NE1005: Management of Wildlife Damage in Suburban and Rural Landscapes
Statement of Issues and Justification
Wildlife species cause extensive damage to agricultural commodities, forest regeneration, and suburban landscapes in the Northeast (Conover 1997, NEWAA 1997). In Pennsylvania alone during 1994, farmers estimated that wildlife caused $74,042,000 in losses for 6 crops (Tzilowski et al. 1997). Deer, in particular, pose a problem within Pennsylvania's Allegheny hardwood forest, as the annual timber loss due to deer browsing is estimated at $367 million per year (Diefenbach et al. 1997). Deer also have a negative impact on landscape ornamentals in suburban settings, resulting in $6.5 to $9 million in losses in Westchester County, New York, alone (Connelly et al. 1987). Deer management concerns have caused social conflict in many Northeast communities (e.g., Princeton, NJ; Fox Chapel, PA, Cayuga Heights and Irondequoit, NY; Groton-Long Point, CT; etc.). Economic losses caused by deer exceed those for all other vertebrate pests (Wylwialowski and Beach 1991). In Pennsylvania, deer-vehicle accidents account for more than $130 million in insurance claims. In addition, it is estimated that more than 150,000 deer-vehicle collisions likely occur in New York and Pennsylvania annually, and traffic safety statistics indicate about 4% of these accidents result in human injury (Conover 1995). The Center for Disease Control has also indicated that half or more of the 16,000 new cases of Lyme disease diagnosed each year in humans occur in the Northeast where deer have been implicated as hosts for the ticks that carry the disease. Many stakeholder groups, including fruit, vegetable and ornamental growers, cooperative extension educators, state and federal wildlife agency staff (Packham and Connolly 1992, Bruggers et al. 1996), and community leaders have indicated that wildlife damage management is an important concern. New, multi-state approaches are needed to both reduce deer overabundance and mitigate damage in communities across the region.Because deer concerns (Appendix D- vehicle accidents, plant damage, Lyme disease) are similar between several Northeast states, this proposal would pool State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) resources for high-priority wildlife damage research. The Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency Directors (NEAFWA) have recognized the advantages of regional coordination and have provided limited base funding to support a Northeast Wildlife Damage Research and Outreach Cooperative (the WDM Coop includes a consortium of 13 NE states; research priorities listed in Appendix D). If this proposal were funded, we would in essence create an informal partnership between NERA and NEAFWA and provide for agency-university coordination of wildlife damage research across the Northeast. This partnership would set a precedent that could serve as a model for other regions in the United States. Agricultural producers would experience increased profitability resulting from less wildlife damage. Suburban residents would experience fewer deer-car collisions and reduced damage to ornamental plantings. Hardwood forest regeneration would increase. Through enhanced outreach programs, landowners in the Northeast could experience a lower incidence of Lyme disease.
In addition to deer concerns, populations of non-migratory, giant Canada geese have increased dramatically in the Atlantic Flyway during the last 50 years and are causing economic impacts (Conover and Chasko 1985, Castelli and Sleggs 2000). Many stakeholders (e.g., park managers, golf course superintendents, grain farmers, etc.) currently view Canada geese as a pest species (Conover and Kania 1991, Gosser and Conover 1999). Among the problems resulting from increased goose numbers are grazing and trampling damage to grain and forage crops. Accumulations of goose droppings on lawns, parks, golf courses, and athletic fields create unsightly, messy, and foul-smelling experiences for people using those areas. Fecal contamination of water bodies and drinking water reservoirs causes eutrophication (Conover and Chasko 1985). Furthermore, there is increasing concern of possible disease transmission to people from contact with goose feces. Potential collisions between birds and aircraft, and associated loss of human life, is a real risk near many airports in the Northeast US. In the mid 1990s, as U.S. Air Force AWAC plane struck a Canada goose on take-off causing an engine fire which destroyed the aircraft and killed 24 crew members (York et al. 2000). An integrated bird control program was initiated at this airport to prevent future disasters.
Canada geese are migratory and the need for coordinated, region-wide research and management is obvious. Priorities for goose management and hunting seasons are set at the Atlantic Flyway level by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although the USFWS establishes a broad framework for goose management, it is not sufficient to address critical goose conflicts within and between Northeast states. Goose management issues are often perceived at the community level (e.g., damage to grain fields in a township, or fouling of beaches at a park), and the USFWS framework is not designed to address local issues. To effectively study and manage geese at the community level, SAES scientists will need to partner with state wildlife agency staff. Coordination of goose banding and control efforts will be required to evaluate the impacts of research projects and understand the population dynamics of geese as they move between states.
We propose to examine ways to more effectively manage goose reproduction and disperse geese causing conflicts. Any control program involving the handling of geese or eggs will require both state and federal permits, and goose banding/marking will need to be coordinated between states. Although research and dispersal of problem geese will occur at the community level, multi-state collaboration and monitoring will be needed to determine if geese hazed in one area simply move across state boundaries and cause conflicts in another location. There is increasing evidence that a large proportion (80-95%) of geese dispersed prior to egg hatching will molt-migrate into northern Canada and remain there throughout the summer months (Abraham et al. 1999). This could eliminate many suburban conflicts with geese at parks, golf courses, and athletic fields which peak during summer.
Research priorities for deer damage management in the Northeast include assessment of economic losses, development of methods for mitigating deer impacts and non-lethal management of herd growth (NEWAA 1997, Appendix D). For Canada geese, research priorities include improved methods for excluding geese from turf grass areas and crops, and development of socially-acceptable methods for controlling goose abundance. These topics will be the primary focus of the Multi-state Technical Committee during the initial 5 years of the project. However, it is clear that wildlife damage management needs exist for many other species in the Northeast (Appendix D), and these could provide the focus for future research and outreach.
We propose to standardize research methods for estimating deer abundance and assessing deer damage levels in states across the Northeast. These data are important for both documenting current impacts, and as a baseline for measuring change following future management actions. In addition, investigation of the social acceptability of various deer and goose management alternatives is important for determining the potential adoption of novel wildlife management approaches.
Note: Literature Cited is listed in Appendix C.
Last Modified:
unknown
Back to Top