Was wondering who offered relocation(if legal)and who charges an additional fee. Looks like at least one of the companies in my general area offer this as it is in BOLD letters in their advertisements. Another one does not.

Jim

For me the extra drive is offset by not having to dispose of the animal so I don't charge extra. There are very few animals that I can relocate anyway so it is not an issue most of the time. Still drives me crazy that I have been told over and over by customers that other companies don't pay any attention to the quarantine area.

In this day and age, if you should, somehow, get caught by the proper authorities, releasing a perfectly healthy animal, I'm reasonably sure that you will be represented by the absolutely best attorney in the state. ( Well, come on , HSUS has a quarter of a billion dollars to play with )

LOL. It's somewhat encouraged by our DEC(public relations issues) as long as you've followed a gazillion do's, do not's and several laws on top of that.Need written permissions from both client and land owner where the animal is to be released...and so on.......... just seems that if I have to drive to another property to release them that I am taking on added time and expense but maybe that is the price of doing business.

I charge extra for coyotes, fox, beaver, birds and will only relocate to the New Lisbon area so I can stop in and see Grandma...... of course I don't expect to many demands for this but I am hopeful. I miss seeing my dear old grandma.

Everything else is free to relocate.

Think about the added business when each of those animals you relocate have babies, and their babies have babies.....the "cost" of relocating them
becomes much more appealing. I can understand in an area where you have to put them down, or if the animal is sick...but to put down a healthy animal when you
don't have to seems pretty silly to me.

Very true Tri-State, Was just asking as a business practice what others due.

As your business grows and gets bigger, you will have more people that owe you money and somehow forgot to pay their bills. Their yards are ideally suited for relocation.

Paul good point. I am gonna make it a point on Monday to go door to door to customers who owe me more than $500 and let them either pay up in full or inform them that I will be returning their animals with interest.

I'm going to put a disclaimer on this post that it is my view, I understand others have opposing views and have their reasons.
I'd like to just pass it by without posting, but frankly I can't, it is an important issue to me and I hope something I say holds
water for some folks who read it.

Relocation - In nuisance wildlife control is done for several reasons.

1) Gives the homeowner the feeling they aren't killing the animal (fluffy was released on a farm little jimmy, we didn't euthanize him at the vet)

2) Convenience factor of not having to deal with euthanasia, carcasses, disposal, mess....

3) Financially driven by increased cost for those who do charge a surcharge

4) Many stand by the idea they are helping preserve these animals to be used as a resource (fur trapping, breeding stock)

I am more than willing to debate any of these ideas, but as most of you who know me know, I take a hard line on relocation. As someone who
worked with wildlife disease for more than a decade in all different states, and with an onslaught of diseases and parasites, most of which have
no clinical signs, my first argument against moving is disease.

1) Fact, you cannot tell an animal is carrying a disease, virus, bacteria, parasite, endoparasite unless it has clinical signs and even then some of them
won't be as obvious as rabies, distemper, mange.

Therefore while we humans scoot around the planet and pass our diseases to each other, wildlife only pass it where they naturally disperse and migrate. With furbearer species this is typically 5-40 miles depending on the habitat (skunk, raccoon, opossum, coyote, squirrel, beaver, muskrat), which means moving them beyond natural distances either through NWCO relocation or by homeowner relocation (extremely common) we move health problems too.

2) Most folks probably don't drive them beyond these distances, because it isn't affordable, but then we have another problem. Density of animals is ruled by resources and habitat (water, food, cover). Moving 50 raccoon to one green space and dumping them over a month or so isn't akin to a natural movement, so again we are forcing "slum" like conditions by moving mass amounts of these medium sized critters into one area often. I've read too many posts about the "spot" I take all my relocations to by other operators. While some disperse them out, what rules are followed? What biology is dictating how many go to each area? I would bet my bottom dollar it is more about, where I am with my load of critters and where I can dump them that is convenient.

3) Another topic is that of no way to know how many live or die and how they live or die when you relocate. Without a proper study, and as we have talked about before, scant few have been done, we just don't know. What we do know is there is a huge amount of science that shows the biological effects of translocation and relocation, from birds, to mammals and others, they have smaller litter sizes, they try to home back to the capture site, they reoffend in the new area, they have a variety of health issues that complicate their survival, they are more prone to predation or interspecific aggression (ie. coyote versus coyote).

