Technical ReportPDF Available

Nuisance nature on farms in Nova Scotia, Canada

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This report describes the results of a survey of Nova Scotia farmers in April-July, 2014,. The survey was titled Nuisance Nature, and asked farmers to: - identify plants and animals they would consider a nuisance; - to describe the nature and extent of the nuisance; - to describe how they deal with it; - whether they experience any benefits from the species; and, - whether – on balance – they would rather have the species or not
Content may be subject to copyright.
0
September 2014
Survey Report
Kate Goodale & Kate Sherren
School for Resource and
Environmental Studies
Dalhousie University
Nuisance Nature
on Nova Scotia Farms
1
DISCLAIMER: This work was funded by the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and in collaboration with the Nova Scotia Federation of
Agriculture, but the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily consistent with those organizations.
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................3
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................4
Respondent Demographics .................................................................................................................4
Regions ..........................................................................................................................................4
Farming as primary income .............................................................................................................4
Farmer Gender ...............................................................................................................................5
Farming Type ..................................................................................................................................5
Farmer Education ...........................................................................................................................5
Farmer Age.....................................................................................................................................6
Animals ..............................................................................................................................................6
Top Four Nuisance Species: Regionally .............................................................................................7
Nuisance Species by Commodity Type ..............................................................................................8
Nature of Nuisance .........................................................................................................................9
How acceptable is the loss from this species? ................................................................................. 10
Was compensation paid? .............................................................................................................. 11
Methods of coping with species ..................................................................................................... 12
Did you seek help from government? ............................................................................................. 13
Cultural Services Provided ................................................................................................................. 13
All Species .................................................................................................................................... 13
Top Four Species ........................................................................................................................... 17
Cultural Services and Full-time versus Part-time Farmers ................................................................ 17
Overall ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Plants............................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix.......................................................................................................................................... 23
2
Tables
Table 1: Count of farm commodities ....................................................................................................5
Table 2: Distribution of education level ................................................................................................5
Table 3: Nuisance species identified by farmers, by frequency of mention .............................................6
Table 4: Distribution of location of top four nuisance species. ...............................................................7
Table 5: Percentage of respondents indicating a top species by region ..................................................7
Table 6: Distribution of mentions of nuisance species by the total number of respondents in each
commodity. ...........................................................................................................................8
Table 7: Nature of the nuisance for each species ..................................................................................9
Table 8: Distributions of responses indicating acceptability of loss for species mentioned at a minimum
of five times ......................................................................................................................... 10
Table 9: Distribution (count) of responses to whether compensation was paid..................................... 11
Table 10: Count of species for which help from the government was sought to cope with
the nuisance ........................................................................................................................ 13
Table 11: Count of responses to "I enjoy the presence of this species". ................................................ 14
Table 12: Count of responses to "This species provides an educational opportunity". ........................... 15
Table 13: Count of responses to "The presence of this species indicates that my land is healthy". ......... 16
Table 14: Summary of overall desire to have the species ..................................................................... 20
Table 15: Acceptability of loss from plants ......................................................................................... 21
Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Region...................................................................................4
Figure 2: Methods of coping with the top four species, number of times respondent selected .............. 12
Figure 3: Mean of responses to cultural services provided by the top four species................................ 17
Figure 4: Distribution of "I enjoy the presence of this species" between full and part-time farmers ....... 18
Figure 5: Distribution of responses to "Provides an educational opportunity", by full and part-time
farmers................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 6: Distribution of responses to "Indicates my land is healthy" by full and part-time farmers........ 19
3
Executive Summary
This report describes the results of a survey of Nova Scotia farmers in April-July, 2014, with a response
rate of 13%. The survey was titled Nuisance Nature, and asked farmers to:
identify plants and animals they would consider a nuisance
to describe the nature and extent of the nuisance
to describe how they deal with it;
whether they experience any benefits from the species; and,
whether on balance they would rather have the species or not.
Respondents were broadly representative of farmers in Nova Scotia. The most commonly mentioned
nuisance species were deer, coyote, raccoon and bear, in that order, all of which were nominated by
more than 30% of farmers (+/- approximately 9%, at a 90% confidence level). Generally, respondents
were quite negative toward all the species they listed. This is of no surprise, as they were asked to
identify nuisance species. There were some notable differences, however, between certain species,
particularly deer and coyotesspecies that were indicated as a nuisance by the majority of all
respondents.
Respondents indicated that losses as a result of both coyotes and deer are largely unacceptable. Losses
by deer were somewhat more acceptable. Respondents were asked to indicate if compensation for their
losses had been paid by ticking a box. Many respondents opted to write in “no”. This was particularly
notable amongst respondents who indicated deer as a nuisance, suggesting that a lack of compensation
for losses as a result of deer is an important issue for this group of farmers; for those growing field
crops, beef, and fruit (including blueberry, orchard and vineyard) and woodlot owners it was the most
common nuisance species listed.
Respondents did, however, experience some cultural benefits (aka cultural ecosystem services) from
these same species. While respondents listing coyotes as a nuisance did not agree with many
statements regarding ecosystem services provided by the species, some respondents agreed that
coyotes do provide some educational opportunities and that the species is an indicator of land health.
Opinions were quite mixed for deer. Many respondents agreed that they enjoyed the presence of deer,
but were in less agreement as to whether the species was an indicator of land health or provided an
educational opportunity. This pattern was only observed for deer out of the top four species. For coyote,
bear, and racoon, the opposite was observed: the mean scores were lower (indicating less agreement)
for enjoyment of the presence, but higher (indicating more agreement) for both educational
opportunities and indicators of land health.
On balance and regardless of specific species, generally respondents would rather not have the species
than have the species. This is overwhelmingly the case for coyotes, as the vast majority of respondents
indicating coyotes selected this option. Deer, beaver, coyote and fox were the only species (indicated by
a minimum of five respondents) that respondents might rather have than not have.
4
Introduction
A random sample of 625 farmers from the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture’s mailing list was
mailed a survey on April 21st 2014. Of the 625, 82 surveys were returned yielding a response rate of
13%. Once incomplete addresses and other erroneous surveys were eliminated, 79 useable surveys
were used for analysis. If those receiving the survey did not consider any species to be a nuisance, they
were asked simply to fill out the demographic information and return it with the animal and/or plant
sections blank, as appropriate. Out of all of the Nova Scotian respondents, three mentioned no animals
at all, and 23 mentioned no plant species.
Respondent Demographics
Regions
Counties are grouped together for analysis into “regional agricultural territories”:
Cape Breton:
Inverness ,Victoria, Richmond, Cape Breton
Eastern:
Antigonish, Pictou, Guysborough
Central:
Cumberland, Colchester, Halifax
Valley:
Hants, Kings, Lunenburg, Queens
Western:
Annapolis, Digby, Shelburne, Yarmouth
Over half of the respondents came from the dominant agricultural areas of Central and Valley (Figure 1)
Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Region
Farming as primary income
Respondents were asked to indicate if farming was their primary income source. 60% of respondents
(n=46) indicated “Yes”, 40% (n=31) indicated “No”.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cape Breton (n=17) Eastern (n=8) Central (n=19) Valley (n=23) Western (n=8)
Percentage %
5
Farmer Gender
Respondents were asked to indicate if they were male or female (or preferred not to say). 79% of
respondents indicated they were male (n=61), 21% indicated they were female (n=16).
