Dear Sir: Herein you will find my comments regarding the above-cited proposed rule. Please place this document with the other papers regarding the proposal. In the summary, you cite that the Canada geese at issue "pose a threat to health and human safety and are responsible for damage to personal and public property." The proposal is without any supporting documentation relating to a health threat or damage to property. While you cite several APHIS/ADC(WS) documents, we have been unable to locate any such recordation of complaints. Further, it is well documented that Canada geese (and waterfowl in general) pose no human health threat. If the Service is in possession of peer reviewed scientific documentation supporting some pathogen which Canada geese carry and pass on to humans please consider this a request under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of such documents. There is a similar lack of documentation supporting property damage. It should be noted that private property damage is not actionable under the MBTA, and permitting action against protected species can protect only certain types of commercial interests. The proposed rule does not address any such damage. In the Background section of the proposed rule you again cite; "concerns relating to human health and safety are increasing (Ankey, 1996) and the Service is proposing changes to the way permits for control and management of resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause damage to personal and public property are issued under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the Service." In regard to the cited paper (Ankey, 1996), from the citation, this is not a peer reviewed document and therefore, scientifically, supports no action. Further, general statements about concerns certainly do not support any action, as there must first be shown to have been actual damage (not reported in the proposed rule). Finally, the Service does not in fact issue permits under the MBTA for damage to personal and public property. Again, specific property damage is provided for in the language of the MBTA in regard to permits and no documentation is presented to support that damage to those specific interests is taking place. Therefore, the Service is not in fact making changes to an existing procedure, but vastly expanding the permit process to include areas that are not properly within the MBTA. In asserting the subspecies constituting the birds at issue in the proposed rule, the Service asserts; "or hybrids between the various subspecies originating in captivity and artificially introduced into numerous areas throughout the conterminous United States. No evidence currently exists documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern Canada and Alaska." Again, the proposed rule is entirely void of any supportive data for these statements. If the Service is indicating someone is breeding Canada geese in captivity for the purpose of releasing them into the wild, where they then co-mingle with wild geese, then the Service should take steps to determine who is doing so. However, the only reason for such conduct would appear to be a lack of "hunting harvest opportunities" for these particular geese that even the Service admits is not a problem. In fact, increased opportunities for hunting harvest have wholly failed to result in control of the alleged goose problem. However, for the sake of argument, assuming such activity is taking place, surely the Service is not indicating that such releases account for the number of geese in the United States or even a significant factor in same. As to the statement that no evidence exists regarding breeding between groups of geese, such is an appalling basis for any action. The reverse is also true; there exists no evidence that the groups are not breeding. Therefore, if the first statement is used to support permitting, then the second statement, equally true, can be used to deny permitting. Again, the proposed rule fails to cite any peer reviewed scientific study to support the statement asserted. It is reasonable, under scientific standards, to assume that such a study would be basically impossible to carry out to any scientifically provable degree. First, the geese appear to be the same. Secondly, it would take extensive, if not impossible observation to determine if they were interbreeding and then, to be scientifically provable, each offspring would have to be DNA tested after testing the adults. As is obviously, such an undertaking would not likely produce scientifically sound results. Finally, justifying action based on a negative assumption is completely unsound and unjustifiable. "Because resident goose populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations during the fall and winter, these other goose populations could potentially be affected by any management action or program targeted at resident Canada geese during the fall and winter." This assertion clearly removes all of the Service's prior statements regarding the difference between the various goose populations. If they are interacting in such a manner, it is far more reasonable to assume they will also interbreed, that offspring are no different than migratory geese and that the geese themselves really don�t care if there is a difference. Again, there is real reason to question any statement that there can be discerned any difference between these populations other than their physical presence at a particular location at a specific time of the year. As such, the Service is unable to point to a scientifically based difference between what it is terming "resident" geese and those it terms "migratory". Because of this failure of difference, the resident geese are just as protected by the MBTA as any others. In essence, the Service is attempting to carve out a different sub-species of Canada goose without the use of science. The proposed rule is nothing more than a bureaucratic procedure to accomplish what is desired, wholly without support. "The difficulty and challenge faced by the Service and State wildlife management agencies is one of striving to increase the migratory population while simultaneously addressing the problems caused by the growing resident population." This statement is most telling. The Service and the state wildlife agencies still refuse to admit that any problem with such wildlife is truly grounded in the continued interference of man with nature. The term "management" does not denote proper action. It has come to encompass ideas such as; thought out; well planned; scientifically based and; in the best interest of the wildlife. In fact, the "management" practices designed to "increase the migratory population" have proven a disaster. Such practices have ignored basic principles of nature and wildlife. The Service and others consistently report with some amazement that wildlife such as Canada geese have "adapted". This is historically what all wildlife has done in response to the ignorance of man. But the distinct problem inherent in such practices is that they are designed and carried out for the simple purpose of providing hunting opportunities. It is doubtful that the Service or any of the State agencies have received numerous complaints in the past from citizens concerned because they were not able to go out and observe many migratory species. Therefore, the only reason to increase the populations present in this country has been and still is the development of hunting opportunities. As support for this statement the Service can refer to the responses of the various states and agencies regarding hunting periods permitted by the Service. Each response, every year, represents interests of how long do their citizen hunters get to kill how many migratory species. When such is the basis for consideration of any plan, it can hardly come as a surprise that the wildlife population doesn�t respond, as man desires. As further support, the Service in this proposed rule asserts; "The original intent of these special seasons was to provide additional harvest opportunities on resident Canada geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese." Perhaps the Service would be better served, as would the wildlife, if the Service started proposing plans to naturally control populations or, cease to attempt any control at all since the results have proven catastrophic. "Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with Canada goose control activities." In fact, these complex issues arose purely out of the management practices designed to present more hunting harvest opportunities. Federal and State manipulation of wildlife populations has proven to lack well found science or thought out planning. Further, it is interesting that the Service asserts it has responsibilities to manage, but by the very proposed rule addressed herein, willingly and eagerly abdicates such responsibilities by a plan which will result in nothing more than favored citizens who dislike the Canada geese getting to go out and kill them. Such activities were hardly envisioned by the Sovereign powers signatory to the international treaty resulting in the MBTA. While the Service cites numerous APHIS/ADC(WS) documents as support for complaints, no such complaints are set forth in the proposed rule. A cursory check with both the Service and APHIS/WS has revealed that no records of such complaints were either kept or are available. Therefore, the lengthy recitation of complaints, supported by non-existent documentation hardly serves as a basis for adoption of the proposed rule. If the Service intends to make such a dramatic change in the manner in which protected specie are treated or, permit state agencies to completely determine which are resident geese and which are not and then take action to harm them, at least the Service could provide detailed documentation of the complaints which it uses to support its proposal. "The Service realizes that APHIS/WS has limited personnel and resources to respond to requests for assistance. Likewise, as the number of complaints continue to increase, greater demand will be placed on the Service and the States to assist in damage management programs." The lawful authority of APHIS/WS in these matters is questionable. However, for the sake of this discussion, assuming that APHIS is lawfully able to carry out action against the populations at issue, the limited number of personnel is hardly cause to change both an Act passed by Congress and, a treaty between nations. Since there is a total lack of documented need for anyone to respond to these �complaints�, perhaps the best response by the Service would be to simply take the position that the "complaints" allegedly received by APHIS and not documented, are not within the MBTA and therefore no one is allowed by law to injure or interfere with the birds in question. However, the Service is clearly attempting to avoid the issue by simply re-defining a specific group of birds as "resident" and therefore somehow removed from the protected species contemplated by the MBTA. As stated above, the Service has no support for such a re-designation other than mere presence. Therefore, the re-designation fails. The logical response of both the Service and APHIS is to refuse to act upon such alleged complaints. If citizens were complaining about Bald Eagles fishing in ponds, would the Service issue a permit to kill Bald Eagles? The answer is quite clearly that the Service would tell the property owner that their private pond cannot be protected by the killing of Bald Eagles. The Service should take a deep breath, stand the proper position and simply deny any opportunity to respond to these alleged complaints. At the very least, a comprehensive list, detailed in date, complainant, cause and effect should be published before any proposed rule change is placed before Congress. The American people deserve no less forthcoming from the agency mandated to protect the very geese it is proposing to release to the ill will of local citizens in each and every state. "The Service, with its State and other Federal partners, believe development of an alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident Canada geese, beyond those presently employed, is needed so that agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient assistance." The MBTA is quite specific in its language. There is not consideration of �cost-effective and efficient assistance� within that language. The Congress of the United States felt sincere enough to enter into an international treaty and then pass an Act enforcing the tenants of that treaty, to accomplish the goals enumerated. If the Service replaces the absolute intent to protect the species listed under the Act by considerations of cost and assistance to alleged complainants, then the goal of the treaty and Act as placed in a lesser position than interests of costs. Such considerations should not play a role in the protection of our wildlife. "Under this permit, States and their designated agents could initiate resident goose damage management and control injury problems within the conditions." "Showing that such damage-control action will either provide for human health and safety, protect personal property, or provide compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese." Here is shown the complete separation of the Service from its mandated mission of protection of those animals within the MBTA. Not only is the Service willing to abdicate its responsibilities to the States, but then permit the States to further send this highly protected action down to anyone the States deem "designated agents", which could easily be envisioned as favored hunters (regardless of the demands of the permit), animal control officers with no training or even citizens with a dislike of the geese who have absolutely no compassion or understanding of the geese. This type of abdication represents the worst of such intentions. It represents nothing more than an �out of sight, out of mind� mentality. As for the reasons that must be shown, human health has already been discussed and disposed of. Permits already exist for human safety in the area of aircraft danger, so no new process is needed. Protection of "personal property" will end up being nothing more than a front yard of someone who has elected to live across the street from a pond and don't like waterfowl. But the best example of this poorly supported reasoning is the last cause for a permit; "compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese." This statement totally removes the carefully crafted categorization of conduct for which permits may be issued under the MBTA. The Service proposes to permit the States (and far more likely the local mayor trying to get re-elected by making his constituent happy) to obtain permits to kill or otherwise affect geese because they are there. Because they are walking across a public street causing traffic slow downs; because they are standing on a store parking lot and people don't want them there and because and because, providing a vast opportunity for the poorest of reasons. Then, in the usual bureaucratic manner, someone will sit down, carefully word the request to appear to be a life and death matter and a permit will be issued without further thought. This type of global language is totally unacceptable in dealing with wildlife in general and certainly within wildlife that this country and its citizens have chosen to protect. "Methods of take are at the discretion of the permittee responsible for the control action. Methods may include, but are not limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest manipulation and other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-damage management programs." Such language is totally outrageous. About the only method not actually enumerated is destruction by explosive detonation. If firearms can be used, then normally hunting periods are the same. Alpha-chloralose has long been determined to be an unacceptable drug for use on wildlife. This is demonstrated by the fact that the government is the only category of agencies that can use it. Veterinarians decry its cruelty. There is no designation of which "traps" can be used. Therefore, even the cruelest use of steel jaw leg traps would be acceptable, resulting in birds flying off with only one leg; to die a painful and tragic death elsewhere. As to the "other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-damage management programs" the Service is quite naive if it believes that any type of control the local people want to use will not become "accepted". Further, the Service has not set forth any document, which reports such "accepted wildlife-damage management programs', and therefore the writing of that document will be left up to individuals with no training and no responsibility to the citizens of this country. There is no provision for oversight in this matter. Again, the Service totally abdicates its responsibilities to the wildlife. "However, following this initial increase, continual use of hazing methods should become more effective and may result in fewer overall lethal control activities. Such lethal and non-lethal activities would be expected to decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in localized areas especially urban/suburban areas. Regionally, little overall impact on the resident Canada goose population would be expected because many goose populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in excess of 20 percent." If the Service is convinced that the "hazing methods should become more effective" then simply permit these activities under the existing procedure. The remainder of the above quoted section leaves a great deal to be desired regarding the understanding of the Service as to wildlife habits. Simply put, if you vacate viable habitat and there are regional birds present, they will simply move into that available habitat. Since the Service admits that there will be little overall impact on the region in regard to Canada populations, then there is virtually no scientifically supportable reason to take any action locally. The local habitat will simply be occupied quickly by other geese. We once again return to the necessity for the Service to deal with the underlying cause of these populations and not attempt to out-number the geese by killing. It hasn't worked and will not work. "However, due to the increased availability of control measures, there could be the removal of some open hunting areas due to public use/safety considerations. Further, some potential hunting areas under consideration as open hunting areas might lose some justification and basis for opening hunting." With all due respect, the Service has never been known for failing to respond to the demands of hunters. That exact attitude is what resulted in the current alleged goose population problem. It is very doubtful that the Service will either reduce the hunting areas or deny those under consideration. Such statements are poor excuses to initiate the proposed rule. "Service administrative responsibilities for each individual control activity that currently necessitate the determination and/or issuance of a permit would be expected to decrease significantly. Currently, the Service, in most instances, must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a permit should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the number of these permits." The Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Services is mandated to administer the wildlife laws within this nation. If it desires to be unburdened with the duty, perhaps it would be better advised to ask Congress for such permission and simply turn over the administration of protected wildlife to another agency. While it is doubtful that the Service would willingly give up that kind of power and budget, the Service clearly is asking for its cake and to eat it as well. It is the duty of the USFWS to consider every act potentially affecting protected wildlife on a "case-by-case basis". While true the proposed rule would permit the Service to completely get out of the loop as far as permitting, it would also be out of the loop as to any meaningful oversight of what is going on with the killing of these birds. The proposed rule would provide uncontrolled power to states and their favorite citizens. One could envision the need only for 50 state Fish and Wildlife Services since the USFWS no longer desires to function within those areas covered by its mission. In short, if the Service doesn't like the job, get out of the business. The proposed rule is ill conceived and presents a complete failure to support its basis either in science or fact. The MBTA should construed strictly, as was the intent of Congress in the passage of the initial international treaty. If the Service continues its attempts to water down the language that it has historically enforced to the letter, then there will be little left of the intent or the reality of the protection afforded by the MBTA. The Service should cease its attempts to create a new scientific description of Canada geese in order to justify good will with the States and their agencies. Rather, the Service should immediately commission an independent panel to study the true causes of wildlife population increases and solutions thereto, specifically the Canada and Snow geese. Perhaps then the Service would be armed with supportable data to announce a new plan for control. Any such panel should not be comprised of the usual categories of personnel. Such groups in the past have engendered great suspicion and little faith by those interested in wildlife. Rather, the panel should be comprised of respected scientists in several fields; wildlife specialists with experience in waterfowl and animal welfare group representatives. In that way, all interests will be represented but more importantly, diverse thoughts and understandings will be brought together out of which one would hope the best interest of the wildlife will result and that interest should be compatible with sharing the planet with mankind. It is hoped that the Service will withdraw its consideration of this proposed rule in favor of a more supportable, long term plan of wildlife management, accepting that the problem took many years to develop and the solution is not likely to have effect any more quickly. Respectfully submitted,
Donald D. Feare, J.D.
|