Coalition to Protect Canada Geese

May 22, 1998

Mr. Paul R. Schmidt, Chief
Office of Migratory Bird Management
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
MS 634--ARLSQ
1849 C. Street NW
Washington DC 20240

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

The following comments are submitted for the proposed rule "Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit" (Federal Register March 31,1998, 63, 61, 115697-15705). The rule is in italics and quotation marks; my response to the proposed rule is in bold.

I strongly oppose the proposed rule to grant permits to states to establish a goose damage management program. The plan to grant permits to states under 50 CFR 21.26 is based on fraudulent claims and provides no data to support the abdication of responsibility of the US Fish and Wildlife Service responsibility for protection of migratory birds. The proposed action is precisely what the USFWS has been attempting to do in Minnesota and other states for the past three years: grant states broad authority to kill and relocate Canada Geese in violation of its own rules. The US District Court Third Division for Minnesota ordered the Service to revoke such permits to the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This is an attempt of the Service to distance itself from the criticism and to make it impossible for citizens to act to protect the geese from an institutionalized and continuous slaughter in our parks and neighborhoods.

Your opening statement of purpose is flawed. "To establish a Canada goose damage management program. This program is designed to provide a biologically sound and more cost effective and efficient method for the control of locally breeding (resident) Canada geese that pose a threat to health and human safety and are responsible for damage to personal and public property. " (15698, col. 1).

This program is not biologically sound - it ignores the origins of the increase in the Canada goose population and continuing efforts to keep the population high to increase revenues from hunting licenses. There is no data given that the program would be either cost effective or efficient. There is no data given to support a threat to health and human safety. There is no data given to demonstrate damage to personal or public property.

Background

"Number of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within the coterminous United States have increased exponentially in recent years" (15698, col. 1).

Ankney, whom the Service cites for authority on the "exponential" growth has four paragraphs in the cited paper on the subject of Canada Geese. His authority for the growth of this population is D.G. Dennis, Canadian Wildlife Service, undated and unpublished data. It is not cited in Ankney's references. His paper focuses on snow geese.

Ankney continues, "I am convinced," he said, "That all of the aforementioned goose "explosions" are, ultimately, a result of their recent and increasing exploitation of agriculture such use of agricultural habitats, including on national wildlife refuges, has led to increased fall/winter survival and, for lesser snow geese at least, increased reproductive output by enhancing females' ability to store nutrient reserves required for reproduction. Ankney refers to the practice of game agencies leaving thousands of acres of grain available to the hunted animals just prior to hunting season. Rye is planted to attract ducks at Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, according to authorities there. Ducks Unlimited and Geese Unlimited provide grants to the state game agencies in Minnesota and Wisconsin. DU claims to have provided the Wisconsin State game agency $407,000 in grants in one year for ecosystem development including wild rice planting. (Attachment 1) Illinois boasts 4.1 million dollars from the state to Ducks Unlimited. Needless to say, what is planted to attract ducks also attracts geese and vice versa.

The ecology (real-world) of the situation of Canada Geese is conveniently omitted in the proposed rule. If it had been discussed, alternative strategies would have been immediately apparent: stop the "growing" of geese, stop the protected nesting sites, stop the planting of thousands of acres of grain in the hunting areas, stop the trapping of predators.

"These geese are sometimes collectively referred to as 'resident' Canada Geese." (15698, col. 1)

The term 'resident' is a convenient fiction. The choreography of the terms resident and migratory, has the intent to remove the Canada Geese from the protection of law through this rule proposal . However, were the Canada Geese not migratory, the Service would not have the authority to issue this rule.

"These increasing populations of locally breeding geese are resulting in increasing numbers of conflicts with human activities, and concerns related to human health and safety are increasing" (Ankney 1998, col. 1).

The rule proposal also cites Ankney for "concerns over human health and safety..." Ankney, however, gives no evidence whatsoever for human health problems. Nor does Ankney give any evidence for complaints except to refer to the geese as "sky carp".