Farming Type
Respondents were asked to check off what commodities they produced from a list of options. Some
respondents checked more than one box. Field crops, woodlots and cattle (beef) were the most
frequently selected (Table 1).
Table 1: Count of farm commodities
Farmer Education
Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education completed. “Technical degree” (for
example, agricultural college) was the most frequently selected, followed by bachelor and high school
graduates (Table 2).
Table 2: Distribution of education level
Commodity
Field Crops
Woodlot
Beef
Blueberries
Orchard
Sheep
Poultry
Dairy
Christmas Trees
Vineyard
Fur
Education type
Percent
Frequency
technical degree
41%
31
bachelor's degree
17%
13
high school grad
13%
10
graduate degree
11%
8
some bachelor
9%
7
some graduate
5%
4
some high school
3%
2
grade nine and less
1%
1
6
Farmer Age
Respondents were asked to indicate the year they were born. The average respondent was 57.7 years
old (std dev=10.9). The youngest respondent was 30, and the eldest 84.
Animals
Respondents were asked to identify what animals they deemed a nuisance. Deer, coyote, racoon and
bear were the most frequently mentioned. Over half of all respondents mentioned deer or coyotes
(Table 3).
Table 3: Nuisance species identified by farmers, by frequency of mention
animal
Freq.
Percent of total
mentions
Percent of farmers
mentioning
Confidence
Interval of farmers
mentioning (90%)
deer
51
17%
65%
+/- 8.66 %
coyotes
44
15%
56%
+/- 9.02 %
racoon
29
10%
37%
+/- 8.77%
bear
26
9%
33%
+/- 8.54%
rodents
16
5%
20%
+/- 7.27%
songbirds
15
5%
19%
+/- 7.13%
crows
14
5%
18%
+/- 6.98%
beaver
12
4%
15%
+/- 6.49%
geese
10
3%
13%
+/- 6.11%
porcupine
10
3%
13%
+/- 6.11%
raptors
8
3%
10%
<10 obs.
seagull
7
2%
9%
<10 obs.
fox
6
2%
8%
<10 obs.
ground hog
6
2%
8%
<10 obs.
humans
5
2%
6%
<10 obs.
skunk
5
2%
6%
<10 obs.
pigeon
4
1%
5%
<10 obs.
cats
3
1%
4%
<10 obs.
squirrels
3
1%
4%
<10 obs.
aphids
2
1%
3%
<10 obs.
duck
2
1%
3%
<10 obs.
pheasant
2
1%
3%
<10 obs.
tick
2
1%
3%
<10 obs.
weasels
2
1%
3%
<10 obs.
cougar
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
meadow hen
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
mite
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
moose
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
muskrat
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
otters
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
owl
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
rabbit
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
wild turkey
1
0%
1%
<10 obs.
TOTAL
293
7
Top Four Nuisance Species: Regionally
Out of the top four species, the distribution of where those respondents reside is summarized in Table
4. There is a somewhat similar distribution of mentions of the top four species, with the exception of
bear, where the majority of bear complaints are from the central part of the province. The percentage of
respondents from each region that identified deer, coyote, bear, or racoon, as a nuisance species is
summarized in Table 5.
Table 4: Distribution of location of top four nuisance species (Overall n may not match frequencies in Table 3 because not all
respondents who nominated species gave their location).
Cape Breton
Eastern
Central
Valley
Western
Deer N
5
7
14
16
4
n=46 %
11%
15%
30%
35%
9%
Coyotes N
8
5
8
10
5
n=36 %
22%
14%
22%
28%
14%
Racoon N
2
3
6
11
5
n=27 %
7%
11%
22%
41%
19%
Bear N
4
3
14
1
1
n=23 %
17%
13%
61%
4%
4%
Table 5: Percentage of respondents indicating a top species by region
Deer
Coyote
Racoon
Bear
Cape Breton
N
5
8
2
4
n=17
%
29%
47%
12%
24%
Eastern
N
7
5
3
3
n=8
%
88%
63%
38%
38%
Central
N
14
8
6
14
n=19
%
74%
42%
32%
74%
Valley
N
16
10
11
1
n=23
%
70%
43%
48%
4%
Western
N
4
5
5
1
n=8
%
50%
63%
63%
13%
8
Nuisance Species by Commodity Type
For each commodity, the percentage of farmers reporting one of the top four species is consistent with
the overall distribution of reporting of the top four species. A few commodities do stand out: all but one
poultry and sheep farmer listed coyotes as a nuisance (Table 6); bears were considered most of a
nuisance to blueberry and dairy farmers. 83% of Christmas tree growers indicated coyote as a nuisance,
however it should be noted that there are only six Christmas tree growers in the sample, which may
artificially inflate this proportion.
It should be noted that as the list goes down, there are fewer farmers that selected those commodity
types.
Table 6: Distribution of mentions of nuisance species by the total number of respondents in each commodity
Deer
Coyote
Racoon
Bear
Field Crops (n=48)
69%
65%
44%
33%
Woodlot (n=38)
74%
71%
39%
32%
Beef (n=24)
71%
67%
29%
29%
Blueberries (n=18)
89%
56%
22%
61%
Orchard(n=14)
79%
36%
43%
7%
Sheep (n=11)
55%
100%
45%
45%
Poultry (n=8)
50%
88%
63%
25%
Dairy (n=8)
38%
63%
63%
50%
Christmas Trees (n=6)
67%
83%
50%
17%
Vineyard (n=5)
80%
20%
60%
0%
Fur (n=4)
0%
0%
25%
0%
9
Nature of Nuisance
Respondents were asked to check a box, or write in the nature of the nuisance for each species. Crop
damage was the most frequently identified nuisance, followed by harm to livestock (Table 7).
Table 7: Nature of the nuisance for each species, count of the number of times nuisance types were selected
crop damage
harm to
livestock
threat to
personal safety
property
damage
TOTAL
coyotes
6
28
29
0
63
deer
49
1
5
4
59
bear
18
10
10
8
46
racoon
19
12
7
2
40
rodents
10
3
4
4
21
songbirds
12
2
0
3
17
beaver
6
0
0
10
16
porcupine
6
4
4
1
15
crows
8
3
0
2
13
geese
9
0
0
0
9
ground hog
4
1
1
3
9
raptors
0
8
0
0
8
humans
3
1
2
1
7
seagull
5
2
0
0
7
fox
0
4
2
0
6
pigeon
0
2
1
1
4
tick
0
1
2
0
3
aphids
2
0
0
0
2
cats
0
2
0
0
2
cougar
0
1
1
0
2
pheasant
2
0
0
0
2
skunk
1
1
0
0
2
squirrels
0
0
0
2
2
weasels
0
2
0
0
2
wild turkey
1
0
1
0
2
duck
1
0
0
0
1
meadow hen
1
0
0
0
1
mite
0
1
0
0
1
moose
0
0
0
1
1
owl
0
1
0
0
1
rabbit
1
0
0
0
1
Total
164
90
69
42
365
10
How acceptable is the loss from this species?
