Compressed Air, Wooden Clappers, and Other Non-Traditional Methods for Dispersing European Starlings from an Urban Roost

During autumn 2003, several thousand European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) began roosting on exposed I-beams in a newly constructed, decorative glass canopy that covered the passenger pick-up area at the terminal building for Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Ohio. The use of lethal control or conventional dispersal techniques, such as pyrotechnics and fire hoses, were not feasible in the airport terminal area. The design and aesthetics of the structure precluded the use of netting and other exclusion materials. In January 2004, an attempt was made to disperse the birds using recorded predator and distress calls broadcast from speakers installed in the structure. This technique failed to disperse the birds. In February 2004, we developed a technique using compressed air to physically and audibly harass the birds. We used a trailer-mounted commercial air compressor producing 185 cubic feet per minute of air at 100 pounds per square inch pressure and a 20-foot long, 1-inch diameter PVC pipe attached to the outlet hose. One person slowly (< 5 mph) drove a pick-up truck through the airport terminal at dusk while the second person sat on a bench in the truck bed and directed the compressed air from the pipe into the canopy to harass starlings attempting to enter the roost site. After 5 consecutive nights of compressed-air harassment, virtually no starlings attempted to roost in the canopy. Once familiar with the physical effects of the compressed air, the birds dispersed at the sound of the air. Only occasional harassment at dusk was needed through the remainder of the winter to keep the canopy free of starlings. Similar harassment with the compressor was conducted successfully in autumn 2004 with the addition of a modified leaf blower, wooden clappers, and laser. In conclusion, we found compressed air to be a safe, unobtrusive, and effective method for dispersing starlings from an urban roost site. This technique would likely be applicable for other urban-roosting species such as crows, house sparrows, and blackbirds.

STATE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REGULATIONS: A NEW PROGRAM (OHIO)

We enacted a bill in Ohio this year, Senate Bill 445, that has to do with the application of pesticides. It is a very wide bill as you would normally look at it with most of the meat going to come from the regulations that are presently being written into it. In other words, the framework was developed and accepted by the two houses in our state legislature and empowered the Director of Agriculture to establish the regulations or the so-called teeth to this bill. The governor signed the bill in June and it became effective in September. The committees as of this time are meeting to develop philosophies and regulations that will be promulgated and brought into hearings and sifted through, and eventually, with a target date of December of this year, (1970), brought to the Director of Agriculture's office for acceptance. There is a committee established for rodent and bird control which is very well represented by our industry here in Ohio. John Beck (Rose Exterminator Company) is the chairman of the committee, William B. Jackson (Bowling Green State University) and Robert Yaeger (Cincinnati) are also on the committee. The important feature of this new law, in terms of pest control operators, is the examinations that will be required. We operators and our service people will both be tested and licensed, if sufficient proficiency is demonstrated on the tests. For your information they use a little different terminology in the bill than we in the industry normally use. We think of an applicator in the industry as service people. In the bill an applicator is defined as an operator. Therefore in reading the law the word operator means the man who does the job, the service man. Just the reverse is true in the industry. We think of the operator as the man who owns or manages the company while these people are referred to in the bill as applicators. The Bill calls for the development of schools for the training of our people throughout the state. Those of us who are in bird control should begin to prepare ourselves to meet this request, to be available for the schooling, have our people available for the schooling, and give this program all the co-operation that we can.

1969 ASSESSMENT OF BLACKBIRD DEPREDATIONS ON FIELD CORN IN OHIO AND MICHIGAN

In 1966, when the annual damage survey was initiated, Dr. C. R. Weaver, Statistician at the Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio, drew up a sampling plan, balancing costs against desired precision. The plan included three combinations of fields to be sampled and stations per field for high damage areas, three combinations for moderate damage areas, and two combinations for light damage areas. Alternatives for the high damage area included (1) 497 fields with two stations per field (± .48), (2) 775 fields with two stations per field (± .26), and (3) 235 fields with ten stations per field (— .68). For the moderate damage areas, the alternatives were (1) 441 fields with three stations per field (± .26), (2) 155 fields with three stations per field (± .50), and (3) 235 fields with ten stations per field (± .32). The light dam¬age area alternatives were (1) 297 fields with three stations per field (- .26), and (2) 81 fields with three stations per field (± .50). The original survey in 1966 sampled eight counties in three regions. In 1967, 14 counties in the same three regions were sampled. Two new counties were added to one region and two new regions with two counties each (treated as one region for sampling purposes) were added to the 1968 survey. The 1968 survey was of sufficient size to be representative of the corn damage picture in Ohio and Southeast Michigan. The 1969 survey was identical to the 1968 survey.