.Overall - 12.1 City - 18.4 Suburb - 12.0 Rural - 0.06. Property Location.City - 26.2% Suburb - 60.3% Rural -13.5%7. Which of the following options) would you prefer in the disposition of a nuisance wildlife complaint? (Check allthat apply.)Lethal ControlLethal capture when appropriate (i.e., safety or health hazard)Overall - 21.3 City - 23.2 Suburb - 20.0 Rural - 22.8Euthanasia of sick animals (to limit the spread of disease)Overall - 24.5 City - 25.0 Suburb - 25.2 Rural - 21.5Use of poisons and kill-traps (i.e. on rodents)Overall - 18.9 City - 17.9 Suburb - 18.1 Rural - 22.8Live-TTCIUUlnYLive trap and relocateOverall - 24.9 City - 25.0 Suburb - 26.0 Rural - 21.5Live trap and release on siteOverall - 3.5 City - 2.7 Suburb - 3.7 Rural - 3.8Live trap then euthanizeOverall - 6.9 City - 6.2 Suburb - 7.0 Rural - 7.6

PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM\u27S CUSTOMER SURVEY

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
5 - Fifth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control 
Conference (1991) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences 
February 1991 
PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF 
A WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEY 
Lynn A. Braband 
Critter Control, Ins. 
Kevin D. Clark 
Critter Control, Ins. 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc5 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Braband, Lynn A. and Clark, Kevin D., "PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A 
WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEY" (1991). 5 - Fifth Eastern Wildlife Damage 
Control Conference (1991). 8. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc5/8 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 5 - Fifth Eastern Wildlife 
Damage Control Conference (1991) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - 
Lincoln. 
PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFE
DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEY
LYNN A, BRABAND, Critter Control, Ins., 47 Roslyn Street, Rochester, NY 14619
KEVIN D. CLARK, Critter Control, Ins., 640 Starkweather, Plymouth, MI 48170
Abstract. Customers of Critter Control, Ins, offices were surveyed in 1990 and 1991 to examine their views and experience nuisance
wildlife. Most of the survey respondents were having problems with raccoons (Procyon lotor), squirrels (Sciurus skunks (Mephitis
mephitis), woodchucks (Marmata monax), and moles ('Talpidae). Approximately 25% of the respective attempted to control the nuisance
situation themselves before contacting Critter Control. Most customers approved of the control of rats/mice (Muridae), moles, snakes,
bats (Chiroptera), pigeons (Columba livia), and skunks. Most disapproves lethal control of deer (Odocoileusspp.), geese (Branta
canadensis), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), squirrels, and raccoons. E eight percent of the respondents described the humane treatment
of nuisance animals as either "very" or "moderately" imI to them. The survey results are incorporated into a discussion of attitudes
towards wildlife in nuisance situations, and hoW attitudes affect the control of such problems.
Pros. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:34-37.
"You don't send it to heaven, do you? I don't want to send it to
heaven. Everything has its time to go to heaven, and this isn't its time."
These statements by a person who called us concerning a skunk
problem illustrates one of many attitudes toward wildlife. These
a t t i t u d e s ,  w h i c h  a r e  f r e q u e n t l y  b a f f l i n g  t o
wildlifeprofessionals,providethesociologicalcontextwithin which
wildlife damage control, and wildlife management in general, must
operate. In seeking to better define the subset of society that our
company, Critter Control, Ins. (CC) serves, we initiated customer
surveys  in  1990.  The resul ts  of  these surveys
mayprovidevaluableinformationformaintainingandimproving the quality
of our service.
METHODS
Surveys were conducted during April and May 1990, and July
1991. Questionnaires (Appendices A and B) illicited responses
concerning a customer's views and experiences with nuisance wildlife.
The survey form was filled out by a CC technician who read the
questionnaire to the customer, or handed ii to the customer to be filled
out at his/her convenience. Participation in the survey was voluntary
(all CC offices were not required to participate). The sample obtained is
not statistically valid, so readers should cautiously interpret the results.
However, major trends and concerns are apparent.
