Where’s the Tolerance for Wildlife?

People openly express tolerance for other people, but rarely for the wildlife that keeps the environment running properly for their benefit. The “Welcome Your Neighbors” sign pictured here grew out of an idea at Immanuel Mennonite Church in Harrisonburg, VA. The church wanted to reach out to neighbors and neighborhoods to welcome those who come from different backgrounds and places. It would be wonderful if folks would reach out to their wildlife neighbors as well to make them feel more welcomed.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Hoo-boy. If you care about our natural world, the last thing you should do is to read your neighborhood blog. It’s terribly disturbing to see how intolerant of wildlife people tend to be.

 

Recently, one man asked about advice for ridding his yard of an “invasion of chipmunks”. The replies brought me great consternation.

 

I fully expected someone would immediately tell him to get a cat, and it was, indeed, at the top of the list. Despite years of public service announcements by the American Bird Conservancy to inform people that cats kill huge numbers of birds (and many other kinds of animals) every year, a great many folks still believe cats are “natural” predators and useful for controlling “vermin”.

 

People don’t seem to understand that cats are nonselective when it comes to killing prey. “Now numbering well over 100 million in the United States, cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year in the U.S. alone, making cat predation by far the largest source of direct, human-caused mortality to birds.”

 

https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/

 

People also don’t recognize that “vermin” is a derogatory term that serves to implant a negative opinion in the public psyche, which encourages the wanton killing of animals described as such. It suggests that an animal is generally known as a “pest” (another derogatory term) that is dangerous in some way to humans and has no redeeming values. It’s a terrible way to view the organisms that, in fact, all exist to make the Earth habitable for mankind.

 

In the case of chipmunks, these mammals disperse seeds and thus help to replant forests and fields. They also serve as food for a variety of other animals, such as foxes and hawks. The best way to limit their numbers is by way of snakes, another kind of animal people kill needlessly, as evidenced by remarks from social media:

 

“I hate snakes.” “Ugly beast”.

 

Regarding copperheads:

 

· “See y’all don’t get it. For us city slickers the first sight of this snake is not oh cool. It’s more like of F}+{#k.”

 

·    “Copperheads are vicious.”

 

·    “I’m a big gardener and am in the woods daily. It’s one of my fears.”

 

·    “[W]e killed one last summer.”

 

·    “I smashed the copperheads [sic] head with the blunt end of my rake to keep others safe. These copperheads are aggressive as far as I know, no other snake has hissed at me aside from a copperhead.”

 

·    “Very nasty snakes! They bite for any reason at all. We have lost two small dogs to copperhead bites.”

 

·    “[Th]e shovel has been accurate. They have 6 acres of woods in my yard to do their thing. They don’t need to be by my pool to bite my dog (happened) or my grandkids.”

 

·    “Think we all got the point. Be safe and observe your surroundings. Got to do what you have to do. Called survival.”

 

·    “I killed them when I saw them. With dogs, and kids and a wife, I did it for the safety of my family.”

 

Are copperheads venomous? Yes. Are they “vicious”, “aggressive”, or “very nasty”? Absolutely not. They do NOT “bite for any reason at all”. They try to protect themselves (by biting) only when seriously threatened and frightened, as any animal (including dogs and cats) or person would do.

Must you kill venomous snakes for the sake of your dogs, kids, and wife? Not necessarily. If you have decided to move to an area with such snakes, it’s smart to learn to be on the lookout for them around your home. Children and adults alike should never walk around without watching where they are stepping, and they need to remember to never, ever stick their hands or feet where they cannot see if something is there that could harm them.

Don’t think that’s a realistic expectation? Surely you teach your children not to stick their fingers into sockets (death by electrocution) and to look both ways before crossing the road (death by vehicular impact)—both of which are far more likely occurrences when kids are on their own than being injured or killed by a copperhead, especially if brought to the hospital immediately for treatment. Of course, common sense should dictate that very young children should never be outside all by themselves.

 

When it comes to snakes (or wild animals of any kind), you simply need to keep your distance to avoid being injured, and this important truism should be taught to children. Pets, on the other hand, cannot be taught to stay away from snakes; therefore, it’s your responsibility to accompany them outside instead of letting them roam freely.

 

Snakes don’t chase after people or pets; they prefer to be left alone to go on their merry way and strike only when feeling threatened. So, be smart! Stay away from these reptiles and keep your pets and small children away, too.

 

 NATURE ADVICE:

 

Never take advice from neighbors unless you know for a fact they are experts in the subject.

 

For example, regarding chipmunks, a person wrote that they “are very damaging. Many big holes all over the Yard [sic]”. Chipmunks do not make holes all over the yard. This person was probably seeing vole or shrew burrows. Chipmunks hide their burrows.

 

Another person suggested people should call “Critter Control. They will catch and relocate them with Have-a-Heart traps.” Not true. It’s illegal to relocate wildlife. If an animal control service says it will relocate wildlife, the company is being dishonest. Any animals trapped on your property are going to be killed, and perhaps not humanely.

Lastly, the original poster who asked about chipmunks said, “I can shoot them, right?” This person lives in a suburban area and his only concern was that the animal was eating his flowers. Imagine wanting to discharge a gun in a neighborhood where houses are not that far apart and killing animals that are simply trying to survive. Perhaps most disturbing of all, though, is that this man was undoubtedly blaming the wrong critter for his woes. Chipmunks are not herbivorous; they do not eat the greenery of growing plants or their blooms.

 Emerald Ash Borer—Save the Tree, Endanger the Ecosystem

A purple-box survey program was carried out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to detect the spread of Emerald Ash Borers throughout the country. Coated with an “extremely sticky” glue, the numerous traps each caught and killed a large variety of insects (including butterflies) that were viewed as collateral damage by authorities. As very little could be done to halt the spread of EAB, the purple boxes simply served to deplete already-dwindling insect populations.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

Almost 20 years ago, I attended a Virginia Outdoor Writers Association meeting that was held at Mountain Lake near Virginia Tech [VT]. A VT entomologist led us on a walk around the lake. He spoke about the systemic pesticide injections they were using to try to save the hemlock trees from the overly populous nonnative Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) feeding on them.

 

A systemic pesticide is one in which the active chemical ingredients are water soluble so that the pesticide is absorbed by a plant and then circulates throughout the plant’s system. It’s akin to the chemotherapy used to treat cancer patients, except that instead of killing cells within the organism itself, as happens when a person is treated, the chemical kills any critter feeding on any part of the poisonous tree.

 

Therefore, I asked the entomologist if he wasn’t concerned about this effect on nontarget species (i.e., animals other than the adelgid). He answered that he’d never given it any thought.

 

As the saying goes, most folks can’t see the forest for the trees. They are so concerned about having to act to save trees that they lose sight of the bigger picture: the effects of their pesticide usage upon the ecosystem. The adelgid/hemlock scenario is now being played out with the Emerald Ash Borer [EAB].

 

Scientists and environmentalists alike argue that we cannot afford to lose our native trees because they support native insects. But what is the ecological value of using poison to keep alive an ash tree that will attract such critters as the Tiger Swallowtail (the state insect/butterfly of five states, including Virginia where I live) and then kill its caterpillars, among a multitude of other leaf-eating insects?

 

The pesticide Emamectin, recommended for EAB control, is widely used to eradicate “lepidopterous pests”—the caterpillars of moths and butterflies. It doesn’t discriminate between the larvae people want to get rid of and the ones they don’t. Imidiclopid can be used instead, but this pesticide has been implicated in the deaths of honey bees.

 

I’ve read that “Only about two-thirds of a teaspoon of active ingredient is used to treat the entire tree.” This statement suggests that the quantity of insecticide used is insignificant, but the quantity isn’t important—the effect is.

 

A catastrophic result of treating trees with an injected pesticide is that those trees become perpetual killing agents. In this time of increased environmental consciousness, most folks understand that the wanton extermination of non-targeted species is unsound.

 

You might think these animals are doomed to die anyway if the ash trees aren’t rescued, but that’s not necessarily true. Most of these insects are generalists that can feed upon a variety of plant species, but they won’t be able to move along to other plants if they are dispatched by the pesticide in your trees.

 

People shouldn’t be so willing to accept the poisoning of the creatures upon which the functioning of our environment depends. Rather than providing cost-share programs that monetarily assist folks to exterminate numerous species of arthropods, government should have spent its (our) money more wisely by paying citizens to collect ash seeds that could have been preserved to be planted after borer populations have plummeted—as they will.

 

As soon as large ash trees are greatly reduced in number, most of the borers will starve for lack of a food source. Meanwhile, a natural buildup of predator populations will have taken place to keep remaining borer populations in check.

 

I’ve lived at my nature-friendly and pesticide-free property for over 35 years, and native predators have always kept the numbers of Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) and Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica) limited to such a low level that I rarely see them. They are not at all problematic for my plants.

 

It should be noted that poisoning the Earth with chemicals has never solved nonnative-insect problems. Despite spending many millions of taxpayer dollars on pesticides, we still have Gypsy Moths (in the country since 1869) and Japanese Beetles (here since 1916).

 

The course of action to take cannot be based solely upon hysteria that makes people think, “We’ve got to do something (anything!).” Mother Nature can handle this situation far better than humans because the natural system of checks and balances works—far more sensibly and safely than our misguided efforts with pesticides.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

You might want to reconsider obtaining free leaves from friends and local government-run programs. Given people’s propensity these days to employ pesticides, you may be adding poisons to your garden. Yikes!