University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnGreat Plains Wildlife Damage Control WorkshopProceedings Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for

December 1993

URBAN NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROLIN KENTUCKYThomas G. BarnesUniversity of Kentucky

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp

Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University ofNebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings by an authorized administratorof DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Barnes, Thomas G., "URBAN NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL IN KENTUCKY" (1993). Great Plains Wildlife Damage ControlWorkshop Proceedings. 326.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/326

URBAN NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL IN KENTUCKY

variety of factors including increasedurbanization, decreased funding forgovernmental animal damage programs, andincreases in some urban wildlife populationshave resulted in a greater demand for urbannuisance wildlife control. Historically, thisdemand was met by Cooperative ExtensionService (San Julian 1987), state fish and wildlifeagency, or USDA-APHIS-ADC employees(Bollengier 1987). These agencies providededucational materials, consultations, and/orphysically removed animals. Recently, there isan increased demand for physical animalremoval evidenced by increasing numbers ofprivate pest control operators (PCO)specializing as urban nuisance wildlife controloperators (NWCO).

Previous animal damage survey research hasfocused on the magnitude and distribution ofwildlife damage, stakeholders' tolerance levels,and management preferences for solvinghuman-wildlife conflicts (Pomerantz et al.1986). Much of this research has been directedtowards rural landowner attitudes concerningdeer, gobse, beaver, black bear, or coyotedamage (reviewed by Craven et al. 1992). Littledetailed information exists about the urbannuisance wildlife control industry. The purposeof this study was to determine the status of thenuisance wildlife control industry in Kentucky,what level of technical training NWCO haverelative to nuisance wildlife control, and whattechniques are used by NWCO to prevent,control, or manage urban nuisance wildlife.

Thomas Grider, Department of RuralSociology, University of Kentucky assisted

with survey design. Michael Lacki and ThomasGrider reviewed an earlier draft of thismanuscript. This research was funded by theKentucky Agricultural Experiment Station.

MEITiODS

I designed an 8 page, 28 question telephonesurvey to assess the status of an emerging newwildlife management enterprise, urban nuisancewildlife control. The questionnaires weredesigned to provide information on: 1) thegeneral nature of the pest control industry inKentucky, 2) level of education and specificwildlife related training of NWCO as it relatesto their views on certification or licensing, and3) the views and experiences of NWCO oncontrolling nuisance wildlife. Names andtelephone numbers of private PCO companiesin Kentucky were obtained by searching theyellow pages of all telephone directories in thecommonwealth of Kentucky. Additionalcompanies were identified through theKentucky Department of Fish and WildlifeResources (KDFWR) nuisance wildlife controlpermit holder listing, referrals from PCO, andpersonal knowledge of NWCO companiesoperating in the state. Once this list wasobtained, duplicate companies or thoseworking in different cities with a main office inanother city were eliminated. Branch offices ofthe three largest companies, greater than 100employees, were not contacted because thequestionnaire was answered by the companymanager/owner for all company offices in thestate. The questionnaire was pretested on 5%of the sample population during late

Thomas G. BarnesUniversity of Kentucky

April 1992. At least 20 attempts were made tocontact the owner or manager of a companybefore the company was no longer contacted.

The state of Kentucky was selected as a study areabecause it is representative of the United States andcontains urban areas of various sizes including: 1) alarge, metropolitan area with a population greaterthan 1 million (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati,OH), 2) medium sized cities (Louisville, population650,000 and Lexington, population 225,000), andnumerous small urban areas ranging in populationfrom several thousand (Frankfort) to 50,000(Paducah).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Usable questionnaires were obtained from 169(89.9% response rate) of 188 PCOs contacted.Response rates of 90% or more minimize theeffects of nonresponse bias (Houseman 1953);therefore, nonresponse bias was not considered aproblem for this survey.

Three distinct types of PCOs, based upon whattype of pest control work the company provided,were identified from the respondents. The largestgroup was classified as general PCO doing somenuisance wildlife control (N = 77). Thesecompanies did not specialize in nuisance wildlifecontrol but did respond to customer complaintsthat involved at least one wildlife species (table 1)excluding domestic cats (Felis domesticus), housemice (Mus musculus) or rats (Rattus spp.). Theother groups consisted of general pest or insectcontrol companies (N = 69) that did no nuisancewildlife control and companies specializing innuisance wildlife control (N = 23). Fifty ninepercent of all PCO either specialized as NWCO ordid some nuisance wildlife control. This is muchhigher

percentage than the 48% of PCO doing nuisancewildlife control work reported by Goldstein (1992).The study by Goldstein should be viewed withcaution, because a response rate of 18% indicatessome of the results may be biased (Houseman1953). The general trend reported by Goldstein(1992) and this study showed that the majority ofPCO companies do some nuisance wildlife controland less than 20% of these companies arespecializing as NWCO.

The pest control industry in Kentucky employsover 1400 individuals by at least 188 companies.Three and one-half percent of these individualsand 13.6% of the companies are NWCO. NWCOhave been in business an average of 3.18 _+ 2.5years. This is sharply different from PCO notspecializing in nuisance wildlife control. Thesecompanies have been in business an average of19.5 _+ 14.8 years. This information indicatesNWCO are new business enterprises filling a needthat may have been supplied by othergovernmental agencies in the past. PCOs alsoperceive nuisance wildlife control as a growingfield (Goldstein 1992). Further evidence of agrowing industry is the formation of the UrbanWildlife Control Association (Mike Dwyer,personal communication).

The NW CO are primarily located in urban areas:39% in Louisville, 22% in Lexington, 4% NorthernKentucky/Cincinnati, and 35% in 7 differentcommunities with more than 10,000 populationand less than 50,000 population. This indicatesNWCO are likely to be located in large or smallcommunities and a minimum population of 10,000may be necessary to support at least one NWCO.NWCO in smaller communities may not be afull-time PCO or NWCO. Ten (43.5%) of theNWCO consider the business as a fulltimeendeavor; whereas, 13 (56.5%) of the NWCO onlywork in nuisance wildlife

13

control part-time. Six (46%) of the part-timeNWCO are located in small communities; whereas,five (38%) are located in Louisville. The averagepercent time devoted to controlling nuisancewildlife by these companies was 11.9 + 4.6%.These findings compare favorably with resultsreported by Goldstein (1992). He found that 85%of PCOs said nuisance wildlife control accountedfor less than 10% of their business.

Formal education level of NWCO varied; although,the majority (78.3%) were high school graduates orhad attended at least one year of college.Specialized training in wildlife management andanimal damage control subjects also varied (Figure1). Few of the NWCO received specialized trainingin wildlife identification, trapper education, oranimal damage management (Figure 1). Whenquestioned about their ability to identifyendangered bat species, 22% of the NWCO feltthey could identify endangered or threatened batspecies within the state. Many (40%) of theseNWCO indicated they used books to trainthemselves or had no training (20%) in endangeredbat identification. Other NWCO indicated they hadreceived training in bat identification from acompany (20%) or university (20%).Approximately one-third of NWCO were certifiedto use restricted use chemicals and receivedtraining in pesticide usage and entomology (Figure1).

Many respondents indicated personal experience,not formal education or specialized training,allowed them to be qualified to be a NWCO.However, the majority of respondents felt NWCOshould be certified (86.9%) and the followingspecialized training should be required for thiscertification: inservice training from theCooperative Extension Service or a fish & wildlifedepartment (87.0%), a trapper education course(87.0%), a course on the identification ofendangered and threatened wildlife species (87%),and continuing

education courses to maintain certification(82.6%). A minority of respondents felt collegelevel training in wildlife management was necessary(13.0%) or testing was necessary to obtaincertification (26.1%).

