COMMENSAL RODENTS

The evolution of effective rodent control has been greater in the past 20 years than during the previous 200 years. Mankind need no longer fear the "black death," typhus, and other rodent-borne diseases. Likewise, there is no longer any reason why we must bear the cost of serious economic losses because of commensal rodent damage to property. Unfortunately, the latter still totals many millions of dollars each year. Damage and contamination of food products by house mice now probably equals or exceeds that caused by rats.

THE ROLE OF PEST CONTROL OPERATORS IN VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL

The National Pest Control Association, which I represent, accepts for membership those persons or firms which are actively engaged in the performance of structural pest control services for hire to the public at large and which are in sympathy with the purposes of the Association. The pest control operator in this context might be called a commercial pest control operator to distinguish him from those doing similar work but who are employed by governmental agencies or within large commercial organizations. Pest control is a growing industry with a gross annual income of 300-350 million dollars. It is estimated to contain more than 5,000 firms employing about 25,000 productive workers. Many of these servicemen, possibly 15,000, are doing vertebrate pest control every day as they combat commensal rodents. A much smaller number, usually specialists or persons normally doing super¬visory work, are also engaged in the control of pest birds and a variety of miscellaneous vertebrates. With approximately 15,000 servicemen making at least 10 contacts a day with the public, it is readily apparent that whatever opportunity the general public has to judge the success or failure of vertebrate pest control practice is largely influenced by the work of the pest control industry.

THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY IN DEVELOPING NEW MATERIALS FOR VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL

In the first paper presented to you today by Dr. Spencer, an expert in the Animal Biology field and an official authority at the same time, you heard about the requirements imposed on a chemical in order to pass the different official hurdles before it ever will be accepted as a proven tool in wildlife management. Many characteristics have to be known and highly sophisticated tests have to be run. In many instances the governmental agency maintains its own screening, testing or analytical programs according to standard procedures. It would be impossible, however, for economic and time reasons to work out all the data necessary for themselves. They, therefore, depend largely on the information furnished by the individual industry which naturally has to be established as conscientiously as possible. This, among other things, Dr. Spencer has made very clear; and this is also what makes quite a few headaches for the individual industry, but I am certainly not speaking only for myself in saying that Industry fully realizes this important role in developing materials for vertebrate control and the responsibilities lying in this. This type of work - better to say cooperative work with the official institutions - is, however, only one part and for the most of it, the smallest part of work which Industry pays to the development of compounds for pest control. It actually refers only to those very few compounds which are known to be effective. But how to get to know about their properties in the first place? How does Industry make the selection from the many thousands of compounds synthesized each year? This, by far, creates the biggest problems, at least from the scientific and technical standpoint. Let us rest here for a short while and think about the possible ways of screening and selecting effective compounds. Basically there are two different ways. One is the empirical way of screening as big a number of compounds as possible under the supposition that with the number of incidences the chances for a "hit" increase, too. You can also call this type of approach the statistical or the analytical one, the mass screening of new, mostly unknown candidate materials. This type of testing can only be performed by a producer of many new materials,that means by big industries. It requires a tremendous investment in personnel, time and equipment and is based on highly simplified but indicative test methods, the results of which would have to be reliable and representative for practical purposes. The other extreme is the intellectual way of theorizing effective chemical configurations. Defenders of this method claim to now or later be able to predict biological effectiveness on the basis of the chemical structure or certain groups in it. Certain pre-experience should be necessary, that means knowledge of the importance of certain molecular requirements, then the detection of new and effective complete molecules is a matter of coordination to be performed by smart people or computers. You can also call this method the synthetical or coordinative method.

PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION: AN IMPORTANT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY

Suburban wildlife management issues are generating heated debate between citizen organizations, elected public officials, and state wildlife management agencies. Decisions are being made by town and county officials which directly impact or supersede state authority for managing resident wildlife. As an example, I will focus this discussion on the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), management controversy at Durand Eastman Park, in the greater Rochester metropolitan area, New York.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRIVATE NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK

The nuisance wildlife control industry is rapidly expanding in New York State. To gain additional insight about this industry and the number of animals handled, we reviewed the 1989-90 annual logs submitted by Nuisance Wildlife Control Orators (NWC0s) to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The specific objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the number and species of different wildlife responsible for damage incidents, (2) the cause of damage complaints, (3) the disposition of animals handled, (4) the location of damage events (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), and (5) an estimate of the economic impact of the nuisance wildlife industry in Upstate New York. The Nuisance Wildlife Logs (NWLs) were examined for 7 urban and 7 rural counties (25.5% of Upstate counties), and these data were used to estimate total NWCO activity in DEC Regions 3 through 9 (excludes Long Island). Approximately 75% of NWCOs licensed by DEC were active during 1989-90, and nearly 2,800 complaints were handled in the 14 counties sampled. More than 90% of complaints came from urban counties, and we estimated that NWC0s responded to more than 11,000 calls in Upstate New York. At a conservative estimate of $35/call, revenue generated by this industry exceeded $385,000 annually. Six wildlife species accounted for 85% of the nuisance complaints in urban and rural counties. During 1986 to 1993, the number of NWCOs licensed by DEC nearly quadrupled, and there is no indication that this trend will change in the near future.

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.

COMPLETE CONTROL OF NUISANCE BIRDS IN AIRPORT HANGARS

Fogging of ReJeX-iT7 TP-40 offers a very efficient method for the control and dispersal of nuisance birds from many diverse areas. The amount of the repellent is greatly reduced over any other control method. The method is direct and is independent of the activity of the birds. The applications with any fogger, thermal or mechanical, that can deliver droplets of less than 20 microns, can be manually or fully automated and pose only minimal risks to operators or animals. All birds that became a nuisance and safety problem in the hangars of TWA and AA at LaGuardia, and TWA warehouse at Newark Airport were successfully driven out by fogging ReJeX-iT7 TP-40 with a Curtis Dyna-Fog AGolden Eagle@ thermal fogger.

OPENING REMARKS - THIRD VERTEBRATE PEST CONFERENCE

To open this Third Vertebrate Pest Conference is a real privilege. It is a pleasure to welcome all of you in attendance, and I know there are others who would like to be meeting with us, but, for one reason or another cannot be. However, we can serve them by taking back the results of discussion and by making available the printed transactions of what is said here. It has been the interest and demand for the proceedings of the two previous conferen- ces which, along with personal contacts many of you have with the sponsoring committee, have gauged the need for continuing these meetings. The National Pest Control Association officers who printed the 1962 proceedings still are supplying copies of that conference. Two reprintings of the 1964 conference have been necessary and repeat orders from several universities indicate that those proceedings have become textbooks for special classes. When Dr. Howard mentioned in opening the first Conference in 1962 that publication of those papers would make a valuable handbook of animal control, he was prophetic, indeed. We are pleased that this has happened, but not surprised, since to many of us in this specialized field, the conferences have provided a unique opportunity to meet colleagues with similar interests, to exchange information on control techniques and to be informed by research workers of problem solving investigations as well as to hear of promising basic research. The development of research is a two-way street and we think these conferences also identify areas of inadequate knowledge, thereby stimulating needed research. We have represented here a number of types of specialists—animal ecologists, public health and transmissible disease experts, control methods specialists, public agency administration and enforcement staffs, agricultural extension people, manufacturing and sale industry representatives, commercial pest control operators, and others—and in addition to improving communications among these professional groups an equally important purpose of these conferences is to improve understanding between them and the general public. Within the term general public are many individuals and also organizations dedicated to appreciation and protection of certain animal forms or animal life in general. Proper concepts of vertebrate pest control do not conflict with such views. It is worth repeating for the record the definition of "vertebrate pest" which has been stated at our previous conferences. "A vertebrate pest is any native or introduced, wild or feral, non-human spe- cies of vertebrate animal that is currently troublesome locally or over a wide area to one or more persons either by being a general nuisance, a health hazard or by destroying food or natural resources. In other words, vertebrate pest status is not an inherent quality or fixed classification but is a circumstantial relationship to man's interests." I believe progress has been made in reducing the misunderstanding and emotion with which vertebrate pest control was formerly treated whenever a necessity for control was stated. If this is true, I likewise believe it is deserved, because control methods and programs have progressed. Control no longer refers only to population reductions by lethal means. We have learned something of alternate control approaches and the necessity for studying the total environment; where reduction of pest animal numbers is the required solution to a problem situation we have a wider choice of more selective, safe and efficient materials. Although increased attention has been given to control methods, research when we take a close look at the severity of animal damage to so many facets of our economy, particularly to agricultural production and public health, we realize it still is pitifully small and slow. The tremendous acceleration of the world's food and health requirements seems to demand expediting vertebrate pest control to effectively neutralize the enormous impact of animal damage to vital resources. The efforts we are making here at problem delineation, idea communication and exchange of methodology could well serve as both nucleus and rough model for a broader application elsewhere. I know we all hope this Third Conference will advance these general objectives, and I think there is no doubt of its value in increasing our own scope of information.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF PLAGUE IN CALIFORNIA

