OPENING REMARKS—TWELFTH VERTEBRATE PEST CONFERENCE

On behalf of the Vertebrate Pest Council, welcome to the 12th Vertebrate Pest Conference. Every other year since 1962, the Vertebrate Pest Council has sponsored the conference with the primary objective of bringing individuals interested in vertebrate pest control together to discuss problems and solutions of mutual concern. The main objectives of the conference are: 1. To exchange information on vertebrate pest management and related matters. 2. To advance environmentally safe vertebrate pest management methodologies. 3. To build cooperation with public and private agencies in solving vertebrate pest problems. 4. To consider and promote discussion and interaction among agencies and others about problems of mutual concern in the field of vertebrate pest management. 5. To foster educational work in vertebrate pest management. 6. To encourage research by both public and private agencies on vertebrate pest problems and their solutions. 7. To promote uniformity and coordination of activities among agencies and individuals concerned with the regulatory aspects of vertebrate pest management

WILDLIFE DAMAGE IN AUSTRALIA: CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRASTS WITH THE UNITED STATES

There are numerous wildlife damage problems in Australia. The major pests include rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculusl, foxes (Vulpes vulpes/, starlings (Sturnus vulgarisl, feral cats (felts catus/, donkeys (Equus asinusl, goats (Capra hircusl, buffalo (Bubalus trutralisl, pigs (Sus scrofal, all of which have been introduced. The dingo ICanis familiaris dingo/, classified as being a native species by most people, is the primary native animal causing problems, although others, such as kangaroos and several native bird species, are pests in some areas. The Australians spend considerable amounts of money on wildlife damage control research. The people of Western Australia take a regulatory approach to most of their wildlife problems. The concept of declaring species as pests allows the Australians to regulate what can and should be done to control these species. Australian wildlife control programs range from conducting control activities to simply advising as to what should be done. The Australians often designate areas where control should (or should not) be undertaken. This approach allows clear decisions to be made about control program expenditures and resource deployment

Wireless Audience Response System: Does It Make a Difference?

Because Extension seminars are costly in preparation and delivery, questions about the costs and effectiveness of various methods are important to consider. Interactive devices are becoming increasingly available to Extension professionals. One such device, OptionFinder®, utilizes individual wireless remote keypads and a control station, manned by the lecturer or an assistant. It is believed to increase audience participation and information retention. The lecturer can assess the audiences\u27 understanding within seconds by asking multiple choice or true/false questions. The study described here examined the cost and value, in terms of knowledge retention, of such a system compared with other workshop methods

Development and Field Evaluation of an Elevated Bait Station for Control of Deer Mice in Almonds

Deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) have been identified as a serious pest in almonds in portions of the San Joaquin Valley of California. Broadcast anticoagulant bait is normally used to control deer mice, but is prohibited in areas where the endangered giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) occurs, leaving growers with no practical means of control. The objectives of this study were to design and test in the laboratory a disposable, spill-resistant, bait station for deer mice, and to field test the bait station in almond orchards. We obtained 20 captive-bred deer mice and observed them interact with prototype bait stations in an observation chamber and in simulated almond trees in outdoor pens. Mouse activity was videotaped in the pens and food consumption measured. Field efficacy trials were conducted in July 2002 in 2 almond orchards, Meyers Block 3 and Cantua, both in Fresno County, California. We used an activity index based on sign left in the crotch of almond trees to estimate efficacy. Mice entered and fed in the prototype bait stations in the observation chamber. Review of 315 hr of videotapes from the pens revealed that the mice readily climbed the almond tree stumps and entered the bait stations to feed. The mice were nocturnal and most active from about 2020 hr through 0530 hr, with virtually no activity during the daylight hours. Use of the bait stations averaged up to 39 entries /mouse/night. The average daily consumption of clean grain per mouse for males was 2.6 gm (SE = 0.39, range = 1.1 - 3.6 gm) and for females was 2.2 gm (SE = 0.26, range = 1.4 - 3.0 gm). Feeding behavior appeared normal and food consumption was not inhibited by the bait stations. The field efficacy trial consisted of 1-week pretreatment period, 2 weeks of treatment with 0.005% diphacinone on oat groats, and a 1-week posttreatment period. Each study area included a treated area of ∃1150 trees and a control (nontreated) area of ∃435 trees. We deployed bait stations filled with 100 gm of bait or clean grain in a grid pattern of every 3rd row and 3rd tree within a row, 119 stations for treated plots and 47 or 48 stations on the control plots. Based on activity indices, efficacy was 72% at Meyers Block 3 and 33% at Cantua. Consumption of diphacinone bait on the treated plots averaged 0.6 and 3.2 gm/station for the 2- week treatment period, at Meyers 3 and Cantua, respectively. Consumption of clean grain on the control plots averaged 1.2 and 5.1 gm/station for the 2-week treatment period, or 0.08 and 0.36 gm/day, at Meyers 3 and Cantua, respectively. Consumption of clean grain did not approach levels recorded in our pen tests. These findings suggest poor bait acceptance. We speculate that almonds were preferred over oat groats, and that bait acceptance might improve if the grain bait was offered during the winter or early spring when the supply of almonds would be reduced

COMPUTER ASSISTED EXTENSION PROGRAM ON GROUND SQUIRREL CONTROL

Computers have become common place in virtually all phases of agriculture. Most individuals have access to microcomputers and the once apparent intimidation about using them is rapidly disappearing. Because of increased availability and public acceptance, it\u27s no surprise that many Extension programs are using computers as an important component of their educational package. Recently, several computer models have been developed to assist Extension personnel and others in demonstrating proper wildlife damage control decision-making. We have developed such a model which is used to: 1) present ground squirrel control information to the grower, 2) take user (grower) input on production, yields, etc. and predict the potential impact squirrels may have on that grower\u27s operation, and 3) present the potential cost effectiveness of the available control options

Evaluation of a Floating Bird Diverter

Hazing at oil spills can reduce bird mortalities. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Firefly Pond Diverter™ (Firefly Diverters LLC, Grantsville, UT), a device that floats on the water and is claimed to use motion, reflectivity, and ultraviolet (UV) and visible light emissions to alert and repel birds. The diverter could be useful at a spill, but little is known about how waterbirds would respond. The objectives of this study were to determine if waterbirds were repelled to a greater degree by the diverter compared to a simple novel object (a life ring), to identify the species that responded to the diverter, and determine if birds habituate to the diverter. The study was conducted in December 2007 in a stormwater retention basin in Woodland, California. We divided the study into a 3-day pretreatment period and a 6-day treatment period and counted birds in the morning and afternoon each day. On each day during the treatment period we randomly selected 2 areas of the basin and anchored 2 diverters in one area and 2 life rings in a second area. We moved the diverters and the life rings to new locations daily. During the bird counts we recorded all birds within 15.2 m of each diverter or life ring. For the basin as a whole, we found the temporal pattern of use (fewer birds present in the morning than the afternoon) and number of birds using the basin did not change with the deployment of the diverters and life rings. Species composition was similar during the pretreatment and treatment periods. Gulls, geese, and diving ducks accounted for over 90% of the birds, with gulls most numerous. We observed 7 and 9 species of birds within 15.2 m of the diverters and life rings, respectively. Gulls represented 91% and 81% of the birds near the diverters and the life rings, respectively. There was no difference in the number of birds within 15.2 m of the diverters or the life rings. There also was no difference in the number of birds within 15.2 m of the diverters or \u3e 15.2 m from the diverters. We found the same relationship for the life rings. After field work concluded we were informed that rotation of the flappers on the diverters and an ultraviolet index (UVI) \u3e2 were critical for the diverter to function. During the treatment period there was wind sufficient to spin the flappers during 7 of 12 counts. We observed birds within 15.2 m of the diverters on 6 out of 7 counts with wind. As reported in local newspapers, the UVI was never \u3e2 during the treatment period. If UV radiation has any effect on performance, then December, a month with low UVI values in northern California, was not the optimum time to test. The diverters did not repel birds during this study. It is not known if the diverters will repel birds during conditions of higher UVI. Additional research should be undertaken

Volunteer Researchers: Moving Beyond Cooperators

Engaging volunteer cooperators to perform field research presents a new approach to conducting applied research. We enlisted Extension Service users to conduct research. This allowed for an increased sample size and expanded study area than was possible using traditional approaches. Cooperators received comprehensive training that briefed them on the subject and research protocols. Data were collected via research workbooks and informal written surveys. We obtained acceptable data for demonstrating the efficacy of rodenticide treatment under operational conditions. Unexpectedly, cooperators favored one control method and indicated they would use it in the future, despite no statistical difference between treatment methods

Bird Hazing and Frightening Methods and Techniques (with emphasis on containment ponds)

Our primary purpose in preparing this overview of bird hazing or frightening methods and techniques is to provide the owners and operators of agricultural evaporation ponds with all possible information on hazing to minimize bird use of the ponds and reduce their exposure to possible contamination from accumulated substances, such as selenium. While our main objective was to assist pond managers, our coverage of bird hazing is intentionally broad enough to be highly relevant to protect many agricultural crops and some aquaculture facilities from bird depredations, and to reduce bird numbers at airports where the potential for bird-aircraft strikes is high. The discussion of many hazing options may be also valuable for use in repelling birds from accidental oil spills and to repel birds, specifically waterfowl, from disease-contaminated water. Much of the contents of this manual is derived from researching the available literature. However, this is intermixed with the personal knowledge of the authors based on their education, laboratory and field research in managing bird problems, and experience in applied bird control, especially in the area of pest bird management related to agricultural production

Bird Hazing and Frightening Methods and Techniques (with emphasis on containment ponds)

Our primary purpose in preparing this overview of bird hazing or frightening methods and techniques is to provide the owners and operators of agricultural evaporation ponds with all possible information on hazing to minimize bird use of the ponds and reduce their exposure to possible contamination from accumulated substances, such as selenium. While our main objective was to assist pond managers, our coverage of bird hazing is intentionally broad enough to be highly relevant to protect many agricultural crops and some aquaculture facilities from bird depredations, and to reduce bird numbers at airports where the potential for bird-aircraft strikes is high. The discussion of many hazing options may be also valuable for use in repelling birds from accidental oil spills and to repel birds, specifically waterfowl, from disease-contaminated water. Much of the contents of this manual is derived from researching the available literature. However, this is intermixed with the personal knowledge of the authors based on their education, laboratory and field research in managing bird problems, and experience in applied bird control, especially in the area of pest bird management related to agricultural production