University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnThe Handbook: Prevention and Control of WildlifeDamage Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for

1-1-1994

EUROPEAN STARLINGSRon J. JohnsonExtension Wildlife Specialist, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583

James F. GlahnResearch Wildlife Biologist, Denver Wildlife Research Center, USDA-APHIS-ADC, Mississippi Research Station, MississippiState, Mississippi 39762-6099

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University ofNebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Johnson, Ron J. and Glahn, James F., "EUROPEAN STARLINGS" (1994). The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage.Paper 72.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/72

E-109

Ron J. JohnsonExtension Wildlife SpecialistDepartment of Forestry, Fisheries

and WildlifeUniversity of NebraskaLincoln, Nebraska 68583-0819

James F. GlahnResearch Wildlife BiologistDenver Wildlife Research CenterUSDA-APHIS-ADCMississippi Research StationMississippi State, Mississippi 39762-6099

Fig. 1. European starling, Sturnus vulgaris

Damage Prevention andControl Methods

Exclusion

Close all openings larger than 1 inch(2.5 cm).

Place covering at 45o angle on ledges.

Porcupine wires on ledges or rafters.

Netting to prevent roosting onbuilding beams or to protect fruitcrops.

PVC or rubber strips to cover dooropenings; netting where frequentaccess is not needed.

Cultural Methods and HabitatModification

Reduce availability of food and waterat livestock facilities: remove spilledgrain and standing water; use bird-proof feeders and storage facilities;feed livestock in open sheds; whereappropriate, feed in late afternoonor at night; lower water level inwaterers.

Modify roost sites by closing buildings;exclude from roost areas with netting(for example, under roof beams);modify specific perch sites.

For tree roosts, prune branches ofspecific trees or thin trees from groves.

Frightening

Frightening devices include recordeddistress or alarm calls, varioussound-producing devices, chemicalfrightening agents (Avitrol®), lights,and bright objects. Use with fruitcrops and starling roosts. Alsouseful at livestock facilities in warmclimates and at facilities locatednear major roosts.

Repellents

Soft sticky materials (polybutenes)discourage roosting on ledges.

Starling repellent is currently underdevelopment: methyl anthranilate(grape flavoring). If successful, itmay be useful for protecting fruitand as a livestock feed additive.

EUROPEANSTARLINGS

Toxicants

Starlicide: toxic bait for use aroundlivestock facilities and, in somesituations, at roost sites.

Toxic perches: can be useful for certainindustrial and other structural roostsituations.

Fumigants

None are registered.

Trapping

Nest-box traps, for use during nestingseason.

Decoy traps may be useful aroundorchards or livestock facilities.Proper care for trap and decoybirds is necessary.

Shooting

Helpful as a dispersal or frighteningtechnique. Not effective in reducingoverall starling numbers.

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WILDLIFE DAMAGE — 1994

Cooperative Extension DivisionInstitute of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln

United States Department of AgricultureAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceAnimal Damage Control

Great Plains Agricultural CouncilWildlife Committee

E-110

Identification

Starlings are robin-sized birds weigh-ing about 3.2 ounces (90 g). Adults aredark with light speckles on the feath-ers. The speckles may not show at adistance (Fig. 1). The bill of both sexesis yellow during the reproductive cycle(January to June) and dark at othertimes. Juveniles are pale brown togray.

Starlings generally are chunky andhump-backed in appearance, with ashape similar to that of a meadowlark.The tail is short, and the wings have atriangular shape when outstretched inflight. Starling flight is direct and swift,not rising and falling like the flight ofmany blackbirds.

Range

Since their introduction into New Yorkin the 1890s, starlings have spreadacross the continental United States,northward to Alaska and the southernhalf of Canada, and southward intonorthern Mexico. They are native toEurasia, but have also been introducedin South Africa, Australia, NewZealand, and elsewhere.

Habitat

Starlings are found in a wide variety ofhabitats including cities, towns, farms,ranches, open woodlands, fields, andlawns. Ideal nesting habitat wouldinclude areas with trees or other struc-tures that have cavities suitable fornesting and short grass (turf) areas orgrazed pastures for foraging. Idealwinter habitat would include areaswith structures and/or tall trees fordaytime loafing (resting) and night-time roosting; and grazed pastures,open water areas, and livestock facili-ties for foraging.

Food Habits

Starlings consume a variety of foods,including fruits and seeds of both wildand cultivated varieties. Insects, espe-cially Coleoptera and Lepidopteralawn grubs, and other invertebratestotal about one-half of the diet overall,

and are especially important duringthe spring breeding season. Otheritems including livestock rations andfood in garbage become an importantfood base for wintering starlings.

General Biology,Reproduction, andBehavior

European starlings were brought intothe United States from Europe. Theywere released in New York City in1890 and 1891 by an individual whowanted to introduce to the UnitedStates all of the birds mentioned inShakespeare’s works. Since that time,they have increased in numbers andspread across the country. They werefirst observed in Nebraska in 1930, inColorado in 1939, and in California in1942. The starling population in theUnited States is estimated at 140million birds.

Starlings nest in holes or cavitiesalmost anywhere, including tree cavi-ties, birdhouses, and holes in buildingsor cliff faces. Females lay 4 to 7 eggswhich hatch after 11 to 13 days of incu-bation. Young leave the nest whenthey are about 21 days old. Both par-ents help build the nest, incubate theeggs, and feed the young. Sometimes 2clutches of eggs are laid per season,but most of the production is from thefirst brood fledged.

Although starlings are not alwaysmigratory, some will migrate up toseveral hundred miles, while othersmay remain in the same general areathroughout the year. Hatching-yearstarlings are more likely to migratethan adults, and they tend to migratefarther.

Outside the breeding season, starlingsfeed and roost together in flocks. Star-ling and blackbird flocks often roosttogether in urban landscape trees or insmall dense woodlots or overcrowdedtree groves. They choose trees orgroves that offer ample perches so thatall may roost together. In colderweather they choose dense vegetationsuch as coniferous trees or structures(such as barns, urban structures) thatprovide protection from wind and

cold. Fall-roosting flocks are relativelysmall (from several hundred to severalthousand birds), but because they arespread over large geographic areas,they can cause widespread nuisanceproblems. In contrast, winter-roostingflocks are large (sometimes exceeding1 million birds), but are often confinedto a few acres (ha). Some of the winterroosting areas are occupied by star-lings year after year (Fig. 2). Each daythey may fly 15 to 30 or more miles (24to 48 km) from roosting to feedingsites. During the day when not feed-ing, they may perch in smaller groupsinside farm buildings or in otherwarm, protected spots in and aroundurban structures.

Damage and DamageIdentification

Starlings are frequently consideredpests because of the problems theycause, especially at livestock facilities(Fig. 3) and near urban roosts. Star-lings may selectively eat the high-protein supplements that are oftenadded to livestock rations.

Starlings may also be responsible fortransferring disease from one livestockfacility to another. This is of particularconcern to swine producers. Testshave shown that the transmissiblegastroenteritis virus (TGE) can passthrough the digestive tract of a starlingand be infectious in the starling feces.Researchers, however, have also foundhealthy swine in lots with infectedstarlings. This indicates that eveninfected starlings may not alwaystransmit the disease, especially if star-ling interaction with pigs is minimized.TGE may also be transmitted on bootsor vehicles, by stray animals, or byinfected swine added to the herd.Although starlings may be involved inthe spread of other livestock diseases,their role in transmission of thesediseases is not yet understood.

Starlings cause other damage by con-suming cultivated fruits such asgrapes, peaches, blueberries, strawber-ries, figs, apples, and cherries. Theywere recently found to damage ripen-ing (milk stage) corn, a problem pri-marily associated with blackbirds. In

E-111

The growing urbanization of winteringstarling flocks seeking warmth andshelter for roosting may have seriousconsequences. Large roosts that occurin buildings, industrial structures, or,along with blackbird species, in treesnear homes are a problem in both ruraland urban sites because of health con-cerns, filth, noise, and odor. In addi-tion, slippery accumulations ofdroppings pose safety hazards atindustrial structures, and the acidityof droppings is corrosive.

Starling and blackbird roosts locatednear airports pose an aircraft safetyhazard because of the potential forbirds to be ingested into jet engines,resulting in aircraft damage or lossand, at times, in human injuries. In1960, an Electra aircraft in Boston col-lided with a flock of starlings soonafter takeoff, resulting in a crash land-ing and 62 fatalities. Although onlyabout 6% of bird-aircraft strikes areassociated with starlings or blackbirds,these species represent a substantialmanagement challenge at airports.

One of the more serious health con-cerns is the fungal respiratory diseasehistoplasmosis. The fungus Histo-plasma capsulatum may grow in thesoils beneath bird roosts, and sporesbecome airborne in dry weather, par-ticularly when the site is disturbed.Although most cases of histoplasmosisare mild or even unnoticed, this dis-ease can, in rare cases, cause blindnessand/or death. Individuals who areweakened by other health conditionsor who do not have endemic immu-nity are at greater risk from histo-plasmosis.

Starlings also compete with nativecavity-nesting birds such as bluebirds,flickers, and other woodpeckers,purple martins, and wood ducks fornest sites. One report showed that,where nest cavities were limited, star-lings had severe impacts on localpopulations of native cavity-nestingspecies. One author has speculatedthat competition with starlings maycause shifts in red-bellied woodpecker(Melanerpes carolinus) nesting from ur-ban habitats to rural forested areaswhere starling competition is less.

some areas starlings pull sproutinggrains, particularly winter wheat, andeat the planted seed. Starlings maydamage turf on golf courses as they

Fig. 2. Starling wintering areas, 1972. Map by J. W. Rosahn, based on the National Audubon Society’sannual Christmas Bird Count.

Fig. 3. At livestock facilities such as this pig operation, European starlings consume feed,contaminate feed and water with their droppings, and may transmit disease.

probe for grubs, but the frequency andextent of such damage is not welldocumented.

Birds per 10party — hours

Less than 10

10 - 5050 - 200More than 200

E-112

Legal Status

European starlings are not protectedby federal law and in most cases notby state law. Laws vary among states,however, so check with state wildlifeofficials before beginning a controlprogram. In addition, state or locallaws may regulate or prohibit certaincontrol techniques such as shooting orthe use of toxicants.

Damage Prevention andControl Methods

Exclusion

Close all openings larger than 1 inch(2.5 cm) to exclude starlings frombuildings or other structures. This is apermanent solution to problems insidethe structure (Fig. 4). Heavy plastic(polyvinyl chloride, PVC) or rubberstrips hung in open doorways of farmbuildings have been successful in someareas in excluding birds while allow-ing people, machinery, or livestock toenter. Hang 10-inch (25-cm) widestrips with about 2.0-inch (5-cm) gapsbetween them. These strips might alsobe useful for protecting feed bunks.Netting over doorways may alsoexclude birds from buildings, butwould be easily torn by machinery orlivestock.

Where starlings are roosting or nestingon the ledge of a building, place awooden, metal, or plexiglass coveringover the ledge at a 45o angle to preventuse (Fig. 5). Metal protectors or porcu-pine wires (Nixalite® and Cat Claw®)are also available for preventing roost-ing on ledges or roof beams.

Nylon or plastic netting is anotheroption for exclusion (Fig. 6). Excludestarlings that are roosting inside openfarm buildings by covering the under-side of the roof beams with netting.Netting is also useful for covering fruitcrops such as cherries or grapes to pre-vent bird damage, and studies show itto be a cost-effective method of pro-tecting higher-value grapes in com-mercial vineyards. For wine grapesharvested one time per season, tractor-mounted rollers can facilitate installa-tion and removal of netting draped

Fig. 6. Netting can be used to exclude birds from building rafters and from fruit trees.

Fig. 4. Bird-proof buildings to permanently eliminate bird problems inside.

Fig. 5. A wooden, metal, or plexiglass covering over a ledge at a 45o angle (a) or porcupine wires (b)can be used to prevent roosting and nesting.

E-113

directly over vines. Some New Yorkvineyards have used this method forfive years with the original netting stillin good condition. For table grapesharvested by hand several times peryear, a frame can be used to hold thenetting above the vines so it doesn’tinterfere with the frequent harvests. Apractical tip: if protecting the totalvineyard is impractical, protect varie-ties that receive the most damage,those that ripen early or are otherwisehighly attractive to birds (for example,small, dark, sweet grapes.)

Where starlings compete with otherbirds for nest boxes, proper nest boxconstruction helps. For bluebird boxes,use a round 1 1/2-inch (3.8-cm) hole ora rectangular slot, 4 inches (10 cm)wide by 1 1/8 inches (29 mm) high, toallow bluebirds in but keep starlingsout. Starlings are discouraged byhorizontal wood duck nest boxesmade from a 24-inch (61-cm) section of12-inch-diameter (30.5-cm) stove pipe.The ends are made from woodencircles, and the entrance hole on oneend is semicircular and 4 inches (10cm) high by 11 inches (28 cm) wide.Other nest box features such as interiordimensions and color, amount of lightallowed into the box, and box place-ment appear to have potential fordiscouraging starlings while encourag-ing preferred cavity-nesters.

Cultural Methods and HabitatModification

Livestock Facilities. Starlings areattracted to livestock operations by thefood and water that is available tothem. Feedlots offer an especiallyattractive food source to starlings dur-ing winter when snow cover and fro-zen ground impede their normalfeeding in open fields or other areas.The snow cover and frozen groundincrease the likelihood as well as theseverity of damage.

Some livestock operations are moreattractive to starlings than others.Operations that have large quantitiesof feed always available, especiallywhen located near a starling roost, arethe most likely to have damage prob-lems. Research results emphasize theimportance of farm management prac-

4. Where possible, feed livestock incovered areas such as open shedsbecause these areas are less attrac-tive to starlings.

5. Use feed forms that starlings cannotswallow, such as cubes or blocksgreater than 1/2 inch (1.3 cm) indiameter. Minimize use of 3/16inch (0.5 cm) pellets; starlings con-sume these six times faster thangranular meal.

6. When feeding protein supplementswith other rations, such as silage,mix them well to limit starlingaccess to the supplements.

7. Where possible, adjust feedingschedules so that exposure of feedto birds is minimized. For example,when feeding once per day, such asin a limited energy-feeding programfor gestating sows, delay the feed-ing until late in the afternoon whenforaging by starlings is decreased.Feed cattle at night if possible. Star-lings prefer to feed early to middayand in areas where feed is con-stantly available. Feeding schedulesthat take these factors into accountminimize problems.

8. Starlings are especially attracted towater. Drain or fill in unnecessarywater pools around livestock opera-tions. Where feasible, control thewater level of livestock waterers tomake them unavailable or lessattractive to starlings (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Use bird-proof facilities to store grain.

tices in long-term starling control.These practices limit the availability offood and water to starlings, thus mak-ing the livestock environment lessattractive to birds. The following prac-tices used singly, but preferably incombination, will reduce feed losses,the chance of disease transmission,and the cost and labor of conventionalcontrol measures.

1. Clean up spilled grain.

2. Store grain in bird-proof facilities(Fig. 7).

3. Use bird-proof livestock feeders.These include flip-top pig feeders,lick wheels for liquid cattle supple-ment, and automatic-release feeders(magnetic or electronic) for costlyhigh-protein rations. Using coveredfeeders prevents starling access andcontamination of the food source,and the banging of the lift-top lidsas pigs use the feeders may frightenstarlings and keep them uneasy.Avoid feeding on the groundbecause this is an open invitation tostarlings.

Fig. 8. Lower the water level in livestock waterers sostarlings cannot reach the water when perching on theedge. At the same time, keep the water level deepenough so they cannot stand in the waterer.

E-114

Tree Roosts. When roosts occur in asmall number of landscape trees nearhomes or along streets, thinningbranches from the trees used by birdswill usually disperse them. Roosts intree groves or woodlots usually occurin dense, overcrowded stands ofyoung trees. Remove about one-thirdof the trees to improve the tree stand,especially if marked by a professionalforester, and to disperse the birds.Such thinning successfully dispersedroosts from research woodlots in Ohioand Kentucky, and from at least twoproblem-roost situations in Nebraska.In dense cedar thickets, bulldozingstrips through the roost to removeone-third of the habitat has also beensuccessful in dispersing birds. Soil dis-turbance, however, may be hazardousif soils harbor fungal spores of thehuman respiratory disease histo-plasmosis. For further information onroost dispersal, see Bird DispersalTechniques.

Frightening

Frightening is effective in dispersingstarlings from roosts, small-scale fruitcrops, and some other troublesomesites. It is useful around livestockoperations that have warm climatesyear-round, and where major concen-trations of wintering starlings exist. Inthe central states, starlings concentrateat livestock facilities primarily duringcold winter months when snow coversnatural food sources. At this time, bait-ing and other techniques are generallymore effective than frightening. In ad-dition, frightening starlings may dis-perse birds to other livestock facilities,a negative point that should be consid-ered if disease transfer is a concern.

Frightening devices include recordeddistress or alarm calls, gas-operatedexploders, battery-operated alarms,pyrotechnics (shellcrackers, birdbombs), chemical frightening agents(see Avitrol® below), lights (for roost-ing sites at night), bright objects, andvarious other stimuli. Some novel vi-sual frightening devices with potentialeffectiveness are eye-spot balloons,hawk kites, and mylar reflective tape.Ultrasonic (high frequency, above 20kHz) sounds are not effective in fright-

ening starlings and most other birdsbecause, like humans, they do not hearthese sounds.

Harassing birds throughout theevening as they land can be effective indispersing bird roosts if done for threeto four consecutive evenings or untilbirds no longer return. Spraying birdswith water from a hose or from sprin-klers mounted in the roost trees hashelped in some situations. Beating ontin sheets or barrels with clubs alsoscares birds. A combination of severalscare techniques used together worksbetter than a single technique usedalone. Vary the location, intensity, andtypes of scare devices to increase theireffectiveness. Two additional tips forsuccessful frightening efforts: 1) beginearly before birds form a strong attach-ment to the site, and 2) be persistentuntil the problem is solved. For a moredetailed discussion of frightening tech-niques, see Bird Dispersal Tech-niques.

Avitrol®. Avitrol® (active ingredient:4-aminopyridine) is a Restricted UsePesticide available in several bait for-mulations for use as a chemical fright-ening agent. It is for sale only tocertified applicators or persons undertheir direct supervision and only forthose uses covered by the applicator’scertification.

Avitrol® baits contain a small numberof treated grains or pellets mixed withmany untreated grains or pellets. Birdsthat eat the treated portion of the baitbehave erratically and/or give warn-ing cries that frighten other birds fromthe area. Generally, birds that eat thetreated particles will die. Avitrol® baitsare available for controlling starlings atfeedlots and structures. At the dilutionrates registered for use at feedlots,there is a low but potential hazard tonontarget hawks and owls that mighteat birds killed by Avitrol®. It is there-fore important to pick up and bury orincinerate any dead starlings found.

Around livestock operations, Avitrol®is sometimes used where the goal is tofrighten or disperse the birds ratherthan to kill them. However, manybirds may be killed, and data are lack-ing on whether the results of Avitrol®

use at feedlots occur because of fright-ening aspects or from direct mortality.

Three Avitrol® formulations arelabeled for starling control at feedlots(Pelletized Feed, Double Strength CornChops, and Powder Mix). The formu-lation most appropriate for a givensituation may vary, particularly if largenumbers of blackbirds are mixed withthe starlings. However, the PelletizedFeed formulation is generally recom-mended for starling control becausestarlings usually prefer pellets overcracked corn (corn chops). The DoubleStrength Corn Chops formulation isprobably best for mixed flocks of star-lings and blackbirds. Because Avitrol®is designed as a frightening agent,birds can develop bait shyness (baitrejection) fairly quickly. Prebaiting forseveral days with untreated pelletsmay be necessary for effective bait con-sumption and control. If starling prob-lems persist, changing bait locationsand additional prebaiting may beneeded. If any Avitrol® baits are to beused, contact a qualified persontrained in bird control work (someonefrom USDA-APHIS-ADC or Coopera-tive Extension, for example) for techni-cal assistance.

Repellents

Soft, sticky repellents such asRoost-No-More®, Bird Tanglefoot®,4-The-Birds®, and others consist ofpolybutenes, a nontoxic material thatcan be useful in discouraging starlingsfrom roosting on sites such as ledges,roof beams, or shopping-center signs.It is often helpful to first put maskingtape on the surface needing protection,then apply the repellent onto the tape;this increases effectiveness on poroussurfaces and makes removal easier.Over time, these materials lose theireffectiveness and have to be replaced.

Recent research has found that flavor-ing used in grape soft drinks, dimethylanthranilate (DMA), and methylanthranilate (MA) repel starlings fromlivestock feed at rates that do not affectcattle. Although subsequent field trialsshowed that DMA may not be cost-effective in some situations, resultshave indicated that MA has potentialfor cost-effective starling repellency.

E-115

Research is ongoing to improve thecost-effectiveness of this compoundand to develop its potential for manag-ing starlings at livestock facilities andpossibly for repelling birds from fruitcrops.

Toxicants

When using toxicants or other pesti-cides, always refer to the currentpesticide label and follow its instruc-tions as the final authority on pesticideuse.

Starlicide. A chemical compounddeveloped for starling control duringthe 1960s by the Denver WildlifeResearch Center is now commerciallyavailable as a pelletized bait. It is soldunder the trade name Starlicide Com-plete (0.1% 3-chloro p-toluidine hydro-chloride).

Starlicide is a slow-acting toxicant forcontrolling starlings and blackbirdsaround livestock and poultry opera-tions. It is toxic to other types of birdsin differing amounts, but will not killhouse (English) sparrows (Passerdomesticus) at registered levels. Mam-mals are generally resistant to its toxiceffects.

Poisoned birds experience a slow, non-violent death. They usually die from 1to 3 days after feeding, often at theirroost. Generally, few dead starlingswill be found at the bait site. Poisonedstarlings are not dangerous to scaven-gers or predators. However, to pro-vide good sanitation and to preventthe spread of diseases that the birdsmay carry, pick up and bury or incin-erate any dead starlings.

It is important to use fresh bait, as thecurrent formulation of Starlicide Com-plete loses effectiveness in storage. Baitkept on hand from one winter to the nextmay lose some of its potency, and baitkept for 2 years may not work at all.

How to Use. Field tests in both thewestern and eastern United Stateshave established guidelines for usingStarlicide. For the best success in a con-trol program, we recommend the fol-lowing steps:

1. Observe birds feeding in and aroundthe livestock operation. Note the

number of starlings and when andwhere they prefer to feed. The besttime for observing is usually duringthe first few hours following sunrisewhen birds are seeking their morn-ing meal.

2. Determine what species of birds arefeeding. If any protected birds, suchas doves, quail, pheasants, or song-birds, are present, do not applytoxic bait. For assistance or adviceon bird identification or nontargetrisk assessment based on the situa-tion, contact your local CooperativeExtension office, USDA-APHIS-ADC office, or the state wildlifeagency.

3. Prebait, for best results, with a non-poisonous bait to accustom starlingsto feeding on bait at particular loca-tions. Place the prebait in areaswhere the starlings concentrate tofeed, but where it will not be acces-sible to livestock or other nontargetanimals. The best prebait is a high-quality food that resembles the toxicbait in color, size, and texture. Ifsuch prebait is unavailable, use agood quality feed such as that nor-mally fed to livestock.

Prebait for 1 to 4 days until thebirds readily feed on the prebait. Ifgood consumption is not obtained,

move the prebait to another locationwhere starlings are concentrating tofeed.

4. Apply prebait and bait on cold dayswhen snow covers the ground. Thistiming is more effective becausestarlings become stressed for foodand concentrate in livestock feedingareas.

5. Place prebait and bait in containers toensure proper bait placement and toprotect it from the weather (Fig. 9).Black rubber calf feeder pans workwell. They do not tip easily, theirdark color does not frighten birds,and bait is openly exposed. Emptyfarm wagons, feeder lids turnedupside down, wooden troughs, orother containers may also work.Avoid brightly colored or shinycontainers or ones that might tipand spill bait. At night, the contain-ers can be covered to protect thebait from the weather. However,they must be uncovered at dawn sothat starlings can feed as soon asthey arrive. At feedlots where largenumbers of starlings (more than100,000) are involved, and wherelarge quantities of feed are availableon the ground, broadcasting bait inalleyways as per label directions isrecommended.

Fig. 9. Well-positioned bait containers, excluded from livestock, provide better safety and control inbaiting programs for starlings.

E-116

6. Apply toxic bait after starlings feedreadily on the prebait by removingall prebait and replacing it with thetoxic bait. Consult the label direc-tions for the amount to use (1pound [0.45 kg] of Starlicide Com-plete used properly will kill about100 to 200 starlings). The total num-ber of starlings using a farm over along period of time may greatlyexceed the numbers observed on agiven day, so continue baiting for atleast 2 or 3 days or until bait con-sumption diminishes. Bait shouldbe available to the starlings at alltimes when they are present.

Good bait acceptance may be moredifficult to obtain in warm-weatherclimates such as in the southern-most states. If this occurs, and theStarlicide Complete bait is noteaten, an alternative may be to useStarlicide Technical (98% activeingredient) applied to baits such asfrench-fried potatoes, small fruits,or livestock feed according to labeldirections. The french fries andfruits may be more attractive tostarlings, but they can spoil rapidly.Generally, livestock feed makes anacceptable bait because starlings areaccustomed to feeding on it.Starlicide Technical can be usedonly by or under supervision of theUSDA-APHIS-ADC for control ofblackbirds and starlings at livestockoperations. Contact them for help.

7. Remove bait after bait consumptiondiminishes. Observe any birdsarriving at the feedlot during thenext 2 to 3 mornings after baiting.Reduced bird numbers at this timeindicate control, as most birds willdie at the roost. If starlings continueto be present, or if they graduallyreturn in increasing numbers, waituntil a number of birds are regu-larly returning to feed at the area.Then apply prebait and toxic bait(Steps 4 to 6) as before. Do not leaveStarlicide baits exposed for pro-longed periods because this maycause bait shyness (bait rejection),and may also increase hazards toprotected bird species.

8. Group baiting may increase effective-ness. Consider coordinating control

efforts with your neighbors. Severalpersons baiting at the same timewill produce better control becausestarlings may forage over a largegeographical area and may changefeeding sites from day to day. No-tify local wildlife officials of yourplans so that if large numbers ofstarlings are removed, the officialswill be able to explain the die-off.Contact USDA-APHIS-ADC offi-cials about the possibility of usingroost control procedures if a largeroost is associated with the damageproblem.

9. Cautions: Starlicide is poisonous tochickens, turkeys, ducks, and someother birds. Never expose baitwhere poultry, livestock, or non-target wildlife can feed on it. Do notrepackage pesticides into anythingother than their original containers.Read and follow all label directions.

Toxic Perches. Toxic perches areperforated metal tubes 24 or 27 inches(61 or 69 cm) long containing a wicksaturated with a contact toxicant thatenters the feet as the birds perch on thetube. They can be safely and effectivelyused in certain industrial and otherstructural roost situations where theydo not present hazards to nontargetbirds and avian predators such ashawks and owls. All killed birdsshould be picked up immediately andburied or burned because of potentialhazards to other wildlife.

The active ingredient in toxic perches,fenthion (Rid-A-Bird Perch 1100 Solu-tion), is federally registered as aRestricted Use Pesticide for use inthese perches. Fenthion is rapidlyabsorbed through the skin and shouldbe used with caution to avoid spillageand exposure to the handler. It is toxicto humans, birds, fish, and aquaticinvertebrates. For additional informa-tion on fenthion, refer to Pesticides.

Agents for Roost Control. Roostcontrol has been used to reduce star-ling damage at livestock feedlots andin urban areas where there are humanhealth and sanitation concerns. Arecent study indicates, however, thatroost control with wetting agents (nolonger registered) may not consistently

provide long-term reduction of birdsat feedlots, despite mostly favorableresults in reducing urban problems.The presence of other roosting popula-tions near the treated roost may be animportant factor. At urban sites havingmild winter climates, the accumulationof bird carcasses can produce a severeodor and fly problem if carcasses arenot picked up or buried at the sitesoon after roost treatment. Bulldozingsites is the most efficient method tobury carcasses, but soil disturbanceduring this process may present hu-man health hazards from dissemina-tion of histoplasmosis spores. Suchroost control should be consideredonly as a last resort when other alter-natives are not likely to solve the prob-lem in livestock and urban roostsituations.

Currently, the only material registeredfor roost control is Starlicide Technical,which is used for baiting at or nearroost sites in areas where starlings con-gregate before roosting. This method iscurrently registered for use in only afew states and only under supervisionof USDA-APHIS-ADC personnel. Afederal registration is pending.Although this method of roost controlis labor-intensive, it has been effective.

Fumigants

Fumigation is generally not practicalfor starling control, and no fumigantsare registered for this purpose.

Trapping

Trapping and removing starlings can bea successful method of control at loca-tions where a resident population is caus-ing localized damage or where othertechniques cannot be used. An exampleis trapping starlings in a fruit orchard.

Two types of traps, nest-box anddecoy traps, are commonly used. Nest-box traps (Fig. 10) are successful onlyduring the nesting season, whereasdecoy traps (Fig. 11) are most effectiveduring other times when the birds areflocking. Nontarget birds captured intraps should be immediately releasedunharmed.

Decoy traps for starlings should be atleast 5 to 6 feet (1.5 to 1.8 m) high to

E-117

allow for servicing and can be quitelarge (for example, 10 feet [3 m] wideby 30 feet [9 m] long). A convenientsize is 6 x 8 x 6 feet (1.8 x 2.4 x 1.8 m)(Fig. 11). If desired, the sides and topcan be constructed in panels to facili-tate transportation and storage. Inaddition, decoy traps can be set up ona farm wagon and thereby moved tothe best places to catch starlings. Placetraps where starlings are likely to con-gregate. Leave a few starlings in thetrap as decoys; their feeding behaviorand calls attract other starlings that arenearby. Decoy birds in the trap mustbe well watered (which may include abird bath) and fed. A well-maintaineddecoy trap can capture 100 or morestarlings per day depending on its sizeand location, the time of year, and howwell the trap is maintained. Euthanizecaptured starlings humanely such asby carbon dioxide exposure or cervicaldislocation.

Shooting

Shooting is more effective as a dis-persal technique than as a way toreduce starling numbers. The numberof starlings that can be killed by shoot-ing is very small in relation to thenumber of starlings usually involvedin pest situations. Shooting, however,can be helpful to supplement andreinforce other dispersal techniques.For more detail on dispersal, see BirdDispersal Techniques.

Economics of Damageand Control

Consumption of livestock feed by star-lings can at times be a substantial eco-nomic consideration. Data reported in1968 from Colorado feedlots estimatedthe cost of cattle rations consumedduring winter by starlings at $84 per1,000 starlings. Current feed costs andthe associated losses would certainlybe much higher. A 1967 reportindicated that 1 million starlings at aCalifornia feedlot resulted in losses of$1,000 per day because of food con-sumption and contamination, andstarling interference with cattle feedingactivity. Another report estimated

Remove old trigger mechanismand cut through at this point.

Fig. 11. Starling decoy trap: (a) assembled view and (b) details of the entrance panel. Side and endpanels are covered with wire on the outside; top panels are covered on the inside of the frame.

Form new triggermechanism from stiff wire.

a

Fig. 10. Nest-box trap for starlings.

Materials Needed For Trap15 1x4s, 8 feet long25 1x4s, 6 feet long 4 1x1s, 8 feet long 1 piece 1/2 inch exterior plywood,

8 feet long x 160 inches wide2 hinges2 pounds staples40 foot length of 6-foot chicken wire,

1-inch mesh

Entrance panel (plywood)Entrance slots must be exactly 1 3/4 inches wide

b

Snap wire fastenedto short base.

E-118

that starlings in Idaho consumed 15 to20 tons (13.5 to 18 mt) of cattle feedper day. A 1978 study in Englandestimated that the food eaten by star-lings in a calf-rearing unit over threewinters was 6% to 12% of the food pre-sented to the calves. Two other studiesin England since then found 4% lossesand negligible damage, respectively.

Producers who wish to estimate feedlosses to starlings at their facilities cando so using one of two methods. Thefollowing equation, which was devel-oped from data in Colorado, estimatesthe cost of feed consumed per day:

Cost of feed ration consumed perday = estimated starlings (to thenearest 1,000) x fraction of birdsusing trough x cost of feed rationper pound (0.4536 kg) x 0.0625pound (0.02813 kg) consumedper starling per day.

A second method, which may beapplicable to most geographic areas,precludes the need of estimating star-ling populations. It requires the opera-tor to observe the feed troughs severaltimes during the day and estimate thenumber of starlings entering thetroughs per day. From this estimatethe cost of the feed ration consumedper day can be estimated with the fol-lowing equation:

Cost of feed ration consumed perday = estimated starling entriesinto troughs x 0.0033 pounds(0.0015 kg) consumed per star-ling entry x cost of feed rationper pound (0.4536 kg).

These losses projected over a 3- to4-month damage season can assist inevaluating the costs and benefits ofproposed control measures.

Feed contamination from starlingexcreta may not be an economic lossfor cattle or pig operations. In 2 yearsof testing at Western Kentucky Univer-sity, neither pigs nor cattle wereadversely affected by long-term expo-sure to feed heavily contaminated withstarling excreta. As compared to con-trols, no significant differences wereobserved in weight gain or feed effi-ciency (ratio of weight gain to weightof feed offered). In addition, there

were no observed differences in feedrejection or disease incidence. Theseresults indicate that there is no eco-nomic justification for starling controlbased solely on feed contamination.However, the effects of livestock watercontamination from starling excretahave not been well studied.

Starling interference with livestockfeeding patterns may have economicimportance. A study in Englandreported that calves in pens protectedfrom starlings showed higher growthrates and better feed conversion thanthose in unprotected pens. This protec-tion led to an increased profit margin.The difference observed, however,might have been caused by starlings inthe unprotrected pens consuming thecalf food, especially the high proteinportion, rather than by actualinterference with the calf feeding.

The costs associated with starlings inthe spread of livestock disease may attimes be substantial. For example, dur-ing the severe winter of 1978-1979, aTGE outbreak occurred in southeastNebraska, with over 10,000 pigs lost in1 month in Gage County alone. Star-lings were implicated because the TGEoutbreak was concurrent with largeflocks of starlings feeding at the samefacilities. More recent data show thatstarlings are capable of carrying thisdisease in their feces. The role of star-lings in disease transfer, however,needs further study.

Bird damage to grapes in the UnitedStates was estimated to be at least $4.4million in 1972; starlings were one ofthe species causing the most damage.Starlings, as well as many otherspecies of birds, also damage ripeningcherry crops. A 1972 study in Michi-gan found 17.4% of a total crop lostto birds. A 1975 study in Englandestimated damage at 14% (lowerbranches) to 21% (tree canopy) of thecrop; similar 1976 data showed lessdamage. Starling damage to winterwheat in a study of 218 fields in threeregions in Kentucky and Tennesseeaveraged 3.8%, 0.5%, and 0.4% respec-tively, with the most serious losses(more than 14%) occurring wherewheat was planted late and fields were

within 11 miles (16 km) of a large star-ling roost.

Human health and safety problemsassociated with urban starling roostsinclude concerns about the diseasehistoplasmosis and about aircraft-birdcollisions. Although serious problemsoccur only infrequently, they can havegrievous consequences where loss ofhuman life and/or permanent disabil-ity may occur. Moreover, equipmentrepair and replacement costs associ-ated with aircraft-bird collisions can besubstantial. For example, the costs ofaircraft-bird collisions in the UnitedStates are estimated to be at least $20million per year to commercial aircraftand $10 million per year to Air Forceaircraft. These consequences mandatea thorough understanding of urbanroost situations and timely roost man-agement where the potential forhuman health and safety problemsexists.

On the beneficial side, starlings eatlarge quantities of insects and otherinvertebrates, especially during spring.Many of these invertebrates, such aslawn grubs, are considered to be pests.This benefit, however, is partially off-set by the fact that starlings often takeover nest cavities of native insect-eating birds. As trends move towardlower pesticide use and sustainable,low-input turf and agricultural sys-tems, the role of starlings and otherbirds may become more important.Research is needed to further under-stand potential positive impacts ofstarlings and to learn how to maximizepotential benefits while minimizingproblems.

Although starlings are frequently asso-ciated with damage problems, some ofwhich clearly cause substantial eco-nomic losses, the economics of damagein relation to the cost and effectivenessof controls are not well understood.Several factors contribute to this: (1)Starlings are difficult to monitorbecause they often move long dis-tances daily from roost to feedingareas, and many migrate. (2) Effective-ness of controls, particularly in relationto the total population in an area, isdifficult to document. For example,

E-119

does population reduction in a particu-lar situation reduce the problem ormerely allow an influx of starlingsfrom other areas, and how does thisvary seasonally or annually? In addi-tion, does lethal control just substitutefor natural mortality or is it additive?(3) The economics of interactions withother species are difficult to measure.For example, how much is a bluebirdor flicker worth, and what net benefitsoccur when starling interference withnative cavity-nesting birds is consid-ered? (4) Other factors such as weatherand variation among problem situa-tions complicates accurate evaluationof damage and the overall or long-term effectiveness of controls. Thesepoints, as well as others mentioned inthis chapter, are examples of factorsthat must be considered in assessingthe total economic impact of starlings.Clearly, to minimize starling-humanconflicts we need a better understand-ing of starlings and their interactionswith various habitats and controlmeasures.

