|
|  |
|
| |
Finding solutions to Human/Wildlife Conflicts
Background
Based on the Canadian Human/Wildlife Conflict Survey completed by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (CAHT) in 2001, it appears that the number of reported wildlife/human interactions resulting in requests for assistance from municipal animal care and control agencies or humane societies have been steadily increasing during the past 15 years. For some animal care and control or animal welfare agencies, responding to concerns about wildlife or human/wildlife conflicts now represents as much as 30% of their workload. While birds represent a significant part of wildlife calls for animal welfare agencies, municipal agencies have seen increases in requests for assistance involving conflicts with such wild mammals as raccoons, skunks, squirrels, foxes, bears and coyotes. Even agencies which traditionally have not responded to wildlife concerns are finding that they can no longer take a complete hands-off approach, especially when residents who have a conflict with a wild animal on their property are unable to get help elsewhere.
Information supplied by agencies to the 2001 CAHT Human/Wildlife Conflict Survey revealed that only agencies in the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan appear to receive ongoing support and assistance from provincial wildlife/conservation officers to resolve human/wildlife conflicts. For most others no such help is available, and frequently requires a response from the municipal animal care and control agency.
Many municipalities are responding to wildlife concerns by default. Municipal animal care and control agencies are generally established to deal with by-law enforcement and services related to domestic animals, and most animal welfare agencies - except those specifically set up to deal with wildlife issues, such as wildlife centres and rehabilitators, are concerned with welfare of domestic animals.
How most Municipalities respond
In the past, providing traps (either free or rented) was how most municipal and private animal care and control agencies dealt with wildlife concerns. That has changed significantly. The CAHT Survey found that of the agencies responding to the survey, only 18% still provided trap rental services.
To minimize the chance of the welfare of wildlife being needlessly compromised, CAHT is actively promoting a preventive control approach over a trap and remove method of dealing with wildlife complaints.
All municipalities that currently deal with wildlife issues need to consider developing a Wildlife Conflict Response Strategy that is tailored to meet the needs of their community.
Residents, particularly residents in urban settings, need to be made to understand and accept that urban wildlife populations are an important and desirable component of a municipality and only rarely pose a danger or threat to humans. Intervention or control of ‘nuisance’ or ‘problem’ wild animals should therefore only be considered when there is evidence that such animals pose a serious threat to persons, domestic animals or property. Commonly, most complaints about wildlife or requests for action do not fall within that definition, but arise merely because a wild animal is observed trespassing on a complainant’s property. When such incidents are reported, there is often an expectation that the agency responsible for responding to such complaints or concerns will trap the ‘problem’ animal and remove it from the property. Although at first glance this may appear to be a reasonable solution, this will not permanently resolve the issue.
Wild animals are usually seen on private property either because the property provides a source of food and/or shelter, or because habitats exist somewhere in the neighbourhood and the animals are just passing through to get there. Wildlife populations exist in direct relationship to available habitat. Unless there is a reduction or elimination of a habitat, another animal will migrate to the area and take the place of a trapped animal.
Non-intervention and preventive control have been shown to be superior in resolving human/wildlife conflicts, and should therefore be tried before the “trap and remove” approach is considered.
In order to provide a consistent message on how to resolve human/wildlife conflicts, the following brochures have been developed though a cooperative effort by a number of organizations and agencies in Ontario which are involved in resolving human/wildlife conflicts. Brochures for other species are being developed.
The following brochures may be downloaded and reprinted and agencies may include their name and address etc. in the space provided on the front of each brochure.
 General
Skunks
Raccoons
Foxes
Coyotes
Squirrels
|
|
|
|
|
|