RESULTS
In 1990, 250 questionnaires were completed (Appendix A). In
1991,141 responses were received (Appendix B). Most (60.3%, n =
391) of the respondents lived in suburban situations, while fewest
(13.5%) lived in rural areas. The remainder (26.2%) were city residents.
In the 1990 survey, most of the respondents had contacted CC
about either raccoons (31.6%) or squirrels (26.8 %) (Appendix A). The
problem animals were more diverse in the 1991 survey, with raccoons
(20.5%), skunks (15.5%), woodchucks (14.8%), and moles (11.2%)
being the most common. Other species listed by respondents were
birds, mice, opossums
(Didelphis marsupialis), snakes, bats, voles {Microtus ;
muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), chipmunks (Tamias strip
bees/wasps, rats, turtles (Chelydridae), domestic cats, gol
(Geomyidae), and prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.).
Thirty-two percent (n = 80) of the 250, 1990 surve;
respondents were currently using a pest control service in s
capacity. Another 22% (n = 55) had contracted such service in the
past. One hundred eighty-three respondents (73. approved of
limited pesticide use by professionals. On: individuals (3.6%)
disapproved of any pesticide use.
hundred-twenty (52%) of the customers indicated they we like to
see more natural or biological control methods. H ever, the
majority of customers (76.4%, n = 191), person used pesticides
(i.e., insecticides, rodenticides, and herbicide
Sixty-two (44.3%) of the 1991 survey respondents I 141)
stated that humaneness (reduction of pain felt by animal) was
"very important," and that they would be will to pay additional
costs to insure a humane approach for con (Appendix B).
Sixty-one individuals (43.6%) described maneness as "moderately
important" (desirable but not will to pay additional costs).
Seventeen people (12.1%) considered humaneness to be
"unimportant" (having little impact on approach to solving the
problem).
When the 1991 respondents were asked to select
preferred options for handling a nuisance complaint, the n
commonly selected approaches were euthanasia of sick mall
(24.5%, n = 35), relocation (24,5%, n = 35), lethal 1r
(21.3%,n=30),androdentex te rmina t ion  (18 .9%,n=27) .1
respondents picked live-trap then euthanize (6.9%, n =10)
live-trap then release on-site (3.5%, n = 5).
Combining both years, 24.8% (97 of 391 respondents)
attempted to control the nuisance problems on their own be
contacting CC. Of these, 26.3 % (n = 26) attempted too repel
animals, 25.8% (n = 25) tried to live-trap, 20.7% (n = 20) r
34
Most of our survey respondents (n = 391) approved of the
lethal control of rats/mice (95.2%), moles (78.5%), snakes (74.3%),
bats (71.2%), pigeons (59.9%), and skunks (56.5%). However, the
majority of respondents disapproved of lethal control for deer
(69.8%), geese (66.7%), woodpeckers (65.2%), and squirrels (59.0%).
Respondents were equally divided on approval/disapproval of lethal
control for raccoons (55.1% disapproval), and woodchucks and
opossum (52.2% disapproval).
DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Humane treatment of the nuisance animals was important to
nearly 90% of the 1991 respondents. Different people, however,
tendtohavedifferentinterpretationsofwhatconstitutes humaneness. For
example, many people equate humaneness with nonlethal control.
Field technicians must be prepared to respond to individuals with
awiderangeofvalues,and stronglyheld beliefs concerning animal
welfare. An approach that pleases one customer may anger the next.
Communication and negotiating skills are equally, if not more
important, than technical expertise.
Effective communication is vital at both field and organizational
levels, especially when making policy decisions. In April 1991, the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources placed a permit restriction
on the relocation of wildlife trapped in the metropolitan Detroit area.
The restriction called for mandatory euthanasia of all nuisance species
trapped. However, strong public opposition and an appeal to the
Michigan Natural Resources Commission, resulted in a compromise
whereby only sick and/or diseased animals will be destroyed. While the
state had legitimate concerns about the possible spread of disease
caused by relocating animals, they underestimated the public's reaction
to mandatory euthanasia. There has been no opposition to the
euthanasia of sick and diseased animals.
CONCLUSION '
The CC customer surveys can be viewed as a pilot project.
