County extension agents in Colorado indicated that extension bulletins were the most important type of assistance needed for their clientele in the area of wildlife damage control. County extension agents indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and coyotes were the most important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele

Andelt, William F.

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop 
Proceedings 
Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center 
for 
12-3-1985 
WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY 
EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO 
William F. Andelt 
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Andelt, William F., "WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN 
COLORADO" (1985). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 298. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/298 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage 
Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF
COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO
William F. Andelt, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort
Collies, CO 80523
Abstract County extension agents in Colorado indicated that extension bulletins were the most
important type of assistance needed for their clientele in the area of wildlife damage control. County
extension agents indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and coyotes were the most
important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele.
Introduction
Extension wildlife specialists frequently conduct wildlife damage control education programs by
working directly with clientele groups or by training county extension agents and other professionals
and providing them with materials that are passed along to their clientele. In order to conduct the most
successful programs, extension wildlife specialists should have knowledge of the needs of professionals
and their clientele. This study was conducted in Colorado to evaluate programming needs of county
extension agents and their clientele is wildlife damage control The results of this study may be
applicable in other states.
Methods
Questionnaires were mailed during September 1985 to 83 county extension agents. A second
questionnaire was mailed to nonrespondents. The county agents were instructed to score each type of
programming assistance in wildlife damage control and each species of concern from 0 (type of
assistance or species not important) to 10 (type of assistance or species extremely important) according
to their clientele's needs. Similarities in programming needs and species were determined with
Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation.
Results and Discussion
Respqnses to the questionnaire were received from 70 county extension agents; 66 and 69 agents
provided responses related to type of programming needs and species, respectively. The 70 agents,
according to their extension titles, specialized in agriculture (34), agronomy (6), horticulture (12),
livestock (8), various combinations of agriculture, agronomy, livestock and horticulture (6), entomology
(1), natural resources (1), community development (1) and director (1). Most of the county agents had
broad educational responsibilities with several also responsible for home economics and youth
education.
County extension agents rated extension bulletins as the most important type of assistance that
extension specialists could provide to assist their clientele's needs in wildlife damage control (Table 1).
Agents expressed a strong desire to have the extension wildlife specialist available for telephone
consultations. News releases that could be incorporated in the county agents' weekly newspaper
columns were rated higher thaw news releases sent directly to newspapers (Table 1). Communications
between county agents' microcomputers and the wildlife specialist's microcomputer to provide the latest
information on wildlife
114
Table 1. County extension agents' prioritization of needed programming assistance for their clientele in wildlife
damage control.
Number of agents and average scoresa
All Agricultural Agronomy Horticulture Livestock
A ents agents agents agents agents
Type of assistance 766) 33) 5) 10) (8)
Extension bulletins 8.8 8.6 9.8 9.0 7.8
Telephone
consultations 7.4 8.3 5.8 6.6 6.4
News releases
for agent columns 6.2 6,4 4.4 5.6 6.0
Agent training
workshops 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.4 4.8
Public meetings,
demonstrations, and
workshops 5.5 5.8 2.6 3.6 6.6
Slide and tape sets 5.2 5.1 4.2 4.4 7.4
News releases from
wildlife specialist
to newspapers 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.4
Teletipsb 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.4 3.0
Radio and TV programs 4.2 4.6 2.6 4.7 4.8
Video tapes 3.8 4.2 4.0 2.7 3.5
Microcomputer
communications 2.8 2.2 4.6 1.2 3.5
aRated from 0 (type of assistance not needed) to 10 (extremely important need for
type of assistance).
bRepresent three-minute, telephone-accessible tape recordings of methods to
control various types of wildlife damage.
cBetween specialist's and agent's microcomputers thru telephone modems.
Woodpeckers (Family Picidae) 5.8 Antelope (Antilocapra 3.4
americana
Ground squirrels (Family 5.7 Norway rats (Rattus 3.3
Sciuridae) - norvegicus j~
Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) 5.6 Elk (Cervus canadensis) 3.0
Snakes (Suborder Ophidia) 5.4 Crows (Corvus 2.6
brac~chos)
Bats (Order Chiroptera) 5.3 Porcupines (Erethizon 2.6
dorsatum)
Moles (Scalopus aguaticus) 4.9 Domestic cats (Fells catus) 2.4
English sparrows (Passer 4.8 Red foxes (Vulpes vul es) 2.2
domesticus)
House mice (Mus musculus) 4.7 Waterfowl (Family 2.2
Anatidae) -
Blackbirds,(Family Icteridae) 4.3 Beavers (Castor 1.7
canadensis
Rabbits (SXlvilagus, Le us) 4.3 Bobcats (Fells rufus) 1.6
Voles (Microtus, Clethrionom s 4.3 Black bears (Ursus 1.5
Phenacomys, Lagurus americanusT
Deer (Odocoileus) 4.0 Mountain lions (Fells 1.3
concolor)
aRated from 0 (species not important) to 10 (species extremely important)
116
s
Table 2. County extension Agents' (N=69) prioritization of their clientele's information needs species in wildlife
damage control.
Average
Average
Species scores Species
scored
Pocket gophers (Thomom s, 7.8 Pigeons (Columba livid) 4.0
Geomys, Pappogeomys
Prairie dogs (Cynamys) 7.5 Dogs (Can is familiaris) 3.8
Skunks (S ilo ale, 7.3 Raccoon (Procyon lotor 3.5
damage control was given the lowest priority, probably because only 2396 of the agents had
microcomputers with modems. The county agents' prioritization of other types of programming needs
are listed in Table I. Programming needs of extension agents were similar (rs = 0.61 - 0.96, P<0.05 for
each paired comparison) among the 4 extension districts (western, front range, south central, high
plains) in Colorado. Programming needs were similar between agriculture and horticulture (r, = 0.80, P
= 0.003) and agriculture and livestock (rs = 0,69, P = 0.018) agents, but were not similar between
agriculture and agronomy (rs = 0.32, P = 0.34), agronomy and horticulture (r, = 0.43, P = 0.18),
agronomy and livestock (rf = 0.31, P>0.34), and horticulture and livestock (rs = 0.47, P = 0.15) agents
(Table 1).
County extension agents in Colorado indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and
coyotes were the most important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele (Table
2). Prioritization of the most important to the least important species were similar among the 4
extension districts (r, = 0.37 - 0.74, P<0.05 for each paired comparison) and among agriculture,
agronomy, horticulture, and livestock agents (rs = 0.40 - 0.77, P<0.025 for each paired comparison) in
Colorado.
The survey mailed to county agents did not include scientific names of animals. Some colloquial
names for various groups of animals may have caused a few errors in the survey. For instance, moles
received average scores of 4.3 to 5.6 among the 4 extension areas but moles are found only in
northeastern and extreme southeastern Colorado, suggesting that county agents might also refer to other
burrowing animals as moles.
117


WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for December 1985 WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO William F. Andelt Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Andelt, William F., "WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO" (1985). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 166. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/166 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF  COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO   William F. Andelt, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collies, CO 80523   Abstract — County extension agents in Colorado indicated that extension bulletins were the most important type of assistance needed for their clientele in the area of wildlife damage control. County extension agents indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and coyotes were the most important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele.   Introduction  Extension wildlife specialists frequently conduct wildlife damage control education programs by working directly with clientele groups or by training county extension agents and other professionals and providing them with materials that are passed along to their clientele. In order to conduct the most successful programs, extension wildlife specialists should have knowledge of the needs of professionals and their clientele. This study was conducted in Colorado to evaluate programming needs of county extension agents and their clientele is wildlife damage control The results of this study may be applicable in other states.   Methods  Questionnaires were mailed during September 1985 to 83 county extension agents. A second questionnaire was mailed to nonrespondents. The county agents were instructed to score each type of programming assistance in wildlife damage control and each species of concern from 0 (type of assistance or species not important) to 10 (type of assistance or species extremely important) according to their clientele’s needs. Similarities in programming needs and species were determined with Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation.   Results and Discussion  Respqnses to the questionnaire were received from 70 county extension agents; 66 and 69 agents provided responses related to type of programming needs and species, respectively. The 70 agents, according to their extension titles, specialized in agriculture (34), agronomy (6), horticulture (12), livestock (8), various combinations of agriculture, agronomy, livestock and horticulture (6), entomology (1), natural resources (1), community development (1) and director (1). Most of the county agents had broad educational responsibilities with several also responsible for home economics and youth education.  County extension agents rated extension bulletins as the most important type of assistance that extension specialists could provide to assist their clientele’s needs in wildlife damage control (Table 1). Agents expressed a strong desire to have the extension wildlife specialist available for telephone consultations. News releases that could be incorporated in the county agents’ weekly newspaper columns were rated higher thaw news releases sent directly to newspapers (Table 1). Communications between county agents’ microcomputers and the wildlife specialist’s microcomputer to provide the latest information on wildlife   114  115 Table 1. County extension agents’ prioritization of needed programming assistance for their clientele in wildlife damage control.    