Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 1187–1193 | Cite as

Wildlife Contact Rates at Artificial Feeding Sites in Texas

  • Tyler A. Campbell
  • David B. Long
  • Susan A. Shriner
Article

Abstract

Given the popularity of feeding white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Texas and the increasing amount of corn that is distributed, more information is needed on the impacts of this activity on non-target wildlife. Our objectives were to report visitation, intra- and interspecific contact, and contact rates of wildlife at artificial feeding sites in Texas. Our study was conducted at three sites in Kleberg and Nueces counties, Texas. We trapped animals from February to April and August to September, 2009 and marked animals with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. At each site and season, we placed one feeder system containing a PIT tag reader within 600 m of trap locations. Readers detected PIT tags from a distance of 25 cm. We determined a contact event to occur when two different PIT tags were detected by feeder systems within 5 s. We recorded 62,719 passes by raccoons (Procyon lotor), 103,512 passes by collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu), 2,923 passes by feral swine (Sus scrofa), 1,336 passes by fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), and no passes by opossums (Didelphis virginiana) at feeder systems. For site–season combinations in which contact events occurred, we found intraspecific contact rates (contacts per day) for raccoons, collared peccaries, and feral swine to be 0.81–124.77, 0.69–38.08, and 0.0–0.66, respectively. Throughout our study we distributed ~2,625 kg of whole kernel corn, which resulted in 6,351 contact events between marked wildlife (2.4 contacts per kg of corn). If 136 million kg of corn is distributed in Texas annually, we would expect >5.2 billion unnatural contact events between wildlife would result from this activity each year in Texas. Consequently, we do not believe that it is wise for natural resource managers to maintain artificial feeding sites for white-tailed deer or other wildlife due to pathogen transmission risks.

Keywords

Bait Collared peccary Contact rate Feral swine Passive integrated transponder tag Raccoon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Benton and Texas A&M University-Kingsville for providing access to conduct research. We are grateful to Crysta Brock, Shyla Rabe, Justin Rattan, and Richie Sinclair for assistance in data collection. Financial support was provided by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center. Our mention of commercial products herein is for identification purposes and does not constitute endorsement or censure by the United States Department of Agriculture. All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the National Wildlife Research Center (Permit No. QA-1593).

Ethical Standards

Experiments contained within this manuscript comply with current laws of the United States of America.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alder HL, Roessler EB (1977) Introduction to probability and statistics, 6th edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Boutin S (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Can J Zool 68:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown RD, Cooper SM (2006) The nutritional, ecological, and ethical arguments against baiting and feeding white-tailed deer. Wildl Soc Bull 34:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper SM, Ginnett TF (2000) Potential effects of supplemental feeding of deer on nest predation. Wildl Soc Bull 28:660–666Google Scholar
  5. Cooper SM, Owens MK, Cooper RM, Ginnett TF (2006) Effect of supplemental feeding on spatial distribution and browse utilization by white-tailed deer in semi-arid rangeland. J Arid Environ 66:716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gould FW (1975) Texas plants—a checklist and ecological summary. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansen L (2011) Extensive management. In: Hewitt DG (ed) Biology and management of white-tailed deer. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. Kreeger TJ, Arnemo JM, Raath JP (2002) Handbook of wildlife chemical immobilization, international edition. Wildlife Pharmaceuticals, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  9. Lambert BC, Demarais S (2001) Use of supplemental feed for ungulates by non-target species. Southwest Nat 46:118–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moseley WA, Cooper SM, Hewitt DG, Fulbright TE, DeYoung CA (2011) Effects of supplemental feeding and density of white-tailed deer on rodents. J Wildl Manag 75:675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Donoghue M, Krebs CJ (1992) Effects of supplemental food on snowshoe hare reproduction and juvenile growth at a cyclic population peak. J Anim Ecol 61:631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rattan JM, Higginbotham BJ, Long DB, Campbell TA (2010) Exclusion fencing for feral hogs at white-tailed deer feeders. Tex J Agric Nat Resour 23:83–89Google Scholar
  13. Thompson AK, Samuel MD, Van Deelen TR (2008) Alternative feeding strategies and potential disease transmission in Wisconsin white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manag 72:416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Totton SC, Tinline RR, Rosatte RC, Bigler LL (2002) Contact rates of raccoons (Procyon lotor) at a communal feeding site in rural eastern Ontario. J Wildl Dis 38:313–319Google Scholar
  15. Wilkins N, Brown RD, Steinbach DW (1999) Reducing risks to wildlife from corn contaminated with aflatoxins. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Texas A&M University, Annual Report (1997–1998), College StationGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams BL, Holtfreter RW, Ditchkoff SS, Grand JB (2011) Efficiency of time-lapse intervals and simple baits for camera surveys of wild pigs. J Wildl Manag 75:655–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williamson SJ (2000) Feeding wildlife–just say no!. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Wobeser GA (2006) Essentials of disease in wild animals. Blackwell, AmesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler A. Campbell
    • 1
    • 3
  • David B. Long
    • 1
  • Susan A. Shriner
    • 2
  1. 1.United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research CenterGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research CenterFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.East Wildlife FoundationSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations