bird repellant Archives

Pigeons make return to Taunton Station Bridge after nets are removed

by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 8, 2016 | Animal Deterrent Products, Bird Netting, Pigeon Patrol's Services

12149568-large Pigeons have made an unwelcome return to Taunton Station bridge last week after workmen removed the netting used to keep the flying critters away.

Dozens of pigeons have now flown back to the bridge, where Network Rail spent more than £300,000 on improvements and deterrents to keep them away.

About Pigeon Patrol:

Pigeon Patrol Products & Services is the leading manufacturer and distributor of bird deterrent (control) products in Canada. Pigeon Patrol products have solved pest bird problems in industrial, commercial, and residential settings since 2000, by using safe and humane bird deterrents with only bird and animal friendly solutions. At Pigeon Patrol, we manufacture and offer a variety of bird deterrents, ranging from Ultra-flex Bird Spikes with UV protection, Bird Netting, 4-S Gel and the best Ultrasonic and audible sound devices on the market today.

Voted Best Canadian wholesaler for Bird Deterrent products four years in a row.

Contact Info: 1- 877– 4– NO-BIRD (www.pigeonpatrol.ca)

falconry

by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 7, 2016 | Animal Deterrent Products, Bird Netting, Pigeon Spikes

3061E33E00000578-3408701-While_smog_can_cause_heart_disease_lung_cancer_and_high_blood_pr-a-38_1453309207139 Harris Hawk in Flight

OVERVIEW

The use of hawks and falcons to remove pigeons and gulls is becoming ever more popular in the UK with raptor-specific companies starting to compete with conventional pest control services for business. The use of a raptor as a pigeon removal option is commonly marketed as a ‘green’ and ‘natural’ method of control that is ‘humane’ and ‘in tune with nature’. It should be fully understood that flying a raptor as a method of control is not a non-lethal method of control, nor is it ‘humane’. Raptors cannot be trained not to kill the target species and when they do catch a bird the resultant spectacle of the raptor tearing the prey to piecescannot, under any circumstances, be perceived as being ‘humane’. It is also the case that a majority of the raptors that are used for the purpose of pigeon removal are not the natural predator of the target species and therefore this method of control cannot be considered to be ‘natural’ or ‘in tune with nature’ either.

Flying a raptor as a method of pigeon removal has its roots in falconry where a hawk or falcon is trained to kill animals or other birds, normally for pleasure or for sport. Falconry is considered to be a blood-sport and subsequently, those companies that offer falconry services are providing their client base with a highly controversial service that is certainly not proven to be an effective method of bird control. For use as part of a bird scaring system on landfill sites or for airport runways the service may have some value, but in respect of urban applications the use of a raptor to remove pigeons is not only expensive but can be the source of highly negative publicity for the client. If a raptor goes ‘feral’ during a control operation and catches and kills a pigeon or gull in front of staff or onlookers the negative publicity that is inevitably generated can be extremely damaging for the client. Raptors do not necessarily kill their preyimmediately and therefore the prey can remain alive for anything up to 10 or 15 minutes whilst the raptor eats the bird alive.

Harris Hawk on Perch

The use of raptors within the pigeon removal sector has marked a change for an industry that is often perceived as shying away from publicity, good or bad, in favour of a more discreet approach to the issue of bird control. For decades commercial bird control has involved extensive and excessive use of lethal controls (culling) in an effort to resolve entrenched bird-related problems. Scientific research*, however, has found that all forms of lethal control are not only ineffective but also deeply unpopular with the general public. As a result, the pest control industry has maintained a low profile. With the introduction of raptor-based controls over the last 10 years, however, the image of the industry has begun to change with pest control companies starting to talk publicly about the controls they use and particularly those controls that they suggest are ‘green’.

The use of hawks or falcons to disperse birds is not a new method of control in the bird control sector with hawks historically being used to disperse gulls and other birds from waste disposal sites, landfill sites and airports for many years. Their use in urban environments for the control of pigeons and gulls, however, has been less common. The principle of using a raptor to remove pigeons in urban applications is to visit a site 2 to 3 times a week initially and fly the raptor for 1-3 hours. Providers of the service suggest that as the weeks and months go by, visits will be reduced based on the fact that the raptor has created a ‘territory’ into which the target species will learn not to enter. The effectiveness of the service, however, depends upon the ability of the raptor to instil sufficient fear in the target species to ensure that the flock deserts its feeding or roosting site. Where the removal of pigeons and gulls is concerned, this is highly unlikely to happen. It is also the case that flying a raptor cannot be undertaken in poor weather conditions, a further limitation for this control option.

Harris Hawk in Flight

Most companies offering this service also provide conventional pest control services and often recommend that a cull will be necessary, prior to flying a raptor, in order to reduce bird numbers so that the raptor will be more effective as a deterrent. Most providers of the service also suggest that raptors can be an extremely effective and cost-effective method of control providing that the client is prepared to continue using the service for extended periods. If flying a raptor as a bird scarer is effective then why would the client need to invest in a culling programme? The reality is that most experts within the pest control industry believe that flying a raptor as a method of control is simply a gimmick and has little or no effect as a stand-alone method of control. Where a cull is recommended prior to the use of a raptor, the client sees a reduction in bird numbers and assumes that this reduction is as a result of the raptor being effective when in reality it is as a result of thecull. The client then continues to use the service until bird numbers rise back to the pre-cull figure (which they invariably do) and only then is the effectiveness of the service brought into question.

Peregrine Falcon

Another reason why flying a raptor as a method of control is less than effective as a pigeon removal option is due to the species of hawk or falcon commonly used. The natural predator of the pigeon, for example, is the peregrine falcon, a bird that can achieve speeds of up to 200 miles per hour in a dive and one of the few birds that has the speed and the manoeuvrability to outpace and catch a pigeon in flight. The peregrine falcon is rarely if ever used for this purpose in the bird control sector, with the harris hawk being the most commonly used raptor for pigeon removal work. The harris hawk is relatively slow in flight, much slower than the feral pigeon and therefore the pigeon does not view the harris hawk as a threat, whereas the peregrine falcon would be perceived as the ultimate threat. The fact that the harris hawk is not the natural predator of the pigeon and is not a native species in the UK, combined with the fact that the harris hawk is unlikely to catch a pigeon in flight, renders this species a poor choice where scaring pigeons is concerned. Pigeons are highly intelligent birds and they will never be deterred from their feeding and breeding sites due to the presence of a harris hawk for a few hours a week.

Harris Hawk Pursuing Prey

Harris Hawk
Pursuing Prey

A raptor may have the effect of removing pigeons from their existing roosts and perching areas when the bird is first introduced, but pigeons quickly realise that there is little threat and although they will be wary of the raptor, they will not move far from their feeding sites. As soon as the raptor has left the site the pigeons will immediately return to their perches and the client is left with no protection. For a raptor to have any effect on a feeding flock of pigeons the bird would have to be on-site 24 hours a day and even then, the presence of the hawk would not be enough to deter pigeons from exploiting a regular food source. In the wild, hawks only kill to eat and feed their young, not for pleasure, so once the bird has made a kill it is highly unlikely that the bird will to continue to work and it is also likely that the target species will be aware of this.

Raptor control services are now being marketed more strongly as a means of scaring roof nesting gulls from buildings and residential dwellings in urban areas. The use of a raptor to scare gulls is even less effective than the use of a harris hawk to remove pigeons. This is because hawks and falcons are commonly ‘mobbed’ by gulls and other large birds such as corvids (crow family) when they fly too close to feeding or breeding areas. Gulls and other large birds have little fear of predators such as hawks and falcons other than when they have young and then their response is likely to be more, not less, aggressive toward the predators. Hawks and falcons have little or no effect on roof nesting gulls outside the breeding period and during the breeding period, when gulls can be a serious problem for property owners, they will be quickly chased away by breeding gulls rendering them completely ineffective as a control option.

Harris Hawk About to Kill

As with all scaring techniques and devices, the target species will quickly habituate to the use of a raptor, whether or not the raptor is the natural predator of the species concerned. Therefore at best, the raptor option can only be seen to be appropriate as part of a wider control system. For landfill sites and airport runways where multiple scaring techniques are commonly used, the raptor may be effective up to a point. For urban applications where scaring techniques are rarely used due to the potential for human disturbance, anti-perching products would be a far more appropriate option rather than the use of a raptor or any other scaring device. Raptors are only as good as their handlers and a poorly trained bird will do little work and as a result will pose little or no threat to the target species. Even well trained birds will sometimes fly away and sit on a building some distance from the client site (which the raptor is supposed to be protecting), in some cases taking hours for the bird to return to the handler. Hawks and falcons can be trained up to a point, but when in flight or away from their handler their natural instincts take over and the handler can do little or nothing if the bird chooses to attack a protected species of bird or sit and refuse to fly. The client still pays for the service, however, whether the hawk works or not.

