Who you gonna call in New York City when you see another raccoon trying to break into your trashcan?

Call 311. It’s a special line set up by the city and when you call it, they’ll tell you to call a private exterminator. In other words, “Not our problem!”

Raccoons have moved from nuisance to menace in the past year or so, all over New York City. Now, they’re scaring little old ladies and moms are worried about letting their children play outside, for fear of being attacked. Last August, the New York Times reported, “Not even elected officials are immune. Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan of Queens said that seven raccoons sauntered among the guests at a Fourth of July street party in Ridgewood, mystifying children, terrifying parents and nearly ruining the celebration. Assemblyman Michael Miller, also of Queens, said that he stopped to make a call from his driveway the other day and a pair of raccoons ran under his car.”

Now, they’re hissing.

On Oct. 9, Digital Spy reported that now the New York City raccoons are “hissing” at people. It reports that Rich Weddle, of the Animal Husbandry Department at Liberty Science Center is telling people to take a chill pill. He said, “Residents who call the police have been told that raccoons pose no threat to humans and that they should use a humane trapper if they are concerned.”

First of all, raccoons posing no threat? These people obviously didn't grow up in the country. Catch a big sow raccoon digging through your trash can, grab her by the tail and see if you don't end up in the hospital. Few creatures on the planet are any more ill-tempered. And last I checked, raccoons have sharp teeth and can carry rabies.

And what is a "humane trapper?" Is that just code for "don't kill it"?

Maybe the best thing to do is buy an old hearse, paint a red circle with a line across the middle over the face of a snarling raccoon and slap up a website.

“Who you gonna call? Raccoon Busters! For humane trapping and removal.

Here’s an opportunity for a trapper-entrepreneur to take advantage of a ripe field of varmints.

Watch out, New Jersey. You're probably next in line for the invasion.

When Gov. Jerry Brown of California signed a bill last week banning hunting with hounds for bears and bobcats, he also signed legislation approving a name change – replacing the word “Game” with “Wildlife”  for the state's game and fish department. The California Department of Fish and Game will soon become the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Although there are several states that use the word “Wildlife” in their fish and game departments, and actually only 12 that use the word “Game,” the fact that California chose to change now – in the midst of a host of budget deficits across the board – has many in the outdoor industry seeing huge red flags. 

According to Don Thompson, of the Associated Press, “The bill also beefs up the department's law enforcement role and its use of science to guide policies that will be designed to protect entire ecosystems instead of individual species. It also allows it to increase and broaden its collection of fees beyond the money raised through hunting and fishing licenses.” 

The legislature changed the name, not on advice from the department. From all appearances, in California, the legislature runs that department. The legislation does not change the name of the California Fish and Game Commission, though. 

Brown also signed a bill that allows the department to contract with nonprofit conservation groups to manage state-owned lands and charge fees for using more of its properties. Hmm, I think I might be a little more concerned about this bill than the name change. 

In fact, a quick look at Senate Bill 1249 reveals these topics: 

• As stated earlier, the bill authorizes the Game and Wildlife Department to enter into contracts with nonprofit conservation groups for management and operation of department-managed lands. It also declares that it will authorize special use permits for other public uses than those already associated with permits. This is a topic that I actually agree with, making bird watchers and hikers pay for use, too. However, to what extent does, say, the Audubon Society get to manage a property that once allowed duck hunting? Here’s where it gets troubling. Income from the sales of permits will go into a special fund, which upon appropriation by the Legislature, goes back to the department, and no less than 35 percent. So, if I read this correctly, 65 percent of the permit money is up for grabs by the state for other purposes. 
• Currently fines and penalties in relation to game and fish regulations are retained in the country treasury in a county fish and wildlife propagation fund and spent there, under the direction of that county’s board of supervisors. The bill imposes a state-mandated local program and again, if I am reading this correctly, now inserts the state at a local level. Of course, when it comes to money, the state will want to grab what it can grab.

So, now we revisit the “what’s in a name change” for California’s Fish and Game Department? I think a lot more than merely a word suggests.

Do you think California is sending a message with this name change?

What about your state's game and fish department? Any indication that its more into butterflies and urban rock-touching centers than managing, uh, wildlife?