AN OVERVIEW OF DEPREDATING BIRD DAMAGE CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA

To many people, California is synonomous with Disneyland, freeways, Los Angeles smog, Yosemite, the California missions, or for you bird aficionados, the California Condor. But do you think about California when you eat strawberry shortcake? You should -- California leads the nation in strawberry production. How about artichokes? California produces over 98% of the artichokes raised in the United States. Dates? California produces over 99% of the dates in the United States. Yes, California is all of these, and it is much more. California may well be the most diverse state in the United States. Within its 100.2 million acres, California has the lowest place in the U.S. in Death Valley and one of the highest mountains with Mt. Whitney. Because California is such a diverse state and has a wide variety of micro- climates, it supports a uniquely diverse agriculture. Agriculture uses only about 36 million acres of its total 100.2 million acres, and most of the cash return from crops is produced on 8,6 million acres that are irrigated. California produces about 250 crops and livestock commodities (excluding nursery crops) and provides the U.S. with about 25% of its table foods. California leads the nation in the production of 46 commercial crops and livestock commodities; its farmers and ranchers marketed $8.6 billion of crop and livestock products in 1975, and the state’s harvested farm production in 1975 set a new record at 51.1 million tons. HISTORY OF BIRD PROBLEMS Records such as this are not achieved without some risk. Crops growing in Cali- fornia have always had competition from many types of vertebrate pests. The wide variety of crops grown in California and the varied climates and situations in which they are grown has resulted in many different species of birds damaging crops. Birds have compet- ed with man for his crops since the dawn of agriculture. McAtee (1932) cited examples of bird damage that occurred in a wide variety of crops in California during the early 1900s. During the 1920s, many requests for Information and relief from damage caused by a wide variety of birds, culminated in the assignment, in May 1929, of two biologists, S. E. Piper and Johnson Neff, of the former U.S. Bio- logical Survey, to initiate field studies in California. In cooperation with the Cali- fornia Department of Food and Agriculture and County Agricultural Commissioners, the study was to determine the problems and devise control procedures relative to bird depredations. Piper and Neff found such damage as Horned Larks pulling sprouting crops, House Finches disbudding deciduous fruit trees and devouring mature fruit. Blackbirds were a problem in the rice crop. Early controls were varied and, for the most part, lacked effectiveness. Flagging of fields was common to deter Horned Larks. Windmill devices were tried to frighten birds. Shooting to kill birds was common; scarecrows were.used. The six-year study brought forth the basis of most of the depredating bird control techniques still in use in California. At the end of the study, these two biologists compiled a book called “Procedure and Methods in Controlling Birds Injurious to Crops in California.” This was and still is the “Bible” for bird damage control techniques used in California. The thorough investigations conducted by these biologists resulted in techniques that have remained valid in California for over 40 years.

THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY IN DEVELOPING NEW MATERIALS FOR VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL

In the first paper presented to you today by Dr. Spencer, an expert in the Animal Biology field and an official authority at the same time, you heard about the requirements imposed on a chemical in order to pass the different official hurdles before it ever will be accepted as a proven tool in wildlife management. Many characteristics have to be known and highly sophisticated tests have to be run. In many instances the governmental agency maintains its own screening, testing or analytical programs according to standard procedures. It would be impossible, however, for economic and time reasons to work out all the data necessary for themselves. They, therefore, depend largely on the information furnished by the individual industry which naturally has to be established as conscientiously as possible. This, among other things, Dr. Spencer has made very clear; and this is also what makes quite a few headaches for the individual industry, but I am certainly not speaking only for myself in saying that Industry fully realizes this important role in developing materials for vertebrate control and the responsibilities lying in this. This type of work - better to say cooperative work with the official institutions - is, however, only one part and for the most of it, the smallest part of work which Industry pays to the development of compounds for pest control. It actually refers only to those very few compounds which are known to be effective. But how to get to know about their properties in the first place? How does Industry make the selection from the many thousands of compounds synthesized each year? This, by far, creates the biggest problems, at least from the scientific and technical standpoint. Let us rest here for a short while and think about the possible ways of screening and selecting effective compounds. Basically there are two different ways. One is the empirical way of screening as big a number of compounds as possible under the supposition that with the number of incidences the chances for a "hit" increase, too. You can also call this type of approach the statistical or the analytical one, the mass screening of new, mostly unknown candidate materials. This type of testing can only be performed by a producer of many new materials,that means by big industries. It requires a tremendous investment in personnel, time and equipment and is based on highly simplified but indicative test methods, the results of which would have to be reliable and representative for practical purposes. The other extreme is the intellectual way of theorizing effective chemical configurations. Defenders of this method claim to now or later be able to predict biological effectiveness on the basis of the chemical structure or certain groups in it. Certain pre-experience should be necessary, that means knowledge of the importance of certain molecular requirements, then the detection of new and effective complete molecules is a matter of coordination to be performed by smart people or computers. You can also call this method the synthetical or coordinative method.

Bovine Tuberculosis in Swedish Farmed Deer: Detection and Control of the Disease

Bovine tuberculosis (BTB) was introduced into Swedish farmed deer herds in 1987. Epidemiological investigations showed that 10 deer herds had become infected (July 1994) and a common source of infection, a consignment of 168 imported farmed fallow deer, was identified (I). As trace-back of all imported and in-contact deer was not possible, a control program, based on tuberculin testing, was implemented in July 1994. As Sweden has been free from BTB since 1958, few practicing veterinarians had experience in tuberculin testing. In this test, result relies on the skill, experience and conscientiousness of the testing veterinarian. Deficiencies in performing the test may adversely affect the test results and thereby compromise a control program. Quality indicators may identify possible deficiencies in testing procedures. For that purpose, reference values for measured skin fold thickness (prior to injection of the tuberculin) were established (II) suggested to be used mainly by less experienced veterinarians to identify unexpected measurements. Furthermore, the within-veterinarian variation of the measured skin fold thickness was estimated by fitting general linear models to data (skin fold measurements) (III). The mean square error was used as an estimator of the within-veterinarian variation. Using this method, four (6%) veterinarians were considered to have unexpectedly large variation in measurements. In certain large extensive deer farms, where mustering of all animals was difficult, meat inspection was suggested as an alternative to tuberculin testing. The efficiency of such a control was estimated in paper IV and V. A Reed Frost model was fitted to data from seven BTB-infected deer herds and the spread of infection was estimated (< 0.6 effective contacts per deer and year) (IV). These results were used to model the efficiency of meat inspection in an average extensive Swedish deer herd. Given a 20% annual slaughter and meat inspection, the model predicted that BTB would be either detected or eliminated in most herds (90%) 15 years after introduction of one infected deer. In 2003, an alternative control for BTB in extensive Swedish deer herds, based on the results of paper V, was implemented.

Hierarchy-Based Access Control in Distributed Environments

Access control is a fundamental concern in any system that manages resources, e.g., operating systems, file systems, databases and communications systems. The problem we address is how to specify, enforce, and implement access control in distributed environments. This problem occurs in many applications such as management of distributed project resources, e-newspaper and payTV subscription services. Starting from an access relation between users and resources, we derive a user hierarchy, a resource hierarchy, and a unified hierarchy. The unified hierarchy is then used to specify the access relation in a way that is compact and that allows efficient queries. It is also used in cryptographic schemes that enforce the access relation. We introduce three specific cryptography based hierarchical schemes, which can effectively enforce and implement access control and are designed for distributed environments because they do not need the presence of a central authority (except perhaps for set- UP).

THE ORGANISATION OF RABBIT CONTROL (Oryctolagus cuniculus) IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ABSTRACT: Under Western Australian legislation, landholders have an obligation to control rabbits on their properties; local authorities the responsibility to supervise their work whilst the Agriculture Protection Board has a Statewide supervisory and co-ordination role. Prior to 1950 (when the Agriculture Protection Board was formed) the central role was in the hands of a Government department which, through lack of staff and money was unable to provide adequate supervision, and rabbits were in plague proportions. Since 1950, the Board has actively engaged in a vigorous policy aimed at tighter control and supervision. To enable this, the Board has entered into a voluntary scheme with local authorities whereby the role of local supervision of landholders is passed to staff employed by the Board, but jointly financed by the local authority and the Board. A contract poisoning service is also pro¬vided by the Agriculture Protection Board to any landholder who is unable or unwilling, to meet his obligations in this area. Both services are subsidised. Two of the major reasons for the poor level of control existing before 1950, have thereby been minimised. Soon after its formation, the Board set up a research section which has devoted nearly all of its activities to applied research on control of the State's many vertebrate pest problems. In the rabbit control area, poisoning has received most attention. The "One-Shot" method of poisoning was developed after years of research. Fumigation is at present being closely studied as is the economics of complete eradication from some areas of the State. Greatest needs in the applied rabbit research field at present are: (1) a selective poison, or poisoning regime, which will not harm stock, and (2) a more complete understanding of the economics of control and eradication. The serious rabbit problem which existed in 1950 has been reduced to very small proportions, by organisational development using local research findings. These organisational developments have been implemented by circumvention rather than confrontation.

BIRD CONTROL UNDER A STATE FISH AND GAME PERMIT SYSTEM

I guess the impetus for laws in our state, really was the action of the city of Boston in 1963, when the Parks and Recreation Department felt that it was time to do something about massive populations of pigeons on the Boston Commons and in the city. The Parks Department came to our agency to find out what could be done. We immediately found as a result of a reorganization and recodification of the laws some 20 years before, that it was illegal to use or apply poisons for the purpose of killing any birds or mammals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Property owners were given the privilege to destroy animals that were doing damage to their property, but only through mechanical means, certainly not by the use of toxicants. We helped the city of Boston draft a bill in 1963, which allowed our agency, the Division of Fisheries and Game, the agency responsible for all wildlife species in the state, the opportunity to issue certain permits for the use of poison, giving full authority to the director of Fisheries and Game with, of course, approval of my board. This allowed certain discretion on our part.