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.