Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlifer”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Climate change and wildlife health: direct and indirect effects

Climate change will have significant effects on the health of wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, according to scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that unprecedented rates of climate change will result in increasing average global temperatures; rising sea levels; changing global precipitation patterns, including increasing amounts and variability; and increasing midcontinental summer drought (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Increasing temperatures, combined with changes in rainfall and humidity, may have significant impacts on wildlife, domestic animal, and human health and diseases. When combined with expanding human populations, these changes could increase demand on limited water resources, lead to more habitat destruction, and provide yet more opportunities for infectious diseases to cross from one species to another. Awareness has been growing in recent years about zoonotic diseases— that is, diseases that are transmissible between animals and humans, such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus. The rise of such diseases results from closer relationships among wildlife, domestic animals, and people, allowing more contact with diseased animals, organisms that carry and transmit a disease from one animal to another (vectors), and people. Disease vectors include insects, such as mosquitoes, and arachnids, such as ticks. Thus, it is impossible to separate the effects of global warming on wildlife from its effects on the health of domestic animals or people. Climate change, habitat destruction and urbanization, the introduction of exotic and invasive species, and pollution—all affect ecosystem and human health. Climate change can also be viewed within the context of other physical and climate cycles, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (El Niño), the North Atlantic Oscillation, and cycles in solar radiation that have profound effects on the Earth’s climate. The effects of climate change on wildlife disease are summarized in several areas of scientific study discussed briefly below: geographic range and distribution of wildlife diseases, plant and animal phenology (Walther and others, 2002), and patterns of wildlife disease, community and ecosystem composition, and habitat degradation.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

A human-dimensions review of human-wildlife disturbance: A literature review of impacts, frameworks, and management solutions

The following report was prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Refuge System in support of their Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) efforts by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA), Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. While this document provides a summary of contemporary recreation management literature and methodologies, relevant to the subject of managing wildlife disturbances on national wildlife refuges, this document should be viewed as a starting point for management administrators. This document identifies general issues relating to wildlife disturbance and visitor impacts including a description of disturbance, recreational impacts, related human dimensions applications, management frameworks, and a general summary of management solutions. The section on descriptions of wildlife disturbance and impacts draws heavily from the report entitled 'Managing the Impacts of Visitor Use on Waterbirds -- A Literature Review of Impacts and Mitigation' (DeLong, 2002; Delong and Adamcik, in press) and is referenced in the text. This document is more comprehensive in its review of wildlife response to disturbance. This document is intended to discuss the human-dimensions aspect of wildlife disturbance, summarizing human dimensions and recreation management literature as it applies to this topic.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Proceedings of the 2024 Asia-Pacific Wildlife Health Workshop—Collaborating against shared threats

Emerging diseases of wildlife origin are increasingly transboundary (they spread rapidly across geographic regions and across continents). In recent years, examples include the rapid spread of African swine fever across Europe and Asia with negative effects on food security, and the near global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza which has devastated wildlife populations, caused economic harm, and which threatens public health; consequently, international partnerships and networks are essential to facilitate the sharing of information for improved situational awareness and better preparedness and response. In this regard, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Korea National Institute for Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention have had a long-standing partnership to foster scientific collaboration. A key part of the activities has been annual scientific workshops, which commenced in 2016. The 2024 workshop in Hilo, Hawaii, was the most recent in these series of workshops and included participants from across Asia and the Pacific region, including Thailand, Vietnam, China, Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, and the United States. The goals of the workshop were: to continue to build the wildlife health community of practice in the Asia-Pacific region and expand the participants to agencies and institutions from other countries in the region; and exchange scientific knowledge among the participants to share best practices, create scientific networks, and build capacity in wildlife health science for the Asia-Pacific region. The themes discussed at the workshop included wildlife health risk management, avian Influenza, African swine fever, climate change and emerging diseases, and international cooperation. This report contains the author-submitted abstracts which provide a summary of the presentations and discussions during the workshop. The aim is to share this information to continue to foster international scientific exchange to protect wildlife health, livestock, and public health from the negative impacts of infectious and noninfectious diseases.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Mercury in wetlands at the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, northwestern Minnesota, 2007-9

The Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge was established in 2004 on land in northwestern Minnesota that had previously undergone extensive wetland and prairie restorations. About 7,000 acres of drained wetlands were restored to their original hydrologic function and aquatic ecosystem. During 2007–9, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Red Lake Watershed District, analyzed mercury concentrations in wetland water and sediment to evaluate the effect of wetland restoration on mercury methylation. The wetland waters sampled generally were of the calcium/magnesium bicarbonate type. Nitrogen in water was mostly in the form of dissolved-organic nitrogen, with very low dissolved-nitrate and dissolved-ammonia concentrations. About 71 percent of all phosphorus in water was dissolved, with one-half of that in the form of orthophosphorus. Wetland water had total-mercury and methylmercury concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 20 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and 0.2 to 16 ng/L, respectively. Median concentrations were 7.1 and 2.9 ng/L, respectively. About one-half of the mercury in wetland water samples was in the form of methylmercury, but this form ranged from 7 to 81 percent of each sample. Compared to concentrations in stream sediment samples collected throughout the United States, Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge wetland sediment samples contained typical total-mercury concentrations, but methylmercury concentrations were nearly twice as high. The maximum concentration measured in Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge wetland water approached the highest published water methylmercury concentration in uncontaminated waters of which we are aware. However, the upper quartile of water methylmercury concentrations is similar to concentrations reported for some impoundments and wetlands in northwestern Minnesota and North Dakota. Methylmercury concentrations in sampled wetlands were much higher than those from typical lakes or flowing streams throughout the United States. The high concentrations of methylmercury measured in sampled wetlands indicate the potential for substantial methylmercury concentrations in aquatic biota and wildlife that consume those biota. These wetlands also are a methylmercury source for downstream lakes and rivers. The high concentrations of methylmercury in water, its bioaccumulation potential, and its known toxicity in aquatic birds and food webs highlight a need to assess methylmercury in the biota within these ecosystems. Better understanding of factors that control methylmercury production concentrations within aquatic food webs in ecosystems of the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge would enable resource managers to better understand and manage risk to wildlife.

Minnesota↗
USGS2015

Management of conservation reserve program grasslands to meet wildlife habitat objectives

Numerous studies document environmental and social benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This report offers a synopsis of findings regarding effects of establishing CRP conservation practices on the quality and distribution of wildlife habitat in agricultural landscapes. On individual farms, year-round provision of wildlife habitat by the CRP may appear relatively insignificant. However, considered from multi-farm to National scales, such improvements in habitat and wildlife response have proven to be extensive and profound. Because CRP acres historically have been dominated by plantings of introduced and native grasses, this report focuses on issues pertaining to wildlife response to grass-dominated conservation practices. While the majority of CRP acres have been concentrated largely in the Great Plains and Corn Belt regions, 47 states (and Puerto Rico) have participated, resulting in measurable environmental benefits throughout the United States. Numerous investigations of habitat use by a wide range of wildlife species reveal that periodic management of CRP lands can enhance benefits through and beyond a typical 10 year general CRP contract. Over its 28-year existence, the CRP has evolved into an effective integration of conservation and agricultural policies targeting fragile and environmentally-valuable lands. Landowners with fields enrolled in the CRP often are the first to observe improvement in the landscape, greater numbers and kinds of wildlife, cleaner water and air, less erosion, and they have the satisfaction of seeing fragile lands serve better purposes. There is persistent concern that improvement seen in wildlife habitat and other environmental profits delivered by the CRP are ephemeral and last only as long as funding supports the existence of the program and its vegetative cover is properly managed. An involved American population will continue to expect governmental policies to enhance long-term protection of natural resources and public health. Recent investigations furnish evidence that the collective economic value of environmental benefits delivered by the CRP likely exceed program costs. The mounting significance placed on environmentally-responsible land management is based in part on public recognition that social, aesthetic, and recreational values enhance the traditional uses of agricultural land.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1999

Guidelines for proper care and use of wildlife in field research

Public attitudes towards animals continue to change over time. These changes apply to wildlife along with other species, and in recent years, attitudes have been increasingly oriented toward assuring that all species receive proper care whenever human interactions are involved. Guidance regarding the application of euthanasia is provided in the previous chapter. This chapter provides basic guidelines for the proper use of wildlife in field investigations. We believe this previously published information from The Wildlife Society is sufficiently important to include in this field manual. The Wildlife Society has been kind enough to grant permission for this reproduction. The scope of this chapter extends to all wildlife, and the application of this material extends beyond research to all wildlife investigations. This chapter is reproduced, with the addition of illustrations and minor modifications, as it appeared in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats (Bookhout, 1994), and, thus, it deviates from the format for the rest of Volume I.

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS1980

Water resources planning under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

This paper briefly discusses the more significant provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958). It covers pertinent aspects of legislative history, the development and current status (April 1980) of certain policies relevant to administering the Act, and other matters. It is directed primarily to practicing fish and wildlife agency field biologists, planners, and decisionmakers engaged in water resources development activities under the Act. It is not intended to be exhaustive in its treatment. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides a basic procedural framework for the orderly consideration of fish and wildlife conservation measures to be incorporated into Federal and Federally permitted or licensed water development projects. The principal provisions of the Act include: 1. a statement of Congressional purpose that fish and wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration with other project features; 2. mandatory consultation with wildlife agencies with a view to achieving such conservation; 3. full consideration by action of the recommendations stemming from consultation; 4. authority for action agencies to implement such recommendations as they find acceptable. The FWCA in effect amends, conditions, or supplements other Federal laws and is thus closely linked in its application and interpretation. It is similarly linked to Federal planning standards and procedures. Because of this, interpretations tend to be flexible and evolve, adapting to changing situations. The following reference matrix outlines selected sections of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act which are of particular relevance to planners.

FWS/OBS↗
USGS2007

Results of a Wildlife Toxicology Workshop held by the Smithsonian Institution ? Identification and prioritization of problem statements

On March 13-15, 2007 nearly 50 scientists and administrators from the US and Canada participated in a Smithsonian-sponsored Wildlife Toxicology Workshop. Invitees were from academic, government, conservation and the private organizations and were selected to represent the diverse disciplines that encompass wildlife toxicology. The workshop addressed scientific and policy issues, strengths and weaknesses of current research strategies, interdisciplinary and science-based approaches in the study of complex contaminant issues, mechanisms for disseminating data to policy-makers, and the development of a partner network to meet the challenges facing wildlife toxicology over the next decade. Prior to the meeting, participants were asked to submit issues they deemed to be of highest concern which shaped four thematic groups for discussion: Wildlife Toxicology in Education, Risk Assessment, Multiple Stressors/Complex Mixtures, and Sub-Lethal to Population-Level Effects. From these discussion groups, 18 problem statements were developed and prioritized outlining what were deemed the most important issues to address now and into the future. Along with each problem statement participants developed potential solutions and action steps geared to move each issue forward. The workshop served as a stepping stone for action in the field of wildlife toxicology. These problem statements and the resulting action items are presented to the inter-disciplinary wildlife toxicology community for adoption, and future work and action items in these areas are encouraged. The workshop outcome looks to generate conversation and collaboration that will lead to the development of innovative research, future mechanisms for funding, workshops, working groups, and listserves within the wildlife toxicology community.

Book chapter↗
USGS2014

Strength of evidence for the effects of feral cats on insular wildlife: The Club Med Syndrome Part II

Various types of evidence have been promulgated as proof for the effects of feral cats on wildlife, typically including numerous studies on predation inferred from diet, mortality attributed to pathogens, and photographic or videographic documentation. The strength of these types of evidence is often short of conclusive. For example, studies of predation inferred from diet provide weak evidence for two reasons: 1) they cannot differentiate depredation from scavenging by feral cats, and 2) they cannot address population-level effects on wildlife because it is rarely understood if mortality acts in compensatory or additive manner. Likewise, pathogens may cause mortality of individuals, but population-level effects of pathogens are rarely known. Photographic or videographic documentation provides direct ‘smoking gun’ evidence that may be useful for positive identification of depredation by cats, or identification of prey designated as threatened or endangered species. However, the most direct and compelling evidence comes from examples where feral cats have been entirely removed from islands. In many cases, several species of seabirds as well as other wildlife have recovered after the complete removal of cats. Where possible, the experimental removal of cats would provide the most conclusive proof of effects on wildlife populations. In other cases where cat removal is not feasible, modeling based on predation rates and life history parameters of species may be the only means of assessing population-level effects on wildlife. Understanding population-level effects of feral cats on wildlife will ultimately be necessary to resolve long-standing wildlife management issues.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2015

Wildlife Habitat Restoration: Chapter 12

As the preceding chapters point out, many wildlife species and the habitat they depend on are in peril. However, opportunities exist to restore habitat for many imperiled wildlife species. But what is wildlife habitat restoration? We begin this chapter by defining habitat restoration and then provide recommendations on how to maximize success of future habitat restoration efforts for wildlife. Finally, we evaluate whether we have been successful in restoring wildlife habitat and supply recommendations to advance habitat restoration. Successful restoration requires clear and explicit goals that are based on our best understanding of what the habitat was like prior to the disturbing event. Ideally, a restoration project would include: (1) a summary of prerestoration conditions that define the existing status of wildlife populations and their habitat; (2) a description of habitat features required by the focal or indicator species for persistence; (3) an a priori description of measurable, quantitative metrics that define restoration goals and measures of success; (4) a monitoring plan; (5) postrestoration comparisons of habitat features and wildlife populations with adjacent unmodified areas that are similar to the restoration site; and (6) expert review of the entire restoration plan (i.e., the five aforementioned components).

Book chapter↗
USGS2018

Wildlife habitat management on college and university campuses

With the increasing involvement of higher education institutions in sustainability movements, it remains unclear to what extent college and university campuses address wildlife habitat. Many campuses encompass significant areas of green space with potential to support diverse wildlife taxa. However, sustainability rating systems generally emphasize efforts like recycling and energy conservation over green landscaping and grounds maintenance. We sought to examine the types of wildlife habitat projects occurring at schools across the United States and whether or not factors like school type (public or private), size (number of students), urban vs. rural setting, and funding played roles in the implementation of such initiatives. Using case studies compiled by the National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology program, we documented wildlife habitat-related projects at 60 campuses. Ten management actions derived from nationwide guidelines were used to describe the projects carried out by these institutions, and we recorded data about cost, funding, and outreach and education methods. We explored potential relationships among management actions and with school characteristics. We extracted themes in project types, along with challenges and responses to those challenges. Native plant species selection and sustainable lawn maintenance and landscaping were the most common management actions among the 60 campuses. According to the case studies we examined, we found that factors like school type, size, and location did not affect the engagement of a campus in wildlife habitat initiatives, nor did they influence the project expenditures or funding received by a campus. Our results suggest that many wildlife habitat initiatives are feasible for higher education institutions and may be successfully implemented at relatively low costs through simple, but deliberate management actions.

Cities and the Environment↗
USGS2020

Ratcheting up rigor in wildlife management decision making

The wildlife management institution has been transforming to ensure relevance and positive conservation outcomes into the future. Continuous improvement of decision making is one aspect of this transformation, but many obstacles hinder systematic approaches to decision making. One can point to examples of formal decision science applications by state and federal agencies in the United States, but generally decision making is not as methodical as the biological, ecological, or social sciences that inform wildlife policy and management decisions. We describe our observations — based on first-hand experiences — with decision making in wildlife management, present reasons why making decisions is difficult, identify challenges faced by wildlife managers at various levels of governance, and address measures wildlife managers can employ to overcome these challenges. We acknowledge that no panacea, simple recipe or one-size-fits-all prescription exists for wildlife management decision making. Nevertheless, we hope the combination of (a) describing how a systematic framework for decision making can benefit stakeholders, managers and conservation outcomes and (b) providing specific suggestions for such a framework will encourage agencies to continue taking steps to improve decision making processes.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2018

Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation

Lead (Pb) exposure in wildlife is a widespread management and conservation concern. Quantitative determination of Pb concentrations in wildlife tissues is the foundation for estimating exposure and risk. Development of low‐cost, portable instruments has improved access and cost‐effectiveness of determining Pb concentrations in blood samples, while also facilitating the ability for wildlife researchers to conduct near real‐time Pb testing. However, these instruments, which use anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) methodology, may produce an analytical bias in wildlife‐blood Pb concentrations. Additionally, their simplicity invites use without appropriate quality‐assurance–quality‐control measures. Together, these factors can reduce data quality and hamper the ability to evaluate it, raising concerns about use of these instruments to inform important conservation issues. We document the extent to which this bias is addressed in the wildlife toxicology literature, develop quantitative approaches for correcting the bias, and provide recommendations to ensure robust data quality when using these instruments. Of the 25 studies we reviewed that referenced ASV use for determining Pb exposure in wildlife, only 32% acknowledged the existence of bias from the instrument. Importantly, another 20% of the studies actually reported ASV and spectroscopic‐based results together without acknowledging their lack of equivalence. Using a multispecies data set of avian blood Pb concentrations, we found that ASV‐based estimates of paired blood Pb concentrations were 30–38% lower than those from standard spectrometric‐based methods. We provide regression equations based on this analysis of 453 blood samples to allow users of ASV instruments to adjust Pb concentrations to spectrometric‐equivalent values, and propose a series of guidelines to follow when using these instruments to improve data validity.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2017

Understanding and finding solutions to the problem of sedimentation in the National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is a collection of public lands maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for migratory birds and other wildlife. Wetlands on individual National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges) may be at risk of increased sedimentation because of land use and water management practices. Increased sedimentation can reduce wetland habitat quality by altering hydrologic function, degrading water quality, and inhibiting growth of vegetation and invertebrates. On Refuges negatively affected by increased sedimentation, managers have to address complex questions about how to best remediate and mitigate the negative effects. The best way to account for these complexities is often not clear. On other Refuges, managers may not know whether sedimentation is a problem. Decision makers in the Refuge System may need to allocate resources to studying which Refuges could be at risk. Such analyses would help them understand where to direct support for managing increased sedimentation. In this paper, we summarize a case study demonstrating the use of decision-analytic tools in the development of a sedimentation management plan for Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota. Using what we learned from that process, we surveyed other Refuges in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 (an area encompassing the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin) and Region 6 (an area encompassing the states of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) about whether they experience sediment-related impacts to management. Our results show that cases of management being negatively affected by increased sedimentation are not isolated. We suggest that the Refuge System conduct a comprehensive and systematic assessment of increased sedimentation among Refuges to understand the importance of sedimentation in context with other management problems that Refuges face. The results of such an assessment could guide how the Refuge System allocates resources to studying and managing widespread stressors.

Minnesota↗
USGS1992

Wildlife species richness in shelterbelts: test of a habitat model

Shelterbelts are human-made habitats consisting of rows of shrubs and trees planted either in fields or on the windward side of farmstead dwellings. Shelterbelts provide wooded habitat for a large variety of birds and other wildlife. A model to predict wildlife species richness in shelterbelts (Schroeder 1986) was published as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) model series (Schamberger et al. 1982). HSI models have been used extensively by wildlife managers and land use planners to assess habitat quality. Several HSI models have become the focus of a test program that includes analysis of field data for corroboration, refutation, or modification of model hypotheses. Previous tests of HSI models focused either on single species (e.g., Cook and Irwin 1985, Morton et al. 1989, Schroeder 1990) or examined portions of HSI models, such as the relationship between cavity abundance and tree diameter (Allen and Corn 1990). The shelterbelt model, however, assesses habitat value at the community level. The effects of habitat characteristics, area, and perimeter on diversity and abundance of bird and mammal species in shelterbelts were first studied by Yahner (1983a, b). Johnson and Beck (1988) confirmed the importance of shelterbelts to wildlife and identified area, perimeter, and diversity and complexity of vegetation as key measurements of habitat quality. The shelterbelt model incorporates both specific habitat variables and larger scale parameters, such as area and configuration, to predict wildlife species richness. This shift in perspective comes at a time of increasing interest in conservation and planning beyond the species levels (e.g., Graul and Miller 1984, Hutto et al. 1987, Schroeder 1987: 26). We report results of a 3-year study of spatial and vegetative parameters and their relationship to breeding bird species richness (BSR) in 34 Kansas shelterbelts. Our objectives were to test the hypothesis presented in the original shelterbelt model (Schroeder 1986) that species richness can be predicted by shelterbelt characteristics and to investigate alternative models for predicting BSR in shelterbelts.

Kansas↗
USGS2015

Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement-Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge

The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Complex, consisting of some of the newer properties in the National Wildlife Refuge System, is a work in progress. Offering unique assets to surrounding communities, these lands promise to become some of the premier urban wildlife refuges in the country. At the heart of the refuge complex is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: 16,000 acres of shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie that is home to bison, bald eagles, migratory songbirds, prairie dogs, and much more—all within the Denver Metropolitan area. This comprehensive conservation plan will be the first in the country designed to begin implementing the Refuge System’s new Urban Refuge Initiative. To accomplish this, we analyzed a wide range of options on how best to support up to one million visitors per year without compromising our principal purposes to protect and preserve fish and wildlife and their habitats. We are fortunate to have inherited a great deal of infrastructure from the U.S. Army, but we are also constrained by the current condition and layout of these facilities. Some of this infrastructure may be acting as barriers to the public—a condition inconsistent with the purposes of the refuge. Accordingly, we have developed a goal to increase and improve suitable access to the refuge, develop sustainable transportation options, and provide more connections among the units of the refuge complex. This increased access will enable people from all walks of life to visit the refuge. The vision we have developed for the refuge complex calls for the restoration of the refuge’s historical habitats, and the reconnection of people with the natural lands of the refuge and of the region at large using a network consisting of multimodal trails, a far-reaching light-rail system, and the Denver International Airport. This refuge is well positioned to leverage and catalyze early investments to create world-class wildlife habitat and a conservation education facility in the heart of a rapidly growing urban metropolis. So positioned, the refuge represents the ideal intersection of nature and education to transmit the message of conservation, outdoor recreation, and stewardship to future generations. Toward this end, collaboration is essential to the refuge’s future success. We will continue to foster and improve our strong public and private partnerships in the surrounding communities. These partnerships will enable us to act quickly and effectively as we invest in education and outreach efforts to fulfill our potential as a conservation catalyst in neighboring communities, the larger Intermountain West, and the world.

Report↗
USGS2018

Wildlife management is science based: Myth or reality?

In the January/February issue of The Wildlife Professional , a group of wildlife leaders discussed what they considered "myths" in wildlife management and invited other wildlife professionals to contribute their favorites. Here, five wildlife professionals take up that theme with their discussions of the scientific basis of wildlife management.

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2020

“Good” and “bad”: Human perceptions of and interactions with urban wildlife

Urban environments offer habitat for many species of animals. Although some of those are ubiquitous and/or undesirable, others are native and in some cases, of conservation value. In many cases, urban wildlife populations are a source of enjoyment for human residents, who sometimes invest considerable amounts in attracting them to yards and public spaces. Their presence there can serve an important educational role that helps protect non-urban habitats and species. Nonetheless, urban wildlife must survive what has been termed a “landscape of fear.” Although some of the urban wildlife that do well in this environment are benign, other populations – sometimes of a species that, in other locations, is iconic and desirable – can become problematic. Some species can serve as vectors that carry important zoonosis, such as the plague or diseases that affect other wildlife. Others can create noise or olfactory nuisances and degrade structures or usability of public spaces. Some pose hazards at busy airports, whereas still others may present an envenomation or predation risk on unwary humans. Here, we review the role that reptiles, birds, and mammals play in urban environments and discuss how urban wildlife rehabilitation centers help address some related issues. We close by looking ahead and trying to predict how global patterns such as increased urbanization and population growth may affect urban wildlife and its value for conservation.

Book chapter↗