These claims of human health and safety concerns are the basis for this rule proposal, but they have no foundation in fact. The constant repetition of this claim does not constitute any sort of proof. In fact, it is outrageous that one of the authors of this proposal (Steve Wilds) put his name to this document while he acknowledged to a reporter at WORT Radio Madison, WI (4/98) that there is no evidence of human health problems from Canada Goose feces. Note that no mention of specific disease is mentioned in the entire Environmental Assessment or Rule proposal.

EA/rule author Wilds:

"The purpose of this environmental assessment is to evaluate possible changes to the way permits for control of locally breeding Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause damage to personal and public property are issued under the Act." (p. 4 EA).

"These increasing populations of locally breeding geese are resulting in increasing numbers of conflicts with human activities and concerns related to human health and safety are increasing" (p15698, col. 1)

Steve Wilds statement to WORT Radio:

"A lot of people come to us wanting permits based on their statements that droppings of geese are a health hazard to humans. We don't have any studies that indicate that's true and we do not issue permits based on claims of health at all. We just do not find that that's the situation or that anyone can prove that it's a problem."

The public health claim, although fraudulent, is necessary to give credibility to this goose kill. Without it, the rule proposal would fail.

"Canada Geese killed in control programs must be properly disposed of or utilized given to charities for human consumption" (15701, col. 1).

The Service has ignored the concerns of scientists about feeding the geese to the poor. Warren Porter, Professor of Environmental Toxicology and Chair, Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, has evaluated game agencies' claims that the geese do not have hazardous levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies. Referring to the University of Minnesota professor Cooper's claims that the geese may safely be eaten, Porter responds: "I find no evidence that the geese are necessarily safe for human consumption. If they are consuming and storing golf course herbicides listed in Cooper's document (Dicamba, Diquat, Glyphosate, Mecoprop. Paraquat and 2,4D), their fats should definitely be checked for these compounds, the contaminants that co-occur due to manufacturing processes and the 'inert ingredients' that are added to promote dermal and lung absorption of the compounds." I have concerns about potential neurotoxic effects, reproductive and developmental effects (suppression of tissue growth and lesions in fetal hearts) and mutagenic effects. If geese are consuming or absorbing diquat or paraquat both have been implicated in higher risk of Parkinson's disease in a Swedish study and a study in Neurology in 1992 and a human exposure incident also reported in Neurology in 1992 that resulted in Parkinson-like symptoms with rapid onset. Nonetheless, until it can be verified that the above compounds and their contaminants and fungicides also listed in Cooper's report are not in the fat, where one would expect bioaccumulation, I would not feel comfortable eating them, nor would I recommend especially that women who are pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant consume them or feed them to young children. (Attachment 2).

Numerous food banks around the country concerned both about potential for adverse effects on the most vulnerable people: the poor and elderly, but also for charges of environmental racism. High levels of lead were found in the slaughtered geese both in 1996 and in 1997 in New York. The first year the Department of Health refused to allow the geese fed to the poor. The zoo also refused the toxic laden geese. The second year the DOH, faced with pressure from the DEC, allowed the geese to be fed to elderly. Some senior centers refused to accept the geese. The Service, USDA APHIS "Wildlife Services" (also known as USDAWS and ADC ) and the game agencies have treated this concern very casually. In fact, it is not discussed in the rule proposal.

So for an agency that has based a rule on unsubstantiated health claims, to ignore the real world hazard to the health of the poor is unconscionable.

However, Wilds admits to the real possibility that a goose donated to a poor family could have high levels of toxic chemicals. In a statement to WORT Wilds admitted: "Not to say that it's not impossible for a bird to be contaminated."

However, he reverts to the "Velcro" theory of "resident" geese. "When these birds are rounded up, people know exactly where they are taken from. Therefore, highly contaminated sites can be avoided just as an additional precaution. So that should not be a major factor with any geese." Wilds demonstrates his belief in the "Velcro" theory, a theory that holds that Canada Geese do not leave the ponds or golf courses. Game managers use the "Velcro" argument when they want to prove that the goose killed on a golf course could not have ever fed at superfund sites. Most elementary school children would find this theory a fantasy.

