Many don't realize coon, opossum, etc are predators and work on the ground nesters like grouse, quail, baby rabbits, etc.

There is only so much prey base for any given area.

Oh, I agree...but there must be an abundance of food in these parts.

trapjohn, you are absolutely right. If you get caught letting an egg eater go on public land, you will get a ticket. We have no ground nesting game birds here except for turkeys and they seem to be doing real well. I am surprised that we have had such good waterfowl hatches when you consider the amount of predators.

I guess eating raw eggs in the marshes isn't as appetizing as the cooked eggs in the McDonald's dumpster.

Usually when carrying capacity is filled the result is what we preach as consumptive sportsmen, natures way takes a toll with death through disease and starvation. With raccoon and others this is usually distemper, or rabies or other nasty stuff.

Like the lady that argued with me many years ago now in Oregon about how she loved feeding cats and raccoons next to each other in the back yard and this last two years she noticed they were nearly all gone, what could have happened?

At this same time distemper was sweeping through the valley and any concentrations of critters are going to get hit fastest. Just like we've seen with so many diseases, artificial feeding, or concentrations of animals in any given location raises the likelihood for transmission, including mange in coyotes and fox, and so forth.

I know my rhetoric is the same and I'm sure its tiring to hear just as some of the others are for me as well, but the song remains the same and true, if you don't tag/transmit animals and follow them from capture to death or cradle to grave in these relocations, there is not one iota of actual fact that says the results are positive. Whereas there is a body of research that is growing by the month and year showing in all species this produces a massive range of negative factors.

I figured by now this thread would have died, honestly trying to let it, though I love debating, I know folks don't like to hear the same thing parroted again and again and thats all I'm doing at this point.

So my apologies to those who are tired of it, just making sure I'm addressing any new aspects or thoughts with my own perspective.

A final thought, though we do pull food from the wildlife populations in a variety of forms, the world outside our doors has a pyramid all its own from the bugs to the top carnivores, very few including those who have spent eons looking closely, can see all the dynamics of the natural world and how unnatural movement of animals through human induced efforts both homeowners and professionals can be negative in so many ways. Many we just don't care about, or can't see...

Justin, we are not exactly on the same side of this debate but I have read every word you have typed and I haven't got tired of it. You are one of the few people that can return an answer very quickly. So here's my question; if I remember correctly, raccoons can be susceptible to both canine and feline distemper, right?

I have had a number of customers who, although they never wanted it, found their pets sharing cat food with raccoons. In those cases, what warnings should I give the customer besides the distemper shots?

Keep it up Justin. I enjoy reading your posts as they are informative, interesting and add an educated perspective to some of the discussions.

My approach to relocation is more personal than scientific.

But, to begin with, I don't like the idea of "Moving" a problem. Let's take the coon, for instence, who has developed a taste for dog food. Lady feeds the dog on the screened in back porch. Coon rips through the screen to get the dog food. I catch the coon and drive him 20 miles down the road where he is released unharmed.

That sounds so sweet and kind, don't it? But, in reality, I know that coon will start trying to find his way home. He will travel until the scent of dog food hits his nose again and then he tears into someone else's back porch.

The second thing I consider is numbers... You can't pay me to move a gray squirrel! We, here, have too dang many of them as it is! We have squirrels in every yard, park, garden, nature trail, bike path, school campus and nearly every dang tree! They are everywhere! When they run out of trees, they move into attics and sofits where they destroy electric wiring and chew holes through woodwork.

Now, why on earth would I take a squirrel, who already knows how to chew through sofit, from one home and move him into another neighborhood with all new wood for him to chew on? I'm too honest for that type of job security. Again... Just relocating a problem.

The next thing I think about before relocating is, "what is the damage compared to the benifit?" A good example would be snakes. I can't say that I've ever seen any snake damage. Folks pay me to take them simply because they are snakes. I catch them, bring them home to my house and turn them loose. I've done that enough now that I have some who have taken residence and stay. Yes, I have snakes under my house but I don't have mice!

I have released the occasional possum here at my house because at the time I didn't have the time to build a holding pen. No matter. I can go back and catch them whenever I please. Twice, I have released coon here, simply because they were still juviniles and I didn't have the heart to pop a baybe. Again, If they are still around, I can catch them again later, when I'm ready to deal with them.

Protected animals, such as rattle snakes and alligator, I'll call the Game Warden and let him tell me what to do with them. That way, it's out of my hands and I'm not responsible.

I do worry about the diseas and mortalities and all that as well, but that's just not the first things I consider.

How is it that you know this?

Sgs,

It's just animal nature. Animals, just like humans, are most comfortable in their own environment, IE, home. Taken from their home, they will try to return. If they can't get back to what they know as home, then they will settle for what ever is closest to it.


Take our relocated coon, for example. He's been taken 20 miles from his home. As soon as his feet hit the ground, he will start his journey back. Now, 20 miles should be enough distance that he can't find his way back home, so, eventually, he will get hungry and stop the journey home long enough to find food. If he already has a taste for a certain food and he finds it, he'll go right back to what he knows and this in itself makes him feel more at home.

I know I'm not explaining this well, but think of it this way, dog food on a porch is dog food on a porch. If Kibbles and Bits is what the coon has come to love, then Kibbles and Bits on a porch 20 miles away is still like home to him. Once he runs across that in his search for "Home" then his search is over.

Yeah, I read a lot and watch a LOT of nature films. Old Walt Disney films are a WEALTH of information to the hunter and trapper.

That's the theory, who knows if it's true? There's a big difference between thinking something and knowing something.

It makes just as much sense to say, after being trapped, terrorized and transported the animal's nature is to stay as far away from where it all happened as possible.

I'd like to see actual evidence of either.

There was a study in Conn. years ago where they collared trapped raccoons before release and the majority took off for parts unknown, they didn't try to return at all. Now that's not proof of much but at least it's a study.

Radio collars run anywhere from $80.00-$250.00 for most of the nwco related species. To actually get some research going wouldn't cost that much money, the issue is really the tracking itself. The smaller the collar, the shorter your transmission distance and thus you need to stay on the animal as best you can. In MI we had raccoons go 15+ miles during dispersal and were only found thanks to some aerial time while monitoring our collared coyotes during winter months.

We have offered in our state to put up the funding for the collars and monitor raccoons (in this case) to see what percentage live/die and where they stay or move to.

I will be the first to say if I'm wrong about raccoon/skunk/squirrel/opossum/coyote if it is proven to me through the science.
Until then the dominant science shows translocation/relocation is insanely hard on the wildlife species studied.

****

Wink, I know your not one I'll wear out with my thoughts but thanks for saying it anyway! - Busy week haven't been on, so much for quick answers! Had a harvest festival booth for bats and wrapping up a bunch of bird and bat exclusion projects trying to beat the impending snow up north... Will get back to you with a tight list on the domestics/wild at same feeder.

****

Thanks Mike as well for your support, again I know I'm not bothering everyone, but I know some folks would just as soon I dropped out with my minority opinion soapbox.

Just don't want to be the guy who makes the rest think the forum sucks, this is a great forum, and does offer some good opportunity to debate and to learn about techniques, marketing, etc.... lots and lots shared!

Justin, this may be a good comparison; you may think that you are in the minority on relocation, but I think you are probably wrong. Just because us relocaters are more vocal, doesn't mean that we are in the majority. Kind of reminds me of any political persuasion that happens to be out of office at the moment.

Sgs,

I'll have to give you that argument as it is theory I'm going on.

But, still, the logic is sound. Critters will repeat what they know to work. So, if a coon in one spot associates back porches with food in one place, it's only logical to think he'll continue to associate back porches with food in a new location.

Relocate a coon and whether he is driven out by the local population or just simply wanders off in search of food, cover or companionship, he's still gonna move around. In all that moving, it's likely that he would become a problem to someone else.

I just as soon avoid future problems by having him visit the mashed taters and gravy on my Sunday dinner table.

HD Wildlife, vocal minority speaking back up since my early post to second everything you have said.

Science-based management... enough said.

Anecdotal evidence or assumptions mean little; they may suggest things that are the impetus for study, but alone should not be a basis for management decisions.

Fact is wildlife is managed at the population level and there is no biological reason to relocate nuisance wildlife. I have read numerous peer-reviewed articles on the subject and haven't found any that would support relocating nuisance wildlife. If someone can provide one I'm glad to read it. The only articles I've ever found that support relocating wildlife are from wildlife rehabilitation circles that do not undergo appropriate scrutiny in research design or peer-review, and I would call pseudo-science.

Tacoman, could you steer me to some of these peer-reviewed articles? I'm certainly open to both sides of the issue.

Here are a few I could quickly round up links for, of course within papers you can also seek out cited materials for more info (especially the review type papers that bring existing research together). On thing that's sometimes difficult is open access to peer-reviewd journals, but you can at least often get the abstracts that summarize the study. Some libraries also subscribe to scientific journals and sometimes you can gain access to articles through them. I also recommend searching topics through Googel "Scholar," it's under the "more" drop down on the Google home page and it will search peer-reviewed journals. Beyond basic searches for "nuisance wildlife relocation" try specifics like "raccoon rabies," "disease & translocation," etc... It's important to delve into the available research from numerous related angles to get a full picture because many research studies don't look directly at nuisance animal relocation, but allow one to make inferences.

http://joomla.wildlife.org/WildlifeDamage/images/PDF/tranlocdoc.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18634483

http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/journal/spring2009/gammons_mengak_conner_sp09.pdf

https://invermere.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=11097

Paul, in my world, Feline distemper is a godsend. Why would you want to help them keep Invasive Species around?

Minneapolis City Council just voted in CNR. Catch Neuter Release. Believe it or not, the Humane Society, of all people, spoke AGINST this! They feel MN is too cold of a climate for Cats to live outside. Being politicians, they decided, the more vocal Cat lovers were right.

Thanks Tacoman.

I have noticed that LOCAL Humane Society organizations, many times do think rationally and logically and do great work for their community.

It's the National Humane Society we have prblems with.

As far as CNR, I would be against it anywhere! ESPECIALLY with cats. Cats are natural born hunters and when released into the wild can be devastating to the indiginous wildlife there.

Now. Getting back to the "relocating" debate. I support relocating for the purpose of repopulating a species in an area where they have faded out due to man's overharvesting or some other than natural cause. I still do not support introducing a species where it has never been before. Nor do I see any point in relocating an animal into an area where there are plenty of his own species already there. The relocated animal will have to drive another out of the area to find his own place or he may be driven out himself by the ones already established there. Either way, the numbers will remain the same and you'll have a displaced coon in search of a new home.

Lundy, I agree with your view on distemper but some of these people who keep their cat in the house don't bother getting shots and then wonder what happened when fluffy croaked. While I have rid the world of more feral cats than most of you, I don't hate cats. And it seems they know it. When customers tell me that their cats are normally shy with strangers, but seem to take to me, I don't have the heart to tell them it's because I smell like a dead mouse or fish paste