No abstract

No abstract

Density and survival of a raccoon (Procyon lotor) population in Rock Creek Park, an urban national park inWashington, D.C., were estimated using mark–recapture and radio-tracking over an 8-year period following the appearance ofthe mid-Atlantic States (Mid-Atlantic) rabies epizootic. Raccoon density ranged from 333.3 to 66.7/km2 , with an overall parkestimate of 125/km2 . This density places the Rock Creek population within the range of other urban and suburban populationsand is many times greater than raccoon densities reported from other habitats. Density was particularly high in one thin spur ofparkland with the smallest ratio of area to urban edge. Raccoon survival rates were high except among juveniles during therabies epizootic. Data on rabies prevalence from Washington, D.C., indicate a cycle with peaks in 1983 during the initialepizootic and again in 1987 and 1991, a pattern similar to that seen in other carnivores and in rabies models. We found evidenceof decreased raccoon density during and after the 1987 rabies resurgence relative to the years following the original epizootic,when rabies prevalence was low. While hunting and trapping represent a major mortality factor for many rural raccoonpopulations, urban and suburban populations and protected populations may frequently be subject to epizootics of diseasessuch as canine distemper and rabies, even years after initial contact with a disease.

No abstract

Some conservationists believe that free‐ranging cats pose an enormous risk to biodiversity and public health and therefore should be eliminated from the landscape by any means necessary. They further claim that those who question the science or ethics behind their arguments are science deniers (merchants of doubt) seeking to mislead the public. As much as we share a commitment to conservation of biodiversity and wild nature, we believe these ideas are wrong and fuel an unwarranted moral panic over cats. Those who question the ecological or epidemiological status of cats are not science deniers, and it is a false analogy to compare them with corporate and right‐wing special interests that perpetrate disinformation campaigns over issues, such as smoking and climate change. There are good conservation and public‐health reasons and evidence to be skeptical that free‐ranging cats constitute a disaster for biodiversity and human health in all circumstances. Further, there are significant and largely unaddressed ethical and policy issues (e.g., the ethics and efficacy of lethal management) relative to how people ought to value and coexist with cats and native wildlife. Society is better served by a collaborative approach to produce better scientific and ethical knowledge about free‐ranging cats.