On a mission to reduce the Country's "resident" Canada goose population by more than half, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's New Rule on goose control management went into effect September 11, 2006. The Service believes the large number of "resident" Canada geese "must be reduced" and the only possible way to attain their goal "on the widest number of available fronts" is to give State wildlife agencies and the affected public more flexibility to address population reduction. Equally self-serving, the New Rule affords U.S. FWS the opportunity to pass the cost of doing business over to the States.

The Coalition fervently objects to the New Rule and continues to promote the use of non-lethal goose abatement techniques and tools to resolve any human-goose conflicts that may exist.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q    Is there a condensed version of the New Rule on the Internet?

A    Yes. A News Release, issued by U.S. FWS, summarizes the New Rule and the three components of the new regulatory program.

Q    By granting States the opportunity to adopt the New Rule and conduct certain goose control activities without a federally issued depredation permit, isn't U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which affords Canada geese federal, not State, protection?

A    U.S. FWS claims they are not divesting themselves of federal oversight because the States will continue to report to them. However, we question whether or not enactment of the New Rule, which relaxes federal permit requirements, violates provision 704 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The provision provides the Secretary of the Interior, under whom U.S. FWS operates, the authority to adopt suitable regulations from time to time but such regulations won't become effective until approved by the President. We're not aware of Presidential approval having been granted and we don't know if the MBTA provision is applicable when it comes to regulation changes of this nature.

Q    How did U.S. FWS arrive at the number of "resident" geese to be killed in order to fulfill their population reduction goal?

A    See New Rule, page 45966, center column. In part, the formula for drastically reducing the "resident" goose population was based on State management needs and capabilities and calculated on what the four Flyway Councils deemed a desirable or acceptable density of geese with respect to conflicts. According to U.S. FWS, it was the Flyway Councils' "best attempt" to balance consumptive (i.e. hunters) and non-consumptive (i.e. bird watchers) users and those suffering economic damage. Guesstimates, biased judgment and self-evaluating best efforts produced the "arbitrary" number of geese to be sacrificed in order to reach the Service's population reduction goal. This speaks volumes for an agency that professes to make wildlife decisions based on sound science.

Q    What has been the public's reaction to the New Rule?

A    For those concerned with the rights and welfare of the geese, disappointment and disgust describes reactions, best. There is also concern the public doesn't fully understand the New Rule. For the most part, the media has omitted pertinent information, which has lead some people to believe the geese, their nest and eggs may now be destroyed at will because a federal depredation permit is no longer required to conduct certain goose control activities. Despite the relaxation of federal permit requirements, all hunting restrictions and regulations affecting the public still apply. The States which choose to adopt the New Rule are responsible for creating their own monitoring and reporting guidelines, which the public must meet before taking lethal action against the geese.

Goose News Index | Main