Bird Control Seminars Proceedings

Table of Contents -- Proceedings Third Bird Control Seminar

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:02:10 PDT

BLACKBIRD DAMAGE AND CONTROL--AN INFORMAL SEMINAR

M. I. Dyer — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:23:51 PDT

The object is to hash over a few problems as we see them on this red-winged blackbird situation. I'm Mel Dyer, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Around the table are Tom Stockdale, Extension Wildlife Specialist, Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, Columbus; Maurice Giltz, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; Joe Halusky, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; Daniel Stiles, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.; Paul Rodeheffer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; Brian Hall, Blackbird Research Project, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario; George Cornwell, Virginia Polytechnic Insti¬tute, Blacksburg, Va.; Dick Warren, Peavey Grain Company, Minneapolis, Minn.; Bob Fringer, N.J. Department of Agriculture, Trenton, N.J.; Charles Stone, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; Larry Holcomb, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; Doug Slack, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; Charles Wagg, N.J. Department of Agriculture, Trenton, N.J.; Dick Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio; and Jim Caslick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, Fla.

As I see the situation, as a director of a red-winged blackbird research project, we have a problem which has been defined in human terms concerning a natural animal population.

BIRD CONTROL METHODS AND DEVICES--COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL PEST CONTROL ASSOCIATION

Philip J. Spear — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:19:19 PDT

It may be useful to review some of the considerations that go into recommendations concerning bird management. Later I will make some comments concerning specific methods and devices being used in or promoted for bird control work regardless of whether or not they are new. Members of the National Pest Control Association provide a variety of services, such as fumigation, termite control and general pest control which includes rodent control. There are eight such categories listed in our roster, but only one member in five provides every service listed. Bird control is a rather recent development and is the newest category of service to be listed in the NPCA roster where it appeared for the first time in 1959. As of September 1, 1966, 45% of our members' offices indicated that they were prepared to offer bird control service. Less than 40% did so in 1964. Why is it that more of our members do not declare themselves as ready to do bird control work? I believe the most common answer you would find is that bird control is not yet sufficiently established that they can provide a service comparable in quality to that which is provided against termites or cockroaches or rats. Our members simply do not want to jeopardize their reputation on methods that are not certain or are too complex. Others recognize the emotional reaction evidenced by much of the population concerning control of birds and do not want to become involved in work that might offend some of their clientele. Still others simply do not agree that birds are their responsibility.

NEW MATERIALS FROM RESEARCH

Donald Balser — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:19:15 PDT

At the Denver Wildlife Research Center our people are actively searching for means of controlling damage by a whole host of animal and bird species. I say controlling damage rather than controlling species because this should be the primary objective. If we can do this without lethal control, so much the better, and it may be the more lasting solution in the long run. Often removal of some animals by lethal means either increases reproduction, survival, or invasion unless complete control is exercised over sufficiently large areas. In spite of these problems, population reduction is often relied on as a means of controlling damage. And where lethal control is required, there is a definite need for continued improvement in agents and techniques of application. In research we must explore all approaches; one such is anti-fertility agents. The principle here is that reproduction is the mainspring that overcomes all mortality factors. Logically, it appears that suppressing reproduction may be a very direct approach in control. We are working on this in both coyotes and rodents, but there is much to learn. For example, we must determine the complete reproductive picture in each target species to know where to attack reproduction. Second, we must find the best agents and how to effectively apply them. Third, we must be able to determine results and how populations respond. This has been the most difficult phase to date. We have not started this work in birds, but our sister laboratory for Eastern United States at Patuxent, Md. has. Antifertility agents are only one promising area. Another, heavily emphasized in the past is chemical agents, particularly toxicants. There are always inherent problems associated with chemicals in control. It isn't enough to prove that a given chemical will work in control; the safety of the handler, primary and secondary hazards, residues, and degredation products if any, also have to be thoroughly investigated. It still provides a productive area, but the time lag in putting it to application is increasing greatly. We have hopes though after finding two highly selective toxicants that more can be discovered. These studies can be approached in two ways, one is the empirical approach, used in the past, of screening numbers of chemicals known or unknown. A newer approach is to first look at the behavior and physiology of the target species to identify the most vulnerable points in their makeup and then search for an agent or technique to interfere or block this action. We are involved in both. Studies have been initiated in the physiology of starlings and redwings to determine first the normal functions and to search for potential areas of attack. This is already opening up new leads that will soon be reported in the literature. One area of promise is using physiological measurements to evaluate fright producing stimuli in birds. Our avian physiologist, Dr. Thompson, is well along in these studies and by telemetering heart rate is able to quantitatively measure responses. This has important implications in being able to determine the most effective sound, chemical, or technique. Another important area to speed up our understanding of damage problems and to be able to more accurately evaluate control methods is through electronics,--principally using telemetry to determine the behavior and movement of offending species and finally to evaluate control. Several of our projects have used this effectively by instrumenting certain rodents before a control trial and determining mortality and survivors afterwards.

BIRD DAMAGE IN FRUIT CROPS

Richard N. Smith — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:13:39 PDT

I don't see any solution in sight for fruit damage caused by birds. I think that one of the reasons is that there has been very little research done concerning the relationship between birds and fruit crops. Probably the reason is that those birds responsible are protected species, and they are highly desirable birds in the eyes of the public. For instance, one of the species that is responsible for heavy losses in fruit crops is the robin. It is the state bird in Michigan, yet it causes a number of problems there each year. Another problem is that growing fruit isn't as common as grain production. Wherever you do have fruit in any concentration, the losses are severe in most cases. Every district in which I've been stationed I've run into this kind of problem. I've seen it in New England, the Southeast, and now the Midwest. Each time the question is: "How do I keep birds from eating cherries, blueberries, grapes, and so forth." And I just don't know. For the most part the problem is birds eating ripe fruit. In two instances, I've seen large roosts of starlings in apple orchards, contaminating fruit through their roosting habits. In Massachusetts, we had trouble with grouse damaging apple orchards by eating the fruit buds. Many of the state game departments would love to have this problem. For the most part my comments will be limited to those experiences which I've had in Maine, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Michigan, and Ohio. My first association with bird damage concerned seagulls eating blueberries. I ran into seagulls eating cranberries, and recently I hear that they have been caught eating tomatoes. These gull problems took place in Maine. In Massachusetts I had experience with songbirds taking blueberries and peaches; in South Carolina it was starlings in grapes; Ohio has had problems with songbirds in blueberries, cherries, and grapes, and Michigan, again, songbirds in cherries and blueberries.

BLACKBIRD DEPREDATIONS IN ANIMAL INDUSTRY: POULTRY RANGES AND HOG LOTS

C. E. Faulkner — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:13:37 PDT

I'm going to move over onto poultry ranges, turkey ranges and hog farms where we have species of birds such as the herring gull, the pigeon, the starling and English sparrow. As a rule, these birds travel relatively great distances from roosts and loafing areas out to the feeding ranges. And why shouldn't they? There is ample high energy food available and usually lack of human disturbance. So they frequent these places during the daylight hours. Actually the losses from these operations are pretty hard to evaluate. Sometimes it is direct, the farmer feels the impact; other times it's indirect. We do suspect diseases being carried onto the poultry range or hog farm by these wild birds. Let's examine these four species and find where the damage occurs. I'll tell you what we are doing to reduce this damage. The herring gull, in this part of the country (midwest-Great Lakes) and also along the Atlantic Coast, is increasing in numbers by leaps and bounds. Also the herring gull has become a bum. In its original environment, it foraged along the shoreline and behind fishing vessels and it did very well. Now he's turned into a bum, because we've turned into bums. Our unsanitary ways of managing dumps and hog lots have made things ideal for the herring gull and he's adjusted very nicely to these conditions. Consequently, he's moved onto hog lots where they cook garbage and dump it onto the land. He also follows garbage feeding trucks through the hog lots where they dump cooked garbage into the feeding troughs. The gull is taking food from the hogs and from the farmer. Also because he visits the dump, then goes to the hog lot, he is also carrying such transmissible diseases as hog cholera. Also herring gulls are suspected of carrying TGE (transmissible gastroenteritis). Because they perch upon farm buildings, gulls are also adding to structural deterioration.

