Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taylor staff to study options to curb Muscovy duck overpopulation after residents’ complaints
Summary
Parks staff presented options to reduce Muscovy duck numbers in Taylor parks and neighborhoods; council directed staff to return with costs and pros/cons for egg addling and for trapping/euthanasia and to explore outreach and anti‑feeding measures.
City staff told the Taylor City Council on June 26 that Muscovy ducks have become overpopulated in and around Murphy and Bull Branch parks and are moving into nearby neighborhoods, creating property damage, aggressive behavior and public‑health concerns.
Parks and recreation staff presented two primary management options: (1) a humane egg‑addling program to reduce future hatchlings (leave a few viable eggs so the hen does not re‑nest, then addle a portion of the clutch) and (2) trapping and euthanasia conducted by a licensed wildlife contractor. Staff said the Muscovy ducks are non‑native, can breed multiple times yearly, and that state wildlife agencies will not accept or relocate Muscovies because they are invasive.
Parks staff recommended starting with option 1 (egg addling) on city property and working with a certified wildlife company experienced with Muscovy management. Staff also proposed targeted outreach and education to stop feeding ducks in parks and private yards, signage in parks, door‑hangars to neighbors, and a communication plan. Jackie Krueger, a longtime resident who provided photographs and a petition, described feces on public tables and sidewalks and listed disease risks she said were associated with the ducks.
Councilmembers expressed urgency. Several members said they wanted quick action and asked staff to bring back a report with costs, pros and cons and examples of how other cities (such as Pearland and Sugar Land) have handled Muscovy outbreaks. Council directed staff to evaluate both options and return with a recommended plan and cost estimates for the upcoming budget process; the motion to receive the presentation and direct staff to report back passed unanimously.
Staff said enforcement of a no‑feeding rule on private property would be difficult and would likely rely first on education; council asked staff to review local ordinances in other nearby towns (council cited Salado) and to prepare draft language and an implementation approach. The council asked staff to include an outreach plan to identify households supplying food and habitat and to consider whether the city could provide addling services on private properties at owners’ request.
No immediate trapping or euthanasia action was authorized; staff will return with further detail and cost estimates for both egg addling and trapping/euthanasia options.
