In accord with Federal regulations, the US Fish and Wildlife Service was obliged to accept public comments on this proposal. Comments were initially due by June 1, 1998, but on July 23, the comment period was extended to September 21, 1998.

After the deadline for comments had passed, the Coalition formally requested, under the Freedom of Information Act, copies of all comments received on the Proposed Rule. The request was granted, and on December 26, 1998, the Coalition received a complete set of the public comments. We sorted (removed duplicates, etc.) and analyzed the nearly 800 pages of materials. Our findings are presented below.

In a very simple analysis, the "comments" can be divided into 8 categories and then counted with regard to whether the respondents were for or opposed to the Proposed Rule (PR). This simple approach shows that opposition to the PR far outweighs support. The table below summarizes the data.

Such an oversimplification is actually misleading because, for example, even though 19 state game agencies favor the idea of the PR, 17 of them are not satisfied with it in its present form -- most wanted more liberal killing opportunities through even less regulation.

In light of the overwhelming rejection of the Proposed Rule, for the entire spectrum of reasons, it will be difficult for the USFWS to justify proceeding with approval of the new permit.

A more detailed analysis of each category is presented below.

A more in-depth discussion of each of the 8 categories of comments received can be found below.

State Departments of Fish and Game

Only 20 state wildlife agencies submitted comments on the Proposed Rule. Of these state agencies, only South Carolina found the rule to be acceptable as written and only Massachusetts implied it wasn't a good idea. The remaining 18 states recommended the PR had to be changed -- in some cases drastically -- to make it acceptable. The essence of many of the requested changes had to do with state agencies not having enough authority under the proposed regulation and, in many instances, a lack of clarity in certain provisions. Many states also felt that the proposed time period (March 31 - August 31) during which the permit could be used was inappropriate for their region due to the presence of long-range migrants.

Many states, especially those in the Atlantic Flyway, took the opportunity to make a bid for more liberal authority over "harvest management" (i.e., sport hunting). One of the Coalition's chief complaints about the PR was that state agencies were using it as a first step to gain more authority over Canada geese so that they could create more hunting opportunities -- the economic lifeblood of these agencies. This round of comments verified our suspicions.

States such as New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York all made pitches for more control over the hunting of these federally "protected" migratory birds -- ostensibly to control goose problems, but this was not explicity stated, as they were using the power of suggestion to create this illusion. Michigan's DNR Director K. L. Cool even asked that language be added to the PR that endorses "recreational hunting" as the preferred control technique. It is interesting to note that he does not state why it is preferred, let alone anything about practical effectiveness. The Massachusetts Fish and Game department actually said that, if anything, the PR would adversely affect hunting -- a statement implying disapproval of the PR. Arizona had similar concerns but supported the PR in principle.

Most of the Atlantic state game agencies were obviously working from a coordinated agenda and sent in various versions of a form letter. Game agencies in New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania all felt that simply transferring the existing permit program to their states was unacceptable because it just shifted costs and workload from the Federal level to the state level. (Interestingly, this issue was hardly mentioned at all during the draft PR comment period two years ago.) They all said that, while they didn't oppose the PR, it was "unlikely" that they would apply for one on behalf of their state.

Instead of the special permit, they recommended that the more extreme "depredation order" be included as an option. A depredation order would allow "blanket approval" for "minor" lethal activities at any time of year AND would eliminate any reporting requirement. Examples of the unregulated activities desired included:

-shooting a limited number of geese to protect crops or property
-shooting geese at airports to address safety concerns
-nest destruction at any time

Fish and Game in Georgia mildly agreed with the PR but stated that they have, as of yet, not needed to resort to lethality. However, they did say that they referred "nuisance" goose complaints to the deadly USDA/WS (the innocently-named Wildlife Services). They wanted to know if under the new permit they could authorize USDA/WS to take control actions.

Midwestern states such as Minnesota and Missouri agreed with many eastern states that the rule passed undue administrative burden from the Federal to the state level. Game agencies in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Oklahoma said that they wanted the PR changed so that there was no requirement that non-lethal control methods be proven ineffective before special permits were issued. This is consistent with allegations by wildlife protection organizations that state wildlife officials just want to streamline the killing process and not actually solve goose-human conflicts in a biologically sound manner.

State wildlife agencies in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin all suggested that the yearly permit re-application period be lengthened to 3 years. Illinois, who deferred to the comments of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, supported a 5 year re-application period.

Both South Dakota and Kentucky said that urban goose problems were rare. South Dakota's wildlife agency actually admitted to creating and maintaining their goose population and said agricultural complaints were their main concern . They wanted the PR to have language explicity directed toward agricultural damage.

Several agencies (Missouri, Michigan, and Minnesota) stated they didn't like the PR's vague definition of geese to which the permit would apply. They asked that the subspecies-based definition be replaced with the term "resident geese" (i.e., any geese present during the period for which the permit was valid).

In the miscellaneous category, Minnesota -- the home of massive goose killings, illegally obtained permits, and the wrongful removal of geese from private property -- complained that the PR demanded too much documentation, insisted that goose removal personnel not be required to carry a copy of the permit and wanted the definition of goose "damage" expanded. Ironically, they expressed frustration that the PR didn't reflect more trust in state wildlife agencies on the part of the USFWS.

Missouri wanted to make sure that USDA/APHIS/WS could be a subpermitee on the proposed permits. Of all the comments from state agencies, perhaps the most important, from a conceptual standpoint, came from Jerry M. Conley's letter (Director, MO Department of Conservation). He stated that,

"The 'size of the resident Canada goose population in the state' has little to do with the population that is causing a problem in a localized area..."

In short, with one exception, none of the state wildlife agencies were satisfied with the current form of the proposed rule.

Summary table:

Other State Agencies

Both farming interests, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture and the NJ Farm Bureau, criticized the PR as putting too much burden on the state wildlife agency. Both said that there was not enough flexibility in the PR to address the need for more hunting. The basis for this "need" should have been provided, since hunting is known to be a terribly inefficient way to resolve human-goose conflicts. As did many state wildlife agencies, both NJ Dept. of Ag. and the Farm Bureau supported the creation of a "depredation order"

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources indicated that they had good success with non-lethal goose control in several state parks, but then went on to conclude that they would "support any efforts," including the PR, to reduce the number of geese in the state. As in the PR itself, no explanation was given why reducing the total population of geese in the state would reduce "problems" with geese.

Two letters were received from Ohio state agencies: Pymatuning State Park and the Mt. Vernon Development Center. Both were , neither of which was modified to reflect the fact that it was an agency submitting the comment, not the person who signed the letter as an "Ohio resident." As discussed below, this letter dominated the total letters received in support of the PR.

Summary table:

Municipalities

In this category, those who wrote telling of problems they were having with geese were counted as being supportive of the PR, although in several cases this designation is clearly an overstatement. For example, the manager of Two Rivers Park (WA) said that something needed to be done, but didn't specify that the killing inherent in the PR was what he had in mind. The same could be said of letters from the Port of Clarkston (WA), the Lewis County Department of Community Services (WA), and the Newark (OH) Parks and Recreation Department.

The animal control officer in Independence (OH) said he wanted to go on "....record in support of any and all humane methods that will safely reduce the numbers of the Canada goose and the complaints that accompany their large numbers." He may not be aware that the PR is anything but humane, and that there are better ways to minimize or eliminate the actions of the 103 geese in Elmwood Park to which he refers.

In a bizarre sub-category, Hamilton County Park (OH) complains about the presence of geese, then mentions that the park district has been feeding shelled corn to waterfowl in the winter and keeping the water open with bubblers. In connection with their problem with geese, they have reduced this feeding by half and limited the number of bubblers!

In Ilinois, the Superintendent of the Rolling Meadow Park district, clearly frustrated beyond control, wants the geese eradicated.

Summary table:

Federal Agencies (USDA/WS)

Not surprisingly, USDA/WS (Wildlife Services, formerly known as ADC, Animal Damage Control) submitted comments on the proposed rule. This infamous agency is essentially a Federal government extermination business that consumes hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year killing wildlife for private interests (e.g., the cattle industry). Their well-documented devotion to killing almost always runs counter to sound biological principles. Killing is an end in itself, since they can charge for their extermination services.

It is not surprising, therefore, that they felt that the PR "...does not go far enough..." Indeed, if given their way, they would prefer to be exempt from all regulatory encumbrances. Toward that end, they recommended, as did several state wildlife agencies, the introduction of a "depredation order" -- an extreme system that would insure high levels of unaccountability in the use of lethality.

On other points, USDA/WS wanted the PR changed so that non-lethal methods only had to be considered/evaluated mentally, not actually tried. Here they try to weaken the language so that actions can be justified with little more than self-serving opinions and the operating philosophy of the agency. In this spirit, they requested no restrictions on the time of year when geese can be killed.

Summary table:

Organizations

In this category, the proposed rule was overwhelmingly rejected on basic principles. While 29 organizations submitted comments, only 4 were supportive of the PR -- but once again, of the concept, not the proposed rule in its present form. All of these 4 organizations recommended changes that were already described in the State Department of Fish and Game section. Not surprisingly, all of the organizations supporting the lethality of the PR were in some way affiliated with state wildlife agencies (e.g., Flyway Councils, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, etc.).

Many of those opposing the PR in this category submitted some of the most highly-detailed comments. A sampling of several letters that were provided to the Coalition before the comment period had ended is available. Unlike supporters of the PR that would liberalize access to killing geese, these commenters made a convincing case that the PR did not support its fundamental assertions and was relying too heavily on, bureaucratic expediency, exaggerated population data and perceptions rather than facts It was also pointed out that, while the PR would lead to much killing, no biological principles were presented to explain why this would resolve problems people were having with geese. On the contrary, it was argued that the PR would not give rise to any practical outcome.

All of the commenting organizations opposing the PR represented many more citizens through their membership. On the other hand, those organizations supporting the PR represented state wildlife agencies.

Summary table:

Individuals

367 "comments" were received from people representing themselves. In addition to regular letters, these included form letters and emails. Some communications were detailed, while others were a single sentence.

Opposition to the PR prevailed with 197 comments. 170 writers were "in favor" of the PR. Of the 170 who generically supported the USFWS's PR, 161 were from Ohio. Of those 161 from Ohio, 150 were identical among the comments in opposition to the PR, but these were a much smaller percentage of the total: only 39 out of the 197 comments submitted.

While the USFWS may be happy to see so many letters of support for the PR, albeit still a minority and mostly form letters, the narrow national distribution of these letters does not work in their favor. Individuals representing 28 states (and three countries) submitted comments. Support for the PR came from only 18% of these states (i.e., 5 states). On the contrary, 100% of the states from which comments were received expressed opposition to the PR. In 21 states, no individuals wrote in support of the PR.

To the USFWS's chagrin, it would appear that only Ohio needs help with geese -- not exactly a mandate to change Federal policy.

Summary table:

Commercial Entities

This category continued the lopsided national distribution of comments (in favor of the PR) as seen in the individual letters above. All comments from commercial entities were from Ohio and all supported the PR. Of the 38 comments received, 34 were printed on corporate letterhead. It is unclear whether these writers knew what they were supporting. Further, it is unclear whether the upper management of companies such as Avon and Procter & Gamble knew what their grounds managers were supporting from a public relations standpoint. While religious organizations are not strictly "commercial," they were included in this category because their participation resembles that of a commercial entitiy rather than those devoted to religious principles.

Summary table:

Signatures on Petitions

Technically speaking, the form letters described in the two categories above should be considered petition names, because signing a fixed text is essentially a petition. However, they were not included here, giving those in favor of the PR a slight, but inconsequential, advantage in the "Individuals" category.

Petitions were signed by 1674 people from 23 states - all opposed the PR. No petitions were submitted in support of the PR.

Virginia led with just under 1200 signatures followed by New Jersey and Minnesota with 200 and 117 names respectively. Other states ranged from single signatures to 56.

Summary table: