And they went without a struggle, each goose politely walking up the make-shift planks, cautiously but quietly, not knowing what terror was in store for them.

By 7:30 a.m., more than two hundred Canada Geese and several goslings had been jammed into an assortment of vehicles, none designed for or capable of humanely transporting wildlife - not that those involved in this abduction really cared. They had come to round up the "enemy" for extermination, and clearly anyone capable of carrying out such an operation would have to be devoid of compassion.

The motley procession of vehicles, some with private plumbing and heating/cooling contractor logos on them, crowded with panic- stricken geese, left for slaughter under the watchful protection of local police. Protection from whom one might wonder?

Later that month, on the June 25th, 31 more geese were rounded up in a similar fashion, for a similar fate, bringing the total number of victims to 251. Ironically, the federally-permitted quota of 350 geese couldn't be attained - there just weren't enough geese.

After the initial round up, only one disoriented goose remained, weakly honking out toward the still water; nothing but a faint echo could be heard in response. A goose spared because a teary eyed Coalition member confronted the worker trying to lure this last goose to the waiting trucks, she asked, "Can't you just let him go?" He did. Those who named the park Congers Memorial never imagined how appropriate that name would become.

The Fool Stands Alone

Clarkstown is one of Rockland County's five administratively independent towns. The highest office in each town is the Supervisor. In 1993, three and a half years before the round-ups began, the five town supervisors of Rockland held a meeting in a local hotel. At that meeting, the supervisor of Clarkstown attempted to get the support and participation of his counterparts for his recently-announced plan to exterminate an alleged 10 thousand Canada geese.

Outside the meeting, the newly-formed Coalition held a demonstration to bring public attention to this outrageous scheme. The supervisors were well aware of the protest. When the meeting was over, they not only fled the hotel, but also left the Clarkstown supervisor and his deranged agenda alone without any other town's support.

His Way or No Way

All efforts of the Coalition to begin a dialogue with the Clarkstown supervisor on the use of non-lethal control measures met with condescending resistance. Not long into this controversy, the Clarkstown supervisor proved to be the spoiled brat of his provincial political world. It was clear that he was unaccustomed to not having his way and didn't like being challenged.

It didn't matter that his extermination plan met with tremendous public outcry; he persisted and even started to deny that anyone had contacted him to say they opposed it. We knew that he was receiving hundreds of letters in opposition, and suspected that he and his administrative assistant were promptly discarding them and keeping no records of the many phone calls received. The denial continued even though he was brought petitions bearing thousands of signatures and despite the fact that the County Executive's office reported receiving hundreds of letters and faxes. Instead of deferring to the compassionate will of the people, it was obvious he preferred to show favor to a handful of political insiders.

Courting the Wildlife Killers

In an attempt to make the proposed Canada goose killing look less like the scheme of a psychopath, and more like a scientific imperative, he announced a public meeting that would feature a guest panel of alleged "wildlife experts." In what appeared to be a minor victory, the Coalition was promised a place on the panel - a promise that vanished on the day of the meeting.

Not suprisingly, the panel consisted of government-employed hunters whose job is to spread the economically lucrative use of deadly force to "manage" wildlife. The composition was deliberate because the supervisor knew the participants were partial to one solution above all else: killing. In fact, the Coalition has documentation showing that they were the ones to plant the idea in his head in the first place.

This meeting took place on March 16th, 1993, and was a near-riot. The supervisor's personal assistant had stacked the auditorium with rowdy town employees and/or their relatives (It is quite possible that there weren't any "true citizens" there to advocate killing.) Those who articulately spoke in favor of non-lethal control could hardly be heard over the grunting, screaming and shouting of the mob.

Despite the pandemonium, the Coalition presented the town supervisor with a carefully-researched report on effective non-lethal methods of goose dissuasion, a report complete with references and supporting articles. The report was dismissed without so much as a momentary acknowledgment.

During the meeting, the state and federal wildlife manager-hunters from the NY State Bureau of Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service said that they would not issue a permit to the town to kill Canada geese until non-lethal methods had been "tried" first. Yes, all the town had to do was "try".

It is important to note that these "wildlife managers" never verified the extent of the problem's severity - or indeed, whether a problem really existed at all. Similarly, they never indicated how much effort had to be devoted to non-lethal methods or what measure would be used to determine effectiveness. This was no accident; it was a scheme of tried and true design: premeditated failure.

Anyone Can Fail If They Try

To get a permit to kill geese, all the town supervisor had to do was make a superficial attempt to use non-lethal methods of goose control and then claim they were ineffective. That's precisely what happened. He secured his permit to kill by choosing non-lethal methods that clearly would have little practical effect for the areas in question.

Goose Relocation: On June 26th, 1994, Clarkstown paid a private contractor to relocate 161 molting - and therefore, flightless - Canada geese from the three town parks. They were brought to the Clarkstown dump, an area previously shown by the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. This point will become relevant later.

Permission for this relocation, which requires state and federal approval, was at first denied. The relocation of geese had been frowned upon by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for a number of years prior to this request, so this was not surprising. A letter from a key NY state waterfowl biologist to the USFWS (March 17, 1994) recommended against the relocation because they are considered to be of "questionable effectiveness." Several weeks later, there was a sudden and still-unexplained change of position, and the permit to relocate 150 geese was granted.

The geese were transferred a mere two miles away. It was said that, from the dump, the geese could almost see the places from where they were taken. Precedent said relocation wouldn't work, the waterfowl biologist said it wouldn't work, and it didn't. Many felt that this is precisely why they did it -- so the town could say they "tried" non-lethal methods and the methods didn't work. Geese that could fly back to the parks did; those that couldn't attempted to walk back, causing a major traffic jam. Within several weeks, when the parks were repopulated with geese, no one was surprised.

Feeding ban: The supervisor began a campaign to implement a Canada goose feeding ban, despite the fact that these bans are not effective for altering regional populations. This method had the expected effect: none. (For more information on why feeding bans are ineffective, see the section on feeding.)

In the end, these two non-lethal actions were all he had to "try" to be granted a permit to kill geese. This fact was not lost on Jim Forbes of the USDA/ADC (Animal Damage Control). In a letter to a NY state waterfowl manager dated March 18, 1994, he mentions the fact that Clarkstown seems disinterested in a variety of non-lethal methods:

"I also note, that the Town of Clarkstown, apparently does not intend to use any of the techniques (such as pyrotechnics, shell crackers, fencing, etc.) which has been recommended to them, in the past. They should be actively harassing the geese right now, to discourage nesting and to move them to another location."

The County Government Intervenes: "Blue Ribbon Panel" of Experts

With the controversy escalating, a member of the County Legislature organized a "Blue Ribbon Panel" public meeting with presentations to be given by a variety of wildlife professionals; some were part of the "wildlife management establishment", others were not. They were asked to address a variety of topics, including what was becoming the cornerstone of the supervisor's campaign against geese: public health.

Early on, the Clarkstown supervisor, with the help of the Rockland County Commissioner of Health, attempted to build a case against the geese by claiming that the geese were a health threat to the public. One of the most important presentations at the "Blue Ribbon Panel" meeting was made by Dr. Milton Friend of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. He is a waterfowl infectious disease expert, and explained to the audience that Canada geese and their droppings do not pose a significant health threat to humans. His presentation should have been the last word on the health issue, but it wasn't. The idea of geese as a health threat persisted, even in the absence of supporting data (for more information see our section on public health).

County Legislator Steps in to Form Citizens Task Force

After this Blue Ribbon Panel meeting, a concerned county legislator organized a "Citizens Task Force on Canada Geese" to research non-lethal methods of goose control. The committee consisted of representatives from each of the counties' five towns (including the Clarkstown supervisor), as well as various other interested parties, including individuals from Cornell Cooperative Extension, a wildlife nuisance control contractor, someone from the local Audubon Society and the Coalition. After a year of approximately monthly meetings, the committee's research (field trips, demonstrations, and research by individual committee members) revealed that quite a variety of effective non-lethal methods were available to control geese, many appropriate for use in Clarkstown. A subcommittee of the task force met several times to compile the findings and produce a draft report. The draft was completed in mid-1995 and distributed to all committee members. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Town of Clarkstown had all of the information needed to address the concerns of goose complainants without resorting to killing.....but the findings were ignored.

Rather than making plans to implement the findings of the task force report, the town proceeded toward its original goal of killing geese. In a desperate attempt to dodge the bad publicity the plan had suffered, another ploy was unleashed -- it was announced that the dead geese would be fed to the poor. Most people recognized that the needy were being used to put a positive spin on an otherwise deplorable action. The town supervisor was clearly aiming his shallow conscience at those not ethically armed to realize that there is a big difference between taking an unintended wrong and making the best of it, and willfully committing a wrong and then trying to undo it by giving the appearance of turning it into a good deed.

The Coalition for the Homeless, a prominent New York City homeless organization, supported our position and testified against this manipulative false charity.

Hiding the Evidence in the Bowels of the Poor

It is ironic that the town supervisor's administration has never been all that concerned about the needy struggling to survive within its upper-middle-class borders. The town's interest in charity emerged when they found themselves facing the need to dispose of hundreds of dead geese. Compared to killing geese, the health and welfare of the town's disadvantaged was clearly a low priority and could be measured by the ease with which they were willing to pass potentially unsafe flesh onto those with little or no political standing. Despite the fact that geese are known to accumulate toxins from feeding on chemically treated lawns, Clarkstown was caught using pesticides in the parks shortly before the geese were to be abducted, killed and taken to feed the poor. Furthermore, NY state had issued written warnings to hunters to limit their consumption of geese due to toxicity. The Coalition brought this to the town's attention and was promptly and publicly rebuked. The supervisor even went on the record as saying he "couldn't wait to bite into a goose burger."

While the town attempted to serve dead geese to the needy, the Coalition served the town with a legal "Notice of Dangerous Condition". In short, the town was put on notice that it was about to put people at risk, and as a result, they would be held liable. This ultimately forced Clarkstown to have the dead geese tested for toxicity.

The Coalition Turns Up the Heat

In May of 1996, the pressure on Clarkstown was fierce. A massive telephone and letter-writing campaign was unleashed on the offices of the supervisor, the county executive and the health commissioner. Many reported back to the Coalition that despite polite phone requests that the geese be spared and non-lethal methods be used to control geese, they were greeted with unrestrained anger, foul language and behavior considered inappropriate for public servants or their representatives. On June 9th, 1996, the Coalition held a rally that drew nearly 200 people. As passing cars honked in support, demonstrators lined the roadway while other participants listened to guest speakers. The event received front page coverage in the Rockland Journal-News.

No Reasonable Offer Accepted!

In an attempt to avert the massive destruction of geese, two reasonable and generous offers were made to the supervisor:

1. A businesswoman offered to relocate the same number of geese that were to be killed, at her own expense, and have them taken to a 200-acre wildlife preserve in Massachusetts. (She further offered to have their wings clipped (temporarily) so they would be unable to fly back.)

THIS OFFER WAS REJECTED.

2. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) formally offered to buy ReJex-it lawn treatment for Clarkstown. (ReJex-it is a non-toxic spray that makes lawn unpalatable to geese.) Previously, the Supervisor argued that it was too expensive.

THIS OFFER WAS REJECTED. (Even FREE was too expensive!)

A Police-State is Born

In June of 1996 as the molting period for geese approached, the Coalition legally requested the date and time of the round-up. The request was denied -- the date and time were to be kept secret, even to the press. This blatant violation of the public's right to witness government activities even angered people who had no opinion on the goose issue. If Clarkstown was so proud of its actions, why the secrecy? What was there to hide? It was clear they feared that the people would rebel, make a scene. The town supervisor knew he was acting in defiance of the people. If the town would go to such lengths to secretly carry out actions regarding geese, what might they resort to for things they really cared about?

On Friday, June 14, 1996, the Coalition went to court and filed a lawsuit against the Town of Clarkstown, the County Health Department and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. We requested that a temporary restraining order be issued to prevent the town from rounding up geese until our case could be heard. The local judge, a man who spent 20 minutes trying to figure out how to operate his speakerphone (so that the Assistant State Attorney General in Albany could be heard), denied us the restraining order.....on the following Monday, 231 geese unnecessarily lost their lives.

Several days later, after all but one goose had been removed from three parks, we again sought a restraining order; after all, the carnage had already taken place. Again, the judge rejected our case. It was evident that he did not understand the laws in question and was acting out of prejudice. He exposed his small-town personal bias against us by scolding the Coalition for not offering to help the town sooner - a malicious and irrelevant comment that revealed ignorance about the Coalition's efforts.

The Aftermath

No Practical Effect
As predicted, the goose killing failed to address the concerns of goose complainants. Other geese moved into the vacancy left by those removed. Less than two weeks later, more than 100 geese were observed in one of the three parks -- more than were present before the extermination.

Tax Dollars Wasted
The town ended up wasting more than 15,000 taxpayer dollars on an unethical solution that had no practical effect: money that could have been used to buy fencing, make landscaping changes or implement any number of effective non-lethal methods.

Toxic Geese
At great expense, the flesh of the dead geese were tested by the NY State Department of Health. It was found to be contaminated with, among other things, lead and deemed unsuitable for consumption. If it weren't for the Coalition, this tainted flesh would have been distributed to the poor.

Desperate for damage control, the deranged supervisor then offered the dead geese to the local zoo; they wanted no part of this madness and rejected the offer.

You Can Always Tell a Clarkstown Supervisor - But You Can't Tell Him Much

When asked about the goose killing plan that flopped, all the supervisor could say was:

"Hey, ya' live and learn." (Rockland Journal-News - 8/28/96)