Why culling urban gulls won't work
Those whose understandable frustration has led to calling for gull culls know all about the problems, but maybe less about the expense.
For sure, urban gulls have already cost millions. Culling involves shooting, poisoning or narcotising. Poisoning has long been illegal because of risks to other species and the active ingredient for narcotising was proscribed some years ago. For either to be used there would have to be a change in the law, which is unlikely.
So, we're left with shooting. This year, Bath supports 979 pairs (ie 1,958 breeding adults and, with non-breeders, a conservative total of 2,500 birds). That's a lot of birds to shoot and it would take a long time.
How would the cull be conducted? Would there be a team of vigilantes patrolling city streets, or snipers positioned on rooftops? And how would permission be obtained to shoot over the many hundreds of properties which make up the city of Bath?
The serious questions, though, are these: in the present security climate, how would such a plan be received by the police, the RSPCA, the RSPB and bird lovers? Who would pay for any damage to buildings caused by stray shots? And what would happen if someone were hit by a stray shot?
Wherever a niche appears, it will be filled. So, if only a hundred or two are killed, the difference in the population would probably not even be noticed by the following season.
Why? The large gulls do not breed until they are between three and six years old, so gulls hatched in Bath before 2010 could be seeking to breed for the first time from next year onwards, but so, too, will those hatched in all of the surrounding urban colonies which have been supplying Bath with recruits for many years.
Even if a large number of Bath gulls were killed, an even larger number would need to be killed in the other colonies in the Severn Estuary – a cull of more than 60,000 gulls. It would be unimaginably time-consuming and expensive.
What should we do? Just about everything in the name of pest control has been based on guesswork. How can we contemplate managing the issue if we don't know what we're dealing with? Without research, the inevitable prospect is one of problems and expense increasing in direct proportion to rapidly growing urban gull populations.
Comments
by mummyrockstar, BATH City Centre
Thursday, September 02 2010, 11:04PM
“How long will the 'research' take and at the end of that period, what (if any) action will it recommend? Research can prove anything, usually depending on who is funding it.
We need action NOW. Living with these disgusting creatures is abominable. Its almost futile to list the heinous noise at 4am, the rubbish dragged across our streets, the mess on buildings and sculptures, the vile scene they present on the 'duck' pond in Victoria Park, the threat to wildlife and domestic animals etc etc etc Get rid of them, anyway, anyhow. Poisoning is a perfectly legitimate way of ridding ourselves of large numbers. What did Bookers do when they needed to protect their customers - took action. how much does 'oiling eggs' cost the council(us) per year and could that not be put to better use?
These vermin return because their breeding is successful and uninterrupted year on year. We would not have to legally tolerate neighbours or business premises creatign this amount of noise nuisance or mess - the council would HAVE to act. Why can't we apply the principle to gulls.
I watched one drag a pigeon into the river and peck it to death as it ate it two weeks ago...they are beyond hideous. but they will go in the next couple of weeks and once again the momentum will evaporate and yet another year will pass with no effective measures being implemented. Research will just delay any positive (for city centre residents, businesses and visitors) action. Until Spring then....”