Michael L. Avery

Supervisory Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center

Gainesville, Florida

Anthony G. Duffiney 

State Director

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services

Okemos, Michigan

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Prevention and control of cedar waxwing 

(Bombycilla cedrorum) damage to small 

fruits such as blueberry, cherry, and 

strawberry is vexing to growers in many 

parts of the United States. Cedar waxwings 

(Figure 1) travel in flocks and descend in 

large numbers on berry crops, especially 

during winter and migration. In short 

feeding bouts, waxwings eat, peck, or 

knock substantial amounts of fruit from 

the plants. These frugivores are difficult to 

discourage once they become established 

at a given location. Harassment early and 

often using pyrotechnics or other sudden 

noisemakers can help prevent flocks from 

being established. The most effective 

preventative measure is exclusion using 

an appropriate netting system. Visual and 

auditory deterrents have limited 

effectiveness as flocks rapidly habituate. 

Chemical repellents based on methyl 

anthranilate as the active ingredient are 

readily available. Permits for lethal control 

can be difficult to obtain. 

Landscapes

Cedar waxwings are consummate 

frugivores. As such, they are attracted to 

cultivated soft fruits such as blueberry, 

Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

October 2016 Cedar Waxwings

Figure 1. Pair of cedar waxwings (Bombycilla cedrorum) 

on a blueberry bush, Gainesville, Florida.

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1

Damage Identification 2

Management Methods 2

Species Overview 4

Legal Status 5

Glossary & Key Words 6

Resources 7 

Appendix 8 
cherry, and strawberry. The birds damage these crops not 

only by direct consumption, but also by knocking ripe 

undamaged fruit to the ground. They also sample berries, 

leaving them ruined on the plant. 

Monetary value of damage by cedar waxwings is difficult to 

determine because they often are associated with other 

depredating birds. There is no certain means of isolating 

the impacts of one species. A limited assessment of bird 

damage to early-ripening blueberries in Florida produced 

loss estimates of 17% to 75%, attributable mostly to cedar 

waxwings. A survey of blueberry growers in 1992 elicited 

49 responses from 16 states and provinces. Overall, 

starlings, robins, and grackles were the species of most 

concern, but respondents in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and 

Washington each listed the cedar waxwing as a species of 

major concern. 

Blueberries that are knocked off or still remain attached to 

the bush sometimes have characteristic V-shaped marks 

left by the waxwing’s beak (Figure 2). 

Early onset of crop protection strategies yields better 

results than delayed tactics. As birds become used to 

feeding unchallenged, it becomes more difficult to prevent 

them from using a site. 

Cedar waxwing flocks react to harassment by people on 

ATVs using pyrotechnics or other loud noisemakers by 

lifting off, flying out of range, and settling down again. If 

driven out of the field, they likely will perch in nearby trees, 

and then swoop into the field once more when the threat of 

harassment decreases. Permanent removal of birds from a 

blueberry or strawberry field requires persistent 

harassment throughout the day. Physical harassment in 

combination with chemical repellent applications, visual 

scare devices, and audio deterrents will likely be more 

effective than any of these components alone. 

Timing, Economics and Methods

Ideally, a benefit-cost analysis is performed as part of the 

damage management plan to help narrow the scope of the 

management options and align management needs with 

available resources. Depending on the amount of bird 

pressure and the value of the crop, sometimes the most 

cost-effective course of action is to not apply bird damage 

control. On the other hand, for highly valuable crops with 

high levels of depredation, investment in relatively 

expensive control measures such as netting is financially 

justifiable. There is also the benefit of affecting multiple 

depredating species at the same time. Seldom are 

waxwings the only frugivorous species in a field or orchard. 

Control methods applicable for cedar waxwings likely will 

carry over to birds such as American robins (Turdus 

migratorius) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). 

Habitat Modification

Often times, habitat modification options are limited. After 

a feeding bout, flocks of waxwings retreat to nearby 

perches. Eliminating the perching, loafing, or resting areas 

adjacent to crop fields might be possible in some cases, 

but the effectiveness of such measures is not known. 

Installing a kestrel (Falco sparverius) house was very 

successful for one New Hampshire grower. Cedar 

waxwings are easily urged elsewhere by kestrels. 

Figure 2. Cedar waxwings often damage fruits without removing them.

Page 2

Damage Identification

WDM Technical Series—Cedar Waxwings

Management Methods
Exclusion

Netting to exclude birds is considered cumbersome and 

expensive by many growers, but is the most effective 

means to prevent crop damage. Netting must be properly 

installed and maintained. Orchards, vineyards, and fields 

worldwide are netted for protection against bird depredations, and currently there are many options (Figure 3). 