BLACKBIRD DEPREDATIONS IN ANIMAL INDUSTRY: FEEDLOTS

Donald Balser — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:07:53 PDT

Reviewing the cattle feedlot problems in the west, we have cattle feedlots near most of our large population centers and in some cases they are located near supplies of rations, such as potatoes in Idaho or beet pulp, milo, etc. Perhaps the greatest number of feedlots are in California which has our largest human population but there are also large operations in Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona which have reported bird damage problems. Later on in the program we'll have a film taken by our bird project personnel of work in feedlots in Colorado so I'll try to describe the situation in more general terms. Weather and latitude have a lot to do with the severity of bird problems in feedlots. Feedlots located in the northern fringes of the wintering range, particularly, Idaho, eastern Oregon, Colorado, etc., are apt to be the ones most heavily damaged. In fact, it is in these areas when snow covers the ground and cold weather freezes the ground that birds flock in the heaviest to feedlots. Some believe that the presence of feedlots with an open daily supply of food may cause starlings to winter further north than they ordinarily would. I'll confine the discussion to starlings, while blackbirds are involved, the amount of food consumed, their feeding behavior and contamination caused by blackbirds is much less. Blackbirds feed primarily in pens and alleys, eat far less and excrete less than starlings. When looking at a feedlot problem it is important to distinguish between species and observe closely which birds are feeding mainly out of the feed bunkers.

BLACKBIRD FLOCK BEHAVIOR IN CORN, A THEORETICAL MODEL (with Session Discussion)

M. I. Dyer — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:59:21 PDT

I realized this past winter that redwings form the base for an international problem, and so I went down to see Jim Caslick in Florida. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong season. I misjudged the weather for when I went down in May to get experimental birds it was pretty hot. Next year I'll be a bit more careful and go down during the winter time. I want to discuss something a bit different but still in line with crop damage by red-winged blackbirds. I want to relate the damage assessment that we're making in agricultural corn to bird behavior. We've taken a small deviation to one way or another in an attempt to come up with a few ideas of how and why large masses of birds feed in corn. For one, we don't really believe that they need the corn to exist. This is the first premise; it may or may not be right. The reason we believe this to be correct is that it has been pointed out to me that there are some very old records of large bird populations in the Lake Erie area. Some of the first journals of the French fur trappers coming into Ontario, and I suspect through parts of the U.S., point out large masses of redwings, which were misidentified as starlings. In the Windsor region, Jacque Lery, in his journals through Ontario speaks of the large masses of birds. He doubted whether any community development would ever be started in the Windsor region because of the pest problem that these birds posed to the small grain crops. This was in 1749. Two hundred years later we are still talking about the same things. Therefore I want to briefly review what really the problem is. Individual birds really cause no problem. I think that we would probably accept this, But, most of the research work to date has been done on individual birds, i.e., the territorial breeding bird. There is a very good reason for this emphasis because the breeding period is the easiest time of year to study them and we can define their movements and habits best at this time of year. But little work has been dedicated to what I would call post-breeding behavior or post-breeding population work, and there is an equally good reason for this fact. It is very difficult to make these latter studies and it is very difficult to under¬stand the results in such a study. The reason is very simple. It is because of complexity of numbers. The movements of one bird can be understood and perhaps the movements of 10 birds, and perhaps a 100. But when one increases these numbers in a logarithmic fashion to a thousand, 10 thousand, 100 thousand, a million, or 10 million, one can quickly lose track of what is happening. These latter numbers of course, are the numbers that we're dealing with. This is a post-breeding phenomena. Typically when redwings (and other birds) lose their so-called breeding territoriality they flock together. This fact is well known. But the important thing that we have to recognize is that birds do not lose their territoriality. They carry some sort of a territory with them the whole year. They carry a spatial territory around themselves--a certain distance that is inviolate and they do not allow another bird to come within this distance. So, with this premise, maybe we can analyze what is going on in the post-breeding behavior. What then is really happening when these widely dispersed masses of breeding birds get together and congregate in an intensive manner in a certain region?