Methodology must be refined and expanded to provide more
statistically reliable information and feedback on our company's
effectiveness in nuisance wildlife problem-solving. Because
environmental sensitivity is at an all time high, the information may
also be useful to government agencies involved in policymaking
decisions.
4. Do you object to the extermination of rodents (mice, rats, etc.)?
4.8% - Yes.
95.2% - No.
5. What animal did you call Critter Control about?
31.6% - raccoon 6.8% - mice
2.4% - snake 8.4% - bird
6.0% - skunk 2.8% - opossum
2.0% - bat 26.8% - squirrel
5.6% - mole 7.6% - other (voles,
groundhogs, muskrats,
chipmunks)
6. Did you attempt control of this problem on your own?
20.0% - Yes.
80.0% - No.
If yes, what method did you attempt?
6.4% - repel
4.8% - live-trap
4.8% - poison
2.8% - kill-trap
Appendix A. 1990 Critter Control customer questionnaire and
1990 sum-wary statistics (°k), (n = 250).
1. Do you use a pest control service?
32.8% - Yes.
22.0% - Not now (used to).
45.2% - Never have had 1'C service.
2. What is your attiude towards pesticides? (Check all that apply.)
3.6% - Don't approve of any pesticide use.
73.2% - Approve of limited use by professionals.
20.0% - Approve of more regulations in agriculture
pesticide use.
17.6% - Approve of more regulations in pest control
operator pesticide use.
52.0% - Would like to see more natural or "biological"
control methods.
3. Do you use any over the counter pesticides (insect sprays, rodent
baits, garden dusts)?
76.4% - Yes.
23.6% - No.
poisons, and 16.4% (n = 16) attempted lethal traps. Based on the
1991 survey, only 16.7% (24 of 141 respondents) tried to exclude the
problem animal.
WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL • Braband and Clark 35
36 WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL - Braband and Clark
Appendix B. Critter Control customer survey questionnaire and 1991 summary statistics (%) (n =141).
1. What animal did you call Critter Control about?
Animal Overall _QX Suburb RAUL
Squirrels 7.0 2.7 9.4 5.3
Bats 9.1 16.2 5.9 10.5
Moles 11.2 8.1 11.8 15.7
Raccoons 20.5 16.2 24.7 10.5
Skunks 15.5 10.8 16.5 21.1
Birds 4.8 10.8 2.3 5.3
Woodchucks 14.8 16.2 14.1 15.7
Opossum 2.0 2.7 1.2 5.3
Mice/Rats 3.4 8.1 2.4 0.0
Snakes 2.7 0.0 4.8 0.0
Bee/Wasp/Hornet 4.8 2.7 5.9 5.3
2. Did you attempt control of the problem on your own?
Yes/No Overall Suburb R101
Yes 33.3 55.5 24.7 26.3
No 66.7 44.5 72.9 73.7
If yes, what method did you use?
Method Overall Chi Suburb Rural
Live-Trap 26.7 18.2 33.3 16.7
Repellent 13.3 13.6 15.2 0.0
Poison 13.3 18.2 12.1 0.0
Exclusion 16.7 18.2 9.1 49.9
Kill-Trap 16.7 13.6 18.2 16.7
3. How frequently do you have nuisanceldamage problems with wild animals?
Fry Frequency ncv Overall "y Suburb Rural
Often 15.2 25.7 10.6 15.8
Occassionally 45.6 42.9 44.7 52.6
First Time 39.2 31.4 43.5 31.6
4. In general, do you approve or disapprove of lethal control of the following animals when they are damaging property or posin
a risk to human health and safety?
Overall Suburb Rural.
