The City of Mississauga wants to implement recommendations proposed by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to kill a large number of Canada geese in order to redress the "nuisance" problem they allegedly create. (The no. 1 problem the report identifies is the fouling of lawns!) The carcasses are then to be donated to local food banks for food stock. This strategy raises the obvious social concerns with repsect to feeding highly intoxicated (from lead shot and other contaminants) flesh to vulnerable members of the human population in order to make the idea of a cull more palatable to the public at large and to abide by certain legal requirements. This strategy is also estimated to cost between $26-30/bird and would total almost twice as much as the cost of relocating the geese.

The Trust's report claims that an effective management strategy requires 3 integrated measures: culling; habitat modification, and; public education. The cull is said to be necessary because all other options have been exhausted. Indeed, the CWS will only issue the requisite permits for a cull once a municipality has proven they have tried every other option. It is our position that although habitat modification has been on the agenda since the early 80s as a necessary means of controlling the population, it has not been seriously undertaken. Rather, most municipalities have engaged in harassment and/or relocation strategies. This mismanagement, along with the City's insistence on environmentally hazardous horticultural habits (extensively manicured and fertilized turf grass provide prime goose feed), as well as current hunting and development practices, all contribute to the densification of Canada geese in urban and suburban areas.

Animal Alliance of Canada has devised an alternative strategy which emphasizes: 1. habitat modification including both renaturalization and alternative recreation measures; 2. public education in the form of setting up, through the Toronto Wildlife Centre, a "goose hot-line" to advise complainants on how to alleviate their conflicts and which attempts to dispel myths correlating geese feces to potential health risks and water quality issues. The public education strategy also speaks to the issue of stewardship. Furthermore, we have asked that instead of initiating a cull, the City of Mississauga relocate the birds, This is not a solution, rather it buys time in order to implement other aspects of the strategy. The Canada Wildlife Service however, will not issue the necessary relocation permits even though we have a municipality which desperately wants the geese. In essence, then, the problem as it now stands is with the CWS.

We have therefore submitted a legal factum to the CWS arguing that the nature of the goose/human conflict is not severe enough ("seriously injurious" the Migratory Bird Act specifies) to support the issuance of cull permits. In the meantime, we have assurances from Bruce Carr, City of Mississauga Park and Recreation, that we can work together to implement other aspect of the strategy upon which we agree.

Media Release from Animal Alliance of Canada

Animal Alliance Takes Action To Halt
The Cull of Canada Geese in Mississauga

Animal Alliance of Canada has notified the Canadian Wildlife Service that we strongly oppose the "cull" option now being pursued by the City of Mississauga. As a result of two weeks of failed negotiations with the Canadian Wildlife Service for the issuance of a relocation permit, the City of Mississauga intends to apply for a "killing" permit for "as many geese as possible".

Although we were able to find a number of private landowners who were willing to hold the geese for the two months while they moult, the Canadian Wildlife Service refused to issue the relocation permits. CWS even refused a Native group, Mocreabec, who wanted to relocate the Geese along traditional migratory routes in and around James Bay.

We intend to commence legal proceedings to halt the cull. Attached is the letter from our lawyers, Ms. Lesli Bisgould and Mr. Simon Shields outlining the legal basis for the proceedings.

The basis of our claim is, in part, that the regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act do not themselves contain the pre-conditions for such killings and that the nature of the goose/human conflict is not severe or unique enough to support the issuance of kill permits.

We will be commencing with legal action promptly. The Coalition to Protect Canada Geese, a US group, is pursuing a similar action against the US Fish and Wildlife Service and participating Resource Ministries.

Once legal action begins, the City of Mississauga may be prevented from following through with the slaughter of the geese and may therefore have to keep them for as long as the case continues.

We maintain that habitat modification and public education are fundamental to alleviating the conflict. Habitat modification has indeed been the key recommendation offered by experts for twenty years, yet few municipalities have heeded this advice. Until we alter the conditions that attract Canada geese, we will continue to have many geese in urban areas. Killing geese will not be effective, nor is it likely that the CWS will significantly undermine the population since large numbers of Canada geese are necessary to support sport hunting.

(Courtesy of Animal Alliance of Canada)

More Information and Relevant Press Releases From the Coalition's Dr. Ducky

Goose News Index | Main

CLARKSTOWN TOWN HALL, NEW CITY -- About 70 Clarkstown residents wielding signs reading "No More Killing" attended this evening's Town Board meeting. They were there not only to express outrage over Supervisor Holbrook's plan to repeat last June's ineffective killing of 251 Canada geese, but to demand that the five member Town Board vote to rescind the authority that they had given him back in 1996 to handle the goose situation.

