Abstract Infrastructure development can displace wildlife and lead to human–wildlife conflict, which typically requires non‐lethal solutions when it occurs in protected areas. The Columbian ground squirrel ( Urocitellus columbianus ) is a small burrowing mammal that is prevalent near human habitation and frequently a source of human–wildlife conflict. Translocation and deterrence from burrows are two potential tools to mitigate these conflicts, but their efficacy is not well‐studied. We addressed this issue in Jasper National Park (Alberta, Canada), where we translocated 31 squirrels over 2 years to a prepared release site and compared their apparent survival to that of 30 squirrels that were not translocated. The hazards associated with translocation, age, sex and year of translocation were evaluated using Cox regression. In addition, we tested the effect of deterrence on squirrel activity by blocking 91 burrows using a combination of physical (foam noodles and wooden stakes) and scent‐based (coyote urine) deterrents. Probability of re‐entry was assessed as a function of time since blockage, blocking method, presence/absence of scent deterrent and proximity to other burrows. Apparent annual survival over 400 days following capture and/or translocation was 70% for the non‐translocated squirrels but only 8.7% for translocated squirrels. Cox regressions showed that hazards were significantly higher for translocated squirrels and for juvenile squirrels. In the burrow deterrence experiment, the likelihood of burrow re‐entry decreased significantly with time since blockage. Practical Implication : Retention and apparent survival were significantly lower for translocated squirrels, likely because of increased rates of predation, conflict with conspecifics and dispersal from the site. When squirrels must be removed from an area, translocation is unlikely to support survival comparable to resident squirrels. Deterrence may be a more ethical and cost‐effective mitigation strategy for this species, and its success may be increased by reducing local habitat attraction, augmenting adjacent habitat to encourage dispersal and gradually reducing population sizes through fertility control. Mitigation of human–squirrel conflict might also emphasize public awareness of their ecological roles to support greater tolerance.
Lorentz et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: