BLACKBIRD AND STARLING ROOSTING DYNAMICS: MPLICATIONS FOR ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL

Each winter an estimated 350 million starlings, red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) congregate in roosts in the southeastern United States (Meanley 1971, Meanley and Royall 1976). These birds have been of increasing concern because of agricultural damage claims (Stickley et al. 1976, Dolbeer et al. 1978), reputed health hazards (Monroe and Cronholm 1977), and other nuisance problems associated with them. Historical population trends (Dolbeer and Stehn 1979) and the source of winter-roosting blackbirds (Meanley 1971, Meanley and Dolbeer 1978, and Dolbeer 1978) have been summarized, but little information on the number of consecutive nights a bird returns to the same roost (roost fidelity) or the dynamics of a winter roost is available. The purpose of this paper is to present information on roost fidelity and population dynamics needed to better understand and manage winter blackbird and starling roosts.

TESTS OF BIRD DAMAGE CONTROL MEASURES IN SUDAN, 1975

The Red-billed Quelea (Quelga quelaa), because of its widespread destruction of grain crops throughout its range in Africa, is one of the most studied and written about granivorous bird species. Less publicized are more local bird pests in Africa which may be equally Important. The Village Weaver, (Ploceus cucullatus), for example, is a pest in many countries, while some other Ploecids with limited destructive habits create local problems. Significant crop losses also occur where there are large populations of Golden Sparrows (Passer luteus), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), Red Bishops (Euplectes oryx), Doves (Streptopelia spp.), Glossy Starlings (Lamprotornis chalybaeus), Parakeets (Psittacula spp.), and some waterfowl (Mackworth-Praed and Grant, 1952; Pans Manual No. 3, 1974; Park, 1974). Crop losses from local bird pests were reported in early February 1975 to the Sudan Plant Protection Bird Control Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture. A mechanized farm scheme in Khartoum North had large concentrations of Red Bishops roosting in maize and feeding on an early-maturing wheat variety (Mexicana). Small flocks of Golden Sparrows and House Sparrows also were present. Bird damage was clearly visible, especially at the corners and along the edges of the ripening wheatfields. Ground spraying with Queletox (60% a.1. Fenthion) on roosts of the Golden and House Sparrows was conducted along hedge rows of acacia (Acacia mellifera) located at the north end of the farm. Although the spray killed large numbers of roosting birds, damage con- tinued as the wheat matured. Pilot field trials were thus organized to test the effectiveness of other crop protection techniques. Because birds fed throughout many blocks of wheat which matured at different periods, it was felt that several different experiments could be conducted without Interfering with each other. The control techniques Included an acoustical repellent, a chemical repellent, a chemical frightening agent, and a trap. The experiments, conducted from February 7 through February 23, 1975, were not designed as an integrated control operation.

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.

FOREST ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL

As a nation we have gained world recognition for our ability to utilize our resources. In forestry our greatest accomplishments have been in the mechanization of harvest methods and in improvements in forest products. The renewal of this resource has been our greatest neglect. Though the end of the 19th Century marked the beginning of the conservation movement, it was not until a half century later that the force of economics through the demands of a growing population made forest re-establishment more than just a desire. Conservation in itself is a Utopian concept which requires other motivating forces to make it a reality. In the post-war years, and as late as the early 195O's, stocked land in the Pacific Northwest could be purchased for less than the cost of planting; the economic incentive was lacking. Only with sustained yield management and increased land values was there a balance in favor of true values. With greater effort placed on forest regeneration there was an increased need for methods of reducing losses to wildlife. The history of forest wildlife damage research, therefore, parallels that of forest land management; after rather austere beginnings, development became predominantly a response to economics. It was not until 1950 that the full time of one scientist was assigned to this important activity. The development of control methods for forest animal damage is a relatively new area of research. All animal life is dependent upon plants for its existence; forest wildlife is no exception. The removal of seed and foliage of undesirable plants often benefits the land managers; only when the losses or injuries are in conflict with man's interest is there damage involved. Unfortunately, the feeding activities of wildlife and the interests of the land managers are often in conflict. Few realize the breadth, scope, and subtilities associated with forest wildlife damage problems. There are not only numerous species of animals involved, but also a myriad of conditions, each combination possessing unique facets. It is a foregone conclusion that an understanding of the conditions is essential to facilitate a solution to any given problem. Though there are numerous methods of reducing animal damage, all of which have application under some situations, in this discussion emphasis will be placed on the role of chemicals and on western problems. Because of the broadness and complexity of the problem, generalizing is necessary and only brief coverage will be possible. However, an attempt will be made to discuss the use and limitations of various control methods.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRIVATE NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK

The nuisance wildlife control industry is rapidly expanding in New York State. To gain additional insight about this industry and the number of animals handled, we reviewed the 1989-90 annual logs submitted by Nuisance Wildlife Control Orators (NWC0s) to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The specific objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the number and species of different wildlife responsible for damage incidents, (2) the cause of damage complaints, (3) the disposition of animals handled, (4) the location of damage events (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), and (5) an estimate of the economic impact of the nuisance wildlife industry in Upstate New York. The Nuisance Wildlife Logs (NWLs) were examined for 7 urban and 7 rural counties (25.5% of Upstate counties), and these data were used to estimate total NWCO activity in DEC Regions 3 through 9 (excludes Long Island). Approximately 75% of NWCOs licensed by DEC were active during 1989-90, and nearly 2,800 complaints were handled in the 14 counties sampled. More than 90% of complaints came from urban counties, and we estimated that NWC0s responded to more than 11,000 calls in Upstate New York. At a conservative estimate of $35/call, revenue generated by this industry exceeded $385,000 annually. Six wildlife species accounted for 85% of the nuisance complaints in urban and rural counties. During 1986 to 1993, the number of NWCOs licensed by DEC nearly quadrupled, and there is no indication that this trend will change in the near future.

Wildlife Master Volunteers: A Multi-County Approach to Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts

The Wildlife Master (WM) Program in Colorado was modeled after the highly successful Master Gardener volunteer program. In 10 highly populated suburban counties with large rural areas surrounding the Denver Metro Area, Colorado State University (CSU) Cooperative Extension Natural Resources agents train, supervise and manage these volunteers in the identification, referral, and resolution of wildlife damage issues. High quality, research-based training is provided by university faculty and other professionals in public health, animal damage control, wildlife management and animal behavior. Inquiries are responded to mainly via telephone. Calls by concerned residents are forwarded to WMs who provide general information about human-wildlife conflicts and possible ways to resolve complaints. Each volunteer serves a minimum of 14 days on phone duty annually, calling in from a remote location to a voice mail system from which phone messages can be conveniently retrieved. Response time per call is generally less than 24 hours. During 2004, more than 2,000 phone calls, e-mail messages and walk-in requests for assistance were fielded by 100 cooperative extension WMs. Calls fielded by volunteers in one county increased five-fold during the past five years, from 100 calls to over 500 calls annually. Valued at the rate of approximately $18.00 per volunteer hour, the leveraged value of each WM was about $450 in 2005, based on 25 hours of service and training. The estimated value of the program to Colorado in 2004 was over $45,000 of in-kind service, or about one full-time equivalent faculty member. This paper describes components of Colorado’s WM Program, with guides to the set-up of similar programs in other states.

URBAN WILDLIFE: CAN WE LIVE WITH THEM?

ABSTRACT: A survey of Extension Wildlife Specialists in the U.S. provided a basis for estimating the magnitude of urban wildlife damage and control in this country. Response to the 9-question mail questionnaire was good (76 percent) following the single mailing to all Extension Wildlife Specialists or people in similar positions listed in the national directory. The majority of questions were answered based upon the experiences and best estimates of these specialists for the interval October 1986-September 1987. Specialists had difficulty providing estimates of damage and costs of prevention and control; 57 percent were not able to provide any data on these topics. Several of the questions dealt with attitudes of people requesting urban wildlife information and/or assistance and wide ranges of responses were received to most of these questions. Most people (78 percent) appeared willing to implement prevention/control measures recommended by these specialists, more than half (61 percent) wanted the animal handled/removed by someone else, and only about 40 percent wanted the damage stopped regardless of cost. Also, slightly over half (55 percent) of clientele represented did not want the offending animal harmed in any way. These results were highly variable from state to state. Several differences were noted in overall responses regarding urban wildlife species. Requests for information were received most frequently for bats and snakes, but both of these groups of animals ranked very low in terms of actual damage reported. The most frequently mentioned groups of animals causing damage in urban areas were roosting birds (including pigeons, starlings, and sparrows), woodpeckers (especially flickers), tree squirrels, bats, and moles. In terms of actual dollar values of damage done, white-tailed deer and pocket gophers apparently caused the most estimated damage. Due to these differences, it is necessary to know which criteria are being used to make an assessment of the relative importance of animal damage control problems. Techniques for controlling urban wildlife damage, such as exclusion, live-trapping, repellents, and poisons, are compared and discussed in some detail in this paper. As urbanization occurs across the nation, concerns about urban wildlife damage will continue; in most cases, we can and will live among these creatures.

HOME RANGES AND MOVEMENTS OF COYOTES IN THE NORTHERN CHIHUAHUAN DESERT

The coyote (Canis latrans) is among the most studied animals in North America. Because of its adaptability and success as a predator, the coyote has flourished and is still expanding its range. Coyotes can now be found throughout most of North America and south into Central America (Voight and Berg 1987). Studies in recent years have been extensive to understand the interrelationships of prey and coyotes (Shelton and Klindt 1974, Beckoff and Wells 1981), as well as demographic relationships (Davis et al. 1975, Knowlton and Stoddart 1978, Mitchell 1979, Bowen 1981) and feeding strategies (Todd and Keith 1976, Andelt et al. 1987, MacCracken and Hansen 1987, Gese et al. 1988a). With the advance of radio telemetry, researchers have investigated lifestyle characteristics spatially with home ranges or temporally with movements in relation to habitat requirements. Researchers have studied home ranges of coyotes in various regions of the United States (Livaitis and Shaw 1980, Andelt 1981, Springer 1982, Pyrah 1984, Gese et al. 1988a) and Canada (Bowen 1982). Some studies of home range were separated by season (Ozoga and Harger 1966) or relation to nearby food sources (Danner and Smith 1980). Home range analysis in relation to social interactions of coyotes has been either neglected, overlooked, or avoided. Gese et al. (1988a) recognized a transient class of coyote by home range size. Coyote social systems are very complex and can vary by season or locality in addition to some reports of group or pack systems (Hamlin and Schweitzer 1979, Beckoff and Wells 1981, Bowen 1981, Gese et al. 1988b). Coyotes maintain communication with conspecifics through vocal and olfactory signals (Lehner 1987, Bowen and McTaggert Cowan 1980). Social interactions may be by far the most complex and least understood aspect related to coyote ecology. Coyote movements can be related to many factors including food, water, cover, and social interactions. Movements in relation to food sources are well documented (Fitch 1948, Todd and Keith 1976, Danner and Smith 1980) although reports on movements in relation to water have not been reported, probably because of limited research in desert situations. There has been some mention of coyotes' movements in relation to cover (Wells and Beckoff 1982). The objectives of this study were to delineate annual and seasonal home ranges, movements, and habitat use of coyotes in the northern Chihuahuan desert.

The Probe, Issue 164 – April 1996

Opportunities and Challenges Within Wildlife Damage Management, by Robert H. Schmidt, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan Utah 84322-5210 IVFDM Not IVPDM by Robert H. Giles, Jr., Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321 Letter to Editor RE: Pet Sterilization and Animal Rights Correspondence Course Announcement-- Utah State University Virus "Cure" for Rabbit Problem Eludes Human Controls Call for Nominations for Berryman Institute Awards Video Review: Review of "Professional Coyote Trapping" Produced by Fur-Fish-Game, 2878, E. Main St., Columbus, OH 43209. 80 minutes. Wildlife Control Seminar Makes Points With Michigan Man

The Probe, Issue 166 – June 1996

Why NADCA? One Region Director's Opinion Peter H. Butchko, NADCA Region 9 Director, The Turtle and the Hare (Wildlife Damage Version), by Robert H. Schmidt Point of View: Mad Cow Disease Dolomitic Hydrated Lime Feeding Deterrent to Birds Booklet Review: A Homeowners Guide to North Eastern Bats and Bat Problems. By Lisa M. Williams-Whitmer and Margaret C. Brittingham. August, 1995 Penn State University. Pp. 1-22.

THE HANDBOOK OF WILDLIFE DEPREDATION TECHNIQUES: A SYNOPSIS

In 1979, the Game Division Administration of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) appointed John Demaree and Tim Fagan to develop a handbook that would address the ever increasing problem of wildlife depredation. Field personnel were often times at a loss on how to deal with or evaluate the assorted types of damage situations they were encountering. Because Wyoming requires landowners to be reimbursed for damage done by big and trophy game and game birds to their crops and livestock, an evaluation and techniques handbook was desperately needed. The initial handbook, completed in January 1981, was 74 pages, and both John and I considered it a masterpiece. It did not take long, however, for this handbook to become somewhat lacking in information and outdated. In 1990, our administration approached us again asking this time for an update of our ten-year-old handbook. John and I went to work, and with the assistance of Evin Oneale of the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research unit, and Bill Hepworth and John Schneidmiller of the WGFD, have just completed the second edition. This edition is over 600 pages and titled "The Handbook of Wildlife Depredation Techniques." Neither of us care to be around when a third edition is needed. In this handbook we have attempted to cover any type of damage situation our personnel may encounter. Although the primary function of this manual is to inform department personnel about proper and uniform damage prevention and evaluation techniques, it also provides relative and pertinent information concerning the many aspects of wildlife depredation. Information for this handbook has been compiled from techniques developed by our personnel, personnel from other states and provinces, and published data on wildlife depredation. There are nine chapters, a reprint, and Appendix section in this handbook. We will briefly summarize each chapter regarding its contents.

BURROW-BUILDING STRATEGIES AND HABITAT USE OF VOLES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ORCHARDS

Seidel and Booth (1960) wrote that the "life histories of the genus Microtus are not numerous in the literature." In support of his observation he cited 6 publications, all dated between 1891 and 1953. Since then the literature has exploded with a proliferation of publications. An international literature review recently revealed over 3,500 citations for the genus. When Pitymys and Clethrionomys are included another 350 and 1,880, respectively, were found. Over the last 10 years approximately 3 new publications on voles appeared every 4 days; a significant output for what some would consider such an insignificant species. Most of the publications were the result of graduate research projects on population dynamics and species ecology. As such, many do not explore more than the rudimentary ecological relationships between the animal and their environments. Unfortunate, as well, is that all but one confined their observations to only a small part of their total environment. For many of these animals, their life underground may be more important for their survival than that above ground. Trapping studies conducted by Godfrey and Askham (1988) with permanently placed pitfall live traps in orchards revealed a significant inverse population fluctuation during the year. During the winter, when populations are expected to decrease, as many as 6 to 8 mature Microtus montanus were collected at any 1 time in the traps after several centimeters of snow accumulation. During the summer, when populations are expected to increase, virtually no animals were collected in the traps. According to current population dynamics theory, greater numbers of animals, including increasingly larger numbers of immature members of the community, should appear in any sample between the onset of the breeding period, generally in the spring, taper off during the latter part of the production season, usually late summer, and then decline as the limiting factors begin to take effect. For us, we trapped more animals in the fall and early winter than we did during the spring and summer. A review of the above literature did little to answer our question. Where are the animals going during the summer and why?

The Probe, Issue 167 – July 1996

Techniques and Expertise in Wildlife Damage Control: A Survey Among NADCA's Membership, by Dallas R. Virchow, University of Nebraska, and J. Russell Mason, Utah State University NADCA Membership Survey Rats' Rights Repealed in New Jersey Texas Predators Dine on Exotics Recipes for Nutria Wildlife Damage to Aircraft Tallied Airplane Hits Deer Golfers Get Teed Off at Coots Japanese Technologist Tackles Rodents ADC To Tackle Gophers Booklet Review: Missouri's Beaver: A Guide to Management, Nuisance Prevention, and Damage Control by Ron McNeely. Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri, 1995. Elk Reintroduction and Meningeal Worms South African Puppy, "Licky," Barely Survives Eagle Attack Publications Available: The Proceedings of the 12th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop (1995); The proceedings for a conference, "Private Property Rights and Responsibilities of Rangeland Owners and Managers"; Proceedings, 6th Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1993); Rangeland Wildlife (1996), edited by Paul R. Krausman, and published by the Society for Range Management New "Animal Talk" Radio Program in Los Angeles, CA — Animal Issues Today NWRC Announces Bird Research Leader Sick Boy Who Wishes for Dream Hunt Incites Wrath of Animal Rightists A Picture Speaks A Thousand Words: From the WDAMAGE listserv: by Fred Lyass (pseudonym used by request)

REDUCING NUISANCE CANADA GOOSE PROBLEMS THROUGH HABITAT MANIPULATION

Urban populations of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) cause considerable problems when large numbers congregate in parks, playing fields, and backyards. In most cases, geese are drawn to these sites to feed on the lawns. I tested whether geese have feeding preferences for different grass species. Captive Canada geese preferred Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and disliked tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae) over colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis cv. Highland), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and red fescue (Festuca rubra). They refused to eat some other ground covers such as pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalis) and English ivy (Hedera helix). These results suggest that goose numbers at problem sites could be reduced by changing the ground cover. I also compared the characteristics of foraging sites used by geese to other foraging sites that geese avoided. Occupied sites were more open so that geese had clearer visibility and greater ease in taking off and landing. This suggests that goose numbers at problem sites also could be reduced by planting tall trees to make it harder for the geese to fly away, and planting bushes and hedges to obstruct a goose's visibility.

The Probe, Issue 171 – November 1996

Park Service Thwarts Cat Allies, by Marilyn Davis, Native Species Network, Bodega Bay, California Jim Miller Elected VP of Wildlife Society ADC Aerial Hunting Accident Kills 2 Obituary: Carl R. Gustavson HSUS Former Employee File Lawsuits Rats Shut Down Internet at Stanford Call for Papers: A Symposium on Mammal Trapping August 1997 in Edmonton, Alberta Fur in Cyberspace: The Fur Institute of Canada announces it has established a site on the World Wide Web, at the following address: http://www.fur.ca. Book Review: Beaver and Otter: Open Water Techniques, by Charles Dobbins 1992. Beaver Pond Publishing and Printing, P.O. Box 224, Greenville, Pennsyulvania, 16125. 114 pages. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians: Resolution on Management of Feral Cats Use of Zinc Phosphide for Marmot Control, by Mark Collinge, NADCA Northern Rockies Region Director, USDA-APHIS-ADC Cat Colony Ordinance Adopted by Santa Clara County, California