Electric shock strips as bird deterrents: does experience count?

Abstract

Understanding how birds detect and react to deterrent methods which are employed to protect structures is important both for the effective control of property damage, and to ensure that human health and safety are not compromised. One such device is a shock strip that causes slight pain to birds when they use a perch. Our aims were to determine: (1) the efficacy of a shock strip to flocks of Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater), and Rock Pigeons (Columba livia); (2) the length of time to extinction of effect; (3) whether members of a flock show a behavioural response to treatment; and (4) whether the birds habituate to the treatment. When activated, shock strips were effective in displacing birds from treated areas. Birds had to experience the treatment; there was no discernible indication of flock members reacting to affected birds. When strips were deactivated after an initial period of activation, birds required more than 2 hours to return to treated areas. No habituation was observed. Because birds had to experience the shock, reduced coverage of a structure or use of sham devices to lower costs is considered inadvisable.

Dietary habits of urban pigeons (Columba livia) and implications of excreta pH – a review

“…Bird excreta, especially from pigeons, are deemed a major problem for property owners, mainly due to the soiling of facades and internal spaces (Mansfield 1990), as well as public health authorities, as they have been identified as vectors for a number of pathogens (carrying virus, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and parasites) that can be harmful to humans and domestic animals (Cerri et al 1989;Haag-Wackernagel & Moch 2004;Haag-Wackernagel & Spiewak 2004;Moriarty 2008). Property owners have engaged in a diverse range of often costly repellent techniques to rid themselves of these nuisance birds (Alderson 1991;Howard et al 1991;Slater 1998;Stevens et al 1998;Cook et al 2008;Haag-Wackernagel & Geigenfeind 2008;Duarte et al 2011;Riddell 2011;Seamans & Blackwell 2011;Jenni-Eiermann et al 2014;Stock & Haag-Wackernagel 2014). While the mechanical, chemical and acoustic repellent methods appear to be of dubious efficacy, and trapping and poisoning pose issues of social acceptability, as well as ecological efficacy (Kösters et al 1991;Magnino et al 2009), the most effective method appears to be the denial of food (Przybylska et al 2012;Senar et al 2017).…”

A Comparison of 2 Methods to Deter Fish Crows from Depredating Seabird Eggs

“…Most of the previous research on CSA has focused on discouraging mammalian predators such as coyotes and wolves from predating livestock through use of electrified collars (Linhart et al 1976, Andelt et al 1999, Shivik and Martin 2000). Other studies found that cattle wearing electric collars learned to avoid foraging in certain areas (Quigley et al 1990) and birds such as brown‐headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) and rock pigeons ( Columba livia ) avoided areas of buildings with electric shock strips (Seamans and Blackwell 2011). In addition, Velasco (2015) found that CSA with nonlethal shocks on corvids showed promise in reducing the number of least tern eggs depredated in Venice Beach, California, USA.…”

Urban Environment Use by Speckled (Columba Guinea) and Feral (Columba Livia) Pigeons on the University of South Africa’s Muckleneuk Campus

“…Krimowa (2012) and Johnston and Janiga (1995) found that pigeons roost and or breed in cities but fly to surrounding agricultural areas to feed; while (Earle and Little, 1993) suggest that the opposite is also true whereby pigeons roost in rural areas but fly into the cities to forage. Regardless of seasonal fluctuations in communal roosting (Eiserer, 1984), large pigeon populations making use of urban environments have been considered to reduce the structural integrity of buildings (Krebs, 1974;Hutton and Rostron, 2005;Seamans and Blackwell, 2011) and are cause for ongoing maintenance and financial outlay (Giunchi et al, 2012).…”