Clemson conference focuses on wildlife as unwelcome neighbors

Published: March 20, 2013

CLEMSON — Clemson University and the University of Georgia are hosting a conference on a multibillion-dollar conflict: humans vs. wildlife.

Wildlife damage-management researchers and practitioners will meet Monday-Thursday, March 25-28, at Clemson's Madren Center to hear the latest on the unintended consequences of modern American life fostering an animal paradise.

Our home range is better than theirs, what with bird feeders filled full with high-protein seeds, garbage cans filled with easy pickings and predator-free parks and watering holes. Humans, who for centuries were the intruders on wildlife living spaces, now find themselves intruded upon.

Columbia has spent thousands of dollars to remove beavers and their dams. Clemson wildlife biologists are researching birth control for squirrels whose overpopulation poses a $1.3 million threat to campus buildings and landscaping.

Nationwide, wildlife damage tallies more than $28 billion a year. Tragically, the cost can be figured another way: More than 4,000 motorists have deer-related vehicle crashes yearly in which more than 200 people die.

The nation finds itself fending off wildlife that less than a century ago were hardly seen or heard. Growth and development, coupled with reforestation and restocking programs, have expanded habitat and populations, bringing more people and wildlife closer together than ever before. 

How to respond to new relationships requires a blend of science and practicality. Once people-shy animals have lost their fear of humans and become unwelcome neighbors. Studying animal behavior provides insights into how to keep the wildlife at a distance and at manageable population levels. 

Wildlife-damage management, regardless of the problem species, has four basic components, according to Greg Yarrow, a Clemson wildlife professor who will be attending the conference. The problem-solving process includes: problem definition through identification and assessment of damage, an understanding of the behavior and ecology of the problem wildlife species, selection and application of control techniques and evaluation of control efforts.

For centuries, hunting was an effective way to limit game populations. But popular opinion shifted as Americans moved to metropolitan areas where animals were seen as noble companions instead of food and pests. 

Wildlife biologists and animal-control experts have had to find alternatives to lethal control methods. Options include fences and other physical boundaries, trapping, chemicals used as repellents and poisons and habitat changes, such as eliminating food sources like trash and pet foods and closing off nesting sites. Some neighborhoods are allowing sharpshooters to remove deer to reduce population problems and damage.

Before attempting any control method it is vital to check federal and state regulations, as well as local ordinances, that govern the use of various control methods, Yarrow cautioned.

"Discouraging wildlife pests is a wise preventive measure that is usually much easier and more cost-effective than handling wildlife problems after they occur," he said.

END