Center, Internet, Wildlife Damage Management
Human–Wildlife Interactions
Comment on Dieter et al. (2014)
Date of this Version
Fall 2014
Document Type
Article
Citation
Human–Wildlife Interactions (Fall 2014) 8(2): article 16
doi: 10.26077/tpxr-rw95
Abstract
Dieter, et al. (2014) have provided us with a unique opportunity to discuss a basic tenant of bird behavior; that is, if forced to feed on a crop or starve, birds feed on the crop. No amount of repellency will overcome the need to survive. In prior aviary trials, Askham (unpublished data) found that 32 times the recommended label rate of 0.264% methyl anthranilate was required to keep birds from feeding in a nochoice trial after 16 hours of food deprevation. The field tests of Dieter et al. (2014) closely resembles these conditions as evidenced by the fact that Canada geese (Branta canadensis) with young, were forced to live on “small, landlocked waterbodies (< 75 ha)” having 30 to 100 flightless geese for an average of 0.75 to 2.5 birds per ha. If all of the birds were forced onto the treatment sites, as suggested by the authors, of approximately 1,663 square meters (18.2 m × 91.4 m) with electric fences, 3.3 m2 to 55.5 m2 of forge area would have been available per bird. The results are that with a limited amount of forage area, everything would have been consumed, whether or not it were treated with a repellent. It was either that or starve.
. . .
In summary, the statement that “we do not recommend using any MA products” and “anthaquinone holds the most promise” for reducing goose damage cannot be substantiated and and should be withdrawn by the authors.