Bird Shield®
|
 |
Biodegradable Bird Repellents for Agriculture, Industry and the Garden. Off The Wires, News & Views.
Vol. 2, No.5. June, 2010.
Birds, Politics and Job Security
Recently, Bird Shield® was asked by the Oregon Department of Agriculture to
submit a Special Local Needs (SLN) application to help grass seed growers in the
Willamette Valley in Oregon. Along with the request was an invitation to attend a
Task Force Meeting to discuss the work we did with the growers during the late
1990’s. The problem hadn’t changed. 12 to 13,000 geese are concentrated on a
Federal Wildlife Conservation Area next to some of the country’s premier farm
land and they graze the adjacent seed production areas intensively, effectively
destroying the crops and causing significant economic harm to the growers.
The meeting was chaired by a congresswoman who was intent on taking some
form of an action plan to a federal agency in Washington, DC, the Federal Capital.
There were, of course, the obligatory Federal and State regulatory representatives
present. Scattered around the table were growers and industry representatives.
After the perfunctory introductions the Federal representatives were asked to make
a presentation about how controlled depredation hunts of the geese would resolve
the problem. The growers were very unhappy when they heard that there would
be only a limited number of permits issued for the hunters but they became
extremely upset when they also heard that all of the birds recovered from the hunts
were going to be processed and shipped to Native Alaskans at considerable
taxpayer (their) expense. They immediately demanded to know why that money
could not be used to modify the birds’ habitat in the Valley or reimburse the
growers for the damage the birds did during the winter. Figuring out the politics,
job security and what will happen to the geese in the area isn’t too hard.
On a similar note, the folks along the Central Flyway of the U.S., the major migratory route followed by huge numbers of birds every year, have been fighting blackbirds ever since the plow was taken to the land. In some places seven or eight million birds flock over the crops just before harvest and crops can be destroyed in a matter of days before the birds move on. Much to their credit the Wildlife Services branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has staffed regional offices with biologists whose job is to work with the farmers. Some of the regions employ people whose function is to spray weeds and harass birds. Over the years the Agency has developed several different management and control programs through their National Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Some are pretty good ideas, others should not leave a 5th grade classroom.
Most troubling is their rejection of ideas and technology that are not their own or in which they have had a development role. If such a proposal or technique is suggested the Government Agencies require that they must then run their own studies and evaluate it, a process that sometimes takes several years and produces mixed results, all at a substantial cost. Meanwhile the crops continue to be destroyed. Then it must be studied further. In the process it withers on the vine for lack of support (remember it is not their idea) or in some cases leads to a loss of economic opportunity for a private adventurer to promote the programme commercially.
Over the last twenty years methyl anthranilate, formulated as Bird Shield® Repellent, has been proven to be an effective, non-toxic chemical to help growers reduce predatory bird damage to their crops. However, the unofficial position of Wildlife Services is that before they can endorse and recommend the use of this product it needs to be studied more within their organization. Thousands of growers use it successfully every year throughout the world. It seems that this procrastination and delay is motivated by a desire to maintain a little job security! Or maybe it’s just incompetence? Whatever the root cause, the end result is that the crops that these agencies are commissioned to protect continue to be destroyed at the expense of the growers. It appears that the responsibility with which they have been vested to control and manage the bird problems is outweighed by their desire to preserve their long term involvement, regardless of the cost.
|
