Unsafe to use high-powered rifle to cull birds at airport

I, like Mr Roger, would class myself as a seasoned shooter and support his views entirely.

I have used a .17 HMR in the UK and have witnessed the devastating power of this rifle using ballistic tipped ammunition. Ballistic tipped ammunition is considered safer due to the bullet tip disintegrating upon striking a target and is therefore less prone to ricochets. However it is still considered lethal up to one mile from the firing point.

The .17 round has a muzzle velocity of around 3,750 fps (feet per second) dependent on the type of ammunition used. Compare this with a standard air rifle straight out of the box that has a muzzle velocity of around 300fps and you get some idea of the power of a .17 round.

An FAC rated air rifle capable of dispatching problematic birds to say 60-80 yards would be a more acceptable and safer option.

If you look at the airport and the surrounding area it is built up with houses, businesses, roadways and the terminal itself and a nearby school – in what direction could you possibly safely fire a rifle of this calibre?

Throw in the lack of a suitable backstop to stop any misplaced shot and we could end up with accidental death or serious injury.

Factors that can affect a rifle’s accuracy are scope movement due to it being knocked. Cleaning also affects accuracy and the rifle needs bedding in after cleaning. Very often the first shot is wide of the target due to solvents left inside the barrel. Modern powders burn fast, and so the rifle needs to be cleaned after usage. If left dirty, chemicals from the powders cause damage, eating away at the inside of the barrel, affecting accuracy.

Temperature can also have an effect on a scope’s zero and I have noticed this at times of high humidity.

I have heard about and spoken to several people on the subject of importing birds such as buzzards for rehabilitation and re-release into the wild. I have pointed out that the practice is proving problematic for the airport operations team and is also detrimental to the birds themselves. The problem and blame to a degree lies with those who provide the importation licence in the first place. If you tip the scales in favour of a particular species, the chances are that it will become a victim of its own success, particularly if it is predatory in nature. Some would have you believe that the buzzard relies totally on carrion. Not so. The bird needs to feed or it dies, it is as simple as that. So the survival instinct kicks in when food is scarce and it turns to predation to feed itself and that is why so many of this particular species are near the airport, to catch the plentiful voles that live in the grass. Obviously other species can also be problematic such as crows. These can be trapped and dealt with without resorting to using a high powered rifle with the associated risk.

I also believe that the problem is going to increase in time due to the waste strategy, as gulls will not have access to easy meals at the tip and will therefore need to find an alternative food source.

As mentioned, trapping could be one way forward alongside other methods such as using drones to discourage birds from the area and any number of measures already employed by the operations team who do a fantastic job of keeping the airfield relatively bird-free.

Then we come to the bird behaviour itself. A predatory bird will land, kill its prey and fly onto a nearby bush, tree or post to consume its victim, making it impossible to target with a rifle such as the .17 in built-up areas.

An uncomfortable and uneasy fact is that bird strikes can and have brought aircraft down with a large loss of human life. We are all aware of the need to keep birds from in-bound and out-bound aircraft. Only a couple of years ago, readers will remember the buzzards that got sucked into the engine cowling and cost Aurigny in excess of £100,000 to fix. I believe that at the time, lethal measures had been suspended due to a public outcry over the culling of birds at the airport. I wonder how many of the vociferous few would have been so vocal is there had been an accident on take-off or landing, with the loss of human life and or acceptance that they contribute towards the problem through opinion themselves.

NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD.