A final solution-what scrutiny?

 

The shameful action of Sandwell Council  is justified by them in perhaps one of the most appallingly written letters I have ever read from a local authority. It also lays bare the rationale of prejudice rather than the facts of any scientific scrutiny. Below we deconstruct Councillor Maria Crompton’s letter.

 

• What paper is she talking about, who authored it and what is their experience regarding Canada geese and position within Sandwell Council?
• Why are geese singled out in terms of their increasing numbers as opposed to other wildfowl in the parks of Sandwell? Are they obsessed with having a quota on everything, including their equal opportunities within the council?
• It is clearly evident to whom that the numbers have significantly increased to the point where they are a threat to public health and public safety? What figures do the council have to justify such an action? By what numbers have they increased and over what time period?
• They claim to have oiled eggs and this has not reduced the numbers to “acceptable levels”- again what are “acceptable” levels and who decides what these levels are and the rationale behind it? Are 20 geese not a threat to public health and safety yet 30 are? The truth is that they are not a threat to human public health and safety at all.
• “A more sustainable approach” – they mean genocide here.
• I am not aware that geese damage grass and amenity land in parks and grasslands.
• Damage has been caused to a wet meadow at Sheepwash Local Nature reserve by National Grid and their contractors this year which has yet to be rectified. This is in addition to the abysmal management of this site in terms of grass cutting in general. Then we have motorbikes, people trotting horse and carts in parks, urinating dogs, as well as many other birds, animals and even humans shitting on their precious blades. Why cull only the geese? In terms of damage, what level is caused by them compared to the other aforementioned?

• They eat grass to survive because it is their natural diet. Sandwell council have a fascist attitude towards feeding birds in their open parks- which resulted in a single mother having been fined with her toddler for feeding the birds in Stoney Lane Park. Leader of Sandwell council Darren Cooper lives opposite this park.
• I have not gone around timing how often geese defecate, and I have no idea what volume of excrement a single goose can be responsible for. Have they followed one around to determine this? How are the council able to distinguish between the excrement of other birds as opposed to just singling out Canada Geese?
• The last paragraph if it were a Wikipedia article would be asking for “a citation needed”. It is all opinion and no evidence based statement. Determine using evidence that Canada geese do all the things mentioned and not all other birds within a park. Let us also not forget that these parks were man-made and unnatural in the first place- usually given by parasitic and corrupt industrialists who bought peoples votes and who’s families still swan around with airs and graces from afar complaining about the state of their ancestors benevolence going to waste. THESE PEOPLE “NON NATIVES” CAN SHIT OFF BACK TO AMERICA OR SPAIN OR WHEREVER ELSE THEY LIVE AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED FAIRLY SOON.
• Let us also not forget that “Victoria” park was named after a fat bitch of non-native German origin.
• When talking about “environmental impact” ,how amazing that Sandwell council ignore the impact of Rattlechain lagoon when we drew their attention to it. The three local Labour councillors in which the ward was based did absolutely nothing on this issue, and neither did deputy leader Cllr“Manboobs Hussein”. As for the useless Environmental health department at Sandwell Council, they only deal with harassing individuals instead of tackling business pollution.

 

• What bacteria do the droppings contain Councillor Crompton- please be specific and how there is a specific bacteria in Canada goose droppings as opposed to any other birds. How does this differ from Dog mess or other animal waste, bearing in mind that Canada geese are herbivors and do not eat meat? If we are talking about animal zoonotic diseases perhaps take a look at how the farming industry has produced many over the last couple of decades, including bird flu in a turkey death camp.
• What number of people have been affected by picking up diseases within Sandwell’s parks as a result of coming into contact with Canada geese droppings alone?
• HOW DO SANDWELL COUNCIL JUSTIFY ALLOWING LONG DISTANCE SWIMMERS INTO SWAN POOL IN THE SANDWELL VALLEY, AND ALSO ORGANISING CHILDREN’S TRIATHLONS HERE IF THE QUALITY OF WATER IS SO BAD AS A RESULT OF CANADA GEESE SHITTING IN THE LAKE? If we are following the council’s rationale here then it is being irresponsible by allowing people to use this facility in this way and should stop it immediately. The risk is of course negligible, but they would be more likely to “inadvertently swallow” a turd in the water than a turd on the grass. The last sentence in this paragraph is ridiculous. What is the water quality like in the lakes across Sandwell?

 

• How many complaints have been received specifically about the Canada geese alone and are these complaints justified or just the work of some over zealous hygiene obsessed mother or father caring about their own selfish genes? If they are such a burden to you then don’t have them in the first place. A freedom of information request later revealed that just 8 formal complaints had been made in the two parks in question- in five years.
• Their “aggressive behaviour” is often fuelled by verminous children ( of which there are an increasing number and far too many), chasing them around, throwing sticks or loosing off dogs to chase them into the water which they think is funny. If this causes “aggression” then it is fully justified that the geese behave aggressively towards a predator threat. Aggression can also be fuelled by taking eggs off nests – thus killing the young of the birds. Perhaps people in Sandwell council might become aggressive if their pregnant wives when at the neonatal classes had a goose abortionist sneak in and create a tomato ketchup out of the thing that they are carrying around inside them.
• “The increase in numbers has had a detrimental impact on other waterfowl.”

WHERE DO WE START WITH THAT ONE!

Firstly prove this with direct evidence showing how. The impact of human activity within parks and open spaces in Sandwell is caused purely by mans activities and not the Canada gooses.

• Sandwell council do not plant natural foods in its parks and open spaces as we suggested. The park islands at Victoria Park were made sterile with pesticides many years ago.
• Sandwell council allow drunks to fish on its pools overnight and park within the Sandwell Valley against their own angling code of conduct. When challenged on this Crompton has refused to do anything about this, as have the managers of the Sandwell Valley by changing the locks to which they obviously have keys.
• We will be looking in more detail about the threats faced by wildfowl in Sandwell on another page soon.
•  “Ornamental ducks”- another priceless piece of rationale from this thick council. So the wildlife is merely decorative and their existence purely for the eye? It was this perversion of nature that brought the Canada goose to this country in the first place as an “ornamental bird”. Kill one non-native species to replace it with another- the Muscovy duck. This particular bird is known as a prominent carrier of Duck Viral Enteritis and in the wild when released can pass on and infect birds across the lake in the same manner as Sandwell council are suggesting by faecal contact. That they are proposing release of domestic fowl onto a lake populated with wildfowl cannot be an idea proposed by any serious ecologist or conservation officer, nor one concerned with animal welfare. It is just another crazy idea with someone who views a park as a picture to look at.

• As for the notion of introducing the two other species, these are birds that were bred for meat. It is unlikely that they would last very long on the formal parks given the proven poaching of some Eastern Europeans as well as others taking place in the parks of Sandwell. I have evidence, not speculation, and the RSPCA and police scenes of crime officers have been involved in the past when I have found this evidence.
• What is an “acceptable level”? Yet again we see a politician dealing in quotas. The thinking behind their decision does not stack up to scrutiny.
• PESTEX ARE LIARS. WHY DO THEY TELL PEOPLE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY ARE NOT IF THEY HAVE SUCH A LICENCE? Why do they openly say they are going to break the law, and then appear to by releasing this “non-native species at an RSPB nature reserve for good measure!

• “Acceptable methods of containment”. Crompton’s only concern appears to be that they did not escape whilst in transit. WHAT ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE? THIS METHOD OF UNRESTRAINED GEESE PACKED INTO A CRATE IS CRUEL AND ABHORRENT. I HAVE EXPERINCE OF DEALING WITH THESE BIRDS, YOUR OFFICERS DO NOT. THEY NEED TO BE INDIVIDUALLY RESTRAINED WHEN BEING TRANSPORTED – AND BETTER STILL, NOT TRANSPORTED AT ALL WITH STUPID CULLS LIKE THIS. WHEN IN CAPTIVITY THESE BIRDS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006.
• The geese were not removed discretely, we videod and interrupted the action last year. If we had been there this year we would have stopped it with direct action. It appears from her subsequent radio interview that the “discreet location” was in fact Sandwell Valley’s Forge Mill farm. This has now been confirmed to be their final destination having their necks broken.

•  “Humanely culled”- that phrase used by anti wildlife murderers over the years. My definition of “humanity” is one of abhorrent cruelty such as acts like this, not compassion. The method of killing was not given to the journalist at the Birmingham mail- Sandwell Council  would not say. Neck breaking is not “humane”, and how does Crompton know that the method was carried out to acceptable standards??
• The method described by Natural England requires that the geese are killed out of sight of the flock- yet they nor anyone else ever checks this out. A general licence issued by them is immoral licensed genocide of wildlife. They are a quite abhorrent pro-hunting organisation.
• Number of goslings surviving on Sheepwash Local nature reserve this year-0. All taken by predators. As a large number are anyway on parks across Sandwell. Removing these birds will be more likely to result in other species including “ornamental ducks” being killed by predators.

 

• No you do not appreciate my concerns Crompton, you just gloss over them repeatedly as you did with my concerns about fencing off the lakes at Dartmouth Park preventing swans from accessing natural food, and also night fishing in the Sandwell Valley and anti-social behaviour issues- these which are against the council’s own policy.
• Discussion?- what is the point of any discussion after the killing of 220 birds? This council are serial liars, cowards and murderers and are anti wildlife- what is there to discuss with such people? There is no way forward, so don’t try to pretend to be offering any form of olive branch.

As for the pathetic threat offered by Crompton concerning the parks manager in question, we wonder if a pecuniary interest was declared at the cabinet briefing? Any highlighting of any individual is necessary to explore this issue, which may be prejudicial to the code of conduct for officers adopted by Sandwell Council. I believe strongly that this officer and perhaps others have breached this code in several instances and will be making a formal complaint to Sandwell Council. We would like to make it clear that we target all of Sandwell council for this action. We also make it clear that to date we have followed through with everything that we said we would do if it turned out that Sandwell Council had killed innocent birds. WE WILL DEFEND THEM.