Procyon lotor

Myth #1.  Wildlife that has become “urbanized” has modified its behavior, becoming less wild. This increases the chance of interaction with humans and pets, thus raising the potential for danger and problems.

All wildlife that lives in our neighborhoods are “urbanized” and have become used to human presence.  They are part of the urban ecology.  Chance encounters with wildlife may occur if people inadvertently create free food or shelter opportunities around their property causing the animal to come around frequently.  Removing/modifying what is attracting them to the area will eliminate any chances for “interaction” with the animal.

Myth #2. The abundance of food (garbage, pet food, even PETS) and shelter (homes, decks, out buildings) in urban areas shrinks the animal’s normally large home-range area. These “urbanized” animals learn to depend on man for food and shelter and often pass this behavior on to their young.

All animals are opportunistic and seek out the easiest source of food and shelter.  If an animal is capable of learning that there could be an abundance of free food and shelter opportunities around neighborhoods that it can take advantage of, it will also “learn” to increase its home range to search for food and shelter elsewhere if these opportunities around the neighborhoods are removed.

Wildlife will always adapt to any changes that are made in their environment.  We can indeed change their behavior by modifying our own behavior and properties to make it less attractive for them to come around.

Myth #3. “Urbanized” wildlife may spread disease if relocated and may carry disease back into the native wildlife population. There is also the increased risk of the spread or introduction of wild or “zoonotic” diseases into urban areas when relocated, “urbanized” wildlife tries to return to urban areas.

This is referring to the “relocation” of an animal (moving it out of its home-range into unfamiliar habitat). There is absolutely NO harm in releasing an animal back into its home range (radius of 2 miles for smaller animals, 50-100sq miles for larger animals e.g. mountain lions and bears). 

Agencies that advocate the killing of all trapped "nuisance" wildlife will try and confuse the public on returning an animal into it's home-range and relocation in order to justify the killing.

Additionally, the burden of proof is on the agencies making such claims on disease transmission.  Statistics/records on zoonotic diseases (transmissable to humans from wildlife), and disease transmission from wildlife to domestic animals, which all City and County Health Departments have, must show evidence backing up such claims in order to justify the killing.  This is evidence they would be hard pressed to find in order to support their erroneous claims.

Although transmission of disease may occur from time to time, it is very rare and only happens under extenuating circumstances. 

SOLUTIONS to resolve human-animal conflicts must be based on sound science and common sense, rather than by peering in to a crystal ball.  The Conflict Consultants of Little Blue Society have over thirty-five years of collective experience in dealing with human-animal conflicts. 

With public education, exclusion and the removal of food sources, we have resolved even some of the toughest conflicts between people and wildlife. (Testimonial letters available by request).

Money/public funds would be better spent by these agencies to concentrate on creating brochures and newsletters to distribute in their jurisdiction to educate the public on how to safely co-exist with wildlife.