There's an old expression that says, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." By "dangerous" the expression refers to the tendency of people to make incorrect (or badly distorted) conclusions using information that is incomplete, irrelevant or taken out of context.

When bits of knowledge are willfully assembled with the intent of distorting the thinking of others, it is called a scam. Those who suggest that Canada geese are a significant public health risk are guilty of engaging in this practice.

Not coincidentally, unfounded allegations that geese are a health risk have become popular since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced plans to consider new policies that would lead to the massive extermination of these birds. The health argument is a calculated deception behind which hide those who want geese killed just for being a messy inconvenience. A public health scare, no matter how far-flung, makes a stronger impression than the rantings of some neurotic suburbanites or ornithophobes. (By the way, killing geese doesn't keep them out of areas where they are unwanted; non-lethal controls do.)

For years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been giving out permits that allow geese to be killed based on claims by the applicant that the birds are somehow causing a health risk. Of the many, many permits that we have investigated, none of the claims could be substantiated with compelling scientific data.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which sets forth the regulations by which geese must be treated, does not include a provision for killing geese that are imagined or "believed" to be a health threat. Hence, permits issued based on these claims are illegal. On November 10th, 1999, George Haas of the USFWS, stated publicly that his permitting office did not concern itself with checking the validity of claims made about geese (public health or otherwise) before approving permits to kill them. Our investigations conclusively show that the USFWS is guilty of issuing permits based on false claims made by the applicants.

If the USFWS is to succeed in expanding opportunities for killing geese in the future, it needs to validate its past behavior. Those salivating at the prospect of policies that would make it easier to kill geese for frivolous reasons (and/or because they are under the mistaken impression that this will solve "goose problems") are happy to provide their assistance toward this goal and are doing so.

A couple of characters have been attempting to create a false reality in which geese are considered a "significant risk to human health." Their strategy is a very old one:

It involves the selective interpretation of scientific studies, the willful omission of information that contradicts their views and the insulation of their claims from real-world perspective.

While most recipients of this misinformation do not have the perspective or resources to see these "junk science" based scams for what they are, there are those who desperately want to believe the myth that geese are a health risk and will deny and avoid the truth like the plague.

How the scam works - some real examples Those desperate to make the case that geese are a health risk must sacrifice accuracy for sensationalism. Propaganda relies on the use of definitive statements and simple messages. Complex public health issues cannot be accurately and honestly portrayed in simplistic soundbites. Recently, the claim was made that "Canada geese are medically proven to cause disease -- a scientific study says so." This statement was embellished with a variety of tabloid-like proclamations designed to give the impression that new evidence had been found to show that geese are a general public health problem. Those intent on creating this illusion were careful to ONLY provide the reader with the abstract of the study. It is natural for a group or individual with an agenda to present and interpret a given study to its own advantage. This is an excellent case in point. If the full paper had been provided, this attempt at sensationalism would have fallen flat because: The study to which they were referring involved only ONE person. Their claim incorrectly implies that the study says that the general public is as risk -- the study does not, in fact, say this. The person in the study was by all accounts extremely hypersensitive to geese just as some people are highly allergic to cats, dogs, peanuts or other immunological stimuli. This observation is a curiosity, not a medical breakthrough or a shocking discovery. Many, many people coexist, and even work, with large numbers of geese with no ill effect. The authors of the paper in question did not recommend extermination of geese as the solution, but rather, removal of the affected person from the source of irritation. This individual is clearly so sensitive to the presence of geese that any number of geese will impact him. Using this study to justify goose extermination is completely irrational because it will not help this individual or others who might have the same predisposition. Experience has shown that removing and killing geese only creates a vacuum that other geese repopulate. This is not the first, just the latest, example of a failed attempt to show that geese are a significant health risk. In Monmouth County, New Jersey, a health officer launched an anti-goose campaign by blatantly misrepresenting a scientific study from Johns Hopkins University on the parasite Cryptosporidium. When contacted, the author of this study expressed concern over the health officer's use of his research. He warned that his findings should not be extrapolated in that way. While this health officer is struggling to link Canada geese to a public health threat, it is easy to link his obsession with geese to a fiscal motive. He opportunistically used his position to convince the county government that he needed 80,000 tax dollars to study goose poop. What he did not tell them was that he was squandering these tax dollars on copycat studies that, regardless of the results, would never make a public health case against geese. In fact, when his claims were presented to one of the world's leading experts on Cryptosporidium at Harvard's School of Public Health, the health officer's conclusions were called "ludicrous." Even the New Jersey Department of Health refused to endorse his work.

The truth is, real public health risks are complex phenomena that involve many factors. For this reason they are usually characterized in general terms such as "extreme," "minor," "insignificant," etc., depending on the nature of the information available on the risk in question.

Reality Check:   A few vocal people have been complaining about geese and accusing them of being a health risk for almost ten years now.

It is very telling that after ALL of these years -- without any detectable sign that geese are impacting public health -- that there are suddenly a few desperate individuals frantically searching for any scraps of information they can exploit to create an unfounded health scare. Their purpose is solely to justify the extremism associated with goose extermination.

Neither reality nor good science supports the notion that geese are anything other than an insignificant health issue. If the individuals hell-bent on proving otherwise were truly concerned with public health, and not promoting the killing of geese, their attention would be directed elsewhere.