15

need to be captured. With this occurring under the direction of the specialist,
administration of atropine could then be accomplished by an individual trained and
prepared for such a duty.

Destroying an injured alligator that poses no threat to human safety is a different
matter and is permitted only if the taking in fact "aids a sick, injured, or orphaned
specimen." It is difficult to justify how killing an alligator could aid it. Permission
should be obtained from the Superintendent prior to any such action taken.

Disposal of an alligator that has been destroyed is best done by incineration
because this prevents the subsequent recovery of any parts of the alligator carcass
for personal possession, and we note that such collection is illegal (January 10,
1977 - 42 FR 2076). This may cause inconvenience compared to the alternative of
allowing the carcass to degrade naturally in a convenient marshy or woody area.
However, any carcass disposed of in such a manner would not be deposited from
natural causes and responsibility for it would continue to reside with the park.
Federal regulations specify that "the specimen may only be retained, disposed of,
or salvaged in accordance with directions from the [Fish and Wildlife] Service"
(January 10, 1977 - 42 FR 2076). Thus, if incineration is not done, the Superinten-
dent should consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on a case-by-case basis for
instructions.

Federal regulations require that any action taken involving alligators, including
their capture, must be reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Law Enforcement, P. O. Box 19183, Washington, D. C. 20036, within
five days after the taking occurs (January 10, 1977 - 42 FR 2076). We have found
that both State and Federal wildlife agencies seem satisfied that Everglades
National Park keeps its own interna! records (A. Woodward, FGFWFC, pers.
comm.; M. Moynihan, USFWS, pers. comm.). As a result, the maintenance of
written documentation of all such actions is essential. Official permission could be
sought from the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain this documentation in lieu of
written reports, based on an approved management plan. A similar memorandum
of understanding could be sought with the State of Florida. Until such agreements
are in force, written reports should be made to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Regional Distinctions

The 1979 management policy identified four types of areas within Everglades
National Park where alligator problems generally develop: (1) backcountry areas;
(2) nest sites; (3) unrestricted areas, where people can approach alligators without
restrictive barriers, including West Lake, Nine Mile Pond, Eco Pond, Paurotis Pond,
Long Pine Key Lake, and the Shark Valley Loop Road; and (4) restricted areas,
where visitors are behind barriers, including Royal Palm, the Shark Valley Tower,
Pa-Hay-Okee, and Mahogany Hammock. These distinctions seem useful, and as the
following discussion indicates, different types of problems have arisen in each area,
suggesting that a variety of measures is necessary to handle the problem alligator
situation on a park-wide basis.


Appendix III.

ALLIGATOR REMOVAL DATA FORM

1. Complete form for each alligator handled.
2. Send form to Jim Kushlan, South Florida Research Center.

Date

Name of person completing form

Names of those involved with removal

Initia! location of alligator

Removal techniques tried, which successful

Give history of situation on back of form

Release location

Comments on behavior at release

Date and time of release

Critical alligator data
Total length (cm)

Snout-vent length (cm) (to back of vent)

Weight (give units)

Toe tag (left hind foot, center web)

Collar color

Tail/neck tag number

Distinguishing characteristics

Any comments (use reverse of form if necessary)

35


32

996TOS 9°Sx

SATssoiZ3y
ath A ~parysisoy OHET SAAN 08/6/Z NON«
z 3UON J2y10 Pu 47eg UreW 82/91/21 T96T8Z
9 umouxun = PaTeD0TSY pean{uy py 4seg UreW 82/11/21 AT618Z
T 2UON BuIpeec, HET ISOM 82/@Z/1T ST8182Z
z 69 L SUON aatssoissy Kay autg 8u0T 82/42/01 TL9T8Z
T SUON qUsUISseIeH aye] 182A 82/2/01 ZT9TSZ
T SUN quauisse sey SHeT 1829 AN 82/01/6 ZIST8L
T 3UON quaulsse Ie] puog 2ITW SUIN 82/9/38 ZSETSL
T ah Aqiean paresojay peanfuy yeued poomuoiing TaAUEA C9ZI8SL
ayew
341 IM
“WD O° HZT AS
Wo 9°6€Z TL
Stal ‘€18 NW 29-1 payesojay aatssois3y puog aT!W eUIN SLIZ/Z €nZ18L
afew
Sqi O1Z 3M
“wh TL
aThA ‘ZO8NW AL9-1 — paxeoojay aatssoissy ayeT SAM BZ/S/Z €nZ18L%
oyew
84 6h TN
“Wt 6ZT AS
Wd HZ TL
€1vA ‘268 NW 9-1 pazeoojay aatssoi33y Puog eT! eUIN BL/s/Z €nZT8L
ayew
84 ZT 1M
‘Wd ¢*T6 AS
‘wo T'Z8T LL
8¢ Z1HX ‘OO6NW 9-1 = payeoojay aatssoissy puog sizoineg BLIS/L €nZ18L
yuaproul Jed soyestITy aus uayeL Wa{qoig YoH e307 areq = JaqUINN aseD
sinoy-ueyy Jo ‘on Bey uoT}eD0Tay uol1oy jo aunven, quaprouy
payewtis” pue azIs

“*panurtjuos | xIpuaddy


claim that alligator denning activities have damaged levees, canal banks, and
earthen retention dams, causing a loss of valuable water supplies and resulting in a
financial drain on materials and manpower that such repairs require (Potter 1981).

Alabama

No extensive problem is presented to state law enforcement personne! in Alabama
concerning alligator control. They receive about ten calls annually, to which they
respond on a case-by-case basis with no formal policy. Alabama has high
concentrations of alligators in coastal areas, particularly in the Mobile delta, but
populations in these areas are generally too remote to constitute a nuisance. Most
complaints are of alligators in farm ponds and backyards, and these calls come in
only after long-time resident alligators have reached a large size. Such complaints
are not usually a result of aggressive behavior. All gators are relocated and no
harvesting occurs (K. Guyse, pers. comm.)

Mississippi

Alligator control in Mississippi is not an extensive problem. Alligators are not
destroyed, and there have been no recorded attacks on humans. About 150-200
alligators are relocated each year to natural rivers and beaver dams by state
district biologists in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Restocking of
some formerly occupied habitats with approximately 5,000 alligators from
Louisiana in 1977 and 1978 has, unfortunately, only reestablished the problem of
nuisance alligators in these areas (E. Cliburn, pers. comm.)

North Carolina

State personnel lend assistance to the Fish and Wildlife Service in handling
nuisance alligator complaints in North Carolina. The problem is not extensive,
occurring once or twice a year, and there is no formal control policy. The state
estimates an average expenditure of 15-20 personnel-days per year in alligator-
related work (R. Hamilton, pers. comm.)

Arkansas

Until recently, Arkansas claimed to have few if any alligators remaining in the
state and had received no complaints from the public. Recent restocking of
certain natural areas with 2-3,000 Louisiana alligators is expected to establish the
problem in the near future. Although restocking is supposed to aid in beaver
control, it is disputed by sportsmen as detrimental to waterfowl! hunting and
recreation in certain areas. No control policy exists and no personne! time is spent
on alligator control except in the recent restocking program (H. Alexander, pers.
comm.)

Problem Alligator Control in Everglades National Park

A primary concern of Everglades National Park is to achieve a balance between
visitor safety and legal and biological responsibilities that accompany the man-
agement of a protected and valuable species. Within Everglades National Park,


19

sign noting "I will bite the hand that feeds me", although cute, seems to instruct
visitors to be careful in feeding alligators. One such sign at Shark Valley should be
removed, and its future use should be discontinued. No interpretive program
currently exists to educate all visitors on potential dangers of the alligator.
Although alligators are part of nearly every talk given by Interpretation personnel,
it seems that a specific message should be sent to visitors to make them aware of
the issues discussed in this report. Perhaps such information could be included in
pamphlets and maps.

Law enforcement

The 1979 policy recognized that a higher law enforcement profile was needed than
currently existed. When the sign system was implemented and a visitor incident
occurred, a citation or a courtesy citation was to be issued along with an
interpretive message on the seriousness of the offense. The Ranger Division was
responsible for developing a greater law enforcement presence in areas of potential
alligator-visitor conflict. Since interpretive personnel often witness offenses,
training was to be provided on how to handle such situations. All staff were to be
advised that they have the responsibility and obligation to contact the rangers and
inform visitors about the hazards of alligators when a violation or a hazardous
situation was observed.

The Ranger Division has taken an active concern in alligator management.
However, we know of no records of citations being issued. Such matters seem best
left to the discretion of the district ranger, but it is important that all personnel
assist in this aspect of visitor safety. It has been suggested that the Interpretation
Division could issue public information statements and press releases to notify the
public that more active law enforcement is taking place.

Physical barriers

At Royal Palm, the 1979 policy noted a problem by the wall area in front of the
visitor center where an unattended child might fall into the water. In fact, such an
incident occurred in 1979. A natural wood railing, similar to that currently
existing along the first section of the Anhinga Trail, was recommended for
construction on top of this wall to a height of 36" from the ground to the top of the
railing. The Maintenance Division was responsible for the design, programming,
and construction of this railing. After a cost-evaluation of the project, the
Maintenance Division decided against its installation. We continue to feel that the
potential for a serious incident exists here, and that such a railing should be
installed. Although a permanent sign installed in this area would be helpful, we
remain convinced that a higher railing is a necessary and appropriate remedy in
this case.

The 1979 policy noted that at Royal Palm there were two specific areas where a
floating alligator can touch the front wall. In these areas, a child would be in
greater danger falling into the water than falling on solid ground. These areas
were to be filled with clean fill or large rocks so that alligators, while remaining
afloat, would remain three to four feet away from visitors. The Maintenance
Division was responsible for evaluation, programming, and construction of this
project. No action has been taken on this matter.


