Many people who move to the outskirts of urban areas or visit these areas seem to forget that with wild land comes wildlife.
Interactions between humans and wildlife have become more commonplace in the expanding towns and suburbs of the Bow Valley.
The suburban patchwork of wooded and open areas offers an abundance of habitat, which certain species of wildlife is adept at exploiting. Here, wild animals find plentiful sources of food, water, and shelter.
With increased wildlife activity in urbanized areas comes increased numbers of interactions with people. Human-caused changes in the environment, coupled with changes in human behaviour toward wildlife, often results in the development of serious human-wildlife conflicts.
For some members of the general public, the lack of concern and awareness is a major problem and is possibly the root of human-wildlife conflict.
While most people welcome the opportunity to see wildlife, others respond to the presence of a wild animal in their midst with fear and panic. Such fears are often bolstered by alarmist media stories. But people tend to think in very short time spans. What they see as a problem, they want gone.
It is those who want wildlife out of their communities who are the most vocal, and thus the communities’ initial response may be knee-jerk and short-sighted.
Although lethal approaches allow officials to tell the public that they are actually “doing something” about the situation, the effectiveness of these killing programs in reducing conflicts is short-lived at best. Killing animals to reduce numbers in the long term may also prove to be ineffective, especially when a species is mobile.
Public opposition to lethal control, “the killing of animals,” is increasing, particularly in urbanized landscapes, and public officials are beginning to realize that broad-scale killing efforts to manage wildlife may create an undesirable public relations nightmare, especially if the methods employed are viewed as cruel.
Opposition to lethal control often arises because of animal welfare concerns related to the methods used, especially the potential for pain and suffering before losing consciousness after application of lethal methods.
Harm may also include indirect effects on non target animals such as starvation of dependent young, disruption of social groups, and disruption of ecological systems.
It is clear that lethal control efforts to manage wildlife numbers and human-wildlife conflicts have largely failed, but to assume that non-lethal methods cause less severe harm is not always the case. Relocation can result in severe welfare problems and even death if animals cannot secure shelter, food, water, and territory in a new environment.
The only way forward is to implement solutions ... humane, practical solutions that have the real potential to prevent conflicts with wildlife wherever they occur.
Efforts to resolve human-wildlife conflicts from the bottom up, at the community level, have a greater potential for creating long-lasting results with broad public support.
This diversity of interests calls for an open process of community engagement informed by relevant science. An ethical review process with proper governance and resources could be a way to include scientific and technical expertise while ensuring community values and informed decisions.
Collaboration among local government agencies, Parks Canada, wildlife and conservation organizations, animal protection groups, concerned citizens, constituents within local communities, is essential to the long-term success of any wildlife conflict mitigation program.
Outlining proactive measures for managing conflicts is a call to action for land and homeowners, business owners, policymakers, and communities within the Bow Valley.
Whether the aim is to reduce wildlife predation or keep people and pets safe, the approach must have the potential to change attitudes towards wildlife and to create effective and long-lasting solutions in these communities.
The goal of any community that is attempting to address increasing wildlife encounters should be one of educated coexistence that fosters an understanding and appreciation of the role wildlife play in healthy ecosystems and the need to keep them wild.
This can only be achieved through proactive and sustained public education and outreach efforts. Such collaborative efforts ensure that agencies, stakeholders and the public are held accountable for their actions, and that animal welfare and ecological integrity are integral components of these efforts.
The creation of a community-based wildlife management program can provide a collaborative effort to develop common ground among a wide array of stakeholders.
By increasing our knowledge and understanding of wildlife species, we can help support development of effective and humane approaches to human-wildlife conflicts, and can shape a future in which humans and wild animals can live together more peacefully.
The first step is to recognize that it’s not a wildlife problem. It’s a people problem.
Patricia Gray,
Canmore
