Use of Lethal Control to Reduce Habituation to Blank Rounds by Scavenging Birds

Baxter, Andrew; Allan, John R.

doi:10.2193/2007-458

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally, these management actions have focused on trying to alter the behaviour of the wildlife involved. This has included erecting fences to limit the movement of wildlife from areas of conservation into human‐populated areas (Veríssimo et al, 2019) and the lethal removal of aggressive or habituated wildlife from areas of conflict (Baxter & Allan, 2008; Hunold & Mazuchowski, 2020). However, recent advances have focused on the implementation of interventions aiming to change human behaviours (Baruch‐Mordo et al, 2009; Veríssimo et al, 2019), that is, the reduction of actions that result in conflict within these complex socioecological systems or a ‘Theory of Change’ (Center for the Theory of Change, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can we tackle interruptions to human–wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager's toolbox

Griffin,

Nolan,

Haigh

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, wildlife managers have been seeking ways to reduce the occurrence of independent, recreational human–wildlife feeding interactions, which continue to gain global popularity and may have negative effects for the humans and wildlife involved. Current popular methods, such as signage and posters, have yielded mixed results and their application is often interrupted, although the effects of these interruptions on feeding levels are currently unknown. This has led to calls to both identify a management option that can be applied successfully from a distance and to determine whether this action may assist in recovering long‐term programmes from the potential effects of interruptions. Marketing and media tools have been shown to successfully change human behaviours in conservation campaigns, flagging them as a potential tool that could be applied to human–wildlife feeding management. Here, we performed a 4‐year study using a wild fallow deer population in a popular urban green space as our model system. We tracked changes in human feeding behaviours across four different management stages. These included premanagement (stage 1), during traditional management (i.e. ‘don't feed the deer’ signage, stage 2), mid‐interruption (i.e. COVID‐19 pandemic, stage 3) and during the application of a structured media campaign (stage 4). We found that feeding by visitors decreased during traditional management (stage 2), but rapidly returned to premanagement levels during the interruption (stage 3) despite traditional controls still being in place. However, we discovered that feeding dropped significantly after the release of a media campaign (stage 4), despite the audience and conditions being unchanged. We also identified which imagery and educational messages resonated with viewers; information that can be applied to future campaigns in other locations. We, therefore, recommend that wildlife managers both investigate and be prepared for the negative effects that interruptions of any type (e.g. the recent COVID‐19 pandemic, other interruptions to funding) may have on ongoing management campaigns of this ilk. We recommend that media campaigns be explored as a potential tool to reduce the occurrence of the unregulated feeding of wildlife by humans in these sites, thereby promoting better human–wildlife coexistence. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can we tackle interruptions to human–wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager's toolbox

Griffin,

Nolan,

Haigh

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 Because decreased responsiveness is a concern with all nonlethal scaring devices, the short window of sweet corn vulnerability to bird depredation could limit the development of habituation. 20 Levels of protection to sweet corn afforded by lasers are promising based on recent field trials. For example, laser deployment on milking-stage corn in one study caused a 33% reduction in the number of ears damaged by birds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sweet corn may be one crop that is especially suitable for laser deterrence because it has a narrow (2 week) temporal window of susceptibility, whilst ears mature into the milking stage when harvest occurs 19 . Because decreased responsiveness is a concern with all nonlethal scaring devices, the short window of sweet corn vulnerability to bird depredation could limit the development of habituation 20 . Levels of protection to sweet corn afforded by lasers are promising based on recent field trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental assessment of laser scarecrows for reducing avian damage to sweet corn

Manz,

Sieving,

Brown

et al. 2023

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDBirds damage crops, costing millions of dollars annually, and growers utilize a variety of lethal and nonlethal deterrents in an attempt to reduce crop damage by birds. We experimentally tested laser scarecrows for their effectiveness at reducing sweet corn (Zea mays) damage. We presented 18 captive flocks of free‐flying European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) with fresh sweet corn ears distributed on two plots where laser and control treatments were alternated each day and allowed each flock to forage over five days. In 16 trials, fresh sweet corn ears were mounted on wooden sticks distributed from 0‐32m from laser units (Stick Trials), and in two trials birds foraged on ripe corn grown from seed in the flight pen (Natural Trials). We aimed to determine if laser‐treated plots had significantly less damage overall and closer to the laser unit, and whether birds became more or less likely to forage in laser‐treated plots over time.RESULTSLasers reduced damage overall, marginally in Stick Trials and dramatically in Natural Trials. Damage increased during each week in both trial types. Damage increased significantly with distance from lasers, and significant treatment effects occurred up until ~20 m from lasers.CONCLUSIONOur results concur with recent field trials demonstrating strong reductions in sweet corn damage when lasers are deployed. This study provides a first look at how birds respond to repeated laser exposure and whether damage increases with distance from lasers. Key differences between pen and field trials are discussed.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies

Scopel

Diamond

2017

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lethal control of wildlife represents an ethical concern for managers, exacerbated by a lack of replicated or controlled data for most taxa or regions. The Gulf of Maine (GOM) has a history of intensive lethal and nonlethal predator control to protect terns (Sterna spp.) from inflated populations of predatory gulls, especially herring (Larus argentatus) and great black‐backed gulls (L. marinus; large gulls). We described management strategies in the GOM, reviewed methods of nonlethal and lethal types of control, and compared the effectiveness of 3 control regimes (lethal, nonlethal‐only, and no control) using weighted means of reproductive success metrics for 4 tern species. Nonlethal‐only control is the least effective method of predator control; lethal control is consistently the most effective. Arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea) were the most susceptible to predation, whereas common terns (Sterna hirundo) were the most resilient. We concluded that targeted lethal control is necessary in the GOM to protect tern colonies from depredation and nesting exclusion by large gulls, and cannot be substituted with nonlethal control. Cessation of lethal control leads to abandonment of tern colonies within 6–7 years, but resumption of appropriately timed lethal control can lead to recolonization the same year. A combination of nonlethal and lethal methods can minimize the number of gulls taken. We recommend that any application of lethal control carefully considers the local needs of any target species and recognizes the need for spatial and temporal commitment. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Use of Lethal Control to Reduce Habituation to Blank Rounds by Scavenging Birds

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

How can we tackle interruptions to human–wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager's toolbox

How can we tackle interruptions to human–wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager's toolbox

Experimental assessment of laser scarecrows for reducing avian damage to sweet corn

The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About