Reducing harmful impacts on wildlife

When building construction projects like solar panels, apartments and airplanes, developers must consider how these structures can best serve humans. However, experts argue that there is another population to consider while designing new infrastructure: wildlife.

While a bird strike is unlikely to crash a plane, the Federal Aviation Administration reports that an average of 47 birds strike aircraft daily. These strikes are usually deadly for birds and cause around $900 million in damage to American civil and military aircraft each year.

However, this is only a small percentage of wildlife impacted by human activity. Colleen Olfenbuttel, the chair of the Wildlife Damage Management Working Group, says that increased urbanization has led to a loss of habitat, diseases and the introduction of invasive species in ecosystems.

Wildlife Damage Management (WDM) was created to alleviate this problem. It is the process of mitigating conflicts caused by the presence of animals. WDM seeks to reduce damage to a tolerable level using methods that are cost effective and safe for humans and the environment.

According to the National Wildlife Control Training Program website, WDM experts utilize many non-lethal strategies to reduce wildlife conflicts. These methods include installing fencing, spraying bug repellent or other ways to exclude wildlife from places they cause damage. In more drastic cases, WDM experts may trap or use chemicals to remove animals from an area.

Travis Devault, an associate director for research at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, said that three-fourths of aircraft strikes happen at airports. He says that airport grasslands attract birds and other wildlife that feed in these areas but can get hit by moving planes. His colleagues are conducting research about grasslands to deter wildlife from these areas.

Other scientists are working more broadly to manage invasive species populations and diseases in urban areas. Wildlife ecologist Jon Cepek has worked on projects managing invasive feral swine populations in Ohio and eliminating terrestrial rabies in the U.S.

“Much of our time should be spent dealing with human behavior,” Cepek says. “In the modern world, where humans have changed everything in wildlife damage management, we need to consider the effects of people on wildlife behavior and wildlife populations.”

However, researcher Roger Baldwin writes that while experts have the tools to manage human-wildlife conflict, increasing regulation and changing public opinion limits what can be done.

In order to implement long-term solutions to wildlife-human conflicts, Cepek emphasizes that, although challenging, WDM experts must sometimes target human behavior. “[But] if we can help the public become aware of the influence they have on wildlife, they can learn to mitigate negative behaviors on their own and consider behaviors that have a positive effect on human-wildlife coexistence,” he said.