- Hazing or scaring may be used to keep or disperse animals from a
localized disease agent. This may be most useful in the control of non-infectious
diseases, for which dispersal of animals does not involve an attendant risk of dispersing
the causative agent and re-locating the disease outbreak, and is most likely to be
effective for localized problems.
- A variety of hazing methods may be used to disperse animals from an area,
generally involving disturbance by means of moving vehicles, noise-makers, visual
deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) or combinations of these.
- N.B.
- The effectiveness of different hazing methods, and of hazing at all is highly
species dependent.
- Hazing, by whatever method, generally is effective only short-term.
- A longer-term effect may be possible if hazing is used in association with other
management actions, such as decreasing the attractiveness of the local habitat, to
encourage dispersal, and/or providing alternative attractive habitat (see: Relocation,
below).
- Dispersion may be encouraged by decreasing the attractiveness of
habitat to the species involved. This may involve reducing feed, shelter, nesting sites
etc.
- Chemical repellents which harmlessly repel animals from areas
are under development.
(B36.4.w4, B127,
D10,
P12.10.w1) |
| Waterfowl Consideration |
- Hazing may be used e.g. to keep waterfowl (and other species) from an area
affected by oil
(Oiling),
an area of known to be heavily contaminated with lead shot
(Lead Poisoning),
or pesticide-treated fields (e.g. Organochlorine Toxicity),
as well as to drive the birds from e.g. highly saline lakes where they might become
trapped by Salt
(Salt Encrustation).
(Hazing may also be used to keep waterfowl away from an area where they are a nuisance,
such as geese from grazing agricultural crops and fish-eating ducks from fishing areas or
mussel-growing sites: See: Population Control - Scaring
/ Hazing).
- A variety of techniques have been used to haze waterfowl:
- Aircraft
- Boats
- Land vehicles, e.g. all-terrain vehicles (ATV), snowmobiles.
- Visual - Scarecrows, predator models, lights, balloons, flags, ribbons.
- Noise-makers - e.g. propane cannon, Breco buoy, Marine wailer
- Pyrotechnics (combined explosion, light and whistling noise)
- N.B.
- Hazing may be an important part of disease control particularly in keeping birds
from known areas of contamination. Although costs associated with hazing can be
considerable, they may ultimately be much lower that the cost of rescuing and treating
diseased birds; particularly with oil spills (Oiling).
- Combining different methods (e.g. visual hazing techniques and
noise-makers) may increase the effectiveness of hazing as no single
method used to date is ideally effective.
- Effectiveness of hazing, by whatever method, may be increased by using hazing
alongside actions to attract waterfowl to alternative, safe, locations, and by decreasing
the attractiveness of the area to waterfowl.
- Timing of hazing may affect the effectiveness - e.g. scaring actions to remove
nuisance birds from sites may be most effective if carried out in the early morning.
- Decreasing the attractiveness of an area to waterfowl may involve e.g.
- Draining wetland areas, as has been used in control of Avian Cholera
outbreaks (B36.7.w7)
- Reducing food availability, including feeding by the public and reducing marginal
vegetation
- Use of visual barriers between water and grazing areas, to deter geese
- Making banks steeper.
- Use of chemical repellents such as methyl anthralinate.
- Appropriate methods may vary depending on factors such as the location,
feasibility and cost.
B36.4.w4,
B36.42.w42, B36.47.w47,
B127,
P10.62.w1, P12.10.w1:-
The Management of Problems caused by Canada Geese - A Guide to Best Practice,
P12.11.w2:-
Integrated Management of Urban Canada Geese, D10, D13). |