Urban Wildlife Management 9781498702034, 1498702031

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Contents
Preface
Author
Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm
Section I: Human–Wildlife Interface
Chapter 1: Wildlife Management: Past and Present
Chapter 2: Principal Components of Urban Wildlife Management
Section II: Urban Ecosystems
Chapter 3: Ecological Principles in an Urban Context
Chapter 4: Urban Soils
Chapter 5: Urban Aquatic Systems
Chapter 6: Population Dynamics
Section III: Urban Habitats and Hazards
Chapter 7: Urban Green Spaces
Chapter 8: Urban Gray Spaces
Section IV: Urban Wildlife Species
Chapter 9: Urban Herpetofauna (Amphibians and Reptiles)
Chapter 10: Urban Birds
Chapter 11: Urban Mammals
Chapter 12: Urban Threatened, Endangered, and Extirpated Species
Chapter 13: Urban Introduced and Invasive Species
Chapter 14: Resident Canada Geese and Urban White-Tailed Deer
Section V: Urban Sociopolitical Landscape
Chapter 15: Human Dimensions of Urban Wildlife Management
Chapter 16: Legal Aspects of Urban Wildlife Management
Chapter 17: Zoonoses and Management Considerations
Appendix: Lists of Terrestrial Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals by States and Those Observed in Urbanized Communities in the United States
References
Back Cover

Citation preview

Adams

ANIMAL ECOLOGY

Third Edition

Urban development is one of the leading worldwide threats to conserving biodiversity. In the near future, wildlife management in urban landscapes will be a prominent issue for wildlife professionals. This new edition of Urban Wildlife Management continues the work of its predecessors by providing a comprehensive examination of the issues that increase the need for urban wildlife management, exploring the changing dynamics of the field while giving historical perspectives and looking at current trends and future directions. The book examines a range of topics on human interactions with wildlife in urbanized environments. It focuses not only on ecological matters but also on political, economic, and societal issues that must be addressed for successful management planning. This edition features an entirely new section on urban wildlife species, including chapters on urban communities, herpetofauna, birds, ungulates, mammals, carnivores, and feral and introduced species. The third edition features • Five new chapters • 12 updated chapters • Four new case studies • Seven new appendices and species profiles • 90 new figures • A comprehensive analysis of terrestrial vertebrate locations by state and urban observations Each chapter opens with a set of key concepts which are then examined in the following discussions. Suggested learning experiences to enhance knowledge conclude each chapter.The species profiles cover not only data about the animal concerned but also detail significant current management issues related to the species. An updated and expanded teaching tool, Urban Wildlife Management, Third Edition identifies the challenges and opportunities facing wildlife in urban communities as well as factors that promote or threaten their presence. It gives both students and professionals a solid grounding in the required fundamental ecological principles for understanding the effects of human-made environments on wildlife. K24593 Cover image: Timothy Basso

an informa business w w w. c r c p r e s s . c o m

6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487 711 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 2 Park Square, Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, UK

www.crcpress.com

Urban Wildlife Management

Urban Wildlife Management

Third Edition

Third Edition

Urban Wildlife Management Clark E. Adams

Third Edition

Urban Wildlife Management

This page intentionally left blank

Third Edition

Urban Wildlife Management Clark E. Adams

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Cover: Mama and bear cubs take over kiddie pool in Rockaway, NJ. From videos taken by Timothy F. Basso on August 18, 2015.

CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Version Date: 20160421 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-0203-4 (eBook - PDF) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http:// www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com

This book is dedicated to all those individuals, organizations, and agencies on the front lines, addressing urban wildlife management problems. They represent the unsung heroes of wildlife management who receive little recognition or peer acceptance for their attempts to confront a growing wildlife management phenomenon. They are the futurists, involved in the cutting-edge aspects of human–wildlife interactions in urban environments. In other words, we dedicate this book to all those who realize that urban wildlife management goes far beyond controlling raccoons in garbage cans.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................xvii Author..............................................................................................................................................xix Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm...................................................................xxi Section I Human–Wildlife Interface Chapter 1 Wildlife Management: Past and Present............................................................................................. 3 Key Concepts......................................................................................................................................3 1.1 Brief History of Wildlife Management in North America...................................................... 3 1.2 Rise of the American Conservation Movement....................................................................... 4 1.3 Demographic Factors That Set the Stage for Urban Wildlife Management............................6 1.4 Separation of People and Nature..............................................................................................7 1.5 Reconnecting People and Nature........................................................................................... 11 1.6 A New Kind of Wildlife......................................................................................................... 12 1.6.1 Categorizing Urban Wildlife.................................................................................... 12 1.6.2 Unique Ecology and Behavior of Urban Wildlife.................................................... 16 Species Profile: Killdeer (Charadrius Vociferus).............................................................................. 18 Chapter Activities.............................................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2 Principal Components of Urban Wildlife Management................................................................... 21 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 21 2.2 Urban Habitats as a Dominant Focus of Wildlife Professionals............................................ 23 2.3 Need for Wildlife Management in Urban Areas.................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Urban Wildlife Populations Are Increasing, Sometimes to Nuisance Levels..........25 2.3.2 Some Insights into the Magnitude of Urban Wildlife Problems..............................25 2.3.2.1 Urban Species of Most Concern: National Analysis 1994 to 2003........... 29 2.3.2.2 Urban Species of Most Concern: Regional Analysis 1994 to 2003.......... 29 2.3.2.3 Economic Impact of Damage to Resources by Urban Wildlife: National Overview.................................................................................... 30 2.3.2.4 Economic Impact of Damage to Resources by Urban Wildlife: Regional Overview.................................................................................... 30 2.4 Traditional and Alternative Methods of Human–Wildlife Conflict Management................. 35 2.4.1 Traditional Methods.................................................................................................. 35 2.4.1.1 Avoiding the Problem................................................................................ 35 2.4.1.2 Getting at the Root Cause......................................................................... 36 2.4.1.3 Attacking the Symptoms........................................................................... 37 2.4.1.4 Doing Nothing........................................................................................... 37 2.4.2 Alternative Methods: A New Breed of Wildlife Control Operator.......................... 37 2.4.2.1 A Different Approach................................................................................ 38 2.4.2.2 Motivation������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 39 2.4.2.3 Financial Incentive....................................................................................40

vii

viii

Contents

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Need for Public Education Programs about Urban Wildlife, Management, and Habitats...... 41 Alternative Curriculum to Train Urban Wildlife Biologists.................................................. 50 Wildlife Management Research Agenda............................................................................... 51 Naturalist and Natural History............................................................................................... 54 2.8.1 What Is a Naturalist and Natural History?............................................................... 54 2.8.2 Resurrecting the Naturalist and Natural History...................................................... 55 2.9 Infrastructure for Urban Wildlife Management Is Missing................................................... 55 2.9.1 Defining Infrastructure............................................................................................. 56 2.9.2 Examination of the Infrastructure for Urban Wildlife Management....................... 56 2.9.2.1 DNR Results��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 2.9.2.2 University Results..................................................................................... 62 Chapter Activities..............................................................................................................................66 Species Profile: Bobcat (Lynx rufus).................................................................................................66 Urban Bobcat Research Update................................................................................ 67 2A Appendix................................................................................................................................ 68 2A.1 Numbers of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammalian Species by State.............. 68 2A.2 Amphibian, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals Reported as Intakes at 17 Animal Rehabilitation Centers throughout the United States............................................... 70 Section II Urban Ecosystems Chapter 3 Ecological Principles in an Urban Context....................................................................................... 85 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................... 85 3.1 Urban Context........................................................................................................................ 85 3.1.1 Urban����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 3.1.2 Urbanization������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 87 3.1.3 Urban Ecology.......................................................................................................... 87 3.1.4 Urbanized Areas and Clusters.................................................................................. 87 3.1.5 Urban Sprawl............................................................................................................ 88 3.2 Ecological Principles..............................................................................................................90 3.2.1 Diversity�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������90 3.2.1.1 Diversity Concept Analogy.......................................................................90 3.2.2 Interrelationships...................................................................................................... 91 3.2.3 Cycles����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 3.2.4 Energy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������92 3.3 Ecosystem Structure..............................................................................................................92 3.3.1 Abiotic Structure....................................................................................................... 93 3.3.2 Biotic Structure.........................................................................................................94 3.4 Food Chains and Webs..........................................................................................................96 3.5 Symbiotic Relationships.........................................................................................................97 3.6 Biotic Communities............................................................................................................... 98 3.6.1 Urban Plant Communities......................................................................................... 98 3.6.2 Urban Wildlife Communities................................................................................. 100 3.6.3 Observations of Terrestrial Vertebrates in Urban Communities............................ 101 3.7 Ecosystem Function............................................................................................................. 103 3.7.1 Biogeochemical Cycles........................................................................................... 103 3.7.2 Energy�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 105

Contents

ix

3.7.3 Thermodynamics and Conservation of Matter....................................................... 106 3.7.4 Ecological Succession............................................................................................. 106 3.8 Ecosystem Services.............................................................................................................. 107 3.9 Ecology of Urban Ecosystems............................................................................................. 109 3.9.1 Homo sapiens as a Keystone Species..................................................................... 110 3.10 Even a Peanut Butter Sandwich Has Profound Environmental Impacts.............................. 112 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 113 Species Profile: Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica)..................................................................... 114 Chapter 4 Urban Soils...................................................................................................................................... 117 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 117 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 117 4.2 Soil Formation...................................................................................................................... 119 4.3 Soil Structure....................................................................................................................... 120 4.4 Soil Horizons....................................................................................................................... 121 4.5 Soil Functions...................................................................................................................... 122 4.6 Soil Biota and Their Functions............................................................................................ 123 4.7 Impacts of Urbanization on Soil Structure and Function.................................................... 127 4.7.1 Vertical and Spatial Variability.............................................................................. 128 4.7.2 Structure Modification: Compaction and Surface Crusting................................... 129 4.7.3 Modified Soil Reaction........................................................................................... 129 4.7.4 Anthropogenic Materials........................................................................................ 130 4.7.5 Increased Soil Temperatures................................................................................... 130 4.8 Taking Better Care of Urban Soil........................................................................................ 130 4.9 Urban Wildlife Management Implications.......................................................................... 132 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 133 Species Profile: Moles (Talpidae sp.)............................................................................................. 133 Chapter 5 Urban Aquatic Systems................................................................................................................... 135 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 135 5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 135 5.2 Flow of Water through an Urban Community..................................................................... 136 5.2.1 Uses������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 5.2.2 Discharge��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 138 5.2.3 Recycle������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141 5.3 Water Cycle: Nature’s Filter................................................................................................. 142 5.3.1 Transpiration Loop................................................................................................. 143 5.3.2 Groundwater Loop.................................................................................................. 143 5.3.3 Evaporation Loop.................................................................................................... 143 5.4 Caring for the Water Cycle.................................................................................................. 144 5.5 Riparian Corridors: Streams and Rivers.............................................................................. 144 5.6 Urban Stream Syndrome...................................................................................................... 146 5.6.1 Abiotic Effects........................................................................................................ 147 5.6.2 Biotic Effects........................................................................................................... 148 5.6.3 Stream Channelization............................................................................................ 148 5.7 Aquatic Food Chain............................................................................................................. 150

x

Contents

5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12

Structural and Functional Adaptations of Fishes................................................................. 150 Fish as Indicator Species...................................................................................................... 153 Invasive and Introduced Species.......................................................................................... 154 Restoration of Riparian Habitats.......................................................................................... 156 Urban Wetlands.................................................................................................................... 158 5.12.1 Water Gardens........................................................................................................ 159 5.12.2 Constructed Wetlands............................................................................................. 160 5.13 Urban (Community) Fisheries Programs............................................................................. 162 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 162 Species Profile: American Beaver (Castor canadensis)................................................................. 163 Chapter 6 Population Dynamics...................................................................................................................... 165 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 165 6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 165 6.2 Survival................................................................................................................................ 166 6.3 Adaptations.......................................................................................................................... 167 6.4 Density................................................................................................................................. 168 6.5 Factors Affecting Population Densities............................................................................... 169 6.6 How Populations Grow........................................................................................................ 170 6.7 Population Growth Rate Patterns......................................................................................... 170 6.8 Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Population Dynamics................................................ 171 6.9 Effects of Supplemental Feeding on Population Dynamics................................................ 173 6.10 Effects of Animal Damage Control Activities on Population Dynamics............................ 173 6.11 Effects of Environmental Pollutants on Wildlife Population Dynamics............................. 175 Species Profile: Tree Squirrels (Sciurus spp.)................................................................................. 176 Chapter Activity.............................................................................................................................. 178 Section III Urban Habitats and Hazards Chapter 7 Urban Green Spaces....................................................................................................................... 181 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 181 7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 181 7.2 Green Spaces........................................................................................................................ 181 7.3 Remnant Habitat Patches..................................................................................................... 183 7.4 Successional Habitat Patches............................................................................................... 186 7.5 Managed Habitat Patches..................................................................................................... 188 7.5.1 Cemeteries������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188 7.5.2 Golf Courses���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 7.5.3 Nature Centers........................................................................................................ 197 7.5.4 Rural versus Urban Wildlife Populations............................................................... 199 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................200 Species Profile: Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)....................................................................................... 201 Chapter 8 Urban Gray Spaces.........................................................................................................................203 Key Concepts..................................................................................................................................203

Contents

xi

8.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 203 8.2 Buildings, Windows, and Towers.........................................................................................204 8.2.1 Buildings.................................................................................................................204 8.2.2 Windows................................................................................................................. 205 8.2.3 Communication Towers..........................................................................................208 8.2.4 Wind Towers........................................................................................................... 211 8.3 Roads and Highways............................................................................................................ 213 8.3.1 Animal Mortality.................................................................................................... 213 8.3.2 Overpasses, Underpasses, and Escape Routes........................................................ 218 8.3.3 Structural Design Considerations........................................................................... 220 8.4 Bridges, Birds, and Bats....................................................................................................... 221 8.5 Landfills, Dumpsters, and Garbage Cans............................................................................ 223 8.5.1 Organic Waste Accumulations: A Concept Unique to Urban Ecosystems............. 223 8.5.2 Factors That Promote the Presence of Wildlife at Landfills.................................. 227 8.5.3 Standards Used in Landfill Siting........................................................................... 227 8.5.4 Types of Habitats Found in and around Landfills.................................................. 227 8.5.5 Human/Wildlife Conflicts at Landfills................................................................... 228 8.5.6 Wildlife Management at Landfills.......................................................................... 229 8.6 Airports................................................................................................................................ 229 8.6.1 Standards for Airport Siting and Zoning................................................................ 230 8.6.2 Types of Habitats Found in and around Airports................................................... 230 8.6.3 Wildlife Species Attracted to Airport Habitats...................................................... 231 8.6.4 Human/Wildlife Interactions at Airports............................................................... 231 8.6.5 Wildlife Management Priorities at Airports........................................................... 233 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 233 Species Profile: Mexican Free-Tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)................................................. 234 Section IV Urban Wildlife Species Chapter 9 Urban Herpetofauna (Amphibians and Reptiles)............................................................................ 239 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 239 9.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 239 9.2 Amphibians..........................................................................................................................240 9.2.1 Amphibian Taxonomy of Living Orders in the United States................................240 9.2.2 Distinguishing Characteristics and Life Cycle....................................................... 241 9.2.3 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................. 242 9.2.4 National Distribution by States............................................................................... 243 9.2.5 Urban Observations................................................................................................ 243 9.3 Reptiles................................................................................................................................. 245 9.3.1 Reptilian Taxonomy of Living Orders in the United States................................... 245 9.3.2 Distinguishing Characteristics and Life Cycle....................................................... 245 9.3.3 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................. 249 9.3.4 National Distribution by States............................................................................... 249 9.3.5 Urban Observations................................................................................................ 249 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 251 Species Profile 9.1: Gray Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor)................................................................... 251

xii

Contents

Species Profile 9.2: Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis).................................................................. 252 9A Appendix.............................................................................................................................. 254 9A.1 State Totals of Amphibians and Reptiles and Numbers of Each Class Observed in Urban Communities........................................................................... 254 Chapter 10 Urban Birds..................................................................................................................................... 257 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 257 10.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 257 10.1.1 Birds = Diversity..................................................................................................... 257 10.1.2 Bird Economics....................................................................................................... 258 10.1.3 Bird Losses Due to Urbanization............................................................................ 259 10.2 Class Aves Taxonomy of Living Orders in the United States.............................................. 262 10.3 Distinguishing Characteristics and Life Cycle.................................................................... 262 10.4 Management for Birds in Urban Habitats............................................................................264 10.4.1 Human Processes That Favor Birds in Urban Environments................................. 265 10.4.2 Concepts of Urban Adapters and Avoiders That Need More Definition................266 10.5 National Distribution by States............................................................................................ 268 10.6 Urban Observations.............................................................................................................. 271 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 271 Species Profile: Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)............................................................. 274 10A Appendix.............................................................................................................................. 276 10A.1 State Totals of Birds and Numbers of Each Species Observed in Urban Communities Somewhere in the United States...................................................... 276 Chapter 11 Urban Mammals............................................................................................................................. 279 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 279 11.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 279 11.2 Class Mammalia Taxonomy................................................................................................280 11.3 Distinguishing Characteristics and Life Cycle.................................................................... 281 11.3.1 Body Hair��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 281 11.3.2 Mammary Glands................................................................................................... 281 11.3.3 Reproductive System.............................................................................................. 282 11.3.4 Cerebral Cortex....................................................................................................... 282 11.3.5 Teeth and Antlers.................................................................................................... 283 11.4 Management for Mammals in Urban Habitats.................................................................... 283 11.5 National Distribution by States............................................................................................ 285 11.6 Urban Observations.............................................................................................................. 286 11.7 Urban Raccoons (Procyon lotor)......................................................................................... 286 11.7.1 Pet Raccoons........................................................................................................... 287 11.7.2 Raccoon Economics................................................................................................ 287 11.7.3 Raccoons as Disease Vectors.................................................................................. 288 11.7.4 Urban Raccoon....................................................................................................... 288 11.7.5 Raccoon Diet........................................................................................................... 289 11.7.6 Raccoon Dens......................................................................................................... 291 11.7.7 Population Densities............................................................................................... 293 11.7.8 Rascal��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 294

Contents

xiii

11.7.9 Raccoon Survival.................................................................................................... 295 11.7.10 Raccoon Management in Urban Communities....................................................... 296 11.8 Urban Coyotes (Canis latrans)............................................................................................. 298 11.8.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 298 11.8.2 Urban Coyote.......................................................................................................... 299 11.8.3 Range Expansion.................................................................................................... 301 11.8.4 Coyote Diet������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 301 11.8.5 Coyote Economics.................................................................................................. 301 11.8.6 Coping with Coyotes Management Plans...............................................................306 11.8.7 Human and Coyote Conflicts..................................................................................307 11.8.8 Urban Residents’ Views on Coyotes in Their Neighborhoods...............................308 11.8.9 15 Years of “Co-Existing with Coyotes in Vancouver, British Columbia”............308 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 312 Species Profile: California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus)...................................................... 313 11A Appendix.............................................................................................................................. 314 11A.1 State Totals of Mammals and Numbers of Each Species Observed in Urban Communities Somewhere in the United States (See Appendix A.4 or Species Lists and Sources of Information).......................................................................... 314 Chapter 12 Urban Threatened, Endangered, and Extirpated Species............................................................... 317 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 317 12.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 317 12.2 Diversity of T/E Species...................................................................................................... 317 12.2.1 Houston Toad (Bufo houstonensis)......................................................................... 321 12.2.2 San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)...................................................... 324 12.2.3 Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium).............................................. 325 12.2.4 Black Bear (Ursus americanus).............................................................................. 330 12.2.5 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrine) Delisting Story............................................... 334 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 337 Chapter 13 Urban Introduced and Invasive Species.......................................................................................... 339 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 339 13.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 339 13.2 Introduced Species...............................................................................................................340 13.3 Invasive and Feral Species Introductions.............................................................................344 13.4 Case Studies of Invasive Species......................................................................................... 347 13.4.1 European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).............................................................. 347 13.4.2 House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)...................................................................... 348 13.4.3 Nutria (Myocastor coypus)..................................................................................... 350 13.5 Case Studies of Feral Species.............................................................................................. 352 13.5.1 Pigeons (Columba livia).......................................................................................... 352 13.5.2 Domestic Cats (Felis catus).................................................................................... 354 13.5.2.1 Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 354 13.5.2.2 History of Origins and Domestication.................................................... 355 13.5.2.3 Cat Conflicts������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 357

xiv

Contents

13.5.3 Hogs (Sus scrofa).................................................................................................... 365 13.5.3.1 Physical Description................................................................................ 367 13.5.3.2 Food Habits�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 368 13.5.3.3 Habitat Preferences.................................................................................. 368 13.5.3.4 Reproductive Potential............................................................................ 368 13.5.3.5 Nuisance Issues....................................................................................... 369 13.5.3.6 Environmental Damage........................................................................... 369 13.5.3.7 Management and Control........................................................................ 371 13.6 Invasive Species Management Plans.................................................................................... 375 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 377 Species Profile: Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus)................................................................ 377 Chapter 14 Resident Canada Geese and Urban White-Tailed Deer.................................................................. 379 Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 379 14.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 379 14.2 Factors That Contributed to Geese and Deer Abundance in Urban America..................... 381 14.3 Extent of the Problem: A National Assessment................................................................... 381 14.3.1 Objectives and Questions Included in the National Assessment............................ 382 14.3.2 Results of the National Assessment........................................................................ 382 14.3.3 Management Implications of National Assessment................................................ 383 14.4 Distribution of Resident Canada Geese and White-Tailed Deer in the Continental United States........................................................................................................................ 383 14.5 Human Response to Resident Canada Geese and Urban White-Tailed Deer...................... 385 14.6 Ecological Impacts of Resident Canada Geese and Urban White-Tailed Deer................... 386 14.7 Health and Safety Issues...................................................................................................... 393 14.8 Management Strategies for Overabundant Resident Canada Geese and Urban WhiteTailed Deer Populations....................................................................................................... 395 Chapter Activity.............................................................................................................................. 397 Case Study Outline��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������397 Section V Urban Sociopolitical Landscape Chapter 15 Human Dimensions of Urban Wildlife Management..................................................................... 401 Kieran J. Lindsey Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 401 15.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 401 15.2 The “People Factor”.............................................................................................................402 15.3 Primary Considerations When Conducting Citizen Surveys about Wildlife......................403 15.4 Surveying Wildlife Recreationists.......................................................................................407 15.5 Role of Human Dimensions in Urban Wildlife Management..............................................407 15.5.1 Public Participation in Wildlife-Associated Recreation.........................................407 15.5.2 Wildlife Values....................................................................................................... 411 15.5.3 Quality of Life Issues.............................................................................................. 413 15.5.4 Human–Wildlife Conflict....................................................................................... 415 15.5.5 HD Methods for Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts......................................... 422

Contents

xv

15.6 Working with Urban Stakeholders....................................................................................... 423 15.6.1 Policy Life Cycle..................................................................................................... 423 15.6.2 What (and Who) Is a Stakeholder?......................................................................... 424 15.6.3 Changing the Face of Wildlife Stakeholders.......................................................... 425 15.6.4 Guide to Major Stakeholders.................................................................................. 425 15.6.4.1 Government (Public Sector).................................................................... 427 15.6.4.2 Federal���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 427 15.6.4.3 Tribal Governments................................................................................. 430 15.6.4.4 State and Territorial Governments.......................................................... 430 15.6.4.5 Local Governments................................................................................. 430 15.6.4.6 Nongovernmental Organizations (Private Sector).................................. 431 15.6.4.7 Academic Institutions.............................................................................. 432 15.6.4.8 The Public���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 432 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 433 Chapter 16 Legal Aspects of Urban Wildlife Management.............................................................................. 435 Kieran J. Lindsey Key Concepts.................................................................................................................................. 435 16.1 Wildlife Law 101.................................................................................................................. 435 16.2 Federal Laws........................................................................................................................ 436 16.2.1 Lacey Act of 1900................................................................................................... 436 16.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918......................................................................... 438 16.2.3 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931..................................................................... 439 16.2.4 Endangered Species Act of 1973............................................................................ 439 16.3 State Laws............................................................................................................................ 442 16.4 County and Municipal Laws................................................................................................ 442 16.5 Local Ordinances................................................................................................................. 443 16.5.1 Weed Ordinances.................................................................................................... 443 16.6 Who’s in Charge Here?........................................................................................................ 445 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 447 Species Profile: Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis).................................................................................. 447 Chapter 17 Zoonoses and Management Considerations...................................................................................449 Kieran J. Lindsey Key Concepts..................................................................................................................................449 17.1 What Are Zoonoses?............................................................................................................449 17.2 Wildlife and Weaponization of Zoonotic Diseases............................................................. 451 17.3 Parasitic Diseases................................................................................................................. 451 17.3.1 Protozoa����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 451 17.3.2 Helminths��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 454 17.3.2.1 Trematodes (Flukes)................................................................................ 454 17.3.2.2 Cestodes (Tapeworms)............................................................................ 454 17.3.2.3 Nematodes (Roundworms)...................................................................... 455 17.4 Mycotic Diseases................................................................................................................. 458 17.4.1 Aspergillosis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 458 17.4.2 Histoplasmosis........................................................................................................ 458

xvi

Contents

17.5 Bacterial Diseases................................................................................................................ 459 17.5.1 Brucellosis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������460 17.5.2 Lyme Disease.......................................................................................................... 461 17.5.3 Plague���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������465 17.5.4 Tularemia��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 467 17.6 Viral Diseases......................................................................................................................468 17.6.1 Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome..........................................................................468 17.6.2 Rabies���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������469 17.6.3 West Nile Virus....................................................................................................... 470 17.7 Prion Diseases...................................................................................................................... 472 17.7.1 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy...................................................................... 472 17.7.2 Chronic Wasting Disease........................................................................................ 472 Chapter Activities............................................................................................................................ 473 Species Profile: American Robin (Turdus migratorius).................................................................. 473 Appendix: Lists of Terrestrial Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals by States and Those Observed in Urbanized Communities in the United States................................................. 475 A.1 Amphibians (n = 101/302, 33%) Observed in Some Urbanized Communities in the United States and States That List the Species.................................................................... 475 A.2 Reptiles (n = 84/309, 27%) Observed in Some Urbanized Communities in the United States and States That List the Species................................................................................ 478 A.3 Birds (n = 457/935, 49%) Observed in Some Urbanized Communities in the United States and States That List the Species................................................................................ 481 A.4 Mammals (n = 98/407, 24%) Observed in Some Urbanized Communities in the United States and States That List the Species....................................................................509 Sources of Information on National, State, and Urban Lists of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals....................................................................................................................... 513 Websites������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������513 Amphibians������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������513 Reptiles������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������513 Birds�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������514 Mammals����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������514 Journal Articles�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������514 Books����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������514 Animal Rehabilitation Data Locations................................................................................. 514 Endangered/Threatened Species Sources............................................................................. 515 References....................................................................................................................................... 517 Index............................................................................................................................................... 559

Preface The first edition of this book was published in 1999, coauthored by Kieran J. Lindsey and Sara Ash. It was written because we were unable to find one publication that addressed all the pertinent issues related to urban wildlife management. Information was scattered throughout various books, journal articles, conference proceedings, government documents, websites, data sets, and within the anecdotal tales of our colleagues. Kieran and I were coauthors on the second edition, having lost Sara to academic administration duties. We found that even after going through the process once before, we were still rather naïve about the breadth and depth of information sources available on this subject. Information sources are so vast that it took 2 years to prepare each edition of Urban Wildlife Management. Attempts to track down a single piece of information would lead to a dozen others, each of which led to still others. As such, organizing the available information into conceptual frameworks rather than in-depth presentations was a lengthy and formidable task. This was particularly true in developing the third edition of Urban Wildlife Management, which involved more than 1000 references. Dozens of secondary data sets were analyzed that contained a wealth of information relevant to the story presented in the third edition. Kieran had to excuse herself from coauthoring the third edition because new professional obligations precluded her continued involvement. However, prior to her departure she did provide Chapters 15 through 17, all of the species profiles, and much guidance in the outline for this third edition. Sara and Kieran also remained available to examine and edit some of the new chapters that became part of this third edition. Like the second edition, but even more so, this edition contains original research and the results of extensive data mining and meta-analyses by myself and my students. Sara Ramirez and I conducted a national survey of states departments of natural resources (DNRs) to determine the degree to which communities within their states were having problems with overabundant Canada geese and urban white-tailed deer (Chapter 14). Michaela Murphy repeated the national examination of the infrastructure for urban wildlife management at state DNRs and universities with wildlife programs (Chapter 2). She also conducted an in-depth literature review on urban deer research (Introduction). Cassandra LaFleur conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between a species residence by state(s) and observation of that species in an urban setting (Appendices A1 through A4). This analysis included all native species of terrestrial herpetofauna, birds, and mammals known to exist in the United States. This analysis and results led to the production of an entire new section (Section IV) and five new chapters (Chapters 9 through 13) in the third edition. Cassandra also provided many figures and tables. It has become evident that the challenges and opportunities related to urban wildlife are beginning to be noticed in the wildlife profession. As a result, this book is a much-needed tool for teaching and learning. In 17 chapters, we examine a range of issues that explain human interactions with wildlife in urbanized environments. We begin with a discussion of the past, present, and future directions of wildlife management in the United States—what we have come to see as the changing landscape of wildlife management. Selected chapters relevant to understanding the presence or absence of wildlife species in urban communities include ecosystem structure and function, urban soils, urban waters, and the principles of population dynamics in the context of the impacts of urbanization. Urban habitats and hazards are discussed in terms of two chapters on urban green and gray spaces. The sociopolitical issues of particular importance in urban wildlife management are covered in chapters on the human dimensions of wildlife management (Chapter 15) and legal considerations (Chapter 16). Special management considerations include six chapters on the ecology and management of urban (1) herpetofauna; (2) birds; (3) mammals; (4) threatened, endangered, and extirpated species; (5) introduced and invasive species; and (6) resident Canada geese and urban white-tailed deer.

xvii

xviii

Preface

The third edition of Urban Wildlife Management is a continuation of “the rest of the story,” including those issues that are usually left out of manuscripts that focus primarily on how to alleviate the problems associated with nuisance urban wildlife species. For example, this book provides a basic framework of information that will give the reader an understanding of factors that promote or prevent the presence of wildlife in urban communities. Past editions of Urban Wildlife Management were used as a text or reference document by 17 colleges or universities. Others who used the book included urban wildlife biologists at state DNRs, state and federal agencies, and urban planners and managers in urban areas. Private citizens with a personal interest in urban wildlife management also purchased this book. Six peer reviews of the previous editions in the Journal of Wildlife Management, The Condor, and Human–Wildlife Conflicts; book reviews on Amazon.com; and newspaper editorials were overwhelmingly positive. In addition, the first edition was selected as the 2007 Outstanding Book by the Texas Chapter of The Wildlife Society, and Choice magazine’s annual “Outstanding Academic Title List.” Since the first edition of Urban Wildlife Management, edited collections of research reviews on urban wildlife have become available, including Urban Herpetology, Urban Carnivores, and Urban Wildlife Conservation: Theory and Practice. The content of this book would have been incomplete without the assistance of other wildlife management professionals and students. Jessica Alderson provided the information for and helped write Perspective Essay 14.1. Debra Cowman helped us assimilate the relevant literature on environmental toxicants on wildlife population dynamics in Chapter 6. John M. Davis’ contributions include the impacts of stream channelization in Chapter 5, a perspective essay on people’s love of lawns in Chapter 7, and another on urbanites’ fear of wildlife in Chapter 15. John also provided many of the photos used in this book. Thanks to Rob Denkhaus and Suzanne Tuttle for their case study on feral hogs (Sus scrofa) in Chapter 13. Fran Gelwick and Michael Masser reviewed and edited sections on urban streams and impoundments in Chapter 5. Marian Higgins provided the introduction to nature centers in Chapter 7. Ardath Lawson wrote the perspective essay on cemeteries in Chapter 7. Roel Lopez contributed the key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) case study in Chapter 12. Linda Causey provided several figures depicting concepts presented in text. Robert Meyers conducted an analysis of the Wildlife Services Management Information Systems data set that led to the national and regional overview of the species of most concern and economic impacts of animal damage in Chapter 2. The Quality Deer Management Association (Bogart, Georgia) was the source of information concerning white-tailed deer densities in each state, as provided in Figure 14.10. Emily Rollison and Sara Ramirez developed a spreadsheet based on a review of more than 900 nature centers in the United States that was used to develop a new section for Urban Green Spaces in Chapter 7. Bonnie Bradshaw is a wildlife rehabilitator who provided some alternative approaches to animal damage control in Chapter 2. Judit Green provided one of the first overviews of the Texas Master Naturalist Program in Chapter 2. Finally, Dan Straker updated the coexisting with coyotes in Vancouver management program in Chapter 11. I am grateful to each of these individuals for their talents and contributions. When all is said and done, I am extremely grateful for and proud of their contributions, and take this opportunity to thank each and every one of them. Clark E. Adams

Author Clark E. Adams is an emeritus professor in the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences (WFSC) at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. He holds a BS in biology from Concordia Teachers College, Seward, Nebraska; an MS in biology from the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon; and a PhD in zoology from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. He chaired the Conservation Education Committee for The Wildlife Society (TWS), edited the newsletter for the Human Dimensions of Wildlife Study Group, was a member of the Urban Wildlife Management Working Group, and has chaired many committees for the Texas Chapter of TWS. He is past president of the Texas Chapter of TWS and the TWS Southwest Section. Since 1981, he and his students have conducted and published many national, regional, and statewide studies on the public’s activities, attitudes, expectations, and knowledge concerning wildlife. He developed the degree option in urban wildlife and fisheries management for the WFSC and developed and taught the senior-level urban wildlife management course. He is coauthor of another book titled Texas Rattlesnake Roundups (Texas A&M Press, 2008). He was the recipient of the 2015 Outstanding Achievement in Urban Wildlife Conservation award from the TWS Urban Wildlife Working Group. Adams completed a 51-year teaching and research career on August 31, 2015.

xix

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm In the future, we’re all going to be urban biologists. —Timothy Quinn, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2003)

KEY CONCEPTS

1. There are several lines of evidence that document the need for urban wildlife management. 2. There are similarities and differences between wildlife management in urban and rural habitats. 3. The wildlife profession is still not prepared to meet the wildlife management challenges in urban environments.

I.1  A SNAPSHOT OF THE URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE To be absolutely accurate, the focus of this book is on wild vertebrate species found in human dominated landscapes… but “urban wildlife” is quick, catchy, and is the accepted terminology. Urban, in this context, includes both the cities and the suburbs. Also known as “the built environment,” an urban landscape includes places where most of the property is devoted to all things man-made and/or maintained: buildings of all shapes and sizes, manicured lawns and landscaped office parks, cemeteries and vacant lots, strip malls and parking structures, elementary schools and college campuses, airports and warehouse districts. A substantial portion of this land is covered with some kind of impervious surface, in the form of either structures or pavement. The plant life is often native to other parts of the world or highly hybridized and thus requires much caretaking in the form of mowing, pruning, weeding, watering, and treating with herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Urbanization and the encroachment of people into formerly undeveloped wild habitats will continue into the foreseeable future, changing the landscape and the wildlife management agenda. In fact, in the first edition of this book, published in 2006, we predicted that within the next 10–20 years it was entirely possible that urban wildlife management (UWM) would become the dominant focus of wildlife professionals. Now, a little more than 10 years later, it would be an overstatement to say that UWM is presently the primary focus of the profession, but the issue continues to gain attention and importance in the professional literature, the popular media, the classroom, and among state and federal agency personnel. I.2  CHANGING WILDLIFE VALUES There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from a grocery store, the other that heat comes from a furnace. Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac, 1949)

The “typical” American has changed dramatically over the past 50+ years in contrast to the dominant rural, agricultural lifestyle of previous eras. Life in cities and suburbs has influenced Americans’ attitudes and expectations concerning wildlife. Many, if not most, are several generations removed from a culture of living close to the land. They are more likely to value wildlife similarly to the way they value companion animals and people (Mankin et al. 1999, Sterba 2012) than as a consumptive-use resource. xxi

xxii

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

The Baby Boom Generation and their children were raised in a technological rather than natural environment. As such, contemporary society retains an affinity with nature, described by biologist E.O. Wilson as biophilia (1984), but it has also become exceptionally uninformed about the natural world (including wildlife) around them…which is not to say they’ve lost their curiosity about wildlife and the natural world. Access to both is considered an important contribution to quality of life. Americans are now more likely to be involved in wildlife-related recreation such as observing, feeding, and photography than traditional hunting and fishing activities (Figures I.1 and I.2).

Figure I.1 Participation in traditional consumptive-use activities has decreased over time. (Courtesy of Chris Ware and Mark Tyson.)

Figure I.2 Interest in nonconsumptive wildlife recreation is on the rise. (Courtesy of Mason Hayes.)

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxiii

The home-building industry has certainly taken note of the public’s interest in connecting to the natural world; promoting close proximity of green space and wildlife has become a common marketing strategy for developers. If you doubt this statement, consider that in 2011 more Americans were involved in wildlife watching (71.8 million) than the combined total of those who hunt and fish (33.1 million, U.S. Department of the Interior 2011). The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) estimated the total population is growing at an average rate of 1.16% each year, but societal participation in hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching is not increasing in proportion to total population growth (Figure I.3). However, the number of self-reported wildlife watchers has dropped less (down 6% since 1991) than the ranks of hunters and anglers (down 10% since 1991, U.S. Department of the Interior 2011, Figure I.4). It appears that state DNRs are losing their traditional clientele base with no signs of reversing the trend. According to Robinson and Ridenhour (2012), little research has addressed the decline in hunting. They proposed two hypotheses that attributed the decline of hunting to the urban publics’ (1) decreasing interest in the outdoors due to their preferences for indoor electronic media (e.g., called videophilia) and (2) reduced access and connection to rural areas as a result of urbanization. State DNRs are fully aware of the declining hunting license sales revenues and game animal overpopulations. Urban residents are often disinterested in conservation and do not see the connection with hunting as a recreational pursuit and overpopulations of game animals. DNRs, however, have no sustainable programs that recruit the urban public back into hunting, or compete with contemporary urban societies’ preferences for engaging with the wildlife around them. Efforts to bring the urban public back as hunting participants causes one to recall the old southern American phrase, “that dog won’t hunt,” meaning something just isn’t going to happen. How is all of this relevant to UWM? Wildlife management agencies need to begin addressing the attitudes, activities, knowledge, and expectations of the majority, nonhunting, urban public concerning all things wild. Their future may rely, in part, on the development of wildlife management programs that specifically target the educational needs of a nonconsumptive majority. “One size will not fit all” in this endeavor. The entire conceptual framework for Urban Wildlife Management exemplifies the 10

Percent change

5 0 –5 –10 –50 –20 1991–1996

1996–2001

2001–2006

Census

6

6

5

Hunting

0

–0.7

–0.4

0.9

Fishing

–0.1

–0.3

–1.2

1

Watching

–17

5.1

7.5

1

2006–2011 4

Figure I.3 Percent changes in U.S. population and participation in hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching (U.S. Department of the Interior 1991, 1996, 2000, 2006, 2012). (Courtesy of Clark E. Adams.)

xxiv

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

350 300 253

Million

250

269

285

311

298 Census

200

Wildlife watching

150

Hunting Fishing

100

76.1

50 0

35.6 14.1 1991

62.9 35.2 14 1996

66.1

71.1

71.8

34 13

30 12.5

33.1 13.7

2001

2006

2011

Figure I.4 U.S. population changes in census and participation in wildlife watching, hunting, and fishing. (U.S. Department of the Interior 1991, 1996, 2000, 2006, 2012). (Courtesy of Clark E. Adams.)

diversity of knowledge required to begin reframing the wildlife management paradigm to fit the needs of twenty-first-century urban publics. I.2.1  Disconnecting from Nature So what does the population shift from primarily rural to primarily urban mean in terms of the public becoming partners in ecosystem management? Though many studies have demonstrated a connection between access to the natural world and improvements to health and quality of life, when it comes to competing for the public’s attention, the “outdoors” is at a disadvantage compared to smartphones and other mobile devices, laptop computers, and social network platforms, not to mention television, video games, and the shopping mall (Sterba 2012). There appears to be a growing public disconnect with nature, described by author Richard Louv as “nature deficit disorder” (2005). One memorable quote from his book Last Child in the Woods came from a suburban fifth grader who said, “I like to play indoors better ‘cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are.” In addition to Louv’s work, there are a number of books and other publications dedicated to examining the growing detachment of urbanites from the natural world, including Nature Wars (Sterba 2012) and Welcome to Subirdia (Marzluff 2014). I.2.2  Structural Barriers A structural barrier—restricted access to wildlife resources on private rural lands—further aggravates public indifference toward wildlife. Causes for lack of access may include proximity (or lack thereof), landowner resistance, high trespass prices, and loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat due to rampant development. Some wildlife professionals lament that “the loss of access to wildlife for a diversity of uses is likely to erode support for public custodianship of wildlife resources, a central premise of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD),” which views all wildlife as a public resource to be managed by governmental trustees as a “commons” for the benefit of all people living now and in the future (TWS 2010, p. 17). Furthermore, the public can develop antipathy toward wildlife when they experience property damage (see discussions in Chapters 2 and 15), loss of income, fear, and exclusion from the wildlife management decision-making process. “The resulting indifference by the public toward their wildlife resources makes the Trust’s assets valueless, eliminating the need

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxv

for trusteeship” (TWS 2010, p. 19). The trustees, in this context, are state natural resource agencies, more commonly referred to as departments of natural resources, and these entities have legitimate concerns over the possible loss of their raison d’etre. I.2.3  Wildlife Values Finally, the animal welfare and animal rights movements have introduced a different philosophical approach to how humans should view and value wildlife. One of the central tenets of the animal rights movement is that nonhuman animals (both domesticated and wild) are sentient creatures capable of feelings and perception through physical senses and of responding through overt actions and emotionally, not unlike humans. So, from the mindset of some urban publics, lethal (and largely traditional) wildlife management options that violate this tenet are considered unacceptable. Research suggested the attitudes of nonrural residents toward wildlife are quite similar to those held for pets (Bjerke et al. 2003). This perspective influences opinions on how, or even if, these species should be managed. Concurrently, there is a growing concern about human–wildlife encounters, especially those perceived to endanger the health and safety of people and their companion animals. Outbreaks of zoonotic diseases such as West Nile virus, hantavirus, and chronic wasting disease make headlines in both local and national news. The number of human–wildlife conflicts continues to rise, as does the number of private wildlife control businesses (Lindsey 2007). Clearly, life in the urban wilds is not a return to Eden. Which begs the question—Who is tending this garden? I.3  NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT OF URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Change often must begin at the grassroots level. The National Institute for Urban Wildlife was the first formal organization of individuals who recognized and wanted to address UWM issues. To start a dialogue, the Institute hosted three national symposia on urban wildlife (Chevy Chase, Maryland, 1986; Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1990; and Bellevue, Washington, 1994), and two proceedings were published (Adams and Leedy 1987, 1991). The Wildlife Society (TWS, the professional organization for wildlife biologists in the United States) published an entire issue devoted to urban wildlife management in the Wildlife Society Bulletin in 1997 and again in 2011 (Volume 25, No. 2 and Volume 35, No. 3, respectively; discussion in greater detail later). This is usually the first step in the professional recognition of a subdiscipline within the larger context of wildlife management. TWS now has both an Urban Wildlife Working Group (UWWG) and a Human Dimensions Working Group (HDWG), both of which focus on UWM issues. Additionally, there are now several peer-reviewed journals that publish urban wildlife management research (Magel et al. 2012, discussed later). The fourth national urban wildlife symposium was held in Tucson, Arizona, in 1999 (Shaw et al. 2004). Subsequently, the Arbor Day Foundation, in cooperation with the UWWG, took on the task of organizing and hosting a biannual national UWM conference, initially held at the Lied Conference Center, Nebraska City, Nebraska (2001, 2003, 2005), and finally, in Portland, Oregon (2007). A variety of topics were presented at these conferences, ranging from managing wildlife in urban environments, human–wildlife conflicts, public education on urban wildlife, and stakeholder recognition, among others. The TWS UWWG organized three more UWM conferences in Amherst, Massachusetts (2009); Austin, Texas (2011); and Chicago, Illinois (2015). No records or proceedings have resulted from these meetings thus far. During the 2003 conference, one attendee who represented a city government asked if there were any publications that summarized the issues and complexities of urban wildlife management

xxvi

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

under one cover. At that time, there was no such document, but the first edition of Urban Wildlife Management was published at the end of 2006. Since then, valuable feedback has been received from colleagues and students, along with requests to include topics that initially had to be omitted due to space limitations. Ideally, a comprehensive book on urban wildlife management should have been available at least 20 years ago. The earliest observation on urban wildlife (squirrels, raccoons, and coyotes) was chronicled in 1897 by Ernest Ingersoll in Wild Neighbors: Outdoor Studies in the United States. The seminal work on urban wildlife is Leonard Dubkin’s The Natural History of a Yard (1955). Both publications have mostly escaped the attention of contemporary urban wildlife biologists. Dubkin was a pioneer in the study of urban wildlife habitats within “parks and forest preserves, empty lots, the industrialized riverfront, patches of open land between housing developments, tenement slums, dank underground passages, railroad embankments, and sidewalk cracks” in Chicago (Bryson 2011). Lowell Adam’s work, Urban Wildlife Habitats: A Landscape Perspective (1994), which as the name suggests focused on urban/suburban wildlife habitat, was a fortuitous resurrection of Dubkin’s earlier studies. Other authors have addressed individual aspects of urban wildlife management, such as urban ecology and sustainability (Platt et al. 1994, Whiston-Spirn 1985), human dimensions (Decker et al. 2012, Manfredo et al. 2008), human–wildlife conflicts (Conover 2002, Hadidian 2007), urban wildlife law (Rees 2003), urban planning (Tyldesley 1994), and even urban species identification (Landry 1994, Shipp 2000). The first edition of Urban Wildlife Management filled a void, but the field continues to grow and evolve (Magle et al. 2012). This current edition is my best attempt at reflecting the changes without giving short shrift to the basic ecological principles that are the underpinning of urban wildlife management. This is not a “how-to” book for solving specific urban wildlife conflict issues—other authors (e.g., Conover 2002, Hadidian 2007, Reidinger and Miller 2013) have addressed these problems admirably. Rather than providing a prescription for short-term, reactive methods that address symptoms, the material included here provides professionals in wildlife management and related fields with the information and insight required to set and achieve long-term, proactive management goals that focus on the root cause of UWM challenges. As before, the third edition can be used as a textbook for both undergraduate and graduate courses on urban wildlife management, urban ecology, or even urban planning. Often, if a textbook is not available, much-needed college courses will not be taught. Urban wildlife management is not a traditional component in university curricula for wildlife biologists, but more courses are available now than ever before. The first and second editions of this book have so far been adopted by 17 and 20 different colleges and universities, respectively, both nationally and internationally. In some cases, the book was adopted for use in existing urban wildlife classes, but in other cases new classes were designed with Urban Wildlife Management in mind. I am confident that the third edition will support a continuation of this trend. There are two key questions a teacher has to answer when preparing a class: (1) “What am I going to teach?” and (2) “How am I going to teach it?” Answering these questions for an undergraduate class on urban wildlife management without a textbook at hand can be a formidable task. There’s an ever-increasing body of literature in scientific journals and the popular media (both print and electronic) about urban wildlife. The public, and to some degree even wildlife professionals, are largely unaware of the information on urban wildlife presented in the scientific literature, while the primary focus of popular media is as much entertainment as education. A curriculum for training urban wildlife biologists emerged as I examined the full range of urban wildlife issues in the context of human history and society, natural history, ecology, politics, law, and economics. Urban Wildlife Management captures information strewn throughout journal articles, conference proceedings, government documents, websites, other books, secondary data sets, and personal experiences and those of colleagues. Urban Wildlife Management gathers the essential information together under one cover, providing a synthesis document for academic, community, and professional development.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxvii

Case Studies and Perspective Essays are included to illustrate the concepts. My approach was to continue to tell a story based on a review of over 1000 references (see References), but there was no way to include all of the pertinent literature without creating an encyclopedia. The information provided in each chapter was meant to be an overview of the subjects discussed, not an exhaustive treatment. Many chapters have been, or could be, the subject of an entire book. Readers are invited to take the opportunity to expand their understanding of the concepts introduced here. Urban Wildlife Management has found an audience outside of the university classroom as well. Many individuals working for the government, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit businesses whose responsibility or job description includes some aspect of urban wildlife management have found previous editions of this book to be a necessary addition to their reference libraries. Developers, for example, failing to take into account the surrounding wildlife community while at the same time hoping to attract buyers by incorporating community green space may, in spite of good intentions, create some of the management challenges addressed in this book. An understanding of the cause-and-effect outcomes could significantly change the “business as usual” development process, leading to a planning approach that allows for increased interaction between humans and wildlife while avoiding potential conflicts. Other fields that may benefit from a greater understanding of urban wildlife management issues include public health, urban planning, parks and recreation, sanitation, tourism, transportation, and animal control (both domestic/feral and wild species). At the very least, exposure to the subject matter will make it clear there is value to be gained by inviting someone with urban wildlife management experience and expertise to take a seat at the planning table. The goals for writing this book were fairly straightforward: (1) to compile a body of information that stimulates the reader’s curiosity about the urban world in which most of them live and present it in a way that would be accessible for most readers, (2) to expand the reader’s knowledge about how natural and urban ecosystems work, (3) to challenge readers to examine the role their personal actions may have in creating at least some of the urban wildlife issues covered in this book, and (4) to give readers an opportunity to apply their new knowledge and understanding through personal actions that promote sustainable approaches to urban wildlife management. I.4  UNDERSTANDING AND MEETING THE FUTURE CHALLENGES OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT The wildlife profession as a whole has been slow to respond to the shift in public interest and need resulting from an increase in urban wildlife populations. In 1999, the TWS UWWG conducted a national survey of state wildlife management agencies and land-grant universities offering a degree in wildlife science (Adams 2003, repeated by Murphy 2014). The surveys were designed to determine how well agencies and universities were prepared to address urban wildlife management issues. The results were disturbing in many respects, as discussed in detail in Chapter 2, but the general conclusion was that the infrastructure for urban wildlife management was missing in state DNRs and land-grant universities in 1999, and it was still missing in 2014. The role of the wildlife manager has changed significantly in the twenty-first century. So has the role of those responsible for preparing the next generation of wildlife professionals. However, many wildlife management faculty have yet to respond to this changing management environment and are either completely oblivious, dismissive, or grossly misinformed as to what the discipline entails. A telling example of the latter was observed during a meeting at one of the premier university departments of wildlife sciences in the United States. The topic of discussion was whether or not to add an urban wildlife management option to the department’s undergraduate curricula. One faculty member, a nationally recognized scholar in ecology and conservation biology, commented that he could see no reason for developing a curriculum about raccoons (Procyon lotor) in garbage

xxviii

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

cans and consequently voted against its inclusion. Often, when we disclose that urban wildlife is our primary research interest, we are asked how we like studying pigeons and rats (neither of which, of course, are technically wildlife in the United States, since both urban pigeons (Columba livia) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are an introduced species in the United States…but we digress.). University faculties must begin to recognize the need to develop new instructional paradigms that meet the challenges faced by wildlife professionals now, not as it was practiced during earlier eras, or they may find they have become largely irrelevant. Human residents of urban and suburban habitats do not stay in their own home ranges—they venture forth into previously undisturbed lands and create urban wildlife through development, feeding (intentional and unintentional), and habituation, so even traditional wildlife professionals are likely to find themselves faced with the issues described in this book. Students, too, must become aware of this paradigm change. When we talk with and advise students interested in wildlife professions, we often see a reflection of ourselves at their age and level of educational development. Many are drawn to working with wildlife because they enjoy nature and are looking for professional pursuits that offer a more adventurous life, hoping (somewhat naïvely) that it won’t require much contact with “the public.” They picture themselves collecting and analyzing data in the middle of a remote forest, far removed from the aggravation of the human race (other than, perhaps, an equally adventuresome National Geographic photographer!). They want to “fight the good fight,” gathering information that could someday save a species or an ecosystem from extinction. These budding wildlifers can make a difference but if they want to do so while employed they may have to change the scenery of their daydreams to residential developments instead of remote rainforests (Figures I.5 and I.6). In our formative years and early in our careers, we were drawn to the study of wild things for the sake of knowledge and also because, in our opinion, they were so much more interesting than people. Since those early days, we have come to understand there is no place on Earth that is not a

Figure I.5 The traditional image of a wildlife biologist is that of an individual collecting and analyzing data in the middle of a remote forest, possibly even saving a species from extinction. (Courtesy of John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS, Washington, DC.)

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxix

Figure I.6 As the general population becomes more urbanized, wildlife biologists are being asked to have greater interaction with people, particularly in the area of public education. (Courtesy of Robin Graham.)

wildlife habitat, and we can make a much more significant impact on the world if we direct more of our attention to understanding people and their relationships with wildlife by educating them about the wildlife that surrounds them. We recognize the complex nature of urban wildlife issues prevents the “quick fix.” Therefore, to be effective, an urban wildlife biologist needs academic training and preprofessional experience in both the traditional curricula and courses that add both the built landscape and people into the mix. In my opinion, the naturalist approach to understanding urban wildlife issues needs to be resurrected in academia. Too much time is spent memorizing the names of stuffed and preserved specimens from museum collections, and too little time is spent on understanding why the animal lives where it does, and its relationship to both the habitat and other species found there. Related to this is the need for students to have more time in the field experiencing the situations they will encounter in the real world. Luckily, nascent urban wildlife biologists needn’t wander too far afield from home, campus, or workplace—their outdoor laboratory is but a few steps away. In addition to basic core courses in zoology, botany, taxonomy, genetics, and chemistry, aspiring urban wildlife biologists need exposure to courses in ecology, conservation and management of wildlife, urban forestry, urban land use planning, environmental and interpretive education, public speaking, and conflict resolution. A thorough understanding of wildlife laws and the legal ramifications of urban wildlife management at the community, city, county, state, and federal levels also are crucial. This type of academic preparation will help students understand how urban communities function and how wildlife management issues arise. In fact, extensive knowledge and experience will be needed in all of these areas if potential job candidates are to have any hope of rising to the challenges they face after graduation (see Sidebar I.1). Some wildlife biologists continue to be convinced that the future scope and purpose of wildlife managers will be shifting from traditional/rural to urban issues. This shift will occur even though there are currently at least two generations of deer, turkey, and quail managers waiting in the wings (pun somewhat intended). As pointed out in Chapter 2, practicing urban wildlife biologists are still relatively rare, but demand for their training and experience continues to increase in urban communities. Sadly, few academic institutions are training new professionals to meet the current job market, or the needs of an ever-increasing urban population.

xxx

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

Students with an interest in urban wildlife as a future profession will likely be confronted with some negativity by more traditional wildlife biologists. Hey, we’ve been there. Actually, often we’re still there! As pointed out by Witter et al. (1981, p. 424) several decades ago, “Plying the wildlife trade in the world of high-rises and suburbia is a career with which most wildlifers are not overly comfortable. Conventional wisdom holds that wildlife management is most productive when conducted far removed from metropolitan environments and concentrations of people.” Obviously, my colleagues and I disagree. State DNRs and land-grant universities often find it difficult to expand their focus and embrace urban wildlife management. They have fixed agendas and no budget for additional management and/or research obligations, limited personnel are trained in urban wildlife research and management, and they may not yet recognize urban wildlife management as their responsibility. Where then does the future urban wildlife biologist find a job? The lack of attention to urban wildlife issues by government agencies has spawned a grassroots movement of sorts in which responsibility for wildlife management is shifting away from state and federal agencies, with privatization becoming a growing trend. It is possible that future job opportunities will emerge in the private sector, with environmental consulting firms and private wildlife control businesses with city and county government departments, including urban planning and recreation and parks; at the federal level in agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service; and with nonprofit organizations, including urban nature centers, wildlife rehabilitation organizations, and environmental education centers (Sidebar I.2). In addition, students trained in a wildlife and fisheries curriculum make excellent high school biology teachers (Adams and Greene 1990). For now, college students will need to tailor their academic training around a holistic management paradigm. Traditional management practice focuses on either increasing (in the case of game species) or decreasing (in the case of “nuisance” or “pest” species) animal populations. The focus of

Figure I.7 Aldo Leopold, the father of wildlife conservation in America, recognized that people are part of the wildlife management equation. (Courtesy of Aldo Leopold Foundation, Baraboo, WI.)

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxxi

urban wildlife management, however, is in large part providing urban residents with opportunities to enjoy the wild species that exist in their own backyards while also sharing the knowledge and skills required to avoid conflicts. The challenge is to manage both wildlife and human populations in urban ecosystems in a manner that allows for sustainable coexistence (Fox 2006). If urban residents recognized the potential for positive interactions with wild things in the city, it may help to ease the pressure on the last remaining true wild areas we have left. In the late 1930s, Aldo Leopold (Figure I.7) recognized that meaningful and significant wildlife management requires management of people. This fact is not often acknowledged within the more traditional wildlife management fields but there is no way to escape it when dealing with urban wildlife. As demonstrated in Section IV, urban areas are home to diverse and robust communities of wildlife. This affords future wildlife professionals the opportunity to better understand the human–wildlife relationship and make significant contributions to all areas of wildlife conservation. So, even though colleagues may regard your urban-centric professional pursuits with a huge measure of misunderstanding and disdain, we encourage you to take heart. Change has been slow in coming, but it is gaining speed. I.5  LITERATURE REVIEW LIMITATIONS Whether we like it or not, wildlife management is driven by the bottom line. State and federal agencies prioritize wildlife research and management projects based on budgets and political agendas. State budgets are primarily generated by license sales and resultant Pittman–Robertson funds, sale of special species hunting tags, and special state legislative appropriations. Funds are largely directed toward the provision of resources and services for the hunting public. There are stakeholder groups interested in urban species (e.g., birders), but they tend to provide money to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) rather than to agencies. Should we be looking to agencies to take the lead on urban wildlife research? Most were not created with that mandate or to address the needs of urban stakeholders. Hunters and anglers have stepped up to support research that benefits them. Nonconsumptive users have not only failed to do so, most are oblivious to the need. The primary driving force behind which wildlife species will be the focus of graduate student research at universities is also the source and amount of funding. In this regard, literally millions of dollars have been spent on deer (Odocoileus spp., Cervus spp., and Alces spp.), quail (Colinus and Callipepla spp.), and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) research projects compared to the “scraps” provided to support urban wildlife management research projects. If one compares the shrinking population of hunters that benefit from game animal research with the growing urban populations who desperately need a better understanding of the wildlife around them, it’s easy to see why agencies are concerned about becoming irrelevant to the majority of their citizens. Moreover, within the wildlife profession, urban landscapes represent an underserved and potentially profitable niche ripe for exploitation by the private sector. The literature search to build and synthesize the information required to produce this book made it evident there were many unaddressed stakeholder agendas in urban wildlife management research. However, based on personal experience and observation, it’s evident that the agenda successful researchers must prioritize is that of the funding agency. If you want to know how research priorities are set, follow the money! We challenge our readers to provide a single example of a wildlife research project conducted just for the sake of doing so, that is, true scientific inquiry (aka resurrection of the naturalist; see Schmidly 2005, Herman 2002), rather than satisfying the goals and objectives of vested interest groups. Instead, wildlife professions are bound to comply with the rules identified as the grants and contracts syndrome (GCS). A syndrome is a predictable, characteristic condition or pattern of behavior that tends to occur under certain circumstances, which, in this case, is applied to the process of scientific investigation. When applied to urban wildlife research, the GCS can be characterized by

xxxii



Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

1. Failed attempts to secure funds to conduct an original scientific inquiry, or to compete for funds already set aside to conduct research designed by others (the most common scenario) 2. Redundant research on charismatic (funded) species, for example, urban white-tailed deer (see Case Study I.1) 3. A publish or perish accountability in academic environments 4. Wildlife species specialists with priority access to funds and collegial networks to publish their research results (example provided in Table I.1) 5. Rarity of originality or “out of the box” research approaches

Research on any aspect of urban wildlife will be inexorably tied to the agendas of funding sources. Given their monetary investment, research benefactors might feel inclined to determine (1) who will conduct the research, (2) what research questions will be examined, (3) how much time and money will be spent on the project, (4) what are the acceptable a priori outcome expectations (hypotheses), (5) which research methods will be used, and (6) by what means will research results be communicated, if at all—in-house (contract reports), to selected audiences, or to the whole community (popular literature). Adherence to the GCS sets research priorities within the domain of research practitioners has resulted in a plethora of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. One author estimated that 1.8 million scientific research articles were published each year in 28,000 journals of which 50% are never read by anyone other than their authors and journal editors (Eveleth 2014).

Table I.1 Evidence of Author Similarity on 85% of 13 Urban Florida Key Deer Publications from 2003 to 2008 1. Barrett, M.A. and P. Stiling. 2006. Key deer impacts on hardwood hammocks near urban areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(6):1574–1579. 2. Harveson, P.M., R.R. Lopez, B.A. Collier, and N.J. Silvy. 2007. Impacts of urbanization on Florida Key deer behavior and population dynamics. Biological Conservation 134(3):321–331. 3. Harveson, P.M., R.R. Lopez, N.J. Silvy, and P.A. Frank. 2004. Source-sink dynamics of Florida Key Deer on Big Pine Key, Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):909–915. 4. Lopez, R.R., N.J. Silvy, P.A. Frank, S.W. Whisenant, and D.A. Jones. 2003. Survival, mortality, and life expectancy of Florida Key deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(1):34–45. 5. Lopez, R.R., N.J. Silvy, R.N., Wilkins, P.A. Frank, M.J. Peterson, and M.N. Peterson. 2004. Habitat-use patterns of Florida Key Deer: Implications of urban development. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):900–908. 6. Lopez, R.R., P.M. Harveson, M.N. Peterson, N.J. Silvy, and P.A. Frank. 2005. From the field: Changes in ranges of Florida Key deer—Does population density matter? Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):343–348. 7. Nettles V.F., C.F. Quist, R.R. Lopez, T.J. Wilmers, P. Frank, W. Roberts, S. Chitwood, and W.R. Davidson. 2002. Morbidity and mortality factors in key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38(4):685–692. 8. Parker, I.D., A.W. Braden, R.R. Lopez, N.J. Silvy, D.S. Davis, and C.B. Owen. 2008. Effects of US 1 Project on Florida Key deer mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(2):354–359. 9. Peterson, M.N., R.R. Lopez, E.J. Laurent, P.A. Frank, N.J. Silvy, and J. Liu. 2005. Wildlife loss through domestication: The case of endangered key deer. Conservation Biology 19(3):939–944. 10. Peterson, M.N., R.R. Lopez, N.J. Silvy, C.B. Owen, P.A. Frank, and A.W. Braden. 2003. Evaluation of deer-exclusion grates in urban areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1198–1204. 11. Peterson, M.N., R.R. Lopez, P.A. Frank, B.A. Porter, and N.J. Silvy. 2004. Key deer fawn response to urbanization: Is sustainable development possible? Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(2):493–499. 12. Peterson, M.N., R.R. Lopez, P.A. Frank, M.J. Peterson, and N.J. Silvy. 2003. Evaluating capture methods for urban white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):1176–1187. 13. Roberts, C.W., B.L. Pierce, A.W. Braden, R.R. Lopez, N.J. Silvy, P.A. Frank, and D. Ransom. 2006. Comparison of camera and road survey estimates for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(1):263–267.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxxiii

I.5.1  Publication Priorities Over 1000 journal articles were used to produce the content of this textbook; these articles represented examinations of the ecology of urban ecosystems, urban wildlife management, natural history, human dimensions of wildlife management, sociopolitical/legal considerations, zoonotic diseases, and taxonomic inventories. Unfortunately, redundancy of content and the lack of critical research needs on urban wildlife management were stumbling blocks in our examination of the literature. This claim was tested by examining peer-reviewed literature on urban deer research since the 1980s (Case Study I.1). After careful analysis and a rigorous selection process, Magle et  al. (2012, Table 1) found 571 (0.2%) out of 270,636 articles in 16 target peer-reviewed journals (1971–2010) that contained legitimate research and results on urban wildlife. Only 35% of the 571 articles came from traditional wildlife publications such as Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM), Wildlife Research, or Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB). The majority (55%) were published between 2001 and 2010. The highest proportion of articles addressing urban wildlife topics were found in Wildlife Research (n = 58), Landscape Ecology (n = 42), Landscape Ecology and Urban Planning (n = 85), Biological Conservation (n = 117), WSB (n = 66), and JWM (n = 77). Most studies were conducted in North America (51%) and Europe (21%). The taxa most frequently studied were birds (43%) and mammals (38%). The most common urban wildlife research topics were animal behavior, conservation, and landscape ecology followed by wildlife management and population ecology. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Human Wildlife Interactions were not included in the Magle et al. (2012) study because they did not exist within the time frame of the sample or had low impact factors. On the other hand, the number of peer-reviewed manuscripts on urban wildlife management research in the two major journals of TWS, JWM and WSB, has grown steadily since 1997. One entire issue—58 articles—of the WSB (1997: 25 [2]) was dedicated to research on white-tailed deer (O. virginianus) overabundance in urban communities. A later issue of the WSB (2005: 33 [2]) contained 10 articles on golf courses and bird conservation. More recently, the WSB devoted an entire issue (2011: 35 [2], 25 articles) to the ecology and management of deer in developed landscapes. The fifth, sixth, and seventh editions of the Wildlife Management Techniques Manual have sections devoted to urban wildlife management. The cover story in the December 9, 2013, issue of Time magazine was devoted to urban wildlife under the title “America’s Pest Problem” (Von Drehle 2013). The news media are increasing attention on wildlife in urban areas such as coyotes (Canis latrans) in city parks, cougars (Puma concolor) in people’s backyards, and urban deer herds. VanDruff et al. (1996) explained the complex nature of conducting field research in urban settings, with an emphasis on habitat structure in urban compared to rural environments, and the problems resulting from frequent contacts with humans during the research process. These issues are even more prevalent two decades later! I.5.2  Reductionist Approaches A familiar problem associated with introducing UWM as part of the curriculum in the wildlife sciences is the misperceptions colleagues, students, and others have regarding its conceptual framework. For example, UWM is animal damage control or a particular suite of techniques peculiar only to urban areas seem to be the recurring summative explanation of urban wildlife management. Wildlife biologists have no one to blame but themselves for the latter problem, due to the inclusion of UWM in the Wildlife Management Techniques Manual published by TWS (McCleery et  al. 2012). Truth be known, wildlife management techniques consist primarily of catching, identifying, marking, following, and counting wild animals, along with a healthy dose of formulae and statistics to add scientific rigor to the first five activities. It would be interesting and probably quite surprising

xxxiv

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

CASE STUDY I.1: LITERATURE REVIEW ON URBAN DEER RESEARCH MICHAELA M. MURPHY AND CLARK E. ADAMS INTRODUCTION Urban expansion across the United States has increased frequency of human encounters with wildlife in urban environments, particularly with species that are expanding in numbers. Urban deer, particularly white-tailed deer, have often led to human–wildlife conflicts in urban areas (Green et al. 1997). As such, some wildlife biologists and other researchers have begun to focus their attention on the study of urban white-tailed deer. Studies on urban deer can help mitigate negative human–deer interactions; improve knowledge about disease transmission; offer management suggestions for deer in urban areas; and provide insight on deer behavior, movement, and diet in urban areas. This study reviewed urban deer research that has been conducted since the 1980s. It examined the focus of research efforts that have been done in the past, and identified the areas of investigation that require further attention. METHODS For the purpose of this study, urban deer were defined as “those living in urban, suburban, and residential areas.” The literature was reviewed for publications on urban deer by using several search engines including: AGRICOLA, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete (Mastro et al. 2011). Additional references were located by inspecting the literature-cited section of each reference assuming that our claim of redundancy in research efforts would be supported. Selected articles referenced deer and the urban environment, for example, urban, suburban, residential, or homeowners in the title. Deer were defined as whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). All peer-reviewed articles that contained these subject criteria were selected for further investigation. This method was used in order to exclude articles that contained a synonym of urban in the manuscript or as a key word but was not about urban deer. Unfortunately, this criterion excluded a few articles that were focused on urban deer but did not have the term “urban” in the title. Consequently, articles concerning deer-damage (crops and vehicles) were excluded from this selection. Upon selection, subject descriptors, for example, population control and public perceptions, among others (Table I.2), were assigned to each reference in order to identify the central theme of each article. RESULTS A total of 84 peer-reviewed journal articles were selected. There were a number of reports and articles from other locations, but for the purpose of this review, only the peer-reviewed articles were considered. The majority of the selected articles were published between 1997 and 2011 (Figure I.8). Study site locations for the articles included 24 states and Canada, and four articles encompassed study site locations across the United States (Table I.3). Two articles did not list a study location, and the authors were unable to be contacted to access this information. The majority of articles were published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (59.5%, N = 50) followed by other (25%, N = 21), The Journal of Wildlife Management (11.9%, N = 10) and Human–Wildlife Conflicts (4%, N = 4). Articles were produced from a variety of authors, but H. Kirkpatrick was the primary author on 15 publications on urban deer during the time frame selected for this study.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxxv

Table I.2 Key Concepts Assigned to 139 Urban Deer Articles Published from 1987 to 2011 Key Word

Number of Articles Assigned to

Population control Human perception Lethal management Spatial and temporal Nonlethal management Techniques and methods Conflict management Behavior Disease Affecting other species Diet Genetics

31 21 19 18 15 13 10 4 3 3 1 1

18

Number of urban deer articles published

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year Figure I.8 Years in which urban deer articles were published.

Key words that were assigned to articles included population control (lethal and nonlethal), human perceptions, conflict management, spatial and temporal use, diet, behavior, genetics, techniques and methods, disease, and affecting other species. The most prevalent key words (Table I.2) that appeared in the literature review were population control (22%, N = 31) and human perception (15%, N = 21). Seven articles discussed contraception and/or public perceptions of that management control technique. One article each was devoted to diet and genetics. Topics of disease and affects other species were the topics of three articles. Seven articles employed modeling or simulation techniques to predict spatial and habitat use,

xxxvi

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

Table I.3 Twenty-Seven Locations Where 93 Urban Deer Research Projects Were Conducted from 1987 to 2011 Location Across the United States Canada Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Missouri

Number of Articles

Location

Number of Articles

4 3 2 15 6 2 6 2 4 1 2 1 5 3

Nebraska New Jersey New York Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Unknown Utah Washington Wisconsin

1 4 12 1 1 3 5 1 3 2 2 1 1

Note: Some research was conducted in multiple locations.

survival analysis, or deer–vehicle collisions. Seven other articles discussed property damage caused by urban deer. DISCUSSION Over 82% of the population in North America lives in urban areas (United Nations 2011). Deer species can thrive in suburban and urban locations nearly anywhere in the United States where gardens and enhanced natural areas provide food and minimal predator effect (Etter et al. 2002). Deer, particularly white-tailed deer, have increased in numbers across the United States and have come into more frequent contact with people living in urban settings. As urban deer problems escalate in the United States, there has been an increase in urban deer research and management (Green et al. 1997). Urban deer research since the 1980s has been repetitive and focused primarily on population control and human perceptions. There was also a noticeable body of literature on deer damage control, though this research was not often differentiated between rural and urban settings. Human perceptions and conflict management will likely continue to dominate urban deer studies given public and agency funding priorities. However, there is a need to increase information on disease transmission by deer in urban areas, how urban deer populations affect other plant and animal species, diet differences between urban and rural areas, and genetic information of deer in urban areas. This review shows that a greater number of urban deer articles focused on lethal compared to nonlethal control as an urban deer management option. The human perceptions articles noted that historically the public generally preferred nonlethal management strategies over lethal ones (Bowker et al. 2003, Kilpatrick et al. 2007, Lauber and Knuth 2000, Messmer et al. 1997, Stout et al. 1997). On the other hand, state wildlife agencies perceived hunting and lethal methods as acceptable techniques for managing urban deer (Messmer et al. 1997). More recently, the public appeared to be more willing to accept lethal management strategies depending on the method and the degree to which they were experiencing problems

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxxvii

(Siemer et al. 2004, Stewart 2011). However, only two articles considered the perspective of state wildlife agencies. The public may have views on what deer control method they prefer, but actions that state agency biologists may implement are limited by legal, economic, and political motivations (Messmer et al. 1997, Urbanek et al. 2011). With increasing rates of urbanization and an expanding wildland–urban interface, urban deer populations will likely increase. Though there has been a considerable amount of research in the areas of urban deer population control and human perceptions, it remains unclear as to how research results directed efforts toward managing and controlling urban deer. Because of the quantity of information available in the literature on this topic, future research might be directed toward aspects of urban deer that have not been previously examined. For example, impacts of urban living on closed populations of deer could have some measurable effects on the population’s gene pool (e.g., loss of genetic heterogeneity through inbreeding). Furthermore, it is unknown how the diet of urban deer, largely provisions from the urban public and of questionable nutritional value, for example, deer corn, can affect “normal” eating habits and overall health. It is possible that the loss of the understory and browse lines resulting from extensive urban deer foraging habits, has measurable impacts of resident populations of other species of urban wildlife. Future research efforts on urban deer might consider examination of other factors that sustain them as urban adapters, for example, their role in urban ecosystems as a keystone species (Rooney and Waller 2003, Waller and Alverson 1997).

to determine the degree to which the Wildlife Management Techniques Manual is actually used by members of the wildlife profession. This third edition of Urban Wildlife Management explores an extensive range of concepts required to provide a more complete and accurate presentation of wildlife management to colleagues, students, and the general public. To achieve this goal, it is important to articulate the fundamental similarities and differences between wildlife management in urban vs. rural habitats (Table I.4). Note there are twice as many differences as similarities, and these were the obvious comparisons. The differences identify the professional preparation, environment, limitations, public involvement, and professional isolation of urban versus traditional rural wildlife management programs. Table I.4 may also be used to identify and summarize the critical curriculum components for courses on UWM. The chapters that follow go into greater detail, with explanations and examples of how these differences need to be negotiated in order for wildlife biologists to operate effectively in urban habitats. I.6  NATURE IN HUMAN-DOMINATED LANDSCAPES Urban and suburban environments present a host of special challenges for wildlife professionals (Decker et al. 2012). The historic focus on consumptive issues has not resulted in wildlife management agencies that are well-positioned to address the concerns of an increasingly urbanized population. As such, wildlife management, other than animal damage control (ADC), does not have an extensive history of operation within metropolitan areas. The priority emphasis on ADC has resulted in multimillion-dollar businesses for NGOs and federal government agencies, for example, the USDA APHIS Wildlife Services. As a result, a trend is developing toward increased privatization of wildlife management, particularly in urban and suburban settings. NGOs, such as private wildlife control businesses, conservation groups, humane societies, and wildlife rehabilitators have

xxxviii

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

Table I.4 Wildlife Management Comparisons in Human-Altered Urban versus Natural Rural Habitats Similarities 1. Involves game, nongame, exotic, or threatened/endangered species. 2. Uses standard wildlife management procedures, e.g., the Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. 3. Action requires input, participation, and oversight by state or Federal wildlife agencies. 4. Preparation in college-level wildlife management courses required. 5. Potential economic losses or gains are the primary catalysts for management action. 6. Wildlife management goals are both proactive and reactive. 7. Uses professional and popular outlets to disseminate the status of information to the WHOLE community. Differences Urban

Rural

1. Lower diversity of native plant and animal species.

a

2. Fewer sources of state and Federal funding for management programs. 3. A new and developing focus for research, management, and education programs. 4. Layers of jurisdiction increase with proximity to urban centers. 5. Small scales of analysis with many legal and physical impediments in highly fragmented landscapes. 6. Requires extensive training and experience in the human dimensions of wildlife management.b 7. Limited academic and agency acceptance and participation. 8. Residents have a more heterogeneous set of attitudes and expectations related to wildlife. 9. Higher public demand for inclusion in the management process. 10. Higher potential for threat to public health from zoonotic disease and parasites. 11. Management to reduce artificially abundant wildlife populations. 12. Growing trend toward privatization and commercialization of wildlife management. 13. Exaggerated time frame for the completion of management activities 14. Managers may not have required training in wildlife management.

1. Higher diversity of native plant and animal species. 2. More sources of state and Federal funding for management programs. 3. A large and established focus for research, management, and education programs. 4. Layers of jurisdiction decrease with distance from urban centers. 5. Large scales of analysis with few legal and physical impediments in less fragmented landscapes. 6. Requires less training and experience in the human dimensions of wildlife management.b 7. Wide academic and agency acceptance and participation. 8. Residents have a more homogeneous set of attitudes and expectations related to wildlife. 9. Lower public demand for inclusion in the management process. 10. Lower potential for threat to public health from zoonotic disease and parasites. 11. Management to sustain artificially abundant wildlife populations. 12. Majority of management efforts coordinated through state or Federal agencies. 13. Significantly shorter time frame for the completion of management activities 14. Managers have required training in wildlife management.

Note: Table reviewed and edited by S. Ash, J. Davis, R. Denkhaus, S. Gehrt, S. Locke, and R. D. Slack. a Deals primarily with a few species that are highly adaptable or fortuitously well suited to an urban environment. b Includes conflict resolution; awareness of public attitudes, activities, knowledge, and expectations; public education; and identification and inclusion of all stakeholder groups.

stepped in to address public demand unmet by government agencies. This paradigm shift away from a system of managing wildlife as a commons for the good of the resource and toward private, profitdriven systems is not, by and large, the result of specific policy decisions. Rather, it has evolved as a grassroots response while agencies struggle to adapt to changing public expectations and funding limitations. Even though state wildlife agencies have a legislative mandate to manage all wildlife species within their borders as a public resource, funding for nontraditional wildlife management issues is extremely limited in all but a few states.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xxxix

I.6.1  Urban Ecosystems Urbanization is the process of transforming wild lands to better meet the needs and desires of humans. Usually this comprises clearing much of the native vegetation and replacing it with exotic species. Some, if not all, of the topsoil layer is removed and much of the remaining soil is either compacted, “waterproofed” by creating an impervious barrier to precipitation in the form of concrete or asphalt, or both. In the process, the land’s habitat potential is significantly altered. An urban ecosystem, as discussed more completely in Chapter 3, can be thought of as a system influencing, and being influenced by, human attitudes, behaviors, regulatory policies, and a sense of resource control throughout areas where humans live, work, and recreate at moderate to densely populated social scales (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995). Certain wildlife species are naturally well suited to the altered environment, some are able to adapt to these changes, and others decrease in number or disappear through a combination of mortality and emigration. An extensive examination of urban ecosystems and population dynamics can be found in Section II. I.6.2  Urban Habitats and Hazards Urban environments do not consist of one type of habitat. Examples of unique habitats within urban areas include parks, cemeteries, vacant lots, streams and lakes, residential yards, school grounds, corporate campuses, golf courses, airports, bridges, parking structures, and landfills. In addition, this range of habitat diversity occurs within a much smaller geographic area than would normally be found in rural landscapes. These unique habitats are both a benefit and detriment to urban wildlife. Urban habitats are clearly distinguished by geographic, regional, and climate variables (e.g., temperature and rainfall), but for the most part there is an index of habitat similarity (uncalculated) in human-built environments regardless of these variables. These similarities should predict the type of vertebrate fauna that exist in human-built environments. In this regard, we explored the similarity of terrestrial amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammalian taxa by state and urban observations in Section IV. Section III provides an analysis of the adaptability of selected urban habitats for various wildlife species. I.6.3  Urban Wildlife Species Ecological and sociological factors combine to create urban wildlife management challenges. On the wildlife side of the equation, a species’ ecology and behavior can be used to predict generalities such as the presence and abundance of resident populations, while the specific circumstances often are tied to the geographic areas. On the human side of the equation, issues such as culture, economics, and politics can predict how humans will respond to a species’ presence and abundance. Section IV is a new section of investigation for this edition of Urban Wildlife Management, including Urban Herpetofauna (Chapter 9), Urban Birds (Chapter 10), Urban Mammals (Chapter 11), Urban Threatened, Endangered, and Extirpated Species (Chapter 12), and Urban Introduced and Invasive Species (Chapter 13). This section is concluded with a discussion of the similarities and differences in managing two of the most common urban species, for example, resident Canada geese and urban white-tailed deer, in Chapter 14. I.6.4  Urban Sociopolitical Factors Most Americans like wildlife. They believe hearing birds sing and watching squirrel acrobatics adds to their quality of life. However, this love affair with wildlife can quickly turn sour when animals “cross the line” from acceptable to unacceptable behavior (Schmidt 1997). The line is different for each individual. Human reactions to wildlife include a broad spectrum of emotions and

xl

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

reactions based on previous exposure to both formal and informal education programs and personal experience (Kellert 1980). Natural resource agencies have a vested interest in shaping public understanding of wildlife management and conservation (Mankin et al. 1999), and they have had success identifying and communicating with specific, traditional clienteles (Hesselton 1991, Jolma 1994, Kania and Conover 1991). However, the number of urban stakeholders who want explicit consideration in management has grown over the last several decades (Decker and Enck 1996) and continues at even greater levels today. While traditional stakeholders tend to have similar expectations for wildlife management, several regional studies suggested urban residents often have diverse and conflicting goals, such as the desire to reduce human–wildlife conflict while also enhancing wildlife viewing opportunities (Conover 1997). The wildlife profession has had difficulty communicating effectively with the general public (Decker et al. 1987, Gray 1993). Urban wildlife professionals must constantly consider both biological and sociopolitical factors when developing management strategies, and these challenges are discussed in Section V. Identifying stakeholders and attempting to understand their perspectives, expectations, and demands is a daunting task. Chapter 15 addresses the application of human dimensions in urban wildlife management and the use of a stakeholder approach to management. I.6.5  Special Management Considerations Throughout most of the wildlife profession’s history, management activities took place in rural settings, primarily on public lands and large tracts of private agricultural and forested land. Farmers, ranchers, and game managers have much in common; game management grew out of an agricultural mindset of making land produce harvestable crops, including wildlife. Managers have long worked to motivate private landowners in rural areas to enhance their properties for wildlife (Decker et al. 2001). In contrast, management of urban wildlife requires working with many private owners holding small parcels of land. Consider for a moment the logistics of gaining access to land in private subdivisions for management purposes. This would involve the immensely complicated task of contacting possibly hundreds of property owners (Figure 1.4). Public lands in metropolitan areas tend to consist of easements, rights-of-way, and parks, all of which fall under the jurisdiction of a multitude of municipal and county governments and private entities. Wildlife professionals must learn to navigate a maze of legal considerations in urban and suburban areas. The sociopolitical landscape is cluttered with laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies, and varying levels of enforcement. Within city limits, there exists a minimum of four layers of jurisdiction: federal, state, county, and municipal. Often, there will be overlapping areas of responsibility within these jurisdictions. The issue of laws and jurisdiction, and their affect on urban wildlife management, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 16. Finally, no discussion of the overarching issues related to urban wildlife management would be complete without a consideration of zoonotic disease management (Chapter 17). In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has issued grants and contracts to research the possibility that certain types of zoonotic diseases and their vector species could be used for wide-scale disease transmission in urban communities. We presented five categories of zoonotic diseases and discussed specific examples in terms of origins, carriers, life cycles, disease epidemiology, and control options. CHAPTER ACTIVITIES 1. Take the Wildlife Hotline “Quiz” in Sidebar I.1 (Answers found in Appendix I.1 at the end of the chapter). 2. Evaluate how well your academic department’s curriculum prepares its students to become a professional urban wildlife biologist based on Sidebar I.2.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xli

3. Go to the U.S. Census Bureau website (www.census.gov). What percent of the population was classified as urban versus rural in the 2010 Census? How has this changed since the 1990 Census? 4. Go to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey website (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html). How many residents are actively involved in wildlife watching? How does this compare to the number of residents involved in traditional hunting and fishing activities? How has this changed since the 1991 Survey? How much is spent on these activities? 5. Determine whether your state DNR and/or land-grant university offers any urban wildlife programs and, if so, on what topics do they focus?

SIDEBAR  I.1: WILDLIFE HOTLINE “QUIZ” To be an effective urban wildlife biologist, you need to be versatile, have a broad range of knowledge, and think on your feet. Wildlife hotlines receive thousands of calls each year and each call is an opportunity to educate the public. In real life, the questions you ask of your caller are critical for determining what the caller is asking and how you should answer. So look over the following questions, taken from actual calls to a wildlife hotline, and think about how you would respond. Suggestions for key points that need to be addressed can be found in Appendix I.1 at the end of this chapter.

1. We have a neighborhood pond and it’s overflowing with ducks—we’ve got a real population problem and the ducks are becoming very aggressive because there isn’t enough to eat. What can we do? 2. There’s some kind of animal in my attic and its making all kinds of noise during the night. What is it and why is it up there? 3. During the last 2 weeks we’ve been hearing birds in our chimney. They are calling throughout the day and it echoes up and down the flue and makes a terrible racket. What can I do to get rid of them? [This call was received in July.] 4. There’s an armadillo tearing up my lawn at night. What kind of bait should I use to trap him? 5. Birds are always flying into my window and killing themselves. Why? What can I do to prevent it? 6. I found a baby porcupine in my [Houston] backyard. What should I do with it? 7. Do owls live around here [Albuquerque, New Mexico]? Could one have carried off my cat? 8. We have a cardinal that keeps attacking our bedroom window. Why is he doing that and how do I make him stop? He starts really early in the morning! 9. I just found a baby squirrel on the sidewalk. She seems okay but now that I’ve touched her I know the mom will kick her out of the nest if I try to put her back. How do I raise it? 10. A peacock is living in our neighborhood. He flies to the top of the houses and starts screaming at the crack of dawn. Can someone come out here and catch it? 11. I’m a golf course manager and we’ve got a problem with those Canada geese. They’re all over the place and they poop on the greens and the cart paths. The golfers are really starting to complain. What should we do? 12. What kind of seed should I put in my bird feeder to attract a greater variety of species? 13. I found a snake and I need you to tell me if it’s poisonous. Its brown and its BIG! 14. I’m from the city street department and we’ve got beavers flooding our roads. It damages the pavement and creates a hazard for drivers. Who do I need to talk to about having these things trapped and removed? 15. I’ve read about places where they give deer birth control pills when the population gets too big. Well, our deer population is too big—they’re eating all of our landscaping plant and they’re becoming a traffic hazard. Where can we get a supply of those pills? How do we get the deer to eat them? 16. I found a bat on the ground and it can’t fly. How can I help it? 17. How can I get bats to live in my bat house? Is there someplace I can order bats?

xlii

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

SIDEBAR  I.2: JOB ANNOUNCEMENT FOR AN URBAN WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST An urban wildlife biologist is an individual who works primarily in metropolitan (nonrural) environments, focusing on nondomestic vertebrate and invertebrate species and interactions between humans and wildlife (Adams 2003). During the course of a normal day, an urban biologist may be called on to handle anything from development of a plant or wildlife species conservation plan to assisting with conflict resolution issues between a developer and the local city planning board. Job titles and descriptions vary depending on the emphasis an employer places on specific tasks. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), for example, states that the duties of its urban biologists include “providing opportunities for urban residents to reconnect with the natural systems, presenting educational programs for adults and students on a variety of habitat/wildlife issues, serving as technical advisors on multiagency conservation planning initiatives, and assisting landowners with habitat restoration or enhancements” (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/expltx/eft/careers/ urban.htm, March 21, 2005). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, on the other hand, stresses “forging and working with partnerships of government and private entities to achieve conservation objectives” and wildlife damage management and public outreach in an announcement for a contract position (NCWRC, Urban Biologist Contract Position # 04-FD-JM1). The following 2011 job announcement from the TPWD Wildlife Division provided some additional insight into the scope of knowledge and diversity of skills needed by those interested in this profession.

Natural Resources Specialist I-II-III (Urban Wildlife Biologist) as Edited by Author General Position Description Under the direction of the Conservation Outreach Program Coordinator, the urban wildlife biologist performs professional planning, management, research, and outreach duties associated with wildlife, habitat, and natural resource management specific to the San Antonio Metropolitan Area. Provides technical assistance to the public, local governments, corporations, private landowners, and conservation organizations about issues pertaining to urban and small acreage natural resource management, site assessment, and sensitive wildlife populations. Performs complex work in the area of wildlife and resource conservation and management involving biological and environmental surveys, regional planning, investigative research, studies, and inspections. Conducts field or laboratory tests and analyzes and evaluates the results with regard to environmental impact. Increases public awareness of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) by coordinating and conducting high-visibility projects involving community partners and promoting wildlife and habitat activities via workshops, outdoor events, presentations, and media outreach. Actively seeks grants, partnerships, and opportunities for increased funding. Assists in training interns and Texas Master Naturalist volunteers. Performs additional duties as assigned. Working Conditions (1) Required to work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; (2) required to work on holidays, weekends and hours other than 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. as necessary; (3) required to respond to emergency and on-call situations; (4) required to adjust to changing schedules; (5) required to travel with possible overnight stays; (6) required to perform work outdoors, occasionally in adverse weather conditions; (7) required to operate a State vehicle; and (8) nonsmoking environment in State buildings and vehicles. Minimum Qualifications Education Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in wildlife biology, wildlife management, ecology, biology, or related field.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xliii

Experience NRS I: No experience required. NRS II: Two years relevant experience. NRS III: Six years relevant experience. Acceptable Substitution: (1) Graduation from an accredited college or university with a master’s degree in wildlife biology, wildlife management, or related biological field may substitute for 1 year of the required experience. (2) Graduation from an accredited college or university with a PhD in wildlife biology, wildlife management, or related biological field may substitute for 2 years of the required experience. License/Certifications Must possess or be able to obtain, within 30 days of employment, a valid class “C” Texas driver’s license. Note: Retention of position contingent upon obtaining and maintaining required license. Selection Criteria Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities NRS I: (1) Knowledge of wildlife species, native vegetation, ecology, and management with particular emphasis relating to urban environments in Central Texas; (2) knowledge of urban planning and design, aquifer management issues, and conservation development issues; (3) knowledge of common habitat management techniques utilized in Central Texas. NRS II–III: Knowledge of Natural Resources Specialist I: PLUS (4) knowledge of municipal and county political structure and function; (5) knowledge of advanced analytical software applicable to urban wildlife conservation. NRS I: (6) skill in effective verbal and written communication; (7) skill in collecting scientific data; (8) skill in using standard office equipment; (9) skill in using MS Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, and Outlook; (10) skill in coordinating with the public, with universities, department personnel, media representatives, and other governmental agencies; (11) skill in effective interaction with staff at all levels of the department and other State agencies and organizations; (12) skill in conducting conservation outreach programs. NRS II-III: Skill of Natural Resources Specialist I: PLUS (13) skill in supervising projects as assigned; (14) skill in conflict management. NRS I: (15) ability to collect, analyze, and report advanced scientific data; (16) ability to communicate with the general public and agency staff on a broad range of fish, wildlife, and habitat issues; (17) ability to work as a member of a team; (18) ability to work under moderate supervision, with limited latitude for the use of initiative and independent judgment; NRS II: Ability of Natural Resources Specialist I: PLUS (19) ability to supervise projects as assigned; (20) ability to understand the planning process; (21) ability to work under general supervision, with moderate latitude for the use of initiative and independent judgment; NRS III: Ability of Natural Resources Specialist II: PLUS (22) ability to coordinate the work of others; (23) ability to supervise projects as assigned; (24) ability to work under limited supervision, with considerable latitude for the use of initiative and independent judgment. Additional Requirements (1) Resumes are accepted, but will not serve in lieu of a completed State of Texas Application for Employment. (2) Skills demonstration may be requested at the time of interview. (3) Miscellaneous information such as training certificates and copy of driver’s license are NOT required; (4) A PHOTOCOPY of an official college transcript(s) issued from the registrar MUST be submitted with the application. The transcript may be “issued to student” and does not need to be sealed and sent to TPWD. The transcript may be faxed, scanned, or mailed with application. (5) Texas Parks and Wildlife requires a consent for criminal background check form from all applicants completed at time of application. The form may be found on our website: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/jobs.

xliv

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

APPENDIX I.1: ANSWERS TO THE WILDLIFE HOTLINE QUIZ

1. We have a neighborhood pond and it is overflowing with ducks. We’ve got a real population problem and the ducks are becoming very aggressive because there isn’t enough to eat. What can we do? Teaching opportunity: This question provides an opportunity to talk about how feeding wild animals, while usually well intentioned, often turns out to cause problems in the long run. Suggest the community work with local and/or national organizations that have expertise in humane population control methods, including egg addling and egg oiling. Discuss habitat modification techniques to make the area less attractive to water-fowl. Explain that regardless of the type of population control the community chooses, they will need to post signs and educate their neighbors on the need to stop supplemental feeding. 2. There’s some kind of animal in my attic and its making all kinds of noise during the night. What is it and why is it up there? Depending on where the caller lives, there may be several wildlife species that are active at night and are likely to use attics when they are available; examples include raccoons, opossums, flying squirrels, tree squirrels, bats, and, yes, even rats. A common first step is to figure out where the animal(s) is entering and exiting—this is important for determining exactly what type of animal is using the attic and the materials needed for exclusion. Some methods for encouraging the animal to leave include placing a loud radio or strobe lights in the attic. The homeowner may want to consider hiring a commercial wildlife control operator. Before taking any action, consider the time of year. If it’s breeding season, extra steps may be needed to ensure that babies are not left behind before repairs are made to the entrance/exit site(s). 3.  During the last 2 weeks we’ve been hearing birds in our chimney. They are calling throughout the day and it echoes up and down the flue and makes a terrible racket. What can I do to get rid of them? [This call was received in July.] Most likely there are chimney swifts nesting in the flue. Explain that all migratory birds, including swifts, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Harming the birds, their nest, eggs, or offspring is illegal. Teaching opportunity: Point out that chimney swifts are nice to have around because they eat tons of insects during the summer—including mosquitoes. If there is a lot of noise the nestlings will soon fledge (leave the nest)—at most, there will only be about 2–3 weeks of the noise. Once the young leave the flue the parents will too; at this point a chimney sweep can be hired to cap the chimney to prevent future nesting. Meanwhile, a thick piece of Styrofoam®, cut to fit the fireplace opening, will dampen the noise. One last thing—chimney swift nests create little risk of flue fires. Once the young fledge, the nests tend to fall harmlessly down into the fireplace and can be discarded. Tests have shown that it’s actually quite difficult to set a swift nest on fire. 4. There’s an armadillo tearing up my lawn at night. What kind of bait should I use to trap him? Ask if the caller has actually seen the animal—are they positive it is an armadillo? Are they able to convince you, based on their description? Explain that armadillos dig to uncover grubs, which are a favorite food source. While the armadillo is undoubtedly damaging the lawn, so are the grubs. Remove the food source by treating the lawn for grubs and the armadillo will move on. Teaching opportunity: Trapping will not solve the problem. As long as there are grubs they will simply attract another armadillo (or another animal that eats grubs). Moreover, armadillos are not easily baited, especially when there’s a yard full of juicy grubs to be had without entering a strange metal contraption. A trapped armadillo will attempt to dig its way out, often mutilating its feet in the process. Finding an appropriate release site is difficult. Most relocated animals do not survive for long after release; they are hit by cars trying to return to their home territory; they get into territorial fights with the resident wildlife; they become ill as a result of the stress of relocation; or they are unable to find food and water in the new location.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

Treating for grubs takes longer initially than trap-and-remove, but it’s a long-term solution that is also more humane. 5. Birds are always flying into my window and killing themselves. Why? What can I do to prevent it? When a bird flies into a window hard enough to become injured or die, it’s usually because the window is reflecting the sky (for all or some portion of daylight hours). The bird perceives the window as open space and attempts to fly through. There are several ways to reduce the reflection hazard of your windows: Mix up some soapy or salty water in a spray bottle and mist the windows, allowing the water to dry and create a haze on the glass. Depending on how much of the year the windows create a reflection hazard, this method may need to be repeated periodically as rain or other moisture removes the coating. This method does require a somewhat casual standard of housekeeping since it does not leave a crystal clear streak-free pane of glass—and that’s the point. There are commercially available products, such as fine screening or spider-web mimics, that can be placed on the outside of the window to reduce reflection. Landscaping plants placed near the window may reduce reflection as well. 6. I found a baby porcupine in my [Houston] backyard. What should I do with it? Members of the public don’t always make accurate species identification. While it’s not completely impossible for someone to find a porcupine in a Houston backyard, it is highly unlikely since this species’ normal range does not include Texas. Chances are much greater that this individual has actually found an African pygmy hedgehog, an exotic pet that has escaped or has been intentionally released. In any case of uncertain identity, ask if the caller can safely take a digital photo and attach it to an e-mail. Once the animal has been correctly identified, it may be necessary to contact a permitted wildlife rehabilitator or domestic animal shelter in the caller’s area for assistance. Some animal shelters will accept exotic species under certain circumstances, either for use as an education animal or for placement in a new home. 7. Do owls live around here [Albuquerque, New Mexico]? Could one have carried off my cat? Yes, there are many species of owls living in the Albuquerque area, including great horned owls (always have a trusted field guide nearby when taking hotline calls). Yes, great horned owls are large enough to take a domestic housecat or even a small dog…and they’ve been known to do so. However, there are many other wild predators that may prey on companion animals. Teaching opportunity: Explain that domestic cats are not only at risk when allowed to roam freely outdoors, they are also predators that pose a risk to wild birds and mammals. Don’t forget to warn against pet owners taking action again a suspect owl, since doing so would be illegal (Migratory Bird Treaty Act), not to mention pointless. 8. We have a cardinal that keeps attacking our bedroom window. Why is he doing that and how do I make him stop? He starts really early in the morning! When a bird repeatedly hits or “attacks” a window, it’s responding to a reflection of itself and interpreting the image as an intruder on its territory. This behavior usually occurs only during the breeding season, when birds (especially male birds) are the most territorial. The antireflection methods listed in Q5 will work in this situation as well, but can usually be stopped or removed once the breeding season is over. 9. I just found a baby squirrel on the sidewalk. She seems okay but now that I’ve touched her I know the mom will kick her out of the nest if I try to put her back. Will you tell me how to raise it? The short answer is “no.” Most states require a wildlife rehabilitation permit to legally hold and care for wildlife. The longer answer helps callers to understand why keeping it is not in the best interest of the animal. Wild infants, just like humans, have very specific nutritional and behavioral needs. Inappropriate diets can result in lifelong disability or even death. The best solution—assuming the squirrel actually needs assistance—is to contact a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in the caller’s area.

xlv

xlvi

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

Teaching opportunity: Bird and mammal parents will NOT automatically reject their offspring once they’ve been handled by a human (or by our companion animals). This tidbit of “common knowledge” may have originated from the fact that wild parents will, in some cases, remove offspring from the nest or den when there is something amiss that will keep that individual from surviving. Cruel? Perhaps, but by reducing competition between healthy and handicapped siblings the healthy offspring have an improved chance at survival (because even when you’re healthy, survival isn’t a sure thing for wild animals). However, there are cases in which a healthy young animal is knocked out of a nest by wind or wanders off before it’s old enough to survive. A permitted wildlife rehabilitator can help the caller determine whether or not the animal actually needs assistance, and may be able to offer suggestions for returning the baby to its parent(s). 10. A peacock is living in our neighborhood. He flies to the top of the houses and starts screaming at the crack of dawn. Can someone come out here and catch it? A bird that can fly up to the roof of a house is a bird that can fly away from anyone trying to catch it. Sometimes peacocks can be captured after they have been habituated to enter a trap for food. Another option may be to wait until the bird is in its seasonal molt and therefore unable to fly. Suggest that the caller contact a game bird breeder for additional suggestions. 11. I’m a golf course manager and we’ve got a problem with those Canada geese. They’re all over the place and they poop on the greens and the cart paths. The golfers are really starting to complain. What should we do? Explain that a golf course is just about the most perfect Canada goose habitat that exists on this earth. It may be possible to modify the course to create a less appealing habitat but these methods may be expensive and will probably change the look of the course significantly. The PGA and LPGA have been involved in research related to wildlife and golf courses—suggest the caller contact these organizations for detailed suggestions. Suggest the course manager contact an organization with expertise in goose population management (see Q1). Last, while there are lethal removal methods, the caller needs to keep in mind that Canada geese are a protected species (there’s that Migratory Bird Treaty Act again); it’s important that the state wildlife management agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be involved in any management plan. 12. What kind of seed should I put in my bird feeder to attract a greater variety of species? Refer the caller to the Wild Birds Unlimited or similar website for information on specific seed suggestions for the birds in their area. Teaching opportunity: Explain that while offering seed is one way to attract birds, a greater variety of species can be enticed to their yard with water, which all birds need, and by landscaping with fruit- and seed-bearing plants, which also provide shelter and nesting sites. The caller might also like to know that native plants and water features are cheaper in the long run than feeders, require less maintenance, and allow birds to retain more of their natural behavior while also reducing the problems that occur when large numbers of animals congregate in a small area (including the spread of diseases such as finch conjunctivitis). 13. I found a snake and I need you to tell me if it’s poisonous. Its brown and its BIG! First order of business—warn the individual there’s no guarantee of accuracy when an ID is made over the phone. A digital photo will increase the chance of an accurate identification but, again, no guarantees! Ask questions about the snake’s location, behavior, etc. Remind the caller that even nonvenomous snake bites can be painful. If the snake is not threatening a child or a pet, and it is not inside a building, chances are it will leave on its own if given the opportunity. If the snake will not leave, consider contacting a wildlife control company for assistance. Teaching opportunity: If there have been multiple sightings of this and/or other snakes, explain that snakes, like most wild animals, are attracted to areas that provide one or more of the following: food, water, shelter. Consider whether the attractant could be rodents.

Introduction: A New Wildlife Management Paradigm

xlvii

14. I’m from the city street department and we’ve got beavers flooding our roads. It damages the pavement and creates a hazard for drivers. Who do I need to talk to about having these things trapped and removed? Explain that trapping and removal (vie lethal means or for relocation) will not solve the problem. It will only open up habitat for other beavers to move in. Changes must be made to the habitat (see Q4). There are a variety of methods and technologies that will allow the beavers to remain and stop the flooding, including “beaver deceivers.” Suggest the caller contact the state wildlife management agency or the Humane Society of the United States (www.hsus.org) for additional assistance. 15. I’ve read about places where they give deer birth control pills when the population gets too big. Well, our deer population is too big—they’re eating all of our landscaping and they’re becoming a traffic hazard. Where can we get a supply of those pills? How do we get the deer to eat them? Begin by explaining that the use of immunocontraceptives for deer is an experimental method—one that has not proven to be very effective. Additionally, this is an expensive population management method. Last, explain that any management of deer populations must be done with oversight by the state wildlife management agency…and then provide the agency’s phone number and a contact name within the agency. 16. I found a bat on the ground and it can’t fly. How can I help it? Step 1 (and this is VERY important): Make note of the phone number on Caller ID, and then ask if anyone has touched the animal. If there has been contact of any kind, inform the caller to immediately contact their local health department for instructions. Explain that while rabies is relatively rare in bats, one should err on the side of caution. If treated immediately, rabies is preventable and treatment no longer involves a series of painful shots in the stomach—they are no worse than flu shots. Left untreated, however, rabies is fatal. Period. One does not have to be bitten to contract rabies from an infected animal. If one has even a small cut on the hand, holding an infected animal can create a saliva-to-blood transmission of the virus. An infected bat may not exhibit overt signs of illness. If no one has handled the bat, instruct the caller to contact a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in the area for instructions and assistance. Teaching opportunity: Bats can’t take flight from the ground like a bird—they must drop from some height (which varies depending on the species) in order to become airborne. If a bat is grounded— and this can happen for a variety of reasons—it must crawl up a tree or other vertical structure in order to fly away. 17. How can I get bats to live in my bat house? Is there someplace I can order bats? Congratulate the individual on their progressive attitude toward bats—one of the most maligned species on the planet—and thank them for their efforts to keep their neighborhood mosquito population in check! Explain there is no legal way to order bats for their house, and if they ever see an advertisement for bats they should consider it a scam. The Bat Conservation International website (www.batcon.org) offers tips on how to site bat houses to improve the chance of attracting bats, and loads of other fantastic information on bats. Teaching opportunity: North American bats are crucial to the success of the agricultural industry because they are able to consume huge quantities of pest insects in a single night.

This page intentionally left blank

Section  I

Human–Wildlife Interface

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter  1

Wildlife Management Past and Present The forest stretched no living man knew how far. —Willa Cather (1931)

KEY CONCEPTS

1. Identification of the key events in the history of wildlife management in North America 2. A description of changes in the way wildlife is valued over the past 200+ years 3. Definitions of common terms used to identify urban wildlife with examples 4. A list of three underlying rationales for categorizing wildlife 5. A list of three types of wildlife behavior likely to be influenced by urbanization

1.1  BRIEF HISTORY OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN NORTH AMERICA Over hundreds of generations, conditions for wildlife populations in North America were nearly ideal, despite, as with any healthy ecosystem, being constantly in flux. Indigenous peoples used wildlife at sustainable levels for food, clothing, and shelter, and the animals played a large role in their culture and spiritual life (Decker et al. 2012). This situation began to change with the arrival of European immigrants approximately 400 years ago. These new Americans brought with them a culture of human domination over nature … at least in theory. Most Europeans did not have the legal right to exercise dominance over wildlife; those privileged few who owned land also owned the wildlife living on that land. Immigrants to North America found a seemingly infinite supply of natural resources. The abundance of wildlife during the 1600s and early 1700s must have been staggering to those who left behind lands that had been overhunted for centuries. What’s more is that there were no legal restraints on the exploitation of these resources. In North America, wildlife was a commons, a resource owned by all (but, at that time, managed by no one). Although even the earliest settlers depended on domestic livestock and cultivated crops, wild game provided variety and an essential food source when crops failed (Root and De Rochemont 1994). By the mid-1800s, wildlife populations in the eastern region of the United States were suffering under the combined effects of subsistence use, market hunting, and habitat loss. The migration of Americans westward during this time created a wave of similar pressures on wildlife. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), most species of waterfowl, and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) were extirpated in many areas of the east

3

4

Urban Wildlife Management

and midwest (Decker et al. 2012). The passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), a species once so abundant that the skies darkened when flocks flew overhead, was effectively extinct in the wild by 1900. 1.2  RISE OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATION MOVEMENT As the extent of damage to wildlife populations became more apparent, concerned citizens spent much of the nineteenth century working to develop a meaningful and effective system for protecting this disappearing resource. In 1844, a group of about 80 militant conservationists formed the New York Sportsmen’s Club,  solely for “the protection and preservation of game.” The club had three primary practices targeted for reform: sale of game for market, spring shooting of game birds, and lax game laws (Figure 1.1). A majority of the club’s members were attorneys, and they developed an effective strategy of suing poachers, dealers, and hotel proprietors for the sale or possession of game killed out of season. Club members tracked down violators by following tips from informants and using private detectives. The group was so effective in its crusade against game-law violators that their approach was adopted by sportsmen’s clubs subsequently formed in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Ontario, Canada, prior to 1870. However, most efforts were local rather than regional or national in scope (Trefethen 1975). The American conservation movement began in earnest during the late 1800s with the emergence of two discrete views of nature and the country’s wildlife heritage. Sustainable-use advocates, often termed “progressives,” counted Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt among their ranks, while John Muir and other “romantics” represented the preservationist standpoint (Lutts 1990; Figure 1.2a through c). Originators of the conservation movement at this time often embraced both the sustainable-use and preservationist worldviews. It was due to the two major influences of this

Figure 1.1 Market hunting of waterfowl and other wildlife species was one impetus behind the enactment of the first wildlife laws (USFWS).

Wildlife Management

(a)

5

(b)

(c)

Figure 1.2 Conservation pioneers John Muir (a), Theodore Roosevelt (b), and Gifford Pinchot (c). (Underwood and Underwood, 1921 [public domain], and Edward Hughes, 1902 [public domain], USFWS).

movement that the U.S. Congress created what would become the National Forest System (sustainable use) and the first National Parks (preservation). During this period, state agencies were created to manage wildlife for current and future citizens to use and enjoy. Laws to restrict harvest and protect habitat were passed by legislators across the country, but implementation of these laws proved more difficult, primarily due to the fact that reliable funding for enforcement often was limited or nonexistent for at least another 50 years. In 1937, Congress took an unprecedented step to address the funding problems associated with wildlife conservation and management by passing the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as Pittman–Robertson for the legislators who sponsored it. Pittman–Robertson funnels an 11% federal user fee on hunting rifles, shotguns, and ammunition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A 1970 law added a tax on handguns and archery equipment for wildlife management. In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act to address similar issues regarding fisheries management. Dingell–Johnson, as it is commonly known, collects a 10% manufacturers’ user fee on fishing equipment and tackle. The 1984 Amendment to Dingell–Johnson expanded the tax to include new motorboat fuel taxes and duties on imported tackle and boats. User fees established by the restoration acts and collected by the U.S. Treasury from manufacturers go into trust funds administered by the Department of the Interior. A maximum of 8% of the funds may be retained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for administration, and the rest is allocated to states based on a formula that considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. These are cost-reimbursement programs; the states cover the full amount of an approved project and then apply for reimbursement through federal aid for up to 75% of the project expenses. States must provide at least 25% of the project costs from nonfederal sources. Appropriate state agencies are the only entities eligible to receive federal aid grant funds. The purpose of establishing the restoration acts was to provide funding for restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of wildlife habitat and fisheries, wildlife and fisheries management research, and information distribution. Pittman–Robertson was amended in 1970 to include funding for hunter training programs and development, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges. Dingell–Johnson funds land for boating, fishing and fish production, and research and inventory

6

Urban Wildlife Management

projects and pays for public education about fish and their habitats. Both of these restoration acts have well served the needs of wildlife management agencies and consumptive users for decades. Due in large part to a historic focus on consumptive issues, governmental agencies were not well positioned to address the concerns of an increasingly urbanized population. State wildlife agencies have a legislative mandate to manage all wildlife within their borders as a public resource, but in all but a few states funding for nontraditional wildlife management issues is extremely limited. As a result, a trend is developing toward increased privatization of wildlife management, particularly in urban and suburban settings. Nongovernmental organizations, such as private wildlife control businesses, conservation groups, humane societies, and wildlife rehabilitators, have stepped in to address public demand unmet by government agencies. This paradigm, which shifts away from a system of managing wildlife as a commons for the good of the resource and toward private, profit-driven systems, is not, by and large, the result of specific policy decisions. Rather, it has evolved as a grassroots response, while agencies struggle to adapt to changing public expectations and funding limitations. 1.3  DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS THAT SET THE STAGE FOR URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT The convergence of three societal events at the end of World War II (WWII) set the stage for urban community development. First, automobiles and homes became more affordable and available, and returning soldiers had the means to purchase both. Second, Cold War mania provided a stimulus for the passage of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, which created the Highway Trust Fund. The original political justification for extensive highway construction was to provide city dwellers a rapid escape mechanism in the event of nuclear attacks, and this legislation enabled the development of the network of super highways through, around, and out of the cities (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3 Urban wildlife habitat may consist of a vast array of small plots of land classified as private property, easements, rights-of-way, and parks, each with a different owner or regulatory jurisdiction. (Courtesy of John M. Davis/Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.)

Wildlife Management

7

Lastly, America began to shift from a largely agrarian to a primarily urban society around 1945, as people moved away from family farms and self-contained communities to the city for work. Highways, affordable automobiles, really cheap gas (about 10 cents/gal), and a population opting for city life turned into the most massive and sudden movement of humanity in its history. These postWWII events led to a phenomenon called urban sprawl as discussed in Chapter 3. 1.4  SEPARATION OF PEOPLE AND NATURE One might conclude if people moved to the city fringe they would take advantage of the opportunity to reconnect with nature and wild things. However, the opposite reaction seemed to occur; people bring the structure of the city ecosystem to the country, simplifying and destabilizing their surroundings by changing the natural landscape and removing and replacing natural vegetation and endemic wildlife with exotic and domesticated species. A detailed description of the structural, biotic, and socioeconomic features of urbanization was developed by McDonnell and Pickett (1990). Structural features consist of dwellings, factories, office buildings, warehouses, roads, pipelines, power lines, railroads, channelized waterways, reservoirs, sewage disposal facilities, dumps, gardens, parks, cemeteries, and airports. Crops, ornamentals, domestic pets, pests, and disease organisms are the dominant biotic features of urbanization. Socioeconomic features include changes in human values, wealth, lifestyles, resource use, and waste. Urban dwellers are usually unaware that by changing the structural and functional components of natural ecosystems, they are creating alternative habitats for a wide array of invertebrate and vertebrate animals that are quick to take advantage of the habitats provided. This commonly results in increased human–wildlife interactions (e.g., songbirds at backyard feeders, coyotes in city parks), whether intended or not. A variety of these wildlife encounters are discussed in detail throughout this book. There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from a grocery store, the other that heat comes from a furnace. Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac, 1949)

Aldo Leopold’s prophetic quote is a succinct evaluation of how an urbanized society runs the risk of using the most simplistic explanations for complex phenomena. Decades and generations of human isolation from the natural world through urbanization have produced a society that lacks a connection to the natural world and a relationship to that world. For example, few people in contemporary society appreciate what their last lunch cost wildlife (discussed in Chapter 3) in terms of food production, transportation, packaging, and distribution. Leopold points out a second disconnect between society and nature in terms of their understanding of the costs to the environment and wildlife just to provide the energy required for home heating (e.g., surface coal mining). For most urbanites, gardens are a recreational pursuit rather than a food production necessity. It is probably safe to suggest that a majority of readers have never eaten a meal they’ve produced “from the ground up.” The entire concept of killing and butchering animals is met with abhorrence and disbelief that humans could exert such cruelty on another living organism. In contrast, being raised on a farm exposed this author, quite early in life, to the basics of food production. These tasks were an absolute necessity given the lack of alternatives such as grocery stores and farmers’ markets. For example, catching, beheading, removing feathers, gutting, and butchering were a necessity if one wanted to have fried chicken for dinner. This is in sharp contrast to the way most contemporary urbanites provide the family meal—purchasing frozen chicken chunks at the supermarket that may not even have a legitimate claim as being “made in America.”

8

Urban Wildlife Management

In order to more fully understand the separation between people and wildlife that occurs with urban sprawl, one needs to compare the interactions between people and wildlife in a rural community with what most readers experience on a daily basis in their urban communities. Perspective Essays 1.1 and 1.2 offer snapshots of the human–wildlife interactions of a boy in a small agrarian community in Iowa in the 1950s and a girl in suburban in St. Louis in the 1970s. Of particular importance in these essays is the description of people’s attitudes, activities, knowledge, and expectations concerning wildlife in their day-to-day lives at that time. Furthermore, it is instructive to reflect on the past from time to time in order to recall where we have been in relation to where we might be heading in our associations with wild things. It’s unlikely urban societies will ever return to the condition described in these essays. Furthermore, it seems imperative that urban communities understand their impact on species diversity; interrelationships with wild things and natural habitats; natural cycles (water and biogeochemical); and how the production, provision, and utilization of energy resources affects wildlife and their habitats. Urban society should also realize that unsustainable use of natural resources endangers human society as well as wildlife. These comparisons and impacts will be addressed in subsequent chapters. Perspective Essay 1.1 Human–Wildlife Interactions in the 1950s I spent the first 14 years of my life, 1942–1958, in Algona, Iowa, which, at that time, had a population of about 4000 people. A half-hour walk would put one into the country to conduct any number of activities, including hunting; fishing; catching insects; building forts, rafts, and dams; looking for rocks or Indian artifacts; collecting mushrooms, nuts, or berries; making tools, musical toys, or weapons from the surrounding vegetation; visiting your special place for solitude and reflection; hiking; snow sliding; and a host of other activities that cost nothing but your time. We fished year-round in the Des Moines River nearly every weekend and after school. Fishing included so much more than catching fish! River fishing usually resulted in wet, hot, dirty, insect-bitten, barefooted, and sun-burned anglers (Figure 1.4), which was a far cry from fishing programs currently popular in urban areas (Figure 1.5). The spring rains caused night crawlers (Lumbricus terrestris) to emerge after dark, and it was common to collect a gallon can full of worms to be used or sold as fish bait during the summer. Night crawler husbandry was a familiar practice. In addition, youngsters knew how to raise tadpoles to adult frogs, care for and feed baby owls until they fledged, catch pocket gophers for ten cents bounty, and live capture thirteen-lined ground squirrels (Citellus tridecemlineatus) with string. Rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus and Lepus californicus), fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), ringnecked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), and waterfowl were common fare on our dinner table. During open season, we hunted nearly every weekend and after school. In fact, the importance of hunting in our community was demonstrated each year during the opening day of pheasant season. Work stopped at noon. My mother made a special meal after which all the men and boys headed for the cornfields to hunt pheasants. Hunting was so universally accepted as a recreational and/or subsistence pursuit that we often took our 22-caliber rifles or 410 shotguns to school and stored them in our lockers so we could head to our hunting areas as soon as the last bell rang. We learned the behavior patterns of the animals in our community, including their escape routes, how they tried to avoid detection, defense mechanisms, where they slept, and what they ate. Trapping wild animals for the fur trade was a common fall and winter enterprise by both youngsters and adults. This meant checking trap lines at 4:00 a.m., dispatching the captured animals, skinning them, and stretching the pelt on the appropriate board for the species, storing them for future sale, and still making it to school or work on time. Trapping animals also led to lessons in animal anatomy. For example, knowing the location of the scent gland in skunks

Wildlife Management

9

Figure 1.4 Fishing in the 1950s. (Courtesy of USFWS, Washington, DC.)

Figure 1.5 Fishing from a well-stocked swimming pool in an urban community. (Courtesy of Clark E. Adams.)

(Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis putorius) and mink (Mustela vison) was critical! Other things we learned included special physical adaptations, for example, the badger’s (Taxidea taxus) incredibly quick ability to dig a hole from start to finish; the differences between carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores; and predator–prey relationships. Pet ownership was as much a matter of function as companionship. Dogs were expected to perform specific duties beyond eating and sleeping.

10

Urban Wildlife Management

Unlike contemporary urbanized societies, the human–wildlife interface that existed during this time in my life was based on a utilitarian human attitude of domination and sustained yields. The extrinsic value of wildlife was a far more important consideration than their intrinsic value. Our decisions concerning wildlife were not constrained by physical, psychological, societal, economic, political, or structural barriers. There were nearly daily interactions with wildlife, but people seemed more aware of the reasons behind these interactions and what actions, if any, were appropriate and necessary to promote or prevent the interaction. Clark E. Adams

Perspective Essay 1.2 Human–Wildlife Interactions in the 1970s I grew up in a blue-collar subdivision on the far edge of St. Louis. There were 28 houses on two cul-de-sacs, and I knew everyone who lived in there by name, including their pets. The 1970s were a time of great social upheaval as well as the transition of many communities from rural to urban. My house was less than 3 miles from a large shopping mall, and 1/3 of a mile from the farmhouse where two German brothers and their wives, now stooped with age, had watched over tilled fields before selling the land that became my neighborhood. My friends and I would gather weekday mornings at the end of our street, rain or snow or shine, waiting for a black and yellow bus to carry us to a former one-room schoolhouse for farm kids, now bulging in size and enrollment thanks to my suburban Baby Boom cohorts. When the bus released me in the afternoons, I would throw my books on the kitchen table and sprint for the exit, fast as a fly through a torn screen door. The natural world—and, in particular, any kind of nonhuman animal—had a greater appeal for me than playing dolls or house, both of which seemed barely indistinguishable from chores like making my bed or helping with the dinner dishes. I was a free-range kid and there was a wonderland beyond the mown grass yards waiting to be explored. When the neighborhood mob would decide to play hide-and-seek, I would often make a beeline for the open field that bordered our subdivision. I could disappear there, under the guise of participating in the game but soon forgotten and free to follow where curiosity lead. I would sit quietly, waiting for a mouse wander by. I might flush a cottontail or a covey of quail or sneak up on a fence lizard warming his belly on a sunny rock. I could lie watch a spider busy with her own household chores, listen to crickets report the temperature, or judge the grasshopper long-jump competition. At one time, this field had been domesticated and obediently nourished corn or soybeans or possibly cows. Now it was feral—a tangled mix of native and exotic plants. I would emerge with my jeans studded from the knees down in seeds of one kind or another (much to my mother’s dismay). The woodlot trees teemed with agile young primates, but visiting by myself was a very different experience. Without the cacophonous hooting of my peers, the woods would erupt in birdsong. My mom had taught me how to coax these feathered wonders closer by mimicking their calls, tricking them into thinking I was trespassing on their jealously guarded territory. Of course, the blue jays and the tree squirrels didn’t require any encouragement to show themselves—they’d been scolding me, and warning the entire thicket of my presence, from the moment I stepped into the dappled shade. Sadly, these sentries were of little help to box turtles dragging through the leaf litter. I would reach down like the hand of fate and lift them out of flatland, providing a glimpse of a much wider vista as I carried them home to live, for a while, in a world limited by the walls of a galvanized washtub. The creek was the best place to be on a long, hot, humid summer day—cool water tickling my feet and damp soil extruding between bare toes as I bent to examine the paw prints of

Wildlife Management

11

the previous evening’s thirsty raccoon or opossum. There were plenty of easily captured critters to add to my menagerie, and finding frog eggs or tadpoles was the grade-schooler equivalent of winning the lottery. I would carry my winnings home in a repurposed pickle jar filled with cloudy green water and try to raise up some froglets on saltine cracker crumbs and Cap’n Crunch cereal. My success rate wasn’t very high I’m sorry to admit. What was successfully nurtured during those unhurried, goalless explorations, at least in my case, was a passion for the natural world. Also, eventually, a desire to atone for all those wildlings I imprisoned with the best of intentions. It’s turned out to be a life’s endeavor. I became a wildlife rehabilitator, then a wildlife biologist, then a wildlife biology professor, and now I manage a graduate program for aspiring environmental professionals. But on the days when I am able to go exploring it all falls away. I’m that 11-year-old tomboy once again, mesmerized by a world that always has some new wonder up its sleeve. Kieran J. Lindsey 1.5  RECONNECTING PEOPLE AND NATURE Humans benefit from wildlife economically, recreationally, scientifically, and ecologically. Though these many types of human–wildlife conflict occur, most individuals believe the natural world is connected to quality of life and relates to human mental, physical, and moral well-being. Ecotherapy has emerged as a new vision of human health, and psychologists as well as scientists have started to see that nature experiences may reduce stress, anxiety, depression, and attention deficits (Buzzell and Chalquist 2009, Conover 2002, Kellert, 2005, Louv 2005, Murphy 2014). The predominant method used by urbanites to reconnect with the natural world around them is by constructing environments, installing feeders, and wildscaping their yards (Damude et al. 1999). Wildscapes are habitats that provide the essential ingredients for a variety of wildlife: food, water, shelter, and space. This is accomplished by planting and maintaining native vegetation, installing birdbaths and ponds, and creating structure. Feeders can supplement native vegetation but should never replace it. The goal is to provide places for birds, small mammals, and other wildlife to feed and drink, escape from predators, and raise their young. Nearly all of the constructed environments lead to a paradox in urban wildlife management. Programs like Wildscapes were designed to invite wildlife, and once the habitats were provided, the animals would come. But when too many animals responded to the invitation, they were seen as a nuisance and became the target for management efforts designed to reduce their numbers (Chapter 11, case studies on urban raccoons and coyotes). In spite of this problem, wildscaping programs tend to be viewed by departments of natural resources (DNRs) and nonprofit organizations as unequivocally positive. One study found that bird diversity was greatest in wildscaped neighborhoods, and residential areas that incorporated natural landscapes into their design attracted a greater variety of birds than traditionally landscaped residential areas (Aurora et al. 2009). Some alternative considerations concerning the value of constructed habitats for urban wildlife are discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. Another dilemma is caused by supplemental feeding of wildlife and the provision of alternative housing. Urbanites reported spending about 5.1 billion dollars annually to purchase food for birds and other wildlife (U.S. Department of the Census 2011). Up to 43% of households in the United States regularly feed birds (Martinson and Flaspohler 2003). Robb et al. (2008) speculated that bird natural selection is artificially effected as “feeding influences almost every aspect of bird ecology, including reproduction, behavior, demography, and distribution” (more on this topic in Chapter 10). The majority of feeders are designed to attract seed-eating birds, but other species are attracted to the seed, including squirrels (Sciurus spp.), mice (Mus spp.), rats (Rattus spp.), opossums, raccoons,

12

Urban Wildlife Management

and even bears. Additionally, some species are attracted to the animals feeding on the seed, such as snakes (Serpentes), domestic cats (Felis catus), skunks (Mephitidae), owls (Strigiformes), and hawks (Falconiformes) (see discussion of food chains in Chapter 3). It is reasonable to expect that providing animals with a continuous, reliable, high-calorie food source will lead to higher than normal birth and survival rates. High recruitment rates add to population increases that exceed the carrying capacity of a natural environment and create other concerns (Chapter 6). An additional way for urbanites to reconnect with the natural world around them is to utilize the benefits provided in urban open areas (e.g., parks, vacant lots, cemeteries, greenways, abandoned railroad tracks, lakes, streams, and rivers). The structure of urban habitats already provides plenty of food, water, and shelter for many wildlife species. In fact, peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) have been brought back from virtual extinction because of the resources provided in urban environments (Chapter 12). Many urban open spaces provide excellent birding opportunities during the height of migration. As discussed in Chapter 7, such places offer urban birders the opportunity to see a great variety of birds without ever leaving the city limits. 1.6  A NEW KIND OF WILDLIFE The development of urban communities breaks all the rules when they are compared to how natural ecosystems evolve. These rules are discussed in Chapter 3, but even though urban communities are so unnatural, their inherent abiotic and biotic characteristics still predict unique assemblages of urban wildlife. For example, the structural and functional characteristics of urban habitats provide a haven to some wild species (see Table 1.2 and Section IV), but can also be outright inhospitable to others—many that were present prior to urbanization. While many Americans readily acknowledge that pigeons (Columba livia), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), rats (Rattus spp.), mice (Mus spp.), and tree squirrels (Sciurus spp.) are “urban animals,” few are aware that a wide diversity of other wild species live in human cities, towns, and suburbs. Burger (1999) provided a detailed and extensive compendium about animals in towns and cities. She listed 712 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish that can be found in abandoned lots (35), road side medians (54), school yards (43), golf courses (55), residential back yards (64), parks (107), woodlots/forests (99), along shores (80), streams and rivers (61), lakes and ponds (90), and houses and other buildings (24). Birds were the majority species listed probably because they are more easily observed when compared to the other vertebrate types. There was redundancy in each list: however, she demonstrated a rich diversity of species that can be found in just 11 different habitat types in urban communities. Old field cemeteries (Chapter 7) were not included as an urban habitat type that contains multiple bird species. Other studies have documented urban and suburban populations of coyotes, burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Harris hawks (Parabuteo unicinctus), Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), deer, and extensive bird communities (Shaw et al. 2003). This edition of UWM expanded on these previous studies on urban biodiversity by conducting an extensive meta-analysis of terrestrial amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species diversity nationally, by state, and by observations in urban metropolises. Study methods are discussed in Chapter 3. Applications of study findings are discussed in Chapters 9 through 13. 1.6.1  Categorizing Urban Wildlife Before we dive into the ways in which increased exploitation of the built environment by wild species has affected our management goals and perspectives and to make sure we’re all on the same page, it’s important to define a few critical terms. In this text, the term “wildlife” refers to all free-ranging native (endemic) vertebrate and invertebrate terrestrial and aquatic animal species,

Wildlife Management

13

with the exception of humans (Krausman 2013). Early in the development of management agencies, wildlife species were categorized into three groups based on their utility to people: “game” (including “furbearers” of interest to trappers), “nongame”, and “nuisance”. This approach reflected the interests of both agencies and stakeholders in wildlife as a consumptive-use resource. Game species were managed to produce the greatest possible harvest, and nuisance species were targeted for lethal control. Nongame species received little attention. In the early 1970s, growing public interest in the environment and concern over increasing trends in vanishing, alien, invasive, and urban species, followed by legislation enacted as a result of these trends, expanded the wildlife lexicon (Table 1.1). This being the case, it was important for trained urban wildlife biologists to learn and correctly apply the terminology associated with introduced/invasive species. An illustration was designed to accomplish this task (see Table 1.2). Note the redundancy of terms that define some species of wildlife that live in urban communities. For example, rats and mice can be correctly classified simultaneously as alien, exotic, introduced, invasive, nongame, and nonnative. Conversely, the Florida Key deer can be classified as native, nongame, and threatened, which poses the question as to how a native, nongame animal becomes threatened. In fact, any alien species is, by definition, assumed to be exotic, feral, introduced, invasive, nongame, and nonnative. The conventional terminology used in the literature

Table 1.1 Terms and Definitions Classifying Animals Known to Occur in Urban Communities in Some or All States and May Cause Measurable Detrimental Economic, Human Health, or Habitat Effects Termsa

Definitionsb

A. Alien

A species whose presence in a region is attributed to human actions that enabled them to overcome fundamental biogeographic barriers; may also be classified as casual, naturalized, invasive, exotic, foreign, introduced, nonindigenous, or nonnative Species that have adapted to humans and the captive environments they provide resulting in changed phenotypes from that of its wild counterparts A species whose total population is declining to relatively low levels such that, if the trend continues, the species will likely become extinct Species introduced into geographic areas to which they are not native or species that are rare and subject to illegal trafficking Naturalized species that have reverted to the wild from domesticated stock and may have undergone some change in phenotype, genotype, or behavior owing to artificial selection in captivity Species managed to produce the greatest possible harvest that is controlled by hunting seasons, harvest limits, and specific laws (state or federal) A species that has moved (intentionally or accidentally) through human activity, from an area where it is native to a region outside of that range Alien species that sustain self-replacing populations over several life cycles, produce reproductive offspring, and have the potential to spread over long distances causing measurable detrimental economic, human health, and habitat effects A species that is found only in a particular geographic area or habitat Species that are not managed for harvest by seasons, limits, or laws Species that are transported to a new area and are released into the wild, which may grow in abundance and expand in geographic range or remain small in numbers and local in distribution A species whose population is declining precipitously because of direct or indirect human impacts All nondomestic vertebrate species, with populations in areas classified as urban (see Appendix A)

B. Domestic C. Endangered D. Exotic E. Feral

F. Game G. Introduced H. Invasive

I. Native (endemic) J. Nongame K. Nonnative

L. Threatened M. Urban a b

More than one term can describe a single species. Sources for definitions: Lockwood et  al. (2013), Price (1999), Richardson et  al. (2011), Wright and Boorse (2011).

14

Urban Wildlife Management

Table 1.2 Names and Classifications of Animals Known to Occur in Urban Communities in Some or All States and May Cause Measurable Detrimental Economic, Human Health, or Habitat Effects Mammals Ungulates Elk (Cervus canadensis) Moose (Alces alces) Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Carnivores Black/brown bears (Ursus americanus) Bobcat (Felis rufus) Cat (Felis catus) Coyote (Canis latrans) Dog (Canis familiaris) Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) Mountain lion or cougar (Puma concolor) Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Red fox (Vulpes fulva) San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Skunk (striped, Mephitis mephitis, or spotted, Spilogale putorius) Herbivores Beaver (Castor canadensis) Eastern cottontail rabbit, (Sylvilagus floridanus) European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) Hog (Sus scrofa) House mice (Mus musculus) Nutria (Myocastor coypus) Rat (black, Rattus rattus or Norway, R. norvegicus) Squirrel (fox, Sciurus niger or Gray, S. carolinensis) Birds American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) Brown-headed cow bird (Molothrus ater) Canada geese (Branta canadensis) Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Pigeon (Columba livia) Raven (Corvus corax) Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) Sparrow (Passer domesticus)

Species Classification(s) Table 1.1 F, I F, I I, J, L F, I F, I I, J I, J A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K I, J A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K I, J I, J I, J I, J, L I, J I, J C, I, J I, J I, J I, J A, D, G, H, J, K A, B, E, G, H, J, K A, D, G, H, J, K A, D, G, H, J, K A, D, G, H, J, K I, J I, J I, J I, J I, F I, J I, J G, H, J, K I, J I, J I, J I, J A, B, D, E, G, J, K I, J I, J A, D, F, G, H, K A, B, D, G, J, K (Continued)

Wildlife Management

15

Table 1.2 (Continued)  Names and Classifications of Animals Known to Occur in Urban Communities in Some or All States and May Cause Measurable Detrimental Economic, Human Health, or Habitat Effects Mammals Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Vulture (black, Coragyps atratus, or turkey, Cathartes aura) Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Reptiles Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Burmese python (Python molurus) Brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) Western diamond back rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) Amphibians Bull frog (Rana catesbeiana) Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis)

Species Classification(s) Table 1.1 A, B, D, G, H, J, K I, J F, I I, J A, B, D, G, H, J, K A, B, D, G, H, J, K I, J A, G, H, J, K C, I

has been reduced to introduced/invasive. Note that even though most of the native species listed in Table 1.2 are known to cause measurable detrimental economic, human health, or habitat effects, they are not considered invasive because they are not alien. Rather, they have been categorized as nuisance or pest species or “those species that have spread beyond their native range” (Jeschke and Strayer 2005). Categorizing wildlife as urban blurs the sharp distinctions established by traditional categories. For example, deer can be classified both as a game and an urban species. To some degree, traditional categories are less applicable in urban ecosystems. While both game and nongame species can be found in urban habitats, game species are rarely hunted in commercial or residential areas. Conversely, nongame species, such as grackles (Quiscalus spp.), prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), and bats (Chiroptera spp.), often are the target of lethal control measures, individually or as communities. Species listed as threatened or endangered, such as the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), may experience localized abundance within urban habitats, for example, Bakersfield, CA, thanks to greater abundance of food and water or lack of predation pressures. The term species is one of the most common undefined terms used throughout the scientific literature. Our definition of the term is the capability of all members of a population to interbreed and produce viable offspring that can also interbreed within the same population. For example, the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) is a species of cooler climates, with a range that encompasses most of the northern states of the United States and stretches far north into Canada (Smith and Keinath 2007). If the northern leopard frog is a single species, then individuals throughout its range, regardless of their extensive zoogeographic distribution, should be able to interbreed and produce viable offspring. Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are the same species, but the diminutive Key deer is a different subspecies. It is considered an island isolate from the continental population of white-tailed deer. Can they interbreed and produce viable offspring? We are not aware that such a union has been attempted, but theoretically it should be possible (Roel Lopez, personal communication). The term “threatened or endangered” (T/E) allowed wildlife professionals to classify species based on their abundance or scarcity. In spite of this change, wildlife categories remained sharply drawn; for example, once a game species is listed as T/E, management strategies shift, and hunting is prohibited … so for all practical purposes, it is no longer a game species. If, however, the species recovers and is delisted it returns to its original classification as game. For example, in 1969, Texas provided complete protection for the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)

16

Urban Wildlife Management

and classified it as endangered after passage of the Texas Endangered Species Act in 1973. Under this protection, along with federally implemented regulations eliminating unregulated alligator hide markets in the United States, the species has made a full recovery and was delisted from the status of endangered in 1985. Alligators are now reconsidered a game animal and harvested once again for their skins and meat (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/alligator/ index.phtml). The term “urban wildlife” was established in The Natural History of a Yard (1955), which chronicled Leonard Dubkin’s exploration of urban nature in Chicago (Bryson 2011). Urban wildlife species are categorized as such based on whether populations can be found living in and around human settlements. Developing a consensus definition of urban wildlife has been difficult, in large part because it attempts to categorize species in a way that is radically different from traditional classification methods. Some examples of definitions used by other authors included



1. All native, nondomestic, wild animals found in or around urban areas (Schaefer 2004) 2. Any wild creature that lives in an urban environment or an urban–rural interface, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, fish, insects, and worms (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2001) 3. Any nondomestic animals that live in cities, suburbs, or other urban areas (Maurizi and Friedner 1997) 4. Wild vertebrates local to the region that may occur in the urban area (Fletcher 1994)

For the purposes of this book, urban wildlife includes all nondomestic vertebrate species with populations in areas classified as urban. Wild invertebrates will receive only cursory attention in this publication because management of these species is a specialty in its own right, considered to be the responsibility of entomologists (insects), arachnologists (spiders), and malacologists (mollusks) rather than wildlife biologists. 1.6.2  Unique Ecology and Behavior of Urban Wildlife Wildlife populations adjusted to living in urban habitats may exhibit distinct behavioral differences when compared to animals living in rural environments due to behavioral flexibility and temperament (Lowry et al. 2012). This adjustment to conduct the usual activities associated with species survival (e.g., breeding) within the specific conditions of the urban environment is called synurbization (Adams et al. 2005). In other words, synurbization is the response of wildlife to the ecological changes associated with urban development. For example, urban development destroys the preexisting conditions required for survival in the natural environment by creating empty ecological niches that attract species preadapted to the specific conditions offered by the new urban niche. In general and when compared to rural counterparts, the behavior and ecology of species adapted to urban habitats behave differently, which may be a genetic adaptation (Lowry et al. 2012). A summary of these differences is listed here. Note that these differences can be species specific or generalizable to the whole assemblage of urban-adapted animals: 1. Movement and activity: Canada geese (Branta canadensis) have historically migrated up to 3000 miles to nest, but some individuals and flocks abandon migration altogether and become year-round urban residents (Hope 2000). Prolonged circadian activity is observed in urban birds singing earlier in the morning and later at night and peregrine falcons feeding at night. 2. Reproduction: Changes in nesting locations were observed in Georgia, where 73% of the state’s 1270 known breeding pairs of least terns (Sterna antillarum) nest on gravel rooftops compared with only 1% using traditional beach nesting grounds (Youth 1999). Prolonged breeding seasons are possible largely due to warmer winter conditions in urban habitats. A whole new assemblage of nesting sites and materials become available to wildlife in urban habitats (Figure 1.6). This can result in

Wildlife Management

17

Figure 1.6 Urban birds use a variety of human artifacts to build their nests. Pictured here is an oriole nest made entirely out of nylon fishing line and some yarn. (Courtesy of Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection, College Station, TX.)

higher birth rates due to more reproductive cycles and greater offspring survival due to consistent supplies of anthropogenic food sources. 3. Tolerance of humans: Many urban species become habituated to human presence and lose at least some of their natural wariness. A survey of New Mexico urban and semirural residents found that bobcat (Felis rufus) sightings were more frequent in areas of high-density housing than in traditional habitat and that 70% of sightings were less than 25 m from a house (Harrison 1998). Species living in urban areas often tolerate higher population densities than individuals living in rural habitats. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) density has been found to be higher in urbanized landscapes, possibly due to increased survival and reproduction rates and greater site fidelity in urban habitats (Prange et al. 2003). 4. Diet and nutrition: Feeding strategies also may change in urban habitats when animals make use of new sources of food (e.g., garbage, pet food, bird feeders, and handouts). Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) in Ohio, for example, have become more dependent on landfills than on fish from historic Great Lakes feeding areas (Belant et al. 1998; see also Chapter 8). 5. Survival and mortality: Unlike their rural counterparts, urban wildlife negotiates a whole new range of obstacles for survival. For example, birds and mammals in the urban landscape are often victims of collisions with vehicles, window panes, communication towers, wind generators, highrise buildings, and even with each other (Chapter 8). Higher population densities increase intraspecific battles for food and shelter resources. Children and companion animals disturb or destroy adults and young in nests. Urban wildlife is exposed to many different forms of human abuse, entrapments, and entanglements not present in rural habitats. Diseases unique to urban habitats include backyard feeder diseases, such as salmonellosis, mycoplasma conjunctivitis, and trichomoniasis. Other diseases, easily proliferated in highly dense urban wildlife populations, include canine distemper virus, parasitic diseases, and mange. Urban wildlife is more likely to be exposed to the toxic effects of pesticides, heavy metals, and other pollutants resulting from human lifestyles in cities. Another obstacle to urban wildlife survival is to be “found” by a human as an infant and assumed to be abandoned. Wildlife rehabilitators across the country receive thousands

18

Urban Wildlife Management

of springtime calls from the general public concerning their discoveries of “orphaned” wildlife infants. Unnecessary human intervention or disturbance is driven by the same common misconceptions that motivate humans to adopt orphaned baby raccoons (Chapter 11, Burton and Dolbar 2004, Ditchkoff et al. 2006).

SPECIES PROFILE: KILLDEER (CHARADRIUS VOCIFERUS) Kieran J. Lindsey They [plovers] sprint eight feet and stop. Like that. They spring a yard (like that) and stop… When they stop they, suddenly, are gravel. —Norman McCaig, Poet

The killdeer is one of our more well-known shorebirds, possibly because you don’t have to go to the shore to see one (Figure 1.7). Once in serious decline due to unregulated market hunting, killdeer can now be viewed in urban habitats. This North American plover, which has a cravat-like set of two dark bands against a white breast and a high-pitched, almost keening call, can be seen on gravel roads, parking lots, lawns, and golf courses. These flat surfaces must appear similar to the flat grasslands, sandbars, and mudflats used by their country cousins. Lighted parking lots attract plenty of insects, which make up about 75% of the bird’s diet, along with some small invertebrates and seeds (Ehrlich et al. 1988). A killdeer’s nest is not elaborate. Built on open ground or even flat rooftops, especially if either is gravel covered, nests may be unlined or lined with grass and other local materials. Both the male and female are active in chick rearing. After courtship, the female will lay three to five buffy eggs

Year round range Summer range Winter range

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)

Figure 1.7 Killdeer with range map (nps.gov).

Wildlife Management

19

with dark mottling in early spring (March–April, depending on the location). Chicks hatch about 4 weeks later and leave the nest within hours. Adult killdeer are known for their broken-wing distraction displays, in which they feign an injury to distract and lure predators away from their offspring, then fly away at the last minute (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Rooftop nests present a different kind of threat to killdeer chicks. While they do afford some protection from common predators of ground-nesting birds, the downy, precocial killdeer chicks find it difficult to follow their parents away from the roof shortly after hatching to search for food. They will try, however, rather than be left behind. Sometimes, the tiny chicks are unable to surmount the raised perimeter of the roof; in other cases, chicks have been observed leaping from multistory buildings, and some—but certainly not all—do survive (Cornell Lab of Ornithology website). Green roofs, depending on their size, may alleviate this problem somewhat, in part because they may allow the birds to find food without immediately leaving the roof. During 2007–2008, Swearingin et al. (2008) evaluated wildlife use of a newly constructed green roof approximately 320 m2 in area. Wildlife surveys were conducted each week from January 2007 to March 2008. During the 13-month study, a total of 157 birds were observed flying over or using the green roof. Of the birds actually using the roof, 72% were killdeer, and these birds nested while others simply perched or loafed. Despite their wide distribution and being perceived to be common and abundant, even in altered or degraded urban habitats, several studies suggest killdeer populations may not be doing well in either rural or urban landscapes (Sanzenbacher and Haig 2001). The species is vulnerable to any number of twentieth-century problems, including domestic cats, pesticides, oil pollution, lawnmowers, and automobiles (Cornell Lab of Ornithology website). Killdeer, particularly urban populations, are not well represented in the published research literature. The papers we were able to find focus on behavioral ecology, particularly as it relates to nesting. Other topics of research interest include social organization, vocalizations, and susceptibility to toxic agents. Sadly, it is urban nuisance species that tend to get attention (and research dollars), and since there are few, if any, human–wildlife conflicts associated with the presence of killdeer, the species does not appear to be a research priority (Cornell Lab of Ornithology website). CHAPTER ACTIVITIES 1. Find out what portion of your state’s annual DNR budget comes from either of the two restoration acts (Pittman–Robertson or Dingell–Johnson), and then determine how much is spent on urban wildlife management issues. 2. Describe an important wildlife experience from your own childhood and how your relationship with wild things has changed since your childhood. 3. Keep track of urban wildlife issue stories covered by your local media—newspapers, local television, and/or radio stations—over a 2-week period. National news wire stories (AP, UPI, etc.) can be included as long as you found them through a local source. For each story you see, read, or hear, list the following information: publication name, article title, author, and publication date.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter  2

Principal Components of Urban Wildlife Management KEY CONCEPTS

1. Four lines of evidence justify the need for wildlife management in urban areas. 2. There are several justifications for educational programs about urban wildlife. 3. The scope of urban wildlife problems compared in terms of damage, offending species, and cost to the urban resident. 4. Need to return to the old agenda for wildlife management education and research. 5. Examples to illustrate how urban wildlife management can become an integral part of the training and experience of wildlife professionals now and in the future.

2.1 INTRODUCTION In 2010, The Wildlife Society (TWS) posted a position statement, which expired in March 2015, that contained eight key elements representing the official TWS policy regarding urban wildlife and the principal components of urban wildlife management. Slightly paraphrased, the policy of TWS in regard to urban wildlife was to

1. Address, not ignore, the emerging issues related to urban wildlife. 2. Foster urban public awareness of the values of wildlife. 3. Dedicate some personnel and fiscal resources to urban wildlife management and research. 4. Develop educational programs on how to manage urban wildlife and how to provide high-quality wildlife habitats. 5. Promote purchase of new and preservation of existing urban wildlife habitats. 6. Educate urban community development professions about their impacts on wildlife in urban settings. 7. Advocate integrated wildlife control programs that minimize conflicts between urban wildlife and people. 8. Establish and maintain self-sustaining urban wildlife populations in harmony with ecological, social, and economic values of the human community.

This chapter was designed to examine the degree to which the TWS policy statement represents actual practices in urban wildlife management and research. We began this chapter on the principal components of urban wildlife management with a state-by-state inventory of the number of terrestrial vertebrate species, for example, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals found in human-dominated landscapes (Figure 2.1, Appendix 2A.1). Of note were the differences in the total numbers by state. For example, the lower half of the United States contains more species than the upper half, or it appears that species diversity 21

22

Urban Wildlife Management

Combined number of amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species by state 688

510

579

734

567 678

580 633

539

599 692

551

654

1003 814

553

560

701

785

992

551 568

552

616 571

607

628

513

554 612

577 678

610 678

675

652

529 462 509

612 617 542 533

611 529 697 719

733

Total number of species 263 264–580

567

581–654

263

655–814 815–1003

Figure 2.1 Vertebrate species diversity by state. (From Appendix A: Map courtesy of Cassandra LaFleur.) Table 2.1 Pearson’s Correlations (R = 0−1) of a Selection of Abiotic and Biotic Factors Related to Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Abundance in Each State (Figure 2.1) in the United States Category (Totals/ State) Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Total

State Size (square miles)

Average Temperature (oF)

Human Population

Urban Area (square miles)

Rural Area (square miles)

Water (Surface Acres)

Average Rainfall (in.)

0.16 0.40 0.48 0.39 0.49

0.77 0.86 0.25 0.14 0.65

0.47 0.48 0.65 0.45 0.67

0.61 0.57 0.57 0.32 0.65

−0.11 0.03 0.39 0.40 0.33

−0.18 −0.26 0.06 −0.05 −0.08

0.54 0.16 −0.37 −0.54 −0.18

increases with latitude. This observation may be intuitive or expected give variations in abiotic variables. As pointed out in Chapter 3, biotic diversity is predicted primarily by temperature and moisture. We used the Pearson’s correlation coefficient to measure of the strength of association between species diversity (total numbers and numbers within each taxonomic group, Appendix 2A.1) in each state with state size, average temperature, human population, urban area, rural area, surface water area, and average rainfall (Table 2.1). We found a positive correlation between total number of species/state and the average annual temperature (R = 0.65), human population (R = 0.67), and urban area (R = 0.65). However, mean annual rainfall and total surface acres of water were not highly correlated (R = −0.18 and 0.08, respectively) with total numbers of terrestrial vertebrate species by state. It is possible that lumping taxonomic groups into one variable confounded some attempts to examine predictor variables for species richness within states. For example, the number of amphibian and reptile species in each state was highly correlated with average temperature (R = 0.77 and 0.86, respectively) and urban area (R = 0.61 and 0.57,

Principal Components of Urban Wildlife Management

23

respectively, Table 2.1). Average annual rainfall was correlated with number of amphibian and mammalian species in each state (R = 0.54 for each taxonomic group). Those factors accounting for the number of bird species in each state were human population (R = 0.65) and urban area (R = 0.57). Explanations of the tests of association between variables and why water surface acres and average rainfall were weak predictors of species richness in each state, at this point, would be speculative at best. For example, the high mobility of birds, such as migratory behavior, could nullify average temperature as a factor contributing to avian species diversity in each state. Additionally, other measures of multivariate analysis could be instructive depending on the association of interest, for example, indices of similarity in species composition by state. This discussion, illustration, and correlation analysis of terrestrial vertebrate species diversity in each state demonstrated the overall importance of human population and urban area. It seemed logical to suggest that urbanization and urban sprawl may play a much larger role in predicting and promoting terrestrial vertebrate diversity in each state. 2.2  URBAN HABITATS AS A DOMINANT FOCUS OF WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS There is great satisfaction in knowing, or at least assuming, that one’s efforts are on the cutting edge, presenting a new paradigm for action. The issues addressed above represent a current wildlife management need that is sure to exist into the foreseeable future. If there was ever a time to conduct urban wildlife management, it is now. Nearly every urban community in the United States has a wildlife-related management problem. As such, there is probably a need for wildlife biologists with state and Federal agencies to apply their management skills to urban as well as rural wildlife. Interestingly, some developers of residential areas have marketed the concept of close proximity to wildlife as a benefit to prospective customers. It may be an attractive advertising ploy, but the wildlife management and conflict resolution problems that ensue are formidable. Urbanization and the encroachment of humanity into undeveloped wildlife habitats will continue. Every state wildlife agency has been given the legislative mandate to manage its wildlife resources, regardless of whether the wildlife resides in the city or country. There is some overlap of jurisdiction for certain species, for example, migratory species, threatened/endangered species, and marine mammals. Still, the degree to which these agencies are prepared to embrace the challenges of urban wildlife management is a matter for speculation. Few of the wildlife professionals within these agencies have been trained specifically to manage wildlife in an urban setting. Nearly two decades have passed since VanDruff et al. (1996) suggested that traditional wildlife management strategies applied in rural areas are not always appropriate in urban areas where people become a larger part of the equation, yet few land-grant universities offering degrees in wildlife sciences include even one course in urban wildlife management. 2.3  NEED FOR WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN URBAN AREAS There is strong evidence justifying the need for wildlife management in urban areas. This need is based on decades of population shifts from rural to urban areas (Figure 2.2), a lack of wildlife management paradigms focused on urban people and wildlife, changing animal damage control issues, a growing body of literature (professional and popular) about wildlife in urban areas, career opportunities in the private sector, and generations of human isolation from their natural environments. The expansion of urban areas into formerly natural environments (Figure 2.3) has caused an increase in human–wildlife encounters resulting in a variety of human emotions, explanations, and reactions, mostly conceived in an intellectual and experiential vacuum. Some state agencies are now

24

Urban Wildlife Management

90

Percent urban or rural

80 70

Urban Rural

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Decades

Figure 2.2 Change from rural to urban residences in the United States 1900 to 2000. (Courtesy of Clark E. Adams.)

Figure 2.3 Urban sprawl in El Paso, Texas. (Courtesy of John M. Davis.)

advertising available positions in various aspects of urban wildlife management (e.g., wildlife damage biologist, urban wildlife biologist, and urban outreach supervisor), but most wildlife biologists employed by state and federal agencies and the universities have been caught off guard or refused to accept contemporary wildlife management issues (Murphy 2014). The traditional wildlife management curricula still produces wildlife biologists who, for the most part, focus their attentions on game, nongame, or threatened and endangered species in nonurban habitats. One much earlier study that found the degree to which contemporary wildlife curricula, nationally, are used to train urban wildlife biologists was, at best, a token effort (Adams et al. 1987b). Criteria that defined the training and tasks expected of an urban wildlife biologist emphasized the human dimensions of wildlife management (Tylka et  al. 1987). Results from

Principal Components of Urban Wildlife Management

25

two more recent national studies on the degree to which land grant universities and state agencies are addressing urban wildlife management are presented later in this chapter (Adams 2003, Murphy 2014). Finally, the typical urban resident is unable to identify common wildlife species, does not know why particular species of wildlife occur in their backyards or how to deal with a problem species, and lacks an understanding of interrelationships between people and wildlife. Typical misconceptions about urban wildlife include

1. All snakes are “poisonous” (aka “venomous”). 2. Solitary fawns have been abandoned and need human care. 3. Missing pet cats and puppies have strayed off or have been stolen. 4. Feeding wildlife is a necessary activity. 5. Wild predators do not exist in urban habitats. 6. Bobcats are mountain lions. 7. Hairless coyotes (due to mange) are the mythical chupacabra.

2.3.1  Urban Wildlife Populations Are Increasing, Sometimes to Nuisance Levels Many wildlife species have adjusted so well to the urban lifestyle that they are now perceived by some segments of the population as a nuisance (see Chapter 13 on invasive species). Warranted or not, nuisance wildlife control (NWCO) technicians often are called in to address the problems associated with these species. NWCOs may be employed by USDA-Wildlife Services (WS), local governments, or by private companies. For the most part, state Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs) or land grant universities with wildlife and fisheries or natural resource academic programs do not deal with nuisance wildlife control issues. Some variation in the common conflict species should be expected given the difference in types of resources (food, water, shelter) provided by urban communities, patterns of urban sprawl into natural habitats, age of communities, and patterns of land fragmentation during development. The types of species that provoke large numbers of calls to NWCOs varies regionally; for example, alligators (Alligator spp.) and nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the southeast, bear and cougar in the west, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the extreme northwest, and cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis) in the south central United States. One example of the number of public calls for assistance over a 6-year period in Dallas, TX, and surrounding communities is provided in Figure 2.4a and b. Of note were the species of most concern by urban residents—squirrels, raccoons (Procyon lotor), birds, opossum, and mice, and rats (Figure 2.4a). Ducks and “unknown” species dominated (33% of the records) the calls related to birds. 2.3.2  Some Insights into the Magnitude of Urban Wildlife Problems An investigation of the common nuisance species within urban areas in each state provided some interesting comparisons. In addition, knowing what these animals do that qualifies as a nuisance provided some interesting examples of how these species have adapted to the urban environments. So, as part of our research for the first edition of this book (Adams et al. 2006), we requested and obtained data from a 2003 national database maintained by USDA-Wildlife Services (WS). These records (Management Information System, MIS Database) were reports completed by WS personnel. The MIS Database contained (1) records of the number of public inquiries (requests for assistance) that came from urban and rural residents, (2) identification of nuisance species, and (3) the economic impact (losses) by the public resulting from damage caused by all species in four damage categories, including agriculture, human health and safety, property, and natural resources. The MIS Database provided longitudinal (Fiscal Years 1994–2003) and regional (Table 2.2) scales of analysis

26

Urban Wildlife Management

0 Squirrel Snake Skunk Raccoon Rabbit Opossum Moles Mice or rats Fox Coyote Cat Bobcat Birds Beaver Bat Armadillo (a)

262

2954 476 1820

56

648

27

522

70 113 58 86

892

98 53 211 500

0 50

Common grackle

>45

Chimney swift

>36

American crow

>34

Ruby-crowned kinglet

>28

Brown-headed cowbird

21

Brown thrasher

>19

Cedar waxwing

17

Lincoln’s sparrow

16

Empidonax spp.

14

Black-and-white warbler Field sparrow Great crested flycatcher

12 >11 10

Northern flicker

9

Brown creeper

9

Little blue heron

8

Black-throated green warbler

8

American redstart

7

Junco

7

Eastern phoebe

6

Red-breasted nuthatch

6

Solitary vireo

6

Bay-breasted warbler

6

Swainson’s thrush

5

Yellow-rumped warbler

5

Baltimore oriole

5

Red-winged blackbird

5

Red-headed woodpecker

4

Carolina chickadee

>4

Tennessee warbler

4

Common nighthawk

3

Red-bellied woodpecker

3

Hairy woodpecker

3 (Continued)

192

Urban Wildlife Management

Table 7.1 (Continued)  Total Bird Observations by Sight in Greenwood Cemetery, Dallas, TX, from April 1977 through September 1979 Species

Total Number Observed

Great horned owl

2

Downy woodpecker

2

Yellow warbler

2

Blackburnian warbler

2

Wilson’s warbler

2

Spotted towhee

2

Song sparrow

2

Great egret

1

Sharp-shinned hawk

1

Yellow-billed cuckoo

1

Yellow-bellied sapsucker

1

Eastern kingbird

1

Scissor-tailed flycatcher

1

Tufted titmouse

1

Loggerhead shrike

1

Carolina wren

1

Bewick’s wren

1

Golden-crowned kinglet

1

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

1

Orange-crowned warbler

1

Magnolia warbler

1

Canada warbler

1

White-crowned sparrow

1

White-throated sparrow

1

Summer tanager

1

Source: Data courtesy of Homer Klonis of Dallas, TX. Note: Most observations occurred during the spring and fall migratory periods.

Most sightings were common urban birds (e.g., species 1 and 2, Table 7.4). A number of typically rural birds were also observed, including little blue herons (Egretta caerulea), great egret (Ardea alba), sharp-shinned hawk, common nighthawks (Chordeiles minor), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Many neotropical migrants were also spotted, most notably a wide variety of different warblers and sparrows that were passing through. The second cemetery for which a significant amount of data were collected was the Forest Park Cemetery in west Houston (Figure 7.5), a 115 acre area surrounded by a mixture of apartments and homes on the west side and office buildings on the north. The vegetation within this cemetery consists of sparsely planted trees with a few flowering shrubs. Although live oak (Quercus virginiana) is the dominant tree species, water oak (Quercus nigra), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), redbud (Cercis canadensis), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), willows, palm trees, and various conifers are also represented. There were also a few open areas consisting entirely of unmown grass; these sections are most likely slated for future development. Data were

Urban Green Spaces

193

Table 7.2 Total Bird Observations by Sight and Song in Forest Park Cemetery, Houston, TX, in March 2003 Species

Total Number Observed

Yellow-rumped warbler

175

American robin

150

Red-winged blackbird

150

Mourning dove

45

Northern mockingbird

27

European starling

23

Rock dove Great-tailed grackle

20 >15

House sparrow

15

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

13

White-winged dove

12

Common grackle

>10

Northern cardinal

>9

Killdeer

>8

Blue jay

8

Ruby-crowned kinglet

8

American crow Purple martin Loggerhead shrike

6 >5 5

Red-bellied woodpecker

4

Accipiters (probably Cooper’s hawk)

2

White-eyed vireo

>2

Carolina wren

>2

Eurasian collared dove

>1

Inca dove

>1

Yellow-bellied sapsucker

>1

Canada warbler

>1

Orange-crowned warbler

1

Eastern meadowlark

1

Source: Data courtesy of Harry Elliott, Houston, TX. Note: Numbers of some birds are estimates.

collected by Harry Elliott of Houston who observed 29 different bird species on 2  days in March 2003 (Table 7.2). Again, urbanized species (e.g., 1–9, Table 7.2) were present in sizeable numbers, but migrants and species less commonly found in typical urban habitats were also observed, including loggerhead shrikes, purple martins, various warblers, and a large hawk, possibly a Cooper’s hawk. Several birders contributed information on other cemeteries throughout the state and some of the more interesting avian species that could be found in them (Table 7.3). The city cemetery in Weslaco, Texas, was especially well known for its sightings of rare or unusual subtropical birds (including the infrequently observed blue mockingbird). In comparison, one could find large numbers of shorebirds such as curlews and godwits in cemeteries in Galveston, TX. Cemeteries in West Texas and the panhandle were cited as being good

194

Urban Wildlife Management

Table 7.3 Other Bird Species Observed in Texas Cemeteries Cemetery

Species Sighted

Weslaco City Cemetery, Weslaco, Hidalgo Co.

Oakwood Cemetery, Comanche, Comanche Co. Unknown, Galveston Co.

Various West Texas cemeteries

State Cemetery, Austin, Travis Co. Old Fairview Cemetery, Bastrop, Bastrop Co.

Green parakeet Red-crowned parrot Black-bellied whistling duck White-tailed kite Great kiskadee Green jay Blue mockingbird Mississippi kite Plain chachalaca Long-billed curlew Veery American goldfinch Marbled godwit Barn owl Eastern screech owl Great horned owl Long-eared owl Golden-fronted woodpecker Black-throated gray warbler

roosting and nesting places for owls due to the high density of large conifers in otherwise relatively treeless regions. Ardath Lawson

Perspective Essay 7.2: For the Love of Lawns The estimated areal amount of turf grass for the conterminous United States is 63,244 ± 13,822 m2, which is estimated to exceed by three times the area of other irrigated crops (Milesi et al. 2005). Why does our society seem to be in love with the monotonous, sterile lawn? To understand this affinity for turf grass, it can help to examine our culture’s history. According to Warren Schultz’s book A Man’s Turf: The Perfect Lawn (1999), small strips of lawn began to show up in formal gardens in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was also during this time that vast expanses of shortgrass began to show up in the European countryside. Originally, these protolawns were kept grazed by flocks of sheep. The larger the expanse, the more sheep the landowner had, thereby demonstrating his wealth to the neighbors. Vast expanses of shortgrass became a symbol of wealth and power—yet another example of the human tendency to one-up the Joneses. Many of the early U.S. colonists came from this cultural influence; George Washington was one of the first to install a lawn around his home (Schultz 1999). However, the lawn as we know it today didn’t become popular until the late nineteenth century. The development of improved turf grass varieties later became a goal of the golf industry, and the invention of the lawn mower made an expanse of grass available to the common homeowner. However, in the absence of irrigation and fertilization, most species of turf grass would not be able to grow and compete with native vegetation in most of the conterminous United States (Milesi et al. 2005).

Urban Green Spaces

195

Today, the lawn is a symbol of territory, a “green moat” around our homes. Schultz (1999) says that a well-kept lawn has come to indicate that the man of the house is powerful, in control of nature, and is taking care of business at home. He also states that a well-kept lawn announces to our neighbors that we are abiding by the rules of society. If you doubt this is the case, think about the typical urban landscape. It’s really quite predictable. Just about every home or business will have a row of evergreen hedges around the perimeter of the building, called “foundation plantings.” Unwanted views usually are “screened” with a row of evergreen hedges as well. With the exception of newly constructed developments, there will be large shade trees and some kind of groundcover, turf grass being the most common of these. Often, you will see a flower bed of some sort at the base of trees and along walkways, usually containing nonnative annuals and perennials to add color. The landscape is dominated by vast expanses of mowed turf grass. If traditional landscaping were ecologically sensitive, or even neutral, these practices would be a harmless cultural quirk, but the typical suburban lawn and garden creates a myriad of ecological problems. As mentioned earlier, exotic plant species often are used in these settings. Because they are not native to the area, they tend to require more intensive maintenance to survive (ironically, often these same plants are advertised as “easy care”). Those species that do well can escape the confines of the yard and compete with endemic species. As you’ll remember from earlier in this chapter, a region’s plants determine the animal species that live there. As native plants are lost, food and shelter resources are lost as well; this can have an adverse affect on resident wildlife. Maintaining the perfect lawn is ecologically and economically expensive. Exotic plants generally require more moisture than native landscapes, which puts more pressure on community water supplies. Turf grass needs pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to achieve the preferred deep green color and lush texture, all of which significantly decrease water quality. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that about 80 million U.S. households dump nearly 90 million pounds of herbicides and pesticides on lawns in a year. Of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 16 pose serious hazards to birds, 24 are toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, and 11 have adverse effects on bees (Huxta 2010). The majority of these chemicals are washed into local streams and reservoirs by rain and sprinkler systems. The deleterious effects of these chemicals on the population dynamics of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife are discussed in Chapters 4 and 7. A “healthy” lawn endangers more than our water supply. Running a lawn mower for 1  h releases as much hydrocarbon into the air as driving a car for 11.5  h (Schultz 1999). John M. Davis

7.5.2  Golf Courses New golf courses are being built every year because of the public demand to participate in the game—a horrendously difficult, frustrating, and expensive recreational choice (C. E. Adams, personal observation). However, 24.5 million people spend 2.4 billion hours and $18 billion annually flaying away at a little ball that stands perfectly still until you hit it. At least 70% of the 4 million acres dedicated to golf courses in the United States is the “rough” or out-of-play area that can be used to lose golf balls, but more importantly, to invite wildlife (Terman 1997). There is a growing body of evidence showing that the habitat diversity found in the rough does contain a rich faunal diversity not found in the surrounding urban matrix (Gange et  al. 2003). As

196

Urban Wildlife Management

stated previously, some MHPs will contain RHPs and consequently have been identified as biological repositories within the urban landscape (Barrett and Barrett 2001). Golf courses in Kent, England, contain uncommon habitat types such as heath land, dune and slack communities, and rare populations of orchids, broomrape, and mosses (Green and Marshall 1987). The threatened Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) can be found on golf courses in Florida and have provided researchers with valuable information regarding this normally secretive species (Jodice and Humphrey 1992). Volume 33, No. 2, of the 2005 issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin contained nine research papers on the role of golf courses in bird conservation. A brief overview of each of these studies follows, but our readers are encouraged to give each study a more thorough examination than we can provide here. One study reviewed the use of created wetlands in golf course landscapes by waterbirds (White and Main 2005). They examined 183 ponds on 12 courses in southwest Florida for 2 years. During the course of the study, they identified 42 bird species among 10,474 that visited the created wetlands. Another study by Jones et al. (2005) examined 24 courses in South Carolina during the summers of 2001 and 2002. They identified 82 bird species among 5362 bird sightings at the 24 courses. Bird species richness was found to be positively influenced by a higher percentage of forested wetland, pine, and mixed-forest landscape patch types. The study by Merola-Zwartjes and DeLong (2005) examined whether golf courses could serve as surrogate riparian habitats for southwestern birds. Their 2-year study compared the avian communities on five golf course and five natural areas in Arizona. Of the 65 species they identified on one or all five golf courses, 48 (74%) were often associated with riparian areas or wetlands. When compared to natural areas, golf courses supported a greater number of birds, greater avian species richness, and a higher diversity. They suggested that the value of golf courses in the desert regions would be improved by increasing landscape complexity and vertical structure, and the use of native plants. Studies on the role of golf courses in bird conservation for specific species, for example, redheaded woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and two on the eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), were conducted by Rodewald et al. (2005), Smith et al. (2005), Stanback and Seifert (2005), and LeClerc et al. (2005), respectively. All of these studies found that golf courses could become alternative habitats for species extirpated from their natural habitats by providing nesting habitat, including artificial burrows, tree snags, and nest boxes. Golf courses provided as good as or better nesting and chick-rearing habitats as off course natural habitats. The role of golf courses in providing habitat for birds of conservation concern was the research objective expressed in LeClerc and Cristol (2005) and Cristol and Rodewald (2005). They identified 69 species of conservation concern on 87 golf courses in Virginia during the 2002 breeding season. They suggested a bird conservation management strategy that included high proportions of forest cover (the climax vegetation of the region) on or within 1.5 km of the course. The relationships between human-altered landscapes around six golf courses in Ohio and bird assemblages were studied by Porter et al. (2005). They found that golf course size, provision of natural habitat or cover in and around (a buffer) the golf course, and reduced human land-use buffers within 500 m and 1 km of the golf course were determinants of bird diversity on the golf course. All of these studies provided evidence of the value of golf courses in bird conservation. However, public perceptions of golf courses, including many within the wildlife management profession, are that they are bad for the environment. This is the predominant attitude of those who do not play golf. Nonplayers feel that golf course development destroys natural habitat, depletes water supplies, and contaminates soil and water with pesticides and fertilizers (Gange et al. 2003). The golf industry has responded to these concerns through programs that promote green management practices that

Urban Green Spaces

197

reduce or eliminate the use of exotic plants and pesticides. Two examples of green management programs are the United States Golf Association’s Wildlife Links grants and Audubon International’s Cooperative Sanctuary Program. Believe it or not, many golf courses have a rich diversity of vegetation types that invite an equally diverse fauna assemblage. There appears to be a movement toward naturalistic golf design wherein the management plan incorporates sustainable landscape plans developed in concert with the ecological structure of the region and enhances biodiversity. The Terra Verde golf course in Dallas, TX, is an example of this approach by incorporating the restoration of natural vegetation into its management plan. Golf Links in Maryland turned adjacent old farmland into a complex of wetlands, offering habitat to many species of wildlife. The Phoenix Golf Links was the first course in Ohio to be developed on an abandoned landfill (Santiago and Rodewald 2004). The aforementioned studies presented a fairly positive overview of the value of golf courses in wildlife conservation. Nevertheless, avian, conservation, and wildlife biologists want more longterm studies on

1. The effects of pesticides and other forms of chemical management on survival, condition, and reproduction on golf course wildlife 2. Reproductive rates and survivorship on and off golf courses to reveal whether golf courses are population sources or sinks 3. Differences in the number of predators and nest predation rates on and off golf courses 4. Wildlife uses of golf course habitats during nonbreeding seasons (are they real homes or temporary resting and nesting sites) 5. Whether golf courses can serve as habitat surrogates providing the specific ecological features required by some declining wildlife specialist species 6. The value of golf courses in terms of contributions to community economies, land reclamation, and wildlife habitat 7. Methods to evaluate management outcomes (Burdge and Cristol 2008, Cristol and Rodewald 2005)

The aforementioned wish list of research needs is obviously a logical next step in the determination of the value of golf courses in wildlife conservation. But try to imagine the costs involved in equipment, time, and personnel in an era of tight research budgets, bottom-line agendas, and an ever-growing population of golfers in the United States. Even right-minded wildlife biologists need a reality check regarding the cultural, political, and economic ramifications of research agendas. Furthermore, any future research endeavors will need to be sensitive to the size of the landscape, that is, scale, which can provide results applicable to at least a biotic region level of analysis. 7.5.3  Nature Centers Nature centers were a concept that gained momentum in the early 1960s, referred to as the “Golden Age of Nature Centers” in the Fort Worth Nature Center’s Master Plan. In 1961, the National Audubon Society merged with a group named Nature Centers for Young America, Inc. They then formed the Nature Center Division (NCD) of the Audubon Society. Their purpose was to encourage American communities to set aside natural land and use it to teach conservation and natural history while allowing people to develop an understanding and appreciation of nature. In post-WWII America, families were leaving rural settings and moving into more urban and suburban areas. Within just one generation, people were losing touch with nature. The philosophy of the NCD was that people need to know and understand something in order to appreciate and value it. Their most simple definition of a nature center was a parcel of natural land where people, particularly the young people, and nature can meet (Shomon 1962). The NCD acted as an educational service offering advice and guidance to communities who wanted to develop nature centers. The official definition of a nature center was

198

Urban Wildlife Management

A nature center can be defined as an area of undeveloped land near or within a city or town and having on it the facilities and services designed to conduct community outdoor programs in natural sciences, nature study and appreciation and conservation. It is, in essence, an outdoor focal point where the citizens of a community, both young and old, can enjoy a segment of the natural world and learn something about the interrelationship of living and non-living things, including man’s place in the ecological community. Shomon (1962)

The goal of a nature center, as defined by the NCD, was to provide educational, scientific, cultural, and recreational experiences for the community. A nature center had three basic elements, including

1. Land—undeveloped with as much local plant and animal life as possible 2. Buildings—educational building where people can assemble and exhibits can be used to teach about the area 3. People—staff and visitors

Shomon (1962) considered it an almost a patriotic thing for cities to create nature centers: “A wise investment in America’s future. It is one of the most worthy and noble and unselfish projects that any group can undertake and pursue in and around an expanding city.” The NCD suggested that the setting of the nature center should be a representative sample of the natural landscape of a community and also provide “breathing” space for a city (Shomon 1962). Byron L. Ashbaugh, Associate Director of the Nature Centers Divisions, in the Audubon Society’s second education bulletin, stated that “The basic purpose of a nature center is to provide a green island for every community where there is open space still available.” The NCD recognized early on that one of the growing problems associated with rapid urbanization was going to be loss of natural green spaces that would enable citizens to stay connected to nature. The NCD of the National Audubon Society was discontinued sometime in the 1970s. Nature centers are an example of an MHP and an RHP in the sense that most are connected to habitats under intense conservation programs (managed) of native flora and fauna (remnant). A close examination of the prevalence of nature centers in the United States revealed an astonishing array of examples (Table 7.4), which is a summary of the information provided in http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/List_of_nature_centers_in_the_United_States. The authors’ knowledge of the total numbers and locations of nature centers in Nebraska and Missouri gave credibility to the aforementioned website as an accurate source of information in a national overview of the numbers and locations of nature centers in the 50 states. There are at least 991 nature centers in the 50 states. Of note are the differences in the numbers of nature centers in each of the states. The differences beg the question of why there are 84 and 72 nature centers in New York and Ohio, respectively, and so few in other states, for example, one each in Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming. One explanation was that some states have made environmental education a significant component in their state mandated science curriculum, which required a proliferation of nature centers and staff (Rob Denkhaus, Fort Worth Nature Center, personal communication). Perhaps an equally important consideration is the value of nature centers in urban wildlife management and the conservation of urban and exurban green spaces. From the perspective of urban wildlife management, other information provided on the aforesaid website made it possible to determine the total land area associated with the 991 nature centers, dominant habitat types, governance, and involvement in public education and/or conservation programs. This extensive analysis revealed that these 991 nature centers were associated (owned, leased, or shared) with 12.6 million acres of land area represented by every type of native habitat characteristic of the geographical location of

Urban Green Spaces

199

Table 7.4 Census of the Number of Nature Centers in the United States in 2008 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri

Nature Centers

State

Nature Centers

5 2 6 5 56 17 28 6 1 54 18 2 1 51 33 49 11 12 4 12 27 25 39 27 4 18

Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total

3 8 3 10 27 4 84 28 1 72 17 10 30 5 7 8 13 46 7 10 23 6 3 51 1 991

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_centers_in_the_United_States.

the nature center. Nearly all 94% provided education programming; formal and informal, indoor and outdoor, and for youth and adults. Conservation of habitat and wildlife rehabilitation were the activities included on 60% of the nature center websites. Governance of the 991 nature centers included city, county, state, and federal agencies, private nonprofit organizations (e.g., Audubon, Nature Conservancy), park districts, colleges and universities, the Lower Colorado River Authority, and branches of the U.S. military. Natural resource disciplines represented by nature center personnel include the Society for Ecological Restoration, TWS, Natural Area Associations, Society for Range Management, Native Prairies Association, and all of the taxonomic organizations (e.g., mammalogists, ornithologists, herpetologists, and ichthyologists). 7.5.4  Rural versus Urban Wildlife Populations Despite growing interest in urban MHPs as habitats for wildlife, little is known about the differences in life history characteristics between rural and urban populations. Thompson (1977, 1978) made several observations about a gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) population living in an urban cemetery. First, urban squirrels reached sexual maturity at a significantly older age than did rural squirrels (Longley 1963). The mechanism resulting in this disparity is unclear but may be a result of sampling differences. Breeding season and number of young born per litter were equal between urban and rural squirrels; however, survival of the young was higher among urban

200

Urban Wildlife Management

squirrels. Dykstra et  al. (2000) found equal reproductive rates between suburban and rural redshouldered hawks. However, Boal and Mannan (1999) found that although urban Cooper’s hawks exhibited larger clutch sizes, the nestling mortality rates were higher (50%) compared to their rural counterparts (5%). The primary cause of nestling death in urban areas was the parasitic disease called trichomoniasis. Other studies have demonstrated that behavioral differences exist between rural and urban populations of species. For example, great tits (Parus major) sing at higher frequencies in noisy urban areas than do individuals in quieter areas (Slabbekoorn and Peet 2003). Estes and Mannan (2003) found that male Cooper’s hawks in urban areas delivered significantly more prey biomass to the nest than did rural males. Additionally, the urban males were more likely to deliver prey directly to the nest, and urban females rejected deliveries more often than did rural females. Finally, both rural males and females vocalized more often than did urban individuals. The authors attributed these contrasting nesting behaviors to the differences in prey abundance between rural and urban locations. Moreover, tolerance levels of some birds, as indicated by their flushing distances, increased in areas with high human visitation (Fernandez-Juricic and Jokimaki 2001). While it appears that urban MHPs offer a wealth of resources for several species of wildlife, a word of caution is warranted. Urban habitats, whether remnant fragments of natural communities or highly managed patches, may not support the same level of biodiversity found in native biological communities. Additionally, they will support a vastly different composition of species, with rarer, more specialized species being absent. Formation of urban habitats selects for those species that are adapted to the specific biological and physical structure of urban environments and to a constant stream of anthropogenic disturbances. The high rate of visitors to urban parks in Madrid, Spain, reduced the avian richness of those sites (Fernandez-Juricic and Jokimaki 2001). The physical and biological structures of MHPs that have trees as the dominant cover are radically different from natural forests. First, vertical layers are removed, which results in the absence of escape cover for small vertebrates or nesting habitats for shrub and ground-nesting birds (Blair 1996, Livingston et al. 2003, Marzluff and Ewing 2001, Zalewski 1994). In fact, the existence of open lawns in MHPs dramatically reduces the species diversity of those habitats. Additionally, maintenance of lawns is ecological homicide because it requires the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and the burning of fossil fuels, all contributing factors to losses in the diversity and function of ecosystems. Exotic species (including domestic pets) can have dramatic effects on the species composition of MHPs, many of which are dominated by exotic plantings. While these exotic plants provide additional physical structure, they are usually not preferred by native wildlife species. Many researchers (Germaine et al. 1998, Green and Baker 2003) have emphasized the use of native plants in restoring avian communities within urban areas. Domestic pets, primarily domestic cats, are significant factors determining the distribution and abundance of some wildlife species within the urban landscape (Lepczyk et al. 2003, Soule et al. 1988). Baker et al. (2003) found that wood mice abundance in residential gardens in Bristol, England, was negatively correlated with the presence of cats, and Churcher and Lawton (1987) found that cats played a major role in the population dynamics of urban sparrows (Chapter 13).

CHAPTER ACTIVITIES 1. Survey a small segment of your city for the three types of urban green spaces. Rank them in order from most to least common. How much of the total land area does each of the habitat types cover? Would you expect the ratios of habitat types to change depending upon which part of the city you sample (e.g., suburb vs. downtown vs. business district)?

Urban Green Spaces

201

2. Interview someone in charge of an MHP, for example, groundskeeper of a cemetery, golf course manager, or city park manager. Ask them questions about their goals and objectives for the land. Do their objectives include wildlife issues? If so, are these issues related to the promotion and/or prevention of wildlife populations? 3. Identify two SHPs of different sizes in your city. Predict how the size of the patch will influence how many species and what types of species you find there. Identify additional factors other than size that could determine differences in species richness and composition between SHPs. 4. Contact your local bird-watchers club/organization. Ask them where they bird-watch within the city. Visit these sites and hypothesize about why birds occur there. Of the sites identified by the bird-watchers, what is the ratio of RHPs, SHPs, and MHPs?

SPECIES PROFILE: RED FOX (VULPES VULPES) Kieran J. Lindsey Suburban foxes are not simply tame towards men. They are also damn supercilious. One pads among the azaleas in our garden at night, staring through the lounge windows to watch the News at Ten. —Richard Gordon

The embodiment of cunning, red foxes (Figure 7.6) in most of the United States is a combined strain derived from the interbreeding of native lines with foxes imported in the mid-eighteenth century from England and released in Delaware, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia to support hunting on horseback. Landowners were dissatisfied with the sport provided by the native gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), which treed rather than running, or ran in a much smaller area. Conflicting records and the fact that, historically, red foxes were divided into two species (Vulpes vulpes in the Old World, Vulpes fulva in the New World) caused confusion regarding early accounts of the distribution and introduction of the species (now simply Vulpes vulpes) in North America (New Jersey DEP website). Unregulated trapping for the fur trade, combined with bounties, took a toll on fox populations. They have since recovered and are now found throughout much of North America, with the exception of most of the American West.

Figure 7.6 Red fox (Vulpes fulva) and zoogeographic range. (Courtesy of Ronald Laubenstein/USFWS, Washington, DC.)

202

Urban Wildlife Management

The red fox is another iconic species that requires only a brief description here. The coat is primarily rusty red above with white chin, throat, and belly. Other color phases exist, including black, silver, cross (reddish brown with a dark cross on the shoulders), and intermediate phases; all have a white-tipped tail. At 7.5–15 lb (3.4–6.8 kg), red foxes are similar in size to a Boston terrier—if the dog had an extraordinarily long bushy tail. Add the pointy ears, slender muzzle, and slanted eyes and you have an animal that is almost instantly recognizable (Whitaker 1998; New Jersey DEP website). Mating occurs from January to early March, and 1 litter of 1–10 kits is born within 51–53 days. The maternity den is often an enlarged woodchuck or badger den. The family group stays together until autumn, when the kits disperse. Sexual maturity is 10 months for both males and females. Red foxes are primarily nocturnal and/or crepuscular. Their diet is highly adaptable, which is always handy if you’re trying to make a living in an urban habitat. Specific food items include fruit, berries, grasshoppers, caterpillars, crayfish, small reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Foxes are catlike when stalking prey. They will cache extra food in snow, leaves, or soil (Whitaker 1998). Much of the research that’s been done on urban red foxes comes out of Europe, primarily Great Britain (e.g., Doncaster et  al. 1990, Doncaster and MacDonald 1997, Harris and Rayner 1986, Woollard and Harris 1990). Human–fox conflicts tend to center on the animals’ scavenging behavior, damage to gardens, and loss of companion animals (dogs, cats, and birds). As with most other urban species, the most effective management approach is conflict prevention. This can be accomplished through exclusion (e.g., fencing), frightening or harassment (e.g., strobe lights, noisemakers), and educating human residents to protect pets and other domesticated animals and to avoid inadvertently attracting foxes. Lethal management methods exist, but as has been explained in other chapters, the results tend to be short-lived (yes, we recognize the pun). Additionally, foxes are charismatic enough to garner sympathy from nearly everyone but the most directly impacted individuals, and wildlife managers may pay a heavy price in negative public sentiment for choosing lethal rather than preventative options. Urban habitats often are, for many species, islands, with various barriers to dispersal between habitats—roads are a prime example. In one interesting study, Wandeler et al. (2003) investigated two hypotheses: (1) that the fox population of Zurich, Switzerland, was isolated from adjacent rural fox populations and (2) that urban habitat acted as a constant sink for rural dispersers. Their results suggested the two urban areas studied were independently founded by a small number of individuals from adjacent rural areas, resulting in genetic drift and genetic differentiation between rural and urban fox populations. Based on the observed levels of migration between urban and rural populations, the author predicted genetic differentiation over time.

Chapter  8

Urban Gray Spaces KEY CONCEPTS

1. Gray spaces are the human-constructed features unique to urbanization. 2. Wildlife encounters with buildings, windows, and towers can have both positive and negative consequences. 3. The disruption of natural habitats by highways has measurable impacts on the population dynamics, survivability, and natural history of many wildlife species. 4. Birds and bats have adopted bridges as alternative sites for rearing young and resting and as safe havens from predation and adverse weather conditions. 5. Landfills, as repositories for municipal solid wastes, provide a food source for many wildlife ­species, resulting in human–wildlife conflicts at landfills. 6. The primary function of an airport is to ensure public safety, but airport designs and siting often attract certain species of wildlife that cause human–wildlife conflicts at airports.

8.1 INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, several ecologists have recognized the need to apply the science of ­ecology to urban environments. “Urbanization can be characterized as an increase in human habitation, ­coupled with increased per capita energy and resource consumption and extensive modification of the landscape, creating a system that does not depend principally on local natural resources to ­persist” (McDonnell and Pickett 1990, p. 1231). Their list of structural features, unique to urbanization, included dwellings, factories, office buildings, warehouses, roads, pipelines, power lines, railroads, channelized stream beds, reservoirs, sewage disposal facilities, landfills, and airports. Lost natural habitats are replaced by four types of altered habitat that become progressively more common toward the urban core. The four types of habitat are presented next in terms of increasing habitability to most native species and decreasing proportion of coverage toward the urban core: 1. Built habitat: Buildings and sealed surfaces, such as roads and parking lots, cover over 80% of the central urban area. 2. Managed vegetation: Residential, commercial, and other regularly maintained green spaces. 3. Ruderal vegetation: Empty lots, abandoned farmlands, and other green spaces that are cleared but not managed. 4. Natural remnant vegetation: Remaining islands of original vegetation (usually subject to substantial nonnative plant invasion) (McKinney 2002).

Habitat types 2, 3, and 4 were discussed extensively in Chapter 7. This chapter examines how various wildlife species utilize the “built” habitats within urban ecosystems. Our synthesis of the literature 203

204

Urban Wildlife Management

demonstrates that wildlife attempts to occupy nearly every “nook and cranny” in urban structures. This should not be surprising given the remarkable flexibility of urban adapters (Chapter 6) in ­taking advantage of the new structures provided in urban settings. 8.2  BUILDINGS, WINDOWS, AND TOWERS Wildlife is most noticed by urban residents when the animal appears in or in close proximity to the areas where we live, work, or recreate. The famous cliché “build it and they will come” is correctly applied to the response of wild animals to the urban structural features of homes, highrise office buildings, warehouses, and athletic stadiums, among others. Some wild animals are also selective in terms of what part of the building they prefer (e.g., roof, attic, walls, basement, inside or outside spaces); others are generalists and will occupy any available spaces to which they have access (see Figure 11.11). 8.2.1 Buildings Wild animals occupy urban buildings because they have been invited by the structural design, are opportunistic in seeking shelter, or need an area to rest (e.g., hibernate) or raise young. More often than not, humans who occupy the buildings adopted by wild animals do not even know they are present until the telltale signs of fecal droppings, structural damage from gnawing, smells, or sounds tip them off concerning the animal’s presence. The assemblage of vertebrate animals that have been observed on or about urban structures and features (e.g., lawns and gardens) included 101 amphibians, 84 reptiles, 457 birds, and 98 mammals (see Appendices A.1 through A.4). On the other hand, birds and buildings are a lethal combination. “Bird-building collision ­mortality is considered to be one of the top direct anthropogenic mortality of birds in the U.S.” (Loss et al. 2014, p. 18). In Chicago, experts estimated that any single, tall building could be killing

Figure 8.1 Some experts estimate up to 100 million birds die each year in collisions caused by the artificial lights of tall buildings, communication towers, and airports. This photo shows a sample of birds collected beneath high-rise buildings in Toronto during one migration season. (Photo courtesy of Mark Jackson and Fatal Light Awareness Program, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.)

Urban Gray Spaces

205

Table 8.1 Species (See Appendix A.3 for Scientific Names) Most Vulnerable to Strike Buildings in the United States and Canada Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Species

Rank

Species

Anna’s hummingbird Black-throated blue warbler Ruby-throated hummingbird Townsend’s solitaire Golden-winged warbler Painted bunting Brown creeper Connecticut warbler Ovenbird Canada warbler

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Swamp sparrow Yellow-bellied sapsucker Louisiana waterthrush Gray catbird Pine grosbeak American woodcock Pygmy nuthatch Black and white warbler Pied-billed grebe Common yellowthroat

Source: Loss, S.R. et al., Condor, 116, 8, 2014.

2000 birds a year during peak migration (Figure 8.1). From 1968 to 1998, more than 26,000 migrating birds died crashing into a single building along the Chicago lakefront. Birds migrate at night using the stars as a navigational tool and often following a corridor along a body of water such as Lake Michigan. Lighted buildings can disorient them, attracting them to their deaths. Bird biologists speculate that from a vantage point over the lake, the low, dark mass of McCormick Place may appear to be a cluster of trees. It might look, to birds, like a haven of food and shelter (DeVore 1998). More recent data, based on a review of 23 studies, suggested that bird losses due to bird-building collisions ranged between 365 and 988 million birds annually (Loss et  al. 2014). Birds collided with low-rise buildings (56%) more often than with urban residences (44%) and high-rise buildings (