i know in my state we have quite the over population ...especially in resort towns and golf corses...they are using border collies to chase them off...im against over population..but also against senceless killing too..why not raise the limit to the hunters for a few seaon...at least they will be food and not fertilizer...
"Geese accused of contaminating a local lake will face a dark fate as early as this summer. Wildlife experts say the number of Canada Geese at Collins Lake is now more than twice the number it should be.
So to fix the problem, about 150 birds will be trapped with nets, gassed with carbon dioxide, and then buried by late June.
The cost of this task will be $300,000 and the reason for this, according to the Times Union, is to restore the quality of the lake.
Collins Lake was closed last summer because of the high levels of E-coli Bacteria.
Many critics say they're unhappy with this decision, however village officials say it's the best option for now.
Scotia's mayor says next year the city will consider non-lethal means in addressing the ongoing problem.
There are many alternatives to stop reproduction of geese and to get them out of the area without harming or hurting them. "
Awww...I think it's so sad that they are killing them off. They can always relocate them to new habitats. We don't have Canadian Geese here. I wouldn't mind if they brought some to live at our pond. Infact, I wouldn't mind if they brought the pigeons to live here either. lol We don't have either birds.
Canadian geese are NOT my favorite form of wildlife, and I don't think that I will go out of my way to save them. As a matter of fact, last year, I was chased and knocked down by goose! TRUE STORY! I was jogging on a high school track. It was springtime. I know geese are very protective of their offspring, but I never saw any gosslings. In fact, I didn't even see the goose at first. I heard a hissing behind me, turned around to see a goose waddling toward me about 20 feet away. Since I was running away from him/her, I figured s/he would get tired and give up. The hissing got louder, so I turned again just in time to see the underside of a goose as it was just about to nail me. Its body hit my left shoulder, knocking me completely off balance. I did a three point landing on the asphalt (face, shoulder, knee). Fortunately, it didn't hop on top of me and peck me to death, but I didn't hang around to see what would happen.
OK, people -- Go ahead. Laugh all you need to. The folks at work sure did.
"Canada Geese are found throughout North America. They have a black neck, bill and head with occasional white patches and a white strap under the chin. The body is usually brownish-gray although colors vary in some of the subspecies. In some of the smaller subspecies the body is dark brown in color where as in some of the larger subspecies, the body is a light gray tone. Underneath, the colors are much lighter and almost white on the tail. During flight the tail shows a white semi-circle just above the black tail. These color patterns are unique to the Canada Goose.
Females may be slightly smaller than the males, although both are similar to each other in color pattern. The bill of Branta canadensis tapers from the base where it is high to the end where it has narrowed. The bill has lamellae, or teeth around the outside that are a used as a cutting tool. The legs are close together with very black feet. This goose has very large wings that can also be used as weapons. The weight of Branta canadensis also varies depending on the subspecies. There are larger subspecies that weigh about 9 pounds and smaller subspecies that only weigh 3 pounds."
"In recent years, there has been an increase in media reports about conflicts between people and Canada geese. Without exception, the tone of these articles is decidedly biased against geese, and the reports usually presuppose that such attitudes are widely held and that the reasons are self-evident.
Complaints about geese can be reduced to concerns about the droppings they deposit where they congregate, and to a lesser extent, the presence of feathers during their annual molt. Although much has been said to make the issue of suburban geese into a serious "problem", most concerns beyond simple aesthetics and minor inconveniences are not legitimate (see below).
In a growing number of situations, programs have been planned or are underway to kill Canada geese on a regular basis. The government wildlife management establishment (the US Fish and Wildlife Service, state "game" agencies, and seemingly-benign representatives from local cooperative extensions) each play their part in advancing the various stages which make these atrocities a reality. These stages include; convincing a municipality that killing via depredation permit (or hunting) is the only solution, approval of the permit, and public sentiment manipulation by carefully planned media manuevers.
Local politicians are easy prey to these agencies, which offer only superficial guidance on the use of non-lethal methods of goose dissuasion. When poorly-chosen and sloppily implemented non-lethal methods fail, politicians are convinced that killing is the only answer.
As will be elaborated shortly, government wildlife managers go to great lengths to spread their archaic killing-centered philosophy on how wildlife controversies should be handled. Communities that eventually succumb to goose extermination programs do so after being thoroughly soaked with disinformation, often from ostensibly respectable local figures.
With little or no supporting evidence, geese are accused of posing a health threat, compromising water quality, damaging crops, and overpopulating areas where they live. Those who actively perpetuate such ideas - mayors, health department officials, sportsmen's clubs, park rangers, etc. - when challenged, find themselves unable to support their claims with sound scientific information. Whether by ignorance or premeditated deciet, the misinformation they dispense can usually be traced to the government wildlife-killing establishment and their beneficiaries ("sport" hunters, weapon manufacturers, etc.).
The following sections serve to shed some light on the more common issues and corresponding misconceptions used to justify the killing of geese. Other topics will be added in due course. "
"New Jersey -- On the heels of a study released earlier this year from the National Wildlife Health Center, comes a another study on the public health implications of Canada geese. This study was carried out by the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. Both studies endorse the long standing view of infectious disease experts that the presence of Canada geese is NOT a significant public health issue. "
"The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Wildlife Services, state wildlife agencies and local public health officials have routinely relied on claims that non-migratory waterfowl pose serious threats to human health to justify programs designed to reduce populations of "resident" Canada geese and other non-migratory waterfowl the country. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service has cited such claims in the Federal Register and in environmental impact assessments to justify relaxing the agency's nation-wide regulations for issuing permits to control "resident" Canada geese, and USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services has relied on the same claims in environmental assessments justifying programs to capture and kill "resident" Canada geese in Wisconsin and Washington. However, a new report from the U. S. Department of the Interior now shows those claims to be bogus. "
Hypersensitivity pneumonitis resulting from community exposure to Canada goose droppings: when an external environmental antigen becomes an indoor environmental antigen.
Saltoun CA, Harris KE, Mathisen TL, Patterson R.
Ernest S. Bazley Asthma and Allergic Diseases Center of the Department of Medicine of Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA.
BACKGROUND: In the past, hypersensitivity pneumonitis has been attributed to occupational, agricultural, or home environmental exposure. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the first case of hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to community exposure to droppings from Canada geese migrating through a suburban environment. METHOD: Clinical and serologic information was used in making the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis. RESULTS: Serologic analysis demonstrated precipitating antibodies against goose droppings and against an extract made from washings from a filter taken from the patient's office. These studies also showed that the antigens in the office filter were goose dropping antigens. CONCLUSION: Hypersensitivity pneumonitis can result from exposure to goose dropping antigens in the community that enter buildings through ventilation systems. This represents a new form of an old disease.
"On many occasions Canada geese, or rather their droppings, have been accused of being a health risk. Upon close examination, these accusations were shown to be gross misrepresentations and in most cases traced to individuals wholly unqualified to make public health risk assessments. Irresponsible reporters have done their part to perpetuate misinformation by printing one-sided statements such as, "Groundskeeper John Doodle says, 'something needs to be done about the geese because of public health concerns'."
Independent public health experts have said time and again that Canada geese are not a significant health issue. Studies done in the past on goose droppings were in agreement. Even so, periodic accusations of geese being a health risk have emerged from seemingly reputable sources. In all cases, these accusations were found to be scientifically unsubstantiated. Not surprisingly, the perpetrators could be shown to have close ties with those proposing drastic (i.e., lethal) goose management agendas.
State and Federal wildlife managers have been among the worst in propagating false impressions regarding the public health implications of Canada geese. Their strategy involves cross referencing each other ad nauseum: one unsupported claim used to give credence to another. Drastic changes to federal regulations that would encourage the killing of Canada geese have been implemented and proposed based largely on an illusory health argument.
The new study, Screening for potential human pathogens in fecal material deposited by resident Canada geese on areas of public utility was released on March 31, 2001 by the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC). The report confirms what previous studies have shown: that Canada geese are rarely carriers of microorganisms that would pose a significant threat to humans.
This study confirms, as the Coalition has argued for years, that permits issued for the killing of Canada geese using public health as a justification are fradulent and indeed, illegal.
Dr. Gary Pearson was kind enough to provide the coalition with a more detailed comment on the study. "
"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."
That you are randomly googling and grabbing whatever articles you can find possibly to up your post count rather than much else. Both sides of the arguement can be proven, and there really is an over population issue since there aren't any predators to take them out. Which often leads to disease. Lets ask again, and the point was?
All your articles came from the same source. That doesn't make an educated opinion.
***Edited By: MafiaPrincess on 5/9/2006 2:32:10 AM*** Reason: add