Assessing spatiotemporal associations in the occurrence of badger–human conflict in England

Abstract

Examples from a variety of taxa demonstrate that under certain circumstances, the exclusion or translocation of 'problem' animals is ineffective in resolving humanwildlife conflicts and may even elicit new problems elsewhere. Damage caused by badger setts (burrows) is an important source of human-wildlife conflict in the UK and is commonly managed by excluding badgers from all or part of problem setts. We used records of licences issued for the management of such problems and a novel statistical approach to assess spatiotemporal associations between problem cases in England from 2002 to 2005. We predicted that management at urban badgers' setts, and particularly exclusion of badgers from urban main setts, would give rise to subsequent problems at focal setts and in neighbouring areas. Frequencies of problems occurring at individual setts were similar in urban and rural areas. In areas neighbouring setts subjected to management action, the background frequency of problems was higher in urban than in rural areas, reflecting the occurrence of problems at a higher proportion of urban setts. The frequency of new cases arising at or in the vicinity of managed setts within a critical time period after management action was not significantly different from the background frequency of problems for any combination of land use, sett type and management approach. This finding suggests that the measures currently employed for managing problem setts do not importantly increase the likelihood of problems reoccurring in the same location or emerging nearby.

Happily ever after? Fates of translocated nuisance woodchucks in the Chicago metropolitan area

“…Knowledge of potentially low survival for translocated animals may influence landowners to select other options. Alternative approaches also deemed humane such as tolerance, prevention, and exclusion, might be more effective and more likely to offer long-term resolution (Adams et al 2004;Davison et al 2010). Many human-wildlife conflicts can be prevented by altering human behavior, such as not feeding animals (directly or indirectly), by altering properties by selecting plants that are unpalatable to wildlife, and by preventing access to building foundations, roofs, or gardens (Adams et al 2004;Massei et al 2010).…”

Peer Review #2 of "Exclusions for resolving urban badger damage problems: outcomes and consequences (v0.1)"

“…Nevertheless, growing public antipathy towards lethal control of wild animals (Littin and Mellor 2005;White et al 2003) and ethical obligations regarding animal welfare require that we include the development of further humane and non-lethal techniques for intervention. Moreover, interventions need to be sustainable, such that they effectively and permanently resolve problems rather than simply delaying or moving them elsewhere (Davison et al 2011), whilst also allowing the persistence of viable wildlife populations in rapidly urbanising landscapes. Many meso-carnivores have become well-adapted to an existence in urban, suburban and peri-urban environments (hereafter referred to collectively as urban environments), including foxes (Vulpes vulpes; Harris and Smith 1987) and stone martens (Martes foina; Herr et al 2010) in Europe, and racoons (Procyon lotor; Prange et al 2003) in North America.…”

“…Under some circumstances, such as when badgers are to be excluded from only part of the sett, or whether doubt remains as to whether all badgers have been excluded, exclusion has been followed by careful and systematic excavation of the sett to ensure that all badgers have been successfully evicted. Such works are the responsibility of the licensee or their agent and typically cost GB£5,000-£10,000 for the exclusion of badgers from a modest-sized sett on residential property (Davison et al 2011). Many hundreds of sett exclusions are undertaken each year in England alone (Delahay et al 2009), yet evidence of the effectiveness of different exclusion methods is largely lacking.…”

Exclusions for resolving urban badger damage problems: outcomes and consequences

“…Nevertheless, growing public antipathy towards lethal control of wild animals ( Littin & Mellor, 2005 ; White et al, 2003 ) and ethical obligations regarding animal welfare require that we include the development of further humane and non-lethal techniques for intervention. Moreover, interventions need to be sustainable, such that they effectively and permanently resolve problems rather than simply delaying or moving them elsewhere ( Davison et al, 2011 ), whilst also allowing the persistence of viable wildlife populations in rapidly urbanising landscapes.…”

“…Under some circumstances, such as when badgers are to be excluded from only part of the sett, or whether doubt remains as to whether all badgers have been excluded, exclusion has been followed by careful and systematic excavation of the sett to ensure that all badgers have been successfully evicted. Such works are the responsibility of the licensee or their agent and typically cost GB£5,000–£10,000 for the exclusion of badgers from a modest-sized sett on residential property ( Davison et al, 2011 ).…”