Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

It’s all about how much you give, and how much money you are prepared to pay- that’s feeding the ducks now. There have been all sorts of rubbish written on social media concerning bread, but let’s look at one of the so called “duck foods” on offer as an alternative. Priced at £1.50 for this you get 525ml by volume- not sure why this is not expressed in weight- but probably because it isn’t very much.

These pea sized pellets float and the ducks do appear to like eating them, as they do almost anything. The problem I have with this so called “natural choice”, aside from the extortionate price, is that when you take a closer look at the ingredients, it is anything but “natural”.

Boasts are made about vitamins and minerals which “boost the birds immunity and general health”.

But let’s take a closer look at some of the so called “technical stuff” in the ingredients. The list itself is pretty vague and poorly explained. “Cereals and cereal by products, oilseed by products, fish meal, oils and fats, minerals and natural antioxidant.”

Firstly protein at 19% would equate to  99.79  ml of the product. As the bread haters like to falsely inform people about bread causing “angel wing”, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to read of such a high protein content in this alternative “duck food.”

The mass of the vitamins in the food is also poorly expressed in International Units, the common  measurement of medications, vaccines and vitamins. Unfortunately the type of vitamins on the ingredients list are not defined and so this makes it impossible to calculate the amount in standard micrograms or milligrams. It is also further strange that they have then expressed the amount as a mixed iu/kg. Perhaps the amount expressed in IU fools people into thinking that the birds are getting a load more of the “good stuff” than they really are- I mean 8000 iu/kg of vitamin A sounds a lot doesn’t it? But what is this  actual mass by weight? Fortunately there is an excellent conversion chart available to work this out.

The equivalents of 1 IU for the stated vitamins are:

• Vitamin A: 1 IU is the biological equivalent of 0.3 mcg retinol, or of 0.6 mcg beta-carotene
• Vitamin D: 1 IU is the biological equivalent of 0.025 mcg cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol
• Vitamin E: 1 IU is the biological equivalent of 0.67 mg d-alpha-tocopherol, or 0.9 mg of dl-alpha-tocopherol

In the ingredients list on this product therefore the type of vitamin A  and E are not defined so we do not know what type of vitamin is in the food but as vitamin D3 – cholecalciferol is listed this can be calculated.

To convert Vitamin D3:

1IU=0.025mcg

800 IU x 0.025= 16mcg/kg

In one packet 525ml is equivalent to 525 milligrams.

1 gram  = 1000 milligrams or 1,000,000 micrograms

there are 1000 grams in 1 kg, or 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) micrograms.

This clearly does not amount to much D3 content per pack, even though the 800IU sounds quite a large quantity. Given that many birds may be on a lake, the amount each bird consumes is further impossible to calculate. Some may get more, others nothing at all.

It is certainly the case that birds can suffer from calcium deficiency, but also true that they can also suffer from over exposure to such material as supplements. One could ask the question “is it ethical to medicate wild bird food, if the birds are not ill?”

But the biggest surprise about this “natural choice” is the revelation that it contains “fish meal”. For those who are interested in ethical considerations or even veganism, it is perhaps inconsistent to be buying a product which contains ground up fish offal and bones. In fact no wildfowl would ever eat such material in the wild from fish, and so the idea that this is a “natural food” starts to unravel at the first hurdle when looking at the ingredients list. This food is in fact little more than fish food repackaged with a picture of a cute duckling on the front to advertise it.

As winter approaches and food becomes scarce, it is perhaps left to the consumer as to what they are prepared to pay to care for our wildfowl. I’m not sure birds that can decide what they want to eat and when they want to eat for themselves are that interested in the obsession of human dieting and nutrition. It is just about survival, and without natural vegetation on offer, a slice of bread goes a lot further than glorified fish guts.

On October 29th and 30th Wolverhampton will be hosting the West Midlands Vegan festival. This year it will be in two locations, the  Wolverhampton Civic Centre and the Art gallery. This two day event saw hundreds of people descend on the city last year and we also had a stall there over the two days.

Gooseman had a whale of a time and there were a couple of other creatures on the loose.

So here you will find artwork, clothing, literature, talks, campaigns and most importantly some very good food- all with an ethical none animal abusing theme.

The second online petition has now closed. On behalf of the geese in Sandwell I would like to thank all those who shared and signed this petition via facebook and social media and by reading one of our leaflets.

With a new change of leadership in Sandwell (karma), and with the demise of much of the lecherous administration that ruled in the parks department, it is now hoped that this council will not be foolish enough to try a stunt like this again. It should also serve as a warning to other local authorities in how not to carry out its business, where standards of high service should be expected, but where in this instance, officers in positions of trust manufactured a situation.

Some of the comments made on the petition have been put into memes .

Here are a couple more.

Not Sandwell this time but neighbouring Walsall, where one nature reserve site has over the years lost many birds due to inconsiderate motorists running them over as they cross between two lakes separated by a busy main road. It is an issue that has been going on for many years without resolution.

Of course the foolishness of locating a road between two pools where wildlife cross is one that is now lost to history, but that doesn’t mean that this has to continue forever or that this highway should remain as it is.

Recently, this longstanding issue received some unprecedented publicity , largely due to the advent of social media, when two cygnets were run over by a reported impatient driver who drove off without stopping as the swan family were crossing the road.

A petition was launched calling for improved traffic calming measures, but the driver herself appears to have been given little more than a ticking off by the police, who have refused to officially confirm that they traced the vehicle that she was in, but instead left it to social media to disseminate that they had.

Walsall council manage the site, and following other deaths, in 2006 they installed several signs along the road and rubble strips which they hoped would prevent accidents.

The signs may be fine but the application to actually slow vehicles down was never up to scratch, and today the so called “rubble strips” are little more than coloured punctuations on a sentence of death by idiots who insist on speeding along this straight road.

faded with time

But added to this appears to be a total lack of understanding from the council as to the view that the birds have when attempting to cross this road of death. Unfortunately there is an ill defined pavement cum layby , if it even is one, where cars park alongside the road, and where people are supposed to also walk.

What chance then of anyone seeing birds crossing between a dingy overgrown clump of bushes and trees on the main lake with additional cars also blocking the view, and what chance of the birds realising that they are in danger when they unaware of any green cross code?

I’ve seen fools who claim to be bird watchers parked right across this area looking through telescopes to spot rare gulls on the wader scrape.

There is no pavement on a significant part of the road, thus forcing people into the road when people are parked alongside the road. The legality of all this is something which needs to be looked at, especially from a disabled perspective.

A further obstacle is encountered further on in the form of an ironic  safety barrier over a brook which feeds the pool, where again people are forced to walk in the road to get around it because some highways fool didn’t consider that this may cause some danger.

Unfortunately despite the campaigners efforts the council appear to have decided to allow the status quo to continue and in a report to be considered at the full council meeting have recommended that nothing is done as there have been no accidents to human life in the last five years. Their ignorance in seeing what a piss poor job of a road layout they have created is only blinded by their sheer stupidity and apathy to this situation, but unfortunately this appears to be the price of civil service accademia, with all common sense apparently removed on obtaining a university degree.

And then there is of course the old “cash strapped council” rhetoric so loved by leftist local authorities, when the councillors are themselves pocketing large sums of money from meeting attendance for “special responsibilities.” Onward march the suited trousered philanthropists.

Well in terms of funding, I have uncovered that rather than being “cash strapped”   the authority did have and still has the money to provide “improvements”  to this troubled wildlife haven.

A development at Linley Road just around the corner on a former care home in 2011 produced a section 106 agreement between the developer and the council. Council documents show that they had originally intended to grant  £41, 760  to the swag pool – the larger of the two waterbodies.

