As is true with many types of wildlife, most goose population projections are extrapolations based on estimates based on poor data. It is remarkable that an endless stream of definitive statements continue to be made about future trends: "The population of geese is exploding;" "If nothing is done, the population will grow exponentially;" or even "double in the next 5 years." While statements similar to the one about an "exploding" population are clearly subjective, the others can be validated by fulfilling mathematical criteria - that is, if accurate data are available. In reality, most exaggerated claims about population fall into the category of wishful thinking and are never validated before the killing begins, nor does it seem to matter.

In Rockland County, NY, a plan to kill geese was initiated in 1993 when it was estimated that about 3500 geese lived in the county. Yet in 1996, when the killing began, the population had already dropped to around 2000 geese. The killing of 251 geese, despite a drop in population by approximately one-third, defies logic.

Grudgingly, wildlife biologists must concede (but not publicly) that in established populations, under ordinary conditions, long-term, high-level exponential growth of most wildlife species, certainly geese, is virtually impossible. The word "exponential" is used to draw fear from the public; it implies enormous change over a short period. However, exponential growth may proceed at a slow rate and never reach levels of practical importance. The idea of continued exponential population growth, as showcased on so many speculative graphs about future population trends, fallaciously requires the assumption that no biological limiting factors (factors that regulate population) exist.

Among those who would like us to believe this fallacy are the wildlife biologists in Minnesota (where rounding up and killing geese originated). On the first page of a report issued in 1996 is a graph showing projected population growth over time. The chart tells us less about future population trends for geese than it does about the willingness of Minnesota's wildlife biologists to risk appearing incompetent, so as to scare and deceive the public. Note that fully 75% of the Y-axis is speculation.

The graph was created to imply, despite the biological absurdity of the implication, infinite population growth. The intent is clear, to scare the public into accepting their plan of mass destruction. (Note the cover design of the report: The skyline is filled with menacing Canada geese - a tribute to traditional propaganda and reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock's movie "The Birds").

Top

Suburbia: Inviting Territory for Geese

Outpacing any increase in goose populations is the steadily growing size of suburbia. Such rapid and unregulated expansions via modern development practices exact a heavy toll on suburbia's already precarious ecological state. The tremedous imbalances that such actions bring to the land set the stage for a growing number of human-wildlife conflicts.

The common construction practice of clear-cutting, building, then replanting with turf-grass and foreign ornamentals (non-native species) reinforces a wrong-headedness about the natural world and advances the philosophy that "cleaning up" and controlling nature is the thing to do. Intensively landscaped areas such as those found at golf courses, corporate facilities, public parks and around many homes, despite their ecological barrenness, still maintain potent attractions for certain types of wildlife. Unfortunately, the artificiality of these places, in combination with the mentality of those who fight to maintain them, afford little leeway for co-existence. Under such circumstances, wildlife is forced into the role of an unwelcome invader whose natural activities can not be accommodated, and therefore, are considered "destructive."

The dysfunctional biology of these manicured areas exacerbates the awkwardness of the relationship between say, Canada geese, the natural pond-turned-public park and its human visitors. Claims about "overpopulation" have very little to do with any knowledge of statistics, banding studies, aerial surveys or biological carrying capacity than they do about geese being an inconvenience. Such claims exemplify the arrogant notion that nature must conform to unnatural selfish human standards, standards that humans themselves cannot meet. In other words, talk of Canada goose overpopulations is not a biological reality as much as it is one of attitude and perception - a perception born of the idea that it is rightly within the domain of human activity to determine how many of which creatures there should be, what behavior is acceptable, and which should live and which should die.

Top

Government Wildlife Management:
Creating & Exploiting Wildlife Imbalances for "Sport" Hunters

In suburbia, the wildlife management establishment clearly lets the ecological disruptions fall where they may: Wetlands, lakes and ponds are made into parks and incorporated into housing developments, corporate centers, and shopping malls. When the predictable human-wildlife conflicts erupt, wildlife managers roll in with their usual approach to wildlife crisis management. They advocate actions for which they have the most experience: killing. Wildlife extermination proves to be ineffective because it has little or no relationship to the biological imbalance that gave rise to the human-wildlife conflict in the first place. Wildlife managers often refer to extermination plans as "long-term management". It is an intentionally vague concept used to perpetuate the killing of wildlife (usually in the form of "sport" hunting) for an indefinite but long period of time. Indeed, precedent shows that this type of thinking sets the stage for a cycle of killing that is repeated year after year.

The inability of state and federal wildlife agencies to protect, in the true sense of the word, Canada geese from the poor planning and ignorance of humans is not surprising, as they subscribe to the archaic philosophy that the value of an individual goose's life is inversely proportional to the population to which it is affiliated (the geese-as-a-commodity mentality). This is the result of having wildlife agencies that economically benefit from high populations of species, such as Canada geese, that "sport" hunters like to kill. Contrary to illusion, "game" agencies are not in the business of population reduction, they are in the business of optimizing hunting opportunities, and more hunting requires more living targets (i.e., more geese).

One might say that the wildlife management establishment maintains a substantial conflict of interest between the "sport" hunters they serve (approx. 6% of the US population) and the best interest of wildlife and the general public. The often-heard refrain that goose and other wildlife populations are growing in suburban areas because hunting is not allowed sounds almost reasonable until one reads government documents such as the 1986 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NWMP). In short, this plan is an agreement between Canada, Mexico and the US to work together to increase populations of ducks, geese and swans throughout North America. Indeed, hunting and its economy are actually working in concert with suburban ecological changes to make imbalances worse and conflicts more common.

Protecting waterfowl habitats is one thing; establishing goals to increase waterfowl populations by using public lands "...to increase their productivity and carrying capacity" (NWMP, May 1986, p. 14) is another matter altogether. Furthermore, by saying that "the financial participation of private conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and Wildlife Habitat Canada is critical..." (NWMP, May 1986), the intent of the plan is revealed since these organizations are waterfowl hunting groups whose interest is in conserving hunting above all else.

Our Dictionary of Wildlife Management Euphemisms

Top

Wildlife Discrimination: The "Resident" Goose Syndrome

The concept of the "resident goose" is the arbitrary creation of government wildlife managers. By their terminology, a "resident" goose is defined as any Canada goose not nesting north of Quebec, Canada. Thus, a goose spending the summer in Maine who winters in North Carolina, despite the impressive migration, is a "resident" goose. The term allows wildlife managers the flexibility of defining this imaginary goose in any way that suits their purpose. In public they regard "resident" geese as evil and migrants as desirable. For reasons described below, waterfowl managers would like the public to share their attitudes.

Their hope is that by separating the populations, "resident" birds will eventually be legally exempt from the regulations and "protective" provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty (1916). This would lead to more liberal "sport" hunting opportunities, and in turn more revenue. Such a scenario is already being played out with the introduction several years ago of so-called "special" early and late hunting seasons on Canada geese. In essence, like so many other manipulative euphemisms in wildlife management, the term "resident" goose is a discrimination tool employed with an eye toward exploitation.

One ironic twist is that since most of the NWMP "wetland enhancements" for the "increased productivity of waterfowl" are carried out south of Quebec, these managed wetland areas amount to "resident" Canada goose (waterfowl) factories. Thus, waterfowl managers are making a concerted effort to produce "resident" geese, talk incessantly about their population increases, then recommend special seasons to hunt them. In light of this, it seems perverse to call on government wildlife officials to resolve controversies involving Canada geese.

"Special" hunting seasons have less to do with reducing the population of so-called "resident" Canada geese, than they do with providing more (and convenient!) "sport" hunting opportunities for their paying customers. Thus, "special" seasons serve as a revenue-generating bonus or, if needed, an economic back-up for "game" agencies during years when regular seasons have been curtailed. [In 1995, the "regular" hunting season for Canada geese in the Eastern Flyway was cancelled due to a declining population. To compensate, the "special" hunting seasons on Canada geese were lengthened.]