The air transportation industry commonly uses the word wildlife
in such terms as wildlife strike, wildlife hazard, wildlife control,
and Airport Wildlife Management Plan. However, strikes, near
misses, hazards, control activities and sightings at airports can
involve both wild and domestic birds and mammals, as well as
reptiles and amphibians. Therefore, in our survey we used the term
animal, defined in the survey introduction as any wild or domestic
terrestrial vertebrate. This included birds, mammals, reptiles or
amphibians. We used the term animal strike to refer to both bird
and mammal strikes, and we used the term animal control instead
of wildlife control.
We followed Transport Canada (2004) conventions in defining
a hazard as ‘‘the conditions or circumstances that could lead to
damage or destruction of an aircraft, or to loss of life as a result of
aircraft operations. Risk is defined as the consequence of a hazard,
measured in terms of likelihood and severity’’.
During May and June 2007, we conducted an Internet search and
developed a preliminary list of airports in British Columbia, Alberta
and Saskatchewan to form the target population. Where possible,
we contacted each airport by email. If no airport contact information
was found, we emailed the corresponding municipal administration
office with a request to forward the message to
appropriate airport staff. We asked airport staff if they had
encountered any issues with animal strikes or with animals interfering
with runways and if they would be willing to remain in
contact with us.We made phone calls and emails between June 26
and July 26, 2007.