Review of issues concerning the use of reproductive inhibitors, with particular emphasis on resolving human-wildlife conflicts in North America

This manuscript provides an overview of past wildlife contraception efforts and discusses the current state of research. Two fertility control agents, an avian reproductive inhibitor containing the active ingredient nicarbazin and an immunocontraceptive vaccine, have received regulatory approval with the Environmental Protection Agency and are commercially available in the USA. OvoControl G Contraceptive Bait for Canada Geese and Ovo Control for pigeons are delivered as oral baits. An injectable immunocontraceptive vaccine (GonaCon Immunocontraceptive Vaccine) was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency for use in female white-tailed deer in September 2009. An injectable product (GonaCon Immunocontraceptive Vaccine) is registered for use in female white-tailed deer. Both products are labeled for use in urban/suburban areas where these species are overabundant. Several other compounds are currently being tested for use in wildlife in the USA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand that could have promise in the future. The development and use of reproductive inhibitors for resolving human–wildlife conflicts will depend on a number of factors, including meeting the requirements of regulatory agencies for use in the environment and on the biological and economical feasibility of their use. Use will also be dependent on health and safety issues and on public acceptance of the techniques.

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.

Thermal Imagery Applied to Reducing Bird Hazards to Aircraft at Airports

Airports worldwide are at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to spot birds and warn aircrews about the location of flocks either on the ground or close to the airfield. Birds simply cannot be easily seen during the day and are nearly invisible targets for planes at night or during low visibility. Thermal imaging (infrared) devices can be used to allow ground and tower personnel to pinpoint bird locations day or night, thus giving the airport operators the ability to launch countermeasures or simply warn the aircrews. This technology is available now, though it has been predominately isolated to medical and military system modifications. The cost of these devices has dropped significantly in recent years as technology, capability, and availability have continued to increase. Davison Army Airfield (DAAF), which is located about 20 miles south of Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, is the transient home to many bird species including an abundance of ducks, seagulls, pigeons, and migrating Canadian geese. Over the past few years, DAAF implemented a variety of measures in an attempt to control the bird hazards on the airfield. Unfortunately, when it came to controlling these birds on or near our runways and aircraft movement areas we were more reactive than proactive. We would do airfield checks several times an hour to detect and deter any birds in these areas. The deterrents used included vehicle/human presence, pyrotechnics, and the periodic use of a trained border collie. At the time, we felt like we were doing all we could to reduce the threat to aircraft and human life. It was not until a near fatal accident in October 1998, when we truly realized how dangerous our operating environment really was to aircraft at or near the airfield. It was at this time, we had a C-12 (twin-engine passenger plane) land on our primary runway at night. The tower cleared the aircraft to land, and upon touchdown to the runway the aircraft collided with a flock of geese. Neither the tower nor the crew of the aircraft saw the geese because they were obscured in the darkness. The end result was 12 dead geese and $374,000 damage to the C-12. Fortunately, there were no human fatalities, but it was painfully clear we needed to improve our method of clearing the runway at night and during low visibility conditions. It was through this realization that we ventured to the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Command for ideas on ways to deal with our threat. It was through a sub-organization within this command, Night Vision Labs, that we realized the possibilities of modifying thermal imagery and infrared technology to detecting wildlife on airports.

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.