Respondents were asked to indicate how acceptable the loss was (on a scale of one to five) as a result of
the species (Table 8). Losses are generally unacceptable to all respondents. Over half of respondents
indicated that losses as a result of coyotes, rodents, beaver, crows, songbirds, seagulls, and geese, were
completely unacceptable. Deer are still largely unacceptable, but they are more acceptable than other
species. Deer are also the only species that any respondent indicated the loss as “completely
acceptable”.
A mean score was calculated indicating the overall acceptability of the loss accrued as a result of the
species. The more negative the score, the more unacceptable is the loss. The summary of the
acceptability of loss by part- and full-time farmers can be found in the appendix.
Table 8: Distributions of responses indicating acceptability of loss for species mentioned at a minimum of five times
Species
Completely
Unacceptable
(-2)
Somewhat
Unacceptable
(-1)
Indifferent
(0)
Somewhat
Acceptable
(+1)
Completely
Acceptable
(+2)
mean
C.I. of
mean (CL
90%)
Total
Deer
N
11
16
3
3
4
-0.73
+/-
37
%
30%
43%
8%
8%
11%
0.348
Coyotes
N
13
7
3
1
0
-1.33
+/-
24
%
54%
29%
13%
4%
0%
0.30
Racoon
N
8
11
1
1
0
-1.24
+/-
21
%
38%
52%
5%
5%
0%
0.21
Bear
N
6
11
2
0
0
-1.21
+/-
19
%
32%
58%
11%
0%
0%
0.25
Rodents
N
7
4
1
0
0
-1.50
+/-
12
%
58%
33%
8%
0%
0%
0.348
Beaver
N
5
4
0
0
0
-1.56
<10
9
%
56%
44%
0%
0%
0%
obs
Crows
N
5
4
0
0
0
-1.56
<10
9
%
56%
44%
0%
0%
0%
obs
Porcupine
N
4
2
0
3
0
-0.78
<10
9
%
44%
22%
0%
33%
0%
sample
Songbirds
N
6
2
0
0
0
-1.75
<10
8
%
75%
25%
0%
0%
0%
obs
Seagull
N
5
2
0
0
0
-1.71
<10
7
%
71%
29%
0%
0%
0%
obs
Geese
N
3
2
1
0
0
-1.33
<10
6
%
50%
33%
17%
0%
0%
obs
11
Was compensation paid?
Respondents were only asked to tick a box if compensation was paid, but many chose to write in “no”.
This suggests that not having any compensation paid is an important issue for many farmers. Damages
as a result of deer were most frequently listed as not having received compensation (Table 9).
Table 9: Distribution (count) of responses to whether compensation was paid
animal
No
Yes
Total
deer
13
2
15
bear
6
5
11
coyotes
5
4
9
racoon
5
2
7
seagull
3
0
3
songbirds
3
0
3
beaver
2
0
2
crows
2
0
2
duck
2
0
2
geese
2
0
2
porcupine
2
0
2
raptors
2
0
2
aphids
1
0
1
fox
1
0
1
ground hog
1
0
1
meadow hen
1
0
1
muskrat
1
0
1
otters
1
0
1
pheasant
1
0
1
pigeon
1
0
1
rodents
1
0
1
squirrels
1
0
1
Total
57
13
70
12
Methods of coping with species
Respondents were asked to indicate how they have coped with the species they listed. It is possible for
more than one answer to be selected, thus Figure 2 represents the percentage of respondents indicating
one of the top four species using a method. A complete table of all responses for all species can be
found in the appendix.
The farmers who find coyotes a nuisance most often shoot them to eliminate the nuisance, and to a
lesser extent shoot them for fur harvest. Deer are generally hunted for food/sport, or physical barriers
such as fences are erected to help deter them. Farmers use a range of different methods to cope with
raccoons, but the respondents who found raccoons a nuisance most often shot them to eliminate the
nuisance. There seem to be fewer methods used to cope with bear, but erecting physical barriers was
the most common method employed by the farmers in this sample.
Figure 2: Methods of coping with the top four species, percentage of respondents using each method of those who indicated
one of the top four species. Columns above no method indicate the absence of selection of any method.
13
Did you seek help from government?
Out of all Nova Scotian respondents, 26 (33%) sought help from government to deal with the nuisance.
Coyotes, deer, bear and geese were the most frequently identified nuisance species for which help from
the government was sought (Table 10).
Table 10: Count of species for which help from the government was sought to cope with the nuisance
Animal
Total Count
coyotes
10
deer
9
bear
7
geese
6
beaver
5
racoon
2
songbirds
2
cougar
1
duck
1
humans
1
raptors
1
seagull
1
TOTAL
46
Cultural Services Provided
All Species
Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements
regarding the potential cultural services provided by the species identified. A mean score was calculated
by using the numeric equivalent of the responses: 1-completely disagree to 5-completely agree. The
higher the score out of five, the more the respondents agreed with the statement.
Scores out of five were generally lower for the statement “I enjoy the presence of this species” (Table
11) compared to the scores for the statements “This species provides an educational opportunity”
(Table 12) and “This species indicates my land is healthy” (Table 13).
Looking at the top four species listed, an interesting pattern emerges: Respondents were generally
much more positive toward deer, indicated by the higher mean score. For deer, however, the highest
mean score is from the statement: “I enjoy the presence of this species”. The score is somewhat lower
for the remaining two questions. For coyote, racoon, and bear, the opposite pattern emerges. For these
species respondents are in greater agreement with the statements “This species provides an educational
opportunity” and “This species indicates my land is healthy”, compared to “I enjoy the presence of this
species”. Mean scores were, however, consistently higher for deer compared to other species.
14
Table 11: Count of responses to "I enjoy the presence of this species". Most frequent answer bolded for each species where
that value >1.
animal
Completely
Disagree
(1)
Somewhat
Disagree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Completely
Agree
(5)
Mean
Score
Total
deer
6
3
5
22
5
3.4
41
coyotes
20
7
2
5
1
1.9
35
racoon
15
4
4
2
1
1.8
26
bear
7
5
2
7
0
2.4
21
rodents
14
0
0
0
1
1.3
15
crows
6
4
2
2
0
2.0
14
songbirds
6
2
3
0
1
2.0
12
geese
2
2
4
2
0
2.6
10
porcupine
5
0
1
3
1
2.5
10
beaver
4
1
1
4
0
2.5
10
raptors
1
2
0
2
2
3.3
7
seagull
6
1
0
0
0
1.1
7
fox
1
1
0
3
0
3.0
5
ground hog
2
2
1
0
0
1.8
5
skunk
3
1
0
0
0
1.3
4
pigeon
1
0
1
0
1
3.0
3
squirrels
1
0
1
1
0
2.7
3
cats
3
0
0
0
0
1.0
3
pheasant
0
0
1
1
0
3.5
2
aphids
1
0
1
0
0
2.0
2
tick
1
0
1
0
0
2.0
2
duck
1
1
0
0
0
1.5
2
humans
2
0
0
0
0
1.0
2
moose
0
0
0
0
1
5.0
1
rabbit
0
0
0
0
1
5.0
1
cougar
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
owl
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
muskrat
0
0
1
0
0
3.0
1
otters
0
0
1
0
0
3.0
1
meadow hen
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
mite
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
TOTAL
111
36
32
56
15
250
15
Table 12: Count of responses to "This species provides an educational opportunity". Most frequent answer bolded for each
species where that value >1.
animal
Completely
Disagree
(1)
Somewhat
Disagree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Completely
Agree
(5)
Mean
Score
Total
deer
10
3
7
16
4
3.0
40
coyotes
20
1
4
6
2
2.1
33
racoon
14
2
6
2
1
2.0
25
bear
5
3
4
6
1
2.7
19
rodents
14
0
0
0
0
1.0
14
crows
5
2
2
4
0
2.4
13
songbirds
7
2
2
0
1
1.8
12
porcupine
3
1
2
3
1
2.8
10
geese
4
2
1
1
0
1.9
8
beaver
2
2
2
2
0
2.5
8
seagull
7
0
0
0
0
1.0
7
raptors
2
2
0
2
1
2.7
7
skunk
3
0
0
1
0
1.8
4
ground hog
2
1
0
0
1
2.3
4
fox
1
0
1
2
0
3.0
4
cats
3
0
0
0
0
1.0
3
tick
2
0
0
0
0
1.0
2
aphids
1
0
0
1
0
2.5
2
duck
1
0
0
1
0
2.5
2
pigeon
1
1
0
0
0
1.5
2
pheasant
0
0
0
1
1
4.5
2
squirrels
0
1
0
0
1
3.5
2
humans
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
meadow hen
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
mite
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
cougar
0
0
1
0
0
3.0
1
muskrat
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
otters
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
owl
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
rabbit
0
0
0
0
1
5.0
1
TOTAL
111
23
32
51
15
232
16
Table 13: Count of responses to "The presence of this species indicates that my land is healthy". Most frequent answer
bolded for each species where that value >1.
animal
Completely
Disagree
(1)
Somewhat
Disagree
(2)
Indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
Agree
(4)
Completely
Agree
(5)
Mean
Score
Total
deer
10
3
10
14
7
3.1
44
coyotes
11
3
9
8
4
2.7
35
racoon
10
3
10
1
1
2.2
25
bear
6
2
5
7
2
2.9
22
crows
4
0
5
4
0
2.7
13
songbirds
7
1
2
1
1
2.0
12
rodents
6
0
2
2
2
2.5
12
porcupine
4
0
3
2
1
2.6
10
beaver
1
0
3
5
1
3.5
10
geese
3
1
2
3
0
2.6
9
seagull
4
0
1
1
1
2.3
7
raptors
1
0
1
3
2
3.7
7
ground hog
2
0
1
0
1
2.5
4
skunk
2
1
0
0
1
2.3
4
fox
1
0
1
2
0
3.0
4
cats
3
0
0
0
0
1.0
3
pigeon
1
0
1
0
1
3.0
3
tick
2
0
0
0
0
1.0
2
aphids
1
0
1
0
0
2.0
2
duck
1
0
0
1
0
2.5
2
pheasant
1
0
0
1
0
2.5
2
squirrels
1
0
1
0
0
2.0
2
humans
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
meadow hen
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
mite
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
0
0
1.0
1
cougar
0
0
1
0
0
3.0
1
muskrat
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
otters
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
owl
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
rabbit
0
0
0
1
0
4.0
1
weasels
0
0
1
0
0
3.0
1
Total
86
14
60
59
25
244
17
Top Four Species
Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with a series of statements indicating some of the
potential benefits that arise from the nuisance species they identify. Looking at the top four
species(Figure 3), there is a general disdain for both coyotes and racoons. The majority of respondents
did not at all enjoy the presence of these species, or believe they provide an educational opportunity.
Opinions were a bit more divided when considering if either racoon or coyote indicated land health.
The majority of respondents at agreed they at least somewhat enjoyed the presence of deer, and they
were seen as an indicator of land health or an educational opportunity to a lesser extent.
The distribution of opinions regarding bear were much more diverse compared to the rest of the top
four species.
Figure 3: Mean of responses to cultural services provided by the top four species, standard deviation indicated by italicized
numbers
Cultural Services and Full-time versus Part-time Farmers
It is anticipated respondents who are full- or a part-time farmers will have different perceptions of the
potential cultural services provided by species. Looking at the top four species, both full-time and part-
time farmers share a similar distribution in regards to their enjoyment of the presence of deer and
coyotes (Figure 4). Opinions are a bit more divided between full- and part-time farmers for racoon and
bear, with part-time farmers being slightly more positive. It should be noted, however, that there are
fewer part-time farmers, resulting in a slightly skewed distribution.
Compared to full-time, part-time farmers are less likely to consider coyotes or racoon as an educational
opportunity (Figure 5). There is less agreement between full- and part-time farmers with regards to any
of the top four species as an indicator of land health (Figure 6). Part-time farmers are more negative
toward racoons and coyotes than full-time farmers. A summary of the mean scores for each species by
full- and part-time farmers can be found in the appendix.
1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Enjoy the Presence Educational Opportunity Indicator of Land Health
Deer
Coyote
Racoon
Bear
18
Figure 4: Distribution of "I enjoy the presence of this species" between full and part-time farmers
Figure 5: Distribution of responses to "Provides an educational opportunity", by full and part-time farmers
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
deer coyotes racoon bear
full-time
part-time
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
deer coyotes racoon bear
full-time
part-time
19
Figure 6: Distribution of responses to "Indicates my land is healthy" by full and part-time farmers
Overall
Respondents were asked: overall would you rather (1) have the species, despite the costs (2) not have
the species because of the costs (3) unsure. Out of the responses listed two times or more: deer,
raptors, fox and pheasant were the only species where the majority of those who indicated the species
would rather, on balance, have the species (Table 14). The rest of the species the respondents would
rather not have.
A summary table of the overall desire to have species divided by full- and part-time farmers, as well as
by commodity, can be found in the appendix.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Indifferent
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree
deer coyotes racoon bear
full-time
part-time
20
Table 14: Summary of overall desire to have the species. Mean scores for each species were calculated by taking the average
of the numeric responses: -1-not have the species, 0-unsure, 1-have the species. A positive score indicates more overall
desire to have the species, while a negative score indicates overall desire to not have the species.
NOT have
the species
(-1)
Unsure
(0)
Have the
species
(1)
Mean
response
C.I. 90%
total
deer
17
9
19
0.04
+/- 0.23
45
coyotes
26
6
5
-0.57
+/- 0.20
37
racoon
19
5
1
-0.72
+/- 0.19
25
bear
12
6
5
-0.30
+/- 0.29
23
crows
8
4
2
-0.43
+/- 0.36
14
rodents
13
1
0
-0.93
+/- 0.13*
14
songbirds
8
2
1
-0.64
+/- 0.37*
11
beaver
5
0
5
0.00
+/- 0.61
10
porcupine
9
1
0
-0.90
+/- 0.18*
10
geese
5
2
2
-0.33
<10 obs
9
seagull
7
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
7
raptors
1
1
4
0.50
<10 obs
6
fox
1
1
3
0.40
<10 obs
5
ground hog
3
0
1
-0.50
<10 obs
4
skunk
3
1
0
-0.75
<10 obs
4
cats
3
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
3
pigeon
3
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
3
pheasant
0
0
2
1.00
<10 obs
2
humans
1
0
1
0.00
<10 obs
2
duck
2
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
2
weasels
2
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
2
squirrels
1
1
0
-0.50
<10 obs
2
tick
1
1
0
-0.50
<10 obs
2
moose
0
0
1
1.00
<10 obs
1
muskrat
0
0
1
1.00
<10 obs
1
otters
0
0
1
1.00
<10 obs
1
owl
0
0
1
1.00
<10 obs
1
rabbit
0
0
1
1.00
<10 obs
1
aphids
1
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
1
cougar
1
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
1
meadow hen
1
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
1
mite
1
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
-1.00
<10 obs
1
Total
155
41
56
252
*threshold of -1 to +1 is exceeded at 90% C.L.
21
Plants
Respondents were asked to identify what plants species they considered a nuisance. It is challenging to
assemble a list of the species as common names were generally used by respondents there is no way to
know what specific species was intended. A complete list of all of the plants referenced by their genus
and species (where possible), can be found in the appendix.
Out of all Nova Scotian respondents, 32 did not identify any plant species at all.
Respondents were asked to indicate “How acceptable was this loss? [as a result of the plants
identified]”. Nuisance plants are generally unacceptable to the respondents, but the majority of
respondents only considered them to be “somewhat unacceptable” (Table 15).
Table 15: Acceptability of loss from plants
Freq.
Percent
Completely Unacceptable
32
35.96
Somewhat Unacceptable
40
44.94
Indifferent
6
6.74
Somewhat Acceptable
9
10.11
Completely Acceptable
2
2.25
Total
89
100
22
Conclusions
There is a good distribution of farmers from different commodity types, and agricultural regions of Nova
Scotia. The majority of respondents are male, full-time farmers, and were educated at a college or
technical school. The most common animals considered a nuisance were: deer, coyotes, racoon, and
bear. After the top four species there was a dramatic drop in the number of reported nuisance species.
Some conclusions can be drawn from the observations in the data:
There are some differences in the species identified by commodity produced
o As anticipated, the vast majority of both poultry and sheep farmers listed coyotes as a
nuisance.
o Over half of blueberry growers listed deer and bear as nuisance species.
A lack of compensation is an important issue for many farmers.
o Many farmers wrote on the survey that compensation was not paid, even though they
were only asked to indicate if it had been paid.
There is a general disdain for both coyotes and racoons.
o Losses as a result of coyotes are the most unacceptable.
o The majority of respondents who indicated either species did not at all enjoy the
presence of these species.
o Opinions were a bit more divided when considering if either racoon or coyote indicated
land health.
Opinions regarding deer are mixed.
o Losses as a result of deer are largely unacceptable, but they more acceptable than other
species.
o The majority of respondents who indicated deer agreed they at least somewhat enjoyed
the presence of deer, and they were seen as an indicator of land health or an
educational opportunity to a lesser extent.
Opinions regarding bear are also mixed, with regards to their acceptability as well as the kind of
nuisance they create.
o Nearly 30% of respondents indicating bear or deer did not indicate any method of
coping with the species. This may suggest a lack of knowledge of methods of coping, or
perhaps tolerance toward the species.
Of the species with at least five mentions, only raptors and foxes were strongly considered
desirable to have, despite the nuisances they represent. Attitudes towards deer were also
slightly positive, whereas farmers’ attitude about beavers was divided.
There are some differences in perception between full- and part-time farmers.
o Both full-time and part-time farmers share a similar distribution in regards to their
enjoyment of the presence of deer and coyotes.
o There is less agreement between full- and part-time farmers with regards to any of the
top four species as an indicator of land health.
More part-time farmers do not view racoons and coyotes as an indicator of land health
compared to full-time farmers.
23
Appendix
Table 1: Animals listed by each commodity type (table is split over two pages)
Field crops n=48
% of
responses
Woodlot n=38
% of
responses
Beef n=24
% of
responses
Blueberries n=18
% of
responses
Orchard n=14
% of
responses
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
deer
33
69%
deer
28
74%
deer
17
71%
deer
16
89%
deer
11
79%
coyotes
31
65%
coyotes
27
71%
coyotes
16
67%
bear
11
61%
racoon
6
43%
racoon
21
44%
racoon
15
39%
bear
7
29%
coyotes
10
56%
coyotes
5
36%
bear
16
33%
bear
12
32%
racoon
7
29%
seagull
5
28%
songbirds
5
36%
rodents
12
25%
rodents
10
26%
rodents
7
29%
racoon
4
22%
porcupine
3
21%
crows
11
23%
beaver
8
21%
geese
5
21%
geese
3
17%
crows
2
14%
geese
9
19%
geese
7
18%
porcupine
5
21%
beaver
2
11%
rodents
2
14%
songbirds
9
19%
porcupine
7
18%
beaver
4
17%
crows
2
11%
bear
1
7%
beaver
8
17%
raptors
5
13%
crows
3
13%
raptors
2
11%
geese
1
7%
porcupine
8
17%
songbirds
5
13%
humans
3
13%
songbirds
2
11%
humans
1
7%
raptors
8
17%
ground hog
4
11%
raptors
3
13%
duck
1
6%
pigeon
1
7%
ground hog
5
10%
crows
3
8%
fox
2
8%
meadow hen
1
6%
raptors
1
7%
pigeon
3
6%
squirrels
3
8%
ground hog
2
8%
rabbit
1
6%
weasels
1
7%
seagull
3
6%
aphids
2
5%
pigeon
2
8%
weasels
1
6%
skunk
3
6%
fox
2
5%
seagull
2
8%
wild turkey
1
6%
squirrels
3
6%
humans
2
5%
songbirds
2
8%
fox
2
4%
pheasant
2
5%
aphids
1
4%
humans
2
4%
pigeon
2
5%
moose
1
4%
pheasant
2
4%
seagull
2
5%
skunk
1
4%
weasels
2
4%
skunk
2
5%
tick
1
4%
aphids
1
2%
weasels
2
5%
weasels
1
4%
cats
1
2%
cats
1
3%
cougar
1
2%
cougar
1
3%
duck
1
2%
duck
1
3%
moose
1
2%
moose
1
3%
muskrat
1
2%
muskrat
1
3%
otters
1
2%
otters
1
3%
owl
1
2%
tick
1
3%
tick
1
2%
wild turkey
1
2%
24
Sheep n=11
% of
responses
Dairy n=8
% of
responses
Poultry
n=8
% of
responses
Christmas trees
n=6
% of
responses
Vineyard n=5
% of
responses
Fur n=4
% of
responses
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
Species
N
coyotes
11
100%
coyotes
5
63%
coyotes
7
88%
coyotes
5
83%
songbirds
6
120%*
cats
2
50%
deer
6
55%
racoon
5
63%
raptors
6
75%
deer
4
67%
deer
4
80%
seagull
2
50%
raptors
6
55%
bear
4
50%
racoon
5
63%
racoon
3
50%
racoon
3
60%
racoon
1
25%
bear
5
45%
deer
3
38%
deer
4
50%
beaver
2
33%
beaver
1
20%
rodents
1
25%
racoon
5
45%
songbirds
3
38%
crows
3
38%
ground hog
2
33%
coyotes
1
20%
skunk
1
25%
crows
3
27%
beaver
2
25%
bear
2
25%
porcupine
2
33%
skunk
1
20%
geese
3
27%
crows
2
25%
rodents
2
25%
rodents
2
33%
rodents
3
27%
geese
2
25%
skunk
2
25%
squirrels
2
33%
songbirds
3
27%
humans
1
13%
aphids
1
13%
aphids
1
17%
beaver
2
18%
pigeon
1
13%
cats
1
13%
bear
1
17%
ground hog
2
18%
rodents
1
13%
fox
1
13%
geese
1
17%
porcupine
2
18%
ground hog
1
13%
pheasant
1
17%
skunk
2
18%
owl
1
13%
pigeon
1
17%
aphids
1
9%
pheasant
1
13%
raptors
1
17%
cougar
1
9%
pigeon
1
13%
songbirds
1
17%
fox
1
9%
porcupine
1
13%
owl
1
9%
songbirds
1
13%
tick
1
9%
squirrels
1
13%
weasels
1
9%
weasels
1
13%
*respondent identified different species, which were all coded as “songbird”, thus there are more mentions of songbirds than there are respondents in that
commodity group
25
Table 2a: Acceptability of loss as a result of all animals by part-time farmers
Part-time Farmers
animal
Completely
Unacceptable
(-2)
Somewhat
Unacceptable
(-1)
Indifferent
(0)
Somewhat
Acceptable
(+1)
Completely
Acceptable
(+2)
Mean
Total
deer
3
5
3
1
3
-0.7
15
coyotes
4
2
2
1
0
-1.0
9
bear
2
2
2
0
0
-1.0
6
racoon
2
2
0
0
0
-1.5
4
geese
1
1
1
0
0
-1.0
3
porcupine
0
1
0
2
0
0.3
3
rodents
0
3
0
0
0
-1.0
3
beaver
1
1
0
0
0
-1.5
2
seagull
2
0
0
0
0
-2.0
2
songbirds
2
0
0
0
0
-2.0
2
cats
1
0
0
0
0
-2.0
1
crows
1
0
0
0
0
-2.0
1
ground hog
0
1
0
0
0
-1.0
1
mite
1
0
0
0
0
-2.0
1
pheasant
0
1
0
0
0
-1.0
1
rabbit
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
1
squirrels
0
1
0
0
0
-1.0
1
tick
0
0
0
1
0
1.0
1
Total
20
20
8
5
4
57
26
Table 2b: Acceptability of loss as a result of all animals by full -time farmers
Full-time Farmers
animal
Completely
Unacceptable
(-2)
Somewhat
Unacceptable
(-1)
Indifferent
(0)
Somewhat
Acceptable
(+1)
Completely
Acceptable
(+2)
Mean
Total
deer
8
11
0
1
1
-1.2
21
racoon
6
9
1
1
0
-1.2
17
coyotes
9
5
0
0
0
-1.6
14
bear
4
9
0
0
0
-1.3
13
rodents
6
1
1
0
0
-1.6
8
beaver
4
3
0
0
0
-1.6
7
crows
3
4
0
0
0
-1.4
7
songbirds
4
2
0
0
0
-1.7
6
porcupine
3
1
0
1
0
-1.2
5
seagull
3
2
0
0
0
-1.6
5
raptors
1
3
0
0
0
-1.3
4
geese
2
1
0
0
0
-1.7
3
ground hog
1
2
0
0
0
-1.3
3
aphids
1
1
0
0
0
-1.5
2
cats
2
0
0
0
0
-2.0
2
pigeon
1
1
0
0
0
-1.5
2
skunk
1
1
0
0
0
-1.5
2
cougar
1
0
0
0
0
-2.0
1
duck
0
1
0
0
0
-1.0
1
humans
1
0
0
0
0
-2.0
1
meadow hen
0
1
0
0
0
-1.0
1
moose
0
1
0
0
0
-1.0
1
squirrels
0
0
1
0
0
0.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
0
0
-2.0
1
Total
62
59
3
3
1
128
27
Table 3: Methods of coping with nuisance species
Hunted for Sport
or Food
Shot to eliminate
nuisance
Trapped for
fur harvest
Trapped for
relocation
Physical
barrier
Repellant
Deterrent
Poisoned
Total
Responses
deer
20
2
18
7
5
52
coyotes
4
23
13
1
7
1
49
racoon
1
18
7
1
7
34
bear
6
4
2
11
1
1
25
rodents
7
12
19
songbirds
2
7
6
15
beaver
4
6
1
11
geese
4
2
1
1
3
11
crows
1
3
2
4
10
seagull
1
1
2
1
4
1
10
porcupine
7
1
1
9
raptor
1
3
2
6
pigeon
1
3
1
5
cats
2
2
4
ground hog
4
4
aphids
1
1
2
fox
1
1
2
squirrel
2
2
duck
1
1
mites
1
1
owl
1
1
pheasant
1
1
rabbit
1
1
skunk
1
1
weasel
1
1
wild turkey
1
1
TOTAL
40
86
29
3
66
11
28
15
278
28
Table 4: Mean scores of responses to ecosystem service statements by full- and part-time farmers. Blanks
indicate a lack of response.
Enjoy the Presence
Educational Opportunity
Indicator of Land Health
Animal
Part-time
Full-time
Part-time
Full-time
Part-time
Full-time
Score
N
Score
N
Score
N
Score
N
Score
N
Score
N
aphids
2.0
2
2.5
2
2.0
2
bear
3.2
5
2.2
16
2.6
5
2.8
14
3.5
6
2.6
16
beaver
3.7
3
2.0
7
2.5
2
2.5
6
4.0
3
3.3
7
cats
1.0
1
1.0
2
1.0
1
1.0
2
1.0
1
1.0
2
cougar
4.0
1
3.0
1
3.0
1
coyotes
1.7
11
1.9
23
1.4
11
2.3
21
2.4
11
2.9
23
crows
2.7
3
1.6
10
2.7
3
2.1
9
2.3
3
2.7
9
deer
3.7
15
3.2
25
3.0
16
3.0
23
3.0
18
3.2
25
duck
1.5
2
2.5
2
2.5
2
fox
4.0
1
2.8
4
3.0
1
3.0
3
4.0
1
2.7
3
geese
3.0
4
2.3
6
1.5
4
2.3
4
2.0
4
3.0
5
ground hog
2.5
2
1.3
3
3.0
2
1.5
2
3.0
2
2.0
2
humans
1.0
2
1.0
1
1.0
1
meadow hen
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.0
1
moose
5.0
1
mite
1.0
1
1.0
1
4.0
1
1.0
1
4.0
1
muskrat
3.0
1
otters
3.0
1
4.0
1
4.0
1
owl
4.0
1
4.0
1
4.0
1
pheasant
3.0
1
4.0
1
5.0
1
4.0
1
1.0
1
4.0
1
pigeon
5.0
1
2.0
2
1.5
2
5.0
1
2.0
2
porcupine
2.8
4
2.6
5
2.3
4
3.0
5
3.3
4
2.4
5
rabbit
5.0
1
5.0
1
4.0
1
racoon
2.3
6
1.7
19
1.3
6
2.2
18
1.8
5
2.4
19
raptors
3.3
7
2.7
7
3.7
7
rodents
1.7
6
1.0
8
1.0
6
1.0
7
3.0
4
2.4
7
seagull
1.0
2
1.2
5
1.0
2
1.0
5
2.5
2
2.2
5
skunk
1.0
1
1.3
3
1.0
1
2.0
3
1.0
1
2.7
3
songbirds
2.8
4
1.7
7
2.3
4
1.7
7
2.8
4
1.7
7
squirrels
3.0
1
2.5
2
5.0
1
2.0
1
1.0
1
3.0
1
tick
2.0
2
1.0
2
1.0
2
weasels
3.0
1
wild turkey
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.0
1
Total
75
168
74
151
76
161
29
Table 5a: Distribution of overall desire to have species by part-time farmers
Part-time farmers
Animals
Not have
the
species(-1)
Unsure (0)
Have the
species (+1)
Mean
Total
deer
7
1
11
0.2
19
coyotes
9
1
3
-0.5
13
bear
2
3
2
0.0
7
racoon
5
1
0
-0.8
6
rodents
6
0
0
-1.0
6
geese
2
1
1
-0.3
4
porcupine
4
0
0
-1.0
4
beaver
1
0
2
0.3
3
crows
3
0
0
-1.0
3
songbirds
2
1
0
-0.7
3
ground hog
1
0
1
0.0
2
seagull
2
0
0
-1.0
2
tick
1
1
0
-0.5
2
cats
1
0
0
-1.0
1
fox
0
0
1
1.0
1
mite
1
0
0
-1.0
1
pheasant
0
0
1
1.0
1
pigeon
1
0
0
-1.0
1
rabbit
0
0
1
1.0
1
raptors
0
0
1
1.0
1
skunk
1
0
0
-1.0
1
squirrels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
Total
51
9
24
84
30
Table 5b: Distribution of overall desire to have species by full-time farmers
Full-time Farmers
Animals
Not have
the species
(-1)
Unsure (0)
Have the
species
(+1)
Mean
Total
deer
10
8
7
-0.1
25
coyotes
17
4
2
-0.7
23
racoon
13
4
1
-0.7
18
bear
10
3
3
-0.4
16
crows
5
4
1
-0.4
10
beaver
4
0
3
-0.1
7
rodents
6
1
0
-0.9
7
songbirds
5
1
1
-0.6
7
geese
3
1
1
-0.4
5
porcupine
4
1
0
-0.8
5
raptors
1
1
3
0.4
5
seagull
5
0
0
-1.0
5
fox
1
1
2
0.3
4
skunk
2
1
0
-0.7
3
cats
2
0
0
-1.0
2
duck
2
0
0
-1.0
2
ground hog
2
0
0
-1.0
2
humans
1
0
1
0.0
2
pigeon
2
0
0
-1.0
2
aphids
1
0
0
-1.0
1
cougar
1
0
0
-1.0
1
meadow hen
1
0
0
-1.0
1
moose
0
0
1
1.0
1
muskrat
0
0
1
1.0
1
otters
0
0
1
1.0
1
owl
0
0
1
1.0
1
pheasant
0
0
1
1.0
1
squirrels
0
1
0
0.0
1
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
-1.0
1
Total
100
31
30
161
31
Table 6: Overall desire to have species by commodity type. Note: NH=Not Have the Species, U=Unsure, H=Have the Species, M=Mean Score, T=Total
Field Crops n=48
Woodlot n=38
Beef n=24
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
deer
8
7
15
0.2
30
deer
6
4
15
0.4
25
deer
5
2
7
0.1
14
coyotes
20
4
3
-0.6
27
coyotes
15
3
5
-0.4
23
coyotes
10
2
1
-0.7
13
racoon
14
4
1
-0.7
19
racoon
8
3
1
-0.6
12
rodents
5
1
0
-0.8
6
bear
7
3
3
-0.3
13
bear
5
4
1
-0.4
10
bear
2
1
2
0.0
5
crows
6
3
2
-0.4
11
rodents
7
1
0
-0.9
8
porcupine
4
1
0
-0.8
5
rodents
10
1
0
-0.9
11
beaver
4
0
3
-0.1
7
racoon
3
2
0
-0.6
5
geese
5
2
1
-0.5
8
porcupine
6
1
0
-0.9
7
beaver
2
0
2
0.0
4
porcupine
7
1
0
-0.9
8
geese
3
2
1
-0.3
6
geese
1
1
2
0.3
4
songbirds
6
1
1
-0.6
8
songbirds
2
1
1
-0.3
4
crows
2
1
0
-0.7
3
beaver
4
0
3
-0.1
7
crows
1
0
2
0.3
3
fox
0
1
1
0.5
2
raptors
1
1
4
0.5
6
ground hog
2
0
1
-0.3
3
seagull
2
0
0
-1.0
2
ground hog
3
0
1
-0.5
4
raptors
0
1
2
0.7
3
songbirds
1
1
0
-0.5
2
pigeon
3
0
0
-1.0
3
fox
0
0
2
1.0
2
ground hog
1
0
0
-1.0
1
seagull
3
0
0
-1.0
3
pheasant
0
0
2
1.0
2
humans
1
0
0
-1.0
1
skunk
3
0
0
-1.0
3
pigeon
2
0
0
-1.0
2
moose
0
0
1
1.0
1
fox
0
0
2
1.0
2
seagull
2
0
0
-1.0
2
pigeon
1
0
0
-1.0
1
pheasant
0
0
2
1.0
2
skunk
2
0
0
-1.0
2
raptors
0
0
1
1.0
1
squirrels
1
1
0
-0.5
2
squirrels
1
1
0
-0.5
2
skunk
1
0
0
-1.0
1
weasels
2
0
0
-1.0
2
weasels
2
0
0
-1.0
2
tick
1
0
0
-1.0
1
cats
1
0
0
-1.0
1
aphids
1
0
0
-1.0
1
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
cougar
1
0
0
-1.0
1
cats
1
0
0
-1.0
1
duck
1
0
0
-1.0
1
cougar
1
0
0
-1.0
1
humans
0
0
1
1.0
1
duck
1
0
0
-1.0
1
moose
0
0
1
1.0
1
moose
0
0
1
1.0
1
muskrat
0
0
1
1.0
1
muskrat
0
0
1
1.0
1
otters
0
0
1
1.0
1
otters
0
0
1
1.0
1
owl
0
0
1
1.0
1
tick
1
0
0
-1.0
1
tick
1
0
0
-1.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
-1.0
1
Total
108
28
43
179
Total
73
21
39
133
Total
43
13
17
73
32
Blueberries n=18
Orchard n=14
Sheep n=11
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
deer
9
2
2
-0.5
13
deer
3
4
2
-0.1
coyotes
8
1
0
-0.9
9
bear
7
3
0
-0.7
10
racoon
1
4
0
-0.2
9
bear
1
1
2
0.3
4
coyotes
6
2
0
-0.8
8
coyotes
3
0
1
-0.5
5
deer
0
2
2
0.5
4
seagull
5
0
0
-1.0
5
songbirds
3
1
0
-0.8
4
racoon
3
1
0
-0.8
4
racoon
3
0
0
-1.0
3
porcupine
2
1
0
-0.7
4
raptors
1
1
2
0.3
4
beaver
2
0
0
-1.0
2
crows
1
1
0
-0.5
3
crows
2
1
0
-0.7
3
crows
2
0
0
-1.0
2
rodents
1
1
0
-0.5
2
rodents
3
0
0
-1.0
3
geese
2
0
0
-1.0
2
humans
0
0
1
1.0
2
songbirds
3
0
0
-1.0
3
songbirds
2
0
0
-1.0
2
pigeon
1
0
0
-1.0
1
beaver
0
0
2
1.0
2
duck
1
0
0
-1.0
1
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
geese
1
1
0
-0.5
2
meadow hen
1
0
0
-1.0
1
1
ground hog
2
0
0
-1.0
2
rabbit
0
0
1
1.0
1
porcupine
2
0
0
-1.0
2
raptors
0
0
1
1.0
1
skunk
2
0
0
-1.0
2
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
cougar
1
0
0
-1.0
1
wild turkey
1
0
0
-1.0
1
fox
0
0
1
1.0
1
owl
0
0
1
1.0
1
tick
1
0
0
-1.0
1
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
Total
42
7
4
53
Total
16
12
4
32
Total
31
8
10
49
Poultry n=8
Dairy n=8
Christmas Trees n=6
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
coyotes
4
1
1
-0.5
6
racoon
4
0
1
-0.6
5
coyotes
2
0
2
0.0
4
racoon
4
1
0
-0.8
5
bear
2
1
1
-0.3
4
deer
0
1
3
0.8
4
raptors
1
1
3
0.4
5
coyotes
3
1
0
-0.8
4
racoon
3
0
0
-1.0
3
deer
0
0
4
1.0
4
deer
1
0
2
0.3
3
beaver
1
0
1
0.0
2
crows
1
1
1
0.0
3
songbirds
2
0
1
-0.3
3
ground hog
1
0
1
0.0
2
bear
1
1
0
-0.5
2
beaver
1
0
1
0.0
2
porcupine
2
0
0
-1.0
2
rodents
2
0
0
-1.0
2
crows
1
1
0
-0.5
2
rodents
2
0
0
-1.0
2
skunk
2
0
0
-1.0
2
geese
1
1
0
-0.5
2
squirrels
1
1
0
-0.5
2
cats
1
0
0
-1.0
1
pigeon
1
0
0
-1.0
1
bear
0
0
1
1.0
1
fox
0
0
1
1.0
1
rodents
1
0
0
-1.0
1
geese
0
0
1
1.0
1
ground hog
0
0
1
1.0
1
pheasant
0
0
1
1.0
1
owl
0
0
1
1.0
1
pigeon
1
0
0
-1.0
1
pheasant
0
0
1
1.0
1
songbirds
1
0
0
-1.0
1
pigeon
1
0
0
-1.0
1
porcupine
1
0
0
-1.0
1
squirrels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
weasels
1
0
0
-1.0
1
Total
20
5
13
38
Total
17
4
6
27
Total
14
2
10
26
33
Vineyard n=5
Fur n=4
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
Animal
NH
U
H
M
T
deer
1
1
1
0.0
3
cats
2
0
0
-1.0
2
songbirds
2
1
0
-0.7
3
seagull
2
0
0
-1.0
2
racoon
2
0
0
-1.0
2
racoon
0
1
0
0.0
1
rodents
1
0
0
-1.0
1
skunk
0
1
0
0.0
1
Total
5
2
1
8
Total
5
2
0
7
34
Table 7: Latin Names of Plants
Latin
Freq.
Percent of
plants
mentioned
Percent of
responses
Either unrecognizable,
or respondent simply
wrote “weeds”
_
17
15%
22%
Cirsium
Thistle
10
9%
13%
Solidago
Golden Rod
9
8%
11%
Alnus
Alder
6
5%
8%
Gnaphalium uliginosum
Dandelion
6
5%
8%
Festuca
Fescue
5
4%
6%
Rumex acetocella L.
Sheep sorrel
5
4%
6%
Arctium
Burdock
4
3%
5%
Agropyron repens
Quack grass
3
3%
4%
Ambrosia
artemisiifolia L.
Ragweed
3
3%
4%
Frangula alnus
Glossy Buckthorn
3
3%
4%
Galium
Bedstraw
3
3%
4%
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
3
3%
4%
Senecio jacobaea L.
Tansy
3
3%
4%
Daucus carota L.
Wild carrot
2
2%
3%
Galium aparine L.
Cleavers
2
2%
3%
Scirpus atrovirens
Black bulrush
2
2%
3%
Tragopogon
Goat’s beard
2
2%
3%
Vicia
Vetch
2
2%
3%
Agrostis
Bent grass
1
1%
1%
Amaranthus
retroflexus L.
Pigweed
1
1%
1%
Apocynum
Dogbane
1
1%
1%
Apocynum
androsaemifolium
Spreading Dogbane
1
1%
1%
Ascelepias syriaca L.
Milkweed
1
1%
1%
Aster
Aster
1
1%
1%
Atropa belladonna
Deadly nightshade
1
1%
1%
Avena fatua L.
Wild oats
1
1%
1%
Chenopodium album L.
Lambsquarters
1
1%
1%
Cirsium vulgare
Bull thistle
1
1%
1%
Convolvulus
Bindweed
1
1%
1%
Cornus canadensis
Bunchberry
1
1%
1%
Crataegus
Hawthorn
1
1%
1%
Erigeron annus (L.)
Pers.
Fleabane
1
1%
1%
Euphorbia
Leafy spurge
1
1%
1%
Galeopsis tetrahit L.
Nettles
1
1%
1%
Glechoma hederacea
Ground Ivy
1
1%
1%
Medicago lupulina (L.)
Black medic
1
1%
1%
35
Miscanthus
Elephant grass
1
1%
1%
Prunus virginiana
Chokecherry
1
1%
1%
Pteridium aquilinum
Bracken fern
1
1%
1%
Raphanus
raphanistrum L.
Wild radish
1
1%
1%
Rosa
Wild rose
1
1%
1%
Rumex crispus
Curly dock
1
1%
1%
Stellaria media L. Vill. L.
Chickweed
1
1%
1%
Tussilago farfara L.
Coltsfoot
1
1%
1%
Viola
Violet
1
1%
1%
Total
117
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.