TOTAL HOURS

TYPE OF INCIDENT

HOURS PER INCIDENT


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
1 Alligator control incidents in Case Incident Reports ....... 29
IL. Suppliers for alligator tagging and capturing equipment. ..... 34
Ill. Alligator Removal Data Form. ........+.-. oe >)

iv


30

4 wIh8 ATTRA AFeYS = Payeoofay = UoT}BDOTSUBAL wet USTED, 9L/S/¢ $9609
T aUuON Burpee Puog eTTW SUTN 9L/11/4 $hS09L
1 auON juoulsseseyy Treay esuryuy 92/T2/T LOTO9Z
T re SUuON TTP] peoy, PY eg urew ¢L/0€/6 €980¢2
z 6 y8nors yeyS — ayeoofay-—=——UOT}BDOTSUBIL, TWeIW $2/92/6 78062
h 016 YBnojs yeYUS —— PayeOOTOY aatssoia3y Puog TI SUTIN sLfeu/l S€9062
z SUuON TTP] peow, Pa seg urew ¢L/8/9 €9S0S2
T SUON ur UNH Teay wee $2/8/¢ HBHOSL
T s€T-O1 SUON uy UNH Teay Twerwey SL/H1/4 SEn0SL
9 dwep euuajuy = pareoojay =——uoTeDO]SUeI], 4AB_ SPIsino SLILZ/E €9€0S2
T @UON poan{uy Puog ATW aUIN SLlez/€ LEEOSL
T aUON BuIpae. puog aT SUT $L/az/Z SIZOSL
T 2UON 210 19-1 SL4/11/% ZHIOSL
T pakouseq poantuy PY weg urew ¢L/6/z 9ETOSL
T SUuON 3ur,UNH AaTTEA ALUS nZ/ZZ/01 86Z6
z aUuON SuT,UNH ATE-1 4/4/01 Snes
z pakorseq peantuy weg jehoy HL/91/6 €0z¢
z AaTTeA HIBUS —_ ParedoTay JEYIO OOYIS 9d9NSOd>1W nd/€t/6 61s
T auoN aarssoia3y AaTTeA AIeUS nd/T1/6 T8T¢
T SUON BuIpaed Puog stioineg 4L/6/8 zoIs
T SUON BuIpaa. Puog STW SUTIN 4L162/9 8864
T 3UON aatssaissy keg uodsey 42/12/19 864
T 8 umouxU —_ paxedoTaY paan{uyy Treay jwemmey aLlevs 888h
T 6 qsouy Surunyy 29-1 HLIT/¢ 2L8h
T 2UON JYIO =—-—-yyouBA_ A1BxH00Y HLITU/S 6484
1 9UON 22410 Azepunog 1s2,\ 4L/82/4 78h
T SUON JayiO y8nors 42eUS nL[Le/h 9184
T ‘01 SUON TIP peo hay autg 3u0T nL/S@/h O18h
1 9UON Surquny oBurmeyy ad/9i/h €LLh
T 7 ASTRA AAeUS —- PaLRDOTOY J28y10 Axepunog 1s94\ Hd/St/h 49Lh
T SUON surquny Teay twee] aL{TE/€ 8299
T 6 auoN TIP] peo Teay twewey ndlOc/€ 2994
juapiouy sad sovesitry aus uayxeL Wwa[qoig UOITeD07T areq Jequiny aseo
sanoy-ueyw JO ‘ON 8eL uoTTeD0Tay uoljoy jo ainzen, yuaprou
perewtisy pue azig

*panurjuos | xipuaddy


16

Backcountry

The 1979 policy specified that problem alligators in backcountry areas were to be
dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If necessary, alligators were to be removed
according to the same criteria and methods established for other areas. Informa-
tion about the risks of going into the backcountry and reminders not to feed
alligators were to be made available to visitors, and instituting such a program was
to be the responsibility of the Interpretation Division.

Our analysis shows that nine incidents involving backcountry areas were reported
from 1972 to 1982. Of these, one involved illegal hunting, five were observations
of alligator behavior during dry-season conditions, one involved harassment and
subsequent death of an alligator in Florida Bay, and two involved aggressive
behavior by alligators in Tarpon Bay. This suggests that backcountry users are
apparently not faced with an extensive nuisance alligator situation, although we
realize that not all incidents in the backcountry are reported to park personnel.
We note, however, that a formal policy on warning backcountry users about the
danger and illegality of feeding or harassing alligators has not been developed.
Placement of small signs, which are already on hand, in appropriate backcountry
areas and access points may be useful. This is especially important for people
boating out of Flamingo. Although the elimination of the houseboat concession will
ease the situation considerably, a similar situation may develop in any regularly-
used area.

Nest sites

The 1979 policy noted, and our research has shown, that alligators guarding nests
use obvious threat behavior before an attack (Kushlan and Kushlan 1980). Despite
such threats, alligators are considered to be dangerous only when people approach
the nest site too closely. Alligator nests near visitor-use areas were to be
barricaded from visitors and signs were to be erected that warned of danger.

On at least four occasions, barricades were required at nest sites in Shark Valley
and Anhinga Trail, although Case Incident Reports were not always filed. In one
case, an area was roped off and an "Area Closed" sign was used. In three cases,
orange cones were used as a barricade without signs. An experiment in 1982 using
an ambiguous sign stating "Wildlife Nesting Area - Keep Out" showed that visitor
curiosity was aroused and the barricade was frequently ignored. The danger
involved in such situations cannot be underestimated (Kushlan and Kushlan 1980),
and a consistent policy is needed regarding nest-site barricades. There have been
differences of opinion as to whether aggressive alligators and other alligator
situations should be barricaded, thereby attracting attention to the site, or left
alone hoping that few visitors would notice the problem. We see no question here,
such situations should be signed simply "Area Closed" and, perhaps "Danger," and
should be barricaded with orange cones secured by ropes. To achieve consistency,
signs and cones must be readily available, and we suggest that the Maintenance
Division make this a priority for future nesting seasons. District naturalists could
instruct personnel to “actively interpret" the reasons for closure of any area.
Although we realize that some visitors will always defy both barriers and signs, we


22

The handling of alligators that have been determined to meet criteria for
classification of a problem animal shall include live-capturing and releasing the
specimen unharmed in an appropriate remote area of Everglades National Park.
Problem alligators should be relocated first to L-67E and, if necessary, to the Loop
Road at Roberts Lake Strand. If an alligator returns from relocation a second time
and becomes a problem a third time, or, if a severely injured alligator is involved,
then a written evaluation of the situation should be made by the district ranger to
the Superintendent requesting permission to destroy the alligator and specifying
the means of destruction and disposal to be used. Any action requires approval by
the Superintendent in accordance with Federal regulations (50 CRF § 17.42). This
procedure should be agreed to by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service through formal
agreement of policies proposed by Everglades National Park. Until such agreement
is obtained, notification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required by
Federal regulations. The entire evaluation, removal, and relocation process
including notifications of proper authorities is the responsibility of the district
ranger.

A long-term, trained, permanent employee of the Visitor Protection Division should
be responsible for actually handling problem alligators. This employee should be
responsible for maintaining proper capture and tagging equipment in an appropriate
manner. Suggested equipment suppliers are listed in Appendix II. Captures are to
be made through use of a pole snare or noose trap (Murphy and Fendley 1973),
whichever method proves to be most effective. All alligators should be tagged and
measured. Two types of tags are to be used on each problem alligator. A visible
numbered tag should be attached to scutes on the tail for rapid identification of
return alligators. A metal toe tag, inserted in the center web of the left rear foot,
provides a more permanent mark. Other important data include the total length of
the alligator and the weight, with units clearly specified (i.e., inches, pounds, etc.).
The district ranger should be responsible for properly tagging and recording data on
each animal captured, including information on the form shown in Appendix III.
Copies should be forwarded to the wildlife research biologist.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We appreciate the creative and supportive assistance of the many rangers,
interpreters, resource managers, and researchers that reviewed and contributed to
this report. We especially acknowledge the help of Jason Houck, Park Safety
Officer, for distributing an earlier draft to field personnel and subsequently
receiving, translating, and collating all of the responses. We received helpful and
thoughtful comments from all reviewers, including Hank Blatt, Mike Castro-
Shrader, Dave Dahlen, Dennis Daraghy, Rick Dawson, Pat Deason, Tom Goldbin,
Jerry Hammond, Bob Howard, Galen Marr, Al Mebane, and Cherry Payne. We have
attempted to consider all of their comments. We also appreciate the generosity of
various personnel of State and Federal wildlife offices throughout the southeastern
United States for sharing information on alligator control programs in their
respective states, including K.Guyse (Alabama), H. Alexander (Arkansas),
G. Johnson (Georgia), A. Ensinger and J. Tarver (Louisiana), E. Cliburn (Missis-
sippi), R. Hamilton (North Carolina), S. Phillips (South Carolina), and B. Thompson
(Texas). We especially thank A. Woodward and T. Hines of the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission for their continuing assistance. We also thank Dee
Childs, Dottie Anderson, and Jessie Brundige for typing the manuscript.


18

relocation as the only option available for control. However, we note that if
aversion training proves unsuccessful as a long-term deterrent, the. subsequent
capture of an alligator that has learned to avoid park personnel may be made more
difficult.

People Management Strategies

The 1979 policy noted that people management concerning problem alligators
required three approaches: (1) a sign system, (2) increased law enforcement, and
(3) erecting physical barriers.

Sign system

The 1979 policy noted that visitors come to the Everglades unaware of reasons for
not feeding or approaching alligators. To the contrary, visitors are reinforced into
feeding and approaching dangerous wildlife by their experiences in zoos and similar
areas. Because of this, the need for strategically placed and strongly worded signs
in Everglades National Park was suggested. A sign, standardized in size and
message, was to be placed in all problem areas. Some signs were to be
permanently installed while others would be portable and moved as needed. The
district ranger was to be responsible for obtaining permission from the Park Sign
Committee, for erecting permanent signs, and for using the option to erect
temporary signs in an emergency situation. The signs were to read as follows:

"It is illegal to feed or harass alligators:
It is dangerous for you and harmful to them.
Maximum fine $500"

The Interpretation Division was responsible for developing other interpretive
devices for educating visitors on the alligator.