A follow-up question was asked on where theyobtained their information about controllingnuisance wildlife. Most respondents contacted theKDFWR (29.7%) or read magazines (18.9%).Other sources of information included theCooperative Extension Service (10.8%), personalexperience (10.8%), company training programs(8.1%), USDA-APHIS-ADC (8.1%), mass mediaincluding television or radio (5.5%), and othersources (8.1%).

The questions of education or training andobtaining a license or certification to be a NWCOis important, as 90% of states require a permit butonly 73% of states require testing as part of thisprocess (Clark 1992). Connecticut and Illinois arethe only states that require NWCO to take anexamination and apply for a permit before beinglicensed (Kevin Clark, personal communication).Kentucky is similar to other states in that the onlylegal requirement to control nuisance wildlife inKentucky is a NWCO permit. This permit isavailable for a small fee from the KDFWR. Thereis no testing or educational requirements to be aNWCO in Kentucky. I found 70% of NWCO werein possession of the required permit whensurveyed. However, none of the 77 companiesdoing some nuisance wildlife control had thenecessary permit. This concurs with (Clark 1992)who found many NWCO trappers operate withouta permit.

It is apparent most NWCO contacted in this studydo not have extensive training in wildlifemanagement, trapper education or animal damagemanagement. However, they support NWCObeing certified concomitant with necessaryeducational requirements. Clark (1992) foundsimilar results. They found 73% of NWCO do nothave to pass a

14

test to obtain a permit, yet 76% support testing toobtain a permit and 71 % support certification forNWCO. These results suggest NWCO are eagerfor training and desire some industryself-regulation measures.

Most NWCO (95.7%) give customers free adviceon solving nuisance wildlife problems and refercustomers (78.3%) to other agencies or companiesfor problems they cannot handle (Figure 2).NWCO reported raccoon ft lotor) (28.5%) andtree squirrel (Sciurus spp.) (25%) problemsgenerate most of their calls. Other species thatgenerate most of the IVWCO business includeskunks (Mephitis mephitis) (14.3%), opossum(Didelphis virginianus) (10.7%), beaver (Castorcanadensis) (7.1%), birds (7.1%), and othermammals (7.1%).

Overall, NWCO reported their primary method ofcontrolling nuisance wildlife was the use oflive-trapping and releasing off-site (91.3%),followed by exclusion (8.7%). Secondary controlmethods varied and included the use of lethal traps(33.0%), livetrapping and euthanizing (27.8%),shooting (16.7%), and the use of leg-hold traps(16.7%). Other studies have shown livetrapping isthe NWCO preferred control option (Braband andClark 1992, Goldstein 1992).

Control methods used for specific animals oranimal groups varied (table 1). Livetrapping andreleasing off-site was the method used most oftenfor tree squirrels, eastern chipmunks (Tamiusstriatus), woodchucks (Marmots monax), skunks,small carnivores including raccoon, opossum,weasels or mink (Mustela spp.), coyotes or foxes(Cams spp.) and white-tailed deer (Odoc~ileusvirginianus). Control methods for other nuisancewildlife varied and included the use of lethaltrapping for mole control, use of repellents andexclusion for pest bird control, exclusion for batcontrol and physical removal of a snake from a

dwelling.

The use of illegal methods for controlling nuisancewildlife varied. Toxicants were used illegally tocontrol bats, squirrels, skunks, and smallcarnivores. There are no toxicants registered in thestate of Kentucky for use on these species. Habitatmodification or exclusion were not preferredcontrol options for most species except bats orbirds. This is not surprising since 38% of NWCOcompanies do not consider repair or exclusion aspart of their job (Goldstein 1992). In addition,34.8% of the NWCO contacted for this surveyguaranteed their work. Of this number, 62.5%guaranteed to solve the problem and the remainingcompanies offered a time guarantee (a specificamount of time for which no damage wouldoccur). The typical guaranteed time period was 30to 60 days post treatment.

