Editing Common starling (section)

=== Control ===
Due to the impact of starlings on crop production, there have been attempts to control the numbers of both native and introduced populations of common starlings. Within the natural breeding range, this may be affected by legislation. For example, in Spain, the species is hunted commercially as a food item, and has a closed season, whereas in France, it is classed as a pest, and the season in which it may be killed covers the greater part of the year. In Great Britain, starlings are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it "illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take a starling, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents". The Wildlife Order in Northern Ireland allows, with a general licence, "an authorised person to control starlings to prevent serious damage to agriculture or preserve public health and safety".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/starling|title=Starling Bird Facts &#124; Sturnus Vulgaris|website=The RSPB}}</ref> The species is migratory, so birds involved in control measures may have come from a wide area and breeding populations may not be greatly affected. In Europe, the varying legislation and mobile populations mean that control attempts may have limited long-term results.<ref name = feareconf>{{Cite conference | first = Chris J | last = Feare |author2=Douville de Franssu, Pierre|author3=Peris, Salvador J | title = The starling in Europe: multiple approaches to a problem | work = Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference | pages =83–88 | publisher = University of California, Davis | year = 1992| location = Davis }}</ref> Non-lethal techniques such as scaring with [[Bird scarer|visual or auditory devices]] have only a temporary effect in any case.<ref name= linz/>

Huge urban roosts in cities can create problems due to the noise and mess made and the smell of the droppings. In 1949, so many birds landed on the clock hands of London's [[Big Ben]] that it stopped, leading to unsuccessful attempts to disrupt the roosts with netting, repellent chemical on the ledges and broadcasts of common starling alarm calls. An entire episode of ''[[The Goon Show]]'' in 1954 was a [[parody]] of the futile efforts to disrupt the large common starling roosts in central London.<ref name = cocker/>

[[File:Sturnus vulgaris -England -bird feeder-8.jpg|upright|thumb|right|alt=Starling at bird feeder|Visiting a bird feeder. The adult has a black beak in the winter.]]
Where it is introduced, the common starling is unprotected by legislation, and extensive control plans may be initiated. Common starlings can be prevented from using nest boxes by ensuring that the access holes are smaller than the {{cvt|1.5|in|0}} diameter they need, and the removal of perches discourages them from visiting [[bird feeder]]s.<ref name="wdfw.wa.gov"/>

Western Australia banned the import of common starlings in 1895. New flocks arriving from the east are routinely shot, while the less cautious juveniles are trapped and netted.<ref name=Wooly/> New methods are being developed, such as tagging one bird and tracking it back to establish where other members of the flock roost.<ref name=Judas>{{cite journal | last= Woolnough| first= Andrew P|author2=Lowe, T J |author3=Rose, K  | year=2006 | title=Can the Judas technique be applied to pest birds? | journal= Wildlife Research | volume= 33 | issue = 6| pages= 449–455 | doi =10.1071/WR06009 }}</ref> Another technique is to analyse the DNA of Australian common starling populations to track where the migration from eastern to western Australia is occurring so that better preventive strategies can be used.<ref name=Rollins>{{cite journal | last= Rollins| first= L A|author2=Woolnough, Andrew P|author3=Sherwin, W B| year= 2006| title=Population genetic tools for pest management: a review | journal= Wildlife Research | volume= 33 | pages= 251–261 | doi= 10.1071/WR05106 | issue= 4 }}</ref> By 2009, only 300 common starlings were left in Western Australia, and the state committed a further A$400,000 in that year to continue the eradication programme.<ref name=redman>{{cite web |author=Redman, Terry |title=State Government commits to help eradicate starlings |work=Media releases, 2009–10–19 |url=http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/State-Government-commits-400000-to-help-eradicate-starlings-Redman.aspx |publisher=State of Western Australia |access-date=2013-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120330081119/http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/State-Government-commits-400000-to-help-eradicate-starlings-Redman.aspx |archive-date=2012-03-30 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In the United States, common starlings are exempt from the [[Migratory Bird Treaty Act]], which prohibits the taking or killing of migratory birds.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/taxolst.html |publisher = US Fish & Wildlife Service| title=Birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act |access-date=2007-12-17 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071214065547/http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/taxolst.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2007-12-14}}</ref> No permit is required to remove nests and eggs or kill juveniles or adults.<ref name="wdfw.wa.gov"/> Research was undertaken in 1966 to identify a suitable [[avicide]] that would both kill common starlings and would readily be eaten by them. It also needed to be of low toxicity to mammals and not likely to cause the death of pets that ate dead birds. The chemical that best fitted these criteria was DRC-1339, now marketed as [[Starlicide]].<ref name = decino>{{cite journal |title=Toxicity of DRC-1339 to starlings |last1=Decino  |first1 =Thomas J |last2=Cunningham | first2 = Donald J| last3 = Schafer | first3 = Edward W |journal=Journal of Wildlife Management |volume=30 |issue=2 |year=1966 |pages=249–253|doi=10.2307/3797809|jstor=3797809}}</ref> In 2008, the United States government poisoned, shot or trapped 1.7{{nbsp}}million birds, the largest number of any nuisance species to be culled.<ref name=stark>{{cite news| author =Stark, Mike| title= Shock and Caw: Pesky Starlings Still Overwhelm| publisher= NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32722587 |access-date =19 March 2019| date=2009-09-07}}</ref> In 2005, the population in the United States was estimated at 140{{nbsp}}million birds,<ref name=johnson>{{cite web |author1=Johnson, Ron J |author2=Glahn, James F |title=European Starlings and their Control |url=http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/EuropeanStarlings.asp |publisher=Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management |access-date=2013-01-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120822013345/http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/EuropeanStarlings.asp |archive-date=2012-08-22 |url-status=dead }}</ref> around 45% of the global total of 310{{nbsp}}million.<ref name="iucn status 19 November 2021" />

The likelihood of starlings to damage the feeding operations is dependent on the number of livestock, favouring areas with more livestock.<ref name="Glahn 15">{{Cite journal|last1=Glahn|first1=James F.|last2=Otis|first2=David L.|date=January 1986|title=Factors Influencing Blackbird and European Starling Damage at Livestock Feeding Operations|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3801481|journal=The Journal of Wildlife Management|volume=50|issue=1|pages=15|doi=10.2307/3801481|jstor=3801481|url-access=subscription}}</ref> They also show preference for feed types which were not whole corn but smaller feeds, creating more damage in areas where the feed was smaller.<ref name="Glahn 15"/> They also showed feed preference based on composition.<ref name="Carlson 1777–1784">{{Cite journal|last1=Carlson|first1=J.C.|last2=Stahl|first2=R.S.|last3=DeLiberto|first3=S.T.|last4=Wagner|first4=J.J.|last5=Engle|first5=T.E.|last6=Engeman|first6=R.M.|last7=Olson|first7=C.S.|last8=Ellis|first8=J.W.|last9=Werner|first9=S.J.|date=February 2018|title=Nutritional depletion of total mixed rations by European starlings: Projected effects on dairy cow performance and potential intervention strategies to mitigate damage|journal=Journal of Dairy Science|language=en|volume=101|issue=2|pages=1777–1784|doi=10.3168/jds.2017-12858|pmid=29224857|doi-access=free}}</ref> A proposed solution to this problem is use of less palatable feed by agriculturalists, perhaps relying on larger feed types or feed which is less favourable in composition to starlings.<ref name="Carlson 1777–1784"/><ref name="Glahn 15"/> An additional solution for mitigation control involves ensuring that livestock feeding operations are not within close proximity of each other or starling roosts.<ref name="Glahn 15"/> Weather conditions also had an impact on whether starlings visited livestock feeding operations, with a higher likelihood to visit in colder temperatures or following snow storms.<ref name="Carlson 2011 9">{{Cite journal|last1=Carlson|first1=James C|last2=Engeman|first2=Richard M|last3=Hyatt|first3=Doreene R|last4=Gilliland|first4=Rickey L|last5=DeLiberto|first5=Thomas J|last6=Clark|first6=Larry|last7=Bodenchuk|first7=Michael J|last8=Linz|first8=George M|date=2011|title=Efficacy of European starling control to reduce Salmonella enterica contamination in a concentrated animal feeding operation in the Texas panhandle|url= |journal=BMC Veterinary Research|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=9|doi=10.1186/1746-6148-7-9|issn=1746-6148|pmc=3050709|pmid=21324202 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Alternatives to managing starling populations in agricultural areas include the use of starlicide. Use of starlicide has been found to reduce the spread of ''[[Salmonella enterica]]'' in livestock and other diseases found among livestock.<ref name="Carlson 2011 9"/> Though this does not appear to eliminate introduction of these diseases completely, it has been determined that they are contributors and starling control is a successful mitigation strategy.<ref name="Carlson 2011 9"/>