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.

BIRD DAMAGE TO TART CHERRIES IN MICHIGAN, 1972

Bird damage to commercial fruits has long been a problem in many coun- tries, but the true magnitude of the damage incurred is difficult to determine objectively. Often the opinions of fruit growers provide the only measure of importance. In 1972, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and the Statistical Reporting Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture obtained quantitative information on bird damage to tart cherries (Prunus mahalob) in Michigan. The results of the survey are presented in this paper.

Bird Depredation

A survey of catfish producers by the United States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) in 1996 indicated that the two primary sources of catfish losses in commercial operations were disease (45%) and wildlife (37%) (CEAH 1997a). A variety of avian and mammalian predators are amracred to aquaculture facilities in the United States (Parkhurs: er al. 1992) because ponds and open raceways provide a constant and readily accessible food supply for these animals. However, the mere presence of these predators arcund aquaculture faciliries does not necessarily mean that significant depredation problems are occurring. At catfish farms, three species or species groups of birds are primarily cited by catfish producers as causing most depredation problems (Wywialowski 1999). These include doublecrested cormorants, wading birds (herons and egrets), and American white pelicans, in order of importance to catfish producers (Wywialowski 1993). Although all of these species consume catfish, their biology, distribution, dietary preferences dictare the extent of depredation problems they cause and the approaches needed to alleviate their depredations. With the exception of total bird exclusion from ponds, there are no simple solutions for resolving all bird depredation problems in catfish aquaculture. Thus, in most cases, an integrated management approach to alleviating bird depredations must be considered.

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.

METHIOCARB, A CHEMICAL BIRD REPELLENT: A REVIEW OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS ON CROPS

Since 1964, when the effectiveness of methiocarb for preventing pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) from damaging sprouting corn was proven in South Dakota, an aggressive program has been carried out by personnel of the Denver Wildlife Research Center and many cooperators to develop methiocarb as a broad spectrum avian repellent. The successful use of methiocarb for preventing damage caused by several species of birds to sprouting corn in several states and to sprouting soybeans in South America is reviewed. Recent results obtained from spraying methiocarb on ripening rice in California, ripening sorghum in Colorado and Oklahoma, cherries in Michigan, and grapes in New Hampshire are summarized.

Effects of addition of a bird repellent to fish diets on their growth and bioaccumulation

The effects of adding the nonlethal bird repellent methyl anthranilate (MA), at levels of 100 and 1000 mg/kg, to fish feed on the bioaccumulation and growth of juvenile (10 g) hybrid striped bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis) and juvenile (1g) African cichlid fish Aulonocara jacobfreibergi were investigated under laboratory conditions. The bird repellent did not have any effect on the fish growth or survival over a period of 6 weeks. MA residues at low levels of 11.2 ± 2.6 mg/g were found in lipophilic tissues (liver) of MA-fed fish. Control fish, which had no MA added to their diet, had a much lower level of 0.6 ± 0.3 mg/g MA in their liver. Fish muscle was found to contain negligible MA residues, while the outer body surface mucus did not contain any MA. Following a 6-week depuration period, during which the previously MA-fed hybrid striped bass were fed a feed to which no MA was added, the levels of MA residues detected were reduced by one order of magnitude.

BIRD HAZARDS TO AIRCRAFT

When I spoke to the third Bird Control Seminar in 1966 on "Ecological Control of Bird Hazards to Aircraft", I reviewed what we had accomplished up to that time. I spoke about the extent of the problem, the bird species involved and the methods we used to make the airports less attractive to birds that created hazards to aircraft. I wish to discuss today our accomplishments since 1966. I have presented a number of papers on the topic including one with Dr. W. W. H. Gunn, in 1967 at a meeting in the United Kingdom, and others in the United States (1968 and 1970) and at the World Conference on Bird Hazards to Aircraft in Canada in 1969. There is no longer any question about the consequences of collision between birds and aircraft. Aircraft have not become less vulnerable either. Engines on the Boeing 747 have been changed as a result of damage caused by ingested birds. Figures crossing my desk daily show that while we are reducing the number of serious incidents and cutting down repair costs, we will continue to have bird strikes. Modification of the airport environment (Solman, 1966) has gone on continuously since 1963. The Department of Transport of Canada has spent more than 10 million dollars modifying major Canadian airports to reduce their attractiveness to birds. Modifications are still going on and will continue until bird attraction has been reduced to a minimum.

SELLING BIRD CONTROL

The remarks that I have prepared deal with direct contacts selling pest and bird control programs. I am going to limit my remarks to what I feel are the more important aspects of selling Bird Control. I think it is safe to say that one of the most difficult aspects of selling for most sales personnel is prospecting, that is, finding accounts to call on. Our sales personnel have to more or less come up with their own leads. They have to find out who to contact once they get there. I have found that the best prospect most of us have for selling Bird Control accounts are our present pest control accounts. Generally speaking, we try to main¬tain contact with our applicators in the field, who are in these accounts every day, asking them if there are any of their accounts that are having bird control problems. Another method of finding potential accounts, is driving around looking. It is more difficult to drive around and look for rat and/or roach problems, but generally speaking if a building or some type of business has a bird problem, it is fairly easy to locate. Another thing we can do is call on specific accounts. There are generally cer¬tain accounts that just by the manufacturing process do attract birds, for example: food plants, mills, beet plants, grain elevators, food processors, and so on. Other type operations which lend themselves to bird problems are industrial plants because of the super-structure (physical plant) that they have. Sub-stations and power plants are very attractive to birds. Some other situations that should be checked for bird problems are lumber yards and contractors' storage buildings. After deciding on a contact we get into what I call my basic four. There are four basic things that I try to impress upon our personnel to keep in mind when they go in to make a contact. The first one is the interview or actually making the contact so that you get an opportunity to have the interview, either calling for an appointment or making a "cold" call. The second one is closing for the survey. The third one is making the survey and preparing a proposal. The fourth and last one is the proposal presentation and closing of the sale. An additional item which would make a basic five is after you make the sale don't forget to follow up on the sale.

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.

BIRD DEPREDATION ON RICE AND OTHER GRAINS IN ARKANSAS

In Arkansas, blackbirds are responsible for appreciable damage to rice, grain sorghum, oats, wheat, rye, and corn. By far, the greatest damage is to rice. As is shown in the following table, the losses to rice producers amounted to an estimated $3,049,055 in 1968, the last year that a survey was made. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of this loss was to standing rice destroyed and to the cost of bird control measure in standing rice. The remaining losses ($2,140,320 ) are to seeding or to efforts to control bird depredations to new seeding, (see Table 1). Blackbird damage to grain sorghum and corn was mostly to standing grain; that to oats, wheat and rye, to seeding, although there is occasional damage to standing grain. Additional problems are caused by blackbirds in feed lots. The total losses to Arkansas agricultural producers due to blackbirds in 1968 was about $3,500,000. Bird damage in a specific locality and on specific crops seems to vary in intensity from year to year. However, surveys during the past ten years suggest a fairly consistent level of total damage state-wide. The damage in 1968-and I believe in 1969—was somewhat lighter than we have come to expect from past exper¬ience. (See table 2.) On a per acre basis the damage in 1968 showed a considerable decline when compared to previous years. A part of this decline is probably a temporary situation. Some of the decline in losses to rice and grain sorghum, however, are due to changes in varieties, such as development of bird-resistant milo, and to changes in cultural methods. Further appreciable reductions due to changes in these factors seem unlikely, (see table 3.) Since rice producers sustain the greatest losses to birds, they have generated the greatest demand for bird control programs. Three species are responsible for most of the damage to rice. They are the red-winged blackbird, common grackle and brown-headed cowbird. These birds have created problems for rice producers since the first successful rice crop was grown near Lonoke, Arkansas, in 1904.

SAMPLING OF CORN TO ASSESS BIRD DAMAGE: A Preliminary Review of a Comprehensive Study

"How large a sample is needed to survey the bird damage to corn in a county in Ohio or New Jersey or South Dakota?" Like those in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the U.S.D.A. who have been faced with a question of this sort we found only meager information on which to base an answer, whether the problem related to a county in Ohio or to one in New Jersey, or elsewhere. Many sampling methods and rates of sampling did yield reliable estimates but the judgment was often intuitive or based on the reasonableness of the resulting data. Later, when planning the next study or survey, little additional information was available on whether 40 samples of 5 ears each or 5 samples of 200 ears should be examined, i.e., examination of a large number of small samples or a small number of large samples. What information is needed to make a reliable decision? Those of us involved with the Agricultural Experiment Station regional project concerned with the problems of bird damage to crops, known as NE-49, thought we might supply an ans¬wer if we had a corn field in which all the damage was measured. If all the damage were known, we could then sample this field in various ways and see how the estimates from these samplings compared to the actual damage and pin-point the best and most accurate sampling procedure. Eventually the investigators in four states became involved in this work1 and instead of one field we were able to broaden the geographical base by examining all the corn ears in 2 half-acre sections of fields in each state, 8 sections in all. When the corn had matured well past the dough stage, damage on each corn ear was assessed, without removing the ear from the stalk, by visually estimating the percent of the kernel surface which had been destroyed and rating it in one of 5 damage categories. Measurements (by row-centimeters) of the rows of kernels pecked by birds also were made on selected ears representing all categories and all parts of each field section. These measurements provided conversion factors that, when fed into a computer, were applied to the more than 72,000 visually assessed ears. The machine now had in its memory and could supply on demand a map showing each ear, its location and the intensity of the damage.

