WOLF CONTROL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

Up to 1949, the Fish and Game Branch employed personnel, some of whom were temporary, to attempt control of the extremely high wolf pop¬ulations of the central and northern portions of British Columbia. Coyotes were also very numerous in the central and southern regions and had to be considered because of their depredations. The field men were keen and conscientious but their efforts were not co-ordinated. Control areas were severely restricted in size as techniques were not adaptable enough and because of a lack of manpower. Eventually, sheepmen went out of business entirely over wide areas, cattlemen were subjected to huge annual losses, and sportsmen were very concerned. However, stock losses constituted the major complaint and resulted in ranchers demanding action* Two major changes came out of this. First, the bounty on wolves was raised and second, the present Predator Control Division was formed. The administration was convinced that a force of experienced, fully-trained field staff under a single supervision would be far more effective than bounty payments. Unfortunately, bounties were in vogue during that time and forced the necessity of proving the worth of organized controls before any consideration could be given to the elimination of the bounty system.

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.

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.