Number of agents and average scoresa                                                   ——————————————————————————————— All Agricultural Agronomy Horticulture               Livestock  Agents agents agents agents agents Type of assistance (66) (33) (5) (10) (8) ————————————————————————————————————————————— Extension bulletins 8.8 8.6 9.8 9.0 7.8  Telephone consultations 7.4 8.3 5.8 6.6 6.4  News releases for agent columns 6.2 6,4 4.4 5.6 6.0  Agent training workshops 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.4 4.8  Public meetings, demonstrations, and workshops 5.5 5.8 2.6 3.6 6.6  Slide and tape sets 5.2 5.1 4.2 4.4 7.4  News releases from wildlife specialist to newspapers 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.4  Teletipsb 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.4 3.0  Radio and TV programs 4.2 4.6 2.6 4.7 4.8  Video tapes 3.8 4.2 4.0 2.7 3.5  Microcomputer communications 2.8 2.2 4.6 1.2 3.5  aRated from 0 (type of assistance not needed) to 10 (extremely important need for type of assistance). bRepresent three-minute, telephone-accessible tape recordings of methods to control various types of wildlife damage. cBetween specialist's and agent's microcomputers thru telephone modems. Woodpeckers (Family Picidae)  5.8 Antelope (Antilocapra 3.4      americana)  Ground squirrels (Family  5.7 Norway rats (Rattus 3.3  Sciuridae)    norvegicus)  Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)  5.6 Elk (Cervus canadensis) 3.0  Snakes (Suborder Ophidia)  5.4 Crows (Corvus 2.6      brachyrhynchos)  Bats (Order Chiroptera)  5.3 Porcupines (Erethizon 2.6      dorsatum)  Moles (Scalopus aquaticus) 4.9 Domestic cats (Felis catus)  2.4  English sparrows (Passer 4.8 Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)  2.2  domesticus)  House mice (Mus musculus) 4.7 Waterfowl (Family  2.2    Anatidae) - Blackbirds,(Family Icteridae) 4.3 Beavers (Castor  1.7    canadensis)  Rabbits (Sylvilagus, Lepus) 4.3 Bobcats (Felis rufus) 1.6  Voles (Microtus, Clethrionomys 4.3 Black bears (Ursus 1.5  Phenacomys, Lagurus)   americanus)  Deer (Odocoileus) 4.0 Mountain lions (Felis 1.3     concolor) ———————————————————————————————————————————  aRated from 0 (species not important) to 10 (species extremely important).  116  Table 2. County extension Agents' (N=69) prioritization of their clientele's information needs species in wildlife damage control. ———————————————————————————————————————————   Average                                                         Average Species scorea Species                                             scorea ———————————————————————————————————————————  Pocket gophers (Thomomys, 7.8 Pigeons (Columba livia) 4.0  Geomys, Pappogeomys)  Prairie dogs (Cynamys) 7.5 Dogs (Canis familiaris) 3.8  Skunks (Spilogale, 7.3 Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 3.5  Mephitis, onepatus)  Coyotes (Canis latrans) 6.8 Treesquirrels (Family 3.5     Sciuridae)   damage control was given the lowest priority, probably because only 23% of the agents had microcomputers with modems. The county agents' prioritization of other types of programming needs are listed in Table I. Programming needs of extension agents were similar (rs = 0.61 – 0.96, P < 0.05 for each paired comparison) among the 4 extension districts (western, front range, south central, high plains) in Colorado. Programming needs were similar between agriculture and horticulture (rs = 0.80, P = 0.003) and agriculture and livestock (rs = 0,69, P = 0.018) agents, but were not similar between agriculture and agronomy (rs = 0.32, P = 0.34), agronomy and horticulture (rs = 0.43, P = 0.18), agronomy and livestock (rs = 0.31, P>0.34), and horticulture and livestock (rs = 0.47, P = 0.15) agents (Table 1).  County extension agents in Colorado indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and coyotes were the most important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele (Table 2). Prioritization of the most important to the least important species were similar among the 4 extension districts (rs = 0.37 – 0.74, P<0.05 for each paired comparison) and among agriculture, agronomy, horticulture, and livestock agents (rs = 0.40 – 0.77, P < 0.025 for each paired comparison) in Colorado.  The survey mailed to county agents did not include scientific names of animals. Some colloquial names for various groups of animals may have caused a few errors in the survey. For instance, moles received average scores of 4.3 to 5.6 among the 4 extension areas but moles are found only in northeastern and extreme southeastern Colorado, suggesting that county agents might also refer to other burrowing animals as moles. 117

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for 12-3-1985 WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO William F. Andelt Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Andelt, William F., "WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO" (1985). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 298. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/298 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OFCOUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADOWilliam F. Andelt, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, FortCollies, CO 80523Abstract County extension agents in Colorado indicated that extension bulletins were the mostimportant type of assistance needed for their clientele in the area of wildlife damage control. Countyextension agents indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and coyotes were the mostimportant of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele.IntroductionExtension wildlife specialists frequently conduct wildlife damage control education programs byworking directly with clientele groups or by training county extension agents and other professionalsand providing them with materials that are passed along to their clientele. In order to conduct the mostsuccessful programs, extension wildlife specialists should have knowledge of the needs of professionalsand their clientele. This study was conducted in Colorado to evaluate programming needs of countyextension agents and their clientele is wildlife damage control The results of this study may beapplicable in other states.MethodsQuestionnaires were mailed during September 1985 to 83 county extension agents. A secondquestionnaire was mailed to nonrespondents. The county agents were instructed to score each type ofprogramming assistance in wildlife damage control and each species of concern from 0 (type ofassistance or species not important) to 10 (type of assistance or species extremely important) accordingto their clientele's needs. Similarities in programming needs and species were determined withSpearman's coefficient of rank correlation.Results and DiscussionRespqnses to the questionnaire were received from 70 county extension agents; 66 and 69 agentsprovided responses related to type of programming needs and species, respectively. The 70 agents,according to their extension titles, specialized in agriculture (34), agronomy (6), horticulture (12),livestock (8), various combinations of agriculture, agronomy, livestock and horticulture (6), entomology(1), natural resources (1), community development (1) and director (1). Most of the county agents hadbroad educational responsibilities with several also responsible for home economics and youtheducation.County extension agents rated extension bulletins as the most important type of assistance thatextension specialists could provide to assist their clientele's needs in wildlife damage control (Table 1).Agents expressed a strong desire to have the extension wildlife specialist available for telephoneconsultations. News releases that could be incorporated in the county agents' weekly newspapercolumns were rated higher thaw news releases sent directly to newspapers (Table 1). Communicationsbetween county agents' microcomputers and the wildlife specialist's microcomputer to provide the latestinformation on wildlife114Table 1. County extension agents' prioritization of needed programming assistance for their clientele in wildlifedamage control.Number of agents and average scoresaAll Agricultural Agronomy Horticulture LivestockA ents agents agents agents agentsType of assistance 766) 33) 5) 10) (8)Extension bulletins 8.8 8.6 9.8 9.0 7.8Telephoneconsultations 7.4 8.3 5.8 6.6 6.4News releasesfor agent columns 6.2 6,4 4.4 5.6 6.0Agent trainingworkshops 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.4 4.8Public meetings,demonstrations, andworkshops 5.5 5.8 2.6 3.6 6.6Slide and tape sets 5.2 5.1 4.2 4.4 7.4News releases fromwildlife specialistto newspapers 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.4Teletipsb 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.4 3.0Radio and TV programs 4.2 4.6 2.6 4.7 4.8Video tapes 3.8 4.2 4.0 2.7 3.5Microcomputercommunications 2.8 2.2 4.6 1.2 3.5aRated from 0 (type of assistance not needed) to 10 (extremely important need fortype of assistance).bRepresent three-minute, telephone-accessible tape recordings of methods tocontrol various types of wildlife damage.cBetween specialist's and agent's microcomputers thru telephone modems.Woodpeckers (Family Picidae) 5.8 Antelope (Antilocapra 3.4americanaGround squirrels (Family 5.7 Norway rats (Rattus 3.3Sciuridae) - norvegicus j~Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) 5.6 Elk (Cervus canadensis) 3.0Snakes (Suborder Ophidia) 5.4 Crows (Corvus 2.6brac~chos)Bats (Order Chiroptera) 5.3 Porcupines (Erethizon 2.6dorsatum)Moles (Scalopus aguaticus) 4.9 Domestic cats (Fells catus) 2.4English sparrows (Passer 4.8 Red foxes (Vulpes vul es) 2.2domesticus)House mice (Mus musculus) 4.7 Waterfowl (Family 2.2Anatidae) -Blackbirds,(Family Icteridae) 4.3 Beavers (Castor 1.7canadensisRabbits (SXlvilagus, Le us) 4.3 Bobcats (Fells rufus) 1.6Voles (Microtus, Clethrionom s 4.3 Black bears (Ursus 1.5Phenacomys, Lagurus americanusTDeer (Odocoileus) 4.0 Mountain lions (Fells 1.3concolor)aRated from 0 (species not important) to 10 (species extremely important)116sTable 2. County extension Agents' (N=69) prioritization of their clientele's information needs species in wildlifedamage control.AverageAverageSpecies scores SpeciesscoredPocket gophers (Thomom s, 7.8 Pigeons (Columba livid) 4.0Geomys, PappogeomysPrairie dogs (Cynamys) 7.5 Dogs (Can is familiaris) 3.8Skunks (S ilo ale, 7.3 Raccoon (Procyon lotor 3.5damage control was given the lowest priority, probably because only 2396 of the agents hadmicrocomputers with modems. The county agents' prioritization of other types of programming needsare listed in Table I. Programming needs of extension agents were similar (rs = 0.61 - 0.96, P<0.05 foreach paired comparison) among the 4 extension districts (western, front range, south central, highplains) in Colorado. Programming needs were similar between agriculture and horticulture (r, = 0.80, P= 0.003) and agriculture and livestock (rs = 0,69, P = 0.018) agents, but were not similar betweenagriculture and agronomy (rs = 0.32, P = 0.34), agronomy and horticulture (r, = 0.43, P = 0.18),agronomy and livestock (rf = 0.31, P>0.34), and horticulture and livestock (rs = 0.47, P = 0.15) agents(Table 1).County extension agents in Colorado indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, andcoyotes were the most important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele (Table2). Prioritization of the most important to the least important species were similar among the 4extension districts (r, = 0.37 - 0.74, P<0.05 for each paired comparison) and among agriculture,agronomy, horticulture, and livestock agents (rs = 0.40 - 0.77, P<0.025 for each paired comparison) inColorado.The survey mailed to county agents did not include scientific names of animals. Some colloquialnames for various groups of animals may have caused a few errors in the survey. For instance, molesreceived average scores of 4.3 to 5.6 among the 4 extension areas but moles are found only innortheastern and extreme southeastern Colorado, suggesting that county agents might also refer to otherburrowing animals as moles.117