At the first Vertebrate Pest Control Conference in 1964, I traced the history of plague control in California and outlined a revised approach, based on newer concepts of plague ecology. In our state of relative ignorance, this required a number of unproved assumptions about plague occurrence in California that verged on crystal ball gazing. These were principally that (1) plague persists in relatively resistant rodent species in certain favorable locations, (2) ground squirrels and chipmunks experience periodic epizootics, but are not permanent reservoirs, (3) plague "foci" of the past were merely sites of conspicuous epizootics, they did not necessarily correspond to permanent foci, and could result from epizootic migrations over considerable distances, and (4) a number of assumptions about areas of greatest epizootic potential can be made by analyzing the pattern of recurrent plague outbreaks in the past. Since then the validity of these assumptions has been tested by the largest outbreak of plague since the early 1940's. We believe that the results have proved the crystal ball largely correct, resulting in much more precise and efficient epizootic surveillance and deployment of control measures than in the past. The outbreak was for us an administrative emergency that exceeded the capacities of the State Health Department. We greatly appreciated the vital help and cooperation of other agencies and individuals. The U.S, Public Health Service accepted a heavy burden of laboratory testing through its San Francisco Field Station, and provided emergency field personnel. The contributions of State Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Weed and Vertebrate Pest Control; U.S. Parks, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management; local health and agriculture department; and State Division of Parks personnel were essential in accomplishing control work, as well as epizootic surveillance.

Risk-based Modeling to Develop Zoning Criteria for Land-use Near Canadian Airports

Land development in the vicinity of airports often leads to land-use that can attract birds that are hazardous to aviation operations. For this reason, certain forms of land-use have traditionally been discouraged within prescribed distances of Canadian airports. However, this often leads to an unrealistic prohibition of land-use in the vicinity of airports located in urban settings. Furthermore, it is often unclear that the desired safety goals have been achieved. This paper describes a model that was created to assist in the development of zoning regulations for a future airport site in Canada. The framework links land-use to bird-related safety-risks and aircraft operations by categorizing the predictable relationships between: (i) different land uses found in urbanized and urbanizing settings near airports; (ii) bird species; and (iii) the different safety-risks to aircraft during various phases of flight. The latter is assessed relative to the runway approach and departure paths. Bird species are ranked to reflect the potential severity of an impact with an aircraft (using bird weight, flocking characteristics, and flight behaviours). These criteria are then employed to chart bird-related safety-risks relative to runway reference points. Each form of land-use is categorized to reflect the degree to which it attracts hazardous bird species. From this information, hazard and risk matrices have been developed and applied to the future airport setting, thereby providing risk-based guidance on appropriate land-uses that range from prohibited to acceptable. The framework has subsequently been applied to an existing Canadian airport, and is currently being adapted for national application. The framework provides a risk-based and science-based approach that offers municipalities and property owner’s flexibility in managing the risks to aviation related to their land use.

