The comment period ended May 30, 2002. If you missed the deadline, be assured that this issue is not going to go away. Please be sure to sign up for our "Notify Me!" email service and we will let you know what you can do to help in the future.

Suggested opening for your letter:

Chief Division of Migratory Bird Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 634 Arlington, VA 22203 Dear Chief: I am writing in response to the public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (February 2002) regarding Canada goose management. I oppose your efforts to expand the use of deadly force to address problems that some people might be having with geese. Alternative F, the proposed regulation, is unacceptable to me. I will be negatively impacted if it is implemented. Instead, I am asking that you adopt Alternative A-no action, or a non-lethal management alternative, in the Final EIS. The Draft EIS makes it clear that my views, and those of a majority of scoping session comment writers, were acknowledged but dismissed because they didn't agree with your premeditated desire to turn over your congressionally appointed responsibility regarding Canada geese to state wildlife agencies. In the DEIS, the Service admits to having given priority to the opinions of STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES, FLYWAY COUNCILS and WILDLIFE SERVICES. These agencies DO NOT represent me, nor do they represent the public. They represent themselves. Their opinions reflect a vested economic interest in any policy that liberalizes killing wildlife. Catering to agency greed is an intolerable approach to policy making.

Some points you might like to include in your letter:

• Make sure you tell them you opppose Alternative F, "State Empowerment."

• Tell them you prefer non-lethal control programs for managing Canada geese with or without egg addling.

• The proposed "State Empowerment Alternative" is very poorly defined and does not provide adequate details to make an informed assessment or comparison regarding environmental impact.

• USFWS failed to demonstrate a need to change federal regulations: Population trend assertions are highly speculative and in some cases wrong. Public health claims disagree with published studies. These studies show that geese are an insignificant health issue, and damage reports are questionable because they are not validated and are provided by the same agencies that would profit from the proposed regulation.

• Reducing the total population of geese is illogical and there is no evidence that this will resolve whatever goose conflicts are said to exist. People who don't want any geese in certain areas will not be satisfied with fewer.

• Killing Canada geese to resolve site-specific conflicts makes no biological sense - other geese will just move in to fill the vacancy as they optimize their use of the available habitat.

• Reducing the population may be impossible because some state agencies are managing for "goose production" and the captive rearing of Canada geese for hunting is permitted. The Service should not be making policy to address an alleged "overpopulation" while at the same time allowing agencies to increase goose populations.

• Even if the population is lowered, geese will continue to move into certain areas until the attractant is removed or the area is made inhospitable.

• Point out that these geese belong to all Americans - not just to the tiny minority who want to kill them.

Comments WERE due by May 30, 2002

Be sure to include your name on the letter.
The Service has indicated that it will NOT consider anonymous comments.

Send to:

Chief
Division of Migratory Bird Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 634
Arlington, VA 22203