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop 
Proceedings 
Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center 
for 
December 1985 
WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY 
EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO 
William F. Andelt 
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Andelt, William F., "WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN 
COLORADO" (1985). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. 166. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/166 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage 
Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF  
COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO 
 
 
William F. Andelt, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort 
Collies, CO 80523 
 
 
Abstract — County extension agents in Colorado indicated that extension bulletins were the most 
important type of assistance needed for their clientele in the area of wildlife damage control. County 
extension agents indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and coyotes were the most 
important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele. 
 
 
Introduction 
 
Extension wildlife specialists frequently conduct wildlife damage control education programs by 
working directly with clientele groups or by training county extension agents and other professionals 
and providing them with materials that are passed along to their clientele. In order to conduct the most 
successful programs, extension wildlife specialists should have knowledge of the needs of professionals 
and their clientele. This study was conducted in Colorado to evaluate programming needs of county 
extension agents and their clientele is wildlife damage control The results of this study may be 
applicable in other states. 
 
 
Methods 
 
Questionnaires were mailed during September 1985 to 83 county extension agents. A second 
questionnaire was mailed to nonrespondents. The county agents were instructed to score each type of 
programming assistance in wildlife damage control and each species of concern from 0 (type of 
assistance or species not important) to 10 (type of assistance or species extremely important) according 
to their clientele’s needs. Similarities in programming needs and species were determined with 
Spearman’s coefficient of rank correlation. 
 
 
Results and Discussion 
 
Respqnses to the questionnaire were received from 70 county extension agents; 66 and 69 agents 
provided responses related to type of programming needs and species, respectively. The 70 agents, 
according to their extension titles, specialized in agriculture (34), agronomy (6), horticulture (12), 
livestock (8), various combinations of agriculture, agronomy, livestock and horticulture (6), entomology 
(1), natural resources (1), community development (1) and director (1). Most of the county agents had 
broad educational responsibilities with several also responsible for home economics and youth 
education. 
 
County extension agents rated extension bulletins as the most important type of assistance that 
extension specialists could provide to assist their clientele’s needs in wildlife damage control (Table 1). 
Agents expressed a strong desire to have the extension wildlife specialist available for telephone 
consultations. News releases that could be incorporated in the county agents’ weekly newspaper 
columns were rated higher thaw news releases sent directly to newspapers (Table 1). Communications 
between county agents’ microcomputers and the wildlife specialist’s microcomputer to provide the 
latest information on wildlife 
 
 
114 
 
115 
Table 1. County extension agents’ prioritization of needed programming assistance for their clientele in 
wildlife damage control. 
 
 
 
Number of agents and average scoresa 
                                                  ——————————————————————————————— 
All Agricultural Agronomy Horticulture               Livestock 
 Agents agents agents agents agents 
Type of assistance (66) (33) (5) (10) (8) 
————————————————————————————————————————————— 
Extension bulletins 8.8 8.6 9.8 9.0 7.8 
 
Telephone 
consultations 7.4 8.3 5.8 6.6 6.4 
 
News releases 
for agent columns 6.2 6,4 4.4 5.6 6.0 
 
Agent training 
workshops 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.4 4.8 
 
Public meetings, 
demonstrations, and 
workshops 5.5 5.8 2.6 3.6 6.6 
 
Slide and tape sets 5.2 5.1 4.2 4.4 7.4 
 
News releases from 
wildlife specialist 
to newspapers 4.7 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.4 
 
Teletipsb 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.4 3.0 
 
Radio and TV programs 4.2 4.6 2.6 4.7 4.8 
 
Video tapes 3.8 4.2 4.0 2.7 3.5 
 
Microcomputer 
communications 2.8 2.2 4.6 1.2 3.5 
 
aRated from 0 (type of assistance not needed) to 10 (extremely important need for type of 
assistance). 
bRepresent three-minute, telephone-accessible tape recordings of methods to control various types of 
wildlife damage. 
cBetween specialist's and agent's microcomputers thru telephone modems. 
Woodpeckers (Family Picidae)  5.8 Antelope (Antilocapra 3.4 
     americana) 
 
Ground squirrels (Family  5.7 Norway rats (Rattus 3.3 
 Sciuridae)    norvegicus) 
 
Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)  5.6 Elk (Cervus canadensis) 3.0 
 
Snakes (Suborder Ophidia)  5.4 Crows (Corvus 2.6 
     brachyrhynchos) 
 
Bats (Order Chiroptera)  5.3 Porcupines (Erethizon 2.6 
     dorsatum) 
 
Moles (Scalopus aquaticus) 4.9 Domestic cats (Felis catus)  2.4 
 
English sparrows (Passer 4.8 Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)  2.2 
 domesticus) 
 
House mice (Mus musculus) 4.7 Waterfowl (Family  2.2 
   Anatidae) - 
Blackbirds,(Family Icteridae) 4.3 Beavers (Castor  1.7 
   canadensis) 
 
Rabbits (Sylvilagus, Lepus) 4.3 Bobcats (Felis rufus) 1.6 
 
Voles (Microtus, Clethrionomys 4.3 Black bears (Ursus 1.5 
 Phenacomys, Lagurus)   americanus) 
 
Deer (Odocoileus) 4.0 Mountain lions (Felis 1.3 
    concolor) 
——————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
aRated from 0 (species not important) to 10 (species extremely important). 
 
116  
Table 2. County extension Agents' (N=69) prioritization of their clientele's information needs species 
in wildlife damage control. 
——————————————————————————————————————————— 
  Average                                                         Average 
Species scorea Species                                             scorea 
——————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
Pocket gophers (Thomomys, 7.8 Pigeons (Columba livia) 4.0 
 Geomys, Pappogeomys) 
 
Prairie dogs (Cynamys) 7.5 Dogs (Canis familiaris) 3.8 
 
Skunks (Spilogale, 7.3 Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 3.5 
 Mephitis, onepatus) 
 
Coyotes (Canis latrans) 6.8 Treesquirrels (Family 3.5 
    Sciuridae) 
 
 
damage control was given the lowest priority, probably because only 23% of the agents had 
microcomputers with modems. The county agents' prioritization of other types of programming 
needs are listed in Table I. Programming needs of extension agents were similar (rs = 0.61 – 0.96, P 
< 0.05 for each paired comparison) among the 4 extension districts (western, front range, south 
central, high plains) in Colorado. Programming needs were similar between agriculture and 
horticulture (rs = 0.80, P = 0.003) and agriculture and livestock (rs = 0,69, P = 0.018) agents, but 
were not similar between agriculture and agronomy (rs = 0.32, P = 0.34), agronomy and horticulture 
(rs = 0.43, P = 0.18), agronomy and livestock (rs = 0.31, P>0.34), and horticulture and livestock (rs = 
0.47, P = 0.15) agents (Table 1). 
 
County extension agents in Colorado indicated that pocket gophers, prairie dogs, skunks, and 
coyotes were the most important of 32 species requiring extension information for their clientele 
(Table 2). Prioritization of the most important to the least important species were similar among the 
4 extension districts (rs = 0.37 – 0.74, P<0.05 for each paired comparison) and among agriculture, 
agronomy, horticulture, and livestock agents (rs = 0.40 – 0.77, P < 0.025 for each paired comparison) 
in Colorado. 
 
The survey mailed to county agents did not include scientific names of animals. Some colloquial 
names for various groups of animals may have caused a few errors in the survey. For instance, moles 
received average scores of 4.3 to 5.6 among the 4 extension areas but moles are found only in 
northeastern and extreme southeastern Colorado, suggesting that county agents might also refer to 
other burrowing animals as moles. 
117


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&amp;context=gpwdcwp

WILDLIFE DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM NEEDS OF COUNTY EXTENSION AGENTS IN COLORADO

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries