November BackTalk

ARTICLE POORLY DONE

he article "Making Your Mark" that appeared in September PCT is disturbing. In the article, Doug Seemann condemns the release of captured nuisance wildlife due to his assertion that it "will result in a disoriented and frightened animal that is doomed to starve to death," or will be attacked and violently killed by other like animals. Research conducted by The Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation (funded in part by Critter Control) found that relocated raccoons disperse and for the most part do quite well. Other studies differ, but given the current inconclusive body of knowledge, the most accurate statement regarding the relocation of nuisance wildlife is that it is a socio-political decision (mandating release in some jurisdictions and prohibiting it in others).

The article’s recommendation of drowning or using vehicle exhaust (CO1) as a means of humanely euthanizing captured animals is ludicrous. Both methods are deemed inhumane and unacceptable according to the widely recognized euthanasia standards set by the American Veterinary Medical Association. In addition to being cruel, using either drowning or vehicle exhaust may subject the operator to criminal charges in some jurisdictions and costly civil liabilities in others. The use of a carbon dioxide (CO2) chamber, or approved injectable euthanizing agents available through a veterinarian, are the most common practices.

The author recommends that one should ensure that an "animal will not be killed, abused or mutilated on camera." There is no excuse for this statement. Abusing or mutilating animals need never be done (on or off camera) anywhere.

The publication of this poorly researched article has done a disservice to the pest control and wildlife industries.

Kevin D. Clark

President

Critter Control Inc.

Traverse City, Mich.

here are some gross errors in the article titled "Making Your Mark." The article refers to javelina (Tayassu tajacu) as being "half wild boar and half rodent." Javelina are not either. Javelina are in the family Tayassuidae and wild boars are in the family Suidae. Javelina are not remotely related to rodents. The article also refers to ringtail cats (Bassaricus astutus) and coatis (Nasua nasua) as "weasels." These animals are not weasels — they are members of the Procyonidae family. Weasels are in the family Mustelidae.

Lawrence M. Sullivan

Extension Natural Resources Specialist

University of Arizona

Tucson, Ariz.

SEEMANN’S RESPONSE

am glad that this article has brought such a strong response. Too often, an article becomes a forum for a writer to provide a brief overview without touching the details. Generally speaking, there are exceptions to most things an author writes about. "BackTalk" provides a dialogue between the author and the reader. These letters are just a couple of examples of the strong response I’ve received.

A "dispersing raccoon" is an animal running for its life. Some animals, like raccoons, ringtails and bobcats, are remarkably resilient and often do adapt and survive. Other animals, such as packrats, do not. What you are expected to do with the fur-bearing animals differs by state and region. For example, in Long Island, N.Y., you are breaking the law if you release a raccoon into the wild. This is due to localized occurrences of rabies in the wildlife population. Rabies, ectoparasites and disease may become widely dispersed if an animal is transported long distances.

In New York and New Jersey, the only permitted (and required) method of euthanizing an animal is by drowning or carbon monoxide. Realize that the writer is not supporting or approving of these methods, I am merely reporting the extremes that the law may require. In Pennsylvania, lethal injection (a much more humane method) is the only one approved. There does need to be additional research on the subject and if readers will e-mail me with their state’s laws (be sure of your information), I will publish a state-by-state list. As for our methods not being approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association, keep in mind, we are exterminators, not vets. In most states, our industry doesn’t have access to the proper drugs and equipment to perform an AVMA-approved euthanization. This is our fault. If we were more professional in our methods, demanded higher testing standards and certification and were more judicious in our use of pesticides, we might achieve the status we demand.

The statement, "one should ensure that an animal will not be killed, abused or mutilated on camera," has been taken out of context. This was advised to ensure that a job site is first scouted to ensure that an "animal will not be killed, abused or mutilated on camera" when being filmed by a news crew. This is sound advice. Anyone that has significant experience in wildlife control will recognize that there are jobs where an animal has wedged itself into a space, has died in a chimney and is stuck to the walls, or has given birth in a wall void. These animals must be removed and often it is not simple or pretty. You don’t want cameras there.

I’ve received some letters that have advocated rehabilitation of the captured animals. This is a great idea and often is effective. The problem is that it is not cost effective. Wildlife rehabilitators rarely take in nuisance wildlife because they can’t handle the volume. In some markets, 20 or more raccoons (and three times as many squirrels) may be captured weekly by a single company. Customers won’t pay for wildlife rehabilitation. As for the requirement of fish and game permits for nuisance wildlife and birds, that is true in some states. New York requires a permit; Arizona does not. In fact, to do bird control in Arizona, you need a contractor’s license to do any exclusion. Go figure.

When I stated that a coatimundae was sort of a cross between a weasel, a monkey and a raccoon, I did not mean to imply that these animals were crossbred. I was attempting to create a mental image of the animals.

I was speaking in generalizations to try to give the reader a view of the strange and bizarre animals that may be encountered in the course of the work. I apologize for any misunderstandings these odd and slightly comical descriptions may have caused.

Keep in mind that I had a limited amount of space to discuss the topic (and I exceeded it). I also hope that this has brought some insight into the writer/reader relationship that is often overlooked.

Doug Seemann

Board Certified Entomologist

Oro Valley, Ariz.

Readers with comments are invited to write to PCT Letters, 4012 Bridge Ave., Cleveland OH 44113. Letters also can be faxed to 216/961-0364, or e-mailed to jdorsch@pctonline.com. Letters may be edited for space or clarity.