15-20 people stepped up to the podium to speak on the goose issue asking the town to abandon lethal plans and instead make a serious effort at humane, proven non-lethal forms of goose control. Among the speakers was Nancy Perry, of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) who spoke of the many successes of non-lethal methods and offered her organization's help. Other speakers included Thomas Basile (who will be running against Holbrook in November). Basile demanded that the town board offer a resolution that would rescind Holbrook's authority concerning the geese. Only two people spoke in favor of killing -- one was the private contractor, Tom Maglaras of West Nyack, who was paid about $8,000 in connection with last year's round up.

With a speaker at the podium, and clearly many more in queue, Board member John Maloney suddenly interjected the motion that would ultimately disempower Supervisor Holbrook from exercising the goose killing permit (pending from the US Fish and Wildlife Service). The motion was quickly seconded by Board member Ann Marie Smith. In turn, Board members Ralph Mandia and Louis Profenna each joined with their vote of support. In what can only be described as a moment of confusion and political humiliation, Holbrook, the staunchest supporter of killing geese, voted to take away his own authority.

With the exception of the Town Supervisor, the board members voted to regain control over the Canada goose situation so that effective, non-lethal methods could finally be given serious consideration -- something that, despite claims to the contrary, had not been done in Clarkstown.

Goose News Index | Main

By Dr. Ann Frisch, National Coordinator, Coalition to Protect Canada Geese

I strongly oppose the slaughter of Giant Canada Geese, the feeding of their bodies to the poor, the relocation of other geese to public and private hunting grounds. I object to the experimentation on these geese. I would concur with some limited removal of Canada Goose eggs in communities where public hearings have been conducted and a community finds this to be a reasonable option.

My objection is both on humanitarian and practical grounds. Living beings have the right and be protected in living their lives as fully as possible unobstructed by human beings. There should be at least the consideration of the interests of thousands of Canada Geese in the face of inconvenience to human. Clearly the burden of proof that the hazard of Canada Geese poses a threat to human beings is on those who propose to kill them. The proposal sent to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service clearly offers no justification whatsoever. It should be abandoned for lack of merit. Furthermore, the requesting of a permit under Special Purpose, 50 CFR 21.27 is not appropriate. This CFR does not justify the killing or even the relocation of Canada Geese because they are a nuisance.

I note that the application to the US Fish and Wildlife Service was filed on April 15, 1997, notwithstanding substantial abandonment of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the federal authorities in secret and without notification to the public, probably rendering the application null and void.

1. The permit application (Federal Fish and Wildlife License/Permit Application).

The permit is requested for a period of two summers, April 15, 1997 through December 31, 1998. The inference is that (#3 Brief Description of Activity for which requested licenses of permit is needed annually) permission is sought to kill/relocate a certain number of birds each year. Thus, going by the application, the Michigan DNR wants to capture and relocate up to 12,000 (6.000 each summer), destroy up to 100 Canada Geese for public health safety and welfare, and to enhance, harassment during 1997 and 1998 and to capture, euthanize and process up to 6,000 Canada Geese and distribute to charities, a total of 18,000 geese not counting the geese killed for "public health, safety and welfare" reasons. Only #(d) lists the 2 year totals. In the narrative, a different picture emerges: 12,000 Canada Geese to be relocated and 3,000 (1,000 the first year, 2,000 the second year), of a total of 15,000. One might also conclude from the narrative that the 3,000 are part of the 12,000, so that 12,000 is the grand total, not to include the geese that are killed for "public health, safety and welfare" reasons. The DNR is not clear whether it is requesting 18,000, 15,000 or 12,000. However, the application does not become part of the permit, so I would guess that the number for the permit will come directly from the permit request, so I believe we should conclude that the Michigan DNR wants to remove 18,000 geese from their Michigan habitat, principally southeast Michigan.

2. I am a member of the Wisconsin DNR Urban Waterfowl Task Force.

We have been told by authorities there (who also want to kill geese) that relocation has been shown to be unworkable, that geese return to their usual nesting place each summer. We have also been told that no one wants to accept the geese. Certainly Wisconsin will not want to accept Michigan geese, at least not by the truckload. Certainly not Kansas. Kansas has been a recipient of the many truckloads of Canada Geese and now has its own problem, according to reports. The permit request does not specify orphan goslings, but the Wisconsin DNR says removing goslings before they learn to fly is a productive venture, providing living targets for public hunting areas.

Does the Michigan DNR intend to move adult geese within our outside of the state? Will they be moved by truck and returning on their own? Who will pay the cost, whether adult or orphan gosling? Is this "translocation" another seven hundred dollar hammer?

3. Economic, safety and health concerns.

The economic losses are not actual but hypothetical. "...the extent of the problem in Michigan is not well documented". It is not documented at all. All agricultural losses can be handled under 50 CFR 21.41-42, emergency depredation permits.

The safety and health "documentation" shows the desperation of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to justify this goose kill. Eleven attacks by nesting geese are an emergency to the Michigan DNR. I would wager that there are that many attacks by dogs in every community in Michigan. Traffic hazards? Is the DNR really thinking it can kill off enough geese to eliminate geese and their broods on roads next to wetlands? This is a Michigan emergency? Only "locally nesting" Canada Geese? What about the Canadian Canada Geese?

As for airport hazards, I have spoke to pilots and an air traffic controller. None of them considers geese to be a problem. Geese tend to stay away from airplanes inflight, on the runways there are harassment methods to keep them off. Is it the view of the Michigan DNR that killing only the geese in the continental USA during summer months will eliminate the possibility of geese appearing on a runway? What of the Canadian Canada Geese moving through the flyways in fall and spring? Are these not a problem? Airports may be located next to wetlands or refuges. Is there the suggestion that we are going to eliminate these birds as well. Finally, what of all the breeding in the last thirty years. Didn't anybody think of the consequences of that breeding...that some of the birds would be in the air or near airports. Apparently, there was no Environmental Impact Statement on those actions. And now, no Environmental Impact Statement on the next step in the muddling through.

Regarding the complaints the Michigan DNR says they have received, I requested copies of these complaints under the state records act. Of the 100-300 complaints per year alleged, I received 18, only 11 of which refer to Canada Geese. Several are from 1992, a few more recently and many were unsigned. This analysis is being provided to you separately. Even if there were three hundred per year, this is certainly small in comparison to other complaints authorities receive every day. The action to kill thousands of geese on the basis of even 300 (if in fact they exist) reminds me of a "zero tolerance for drugs" program in which authorities seized ships for several ounces of marijuana while allowing the big dealers to escape unnoticed. The Michigan DNR must document these complaints because if they do not, they must be presumed to not exist. The Michigan DNR was put on notice earlier this year that documentation is required under the federal law. The Michigan DNR has simply ignored this very basic requirement of law.

With reference to the beach closings as evidence for a health hazard by the geese. The weasel words leave only the most ignorant believing that there is a problem. "It is difficult to find direct links between Canada Goose fecal depositions and human health problems." This certainly is one of the truer statements. "It is not uncommon for beaches on some lakes in southeast Michigan to be closed during portions of the summer due to elevated fecal coliform counts. Geese are often implicated as the causes of these closures." This is their data? No attempt to evaluate theses assertions? I requested copies of the data and it is not in the Michigan DNR files. The information was transmitted over the telephone.

In two communities where my organization was involved, beaches had been closed allegedly because of the geese. We had the water sample surveys (several in each community) evaluated by independent veterinarian and microbiologist. In each instance, the study did not implicate the geese. It is virtually impossible to determine if the e coli in the lake water is from geese, muskrat, otter, or human. In the two communities mentioned above, one had effluent from a waste water treatment plant which could have been responsible. In the other, the health inspector admitted he had not inspected the septic tanks around the lake. Furthermore, the veterinarian, Dr. Gary Pearson, DVM, MS, said that even if the geese were responsible for the e coli, geese are not known in the scientific literature to cause human health hazards.

I worry about the resources of the Michigan DNR if they cannot get scientific advise. Last year, two regional migratory bird coordinators told me, when I pointed out factual errors in applications to kill geese, that they were not experts in disease so they could not evaluate the claims. At least the Region 3 coordinator is on good terms with Dr. Milton Friend and a five minute telephone call could have called any such claims into question.

So it begins to look like "We have a poop problem here, but we have to make it sound like a $50 health problem or the public will not buy it."

Another public relations gimmick is the "feed 'em to the poor" campaign, designed to bring out the bleeding hearts in everyone. Sounds noble, but the geese eat from our chemically laden golf courses and industrial sites. Even Wisconsin's state of the art study (as primitive as state of the art is) does not provide any assurance that a given family will not receive a toxic chemically laden goose. Dr. Warren Porter has described the research showing the effects of PCBs, DDT, dieldrin and lead, their mixtures and dosages and has issued a cautionary statement. "Pulse doses, chemical mixtures effects and multiple stresses on development have been very poorly explored in combination." I attach a copy of his letter outlining the research on the effects of toxic chemicals on humans and human fetuses.

In New York, citizens sent a Notice of Dangerous Condition of Action to the authorities of the city of Clarkstown after they slaughtered their community's geese. This action put the authorities on notice that should they proceed to kill the geese and feed them to the poor, the city would be liable for the consequences. The State of New York examined the bodies of the slain geese and found them full of lead. The authorities blamed the processor, but even IF that were the case (and it certainly sounds self serving), the geese were not palatable by anyone.

The solution is to find small ways of dissuading the geese from nesting on a person's property. There are means to do so, though after thirty years of breeding (and some allege it is still continuing), there are no magic wands to eliminate the geese. We must examine how and why the goose population has increased if that is true (or have they just moved out of the hunting areas to escape death and injury?). Only then can we come to some reasonable solutions.

I urge you to reject this folly, unscientifically and inhumanely based, and work with communities with all available means of goose dissuasion. If you wish to proceed, I request, on behalf of the Coalition to Protect Canada Geese and many Michigan citizens, that you initiate an Environmental Impact Statement and allow independent scientists and citizens to be fully involved in the process.

Goose News Index | Main

Testimony Before the Michigan Natural Resources Commission on the
Proposed Giant Resident Canada Goose Translocations, Experiments and Killings

Presented by Mike Chiado of The Fund for Animals (May 7, 1997)

The Fund for Animals opposes the proposed resident Canada Goose roundups, experiments and killings. Elimination of resident geese from urban areas is unrealistic and until the DNR commits itself to an aggressive educational program to substantially increase public acceptance of geese, complaints will be an ongoing issue. A long-term solution that recognizes that resident geese are part of the landscape is required.

The proposed program of translocating and annual killings will create more opportunities for other geese to occupy and use vacant habitat. Indeed, some wildlife biologists believe that past translocations may be to blame for the abundant numbers of geese in southeastern Michigan.

A DNR educational program that emphasizes acceptance of geese would serve southeastern Michigan well. For those that have abundant geese in their area, the many methods of habitat modification, fencing, non-lethal harassment, hazing and repellents, used in various combinations, have been effective to teach geese that they are unwelcome.

The Humane Society of the United States has detailed many successful methods used to discourage geese from occupying areas where their large numbers are unwanted. These methods include: habitat modification around lake shores to make these areas less attractive to geese; exclusionary methods such as fencing, netting and plastic balls; non lethal harassmentwith flags, scarecrows, beach balls and helium balloons; hazing with noise makers and border collies to herd geese; and chemical repellents. As a last-resort, egg addling could be employed. To set up such effective and aggressive nonlethal goose management and educational programs, we encourage the DNR to enlist the aid of animal protection organizations and other nonconsumptive wildlife groups. Such an effort would not only allow for a more extensive campaign at less cost to the DNR, but by building such bridges of cooperation the DNR may succeed reducing some animosity and distrust between itself and animal protection organizations.

My neighbors in Oakland County enjoy the presence of geese. The honking from goose flyovers, landings and meal stops are not a concern to those I've talked with. The complaints about geese are overstated according to written complaints to the DNR. A recent Freedom of Information Act request found only eighteen written complaints since 1992, with almost half of them from that year alone.

On the other hand, 195 individuals wrote to complain about last year's goose roundups and kills, according to a DNR report ('Report of Results of the Feasibility Study for Processing Nuisance Giant Canada Geese for Human Consumption in Michigan', dated 1/30/97). Based on the number of written nuisance complaints versus DNR program complaints, the public favors ending round-ups and kills over ten to one.

Lastly, there may be a view that supplying goose meat to food banks and organizations that feed the hungry is free food. According to DNR records ('Report of Results of the Feasibility Study for Processing Nuisance Giant Canada Geese for Human Consumption in Michigan', dated 1/30/97), the cost of processing a goose carcass is $1.25 per pound. This cost does not include any other round-up, transportation or distribution costs. For far less cost, a nutritionally balanced spaghetti dinner could be served.

We feel the public does not support the proposed DNR goose round-ups, experiments and killings. Further public hearings will bear this out. We urge educational programs to substantially increase public acceptance of geese.