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.