4) When we talk about influencing a local population or breeding population by dropping these relocated critters out in an area, what are we basing this on? How many of you have known successful populations became better because of your relocations? Are they there in the fall for fur harvest? Are they causing new problems? Or are they roaming back to find a suitable home range because the dump site was occupied already and at carrying capacity?

So I would summarize by saying, many of you I consider good friends, (even if I've never met you) I consider you professional operators and I know this argument will not change the dominant mentality. That is okay, but I have to state my thoughts on the matter because I do feel we need to really think about why we do things and be able to back up our end of the discussion.

For me incoming calls are simple, I exclude, or I trap and euthanize, those species that are protected by state law, if I can't exclude them and law says I must relocate (raccoon here in NM), I send them to the state to get a contractor who will do that. Until they let me radio collar and prove they survive well and have some science for where and why I'm moving them, I'm not doing it.

Do I lose money? Sure do!

Are my ethics based on my background and training more important to me?

Yes they are, hands down.

I talked to a good friend yesterday who is starting a shop in a state where the law is clear, you either trap and release on site, or you euthanize, no relocation for any species period. I know there are a multitude of states where even though relocation isn't allowed (say for skunks in many states) folks still tell the client they are going to relocate because it greases the wheel.

I support an educated client and public where folks understand that if you have a problem and the problem must go and exclusion, habitat modification and other things we do as an industry don't work, that euthanasia is the humane option, relocation is not.

Okay, thats all I have (well not really but lets say it is for today), just had to get that out there and will whenever this topic raises up.

I have a ton of respect for not only the old timers who founded this industry, but to those younger folks who have really stepped into
this profession and want it to go somewhere.

I personally think relocation needs to be re-evaluated and it is a place where NWCO's could play a strong role with state agencies in
collaborating on studies and testing to be sure what is being done is sound and not just motivated by state agencies not wanting public
outcry about mandatory euthanasia.

Okay, going out to make some money,

Justin

I am not saying that Justin's arguments are not valid. I'm just saying that if they proved true in Wisconsin, we would stop doing it.

Skunks; the one animal that we always killed and guess what? We lost 90% to disease about 15 years ago. I relocate every skunk that looks decent and they are finally starting to make a comeback. ( If you're catching skunks during an outbreak, doesn't it stand to reason that they might have built up an immunity? )

Squirrels; who cares? They are everywhere. It takes about a week for squirrels to fill in an area. There are few diseases that make it through a Wisconsin winter and we catch more squirrels every year.

Raccoons; the average raccoon will travel between six and ten miles before it settles down, so if I left them go in my backyard, it wouldn't matter. We don't release anything in an area where we think we might run across them again. We prefer dumb animals.

Opossums; if we didn't relocate them we'd have the same one back in the same cage every day for a month.

In conclusion, I realise that a lot of animals that we relocate get run over but then so do a lot of animals period. I have never critized people who kill them, but letting them go on site would never work here. The customer would think that we are just trying to re-infest his house, and so would I. We also never let obviously sick animals go either. I can clearly see how some states might have a disease problem but like I said before, if we were killing our own business, we would stop.

In Vermont State, relocation is not allowed. You can only catch and release on site or euthanize.
You are allow to transport to another location to euthanize only. This is State law do to being a possible Rabies carrier. As a Town Health Officer i have left animals that looked OK to going back two days later to pit them down. This is a hard thing to deal with some times. You think that the animal looks OK and acts all right, so if you let it go, That is one you did not have to put down. When actually you have just killed six or eight instead of just the one from transmission of diseases. Most people do not think about the stress that is put upon a relocated animal that now has no familiar food source or shelter or protection from other predators. Have you really done the animal a favor? You may have just tortured the animal to death with out realizing it. Something to think about.
Just my thoughts,and only my opinion.
Dave

re locate or trans-locate, too different things and many pros and cons. The public out cry is always against euthanizing, not really. The HSUS and those influenced by them are very vocal against mandatory euthanasia laws. My experience with my customer base is they don't really care. A few do and my competition tells me they pay as well as the ones that don't. There is a market of customers that have the emotional drive to seek services that make them feel good. I make my customers feel good by educating them that the solution based service is what they should demand. Release or euthanize is not the being point. I rarely capture the animal anymore and in those cases it never enters the equation. During many talks with regulators on this issue it always seem to be agreeable to take the Old NWCOA Policy on relocation/trans-location to the table and it seems that it was always accepted. Issue was how to write a rule or law to implement a biologically sound policy using political boundaries. Justin wrote about home territories or boundaries begin 5 to 40 miles depending on the species.
Let me back up here and say the old policy was to not move an animal outside its normal home range. There is a neutral effect if you don't move the animal outside where it lives, DUH. Problem with this is you would have to write a rule for each animal species to reflect the home range and even fi you said no raccoon can be moved more than 5 miles you might be moving him out of his home range, i.e. across a natural boundary like a river system.
Best that we ever can up with was political boundaries like County Lines. Here in Indiana we can release in the county of capture with permission. So if I have a customer that whats release they can find a person in their county to give us permission. I have yet to have a customer offer a release site.

Paul you and I have chewed this issue up before, we both come with the same stuff each time, but I still enjoy seeing the various sides
and arguments, it only makes me think more and that is always good.

Dave, appreciate you sharing your thoughts, everyone I know bases their work on experience, what they see happen and other socio-economic
or political issues along with the biological ones.

I know that I don't have all the answers, but I do know I normally present another side, as I work in a state with different politics than some and
different habitats and populations of the common nwco wildlife.

Tim, I've had a ton of conversations with the public about euthanasia versus relocation and abundantly folks want relocation because they've been taught
it is the best deal. Not sure who taught them, but it is the most common statement out of a clients mouth "so you'll take the animal to a new area?"

A small point of clarity, on the 5-40 miles, I was only referring to dispersal distances (ie. juveniles dispersing) but many species do fall within the home range sizes with those numbers so still stands.

Your comments about the rare capturing anymore reflect my "style" I suppose because if I am working with homes and structures that are built of stucco, and other solid materials that though permeable to the right wildlife, usually once construction defects are fixed or corrected, the building withstands even the animal on site, provided we aren't talking mother raccoon with young still inside or those situations others mention.

As we've discussed before, if someone isn't excluding rather capturing only without fixing the home or structure, obviously whether you relocate or not the "real estate" is still open to the next of that or any other species it suits.

So when we exclude I understand many folks would still like to know "skunky" or the "masked bandit" is now gone up the road somewhere to live out its live, but to me thats a false sense of confidence.

I am fairly amazed daily at the folks who find it hard to imagine that though yes I could remove this skunk from under your shed, that you live in a skunk filled area and soon enough another striped skunk or other species will take up residence if we don't solve the problem.

Do I understand why there is a business model that traps those animals for those clients even though they didn't fix their gaps or holes and exclude? Yes of course I do and I don't take issue with those who do that of course. I just feel I need these folks to know that even if I remove 1 or 5 animals that they must understand they live in good habitat and providing more by not excluding means eventually the issue will return.

We know of course there are good folks everyday running their own live traps, moving their own animals, unbeknownst to anyone and most go to the same green spaces, or in my case, the same park by the river to drop their skunks, squirrels, raccoons, etc....

Paul, if I drop back now to our discussion, I suppose what I'm saying is that wildlife populations are much like a lake or ocean, they have many factors and genetically and biologically there is more going on at any given time than even those who study them can put to paper.

Tim's description of the natural barriers is a good one too, some of the more "glamorous" wildlife diseases like rabies have been blocked at times by rivers, mountains and other geographic barriers, but these barriers don't stop human movement of wildlife. Out here I have clients tell me they took certain species that only dwell in the valley clear out into the deep forest and released them, this was the same in other states I've lived in.

I guess I'd also ask, kindly, if you are telling me you think that your skunk relocations are what saved the skunk populations over time?

Any of this debate is more academic than anything and again, I don't have all the answers, but I am the devils advocate on this issue and I live it
every day in my business.

Nothing but respect for all of those commenting and their opinions,

Justin

Paul I think you mispelled a word.

You meant to say "they are financially starting to make a comeback", didn,t you?

Justin, although I never got the opportunity to go to college, all my offspring have teaching degrees. But since none of them are here at the moment, I will try to convince you as they would.

First of all, we have never had a raccoon test positive for rabies in the state of Wisconsin.

Secondly, we have precious few other rabies vector mammals in our state. ( Did I use the word "vector" correctly? )

Thirdly, I'm not trying to convince anyone reading this to flaunt their laws.

Fourthly, I can completely understand your line of thinking. I'm not naive enough to believe that I could have one iota difference in the populations of anything. ( I have always believed that's God's job ) Okay, it's Ash Wednesday and I just came from chruch.

Fifthly, my eldest daughter has a degree in biology and if I have to, I'll bring in the big guns. ( She's at least as tall as you.)

Paul, you know how much I enjoy debating this issue and a few select others.

I do want to point out though that rabies was not my case in point. Partially because you
and I have been down this road and I knew you'd throw your hat in and point out
that WI hasn't had this rabies issue.

My points are about parvovirus, distemper, parasites and a whole host of others.

I think the topic deserves more thought and that is what I get from these debates.



No need to bring out the big guns!

Justin

I for one would love to see this studied more locally. I know I have heard of reported studies in other States but would like to see it done locally in WI.

Either radio collar or GPS chip some raccoons, skunks, and squirrels before release and lets see where they go, if they survive and for how long, and if they end up in another house.

I am thankful for my State letting us relocate. A large portion of the work we get is educated animals that most likely were trapped once before and found a new home. When the customers can't trap them they call us. We even get calls from customers who hired other companies who couldn't catch them.

If we had to kill everything I would lose 1/3 of my customers who would chose just to keep them in the attic vs. killing them. Yes 1/3......... I cover the territory of a lot of tree hugging hippies!

One of my best customers for the purchase of skunk tube traps relocates.The customer has been relocating for years. The customer has a reputation for caring. Promotes the cause.


Relocation stimulates the cage trap business.

Kirk,

I agree with you 100% relocation absolutely has to drive cage trap and live trap sales, heck a ton of places where I've lived you could rent
them at the pet stores or local farm and fleet.

Nate,

I would happily relocate if I knew it was humane and that I wasn't just putting the animals somewhere to either die or work their way back.
Unfortunately since studies take cash and research is motivated by need, like so much wildlife work, there likely won't be a big push until there
is a reason for it.

I offered literally out of pocket to buy collars on our dime and couldn't get enough backing from our state. I definitely don't want to see folks lose business and your aspect about the trap shy critters getting you more customers is a good angle that I hadn't thought of.

I've had incredible access to a wide range of scientific publications on the subject of relocation/translocation and reintroduction even where people looked at diverse aspects of the aftermath. Before we started our company we went through a literature review to help us decide how to operate and
base our moves in science (which suits us personally). What we found was more than moving enough for me to not do it even if allowed. As you are aware from looking at NM we have a funky deal with raccoon. At least in the most focal areas for people (Albuquerque to Santa Fe) there is a single contract for raccoon through the dept. It is bid on annually and each year we bid, but state that will not take the contract unless they let us verify through radio collaring the success or failure of these relocation efforts. Needless to say the folks in the little yellow trucks are still on the raccoon contract. I can still do raccoon exclusion, can trap them as well, but I must relocate if I catch them, I can't euthanize them unless outwardly ill or sick acting.

I could throw another wrench in and say why do we say you have to relocate raccoon, but we aren't legally allowed to relocate skunks? Many states have this based on rabies concerns, and yet any warm blooded mammal can get rabies and therefore how is moving one allowed and not another?

If you look there is a ton of junk policy and we all know that extends to game laws, and everything under the sun pertaining to wildlife.

Maybe another year or two and I can make it happen here and start doing the research and seeing what happens.

If I knew they would survive and thrive, I'd be all for it, otherwise I see it more as a business model decision for folks and based on money and economics decisions, more than healthy populations of wildlife decisions.

For anyone wondering, yes of course I know I'm running a business and the goal is to make money, I just suppose I fall in the realm of folks who don't fit the traditional category and therefore have many many debates.

Justin