AGRICULTURAL BIRD PROBLEMS IN THE MIDWEST AND EAST

Maurice L. Giltz — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:52:58 PDT

We recognized this bird damage problem from an agricultural standpoint around 1950. It seemingly was growing and when we looked into it; it later appeared that this was the case. The problem was quickly resolved to be primarily red-winged blackbirds in corn. We also have problems of damage to fruit crops such as apples, or peaches by starling and other birds, in grapes probably by warblers and most certainly star¬lings in certain seasons. But, this isn't as consistent and persistent at the corn damage by red-winged blackbirds. We began about 8 years ago to make a survey and we got the blessing of everybody concerned to run an ecological project. In this ecological project we were going to determine the life history and the eco¬logy, the interrelationships, the behavior of the blackbirds, and we did this and came up with many of the same results that you've heard about today. That is, the previous speakers have practically summed up our findings. They're the same; they're uniform. In some cases we used their findings to come to some of our conclusions. We also formed an interregional agricultural group to determine what could be done. Because the north central agricultural research experiment station directors were not in accord with operating this program in the north-central region, Ohio joined the northeast region and the chairman, Dr. Philip Granett of Rutgers University, of the northeast region is present at this meeting, and I'll probably have him tell you about this a little bit later. I'm a member of the technical committee of the northeast region experiment station groups in which the experiment station people co¬operate with the fish and wildlife people, in this common problem of preventing crop depredations by birds. We can sum up rather quickly the things that we have done under two headings: one under Evaluation and the other under Ecology. First we've evaluated things. We've evaluated exploders in preventing damage. We've evaluated varieties of corn. We've evaluated insects--insect sprays to keep birds out. We've evaluated diversion crops. Evaluated types of soil. Evaluated different habitats. We've evaluated exploders and alarm cries, shocking devices and chemicals.

AGRICULTURAL BIRD PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTHEAST

James Caslick — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:52:55 PDT

Our chairman has wisely asked that we not spend all of our time here telling each other about our bird problems. In the Southeast, our difficulties with blackbirds are based upon the same bird habits that cause trouble elsewhere: they flock, they roost and they eat, generally taking advantage of the readily available handouts that today's agricul¬tural practices provide. Those of us on the receiving end of these de¬predations of course think that damage in our own particular area must be far the worst, anywhere. Because of the location of our meeting place today, perhaps it is worthwhile to point out that a report prepared by our Bureau's Washington office this year outlined the problem of blackbird damage to corn in the Middle Atlantic States, the Great Lakes Region and in Florida, and then followed with this statement--"An equally serious problem occurs in rice and grain sorghum fields of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana." The report also men¬tions that the largest winter concentrations of blackbirds are found in the lower Mississippi Valley. Our 1963-64 blackbird-starling survey showed 43 principal roosts totaling approximately 100 million of these birds in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky. We have our own birds during the summer plus the "tourist" birds from up here and elsewhere during the winter, and all of these birds must eat, so suffice it to say that we, too, have some bird problems in the Southeast. I'm sure you're more interested in what we're doing about them. To keep this in perspective also, please bear in mind that against the magnitude of these problems, our blackbird control research staff at Gainesville consists of 3 biologists, 1 biochemist and one technician. And unfortunately, none of us happens to be a miracle worker. I think, though, we have made great progress toward solving the bird problems in the Southeast for the man-hours that have been expended in this re¬search. My only suggestion to those who are impatient about not having more answers is that they examine the budget that has been set up for this work. Only then could we intelligently discuss what might be expected as a reasonable rate of research progress. When I think about what we have accomplished in a short span of time, with very small expenditure, I can assure you that I am very proud of our small research crew at Gainesville--and I say this quite sincerely. At the Gainesville station, we work under two general research approaches to the bird damage problem. These projects have been assigned to us. The first is research on management of birds, particularly blackbirds and starlings destructive to crops or in feedlots, and, secondly, the development and the adaptation of those chemical compounds found to be toxic to birds but relatively safe to mammals. These approaches both require laboratory and field work that is further subdivided into several specific research projects. Without describing the details of these now, I want to mention some of our recent results. From the results, I'm sure you will gather the general objectives and some of the procedures used.

