06/27/99

125 Geese Killed in Kent, NY
Back-room dealing gives rise to deadly plan.

Unfortunately, it's real.

"The goings-on leading to the killing of 125 geese in Kent reveals the town board to be a malicious, ego-driven, unaccountable bunch of polictical hacks willing to abuse their authority to cater to a few low-functioning constituents," said the Coalition's Dr. Gregg Feigelson.

The Coalition has met with many town leaders on this issue. In most cases, town officials are professional, intelligent, and honestly out to resolve the problems that some people are having with geese. However, in some rare cases, as in Clarkstown, NY, because of political wheeling and dealing by the town supervisor, 457 geese were killed in 1996-7. There are clearly emotional problems at work in cases such as these. Political insiders and even friends of the Clarkstown town supervisor have told the Coalition "off the record" that killing geese was senseless and obsessive behavior on his part. Kent mirrors the Clarkstown situation in every way. We now know that this is because the Clarkstown officials who were burned by the failure of goose killings are advising them behind the scenes as a form of self-validation.

Kent's Town Supervisor, Annmarie Baisley, initially said that a survey showed that town residents wanted geese killed. We have requested a copy of this survey under the NY Freedom of Information Law. As of yet, we have received nothing to confirm that such a survey was ever taken. In Clarkstown, a survey was taken, but the wording was so vague that if you signed it you had no idea that it would lead to killing -- something most people instinctively oppose if given viable alternatives. Baisley's initial claim that everyone wanted the geese killed was not consistent with the petitions that rolled in to the contrary. It became apparent that her statement reflected little more than wishful thinking. But the truth leaked out in one newspaper article (Journal-News6/20/99) where one of the town's planning board members was quoted as saying "She's doing what she has to and taking an unpopular stance." It seems that if the board had the will of the people on its side, or even common sense, they wouldn't have to act like defensive tyrants.

In a column that appeared in the NY Timeson 6/20/99, Baisley, when asked when the roundup of geese would take place, said it was "secret." This is telling. Those who are comfortable with the way decisions are made and the actions that result don't sneak around, don't make pacts of silence with board members, and don't run away when questions are asked.

In Clarkstown, the influential minority pushing for the killing of geese are a few people within the special interest group called the "Congers Civic Association." In Kent, the minority special interest group is a gossip club that calls itself the "Lake Carmel Advisory Committee." Coalition members were present at their last meeting and were surprised to find Supervisor Baisley in attendance. This committee apparently consists of town malcontents with nothing better to do than look for trouble and then use the Supervisor as a means to carry out their malicious agenda. It is the Chairwoman of this dubious committee that spearheaded the goose killings; she got her disinformation from the Clarkstown goose killers.

Kent, once again, proves that corrupt local governments are a breeding ground for irrational behavior such as goose killings. They can only get away with such programs by operating in "secret" and relying on dishonesty (health risk, etc.), denial (the failure of Clarkstown's goose killings and the effectiveness of non-lethal control), and distraction (feeding the dead geese to the defenseless needy).

Goose News Index | Main

06/17/99

USFWS Out of Control

New goose killing permit approved despite overwhelming public opposition.

The contempt that Director Rappaport-Clark and her office exhibit toward the public has been amply demonstrated during the process of creating this permit. Legitimate correspondence is not acknowledged in any way, requests for meetings are only partially arranged with no follow-up. Her office qualifies for highest honors in the unresponsiveness department.

Wildlife experts outside the federal and state bureacracy have flatly rejected the basis of the permit on grounds that it is scientifically flawed. While it has the potential to lead to the killing of thousands of geese each year (unless a legal challenge blocks it) it will have no effect in addressing so-called goose problems.

It is important to note that this permit is not really about resolving problems caused by geese; it is about the desire of state wildlife agencies to gradually seize power over migratory birds so that they can expand their slowly-dying hunting business -- the economic lifeblood of these agencies. Towns or private entities that think state wildlife divisions are there to help them with their "goose problems" are seriously deluded. In fact, these agencies go out of their way to target elected officials and town supervisors that are gullible by nature and egotistical enough to defend nonsensical extermination plans as a point of honor. State wildlife agenices sit quietly in the background and watch as their carefully-chosen warriors fight battles that will eventually help them gain authority over a federally-protected species. In the final analysis, wildlife conflicts are never resolved, instead, the archaic philosophy of "managing" wildlife with deadly force is perpetuated while a case builds to squeeze the USFWS out of the picture so that hunting opportunities can be optimized.

Of course, just as local officials are unknowingly fronts for the wildlife management establishment, the wildlife management establishment is itself a front for the firearms industry. With all this fronting going on, it's no wonder the approval of the new goose permit seems inexplicable.

Goose News Index | Main

06/10/99

Kent Residents Outraged to Learn of Town's Plan to Slaughter Geese

Plans kept hush, hush until the last minute.

A Coalition investigation has revealed that the imminent Kent killing is being orchestrated with encouragement from the NY State DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) and one or two Clarkstown officials - all advocates of goose killing who were humiliated by the failure of Clarkstown's goose killings in 1996-7.

In convincing other towns to follow the same path, they are desperately trying to validate themselves and their costly mistakes. All of the geese from several Clarkstown parks were rounded up and slaughtered two years in a row; within weeks, other geese moved in to fill the vacant habitat. In 1998, a majority of Clarkstown town board members, realizing the failure of the killings, finally implemented a non-lethal control program consisting of fencing and border collies -- for the first time, success had been achieved in keeping geese out of areas where they were said to be bothering people.

Clarkstown and the NYS DEC have been putting pressure on towns such as Kent to kill geese and have been advising them every step of the way on how to beat public pressure. Of course, when a governing body seeks to "beat public pressure," it is corrupting to the democratic process. While the DEC didn't tell the Kent board what a failure the killings were, they did tell board members to keep a low profile because public outrage would surely ensue. Indeed, opposition is growing as more and more people in Lake Carmel/Kent find out about this deadly plan. A petitioning campaign in front of local shopping centers has revealed that residents are not only outraged by the plan itself, but angry that they didn't know anything about it. The town board has a lot of explaining to do.

Even with growing resistance from residents, members of the town board, whose members made a pact not to speak with the public individually about the issue, refuses to consider deferring the killing until sound non-lethal management could be fully examined. At a meeting of the board on June 7th, Coalition members attempted to discuss the issue with town council members. The board recoiled in fear and refused to comment on the killing program. Obviously, if they were confident of their actions, they wouldn't act as if they were just accused of a crime and run out of the room wide-eyed when questioned. They offered to meet with us on June 28th, a time when the killings would doubtless be long over.

Several years ago, the Coalition offered to work with the Kent town board to get a non-lethal program in place -- we were never contacted.

The Kent town board is using all the same old tricks and exaggerations to justify killing that were used in Clarkstown, including every conceiveable excuse to avoid using humane non-lethal control (false claims about the impact of geese on human health, population, cost, etc.).

While the Kent town board claims that this is what "the people" want, our petitioning does not support their contention. Most people say they had no idea about the town's plan to kill geese and that they oppose it. It is safe to conclude that Clarkstown's goose killers and the NYS DEC are using the Kent town board to create precedent that they can invoke to argue that killings in Clarkstown be started up again.

Of course, after what happened in Clarkstown, everyone should oppose the slaughter, including the Kent town board.

Several people who called town board member Sal Trippi to complain about the killing plan were told that he was a tough "veteran" who could take the heat. It's not clear where the bravery is in standing up to one's constituents to do favors for outsiders such as the NYS DEC and the Clarkstown goose killers.

Goose News Index | Main

Wildlife Services/USDA Proposes Killing 3,500 Geese in the Puget Sound Area

Puget Sound, WA -- News about Wildlife Services, an agency within the USDA, is usually bad news for wildlife. Wildlife Services is essentially a federal government wildlife extermination business. Ironically, it spends our tax dollars to eradicate "our" wildlife on our public lands for special interest groups such as the ranching industry. It also does contract killings (charges for its services) for private parties and other government entities. In recent years, they have begun to cash in on people's complaints about geese. There are a lot of contract dollars to be gained by slandering geese and convincing people that killing will solve their goose "problems." However, since geese fly, killing is not a useful form of control and will not keep geese out of areas where they are perceived to be a problem. The only beneficiary under their killing schemes would be Wildlife Services.

In Puget Sound, Wildlife Services has been itching to extract revenues from unsuspecting municipalities and private landowners by trying to justify the use of lethality -- their area of expertise. They recently published an Environmental Assessment (EA) in which they proposed that extensive goose killings (up to 3,500 geese) be carried out in the Puget Sound area. To support such actions, Wildlife Services recommends that the criteria for determining when to kill be lowered to accomodate any circumstance, no matter how frivolous. The Environmental Assessment was loaded with unsubstantiated statements, non-validated anecdotes and scientific misrepresentations of published data. Further, the public comment period for the document was a scant 30 days, barely enough time to get a copy of the EA and mail comments back. When an extension was requested, Wildlife Services bureaucrats chose to issue extensions only on a case-by-case basis. Many requests from the public for an extension were made by e-mail. We received numerous reports that Wildlife Services couldn't respond to these requests because there was a problem with their e-mail system: a very suspicious "software incompatiblity" was quoted as the cause.

The Coalition and its affiliates submitted detailed comments on the Environmental Assessment outlining its inadequacies and failure to make a legitimate case for the killing of geese. We offer the following comments as samples:

Selected Comments Submitted to Wildlife Services:

Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese
by Gregg B. Feigelson, Ph.D.

Coalition to Protect Canada Geese
by Ann Frisch, Ph.D.

Dr. Gary Pearson, DVM

Goose News Index | Main

Environmental Management Council Finds Video About Canada Geese Biased and Calls for its Withdrawal

Rockland County, NY -- In a letter to Cornell Cooperative Extension/Cornell University, the Rockland County Environmental Management Council (EMC) officially rejected the recently released video entitled "Suburban Goose Management - Searching for Balance," and asked that it be withdrawn from circulation for inaccurately portraying the Canada goose controversy in Rockland.

The video, which relies primarily on commentary from those who supported or facilitated the killing of 457 Canada geese in Clarkstown during 1996-7, was criticized by the EMC for giving the impression that killing is a rational way to handle problems that some people might be having with geese. It is now widely recognized that the killing of Canada geese in Clarkstown was not effective in achieving practical results.

While one of those interviewed in the video ventured to suggest that killing geese was an "approach that was becoming popular," it is clear that this reflects wishful thinking, not a matter of fact. If this assertion were true, there would be no need to make a video to sell people on the idea. Obviously, those who favor killing are not comfortable with the growing opposition to the use of lethality.

The EMC felt that the video downplayed the remarkable results that non-lethal methods of goose control had achieved in Rockland, despite years of resistance to their proper use by those who supported killing.

The video was created to encourage the killing of geese under the guise of "balance." At no point in the video is the viewer given the slightest hint as to why killing should be included in a goose control program. The video emphasizes "balance" as though it is a means to an end or an end in itself. The video's preoccupation with this concept and heavy reliance on commentary by those who are known advocates for lethality gives the production a decided air of dishonesty and, ironically, imbalance. The video is so cloaked in euphemism that the real topic of interest gets lost, namely, minimizing the impact of geese where people find them to be a problem -- something that has only been effectively achieved with non-lethal methods.

The Coalition applauds the EMC's decision to challenge the producers of "Suburban Goose Management," on grounds that the video is just another publicity stunt by those who, for no sensible reason, are out to promote the killing of Canada geese.

Goose News Index | Main

The Killing Connection in Monmouth County, NJ

MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ -- In a recent article that appeared in the Asbury Park Press, the county's health officer, Lester Jargowsky, was back on the anti-goose war path, and once again using exaggerated claims about public health to advance his cause. No information was provided in the article to put his dubious "findings" into real-world perspective. Moreover, his personal motivation for expending the county's resources on geese was not self-evident, especially in light of serious human-caused water pollution problems in the region. The Coalition has just learned the root cause of Jargowsky's persistent wildlife bashing -- he's an avid "sport" hunter.

About a year ago we caught Mr. Jargowsky making claims about geese regarding public health that he couldn't support -- a common tactic of those don't like geese and are looking to justify killing them. We documented this finding and distributed it countywide because people have a right to know when they're being manipulated. It was clear that he was abusing his position of authority to slander geese in an attempt to scare the public into his way of thinking. Ironically, most health officials who don't have an opinion about geese just laugh when asked whether geese are a significant health risk.

Now Jargowsky is operating in damage control mode, desperately trying to save face on this issue by "back-filling" his stories. Despite the illusion created by the article, the most important fact is that there is no proof of anyone becoming ill due to the presence of geese. Indeed, that the Centers for Disease Control have no such cases on record attests to the rarity of such occurrences.

One of Jargowsky's collaborators at Johns Hopkins University was quite surprised when we told him that Jargowsky had sent out a "Public Health Alert" regarding Giardia to all Monmouth schools. Giardia is a very common organism in the environment. To those who know better, finding it is about as newsworthy as finding sand at the beach.

The only noteworthy discovery of late in Monmouth County is that the health officer is an avid "sport" hunter. This automatically casts suspicion on his opinions about wildife. After all, the foundation upon which society tolerates "sport hunting," Jargowsky's hobby, is the widely-distributed myth -- propagated by government wildlife agencies and their paying customers, hunters -- that wildlife needs to be controlled using deadly force.

Goose News Index | Main

Deception in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

SIOUX FALLS, SD -- In 1997, Mary Glenski of the Sioux Falls City Council, introduced a law that would ban the feeding of waterfowl at Covell Lake because a couple of people had been complaining about the birds. The law was voted down by the city council because most people opposed it (we presented the story back in November of 1997).

Apparently Glenski's contempt for geese and ducks and those who enjoy them at Covell Lake ran deeper than anyone expected. Rather than abiding by the wishes of her constituents, she chose to persist in her mean-spirited campaign against the birds. Last summer (1998) she decided to scare the public to her way of thinking by creating an imaginary story that the geese at Covell Lake were a threat to the nearby airfields. She recruited the South Dakota Air National Guard to be her accomplice in this publicity gimmick.

Using fear to malign wildlife is an extremely common practice and routinely used to support, for example, the myth that "sport" hunting is something that society must tolerate.

Councilwoman Glenski admitted on a radio program that she initiated the air safety "issue" by approaching Colonel Lien of the South Dakota Air National Guard at a picnic. She encouraged him to make public statements suggesting that the geese at Covell Lake were a hazard to aviation. He complied with her wishes. Not long after his statements were publicized, many, including a majority of Council members were questioning their own judgement about the feeding ban. Glenski reintroduced the law that would ban feeding at Covell Lake and this time it passed.

We challenged the statements made by Col Lien by requesting documentation from the Air National Guard showing that geese were anything other than an ordinary risk before Glenski began her anti-goose campaign. They were unable to support their statements. It was no accident that Glenski's obsession with banning feeding at Covell Lake coincided with a sudden interest in air safety in Sioux Falls.

Ironically, while the Municipal Airport Authority (MAA) continues to argue that feeding at Covell Lake is causing geese to fly past the airfields to eat on cropland north and west of the airport, concerned citizens discovered that this goose-attracting crop area is actually owned by the Airport! In interviews with reporters, the Airport's Director, Mike Marnach, originally denied any cropland ownership; he has recently changed his story. Ultimately, it will be shown that the airport is doing the feeding that matters most. By allowing land around the airport to be planted with crops, they are enticing geese to fly by the airfields in search of food and hence, bringing them dangerously close to the runways.

Apparently, it's easier for the airport management to blame a handful of citizens for feeding geese at Covell Lake than addressing their poor planning and irresponsible land management practices.