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.

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.

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.

THE ROLE OF BIRD MANAGEMENT IN FIRE PROTECTION

Two years ago, Mike Fall and I showed you some ideas we had regarding mod¬ern architecture and bird problems. This year we've switched to considering bird hazards in older frame dwellings and on buildings where a fire hazard may be ap¬parent. During a class project some time ago, I was examining a nest of house sparrows and discovered that these birds incorporated cellulose cigarette filters into their nests. Filters were stripped of their paper wrapping and were apparently used by the sparrows as a substitute for or a supplement to fluffy air-born seeds and seed mat¬erials. The incidence of the cigarette filters varied. In the nests that I sampled the numbers varied anywhere from six up to two dozen filter remnants. We feel that the incidence will probably vary with the relative availability of discarded cigarette filter butts. We are concerned with the incidence of filters as an index to the possibility that the birds are picking up live cigarette butts, and this leads us to investigate some records of fires over the past three quarters of a century that were claimed to have been caused by birds.