Had me a idea yesterday what if one offerd to vaccinate the animals before releasing them .Would the customer wish this to be a option given to them . This is common practice I believe when animals are caught and released when doing reserch . Could even worm them before releasing back out into the wild .

Not sure where to start on this one....

So I'm just going to say "no!"

I'm definitely curious to see what you find out. Around here I bet 90 percent of my customers would love this add on.

Huh?

In the morning I'll post a blow by blow of why this is not only a bad idea but is illegal in most states.

I don't know about the animals but with all those needles flying around I bet our technicians sure would get vaccinated a lot.

Keeping up with medical records and followup appointments would be tough. But, if you offered them a sucker for every shot, coons would be lining up out the door. My kids love shots because it is one of the few times they get a sucker.

Not saying it would be cheap and I'm sure you would need to hire professional help most likely would need a vet approved DNR approved rehab permitted type person . I'm not saying run up to tractor supply buy the shots . This type of vaccination is very common place and done to all types of animals like bears once shot a WI bear here in Michigan had this white tag in its ear said WI reward and I was told this was a good bear to shoot because it has had its shots . I can remember watching the state trapper catching wolves under research they got some shots . Down in the city the cat crazys are catching feral cats getting them fixed getting them there shots cutting off part of one ear then releasing them back out into there wild kingdom to walk the earth again . The list goes on there's lots of one time shots given out . Not saying it makes a bit of sense but to some people it makes perfect sense and to the people that feel bad about seeing there animal caged maybe by giving this animal it's shots these people might feel better about the whole thing .

Your ahead of your time! Peace brother.

Legality issues aside, and that's a big one to consider, it's a bad idea when not being done under the thoroughly evaluated authority of wildlife veterinarians, not your average companion animal vets who many rehabbers work with.

The vaccines being used are for cats and dogs, not designed for use in wildlife, this is off-label use, and though not illegal there has not been tests of efficacy of these vaccines in wildlife.

So dog vaccines in wolves maybe not a big deal, afterall they're the same animal. But, here's the biggest issue I see and likely one of the most common wildlife species that gets vaccinated, the raccoon. The raccoon is a procyonid, not a canid or a felid. It's susceptile to canine and feline strains of some diseases; e.g. canine distemper. But, complete evaluation of the raccoons physiological response to any particular vaccines is non-existent as it is for dogs and cats, the intended receipts of said vaccines. Moreover, the vaccines in use are modified live vaccines, where the virus isn't all killed. This can promote a better immune response, but also means there is some portion of live viral DNA in the animals system. Then look at the cocktail of vaccines some give raccoons, both canine and feline type vaccines. This is an equation for viral recombination and novel forms of disease arising. I am familiar with a situation of raccoons being vaccinated with both canine and feline parvovirus vaccines. Then suddenly a novel form of parvovirus was discoverd, a variant between canine and feline, that was causing mortality in animals around the vaccinating facility where they release the coons. Viral recombination is what allows these things to jump to new hosts, become more virulent, etc... This novel form of parvo now exists in the wild here. Who knows how it will spread in time or impact domestic animals, scary to think about; hopefully some force will contain it. Lets not risk being catalysts for new forms of disease. IMO wildlife should not be vaccinated outside of meticulously considered agency directives.

Tacoman, thanks for that post, hits on part of what I wanted to reply with this morning on this issue. Lots of great info in that if folks take the time to read through it!

Pesky, I know wolves come to mind for folks, but many of these vaccinated cases are because of trying to recover T&E species that you've already dumped lots and lots of money into to get them on the ground. They don't want simple things to kill them where prevention is readily available.

Not sure why the WI DNR would be vaccinating black bear and then telling you its a good thing, that one seems odd. Perhaps a relocation bear that they gave some injections to before moving, which is to your point of doing this as a positive.

I've made the statement before and will stand by it that we shouldn't be relocating wildlife willy nilly, but I know many live in states where it is mandatory for certain protected species and simply allowed for other species.

Our state just changed its policy for rehab/relocation of all rabies vectors including coyote, fox, bobcat, skunk, raccoon, bat. This is due to the potential threat of a strain of rabies from AZ that has been knocking on our door for the last many years that was rough on AZ and their wildlife when it blossomed.

We all know in rehab situations there are deworming medicines and other basic vaccines given. Right or wrong, they are doing it in house to control the potential death of the animal they are investing in or their group of animals should a disease, virus, bacteria, parasite would get into all their mammalian critters.

**

I've radio collared a wide array of wildlife and another aspect not mentioned in this thread yet is that if folks are going to consume the animals you relocate, there are many things you can't inject them with legally and then allow consumption. In Pennsylvania years ago we had to tag raccoons with "do not eat" tags because they were immobilized with ketamine mix.

This is a major can of worms and though I'm biased against relocation already, this is just not a road anyone should be looking down.

**

I believe that the fact the question is being asked also adds validity to the fact that we shouldn't be relocating wildlife. By asking the question pesky you acknowledge that we are likely moving animals into areas that they might spread or have spread to them diseases, parasites and bacteria.


When your trying to save a species on the brink or one that is being introduced through a major well planned and well funded program, of course they are going to vaccinate for what they are legally allowed to.

However the public needs to become better educated on why relocation has so many negative aspects.

So many folks state, I don't like to waste the resource so I move it for someone to catch later while trapping or hunting.

Yet there are no published reports showing the survival is positive in these animals, it is just a gut feeling just like the homeowners who believe "fluffy is heading to the country to live a nice life away from our home."

In reality fluffy was just put into a death match with nature and if he/she was urban and is now rural, life just got as wild as sticking any city slicker out in Montana in some remote wilderness area and saying "here ya go buddy, you should thrive here!"

**

As Tacoman said, wildlife shouldn't be vaccinated, and just because there are instances where it happens doesn't mean it should be happening.

**

The live virus aspect tacoman mentioned is one I've seen lawsuits filed over for wolves and others as well.

Okay guys, first of all I actually understood everything that was said in the second last post. ( Yeah, I'm one of five ) Tacoman, please change your name. I really have a problem calling anyone that is that much smarter than me, Tacoman.

I know all the arguments about Justin's anti-relocation thing because I've made them all. So now I'm going to take my life in my hands and say what I think Justin would say. ( Yeah, I'm holding my breath too ) Here goes:

If you live in a state like Paul and have never had a raccoon test positive for rabies, you can relocate your trapped raccoons provided that they are old enough to fend for themselves and that they are clear-eyed and bushytailed.

If your skunks are ultra clean and you can pet them on the head through the hole in the seven gallon bucket like Paul does, try to relocate them in an area with lots of insects and they should be just fine.

Since squirrels, opossums, woodchucks, and just about everything else is more susceptible to the weather, than to diseases, relocating them to a good food area is more important than anything else.

If anything you catch is acting abnormally, the safe bet is to put it down. And keep in mind that Paul's weather in Wisconsin has a lot more to do with a healthy animal population than Paul will ever have.

P.S. This is me. I'm back again. I can't wait for my rating on this post!

Paul,

That is what I'd expect you to say! Lol!

You know for me its not just rabies, this is distemper, parvo, mange, a whole host of nasty ecto and endoparasites and so forth. It is stress, increased competition, increased mortality, decreased sizes of litters born to these animals, attempting to home back to original location, etc... (There are scientific pubs that show this in everything from birds to mammals, all suffer consequences that we tend to gloss over).

I believe we all think as an industry that this is as simple as animal eats food and lives in the wild, animal can live anywhere in any condition as long as there are food/water/shelter.

While this simple concept may ring true for some critters, everything from rabbits to bear suffer from relocation. We just for some reason think society isn't ready to understand that euthanasia should be the preferred method if exclusion isn't enough to resolve an issue. I have no issue with catch/euthanize to solve a problem, I will remain ardent that relocation is not the best thing for the resource, or for societies continued ignorance.

I do like your stab at it though!

Relocation heavily discouraged here and illegal for most species. Groundhogs are the exception. Written landowner permission needed in any case. I relocate nothing but the customers don't know that and most don't ask.

Rabies has been a huge issue in my area last couple years.

Well it's to bad you have states like Michigan and Wisconsin that just blow all this reaserch out of the water . Fact is its the norm here and the customers expects it . There has been no problems caused by it here . I haven't a single complant of a animal type I release with in ten miles of here this year so that blows the someone else's problem out of the water as well .

