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 It did not take long, however, for this handbook to become somewhat lacking in information and outdated.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.

Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Avifauna on Wetlands in the Vicinity of Bush Field Airport, Augusta, Georgia, USA

Responding to a U.S. Federal court order to improve discharged wastewater quality, Augusta, Georgia initiated development of artificial wetlands in 1997 to treat effluents. Because of the proximity to Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration expressed concern for potential increased hazard to aircraft posed by birds attracted to these wetlands. We commenced weekly low-level aerial surveys of habitats in the area beginning January, 1998. Over a one-year period, 49 surveys identified approximately 42,000 birds representing 52 species, including protected Wood Storks and Bald Eagles, using wetlands within 8 km of the airport. More birds were observed during the mid-winter and fall/spring migratory seasons (1,048 birds/survey; October - April) than during the breeding/post-breeding seasons (394 birds/survey; May - September). In winter, waterfowl dominated the avian assemblage (65% of all birds). During summer, wading birds were most abundant (56% of all birds). Habitat changes within the artificial wetlands produced fish kills and exposed mudflats, resulting in increased use by wading birds and shorebirds. No aquatic birds were implicated in 1998 bird strikes, and most birds involved could safely be placed within songbird categories. Airport incident reports further implicated songbirds. These findings suggested that efforts to decrease numbers of songbirds on the airport property must be included in the development of a wildlife hazard management plan. Seasonal differences in site use among species groups should also be considered in any such plan. Other wetlands within 8 km of the airport supported as many or more birds than the artificial wetlands. With proper management of the artificial wetlands, it should be possible to successfully displace waterfowl and wading birds to other wetlands further from the airport.

HIGHLIGHTS OF BIRD CONTROL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND, FRANCE, HOLLAND, AND GERMANY

The purpose of this paper is to present a brief review of the research being conducted in England, France, Germany, and The Netherlands on problems caused by nuisance and depredating birds. Much of the information presented has been obtained through correspondence with collaborators. In the fall of 1962, I discussed depredating bird and bird-airport problems with research workers in these countries, and also attended the meeting of the International Union of Applied Ornithology held in Frankfurt/Main. In November 1963, I attended an international symposium about the bird-airport problem, held in Nice, France. This paper will draw attention to the current research which I think will interest American investigators, but will not report every aspect of the foreign investigations. Details appear in the publications that are listed.

Adopting an integrated, flexible approach to reducing the birdstrike risk from Canada geese

Canada Geese overflying the runways at London’s Heathrow Airport have been struck on eleven occasions by aircraft during the last ten years. Four of these occurred during the pre-breeding season and seven during the post moult period. A monitoring study was initiated in 1999 to evaluate the movements of geese around the airport and determine appropriate mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of birdstrike. Moult sites within 13km of the airport were identified. 4,900 moulting geese were caught and fitted with colour rings and radio-transmitters between 1999 and 2004. 2,500 visits were made to over 300 sites resulting in over 10,000 sightings of known individuals. Birds that crossed the airport approaches whilst moving between roost sites and feeding areas in newly harvested cereal crops were identified. Throughout the monitoring period efforts were made to control the risk, but by 2003 it was estimated that 10,000 bird transits of the approaches involving almost 700 individuals occurred during a 50 day period. The knowledge of the movements of ringed and tagged birds was used to inform a revised habitat management, daily roost dispersal and on-airfield bird deterrence programme in 2004. By adopting a flexible approach to management, an estimated 70% reduction in bird transits was achieved. This paper discusses the techniques used to achieve this reduction.

SCWDS BRIEFS: Volume 21, Number 3 (October 2005)

H5N1 Influenza Virus in Wild Birds: A Fact Sheet Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus H5N1 and Wild Birds What are avian influenza viruses? What is a Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza virus? What is “Bird Flu” and what is “HPAI H5N1”? What do we know about avian influenza viruses in wild birds? Do we have HPAI H5N1 in North America? Is there currently a public health risk associated with HPAI H5N1 in wild birds? Is there a domestic animal health risk associated with HPAI in wild birds? What is the possibility of HPAI H5N1 entering North America via migratory wild birds? What is the possibility of this virus being maintained in wild bird populations? Do we have surveillance for HPAI H5N1 in the United States? Additional information on HPAI can be found at these websites: The recognized geographic and species distribution of chronic wasting disease (CWD) has expanded since early September 2005 to include Hampshire County in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative Guiding Principles Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) virus was isolated from seven white-tailed deer in southwestern Michigan during September 2005 During the past summer, more than 500 head of livestock in North Dakota and South Dakota were lost to one of the largest recorded anthrax outbreaks in U.S. history. Most of the losses were in cattle, but horses, bison, and farm-reared elk also were affected. Dr. John Fischer, Director of SCWDS, has received this year’s Special Recognition Award from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). Dr. William Randolph Davidson is retiring in November 2005.

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.