[[Page 15700]]

Permit issuance by the Service has also increased in recent years as resident Canada goose populations have grown to high levels in some areas. In Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area), the Service issued 26 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese and 54 permits to addle eggs in 1994. In 1995, Region 5 issued 56 site specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 2 permits to relocate geese, and 109 permits to addle eggs. These permits resulted in the reported take of 291 geese, the relocation of 0 geese, and the addling of eggs in 833 nests. In 1996, Region 5 issued 70 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 1 permit to relocate geese, and 151 permits to addle eggs. These permits resulted in the reported take of 807 geese, the relocation of 0 geese, and the addling of eggs in 1,235 nests.

In addition to the site-specific permits, from 1994-96, Region 5 issued 10 statewide permits for the relocation of resident Canada geese to three government agencies: APHIS/WS, Delaware Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture (VDA). APHIS/ WS and VDA were also authorized to addle eggs under these permits. From all statewide permits combined, in 1994, 2,573 resident Canada geese were relocated and eggs were addled in 24 nests. In 1995, 1,900 geese were relocated and eggs were addled in 45 nests. In 1996, 1,764 resident Canada geese were relocated and eggs were addled in 165 nests.

In the Service's Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the number and extent of permits issued to manage and control resident Canada geese has increased significantly in the past few years. In 1994, the Service issued 53 permits to trap and relocate, 84 permits to destroy nests/eggs and 12 permits allowing take of adults. These permits resulted in the relocation of 6,821 resident Canada geese, 176 nests and 1,300 eggs destroyed, and 31 adult geese killed. In 1995, Region 3 authorized 111 permits to either trap and relocate birds, destroy nests/eggs, or allow take of adults in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. These 111 permits resulted in the relocation of 1,015 resident Canada geese, the destruction of 1,797 nests sites, and the take of 616 adult geese. In addition to the above site-specific permits, Region 3 issued Statewide permits in 1995 to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources allowing Statewide trapping and relocation activities. Michigan reported relocating over 4,000 resident Canada geese, Minnesota moved between 5,000 and 7,000 birds, and Ohio conducted goose roundups at approximately 1,000 sites across the state. In 1996, Region 3 issued 226 permits authorizing resident Canada goose control activities. Permit holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and state wildlife agencies, reported taking 6,922 eggs and 827 geese, and trapped and relocated over 15,300 resident Canada geese. States in which control activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Since 1995, the Service's Region 3 has also issued permits to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) authorizing the capture and processing of resident Canada geese as food for local food-shelf programs. Minnesota's permit was a part of the MDNR's Urban Goose Management Program for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in 1982). In 1995, under these permits, Michigan and Minnesota were authorized to take up to 2,000 and 325 geese, respectively. Michigan reported taking 24 birds with Minnesota taking its full allotment of 325 birds. In 1996, Michigan and Minnesota were again authorized to take up to 1,000 and 2,500 resident Canada geese, respectively, for the food-shelf programs. Michigan reported taking 490 birds and Minnesota 1,847. In 1997, the Service again issued Michigan and Minnesota permits authorizing the take up to 1,000 and 2,500 resident Canada geese, respectively, for the food-shelf programs.

In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, the Service has primarily limited permits for the control of resident Canada geese to the addling of eggs. In 1995, the Region issued permits authorizing the take of 900 eggs in the Puget Sound Area of Washington. In 1996, this number was increased to 2,000 eggs and 200 adult birds. APHIS/WS subsequently reported taking 911 and 1,570 eggs in 1995 and 1996, respectively, and 6 geese in 1996. For 1997, the Region has again authorized the take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another 500 eggs in the City of Fremont, California.

The Service realizes that APHIS/WS has limited personnel and resources to respond to requests for assistance.

The provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty/MBTA are not premised on agency resources or the lack thereof.

Likewise, as the number of complaints continue to increase, greater demand will be placed on the Service and the States to assist in damage-management programs.

It is unclear that the Service has ever maintained any more than a rubber-stamp approval process for issuing depredation permits under the current regulations. What is needed are MORE restrictive permitting, with evidence that the Service is actually exercising some relevant criteria for determining whether a permit should or shouldn't be issued.

With the increase in complaints, the current system is becoming time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient.

Once again, the MBT and MBTA were not designed to put convenience or pressure from state agencies ahead of protection of the species.

The Service, with its State and other Federal partners, believe development of an alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident Canada geese, beyond those presently employed, is needed so that agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient assistance.

As mentioned above, no evidence or explanation is provided to explain how the proposed regulation will positively impact any of the above mentioned criteria.

The proposed special Canada goose permit provides the States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our migratory bird resources.

The states have no formal liability under the MBTA, therefore, they cannot be empowered to assume the role of the Service. The proposed regulation essentially creates a blanket depredation permit (a form of permit that is already being issued to USDA/AHPIS even though it is in violation of current regulations) that allows the state to violate the MBTA without accountability.

Proposed Special Canada Goose Permit

The Service proposes to add a new permit option available to State conservation agencies specifically for resident Canada goose control and damage management. The special permit would only be available to a State conservation or wildlife management agency responsible for migratory bird management.

The Service is apparently so used to rubber-stamping permits under pressure from state conservation agencies that it figures why not make policy out of what have become routine violations of the MBTA. The current permitting process already promotes violations of the MBTA as it almost exclusively relies on the judgment of state wildlife agencies - the proposed rule can never make this practice compliant with the MBT.

Under this permit, States and their designated agents could initiate resident goose damage management and control injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Those States not wishing to obtain this new permit would continue to operate under the current permitting process.

It is unclear why anyone would choose the restrictive permit available under current regulations vs. the proposed permit. The latter is essentially a carte blanche for killing with the same superficial documentation that is required under current regulations.

Applications for the special permit would require a detailed statement from the State estimating the size of the resident Canada goose population in the State, requesting the number of resident Canada geese, including eggs and nests, to be taken, and showing that such damage-control action will either provide for human health and safety, protect personal property, or provide compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese.

Similar information is currently required as part of the permitting process and it is evident the Service does nothing to validate the legitimacy of the information provided. Indeed, the Service still has no criteria for determining the validity of the cause for action. The proposed rule will encourage further abuses of the MBTA/MBT.

The permit holder (i.e., State Agency) would also be required to inform all designated agents of the permit conditions that apply to the implementation of resident Canada goose damage management.

The special resident Canada goose damage-management permit would be subject to the following conditions/restrictions:

1. Take of injurious resident Canada geese as a management tool could be utilized only after applicable non-lethal alternative means of eliminating the damage problem have been proven to be unsuccessful or not feasible.

This is a joke. For years the Service has verbally issued the requirement that non-lethal methods be tried before a depredation permit would be issued. In practice, the Service has done nothing to verify that such a requirement was fulfilled. In Clarkstown, NY, the Service issued a depredation permit for the killing of 350 geese in 1996 even though the previous spring, Jim Forbes, USDA/APHIS/ADC wrote to the Service that, "Apparently Clarkstown is not interested in the many non-lethal methods of control...," meaning that they had not made a good-faith effort to use non-lethal dissuasion. How does the Service plan on enforcing compliance with a flimsy requirement that they never adhered to in the past?

2. No other migratory birds or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered may be affected by the action.

3. Actions under the State permit are limited to the period between March 11

[[Page 15701]]

and August 31. Permits will be issued annually. In California, Oregon and Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal control activities are restricted to the period May 1 through August 31, inclusive. Delisting of this subspecies would result in a review of this provision.

4. Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and cannot be set up so as to be in fact a ``hunt.''

5. The permit cannot be used to limit or initiate management actions on Federal land within a State without concurrence of the Federal Agency with jurisdiction.

6. Canada geese killed in control programs must be properly disposed of or utilized. Canada geese killed under this permit may be donated to public museums or public scientific and educational institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes or given to charities for human consumption, or buried or incinerated. This permit does not, however, allow for Canada geese taken pursuant to this section, nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter.

7. Methods of take are at the discretion of the permittee responsible for the control action. Methods may include, but are not limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest manipulation and other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-damage management programs.

