Urban Wildlife Symposium
TWS Annual Conference, Nashville, Tenn
12-16 September 2000
Abstracts of Paper Presentations
FERGUSON, H. L. Urban birds: a millennium review and future directions. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Spokane, WA 99218 USA.
During the last millennium, and especially the last 25 years, birds have been the most frequently studied group of animals of the urban environment. So what have we learned in this last millennium? In an attempt to answer this question, this paper will summarize and discuss the findings of nearly 100 studies that have been published during the last millennium on birds and their habitats in and around urban areas. The consistency of the theories and evident patterns or common threads running through the bulk of these studies will be pointed out. Evaluation of the literature will be looked at on several scales including, local, regional, continental, and in some cases, international. In addition, any gaps discovered, and suggestions for future studies will be highlighted.
Is species richness always the highest in more natural habitats compared to more disturbed urban areas? In some cases, it appears that bird diversity, bird density, and bird biomass may peak at sites with intermediate levels of urbanization rather than at more natural sites.
WALLACE, MARK C. AND CHARLES H. NILON. Managing mammals in urban ecosystems. Department of Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2125 USA and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211-7240 USA
The management and conservation of mammals in urban and urbanizing areas has focused almost exclusively on a small number of species that are considered pests. The recent focus on urban deer management and the growth of the pest control industry are examples of this trend. However, there is also a long tradition on research on the mammals that occur in cities. These studies have made important contributions to understanding how species adapt to urban areas and have been useful in identifying and understanding the range of habitats that are found in cities. In our paper we will discuss how viewing mammals as components of an urban ecosystem is a key part of urban wildlife management. We will discuss what this approach means to researchers and managers, and we will discuss how this approach is useful in reaching urban residents who encounter mammals as part of their daily lives.
ADAMS, CLARK E. and MINDY GRAMMER. A study to determine the degree of preparedness by academia and state wildlife agencies to facilitate urban wildlife management. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 USA
Urban wildlife biologists work primarily in non rural environments with a focus on non domestic vertebrate and invertebrate species and human associations with wildlife. Urban wildlife management is a growing concern in metropolitan environments. Our study determined how colleges and universities that offer a B.S. Degree in Wildlife Science (N = 46) and state wildlife agencies (N = 49) were addressing this concern. Study results were based on a 78% and 81% response rate from academia and agencies, respectively. Both respondent groups supported (> 60%) 7 urban wildlife management issues relevant to their state. Only 3% claimed that no urban wildlife management issues were relevant to their states. Less than 12% agreed that urban wildlife management issues will become the dominant future focus of the state. The average number of faculty teaching equivalencies for urban wildlife biologists was 0.19 (range = 0 to 1.85) in academia and the average future need was 0.54 (range = 0 to 3). The average number of urban wildlife biologists working for agencies was 0.9 (range 0 to 9) and the average future need was 3.8 (range = 0 to 20). Nearly half (43%) of both groups said that few qualifications differentiated an urban wildlife biologist from others. Academic (27%) and agency (24%) respondents said that few tasks differentiated urban wildlife biologists from others. Two wildlife management considerations emerged from this survey. Respondents could not differentiate urban wildlife biologists from others. There appears to be limited preparation by academia and agencies to address urban wildlife management issues now and in the future.
DAVIS, JOHN M. Urban Wildlife Programs: An Overview and the Texas Model. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX 78744
There are many questions about what Urban Wildlife Programs are, what they do, and where they are headed. This paper attempts to present a snapshot of Urban Wildlife Programs across the nation and uses the Texas Urban Wildlife Program as an example of what Urban Programs are facing. State agencies across the nation were surveyed regarding how they handle urban wildlife issues. The survey results were compared to a similar survey conducted in 1984. Of those responding, there are now 24 states addressing urban wildlife issues as part of other duties. This is 10 more than there were in 1984. There are now 9 states with established Urban Wildlife Programs. This is 2 more than in 1984. Although this sounds promising for urban wildlife, there have also been 7 states that have dismantled their Urban Wildlife Programs in that same time frame. So, there seems to be an ambivalence towards the value of Urban Wildlife Programs.
In 1992, Texas began its Urban Wildlife Program and currently has 9 Urban Biologist in the state. Each year, Urban Biologists in Texas have more influence in the state's metropolitan areas. Though the Texas Urban Wildlife Program has made great strides since its inception, it has also experienced ambivalence. In recent years the Urban Biologists have been allowed less time to concentrate on urban wildlife issues, and have been negatively affected by reduced statewide coordination.
This paper suggests that the nationwide ambivalence towards Urban Wildlife Programs stems from the game oriented tradition in state agencies as well as a lack of sufficient urban wildlife training at the university level. When these factors are combined with a general lack of funding for urban wildlife, it becomes easy to see why the snapshot of Urban Wildlife Programs reveals ambivalence.
BENDER, KELLY C. The Effect of "Wildscaping" on Avian Diversity and Relative Abundance in San Antonio, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744.
"Wildscaping" and "Backyard Wildlife Habitat" programs in state wildlife agencies have been important tools in the education of urban and suburban residents about wildlife habitat as well as helping to establish wildlife habitat in urban areas. However, little is known of the actual benefits these programs provide to wildlife and wildlife habitat. We studied the avian diversity and relative abundance of three urban subdivision habitats (Wildscaped subdivision, traditionally landscaped subdivision, and undeveloped parkland) in San Antonio, Texas. We found that there was no difference in diversity of birds in the Wildscaped (H=2.4), traditionally landscaped (H=2.2) or undeveloped areas (H=2.3). However, relative abundance of birds showed different habitats tended to favor different individual species. Mourning Dove, Northern Cardinal, and Inca Dove populations were more abundant in the Wildscaped area than the traditionally developed area. Many factors may contribute to our results, including an apparent tendency of Wildscape participants to provide seed feeders for birds, paucity of understory in the undeveloped parkland, and comparatively mature age of the traditionally landscaped area. This study completes the first phase of a complete evaluation of the effectiveness of Wildscaped areas in providing improved urban wildlife habitat.
BELENSKY, BRENDA L. and PHILIP C. NORMAN. The role of local government in urban wildlife management: the Howard County, Md. model. Howard County Department of Recreation and Parks, 7120 Oakland Mills Rd. Columbia, MD 21046
Located equidistant between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC, aggressive urban and residential development began in Howard County in the mid 1960s. With the example of innovative planning set by the Rouse Corporation, the County government sought to protect and enhance urban wildlife and natural resources legislatively with Open Space requirements in the 1970s. By the development boom of the mid 1980s, County owned Open Space land holdings had become large enough that their management needed to be formally entrusted to the Department of Recreation and Parks. Active management of these properties for wildlife, water quality and passive recreation purposes has led to development of programs which draw the local communities into the management process. Inspections, enforcement, reforestation, bluebird, frog, bat and water quality monitoring all give Department professionals opportunities to educate and inform citizens on issues relating to wildlife in their own neighborhoods. As habitat enhancements have succeeded, an increase has been noted in management of nuisance wildlife, primarily beaver, resident Canada geese and white-tailed deer. Active management of these species has included managed hunts, egg oiling, trap/transport efforts and educational outreaches to reduce wildlife-human conflicts and increase cultural carrying capacity. Along the way, some unusual situations have arisen. Though sometimes humorous, these anecdotes serve to illuminate the challenges which urban wildlife managers are facing and will continue to face in the future.
JOHNSON, CRAIG W. Conservation corridor planning at the landscape level: Managing for urban wildlife habitat. Utah State University, Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4005
The American exurban landscape is changing. Wildlife habitats and farms and ranches are being converted to hobby farms, rural estates and subdivisions. This evolving landscape has fewer, smaller, less connected patches of habitat and degraded water quality that stresses aquatic ecosystems. Its capacity to sustain a diversity of plant, animal and aquatic species is impaired.
Many ecologists and conservation biologists believe that connecting remnant habitat patches with corridors should be one part of a comprehensive plan to address this growing problem. How corridors are arranged and connected within the larger landscape context will determine their wildlife value.
Optimizing the habitat value of patches and corridors in urbanizing landscapes requires a landscape scale planning approach. Landscape level planning for wildlife conservation is proactive. It compliments urban comprehensive planning by identifying critical wildlife habitats and corridors before they are developed. Plans at a landscape scale provide a structure within which smaller projects can be effectively integrated. They also provide a structure that crosses jurisdictional boundaries, management units, and other artificial barriers that impair integrative wildlife habitat planning. However, corridors are not a panacea; the long term value of corridors is highly dependent on the health of the adjacent landscape and large patches of native vegetation.
Implementing a successful system of integrated patches and corridors requires the cooperation of private landowners, local governments, private non-profit conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies working at both landscape and site-specific scales. This presentation discusses the application of patch, corridor, and matrix principles to wildlife habitat planning in urbanizing landscapes. It outlines a landscape scale planning methodology and illustrates its application in several urban wildlife habitat planning projects.
VANDRUFF, LARRY W., and LOWELL W. ADAMS. The future of urban wildlife conservation. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210 (LWV); Natural Resources Management Program, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 (LWA)
The cumulative effects of human population growth, urbanization, and land use changes upon the natural landscape, human dimensions, and societal priorities and programs will be outlined. Trends identified include continuing urbanization of the world’s population, continued isolation of humans from natural processes and biotic events, and increased public adoration and preservation of nature. A broadening coalition of stakeholders demanding husbandry (use of care givers) and veterinary-like services for individual wild animals and local populations also is predicted. The dawn of a new millennium and prospects for new wildlife funding provide the impetus for more attention to urban wildlife conservation. Students of urban ecology identify numerous challenges for multi-disciplinary efforts involving regional and city planners, natural resource managers, and urban conservationists. The scale of needs and opportunities is from the backyard sanctuary to the regional (landscape) level. We suggest areas and priorities for heightened attention for urban wildlife conservation: a. an accelerating need for an understanding of and programs addressing wildlife damage management; b. planning and mitigation of the impacts of urbanization on wildlife, valued ecosystems (e.g., wetlands), and human-wildlife interactions (e.g., artificial feeding); c. restoration and management of urban green spaces, and d. research and educational programs directed at the "social need" for wildlife and nature, the role of wildlife in outdoor recreation, and maintaining naturalness of the wildlife resource under sustainable development and continued urbanization. Succinctly, well-rounded urban wildlife programs, be they federal, state, regional, or municipal in sponsorship, should include strong efforts in: (1) inventory and research; (2) planning and management; (3) public information, education, and extension services; and (4) urban habitat acquisition, development, preservation, restoration, and conservation.