I submitted a freedom of information request to Walsall council to clarify what had happened to this money, as it is quite evident that nothing has been spent on improvements at this site during this time.

The council confirmed that not one penny had in fact gone to the nature reserve site but instead to other more economically viable human orientated facilities like The Walsall Arboretum, where there is a prestige redevelopment strategy.

“I can confirm that £41,760 was received by Walsall Council with £41187.89 as an open space contribution (A percentage is taken for planning costs), with a deadline to spend by 1st August 2018 – the funding has all been committed.

The S106 Agreement states “To use the Open Space Contribution for provision of open space within the wider vicinity in accordance with the Council’s Urban Open Space Supplementary Planning Document and Planning
Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.”  There is no reference to Stubbers Green in the section 106 agreement

10% (£4,119) of the funding was top-sliced for the Arboretum restoration project, 15% was top-sliced for ongoing maintenance of improvements (in line with all S106 schemes now) and the rest was spent on various improvements at Blackwood Park, Doe Bank Park, High Heath Park and Rushall
Park.”

I’m not sure what the term “top-sliced” means here but it is evident that somewhere in the pipeline, officers or councillors or both in Walsall Council decided to shaft Stubbers Green , and there is no clear reason given as to why?

The council’s report states “Officers from Clean and Green Services are exploring opportunities to secure external funding that could be used to provide environmental and ecological improvements to the nature reserve.”

Well perhaps someone should have looked a bit bloody harder at money they had in the bank before deciding to spend it on other sites.

It is also fair to point out that the former leader of WMBC , Councillor Mike Bird declared a personal and prejudicial interest at the meeting where the application was approved, yet this is not made clear as to what this was.

The development itself appears to be well established in a square of 13 houses.

So this leaves a site where road kill is happening quite frequently up shit creak, and is only likely to continue when the local authority screw it out of money that would have been put to better use than in the aforementioned parks.

Someone once told me that “you have to see things from the point of view of a bird” in looking at problems such as this, and since hearing this I have never looked at anything the same again. The view below is a birds eye view at their level. So imagine having this view obstructed by a parked car blocking it. Then the further issue of an observation/feeding platform obstacle badly positioned so that members of the public can stand and encourage said birds across the road. It should never have been put there.

If only there were more bird brains on Walsall council instead of human ones.

I have previously blogged about the largely internet and social media fuelled nonsense concerning feeding birds bread as opposed to feeding them other food made out of the same “starchy treat” material.

This has been widespread over the last few months reaching fever pitch with heir to British Waterways , The Canal and Rivers Trust putting forward what is an aggressive marketing campaign trying to hook canal users with a bag of grapes and lettuce. It is difficult to see how they can prove the voracity of the claims about the number of loaves thrown into the canals and watercourses, (a reputed 6 million) ,or for that matter how this number has decreased by 2.5 million as a consequence of their previous campaign.

Now as a charity, they are not like BW who were reliant on Government funding but have to find their own. Of course if they were not as spectacular a failure as British Waterways to stop pollution from industry as well as their own sanctioned practices of the past, one might take seriously their cries of bread pollution in canals. BUT WE SHOULD NOT LOOSE SIGHT THAT THIS CAMPAIGN IS MERELY A SELF PROMOTIONAL EXERCISE FOR THE CANAL AND RIVERS TRUST.

Local authorities have latched onto this to some extent, including Sandwell, who have now erected signs in several parks concerning feeding. It was pointed out by Animal Aid consultant John Bryant who met with us in two of Sandwell’s green flag parks where culling had happened , that if the council were moaning about the public feeding the birds, then they had absolutely failed in communicating that message with adequate signage.

It would be foolish to link this matter to culls, because it has nothing at all to do with the council’s own failures of groundcare and management of its parks and green spaces for wildlife, and any attempt to somehow blame the public for these culls is quite perverse.

The signs are about right in terms of wording, but it is difficult to see how their interpretation is being followed or even how legally they could be enforced when anglers are allowed to chuck in basically anything without comment to feed the fish- including bread. This pastime also remains both anti social and dangerous to wildlife in Sandwell’s parks and open spaces.

Another local authority has also erected signs at a park site discouraging feeding bread, and also pointed out that bird seed is available from a shop run by a private concern nearby. Unfortunately this private operator appears to have hiked the price of the poultry container serving, costing £1 to £1.50. Such extortionate opportunism is exactly the point that I was making about those selling corn in my previous blog post on the subject.

Fortunately there is a very good article available looking at bread and the science behind some of the wild claims about bread being “bad for birds” which shows some refreshing common sense, without being spread by old wives’ tales. White and brown bread are not in fact that different nutritionally, contrary to the misinformation spread by local authorities.

I don’t know of any swan or wildfowl rescuers who do not use bread to feed the birds, as a part of their diet, including during their captive rehabilitation. By way of example The Swan Sanctuary based in London have stated the following on their website.

In my experience of swan rescue, I have not seen swans or other wildfowl for that matter ever interested in lettuce, grapes or peas. The stuff just stays there in situ day after day to rot, attracting the rats. At this point the question should be asked what is the difference between feeding birds bread that could go mouldy and cause harm and encourage rats (which appears to be a big problem for some people), and other foods which will go mouldy and cause harm and encourage rats?

Then for that matter corn itself. I am not sure if those spreading the seed about bread being a killer realise that uneaten corn dumped in large quantities under water will also go rotten, and be just as harmful if ingested as any bread. Rats also love corn by the way. There is also less risk associated with floating food than submerged in terms of ingesting lost and discarded tackle, lead shot and bacterial infestations lurking beneath the water.

Which brings me to the real problem, that there are some bloody lazy fools who think it is a good idea to chuck in mouldy trade waste in bulk for the birds to eat- yet it is this issue that local authorities continue to dodge for politically correct reasons.

Twats

There is simply no evidence that bread “causes angel wing in birds.” If it is the case then where are these birds if the figures of bread dumping offered by The Canal and Rivers Trust are to be believed?

It also concerns me that people with little education think that they are “educating” people by spreading these internet myths and unscientific facts, as well as supporting commercial wholesalers of corn. If you are paying more than £10 for a 20kg bag of corn, then don’t because you are being ripped off.

Unfortunately it seems that feeding the birds down your local park is now another commercial enterprise incurred as a result of a conscience tugging falsity about wild bird health coupled with health and safety gone mad. If people are priced out of making a connection with wildfowl that would otherwise not occur, that can only be a bad thing for both people and wildfowl.

It was over six months ago that we handed in the last paper petition to Sandwell Council regarding the culling of geese in Sandwell. This petition was presented to The Cabinet Petitions Committee on 18th May. “Progress” on petitions appears to be somewhat slower than the change of politics in Sandwell, especially given that this new committee does not now include any of the members that were on the committee at that time in May.

This week I received an agenda that the matter was now being discussed at the next petitions committee on 24th August. The response is recorded below.

At the time of presenting the petition in May, I was asked to provide a written copy of what I had stated at the meeting- which I did to both the investigating officer and the Democratic Services officer who forwarded it on. The officer stated that he would respond on a point by point basis. Unfortunately I have to date received NOTHING. It should also be stated that accompanying the petition in February was a link to our report, The Prejudiced Lie– a source document detailing the whole sorry affair that has unfolded regards the council’s actions over the last few years.

This response doesn’t acknowledge this or the points made in the presentation, which the officer has. It is worth looking at the two petitions presented to the council and their wording, which although both asked for “non-lethal methods” are quite different in what they were calling for. The first was about an officer giving evidence under scrutiny to explain the actions of the council. This farcical meeting and its decision of councillors to take “no action”, especially looks remiss now considering the departure of the main protagonist behind the cull, whose actions and professional integrity can certainly be called into question.

The petition handed in in May read as follows, and I have underlined the part which SMBC officers appear to have ignored addressing- which is behind the entire reasons why the council may choose in future to carry out culls. It is their actions which control if this does or does not happen, and any attempts to ignore implementing “non-lethal methods” of site management only appear to suggest that they are not committed to no culls in the future.

Groundcare carried out by Council staff and more importantly the managers who control what work and budget is spent in parks and green spaces underpin “the conflicts of interest” that were highlighted in this petition. “Poor management” includes not carrying out regular sweeps of pathways of excrement for which the council claimed was a “health and safety risk” and the reason for culling under licence, yet from what I can see in the last six months they are quite satisfied to leave this “hazard” in situ.

Unfortunately the previous incumbent in parks management was content to blame his and his staffs failure for groundcare on the scapegoat geese, but this will not do going forward, if the council as they say are about justifying actions under scrutiny. If they want to reduce complaints, which we know to be largely fictitious, then they will have to show that they have made some effort to reduce conflicts with park users by clearing up the shit. After all, it’s “a health a safety risk” isn’t it?

Park pathways for some reason were deliberately made to not allow sweeping machines around Victoria Park, and the standard of work carried out here can be seen to be unbelievably poor. For some reason park management appeared to have approved contracts very regularly to two contractors, one based in Tipton, the other in Cannock. One might ask if preferment goes by the letter and not by the law in procurement, or if old family connections were put above competitive tendering when work was carried out in Sandwell’s parks- but that isn’t for me to investigate is it?

Absolute dangerous bloody rubbish

Of course one could take the view that by leaving things as they are, the only “progress” made is that grass will continue to grow long on nature reserves and be cut short frequently in parks- thus not showing much attempt at non lethal methods of site management. This unfortunately is the legacy of the previous parks manager in Sandwell.

Having voiced my concern that the issues raised in the petition concerning the council’s groundcare have not been adequately addressed, the new cabinet member replacing Maria Crompton has thankfully agreed to defer the matter being addressed at the committee. At least some progress can be reported here then if Councillor Hossell is prepared to ask officers the questions instead of his predecessor who unfortunately took their words as gospel without scrutiny.

For some time there had been speculation as to what had happened to the architect of the goose culls in Sandwell– senior Parks manager John Satchwell Snr.  It now transpires that he has officially “retired” and is no employed by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council.

But this official line appears to ignore allegations of a very serious nature concerning the sale of council owned property. We are aware that the police spent some time at Jubilee Park in Tipton questioning staff about these allegations shortly before the parks manager went “on the box”, or was it gardening leave? Around the same time, Ex Sandwell Mayor and Great Bridge Councillor Derek Rowley didn’t stand for re-election in the ward. How very coincidental.

Indeed it is also of note that Ex councillor Rowley was also in charge of Maria Crompton’s equivalent department at one stage, but what role did he have to play in any culls I wonder? She has also now lost her cabinet position as Cabinet member for Highways and Environment, in what appears to be the political game of thrones playing out at The Oldbury Kremlin. Indeed it is difficult to see how as head of the parks service area she could possibly have survived , if these investigations show any culpability. We already know she made untruthful statements on Radio WM immediately after the goose culls came to light, and only then after my freedom of information request after Satchwell and others had repeatedly lied.

Regardless of what has exactly transpired here , let’s hope that the rozzers do a proper investigation. The Cooper era at Sandwell council is crumbling before our eyes, and  it is not before time that the rot was cleared out.

For once I’m not talking about these ones concerning geese in parks in the rotten borough.

I’m talking instead about the highly controversial Monsanto product which contains the herbicide Glyphosate. This product has recently made headlines because of the real risk it poses to both the environment and human health. It is however a controversial subject to which the large and powerful chemical industry want to keep sewn up and out of the public gaze by lobbying the EU commission regulators. The HSE has published a guide to pesticide use.

