WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

2001

Urban

John Hadidian The Humane Society of the United States

Sydney Smith The Humane Society of the United States

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/sota_2001

Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, and the Population Biology Commons

Recommended Citation Hadidian, J., & Smith, S. (2001). Urban wildlife. In D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001 (pp. 165-182). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Urban Wildlife 11CHAPTER John Hadidian and Sydney Smith

Introduction umans have been experiment- the population living in cities of a mil- urban ecosystems and habitats as ing with “urban living” for at lion residents or more. If projected “artificial” when compared with “nat- H least the last six millennia. trends hold true, the majority of all ural” ones found outside the human- The scope of this experiment has humans on Earth will be urbanites built environment. Of course, the been described as “massive” and “un- sometime early in the twenty-first cen- same ecological processes that affect planned” (McDonnell and Pickett tury (United Nations 1987). Urban the “natural” world “out there” affect 1990), an apt characterization of a ecosystems demand natural resources the “artificial” world of cities “in phenomenon that is also known by and raw materials far in excess of what here.” Undoubtedly, their form, rate, such terms as “sprawl” and “blight.” they can produce and thus have the and effects vary with the influence of Urbanization is both a biophysical potential to influence the global ecol- the built environment, but this may and a social phenomenon. Among its ogy. Rees (1996) defines the “ecologi- only make their study more relevant many measurable physical character- cal footprint” of the city as the area and interesting. istics are greater concentrations of required to supply raw materials, re- Indeed, urbanization may be better airborne dust, carbon dioxide, and sources, and other opportunities, understood from an ecological per- sulfur compounds and slightly higher such as recreation, for urbanites. spective than it is from a socioeco- precipitation, annual mean tempera- Direct and indirect ecosystem im- nomic one, as is much more com- ture, and ultraviolet radiation at pacts of cities, varying from air pollu- mon. That said, the consequences of ground level than is typical in sur- tion to nitrogen loading, have reached urbanization on natural communities rounding hinterlands (Trefil 1994). the point at which human influences of and animals remain largely Among its social consequences are now extend to the most remote and unknown and may be difficult to the inhabitants’ alienation and disas- previously pristine global reaches understand at all, given the rapidity sociation from natural environments, (Vitousek et al. 1997). with which cities and the areas they juxtaposed with attitude and value Despite the dominance of humans influence are changing. scales that indicate greater concern in the urban environment, other ani- Despite the potential for difficulty, for the protection and preservation of mals flourish there as well. It is al- there are several reasons why urban such environments and the wildlife most certain that when humans first wildlife should be valued and better that inhabit them than is the case began to aggregate in urban commu- understood. First is its scientific and among nonurbanites (Kellert 1996). nities, specific conditions were estab- heuristic value. Urban wildlife popula- While cities cover no more than 1 lished that favored certain plants and tions are essentially parts of ongoing or 2 percent of a typical habitable animals, which joined humanity in natural experiments in adaptation to land mass, they have an impact that colonizing what were, for them, pre- anthropogenic stress. How urban ani- far exceeds their physical presence. In ferred habitats. These mals are affected by human activi- much of the world (and soon in all of have been far less studied than their ties—and how they cope with them— it), the urban populace outnumbers counterparts elsewhere, and it is can represent, on a highly accelerated the rural. Today, eight of every ten tempting to suggest that this is be- scale, a model of what is happening to Americans live in of fifty thou- cause those who pursue such knowl- species in other biomes. No other wild sand or more, with more than half of edge have been biased to regard animals live in such intimate contact

165 and under such constant constraint ly had not occurred (Thomas 1983). Sport Fisheries). “Man and Nature in from human activities as do synan- The subsequent heyday of natural his- the City,” held in Washington, D.C., in thropes. Second, urban animals are tory (Barber 1980) coincided with the 1968, marked the emergence of the exposed to many environmental haz- onset of the Darwinian revolution and field of urban wildlife from its previ- ards and should be considered sen- led to increasingly objective, scientific ous anonymity. It was followed in tinels on our behalf. Additionally, study of animals as well as to a height- 1974 by a symposium organized in wildlife in urban environments is ap- ened interest in and sympathy for Great Britain around the theme of parently quite important to people human impact on animals and their the place of nature in cities and (Adams 1994; Kellert 1996; Reiter et habitats. Representative of many gen- towns, and Laurie (1979) summa- al. 1999). It may be critical that these eral works arising from the increased rized the two events in a collection of coinhabitants maintain a connection interest in natural history is Ernest papers on the idea of urban green between people within the most Ingersoll’s Wild Neighbors (1899), a space. Over the next decades, a num- densely settled human developments combination of natural history, anec- ber of conferences were held (Noyes and the natural environment. Finally, dote, and scientific speculation about and Progulske 1974; Euler et al. we argue that there is an inherent common urban, as well as decidedly 1975; Stenberg and Shaw 1986; value and right for wildlife species to nonurban, species. Adams and Leedy 1987, 1991), each exist, in whatever type of environment In one of the first scientific publi- broadening the basis for the disci- they are found. Human beings have a cations on any aspect of urban wild- pline. Texts or collected works on moral obligation to recognize and ap- life, Shenstone (1912) described the urban wildlife were not so forthcom- preciate the diversity of life and cele- flora of building sites in , ing, although Gill and Bonnett brate it by acknowledging the rights including the role of both wild and do- (1973) co-authored an early general of others. mestic animals in transporting seeds work on urban ecosystems that to various locations within the city. emphasized urban wildlife. Gilbert Probably the first comprehensive de- (1989) published a general work on Historical scription of an urban fauna is Richard the ecology of urban habitats that in- S. R. Fitter’s The Natural History of cluded much information on wildlife, Background London (1945). John Kieran’s A Nat- and Adams (1994) issued a general The formal study of urban wildlife is of ural History of New York City (1959), text on urban wildlife habitats that quite recent origin, although human is the American counterpart to Frit- went into almost immediate use in involvement with wild animals in ter’s work. The French geographer college courses in wildlife manage- cities and towns is deeply rooted in Jean Gottman (1961) devoted a ment. Platt et al. (1994) contributed history. The Roman historian Jose- chapter in his seminal description of a broad overview of the “ecological” phus, for example, in the first century the urban future, Megalopolis, to city to introduce and emphasize the A.D., mentioned the use of metal wildlife and forests, but restricted his preservation and conservation of spires on the rooftops of Jerusalem to discussion largely to the role of game urban , thus continuing a deter birds (possibly storks) from species and the conflicts that were tradition of looking at wildlife as a nesting there. Wild animals were un- caused by the overabundance of ani- component of the larger urban doubtedly tolerated, controlled, or mals such as white-tailed . ecosystem. This tradition has been ignored in cities and towns for many More concerted and focused inter- even better observed in Europe, centuries without a Josephus to take est in urban wildlife arose in the late where studies of urban ecosystems note. Occasional records surface to 1960s. The first technical session (e.g., Marcuzzi 1979; Sukopp et al. detail events as well as afford us a among wildlife professionals that fo- 1995) have probably been more com- glimpse into changing social mores. cused specifically on urban wildlife prehensive, longstanding, and wide- In at least two cases, documented was organized in 1967 at the Thirty- spread than have those in the United from medieval times, efforts were second North American Fish and States, if less available. made to use the device of excommu- Wildlife Conference (Scheffey 1967). Works on urban wildlife intended nication to control unruly sparrows That session, “Farm and Urban Re- for the general public have long con- around places of worship, in the one sources,” included papers by Stuart stituted their own literary genre. In case for defecating on pews and in the Davey (1967) on the role of wildlife in the United States, these have ranged other for “scandalous unchastity” an urban environment, Forest Stearns from popular works and general nat- that occurred during the delivery of a (1967) on wildlife habitat, and Robert ural histories (Beebe 1953; Kieran sermon (Evans 1906; Ryder 1989). Twiss (1967) on wildlife in the metro- 1959; Garber 1987) to backyard field The development of an interest in politan environment. The first truly guides (Villard 1975; Mitchell 1985) life’s diversity during the Age of Dis- national conference on the subject and works that focus on specific urban covery fueled an understanding of ani- was convened under the auspices of species (Rublowsky 1967; Kinkead mal lives as phenomena worthy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1974, 1978). Goode (1986) published study, an understanding that previous- (then the Bureau of Wildlife and in a general description of

166 The State of the Animals: 2001 the wildlife of London and its environs systems (Sudia 1971 et seq.), includ- nately, many unique opportunities to and Shirley (1996) a general natural ing one focusing specifically on urban conduct definitive research on wild history of urban wildlife, both of wildlife (Sudia 1978). A National Park animals in urban and suburban envi- which, while written for lay audiences, Service research facility (the Center ronments during periods where colo- were more science based than many for ) was dedicated in nization, population growth, and earlier works. Baines (1986) com- 1985, praised six years after that diversification were under way have bined a more popular account of Eng- opening (Hester 1991) and closed been lost, to the detriment of future lish urban wildlife with advice for four years later. The only private-sec- understanding. improving the habitat in backyards to tor nonprofit urban wildlife organiza- encourage and support wildlife. An tion, the National Institute for Urban interesting variation on the general Wildlife, also closed its doors in the Cities as theme of urban natural history is pro- mid-1990s. A few years later, Babbitt vided in both English and American (1999) suggested that urban ecology Wildlife Habitat examples of the ecological history of a was being “rediscovered” at high lev- Cities, as well as , encompass single human dwelling over the pas- els in American government. State diverse and complex habitats to which sage of several centuries for each involvement with urban wildlife pro- many wild animals show affinity. What (Ordish 1959, 1981). grams appears to have been minimal to the observer may seem to be a “bio- Although academic interest and fo- as well, although it certainly was in- logical desert” (the inner city) may in cus on urban wildlife is gradually in- creasing faster than were university fact be suitable habitat for even such creasing, the field clearly remains un- programs. Lyons and Leedy (1984) highly specialized predators as pere- der-emphasized in comparison with asked state wildlife agencies in 1983 grine falcons (Falco peregrinus). Less traditional (resource management, if they had urban wildlife programs. noticed, but of equal or greater bio- consumptive use) orientations in uni- Only six responded positively, noting logical significance, would be the versity curricula. Adams et al. (1985) programs whose principal functions microfauna of these places, such as surveyed ninety-five colleges and uni- were identified as extension, public the detritus feeders that might live versities that offered a wildlife sci- education, and management. Only upon organic material blown into and ences curriculum to determine their three states reported research as part stopped by the building faces. Gener- involvement in urban wildlife issues. of their activities, and only 8 percent ally, the biota of urban places have not Of the eighty responding, most (92 of staff time and 5 percent of budget been documented as well as they have percent) did not have a recognized were devoted to this activity. been for other systems, but invento- urban wildlife program. Of those that Federal and state involvement in ur- ries and descriptions clearly tell us did, only 5 percent of all wildlife pro- ban wildlife issues and programs has that even such “waste” places as jects ongoing in the questionnaire been complicated by at least three vacant lots can have complex biologi- year focused on urban wildlife; they factors. First, tradition has dictated cal communities adapted, and adapt- devoted only 2 percent of their re- that wildlife agencies and wildlife pro- ing still, to the special biophysical search budgets to urban wildlife stud- fessionals looked to rural areas and characteristics of the sites they occu- ies. Follow-up surveys have not been their constituencies as the places py (Vessel and Wong 1987). The com- conducted, but change, if any, over where wildlife work should be done plex, varied, and changing landscapes the intervening fifteen years appears (San Julien 1987). Funding mecha- of cities and towns must certainly con- to have been slight. A quick review of nisms, such as federal Pittman-Rober- strain attempts by many animals to articles in the Journal of Wildlife Man- ston Act monies, which stem from a successfully colonize them and main- agement, the foremost American jour- federal excise tax on firearms and am- tain viable populations. Urban wildlife nal dealing with wildlife study, shows munition, have focused on projects habitats are characterized by dynamic only one of more than three hundred more of service to rural than to urban and changing environmental condi- articles published in 1999 containing constituencies and for consumptive tions in which both natural changes the words “urban” or “suburban” in more than for nonconsumptive wild- (e.g., the maturation of vegetation) its title (it is a study of a nesting rap- life users. Finally, the unspoken but and anthropogenic changes (e.g., the tor population). apparently real bias against urban clearing of vegetation) constantly im- The efforts of state and federal areas as suitable for research has pose demands for accommodation. agencies to recognize and deal sys- tended to focus academic interest Thus, if urban landscapes have any tematically with urban wildlife issues and resources away from our demo- defining characteristic as wildlife have not seemed equal to the need of graphic centers. With increasing envi- habitat, it must be their heterogeneity urban residents (San Julien 1987). ronmental awareness and activism, and variability. The federal government had launched ecological understanding, and the de- Numerous schemes have been pro- the field of urban wildlife as a formal mands of the urban populace for help posed to identify the various compo- pursuit in 1968 and followed with a in resolving wildlife conflicts, this sit- nents of the urban landscape and series of publications on urban eco- uation is slowly changing. Unfortu- describe its ecological properties.

Urban Wildlife 167 Brady et al. (1979) proposed a hierar- cities tends also to create habitat coptic mange, a disease that in foxes chical landscape scheme based on bio- “islands” (Davis and Glick 1978) that can lead to high mortality. The out- geographical units to help visualize may promote some species while sup- break led to more than 80 percent both the richness of urban habitats pressing others. annual mortality in the fox and the landscape scales that could population until by 1996 nearly all be imposed on urban areas, from re- the foxes in the study population were gional to highly local and site-specific Ecology of dead. Four years later the population perspectives. Dickman (1987) pro- recovery was still proceeding slowly, posed a structural classification of Urban Wildlife with social behavior, territory size, the urban lands of , England, Wildlife inventories for urban areas movement and activity patterns, and in a scheme that included woodland, are generally lacking, although spe- virtually all other aspects of fox life scrub (regenerating woodland), orch- cialty groups, such as birds, have been reverting toward the norm described ard, long grass, short grass (lawns, fairly well documented for some cities in other studies (Harris 2000). Be- parks, playing fields), allotments, (Montier 1977; Guth 1979; Cousin yond demonstrating the extreme churchyards, and gardens of detached 1983; Hadidian et al. 1997b). Large adaptability and social flexibility of and semi-detached houses. Other pos- animals undoubtedly tend to disap- fox populations, the long-term stud- sible habitats in the urban environ- pear with increasing urbanization, as ies by Harris and colleagues challenge ment include cemeteries, utility cor- do habitat specialists or species sensi- preexisting assumptions concerning ridors, university and corporate tive to habitat fragmentation, such as the “normal” behavior of wildlife pop- campuses, storm sewers, waterfronts, many reptiles and amphibians (Camp- ulations and call into question the and garbage disposal sites (Stearns bell 1974). The survival and extinc- meaning of “normal” itself. 1967). To these areas Davis and Glick tion rates of local and regional popu- (1978) add roadsides and median lations under various forms of strips, city-center highrises, apart- anthropogenic stress need to be bet- Wildlife ment blocks and condominiums, ter studied, as do virtually all aspects parking lots, golf courses, railroad of genetic change and variation with- and Land tracks, and old residential neighbor- in populations of “urban” organisms. hoods. A basic dichotomy of urban Even less studied than the biophys- Development habitats distinguishes between “open ical effects of urbanization on animal The urban population of Earth in- space,” such as parklands and wood- distribution and abundance are the creased tenfold in the last century lots, and “built areas,” such as resi- life histories and general ecological (Platt 1994). One consequence has dential housing, commercial build- relations of urbanized species. Per- been the rapid transformation of land ings, and industrial areas (Foreman haps the best-studied urban mammal from agricultural and undeveloped 1995). is the , Vulpes vulpes (Harris natural zones to expanding suburbs Some generalizations about urban 1977, 1981, 1994; MacDonald and and the consumption of open space habitats are possible, although they Newdick 1982; Lloyd 1981; Page within existing urban zones. The term may not hold true everywhere. Urban 1981; Kolb 1984). The studies con- “sprawl” has been coined to describe areas tend to sustain low species ducted by Stephen Harris on the the haphazard and chaotic pattern of diversity (Dickman 1987; Gilbert urban fox population of Bristol, Eng- suburban expansion, although long 1989). This may be attributable to an- land, span more than twenty years of before that name appeared the issue thropogenic impacts, low habitat di- observation and research and are had been identified and described versity, missing habitat types, species unquestionably the most comprehen- (Dassmann 1972). The impacts of de- sensitivity, fragmentation, absence of sive study of any urban species. Harris velopment on wildlife range from the successional stages, or simply the found that this urban fox population direct physical destruction of animals altered “geometry” (Goldstein et al. was heavily provisioned by human res- and their habitats as land is cleared 1981) of vegetation in urban and sub- idents, many of whom deliberately to the loss of habitat “values” such as urban areas. The species that do engaged in feeding programs. Bristol size and connectivity, which can lead adapt to and survive in urban areas fox population densities were found to local extirpations or failure of tend to be present at greater concen- to be extremely high, while territory some fauna to be able to recolonize trations than is typical for them in sizes were small, and fox groups with an area that has been isolated. Al- other types of habitats (Gilbert 1989; multiple adult members were ob- though there may be ways to indirect- Riley at al. 1998). This could be served in a species that elsewhere was ly measure the effects of development attributed to relatively greater food classically identified as solitary. Pro- activities on wildlife, such as through abundance, absence of competitors, found changes in the population den- estimates of change in the amount of absence of predators, or a combina- sity and, concurrently, the social orga- available wetlands habitat, there is lit- tion of these factors. The extreme nization of Bristol foxes occurred as a tle that can be done to more than fragmentation of the landscape in result of an outbreak in 1994 of sar- guess at the overall magnitude of

168 The State of the Animals: 2001 impacts. Enough concern exists for tion is that it leads to an increase in some time before a body of informa- the deleterious short- and long-term landscape edge. Edges, or ecotones, tion sufficient to identifying trends impacts of development, however, to provide critical habitat for some could be collected. This complexity is have created professional responses wildlife species, such as deer, allowing similar to that faced by investigators in the form of alternative develop- access to cover within one habitat seeking to understand the effects and ment schemes, mitigation strategies, type (e.g., forest) and food in another consequences of wildlife translocation and an emerging body of scientific (e.g., fields). Such edge habitat may (Craven et al. 1998), and it is possible information that addresses the value favor nonnative species, particularly that studies of such phenomena could of landscape features such as patch species, with corresponding be approached under the same con- size, habitat mosaics, and corridors changes in animal community struc- ceptual framework. to link natural areas and open space ture. Roads can create significant Certainly, the timing of land clear- (Foreman and Godron 1986). The edge across a landscape and can be a ing would be critical to determining concept of linking design and envi- major factor in causing habitat frag- whether animals with dependent ronment is personified historically by mentation. They also can burden ani- young were affected. However, deci- the seminal work of Ian McHarg mal populations as a direct cause of sions to schedule an event to avoid (1969), whose Design with Nature mortality. For some groups, such as birth or weaning periods in any ushered in an era of attention to the amphibians, , and small wildlife species would be entirely vol- greater schemes of nature and human mammals, roads may essentially be untary under most development interaction with landscapes. complete barriers (Mader 1990; Rich- schemes, excepting those in which Loss of habitat and habitat frag- ardson et al. 1997). Wildlife mortali- state or federally protected threat- mentation are critical issues in urban- ties from roadways are documented ened or endangered species are in- izing environments and are cited as for only a few of the larger and eco- volved. Few laws exist to curb or shape the most common reasons for popu- nomically more important species, the development process in ways that lation reduction or loss of species in but those that are known are consid- mitigate or minimize impact on such places (Davis and Glick 1978; erable. Conover et al. (1995) estimat- wildlife. Those that do exist, such as Adams 1994). Because private land ed more than a million deer-vehicle the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ownership decentralizes the planning collisions annually for the United (MBTA), could theoretically be used process, habitat destruction and al- States, with approximately two hun- to afford protection to some species, teration can occur on a parcel-by-par- dred people killed and a billion dollars but are probably so little known to cel basis, with little attention paid to in property damage as the conse- developers that they might as well not such needs as preserving habitat con- quences. be there. The MBTA makes it unlawful nectivity. The results are truncated The process of land development in- for anyone to “pursue,” “take,” or corridors, habitat islands, and mo- cludes such activities as clearing, otherwise harm any migratory bird or saics of different types of land at dif- grading, soil compression, lake drain- to destroy nests or unless under ferent stages of development. By the ing, and infill, all of which profoundly a federal permit, but it is clearly abro- theory of island biogeography (Mac- affect everything that lives on sites in gated on a large scale when develop- Arthur and Wilson 1967), the larger the pre-development stage. Surpris- ment incidentally “takes” birds, their islands of habitat should contain ingly, there seem to be no studies on nests and eggs, or their flightless greater species diversity and experi- such sites in which total species com- young as land is cleared. To bring a ence lower rates of “extinction” as position and pre-and post-develop- claim on such activities under the populations within them dip below ment distribution and abundance of MBTA it would be necessary to prove thresholds of sustainability. Under species have been documented over a willful violation of the act, beyond such configurations habitat areas can time. On-site impacts on nonvolant simple knowledge of the presence or also function as population sinks, de- species—for example, small- and me- potential presence of nesting birds. manding a constant influx of animals dium-sized mammals, invertebrates, Land clearing can be timed to min- from outside to sustain themselves amphibians, and reptiles—will be im- imize impact on specific species’ (Pulliam 1988). The same effect can mediate and direct and typically end nesting, birthing, and weaning sched- be caused by human activities such as in almost complete destruction. Larg- ules, and pre-development surveys trapping and removal of “nuisance” er mammals and volant species will be and efforts to conduct “salvage” oper- animals or culling of local popula- displaced, with potential for increased ations to remove specific species can tions. Isolated urban habitat areas mortality as well as conflict and com- be conducted. It may simply be that a also should adversely affect the genet- petition with conspecifics, as those greater awareness and more informa- ic interchange between populations, displaced attempt to become re- tion about these practices could lead although the consequences of this are established elsewhere. The effects of to some voluntary compliance or that as yet little understood (Davis and displacement will be difficult to mea- local ordinances could be crafted that Glick 1978). sure and depend on so many external would allow such factors to be taken Another consequence of fragmenta- factors and conditions that it may be into account during the development