Negative publicity has dogged the use of raptors in the pigeon removal sector with barbaric spectacles such as the hawk handlers in Trafalgar Square ‘throwing’ their birds at juvenile, sick and injured pigeons in front of children and visitors to London constantly making the headlines. This type of macabre sight, where a hawk tears a live pigeon to bits as tourists look on, is anything but ‘green’ and ‘in tune with nature’ and as such cannot be taken seriously as a pigeon removal option. Similarlly, the use of a raptor by Nottingham City Council in 1999 attracted extremely negative publicity for the Authority. The Council brought the hawk in for a 2 month contract costing ratepayers £5000, in an effort to remove pigeons from Nottingham city centre. The hawk had no effect whatsoever on the pigeon population, but was the subject of a TV documentary as a result of the fact that the bird was tearing pigeons to piecesin front of the general public in broad daylight. The negative publicity generated was extremely damaging for Nottingham City Council and the £5000 of public money spent on the programme could clearly have been put to better use.

Harris Hawk with Kill

The use of a raptor for the purposes of pigeon removal is a bandwagon that many falconers and enthusiasts are jumping on and yet in most cases, these individuals know little or nothing about bird control. Even renowned falconry experts such as Jemima Parry-Jones are highly critical of the use of raptors for the purposes of bird control, in the main due to the potential for injury to the raptor. The use of a raptor may appear to be a humane and natural bird control option but in reality it is very far from that. Handlers require no training in either pest control or falconry in order to offer their services as raptor-specific bird control experts and yet the novelty of this method of control has ensured that the marketplace is overflowing with experts making astonishing claims about the effectiveness of the service that they offer. Falconry may have been popular in the middle ages but it is clearly not perceived as being an appropriate nor politically correct means of controlling and killing pest birds in the 21st century.

DEFRA’s view:

The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is the UK’s Government body that oversees the Wildlife and Countryside Act and produces legislation to which the pest control industry must adhere. The following information is taken from a document provided on DEFRA website entitled: ‘Review of international research regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives’. By J Bishop, H McKay, D Parrott and J Allan.

“The success of this method of bird control is based on the fact that many birds have a natural fear of falcons and hawks as predators, so their presence in the area encourages problem species to disperse. The natural reaction of most prey species is to form a flock and attempt to fly above the falcon. If this fails, they will attempt to fly for cover and leave the area (Transport Canada, undated).”

“The species of falcons and hawks used depend on the bird pests present. They should preferably be a bird predator of the pest bird species as occasional kills will reinforce the perception of danger (Grubb 1977, cited in Erickson et al. 1990). The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) are most often used (Erikson et al. 1990). Raptor use is mainly limited to airports where the risk of birdstrikes is high and a variety of measures are taken to ensure aircraft safety, though in the UK, falcons are also frequently used to deter birds from landfill sites (Baxter 2002c).”

“When using falconry for bird control on airfields, the raptor must be clearly visible to discourage target birds from entering the area and to chase away birds already present. Actual capturing or killing of a bird is not the object (Roeper 2001). Falconry is an expensive method of bird control as the birds require special care and training and a specialist handler, and often a number of falcons must be provided to operate at different times of the day. For many aerodromes the additional time and expenditure cannot be justified (CAA 2002). However, falconry is popular with the public as it is environmentally friendly and considered humane as the target birds are not killed but merely chased from the area (Dolbeer 1998), though the most effective falconry does involve the occasional killing of the prey species.”

“Roeper (2001) analysed the mean number of bird strikes reported per 100 landings and 100 departures at Travis Air Force Base, California, before and after the introduction of a falconry programme. His results indicated that falconry reduced the number of strikes and also reduced the severity of strikes in terms of mean dollar costs of aircraft damage. However, these cost savings appeared to be less than the cost of the falconry programme. He recommended that research be continued to determine when habituation to the falcons occurred and to determine which species of birds were not deterred by the falcons.”

“Successful bird control using falconry was achieved on military air bases at Istres, France. Between 1979 and 1983, the numbers of bird strikes were reduced from 16 to zero (Briot 1984). Dolbeer (1998) evaluated the effectiveness of shooting and falconry for bird control at JFK International Airport, New York. The study indicated that shooting reduced bird strikes but falconry did not.”

“The use of falcons and hawks on landfill sites in the UK has been evaluated by Baxter (2000e; 2002c; undated), and has shown varying success. Numbers of scavenging gulls and corvids were reduced when falcons were flown, particularly from dawn to dusk, though poor weather conditions when the birds could not be flown allowed the gulls and corvids to return to feed. Hawks (red-tailed hawk and Harris hawk) were less successful. These raptors generally take ground prey like rabbits when hunting, so their interest in pursuing corvids and gulls was minimal (Baxter, undated). Habituation to the hawks occurred quickly and within four weeks gulls and corvids resumed feeding at the landfill.”

“Although expensive and time consuming, falconry has the potential to remove hazardous birds from areas of land more quickly than can be achieved using conventional bird control methods, and they can also extend their influence into surrounding land where access may be restricted. However, other bird-scaring methods are often equally or more effective and economical (Erickson et al. 1990). Falcons appear to be more successful than hawks at bird control due to differences in prey species. Like many other control techniques, poor visibility and bad weather restricts use, and the birds must be flown regularly to sustain their effectiveness.”

Price range:

The cost of this service varies considerably from company to company. Most providers of the service will insist on a demonstration prior to quoting due to the fact that when a hawk is first introduced into a flock of feral pigeons it will have an immediate effect. Charges range from £60-£80 per ½ hour – 1 hour through to £150 per visit for up to 3 hours.

User reviews:

To date we have been unable to find any user reviews for raptor control services but we will update this section as and when user reviews are made available to us. If you are able to provide a user review for raptor control services please contact the Pigeon Control Resource Centre.

Editorial comments:

Harris Hawk

The use of a raptor as a bird control option is clearly a highly debatable and expensive method of control with few, if any, guarantees of success. In most cases the cost of the service alone renders this control option prohibitive for a majority of property owners and the issue of negative publicity for the client is a further consideration. The fact that the client will need to use the service virtually every day and for several hours each day in order for the raptor to have any effect on the target species will necessitate an indefinite contract, potentially costing over £1000 a week. To put this figure into perspective, the average budget put aside for pest control services by most commercial property owners for a small to medium sized building, which will include the control of rodents as well as birds, is normally less than £1000 a year.

The most worrying aspect of the ever-increasing use of raptors in the pest control marketplace is the fact that most of those offering the service know little or nothing about bird control, particularly those with a background in falconry. When a client is asked to pay out large sums of money for a control system that is not only considered to be ineffective but which also requires the contractor to provide the service indefinitely, the reputation of the industry as a whole is compromised. The average building can be effectively proofed with an industry standard product such as the anti-roosting spike for a fraction of the cost of a one-month contract for a raptor control service. The essential difference is that once the building has been protected by effective anti-perching products such as anti-roosting spikes the property owner can forget the problem. When using raptor control services the contract is open-ended and the effectiveness of the service is, at best, questionable.

Harris Hawk

Experts within the field of falconry, such as Jemima Parry-Jones, an international authority on the subject, have been highly critical of the use of raptors for the purpose of bird control, which speaks volumes about this method of control. Real concerns exist over the safety of raptors used for bird control, particularly when being flown in urban environments. In town and city centres the sheer volume of overhead cables and wires and buildings with mirrored frontages present very considerable dangers to birds that have no history of flying in these environments. Raptors such as the kestrel are sometimes seen in city centres, with small numbers breeding and hunting exclusively in urban environments, but this is the only species of raptor that is regularly seen in town and city centres in the UK. Urban kestrels will feed almost exclusively on small birds, rarely pigeons and never gulls, and therefore this species presents no danger to the most common urban pest species. When a large raptor is introduced into a foreign environment such as city centre where sights, sounds and moving objects abound to distract the birds, the safety of the raptor is brought into question, irrespective of how well trained the bird may be.

A good example of a handler unable to exert control over a raptor is the case of a raptor that was being used by a falconer as part of a pigeon removal operation in a suburb of Norwich in 2005. When the bird decided that it had had enough of working it flew off into Norwich city centre where the bird attacked a pigeon, bringing it down in front of horrified shoppers and diners at lunchtime where it proceeded to tear the pigeon to pieces whilst still alive. The pigeon was apparently alive for some 15 minutes whilst being eaten, according to onlookers. The negative publicity surrounding this type of botched pest control operation simply acts to bring the pest control industry into disrepute. Similarly, the actions of the hawk handlers contracted by Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, in Trafalgar Square have done little to persuade the public that falconry is anything other than an inhumane bloodsport.

Harris Hawk Eating Live Pigeon

Horrified Shoppers Look On 1

Horrified Shoppers Look On

Horrified shoppers look on as raptor eats a pigeon it has attacked and brought down in Norwich City centre, 2005.
These photos appeared in the Norwich Evening News 1st December 2005 and are provided courtesy of the Norwich Evening News.

Flying a raptor as a method of control cannot be considered to be an effective nor a cost-effective means of controlling any species of pest bird. The service appears to be an outlet for falconry hobbyists in the main and even where the service is provided by a bona fide pest control company, such as the company used in Trafalgar Square, the standard and public acceptance of the service is far from guaranteed. The Pigeon Control Resource Centre cannot recommend this service other than for use on airfields and waste disposal sites and even then there is doubt as to the effectiveness of this control. For the control of pigeons and gulls in urban environments the service is simply a waste of money and in virtually every case those experiencing problems with pest species of birds would be better advised to install anti-perching products or look at other scaring options.

About Pigeon Patrol:

Voted Best Canadian wholesaler for Bird Deterrent products four years in a row.

Contact Info: 1- 877– 4– NO-BIRD (www.pigeonpatrol.ca)

OvoControl P

by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 6, 2016 | 4-S Gel Bird repellent, Bird Netting, Pigeons in the News, UltraSonic Bird Control

1452793452448 (1) OvoControl P Pellets

OVERVIEW

Oral birth control is not commonly used for the control of birds and previous attempts to find an effective and humane oral contraceptive for the control of feral pigeons have been unsuccessful. Research is ongoing, however, to produce an oral contraceptive drug that can be fed to pigeons and other problem birds in an effort to reduce flock size humanely and in a cost-effective manner. Other methods of birth control that are commonly used to control pigeon flock size include the removal and replacement of eggs (fromartificial breeding facilities) and, to a lesser extent, ‘egg oiling’. Egg oiling is an extremely effective method of bird control which involves immersing newly-laid eggs in paraffin BP to block the pores of the egg, denying oxygen to the undeveloped foetus. Egg oiling and egg removal/replacement are both tried and tested methods of birth control that are considered to be highly effective in the control of pigeons and other birds alike. The use of ‘egg oiling’ as a method of control is discussed, in detail, in a dedicated product/service review entitled ‘Egg oiling’. Schemes involving egg removal/egg replacement from artificial breeding facilities are discussed in the ‘Artificial breeding facilities’ product review.

At present there are no oral contraceptives available in the UK that are licensed for use with pigeons or any other birds. The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has confirmed that although it has commissioned research into contraceptives for animals, it has not been in a position to commission research into contraceptives designed to be used for birds. This is because all species of birds are protected in the UK whereas the same cannot be said of animals and their lack of legal protection allows trials of this nature to be carried out.

Oral contraceptives for birds are far from common and those that have made it into the commercial marketplace have not been popular nor sold well. The best known avian oral contraceptive is a drug called Ornitrol that was developed for use as a bird and animal contraceptive on the back of its development as a cholesterol inhibitor in humans. The active ingredient diazacon (20,25 diazacholesterol) is a cholesterol mimic that inhibits cholesterol production and blocks steroid hormone formation. The reason that the drug was first considered for bird control was based on the fact that as eggs contain cholesterol, diazacon may lower cholesterol at the same time as inhibiting reproduction. More importantly, diazacholesterol 20,25 may have the ability to block the production of hormones (estrogen, testosterone and progesterone), all necessary for reproduction. Tests were carried out using sparrows and pigeons and it was found that diazacholesterol 20,25 was effective in reducing reproduction in both species. As a result the product was registered as a means of controlling pigeon populations under the trade name of Ornitrol.

Ornitrol was designed to be used in the same way that narcotic baits such as Avitrol are used to kill pigeons, by feeding non-treated grain on the chosen site for 7-10 days and then substituting the treated grain for grain treated with Ornitrol. This treatment was sufficient to make female pigeons sterile for up to 6 months. The process is then repeated every 6 months indefinitely. Ornitrol administered to pigeons acts in the same way as a human birth control pill, if the drug is not consumed every 6 months female pigeons become fertile once more and continue to breed unhampered.

Ornitrol is now no longer produced but its development as a reproductive control has led to the current research and development of drugs such as OvoControl G and P, relatively new birth control drugs designed for use with Canada geese and feral pigeons respectively. Ornitrol was discontinued due to concerns about the long-term use of the drug and the fact that in the form it was produced it was easily and quickly consumed by non-target species. For use on birds like pigeons that breed all year round, Ornitrol would need to be used continually throughout the year and it was found that the drug caused muscle tremors in pigeons when used over long periods. Not only this, but the drug was also extremely expensive to provide on this basis.

OvoControl P is a drug produced by an American company called Innolytics that is designed to control the “hatchability of eggs”, according to the manufacturer. The active ingredient of the contraceptive is nicarbazin, a drug originally used to control enteric disease in chickens. OvoControl works by interfering with the vitelline layer of the egg, separating the egg white from the yolk. The vitelline layer is a membrane that is vital for the development of an egg and without it the egg will not hatch.

Unlike Ornitrol, OvoControl P is fed to pigeons from day 1 but during the acclimatisation process (normally lasting between 5 and 14 days) OvoControl P is fed at a reduced level of 1 ounce (28 grammes) per 30 birds. As pigeons become acclimatised to feeding on the site OvoControl P can then be increased up to a maximum of 1 ounce (28 grammes) per 5 birds. The main criteria for the use of OvoControl P is a site where pigeons can be encouraged to feed on a daily basis, ideally at the same time each day and where there are no non-target species present. The manufacturer suggests that OvoControl P should be fed in the early hours of the morning and ideally on flat rooftops or, if rooftops are not available, on flat paved areas that are consistent with the restrictions imposed on the use and distribution of the drug. Wherever possible OvoControl P should be fed to pigeons close to their roosts or daytime perching places.

The following chart outlines dosage per pigeon with the basic calculation being: estimated pigeon population x 0.2 ounces (5.5 grams) of OvoControl P = amount of OvoControl P to be fed daily.

2 ounces (56 grammes) of bait = 10 pigeons
8 ounces (224 grammes) of bait = 40 pigeons
1 pound (0.4 kilogramme) of bait = 80 pigeons
5 pounds (2.2 kilogrammes) of bait = 400 pigeons
10 pounds (4.4 kilogrammes) of bait = 800 pigeons
30 pounds (13.6 kilogrammes) of bait = 2,400 pigeons
2 cups of bait = 14 ounces (0.3 kilogrammes) = 70 pigeons
1 gal of bait = 112 ounces (3.1 kilogrammes) = 560 pigeons

Mechanical Distributor for OvoControl P

Mechanical Distributor
for OvoControl P

The manufacturer suggests that OvoControl P can be fed to pigeons using a variety of methods. Options include the use of various sized and shaped containers containing the drug in order to accommodate all pigeons feeding on the site, including dominant cock birds and submissive/juvenile birds. Containers must be perforated to allow drainage. This method is only recommended on sites where the flock consists of less than 50 birds. Other methods include hand feeding (broadcast distribution) where the drug is distributed over an area not more than 20 feet radius (6 metre radius) and mechanical feeding, a method used for pigeon flocks of more than 50 birds. The broadcast limit for mechanical feeders must be set to a radius of no more than 20 feet (6 metres). Mechanical feeders should only be used on flat roof areas or flat paved areas that have restricted public access.

The recommended use of mechanical feeders suggests that OvoControl P can be used without the need for a human presence but this is not the case. Clearly a human presence is required to identify non-target species birds, to assess flock size prior to distributing OvoControl P, to remove OvoControl P in wet conditions and to ensure that children and pets do not come into contact with the drug. The suggested use of mechanical feeders, outlined on the OvoControl P website, is misleading and may result in some users simply ignoring the operational requirements of OvoControl P and distributing the drug indiscriminately.

There are a number of restrictions involved with the use of OvoControl P which include:

OvoControl P must be used throughout the entire breeding period – in pigeons this is 365 days a year and OvoControl must be distributed every day
The human applicator must visit the site early in the morning to distribute OvoControl P
The human applicator must thoroughly assess pigeon activity on the site prior to distributing OvoControl P and undertake a pigeon head count each day
The human applicator must reduce/increase the volume of OvoControl P fed each day according to the results of the head count to ensure optimum coverage for the whole flock
The human applicator must ensure that children and pets do not come into contact with OvoControl P
The human applicator must remain on site for up to one hour to ensure that all the bait is eaten and to ensure that non-target species do not attempt to exploit the bait
The human applicator must ensure that no non-target species are feeding on site during the distribution process and whilst the bait is being consumed by pigeons or the applicator may be committing an offence. In the USA it is an offence to feed treated bait to protected, threatened and endangered birds
Daily observations for non-target species birds must be carried out throughout the 5-14 day acclimatisation period and once a week thereafter
OvoControl P must not be used in rain and neither should the drug be used within 20 feet of any body of water including ponds, rivers and lakes – when distributed on rooftops or paved areas in wet conditions the area in which OvoControl P is to be distributed must be dry and ideally beneath some type of canopy
OvoControl P can only be used in urban applications and on flat roof areas or paved areas where public access is restricted
Health and safety must be assessed and health and safety restrictions include: wearing protective eyewear (as OvoControl causes moderate eye irritation), washing all contaminated clothing before re-use, washing thoroughly after handling OvoControl P and before eating, drinking or smoking. Gloves, long-sleeved shirt and long trousers must be worn at all times when handling or distributing OvoControl P

The manufacturer confirms that OvoControl P will render all birds that take the bait sterile, including protected species, but claims that OvoControl P is manufactured and provided in a format that will only be palatable to pigeons. The manufacturer provides a very long list of restrictions for use, however, suggesting that exploitation by non-target species is a real concern and yet no formal training is required for human applicators. The most significant concerns raised in respect of all orally fed contraceptive drugs are their impact on non-target species. Although the manufacturer suggests that that there is little likelihood of exploitation by non-target species, as a result of the size and shape of the bait, there is still an admission that the drug can be ingested by protected birds. The manufacturer suggests that a bird the size of a songbird or sparrow would not be interested in OvoControl P, but there is no advice or comment made in respect of larger birds exploiting the bait. The only mechanism available to stop non-target species exploiting the bait is the human applicator and the ability of that person to identify non-target species and to scare them from the site. Identification and the scaring of non-target species is also dependent on the human applicator remaining on-site, in all weather conditions, for the requisite 1 hour period following distribution. The only positive aspect of OvoControl P over drugs like Ornitrol is the fact that secondary toxicity cannot take place. According to the manufacturer, non-target effects can only result from direct ingestion of OvoControl P.

Health and safety guidance provided by the manufacturer also suggests that OvoControl P can cause “moderate eye irritation” to the human applicator. If the human applicator is required to wear protective eyewear as a result of concerns over safety, what affect will OvoControl have on the target species? It must be assumed that if OvoControl can cause moderate irritation to the human eye the same must apply to the avian eye, bringing health and safety of the target species into question. No mention is made of this fairly obvious welfare concern on the Innolytics website . Animal protection laws in the USA are far less comprehensive than equivalent legislation in the UK and the criteria required to attract a licence for a new drug in the USA may be less challenging than criteria necessary for a similar application in the UK. If OvoControl P can cause irritation in the avian eye there is clearly the potential, in extreme cases, for sight to be compromised with potentially lethal consequences.

The most obvious problem associated with the use of OvoControl P to control pigeon populations is the cost of the control, not only in terms of the cost of the drug itself but, more importantly, the cost in human time. For an individual to be expected to attend a rooftop site every day, 365 days a year and in all weathers, to spend upwards of an hour assessing pigeon activity, distributing bait and then watching for non-target species is a big ask for any property owner. The early hours of the morning are considered to be anti-social hours and therefore premium rates would have to be paid to employees undertaking the required tasks and protective clothing would also need to be provided. Not only this, but contaminated clothing must be washed prior to re-use and showering facilities may need to be provided on site. There is a great deal of responsibility placed on the individual/s carrying out the daily distribution and assessment works, not only to carry out a pigeon head count but also to ensure that non-target species do not exploit the bait and that no children and pets access the distribution area. If rain starts to fall it must be assumed that the human applicator must also be available to sweep up all the OvoControl P pellets before they become contaminated with water.

Any option to control pigeon flock size humanely and effectively must be viewed as a positive development and although trials suggest that OvoControl P can be effective in reducing pigeon flock size, the cost of the control and the question of welfare is inevitably brought into question. Following in the footsteps of Ornitrol, a poorly performing and extremely expensive contraceptive drug, it was incumbent on the manufacturer of OvoControl P to provide an option that outperformed Ornitrol in every department. To an extent Innolytics has achieved this by providing a drug that has few known side effects and which, they claim, is unlikely to be exploited by non-target species. If the drug is as effective as the manufacturer claims and assuming that the drug is unlikely to be exploited by non-target species, will the sheer cost of human interaction render it too expensive to use? Based on the information supplied by the manufacturer the answer to that question has to be a resounding “yes”. Pest control budgets are notoriously low with most property owners budgeting only a few hundred pounds for all their pest control needs (including budgets for rodent control) so it seems highly unlikely that any company or individual will be prepared to put aside what must be considered to be a huge annual sum in order to use OvoControl P.

Although OvoControl P appears to have clear advantages as a means ofreducing the breeding potential of the feral pigeon, the product offers little in the way of relief for the property owner experiencing entrenched pigeon-related problems. The manufacturer confirms that OvoControl P should be used as part of an overall control system rather than as a stand-alone control, but this begs the question – why would a property owner choose to use OvoControl P as well as conventional control options? The cost of using OvoControl P for one year would almost certainly allow most property owners to comprehensively protect their entire property with an industry standard anti-perching product. Once a property is protected with a product like the anti-roosting spike, the property owner would have anything from 10-30 years of relief without the need to spend more money. If the same property owner used OvoControl and anti-perching products to protect their property the cost would not only be extreme in the first year (with the cost of spikes and OvoControl P) but the property owner would have to continue spending large sums every year for the continued use of OvoControl P.

For a city council or a government body that has responsibility for area-wide pigeon control, the use of OvoControl P may be considered as an option in an effort to reduce the size of urban pigeon flocks. For the individual or the commercial property owner, however, the product must be considered to be prohibitively expensive to use, offering far less value than conventional anti-perching and exclusion products. It is possible that council or government bodies could undertake area-wide trials, offering grants to property owners to trial the use of OvoControl P on their sites or properties, but it is hard to see any application for the product for the average property or site.

DEFRA’s view:

As there are no avian oral contraceptive drugs available in the UK at present, DEFRA does not discuss this control option on its website. A spokesperson for DEFRA did confirm, however, that should a product like OvoControl P be made available in the UK, all the science involved with the drug as well as details of the preferred delivery mechanisms would be required in order to make a decision as to whether that drug was suitable to be licenced for use in the UK.

The Health and safety Executive (HSE) confirmed that any employer using a birth control product on their site must carry out an in-depth risk assessment confirming that the product is safe to use and also confirming that the use of the product on-site conforms to Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. The HSE also confirmed that the manufacturer of the product has a duty to divulge any and all information about the product via a detailed data sheet. Any drug used to induce sterility in a bird would be listed as a product that is potentially hazardous to human health and as such would be listed as such under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Act.

Price range:

The cost of OvoControl P is $4.88 per lb. In real terms this equates to approximately $6 a day to treat 100 pigeons Mechanical feeders are available for automatic distribution of OvoControl P:

Durable Baked on Green Scatter Feeder $500.00
22 gauge Galvanised Finish Feeder $450.00
Optional Green or Galvanised Solar Panel $75.00

User reviews:

To date we have been unable to find any user reviews for oral contraceptives but we will update this section as and when user reviews are made available to us. If you are able to provide a user review for oral contraceptives please contact the Pigeon Control Resource Centre.

Comments from the Manufacturer/Distributor:

The following is taken from the Innolytics website:

“Innolytics, LLC has developed an innovative and humane technology to help control the population growth of pest avian species. The technology, developed in collaboration with the USDA/APHIS National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), essentially represents oral contraception for birds. There is no comparable technology on the market in the USA today. The product is called OvoControl.

Originally developed to help manage the burgeoning resident Canada goose population in the Northwest, Mideast and Northeastern areas of the United States, the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently registered the product for use in pigeons.

Pigeons, the ubiquitous bird that populates virtually all cities, towns and industrial sites are typically managed with exclusion techniques, poisoning or trapping. While the exclusion devices will keep birds away from a specific building or location, the underlying bird population continues to grow. The use of OvoControl complements exclusion techniques – nets, spikes and electrified strips – and provides an alternative to poisoning or trapping birds.

OvoControl for pigeons is ideal for use at large scale sites and facilities, areas where some birds can be tolerated, but where a significant reduction in the population is desired. Potential sites include urban areas, schools, airports, power plants and refineries. Large scale field studies at urban sites in Italy demonstrate a population decline of nearly 50% in just two years.

The core technology for OvoControl centers on the proven ability to significantly decrease the hatchability of eggs by feeding treated bait to birds during the reproductive season. The effect is fully reversible and care has been taken to develop a feeding system which will limit exposure to non-target species. The USDA conducted extensive research on this technology and continues to evaluate further applications in other pest species.

The EPA granted the first registration for egg hatch control for resident Canada geese in 2005 and subsequently registered the product for pigeons in 2007. Ducks and other development projects are underway for a range of other bird species.

Innolytics’ OvoControl technology enjoys the full support of the leading animal welfare and conservation organizations in the US and abroad.”

Editorial comments:

The use of oral contraceptives for bird control has been debated internationally for decades with early research in Europe drawing few conclusions about their effectiveness or whether chemosterilants should be used at all. Swiss trials found that it was impossible to isolate feral flocks in order to assess whether contraceptives could be used to reduce breeding. Because pigeons are highly mobile, using multiple feeding sites each day, the same birds could not be relied upon to visit test sites each and every day, particularly at the precise time that treated grain was being offered. Pigeons from specific feeding flocks were also found to integrate with other feeding flocks on an irregular basis, rendering any data collected corrupt. Laboratory experiments can be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of contraceptives, but laboratory environments do not, in any way, mimic the pigeon’s natural habitat.

The only oral contraceptive available that is designed specifically for use with pigeons is OvoControl P with its sister product OvoControl G, used for the control of Canada geese. Both products have been passed for use in the USA by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but standards adopted by EPA are unlikely to be considered acceptable in the UK and some other European countries. Trials undertaken by the manufacturer of OvoControl P in Italy have apparently provided some quite astonishing results with reductions of up to 50% in under two years, but no detailed information is available about these trials on the Innolytics website. As Innolytics suggest that OvoControl P should be used as part of a comprehensive control regime it is quite possible that culling was used as an additional control to compliment the use of OvoControl P. This may account for the unusually large reduction in flock size in such a relatively short period. It should also be noted that many US companies trial their products in Italy and although there is no obvious reason why this should be the case, it is possible that Italy has relaxed animal protection laws as does the USA.

Other methods of breeding control do achieve extraordinary results, such as the use of artificial breeding facilities where eggs are removed and replaced withdummy eggs on a weekly basis. This control, pioneered by the UK-based Pigeon Control Advisory Service (PiCAS International), is now used extensively across Europe and has been found to reduce flock size dramatically and within short time frames. The egg removal/replacement method of control is not labour intensive (5 minutes a week to remove and replace eggs), costs virtually nothing and stops all breeding talking place within the breeding facility. OvoControl P, relative to this control option, is extremely expensive, is not guaranteed to be effective and offers the property owner on whose building the problem exists, no relief whatsoever. Pigeons will quickly learn to use artificial breeding facilities, even if their existing roosts are left unprotected and once established within lofts the birds will breed openly, irrespective of whether their eggs are interfered with or not.

OvoControl P is a good idea but fatally flawed in terms of its operational costs and the need to continue to offer the control indefinitely. OvoControl must be provided every day, 365 days a year, no exceptions. Most property owners that experience problems with pigeons do not have pigeons roosting overnight and breeding on their property, they simply have daytime perching problems where pigeons are using their property for the purposes of exploiting a food source. For these property owners to use OvoControl P as well as installing anti-perching products does not make sense. OvoControl P is designed to reduce flock size by birth control, a long-term goal, whereas anti-perching products will provide any property owner with instant and comprehensive relief, assuming that the product has been installed as per manufacturers’ recommendations. For local authorities to use oral contraceptives in order to reduce flock size in an effort to provide property owners with some long-term relief (and spend less on purchasing deterrents) makes perfect sense and is a control option that would justify the use of public money to provide. To expect individuals and property owners to employ controls of this nature is simply pushing the envelope a little too far.

Although the manufacturer of OvoControl P suggests that there is little if no chance of non-target species taking the bait, there is no doubt that if this were the case the product would be recommended for much wider use. OvoControl P has been designed in such a way that it is difficult for smaller birds to exploit, but not impossible. There is also the issue of larger birds taking the bait. Whether or not non-target species are able or inclined to take the bait is critically important to the success of any type of contraceptive and until such a time as a product is designed that is species-specific and that cannot be exploited by non-target species, this control option will inevitably have its critics.

The issue of health and safety, not only for the human applicator of the product but also for the target species, is another issue that needs further research and investigation. A product that can cause “moderate irritation” to human eyes will almost certainly have the same effect on avian eyes. Although it must be borne in mind that the USA, where this product is approved for use, has far more relaxed animal protection laws than the UK, there is no doubt that this issue of potential suffering will be a cause for concern in the UK and many European countries. It is unlikely that OvoControl P will be introduced into the UK in the foreseeable future and if the product was introduced in its present format it is unlikely to be approved for use by DEFRA or the HSE.

Also commonly known as:

Ornitrol, OvoControl, OvoControl P, ovoControl G, the pigeon pill, pigeon contraceptive

Relevance to pigeon control:

Oral birth control is used as a method of pigeon control

About Pigeon Patrol:

Voted Best Canadian wholesaler for Bird Deterrent products four years in a row.

Contact Info: 1- 877– 4– NO-BIRD (www.pigeonpatrol.ca)

Liquid Paraffin BP

by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 5, 2016 | Bird Netting, Pigeons in the News, UltraSonic Bird Control

bird shit.jpg-pwrt3 Liquid Paraffin BP

Egg oiling with liquid paraffin BP is approved for use under the Control of Pesticides Regulations(COPR) but can only be used under licence provided by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) under Section 16 (1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

It is an offence to interfere with a nest or its contents and therefore, before taking any action to remove a nest with or without eggs or chicks, or to oil eggs within a nest, permission must be sought from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Egg oiling is considered to be an extremely effective method of non-lethal and humane bird control but is not commonly used for the control of urban species such as the feral pigeon. Egg oiling is a method of egg treatment that is normally used for the control of ground nesting birds and is considered to be 100% effective if carried out at the correct time of year. The only exception to this rule would be where egg oiling is used for the control of roof-nesting birds such as the gull. Although the gull does not nest at ground level the process has been successfully adapted to be used as part of a gull control programme where birds are nesting in accessible areas at height.

Egg oiling involves the use of liquid paraffin BP to coat the shell of the egg in order to stop the embryo from developing. Liquid paraffin BP is a white mineral oil, commonly known as paraffin oil, which is available from chemists in small quantities or from chemical suppliers in 500 ml+ bottles for larger applications. When an egg is removed from the nest and fully immersed in liquid paraffin BP the oil blocks the pores of the egg, coating the underlying egg membrane and depriving the fertilised egg of oxygen. In order for the process to be completely effective the whole of the egg must be coated leaving no gaps or ‘dry’ areas.DEFRA recommends the use of a wide-necked container or small bucket for dipping the eggs. Once immersed in the liquid paraffin BP the egg must be turned 360° several times to ensure that the whole egg is coated. DEFRArecommends that the operator should wear protective gloves and a facemask to comply with Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR) but confirms that a gloved hand will not remove liquid paraffin BP from a coated egg. Liquid sprays or sponges should not be used to coat the egg as these methods of coating may leave some areas of the shell untreated.

Once the egg has been dipped in liquid paraffin BP it should be allowed to drain before being replaced in the nest. The nests and eggs that have been treated should be marked to ensure that they are not revisited and re-oiled more often than is necessary – this reduces both labour and the quantity of liquid paraffin oil used. The major benefit of this method of egg treatment is that the parent will be unaware that the egg has been interfered with and will continue to incubate the eggs for the requisite period. Other methods of egg interference include the following:

Breaking eggs (in the nest)
Pricking eggs (using a pin or needle to make a hole in the shell of the egg that will allow bacteria to enter the egg as well as desiccating the contents)
Removing eggs
Cracking eggs
Shaking eggs
Removal of eggs and the provision of dummy eggs

All of these methods of egg interference are not only illegal, unless a licence has been obtained from DEFRA, but they are also ineffective, with the possible exception of removing eggs and replacing them with dummy eggs. When eggs are interfered with by any means other than egg oiling with liquid paraffin BP, the parent will normally re-lay another clutch of eggs immediately, rendering the process of interference pointless. Dummy eggs are likely to be accepted by the parent but only if the dummy egg is an exact replica of the real egg, not only in size and colour but also in weight. When using egg oiling it is important to be aware that if the target species commonly lays more than one clutch of eggs per season it is possible that re-laying will occur once the parent has incubated the treated eggs for the normal period (ie. for pigeon control this period would be 19 days).

As each and every species of bird lays a particular number of eggs (within a range), and as each species will spend varying periods laying and incubating their eggs, the timing of each egg oiling operation is critical. Some species of birds lay 12-15 eggs, some only 2 or 3. Some species breed all-year round others only produce one clutch per year. It is therefore also critically important to have in-depth knowledge of the target species before applying for a licence to oil eggs and before undertaking any oiling operations. As egg oiling operations can be highly labour-intensive, particularly where the control of waterfowl is concerned, a well planned and structured species-specific progamme must be provided. Failure to do so will compromise the success of the operation and dramatically reduce cost-efficiency.

Where the control of species such as the feral pigeon is concerned egg oiling can be an extremely effective method of control when combined with a loft-based control system. A system of this nature would normally involve the use of an artificial breeding facility such as pigeon loft where pigeons are encouraged to roost and breed as an alternative to their normal roosting and breeding sites. As pigeons breed all-year round any control system involving the use of egg oiling would need to be provided throughout the year with particular attention paid to the period March-October, this being the height of the breeding period. Although human interaction would be required throughout the whole year the act of oiling and marking eggs and nests in a loft-based environment would only take minutes per week.

Egg oiling is most commonly associated with the control of Canada goose populations due to the fact that Canada geese are becoming a growing problem in the UK with static populations of non-migratory birds increasing every year. As with the control of most species of bird, effective Canada goose control systems involve the use of several control techniques with egg oiling being considered to be one of the most effective options. Egg oiling regimes must be well planned and require nesting sites to be monitored prior to nests being built and clutches being laid. Clutches must be oiled immediately after the final egg has been laid on sites where multiple nests exist and for single breeding pairs the eggs should be oiled 3 days after the last egg has been laid. Canada geese start to lay in the second half of March with most eggs being laid in the first half of April. It would therefore be necessary to visit the breeding site 3 times; at the end of March, mid-April and the end of April. All eggs should be oiled throughout this period and by doing so it is highly unlikely that the parent will re-lay once past the end of the normal incubation period.