"To date, the Service has attempted to address injurious resident Canada goose problems through existing hunting seasons, the creation of new special Canada goose seasons designed to target resident populations" (15699, col. 1)

"The Service realizes that harvest management will never completely address this problem"(15699, col. 3).

We understand from this statement that the Service believes that "harvest management" has in part addressed "the problem". The Service, by instituting these early seasons, has admitted that geese in the rural areas are the same geese that are in the urban parks and golf courses. The proposal continues:

"Little impact on sport hunting would be expected under the proposed special permit. Resident Canada goose populations in areas that are targeted for management/control activities are generally those that provide little or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted access within urban/suburban areas where hunting is either precluded or severely restricted." (15701, Col. 2).

So on the one hand we are told that reduction of the resident Canada Geese was the motive for instituting the early hunting season. In the same breath, we are told that the resident geese are only in the urban areas. For that reason, we are told, the geese slaughtered by USDAWS/ADC would not reduce the number of geese available for hunting.

How does one reconcile this seeming paradox: the geese are both in the hunting areas and limited to the "urban" areas? The hunts have both reduced the "urban" population, but they will not.

In the absence of evidence that hunting reduces the "urban", "resident", "locally nesting" population, a reasonable alternative hypothesis is that hunting increases the "urban", "resident", "locally nesting" geese at the expense of homeowners.

In the absence of evidence that the "urban", "resident", "locally nesting" population constitutes "serious injury", an alternative is that (at least for the game agencies) the said population is a coveted source of babies to be nurtured to be living targets for hunters. The fiction that the game agencies are coming to the aid of exasperated citizens contrasts sharply with another reasonable hypothesis is that the "urban", "resident", "locally nesting" population serves the game agencies well.

Further evidence of that is the need USDAWS/ADC needs additional sources of revenue. The game agencies take the babies to the hunting areas for new licenses bearers, USDAWS/ADC takes the mothers and fathers to the soup kitchen and USDAWS/ADC takes their fair share of the profits. Cooperative service agreements around the country between the major players in this rule (USFWS, USDAWS/ADC and the game agencies) make USDAWS/ADC essentially a permitee. They are part of the Canada Goose breed 'em, kill 'em and feed 'em to the poor. The change in the final EA to remove USDAWS/ADC from being issued one of two state permits was a cosmetic change only.

So, while the lack of science in this rule and its parent Environmental Assessment would gag a respectable wildlife biologist, it makes perfect rationality to the goose killers (rural and urban).

A three-paragraph summary is the basis for the evidence of the problem to citizen. It is a description of the number of complaints about the geese and estimates of the damage.

"A brief summary of the complaints (15699, col. 3) 92 and 198 permits respectively" 15700, col.2).

The source of the claims is the Annual Tables of USDA APHIS ADC (USDAWS/ADC), twelve inches of paper listing undocumented complaints and damage estimates.

The Coalition to Protect Canada Geese solicited a copy of the tables cited from the Service to attempt to understand the Service's claims. Author Kokel admitted that he does not have and never did have the tables. The figures were read to him over the telephone. He also admitted, "ADC doesn't verify, only reports." (Attachment 3). It is shocking that the authors of this report are aware that the basis for their rule is unsubstantiated. The Wisconsin DNR "Urban Waterfowl" Task Force's recommendation to kill Canada Geese was based on the Wisconsin USDAWS/ADC claims of complaints. In response to a broad FOIA request for supportive documentation on any of the Wisconsin complaints, the agency admitted that it had no such documentation. (Attachment 4). Moreover, the plan Wisconsin Task Force approved was a flow chart beginning with complaints and moving directly to action. There is no intermediate "verification" or "analysis of the problem" (Attachment 5). This is a clear and concrete demonstration of the lack of commitment of the game agencies to the Migratory Bird Treaty.

Half of page 15700 is devoted to a history of permit issuance by Regional USFWS to states. "In 1997 the Service again issued Michigan and Minnesota permits authorizing the take up to 1,000 and 2,500 respectively." (15700,col 2). What is most curious is that no mention is made of the fact that the permit to the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was ordered revoked by a US District Court (Minnesota Humane v John Rogers). Furthermore it is curious that the authors of this rule do not cite James Cooper whose assertions about the reduction of geese on the lawns of Minneapolis have not been proven. In fact John E. Osmun, Airside Operations Department, Minneapolis Airport, said in a memo to Tim Callister, recovered under the Minnesota Data Practices Act:

"One question that comes to my mind as I review all of this data is - Why are we seeing an increasing number of geese at MSP when all of Dr. Cooper's data shows that the number of the geese around the airport are being kept at a level of 95+% below that of the 1984? There are other questions concerning the contract, reports, methods, communication, etc., that could be brought to Dr. Cooper's attention." (Attachment 6).

Cooper asserted to the Wisconsin "Urban Waterfowl" Task Force that he had reduced the number of Canada Geese on Minneapolis lawns. Cooper has refused Data Practice and FOIA requests from February, 1997, to provide information about his research to the Coalition to Protect Canada Geese, raising suspicions about the authenticity of his claims.

Provisions of the rule are found 15701, col. 1. control activities cannot be set up so as to be in fact a "hunt". But in fact by allowing killing with a firearm, the states can give permits to hunters to kill the geese while not calling it a hunt. Even the depredation permits issued under 50 CFR 21.41 in Wisconsin were the occasion for a hunt. In reviewing records in the files of the Wisconsin DNR, I found records of permits issued in December. The Wisconsin DNR could not explain what crop depredation was taking place in December.

"The Service proposes to add a new permit option available to State conservation agencies specifically for resident Canada Goose control and damage management. The special permit would only be available to a State conservation or wildlife management agency responsible for migratory bird management." (15700 col. 3).

While the language is meant to convey some kind of limitation, the Service proposes to relinquish its authority by granting blanket permits violating the intention of the Migratory Bird Treaty to deal with "seriously injurious" Canada Geese on a case by case basis. The experience of the last few years would indicate that states are zealously pursuing this goose kill with fraudulent claims. The relinquishment of oversight would institutionalize the disasters of the past three years.

The present lack of oversight is exemplified by the Oklahoma Great Egret Massacre at Bethany, Oklahoma, a short time ago. The Service failed to verify the species of bird in question. As a result, the permitees killed 200 Great Egret, rather than the specified Cattle Egret listed on the permit. The Service failed to investigate prior to issuance, failed to protect non target species and failed to assure trained personnel. Extending the lack of oversight will result in more disasters.

Ankney's advocacy of the removal of prohibition of hunting from March 31 to August 31 and the commercial sale of waterfowl leads the reader of the Environmental Assessment and rule proposal to be concerned about the ulterior motives of the Service in proposing the this rule. Although the rule prohibits opening, reopening or extending a hunting season, the state game agencies have already embarked on urban hunting e.g. Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Wisconsin "Urban Waterfowl" Task Force (Final report, 1998) advocated urban hunting seasons specifically as a "solution" for this problem. In fact, the application to round up and kill Canada Geese in Wisconsin requires applicants to open up their lands to hunting if local authorities approve the lifting of firearms restrictions (Section 29.59 (4m), Wisconsin Statutes.

"Hunting allowed. If the department removes or authorizes the removal of a wild animal or the structure of a wild animal under sub. (3)(b) The person who owns, leases or occupies the property on which the damage occurred shall open the property to others for hunting and trapping for one year beginning on the date on which the removal activity started unless hunting is prohibited under this chapter, rules promulgated under this chapter or any municipal ordinance."

So if a municipality lifts firearms restrictions, the homeowner would be vulnerable to having a hunt on his or her property if Canada Geese had been removed on his or her property, or in fact had eggs and nests destroyed.

While hunting is beyond the scope of this rule proposal, there appears to be a slippery slope emerging. It appears that the slippery slope is already desired by the state game agencies.