Urban Wildlife 169 permitting process. Few wildlife pro- prescriptions. Another approach to together of previously established fessionals or organizations, however, determining wildlife presence and po- threads to set the stage for the cur- have focused on wildlife in these con- tential, rather than focusing on bio- rent “land mosaic” or “coalescence” texts or attempted to communicate logical inventories of fauna, involves phase. The current period is marked with developers about these needs. an inventory and assessment of habi- by the attempt to create an overall Little is known about the attitudes of tat (Burns et al. 1986; Geis 1986; conceptual framework that explains the public on these issues or whether Matthews 1986; Houck 1987). Once landscapes from a regional perspec- such consequences as increased ex- identified, such areas can be manipu- tive, incorporating the ecological pro- pense would be supported if develop- lated within a landscape ecological cesses and ecosystem functions sub- ers were engaging in salvage or res- scheme to determine how physical sumed at that scale. It is made cue efforts. factors such as patch size and con- possible by advances in our under- Much of today’s land-use policy is nectivity interact with specific faunal standing of ecological process and determined within a utilitarian frame- groups, such as songbirds, to create functioning and by tools, such as the work in which economic considera- predictive models that help prioritize Geographic Information Systems tions predominate (Beatley 1994). land units from which maximum con- (GIS), that allow regional perspectives The potential economic benefits of servation value will be realized (Darr to be drawn on what are complex and development schemes that include et al. 1998). interconnected landscape elements. wildlife habitat (more frequently The concept of urban open-space In a broad sense, ecological design termed open space or conservation management from an ecological per- is a process whereby each community areas) as part of the overall planning spective is widely recognized by urban member can be considered a “partic- concept have been gaining attention wildlife specialists as both critical to ipant-designer,” and the balance of and where examined indicate some conserving wildlife in urbanizing envi- knowledge is shifted from the experts positive influences on property value ronments and beneficial to enjoy- to all. Ecological design advocates (King et al. 1991). Beyond that, with ment by human residents (Adams and the identification and protection of the public moving toward a greater Dove 1989; Gilbert 1989; Hough core reserves of habitat that are off- environmental consciousness, the 1994). Ecological landscape planning limits to human , sur- preservation of ecosystems, conserva- and design intends to integrate rounded by expanding buffer zones tion of biological diversity, and pro- known concepts of landscape design that allow a range of uses, from na- tection of small and unique habitats and ecological process to understand ture trails to low-density housing to and their wildlife are receiving more and manage land-human relation- more-intense land use. These core re- advocacy (Nash 1989). Arguments ships on a broad scale. It is character- serves ought to be connected by wild- are being made for planners to antic- ized by viewing nature as a partner life corridors (Adams and Dove 1989; ipate and counteract threats to vul- from a bioregional vantage point, in- Van der Ryn and Cowan 1996). Em- nerable wildlife populations (Hough tegrating design with soils, vegeta- ploying techniques such as following 1994). Still, despite twenty of the tion, topography, and human culture. the natural contour of the land, clear- forty national policies of the Ameri- It embraces an inclusive process of ing and grading less, retaining and can Society of Landscape Architects discussion and debate, challenging replacing topsoil, reducing impervi- focused on environmental issues, the notion that architecture and de- ous surface coverage, and retaining as there is no policy regarding wildlife sign are pure processes that “should much natural vegetation as possible (Wacker 1987). not be ‘contaminated’ by any real- will go far in reducing the immediate In an ideal world for urban wildlife, world constraints or needs: social, en- destruction of animals from construc- development sites would be assessed vironmental, or economic” (Van der tion practices and subsequent loss of by qualified personnel to determine Ryn and Cowan 1996). populations and communities as a what species occur on year-round and The historical development of the result of habitat loss. seasonal bases, how development is field has been traced by Richard Fore- By recognizing the need to better likely to affect resident wildlife or man (1995) through three broad understand and plan development, transients (e.g., neotropical migrato- phases. The first, which extended to not only to maximize benefits to wild- ry songbirds), and what can be done, about 1950, encompassed a period of life but also to provide amenities for at all stages of development, to mini- emphasis on natural history and the humans, both theoretical and practi- mize the impacts that might occur environment in which identification cal models can be developed to pre- (SCWF 1997). To some extent, exper- of many of the underlying principles dict the outcome of various approach- iments in this approach have begun, and factors of landscapes and animal es. From a landscape perspective, an as in the King County, Washington, populations was a necessary prerequi- overriding principle to seek maximum effort to identify significant wildlife site to a synthesis of information into environmental benefits during devel- habitat and review development plans a conceptual framework. A second, opment can be subsumed under the to ensure that critical amenities and so-called “weaving” phase, between concept of “aggregate-with-outliers” values are maintained under zoning 1950 and 1980, involved the drawing (Foreman 1995). This principle states

170 The State of the Animals: 2001 that “one should aggregate land uses, sensitive plant species on public yet maintain corridors and small Human-Wildlife lands) or human health and safety patches of nature throughout devel- concerns are claimed (e.g., Ankney oped areas, as well as outliers of hu- Interactions 1996). Problems with individuals or man activity spatially arranged along local groups may be self-correcting or major boundaries” (437). in Urbanizing resolvable with a small commitment In general, the understanding of the Environments of time and effort. Problems with larg- landscape-ecological factors involved Human-wildlife interactions in urban- er populations may not be resolvable in this principle, ranging from patch izing environments can be positive or without a considerable commitment size to landscape mosaic grain, is bet- negative. Conflicts between humans of time and effort through a coordi- ter established than the responses of and wildlife in suburban and urban nated regional planning approach. wildlife to the various landscape cate- areas are inevitable. Human-altered The type and variety of human-wild- gories that have been identified. landscapes create highly suitable hab- life conflicts in urban and suburban Several types of development have itats for some species of wild animals. environments, as well as their eco- been planned to enhance natural area Absent hunting and trapping, many nomic consequences, are little docu- and corridor presence. They include urban areas may harbor species that mented, but what studies have been (1) planned unit development (PUD), elsewhere occur below ecological car- conducted are suggestive of trends. usually applied to a large site, often rying capacity (Robinson and Bolen Overall, less than a third of the gen- allowing for more-flexible design, 1984). Other human activities—such eral population has reported experi- housing variety, and compatible com- as poor trash management, landscap- encing problems with urban wildlife. mercial uses; (2) cluster zoning, ing that provides food resources, and In one survey of the six metropolitan which permits groups of homes on structures that increase available har- areas in New York City, 20 percent of one portion of the property, with the borage—can affect local wildlife pop- all respondents said they had wildlife remainder left as open space; and (3) ulations. Many urbanites seeking in- problems (Brown et al. 1979), while conservation subdivisions, which in teraction with wild animals delib- in the upstate population of metro- their purest form, can be defined as erately feed and provision them, politan Syracuse about 30 percent residential developments in which which can cause problems such as had experienced problems (O’Don- half or more of the buildable land localized concentrations of animals. nell and VanDruff 1983). Another area is designated as undivided, per- The conflicts that arise between study focused on three metropolitan manent open space (Arendt 1996). people and wild animals in urbanizing areas in Missouri, where about 13 per- All three are zoning alternatives that environments can involve individual cent of the respondents indicated involve density transfers. Normally, if animals, local groups of animals, or they had experienced wildlife prob- a developer were to set aside a por- increasingly, regional populations of lems (Witter et al. 1981). More re- tion of the developable land, it would some species. A homeowner may have cently, Mankin et al. (1999) reported reduce his yield (the number of lots a problem with an individual animal that 18 percent of both urban and that he could build under current that has taken up residence in a chim- rural respondents to a questionnaire zoning), which translates into less ney, leading to action to resolve an about wildlife conflicts in Illinois re- profit. Density transfer addresses this immediate and highly site-specific is- ported damage within the past year. financial disincentive by allowing the sue. A municipal park may have a Problems in metropolitan Syracuse developer to site the same or greater population of animals, such as gray varied from one neighborhood area to number of homes onto smaller lots in , that is causing damage to another (O’Donnell and VanDruff a more compressed area, with the re- plantings (Manski et al. 1981). A 1983), suggesting site- and area-spe- maining open space left undeveloped neighborhood or community may cific factors contributing to the type and serving as a community and nat- have widely distributed conflicts (with and intensity of wildlife problems at ural resource. The natural area can be animals such as white-tailed deer or the local level. Where it has been sur- put into a conservation easement (a Canada geese) that affect multiple veyed, measurable damage by wild- legal agreement between the proper- households and involve public lands life, usually as structural damage to ty owner and a nonprofit organization and buildings, corporate parks, or buildings or landscape plantings, or government agency that perma- specific sites such as golf courses. ranges from about 20 to 50 percent of nently restricts the uses of the The conflicts experienced by urban- the complaints reported (Brown et al. property) with the developer or the ites range from “nuisance” situations 1979; O’Donnell and VanDruff 1983; homeowners’ association retaining (that aren’t really problems at all) to Mankin et al. 1999). ownership of the land and the right to situations in which measurable dam- The most frequently reported com- use it consistent with the easement. age to homes or yards is occurring, to plaint regarding wildlife in urban and circumstances where complex types suburban areas is that an animal has of impacts (e.g., deer browsing on become a general “nuisance” around a primary residence (Brown et al.

Urban Wildlife 171 1979; Witter et al. 1981; O’Donnell status of animals (e.g., Singer 1975), matically were their contribution to and VanDruff 1983). The use of the to the notion that human well-being urban ecosystems better known. Bet- term “nuisance” in characterizing hu- is enhanced by contact with animals. ter public education and understand- man-wildlife encounters is problemat- Benefits provided by wildlife may be ing lies at the heart of much of the ic, however, since it predefines an simple pleasure and enjoyment, en- effort to deal with human-wildlife emotional condition that can range hanced health and well-being, educa- conflicts in urban areas. from the imagined to the very real. tional opportunities for adults and Often, what constitutes an animal’s children, and increased economic being termed a “nuisance” may sim- returns through recreational, non- Attitudes ply be misunderstanding or igno- consumptive pursuits, such as bird- rance. Almost 40 percent of the com- watching, and functions that enhance toward plaints about wildlife received by two ecosystem-level stability (Shaw and suburban Maryland wildlife offices re- Magnum 1984; Rolston 1986; Beatley Urban Wildlife sulted from a misunderstanding of 1994; Kellert 1997; Warren 1997). American attitudes toward, and wildlife activity and an unnecessary Improved psychological and even phy- knowledge and perception of, animals fear of wildlife itself (Hotten and sical health is often associated with have been measured in a series of pio- McKegg 1984). Such findings almost contact with natural environments neering studies by Stephen Kellert certainly forebode that many wild ani- and with wild animals themselves and his colleagues (cf. Kellert 1996). mals are “controlled” in urban habi- (VanDruff et al. 1995). Better envi- Historically, the predominant atti- tats for no offense other than simply ronmental health has long been asso- tude toward animals in the United being considered “nuisances.” ciated with juxtaposition of natural States has been a utilitarian one, As dramatic as wildlife conflicts may areas with human-built environments focusing on the practical and materi- be, by far the most frequent and sub- (e.g., Foreman 1995); and because of al value people derive from animals or stantive interactions between people the position of most species at higher their products (Kellert and Westervelt and wild animals are positive ones. trophic (or distance from plant food 1982). Roughly contemporaneous People value, and often cherish, con- source) levels, wildlife has been sug- with the population shift to urbanized tact with other living things (Kellert gested as a good indicator of environ- areas has been the growth of human- 1996), and it may be especially com- mental quality (Evenden 1974). In istic feelings, defined as a strong pelling and urgent that such opportu- fact, wild animals are often used as interest in and affection for individual nities occur for urbanites, who are sentinels to detect and monitor envi- animals (Kellert 1980) and, in cities most likely to be divorced from con- ronmental contaminants (National with a million or more residents, high tact with the natural world. Mankin et Academy of Sciences 1991). moralistic sentiments characterized al. (1999) report that nearly all re- The benefits of working with wild- by a primary concern for the right or spondents to their questionnaire of life species to maintain or comple- wrong treatment of animals (Kellert urban and rural residents of Illinois ment environmental factors impor- and Berry 1980). These changing val- indicated that wildlife was important tant to humans has only recently ues have influenced how Americans to them, with nearly 60 percent indi- begun to be explored. Beavers, for ex- view such activities as hunting and cating that it was very important. ample, can improve watersheds nega- trapping (Gentile 1987); noncon- Nearly half of the urban respondents tively affected by human activity, but sumptive uses of wild animals (Shaw indicated they valued wildlife as much because of their early and near-com- and Mangun 1984); wildlife educa- as pets, with a quarter assigning equal plete extirpation from most of North tion (Adams and Leedy 1987); wildlife value to humans. Goode (1993) notes America (Novak 1987), few people conservation (Hunter 1989); and that urban wildlife programs and nat- recognize their potential contribu- wildlife damage control (Flyger et al. ural-area conservation in Great Bri- tions. Among these are reduction in 1983). Urbanites can be selective, tain give considerable weight to the the extent and severity of floods due however. Some animal groups, such “value and benefits of ordinary wildlife to the buffering effect of beaver im- as songbirds, are held in high esteem to local people,” an extremely impor- poundments; settling of turbid, sedi- (Dagg 1974; Szot 1975; Brown et al. tant concept that is often overlooked ment-laden urban runoff to include 1979), while others, such as coyotes in this time when wildlife’s scarcity, the precipitation of harmful industri- and snakes, are much less appreciat- rarity, and disappearance command al products such as heavy metal ed and sometimes even completely such attention. residues; a net increase in the area of untolerated (Flyger et al. 1983; Attributing value to wildlife or to urban wetlands; the creation of new Kellert 1996). wildlife habitat can be difficult. Con- wetlands; and the addition of habitat However urbanites feel about spe- cepts regarding wildlife valuation for sensitive and threatened plant and cific wildlife species, their attitudes range from the idea of inherent or in- animal species (Hammerson 1994). toward control practices tend to trinsic value (Norton 1987), through Public attitudes concerning conflicts strongly favor nonlethal approaches. those addressing the legal rights and with such animals could change dra- Marion (1988) found in a survey of

172 The State of the Animals: 2001 state extension service offices that 55 mentioned as problems in most urban tarian and materialistic perspectives percent of the public contacted re- wildlife damage surveys conducted (e.g., Robinson and Bolen 1984). The garding urban wildlife conflicts did throughout the 1970s, white-tailed consumptive use of animals superced- not want animals to be harmed by deer increasingly have been men- ed other concerns. “Surplus,” “ex- control procedures. An even higher tioned as an emerging problem in cess,” or “expendable” segments of percentage (78 percent) were willing urban areas (Witham and Jones 1990; wildlife populations were to be to implement prevention and control Decker and Gavin 1987), and public “taken” under regulated hunting and measures. Braband and Clark (1992) attitudes seem to be shifting to more trapping protocols that did not influ- found that 89 percent of the cus- negative sentiments as a conse- ence the overall health of the popula- tomers they contacted in conjunction quence. Canada geese, as well, seem tion but maintained numbers at with a private wildlife control busi- to be attracting more widespread dis- desired levels. Those levels were typi- ness felt that humane treatment (i.e., approval as they enter into greater cally set at a point where harvesters people’s feelings about the reduction contact with urban and suburban res- and recreational users had a maxi- of pain felt by an animal in a nuisance idents (Addison and Amernic 1983; mum number of animals available to control situation) was either “very” Conover and Chasko 1985; Ankney them, while commercial interests, or “moderately” important. Almost 1996; Hope 2000). The rapidity with typically agriculture, suffered a mini- half (44 percent) of those responding which animals such as geese and deer mum of economic damage from those indicated they would pay more for have not only accommodated to animals. services that ensured this sort of urban and suburban living but also This traditionalist orientation in treatment. However, attitudes about become problematic suggests that the United States led to wildlife man- lethal control as an appropriate other species may rapidly follow suit. agement being considered synony- means of resolving conflicts was high Every effort should be made at an mous with “game management,” the for many species, including and early stage in urban wildlife planning title of the first text on the subject mice (95 percent), bats (71 percent), to anticipate and head off such situa- (Leopold 1933). “Nongame manage- pigeons (60 percent), and skunks (57 tions. Given the physical and socio- ment,” a term that came into use dur- percent), indicating that negative economic heterogeneity of cities, as ing the 1970s (Clawson 1986), refers feelings about some species overrode well as the social and cultural varia- to managers’ activities that involve any broader concept of animal wel- tion within urban populations, the species not typically pursued for com- fare. Marion et al. (1999), while not existing attitude surveys on urban mercial or utilitarian purposes. specifically querying for lethal versus wildlife probably reflect only a small Temple (1986) recognizes four - nonlethal control, found more than part of the range of potential values egories of animals within a nongame 80 percent of respondents indicating and sentiments about urban wildlife classification scheme: pest species, that they tolerated the “nuisance” and human-wildlife conflict-resolu- endangered species, rare species, and presented by wildlife during conflict tion strategies. More contemporary species that do not require manage- situations, with fewer than 10 percent and comprehensive surveys must be ment. Pest species largely included of the urbanites questioned having conducted to explain both this vari- animals found in urban and suburban tried lethal control for an offending ability and the potential for rapid environments. Unlike funding for animal. change in the nature of, and attitudes game programs, which is largely sup- The relationship between positive toward, future conflicts. ported through the federal Pittman- feelings about an individual animal Roberston initiative, funding for non- species and its status as a “problem” game species comes from voluntary or “nuisance” animal should be intu- Urban Wildlife contributions, income-tax check-offs, itively an inverse one, but this is and a variety of special taxes (Robin- apparently not always the case. The Management son and Bolen 1984). Federal legisla- gray (Sciurus carolinensis), Interest in wildlife conservation—as tion to fund comprehensive conserva- for example, ranks very high as a nui- well as recognition that good scientif- tion planning was enacted as the Fish sance species while maintaining a ic information was needed to achieve and Wildlife Conservation Act of position as an animal for which affec- conservation goals—arose around the 1980. Unlike Pittman-Robertson mon- tion remains high (Dagg 1973; Brown turn of the twentieth century as a ies, which are funded through excise et al. 1979; Witter et al. 1981; O’Don- response to the near-complete de- taxes, this initiative was to be funded nell and VanDruff 1983; Gilbert struction of many animal species and through appropriations from the fed- 1989). This suggests that public opin- their habitats on a continent-wide eral budget—appropriations that ion is strongly situational, at least for basis (Matthiessen 1987). Nonethe- were never approved (Manville 1989). some species. Rapid change in public less, traditional wildlife management Both endangered and rare species are sentiment may be indicated by shift- perspectives grew out of a view of wild the focus of special funding efforts ing attitudes toward species such as animals as a renewable resource and and regulatory and statutory atten- deer and geese. While they were not emphasized management from utili- tion, but little if any attention is

Urban Wildlife 173 focused on the “pest” and “other” animals (Kirkwood 1998). Shelter recreational wildlife trappers, with lit- species categories, into which a personnel are often the first to tle understanding of the behavior and majority of urban wildlife would fall. respond to wildlife emergencies or to ecology of urban wild animals beyond Once urban species become more be called to a scene by law enforce- what is needed to capture them, to noticeable, they may be branded ment. Shelters may routinely handle highly skilled wildlife professionals, “overabundant” and subjected to sick and injured wild animals, who often hold advanced academic calls for management from a tradi- respond to road fatalities, and extri- degrees. Organization of these busi- tionalist perspective (e.g., Ankney cate animals roaming at large in nesses through franchising opera- 1996; McCombie 1999). However, by buildings. Shelter personnel often are tions places many practitioners on a far the majority of calls for manage- untrained for these tasks, but may solid footing in a business sense, ment of urban wildlife comes from be highly skilled and motivated to while “fly-by-night” operators engage concern over “nuisance” or “pest” learn; have law enforcement au- in irresponsible business practices species near individual houses. Ironi- thority, and can work from within es- such as price-gouging. The fly-by- cally, this may be one of the reasons tablished infrastructures. Although nighters are of particular concern to that traditional wildlife managers funding and resource limitations animal protection interests, since the have eschewed involvement in urban might be seen as obstacles to such in- wildlife control industry is particular- wildlife issues (Lyons and Leedy dividuals’ involvement, they are con- ly susceptible to profiting from the 1984). Another may be that tradi- cerns for which solutions can readily provision of incomplete or inadequate tional approaches in wildlife manage- be found. For example, a local animal services. A practitioner may not rec- ment may not be applicable to urban shelter might run a wildlife control ommend that a chimney be capped to settings (San Julian 1987; Hadidian advice and response service as a for- permanently seal out future occupan- et al. 1997a). A shift to “problem-ori- fee option under its larger nonprofit cy by a or squirrel, for exam- ented” management of urban wildlife operation. Costs for both advice and ple, virtually guaranteeing that ano- means that other factors have to be service could be covered by service ther visit (and payment for service) taken into consideration, including charges competitive with private-sec- will be necessary. Eventually, state human health and safety issues, envi- tor rates. and municipal oversight, public vigi- ronmental damage, biological di- The private-sector nuisance-wildlife lance, better public education, and versity, and protection of private pro- control industry will also increasingly peer influence, should force standard- perty. The “control” of “problem” play a role in urban wildlife conflict ization and policing of the industry. urban wildlife is likely to be needed at resolution. This industry has devel- Animal protection interests and the times that don’t coincide with hunt- oped partly from within and partly private wildlife control industry will ing and trapping seasons. from outside the context of tradition- always argue over whether a majority Conflicts with urban species may, in al wildlife management (Braband and of “nuisance” complaints can be re- fact, be greatest at such biologically Clark 1992; Barnes 1993; Curtis et al. solved without handling, much less sensitive times as when young are be- 1995). The growth of the industry has killing, the animal. Private operators ing reared, raising moral and ethical been rapid. In New York private wild- will always be torn between earning a questions concerning how manage- life control operations grew by 309 service fee and providing free advice ment programs are implemented. In percent over a six-year period in the that allows homeowners to resolve the past, private citizens (animal res- mid-1980s, with more than eleven conflicts themselves. cuers and rehabilitators), law enforce- thousand wildlife complaints handled Another emerging resource is the ment personnel, university extension in 1989–90 alone (Curtis et al. 1995). wildlife rehabilitation community. specialists, and nature centers were Little is known of the nature, scope, Wildlife rehabilitators range from in- often the only resources available to and extent of the activities of nui- dividuals with little or no background guide urbanites in resolving conflicts sance-wildlife control operators, and and training with wild animals to with wildlife or responding to wildlife virtually nothing can be said yet of highly skilled professionals with ad- emergencies. Forces are now emerg- the biological and ecological conse- vanced degrees in wildlife science or ing to address human-wildlife conflict quences of this industry’s activities. veterinary medicine. Once a “kitchen resolution in urban areas: animal shel- Thousands, perhaps tens of thou- operation” in which injured and ter and control agencies, wildlife reha- sands, of “nuisance” animals are orphaned animals were taken into pri- bilitators, the private wildlife control taken by trapping businesses in hun- vate homes and given compassionate, industry, and others. dreds of municipal areas annually, but if sometimes misguided, care, wildlife Municipal animal shelters and ani- virtually nothing is done to document rehabilitation is now emerging as an mal control agencies, as well as law and publish summary statistics re- organized discipline. An established enforcement agencies, typically do garding this activity. body of knowledge is applied to not have a mandate to deal with wild- The “nuisance” wildlife control diverse species and situations, some- life issues but become involved in industry is in a formative period in times through “kitchen operations” handling significant numbers of wild which its “professionals” range from but increasingly through professional-

174 The State of the Animals: 2001 ly staffed wildlife centers. Rehabilita- euthanasia2; consumer education and cally valuable trees in a downtown tors are increasingly at the center of protection; threshold of damage; and Washington, D.C., park, and efforts to “nuisance” wildlife control, even use of integrated pest management trap and relocate squirrels had been though the only reason may be their [IPM]3 strategies) to yield an ideal under way for some time before local inherent interest in limiting the num- score of 10 for any state that provided and national humane organizations ber of “orphaned” animals that come regulatory oversight for each catego- challenged the National Park Service to them for care. Many such orphaned ry. The mean score for states was 2.16 to document and authenticate its young are by-products of wildlife con- (range 0–7), with a mode of 0 (four- claims (Manski et al. 1981). This was trol activities during which adult ani- teen states received this score) and a done, and a management plan was mals are either forcibly separated median of 1.75. created under which a one-time re- from dependent offspring or eutha- Changes in the social acceptance of moval of squirrels was to be coupled nized under state law. As a result, animal damage management and ver- with the removal of older den trees rehabilitation facilities are often tebrate pest control require reexami- and some artificial nest boxes that swamped with incoming floods of nation of the structure of federal and provided harborage (Hadidian et al. orphans. Larger centers, especially, state programs and more input from 1987). These actions, together with may decide to solve problems for these programs into private-industry voluntary reduction in feeding activi- homeowners in self-defense. Wildlife initiatives. Traditional wildlife dam- ties by a small but active group of in- hotlines that provide advice or refer- age control programs must ask fun- dividuals, led to a long-term stabiliza- rals to “humane” wildlife control damental questions with greater sci- tion of the population that left operators are providing such proac- entific rigor (Hone 1996); address damage at an acceptable level. tive outreach. growing public demand for account- Unknown, however, are the conse- Regulatory authority and program- ability in the use of chemicals, par- quences of “humane” control of pop- matic responsibility for urban wildlife ticularly toxicants; and satisfy grow- ulations through limiting access to remain with federal, state, and mu- ing public demand for solutions that food, water, and shelter. Did the sta- nicipal agencies and wildlife organiza- include nonlethal options before le- bilization of the squirrel population tions. Absent a funding break- thal alternatives are considered. Bor- in this small park cause increased through, it is unlikely that state rowing from IPM, many specialists are mortality in subsequent litters? Were wildlife agencies will greatly augment acquiescing to this demand. They “surplus” squirrels forced to leave the their urban wildlife programs and advocate approaches to wildlife dam- area, at greater risk for mortality? To activities in the near future. Instead, age management that, depending on date, relatively little attention has their role in regulatory oversight and the species and nature of the problem focused on such questions. program planning appears to be involved, move from nonlethal to le- As such issues remain, The HSUS where they will have the most impact. thal control only when circumstances has begun to identify a multi-step Current regulations in most states dictate no other recourse (Dent process of problem evaluation and are insufficient to ensure either the 1995; Hone 1996). Federal agencies response (Hadidian et al. 1997) for protection of public interest or the are directed to use IPM approaches homeowners and the general public. humane treatment of animals them- (U.S. Government 1979), and the The approach is based on using so- selves. Several surveys of state regula- principal federal agency responsible lutions to conflicts that are “envi- tory and statutory oversight of the for wildlife damage control, the U.S. ronmentally sound, lasting, and hu- wildlife-control industry suggest that Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife mane.” It is fundamentally hierar- regulations or statutes advising oper- Services (WS) has created an Inte- chical, moving from least to most ators to humanely handle, transport, grated Wildlife Damage Management invasive in its applied procedures. or euthanize “problem” wild animals concept to direct its activities (USDA Understanding is an important generally don’t exist, and that even 1994). Slate et al. (1992) describe a component in any wildlife conflict, licensing and reporting requirements decision-making model to determine since the magnitude of the problem are absent in many of the states the need for action and appropriate must be weighed against the conse- (Brammer et al. 1994; LaVine et al. responses that emphasize nonlethal quences of human intervention. Tol- 1996; Barnes 1997; Hadidian et al. in methods. erance of a wild animal’s presence— press). In a recent poll of the fifty Relatively few case histories demon- and the ability to accept some states by The Humane Society of the strating the IPM approach in urban “damage”—should always be the first United States (HSUS) (Hadidian et areas can be found outside of com- option considered. If tolerance clear- al. in press), a rating of 1 or 0 was giv- mensal rodent management, but ly is not enough of a response, then en in each of ten categories (license there is information on the use of other nonlethal approaches should be and permit requirements; training, such an approach to relieve a gray considered. These range from chang- examination, and related require- squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) prob- ing human activity (such as trash ments; re-certification; reporting; lem. Substantial damage had been management), modifying habitat, translocation1; humane treatment; claimed to bulbs, flowers, and histori- and using scaring and mild harass-

Urban Wildlife 175 ment strategies to employing repel- from hydrologist to social scientist, porating themselves as nonprofit or- lents and exclusionary strategies. proposed by Dorney as necessary to ganizations. Trapping and relocating or killing of- environmental management, com- It is often said that urbanites are so fending animals is far more problem- bined with the need for political sup- ignorant of wildlife ecology that their atic and always unacceptable when it port, suggest a new approach may be concerns for the protection of urban is the sole response to a wildlife con- in order. wildlife and the humane treatment of flict. Lethal approaches should never wild animals are misplaced (Howard be employed unless all other practica- 1990). Where measured, this ecologi- ble options have been considered Animal Welfare cal ignorance does seem to exist; and/or tried or unless conditions can however, it can be found among peo- be changed to modify or eliminate the and Protection ple living in rural areas as well circumstances that led to the prob- (Kellert 1996). This ignorance can lem. Even then, killing as a means of Concerns lead to unrealistic and misguided “solving” a wildlife conflict is offensive In the nineteenth century, Henry attempts to impose “humane” solu- to large segments of the public (Reit- Bergh founded the American Society tions, such as wildlife translocation, er et al. 1999) and will be opposed by for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- on wildlife problems (Craven et al. animal protection interests. mals, the first animal welfare organi- 1998). But attention should first be With more than eight of every ten zation in the United States, in re- placed on obvious human mistreat- Americans living in urban and subur- sponse to the treatment of the horses ment of wild animals. Wild animals ban areas, public and private re- used as draft animals in New York City may be mistreated by people (includ- sources and attention must be fo- (Zawistowski 1998). Once he was giv- ing animal damage professionals or cused on their issues with wildlife. en the power under law to prosecute animal control professionals) out of Currently, no clear responsibilities or cases of animal abuse, however, one of ignorance or through deliberate acts roles exist for any private or public the first cases he brought to court of cruelty or indifference. They may entities to address urban wildlife was against a sea captain and his crew be mistreated on an institutional issues. The conflict that often accom- for the mistreatment of sea turtles level by instruments of policy or regu- panies issues should therefore be of kept alive as food aboard ship. The lation that allow mass poisoning or no surprise. Clearly, better under- judge threw the case out of court, rul- lethal control on a recurring and standing of the issues and the posi- ing that turtles were not animals and cyclical basis. tions of stakeholders is needed, and thus not covered in the newly pro- It is hardly surprising that we have compromise and synthesis will be mulgated cruelty statutes. Not a little information on how wild ani- important in determining the out- great deal has changed in the treat- mals and people interact in urban come of future programs. ment of many wildlife species since environments. What happens even in The core elements of one such ap- then. Although the welfare of domes- the average backyard may always be a proach have been outlined by Robert tic and companion animals is an on- mystery, but increased attention to Dorney (1989) as the framework for a going concern, any such considera- the links between childhood and new field, environmental manage- tion for wildlife has barely begun. adult violence toward animals and ment. It is envisioned as a consulting Potential topics range from the violence toward humans (Lockwood practice that combines elements of highly specific, such as the humane- and Ascione 1998) may result in bet- the “social, natural, engineering, de- ness of capture and handling tech- ter efforts to collect information on sign, and geographic services” work- niques for “nuisance” animals, to the extremely negative human-wildlife in- ing under a shared conceptual frame- very broad, such as conservation of teractions, at the least. work based on “a systems approach, a biological diversity in urbanizing Few in the professional communi- human ecology view, an environmen- areas. Several animal protection orga- ties have called for better under- tal ethic, and a willingness to work for nizations—The HSUS, the Fund for standing of animal welfare in the con- private, government, or community Animals, People for the Ethical Treat- text of wildlife damage or manage- groups in a political and legal con- ment of Animals, Animal Alliance of ment concerns (but see Schmidt text” (p. 5). Given the need in many Canada, the Massachusetts Society 1989a,b). Even among regulatory emerging human-wildlife conflicts for for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- agencies, such as state wildlife de- coordination among planners, public mals, and the Progressive Animal Wel- partments, oversight may be lacking. health specialists, wildlife specialists, fare Society, in Washington State— Of the states polled by The HSUS for technical personnel, and the public, it staff programs on wildlife issues. a recent survey of state oversight of is difficult to envision how the urban Clifton (1992) expressed what were the wildlife control industry (Hadidi- wildlife specialist of the future could some of the first published concerns an et al. in press), only thirty-two successfully operate with as narrow a from this perspective. Numerous ac- (slightly more than 60 percent) focus as the field now has. The more tivist and local groups have formed required individual homeowners or than a dozen specializations, ranging around particular issues, often incor- their agents to apply for permits to

176 The State of the Animals: 2001 “control” wildlife on their property. while at the same time allowing “nui- even when nonhuman members of Fewer (seventeen) required private sance” geese to be taken under per- the biotic community are accorded nuisance-wildlife control businesses mit. Some states have assumed re- rights, those rights become priori- to be licensed, and only three states sponsibility for overseeing “nuisance” tized based on the contribution of required licensed nuisance-wildlife goose programs, some of which in- each to that community. Thus a rare control operators to comply with volve capturing geese that are molt- wildflower could be accorded higher established handling, transportation, ing and killing them in commercial priority within the community than and care standards. poultry houses. Others are allowing would a human, since humans are Beyond animal protection advo- private nuisance wildlife control busi- plentiful. But the concept of biotic cates’ concern for the fate of individ- nesses and federal animal damage right as a cornerstone of the land eth- ual animals in urban and suburban control agents to engage in lethal ic advocated by Leopold, and the envi- environments lies the broader need to control programs without state in- ronmental ethic that derives from it, consider the fate of entire animal volvement. With the increasing inter- is not so estranged from the animal populations and communities of or- est in urban wildlife management, the rights concepts advocated by Regan ganisms. The example of government reluctance of many regulatory and and others that common ground can- oversight of Canada geese is illumi- oversight agencies to engage more not be reached. A Leopold essay writ- nating. Early in the last century, giant immediately in emerging programs ten in 1923 but published only (Branta canadensis will set precedents that will affect recently argued that the earth is an maxima) populations were so victim- them for years to come. “organism possessing a certain kind ized by overhunting and exploitation Concern for land and ecosystem and degree of life” (1979), suggesting for market that there was concern protection has traditionally been an common ground between Leopold that they had been driven to extinc- interest of conservationists and envi- and much of the thinking that comes tion (Hansen 1965). When a few ronmentalists. Clearly, however, the from the Deep Ecology and animal small breeding populations were dis- animal protection community’s wild- rights movements (Nash 1989). covered in the mid-1960s, extensive life concerns cannot be addressed It is the concept of biocentrism efforts were undertaken to repatriate without considering ecosystem and (Nash 1989) that provides propo- this race of Canada goose to its for- environmental concepts. Aldo Leo- nents of the environment and advo- mer—and to new—ranges. These pold’s 1949 articulation of the con- cates of those parts of the environ- restocking programs proved success- cept of a land ethic marks the emer- ment that exhibit unusually high ful, and goose populations grew to gence in contemporary environ- levels of sentience and sensitivity the point where, by the mid-1980s, mental thinking of a holistic concept (i.e., animals) with common ground. many were considered problematic that embraces people, animals, and Biocentrism seeks the extension of (Conover and Chasko 1985). As year- land. Largely neglected for two the rights, privileges, and protection round residents, geese quickly adapt- decades, the concept of a land ethic given as our moral responsibility to ed to the prime urban and suburban was joined in the mid-1970s by the fellow humans to other living things sites that provided shelter and food, concern for environmental injury that and, potentially, to the nonliving as including golf courses, playing fields, had been articulated in Rachel Car- well. Biocentric thinking incorpo- and public open space where humans son’s Silent Spring (1962). rates the idea of recognizing the and geese were bound to come into Leopold (1949) called for a land rights of every form of life to function conflict. The debate over the extent ethic as a revolutionary shift in the normally in an ecosystem (Nash of goose “damage” to landscapes, the way humans viewed their relationship 1989). It understandably conflicts potential for human health and safety to the land and the animals and with traditional conceptions of hu- issues associated with growing popu- plants supported by it. He lamented mans as preeminent over other living lations of these birds, and the extent that the relationship between people things (e.g., Bidinotto 1992). From to which nonlethal strategies (includ- and the land was primarily economic this derives the fundamental, underly- ing habitat management) have been and entailed “privileges, but not ing tenet of an animal welfare per- attempted prior to adoption of lethal- obligations.” Leopold was a hunter, spective on urban wildlife: to seek and control programs has led to con- and his concern for the land and its advocate life-affirming solutions to frontations between wildlife manage- biotic community has been called an- conflicts with wild animals. ment agencies and animal protection tithetical to that of the movement for groups. A complex interplay between individual animals and extending federal authority (largely derived rights to nonhumans. In fact, Regan from the MBTA) and federal and state (1983) went so far as to suggest that responsibilities (largely derived from Leopold’s biotic community view- statutory trust or tradition) appears point could be dubbed “environmen- to be unfolding. Federal managers are tal fascism” (p. 362). This characteri- struggling with adhering to the MBTA zation springs from the premise that,

Urban Wildlife 177 uncaring. Urban wildlife problems Babbitt, B. 1999. Noah’s mandate Prognosis: must be approached as ecosystem and the birth of urban bioplanning. problems where, along with the goal 13: 677–78. Cities and of controlling animal damage, suc- Baines, C. 1986. The wild side of cessful strategies will stress the devel- . London: BBC Publications Wildlife opment of harmonious relationships and Elm Tree Books. The demands and requirements of within which the needs of all species Barber, L. 1980. The heyday of natur- the urban human population control are properly balanced. We stand at al history. Garden City, N.Y.: Dou- the global ecosystem (Vitousek et al. that crossroads. bleday and Company, Inc. 1997). Wildlife is a preferred compo- Barnes, T.G. 1993. A survey compari- nent of natural systems, one in which Notes son of pest control and nuisance humans typically vest more interest wildlife control operators in Ken- and attention than they do to physical 1Translocation is defined as the transport and tucky. In Proceedings of the Sixth environments or even other living release of wild animals from one location to Eastern Wildlife Damage Control communities. How the quality of the another (Craven et al. 1998). 2Euthanasia literally means “good death” and Conference. human environment is improved and is a term frequently used to describe veterinary- ——————. 1997. State agency enhanced by wildlife is an issue that approved methods of killing companion animals. oversight of the nuisance wildlife will engage much attention as human 3IPM is defined as a decision-making process that emphasizes monitoring and action when control industry. Wildlife Society populations become increasingly needed using a blend of cultural, physical, and Bulletin 25(1): 185–88. urban. It would be truly unfortunate if chemical methods to keep pest problems at an Beatley, T. 1994. Ethical land use. Bal- we could not resolve the paradox acceptable level of management (Dent 1995). timore: The Johns Hopkins Univer- raised by Raymond Dassmann: sity Press. “…Cities, man’s greatest creation Beebe, W. 1953. Unseen life of New and the place where most people Literature Cited York: As a naturalist sees it. Boston: must live, are in many ways becoming Adams, L. 1994. Urban wildlife habi- Little, Brown and Company. least suited for human occupancy” tats. Minneapolis: University of Bidinotto, R.J. 1992. The most dan- (1972, 339). Minnesota Press. gerous pest: “Homo environmen- It may be that as we begin to under- Adams, L., and D.L. Leedy, eds. 1987. talus.” In Proceedings of the Fif- stand ourselves better and explore Integrating man and nature in the teenth Pest Conference. our deepest roots in affiliation with metropolitan environment. Colum- Newport Beach, California, March nature—our “biophilia” (Kellert bia, Md.: National Institute for 3–5. 1997)—we are becoming isolated Urban Wildlife. Braband, L.A., and K.D. Clark. 1992. from and inured to the natural world ——————. 1991. Wildlife conser- Perspectives on wildlife nuisance in perhaps irreversible ways. It is no vation in metropolitan environ- control: Results of a wildlife dam- coincidence that the converging ments. Columbia, Md.: National age control firm’s customer survey. streams of contemporary thought in Institute for Urban Wildlife. In Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern environmentalism, animal welfare Adams, L.W., D.L. Leedy, and W.C. Wildlife Damage Control Confer- and protection, ecological under- McComb. 1985. Urban wildlife ence. standing and human affinity for na- research and education in North Brady, R.F., T. Tobias, P.F.J. Eagles, R. ture are all focused within the prism American colleges and universities. Ohrner, J. Micak, B. Veale, and R.S. of urban wildlife. It is not surprising Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 591–95. Dorney. 1979. A typology for the that the visionary efforts to resolve Adams, L.W., and L.E. Dove. 1989. urban ecosystem and its relation- human–wild-animal and human–nat- Wildlife reserves and corridors in ship to larger biogeographical land- ural-world conflicts would be add- the urban environment. Columbia, scape units. Urban Ecology 4: ressed within new fields such as Dor- Md.: National Institute for Urban 11–28. ney’s discipline of environmental Wildlife. Brammer, T.J., P.T. Bromley, and R. management, which was to be found- Addison, L.R., and J. Amernic. 1983. Wilson. 1994. The status of nui- ed on an “ethical triad” of “reverence An uneasy truce with the Canada sance wildlife policy in the United for land, life, and diversity” (Dorney goose. International Wildlife 13: States. In Proceedings of the Annu- 1989, 37). 12–14. al Conference of the Southeastern If one promise of urbanization is to Ankney, C.D. 1996. An embarrass- Association of Fish and Wildlife facilitate greater concern for the wel- ment of riches: too many geese. Agencies, 48: 331–35. fare and treatment of animals, then Journal of Wildlife Management 60: Brown, T.L., C.P. Dawson, and R.L. its peril may lie in the possibility of 217–23. Miller. 1979. Interests and atti- large segments of the urban popula- Arendt, R. 1996. Conservation design tudes of metropolitan New York res- tion losing their connection to wild for subdivisions. Washington, D.C.: idents about wildlife. In Transac- things and becoming indifferent and Island Press. tions of the Forty-fourth North

178 The State of the Animals: 2001 American Wildlife and Natural Dagg, A.I. 1974. Reactions of people Fitter, R.S.R. 1945. London’s natural Resources Conference. to urban wildlife. In Wildlife in an history. London: Bloomsbury Books. Burns, J., K. Stenberg, and W.W. urbanizing environment, eds. J.H. Flyger, V., D.L. Leedy, and T.M. Fan- Shaw. 1986. Critical and sensitive Noyes and D.R. Progulski. Planning klain. 1983. Wildlife damage con- wildlife habitats in Tucson, Arizona. and Resource Development Series, trol in eastern cities and suburbs. In Wildlife conservation and new No. 28. Amherst: University of In Proceedings of the First Eastern residential developments, eds. K. Massachusetts. Wildlife Damage Control Confer- Stenberg and W.W. Shaw. Tucson: Darr, L.J., D.K. Dawson, and C.S. Rob- ence. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Universi- University of Arizona. bins. 1998. Land-use planning to ty. September 27–30. Campbell, C.A. 1974. Survival of conserve habitat for area-sensitive Forbush, E.H. 1916. The domestic reptiles and amphibians in birds. Urban Ecosystems 2: cat. Massachusetts State Board of environments. In Wildlife in an 75–84. Agricultural Economics Bulletin 2. urbanizing environment, eds. J.H. Dassmann, R.F. 1972. Environmental Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: Noyes and D.R. Progulske. Plan- conservation. New York: John Wiley The ecology of landscapes and ning and Resource Development and Sons, Inc. regions. Cambridge, England: Cam- Series, No. 28. Amherst: Universi- Davey, S.P. 1967. The role of bridge University Press. ty of Massachusetts. wildlife in an urban environment. Foreman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Cam- In Transactions of the Thirty-sec- 1986. Landscape ecology. New bridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press. ond North American Fish and York: John Wiley and Sons. Clawson, R.L. 1986. Introduction. In Wildlife Conference. Garber, S.D. 1987. The urban natural- Management of nongame wildlife in Davis, A.M., and T.F. Glick. 1978. ist. New York: John Wiley and Sons. the Midwest: A developing art, eds. Urban ecosystems and island bio- Geis, A.D. 1986. Planning and design J.B. Hales, L.B. Best, and R.L. Claw- geography. Environmental Con- for wildlife conservation in new res- son. Chelsea, Mich.: BookCrafters. servation 5: 299–304. idential developments—Columbia, Clifton, M. 1992. Urban wildlife: Decker, D.J., and T.A. Gavin. 1987. Maryland. In Wildlife conservation reclaiming their birthright. The Public attitudes toward a subur- and new residential developments, Animals’ Agenda, January/Febru- ban deer herd. Wildlife Society eds. K. Stenberg and W.W. Shaw. ary: 12–24. Bulletin 15: 173–80. Tucson: University of Arizona. Conover, M.R., and G.G. Chasko. Dent, D. 1995. Integrated pest Gentile, J.R. 1987. The of 1985. Nuisance Canada goose prob- management. London: Chapman antitrapping sentiment in the Unit- lems in the eastern United States. and Hall. ed States: A review and commen- Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 228–33. Dickman, C.R. 1987. Habitat utiliza- tary. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10: Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, tion and diet of the harvest mouse, 245–53. T.J. DuBow, and W.A. Sanborn. Micromys minutus, in an urban Gilbert, O.L. 1989. The ecology of 1995. Review of human injuries, ill- environment. Acta Theriologica 31: urban habitats. New York: Chapman ness, and economic losses caused 249–56. and Hall. by wildlife in the United States. Dorney, R.S. 1989. The professional Gill, D., and P. Bonnett. 1973. Nature in Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 407–14. practice of environmental manage- the urban landscape: A study of city Cousin, S.H. 1983. Species size dis- ment, ed. L. Dorney. New York: ecosystems. Baltimore: York Press. tributions of birds and snails in an Springer-Verlag. Goldstein, E.L., M. Gross, and R.M. . In Urban ecology, Euler, D., F. Gilbert, and G. McKeat- DeGraaf. 1981. Explorations in eds. R. Borkham, J.A. Lee, and ing. 1975. Wildlife in urban Canada, bird–land geometry. Urban Ecology M.R.D. Steward. London: Blackwell eds. David Euler, Frederick Gilbert, 5: 113–24. Scientific Publications. and Gerald McKeating. Guelph, Goode, D. 1986. Wild in London. Lon- Craven, S., T.G. Barnes, and G. Kania. Ontario: University of Guelph. don: Michael Joseph Ltd. 1998. Toward a professional posi- Evans, E. Payson. 1906. The criminal ——————. 1993. Local authori- tion on the translocation of prob- prosecution and capital punishment ties and urban conservation. In lem wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin of animals. London: William Heine- Conservation in progress, eds. F.B. 26: 171–77. mann Ltd. Goldsmith and A. Warren. London: Curtis, P.D., M.E. Richmond, P.A. Well- Evenden, F.G. 1974. Wildlife as an John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. ner, and B. Tullar. 1995. Character- indicator of a quality environ- Gottmann, J. 1961. Megalopolis. New istics of the private nuisance ment. In Wildlife in an urbanizing York: The Twentieth Century Fund. wildlife control industry in New environment, eds. J.H. Noyes and Guth, R.W. 1979. Breeding bird sur- York. In Proceedings of the Sixth D.R. Progulske. Planning and vey of the Chicago metropolitan Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Resource Development Series, area, Illinois. In Natural history Conference. No. 28. Amherst: University of miscellania. Chicago: Chicago Massachusetts. Academy of Sciences.

Urban Wildlife 179 Hadidian, J. 1992. Interaction L.W. Adams and D.R. Leedy. Colum- Transactions of the Forty-seventh between people and wildlife in bia, Md.: National Institute for North American Wildlife and Natur- urbanizing landscapes. In Proceed- Urban Wildlife. al Resources Conference. Washing- ings of the Fifth Eastern Wildlife Hone, J. 1996. Analysis of vertebrate ton, D.C.: Wildlife Management Damage Control Conference. Itha- pest research. In Proceedings of the Institute. ca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Seventeenth Vertebrate Pest Con- Kieran, J. 1959. A natural history of Hadidian, J., D. Manski, V. Flyger, C. ference. Davis, Calif.: University of New York. Boston: Houghton Mif- Cox, and G. Hodge. 1987. Urban California. March 5–7. flin Company. gray squirrel damage and popula- Hope, J. 2000. The geese that came King, D.A., J.L. White, and W.W. Shaw. tion management: A case history. in from the wild. Audubon 102: 1991. Influence of urban wildlife In Proceedings of the Third Eastern 122–27. habitats on the value of residential Wildlife Damage Control Confer- Hotten, L.D., and J.S. McKegg. 1984. properties. In Wildlife conservation ence. Gulf Shores, Ala.: Auburn Wildlife complaints and their reso- in metropolitan environments, eds. University. October 18–21. lution in Maryland. In Proceedings L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy. Colum- Hadidian, J., J. Grandy, and G. Hodge, of the Annual Conference of South- bia, Md.: National Institute for eds. 1997a. Wild neighbors: The eastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Urban Wildlife. humane approach to living with Houck, M.C. 1987. Urban wildlife Kinkead, E. 1974. A look at wildlife. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum habitat inventory: The Willamette nature. New York: Quadrangle/The Publishing. River Greenway, Portland Oregon. New York Times Book Co. Hadidian, J., J. Sauer, C. Swarth, P. In Integrating man and nature in ——————. 1978. Wildness is all Handly, S. Droege, C. Williams, J. the metropolitan environment, eds. around us. New York: E.P. Dutton. Duff, and G. Didden. 1997b. A city- L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy. Colum- Kirkwood, S. 1998. Answering the call wide breeding bird survey for Wash- bia, Md.: The National Institute for of the wild. Animal Sheltering 21: ington, D.C. Urban Ecosystems 1: Urban Wildlife. 4–11. 87–102. Hough, M. 1994. Design with city Kolb, H.H. 1984. Factors affecting the Hadidian, J., M.R. Childs, R.H. nature: An overview of some issues. movements of dog foxes in Edin- Schmidt, L.J. Simon, and A. In The ecological city, eds. R.H. burgh. Journal of Applied Ecology Church. In press. Nuisance wildlife Platt, R.A. Rowntree, and P.C. 21: 161–73. control practices, policies and pro- Muick. Amherst: The University of La Vine, K., M.J. Reeff, J.A. DiCamil- cedures in the United States. In Massachusetts. lo, and G.S. Kania. 1996. The status Proceedings of the Second Interna- Howard, W.E. 1990. Animal rights vs. of nuisance wildlife damage control tional Wildlife Management Confer- nature. United States: W.E. Howard. in the states. In Proceedings of the ence. Godollo, Hungary. Hunter, M.L. 1989. Conservation biol- Seventeenth Vertebrate Pest Con- Hammerson, G.A. 1994. Beaver (Cas- ogy, wildlife management, and ference, eds., R.M. Timm and A.C. tor canadensis): Ecosystem alter- spaceship earth. Wildlife Society Crabb. Davis, Calif.: University of ations, management, and monitor- Bulletin 17: 351–54. California. ing. Natural Areas Journal 14(1): Ingersoll, E. 1899. Wild neighbors: Laurie, I.C., ed. 1979. Nature in cities. 44–57. Outdoor studies in the United Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Hanson, H.C. 1965. The giant Canada States. New York: The Macmillan Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. goose. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Company. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Illinois University Press. Kellert, S.R. 1980. American’s atti- ——————. 1949. A sand county Harris, S. 1977. Distribution, habitat tudes and knowledge of animals. In almanac. New York: Oxford Univesi- utilization and age structure of a Transactions of the Forty-fifth ty Press. suburban fox (Vulpes vulpes) popula- North American Wildlife and Natur- ——————. 1979. Some funda- tion. Mammalian Review 7: 25–39. al Resources Conference. mentals of conservation in the ——————. 1981. The food of sub- ——————. 1996. The value of life. Southwest. Environmental Ethics 1: urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes), with Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 131–41. special reference to London. Mam- ——————. 1997. Kinship to mas- Lloyd, H.G. 1981. The red fox. Lon- malian Review 11: 151–68. tery. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. don: B.T. Batsford, Ltd. ——————. 1994. Urban foxes. Kellert, S.R., and J. Berry. 1980. Lockwood, R., and F.R. Ascione, eds. London: Whittet Books. Phase III: Knowledge, affection and 1998. Cruelty to animals and inter- ——————. 2000. Rise of the reds. basic attitudes toward animals in personal violence. West Lafayette, BBC Wildlife 18: 48–55. American Society. U.S. Fish and Ind.: Purdue University Press. Hester, F.E. 1991. The National Park Wildlife Service Report. Service experience with urban Kellert, S.R., and M.O. Westervelt. wildlife. In Wildlife conservation in 1982. Historical trends in Ameri- metropolitan environments, eds. can animal use and perception.

180 The State of the Animals: 2001 Lyons, J.R., and D.L. Leedy. 1984. Matthiessen, P. 1987. Wildlife in Ameri- Page, R.J.C. 1981. Dispersal and pop- The status of urban wildlife pro- ca. New York: Elisabeth Sifton Books. ulation density of the fox (Vulpes grams. In Transactions of the Forty- McCombie, B. 1999. Those dirty rac- vulpes) in an area of London. ninth North American Wildlife and coons. Field and Stream 104: 8. Journal of Zoology, London 194: Natural Resources Conference. McDonnell, M.J., and S.T.A. Pickett. 485–91. MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1990. Ecosystem structure and Platt, R.H., R.A. Rowntree, and P.C. 1967. The theory of island biogeog- function along urban-rural gradi- Muick. 1994. The ecological city. raphy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton ents: An unexploited opportunity Amherst: The University of Massa- University Press. for ecology. Ecology 7: 1232–37. chusetts Press. MacDonald, D.W., and M.T. Newdick. McHarg, I. 1969. Design with nature. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, 1982. The distribution and ecology New York: Garden City Press. and population regulation. Ameri- of foxes, Vulpes vulpes (L.) in urban Mitchell, J.H. 1985. A field guide to can Naturalist 132: 652–61. areas. In Urban ecology, eds. R. your own back yard. New York: Rees, W. 1996. Ecological footprints. Bornkamm, J.A. Lee, and M.R.D. W.W. Norton and Co. People and the planet 5(2). Seaward. Oxford: Blackwell Scien- Montier, D.J. 1977. Atlas of breeding Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal tific Publications. birds of the London area. London: rights. Berkeley: University of Cali- Mader, H.J., C. Schell, and P. Kor- Batsford, Ltd. fornia Press. nacker. 1990. Linear barriers to Nash, R.F. 1989. The rights of nature. Reiter, D.K., M.W. Brunson, and R.H. movements in the land- Madison, Wisc.: The University of Schmidt. 1999. Public attitudes scape. Biological Conservation 54: Wisconsin Press. toward wildlife damage manage- 209–222. National Academy of Sciences. 1991. ment policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin Mankin, P.C., R.E. Warner, and W.L. Animals as sentinels of environmen- 27: 746–58. Anderson. 1999. Wildlife and the tal health hazards. Washington, Richardson, J.H., R.F. Shore, and J.R. Illinois public: A benchmark study D.C.: National Academy Press. Treweek. 1997. Are major roads a of attitudes and perceptions. Norton, B.G. 1987. Why preserve nat- barrier to small mammals? Journal Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, no. 2: ural variety? Princeton, N.J.: of Zoology, London 243: 840–846. 465–72. Princeton University Press. Riley, S.R., J. Hadidian, and D.A. Man- Manski, D.A., L.W. VanDruff, and V. Novak, M. 1987. Beaver. In Wild ski. 1998. Population density, sur- Flyger. 1981. Activities of gray furbearer management and conser- vival, and rabies in in an squirrels and people in a downtown vation in North America, eds., M. urban national park. Canadian Washington, D.C., park: Manage- Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, Journal of Zoology 76: 1153–64. ment implications. In Transactions and B. Malloch. Ontario, Canada: Robinson, W.L., and E.G. Bolen. of the Forty-sixth North American Ministry of Natural Resources. 1984. Wildlife ecology and manage- Wildlife and Natural Resources Noyes, J.H., and D.R. Progulske, ment. New York: Macmillan Publish- Conference. eds. 1974. Wildlife in an urbanizing ing Company. Manville, A.M. III. 1989. A funding environment, Planning and Rolston, H. 1986. Philosophy gone dilemma: The Fish and Wildlife Resource Development Series, No. wild: Essays in environmental Conservation Act. In Preserving 28. Amherst: University of Massa- ethics. New York: Prometheus Books. communities and corridors, ed. G. chusetts. Rublowsky, J. 1967. Nature in the city. Mackintosh. Washington, D.C.: O’Donnell, M.A., and L.W. VanDruff. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Defenders of Wildlife. 1983. Wildlife conflicts in an urban Ryder, R.D. 1989. Animal revolution. Marcuzzi, G. 1979. European ecosys- area: Occurrence of problems and Oxford: Basil Blackwell. tems. The Hague–Boston–London: attitudes toward wildlife. In Pro- San Julien, G. 1987. The future of Dr. W. Junk B.V. ceedings of the First Eastern wildlife damage control in an urban Marion, W.R. 1988. Urban wildlife: Wildlife Damage Control Confer- environment. In Proceedings of the Can we live with them? In Proceed- ence, ed. D.J. Decker. Ithaca, N.Y.: Third Eastern Wildlife Damage ings of the Thirteenth Vertebrate Cornell University Cooperative Control Conference, ed. N.R. Pest Conference, eds. A.C. Crabb Extension. Holler. Gulf Shores, Ala.: Auburn and R.E. Marsh. Davis, Calif.: Uni- Ordish, G. 1981. The living American University. versity of California. house. New York: William Morrow Scheffey, A.J.W. 1967. Farm and Matthews, M.J. 1986. An inventory of and Company, Inc. urban resources: Remarks of the wildlife habitat in an urban setting. ——————. 1959. The living house. chairman. In Transactions of the In Wildlife conservation and new New York: Lippincott. Thirty-second North American Fish residential developments, eds. K. and Wildlife Conference. Stenberg and W.W. Shaw. Tucson: University of Arizona.

Urban Wildlife 181 Schmidt, R.H. 1989a. Animal welfare Szot, T.R. 1975. Perception of urban Wacker, J.L. 1987. Land use planning and animal management. In Trans- wildlife by selected Tucson resi- and urban wildlife. In Integrating actions of the Fifty-fourth North dents. Masters thesis, University of man and nature in the metropolitan American Wildlife and Natural Arizona. environment, eds. L.W. Adams and Resources Conference. Temple, S.A. 1986. Ecological princi- D.L. Leedy. Columbia, Md.: The ——————. 1989b. Vertebrate pest ples of wildlife management. In National Institute for Urban control and animal welfare. In Ver- Management of nongame wildlife in Wildlife. tebrate pest control and manage- the midwest: A developing art, eds. Warren, M.A. 1997. Moral status: ment materials, eds. K.A Fager- J.B. Hale, L.B. Best, and R.L. Claw- Obligations to persons and other liv- stone, and R.D. Curnow. ASTM STP. son. Chelsea, Mich.: North Central ing things. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shaw, W.W., and W.R. Mangun. 1984. Section of the Wildlife Society. Whitham, J.H., and J.M. Jones. 1990. Nonconsumptive use of wildlife in Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the natur- White-tailed deer abundance on the United States. Fish and Wildlife al world: A history of modern sensi- metropolitan forest preserves dur- Service Research Publication 154. bility. New York: Pantheon Books. ing winter in northeastern Illinois. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Trefil, J. 1994. A scientist in the city. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 13–16. of the Interior. New York: Doubleday. Witter, D.J., D.L. Tylka, and J.E. Wern- Shenstone, J.C. 1912. The flora of Twiss, R.H. 1967. Wildlife in the met- er. 1981. Values of urban wildlife in London building sites. Journal of ropolitan landscape. In Transactions Missouri. In Transactions of the Botany 50: 117–24. of the Thirty-second North Ameri- Forty-sixth North American Wildlife Shirley, P. 1996. Urban wildlife. Lon- can Fish and Wildlife Conference. and Natural Resources Conference. don: Whittet Books, Ltd. United Nations. 1987. The prospect Zawistowski, S.L. 1998. Henry Bergh. Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation. of world urbanization. United In Encyclopedia of animal rights New York: A New York Review Book. Nations Population Studies, ST/ and animal welfare, ed. M. Bekoff. Slate, D., R. Owens, G. Connolly, and ESA/SER/101. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. G. Simmons. 1992. Decision mak- U.S. Department of Agriculture ing for wildlife damage manage- (USDA). 1994. Animal Damage ment. In Transactions of the Fifty- Control Program: Final environ- seventh North American Wildlife mental impact statement. Washing- and Natural Resources Conference. ton, D.C.: USDA, Animal and Stenberg, K., and W.W. Shaw, eds. Plant Health Inspection Services, 1986. Wildlife conservation and Wildlife Services. new residential developments. Tuc- U.S. Government. 1979. Presidential son: University of Arizona. Memorandum: August 2, 1979. The South Carolina Wildlife Federation President’s 1979 message on the (SCWF). 1997. Working for wildlife: environment, Washington, D.C.: ways cities and counties can help The White House. wildlife. SCWF. Van der Ryn, S., and S. Cowan. 1996. Stearns, F. 1967. Wildlife habitat in Ecological design. Washington, urban and suburban environments. D.C.: Island Press. In Transactions of the Thirty-sec- VanDruff, L.W., D.L. Leedy, and F.W. ond North American Fish and Sterns. 1995. Urban wildlife and Wildlife Conference. human well-being. In Urban ecology Sudia, T.W. 1971. Man, nature, city. as the basis of urban planning. Eds. Urban Ecology Series. Washington, H. Sukopp., M. Numata, and A. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Huber. Amsterdam: SPB Academic ——————. 1978. Wildlife and the Publishing bv. city. Urban Ecology Series. Wash- Vessel, M.F., and H.H. Wong. 1987. ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Natural history of vacant lots. Berke- Printing Office. ley: University of California Press. Sukopp, H., M. Numata, and A. Huber. Villard, P. 1975. Wild animals around 1995. Urban ecology as the basis of your home. New York: Winchester urban planning. In Urban wildlife Press. and human well-being, eds. L.W. Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. VanDruff, D.L. Leedy, and F.W. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melilo. 1997. Sterns. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Human domination of earth’s Publishing bv. ecosystems. Science 277(5325): 494–99.

182 The State of the Animals: 2001