Wild Neighbors:The Humane Approach to Living with Wildlife ISBN 978-0-9748400-8-6

Wild Neighbors is a revision of Dr. John Hadidian's earlier book of the same title and I thought it appropriate to review this edition, having evaluated the earlier version for the National Animal Damage Control Association (no longer active). You can read my earlier review at UNL Digital Commons.

Readers will find the book an enjoyable read. The authors made sure the book was organized in a manner that aids reader understanding and use of the text. The book is organized into two parts. Part 1 addresses principles and major concepts related to human-wildlife interactions, such as law, diseases, and techniques. The authors also provide their philosophy of wildlife damage management which I shall assess below. Part 2 contains a series of chapters dedicated to species that are typically involved in conflicts with humans. These chapters as well as those in Part 1 are superbly written with an easy to understand prose. The authors did an excellent job avoiding complex sentences deciding instead to write in simple narrative. Each species chapter covers biology, range, habits, potential disease concerns, followed by a discussion of techniques the authors believe may help resolve the human-wildlife conflict in a way acceptable to them. Each species ends with a recommendation of books for further reading, if the authors found any that met their standards. The line drawings and figures included in the text are superbly done and add informative as well as aesthetic value to the book.

Unfortunately, the book's content is not so easily endorsed. However, there are a few elements worthy of praise. First, the authors summary of animal biology saves the book from being a total failure. Anyone interested in learning how to write about animal biology that is both accurate and enjoyable to read, should consult this book. Second, the book recommendations at the end of each of the species chapters is also a worthy benefit. With so many potential books available, it is always a better to obtain books that are recommended by people knowledgeable about wildlife biology.


The book's advice about resolving wildlife conflicts is woefully inadequate, at times naive, and generally dismissive of lethal control. Although the authors finally provided advice about how to kill rodents (something I noted was lacking in their first book), they seemed unwilling to accept the reality that many of their suggestions won't work to resolve wildlife conflicts. The authors repeatedly criticize lethal control techniques by insinuating that they are done simply because individuals fail to think creatively enough about possible alternatives. Ironically, it never seems to occur to the authors that their employer, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), should be spending its money in search of these so called "non-lethal' alternatives. With access to millions of dollars (their budget in 2006 was over 100 million dollars) one would expect that the HSUS should have plenty of money to fund research. I know I would like to actually read a book with fewer recommendations couched in tentative terms of may, could, and try. One should also mention that the authors do condemn some techniques not because they have proof of their being inhumane but because they "think" the techniques are inhumane (see p. 34). As stated above, I suspect they have the money to find out for sure, but it is doubtful that they will fund the research. 

The book contains a number of statements that conveniently neglect to provide the reader with the full context regarding wildlife damage management. For example, in the chapter on rats, they write "The usual consequence of killing rodents to suppress their population is the return, shortly, to their population level that prevailed before, or one slightly higher." They move on to say that if nothing is done to the underlying habitat then the cycle of killing followed by rat rebound will continue in an endless cycle. That is all true. What they neglect to mention is that the cost of regular control may be significantly less than the cost of implementing a long-term solution. I can buy a lot of toxicant over a lot of years if I can avoid spending 10,000 dollars to remove the underlying rodent conditions. In other words, just because something can be done does not mean that it is practical. Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease. (The cost of owning a lawn means you have to mow it. Sometimes, the cost of certain habitats is that certain species (i.e. rats, mice) thrive to unacceptable levels). If the cost of removing the underlying conditions that feed rats ends up bankrupting you, then what is the benefit? I wonder what the HSUS authors think poor people, those that can't afford to implement expensive structural repairs to exclude rats and mice, should be required to do? Should they not have the ability to use inexpensive toxicants to control rats and mice because the HSUS decries their use? What about cities and towns? Aren't people's taxes high enough or should we increase them more to remove all of the underlying conditions which will only likely effect incomplete control. I recommend habitat modification as a control technique. However, I do not believe that it is non-lethal (contrary to these authors) nor do I think it is the full solution. Habitat modification must be part of control because I believe in Integrated Pest Management rather than condemning tools. All tools have their place, provided they haven't been completely supplanted by a better one, contrary to what the authors in this text claim.

The authors are quite right to assert that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife and work to prevent damage from happening. However, the authors also need to be more sympathetic to the myriad of ways property owners suffer damage from wildlife and how they need ways to resolve those conflicts that do not cost a fortune and work immediately.

In sum, readers wanting to know all the available techniques useful in resolving conflicts with wildlife so that they can make an informed choice, should look elsewhere (e.g. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage available for free at http://icwdm.org). 

Stephen M. Vantassel CWCP, ACP. is project coordinator for the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management (http://icwdm.org) and is an expert in helping people resolve wildlife conflicts.

Managing Wild Pigs: A Technical Guide by B.C. West, A. L. Cooper, and J. B. Armstrong

Feral pigs have become a significant threat to environmental and agricultural interests with combined losses being valued at 1.5 billion dollars annually. The diseases commonly associated with feral pigs (such as swine brucellosis, pseudorabies, classical swine fever, and trichinosis, constitute a continued  risk to ranchers and livestock producers through substantial portions of America's agricultural base.

Time is precious and with the volume of research that has been published in recent years, it is getting harder and harder to read fast enough to keep abreast of the literature. Fortunately, Ben C. West, Andrea L. Cooper, and James B. Armstrong have come to the rescue at least in regards to feral pigs (Sus scrofa).

The authors have put together a thoroughly researched document that helps managers and wildlife damage management specialists obtain the information they need to make informed decisions about managing feral pigs.The document is beautifully laide out in 8.5x11" saddle stitched booklet form. It is accompanied with superb full color photos and an appendex containing schematics for building your own feral pig trap. Not a wildlife damage manager or biologist? Don't worry. The authors have limited the technical jargon and redacted the information so that readers are not encumbered with distracting details and academic controversies. At only 54 pages long (11 of which consist of the bibliography and appendix), the booklet is a quick and enjoyable read.

If you are looking for a no-nonsense, research-informed document to help guide you in the right way to control feral hogs, then this document is for you. Given what the authors state about the need for feral pig control, I hope many people not only read this document but also get on board with assisting in the control of this environmental menace.

To obtain your copy visit The Berryman Institute and download the PDF at no cost.

Stephen M. Vantassel is project coordinator for the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management and is an expert in wildlife damage management education.

Hand Sanitizers

For many years nows, I have recommended waterless hand sanitizers for NWCOs (Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators) who cannot easily access traditional soap and water. While these products cannot (and don't) solve all the infectious disease issues facing NWCOs (e.g. parasites), hand sanitizers certainly help. The key is to use one that has at least 60% alcohol.

But recent research has refined this recommendation. An abstract of a presentation by Natalie D'Antonio, John D. Rihs, Melissa A. Tosiano, Janet E. Stout, and Victor L. Yu, entitled "Efficacy of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers (ABHS): A Hand Wipe (65.9% Ethanol) Exceeds the Killing Capacity of a Gel Rub (62% Ethanol) published in The American Journal of Infection Control (June 2009):E116-117, stated that a hand wipe with 65% alcohol (Sani-Hands ALC hand wipe by PDI Inc.) did a better job at killing bacterial germs than a gel with 62% alcohol (Purell gel rub). Now the authors pointed out that handwashing with microbial soap did a better job at sanitizing than either alcohol based solutions.

One advantage of wipes, not mentioned by the authors, is that wipes allow the NWCO to remove dirt and grime that can harbor pathogens. The friction and wiping capacity of a wipe allows a NWCO to scrub and remove germs. This removal action is one reason why hand washing is so effective. The flowing water coupled with the rubbing action of pressing hands detaches germ carrying grime so that the water can rinse it away. Although not as effective as handwashing, wipes provide the opportunity to use friction and wiping to remove grime so that the alcohol has an opportunity to kill the germs that remain.

Bottom line. NWCOs should wash their hands whenever possible. If they can't, they should choose to use alcohol wipes with 65% alcohol over 62% gel.

Stephen M. Vantassel is Project Coordinator at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and is the webmaster for the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management (http://icwdm.org/).

Site on Resolving Problems with Crows

Crows are interesting birds. They are highly intelligent (for a bird) and highly social. While those traits make them interesting, they also make them difficult to control. Fortunately, aside from the occasional jewelry theft (crows are known to pick up shiny objects), damage from crows is typically limited to their roosts and damage to crops.

Roosts are a problem due to the noise and feces made by hundreds to thousands of crows. These roosts typically form during the cooler months where the large number of birds can actually raise the temperature (1-2 degrees F) for the birds in the middle (who typically happen to the dominant birds). In the mid- 1990s, Springfield, Massachusetts had the largest crow roost in southern New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island). Other large crow roosts exist elsewhere in the country.

So how does one go about controlling these birds? First, you need to obey the law. Crows are migratory birds and therefore protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty. However, since crows are plentiful, many states allow hunting of crows during established seasons. If at all possible, control crows during the hunting season.
Unfortunately, crow damage doesn't always occur during the hunting season and in others, hunting is prohibited in the areas where the crows are a problem (e.g. downtown). In these circumstances, you have a few options.

Option 1. Habitat Modification. Crows roost where the trees have sufficient branches to allow a lot of them to roost together. Trim the branches by up to a 1/3 to reduce their ability to cluster.

Option 2. Hazing. Make the location uncomfortable for them. Pyrotechnics, (check local laws before using) and distress calls can work. No federal permit is required because the birds or their nests are being harmed. Methyl anthranilate is a chemical repellent that when fogged can cause birds to disperse. Do it as often as needed to convince the birds not to return.

Option 3. Direct control. (e.g. hunting etc.) You may need to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as state wildlife agencies to obtain necessary permits when controlling out of season.

For additinonal information, visit the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management or
U.C. Davis Crow Control both will provide a lot of research-based information to help you.

Stephen M. Vantassel, CWCP, ACP