Urbanization decreases the amount of natural habitat available to wildlife but some species are able to adapt to and even thrive in human-dominated landscapes. When humans and wildlife live in close proximity the number of conflicts increase. Natural resource and agricultural departments were not designed to handle urban problems or the number of complaints that arise in urban areas, and the nuisance wildlife control (NWC) industry has developed in response to the unmet demand for assistance. Members of the wildlife profession have expressed concerns over the impact the nuisance wildlife control industry may have on wildlife, the public, and wildlife management, but no national studies were found that examined the size, growth, and/or economic impact of the industry. The most recent national reviews of regulation and oversight took place ≥10 years ago. This study examines 2 broad features of the NWC industry: 1) size and economic impact of the industry in the U.S. (e.g., number of businesses, annual sales revenue generated); and 2) the national regulatory environment. A total of 3,153 NWC businesses were identified in the U.S., and a conservative annual sales figure of $140 million was estimated for the wildlife removal services only. Changes in the regulatory environment from 1997-2007 were examined using a 10-category scoring system developed during an earlier study, and comparing the results of both studies. Changes were observed (P ≤ 0.05) for 9 of 10 characteristics, and the average cumulative score rose from 2.20 to 4.28 out of 10.0.

In early 1994 the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Damage Control agency implemented a directive providing guidance to help avoid competition between themselves and private businesses, known as Wildlife Control Operators (WCOs) engaging in similar work. Nearly two decades later some WCOs still complain about having to compete with the Animal Damage Control agency, now named Wildlife Services. Other businesses report enjoying a cooperative relationship with the agency. I analyzed four policies that regulate competition between Wildlife Services and WCOs and found that there is a good amount of guidance given to Wildlife Services in regards to their competitive relationship with WCOs. These guidelines do not carry the force of law, however, and are subject to change and deletion. I conducted interviews with representatives from the WCO community and Wildlife Services and found that the top four factors contributing to conflict are an overlap in similar services, agency advantages, money and pricing, and policy. The top four factors contributing to cooperation were cooperative work, communication, clarified roles, and training and education. Working to decrease the conflict factors and emphasize the cooperative factors will lead to a better relationship between Wildlife Services and WCOs.