I agree with justin we should catch every
Bat and euthanize it instead of letting them
Go! Lol lol

Why are you (Justin) so against relocating every
Other mammal except the bat? You rant and rave
About all the negatives on relocation but you want
All the bats to be relocated?? You don't think that exclusion
Is the same exact thing as trapping and relocating?
It's trapping them out of there house out into the
Elements, forcing them into other colonies and more
Succeptable to predators. How about when the bats
Are frantically trying to get back in in the morning smacking
Into the siding and windows, or the one that gets stuck
In a crack of a window screen and bakes in the
Sun? I just don't get why your so biased to bats
Sorry rant is over!

Kasey, I appreciate your rant, you helped me realize I can make this simpler for this example and it gets just to your questioning.

Exclusion:

- Blocks animal from one site within their home range (the area that they occupy or use to fulfill their life history)
- The mammal or bird or snake is still within the same area it was in when it had access to the home, outbuilding, etc...
- The species is still exposed to the same predator/prey interactions and the same disease risks
- Most species have multiple roosts, den sites that they utilize, we all know bats roost switch based on temp, disturbance,
biological need (ie. maternity colony), plus night roosting sites that aren't used during the day in many cases
- Exclusion still puts a level of pressure on the mammal/bird/reptile but the pressure is the least possible as they know the
area as they travel it daily, sometimes for years prior to damage management taking place.

Relocation

- Takes the animal outside of its home range, unfamiliar landscape, no knowledge of food/water/shelter other than just running
for it until they find it
- They no longer have a mental map of where things are as they did, or as you do as a human in your neighborhood or area of
of operation. (how many people die each year or need rescue because they thought they could navigate a wilderness area, or
simply step outside their "comfort zone?"
- When relocated you might take species that aren't exposed to particular predators and drop them into a new soup of predator
prey interactions, these are well published from a myriad of species and show that prey not adapted to novel predators are at
an extreme lack of ability to survive.
- Moving birds, bats, carnivores nearly always results in homing or leaving the area and attempting to go elsewhere, usually back
to the location it was captured or removed from. One study on bats showed they flew over 200 miles from being relocated
back to the capture site (big brown bats in this case). How does that work for the folks driving them 30-40 miles out of town
as we've debated in other threads.
- All species are exposed to a novel environment even if the trees and shrubs look the same or the land seems the same to you
as
the re-locater. What looks prime through our eyes is not always for the species moved.
- How many other folks are relocating the same species and others to the same open space or green space? Some urban areas
have confirmed that thousands and thousands of animals are released in the same area each year. In my case that is the rio
grande river valley or the mountains, both these places seem logical to the public and to the companies relocating here.
- You don't need to have rabies present to cause wildlife health concerns, just public ones. Rabies is not the benchmark for
diseases and spread, just the one we humans concern ourselves with. Healthy wildlife populations evolve over time to the
presence of disease/parasites/predators and there are cycles. Taking unhealthy wildlife or healthy wildlife and dropping them
in new areas is far from natural.

And of course as has been debated and discussed on the bat trap discussions. Bats do not chew their own holes through wood/concrete and building materials. Thus you can exclude them, you can exclude snakes and a few others nearly every time without capture.

Versus the species that usually require capture or they will open a can of whoop ... up on your building to get back in. I am well aware not all critters can be excluded, this post is to say if you must trap why not euthanize versus adding all these question marks into the deal for the local wildlife?

Some base this on saying they don't like to waste the resource as I indicated in the earlier thread, others would admit its what the clients want to hear, therefore they do it if legally allowed (and sometimes if not allowed). Some don't want the carcasses to cope with as a company. Some are legally bound to relocate or pretty much take down their shingle. I get all these responses.

I have people putting prairie dogs in the mountains, tree squirrels from the mountains into the valley, wanting coyotes put in an area where there aren't any coyotes (find that place for me in NM), and so forth.

People don't understand the impacts, we can educate them and help shape policies that are common sense.


****

Pesky, sorry brother, but if you can somehow show me how MI breaks all the rules of published research I'll be glad to hear it. To say you never hear about problems after relocation, how are you confirming that? Do all phone calls for wildlife go to your company in a state with a healthy population of wildlife control/pest control and of course all the govt. wildlife folks from A-Z?

Your assumption that you not getting another call for something within 10 miles of your drop points doesn't hold water either, let alone blow it out of the water, sorry. Too many other people can be called, a neighbor can be a live trap collector or trapper, maybe someone they know stops by and says sure I can catch that critter for you and drop it elsewhere.

You don't have marked animals with your name/number on them, thus you have no idea, not arrogance, just simply stating the truth.

No one gets "all the calls" though you may get most with good marketing or a smaller market or a massive budget, so other people and elements are involved.

None of what you stated says that movement doesn't cause these issues listed above. There is a massive stack of published research including all the reintroductions that had massive mortalities to get to the numbers they accomplished. And these were planned with lots of forethought to whether the species could live in an area. Let alone all the folks who want to show relocation can work (including AR groups). Prairie dogs are a great example, folks have been moving them in the western US for a couple of decades now. Published accounts show 75-100% mortality after these moves. In many cases folks have started going out and killing native predators just to try to assist the p. dogs in getting established. How messed up is that concept?

**

Ok, now my rant is over, hope I clarified for you Kasey and for you Pesky. My disclaimer is I welcome any debate on any subject we are involved in as an industry. I don't expect the folks who have stated their opinion to change them anymore than you folks
expect I'm changing mine.

I'm looking for some of the lurkers and the general public who can see this forum and hope that some of those folks might read this debate and come up with their own opinion.

I'm outspoken, I make no excuses, life is too short to keep what you truly believe in, in your pocket for "some day." I practice what I preach, period.

Justin

Just finding a place that will sell/ship the meds to your home will be a challenge. Many states have or are working on on laws that prohibit individuials from vetting their own animals. Vet associations are behind this to increase revenue for their members. Kennel men have been fighting this for years.

How I know it's not causing a problem for starters I live in the middle of some prime bottom land and most of my animals get release on my own land which very rich in wildlife of all walks . There's no problems for them head to any trail park where there's a massive problem with cats you'll find your disease problems . I can also blow out of the water someone else's problem I offer free service to all the homes within a 1/2 mile of mine and have only had one person take us up on a beaver problem and I never have relocated a beaver thats the one animal we are banned to relocate . I also have 3 other relocation areas and one spot is also are best rabbit hunting spot . If there was a problem I surely would stop if I thought for one min I was causing population drops because I'm all about harvest come fall and winter . My harvest fare out ways the animals I relocate my work of building prime habat to better land for the animals fare out ways my harvest . I live eat sleep animals you would need to look fare and wide for a guy that's more in tune with the wildlife in my area . These feral cats are the demon spawn

Everyone reading this post: just so all of you know, because Pesky, Kasey, and Yours Truly, have pretty decent success relocating animals, that doesn't mean that Justin ( Or anybody else ) is wrong about euthanizing.

The scientific approach to this whole matter, far outweighs what you, I, or the customer thinks. I would never go in depth on this whole euthanize/relocate thing on any Internet site like this one.

If you want to know what I am referring to, think of the European approach to wildlife. They have as much wild acreage as we do and yet we have twice the wildlife. Why? Because all of Europe probably sees the strict protection of all wildlife as the answer. And all of us, know darn well, that is NOT the answer.

Pesky, you've just gone soft...

Not against the law in Mo, but, it's highly discouraged.
It messes with the bio-diversity and natural genetics.
Animals are introduced to areas the the local population may not have immunity's to diseases the releasee may carry.
The releasee will have no idea of where to find shelter/food in anothers territory.

Pesky, sorry but having rich wildlife in your area, just means they are meant to be there, not that those you relocate are still alive in the population. Unlike people wildlife species can only live within their means, once they are beyond it, nobody comes and offers them shelter, nobody offers them social services to keep moving or get medical care, etc... They are on their own. So the idea you are increasing the population in your area overall through the relocation doesn't hold water, there is a carrying capacity of the land and it alone dictates what lives and dies there. This is proven, not myth.

About all I need to say I've said, but again, I'm talking to those not deeply rutted in their personal belief.

The facts are if you aren't tagging and tracking those animals from trap site, through relocation till death, you have absolutely no ability to say the same animal is alive and was relocated well.

FACT!

Okay, I've defended the euthanizers, now it's time to disprove some of their facts.

Justin, who ( besides God ) decides carrying capacity? We have had more raccoons than the so-called carrying capacity for thirty years. We now have double the carrying capacity and instead of having smaller litters to make up for the density, we have added nearly 2 raccoons per litter. The answer is obvious: the carrying capacity has swelled with the population. Everyone is healthy.

The study made a long time ago by the University of Illinois really ticked a lot of people off. They caged and collared a hundred raccoon and relocated them. According to their study, no more raccoons were killed than normal and they relocated as far as ten miles away. I haven't heard of a more thorough study since then.

I did the grey squirrel relocation thing in my own back yard twice. No squirrels climbed my trees and froze to death looking for their old home. No squirrels were found dead, dying, or starved in any of the surrounding areas either.

While I admit that in most cases euthanizing is probably best, I don't like some of the things said about relocation. And if my relocation happens to feed some predator, so be it. ( Maybe I saved a pet )

Our rehabilitators are outraged with the new Alabama rehab regulations. They apply mainly to rabies vectors. I think that we are going to see a few of them either face stiff fines or go to jail before they will comply. Our local rehaber doesn’t like it but no longer accepts prohibited animals. See- http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/09/alabama_ending_rehab_of_baby_r.html

Ron, that is a pretty typical response from the rehab community. I know many who will face fines and even jail if someone told them they can't, which our state recently did as well.

Wink, carrying capacity is fairly ambiguous as it is hard to pin down, there are certain wildlife especially herd animals like elk and deer that can exceed and the results are obvious, with others it is much harder to determine.

However, what studies are showing the density of your raccoon in WI? Many decades ago folks set out to try to find census methods that would be accurate for furbearer species. Nearly all involved some sort of transect or measurable metric. Science
based methods, and yet even with trappers and biologists working on this together to figure out a good method that was reliable, nobody ever agreed any productive numbers came out of it.

Now do I think folks can say, raccoons are up this year, or seeing larger litters and be correct? Of course they can, that is visual information that they are seeing in the field.

Does this mean overall the population is up? Not really, just that those animals you are working with show signs of increased population, which normally is more to do with seasonal production factors like milder winter, upcoming boom in fruit, or mast crop...etc....

I know of the Illinois study, each study is only as good as the aspects it was able to determine and scientific methodology used. Some of the best published works can be debased if you look for the holes, but enough have been done showing relocation/translocation/reintroduction is extremely hard on the individuals going through it.

I guess to your squirrels in your yard, what happened to them? They didn't show up dead, or climb the tree and freeze but were they there in your yard in the spring and were they the same squirrels you released?

This kind of goes to the if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound mentality.

Folks drop animals and have no method of follow up to say they live or that this aspect is a good sound practice.

Thus, without proof of life, I'll follow my science and say they might as well be dead or suffering, you and pesky will be stating they are alive and well and thriving like all other wildlife in these two states which are free of all wildlife disease and parasites and peril....



Honestly, for me its just a fun debate, I'm not changing you or pesky, or so many others that have had this out with me. But I'm willing to debate it just as you are.

***

My final thought though, did you actually say you wouldn't mind feeding a predator in that last line???? Now we all know you abhor coyotes so what gives!!!!

Lol!

Yours in endless debate....

Justin

Boy that must be a tougher sale every day and get harder each year telling the customers the reasons why the animal can't be relocated out to the country . I'm surely glad that's something we don't need to do up here because selling something that isnt true must be a tough sale .We have are own wildlife guys up here been doing a fine job for years with wildlife management we have been lucky to have them with common sense and they don't see the problem with us relocating are critters . This state places value on its wildlife what a wonderful resorce not to be wasted .

I would love to see this study be revisited and to encompass a lot more species than just raccoon.

I think the majority of relocations that die from would be from car/predator vs. relocatee incidents than say hunger or just general stress. But this is just "MY" assumption because unless I decide to follow said relocatee around for a summer I have no way to verify.

Some species are natural wanderers and I think relocation has little effect on them (skunk and mink are the first to come to mind). Others I can see a bigger issue (chipmunks, squirrels, woodchucks come to mind). But again this is just "MY" thoughts and I don't have anything to back up what I think.

Here is what I see on a daily basis. I can drive down any street in any town within a 50 mile radius of me and I will see a squirrel in just about every yard. I can go walk through hundreds of acres of forest and not see a single squirrel. I think the squirrels have all packed up and moved to the suburbs because lets face it, life is easier in the city.

I release 80% of what I catch (sick, coyote, and double dipping during fur season are excluded)and a good portion of that gets released either at my house or my parents house. I have no issues doing this because I know that said animal is NOT going to stay on the release site. They are going to wander off and find a suitable place to live. It might be a mile away it might be 10 miles away. They might get hit by a car, they might get eaten along the way. I have no way of knowing either way.

What I do know is my customers "LOVE" that I relocate. Many customers are more than happy to tell me that the animals that are causing them so much grief have more right to be here than we do. I have had customers pack food for the animals to take with them on their journey. I have had more than my share of customers call requesting I bring them certain animals and release them on their property. I have two jobs to do: 1. Solve a person/wildlife conflict. 2. Make my customer happy. Relocation accomplishes both those things and that is really all that matters to me.

If you want to euthanize I say go for it. If you want to relocate and its legal go for it. Different strokes for different folks.

It's just about every job now days I get asked what do you do with the animals I swear it's like a lie dector test anymore . I just tell them it's a lot Easyer to release your animal then kill it then dig a hole . It would be a hard sell to tell some buddy just because a wood chuck ate there flower it needs to die for the greater good . The greater good he get relocated and a fox gets a fine meal . It's nice to have option because sometimes I use conibears if the job works out better for me that way . If I lived in the city I'm sure I would line up the catch every night surely wouldn't drive out to the country after working 18 hours . It's not my job to tell customers this big line of hog wash reasons why I can't relocate there animal . It's nice to have option if I want to glue board a bat I can if I want trap the bats and relocate I can if I want to oneway door I have options . Don't mistake yourself this is some debate having open options will win your debate my state does its research we have a fur bearing biologist very smart guy go debate him about it . I personally don't relocate house cats or possums there both non native . Most of the coyotes I don't relocate and no beavers not legal here . Norway rats I don't relocate them ether nice to have options . Come fall I fire up fur trapping I'm a long liner fur killer I harvest the fur then . I don't just kill animals for no reason makes me kinda sick just thinking about . I live in Michigan are fur has value lots of value these days be crying same to waist that resorce I'm a fur trapper first till death

Does anybody relocate invasive species?



House cats. There was a great article in MN Outdoor News last week. You can be fined or even jailed for killing a protected bird. There is NO punishment if your Cat does it. Cats kill millions of birds every year. Wind Turbine companies are facing fines for killing 200 Eagles each year. But NO one is holding Cat owners responsible. Yet if you kill a Cat, you can be fined, by the Cat owner.

I agree with MN law. Relocation is allowed with landowner permission. No relocation can be done on State owned land. The State will not give permission. You can't keep wild animals in captivity. I live by a River. I get all the animals I need traveling along the river. I sure don't need/want any more relocated here. I am a Bug Killer. I have no problem killing animals too. I do it for food, fur and to eliminate problems.

Paul said the coon are having larger litters. How is it helping anything to relocate a coon to an area that already has an increasing natural population? Since Cars kill so many Squirrel's in the City, shouldn't we relocate our Squirrel's there? They are losing so many to Cars, the population must need help, right? Maybe, rather than relocating Squirrels, Raccoon, Fox and Opossum (why shouldn't they get the same treatment) to the Country, we should bring them into Suburban and Urban area's. After all, the release guy's say the animals adapt to their environment. What's the difference between Oak tree's surrounded by Corn fields and Oak tree's surrounded by garbage cans?

Or is it we place different values on different animals? Why not relocate Norway Rat's? Or House Mice, Deer Mice, Chipmunks, Woodchucks etc. You will relocate a Raccoon because it has Fur value, but not a Coyote? Last I saw Raccoon were $20 and Coyotes $40 plus. House Cat's are worthless for fur value. They are cute and cuddly, when kept inside, as a domestic pet. They are a unnatural predator in the United States.

The issue of relocation has been studied, to one degree or another, all across the country, by professionals and found to be an acceptable practice.

The anti-relocation folks come up with a lot of theories and comparisons and then admit that they have absolutely no idea if the animals survive or not. But, they can give you a sad commercial for how the poor little animals suffer when relocated.

I'm glad I live in a state where relocation is legal.

If I summarize the reasons given for relocation being the best option for nwcos or an option they enjoy for say an article would I be correct in saying.

1) The clients are largely happier when they know that the animal is being relocated versus euthanized (believing said animal is going about its life happy and healthy as it would have on their property).

2) Many nwcos enjoy fur trapping and believe that relocating furbearer species means they are available for harvest later in the year (or not "wasted", again assumes the animals have ended up living in relocated site or nearby).

3) NWCOs have not seen evidence that they are spreading disease, parasites or other harmful issues within wildlife populations by moving said wildlife species.

4) No carcass disposal (or minimized due to relocating the vast majority of wildlife species (where legal))

5) Their state allows it and thus someone must have decided it is an acceptable practice to allow.

6) Their state mandates it (my current state was among these for protected furbearer species until this rabies issue came up, if you were going to trap a raccoon you had to relocate it if you wanted to take the job).

Would this be pretty close to the list or did I miss some things? By looking over the thread I can see why any one of these things might appeal to a wildlife control operator as they mostly involve business model decisions and finances, even if it means more fur later and you run a long line like pesky and assume you are gaining financial benefit later in pelts.

So my question would be if this is the list, what would it take to convince you as a nwco that relocation wasn't a positive practice for the resource?

1) Your state making a law/policy to change the ability to relocate?

2) Seeing a disease outbreak in an area that you normally use for a drop off location (say distemper outbreak in a county jumps up all of a sudden from one location that is where the bulk of raccoons are dropped off by either local citizens or companies)?

3) Having a published study showing that X species (skunk, raccoon, fox, coyote) when relocated suffered higher mortality than the normal population, or simply that out of 100 radio collared skunks moved 15-20 miles and dropped 95% died within 4 weeks or something like that?

**

If you ask folks in state/fed agencies why the policies for relocation are allowed where they are for unprotected or protected species, the response you will get from nearly all will be that they simply don't want to fight the social battle with the public that comes from them having to understand that the truth behind relocation isn't pretty.

There isn't a study that says relocation is an acceptable practice, but head to a university library and pull up the last few years in translocation/relocation/reintroduction papers from hardcore published works and you will see a body of work that does show the down sides which are innumerable.

Large carnivores including bear and lion are often moved in western states out of mountain housing areas where they are causing problems to more remote mountain areas. In our state alone stats show 85% or more dying (these are radio collared animals). We are talking about bear and lion!! Not small mesocarnivores.

How many of you have seen a coyote chew another coyotes tail off? I've not only seen coyote on coyote damage in MI, OR and other states I've lived in, I've watched plenty in NM being chased during winter months by dominant pairs and they are literally running for their lives, we all know this to be true right? That animals protect a territory? That the food within that territory and space is what those animals need to thrive and be healthy?

If you wake in the middle of the night to some guy in your kitchen who was just dropped off by the cops in the next town for causing a problem, do you invite the dude to stay?

Nah, on this forum I'm betting that guy is leaving in a hurry and a spray of lead, so why then for wildlife do we feel this is logical?

As lundy said, if you already assume a healthy population or growing population, why is it necessary to move the other animals and drop them to "save" them if things are already full?

***

The answer of course lies in numbers 1-6 above. My final question to not leave pesky's original question out, if you think nwcos need to be vaccinating wildlife that are being relocated doesn't that say you understand that you can be moving disease pathogens on the landscape through your actions? Or is just again to coddle the client who lacks and understanding of the real world outside our doors?

So many of the clients we deal with would change the channel rather than see the lion take down the zebra, don't understand coyotes eat larger prey items including deer/sheep, etc... We all try to educate them on these biological principals, but we are okay with them thinking there is a place to dump animals where other animals don't exist, or where there is a need for this group that was trapped to be put on the landscape?

Would anyone move a squirrel or chipmunk or other nut gatherer in the winter time? How about a beaver if you could live trap it during the late fall before ice up, but ice is coming and no way for them to cache food in time?

Maybe its because we know skunks, raccoons and fox and coyote are opportunistic generalist feeders and thus we believe they can survive anywhere at anytime, maybe its just because of the other numbers which don't have to do with the welfare of the animal but rather the innate politics with clients of making a sale and resolving the issues.

If I wanted to trap/relocate I could be making a hundred grand more than I do now without even thinking twice about it. I follow my own ethics and knowledge on this one and my own state has recently changed its policy due to rabies threats from neighboring AZ. I have plenty of folks who call us looking for a warm and fuzzy trap and relocation and we patiently discuss with them their problem, how it can be resolved and if ultimately it needs trapping, the animal would be euthanized. 99% can wrap their minds around this, the 1% who can't call the nations leading franchise and I'm fine with that.

Any place I move a squirrel, porcupine, skunk, coyote, raccoon in my state, there are already animals there occupying the space and I live in the desert, not heavy midwest country where numbers/water/habitat are so much better.

I appreciate everyone sharing their opinions on this and I truly am interested in the questions posed as to where those fall on your ranking of relocation as a positive practice.

Justin, there is no fair test. And I can name you one of the reasons why. Illinois has nearly mandatory euthanasia. Wisconsin has none. So Wisconsin has more animals in every class because of it? Of course not!

Here's a great argument: Rob Erickson makes a lot more money than Paul Winkelmann because Illinois euthanizes and Rob only gets to trap and shoot stupid animals.

Now here's the truth: After less than a year, most animals forget what happened to them and will fall for the same bait in the same kind of trap all over again.

Here's another truth: Paul will never do as well as a lot of guys because Paul will fall for the same bait in the same trap too. ( If you don't believe me, try baiting a trap with Raquel Welch and see what happens )

Lundy, don't tell anybody but invasive species are only something that the Wisconsin DNR talks about. Our state has an attitude that is probably unmatched when it comes to a truly invasive species. I would no longer relocate a coyote or beaver, than I would a Muslim. ( And out of the three, only a Muslim, or at least 4 hundred million of them, want to kill me )

If they pass a law in your state that you MUST euthanize EVERY animal captured...will you do it...break the law or quit ?

( no need to answer )

When mom kicks the young out what do they do?

Don't they "relocate?"

LT, I'd follow the law, or if I felt it was ethically wrong I'd challenge the law through legal channels, or I'd hang up that portion of my business.

Nate, it is a good point that eventually at the end of fall many young animals are kicked out or driven out to go fend for themselves. This would be the time of year that they are most ready for this "adventure" and yet we know that it is the beginning of the largest hardship and when the largest portion die off or are killed. The "harvestable surplus" that all hunting/trapping/etc... is based on is the idea that each year nature overproduces and that a high level of mortality helps keep populations in check to some extent.

Natural dispersal is a survival of the fittest situation at its most extreme...

Natural dispersal also usually occurs at the time of the greatest availble food resources whether that be mast for the prey species or fresh young prey for the predators.

If we could actually replicate that when we relocate then relocation shouldn't be an issue but intead we are usually capturing adult animals, often lactating females, and/or juveniles unable to relocate early in the season or we makes our captures later in the dead of winter after dispersal has happened.

warrior, that sounds like a really good point. The animals that we relocate the most of by far, are the squirrels and raccoons. Since we catch only a very small percentage of these two in the dead of winter, when food is at a premium, it only makes sense that relocation here has little effect. Weather has a much larger effect by far.

I realize that people in our business tend to believe that because they had a good year and caught a couple thousand animals, that they think they have a lot to do with the animal population of their particular area. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Automobiles kill a lot more animals in any given area, than we catch and that's not counting predators, disease, etc.

Last year we caught and relocated more animals than ever before. This year we caught and relocated more than last year. Does that sound like we are spreading disease and killing our own business? The only animals that we caught a lot less of were beaver,and muskrat, two animals that are caught dead. The weather had a huge effect on these two species. ( Lack of water ) Weather is almost always the deciding factor of the amount of animals in our area.

Is there a vaccine that makes them NOT want to raid trash cans, go into rotten soffits, eat horse sweet feed, poop in hay lofts ??

An honorable idea, but I'll keep putting them down as NC law dictates. (Unless it's released on the property trapped!!! What dummy made that law?? )

Justin,

It seems or feels like raccoons relocate just fine....at the detriment to crayfish and amphibians. One day, that carrying capacity should kick in....

Squirrels not so much...but the local hawk population has many nice and plump members.

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

Had to put one down tonight sick radging red fox is now deep in the earth next to my blue berry bushes . This same battle was faught last spring the red jumped into a culvert game over the fox out foxed us . This time things went I bit different thanks to my 14 year olds new invention truly amazing tool that made this Job done quick best part I had know idea he had made such a thing and I even said why are you putting that thing on the truck .