Netting is not perfect, but for many situations, especially 

when the crop is of high value for the fresh market, there is 

no better alternative. Netting must completely cover the 

crop, as birds can be tenacious when attempting to feed. 

You can install netting on cables above the crop using hog 

rings, which allow the nets to be pulled into position as the 

crop ripens, then slid back after harvest. If it is financially 

impossible to install netting over the entire planting, then it 

can be done piecemeal. Protecting a portion of the field is 

better than protecting none. Over a period of years, the 

entire area can be protected with netting.

Scare Devices

Many commercial visual and auditory scare devices are 

available, but effectiveness is inconsistent. 

Bird responses to specific devices depend on a number of 

factors, including availability of alternate food sources, the 

use of multiple devices and deployment at various locations to avoid habituation, and timing of control (earlier is 

best). Habituation is reduced if the device can be remotely 

activated. Examples include propane cannons and inflatable “scary man” products. Harassment with pyrotechnics 

will keep birds moving, but might violate noise ordinances 

and aggravate neighbors. 

Repellents

Several commercial repellents are available for bird control 

in orchards or fields. These products have methyl anthranilate (MA) as the active ingredient. All birds are susceptible to MA, a contact irritant. Birds do not have to learn 

to avoid this compound because it is irritating upon the 

first encounter. It is probably most effective as a fog or 

aerosol application because of increased contact with the 

bird’s eyes, mouth, and respiratory system. Because MA is 

volatile, it does not persist; repeated applications might be 

needed. Use all registered chemicals in accordance with 

label instructions. 

Toxicants

None are registered.

Shooting

Shooting and any other lethal control measure requires a 

depredation permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). The chances of obtaining such a permit 

vary with the area of the country. In southeastern United 

States, for example, the USFWS does not issue depredation permits for cedar waxwings. Other USFWS regions 

might have different policies. State and local limitations on 

shooting also must be observed, regardless of the location. 

Check with the USFWS, as well as state and local authorities to learn if shooting is allowed in your area. 

Trapping

There are no effective traps for cedar waxwings. Capturing 

waxwings with mist-nets is possible, but this requires the 

appropriate federal permit and does not seem to be a viable control method. 

Page 3

Figure 3. Netting must be properly installed and maintained to be effective.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Other Management Methods

Falconry has been tried, but was not successful. 

Disposal

Check your local and state regulations regarding carcass 

disposal. 

Identification

The cedar waxwing is one of two waxwing species found in 

North America. The other species is the Bohemian 

waxwing. Both belong to the avian family Bombycillidae.

Physical Description

The cedar waxwing is unmistakable. It is a small, sleek, 

crested bird with overall gray-brown plumage. Birds have a 

sharp black facemask edged in white, a black chin, yellowtipped tail feathers, and red wax-like tips on their 

secondary wing feathers (Figure 4). 

Sexes are similar in size: total length is approximately 6 1⁄4 

inches, wing length 35 1⁄2 to 37 1⁄2 inches, and tail length 

19 3⁄4 to 21 1⁄4 inches. Body mass is 1 to 1 1⁄4 ounce, with 

females slightly heavier than males during the breeding 

season.

Range

Cedar waxwings winter in the southern United States into 

Central America (Figure 5). It is a year-round resident 

throughout the northern half of the U.S. into southern 

Canada. The breeding range extends north throughout 

central Canada. 

Sign

Presence at a site often is first revealed by the 

characteristic “Seee” calls. 

Voice and Sounds

Cedar waxwings have no song, but produce two distinctive 

call types. The “Bzeee” call is a high-pitched trill with buzzy 

or rattling quality. The “Seee” call is a high-pitched, 

extended whistle of nearly unchanging frequency. It is 

often given in flight or by flock members just before taking 

off. 

Reproduction

Cedar waxwings breed the first summer after fledging, and 

often raise two broods per season. Clutch size is generally 

four eggs. Fledging success is reportedly 72 to 89%. 

Eggs are laid daily. The female incubates the clutch for 

about 12 days and broods the nestlings. Both parents feed 

the young, with the male doing most of it. The nesting 

period lasts 14 to 18 days. Fledglings’ first flights occur 3 

to 4 days after leaving the nest.

This is one of the latest nesting species in North America. 

Egg-laying occurs from early June through early August. 

