Martin S. Lowney 

State Director

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

Lakewood, Colorado

Scott F. Beckerman 

State Director

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

Springfield, Illinois

Scott C. Barras 

State Director

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

Moseley, Virginia

Thomas W. Seamans 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

National Wildlife Research Center

Sandusky, Ohio

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Abundant gull (Figure 1) populations in 

North America have led to a variety of 

conflicts with people. Gulls cause damage 

at aquaculture facilities and other 

properties, and often collide with aircraft. 

Their use of structures on and near water 

results in excessive amounts of bird 

droppings on boats and docks. Their 

presence near outdoor dining 

establishments, swimming beaches, and 

recreational sites can lead to negative 

interactions with people. Large amounts of 

gull fecal material pollutes water and 

beaches resulting in drinking water 

contamination and swim bans. A 

combination of dispersal techniques, 

exclusion and limited lethal control may 

reduce damage to an acceptable level. 

Aquaculture

Gulls feeding at fish hatcheries, 

mariculture beds, and baitfish production 

sites may result in significant losses for 

aquaculture producers. They may also 

impact salmonid fry, especially at passage 

facilities associated with dams in the 

Pacific Northwest. 

Gulls loafing at seafood processing 

facilities may create a nuisance for 

employees and contaminate seafood 

products with fecal material at outdoor 

staging areas while items are awaiting 

processing.

Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

May 2018 Gulls

Figure 1. Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)

Quick Links

Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1

Damage Identification 3

Management Methods 3

Economics 8

Species Overview 9

Legal Status 12

Glossary & Key Words 13

Resources 14 

Appendix 16 
Structures

Gulls nesting on rooftops often indirectly damage the roof, 

as well as the building, due to accumulations of nesting 

material in rooftop drains that prevent the draining of 

water from the roof. The resulting backup of rainwater may 

lead to structural damage to the roof, including leakage, 

water damage and rot, mold, and excessive water weight 

on roof support structures. 

Human Health and Safety

Gull use of structures on and near water results in 

excessive amounts of bird droppings on boats and docks in 

marinas, and the presence of gulls near outdoor dining 

establishments, swimming beaches, and recreational sites 

creates negative interactions with people. Research has 

documented that gulls can be a source of fecal 

contamination (i.e., Escherichia coli and Salmonella

isolates) in water and beaches, resulting in contamination 

of drinking water and swim bans (Figure 2). In addition, 

buildup of droppings, nesting materials, and feathers on 

rooftops near ventilation intakes can result in unwanted 

odors and the intake of irritants affecting the respiratory 

health of workers and creating an unsanitary work 

environment. Large numbers of gulls flocking around 

landfills is a distraction and safety risk to heavy equipment 

operators and truck drivers.

Gulls are frequently involved in collisions with aircraft 

resulting in dangerous conditions for people both in the 

aircraft and on the ground (Figure 3). From 1990-2015, 

gulls were involved in at least 10,586 bird strikes with 

2,188 of those strikes involving multiple birds. Fifteen of 

those strikes resulted in injuries to 22 people. Their large 

size, looping flight, flocking behavior, and propensity to 

feed and loaf on grasslands and paved surfaces at coastal 

airports make them a significant strike threat. 

During the nesting season, especially after chicks hatch, 

gulls may dive and strike people on the head if they come 

too close to nests. This behavior is problematic near 

nesting colonies where people may be working on rooftops, 

performing building maintenance or security. 

Natural Resources

Gulls may be detrimental to some shorebird and waterbird 

species of concern because they prey on eggs and chicks. 

For example, predation by Laughing, Herring, and Great 

Black-backed Gulls contributes to declines or lower 

productivity of some species along the Atlantic Coast. Gulls 

are a primary predator of nests and chicks of terns, 

skimmers, and other colonial nesting birds from the 

Chesapeake Bay to Maine.

Figure 2. Gulls at a Chicago area beach.

Page 2 WDM Technical Series─Gulls

Figure 3. Gulls on an airport.
Nuisance 

Gulls habituate to the presence of people and may become 

a nuisance for sunbathers or diners at outdoor 

establishments when food is accessible. 

Damage Identification

Because of their gregarious nature, gulls are easily 

observed and identified. Nuisance complaints are 

determined from visual observations, noise and fecal 

droppings.

Management Methods

No single management method to prevent gull conflicts 

works all the time or in all settings. Wildlife management 

methods should be integrated so that one method 

enhances the effect of another. For example, frightening 

devices often are more effective when done in conjunction 

with habitat modification (e.g., removal of food resources 

or roosting habitat) to make a site less attractive to gulls. 

Likewise, exclusion devices, such as overhead wires, work 

better when combined with covering or removing food 

resources. 

Local gull populations often are large, and birds may fly 15 

miles or more from roosting or nesting sites to feed. This 

mobile strategy often means that feeding sites are visited 

by only a portion of the gull population each day. Therefore, 

exclusive use of lethal control is not an effective, long-term 

method for preventing gull damage at those sites. Limited 

lethal control combined with frightening devices and 

habitat modification can reduce human-gull conflicts at 

feeding sites to socially acceptable levels. 

Habitat Modification

Modifying human behavior, habitats, and cultural systems 

is an essential part of effective, long-term gull damage 

management. Efforts and activities should focus on 

reducing the availability of food, water, and loafing areas 

that attract gulls.

Gulls alter their behavior to take advantage of available 

food sources. Prohibiting the feeding of gulls and other 

wildlife by customers, guests, and employees will help 

reduce gull attractants. Feeding of other species, such as 

feral cats, must be eliminated in areas where gull conflicts 

occur. Preventing the unintentional feeding of gulls also 

requires effective waste management, such as promptly 

removing garbage, keeping dumpsters and trash 

receptacles closed, covering garbage trucks, regularly 

cleaning docks and piers, and removing waste/rejected 

fruits and vegetables at processing sites. 

Gulls shift their feeding patterns to take advantage of 

changes in naturally occurring foods. Hatches or spikes in 

the populations of terrestrial or marine invertebrates can 

contribute to large concentrations of feeding gulls. 

Strategic use of insecticides to prevent outbreaks of 

grasshoppers and beetles can help to manage these 

attractants on and near sensitive areas, such as airfields. 

Managing the grass height at airfields is important for 

reducing the availability of natural foods and attractiveness 

of loafing sites. Grass height should be maintained at 6 to 

10 inches throughout the year. 

Freshwater attracts gulls, especially rain events in marine 

environments. To reduce gull abundance, grasslands and 

paved surfaces should be properly graded to prevent 

standing water after storms. Wetland and stormwater 

mitigation projects, such as those at airfields, should be 

conducted offsite whenever possible, and water retention 

and movement should utilize underground designs and 

configurations that minimize bird use.

Exclusion

Exclusion involves physically blocking bird access to a site 

and is an important part of gull damage management. The 

use of various exclusion tools and techniques is dictated 

by the location and gull species involved. Like habitat 

management, physical exclusion can provide a long-term, 

nonlethal solution for deterring bird use. Because the cost 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 3
of materials, construction and maintenance can be 

expensive, exclusionary methods are most practical for 

small areas and a limited number of species. Laughing 

Gulls will walk and fly under exclusionary netting and 

overhead wires. Also, Herring and Ring-billed Gulls have 

been seen walking under netting and overhead wires to 

gain access to food. Unfortunately, exclusion that 

adequately stops bird access also can restrict the 

movement of people, equipment and other wildlife. Some 

physical exclusion devices may be an impediment to the 

intended use of a site, and some landowners, managers 

and users may consider the aesthetic impacts of physical 

exclusion devices to be unacceptable. 

Wires, netting, and monofilaments are available for 

excluding birds from protected areas. Coils, spikes, 

elevated wires or electrified strips can be used to exclude 

gulls from perching or loafing on narrow surfaces, such as 

ledges, signs, and guard rails. The effectiveness of these 

approaches can be enhanced through original design 

features, such as sloping ledges, that reduce the 

attractiveness of these surfaces.

Pier pilings, lamp posts, and outdoor furniture are 

attractive loafing spots for gulls, especially when food may 

be found nearby. These point surfaces, or areas that may 

be attractive to a few individual gulls can be protected 

through a variety of devices. Pointed caps can be installed 

on pier pilings and posts to prevent perching. Spider-like 

wire spindles are effective and can be enhanced with 

motors that create a rotating or sweeping effect.

Perching deterrents are available in a wide variety of 

designs. Porcupine wire (e.g., NixaliteTM, CatclawTM) and coil 

wire are mechanical repellents that can be used to exclude 

gulls and other birds from ledges, railings and other 

roosting or loafing surfaces. The sharp points on porcupine 

wire may inflict temporary discomfort on the birds as they 

try to land, which deters them from roosting or loafing. 

Electric shock bird control systems, although expensive, 

can be effective in deterring gulls and other birds from 

roosting on ledges, window sills and other similar 

structures. 

