The Eastern Fox Squirrel in Colorado Springs
​

The Eastern Fox Squirrel in Colorado Springs – A Human Dimensions Dilemma

(Vol. 2. Art. 4, December, 2013)

Sometime in the mid ‘90’s a significant change in the philosophy of wildlife management took place.  Rather suddenly, wildlife agencies decided that public opinion (i.e., social science) should carry equal weight with biology (i.e., natural science) in determining wildlife policy.

Perhaps the Eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) situation in Colorado Springs, in almost an allegorical sense, epitomizes the dilemma of integrating human dimensions (ie public opinion) with wildlife damage management (WDM).  The metro area, with its roughly 600,000 residents, is situated at an elevation of 6,300 feet, right where the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains abruptly meet.  Most of the city is built on semi-arid shortgrass prairie, not what you’d call prime natural habitat for the eastern fox squirrel.

In the early days of the city the area was quite barren.  However, once the area began to green up with trees and lawns, residents thought it would be nice to have squirrels in the parks like back East.  So, sometime in the 1940’s, fox squirrels were introduced.  Now, thousands of fox squirrels thrive in Colorado Springs and are increasing/spreading rapidly in all directions as development continues.  And the vast majority of residents still enjoy having them there.  In fact, lots of people enjoy providing food for them.

Unfortunately, however, 75-90% of these squirrels make their home in man-made structures (eg house attics, soffits, vaulted ceilings, garage roofs, etc).  Consequently, the #1 nuisance wildlife call we get involves fox squirrels.  They chew holes in siding, make noise, fall into interior walls, chew wires, ruin insulation, get into living quarters, etc.  We’re called in to remove the squirrels and solve the problem.

Here are some observations in light of human dimension issues (i.e., public perception and opinion).  First, this is not a “natural” situation.  It’s an artificial one created by humans.  Secondly, since fox squirrels are not native, “they were not here first.”  Even though they have no choice, they are encroaching on human habitat, not we on theirs.  Thirdly, these squirrels are largely dependent on humans for shelter, cover, food and water.  Most would not survive in Colorado Springs without human development and provision.

So, what’s the “right thing” for us to do with these problem squirrels?  Colorado Parks & Wildlife regulations allow us to capture and euthanize squirrels doing damage or relocate them within 10 miles of the capture site, in suitable habitat, where we have permission.  What should we do?  What does the public want?  What is right?

Public feedback tells us that killing the squirrels is generally considered inhumane and unacceptable.  Roughly 90% of our clients request that we relocate the squirrels because they perceive that as the humane thing to do.  They don’t want them harmed if possible.

Assuming a squirrel is living in someone’s attic, what are our options?  We could set up a one-way device over the access.  Once the squirrel is out we could squirrel-proof the access and be done.  Or we could live-trap the squirrel, squirrel-proof the access, then release the squirrel on site.  However, we don’t prefer these approaches because the squirrel could do significant damage as it desperately tries to get back in, it could find another way in, or it will be forced to move into the neighbor’s attic and become a problem all over again.  We don’t think these methods are particularly humane or ethical, especially in winter or during harsh weather.

Another approach would be to live-trap and relocate the squirrel at least five miles away in suitable habitat.  The most suitable habitat for these highly adapted, urbanized squirrels is another residential neighborhood.  Therefore, the best thing for the squirrel would be to release it in a similar neighborhood.  That would be the most humane option.  However, again, this would be unethical and unprofessional.  To take it east into the treeless, shortgrass prairie or west into the harsh, mostly conifer-covered mountains would be sure suffering and death for the squirrel.  In our opinion that would be inhumane.

To release it in riparian habitat (i.e., along a waterway) on the outskirts of town would be only slightly more acceptable.  Most den trees would already be occupied, the year-round food supply would be low and predators would abound.  Very few squirrels would survive.  This option, too, seems inhumane or cruel.

The only other habitat nearby is the Palmer Divide/Black Forest ridge north of the metro area.  It is mostly native ponderosa pine forest, classic habitat for the native Abert’s or tufted-ear squirrels (Sciurus aberti).  Unfortunately, fox squirrels tend to compete with, dominate and displace the Abert’s.  Plus, most of them would still have to live in someone’s attic.  We don’t feel this option is ethical in light of impact on the native species.

In my mind, this is essentially a no-win situation and in some ways epitimizes the dilemma of trying to perfectly integrate human dimensions with wildlife biology and WDM.  No matter what we do, some segment of the public will be unhappy.  No matter what we do, some level of perceived “inhumaneness” will occur.

The homeowner with the squirrel problem wants the animal to be relocated so he can feel good about giving the animal a chance to survive (ie “live happily ever after” somewhere else).  At least he doesn’t have to feel guilty about taking the animal’s life.  But is this alternative really better than lethal control (ie humanely euthanizing the animal)?  I’m not so sure.  I believe that the majority of the general public does not have realistic expectations about dealing with wildlife.  They don’t know what’s best.  Or they aren’t willing to do what’s best.

The bottom line is that the majority of the urbanized public can’t handle the realities of managing wildlife.  They don’t want to be responsible for inflicting any suffering on animals or euthanizing them.  Could the average citizen go on a controlled hunt to reduce a grossly over-populated deer herd – and pull the trigger?  Could the average citizen go to a packing plant, humanely kill the cow, butcher it and take a package of hamburger home for dinner?  Could he/she go to the local animal shelter and euthanize a couple dozen dogs and cats, or worse yet, puppies and kittens?  I think not.  Does that make these actions wrong?  No.  They are all necessary and acceptable practices.

I maintain that because of misperceptions, idealistic expectations and emotionalized attitudes toward animals, the general public is not who should have the final say when setting policy to deal with human-wildlife conflicts.

Claude Oleyar