Animal (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove)
Deer 30.2 - 69.8 32.4 - 67.6 26.5 - 73.5 42.1- 57.9
Geese, 33.3 -66.7 33.3 - 66.7 33.7 -66.3 31.6 - 68.4
Snakes 74.3 - 25.7 67.6 - 32.4 72.6 - 27.4 68.4 - 31.6
Moles 78.5 - 21.5 81.1 - 18.9 78.6 - 21.4 78.9 - 21.1
Pigeons 59.9 - 40.1 68.6 - 31.4 56.0 - 44.0 63.2 - 36.8
Raccoons 44.9 - 55.1 52.8 - 47.2 40.5 - 59.5 47.4 - 52.6
Bats 71.2 - 28.8 73.9 - 27.0 72.3 - 27.7 63.2 - 36.8
Squirrels 42.0 - 58.0 44.4 - 55.6 37.8 - 62.2 55.0 - 45.0
Woodchucks 47.8 - 52.2 48.6 - 51.5 46.0 -54.0 52.6 - 47.4
Woodpeckers 34.8 - 65.2 38.9 - 61.1 30.1 - 69.9 47.4 - 52.6
Opossum 47.1 - 52.9 50.0 - 50.0 46.4 - 53.6 47.4 - 52.6
Skunks 56.5 - 43.5 56.8 - 43.2 54.9 - 45.1 63.2 - 36.8
WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL • Braband and Clark 37
S. What should be the role of humaneness (reduction of pain felt by the animal) in solving a wild animal problem?
Very orv tant - I would pay additional costs to insure humane treatment. Should control the approach to solving the problem.
Overall - 44.3 City - 42.1 Suburb - 42.2 Rural - 44.4
Moderately                  orv taut - humane treatment is a priority, but I would not be willing to pay additional costs.
Overall - 43.6 City 39.5 Suburb - 42.9 Rural - 55.6
unimportant rQO rant - I would prefer the most cost effective alternative regardless of the impact on nuisance wild animals. Low
priority, having little impact on the approach to solving the problem.
Overall - 12.1 City - 18.4 Suburb - 12.0 Rural - 0.0
6. Property Location.
City - 26.2% Suburb - 60.3% Rural -13.5%
7. Which of the following options) would you prefer in the disposition of a nuisance wildlife complaint? (Check all
that apply.)
Lethal Control
Lethal capture when appropriate (i.e., safety or health hazard)
Overall - 21.3 City - 23.2 Suburb - 20.0 Rural - 22.8
Euthanasia of sick animals (to limit the spread of disease)
Overall - 24.5 City - 25.0 Suburb - 25.2 Rural - 21.5
Use of poisons and kill-traps (i.e. on rodents)
Overall - 18.9 City - 17.9 Suburb - 18.1 Rural - 22.8
Live-TTCIUUlnY
Live trap and relocate
Overall - 24.9 City - 25.0 Suburb - 26.0 Rural - 21.5
Live trap and release on site
Overall - 3.5 City - 2.7 Suburb - 3.7 Rural - 3.8
Live trap then euthanize
Overall - 6.9 City - 6.2 Suburb - 7.0 Rural - 7.6


Customers of Critter Control, Inc. offices were surveyed in 1990 and 1991 to examine their views and experiences with nuisance wildlife. Most of the survey respondents were having problems with raccoons (Procyon lotor), squirrels (Sciurus spp.), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), woodchucks (Marmata monax), and moles (Talpidae). Approximately 25% of the respondents attempted to control the nuisance situation themselves before contacting Critter Control. Most customers approved of the lethal control of rats/mice (Muridae), moles, snakes, bats (Chiroptera), pigeons (Columba livia), and skunks. Most disapproved of the lethal control of deer (Odocoileus spp.), geese (Branta canadensis), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), squirrels, and raccoons. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents described the humane treatment of nuisance animals as either  very  or  moderately  important to them. The survey results are incorporated into a discussion of attitudes towards wildlife in nuisance situations, and how these attitudes affect the control of such problems

DigitalCommons@USU

PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM'S CUSTOMER SURVEY LYNN A. BRABAND, Critter Control, Inc.,47 Roslyn Street, Rochester, NY 14619 KEVIN D. CLARK, Critter Control, Inc., 640 Starkweather, Plymouth, MI 48170 Abstract: Customers of Critter Control, Inc. offices were surveyed in 1990 and 1991 to examine their views and experiences with nuisance wildlife. Most of the survey respondents were having problems with raccoons (Procyon lo tor), squirrels (Sciurus spp.), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), woodchucks (Marmata monax), and moles (Talpidae). Approximately 25% of the respondents attempted to control the nuisance situation themselves before contacting Critter Control. Most customers approved of the lethal control of rats/mice (Muridae), moles, snakes, bats (Chiroptera), pigeons (Columba livia), and skunks. Most disapproved of the lethal control of deer ( Odocoileusspp.). geese (Branta canadensis), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), squirrels, and raccoons. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents described the humane treattnent of nuisance animals as either "very" or "moderately" important to them. The survey results are incorporated into a discussion of attitudes towards wildlife in nuisance situations, and how these attitudes affect the control of such problems. "You don't send it to heaven, do you? I don't want to send it to heaven. Everything has its time to go to heaven, and this isn't its time." These statements by a person who called us concerning a skunk problem illustrates one of many attitudes toward wildlife. These attitudes, which are frequently baffling to wildlife professionals, provide the sociological context within which wildlife damage control, and wildlife management in general, must operate. In seeking to better define the subset of society that our company, Critter Control, Inc. (CC) serves, we initiated customer surveys in 1990. The results of these surveys may provide valuable information for maintaining and improving the quality of our service. METHODS Surveys were conducted during April and May 1990, and July 1991. Questionnaires (Appendices A and B) illicited responses concerning a customer's views and experiences with nuisance wildlife. The survey form was filled out by a CC technician who read the questionnaire to the customer, or handed it to the customer to be filled out at his/her convenience. Participation in the survey was voluntary (all CC offices were not required to participate). The sample obtained is not sta-tistically valid, so readers should cautiously interpret the results. However, major trends and concerns are apparent RESULTS In 1990, 250 questionnaires were completed (Appendix A). In 1991, 141responseswerereceived(Appendix B). Most (60.3%, n = 391) of the respondents lived in suburban situa-tions, while fewest (13.5%) lived in rural areas. The remainder (26.2%) were city residents. In the 1990 survey, most of the respondents had contacted CC abouteitherraccoons (31.6%) or squirrels (26.8%) (Appen-dix A). The problem animals were more diverse in the 1991 survey, with raccoons (20.5%), skunks (15.5%), woodchucks (14.8%), and moles (11.2%) being the most common. Other species listed by respondents were birds, mice, opossums 34 Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:34-37. 1992. (Didelphis marsupialis), snakes, bats, voles (Microtus spp.), muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), chipmunks (Tamias striatus), bees/wasps, rats, turtles (Chelydridae), domestic cats, gophers (Geomyidae), and prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.). Thirty-two percent (n = 80) of the 250, 1990 survey re-spondents were currently using a pest control service in some capacity. Another 22% (n = 55) had contracted such services in the past. One hundred eighty-three respondents (73.2%) approved of limited pesticide use by professionals. Only 9 individuals (3.6%) disapproved of any pesticide use. One hundred-twenty (52%) of the customers indicated they would like to see more natural or biological control methods. How-ever, the majority of customers (76.4%, n = 191), personally used pesticides (i.e., insecticides, rodenticides, and herbicides). Sixty-two (44.3%) of the 1991 survey respondents (n = 141) stated that humaneness (reduction of pain felt by the animal) was "very important," and that they would be willing to pay additional costs to insure a humane approach for control (Appendix B). Sixty-one individuals (43.6%) described hu-maneness as "moderately important" (desirable but not willing to pay additional costs). Seventeen people ( 12.1 % ) considered humaneness to be "unimportant" (having little impact on the approach to solving the problem). When the 1991 respondents were asked to select the preferred options for handling a nuisance complaint, the most commonly selected approaches were euthanasia of sick ani-mals (24.5%, n = 35), relocation (24.5%, n = 35), lethal traps (21.3%,n=30),androdentextermination (18.9%,n=27). Few respondents picked live-trap then euthanize (6.9%, n = 10) and live-trap then release on-site (3.5%, n = 5). Combining both years, 24.8% (97 of391 respondents) had attempted to control the nuisance problems on their own before contacting CC. Of these, 26.3 % (n = 26) attempted to repel the animals, 25.8% (n = 25) tried to live-trap, 20.7% (n = 20) used WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL • Braband and Clark 35 poisons, and 16.4% (n = 16) attempted lethal traps. Based on the 1991 survey, only 16.7% (24 of 141 respondents) tried to exclude the problem animal. Most of our survey respondents (n = 391) approved of the lethal control of rats/mice (95.2%), moles (78.5%), snakes (74.3%), bats (71.2%), pigeons (59.9%), and skunks (56.5%). However, the majority of respondents disapproved of lethal controlfordeer(69.8%),geese(66.7%),woodpeckers(65.2%), and squirrels (59.0%). Respondents were equally divided on approval/disapproval of lethal control for raccoons (55.1 % disapproval), and woodchucks and opossum (52.2% disap-proval). DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Humane treatment of the nuisance animals was important to nearly 90% of the 1991 respondents. Different people, however, tend to have different interpretations of what constitutes humaneness. For example, many people equate humaneness with nonlethal control. Field technicians must be prepared to respond to individuals with a wide range of values, and strongly-held beliefs concerning animal welfare. An approach that pleases one customer may anger the next. Communication and negotiating skills are equally, if not more important, than technical expertise. Effective communication is vital at both field and organi-zational levels, especially when making policy decisions. In April 1991, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources placed a permit restriction on the relocation of wildlife trapped in the metropolitan Detroit area. The restriction called for mandatory euthanasia of all nuisance species trapped. How-ever, strong public opposition and an appeal to the Michigan Natural Resources Commission, resulted in a compromise whereby only sick and/or diseased animals will be destroyed. While the state had legitimate concerns about the possible spread of disease caused by relocating animals, they underes-timated the public's reaction to mandatory euthanasia. There has been no opposition to the euthanasia of sick and diseased animals. CONCLUSION The CC customer surveys can be viewed as a pilot project. Methodology must be refined and expanded to provide more statistically reliable information and feedback on our company's effectiveness in nuisance wildlife problem-solving. Because environmental sensitivity is atan all time high, the information may also be useful to government agencies involved in policy-making decisions. Appendix A. 1990 Critter Control customer question-naire and 1990 sum-mary statistics(%), (n = 250). 1. Do you use a pest control service? 32.8% - Yes. 22.0% - Not now (used to). 45.2% - Never have had PC service. 2. What is your attiude towards pesticides? (Check all that apply.) 3.6% - Don't approve of any pesticide use. 73.2% - Approve of limited use by professionals. 20.0% - Approve of more regulations in agriculture pesticide use. 17 .6% - Approve of more regulations in pest control operator pesticide use. 52.0% - Would like to see more natural or "biologi-cal" control methods. 3. Do you use any over the counter pesticides (insect sprays, rodent baits, garden dusts)? 76.4% - Yes. 23.6%-No. 4. Do you object to the extermination of rodents (mice, rats, etc.)? 4.8%- Yes. 95.2%-No. 5. What animal did you call Critter Control about? 31.6% - raccoon 6.8% - mice 2.4% - snake 8.4% - bird 6.0% - skunk 2.8% - opossum 2.0% - bat 26.8% - squirrel 5.6% - mole 7.6% - other (voles, groundhogs, muskrats, chipmunks) 6. Did you attempt control of this problem on your own? 20.0% - Yes. 80.0%-No. If yes, what method did you attempt? 6.4% - repel 4.8% - live-trap 4.8% - poison 2.8% - kill-trap 36 Wil..DLIFE NUISANCE CONfROL • Braband and Clark Appendix B. Critter Control customer survey questionnaire and 1991 summary statistics(%) (n = 141). 1. What animal did you call Critter Control about? Allinml ~ City s.ubw:h Rw:al Squirrels 7.0 2.7 9.4 5.3 Bats 9.1 16.2 5.9 10.5 Moles 11.2 8.1 11.8 15.7 Raccoons 20.5 16.2 24.7 10.5 Skunks 15.5 10.8 16.5 21.1 Birds 4.8 10.8 2.3 5.3 Woodchucks 14.8 16.2 14.1 15.7 Opossum 2.0 2.7 1.2 5.3 Mice/Rats 3.4 8.1 2.4 0.0 Snakes 2.7 0.0 4.8 0.0 Bee/Wasp/Hornet 4.8 2.7 5.9 5.3 2. Did you attempt control of the problem on your own? Yes/No Qyemll Qly .s..wmd2 Rw:al Yes 33.3 55.5 24.7 26.3 No 66.7 44.5 72.9 73.7 If yes, what method did you use? Method Qyemll Qly .s..wmd2 .R!.lm! Live-Trap 26.7 18.2 33.3 16.7 Repellent 13.3 13.6 15.2 0.0 Poison 13.3 18.2 12.1 0.0 Exclusion 16.7 18.2 9.1 49.9 Kill-Trap 16.7 13.6 18.2 16.7 3. How frequently do you have nuisance/damage problems with wild animals? Frequency ~ Qly .s..wmd2 Rw:al Often 15.2 25.7 10.6 15.8 Occassionally 45.6 42.9 44.7 52.6 First Time 39.2 31.4 43.5 31.6 4. In general, do you approve or disapprove of lethal control of the following animals when they are damaging property or posing a risk to human health and safety? ~ City .s.uhw:12 Rlmll Ani.!na! (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) (Approve/Disapprove) Deer 30.2 - 69.8 32.4 - 67.6 26.5 - 73.5 42.1- 57.9 Geese 33.3 - 66.7 33.3 - 66.7 33.7 - 66.3 31.6 - 68.4 Snakes 74.3 - 25.7 67.6- 32.4 72.6- 27.4 68.4 - 31.6 Moles 78.5 - 21.5 81.1 - 18.9 78.6- 21.4 78.9- 21.1 Pigeons 59.9 - 40.1 68.6- 31.4 56.0- 44.0 63.2- 36.8 Raccoons 44.9 - 55.1 52.8- 47.2 40.5 - 59.5 47.4 - 52.6 Bats 71.2 - 28.8 73.9- 27.0 72.3 - 27.7 63.2- 36.8 Squirrels 42.0- 58.0 44.4 - 55.6 37.8 - 62.2 55.0- 45.0 Woodchucks 47.8- 52.2 48.6- 51.5 46.0- 54.0 52.6 - 47.4 Woodpeckers 34.8 - 65.2 38.9- 61.1 30.1 - 69.9 47.4 - 52.6 Opossum 47.1 - 52.9 50.0- 50.0 46.4 - 53.6 47.4 - 52.6 Skunks 56.5 - 43.5 56.8- 43.2 54.9 - 45.1 63.2- 36.8 WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL • Braband and Oark 37 S. What should be the role of humaneness (reduction of pain felt by the animal) in solving a wild animal problem? Very important-I would pay additional costs to insure humane treatment. Should control the approach to solving the problem. Overall - 44.3 City - 42.1 Suburb - 42.2 Rural - 44.4 Moderatel,y important - humane treatment is a priority, but I would not be willing to pay additional costs. Overall - 43.6 City 39.5 Suburb - 42.9 Rural - 55.6 Unimportant - I would prefer the most cost effective alternative regardless of the impact on nuisance wild animals. Low priority, having little impact on the approach to solving the problem. Overall - 12.1 City - 18.4 Suburb - 12.0 Rural - 0.0 6. Property Location. City- 26.2% Suburb - 60.3% Rural - 13.5% 7. Which of the following option(s) would you prefer in the disposition of a nuisance wildlife complaint? (Check all that apply.) Lethal Control Lethal capture when appropriate (i.e., safety or health hazard) Overall - 21.3 City - 23.2 Suburb - 20.0 Euthanasia of sick animals (to limit the spread of disease) Overall - 24.5 City - 25.0 Use of poisons and kill-traps (i.e. on rodents) Overall - 18.9 City - 17.9 Live trap and relocate Overall - 24.9 Live trap and release on site Overall - 3.5 Live trap then euthanize Overall - 6.9 Live-Trew.pin~ City- 25.0 City - 2.7 City - 6.2 Suburb - 25.2 Suburb - 18.1 Suburb - 26.0 Suburb- 3.7 Suburb - 7.0 Rural - 22.8 Rural - 21.5 Rural- 22.8 Rural - 21.5 Rural- 3.8 Rural- 7.6 

Perspectives on Wildlife Nuisance Control: Results of a Wildlife Damage Control Firm\u27s Customer Survey

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1623&context=wdmconference

PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE NUISANCE CONTROL: RESULTS OF A WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL FIRM\u27S CUSTOMER SURVEY

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@USU