Occasionally, active nests are found into early October. 

Breeding probably commences earlier at lower latitudes, 

and timing is probably keyed to availability of ripening fruit. 

Page 4

Figure 4. Cedar waxwings are named for the red wax-like tips on their 

secondary flight feathers.

WDM Technical Series—Cedar Waxwings

Species Overview
Cedar waxwings nest in a variety of trees and shrubs, often 

on the edge of wooded areas or in old-field habitats. Frequently, orchards and young pine plantations are used. 

Mortality

Mortality is estimated to be constant, 55% annually, across 

all age classes. The maximum recorded life span is 7 

years. Collisions with buildings and vehicles, pesticide poisoning, and predation are all important causes of mortality. 

Population Status

The Breeding Bird Survey (1966-2013) data indicate longterm population stability throughout North America. Exceptions are Oregon and Manitoba, Canada, which exhibit annual downward trends of -2.4% and -4.0%, respectively.

Food Habits

Waxwings prefer fruits that contain simple sugars, such as 

fructose and glucose. Typical fruits eaten include crabapples, hawthorns, cedar berries, cherries, blueberries, dogwood, and mistletoe. During the breeding season (May to 

September), arthropods such as emerging mayflies and 

swarming ants often are eaten. When fruit is scarce, flowers are a large part of their diet. 

Waxwings feed in open forest and wood edges, crop fields 

(blueberry, strawberry, cherry), backyards, urban parks, 

and parking lots (landscape holly trees). 

Fully protected by the international Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, waxwings cannot be taken without a depredation permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5

Figure 5. Cedar waxwing distribution in North America.

Legal Status
Page 6

Acknowledgements

Figure 1. Photo by Michael L. Avery, USDA-APHIS-WS, NWRC

Figure 2. Photo by Anthony G. Duffiney, USDA-APHIS-WS

Figure 3. Photo by Michael L. Avery, USDA-APHIS-WS, NWRC

Figure 4. Photo by Michael L. Avery, USDA-APHIS-WS, NWRC

Figure 5. Map by The Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Glossary

Deterrent: A method used to eliminate or prevent birds 

from landing, roosting and nesting.

Frugivore: An animal that eats fruit. It can be an herbivore 

or omnivore, but fruit is the preferred food.

Pyrotechnics: Flares or cartridges fired from a gun or 

launcher that produce a loud blast or scream accompanied 

by smoke and a flash of light. 

Key Words

Blueberry, Bombycilla cedrorum, Cedar waxwing, Cherry, 

Damage to fruit, Frugivore, Netting

Citation

Wildlife can threaten the health and safety of you and others in the area. Use of damage prevention and control 

methods also may pose risks to humans, pets, livestock, 

other non-target animals, and the environment. Be aware 

of the risks and take steps to reduce or eliminate those 

risks. 

Some methods mentioned in this document may not be 

legal, permitted, or appropriate in your area. Read and follow all pesticide label recommendations and local requirements. Check with personnel from your state wildlife agency and local officials to determine if methods are acceptable and allowed. 

Mention of any products, trademarks, or brand names 

does not constitute endorsement, nor does omission constitute criticism. 

WDM Technical Series—Cedar Waxwings

Disclaimer

Avery, M.L. and A.G. Duffiney. 2016. Cedar Waxwings. Wildlife Damage Management Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, 

WS National Wildlife Research Center. Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

8p.
Page 7

Resources

Eaton, A. 2010. Bird damage prevention for northern New England fruit growers. UNH Cooperative Extension. Accessed 26 November, 2014 http://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource001797_Rep2514.pdf.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American 

Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2012. Version 02.19. 2014 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, Laurel, MD. Accessed 22 January, 2015 at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/specl12.html.

Tracey, J., M. Bomford, Q. Hart, G. Saunders, and R. Sinclair. 2007. Managing Bird Damage to Fruit and Other Horticultural Crops. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia. 268 pp. 

Witmer, M. C., D. J. Mountjoy and L. Elliot. 1997. Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed 26 November, 2014 from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/309/articles/introduction.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Damage Management Methods for Cedar Waxwings

Page 8

Appendix 

 

Type of Control 

 

 

Available Management Options 

 

Exclusion Netting

Frightening Devices Numerous commercial visual and auditory scare devices

Habitat Modification Remove trees or other convenient perching sites adjacent to fields

Repellents Products based on methyl anthranilate 

Toxicants None registered 

Trapping Mist nets, requires a permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Shooting Requires a permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service