by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 14, 2016 | Bird Netting, Pigeon Spikes, UltraSonic Bird Control
BY DUSICA SUE MALESEVIC | Residents on Duane St. in Tribeca are fed up with a neighbor they say is attracting pigeons and their droppings.
At 173 Duane St., a resident on the fifth floor is reportedly feeding pigeons — they are going back and forth from her apartment — incensing residents at 171 Duane St., who have been complaining to Community Board 1.
There has been a long history of complaints, said Caroline Bragdon, director of neighborhood interventions for the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s pest control services program. Many inspections had been done, but it had never warranted a violation until now, she told the Quality of Life Committee at their Thurs., Apr. 16 meeting.
The violation would be sent to the owner of the building, not the tenant.
“Sometimes it seems unfair that we’re writing violations to the owner of the building, but we can’t go after an individual,” she said.
Neighbors said the pigeon droppings are piling up on air conditioner units. The woman has also been seen feeding pigeons in Duane Park.
Benjamin Flavin, lawyer for 171 Duane St., said that the tenant is an elderly woman who has been living at 173 Duane St., a co-op, for around 20 years.
In addition to pigeon problems, Bragdon went over what she called favorite hot spots for rats. She started with 403 Greenwich St., which is between Beach and Hubert Sts.
“Right now, it’s just a vacant lot with rat holes in it that no one is doing anything with,” she said.
The lot is owned by 403 Greenwich Enterprises L.L.C. The owners have not been attending their hearings, said Bragdon, who has increased the violation from $300 to $600 to now $1,200. She said if this continues, it would go to $2,000.
“They don’t care,” the city’s Bragdon said. “They’re just letting their violations default. A lot of the wealthier owners will just pay.”
“It’s nothing — it’s the cost of doing business,” said Pat Moore, chairperson of the C.B. 1 committee.
The lot has been vacant for quite some time, said Bragdon, who explained that putting some bait stations costs a couple hundred dollars a month. The owners could also choose to dump gravel over the soil, which would deter the rats.
Further south at 372 Greenwich St. between Harrison and N. Moore Sts., Bragdon said it has gotten pretty ratty. At one time, it was maintained by the volunteer organization, Friends of Greenwich Street, but remains to be seen who is responsible for its upkeep now.
There are several planters, said Bragdon, but it is just one, the one in front of 372 Greenwich that has the rat problem.
“Rat condo,” quipped Moore.
Bragdon went through one more site at 29 Harrison St., which was issued its first violation and has Rubbermaid bins filled with soil and gnaw marks on them — a sign that rats were around.
She then listened to places that the committee and the public suggested to investigate. Committee member Marc Ameruso said 53 Beach St. has a raised platform with vents and “at night, [the rats] just take over the street.”
C.B. 1 Chairperson Catherine McVay Hughes mentioned a problem site in the Financial District, a lot on Rector and Trinity Place.
“I have never ever seen the quantity and the size of these rats,” she said. “It’s really scary.”
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)
by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 12, 2016 | Bird Netting, Pigeons in the News, UltraSonic Bird Control
A FRESH complaint has put the cat amongst the pigeons on Forres High Street.
Following a story which appeared in the ‘Gazette’ in January about health risks caused by the birds roosting on the town hall, a concerned member of the public pointed out that the problem is just as bad, if not worse, at the top of Bank Lane next to the most central bus stop in the town.
“The mess on Bank Lane is something that affects everyone here,” said the complainer, who wishes to remain anonymous.
“These include people waiting at the bus stop, schoolchildren using the lane and anyone who parks in the car park behind the bank. What a terrible sight for our visitors to see and walk through too!”
The local woman claimed that until recently, piles of festering pigeon faeces had been left on the thoroughfare for at least a year.
“I see children walk up and down there every day,” she said. “When it rains the mess turns slushy. It gets on their shoes and
is brought with them wherever they go.
“My concern is that this will be an ongoing problem if it is not cleaned regularly and the mess is already building up again.”
She added: “The owner of the building will need to pigeon-proof the windows.
“If Moray Council will not insist the owner puts netting on the windows, then who is responsible for cleaning up the mess?”
The owners of neighbouring takeaway Chicken Hut have attempted to tackle the problem themselves.
“We don’t want people to see or stand in it,” said chef Mohamed Elmerzougui. “So we have to clean it up once or twice a week. It’s a big problem.
“The pigeons live on the roof of the building, so aren’t scared off by passers-by. The council should clean up their mess and do something about them.”
Mohamed’s colleague Nacerddine Leghroumi claimed he hadn’t seen anyone from Moray Council attempt to deal with the issue.
“We have to clean it up or it reflects badly on us,” he said. “It takes about three hours in total to sort out the mess that’s up to 2cm deep.
“We scrape it off the surface with a metal brush, then use a shovel to take it away. We then throw hot soapy water down, then
finally, an hour later, slowly brush off anything that remains.”
He added: “We have never seen Moray Council do the work in the six months since we took over.”
Forres Community Council has been made aware of the complaint and passed it on to Moray Council’s environmental services department.
“The area was brushed and power washed,” said a council spokesperson.
“Pigeon droppings are on ongoing problem in this area and the council cleans it as and when resources allow.
“Feral pigeons will take advantage of any suitable roosts in builtup areas and will often roost there night after night, with the result that their droppings accumulate.
“Building owners can take measures to proof their properties against roosting and nesting pigeons in much the same way as they can to deter gulls.”
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)
by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 10, 2016 | 4-S Gel Bird repellent, Bird Deterrent Products, Bird Netting, UltraSonic Bird Control
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates—In 2010, an English-language newspaper in Dubai ran a cover story titled Pigeon Impossible: Rats With Wings. “Pigeons have become a nuisance in the city, leaving many residents exasperated,” the report said. “These birds which have been breeding uncontrollably are messing up property with their droppings.” It detailed how pigeon waste was corroding roofs, windows, machinery, car paint, and infecting air conditioning systems. A public health official lamented the “serious” problem, but said that there was no way to count the number of pigeons that were relieving themselves across the city.
The report pointed out that Switzerland had experimented with pigeon contraceptive pills, Britain had hired air gun–wielding snipers to shoot pigeons off buildings, and the United States had used plastic models of birds of prey to scare them off airport runways.
Dubai has been called “the Manhattan of the Arab world.” Over the past three decades, as the United Arab Emirates rapidly developed, it had been preoccupied with breaking world records: It now has the world’s tallest building, largest mall, longest driverless metro, and fastest steel rollercoaster. But an onslaught of pigeon droppings didn’t fit the city’s glittering public image.
The city’s growth was accompanied by a growth in the pest population, including pigeons. A proliferation of pest control firms, now over a hundred in Dubai, was accompanied by a niche market specializing in bird control, many of them employing falcons—natural predators of smaller birds as well as a prized status symbol for the Emirati elite. At the upper end of the market, falcons now travel on private jets with royals from the Persian Gulf on hunting expeditions across the world. In 2010, the UAE led a submission to UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural agency, eventually having falconry, a tradition dating back at least 4,000 years, recognized as an example of intangible cultural heritage. But thanks to the pigeon problem, falcons are being put to work in less glamorous occupations as well.
One morning in January, a flock of pigeons with bobbing heads, their rainbowlike neck feathers sparkling, occupied a railing on a sand-bleached luxury hotel. The hotel sits in a palm-tree–shaped artificial archipelago, the Palm Jumeirah, on the southern coast. The pigeons bumbled near the Gold Suites, rooms that came with gold furnishings, rain showers, and a private butler to pack bags and shine shoes.
A few weeks earlier, a family at a resort nearby had been attacked by crows, one of them digging its claws into a guest’s head, requiring first-aid with painkillers and icepacks.
“These feral birds,” said Hendri Du Toit, an urban falconer, squinting at the Gold Suites. “They won’t be here for long because Marley has come.”
Marley, a saker falcon with gold-flecked wings, was blindfolded and perched on Du Toit’s arm. He was born and bred in Dubai, even though saker falcons, recognized by their brown upperbellies and horizontal pursuit, usually breed around the northern Himalayas. Marley had traveled to this hotel sitting inside the boot of an SUV that barreled past skyscrapers with mirrored windows and marble megaliths. Another saker falcon, Ziggy (who is not Marley’s son), waited in the boot while Marley finished his assignment.
Du Toit, who grew up in South Africa, has been a full-time falconer in Dubai for three years, working for his mentor Peter Bergh, who runs a falconry firm specializing in bird control and entertainment shows.
Marley’s job was to scare, not kill, Du Toit said, attaching a transmitter to the falcon’s back to track his location. He had been trained to circle around, sending the pigeons fleeing in dust, dirt, panic, and then return to his falconer, who would reward him with a big feathery chunk of quail meat.
Du Toit lifted the leather hood that covered Marley’s eyes, and the bird looked around hysterically, his eyes shining like black marbles. On one side he saw a constellation of deck chairs, beach umbrellas, and a water-dipped skyline, and on the other, a row of great buildings, facades, and railings where pigeons, crows, and Indian mynas could be hiding.
He settled on top of a white beach umbrella.
“He’s lazy today because there isn’t a lot of wind,” Du Toit said. “So we’ll let him follow us around for a bit.”
Du Toit walked along the beachfront, a piece of quail tucked into his pocket, and Marley hopped closer, one umbrella to the next.
“Why is he following this silly man?” Du Toit said. “Because he knows I have his lunch.”
Marley finally took off, heading for the Gold Suites, sending the flock of pigeons into delirium. He knew the area well, Du Toit said, because he’d been flying here three times a week for two years as part of the falconry firm’s winter team. The summer team was currently in the molting chambers, changing feathers under artificial light, to get ready for bird control during the summer. (Molt is triggered by longer daylight hours, when the bird perceives food to be in abundance and invests in feather growth. To avoid featherless falcons being scorched in the testing Dubai summer, molting was being artificially stimulated in advance.)
Marley had never killed a pigeon during his pest-control rounds because then “the pigeon family will know it’s safe for the next day or two,” Du Toit said. “We don’t want that.”
The hotel kept a monthly record of the number of complaints from pigeons. A drop in complaining guests meant Marley was doing well, and an increase (which usually came in winter when guests preferred to dine outdoors) meant he needed to expand his route and flying time.
Du Toit kneeled and swirled a rope with a piece of quail tied to one end, and Marley dived for it. He was back on his falconer’s arm, being fed, hooded, and sent to his “happy place,” in Du Toit’s words.
On Fridays, Marley’s duties extended to posing for photos with hotel guests who were looking for a new display picture. “He doesn’t mind being around people,” Du Toit said. “But at the end of the day, he’s a hunting companion and not a pet.”
Bergh, the man Du Toit reports to at Royal Shaheen, the falconry firm, started his business eight years ago with two birds. “Today we have 11 guys and 85 birds,” he said. “Because falconry is one of those things that is like a disease. It kind of grabs you from the inside and doesn’t let you go.”
If you break down Bergh’s features into slight eyes, wide smile, sunburnt nose, it does not capture the boyhood wonder with which he recounts every experience.
“Flying falcons in the middle of a concrete jungle is hardcore. It’s a really tough form of falconry,” he said. “The birds come back because I’m their food provider, they don’t come because they like me or think I’m a nice guy. They’re creatures of habit. So they’re thinking, ‘If I come back to Pete, I get a big fat juicy meal but if I catch a pigeon, I get one small juicy meal.’ ”
Falconry essentially is the art of managing a falcon’s appetite, he said. “You’re standing here on the beach, when the falcon starts disappearing around the back of the hotel, you’ve now lost visual contact, your communication is gone, your mobile signal is gone. If the bird now sees a pigeon across the road, what’s stopping the bird from deciding to chase that pigeon? Nothing really, other than the bird’s loyalty to fly around the building and seek comfort in seeing Pete again. In an urban environment, the margin for error is huge, you’re radically increasing the possibility of something going wrong.”
Bergh, 36, grew up on a sugarcane farm in Pietermaritzburg, a small town outside Durban in South Africa, studying until the 10th grade and taking care of his parent’s horses. At 17, he became a professional player of polocrosse (a sport that marries polo and lacrosse), first representing his country and then playing for a rich coffee farmer’s team in Zimbabwe. Five years later, he came to Dubai to become a guide at a desert resort that kept horses, camels, and falcons.
“It fascinated me that the falcon would go and kill something, you could make a trade and put the whole kill in your pocket, and it would take a little reward to do it again,” he said. “I read all the books there were to read and I spent every spare minute I had at the mews,” a place where falcons are kept.
He then trained under a falconer in Dubai whose main business was bird control, and after two years, he quit to set up his own business, partnering with a falcon breeder who had the patronage of a sheikh from Dubai’s ruling family. The breeder would lend his birds, which cost anything from $1,500 to a million. The price of a falcon is determined by bloodline, breed, size, and gender. The most sought-after is the female gyrfalcon, larger by almost a third compared to the male, and originating from the Arctic.
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as an Arabian falcon. They don’t come from here, it’s too hot,” he said. “It was when they would migrate over the Middle East on their way to Africa that the Bedouin learned to catch their falcons and train them. At the end of winter, they would simply untie them and release them back to the wild. A beautiful system, hey?”
Bergh spends his spare mornings innovating for tourism shows, where the majesty of the falcon can be fully displayed. “I’m trying to push a lot of my attention on the tourism stuff. We can keep doing bird control but we know that Dubai wants to go for Expo 2020, we know how many people are coming to the Dubai airport, and that there’s a huge market for this,” he said.
One of his ideas is to get his falcons to chase a radio-controlled plane that he modified to resemble a houbara bustard, the bird traditionally hunted by the Bedouin, and now pushed to near extinction, prompting governments to cancel hunting permits to Arab royalty.
One morning in March, Bergh was lying flat, his chin buried in sand, in the middle of the 87–square-mile Dubai Desert Conservation Reserve, talking to a black peregrine falcon. He was gently pulling a rope with a piece of quail attached at one end, the falcon first fluttering in defiance, but then hopping along obediently as his bait moved closer.
Three other falcons—Darky, Thunder, and Batman—had been lined up on a metal stand covered with artificial grass. Bergh wielded his kite-shaped toy plane, parts of it glued to an enlarged image of the flaky pattern found on the houbara bustard’s wings. He attached a piece of quail to the plane with a magnet, and Thunder, a peregrine who had now been unhooded, flapped her wings. The plane took off, Bergh maneuvering its movements with a remote, and Thunder leaped in pursuit. The two disappeared into the sky until Thunder finally snatched her lure midair, and the plane dipped.
“She got clever,” Bergh said, sipping his morning coffee. “We need to maneuver more next time.” So far, Bergh has crashed 38 toy planes.
Three other white SUVs pulled over in the desert plateau with falconers who were training a sheikh’s birds with a live pigeon. Bergh waved at them, and they waved back.
Bergh began experimenting with remote-control planes after he watched a sheikh’s falconers use drones to develop a falcon’s muscles. “The way the Arab have traditionally hunted is like here I’m on a camel with my falcon who is wearing his burqa. When they find a hobuara, the hood comes off, and it’s a straight-line sprint. Catch the houbara, put in my pocket, feed my family, and let’s go again,” he said. “We need to understand how dialed-in the Bedouin were to the land. Now imagine what they could have done with technology.”
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)
by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 6, 2016 | 4-S Gel Bird repellent, Bird Netting, Pigeons in the News, UltraSonic Bird Control
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
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:
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)
by Pigeon Patrol | Jan 5, 2016 | Bird Netting, Pigeons in the News, UltraSonic Bird Control
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:
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. For the purpose of this review we have included a section on nest destruction as this control option is often tried and found to fail prior to resorting to egg oiling.
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:
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)
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
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. We have included the relevant sections on both balloons and kites as the Helikite range is part kite, part balloon.
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!”
Back to top
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
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:
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:
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:
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)
