Boats And Birds,
Round Two
eaworthy editors occasionally
take a break from writing about boat
fires, hurricanes and collisions to
focus on a topic that readers have
told us is far more problematic:
bird poop. Specifically, how to keep
the latter from making your decks
look like the bottom of a bird cage.
We’ve received hundreds of stories,
including techniques that seem to
work and others that are definitely a
waste of time. The underlying theme
has always been: “Who is smarter,
people or birds?”
S
The letters make it clear that there
is no single technique that works
for all types of birds—seagulls,
cormorants, osprey, pelicans,
sparrows, to name a few. To be
fair, quite a few readers insist
that nothing works, ever. While
Seaworthy editors have relied on
anecdotes to discover what works,
at least one publication has opted
to take a scientific approach. In the
April 2010 issue of Practical Sailor,
the editors reported on a six-month
field test (“Boat Care That’s for the
Birds”), which was conducted using
a wide assortment of commercially
available birdie repellents. PS broke
the devices down into two groups:
visual devices that are intended to
scare birds and physical exclusion
devices that are intended to prevent
a bird from landing on the boat.
The test was conducted on some
seldom-used floating finger piers
at Sunset Cay Marina in South
Carolina, which is near a marsh that
is home to many (well fed) gulls,
pelicans, herons, cormorants, black
skimmers, pigeons, and
assorted smaller birds.
During the course of
the experiment, the
devices were subjected
to temperatures ranging
from steamy hot to near
freezing with lots of
wind and rain. Here’s
some of what Practical
Sailor found:
• One of the problems
common to all of the
devices was a lack of durability (the
exception was the spike panels). Sections
of something called Irri-Tape reflected
light and flapped in the wind and seemed
to do a good job repelling birds but was
gone in less than a month. So too were the
eye balloons (Scare Eye and Terror-Eyes),
which also appeared to have been doing
a good job before they disappeared.
• The Prowler Owl kept gulls, but not
pigeons, away. It too had durability issues;
a wing broke after only two weeks and
the owl itself blew away after 10 weeks.
• Among the physical exclusion devices,
the spiked products protected the
smallest areas. The testers found bird
droppings fewer than 10 inches from each
of the spiked panels. The three spider-like
devices performed similarly; you would
need several of them to protect an entire
boat.
• BIRDOFF’s self-named product was
strung around the boat and appeared
to work well and be durable (no
moving parts), but you will have to
allow time to roll it all up whenever
you want to use the boat.
• While it wasn’t tested, a motion-activated sprinkler was highly
recommended by a California marina
employee who was interviewed for the
article. (Sprinkler devices were also
recommended by Seaworthy readers,
although they reported the devices
sprinkled people as well as birds.)
The manager of a marina in Galveston
had similar praise for a sound-emitting
device but said they finally took it
down because the noise was driving
people nuts.
The article concluded, “Successful
bird deterrence is a complex
business,” to which we would
add that it’s also a very frustrating
business. The best way to protect a
boat, the editors noted, would be to
use a combination of devices that
best suits your boat’s configuration
and location. They warned that you’ll
have to check on them regularly,
change the positioning, and do some
maintenance if you’re going to have
any success. For more on what works
and doesn’t work, go to www.BoatUS.
com/Seaworthy.