EFFECTS OF A BIRD HAZARD REDUCTION FORCE ON REDUCING BIRD/AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARDS AT THE ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NJ

Bird-aircraft strikes at the Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) increased from 18 in 1989 to 37 in 1990. The number of bird-aircraft strikes involving gulls (Larus spp.) during this time rose from 6 to 27, a 350% increase. The predominant species involved in bird strikes was the laughing gull (L. atricilla). Pursuant to an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)l Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Animal Damage Control (ADC), ADC established a Emergency/Experimental Bird Hazard Reduction Force (BHFF) at ACY in 1991. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 1991 Emergency/Experimental BHRF was executed and signed by the FAA on 19 May 1991. The BHRF was adopted at this time by the FAA Technical Center as an annual program to reduce bird strikes at ACY. The BHRF goals are to minimize or eliminate the incidence of bird-aircraft strikes and runway closures due to increased bird activities. A BHRF team consisting of ADC personnel patrolled ACY for 95 days from 26 May until 28 August 1992, for a total of 2,949 person-hours. The BHRF used a combination of pyrotechnics, amplified gull distress tapes and live ammunition to harass gulls away from the airport from dawn to dusk. Gullaircraft strikes were reduced during BHRF operations in 1992 by 86% compared to gull strikes during summer months of 1990 when there was not a BHRF team. Runway closures due to bird activity decreased 100% compared to 1990 and 1991 closures. The BHRF should continue at ACY as long as birds are a threat to human safety and aircraft operations.

Airport Bird Threat in North America from Large Flocking Birds (geese) (as Viewed by an Engine Manufacturer)--Part 1

In worldwide aviation operations, bird collisions with aircraft and ingestions into engine inlets present safety hazards and financial loss through equipment damage, loss of service and disruption to operations. The problem is encountered by all types of aircraft, both military and commercial. Modern aircraft engines have achieved a high level of reliability while manufacturers and users continually strive to further improve the safety record. A major safety concern today includes common-cause events which involve significant power loss on more than one engine. These are externally-inflicted occurrences, with the most frequent being encounters with flocks of birds. Most frequently these encounters occur during flight operations in the area on or near airports, near the ground instead of at cruise altitude conditions. This paper focuses on the increasing threat to aircraft and engines posed by the recorded growth in geese populations in North America. Service data show that goose strikes are increasing, especially in North America, consistent with the growing resident geese populations estimated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Airport managers, along with the governmental authorities, need to develop a strategy to address this large flocking bird issue. This paper also presents statistics on the overall status of the bird threat for birds of all sizes in North America relative to other geographic regions. Overall, the data shows that Canada and the USA have had marked improvements in controlling the threat from damaging birds - except for the increase in geese strikes. To reduce bird ingestion hazards, more aggressive corrective measures are needed in international air transport to reduce the chances of serious incidents or accidents from bird ingestion encounters. Air transport authorities must continue to take preventative and avoidance actions to counter the threat of birdstrikes to aircraft. The primary objective of this paper is to increase awareness of, and focus attention on, the safety hazards presented by large flocking birds such as geese. In the worst case, multiple engine power loss due to large bird ingestion could result in an off-airport forced landing accident. Hopefully, such awareness will prompt governmental regulatory agencies to address the hazards associated with growing populations of geese in North America.

SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTROL OF FUNGAL DISEASES RELATED TO BIRD ROOSTS

Certain fungi have been found frequently as saprophytes in areas containing large amounts of bird excreta. These fungi have the ability to survive, multiply, and cause disease once they have entered a host. Two of these are Crypto-coccus neoformans and Histoplasma capsulatum. Both may easily become airborne and be disseminated throughout an area by the prevailing winds. C. neo-formans is commonly isolated from the excreta of pigeon habitats, and in turn has been associated with clinical cases of cryptococcosis, while blackbird roosts, harboring H. capsulatum, have been responsible for several outbreaks of histoplasmosis. When either of these fungi have become established in nature, the sites may become foci for infection and epidemics may occur if the sites are disturbed. This has led to investigation of these organisms with respect to: 1) the frequency of isolation of H. capsulatum from the soil beneath blackbird roosts in a histoplasmosis endemic area; 2) the infectivity of undisturbed roosts positive for H. capsulatum; and 3) the effectiveness of chemical decontamination of areas containing C. neoformans or H. capsulatum.

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.