The Service has apparently not only caved in to state agencies in general, but also to pressure from USDA/APHIS. They protested that the draft rule was too limiting in allowed means of take. "...techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-damage management programs" is another way of saying any method is permissible under these permits - this is unacceptable.

8. States may designate agents who must operate under the conditions of the permit.

9. Any employee/designated agent authorized by the State to carry out control measures under the special permit must retain in their possession a copy of the State's permit, and designation, in the case of an agent, while carrying out any control activity.

10. Any State agency, when exercising the privileges of this permit, must keep records of all activities, including those of designated agents, carried out under the authority of the special permit. An annual report detailing activities conducted under the permit will be required by the Service prior to any permit renewal.

11. The Service will annually review reports submitted by permit holders and will periodically assess the overall impact of this permit program to ensure compatibility with long-term conservation of this resource.

"Periodically assess"? Would this be a period of every 100 years, or a period of whatever is convenient? What this says is that the Service will preoccupy themselves with overall populations for which the data is poor, while ignoring the only important question: site-by-site impact.

12. Nothing in the permit should be construed to authorize the killing of Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation or on any Federal land without written authorization by the appropriate management authority, and none of the privileges granted under the permit shall be exercised without any State permit that may be required for such activities.

13. The Service reserves the authority to immediately suspend or revoke any permit if it finds that the terms and conditions set forth have not been adhered to as specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28.

The Service is already in the practice of taking a hands-off approach to current permitting; why would this condition ever have any relevance under a rule that promotes less oversight?

Currently, nearly all permits for resident Canada goose control activities are handled, evaluated, and issued on a case-by-case specific basis.

That is the way they are supposed to be handled - however, they are routinely rubber stamped. It would have be instructive for the Service to provide one example of these allegedly case-by-case analyses.

However, with the increasing numbers of requests for permits, the permit-issuance process has become time-consuming and lengthy in some instances. Thus, the Service believes that it is likely that some injury to people and property from resident Canada geese are tolerated rather than go through the lengthy permit-issuance process.

This is nonsense and unsupported by any relevant information. The Service can't even quantify, for the purposes of supporting the rule change, that the threat of injury or property by geese is worthy of substantial lethal action, let alone show that the trivial permit applications required and the rubber-stamping process under the current system are so burdensome.

With the proposed special resident-goose damage-management permit, the Service expects that the use of resident Canada goose control and management activities, particularly lethal control methods such as egg/ nest destruction, would increase.

If the most definitive statement that the Service can make about the outcome of the proposed rule is that the use of lethal control methods "would increase," they had better return to the drawing board and pursue a more meaningful goal. The opportunity for massive killings will destroy any motivation to implement non-lethal control.

Lethal control methods associated with hazing techniques of adult birds would also be expected to initially increase. However, following this initial increase, continual use of hazing methods should become more effective and may result in fewer overall lethal control activities.

This is a lovely fairy tale. "May"? The Service thinks that massive extermination of migratory birds "may" result in fewer overall lethal control activities. Show us the data upon which this musing is based. In areas where killings have taken place, the desire to kill more geese in subsequent years increased, not decreased.

Such lethal and non-lethal activities would be expected to decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in localized areas, especially urban/suburban areas. Regionally, little overall impact on the resident Canada goose population would be expected because many goose populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in excess of 20 percent. The Service anticipates the magnitude of any lethal control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's resident Canada goose breeding population.

What information does the Service derive its anticipation that lethality will be "well below 20% of any States' resident goose breeding population"? According to the evidence presented, the Service has absolutely no idea what the impact of this proposed regulation would be.

Further, if the Service admits that there will be little overall impact on "resident Canada goose" populations, precisely how is such permitting supposed to have any practical impact? Geese removed and killed from specific areas will be replaced by others in the "regional population." Once again, it would appear that the only impact this rule making will have is on the administrative comfort level of the Service's permitting officers.

Little impact on sport hunting would be expected under the proposed special permit. Resident Canada goose populations in areas that are targeted for management/control activities are generally those that provide little or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted access within urban/suburban areas where hunting is either precluded or severely restricted. Areas and resident Canada goose populations already open to sport hunting would be expected to remain open, as special Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change. However, due to the increased availability of control measures,

...there could be the removal of some open hunting areas due to public use/ safety considerations.

This is tantamount to an admission that public safety is being jeopardized by hunting. It is ironic that the Service has no problem in addressing an unsubstantiated public safety issue, namely geese, by introducing an action they admit has safety implications, namely hunting. We'd prefer the geese, thank you.

Further, some potential hunting areas under consideration as open hunting areas might lose some justification and basis for opening hunting.

The authors of the proposed rule have already stated, in essence, that hunting has had a negligible effect on alleged problems due to Canada geese. It would seem that the justification for such hunting is already lost.

The Service also expects that this approach would result in more aggressive resident Canada goose-control activities. By allowing injurious resident Canada goose problems to be dealt with on the State/ local level, instead of the Service's Regional level, it is expected that control activities would be more responsive and timely to the problem(s) than is currently the case.

This is a another way of saying that massive exterminations will occur because virtually all oversight as mandated by the MBT/MBTA will melt away under a permitting process that has only the weakest level of accountability regarding whether lethal actions are warranted or whether they will have any meaningful impact. Further, the process would make it virtually impossible for those opposed to lethality to have a chance to respond to proposed actions. Second to convenience and pressure from state agencies, this is the primary motivation for the proposed rule change. I remind the Service that they are charged with managing wildlife for ALL CITIZENS; the attitude of the proposed rule is that goose complainants rate a higher priority than any other segment of the citizenry. The proposed rule makes it harder for concerned citizens to speak out about how their wildlife is treated, and as such, is a violation of the democratic principles upon which this country was founded.

Consequently, it is expected that with reduced injurious populations and more effective hazing programs, fewer complaints would be likely to occur and less resident Canada goose damage would be likely.

Since the Service has failed to establish any criteria regarding population thresholds and how these correlate with how "injurious" geese are, there is no logic behind this statement, and it must be regarded as suppositional musing - an unacceptable foundation for a proposed rule of such devastating consequences.

With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions, Service administrative responsibilities for each individual control activity that currently necessitate the determination and/or issuance of a permit would be expected to decrease significantly.

While the Service sees passing their responsibility onto state wildlife agencies as a time-saving benefit, the MBTA charges the Service with this responsibility - not state agencies. Since state agencies also have limited resources, ones that they prefer to expend on hunting-related activities, they will use the new permits as a means to expedite killing instead of dealing with goose complaints in a rational manner. State agencies will do what the Service has been doing for years: rubber-stamping permission to kill geese.

Currently, the Service, in most instances, must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a permit should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the number of these permits.

Whether or not the Service "must decide on a case-by-case basis" to issue a permit is not open to regulatory determination as suggested by the proposed rule. The Service is mandated to make determinations under the MBTA regarding whether to issue permits. If those who drafted the MBTA wanted state agencies to make life or death decisions regarding migratory birds, states would have been included in its scope of authority.

Summary of Comments

On September 3, 1996, the Service issued in the Federal Register (61 FR 46431) a notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on Permits for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and Request for Comments on Potential Regulations. The notice advised the public that a DEA had been prepared and was available for public comment. The notice also announced the Service's intent to consider regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control injurious resident Canada geese. The Service subsequently extended the public comment period on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58084).

As a result of this invitation for public comment, the Service received 101 comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from State wildlife agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from private citizens. Comments included a wide range of topics; however, several patterns emerged that indicated key points of concern.

Conspicuous by its absence is any mention that the number of commenters rejecting the proposed rule altogether outnumbered, for whatever reason, those in favor of the options presented. It is also relevant to note the very high percentage of INDIVIDUAL commenters who opposed the rule change. Interestingly, actual goose complainants comprised a negligible fraction of the total comments received. Most comments were from state agencies looking for a way, as is the Service, to facilitate the issuance of permits as a matter of convenience.