AGRICULTURAL BIRD PROBLEMS IN THE WEST

Donald Balser — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:47:49 PDT

First, I'd like to qualify geographically, the area where most of our work is done and problems occur. It is primarily in the Rocky Mountain states and the west coast. While the area of the Denver Wildlife Research Center's responsibility covers the states west of the Mississippi River; the only area on the plains where our personnel have conducted intensive studies outside of Colorado is in South Dakota. The major bird problems in grain crops in the west are primarily caused by blackbirds excepting, of course, waterfowl depredations. It's difficult to rank the principal crops according to seriousness of losses. I would say however that three stand out, these are milo, corn, and rice. One of the toughest problems is in rice. Blackbirds have a natural affinity for marsh areas and rice. Colusa County in the central valley of California is one of the largest rice producing coun¬ties in the country and offered choice sites which were selected for research studies. Milo, a small cereal grain is commonly grown in Colorado, Arizona, and Southern California where long-standing problems occur in the Imperial Valley. And then of course is the problem you people here in Ohio are familiar with--corn, and in the west there are problems in both field corn and sweet corn. Our major field corn problem area is in South Dakota associated with some of the large marshes that the blackbirds stop in on migration and the corn damage is heaviest adjacent to these marshes. We've had very few problems called to our attention in barley, one or two examples in Oregon, and so forth. In wheat, we have heard of very few complaints, one or two have been reported from North Dakota. This doesn't mean that additional crops are not involved or there are not other damage areas in the west but as I've indicated the bulk of the losses appear to be in milo, rice, and corn in the specific area mentioned.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

George J. Wallace — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:47:46 PDT

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.

POPULATION DYNAMICS OF PEST BIRDS

Robert McLean — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:34:25 PDT

We want to talk now about population principles; this is our main problem dealing with populations. We should discuss the general application of population principles and the management of bird populations. The reason we can discuss this is because many species follow established principles; population growth and later regulation of its size follow certain basic rules. Many pest species follow these principles, but not always to the letter. Populations of different species, as well as of a species, vary depending upon local conditions. Local environments dictate what population levels and the growth of populations will be. Minor variabilities still fit into the general picture.

To apply these principles we must consider the level of reduction desired in the pest population. This is determined usually by 1) eco¬nomic damage or 2) disease potential or much too often by 3) the budget. You can go from a complete reduction or local eradication of a species to a very minor change in the population level depending upon the methods you use. One of the major questions which I am sure most of you are faced with is: "Which method does what? " We'll briefly go through some of the basic principles of what we call population ecology. First, we'll consider the natural growth of a population. We can describe the theoretical natural growth of a number of animals compared to time by what we call an "S" shape or sigmoid curve. This shape is the result of a change in the rate of increase in the population. We have a very low population at the outset and it increases, and the reason we have an "S" shape is that the rate of in¬crease changes with time. So we can see that there is a maximum rate of increase at the mid-point. At the beginning of population growth we have fewer animals, and of course, a lower rate of increase. And, at mid-point, you have your maximum rate of increase. Looking at this theoretical graph we see that the population levels off near the end of our given time span. This is what is commonly referred to as the carrying capacity of a particular environment or how many animals the environment can support; the "K," some people call it. The carrying capacity changes with local conditions.

ECOLOGICAL CONTROL OF BIRD HAZARD TO AIRCRAFT

V. E. F. Solman — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:49:34 PDT

The Canadian Wildlife Service has had twenty-five years experience with the problem caused by bird contacts with aircraft. I experienced my first bird strike, while flying as an observer on a waterfowl survey in August, 1940. Officers of the Service investigated bird problems at airports at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Cartierville, Quebec, in the late 1940's. Those incidents involving gulls and low speed piston-engined aircraft caused minor damage to the aircraft but considerable disturbance to the operators. As aircraft speeds increased and airports became more numerous and busier the problem increased in extent and complexity. By 1960 it was apparent that the problem would grow worse and that work should be directed toward reducing the number of incidents. In 1960 an electra aircraft crashed at Boston, Massachusetts, killing 61 passengers. Starlings were involved in the engine malfunction which preceded the crash. In November, 1962 a viscount aircraft was damaged by collision with two swans between Baltimore and Washington and crashed with a loss of 17 lives. Those incidents focused attention on the bird hazard problem in the United States.

CONTROL OF BIRDS IN THE AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT

C. E. Faulkner — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:33:42 PDT

We now move from the inside of the hangar to the outside and view the problem of birds on runways and taxiways. The increased use of aircraft for transportation and the increased use of jet aircraft to take care of this transportation will, of course, compound our bird problems at major airports. To lesson this probability of the bird-aircraft strike, bird management plans should be initiated at these var¬ious commercial airports so we can lessen the bird problem. To show you some of the mechanics involved in a bird management plan, I'm going to take you to a typical airport which some of you have departed from or arrived at during the last year.

CONTROL OF BIRDS IN AIRCRAFT HANGARS

Richard N. Smith — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:29:10 PDT

What I am going to say this afternoon about bird control in hang¬ars won't take but a few minutes, mainly because I think this is one area that we already have partial solutions. By this I mean that in most instances, at least where I've worked, we've been able to solve most of the hangar bird problems. Some of you have probably worked on similar problems or have worked in airplane hangars and after the session I'll certainly welcome any comments you may have. What I have to say will relate mainly to what I've done myself, or the men who work for me have done. This will be first-hand experience. Most of the work has been done on military installations. Spe¬cifically, it's been done at Clinton Air Force Base in Ohio, Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts, Lockbourne Air Force Base in Ohio, Wright-Patterson Field in Ohio, and Selfridge Air Force Base in Mich¬igan. The reason we've worked only on military bases is three-fold. One is that in many cases the private pest control operators have con¬tractual agreements with private air bases. Another is that maybe the public airports fail to realize that something can be done to help them. A third reason is that the Department of Interior has a working agree¬ment with the Department of Defense in taking care of pest bird prob¬lem species on their military installations. As far as public or private airports are concerned, especially in hangar work or in building work with roosting birds, I think the role in control should be with the private pest control industry, once they know the proper techniques of solving these problems. I myself would love to get out of this type of activity. It's a lot of work and there's a lot in¬volved. Before we go on I think I'll show you some of the situations we get into. I have three slides here of different bases that we worked at.

GOOD PRACTICE IN BIRD MANAGEMENT

James W. Steckel — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:29:09 PDT

I'm going to deviate a little bit from what's been said. I'd like to read to you first of all a Good Practice Statement for Bird Management that was accepted by the National Pest Control Association in the past year, 1965. I think it's important for all the people here, realizing that some of you are suppliers, some of you are from regulatory agencies, some of you are in the bird management business, and others are in¬terested in this field in many other ways. It's important for us to realize, all of us, that this field is just in the embryonic stage. We're just beginning to get the surface scratched. Any more when you travel and talk to people, the subject of bird control comes up. Now and then you find somebody who had read something about it or has become interested in it, and up to this time, many hadn't realized there was such a thing as pest bird management. We feel that it is of utmost importance that each of us know what are the federal, state and local laws in order that we can operate con¬sistently within their limits. And really the limits are broad enough for us to operate without too much difficulty. The laws do concern the hazard and public safety of our nation. General Statement: Good Practices in Bird Management As Revised and Accepted by the NPCA Bird Management Committee, October 20, 1965

METROPOLITAN AND INDUSTRIAL BIRD PROBLEMS: Panel Discussion

Harold Coleman et al. — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:24:47 PDT

As a pest control industry, we are interested in bird control, especially in areas of residence, commercial buildings, food plants, mills and elevators, commercial feed lots, farms, and even area wide controls in some of our cities. We run into all kinds of problems; I suppose you men do, too.

CHEMOSTERILANTS, POSSIBLE CONTROL AGENTS

Robert McLean — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:18:22 PDT

A chemosterilant may be defined as a chemical compound that reduces or destroys fertility of the treated animal. There are a variety of compounds which have an anti-fertility effect, and these com¬pounds may attack the reproductive process at any one of its many phases. Chemosterilants have a good potential as a means of population control of pest animals, because the population may be reduced with little reproductive compensation which normally follows a reduction caused by killing. The number of young produced would be reduced by preventing reproduction or by causing early mortality; therefore, there would be little compensatory increase in reproduction following treatment. Treated animals would remain in competition with productive animals and prevent immigration into and replacement in the population by fertile animals (previously non-productive young). Also there would be little increase in survival rate of the young because competition from the adult population would not be changed. The use of chemosterilants is a practical method of control because it involves inexpensive materials, is easily applied, and can not be detected by the target animals. Extensive research on chemosterilants has been and is being con¬ducted on a number of species of insects. Populations of several species have been successfully controlled with the chemosterilant apholate (Chamberlain, 1962; Harris, 1962). The amount of research on the use of chemosterilants on birds has been meager. Davis (1962) conducted laboratory tests on starlings and found that as little as 0.1 rag of T.E.M. (triethylenemelamine) for 3 days would inhibit the growth of testes and ovaries. He also found that 0.1 mg per day for 3 weeks caused sexually mature testes to regress. A field experiment on red-winged blackbirds using treated cracked corn showed that T.E.M. caused a 20 to 45 per cent reduction in the number of nestlings (fewer nests and lower hatchability of eggs) in the treated populations (Vandenbergh and Davis, 1962). The size of testes of treated birds was reduced and there was no discernible effect on behavior. Sudan Black B dye had an embryocidal effect on eggs produced by gulls fed treated bait (Wetherbee, et al., 1964). The anti-fertility effect of a number of compounds was tested on pigeons by Elder (1964). He found that T.E.M. was not effective, but he did find that an anticholesterol agent (SC-12937) inhibited ovulation for up to 3 months. I selected apholate (an alkylating agent) to test control of repro¬duction in pigeons and evaluate the effects of reduced birth rate on population growth; however, effectiveness of the chemosterilant had to be assessed first. The acceptability of treated bait was investigated with 18 pigeons which were tested individually for nine different treatments of corn. The pigeons readily accepted treated bait at concentrations up to 1.0 per cent when presented with individual pieces of corn, but 0.3 per cent apholate was the highest concentration pigeons would accept in their daily food (60 mg per bird dosage). Next, the range of dosages that had an anti-fertility effect was determined. Five groups of pairs of pigeons, kept in indoor cages under constant laboratory conditions, were given different dosages (Table 1) in a one-day exposure (except 2 days for the group receiving the 101 mg dosage). Egg production was delayed and hatchability of eggs reduced in the groups receiving 20 mg to 101 mg of apholate per bird (Table 1). Also, the effect of the compound on the social behavior of pigeons was evaluated since an ideal chemosterilant should not change competitive behavior of sterilized birds. The behavior (24 types of sexual and agonistic behavior) of the same 5 groups of pigeons (Table 1) was observed for 10 minutes per group per day. Behavior was not seriously altered by the chemosterilant. Only at 101 mg per bird was there any observable ef¬fect on the level of behavior, whereas the frequency of behavior was not affected. Two types of sexual behavior were significantly less fol¬lowing treatment in the 101 mg group, but the reduction was a result of temporary toxic effects of apholate. The birds were inactive for the first week following treatment, but they gradually recovered after 2 weeks to the pre-treatment levels. Birds maintained their nest sites while they were infertile.

HISTOPLASMOSIS--ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BIRDS

E. R. Price Ph.D. — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:10:58 PDT

Histoplasmosis is a disease affecting man and many other ani¬mals including the dog, cat, cow, horse, and several wild animals. It is caused by a pathogenic fungus known as Histoplasma capsulatum. This fungus lives and multiplies in the ground as a mold. It prefers the undisturbed litter in and around old chicken houses or in undis¬turbed droppings under bird roosts. It has been found in the soil of dog kennels, under porches of old houses, under trees and bushes frequented by birds in the daytime. It has also been found in isolated caves and hollow trees. It apparently is capable of competing very well with other organisms found in the ground if the ground is en¬riched by fecal material of chickens, other birds or bats. It is quite significant that histoplasmosis is not found in chickens or in fresh chicken droppings. Work done by Menges (Menges et al., 1955) in Kansas City indicates that chickens and probably all birds are not susceptible to natural infection. This may be due to their high body temperatures. A chicken's temperature is about 106°F. Other birds range from 104° to 110°F. Histoplasmosis is a very common disease today in many parts of the world. We have had more than our own share of it in Missouri. This is probably due partly to the vast research program carried on by the Communicable Disease Center in Kansas City. For example, in Boone County, a survey of all rural school children in 1952 revealed that 84% of the children were positive to the skin test by the time they were seven years of age. When Dr. Samuel T. Darling reported the first three cases oc¬curring between 1904-1906 and called the disease histoplasmosis, he believed that all cases ended in death because it was only observed on postmortem. This belief continued until 1934 when the fungus was cultured and animals experimentally infected. In 1949, the organism was first isolated from soil by C. W. Emmons. Since that time thou¬sands of soil samples have been found to contain this fungus.