Acknowledgments

The references listed under “For AdditionalInformation” and many others were used in pre-paring this chapter. Gratitude is extended to theauthors and the many researchers and observerswho contributed to this body of knowledge. Wealso thank M. Beck, J. Besser, R. Fritschen, D.Mott, A. Stickley, and R. Timm for comments onthe first edition of this chapter, J. Andelt pro-vided typing and technical assistance. We grate-fully acknowledge M. Beck, R. Case, D. Mott,and A. Stickley for critical reviews of this secondedition, and L. Germer, J. Gosey, and D. Reesefor reviews of specific portions.

Figure 1 from US Fish and Wildlife Service(1974), “Controlling Starlings,” Bulletin AC 209,Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,modified and adapted by Renee Lanik, Univer-sity of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Figure 2 from Bystrak et al. (1974), used withpermission. Figure copyrighted by the NationalAudubon Society, Inc. Adapted by DavidThornhill. Map by J. W. Rosahn, based on theNational Audubon Society’s annual ChristmasBird Count. Map reprinted by permission from“Wintering Areas of Bird Species PotentiallyHazardous to Aircraft.” D. Bystrak et al. (1974),National Audubon Society, Inc.

Figure 3 photo by Ron J. Johnson.

Figures 4 and 7 by Renee Lanik based on draw-ings by Jon Eggers and a drawing from Salmonand Gorenzel’s chapter “Cliff Swallows” in thispublication.

Figure 5 by Renee Lanik, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Figure 6 by Jill Sack Johnson.

Figures 8 and 9 by Renee Lanik, University ofNebraska-Lincoln.

Figure 10 from DeHaven and Guarino (1969),adapted by Jill Sack Johnson.

Figure 11 by Renee Lanik based on E. R.Kalmbach (1939), “The Crow in Its Relation toAgriculture,” US Dep. Agric. Farmer’s Bull. No.1102, rev. ed., Washington, DC. 21 pp., and USFish Wildl. Serv. (no date), “Trapping Starlings,”Bull. AC 210, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette,Indiana.

For AdditionalInformation

Aubin, T. 1989. The role of frequencymodulation in the process of distress callsrecognition by the starling (Sturnus vulgaris).Behav. 108:57-72.

Barnes, T. G. 1991. Eastern bluebirds, nestingstructure design and placement. College ofAgric. Ext. Publ. FOR-52, Univ. Kentucky,Lexington. 4 pp.

Besser, J. F., J. W. DeGrazio, and J. L. Guarino.1968. Costs of wintering starlings and red-winged blackbirds at feedlots. J. Wildl.Manage. 32:179-180.

Besser, J. F., W. C. Royall, Jr., and J. W.DeGrazio. 1967. Baiting starlings withDRC-1339 at a cattle feedlot. J. Wildl.Manage. 31:45-51.

Blokpoel, H. 1976. Bird hazards to aircraft.Clarke, Irwin & Co. Ltd., 236 pp.

Boudreau, C. W. 1975. How to win the war withpest birds. Wildl. Tech., Hollister, California.174 pp.

Bystrak, D., C. S. Robbins, S. R. Drennan, and R.Arbib, eds. 1974. Wintering areas of birdspecies potentially hazardous to aircraft. Aspecial report jointly prepared by the Natl.Audubon Soc. and the US Fish Wildl. Serv.Natl. Audubon Soc., Inc., New York. 156 pp.

Constantin, B., and J. Glahn. 1989. Controllingroosting starlings in industrial facilities bybaiting. Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage ControlConf. 4:47-52.

Crase, F. T., C. P. Stone, R. W. DeHaven, andD. F. Mott. 1976. Bird damage to grapes inthe United States with emphasis onCalifornia. US Fish Wildl. Serv., Special Sci.Rep. - Wildl. No. 197. Washington, DC.18 pp.

DeCino, T. J., D. J. Cunningham, and E. W.Schafer, Jr. 1966. Toxicity of DRC-1339 tostarlings. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:249-253.

DeHaven, R. W., and J. L. Guarino. 1969. A nest-box trap for starlings. Bird-Banding 40:49-50.

Dolbeer, R. A. 1984. Blackbirds and starlings:population ecology and habits related toairport environments. Proc. Wildl. Hazardsto Aircraft Conf. Training Workshop.Charleston, South Carolina, US Dep. Trans.Rep. DOT/FAA/AAS/84-1:149-159.

Dolbeer, R. A. 1989. Current status and potentialof lethal means of reducing bird damage inagriculture. Pages 474-483 in H. Ouellet, ed.,Acta XIX Congressus Int. Ornithol., Vol. I.Univ. Ottawa Press, Ottawa, Canada.

Dolbeer, R. A., A. R. Stickley, Jr., and P. P.Woronecki. 1978/1979. Starling, Sturnusvulgaris, damage to sprouting wheat inTennessee and Kentucky, U.S.A. Prot. Ecol.1:159-169.

Dolbeer, R. A., P. P. Woronecki, R. L. Bruggers.1986. Reflecting tapes repel blackbirds frommillet, sunflowers, and sweet corn. Wildl.Soc. Bull. 14:418-425.

Dolbeer, R. A., P. P. Woronecki, A. R. Stickley,Jr., and S. B. White. 1978. Agriculturalimpacts of a winter population of blackbirdsand starlings. The Wilson Bull. 90:31.

Feare, C. J. 1980. The economics of starlingdamage. Pages 39-55 in E. N. Wright, I. R.Inglis, and C. J. Feare, eds. Bird problems inagriculture, British Crop Prot. Council,Croydon, UK. 210 pp.

Feare, C. J. 1984. The starling. Oxford Univ.Press, New York. 315 pp.

Feare, C. J. 1989. The changing fortunes of anagricultural bird pest: the European starling.Agric. Zool. Rev. 3:317-342.

Feare, C. J., and K. P. Swannack. 1978. Starlingdamage and its prevention at an open-fronted calf yard. An. Prod. 26:259-265.

Fuller-Perrine, L. D., and M. E. Tobin. 1993. Amethod for applying and removing bird-exclusion netting in commercial vineyards.Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:47-51.

Glahn, J. F. 1982. Use of starlicide to reducestarling damage at livestock feedingoperations. Proc. Great Plains Wildl.Damage Control Workshop 5:273-277.

Glahn, J. F., and D. L. Otis. 1986. Factorsinfluencing blackbird and European starlingdamage at livestock feeding operations. J.Wildl. Manage. 50:15-19.

Glahn, J. F., and W. Stone. 1984. Effects ofstarling excrement in the food of cattle andpigs. An. Prod. 38:439-446.

Glahn, J. F., S. K. Timbrook, and D. J. Twedt.1987. Temporal use patterns of winteringstarlings at a southeastern livestock farm:implications for damage control. Proc.Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 3:194-203.

Glahn, J. F., D. J. Twedt, and D. L. Otis. 1983.Estimating feed loss from starling use oflivestock feed troughs. Wildl. Soc. Bull.ll:366-372.

E-120

Glahn, J. F., A. R. Stickley, Jr., J. F. Heisterberg,and D. F. Mott. 1991. Impact of roost controlon local urban and agricultural blackbirdproblems. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:511-522.

Good, H. B., and D. M. Johnson. 1978. Nonlethalblackbird roost control. Pest Control 46:14ff.

Gough, P. M., and J. W. Beyer. 1982. Bird-vectored diseases. Proc. Great Plains Wildl.Damage Control Workshop 5:260-272.

Heisterberg, J. F., A. R. Stickley, Jr., K. M. Garner,and P. D. Foster, Jr. 1987. Controllingblackbirds and starlings at winter roostsusing PA-14. Proc. Eastern Wildl. DamageControl Conf. 3:177-183.

Holler, N. R., and E. W. Schafer, Jr. 1982.Potential secondary hazards of avitrol baitsto sharp-shinned hawks and Americankestrels. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:457-462.

Ingold, D. J. 1989. Nesting phenology andcompetition for nest sites among red-headedand red-bellied woodpeckers and Europeanstarlings. Auk 106:209-217.

Johnson, R. J., P. K. Cole, and W. W. Stroup.1985. Starling response to three auditorystimuli. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:620-625.

Johnson, R. J., and J. F. Glahn. 1992. Starlingmanagement in agriculture. Coop. Ext. Publ.NCR 451, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 7pp.

Lefebvre, P. W., and J. L. Seubert. 1970.Surfactants as blackbird stressing agents.Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 4:156-161.

Lumsden, H. G. 1986. Choice of nest boxes bytree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor, housewrens, Troglodytes aedon, eastern bluebirds,Sialia sialis, and European starlings, Sturnusvulgaris. Can. Field-Nat. 100:343-349.

Lustick, S. 1976. Wetting as a means of birdcontrol. Proc. Bird Control Sem. 7:41-47.

Maccarone, A. D. 1987. Effect of snow cover onstarling activity and foraging patterns.Wilson Bull. 99:94-97.

Mason, J. R., J. F. Glahn, R. A. Dolbeer, and R. F.Reidinger. 1985. Field evaluation of dimethylanthranilate as a bird repellent livestock feedadditive. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:636-642.

Meanley, B., and W. C. Royall, Jr. 1976.Nationwide estimates of blackbirds andstarlings. Proc. Bird Control Sem. 7:39-40.

McGilvrey, F. B., and F. M. Uhler. 1971. Astarling-deterrent wood duck nest box. J.Wildl. Manage. 35:793-797.

Palmer, T. K. 1976. Pest bird damage in cattlefeedlots: the integrated systems approach.Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 7:17-21.

Royall, W. C., Jr., T. C. DeCino, and J. F. Besser.1967. Reduction of a starling population at aturkey farm. Poultry Sci. 46:1494-1495.

Schmidt, R. H., and R. J. Johnson. 1984. Birddispersal recordings: an overview. Am. Soc.Testing Mat. STP 817, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 4:43-65 .

Shirota, Y., M. Sanada, and S. Masaki. 1983.Eyespoted balloons as a device to scare graystarlings. Appl. Ent. Zool. 18:545-549.

Stables, E. R., and N. D. New. 1968. Birds andaircraft: the problems. Pages 3-16 in R. K.Murton and E. N. Wright, eds. Problems ofbirds as pests. Acad. Press, London.

Stewart, P. A. 1978. Foraging behavior andlength of dispersal flights of communallyroosting starlings. Bird-Banding 49:113-115.

Stickley, A. R., Jr. 1979. Extended use ofstarlicide in reducing bird damage insoutheastern feedlots. Proc. Bird ControlSem. 8:79-81.

Stickley, A. R., Jr., D. J. Twedt, J. F. Heisterberg,D. F. Mott, and J. F. Glahn. 1986. Surfactantspray system for controlling blackbirds andstarlings in urban roosts. Wildl. Soc. Bull.14:412-418.

Stickley, A. R., Jr., and R. J. Weeks. 1985.Histoplasmosis and its impact on blackbird-starling roost management. Proc. EasternWildl. Damage Control Conf. 2:163-171.

Twedt, D. J., and J. F. Glahn. 1982. Reducingstarling depredations at livestock feedoperations through changes in managementpractices. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 10:159-163.

Weitzel, N. H. 1988. Nest-site competitionbetween the European starling and nativebreeding birds in northwestern Nevada.Condor 90:515-517.

West, R. R. 1968. Reduction of a winter starlingpopulation by baiting its preroosting areas. J.Wildl. Manage. 32:637-640.

West, R. R., J. F. Besser, and J. W. DeGrazio.1967. Starling control in livestock feedingareas. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf., 3:89-93.

Will, T. J. 1983. BASH Team new developments.Proc. Bird Control Sem. 9:7-10.

Wright, E. N. 1973. Experiments to controlstarling damage at intensive animalhusbandry units. European Plant Prot.Organiz. Bull. 9:85-89.

Wright, E. N. 1982. Bird problems and theirsolutions in Britain. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf.10:186-189.

EditorsScott E. HygnstromRobert M. TimmGary E. Larson