Work areas at agricultural and fisheries processing 

facilities must be secured to prevent gulls from 

contaminating food with fecal droppings or other items. To 

effectively exclude gulls, these areas should be fully 

enclosed with entry points protected by strips (or 

“curtains”) of heavy plastic sheeting. Loading and 

temporary storage areas outside should be protected with 

overhead wire grid systems to prevent gull access. The 

same exclusion approaches can be effective at trash 

transfer stations. Overnight capping or tarping of the active 

face of landfills can prevent feeding by gulls outside of 

landfill operation hours, especially during times of year 

when daylight persists after normal work hours and in welllit systems where gulls may be active at night.

Netting and wire or monofilament wire grids are often 

recommended to exclude gulls from resources with large 

surface areas, such as spillways, industrial rooftops, 

reservoirs, aquaculture facilities, retention/detention 

ponds, and landfills. Netting may be suspended over these 

facilities using a tent-like or wire-based support structure, 

but this approach may be cost-prohibitive for large areas. 

Most gull species can be excluded from ponds, fields or 

other areas using an overhead wire grid with hanging 

streamers or other objects (Figure 4) to increase the grid’s 

visibility to birds. The objective is to discourage birds from 

feeding and loafing, while preventing bird injury or death. 

Overhead wire grids require little maintenance other than 

ensuring proper wire tension and replacing broken wires. 

The grid spacing varies with the type of bird species being 

Page 4 WDM Technical Series─Gulls

Figure 4. Parallel overhead wires can be installed to prevent gull use of an 

area.
excluded. For example, overhead wires spaced about 10 

feet apart successfully repel Herring and Ring-billed Gulls, 

but not Laughing Gulls. Laughing Gulls are not repelled by 

overhead wires, but will often walk and fly under them. 

Wire grids can make a pond unusable for boating, 

swimming, fishing, and other recreational activities. 

Additionally, maintenance under the wires may be 

burdensome. 

Gulls can be excluded from small water bodies using large 

numbers of floating plastic balls. This system may not be 

practical in fisheries systems where access to water by 

sunlight and employees is required. A containment system 

is required for airport settings where the balls may present 

a FOD (Foreign Object Damage) hazard if they are blown 

out of the pond area.

Unnecessary signs, posts, pilings, and other structures that 

provide suitable gull loafing sites should be removed. 

Angled window ledges, bulkheads, and tunnel entrances, 

pointed posts or poles, and angled or beveled sign tops 

can reduce the attractiveness of loafing sites and reduce 

the need for exclusion devices.

Exclusion devices should not be installed over water if 

injury or accidental take of eagles and threatened and 

endangered species is anticipated.

Frightening Devices

The use of frightening devices to disperse gulls is an 

essential part of gull damage management (Figure 5). To 

be successful, frightening devices must be used at 

unpredictable frequencies, lengths of time, and locations. 

When possible, pursuing dispersed birds and reinforcing 

harassment with limited lethal control can help to improve 

the effectiveness of frightening devices. 

Pyrotechnics are one of the most commonly used tools for 

dispersing gulls. These wildlife control explosives include a 

variety of different products, such as shell crackers, 15-

mm pyrotechnics (e.g., screamers and bangers), and long 

range pyrotechnics (e.g., CAPA rounds). Pyrotechnics can 

be very effective, especially when combined with limited 

lethal re-enforcement. Users should be trained in the safe 

use and handling of these tools to prevent injury and fires. 

Permits from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 

are required for the use of some classes of pyrotechnics by 

individuals and non-governmental entities.

Live animals including falcons and dogs have been used to 

disperse gulls and other birds. This specialized approach 

requires an experienced handler, multiple work animals, 

and the ability to control the animals so they do not 

become a hazard in sensitive environments. 

Remote-controlled vehicles, including boats, land vehicles, 

and unmanned aircraft systems, can be effective for 

dispersing gulls and other birds. They allow for more 

controlled dispersals than live animals, and can reach gulls 

located in, and over large grasslands and lakes. These 

devices require experienced operators, and care should be 

taken to coordinate radio frequencies with the appropriate 

officials on or nearby sensitive areas, such as airports and 

military installations. 

Propane exploders are noise-making devices that can be 

activated by timer or remote control. Birds quickly 

habituate to propane exploders if their use is predictable. 

The devices must be moved frequently and only triggered 

when necessary.

Electronic devices that use bird alarm or distress calls are 

commercially available for gull dispersal. Bird calls can be 

broadcasted from stationary units or vehicles, and 

combined with sirens and alarms. Gull dispersal using 

distress calls is often a two-stage process whereby gulls 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 5

Figure 5. A solar-powered bird strobe sits atop a pole to deter bird use in an area. 
Page 6 WDM Technical Series─Gulls

may first come closer to investigate and then disperse as a 

result of the call and combination of other sounds and 

tools. Directed sound or acoustic hailing devices, such as 

Long Range Acoustical Devices (LRAD) offer another nonlethal tool for gull dispersal, though evaluations of their 

effectiveness are ongoing. As with other devices, gulls will 

habituate to the sounds unless reinforcement occurs.

Gull effigies have been used effectively to reinforce 

dispersal efforts, especially at gull loafing sites. Effigies 

may consist of taxidermy specimens, freshly killed gulls, or 

artificially reproduced likenesses. Effigies are displayed 

either in a prone position or hanging with the head down to 

represent a dead or dying gull. This technique should be 

used in conjunction with other techniques to re-enforce 

and extend the duration of dispersal activities. A migratory 

bird depredation or salvage permit is required for 

possession of gull carcasses. 

Although the use of a laser to alter bird behavior was first 

introduced nearly 30 years ago, new developments have 

made it possible to use affordable hand-held lasers to 

frighten and disperse birds from their roosts or loafing 

areas. Results have shown that several bird species, 

including gulls, have avoided laser beams during field 

trials. Best results are achieved under low-light conditions 

(i.e., sunset through dawn) and by targeting structures or 

trees close to roosting birds, thereby reflecting the beam. 

Use caution not to point laser beams directly at human or 

bird eyes. Caution must be exercised when using lasers 

around airports and aircraft.

Repellents

Bird repellents can help reduce bird foraging on treated 

plants, the use of temporary pools of standing water, or 

perching on building ledges and similar locations.

Methyl anthranilate (MA), an artificial grape flavoring food 

additive, is a commercially-available repellent for waterfowl 

and gulls registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and marketed under various trade names. It 

may be applied to turf or other plants to reduce foraging by 

birds, such as Canada geese. It is also used to prevent 

waterfowl and gulls from using temporary pools of water. 

Results on the effectiveness of MA appear to be mixed 

based on various research trials. 

MA may also be applied using a fog-producing machine 

such that the MA-laden fog drifts over the area to be 

protected. The fog is an irritant to the birds, but is harmless 

to people. Fogging uses a smaller volume of the MA 

product in contrast to the turf application, thereby reducing 

the cost of each application. Several treatments 1 to 4 

days apart may be required for the removal of nuisance 

birds to acceptable levels. As with the turf application, it is 

likely that additional applications may be required to 

address problems with migrating or non-resident birds. In 

some states, the use of fogging is restricted to landfills, 

non-fish bearing bodies of water, and temporary pools of 

standing water on paved areas or construction sites at or 

near airports.

A number of tacky or sticky tactile repellent products that 

reportedly deter birds from roosting on structural surfaces 

are commercially available. However, limited research has 

been done on the effectiveness of these products. The 

repellency of tactile products is generally short-lived 

because dust accumulates on the surface. Tactile 

repellents can melt in hot weather often dripping down the 

sides of buildings or cause other aesthetic problems that 

require expensive clean-up. Small non-target birds may 

also be injured or killed after becoming stuck in these 

substances.

Fertility Control

Conflicts associated with nesting gulls and localized gull 

populations can be managed by reducing population 

growth through fertility control. Removing eggs and/or 

nests can be an effective method of encouraging some 

species of breeding gulls to relocate to an alternative 

nesting location. To be effective, all nest material and eggs 

should be removed at least every 2 weeks to prevent 

chicks from hatching. Nest removal is labor intensive, and 

re-nesting can occur when management is done early in 

the nesting season. As is the case for other migratory birds, 

permits are required to remove gull nests that contain 

eggs.
Egg oiling also prevents hatching (Figure 6). The oil inhibits 

the exchange of gases and causes asphyxiation of 

developing embryos. Egg oiling is 96 to 100 percent 

effective in reducing hatchability. The EPA has ruled that 

use of food grade corn oil for this purpose is exempt from 

registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To be most 

effective, the oil should be applied anytime between the 

fifth day after the laying of the last egg in a nest and at 

least five days before anticipated hatching. Addling 

(shaking) and puncturing eggs also prevents egg hatching. 

With oiling, addling, and puncturing, adult birds often 

remain on the nest, incubating treated eggs. If the 

treatment occurs later in the nesting season, birds that 

continue to incubate treated eggs may have lower energy 

reserves and likely will not re-nest. 

Egg oiling, in conjunction with dispersal efforts, helps 

reduce the growth rate of local gull populations and 

associated conflicts. It is often easier to disperse adults 

from a site if they do not have young. For example, from 

2007-2017, egg oiling of nests at ring-billed gull colonies 

within Chicago, Illinois, resulted in fewer hatch-year gulls 

using beaches and was likely a factor in reducing the 

number of swim advisories and swim bans issued at 

beaches due to elevated Escherichia coli levels.

Toxicants

DRC-1339 is a slow acting avicide that is registered with 

the EPA for reducing damage from several species of birds, 

including gulls. For more than 40 years, DRC-1339 has 

been used to manage local populations of starlings, 

blackbirds, gulls, and pigeons at feedlots, dairies, airports, 

and in urban areas. DRC-1339 is registered for use only by 

trained U.S. Department of Agriculture employees to 

manage gull populations depredating native colonial 

nesting bird species or damaging property or crops.

Trapping

Rocket nets and cannon nets can effectively capture small 

groups of gulls over bait (Figure 7). Rocket nets can cause 

gulls to avoid an area for several weeks or longer, if they 

eluded initial capture attempts. Individual gulls can be 

captured with net guns, if they can be approached within 

the net gun’s range. Remotely-activated net launchers or 

bow nets can be used to capture individuals that are 

baited to a site or sitting on a nest. Nesting gulls also can 

be captured using various trap designs or hand nets at 

night with the aid of spotlights or night vision devices. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 7

Figure 6. Oiling Ringed-billed Gull eggs.

Figure 7. Cannon net trap with gulls.
Shooting

Shooting is conducted with shotguns or air rifles. Shooting 

is most commonly used to reinforce harassment, to 

remove a single offending bird, or to remove a limited 

number of birds that cannot be dispersed or taken using 

other methods. However, shooting programs implemented 

at airports have effectively removed large numbers of 

birds. Non-toxic shot generally is required due to shooting 

over water or wetlands. Local, state, and federal 

regulations in regards to the use of firearms and take of 

gulls must be reviewed and followed.

Other Methods—Dispersing Colonies

Dispersing and relocating gull nesting colonies is difficult 

and success varies by species. Numerous dispersal 

methods have been used with the most effective ones 

being nest and egg destruction, egg oiling, and overhead 

wire grids. Mylar flags, distress calls, effigies, shooting, 

tethering raptors to areas within the nesting colony and 

other methods were less effective or logistically difficult.

Wire grids or parallel lines placed over nesting colonies on 

rooftops have been used to disperse Ring-billed and 

Herring Gulls. Gulls can be dispersed in 1 to 3 years. Most 

Herring Gull nesting colonies on rooftops show a reduction 

in the numbers only after multiple years of dispersal efforts 

(e.g., up to 6 years in northern Ohio). In one case, a mixed 

Ring-billed and Herring Gull nesting colony in Toronto, 

Canada was dispersed in 2 years. Laughing Gulls, 

however, were unaffected by overhead wire grids.

A Black-headed Gull nesting colony on an island off the 

coast of Suffolk, England, was reduced and then stabilized 

to 15 to 35 percent of the original population size after 5 

years of harassment using shooting, distress calls, trapping 

and nest and egg treatment. Egg oiling is usually more 

effective when combined with removal of breeding adults. 

Handling

Translocation

Capture and translocation of gulls usually is not an 

effective or practical method for moving gull colonies. 

Euthanasia

Euthanasia of gulls may be done by cervical dislocation or 

by administering isoflurane or carbon dioxide gas to birds 

placed in a sealed container. Care should be taken to 

minimize stress and handling prior to euthanasia. Confined 

areas must be large enough to avoid stress to the birds as 

much as possible.

Disposal

Take of migratory birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, and instructions for disposition of carcasses are 

usually provided under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

permit conditions. 

Economics

The economic impacts of gull damage are widespread, but 

seldom quantified. Gulls may cause direct losses through 

collisions with aircraft, foraging on aquaculture products 

and other crops, fouling drinking and swimming water. 

Costs may also be associated with disinfecting feces, 

nesting and loafing activities, and subsequent damage 

abatement. 

Fecal droppings present hazards for slipping and fouling of 

safety rails used as perches. Cleaning is needed to prevent 

damage to structures and to remove this residue which 

may pose health risks. Cleaning can represent a significant 

repetitive expense. The corrosive nature of the feces may 

also decrease the lifespan of construction and roofing 

materials, increasing replacement frequency, and 

therefore increasing building construction and 

maintenance costs. Shellfish and produce processing 

facilities must sometimes prevent gull fecal contamination 

Page 8 WDM Technical Series─Gulls
of food processing activities by moving those activities 

indoors. 

Several studies have suggested a link between Ring-billed 

Gull fecal droppings and elevated fecal coliform bacteria 

levels in water at beaches resulting in the issuance of 

swim advisories. Beach management agencies often 

implement integrated damage management strategies to 

improve sand and water quality, and to avert associated 

economic losses that have been estimated as high as $15 

million per year for the City of Chicago.

Gulls are also one of the most common groups of birds 

involved in collisions with civil aircraft, accounting for 12 

percent of all known wildlife species struck by aircraft and 

causing a minimum of $58 million in reported economic 

losses to the aviation industry from 1990-2015. 

Finally, management actions employed to prevent or 

reduce measurable damages impose costs that otherwise 

would not be incurred. Examples of these management 

costs include preventative maintenance, partial or total 

exclusion, such as wire grids, erecting pole barns and 

plastic curtains, active control and administrative costs.

Species Overview

Identification

The term “gull” refers to bird species that belong to the 

family Laridae. Gulls nest colonially, sometimes with other 

colonial nesting species interspersed within the breeding 

colony. Gulls often are associated with oceans, seas and 

large freshwater water bodies.

Twenty-four different species of gulls can be found across 

North America. The eight gull species most often 

associated with human-wildlife conflicts in the United 

States include the following:

 Herring Gull (Larus argentatus)

 Laughing Gull (Leucophaeus atricilla)

 Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)

 Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus)

 California Gull (Larus californicus)

 Franklin’s Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan)

 Bonaparte’s Gull (Chroicocephalus philadelphia)

 Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens)

Physical Description

Male and female gulls of the same species are similar in 

appearance. Gulls are distinguished by their webbed feet, 

and adults generally have white body plumage with the 

amount of black and brown plumage on the wings and 

back varying among species and age classes. Juvenile 

birds have varying amounts of black or brown mottled body 

plumage interspersed with varying amounts of white 

feathers. Gulls range in size from the diminutive 

Bonaparte’s Gull (11 inches long, 38 inch wingspan, and 

about half a pound) to the largest species, the Great Blackbacked Gull (24 inches long, 65 inch wingspan and up to 4 

pounds). 

Range

Gulls are found throughout North America usually near 

water bodies, such as oceans, estuaries and freshwater 

lakes.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 9

Figure 8. Laughing Gull (Leucophaeus atricilla)
The Herring Gull is a year-round resident on the Great 

Lakes and east coast of North America from Newfoundland 

to North Carolina. Winter distribution is associated with 

coastal areas and large water bodies along the Atlantic, 

Pacific and Gulf coasts, the Caribbean islands and 

Mississippi River Valley. 

The Laughing Gull (Figure 8) breeding range stretches from 

Maine to Texas along the coast. Laughing Gulls generally 

winter along the southern Atlantic coast from North 

Carolina to the Gulf Coast and eastern and western Central 

American coasts. 

The Ring-billed Gull’s (Figure 1) breeding range is primarily 

Lake Champlain in Vermont and the St. Lawrence River 

drainage of New York, Quebec and Ontario, the Great 

Lakes region and westward into the northern Rockies and 

western Canadian provinces. Its wintering range is the 

Atlantic and Pacific coasts, lower Mississippi River Valley 

and southern Great Plains. 

The Great Black-backed Gull, common in the northeastern 

United States, breeds locally along the Atlantic Coast from 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, north to Labrador and 

Baffin Island, and locally around the Great Lakes. In winter, 

this species may be found throughout its breeding range 

and south to South Carolina. In addition, it winters in 

increasing numbers along the Gulf of Mexico. 

The California Gull (Figure 9) is found throughout the 

interior western region of North America from California in 

the south to Northwest Territories in the north. 

The Franklin’s Gull’s breeding range is primarily within 

portions of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of North 

Dakota. There are other small breeding colonies scattered 

in the northern Rockies. The primary winter range is along 

the Pacific coast of Chile and Peru.

Bonaparte’s Gull winters in large flocks in coastal areas 

along the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coasts and eastern 

Great Lakes, but breeds around ponds, bogs, bays, and 

fiords in the taiga and boreal forests of Alaska and Yukon, 

Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, 

Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The Glaucous-winged Gull (Figure 10) is an abundant 

resident along the northwestern coast of North America 

where it breeds along coastal islands and cliffs from the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, Alaska, south to Oregon. It 

casually nests in freshwater in British Columbia, 

Washington and Oregon. 

Voice and Sounds

Gulls have a wide variety of calls that vary based on the 

age of the bird and situation in which a call is made. Calls 

are given for courtship, breeding, alarm, feeding and in 

some cases for no apparent associated behavior.

Page 10 WDM Technical Series─Gulls

Figure 9. California Gull (Larus californicus). Figure 10. Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) nesting on rooftop.
Reproduction

Most gulls are gregarious nesters on sand and gravelcovered shorelines, islands and flat rooftops. They require 

only a small territory, and colonies often contain thousands 

of nesting pairs. Bonaparte’s and Great Black-backed Gulls 

are the exception. They are solitary breeders or breed in 

small colonies away from human settlements. Sexually 

mature gulls generally return and nest in the region where 

they learned to fly. Gull nests vary by species. In general, 

they are built of grasses and other vegetation which may 

include sticks. Nests are found on the ground or on 

rooftops. Gulls produce 3 to 5 eggs per nest. Most species 

of gulls reach breeding age in 2 to 3 years, but some do 

not breed until they are 4 to 5 years old. 

Like other migratory birds, gulls generally breed in the 

northern parts of their range and winter in the southern 

portions of North America. However, species such as 

Ring-billed Gulls do move hundreds of miles eastward and 

westward within just a few days during the summer. 

Most gull species nest in large colonies that include 

hundreds or thousands of nests. Most large colony nesting 

sites are on islands, but some western gull species will 

nest in large colonies adjacent to remote freshwater lakes. 

Depending on gull species, nest sites tend to be sparsely 

vegetated or have no vegetation.

Mortality

Gulls are generally long-lived birds that may survive for 10 

to 30 years. Annual survival rates range from 70 to 94 

percent with juvenile birds having lower survival than 

adults.

Population Status

Between 1966 and 2012, some gull populations (e.g. 

Herring and Franklin’s Gull) in the United States appeared 

to decline, while others (e.g., Ring-billed and California 

Gull) remained stable. General species status is of low 

conservation concern for Herring, Ring-billed, Laughing and 

Great Black-backed Gulls. Many gull species are 

considered overabundant or common. 

Typically, high gull densities are recorded in localized 

areas, such as urban rooftop nesting colonies and landfills.

Habitat

Gulls may be found in any water body in North America. In 

addition, gulls loaf and forage in open spaces, such as 

plowed or grassy fields and parking lots. 

Behavior

Gulls often spend nights in open water or secluded areas 

(e.g., islands, rooftops) that are not prone to predation. 

They fly inland to feed and loaf during the day. Gulls are 

active all day with daily activity peaking at dawn and dusk. 

Gulls will fly at night, especially around roosting areas on 

large water bodies. 

Gulls are migratory birds with some species migrating long 

distances between nesting and wintering areas. Although 

most gulls migrate on a north–south gradient between 

nesting and wintering areas, Ring-billed Gulls migrate to 

the Great Lakes region for nesting and eastward to the mid

-Atlantic coast for the winter. Gull nesting and feeding 

activities generally are associated with wetland habitats. 

These habitats are important stopping points during 

migration. 

Food Habits

Gulls are adaptable, opportunistic, omnivorous feeders 

that readily switch food types based on availability and 

accessibility. Gulls forage on land and on the water, 

feeding on aquatic animals, terrestrial invertebrates, small 

vertebrates, carrion, plant remains, refuse (Figure 11), and 

human food. Gulls forage on eggs and young of other 

nesting waterbirds. For instance, Herring and Great Blackbacked Gulls eat shorebird chicks and waterfowl ducklings. 

Bonaparte and other western gull species eat young 

salmon, contributing to smaller runs of smolts. Herring 

Gulls have developed a feeding strategy of dropping 

bivalves onto hard surfaces to break the shell and access 

the soft tissues inside. Adult Ring-billed Gulls nesting in 

the Great Lakes have been known to travel an average of 

15 miles to exploit human-related food sources. Smaller 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 11
Page 12 WDM Technical Series─Gulls

species, such as Ring-billed, Laughing, and Franklin’s 

Gulls, forage in the air on flying insects. 

Legal Status

Gulls are classified as a migratory bird species and are 

protected by federal and, in most cases, state laws. In the 

United States, gulls may be taken only with a permit issued 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Occasionally, an 

additional permit is required from the state wildlife 

management agency. Permits are issued only after 

dispersal and other non-lethal damage management 

methods have been employed and proven ineffective at 

resolving the conflicts. No federal permit is needed, 

however, to frighten or mechanically exclude gulls.

Figure 11. Ring-billed Gulls feeding at a landfill in Virginia.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 13

Acknowledgements

Figure 1. Photo by Martin Lowney, USDA-Wildlife Services 

Figure 2. Photo by Richard Engeman, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 3. Photo by Jenny Washburn, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 4. Photo by Greg Martinelli, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 5. Photo by John Hartmann, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 6. Photo by Scott Beckerman, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 7. Photo by USDA 

Figure 8. Photo by Jenny Washburn, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 9. Photo by Martin Lowney, USDA-Wildlife Services

Figure 10. Photo by Kevin Keirn

Figure 11. Photo by Dust’n Lundsford, USDA-Wildlife Services

Glossary

Colonial Nesting: A large group of nesting birds that may be 

made up of one or two species all nesting within close 

proximity of one another. 

Mariculture: Mariculture is a specialized branch of 

aquaculture involving the cultivation of marine organisms 

for food and other products in the open ocean, an 

enclosed section of the ocean, or in tanks, ponds or 

raceways which are filled with seawater. 

Omnivore: An animal that eats both plants and animals. 

Roost: Location where birds rest of sleep either during the 

day or at night. 

Disclaimer

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. 

Key Words

Aquaculture, Bird strike, Exclusion, Frightening device, 

Fertility control, Gull, Laridae, Toxicant

Citation

Lowney, M.S., S.F. Beckerman, S.C. Barras, and T.W. 

Seamans. 2018. Gulls. Wildlife Damage Management 

Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife 

Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. 16p.
Page 14 WDM Technical Series─Gulls

Resources

Belant, J.L. and S.K. Ickes. 1996. Overhead wires reduce roof-nesting by Ring-billed Gulls and Herring Gulls. 

Proceedings of the 17th Vertebrate Pest Conference. Univ. of CA, Davis. 17:108-112.

Blokpoel, H. and G.D. Tessier. 1992. Control of Ring-billed Gulls and Herring Gulls nesting at urban and industrial sites 

in Ontario, 1987-1990. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 5:51-57.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 2002. Bonaparte's Gull (Chroicocephalus philadelphia), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://

bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/634.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 2009. Franklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, 

Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/

bna/species/116.

Burger, J. 1996. Laughing Gull (Leucophaeus atricilla), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/225.

Dolbeer, R.A., J.L. Belant and J. Sillings. 1993. Shooting gulls reduces strikes with aircraft at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:442-450.

Good, T.P. 1998. Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). 

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/

bna/species/330.

Hayward, J.L. and N.A. Verbeek. 2008. Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/059.

Ickes, S.K., J.L. Belant, and R.A. Dolbeer. 1998. Nest disturbance techniques to control nesting by gulls. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 26:269–273.

Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management: http://icwdm.org.

McLaren, M.A., R.E. Harris, and W.J. Richardson. 1984. Effectiveness of an overhead wire barrier in deterring gulls from 

feeding at a sanitary landfill. Pages 241-251 in Proc. wildl. hazards to aircraft conf. training workshop. U.S. Dep. Trans., 

Fed. Aviation Admin., Washington, DC.

National Wildlife Control Training Program: http://wildlifecontroltraining.com.

Nugent, B., K. Gagne, and M.J. Dillingham. 2008. Managing gulls to reduce fecal coliform bacteria in a municipal 

drinking water source. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 23:26–30.

Pierotti, R.J. and T.P. Good. 1994. Herring Gull (Larus argentatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). 

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/124.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Page 15

Pochop, P.A., R.J. Johnson, D.A. Aguero, and K.M. Eskridge. 1990. The status of lines in bird damage control – A review. 

Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 14:317-324.

Pollet, I.L., D. Shutler, J. Chardine, and J.P. Ryder. 2012. Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/033.

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.

Thomas, G.J. 1972. A review of gull damage and management methods at nature reserves. Biological Conservation 

4:117-127.

Winkler, D.W. 1996. California Gull (Larus californicus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/259. 
Appendix 

Page 16

 

 

Type of Control 

 

Available Management Options 

Exclusion  Overhead wires

 Netting

 Anti-perching devices

Fertility Control  Oiling of eggs

 Removing nests and eggs

 Addling or puncturing eggs

Frightening 

Devices

 Propane cannons, pyrotechnics, and other noise making devices

 Species-specific distress calls

 Effigies

 Remote-controlled vehicles and dogs

Habitat 

Modification

 Covering food sources including landfill face

 Closing refuse containers

 Removing sources of food from open areas

Repellents Methyl anthranilate-based products marketed under various trade names 

Shooting Shotguns or air rifles; Allowed with proper Federal and State permits

Toxicants DRC-1339; Registered for use only by trained USDA employees

Trapping Cannon/rocket nets and nest traps; Allowed with proper Federal and State permits

Damage Management Methods for Gulls