Center, Internet, Wildlife Damage Management
Human–Wildlife Interactions
In Defense of Field Experiments: Response to Askham and Godfrey (2014)
Date of this Version
Fall 2014
Document Type
Article
Citation
Human–Wildlife Interactions (Fall 2014) 8(2): article 17
doi: 10.26077//afvt-ys96
Abstract
Two knowledgeable colleagues have taken exception to some research conducted by us on Canada geese (Branta canadensis) published in the last issue of Human–Wildlife Interactions (Dieter et al. 2014). We appreciate the opportunity to respond. Regarding bird feeding behavior, Askham and Godfrey were correct in their assertion that evaluation of bird behavior on agricultural crops is poorly understood. Birds will indeed sometimes feed on plants treated with a chemical repellent if they have no other choice. However, the authors cite unpublished data (by Askham) stating that 32 times the recommended amount of methyl anthranilate (MA) was needed to prevent birds from feeding after food deprivation (in a pen trial, we assume, since it was not stated).
. . .
The research project we reported on was conducted to determine if there was a chemical that works to deter crop damage by geese in field conditions in South Dakota. Because we found that anthraquinone showed some promise, we are now working on refining recommendations as to use of the chemical. We are currently examining application rates, timing of application, number of applications needed, and area of the field that needs treatment. We do not have any vested interest in specific chemical companies. In fact, we would prefer it if no additional chemicals were introduced into the environment. However, the application of a chemical that works well to deter crop damage would be welcomed by farmers, game managers, and sportsmen alike. The use of an effective chemical to deter crop damage by geese may be preferable to some of the current lethal management techniques being used.