For the control of large gulls in urban environments egg oiling can be an extremely effective method of control, particularly when used as the main control option alongside the installation of deterrents and anti-perching devices. Gulls are normally colonial, sometimes breeding in mixed colonies and laying their eggs between mid-April and late June. Gulls will either breed on flat-roof areas, normally in numbers, or solitarily on or beside chimney pots or other difficult-to-access areas at height. Nests will need to be visited several times during the course of the breeding period to ensure that all the eggs are oiled. Clutches should be oiled as soon as incubation has started. As with Canada geese, constant monitoring will be required but as gulls tend to habituate to the same nesting site each year the monitoring process may be more straightforward. Although the installation of deterrents and anti-perching devices may be required, egg oiling, if carried out consistently and thoroughly, will be 100% successful as a birth control option. It may also have the effect of moving the birds on to other breeding sites permanently due to their lack of success in rearing young on the site concerned. This process is likely to take 2 to 3 seasons before the birds permanently desert the site.

Egg oiling is a cheap, humane and 100% effective method of control that can be used in a variety of situations and for the control of a wide variety of bird species. When used for the control of some species, such as wildfowl in rural areas, the act of oiling may be labour-intensive, thereby increasing the cost of the operation. However, the fact that this method can be 100% effective relative to conventional controls such as shooting, which are completely ineffective (and in some cases act to increase population size as a result of rejuvenation), egg oiling has to be considered to be one of the most effective methods of control available.

DEFRA’s view:

Egg Destruction and Oiling

“Egg destruction is used to reduce the local population of pest birds and in the UK it requires a licence from Defra. Eggs can be destroyed by several methods. Straightforward egg removal can encourage re-laying unless the eggs are replaced by hardboiled or wooden replicas (Baker et al. 1993). The pricking of eggs with a needle allows bacteria to enter the egg as well as desiccate its contents (French and Parkhurst 2001), but some pricked eggs may still hatch and birds may abandon clutches to relay.

Egg oiling is a cheaper, more effective and more humane method of egg control. It involves coating the egg shells with oil such as liquid paraffin (Baker et al.1993). This stops air from passing through the shell to the embryo and prevents it from developing properly. Baker et al. (1993) tested this method on Canada geese and achieved a 100% success rate; none of the 231 treated eggs hatched. They also pricked some eggs and these too did not hatch, but they were incubated for significantly less time, allowing the adults to relay elsewhere.”

“This technique, using white mineral oil, was also effective on ring-billed and herring gull eggs, though some eggs (8-9%) sprayed early in incubation or sprayed with only a small quantity of oil late in incubation, did hatch (Christens and Blokpoel 1991). For total success, it was recommended that spraying should be undertaken three times during incubation. Although this should be more effective it is more labour-intensive and so less cost-effective.”

“The sole use of egg destruction is unlikely to reduce a local population in the longterm. It is a time-consuming process as all nests have to be located and treated, and this may be hindered by problems of access. The timing of destruction is important and any reduction in a population caused by the loss of young birds may well be offset by immigration of new birds from nearby non-treated areas.”

“The technique has been approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR) but can only be used under a licence issued by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under Section 16(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.”

Nest Destruction

“Nest destruction, like egg destruction, requires a licence in the UK. It is a time consuming though relatively inexpensive control technique, and may help to control a local pest species. This technique was used to control double-crested cormorants in America, and reduce their negative impacts on the nesting habitats of other colonial waterbirds, as well as help to restore the fish community (Farquhar et al. 2000). During weekly visits nests on the ground were removed by hand and those in trees dislodged with a telescopic pole. The nesting material was scattered to discourage rebuilding. Since the nest removal programme began there has been no successful cormorant breeding in the area.”

“Ickes et al. (1998) recommended nest and egg removal for ground-nesting colonies of gulls but found that the technique was unlikely to reduce the number of nesting gulls in a given area, but it moved the problem as the gulls dispersed to recolonise other sites. Nest and egg removal and just egg removal were found to be equally effective but the former technique was approximately 60% more labour intensive. This made it more expensive.”

“In general, the use of other scaring methods in addition to nest disturbance and destruction is more likely to cause abandonment of an area by a bird pest species (Blokpoel and Tessier 1992, cited in Ickes et al. 1998).”

Price range:

Paraffin BP is widely available through high street chemists or in large quantities from chemical suppliers. The cost for larger quantities varies considerably but for a 180 kilo drum of liquid paraffin BP, from a large chemical supplier, the cost would be approximately £300.00. To put this in perspective, 1 kilo would be sufficient for most users to oil a considerable number of nests several times in one season.

For small quantities the price of a small bottle of liquid paraffin BP from a chemist is £1.10 for a 150ml bottle.

User reviews:

The following comment is made by a spokesperson for the Pigeon Control Advisory Service, an organisation that has widely recommended the use of egg oiling as a means of controlling a variety of avian species:

“Many of our clients have used egg oiling to great effect for the control of gulls, ducks, Canada geese and pigeons. This method of control is completely effective when the user is prepared to undertake regular monitoring and oiling according to the breeding habits of the target species. In fact this is the only method of bird control that we have found to be 100% effective.”

“The user has to be prepared to make the effort to monitor and identify nests, as well as undertake 2 or 3 oiling operations per year, but if clients follow the advice they are given they will be rewarded with an extremely effective control system that is humane and non-invasive.”

“Where artificial breeding facilities are used by clients for the purpose of pigeon control we will normally offer the option of using egg oiling to treat eggs as an alternative to egg removal and replacement with dummy eggs. Both methods are effective and in each case the adult is unaware that the eggs have been interfered with, but egg oiling has the edge over the use ofdummy eggs. In some cases dummy eggs are rejected by the parent and they have re-laid as a result, but to date we have not had an instance where oiled eggs have been deserted. The only possible down-side of egg oiling, relative to removal and replacement with dummy eggs, is that it takes a couple of minutes longer per week, but this is the only negative.”

Editorial comments:

Egg oiling is a rare phenomenon in the world of bird control – it is a control that is 100% effective. Although there are anti-perching products, such as the anti-roosting spike, that are 100% effective when installed according to manufacturers instructions, there are no other scaring, deterring or birth control products that are anything like as effective as egg oiling. Egg oiling is a versatile control option that can be effective with a wide variety of bird species and in countless applications.

Although the monitoring process and resultant oiling operations may be time consuming in some applications, the long-term advantage is that the target species may simply cease using the site for the purpose of breeding if they have been unsuccessful in breeding for several consecutive years. This is particularly the case where roof-nesting gulls are concerned. Mature roof nesting gulls return to the same breeding site each year and unless physically prevented from doing so are unlikely to be persuaded to go elsewhere. If their eggs are oiled for several consecutive years and they produce no young, the birds may associate the unsuccessful breeding attempts with the site rather than with any other factor. As a result the birds may move on to another site without the need to resort to any other control option. When egg oiling is combined with the provision of anti-perching products and possibly some type of visual or bio-acoustic scarer, the user will have a highly effective and comprehensive control system.

Egg oiling will hold appeal for a majority of those experiencing bird-related problems as the process of oiling is extremely simple to undertake without the need for special training or protective clothing other than gloves and a facemask. Paraffin oil is also extremely inexpensive to buy and very little is used during the course of an oiling operation. Therefore the main cost implications are simply man-hours required to monitor nest sites and oil eggs.

One of the major advantages of egg oiling is that it is humane and non-lethal. Egg oiling offers the user a bird-friendly product that is not only inexpensive to provide but that is also highly effective as a control option. Lethal control has historically been used to control many of the species that we commonly associate with egg oiling, including Canada geese and roof-nesting gulls, but lethal control is a completely ineffective and often controversial control option. In a majority of cases where lethal control is used in an attempt to reduce population size on commercial sites, employees will react in an extremely negative way to what they see as unnecessary killing. This, combined with the fact that lethal controls such as shooting and cage trapping can actually have the opposite effect and increase population size, demonstrates the effectiveness of egg oiling as an excellent all-round and popular alternative to invasive controls.

For anyone considering egg oiling as a control option it must be stressed that an in-depth understanding of the target species and its breeding habits is essential. Once the user is satisfied that he or she is fully conversant with the target species and is in a position to provide the necessary time to monitor breeding and undertake oiling, this method can be used by virtually anyone. Egg oiling can clearly be used in large-scale commercial applications but it can also be used to great effect by the individual who has a minor problem with, for example, nesting pairs of ducks in their waterside garden. In this application monitoring would be simple and straightforward and the benefit would be that there would be virtually no cost associated with the control. Neither would this form of birth control cause any controversy based on the fact that it is non-invasive and bird-friendly.