"It is expected that with reduced injurious populations and more effective hazing programs, fewer complaints would be likely to occur and less resident Canada goose damage would be likely."(Col. 3, 15701)

With five or more decades of breeding Canada Geese, and relocation of Canada Geese in some locations for four decades, citizens should not be asked to buy into another mismanagement disaster without evidence to support it. Citizens should not be asked to take the Service's repeated assertions without some sort of scientific evidence.

"With the increasing numbers of requests for permits, the permit issuance process has become time consuming and lengthy in some instances" (15701, col. 2).

It is in the public record that the USFWS Service issued a permit to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources before they had made an application in 1997.

"The Service has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)" (15703, col 2).

The Service did not address the numerous comments of citizens. The response was illusory, designed to look like a response, but was merely a repetition of the previously undocumented assertions and fraudulent claims.

Issue 1 - The removal of USDAWS/ADC is a cosmetic change. USDAWS/ADC is now included in the process through Cooperative Service Agreements. They have no authority to "manage" wildlife in any case.

Issue 2: More unfounded assertions about cost effective and efficient which are not considerations of the MBTA.

Issue 3: Citizens challenged the Service assertion that feces on golf shoes constitute a "serious injury". The response by the Service is the claim that there is depredation to agriculture and health and human safety. The Service well knows that this is not an issue of agriculture since there are already provisions (50 CFR 21.42) that will respond to depredation. The fraudulent claim of health and human safety is repeated again here, leaving only the nuisance issue to stand alone.

Issue 4: "The 25 percent population figure was unrealistic and virtually impossible to ascertain" (15702, col 2) This refers to the previous EA allowance of the killing of 25 percent of the population in any one control action, a practice that could decimate the population of Canada Geese. The regulations do not resolve this problem. Given the present lack of oversight, blanket permits will further increase the holocaust.

Unfunded Mandates

"The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act given year on local or state government or private entities."(15704, col. 1).

This is undocumented and must be challenged. We have verified that in one community (Minneapolis), half a million dollars went to the University of Minnesota from various communities in that area over a space of a few years. Since the University of Minnesota refused to respond to our Data Practices Act request, we were unable to determine further costs to this one municipality. However, in the absence of any cost assessments in the EA or rule proposal, this claim must be challenged. I was told by an official in the City of Milwaukee the city would not be able to pay for this action and would be passing along the cost to private entities.

In light of the Service's claims of responding to citizens, it is ironic that the rule is crafted so as to avoid the possibility that citizens could comment on the state operations. Should this rule be issued, the following should be incorporated as a condition of the permit:

1. All applications for a state permit must be published in a major newspaper in the county where the operation is proposed 90 days before a permit is issued.

2. At least 60 days before any round up may take place, written notification must be given where killing or relocation is to occur. Residents within one mile of the proposed action must be notified by mail . Notice must appear in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the action is to occur and must be announced prominently on the game agencies' web pages with links to the USFWS web page. The notification (mail, newspaper and e mail) must include: the exact location where the round up or other action is expected to take place, the names of those who are requesting the round up, the costs and who will bear them, the revenues and who will receive them.

3. Public hearings must be conducted prior to the issuance of a permit and annually after notification has been made about site specific location.

4. All site-specific locations, individual and corporate requests for round up, costs, plans including the dates of round up must be immediately available to the public on request.

5. Each state must certify to the USFWS that it has conducted the required public notice and has considered these comments in their action. The certification must include copies of all the public comments.

Without proper citizen input on this matter, there will be continued suspicions that the Service, the UWDAWS /ADC and the state game agencies do not want to respond to the needs of citizens, but are in fact carrying out their own operations at the expense of citizens to generate revenues.

I request that you provide me a copy of your final report on this rule.

Sincerely,

Ann Frisch, Ph.D., National Coordinator

Attachments:

1 Ducks Unlimited Grants $407,150
2 Comments on Cooper proposal by Dr. Warren Porter
3 Memo to Coalition from Ron Kokel
4 Supportive documentation for rule proposal
5 FOIA response showing no documentation for complaints and original request
6 WI DNR "Urban Waterfowl" Task Force proposed procedure
7 Memo, John Ostrom, Minneapolis Airport, showing questionable claims by University of Minnesota James Cooper

Copies to: