6 TH EA U-D U-B:0O,N© B Uris iene eee 
and a stream from a fire hose have been used with some success. Serious 
thought must be given to removing the birds from a roost. Persistent 
application of any method will usually give satisfactory results. 
The use of toxic gases for removing objectionable roosts is not recom- 
mended. A dose of one-third the human lethal dose or greater is necessary 
to give good results. This means that at the point of release, the amount 
of gas released would be far above the amount necessary to kill human 
beings. Furthermore, gas clouds are subject to air currents once they are 
released and might prove to be extremely dangerous to human beings, both 
in the near vicinity and at some distance. In buildings where toxic gases 
can be confined and controlled, it is possible to use them to good advantage. 
Only persons familiar with the use and handling of gas should attempt any 
fumigation. Because the food of the starling is largely insects, it is rather 
difficult to poison them. Poison placed in garbage heaps where starlings 
feed during the winter may result in the death of many gulls that also 
feed on the garbage when the lakes are frozen over. A few birds can be 
trapped. Most bird-banders capture a few starlings each year; however, 
the small number taken, if destroyed, make very little impression in the 
starling population. 
Because of the strong, gamy flavor of the starling’s flesh they are not 
readily recommended for food. For those who care to try them the follow- 
ing procedure is recommended. If the breasts of these birds are soaked in 
a soda and salt solution for twelve hours and then parboiled in fresh water, 
they may be used in a meat pie that will compare with a pie made from 
the breasts of blackbirds, sparrows and possibly “breast of snow-bird.” 
CONCLUSION 
The starling is either beneficial to man or of a neutral character from 
an economic standpoint. The endless hours they spend in searching for 
insects far outweighs the damage to crops or the molesting of other birds. 
The United States Department of Agriculture feels that the influence of 
the starling in this country, in moderate numbers, is decidedly beneficial. 
The large number of beetles, weevils, cutworms, and grasshoppers that it 
destroys shows it to be more energetic than many of our protected native 
birds. The flocking habits of the starling together with its general increase 
in abundance have caused an insistent demand for a curtailment in num- 
bers. A certain amount of damage is infiicted to cherries, other small 
fruits, a few garden vegetables, and late fruit and corn. It is also the 
direct cause of the disappearance of many birds from the dooryard. The 
factor of over-abundance seems to be the cause of most of the starling’s 
bad habits rather than actual tendencies toward doing harm. Local control 
campaigns where the bird is decidedly a nuisance is the logical procedure 
rather than wholesale slaughter without due consideration of the economic 
value of the bird. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 
Wild Birds Introduced or Transplanted in North America—U. S. Dept. of Agriculture 
The European Starling in the United States —U. S. Department of Agriculture 
Individual and Sexual Variations in the European Starling — Lawrence KE. Hicks 
Population Studies of the European Starling in America — Lawrence E. Hicks 
Desplaines, Illinois 