Although these signs have been likened to reading "like the Dead Sea Scrolls," they
seem to have been very successful. Maintenance reports providing 12 such signs
(24" x 26") for distribution throughout the park. Four permanent signs have been
erected in the Flamingo District at Nine Mile Pond, West Lake, Coot Bay Pond, and
near Eco-Pond. In the Pine Island District, signs were placed at Paurotis Pond, at
Royal Palm, and at the lake in the Long Pine Key campgound. One sign was
erected at the entrance to Shark Valley, and no signs were requested by the
Everglades City district. Four signs remain on hand at Pine Island. In addition,
several dozen small signs (4" square) carrying the same message were ordered for
mounting on railings in hopes of providing a less intrusive warning to visitors.

Comments from some districts suggested that more signs should be made available
in the districts. In addition, it was suggested that the smaller signs could be
installed in backcountry areas to educate and remind campers of the danger
involving feeding and harassing alligators.

Further suggestions regarding signs can be made. To our knowledge, no signs were
placed at the Shark Valley Tower where a prominent feeding problem was
determined to exist. More temporary signs should be on hand in each district. A


31

TZ9I8Z 29Sx
H0€008 32Sx

OSHNW ‘69ZL SUON parysisoy fay autg 8u07 82/01/01 NON«

OSHNW ‘S9ZL aUON Parysisey fay autg 807 82/6/¢ NON*
z SUON aatssais3y puog STW SUN $2/82/9 T6TT8Z
z SUON Surquny ATE-1 82/6z/¢ 060182
Zz 4 Aqiean = payea0yay J2u10 puog 02g 3Z/6/$¢ 000TSZ
T iS 9U0N aatssai33y puog e1W eUIN 82/8/¢ $6608Z
T 4 peforisaq paan{uy PY yosessay 8Z/Z/¢ TL608Z
T 919 SUON 13810 Teal twee 82/82/4 416082
z ” petgioedsun = payeaojay 210 py useg skey 8Z/81/4 €68082
if 9h SUON 30 Py veg ureW 82/8/4 TO808Z
I iT SUON juouissesey PU weg ulew 8L/LZ7/€ 0€ 2082
T SUON Burpse{ axeT 1S2 A BZ/6r/€ 489082
1. ra SUON BuIpssz Puog S11 SUIN BZ/6r/€ 2€908Z
4 HE JBATY seq Paresojey qusuisse Jey puog 02% 8Z/n1/T 90T08Z

coz# BEL

0z OSHNW ‘uesZ 29-1 pareooyay aaTssois3y fay autg 8u0T ZL/0€/11 OTETLL«
T i aN Surquny 29-1 24/92/01 6HTIZZ
T 2UON 8urqUnH 29-1 LL/12/8 TL60LL
T auoN Surquny ATE-T 92/6z/0t Z8TI9Z
T iT auoN TPT Peoy Puy ye UreW 92/91/01 ASTI9L
T aUuoN BUIpaay BET 189M 92/6/6 TLOT9Z
z auoN TIP] peo Pu eg UTeW 9L/82/9 S€809Z
z SUON surquny Pu eg ureW 91/12/19 HEBO9L
4 Jaa SJOUSIA — paredojay == uoT}JeIOTSUeI], Zzsn 9£/02/9 818092
z wT Th pakoiseq paantuy Pu Aled ureW 9L/0€/¢ OnZ09Z
T iL SUON JayIO =: youeag Are y00y 9L/€e/4 29909Z

quaprouy Jad s01e3 ITY aus uayeL WaTqoig UOTZ R07 a1eq Jequwiny asep

sAnoy-ueyy Jo ‘ON Be UOTLEDOTAY uory jo ainjen, jUSpIouUy

parewtisy pue azIs

*panutjuoo | xtpuaddy


13

records. Should a situation require a barricade or temporary sign, an on-site
investigation should be made by law enforcement to determine appropriate action.
Research and Interpretation Divisions should be available for consultation and
should be notified of any action taken.

Relocation

When necessary, initial relocations of problem alligators were to be made to areas
of Everglades National Park where return was least likely, specifically to the south
end of the L-67E or to the Shark Valley borrow pits. A subsequent problem by the
same alligator in the same location was to necessitate its second removal to a
more distant location, namely the Everglades City area. Double removals were
thought to be necessary until effective removal distances were known. As a
general policy, further management action was to be determined by the results of
previous removals and was not to include lethal methods unless all other reasonable
methods had failed. Killing an alligator not posing an immediate threat to life
required justification (with respect to 50CFR&17.42 (B)(4)) and was to be
approved by the Superintendent.

Our examination of the effectiveness of the relocation procedure suggests a
modification of the initial policy. Thirty-four relocations were made in Everglades
National Park from 1972 to 1982. Of six relocations to L-67E, three alligators
returned to the original capture site (Table 2). In one case, an animal relocated a
second time to Turner River Park has, at this writing, not returned. In two cases, a
second relocation was not necessary because on their return the behavior of these
alligators no longer posed a threat to visitor safety, and they eventually moved
away from visitor-use areas.

We suggest that the relocation of nuisance alligators should be made not only to
places where return is least likely, but to areas where continued aggressive
behavior is unlikely, and where little impact on resident alligators is anticipated.
Such conditions suggest the first release site to be L-67E. This canal harbors
primarily transient alligators, and the introduction of another alligator should be of
little consequence to the population. Relocations to L-67E have been successful in
half of six attempts, and returns have been documented for straight-line distances
of over 58 km. Nevertheless, these alligators are not posing a problem while they
are away, and relocation seems to alter the behavior of problem alligators in the
event that they return to visitor-use areas. Monitoring the original capture area
for return and behavior of the tagged individual is a critical follow-up of the
relocation procedure.

The use of Shark Valley borrow pits for relocation should be discontinued for two
reasons. First, these areas harbor resident and possibly territorial alligators.
Here, the introduction of a new individual! could upset the prevailing population
structure. Second, visitor access along the Shark Valley Canal near the borrow pits
is unrestricted and the potential for aggressive behavior continues to threaten
visitor safety. A similiar situation exists at Turner River Park in the Big Cypress,
where relocations have been made in the past. It is suggested that all second
relocations be made off the Loop Road at Roberts Lake Strand to increase the
probability of a permanent move.


historical range, the status of the alligator was changed in 1977 from endangered
to threatened in all or part of the five states of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South
Carolina, and Texas (January 10, 1977 - 42 FR 2071-2077).

The newly adopted concept of the alligator as a renewable resource was not
without its opposition. The "wholesale" reclassification of alligators in Florida to a
threatened species drew negative responses from various conservationists, and
these comments are included in the final ruling in 1977. The National Park Service
submitted comments at the proposal stage questioning the effects of implementing
the ruling. The Service felt that reclassification of alligators in Florida could
initiate further threats to alligators and crocodiles in Everglades National Park by
stimulating a market for poached hides. The response to these comments was that
a diligently enforced system, where legally-taken hides are tagged, should keep
poaching to "tolerably low levels." In addition, strong control of international
trade would provide further protection. Other conservation-oriented groups
stressed that an overemphasis on lethal control would develop when transplantation
might sometimes be a better alternative. The state of Florida, in response,
instituted an experimental harvest program to determine the relative effectiveness
of lethal and non-lethal methods of alligator control. The results of this study
showed that lethal means of dealing with problem alligators provided a more time-
and cost-effective solution. Consequently, the State Nuisance Alligator Control
Program (Florida Statute 39-25.03) was initiated in 1978.

In spite of these objections a Fish and Wildlife Service report supported the
reclassification, stating:

"The situation [in Florida] is geographically complex and defies simple
summarization except to note that, in general, Florida supports
moderate to large alligator populations throughout the state either
increasing or remaining stable in the face of increasing urbaniza-
tion... Supplementary data [including input from Everglades National
Park and other groups] indicate that the population levels [in Florida]
are generally high... just how high is considered a problem for local
management decisions, not for overall status review."

In 1977, data showed that "alligators in Florida [were] more numerous than in any
other state, and [were] increasing in number annually, fully qualifying for reclassi-
fication to threatened status." It became apparent that it is large-scale trends and
not local exceptions that form the basis for reclassification decisions.

After the major reclassification of alligators to threatened status throughout most
of their range in 1977, further rulings loosened legal protection to an even greater
extent. The number of parishes in Louisiana in which the alligator could be
Jawfully taken from the wild was increased to twelve (June 25, 1979 - 44 FR 37131
and July 20, 1979-44FR 42911). Internationally, the alligator's status was
changed from Appendix 1 to Appendix II under the CITES regulations to allow
resumption of international! trade in alligator products (May 1, 1979 - 44 FR 25480
and October 12, 1979 - 44 FR 59080-59083). In 1981, the alligator was reclassified
in 52 parishes in Louisiana to the status of threatened by similarity of appearance
in "formal recognition by the (Fish and Wildlife) Service of biological recovery of
the alligator in Louisiana" (August 10, 1981- 46 FR 40664). At present, the
alligator is classified on the Federal level as threatened due to similarity of


90

a
|
Le

o __

rf [—s

Ww

Q 6O~ pam

is) |

= 7

Le Ld

Oo et
|

o Ls

 30— a

s |

5 7

2 | —
_ =
| — aml
| 7 7 — ed

oe og as ee oe
“) o) ~)
3s & yo? w XN 3?
<& o) AS
we e eo o
Figure 3. Distribution of incidents involving alligators among five management

areas in and around Everglades National Park from 1972 to 1982.

28


25

*paydwiayze uol}eD0[91 puosas
ON ‘axe7] 1seQ\ 1e pojsod ajom
suZIs SUT} YSTYM 18 (NON) 08/6/Z

uG.0T YL8UET
Te103 ‘199 NW
Be] 901 Te}OW

aatssaiZ8e se pajysiodal pue palysisoy 6 Lhd Tet gg Tze 08/6/Z 62/81/6 SxeT ISOM  CHZTEL
*paiduiai1e uol}es0ja1 ayew
puodas ON *axeT ISAK 12 paysod {uhé YSuay
aJam SUIS SWIT YSTYM 18 (996108 —_—-Te101. ‘708 NW
# ®S®D) 08/0€/6 PUB (NON) 08/6/Z 3B} 802 TeTEU!
aatssai88e se payjodai pue parysisoy att Teed 86 HEL 0s/6/Z —-BL/S/2 SHET 382M EHZTBL
*pajsodaa uinje1
ON ‘Wy Og aouURISIP ayewTxosdde
‘yaeg JoATY JauIny 04 awT} puodas neiZ YBuET
B paresojay “(HOE0O8# ASPD) T8302 ‘OS NW
08/HZ/Z PUe (TZITSZ# BSED) BZ/HZ/OT BEI 904 TEJOW
SATSSaI9Ze Se pojsiodai pue paLysisoy S9Z# Ted nE 09T 32/6/¢ ZL[OE/1T Py BUTG BUCT = OTET ZZ
uinjaJ Uo Usyxe} UOTIDY # Bel (Ww) (skep) uinjay = UOTIBOOFOY =: UOT}. EDO] JaqunN
aseaqlyw SWIL padslasqg jo ajeq ase
ayeutxoiddy JaaeaL 1SITy

winuwixey jo ayeq

*JaqWINU Sed OU = NON “AZ9-‘] 0} UOTLRDOTAI JaIZe SIs oaN{ded TeUTBIIO 0} siOLeSTTE aouestnu Fo unjoy *Z aIqeL


visitor-use areas. Similarly, a visitor becomes a problem when he or she harasses,
feeds, or in any way disturbs an alligator. Aggressive behavior in problem
alligators results primarily, although not exclusively, from feeding, as alligators
gradually become familiar with the potential rewards of close association with
visitor-use areas. Although they may be most dangerous during the nesting season
(Kushlan and Kushlan 1979), alligators attack without provocation only very rarely
(Hines and Keenlyne 1977).

Public perception of the potential danger presented by wild alligators is variable.
A public opinion survey was conducted in 1977 by the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission to measure human attitudes toward wild alligators.
Results showed that most (92%) Florida residents interviewed considered the
alligator a valuable species, but 73 percent felt that large alligators are dangerous
in some situations. Thirty-two percent considered that danger exists only when the
alligator is provoked, 14 percent felt that alligators were usually dangerous without
provocation, and 27 percent felt that alligators were rarely or never dangerous
(Hines and Schaeffer 1977). It is possible that these attitudes reflect a recent
change in public opinion caused in part by publicity emphasizing that alligators can
be dangerous.

History of the Alligator-Human Conflict

The potential threat of alligators as large predators capable of harming people,
pets, and livestock must be of concern to wildlife and law enforcement officials.
In order to suggest policies that will alleviate that threat, we began by examining
how the potential for dangerous situations has evolved and acknowledging situa-
tions that are most likely to contribute to hazardous conditions. We base this
discussion on Hines and Keenlyne (1976 and 1977), who reviewed the history of the
alligator as a threat to human safety.

Early explorers and naturalists reported the alligator as a menace to life and
property, while Indians apparently kept a constant guard against alligators. In the
early 1790's, Bartram described attacks on his boat by three large alligators in the
St. John's River, and other explorers reported equally perilous adventures involving
alligators. It is possible that these accounts may be tainted by the authors! need to
make their adventures appear exciting. If alligators were in fact such ferocious
creatures at one time, then the depletion of the Florida population by hunting in
the 1800's and early 1900's must have changed the alligator's behavior. As a result
of hunting pressure, alligators may have retreated to secluded swamps and become
increasingly timid toward humans. This, of course, cannot be proven. It is possible
that there may have been more aggressive alligators in these early times simply
because there were more large individuals capable of taking large prey.

In spite of the widespread depletion of alligators as a result of hunting, it may be
that habitat destruction in Florida has impacted alligator populations to an even
greater extent (Hines 1969). With urban expansion into previously secluded areas
that had become the alligator's retreat, the increased potential for human-alligator
contact began to manifest itself in reports of human injury and even death from
alligator attacks. In Florida, sixteen documented attacks have been reported,


INTRODUCTION

The National Park Service strives to perpetuate the native animal life of the parks
for their essential role in natural ecosystems (National Park Service 1978). In
aquatic habitats, the ecological importance of crocodilians is being given
increasing recognition by both scientists and wildlife managers (January 10, 1977 -
42 FR 2075). This is especially relevant in the Everglades, where the activities of
the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) are critical to the natural
functioning of the ecosystem, serving to maintain species richness and increase
habitat diversity (Craighead 1968, Kushlan 1974). In recognition of their important
ecological role and their popularity with the visiting public, alligators have become
symbols of the wilderness of Everglades National Park.

The history of the alligator within the Everglades began with its exploitation,
especially for the commercial value of its hides. Keeping a check on illegal
hunting once consumed many personnel-hours of effort within Everglades National
Park, and the earliest emphasis on alligator management had always been properly
placed on the protection of alligators from humans. As the park became
established, however, and was opened to people other than local hunters, a new
range of potential problems for management developed. The realization that
alligators might become nuisances arose early in the history of the park. In 1948,
the first Park Superintendent, Dan Beard, inquired ". .. Can it be we shall soon be
putting up signs ‘Do not feed the alligators'?" His foresight proved correct. While
not foreseeing that habitat changes and water management practices would replace
hunting as the primary threat to Everglades alligators, early park managers began
to see that conflicts between alligators and civilization were to take many forms.

The alligator, once nearly decimated by hunting in the early 1900's (Allen and Neill
1949), is now Florida's most visible nuisance wildlife species (Goodwin 1982).
Today, one focus of alligator management must include human safety, particularly
in areas where people and alligators are in close association. In this report, we
review the nature and extent of alligator-visitor conflicts within Everglades
National Park. We discuss the conditions likely to create these conflicts, and how
they relate to effective management. We also examine the legal status of the
alligator throughout its range and review for background how various State and
Federal agencies handle similar problems. We evaluate the results of a problem
alligator management policy instituted in Everglades National Park in 1979 and
recommend a management scheme to provide protection for both alligators and the
park visitor.

Nature of Nuisance Alligators

Alligators are dangerous because they are large, strong, predatory animals, and
their bite can kill or maim humans. Even less than fatal bites can cause problems,
especially because of the danger of infection by a bacteria associated with
alligators, Aeromonas hydrophilam, which can cause serious and even permanent
damage in an open wound (Spillan 1983).

An alligator becomes a problem of concern to park personnel when it is aggressive
toward visitors, leaves the water and approaches visitors, or defends a nest near


14

Regarding translocations, we feel that the release of problem alligators from
elsewhere into the park should be discouraged because such animals are of no
biological value and may be detrimental to the resident alligator population. These
alligators present an unnecessary burden to park personnel and pose the potential
to become nuisances in the park just as they were outside. Introductions also
threaten the genetic purity of the park population and may introduce disease. As a
result, no alligators should be translocated into the park. Animals outside the park
fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in
West Palm Beach, which should be notified regarding these animals.

Handling Problem Alligators

When a species becomes "listed," it is subject to very stringent protection. One of
the most significant restrictions is that no person may "take" that species
anywhere in the United States, its territorial sea, or in the high seas (16 USC -1538
(a)(1)(b)). "Taking," under Federal law, is defined very broadly, meaning to "harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct" (16 USC - 1532 (14)). With few exceptions, no person may take American
alligators except (1) in defense of his own life or the lives of others, or (2) as an
employee or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Service, any other Federal land
management agency, or a state conservation agency. Such an employee, when
designated by the agency for such purposes, may, during the course of official
duties, take alligators without a permit if such action is necessary to: (1) aid a sick,
injured, or orphaned specimen; (2) dispose of a dead specimen; (3) salvage a dead
specimen which may be useful for scientific study; or, (4) remove specimens which
constitute a demonstrable threat to human safety. The removal process calls for
destruction of the alligator only if live-capture and relocation has been shown to be
not reasonably possible.

Discussion has been extensive regarding the proper and most practical means and
justification for disposing of either severely injured or persistently aggressive
alligators within the park. As for justification, Federal regulations clearly allow
the handling and destruction of alligators by designated Federal employees without
a permit during the course of duty if the above conditions are met. As for the
means of handling alligators, the rules are clear regarding the initial requirement
for live-capture. Subsequently, the destruction of an alligator may be necessary if
it presents a persistent and recurring threat to visitor safety, a threat that has not
been alleviated by less drastic action. Under any condition, killing needs to be
justified and approved in advance by the Superintendent.

While alligators could be killed by shooting or by severing the spinal cord at the
neck using an ax, such procedures may raise public objections for being inhumane.
The recognized humane method for euthanizing an animal involves injection of the
drug atropine. This is the standard veterinary procedure which has proven
effective with alligators (E. Jacobson, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Florida, Gainesville, pers. comm.). Use of atropine in the park would require its
proper storage and handling. However, this could be the sole responsibility of one
individual, the trained alligator control specialist. Use of the drug in the field
should cause no great inconvenience if standard procedures for handling problem
alligators are developed and followed. In each case when an animal is to be
destroyed, after approval by the Superintendent, the animal would in any event


alligators could not be distinguished from other still endangered alligators except
when found in the wild in these three parishes. Reclassification in this area, it was
determined, would cause further threats to those populations that remained listed.
To address this problem, the proposal for delisting was based on provisions under
Section 4(e) of the Act that allow some populations of alligators to be managed
with greater flexibility and yet remain classified as threatened because of their
similarity in appearance to endangered alligators. Recognizing that alligator
poaching and subsequent trading in alligator hides and products was still a major
factor in the threat to endangered and threatened alligators, Federal regulations
were developed to control interstate trade and to prohibit international trade in
these goods.

The first delisting proposal, which changed the alligator's status in three Louisiana
parishes to threatened due to similarity of appearance, became final in 1975
(September 26, 1975 - 40 FR 44412-44425). The 1975 ruling documented a changing
attitude in alligator management policies, citing that "available data indicate that
the primary threats to alligator populations in [certain areas where there has been
substantial recovery] are not biotic but rather [result from] the absence of
adequate regulatory and enforcement mechanisms" to control poaching, malicious
killing, unwise commercial! harvesting, and illegal trade. In 1975, the alligator was
believed to be making "encouraging gains in population over much of its historical
range," and in many areas, populations were considered to be "ecologically secure."
The 1975 rule goes on to say that:

",.. increasing urbanizaton and development is resulting in more
frequent human-alligator conflicts, and contro! of certain populations is
needed to minimize public hostility toward the species. Even though
actual numerical levels of alligators may be below the biotic carrying
capacity in most habitats, socioeconomic factors must be considered in
setting management goals to maximize public interest in, and accept-
ance of, coexistence with this potentially troublesome but ecologically
important species."

Existing programs of public education and rigid enforcement were deemed
"inadequate in the face of burgeoning alligator populations and increasing human-
alligator conflicts," and the ruling concluded that "some populations are now at a
point where the species could be best served by more flexible management
programs."

The 1975 ruling paved the way for subsequent delisting proposals which were wider
in scope. The next proposal in 1976 (April 8, 1976 - 41 FR 14886-14887) called for a
reclassification of alligators from endangered to threatened in all of Florida and in
certain coastal areas of Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas. The 1976
rulemaking proposed "limited, lethal removal of dangerous alligators to protect
human lives and property" and authorized "controlled takings for scientific or
conservation purposes in restricted areas ...all to enhance long-range conserva-
tion objectives for the species as a renewable natural wildlife resource." This new
philosophy of alligator management prevailed. In recognition of the encouraging
recovery of the alligator under legal protection throughout much of its known


20

It was noted that at the Shark Valley Tower area, a modification of the fence was
called for to prevent visitors from climbing into the area where alligators
commonly bask. Signing was called for to inform park visitors who do not come on
trams. No action has been taken on these matters.

1983 PROBLEM ALLIGATOR MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The objectives of the alligator management program in Everglades National Park
are to provide for visitor safety while preserving the alligator population for its
ecological, aesthetic, educational, and scientific values. These goals are attained
through an integrated program of education, preventative measures, enforcement,
and contro! requiring the cooperation of all divisions within the park.

Education

Visitors come to the Everglades unaware of reasons for not feeding or approaching
alligators. To the contrary, visitor curiosity and boldness are encouraged by the
deceptively lethargic behavior of large alligators during the day. Making visitors
aware that alligators present a danger for physical harm should be the responsi-
bility of the Interpretion Division. Since interpretive personnel often witness
offenses, training should be provided on how to handle such situations. All staff
should be advised that they have the responsibility and obligation to contact the
rangers and inform visitors about the hazards of alligators when they see hazardous
situations.

Enforcement

Feeding alligators is a violation of state law (Florida Statute 372.667) and should be
enforced as such through issuance of citations, warnings, and interpretive mes-
sages. Federal regulations forbid any "taking" of a listed wildlife species, which
includes any act which harasses or harms wildlife (16 USC & 1532 (14). In this
sense, "harm" is defined to include any acts which "annoy ... to such an extent as
to... disrupt essential behavior patterns, which include... feeding"
(50 CFR £ 17.3).

The Ranger Division should be responsible for prioritizing a law enforcement
Presence in areas of potential alligator-visitor conflict. A Case Incident Report
(Form 10-343) should be filed in every alligator-related situation under the
category "Animals and Wildlife." Such incidents include cases of visitor
complaints, observations, official! visits to the scene, and violations of feeding or
harassment regulations. Such documentation allows monitoring the nature and
extent of the alligator control problem and facilitates evaluation of the effective-
ness of the management program.

Reduction of Unnatural Conflicts

Both education and enforcement help prevent potentially dangerous alligator-
visitor interactions. A critical aspect of an integrated program includes the use of
appropriate signs and physical barriers. All areas of potential alligator-visitor


Evaluation of the Management of Problem Alligators in
Everglades National Park

Report SFRC-83/0

Terri Jacobsen and James A. Kushlan

National Park Service
South Florida Research Center
Everglades National! Park
Homestead, Florida 33030

October 1933


case-by-case basis using relatively little manpower. Different approaches are
necessary because of local variability in alligator population size, the type of
habitats to be managed, and the nature of public recreational activities. In this
section we review the prevailing regionwide approaches and attitudes toward
nuisance alligator control because these policies provide a useful context for
understanding the nature and extent of potential nuisance alligator problems within
Everglades National Park.

Florida

Populations were estimated for states in the alligator's range in 1974, Florida being
credited with 407,585 animals (Joanen 1974). Although such estimates are
exceptionally and unreliably crude, it does appear that Florida has more alligators
than any other state (see January 10, 1977 - 42 FR 2073). Florida is one of two
states, the other being Louisiana, to utilize the alligator commercially. Harvesting
was instituted in Florida in 1978 when it was decided that resolution of the
extensive nuisance alligator problem using relocation techniques was not econom-
ical. Some commission officers were reported to be spending over 50 percent of
their time responding to complaints about alligators and relocating problem
alligators. The use of wildlife reservists (volunteers) to relocate alligators failed
for several reasons, including the lack of volunteers, the time-intensive nature of
the removal process, and the extensive drain on state manpower needed for
supervision of the program. Based on the results of a pilot study conducted in
1977, the state began using private hunters to harvest nuisance alligators with
profits from the sale of the meat and hides to be partially taken by the state. This
has been judged to be a practical and economical method of handling nuisance
alligator complaints on a state-wide basis (Hines and Woodward 1980). Under
current state regulations, designated agent trappers of the commission are
authorized to take, possess, and kill only those alligators specifically designated by
the state alligator coordinator, who specifies the location and size of any alligator
to be taken (Florida Statute 39-25.03). The state also licenses alligator farms that
can sell hides and meat (A. Woodward, pers. comm.).

Louisiana

Next to Florida, Louisiana ranks second in alligator abundance (Joanen 1974) and
yet surpasses Florida in supporting the most liberal policies of controlling alligator
populations. Responsibility for the control of problem alligators in Louisiana has
recently transferred from the state to the local level because of its extensive and
time-consuming nature. The state continues to cooperate with the local governing
body (parish council) by verifying the need for alligator control within the parish
and by approving the selection of a private control agent to handle complaints in
that area. From then on, the state assists only occasionally and for all practical
purposes budgets no manpower or funds for nuisance alligator control.

Because Louisiana alligators become dormant in the winter, nuisance complaints
are received seasonally, in warmer months, from January through the end of the
summer. Complaints concern typical situations of alligator-human contact.


appearance in Louisiana and in captivity wherever found. Threatened status holds
in all of Florida and parts of Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina. Alligators remain
endangered "wherever found in the wild except those areas listed" above
(August 10, 1981 - 46 FR 40669).

Legal Status of Alligators - State of Florida

The current (1981) statewide alligator management policy in Florida establishes a
goal of managing the Florida alligator population "...on an optimum sustained
yield basis, that includes recognizing alligators as an ecologically, aesthetically,
and economically valuable natural resource." The state legally lists the alligator as
a species of special concern, a less restrictive rating than the threatened listing on
the Federal register. Current regulations in Florida limit the "taking" of alligators
to state employees for scientific purposes (including experimental harvest), as
appropriate to the duties of their job, and to alligator trappers in accordance with
the State Nuisance Alligator Control Program (Florida Statute 39-25.03). In 1978,
a state law (Florida Statute 372.667) was passed prohibiting persons from "inten-
tionally feeding or enticing with food any wild alligator or crocodile." Persons
found violating the provision are guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree
which is punishable by a fine of up to $500 and/or imprisonment in the county jail
not exceeding sixty (60) days.

In recognition of the recovery of many populations of alligators in Florida, the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission developed a delisting proposal in
July of 1981, which is still pending (A. Woodward, pers. comm., November 1982).
The proposal! requests a status change at the Federal level for the Florida alligator
population to be delisted from threatened to threatened due to similarity of
appearance. Although the overall state policy is not consistent with that of the
National Park Service, which does not engage in the commercial utilization of
wildlife species in areas it controls (National Park Service 1978), Everglades
National Park has previously been included with the entire state of Florida in
reclassification decisions. Alligator populations in the park would be legally
covered by such a ruling. The effect of the state's delisting proposal would be to
place alligator populations in Florida under state law, although any more restric-
tive policies of the National Park Service would prevail on the federally-protected
lands within Everglades National Park. However, until we understand what factors
limit or control the survival of alligators in the Everglades marsh, we suggest that
this population remains threatened, especially considering the adverse effects of
water management on alligator productivity (Kushlan and Jacobsen, in prep.). In
this report, we show that education and enforcement programs, considered
"inadequate [by the Fish and Wildlife Service] in face of burgeoning alligator
populations and increasing human-alligator conflicts" (April 8, 1976 - 41 FR 14856),
do in fact provide sufficient control of alligators in Everglades National Park
without necessitating a lowering of the alligator's status in the park.

Regionwide Nuisance Alligator Control Programs

The need to control problem alligators has prompted the formulation of formal
policies in five of the ten southeastern states within the species' range (Louisiana,
Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia). The five remaining states (Missis-
sippi, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma) handle problems on a


YVS3A

18 08 62 82 ZL 92 7a bl eZ el

2s

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
= nN

1

TT
TT
TUT
TT
H
HUTENUNOUNANYOUIGL
I
T
I
TU

wo
(o)



154—— a

6.0
60 —

20 2.0

LBLELETRIECRI Ee.

TOTAL HOURS
HOURS PER INCIDENT

ny oy » )
3° sot aw? gg ger tl 2 °
se” or” N ee eo & <¢
No) a eX
TYPE OF INCIDENT
Figure 2. Personnel effort ex

pended on eight types of alligator incidents occurring in Everglades Nationa! Park from 1972 to
1982,


30°

20

10

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

°
N
nN
N
rR)
N
b
N
ai
~
o
N
N
eS
©

79 80 81 82

YEAR

Figure 1. Number of incidents involving alligators that occurred each year in Everglades National Park from 1972 to 1982.


beginning as far back as 1948 (Carle 1948). Details of these attacks included three
interesting observations - (1) fourteen of sixteen victims were between nine and
sixteen years old; (2) larger alligators were usually involved in attacks on larger
people; and (3) thirteen of sixteen attacks occurred while the victim was either
swimming or playing in the water, although three victims were standing on land at
the edge of the water. Many of these incidents occurred in urban or park areas,
and newspaper accounts cited the feeding of alligators as contributory to the
attacks. In addition, information had been released in the past indicating that
alligators were harmless, and this may have led to a relaxed, unwary attitude on
the part of some people. Nevertheless, the documentation of two attacks in 1975
showed that large alligators, even when unprovoked, may attack humans. Although
no attacks on people have ever occurred within Everglades National Park, the idea
that alligators in the park are naturally afraid of humans is questionable. It is
clear that they learn to avoid people if harassed, and it appears that alligators can
also lose that tendency and become aggressive if such behavior is positively
reinforced.

Legal Status of Alligators - Federal

In 1967, the U.S. Department of the Interior determined the alligator to be an
endangered species throughout its entire range in ten southeastern states
(January 10, 1977 - 42 FR 2071-2077). This determination reflected concern for
alligator populations that had become drastically reduced after many years of
excessive exploitation and habitat loss. The alligator was legally protected as an
endangered species under Federal law in 1973 with the passage of the Endangered
Species Act (16 USC 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884). The Act defines "endangered" to
include "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant
portion, of its range." The "threatened" category not only gives protection to
species before they become endangered but also provides a means of gradually
reducing the level of protection for previously endangered species that have been
successfully "restored" to a point where extreme protective measures are no longer
necessary (Busterud 1977).

Soon after Federal law officially declared al! alligators endangered, it became
apparent that not all alligator populations were in need of strict protection.
Anticipating this situation, the Act broadly defines "species" so that distinct
geographic populations can be evaluated on an individual basis. Thus, it is possible
to have a particular species, such as the alligator, subject to stringent protection
as an endangered species in one area, less stringent protection as a threatened
species in another, and have no Federal protection elsewhere (September 26, 1975 -
40 FR 44412). Consequently, during the past ten years, legal protection for
alligators has been gradually loosened in a somewhat piecemeal and time-
consuming manner. This reflects both the time required for these distinct
geographical populations to recover and the careful diligence of the delisting
bureaucracy. In this section, we review the delisting process because it reflects
the inherent diversity and the history of changing attitudes toward alligator
management.

As early as 1975, alligator populations in three parishes in Louisiana were thought
to be neither endangered nor threatened, and it was proposed that their status be
changed (July 8, 1975 - 40 FR 44412-44429). However, it was recognized that these


17

feel that the park has the responsibility to make every reasonable effort to protect
the visitor and the alligator in such situations.

Unrestricted areas

The geographic distribution of incidents involving alligators in the park from 1972
to 1982 shows that most incidents of all types combined have occurred in
unrestricted areas, where people can approach alligators without restrictive
barriers (Fig. 3). Such areas include the main park road, Nine Mile Pond, West
Lake, Long Pine Key, Tamiami Trail, Paurotis Pond, Flamingo, and two canals
bordering the park, L-67E and L-30. The main park road shows the highest
frequency of all types of incidents (Table 1). Manpower-intensive incidents, which
include aggressive, feeding, and harassment situations, have occurred primarily at
Nine Mile Pond where visitor approach to alligators is among the most extensive in
the park. West Lake follows close behind as a problem area. In unrestricted areas,
problem alligator situations require prompt management action to insure visitor
safety. It is in these areas where relocation policies most frequently apply.

Restricted areas

Eleven case incident reports were filed from 1972 to 1982 regarding alligators in
restricted areas. Of these, one dealt with illegal hunting, two were of naturally
injured alligators, two were observations of alligators, two were of harassment, and
four dealt with aggressive behavior. One of these aggressive alligators at Anhinga
Trail was relocated to Long Pine Key in 1972. Thus, in 11 years, only four
aggressive alligators were reported from restricted areas and only one relocation
was required. The major problem in restricted areas was recognized in the 1979
policy to be one of physically preventing people from getting too near alligators.
Consequently, the situation here is seen more as one that requires people
management rather than alligator management, and this is detailed in the next
section.

Unlike in unrestricted areas, the 1979 policy suggested that problem alligators in
restricted areas, such as Anhinga Trail, Mahogany Hammock, Pa-Hay-Okee, and
the Shark Valley Tower, were to be removed only if they posed an immediate
threat, and aversion training was to be attempted if the problem was not
considered to be immediate. The concept of aversion training is an attempt to
modify the behavior of nuisance alligators so that capture and removal is not
necessary. We have heard of the use of firecrackers and prodding with sticks or
poles to discourage the presence of an alligator in a conspicuous area. Each
technique has met with relatively low success because a lot of repeated personnel
effort is required and because alligators frequently return when the aversion
training stops. We note, however, that in Flamingo, blasts of water from a
firetruck were used to disperse alligators from the boat ramp. Good success with
this method is reported and the sight of the firetruck itself is now sufficient to rid
the area of problem alligators at least temporarily. It is clear though that
alligators learn to avoid the firetruck or persons in uniform and not the visiting
public, which may still be at risk from an aggressive individual. If such methods
prove effective, park personnel should be encouraged to try them in lieu of viewing


34

Appendix II. Suppliers for alligator tagging and capturing equipment.

Metal toe tags: Size #1 (large tags)
Self-piercing Monel metal tags
Special stamping "NPS"
Cost: $48.90/1,000 tags

Nationa! Band and Tag Company
721 York Street
Newport, Kentucky 41072

Visible tail tags: Allflex large tags
Specify numbering sequence desired

Specify color (yellow)
Cost: $0.50 each - Applicator cost: $4.40 each

Allflex Tag Company
P.O. Box 3132
Santa Monica, California 90404

Nooses: Kleflock #2 Standard snare (6 ft)
Woodstream Corporation

P.O. Box 327
Litiz, Pennsylvania 17543


Appendix III.

ALLIGATOR REMOVAL DATA FORM

1. Complete form for each alligator handled.
2. Send form to Jim Kushlan, South Florida Research Center.

Date

Name of person completing form

Names of those involved with removal

Initia! location of alligator

Removal techniques tried, which successful

Give history of situation on back of form

Release location

Comments on behavior at release

Date and time of release

Critical alligator data
Total length (cm)

Snout-vent length (cm) (to back of vent)

Weight (give units)

Toe tag (left hind foot, center web)

Collar color

Tail/neck tag number

Distinguishing characteristics

Any comments (use reverse of form if necessary)

35


23

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1949. Increasing abundance of the alligator in the
eastern portion of its range. Herpetologica 5(6):109-112.

Busterud, J. A. 1977. The evolution of national wildlife law. Report prepared for
the Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office.

Carle, W. 1948. Alligators do attack? Fla. Wildlife 2(4): 10-11.

Craighead, F. D, 1968. The role of the alligator in shaping plant communities and
maintaining wildlife in the southern Everglades. The Florida Naturalist
41:2-7, 69-71.

Goodwin, T. M. 1982. Nuisance Wildlife. Fla. Wildlife 35(6): 4-12.

Hines, T. C. 1969. The past and present status of the alligator in Florida. Proc.
Southeast Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 33:224-232,

Hines, T. C., and K. D. Keenlyne. 1976. Alligator attacks on humans in Florida.
Proc. Southeast Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 30:358-361.

Hines T. C. and K. D. Keenlyne. 1977. Two incidents of alligator attacks on
humans in Florida. Copeia 1977:735-738.

Hines, T. C. and R. Schaeffer. 1977. Public opinion about alligators in Florida.
Proc. Southeast Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 31:84-89.

Hines, T. C., and A. R. Woodward. 1980. Nuisance alligator control in Florida.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8(3):234-241.

Joanen, T. 1974. Population status and distribution of alligators in the south-
eastern United States. Paper presented at S.E. Regional Endangered Species
Workshop, Tallahassee, Fl.

Kushlan, J. A. 1974. Observations on the role of the American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis) in the southern Florida wetlands. Copeia 1974(4):993-996.

Kushlan, J. A., and M. S. Kushlan. 1980. Function of nest attendance in the
American alligator. Herpetologica 36(1):27-32.

Murphy, T. M., and T. T. Fendley. 1973. A new technique for live trapping of
nuisance alligators. Proc. Southeast Game and Fish Comm. 27: 308-310.

Potter, F.E. 1981. Status of the American alligator in Texas. Special report of
the wildlife division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin,
Texas. 49 p.

Spillan, T. 1983. Gator Bite. Fla. Wildlife 37(2): 41-42.


Figure
L.

2.

3.

LIST OF FIGURES

Number of incidents involving alligators that occurred
each year in Everglades National Park from 1972 to 1982 . .

Personnel effort expended on eight types of alligator incidents

occurring in Everglades Nationa! Park from 1972 to 1982 .

Distribution of incidents involving alligators among five

management areas in and around Everglades National Park from

1972 to 1982

iii


control of alligators in relation to public safety falls under the jurisdiction of the
Resources Management and Visitor Protection Division. This division handles all
types of alligator incidents ranging from road-kills to complaints about aggressive
individuals. Consistent documentation of personnel effort in relation to alligator
control began in 1972 with the institution of the Case Incident Report system.
Under this system, incidents involving alligators fall under two categories:
(1) Animals and Wildlife, and (2) Hazardous Conditions. We have categorized
incidents involving alligators as detailed in these reports into eight types of
situations based on the actions taken by park personnel. We calculated the effort
involved in each incident by including both field time and paperwork and defined a
minimum effort as one personnel-hour. Alligator-related incidents generally are of
the following types:

Aggressive: Alligators behaving in an aggressive manner toward visitors
either in an unprovoked incident or as a result of familiarity induced through
feeding. Response by law enforcement calls for relocation and/or destruction
of the problem alligator. A special potential for aggressive behavior occurs
during the nesting season (June-September) when female alligators may
vigorously defend a nest site often in close proximity to public areas.
Response to situations involving nest defense includes the posting of warning
signs and barricades around the nest site.

Hunting: Violation of laws prohibiting the hunting of alligators. Involvement
of law enforcement personne! includes investigating reports of suspicious
activity, prosecuting violations, or documenting the discovery of a shot or
tail-less alligator.

Injured: The handling of an alligator injured through either natural (combat
or disease) or unnatural (road accident) events. Typical response involves
relocation or destruction.

Road-kill: Alligators struck and killed by cars along roads within and
adjacent to the park. Response is removal from traffic.

Feeding: Public feeding of alligators. Typical response is an explanation of
park policy and the issuance of a warning, although such activity is illegal in
Florida and citations could be given.

Harassment: Typically, alligators pelted with rocks and other debris to elicit
movement or other response. In some incidents, injuries may be severe
enough to kill the animal. Such activity is usually discouraged with a verbal
warning, although this activity is a violation of Federal regulations and could
be enforced as such.

Translocation: Alligators brought to the park from outside areas for
relocation inside the park. Action involves evaluation of the case and
selection of a release site.

10


12

Management Actions

Responsible personnel

The 1979 plan specified that the decision on how to handle a problem alligator was
to be made by the district ranger, and this procedure seems to have worked well.
The district ranger was also called upon to train a team of alligator handlers, and
this has proven to be less effective. As few alligator incidents developed each
year, experienced personnel left and new personnel arrived, and the training
necessary for the capture and handling of alligators was not passed on. We have
suggested that one or more long-term staff members of the Visitor Protection and
Resources Management Division should be designated to actually handle alligators
on-site under the supervision of the district ranger. It might be considered that
periodic training sessions for all staff by alligator researchers would be more
appropriate. However, such expertise may not always reside in the Research
Division and suitable training situations, when alligator incidents occur and when
all personnel are available, are rare. Over the past several years, each incident
tends to become a training session using many more personnel than necessary. It is
essential that the responsible employees be trained and that this expertise be
maintained with the responsible division.

Suitable equipment for handling alligators must be available in each district, and
the cost should be borne by the responsible division. The necessary equipment and
suggested suppliers are listed in Appendix II. The capture equipment and
procedures that we recommend are based on what has proven successful in
capturing over 5,000 alligators for research purposes. Other procedures may also
prove useful in the future. We strongly recommend duct tape to secure the
alligator's snout, although other materials such as rubber bands or rope are also
suitable. Duct tape does not break or slip and eventually comes off by itself if the
alligator were to escape before the tape is removed. It would be useful to
assemble an "alligator capture procedures notebook," including photographs and
detailed explanation of safety measures.

The 1979 management policy called for the wildlife biologist to certify alligator
handlers and contact the Fish and Wildlife Service as required by Federal
regulations. Certification by the Research Division is no longer necessary since
these duties can be handled by the district ranger. Recommendations for
addressing the reporting requirement have been made in a later discussion on
handling nuisance alligators, and this should be dealt with as soon as possible. Staff
wildlife biologists should remain responsible for analyzing results of actions taken
to handle any nuisance alligator situation and for evolving more effective
procedures.

All staff should be alert for potentially dangerous situations of alligator-visitor
conflict, especially in high-risk areas of unrestricted visitor access. Information
and observations of these types of situations should be relayed to the Ranger
Division and documented as a Case Incident Report. This will help monitor the
effectiveness of current policies and will serve to maintain consistent internal


LIST OF TABLES

Page
Nature and location of nuisance alligator incidents according
to Case Incident Reports filed from 1972 to 1982. . . 2... .. 24

Return of nuisance alligators to original capture site after
relocation to L-67E 2 6 6 we ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 2S

ii


33

T 00$ L axeTSepe[D eUIg — payeD0Tay poanfuy Pu eg ureW 18/Z2/T NONxxx -
ST 69% L yaeg JoATY JOuIN]L paresojay datssaissy Kay autg Buoy 08/Z/€ NON«x*
SATSSOIZZe
624 L -parysisoy SAE] ISOM 08/6/Z NON«
peyosJ9 JoTqeg
ral 49 paysod suig aaTssoi33y AaTeA IeUS zs/T/L S10IZ8
T 9 9UON J9IO AaTTeA 4IeYS 78/81/2 €€60Z8
pajoeija Jatieg
T 9 paisod suats satssoisay Treay e8uryuy 73/61/9 826028
(Peep)
€ 9 paresofay quawissesey Aayunosyoeg Z3/T/L Z880Z8
z SuoN TH peoy = peoy seg UTeW 78/l2/¢ 8080z8
T €-Z SUON 2210 MIE-1 78/6/¢ 842028
T 97S ouoN aatssois3y Kay aug 8u0T 78/SZ/4 769078
T (S438 O7t3) .¢ SUON Burquny Teay twee 78/Z1/4 7$90z8
T Toned aatssois3y Aeg uodsey, 18/2/8 64ST18
€ S ASTRA AABYS = PaBOOTAY aatssais3y s408ty Auuute 18/4/8 TZEZT8
€ iL Aqiean —s pazeo0yay aaTssais3y aayNSODIIW] 18/S1/Z THZOT
T ath L paisog susis datssais3y axeT ISOM 08/0€/6 996108
€ 00S L aAETSAPETD aug = parecdojay UOT eDOTSURIL Pu punos prea 08/41/8 99LTO8 xxx
if soz L 3UON aatssois3y Avy autg 3u0T 08/4z/Z H0€008 xx
oT umouxUN, —_ Pared0Toy pean{uy weg Tehoy 62/0€/6 L9Z16L
n6.0T LL
st 6ZhL ‘199 NW ALI-T —- uorzeo0TaY aarssalgay BHAT 182A 6L/81/6 €nZ16Le
spuog stjoineg ‘TIW
T SUuON aatssoi33y = SUTIN ‘9eT 1S9A\ 62/¢/6 SSTT6L
€ 2UON T2410 PY ed UTeW 82/61/11 €8618Z
z 2UON Jou Pa Aeq Tey SZ4/T1/TT Z86T8Z
z SUON JBY10 pa ed UrewW 8L/1/21 6LE18L
Zz 2UON 8410 Py eg UTeW SZ/0T/TT 9L6T8L
quaprouy Jad aoesTITTy ais uaxeL waTqoig UOT} eI07T areq =JBqUINN aseo
sanoy-ueyy JO ‘ON Be], uoTTeD078y uoljoy yo oinzen, yUSpIoU
parewtisy pue 9azIg

*panurquos | xtpuaddy


21

contact should contain permanent signs in a conspicuous position which carry the
following message:

"It is illegal to feed or harass alligators:
It is dangerous for you and harmful to them.
Maximum fine $500."

The district rangers should be responsible for the installation of permanent signs in
all such areas within their districts. The Maintenance Division should be
responsible for making these signs. Signs carrying the same message should be
constructed of a temporary nature and should be available in each district for use
under appropriate conditions.

An especially relevant temporary situation occurs during the nesting season (June-
September) when alligators may exhibit aggressive behavior in defense of a nest
site located near visitor-use areas. In such cases, and in other problem areas where
visitor passage should be restricted, the area should be roped off, barricaded with
warning cones, and carry a large sign with the following message:

"AREA CLOSED
DANGER"

As the responsibility of the Maintenance Division, these signs should be designed in
this manner, printed in bulk, distributed to each district, and should be made
readily available upon request. All park personnel should be alert for the
development of dangerous nesting situations and should inform the Law Enforce-
ment Division, who will erect the barricades. The Research Division should be
available for consultation in matters of alligator behavior. Strict enforcement and
interpretation of the messages carried by both signs and barricades is critical to
their success.

Control of Problem Alligators

Criteria

The presence of an alligator becomes a problem when the activities of the alligator
pose a demonstrable threat to human safety. Visitor complaints, observations by
park personnel over a period of time, and the existence of previous relevant Case
Incident Reports contribute to the determination of a problem situation. The
decision as to when an alligator is to be considered a nuisance and whether to
remove or otherwise deal with an alligator is to be made by the district ranger.

Response

The translocation of alligators from outside the park into the park should be
prohibited. Such actions are of no benefit to the park alligator population, because
such alligators are usually either sick or are already a nuisance, and their
introduction may disrupt resident individuals. Requests made for assistance with
problem alligators outside the park should not be responded to by park personnel
but should be referred to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
Everglades Region, West Palm Beach.


LIST OF TABLES .. .
LIST OF FIGURES . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES .
INTRODUCTION. ...

Nature of Nuisance Alligators

TABLE OF CONTENTS

History of the Alligator-Human Conflict. .
Legal Status of Alligators - Federal. . . .
Legal Status of Alligators - State of Florida
Regionwide Nuisance Alligator Control Programs

Florida. .
Louisiana . .
South Carolina
Georgia. ..
Texas
Alabama . .
Mississippi
North Carolina
Arkansas . .

Problem Alligator Control i

n Everglades Nationa! P:

- EVALUATION OF THE 1979 MANAGEMENT POLICY. .

Criteria

Management Actions

Responsible personnel

Relocation

Handling Problem Alligators
Regional Distinctions . . .
Backcountry. -: . . .
Nest sites... 1...

Unrestricted areas .

Restricted areas. . .
People Management Strategies
Signsystem......-

Law enforcement

Physical barriers. . . .

1983 PROBLEM ALLIGATOR MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Education ....
Enforcement. .

Criteria

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LITERATURE CITED.

Reduction of Unnatural Conflicts . .
Control of Problem Alligators ...

Response . 2. se ee eee

ark

ii
iii

iv

WOWDOOMWDONNDADWNE

=
=

Re ee ee RR Ree Re eee
WO KONNADARUFEUNNG

nN
3

20
20
20
21
21
21

22
23


29

T MIE-T — paresojay patyoedsun, Ady autg BU0T 4L/91/% L8th
4 8 aye] JA0ZeIG payesojay pesnfuy yeued poomuoiing €2/@Z/0t ZOLE
Z aUuON sAlssala3y S,PTOSOSO 919g €2/6/01 6S9E
T SUON aatssoia3y puog feg 1005 €Z/8/01 1S9€
4 w99 —- SABTINUOG-uI-sJoH] = payeaoyay uoryeDojsuelL wed YstyzeD €2/9/01 0s9¢e
z SUON aatssoissy S,2TO29SQ a19g €2/8/01 8H9E
z SUON 29410 puog eT SUIN 22/116 IShe
T SUON TIP] Peo Py ye Ure! €Z/T€/8 BEHE
T 2UON Suljuny, Treay jwermey €2/6Z/8 One
T SUN peantyy Aay aug Bu07 €L/82/¢ 6962
T 3UON qusuisseJey Treay e8uryuy €Z/11/¢ ZS8Z
OT 6 ASTRA AJeYS = PaeDOTaY UOTTEIOTSUBIL seaty Aww €L/ac/h BH LZ
T iS SUON TPA peow Pu eg UTeW €Z/a/h lesz
T 1S 2U0N ‘3uT2UN] Azepunog is2q\ €L/s/h 2267
if SUN Surquny Treay Twerwey €Z/a/4 206Z
T aye] INUOG-UI-zfoH = pared0Tay peanfuy Kay aug 8u0T €Z/0€/€ €9h7
T peforjsoq peantuy fay] auld 8u0T €L/St/€ Z6ZZ
T ra JOIUSD SJOUSIA — Payed0Tay uoyeD0TsueAL, PHPOUD eL/s/e L61z
1 SUON 3010 PY eg UreW €Z/42/1 6021
T 3UON surquny MTE-T 22/6t/Tt SIOT
T u9Z weg TeAoY = payeoojay = UOT eDOTSURIL, 4JEd Spisino ZL4/T1/1T 196
T 3UON 4310 Treay eSuryuy 22/82/6 z39
1 uAZ wyeg feAoy = payeo0yay uoryeoojsuedy, Ae apIsino 2L/n/6 16S
T 3UON Surquny 29-7 2L/L2/8 76h
I 1€ weg TeAoYy = pareoojay = uo @DO]SueIL, 4Jeq apisino Z2/82/L 0¢sz
ras uZ 01 fay autg Bu0T = payeoojay aatssous3y Treay e8uryuy ZL/L2/L 9€z
T iL puog Tesis — payea0jay patytoadsun Tredl eSuryuy ZL/at/Z €8
T € oUON TIPy peoy Pu 4zeq UreW elfelZ €z

juaprouy sad JovesitTy aus uexel Wwatqoig UOTLeD0F a1eq = JequInN aseD

sanoy-ueyy Jo ‘oN Be] UOT}eIOTAY uol1oy jo ounjen juaproul

payewlisy pue azIs

7861-2 L61

*JaqUINU aSED OU = NON *slioday wWaprouU] aseD UT S}UaPToUT JoIJUOD JOLeSTTy “| xIpueddy


90

oO

jo]
o o

SLNAGIONI 40 YASIWNN


24

”
=
a

0z iI 8 8 oT €T 8I Lt Te10OL

xzed aprsino ysissy
T yaed ut 1ay10
Aajyunosypeg
osurweyy
ABTTEA IES
puog stjoineg
T v7] AIE~T
4 29-1

Teal
e8uryuy/wyeg jeAoy
Peay twemey
Ady autg Bu07
ame] ISAM
puod eTIW SUIN
T Pa 44eg ureW

a

TT

sane
“
a

+

FAMAODNO
a
ANAw

ONRONN
“4 -
o

a4
maw

~
Ott ON

m4

T
Z Z T 8

TRO] = Jou] ~—SCOTJEOOTSUeIE ~—syUOWSSeIe_]~—«sSUTPaoy TH pointy suryunyy DATSSOISSY UOTzeD0T
peoy

Uaprouy Fo sdxT,

"Z86T OF ZLET WOIT Party sysoday JUaprouy ased o} Burpsodoe s]USPIOUT JoyeZYTe souesInu JO UOT}eOT pue oiNieN *T aIqeL


Although Louisiana has a large population of alligators, officials stress that having
a lot of alligators in an area is not a problem in itself. Rather, it is the size of
some individuals that creates a serious situation both for the residents and for the
wildlife officials. So, while small alligators (less than 5 ft) can be relocated, larger
ones ate destroyed to save time and effort. Profits from the harvest go to the
contracted agent unless the local government assumes a percentage. The state has
no monetary involvement with the program and maintains no formal control policy
(J. Traver, pers. comm.).

South Carolina

The third largest alligator population is found in South Carolina (Joanen 1974),
where dealing with nuisance alligators frequently creates a manpower problem.
Local conservation officers in each district are specially trained in handling
alligators and follow policies similar to those in most other states, i.e., problem
alligators larger then 4 feet in length are considered nuisances and, after several
attempts at relocation, the animals are killed. Destruction of problem alligators is
rare, and when over 150 such alligators were caught and relocated in 1981, only
five were killed. Estimates of manpower required in one district in 1981 showed
that 20 personnel-hours were spent for each of 57 alligators handled (S. Phillips,
pers. comm.)

Georgia

In Georgia, where the fourth highest alligator population was reported in 1974,
nearly all (99%) of the alligator control is handled by personnel of the State Game
and Fish Department. The problem is not an extensive one. In 1981, wildlife
officials received 140 complaints. It is interesting that public attitudes toward
alligators reportedly vary across the state. In the northern areas, there is a
general fear of alligators, while in the more rural areas in south Georgia, people
are more tolerant and complaints are fewer. In Georgia, a one-page formal policy
specifies the definition of a nuisance alligator and outlines the recommended
capture procedures. Nuisance alligators are relocated to suitable habitats that are
isolated from inhabited areas or public recreation facilities to minimize the
recurrence of complaints regarding the same animal (G. Johnson, pers. comm.)

Texas

Nuisance alligator relocation or disposal has occupied an increasing amount of
personnel time each year in Texas as a result of an increase in alligator numbers
since the species was afforded protection by the state in 1969. Texas was reported
to have the fifth largest alligator population in 1974 (Joanen 1974). Complaints are
handled by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and that agency is seeking
complete delisting of the alligator in Texas to allow management of alligators as a
renewable wildlife resource. Texas officials report that the frequency of human-
alligator confrontations has increased drastically as a result of urban and industrial
expansion, and note that complaints are most frequent in and around the coastal
marshes which are natural alligator habitats. Ranchers and farmers have reported
that alligators are responsible for the loss of some of their livestock, and further


ll

Other Contact: Incidents falling into no category and involving little
personnel-effort, i.e., encouraging quicker travel across a road or encoun-
tering an alligator dead of natural causes. Response is on a case-by-case
basis.

A review of case incident reports from 1972 to 1982 (Appendix I) shows that
alligator management action is not required frequently. Fewer than | percent of
the reports filed concerned alligator control, and the responses are generally not
time consuming, requiring an average of 30 personnel-hours each year park-wide.
Only 115 incidents were documented over 11 years (Table 1) for a mean of about 11
alligator-related incidents per year. The number of incidents has, on the average,
declined in recent years (Fig. 1). A peak in 1978 coincides with the writing and
discussions of the original management policy and may have resulted from
heightened awareness of the policy at that time.

Aggressive incidents are the most numerous type of alligator cases, although
totaling only 27 in the past 11 years. Incidents involving aggressive alligators also
require the greatest investment of personnel (Fig. 2) because such situations
generally require the aid of several persons. The evaluation of a situation and a
subsequent capture and removal of an aggressive alligator required an average of
5.7 hours per incident, contributing to the total of 154 personnel-hours from 1972
to 1982. No injuries have been reported to personnel involved in the program.
Thus, despite views to the contrary, participation in alligator handling is not a
dangerous activity. However, because most situations involve aggressive animals,
trained personnel need to be on hand to respond appropriately to such incidents.

Eleven translocations were made into the park from 1972 to 1982, requiring a total
of 57 man-hours or 5.2 hours per incident. The remaining 77 problem alligator
incidents recorded of all other types (67% of all incidents) required a mean effort
of 1.5 personnel-hours per incident. This suggests that in the majority of cases, a
verbal warning and the filing of necessary paperwork is all that is required of park
personne! in problem alligator situations.

EVALUATION OF THE 1979 MANAGEMENT POLICY

The first initiation of a formal management policy for problem alligators in
Everglades Nationa! Park was made in 1979. Information and analysis presented in
this report suggest that a review and evaluation of the current policy is now
possible. In this section, we discuss the effectiveness of each aspect of the 1979
policy before making recommendations for an updated management plan.

Criteria

The 1979 policy defined a problem alligator as one that would act aggressively
toward visitors, leave the water and approach visitors, or defend a nest near
visitor-use areas. The policy specified that the presence of an alligator becomes a
problem when its activities pose a demonstrable threat to visitor safety. Visitor
complaints and observations by park personnel made over a long period of time
would be considered in determining the existence of a problem situation. These
criteria remain useful, and we might add that a problem visitor is one that disrupts
the natural behavior of an alligator in any way.