Sources:

DEFRA quotes:

PDF on DEFRA website entitled: ‘Review of international research regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives’. By J Bishop, H McKay, D Parrott and J Allan.

Also commonly known as:

Egg dipping, birth control, egg interference, egg control, contraceptive control

Relevance to pigeon control:

Low relevance to pigeon control for conventional applications but this method is increasingly being used where loft or dovecote-based pigeon control systemsare being employed. Egg oiling is more commonly used for the control of waterfowl such as Canada geese and in recent years for the control of roof-nesting gulls

About Pigeon Patrol:

Voted Best Canadian wholesaler for Bird Deterrent products four years in a row.

Contact Info: 1- 877– 4– NO-BIRD (www.pigeonpatrol.ca)

Vigilante Helikite

by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 4, 2016 | Animal Deterrent Products, Bird Netting, UltraSonic Bird Control

Helikite Vigilante

OVERVIEW

The ‘Helikite’ is a combination of a helium balloon and a kite with two models recommended for the purpose of bird control. The two versions of the Helikite offered for bird control are the ‘Vigilante’ Helikite and the ‘Lightweight’ Helikite. The essential difference between the two products is that the ‘Vigilante’ Helikite has a tough mylar protective cover that will prevent the balloon from becoming damaged if it falls to the ground in strong winds or in rain. The Lightweight Helikite is designed to be used in conjunction with lightweight collapsible aluminium Helikite Poles for use on buildings, landfill sites and for the protection of high-value crops that have good crop cover. The Lightweight Helikite cannot be used on winter crops, overnight or anywhere where the balloon may come down on bare ground when wet. The Lightweight Helikite is ideal for use in hot climates due to the lighter construction. The Vigilante Helikite is a more versatile balloon due to its protective heavy-duty mylar cover and therefore can be used for all agricultural applications irrespective of crop-type and for most other bird-scaring applications.

Lightweight Helikite

The Helikite, unlike conventional kites, will fly when there is no wind at all due to the helium gas used to inflate the balloon. Unlike most balloons that are shaped like kites, the Helikite is fat and rounded which is essential to provide good helium lift. A conventional kite-shaped balloon will collapse when it hits cold air due to shrinkage of the gas inside the balloon and subsequent loss of pressure required to retain shape. This is not a problem for the Helikite due to its unique shape. The Helikite will also fly in winds of up to 25 mph unlike a conventional balloon, with the wind actually generating uplift rather than bringing the kite down. In winds of above 25 mph the drag caused by the Helikite will bring the balloon down. Although the Vigilante Helikite will come down in rain, the protective mylar cover supplied with the product will ensure that the balloon is not damaged. Once the rain abates and the Vigilante Helikite dries out the balloon will re-launch itself. The Lightweight Helikite is more vulnerable and may become damaged when falling to the ground.

Lightweight Helikite

As previously mentioned, the Lightweight Helikite is designed for use with the Kite Pole, a 13 metre, lightweight collapsible aluminium pole with just over 12 metres of line extending from the top of the pole to which the Helikite is attached. Each section of the Kite Pole has a ring attached to the side of it through which the Helikite flying line runs. The benefit of the Kite Pole is that in the event of strong wind or rain, the Lightweight Helikite will remain tethered to it rather than plunging to the ground and becoming damaged. The Kite Pole will collapse down to 130cm x 4cm x 8cm allowing it to be transported easily. The pole can be tethered to a fence post or a similar vertical object or it can be held in place with guy ropes.

The Helikite is really just a variation on the predator balloon theme with the product being marketed as a device that mimics the flight of a bird of prey as it hunts. The Helikite would normally be used for agricultural applications with one of the main benefits of the product being that it will climb to a very considerable height and, as a result, is visible over a large area. The Vigilante Helikite will cover and protect an area of up to 8 hectares (20 acres) and will ascend to 60 metres (200 feet) in ideal conditions. The Lightweight Helikite will achieve a height of up to 300 metres (1000 feet) in ideal conditions. Although the Helikite is not shaped or coloured to resemble a bird of prey, the manufacturer suggests that due to the erratic flight pattern of the balloon it will be perceived as a danger by most species of birds. Although most birds rapidly habituate to conventional predator balloons, the manufacturer of the Helikite suggests that there is considerably less chance of habituation with this product.

Helikite Kite Pole

According to the manufacturer the Helikite has many applications for use as a bird scarer including agricultural sites such as arable farms, livestock farms, fish farms and fruit farms as well as numerous urban applications including sports centres, office blocks and hotels. Broadly speaking the manufacturer recommends Helikite for virtually every bird control application, rural or urban. The manufacturer also suggests that the product can be used for the control of a wide variety of bird species including widely controlled urban/rural species such as the pigeon and the gull.

The main advantages of the Helikite is that it is silent, unlike many conventional scarers, requires little or no maintenance other than topping up helium gas and it is easy to move, a strong requirement for bird scarers. Although the Helikite looks quite fragile it is in fact quite rugged with the mylar cover on the Vigilante model protecting the balloon when it falls to the ground. The Helikite balloons are also easy to transport with the Vigilante fitting into the boot of a standard saloon car with ease. Running costs for the Helikite are relatively low with the manufacturer suggesting that the Vigilante will only use “…a few pence worth of gas a day.” This combined with the relatively low purchase price of both the Lightweight and Vigilante Helikites make the product a cost-effective option when considering bird scaring products. The disadvantages of the Helikite is that it cannot be flown in the rain and the device will require human interaction if it is to be moved regularly to reduce habituation. The Helikite cannot be flown in strong winds either and therefore, if sited in a rural location and some distance away from human habitation, the user will need to be in the position to be instantly responsive in the event of gales or high winds to prevent potential damage to the balloon.

DEFRA’s view:

Helikite Vigilante

Balloons

“Balloons tethered in a crop are an inexpensive method of bird deterrence, but studies show that they are not very effective and birds quickly habituate to them. Blue balloons were used in an attempt to deter oystercatchers from a Naval airfield. The birds attacked the balloons and burst them (Wright 1969).”

“Toy balloons were also used to reduce damage to cherries and blueberries (Pearson 1958). Tied to branches of the trees, the balloons deterred starlings, but robins and Baltimore orioles were seen to continue feeding only a few feet away. Balloons were also found to be ineffective in deterring waterfowl from the sites of oil spills (Greer and O’Connor 1994, cited in Reilly 1995).”

“To increase the effectiveness of balloons, eyespots, consisting of a circular pattern that resembles the general appearance of vertebrate eyes, can be printed on the side. These eyes mimic the eyes of large raptors, but may also mimic the eyes of conspecifics, which is alarming as many avian species have frontal threat displays in which the eyes are prominent (Inglis 1980). Two circular eyespots arranged horizontally, each containing concentric rings of bright colour appear to be the most alarming. Those that have a three-dimensional appearance may enhance the effect, and large eyespots are better than small ones (Inglis 1980).”

“At present there are a number of different designs commercially available and may either bear a single pair of eyes on one side or multiple eyespots encircling the entire balloon. Studies indicate that the deterrent effect of eyespot balloons varies between bird species, the eyespot design and with the mode of presentation. In New Zealand, numbers of house sparrows Passer domesticus visiting a bird-feeding table were significantly reduced by deployment of both a commercially available balloon and a homemade device (eyes painted on a beach ball) (McLennan et al. 1995). The commercial device had a greater deterrent effect than the beach ball. The effect of both devices decreased with distance and was negligible at 40m. The deterrent effect increased when reinforced with a rotating light and playback of alarm calls. With continuous use, however, the deterrent effect declined and ceased after nine days.”

“McLennan et al. (1995) also evaluated eyespot balls as a bird deterrent in vineyards. In the first three weeks the balls repelled 90% of all birds except song thrushes, which had started to ignore them in the second week. Their deterrent effect had almost ceased after four weeks, but by this stage the grapes had ripened and become increasingly attractive to the birds. It could not be determined whether the balls failed because the birds had habituated to them or because the lure of food overcame the deterrent effect.”

“McNamara et al. (2002) found that scare-eye balloons failed to protect the plastic film surrounding bales of silage from bird damage, though ‘eyes’ painted onto the black plastic reduced damage by 65% compared to control bales.”

“Although easy to set up and move around, balloons can be easily damaged in high winds and can deteriorate in sunlight leading to a loss of helium and thus height. They also need to be regularly checked to ensure they cannot break free from their moorings and present a hazard to aircraft. In the UK, the flying of balloons is governed by the Air Navigation Order, which states that without the written permission of the Civil Aviation Authority, a tethered balloon can not be flown at a height of more than 60 m or within 5 km of any aerodrome (CAA 2002). Their effectiveness at scaring birds appears to be dependent on the species concerned and effects are only short-term.”

Kites

“Kites and kite-hawks work as mobile predator models, which birds perceive as a threat. The kites bear an image of a soaring raptor and are tethered to the ground. Conover (1983, cited in Harris and Davis 1998) tested four designs of hawk-kites, but none effectively deterred birds from feeding on corn. To be effective, kite-hawks need to be ‘flown’ beneath helium balloons in order to possess sufficient ‘threatening’ movement (Conover 1984). When this was done, the kites became more effective at scaring birds from the cornfields.”

“Other studies have found kite-hawks to be ineffective or are quickly habituated to (Inglis 1980). Hothem and Dehaven (1982) tested a hawk-kite resembling an immature golden eagle, suspended from a helium balloon. Although there was a slight decrease in percent of grapes damaged, it was effective only over a very small area, and damage increased elsewhere in the vineyard.”

“Helium-filled bird scaring kites have been deployed between dawn and dusk at landfill sites. Numbers of gulls, corvids and starlings on sites remained relatively unchanged and there was little evidence that birds were deterred from the sites (Baxter 2002c; undated).”

“Like balloons, kites and hawk-kites can be damaged by strong winds and may be difficult to keep up in the air when wind speeds exceed 8 km/hr (Hotherm and Dehaven 1982). As they pose no real threat to birds, do not behave like raptors and remain visible for long periods of time, birds quickly habituate to them. They are effective only over a small area and for a short period of time. As with balloons, their use in the UK is governed by the Air Navigation Order, requiring the written permission of the CAA for kites within 5 km of an aerodrome or at a height of more than 60 m.”

Price range:

The ‘Vigilante’ Helikite is available in the UK at a cost of: £113.00 + VAT
The ‘Lightweight’ Helikite is available in the UK at a cost of: £98.00 + VAT
The ‘Kite Pole’ is available in the UK at a cost of: £150.00 + VAT

User reviews:

To date we have been unable to find any user reviews for The Helikite but we will update this section as and when user reviews are made available to us. If you are able to provide a user review for The Helikite please contact the Pigeon Control Resource Centre.

Comments from the Manufacturer/Distributor:

The manufacturer says the following of the ‘Vigilante’ Helikite:

“A unique combination of kite, helium balloon and protective balloon cover, the Vigilante Helikite flies up to 200 feet with up to 20 mph or without any wind to scare birds over areas as large as 25 acres.”

“The hovering Helikite mimics the action of birds of prey as it moves around the sky. Helikites have been shown to be the most powerful bird-scarer available in all the comparative bird-scaring trials they have participated in. The instinctive fear created within bird pests is very hard for them to overcome and so the bird control effect is extremely long lasting and over far larger areas than normal startle reaction bird-scarers.”

“The Vigilante Helikite will come down in the rain but the protective cover protects the balloon from punctures until it dries out and automatically re-launches itself again. They are very frugal with helium – only using a few pence worth of the gas per day. We consider Helikites to be the best bird-scarers in the world and we offer a money back birdscaring guarantee if birds get used to them within two months. As far as we know, no other birdscarer manufacturer in the world offers such a guarantee. If you have critical bird problems or large areas to control the Vigilante Helikite is the answer.”

The manufacturer says the following of the ‘Lightweight’ Helikite:

“Unlike a simple balloon, the Lightweight Helikite is a true aerostat, capable of keeping station steadily in winds up to 25 mph. It has 30 grams of pure helium lift and far more in a breeze. The Lightweight Helikite flies reliably near buildings, trees, etc. The Lightweight Helikite is formed by combining an extra large Mylar balloon with a specially made kite to form a Helikite which is aerodynamically sound and pushed up by the wind rather than pushed down. These Helikites have excellent helium holding properties so that topping up is only necessary once a week. Lightweight Helikites are very portable. When uninflated they can be folded up to fit in a coat pocket and yet will fly to over 1000ft once inflated.”

A US-based distributor of the Helikite range says the following of the Helikite range:

“Until now, bird control has always been a hit or miss affair, with old fashioned scarecrows or even the more modern noise makers and flashing scarers giving variable protection, making it impossible for property managers to rely on them for long to prevent expensive damage and often crippling losses. Birds are unpredictable and planning for them is difficult. However, unlike other scarers, the Vigilante Helikite will control birds even after they have acclimated to an area and started to eat a crop.”

“The scientifically designed, patented Vigilante Helikite is the first and only bird control system that really works well over a long period of time because birds find it extremely difficult to overcome the innate terror of predatory hawks that Helikites create. Wild hawks reinforce, so habituation is very unlikely – even after months without shooting. If you have a difficult bird problem, the powerful Vigilante Helikite is probably the only scarer really capable of protecting your livelihood.”

“With the Vigilante Helikite, angry neighbors, frightened livestock, and visits from the noise complaints authorities are a thing of the past. Noise is not required for effective bird control. Sight is the major sense in birds and so they are affected far more by an instinctive visual stimulus than by anything they hear – just like the human fear of snakes and spiders. Silent control makes Bird Scaring feasible in many previously impossible situations – like pig and cattle facilities, grain storage, land fill sites, or near built-up areas. Humane to all, and safe no explosive gas.”

“You can launch a Vigilante Helikite next to populated areas where noisy bangers or wailers would cause objections. Local people will appreciate your concern for them and the environment. You will get a better night’s sleep as well!”

Editorial comments:

Helikite Vigilante

The Helikite is an interesting variation on the predator balloon and offers the user a relatively inexpensive and maintenance-free bird scaring option for more entrenched bird-related problems. The device provides a good bird-scaring option for applications where noiseor other visual media has the potential to cause disturbance to humans or farm animals. The Helikite can be used for urban bird control applications as a complementary control but there will be numerous logistical problems inherent with this usage. The ‘Lightweight’ Helikite is recommended for urban applications and it is likely that in most cases the product would be tethered to a ‘Kite Pole’ where it is less likely to cause problems when the balloon is brought down in strong winds or rain.

Helikite in Car Boot

The Helikite is extremely easy to transport with the ‘Lightweight’ Helikite fitting into a coat pocket when uninflated. The ‘Kite Pole’ is also relatively easy to transport reducing down to just 1.3 metres by 8cm when collapsed. Most bird scarers will need to be moved regularly in order to be effective and to keep habituation down to a minimum, so the ease with which this product can be transported is a major plus point. The range of birds that will be deterred by the Helikite is also impressive making the product ideal for use in areas such as landfill sites.

Helikite Deployed Over Landfill

Helikite Deployed
Over Landfill

The Helikite is praised for its effectiveness as a bird scarer on both manufacturer and distributor websites but these views are not shared by DEFRA where the use of balloons and kites are concerned. DEFRAsuggests that habituation to these products is normal, in some cases within a matter of days, and that both kites and balloons pose no real threat to pest species of birds. DEFRA also suggests that kites and balloons are only effective for a short period in small areas. As with all bird-scaring products, it seems likely that the Helikite will only be effective if provided as part of an overall control system involving other scaring products with, where appropriate, anti-perching products.

Helikite Vigilante

Operational problems include the requirement for the user to apply for a written licence from the CAA if flying the Helikite within 5 kilometres of an aerodrome or airport and the obvious problems inherent with the Helikite coming down in strong winds or rain. The Helikite will also need to be moved regularly, again in an effort to reduce habituation, and this will require human interaction. The helium gas will also need to be topped up from time to time but we have no information on how easy or difficult this process will be and how often it will need to be carried out. We have contacted the manufacturer with several questions about The Helikite but they have failed to provide the information and therefore this review is less than comprehensive as a result.

Sources:

DEFRA quotes:

Also commonly known as:

Bird kite, kite, helium balloon, bird blimps, aerostat, deterrent balloon, helikite scarer, bird balloon, vigilante helikite, lightweight helikite, pigeon kite, heli kite

Relevance to pigeon control:

The ‘Helikite’ is not commonly associated with pigeon control but the product is marketed for the control of feral pigeons. The ‘Helikite’ is more commonly used for agricultural applications but could be used to compliment an existing pigeon control system

About Pigeon Patrol:

Voted Best Canadian wholesaler for Bird Deterrent products four years in a row.

Contact Info: 1- 877– 4– NO-BIRD (www.pigeonpatrol.ca)

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Pigeons make return to Taunton Station Bridge after nets are removed

falconry

OVERVIEW

DEFRA’s view:

Price range:

User reviews:

Editorial comments:

OvoControl P

OVERVIEW

DEFRA’s view:

Price range:

User reviews:

Comments from the Manufacturer/Distributor:

Editorial comments:

Also commonly known as:

Relevance to pigeon control:

Liquid Paraffin BP

DEFRA’s view:

Egg Destruction and Oiling

Nest Destruction

Price range:

User reviews:

Editorial comments:

Sources:

DEFRA quotes:

Also commonly known as:

Relevance to pigeon control:

Vigilante Helikite

OVERVIEW

DEFRA’s view:

Balloons

Kites

Price range:

User reviews:

Comments from the Manufacturer/Distributor:

Editorial comments:

Sources:

DEFRA quotes:

Also commonly known as:

Relevance to pigeon control:

Recent Articles

Policies

Pigeon Patrol Products