To summarize, the August 1996 DEA offered the following three permit alternatives: first, to continue the

[[Page 15702]]

existing permit procedure; second, to provide a special Canada goose permit to APHIS/WS and State wildlife agencies with the added authority of allowing subpermits to be issued by APHIS/WS and the States to others; and thirdly, to develop a more restrictive permit procedure. The DEA identified the second option as the preferred alternative, describing a procedure for issuing special resident Canada goose permits and providing the additional option of subpermitting resident Canada goose damage management activities to designated agents. After consideration of the comments received, the Service has revised the preferred alternative as described below in the discussion of comments. This change will provide the Service with more direct control but does not alter the conclusions or analyses displayed in the EA.

Many commenters expressed support for ``cleaning up'' the process and making it more responsive to the needs of the public.

This statement is ludicrous. The reason state agencies want to remove the barriers to killing geese is not based on sound scientific logic or matters of goose "problem" solving, but rather, to make life easier for them. If the public felt it needed more responsiveness, why then, did they make such a poor showing in the DEA comments? The motivation for a rule change clearly has nothing to do with concern for the public.

However, some comments challenged the need for any type of resident Canada goose damage-management activities.

What was challenged was whether the Service has SHOWN, beyond a numerical tabulation of complaints, that the type of management facilitated by the DEA was biologically relevant.

For purposes of this proposed rule, the following review combines comments into general categories. The issues and the Service response to each are summarized below:

Issue 1: Several commenters expressed concern that the Service did not have the authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act) and subsequent regulations to allow non-Service entities (APHIS/WS, States) to issue permits. This theme was repeated throughout and many saw this as an attempt by the Service to abrogate their goose-management responsibility.

Service Response: With regard to the issues raised by these comments, the Service has decided to utilize a process whereby permits would only be issued to State conservation or wildlife management agencies. The Service proposes a system whereby State employees or designated agents may carry out resident Canada goose damage management and control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of the permit program.

This response does not address the concern. The MBTA indicates that the Service is to decide, not state agencies, based on a given situation, whether to allow the killing of migratory birds. The proposed rule provides a bluffing mechanism whereby state agencies as permit applicants give the Service some extremely vague information about the state's population of geese and how many they might like to kill and some speculation about how this might solve some vaguely- described and unverified problem. This violates the intent of the MBTA that stipulates that all permit applications be given legitimate consideration in relation to the circumstances in question.

Issue 2: Several comments suggested that the special permit be replaced by a depredation order, arguing that this approach would be a more cost-effective/efficient means to manage resident Canada Geese.

Service Response: The Service has included this alternative in the revised EA. However, while the Service agrees that depredation orders in other circumstances have proven to be valuable tools in wildlife damage management, the Service believes that management of resident Canada geese deserves special attention and consideration which can best be provided by the proposed special Canada goose permit. The Service believes that a special Canada goose permit will provide the management flexibility needed to address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the procedures needed to administer this program. A special Canada goose permit will satisfy the need for an efficient/cost-effective program while allowing the Service to maintain management control.

The management control mentioned here, as indicated above, is an illusion.

Issue 3: Several comments challenged the notion that there are in fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept of ``resident'' Canada geese is invalid.

What commenters were rightly referring to was the Service's failure to provide scientifically- and statistically-meaningful documentation regarding what criteria are used to determine whether geese are indeed "injurious." No such criteria have emerged since the DEA. Further, the MBT specifically indicates that actions may only be taken regarding "seriously injurious" not just "injurious" geese.

Service Response: The Service strongly disagrees with both these assertions and has included data in the revised EA that demonstrate the impact of resident Canada goose populations on personal property, agricultural commodities, and health and human safety.

The strength of the Service's disagreement should be commensurate with the strength of its data. This is not the case. The Service has little more than numbers of complaints and a few unscientific anecdotes about damage caused by geese. Further, no information is provided to substantiate, in any but the most speculative fashion, what risk geese are to public health and safety.

In addition, data are available that clearly point out that Canada goose populations do, in fact, nest in parts of the conterminous United States during the spring and summer and that these birds are causing injury to people and property. These data are presented in the revised EA. Furthermore, the Service is not redefining what is or is not a migratory bird under the Treaty. We are using the term ``resident'' to identify those commonly injurious Canada geese that will be the subject of control activities within the scope of the Treaty.

