Home

Woodpecker Holes in Cedar Siding

Fri, 05/07/2010 - 18:29 — benschroeder
Author: 
Benjamin Schroeder
picture 1 picture 2 picture 3

The biodegradation problem that will be focused upon is large woodpecker holes.   Picture 1 demonstrates the general shape and size of the holes.   The holes generally have diameters between one and two inches.   There are at least 10 holes that are of this general size and shape, but due to this house being recently purchased, more holes may exist that are covered up or that have been repaired.  From picture 2 the distribution and extent of the holes can be clearly noticed.  The holes are all located in the cedar siding of the house about 10 to 20 feet from the ground on all sides of the house.  These holes are believed to be for the purpose of nesting due to the size.  If the woodpeckers were interested in finding insects within the wood or were making noises to attract mates then the holes would be smaller in diameter. 

Picture 1

These holes are problematic in more ways than just those that meet the eye.  What does meet the eye is that visually these holes are quite noticeable when walking around the home and when driving on the street, which is thirty feet away.  Having holes of this size does damage the aesthetics of the house, but large holes in the siding also allow for future biodegradation problems.  The holes are a prime location for moisture to get behind the wood or be absorbed.  The presence of moisture is a catalyst of major biodegradation problems including insects, fungi, and bacteria infestation.  The first and foremost concern to the occupants of the house is that the noise caused by the creation of these holes is an audio irritation.  When the holes are made in certain locations on the house the acoustics of the house’s construction seem to amplify the sound within the house.  The audio problem persists as long as the woodpeckers inhabit the holes because they continue to peck at the siding. 

Picture 2

The damage and attack was first noticed when the sound of tapping was noticed.  Once attention was drawn to the damaged area, the woodpeckers were visually observed.  The holes currently being constructed as well as those that had been filled in by the previous owner were then inspected.  From seeing the size of the holes and the bird creating the holes, it was logically induced that a downy woodpecker was indeed the cause the holes and that the holes were meant as a place of habitation.  Visually the woodpecker was identified as being a downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus)2 by its white belly, red patched head, and black wings with white spots or stripes.  While having similar markings to Hairy Woodpeckers, its smaller stature, 6.5 to 7 inches long instead of 8.5 to 10, and shorter beak differentiate it.4

Avoidance Strategy: 

Avoidance measures that can be used include changing building materials and building nesting boxes.  Building with materials that woodpeckers do not create cavities in such as vinyl, brick, and metal is one simple and effect method to avoid these problems.  If this is not an option, then placing nesting boxes around the area can be tried.  It is suggested that due to woodpecker’s territorial nature, if one inhabits a nest box, then they will keep others from housing in the area.3  Specifications and a description of nesting boxes can be found in source 1.

Remediation Strategy: 

Picture 3

The current remediation methods being enacted include filling the holes and placing shinny objects near the areas of attack.  The holes are ideally filled immediate after they are began or are in the process of creation due to the fact that woodpeckers are territorial birds.  Once a woodpecker has an established territory, it is reported to be quite difficult to make them abandon it.1  The holes have been filled with building calk and then painted to try to match the wood as picture 2 shows but there are other materials available and advised  to be used for filling these holes such as woodpatch2.  Once a hole has been filled on the house, the woodpeckers have not tried to reopen it to this date.  The other remediation method currently being implemented is hanging shinny streamers that blow with the wind as can be seen in picture 3.  The purpose of these is to scare the birds away.  It is reported that shinny objects such as these streamers and mirrors are a plausibly tactic2.  From the current experience it would seem fair to say that while the shinny streams may have lessened the amount of attacks, the attacks have continued in close proximity to the streamers. 

Other remediation methods that can be tried and have been reported to work include nets, sticky substances, and loud noises.1  It was also noted that the sticky substances such as Tenglefoot®,4-The-Birds®, and Roost-No-More®   can stain the wood in hot weather, so it’s best to test these first.1  Inspired by the loud noises method, wind chimes will be placed on the house this spring to see if this has any noticeable effect.  Methods reported to be ineffective include fake predatory birds2, specialty bird deterrent chemicals and odors such as naphthalene, creosote, and pentachlorophenol2, and high frequency sounds2.  The failsafe method of last resort is shooting the woodpecker or other killing methods.   In order to obtain a permit to kill a woodpecker, you must complete and submit an application for a migratory bird depredation permit which can be found at http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-13.pdf.

Sources

1.       Andelt W, Hopper S, and Cerato M.  Preventing Woodpecker Damage.  Colorado State University Extensions.   Natural Resources Series: Wildlife, 6.516, May 2006.

2.       Marsh R.  Woodpeckers.  Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management.  http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/woodpeckers.asp

3.       Woodpecker Damage.  University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension.  GreenShare Factsheets, http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/prints/woodpeckersprint.html

4.       South Dakota Birds and Birding.  www.sdakotabirds.com/species/hairy_main.htm