RACING PIGEONS – IMPACT OF RAPTOR PREDATION

deterrents were regularly moved and changed. Although, only effective in the shortterm,
hanging devices, flashing lights and bangers were recognised as useful in
protecting poults until they became larger and more self reliant in avoiding predators.
However, whilst these methods were recommended, there was no experimental
evaluation of their relative effectiveness.
Lloyd (1976) reported experiments in Europe which had shown that large silvered
balls were effective in protecting reared game and chickens from diurnal raptors,
particularly sparrowhawks and goshawks (Mansfield 1954 and Pfeiffer & Keil 1963
reported in Lloyd 1976). Also reported was the advocacy of reflective objects by
various gamekeepers in the UK: opportunistic trials using such suspended materials
successfully ended sparrowhawk predation at three different release pens. Finally,
providing alternative feeding opportunities (e.g. dead pigeons) were also suggested as
effective in reducing predation by sparrowhawks.
More recently, to assist the UK Raptor Working Group, the British Association for
Shooting and Conservation (BASC) undertook a survey of its gamekeeper
membership to determine their problems with raptors and how they dealt with them.
Information provided by almost 1,000 gamekeepers was subsequently assessed
(Harradine et al. 1997). The survey revealed that many different deterrent and scaring
techniques were used, either in isolation or combined, e.g. bangers, gas guns, alarms,
hangers and mobiles, lights, mirrors, radios, owl decoys, scarecrows and human
presence, but with varied and generally little success. The most effective methods
involved habitat manipulation and game management, rather than deterrent devices.
Increasing cover inside pens, roofing pens (e.g. using overhead wires) and delaying
poult release until birds were older and larger appeared to be most beneficial. The
Group concluded that there was no consistent application of deterrents, some of the
most commonly used were those which appeared least successful, whilst some of the
apparently most successful were less frequently used. Field trials were recommended
to address the urgent need to assess the effectiveness of different deterrent measures.
6.5 RECENT FIELD TRIALS ON RAPTOR DETERRENTS
Two further studies relevant to the issue of raptor predation on racing pigeons have
been recently completed:
• An investigation by Lancaster University into attacks by birds of prey on racing
pigeons, which included evaluation of selected loft-based and bird-based
deterrents (Dixon 2002).
• Field trials by ADAS to evaluate the effectiveness of deterrent and management
techniques to reduce raptor activity at game bird release pens.
Trials of loft-based and pigeon-based deterrents (Lancaster University)
Lancaster University’s research, funded by the Royal Pigeon Racing Association
(RPRA), included trials of selected loft-based and pigeon-based raptor deterrents
(Dixon 2002). The trials, which commenced in March 2002, were conducted in South
Wales. Loft-based trials evaluated the effectiveness of two visual deterrents: a great
horned owl model and eyespot balloons. Pigeon-based trials evaluated wingtransfers,
sequins and Bali-bells. It was concluded that loft-based deterrents did not
prevent attacks by sparrowhawks and goshawks at lofts, neither did bird-based
deterrents reduce the level of racing pigeon losses during exercise and training flights.
78