Issue 4: A number of comments included in the August 1996 DEA addressed the procedures that dealt with the implementation of a resident Canada goose damage-management program. These comments expressed concern that the methods of take were too restrictive, that no mention was made of egg and nest management, that the time period associated with damage control was too restrictive, that the 25 percent population figure was unrealistic and virtually impossible to ascertain, and the directions for disposition of geese were incomplete.

Service Response: The Service carefully considered all these comments and has made modifications in the proposed regulation to address the concerns expressed. Information specific to the applicant State's population of resident geese and the numbers expected to be taken annually will now be required in the application. The Service will utilize this information and other pertinent biological and population-specific data as the basis for determining the permitted take.

While it is easy for the Service to say that it "...will utilize ... pertinent biological and population-specific data as the basis for determining the permitted take," the spirit of the proposed rule is to administratively expedite permitting, not make the justification process stricter. It is contradictory for the Service to suggest that it will simultaneously give thorough and diligent consideration to permits, while at the same time broadly speed up their dispersal. The Service should specify in detail how it will make such determinations.

The Service made major changes to expand the methods of take to include the use of alpha-chloralose when warranted and to allow the onsite biologist more flexibility.

Basically the Service surrendered to USDA/APHIS.

The Service also made provisions to include egg-addling and nest destruction as viable damage-management tools. The Service agrees that the 25 percent population figure on which to determine allowable take is nebulous and does not provide a legitimate guideline for identifying a population level.

Issue 5: A large number of commenters indicated that they were philosophically opposed to the killing of Canada geese and any other ``inhumane'' treatments of these birds. They expressed preferences for non-lethal solutions to all resident Canada goose/human conflicts and pointed out that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife. Some commenters also opposed the removal of geese on the grounds that these management actions were only short-term solutions.

Service Response: The Service is also opposed to the inhumane treatment of any birds, but does not believe the capture and relocation, or processing for human consumption, of resident Canada geese from human conflict areas is by definition ``inhumane.''

Yes, the Service holds some pretty twisted "beliefs" if it does not recognize the inhumane nature of placing WILDLIFE in enclosures - crates, trucks, slaughterhouses - and being handled by humans. Perhaps the Service should provide the public with a formal definition of "inhumane." The Service is obviously not overly concerned with the fact that they are a government agency, and that in this country, the government is to represent the people, and that if the people want their agents to regard sending wildlife to slaughterhouses as an inhumane practice, that said agents keep their reality defying personal philosophies at bay.

Over the past few years, thousands of problem resident Canada geese have been rounded up by wildlife managers and relocated to unoccupied sites. However, few such sites remain. Therefore, the Service believes that humane lethal control of some geese is an appropriate part of an integrated resident Canada goose damage/control management program.

Without an operational definition of "humane," the phrase humane-lethal is meaningless. Indeed, it is oxymoronic.

The Service also prefers non-lethal control activities, such as habitat modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada goose conflict/damage problems and has specified language to this effect in the proposed regulations.

The Service continues to pay lip service to their support of non-lethal methods. However, the proposed rule has no specific requirements regarding to what extent any such methods would have to be used, or how the use of such methods would be validated. Thus, that the Service holds this preference for non-lethal methods has little practical significance, and will not ensure that such methods are attempted in good faith prior to permits to kill are issued. The statement is therefore gratuitous fill.

However, habitat modification and other harassment tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal methods are sometimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of non-lethal management methods.

There is no information presented to suggest that non-lethal management is enhanced by lethality. Further, there is no substantive information cited to indicate that lethality offers any ADVANTAGE over non-lethal control measures, except the implication that killing doesn't require much thought.

There are many situations where resident Canada geese have created injurious situations and damage problems that few people would accept if they had to directly deal with the problem situation.

This highly presumptuous statement adds no validity to the proposed rule change or have any bearing on what methods are best suited to alleviate bothersome geese.

The Service continues to encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with not only the local citizens impacted by the management actions but all citizens.

Such encouragement is also gratuitous, showing no verifiable manifestation in how state wildlife managers handle bothersome wildlife, geese or otherwise.

[[Page 15703]]

While it is unlikely that all resident Canada goose/human conflicts can be eliminated in all urban settings, implementation of broad-scale resident Canada goose management activities may result in an overall reduced need for other management actions, such as large-scale goose round-ups and lethal control.

It is unlikely that the proposed rule change will give rise to any practical effect except to make life easier for those at USFWS permitting offices by turning over their responsibilities to state wildlife agencies.

******************************************************************

FINAL COMMENTS:

The Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese(TM) OPPOSES, in the strongest possible terms, final approval of proposed rule 50 CFR 21.26.

While camouflaged as an attempt to be more responsive to complaints concerning Canada geese, the proposed rule serves no other purpose than to make the depredation permit issuing process more administratively convenient for the Service by surrendering their authority to the states. While most of the assertions in the proposed rule are of questionable validity and weakly supported by the data, one thing is certain; the Service is frustrated by complaints concerning Canada geese, and state wildlife managers want more control over these migratory birds. However, rather than addressing the issue from a sound biological standpoint, the Service proposes changing the way the killing of Canada geese is administered - nothing else. Other strategies for addressing goose related complaints are gratuitously dismissed with illogical and absurd suppositions about how an increase in goose exterminations will prompt the use of non-lethal methods of control. Further, nowhere in the document is any rational connection made between massive killings and a practical outcome regarding complaints.

Yet, the proposed rule is objectionable on many other levels as well. The authors justify the need for the regulation based on exaggerated claims. The most noteworthy has to do with public health and safety. While the USFWS certainly is empowered to set policy regarding wildlife issues, they do not have the authority to make public health and safety assessments as a means to advance their self-serving ends. Public health and safety determinations are the purview of other federal agencies, not the USFWS. One of the main arguments presented to defend the proposed regulation is the premise that Canada geese are a significant health and safety risk to the public - this assertion is not only unsupported by scientific and epidemiological studies, but verifiably untrue. This alone is sufficient to cast suspicion on the credibility and true motive of the regulation.

To make the proposed regulation seem legitimate, the authors have packaged it in a false reality (misrepresentations, exaggerations, etc.) and maintain a willful disregard for citizens who do not share the Service's philosophy or enthusiasm for the selective application of scientific principles. Indeed, it is likely that the regulation is being sought precisely because public scrutiny and opposition is growing to the Service's policies regarding the issuance of depredation permits. The proposed regulation, by design, would suppress citizen involvement and input on how Canada goose issues are handled. Citizens have a right to oversee the operations of the Service before actions are taken. It is interesting to note that those who oppose the expansion of lethality by the Service were regarded in dismissive and condescending tones while wildlife killing interests such as USDA/APHIS were summarily granted their requests such as no limitations on "methods of take." To say that the Service is biased is an understatement. How can the Service claim to have addressed, in a responsible manner, comments on the DEA without noting that most commenters rejected any regulation change. The Service is taking the liberty to supersede the will of the People.

The proposed rule is an unlawful delegation of federal authority to individuals through state agencies. The Service argues that this is untrue because it is still issuing the primary permit from which the others emanate. This is a sloppily crafted semantic game to create an imaginary loophole in the MBTA. It is plainly stated that the purpose of the proposed rule is to make the Service more responsive to those people complaining about geese. In reality, this translates into saying that the Service would like to rely on local determinations regarding depredation actions. This diminishes, if not virtually eliminates, meaningful federal oversight. No one is fooled by the annual permit concept; it is the smallest amount of paperwork necessary to give the illusion that the Service is still involved. The permits proposed under this regulation are a hoax that, in substance rely on the vaguest supporting information and invisible mechanisms for oversight and compliance. This is a subtle, but real and actionable, violation of the provisions and mandates of the MBT and MBTA.

We hearby request that the proposed rule [Federal Register: March 31, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 61) Pages 15697-15705] be abandoned in its entirety.

Sincerely,