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.

ENHANCEMENT OF THE FAA’s ON-LINE WILDLIFE AIRCRAFT STRIKE DATABASE WITH AN INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS CAPABILITY

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Prescott, AZ, USA) was awarded a grant from the William J. Hughes FAA Technical Center in October 1999 to develop and maintain a web site dealing with a wide variety of airport safety wildlife concerns. Initially, the web site enabled users to access related topics such as wildlife management (at/near airports), bird identification information, FAA wildlife management guidelines, education, pictures, current news, upcoming meetings and training, available jobs and discussion/forum sections. In April 2001, the web site was augmented with an on-line wildlife strike report (FAA Form 5200-7). Upon submittal on-line, “quick look” email notifications are sent to concerned government personnel. The distribution of these emails varies as to whether there was damage, human injuries/fatalities, and whether feather remains were collected and will be sent to the Smithsonian Institution for identification. In July 2002, a real-time on-line query system was incorporated to allow federal and local government agencies, airport and operator personnel, and USDA and airport wildlife biologists to access this database (which as of June 2005 contains 68,288 researched strike reports added to at a rate of approximately 500 strike reports/month) to formulate strategies to reduce the hazards wildlife present to aviation. To date (June 2005), over 15,000 on-line real-time queries were processed. In June 2004, ERAU was authorized to develop a graphical interface to this on-line query system. Current capabilities include mapping strikes (by species) on the US map, each of the contiguous 48 state maps (with AK and HI being added), and airport diagrams of the major metropolitan airports as well as the next 46 airports with the most reported strikes The latter capability depicts strikes by runway in plan as well as in elevation view. Currently under development is the ability to view time-sequenced strikes on the US map. This extensive graphical interface will give analysts the ability to view strike patterns with a wide variety of variables including species, seasons, migration patterns, etc. on US and state maps and airport diagrams.

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.

Wildlife Risk Management at Vancouver International Airport

The Vancouver International Airport (YVR) is the second busiest airport in Canada. YVR is located on Sea Island in the Fraser River Estuary - a world-class wintering and staging area for hundreds of thousands of migratory birds. The Fraser Delta supports Canada’s largest wintering populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors. The large number of aircraft movements and the presence of many birds near YVR pose a wide range of considerable aviation safety hazards. Until the late 1980s when a full-time Wildlife Control Program (WCP) was initiated, YVR had the highest number of bird strikes of any Canadian commercial airport. Although the risks of bird strikes associated with the operation of YVR are generally well known by airport managers, and a number of risk assessments have been conducted associated with the Sea Island Conservation Area, no quantitative assessment of risks of bird strikes has been conducted for airport operations at YVR. Because the goal of all airports is to operate safely, an airport wildlife management program strives to reduce the risk of bird strikes. A risk assessment establishes the current risk of strikes, which can be used as a benchmark to focus wildlife control activities and to assess the effectiveness of the program in reducing bird strike risks. A quantitative risk assessment also documents the process and information used in assessing risk and allows the assessment to be repeated in the future in order to measure the change in risk over time in an objective and comparative manner. This study was undertaken to comply with new Canadian legislation expected to take effect in 2006 requiring airports in Canada to conduct a risk assessment and develop a wildlife management plan. Although YVR has had a management plan for many years, it took this opportunity to update the plan and conduct a risk assessment.

Conference Participants, Fifth Vertebrate Pest Conference (1972)

The Fifth Vertebrate Pest Conference drew a registered attendance of 239 with an estimated additional 50-75 persons who attended portions of the conference but did not register. As in past conferences, the attendance was made up of individuals having varying interests in vertebrate pest problems from twenty two states plus the District of Columbia. Participants from Canada, Denmark, England, Germany, India and New Zealand contributed greatly to the success of the conference and provided further exchange of information on an international level.