ROG WOOD
I have a duck pond, or "the Waird" as we call it, at the bottom of my property that is at the centre of a park. It is home to about 70 mallard ducks that locals like to feed with scraps of bread. Sadly that peaceful idyll has been destroyed by several hundred seagulls that take up residence between March and August to nest on beds of weeds.
They used to nest on a loch a couple of miles north of the town but moved to the Waird a few years ago. They feed on the large resident frog population as well as ducklings - but above all else, they squawk day and night, and "bomb" cars and windows with their foul excrement.
In an attempt to make the Waird more attractive, our community council were allocated a grant to dredge a fair amount of the weed to create more open water. That project, begun in the last week of March, didn't go according to plan and resulted in a digger getting stuck in the Waird and damaging its engine after taking in water through its air intake.
All the commotion of that unfortunate digger being winched to dry land, and its replacement clearing weed, that was ferried away by a dumper truck, unsettled the gulls. Better still, the reduced area of weed gave them a reduced area on which to nest.
The final straw for the gulls was when the owner of a nearby warehouse fitted bird scaring devices to the roofs to deter them from nesting on them. Every last one of my neighbours from hell departed the Waird.
Sadly, they were only absent for a few days until they become accustomed to those bird scarers, and returned to mate and nest. To have any chance of being effective, such devices need to be regularly moved to different sites.
In the nearby town of Dumfries the council went as far as hiring falconers to fly their hawks to scare gulls away from rooftops, but with limited success.
Perhaps Dumfries and Galloway Council should have consulted with farmers who have considerable experience of trying to scare rooks and wood pigeons off their crops.
Keeping ravenous beaks off ripening crops is a notoriously time-consuming and difficult task, and sometimes an impossible one. Scaring birds off one part of a farm merely moves them to another, or on to a neighbour's farm. You can be sure that if you successfully drive the pests on to your neighbour, he won't be long in chasing them back to you.
The best way to scare birds is to patrol the crops with a shotgun and try to shoot every one that comes into range. That really scares birds, but is far too time-consuming for most single-handed farming operations.
The next best approach is to use scaring devices such as traditional scarecrows, polythene bags tied to posts that flutter in the wind, or one of the whole range of whirling, flashing devices, or soaring kites that mimic birds of prey.
It goes without saying that to add "oomph" to the fright one is trying to impart, there should also be periodic bangs that sound like a shotgun being fired.
There are automatic, gas-powered bangers that can be set to go off at varying intervals. They do make realistic bangs - but birds soon grow used to them and merely feign to be frightened. After a quick flight round the field, they soon settle back down to their illicit feast.
Sadly, as with most vermin, the best way to limit damage and loss is to kill them. To many, the practice of shooting, trapping and snaring wild animals as part of good environment and land management practice is seen as cruel and unnecessary.
Rats and mice have always had a poor PR image and few think twice about trapping or poisoning them. Foxes got some relief when hunting by hounds was made illegal, but they are still routinely shot and snared by land managers.
It's much the same for stoats, weasels, and vicious mink. Then there moles, grey squirrels, crows and magpies, as well as herbivorous pests like deer and rabbits that also need to be controlled.
The key to all this essential pest control is to ensure that it is done in accordance with the codes of practice and legal requirements so that non-target species are released un-harmed, and the target is humanely despatched.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here