The preferred control methods NWCO use tocontrol nuisance wildlife appear to be dictated bywhat technology is available for controlling variouspests (table 1), individual attitudes concerning lethalcontrol, customer attitudes concerning lethalcontrol and the humaneness of various controlmethodologies (Braband and Clark 1992). NWCOin this study approved of lethal control forwoodchucks (56.5%), coyotes or foxes (60.1%),skunks (60.9%), pigeons (78.3%), other pest birds(82.6%), and commensal rodents (100%). NWCOdisapproved (approval rates in parenthesis) oflethal control for waterfowl (0%), woodpeckers(13.0%), bats (13.0%), deer (13.0%), squirrels(17.4%), raccoon (26.1 %), opossum (34.8%),moles (43.0%), snakes (43.5%), and muskrats(47.8%). These are similar to NWCO customerattitudes reported by Braband and Clark (1992)with some discrepancies.

The results of this study show nuisance wildlifecontrol is an emerging pest control business inurban areas. As this industry

1 °.

develops, educational programs on wildlifemanagement and animal damage control, withsubsequent certification or licensing, will benecessary to: 1) improve the image of the industry,2) protect the wildlife resource, and 3) educate thepublic about nuisance wildlife management.Additionally, because live-trapping and releasing isthe preferred control method for many vertebratespecies, more research is needed to ascertain whathappens to relocated animals. This knowledge willassist the wildlife profession in formulatingpublic-policy decisions related to the nuisancewildlife control industry.

LITERATURE CITED

Bollengier, R.M., Jr. 1987. State/federal/privatecooperative program relationships in wildlifedamage control. Proc. East. Wildl. DamageControl Con£ 3:307-308.

Braband, L.A., and K.D. Clark 1992. Perspectiveson wildlife nuisance control: results of a wildlifedamage control firm's customer survey. Proc. East.Wildl. Damage Control Con£ 5:34-37.

Goldstein, M. 1992. Nuisance Animal ControlSurvey. Pest Control?:58-66.

Houseman, E.E. 1953. Statistical treatment of thenonresponse problem. Agric. Econ. Res. 5:12-18.

Pomerantz, G.A., C. Ng, and D.J. Decker. 1986.Summary of research on human tolerance ofwildlife damage. Nat. Resour. Res. and Ext. SeriesNo. 25. Dept. Nat.

Resour., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 42 pp. SanJulian, G.J. 1987. Extension's perspective offederal, state and private animal damage controlprograms. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage ControlConf. 3:312-313.

16

Clark, K.D. 1992. NWCO survey. Urban Wildl.News 1:8.

Craven, S.R., D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, and S.E.Hygnstrom. 1992. Survey use and landownertolerance in wildlife damage management. Trans.N.A. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 57:75-87.

2.. 11i

ry doo a

o.

~a

.,.,

.,

e Ct7 . ^h O

O n•t (D•y ,..o a

lems»;e

,~ o0

0 0

'~ ow.. .,

00

o w., .*0

w _N0

'Y

r7r ,..'

0

n0

NN

Table 1. The primary and secondary methods of control used by nuisance wildlife control companies in Kentucky.

Method of Control(Percent of companies using this method)

Animal N' Live-trap Exclusion Repellent Habitat Poison Lethal Leg-hold Other

release Modific. Trap Trap

Bats 10 15.4 53.8 7.7 0 7.7 0 0 15.4

Snakes 15 8.7 17.4 13.0 17.4 0 0 0 43.5

Birds 18 0 37.0 25.9 0 3.8 0 0 33.3

Mole 11 0 0 0 0 23.1 61.5 0 15.4

Tree Squirrel 18 60.0 16.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 8.0 0 0

Chipmunk 8 58.3 8.3 0 0 16.7 8.3 0 8.3

Woodchuck 21 60.0 0 0 0 0 20.0 3.3 16.7

Muskrat 12 42.9 0 0 0 0 42.9 14.2 0

Skunk 22 67.9 7.1 0 0 3.6 7.1 10.7 3.6

Small

Carnivore 21 60.0 3.3 0 0 6.7 6.7 13.3 10.0

Deer 3 66.7 0 33.3 3 0 0 0 0

'The number of companies handling customer complaints for a particular listed animal.