I decided to ask a freedom of information question of Park proud Sandwell Council- who boast of 13 green flag parks- more about that in a while. I wanted to know what use they had for this chemical, which is certainly far from being “safe”, and could pose just as relevant a risk to public health and public safety, as well as to workers at the council as they tried to peddle about a certain avian species.

My questions are in green, their answers in red.

Question.

(I)Could you please reveal a list of the pesticides, herbicides, insecticides , neonicotinoids and chemicals used for weed/crop management in parks and green spaces within the borough of Sandwell.

i) Across the Authority: Grounds Maintenance uses Nomix Dual, Nomix G and Round-Up Pro Vantage 480. Bereavement Services use Round-Up Pro Vantage 480. Estate
Services, (part of Housing), have informed us they use glyphosate (total herbicide) and triclopyr (selective herbicide) based products. Sandwell Valley (Parks & Countryside) uses Round-up.

(ii) If held can you state the volume/cost of these chemicals used in 2015/16 financial year?

ii) In Financial year 2015/2016: Grounds Maintenance used 400 litres of Nomix Dual at an approximate cost of £8350, 300 Litres of Nomix G at an approximate cost of £3100 and 2400 litres of Round-Up at an approximate cost of £18250. Bereavement Services used 500 litres of Round-Up at an approximate cost of £3800. Estate Services inform us they used 240 litres of herbicides at a cost of £2000. Sandwell Valley (Parks and Countryside) use 2 litres of Round-Up per year in Sandwell Valley and local nature reserves and in May of this year, they used a further 6 litres of Round-up on two fields within the Country Park to prepare them for seed sowing. This was in line with their formal agreement with Natural England. Total costs for the areas within their remit would be approximately £60.

(iii) Are pesticides/ chemicals used near children’s play areas, areas of open water or are there any areas where they are restricted from use- and for what reasons?

(iii) Grounds Maintenance use chemicals around the fencelines of children’s play areas and do not use them near running water or brook courses to help to prevent glyphosate from getting into the water. Estate Services responded: The products have various usage restrictions, as per their product labels/licences etc, however applications on or near water (within 1m of the bank) requires permission from the Environment Agency. Sandwell Valley (Parks and Countryside) stated We aim to keep pesticide use to a minimum at Sandwell Valley Country Park as well as the Local Nature Reserves that we manage. We aim to restrict our applications to the edges of footpaths, in order to prevent grass encroachment into the substrate of paths which will detrimentally affect them. We do not spray near water.
(iv) Are they employed for use in any of Sandwell’s judged Green flag
parks?

(iv) We do not use chemicals in our Green Flag Parks unless in exceptional circumstances.

The answers here are quite eye watering in terms of both the amount of this chemical crud used in the environment in Sandwell, and also the associated financial costs to the taxpayer. The health and environmental costs, are however not considered relevant obviously! In the financial year SMBC state that they used an estimated 3,890 litres of herbicides- mostly if not all which would contain glyphosate.   This equates to a staggering total £35,560 in just one financial year. The groundcare budget is particularly extravagant. Are they bathing in the stuff or selling it on 😆  😆 😆 ?

Aside from the housing teams  the other different council departments all come under the control of the same parks manager. The different types of chemical used are as follows. A safety data sheet and product label for each product is given here for reference where available. It is clear that all of these products are listed as “VERY TOXIC TO AQUATIC LIFE”.

NOMIX DUAL         safety data sheet       product label     (contains glyphosate and sulphosulfuron.)

NOMIX G                   (contains glyphosate)

ROUND-UP Pro Vantage 480     safety data sheet        product label      (contains glyphosate 480 g/L)

GLYPHOSATE (total herbicide)   (contains glyphosate)

TRICLOPYR  (selective herbicide)           

The manner in which these chemicals are used are of course open to interpretation by the user, and the answers from the council as to where they are used appear rather sketchy. It is however interesting to note their use in “Green Flag” parks….

“we do not use them… except in exceptional circumstances”

The Green Flag Award is the UK’s national standard for parks and greenspaces. Awards are given on an annual basis and winners must apply each year to renew their Green Flag Award status. It is interesting to note in judging criteria “4 sustainability…. Parks/green spaces should…..Minimise and justify pesticide use”

Presumably before being judged “green flag” pesticide and herbicide usage was as liberal in  those parks and green spaces as they still appear to be being used in other non green flag areas. It is strange however that the body judging this ridiculous “standard” appears to be oblivious as to HOW the flag was raised and what environmental costs were risked to hoist it. Equally bizarre is that within a green flag park fence boundary no glyphosate may be sprayed, yet outside the boundary by a matter of feet, vegetation on the public footpath may be dosed.

One thing is for sure, if you use or live in a park that does not spray it with glyphosate, presumably your health risks associated with this chemical will no doubt start to reduce. I guess its therefore just a postcode lottery.

And so the 2016 Birmingham Wildlife Festival proved to be a great success and a milestone for this campaign. It was the second outing for SOSCG after last year, and it also saw the return of The Park Knight- Gooseman!

Getting into the Centenary Square proved to be the most difficult experience of the entire day, with much of central Birmingham resembling the 2nd Death Star. Roadworks and road closures left Sat Navs up the swanny.

Once in theatre, and we had set up the stall shared with a cat rescue team. Many leaflets were handed out and people were still genuinely shocked as to the actions of Sandwell Council. Whilst buying goose food, people were also generous in support of the cause to save the geese.

Gooseman and a friend make a point

There were several other stalls such as Stop the Squirrel Cull, West Midlands Hunt Saboteurs and Birmingham Animal Action raising awareness of their volunteer work to help protect and promote wildlife and animals. We also found some familiar themes emerge about the way in which big business and Government can distort information to scapegoat certain animals or birds in order to promote financial incentives. Good vegan grub was also on offer. The sausage rolls and lemon cake were particularly enjoyable.

It was a chance for Gooseman to stretch his legs and catch up with some other wildlife pals. Armed with his trusty lightsaber, in case of confrontation by any passing Sith Lords, the Big G  strutted his stuff around the site.

The wildlife A team

Father figure

In all the excitement he felt like a walkabout outside the area and so took to the mean Broad Street.

Genuinely pissed off when the bus didn’t stop.

And then he caught his reflection in a passing window. What a handsome devil he thought, but he smelt water in the air and continued on his journey in case any crime fighting was needed.

A little further took him to the Canal where Dragon boat racing was in progress.

Gooseman shares the space

Then suddenly from nowhere three tipsy Northern lass bananas mobbed him; obviously they knew that a VIP was in town. Thankfully he didn’t spill his seed or let his guard down and was happy to pose for pictures.

Awreet pet?

And then another highlight, a pub just for geese! How enlightening and not species prejudiced thought Gooseman, if it were Sandwell there would probably be a sign up saying “No Quacks, No Ducks, No Moorhenish.”

5 stars

After a little liquid refreshment he headed off back to the square, exhausted with all the excitement. Elsewhere the Hunt sabs unfolded a banner on the library and inner city wildlife actually was in evidence within the market stall space. Gulls , pigeons and a Goldfinch. Intermittent music completed the scene in-between speakers on stage and scary Morris dancers providing a visual spectacle.

There was also the opportunity for us to speak on stage this year, amongst many other well known speakers and wildlife organisations which was taken. Hopefully the message that wildlife and Canada geese as well as other so called “non-native” species matter was registered. They should not be culled and are just as important as those species which conservationists appear to want to protect, (though interestingly by never getting their clean hands dirty), for sentimental reasons based around a national manmade created border.

“BE THAT VOICE”

An event to promote kindness to wildlife, instead of culls and abuse, and it’s actually in Birmingham. Last year there was a march, this year it’s a more static affair but with plenty of wildlife advocates, stalls and music. We have a stall here again this year and perhaps the return of a certain 8 foot tall superhero……

Hope to see you there.