Friends of Animals and Their Environment

May 18, 1998

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

RE: Comments on Proposed Rule; Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit:

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

On behalf of the 500 members of Friends of Animals and Their Environment (FATE), I am submitting the following comments with respect to the recently Proposed Rule [Federal Register: March 31, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 61) pages 15697-15705].

As referred to in the Federal Register, this current form of the proposed rule is a result of the Environmental Assessment process that commenced in September 1996. Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) did make some changes to the rule based on comments received on the draft Environmental Assessment, the essence of the rule remains the same. FATE was one of those 24 organizations mentioned that submitted comments, opposing the killing and inhumane treatment of the Canada geese.

Essentially, the proposed rule would create a new Federal regulation; it would make it easier for the Service to issue depredation permits to state wildlife agencies. The permits would readily authorize lethal management decisions (blanket permits that would allow the killing of federally protected migratory birds, specifically, Canada geese). The geese fated are referred to as resident Canada geese. These are the geese mostly seen in urban and suburban areas. People in those urban areas are now complaining more about them. Although the Service acknowledges that the complaints are mostly on a nuisance level, they want to make these depredating permits more easily available, indicating that it will manage geese. However, the Service has failed to provide any biological evidence that killing the geese will help to solve the problems that people are experiencing.

Simply put, the Service is seeking to escape its responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, by changing the way it issues depredation permits. Under present regulations the process requires the Service to consider each permit on a case-by-case basis. This current process is claimed to be burdensome and time-consuming for both the applicants and the Service.

FATE strongly opposes this proposed rule. It will give state wildlife agencies broad authority to kill migratory birds. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that this proposed rule would significantly change the long-standing international treaty, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Not to mention the fact, the Service does not have any sufficient justification to issue these depredation permits, effortlessly, just because there are more nuisance complaints.

Resident Canada Geese:

The Service expressed that the Canada geese characterized in the proposed rule are resident Canada geese. According to the proposed rule, "resident" Canada geese are geese who nest and reside within the conterminous United States in the months of June, July, and August.

Typically, these are the months when the majority of complaints come in from people in urban and suburban areas. The proposed rule indicates that most of the complaints are related to human activity at public parks and beaches, golf courses, private and corporate lawns, and campuses. All these areas have one thing in common, a preferred habitat for Canada geese has been created the landscaping of manicured lawns often adjacent to bodies of water.

The use of the word "resident," in describing the nesting and locally Canada geese, could confuse the general public into thinking that these birds do not migrate. Therefore, the public may become more easily convinced into supporting lethal control programs.

Moreover, the proposed rule states, "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." If geese interact and overlap with other Canada geese, it can only be assumed that they will also interbreed.

The real question here is, if there is a difference between these populations other than their physical presence at a particular location at a specific time of year, what is the difference between "resident" geese from those referred to as "migratory" geese? The Service admits they are unable to scientifically determine the difference.

By indicating that these locally breeding and nesting geese are "resident," it appears that the Service is attempting to persuade that they are now less deserving of protection than other migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was written to give all migratory birds and their nests protection! Simply put, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not place certain requirements on migratory birds to travel specific distances in order to receive full protection.

Human Health:

There are claims in the proposed rule that Canada geese are a threat to public health. However, the Service has failed to provide any data, scientific or otherwise, to support this statement.

If there is a health issue associated with Canada geese, it usually comes from people who complain about goose feces around swimming areas. Many citizens have become concerned about bacteria in the water. They will often blame the geese. Yet there has never been any scientific data to support this assertion. I offer the following two examples:

1) Round Lake in Eden Prairie, MN city officials were not quite sure what caused the high fecal coliform counts in the lake. Yet the City closed the lake's swimming beach in the summer of 1997. They assumed the high counts came from Canada geese. Although the City acknowledged that other factors such as low water levels or human diapers were contributing to the high bacterial counts. They admitted that goose control was the simplest method to prevent future beach closures.

2) The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) states in their recent application for a 1998 -2000 "depredating" permit, "We continue to stress that there is no known health risk of diseases spread by geese." They go on to say that Enteritis coli bacteria from goose feces are not distinguishable from E. coli of humans.

The general public may lack the understanding of infectious diseases. Therefore, it is easy for people to jump to conclusions and presume that goose feces could pose a serious health hazard. FATE is very troubled that the Service has not offered any clarifications to these misconceptions.

Regarding human health concerns, it seems evident that the Service and state agencies are not very concerned about the health impact of those who eat the meat from resident Canada geese. In Minnesota and other parts of the country, the last three years Canada geese were rounded up from urban and suburban areas. The adult geese were sent off to the slaughterhouse. The flesh of these birds were given to area food shelves to feed the poor and needy. Many of these geese had been grazing on chemically treated lawns. Yet the Service has chosen not to address that these geese could very well pose a serious health risk to those whom consumed the meat.

Dr. Warren Porter, Professor of Environmental Toxicology University of Wisconsin, evaluated two state game agencies that claimed these geese do not have high levels of toxic chemical in their flesh. Dr. Porter stressed his concern about possible adverse effects to pregnant women and children.

In 1996 and 1997, high levels of lead were found in the geese that were slaughtered in New York. The first year, the New York Department of Health prohibited the geese to be fed to the poor and needy. That year the zoo also refused to take the geese. The second year, under great pressure from the state's game agency, the New York Department of Health did approve that some of the geese could be given to the elderly; however, they did not allow the geese to be fed to children. Some of the state's senior citizens centers did not accept the geese.

Human Safety:

Airports are listed in the proposed rule as an area of safety concern regarding Canada geese. Over past several years in Minnesota, the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Commission has contracted Dr. James Cooper, University of Minnesota Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, to reduce geese on airport property. According to a July 16, 1997 memo to Tim Callister, Airside Operations Department, it states: "One question that comes to my mind as I review all of the 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 1984? There are other questions concerning the contract, reports, methods, communication, etc., that could be brought to Dr. Cooper's attention." (This memo was recovered under the Minnesota Data Practices Act.)

Regarding airport safety, FATE does recognize that there is a real concern. However, we strongly suggest that the airports be addressed separately from nuisance complaints. The proposed rule is basically addressing nuisance complaints.

In regards to other human safety concerns, public documents may frequently mention that an allege[d] goose or a small flock of geese have threatened or have attacked children. In the MNDNR recent application, it was reported that a mother accused a pair of geese of teasing her child.

Canada geese are very social among themselves. It is not uncommon for many adult geese to take an active role in rearing their offspring's young, as well as taking care or their own goslings. Therefore, they will become very protective of that family unit.

It is not surprising that children become interested in eggs and in the wonderful phenomena of Canada geese themselves. However, it is incomprehensible that the Service or state agencies would suggest that a mated pair of Canada geese protecting their nest or goslings poses a great human threat. The solution here is basic education. A child can be very easily taught to respect Canada geese and to keep a safe distance away from them.

Damage to Personal and Public Property:

Most of the complaints regarding Canada geese are focused on aesthetics goose droppings. Therefore, what is believed to be a "nuisance" Canada goose has become labeled as injurious and/or depredating. The MNDNR recent application, for a depredating permit, states more than once the most common problem is nuisance complaints over goose feces.

In Minnesota, and in other areas around the country, Canada geese have [been] rounded up. The round up and capture takes place in June; adult geese are molting at this time, therefore, they cannot fly away, making them easy to catch. Canada geese are monogamous, during the round up, many, if not all, adult geese become separated from their mates. The adults are also separated from their goslings. They suffer this inhumane treatment mostly because of nuisance complaints. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act hardly envisioned that these migratory birds would be considered to be injurious or depredating because they poop in the wrong place.

Hunting:

The proposed rule indicates that the Service has attempted to address injurious resident Canada geese problems through existing annual hunting seasons. The Service also realizes that harvest management will never completely address the problems. Therefore, we can assume that the Service believes that management through hunting seasons and the creation of new special seasons has partially solved the problems. Yet by establishing the early hunting seasons, the Service has acclaimed that the geese in the rural areas are the very same geese found in urban public areas.

Secondly, this concept is to keep the public into believing that hunting is the only way to control wild populations. Canada geese as with any game specie, management on them has always been designed to enhance hunting opportunities not to reduce their populations.

Also according to the proposed rule, if resident Canada goose populations happen to be in areas that can not provide any sport hunting opportunities, then there would be ample reason to issue the depredation permits.

Natural Predators:

It is short�sighted of the proposed rule to indicate that there are no natural predators. To the contrary there are natural predators in many urban and suburban areas. Of course, natural predation will be more effective on goslings and on eggs than on the adult geese.

Hawks and owls are also known to make their homes is urban areas; often their presence will make geese leave an area. Geese build their nests in marshes, on top of muskrat lodges, and in other wetlands places; therefore, they can be subjected to snapping turtles. Raccoons love to eat eggs; they are very opportunistic and will take advantage of raiding a nest for eggs. Foxes can also pose a threat to goslings and to eggs. Then there are other birds such as crows and gulls that look for eggs to eat.

Non lethal alternatives:

The proposed rule outlines its criteria for issuing a Special Canada Goose Permit, by expressing the importance of non-lethal alternatives. It states that the Service would only issue permits after applicable non-lethal alternative means of eliminating the damage problem have been proven to be unsuccessful or not feasible.

I place this last in my comments because I have to question just how serious the Service is on seeing the non lethal alternatives used. Otherwise, why are they looking to change the regulation so depredation permits could be more easily issued? Would it not be easier for the Service to keep the status quo and expect the state agencies to give the alternatives a fair chance?

By this proposed rule it seems obvious that the Service is reacting to strong demands by state agencies, that only believe that solving the problems is to remove and kill geese. FATE believes the Service should be defending the geese rather than attempting to change the current regulation so geese can be easily kill geese.

In Minnesota, humane alternatives have not been given a fair chance. Moreover, FATE has been often told by the MNDNR and by Dr. James Cooper that non-lethal alternatives just won�t solve the problems associated with geese. It is clear that the MNDNR and the University of Minnesota are not willing to try the non-lethal alternatives. They only want to continue doing a round up and slaughter program.

For far too long, the so-called solutions have been simply to kill offending animals. Invariably, this approach only leads to a cycle of continued destruction. The world is awakening to the need for environmental responsibility and appreciation for diversity and for harmonious solutions to the problems with wildlife solutions that will keep wildlife alive, but solve the conflicts.

Any permit that the Service can issue must comply with federal law and with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Canada geese are migratory birds protected by federal law and international treaties. The Federal Migratory Bird Act was intended to give wild birds consistent protection as they travel from area to area and nation to nation on their migratory journey. There are very limited circumstances under which they can be pursued, captured, harmed, or killed. The law is very clear that any permit with respect to these birds must follow the requirements of specifically drawn regulations. If migratory birds, such as Canada geese, cause serious damage to agricultural and other cultural interests, the Director of the USFWS can allow them to be killed. There are limited circumstances under which these federally protected birds may be destroyed, if they are found to be causing serious damage. The proposed rule represents a major change to the long standing Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Service has provided no scientific evidence that this will produce effective results to alleviate nuisance concerns.

Sincerely,