Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

Back in August last year, we revealed that Sandwell council had launched what it called “a consultation exercise” concerning the management of geese in two of its parks, where they had previously admitted to killing 220 birds, against their own existing policy which they appeared to have forgotten, and without carrying out any consultation on a change of policy.

We pointed out the ludicrous bias of the wording of the questionnaires that were sent out for organisations, and how the results could be used by the council to  invent a “praise” response to justify more culls under the guise of “public opinion”. A public survey was also reported to have been undertaken at the same time in the two parks, yet there was no media announcement from the council concerning this.

The questionnaire survey, a totally pointless exercise in our opinion has dragged out, or been dragged out until now where the results are in.

Two documents have been released by the council in respect of this.

The first is another report with the names John Satchwell, parks and countryside manager (author of the original hidden culling report), and Adrian Scarrott Head of Neighbourhoods, who at various times throughout this farce has delayed giving us timely information which could have strengthened our argument concerning the petition presentation which was ignored when “No Action” was taken.

Outcome of Consultation Exercise Regarding the  Future Management of Canada Geese

•  We learn here that the individual questionnaires were supposedly carried out by the warden service (who come under the control of John Satchwell.)
• 634 individual surveys were completed with 73 organisational returns. It is noted here that the author of this report attempts at the outset to suggest that our involvement in returning a questionnaire is somehow underhand. Why else mention how many had been returned by organisations who have pointed out the folly of Sandwell’s culling policy and the failures and lies of the officer at the heart of instigating the unnecessary cull?
• The results provide “significant variations“- that favourite word again.
• “Clearly there are differing views” Oh really?

•  “Major findings” can be interpreted in many ways. The main finding that we gather from the questionnaire is how biased it was in delivering an opinion and then asking the public to either agree or disagree with it. Thus goose excrement was introduced as a response without the public having to come up with this themselves in a tick box exercise. If you did not agree with geese being a problem, (and they didn’t want to know why),  the subsequent question is largely irrelevant, but is promoted to taking into account the view of those who think it is- which is the council’s own viewpoint, which is subsequently evidenced in points 2.3-2.8 of this report. How this cannot be said to introduce bias is something we very much look forward to learning the Local Government Ombudsman’s opinion on.
• Statement 2.2 is completely incorrect, and given that the two authors of this report were at that meeting, it is worrying that they appear to be attempting to rewrite documented history which disproves the statement. On 25th February our petition was considered by the joint scrutiny committees, not the appeal of the petition. Following the decision to do nothing about the issue of calling an officer in for scrutiny, I did make attempts to appeal this decision, yet this was turned down by a council officers interpretation of their appeals process. This is one of the complaints which the Local Government Ombudsman is currently investigating, and the council are fully aware of this, so why this statement has been made only further damages SMBC’s credibility.
• Of course we welcome the findings that people by and large agree with egg pricking as a first line of tackling what Sandwell council see to be a “problem” and non lethal methods of management. It is hoped that the council do not resort to culling, but who can really trust their officers?
• There is little point reiterating the rubbish, plagiarised copy and pasted statements of 2.3-2.8, but it is noted that someone has appeared to cut 10 years off the life of a goose, when we pointed out that there was only one recorded  Canada goose in the UK that had lived beyond the age of 30.

Why this material has once again been reused only serves to leave a bad taste in the mouth- WHEN THE COUNCIL HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY OF THEIR OWN DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENTS MADE. THIS UNCHALLENGED RUBBISH IS WHY WE ARE IN THE POSITION WE ARE NOW.

•  Nonsense about previous attempts to control numbers appears to have been dropped, in light of damning evidence which confirms that there had not.
• At this point it is worth taking a look at Maria Crompton’s portfolio and what it entails.

•  These options do not mention culling, which is encouraging given that the majority of people completing the questionnaires clearly do not agree with it- even when the council attempt to suggest and promote it.
• We agree with the way forward for most of these recommendations, but note that many of them are down to the council’s own actions, and not those of park users who will not alter the behaviour of geese in searching for a natural food source (fresh grass), that the council provide themselves.
• The geese never did exceed excessive numbers, and any numbers that considered “excessive” by the council hatched as a result of them failing to implement their own 1997 policy.
• Bird scaring devices are an unknown quantity which may affect other wildlife which the council claim to want to promote- I’m not sure if they still intend reintroducing Muscovy ducks?
• These are only recommendations, not a final decision. Of course we all know YOU CANNOT TRUST SANDWELL COUNCIL, AND I AM AFRAID THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL IN SOME WAY BE WATERED DOWN, AMMENDED OR FORGOTTEN WHEN THE HEAT DIES DOWN.

Canada Geese Management Survey Results for 
Victoria Park, Tipton and Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich   

Firstly I am not the type of person who pisses around with pretty graphs and pie charts with axis used to further skew results. Percentages can also be widely used to flout data and skew results. There are some concerns with some of the figures presented here.

The questionnaire is opened with this closed question. There is no definition of the word “problem”, but automatically the idea is put in the respondents mind, whereas they may not have even considered Canada geese any differently to any other bird/animal in the two parks.  

These results are encouraging, and appear to show that the council have got it wrong on this issue when the majority of people DO NOT THINK THAT CANADA GEESE ARE “A PROBLEM” IN THE TWO PARKS.

On the basis of this answer alone, the rest of the survey appears to be largely redundant.

Another yes/no question, but this time the council wanted elaboration from people who consider the geese cause them a disability in using the park. This information can of course be misused to suggest that the geese are causing a greater issue than they actually are with members of the public. It should be asked why do Sandwell council want to know more if people answer yes to this question, whereas if they answer no, then the council is not interested?

In all categories, the answer appears to be a majority said “NO” CANADA GEESE DO NOT AFFECT PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO USE EITHER PARK.

Out of all the questions, this is without doubt the most ludicrous and appears to confirm the amateurish designer’s lack of knowledge regards geese, their behaviour and different times of year when different numbers of geese will be present in parks.

The results show that the highest number of people support there being 50+ geese in both parks.

The council now resort to repeating and attempting to coerce people into ticking a box which they have pre identified as being “a problem” about the geese. Most of these are based on statements made in John Satchwell’s original report, but it is an attempt to merely justify the lies by inciting public opinion to back them. Anyone who answered “NO” to the first question is left baffled by this one, yet there is no box provided to state that the respondent considers that the geese cause no problems and the council have got it wrong. The council have not proven that any of the “problems” that they identify actually exist with any scientific evidence.

This result is nonsense! 76% of people  answering the organisational survey for Victoria park and 37% in Dartmouth park are extremely unlikely to have had concerns relating to Canada geese, ON THE BASIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST THREE QUESTIONS!

Given that our organisation added a box stating “no concerns” or similar on the basis that the council had not added one, and that they have pointed out that we completed the majority of organisational questionnaires, this percentage claim is unsubstantiated.

We are therefore expected to believe that the results shown as percentages for members of the public stopped are also accurate (86%), when once again the first three question results show otherwise.

The council give the top three concerns, but not how many people actually ticked each box.

Of these we would note

• Goose excrement- largely in the council’s own control due to grounds maintenance maintaining adequate standards. IT WAS NOTED THAT DURING THE QUESTIONNAIRE, NO SWEEPERS WERE BEING PUT AROUND EITHER PARK. WE WONDER WHY?
• “Large populations”- Again in council control regards egg pricking- which they failed to do following their 1997 policy.
• “Aggressive behaviour”- where is the evidence here, as opposed to misconception of “aggression”? Hissing is not aggression, it is a defensive response to a threatening stimulus- usually from aggressive children.

This question is ambiguous and could be misleading to respondents. It also provides a Hobson’s choice answer. Canada geese may be “managed” , but there is a major difference between answering “yes” and then agreeing to killing them off. If stating “No” they should not be managed this should not rule out egg pricking, but the results could be skewed to present such a black and white answer for the council.

The theme that the council are trying to promote- ie the goose population is too high prejudices the answer before it has been posed. Why should goose numbers be “managed” when the council have not proven that other species numbers are in decline, or even if those other species numbers may also need “managing”?

Once again the council’s own view here (as expressed by it’s biased statements made in 2.3-2.8), appears to have been defeated. Two thirds of Dartmouth Park public survey respondents do not think so, which again makes the results of the previous question even more difficult to follow. This I am afraid is where the design of this questionnaire can be seen to be poor.

This now assumes two things for the council which lead to bias. They state that there are “large numbers” of geese and tie it to how the council should “manage” them. This further confuses people who do not agree with either of these two statements, largely because the council fail to provide any recorded evidence to prove the statements. What population can be described as “large”? It is also ignorant of the fact that the geese numbers vary by time of year, so are not as “large” at different times as others.

Given that the majority of people do not believe that geese should be managed in the previous question , this question would appear redundant. Pricking and oiling eggs clearly appears to be the favoured option, yet does the previous question result not supersede this, in that they consider management via egg pricking unnecessary and appear to have no problem with goose numbers?

This is claimed that the council did not ask people the question in the parks.

On this point it should be noted that John Satchwell sent out a misleading letter supplying a statement of purpose mark 2 (not the one mentioned in this report from February 25th) which is NOT COUNCIL POLICY.

Given that only 73  of 707 total responses were organisational (634 individual), it cannot be claimed that somehow the majority of organisational responses,  supposedly from us, somehow produced a set of figures that altered the entire public opinion results on this issue. Perhaps this is what the council are trying to create here, but let’s deal in figures rather than percentages.

So who wins from this exercise, and what will the council do next? Our support will always remain with Sandwell’s Canada geese.

The key basis of Sandwell Council’s arguments for goose culls.

Natural England “Guidance” in context

Sandwell council claim to have followed Natural England guidance. In a freedom of information request and in Adrian Scarrott and Steve Handley’s report they defend their actions by making this claim.

It is a fact that Natural England’s “guidance” stems from a DETR funded paper written by one man in 1999 by the name of “Dr” John Allan who appears to have worked for the quango (Central Science Laboratory) and latterly the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA).

It has since appeared to be rewritten four times and the last edition has now been archived and is called TIN009.

This was entitled

“The Management of Problems caused by Canada Geese – A Guide to Best Practice”

 Mr Allan’s credentials are not explored in his paper, and the conclusions he makes do not appear to have been peer reviewed by independent observers interested in animal welfare, rather than economic partisan industries.

“The aviation industry continues to express concern about the increasing numbers of Canada Geese on water bodies near aerodromes.”  Cited from Mr Allan’s paper

 Indeed Mr Allan’s involvement in “birdstrike” seminars involving planes and hosted by the aviation industry leaves one questioning to what extent his paper and conclusions were bought and paid for by the aviation industry lobby itself, especially when he amplifies their “concerns” into Government policy?

Canada geese are a scapegoat for this unsafe industry whose expansion, particularly with extended runways requires the demise of wildlife legislation protection, most usually through paper weight “licences” that are not worth the paper that they are written on. They have little enforcement, and Natural England have admitted that they are unlikely to ever prosecute anyone for breaching them.

Indeed in my own formal complaint against Sandwell council for breaching their General Licence criteria, I was merely told that I should contact my local Wildlife Liaison officer in West Midlands police.

The first criticism of Allan’s work comes from his estimates of geese in the UK.

In 1999 the paper opens

“The Canada Goose population in Britain numbers over 63,000 birds and is still increasing.”

In edition 4  it is stated

“The Canada goose population in southern Britain numbers over 80,000 birds and is still increasing. However, in recent years the overall rate of growth has slowed and in some areas numbers have stabilised or declined.”

So in just twelve years the entire population of the UK has suddenly appeared to have increased by 17,000 into just the undefined “Southern Britain.” Is it a surprise that this region is highlighted given the debate concerning extra runway expansion at airports in Southern Britain? I think so.

The admission that “the overall rate of growth has slowed and in some areas is in decline” totally undermines his 1999 estimates and later claims of increase- his figures are therefore a joke.

Similarly the cited causes of death in the birds in the two papers remains the same, and it is unclear as to where these figures even originated in 1999, or what agencies contributed to the findings. Many birds die in the wild, but many also die in rehabilitative care. Clearly not all geese are post mortemed or even found dead, and expressing deaths in terms of percentages rather than raw figures can of course be misused statistically.

1999 report states “The causes of death are:

• 67.2% shooting
• 4.3% hit power lines
• 5.5% redation (sic ) (predation)
• 23% unknown. “

The 2011 report states

“The causes of death are:

• 67% shooting

• 4% hitting power lines

• 6% predation

• 23% unknown.

Thus in twelve years the statistics we are supposed to believe have not changed, except they have just been rounded to the nearest significant figure.

IN SHORT THE “EXPERTISE” OF NATURAL ENGLAND ON THE MATTER OF CANADA GEESE AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE WHEN THEY CANNOT ACCURATLEY STATE THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL CANADA GEESE IN THE UK, AND APPEARS BASED ON ECONOMICS RATHER THAN CONSERVATION OR ANIMAL WELFARE. THE GEESE ARE LARGE BIRDS, AND THE AVIATION INDUSTRY DOES NOT WANT LARGE BIRDS IN THE VICINITY OF ITS AIRCRAFT OR RUNWAYS- PARTICULARLY IF IT THREATENS THEIR EXPANSION.

In following “guidance” therefore, local authorities and others are actually following flawed evidence. SANDWELL HAS NO AVIATION ISSUES, AND NO RUNWAYS.

John Satchwell’s report of 2013.

It is clear that in his report John Satchwell selectively directly plagiarises certain phrases from Allan’s original 1999 report, and these are even echoed in Adrian Scarott’s/Steve Handley’s scrutiny meeting report.  One could claim that this “follows” Natural England guidance yet set against the context of the guidance in general we argue that it is John Satchwell who misuses this paper to present a biased report which is not sensitive to public concerns for animal welfare, not relevant to the context of Sandwell itself or the two parks in question, and nor does it satisfy the criteria that Allan mentions within the paper.

Plagiarism

TINO46

It is noted that in John Satchwell’s April 2013 report, he makes no citations of Natural England Literature, which other council officers appear to have subsequently found on the internet and have attempted to use in defence of his findings and also claim to have followed “Natural England guidance”. The primary source they cite is actually guidance towards the rounding up of the geese, TINO46 rather than one which looks at relevant options for carrying out assessments.

This therefore appears to suggest that a decision was made to cull based primarily on the wrong guidance literature, as specified here. It is noted however that John Satchwell’s report directly plagiarises several phrases in another Natural England document TIN009 “The management of problems caused by Canada geese, a guide to best practice.” He does not cite this literature in his report, and strangely neither have the council in responding to my FOI requests or criticism regarding the cull. WHY?

NB this is not covered by the licence that SMBC are relying on to cull, yet John Satchwell included it anyway. Note there is little in his report which deals with the health and safety issues concerning human health.

TIN046

The number of geese in the two parks was not “high” in comparison to numbers in previous years, if the council as they claim were undertaking egg pricking.

All suitable measures for potentially alleviating “the problem” as Sandwell council saw it were not explored before culling. John Satchwell makes claim that previous attempts had been made to reduce numbers, yet the council have had to admit  they have no actual figures/data that there had been any “alarming increase” in adult goose numbers at the two parks- as their 1997 policy said may need to carry out lethal control measures and “total removal” of the birds.

The third of the licences “preserving public health and safety” (general licence WML-GLO5) is the one which the council are now relying on. This licence does not have to be “applied for” or “awarded to”  anyone as the council have incorrectly stated.

The council do not appear to have asked the opinion of anyone externally that all appropriate non-lethal methods of control were either ineffective or impractical. Their cull relies on a one off count made in March 2013 by “park wardens”, without any previous data or knowledge that those birds counted were even resident on that day, or that birds culled in the two parks some months later in moult were even the same birds, or others that had just been unfortunate to have gone there and then would have left once resuming flying ability.

I do not believe that the officers of the council understand this licence. The initial claims made by the councillor who authorised this cull talks of reintroducing other non-native species (Muscovy ducks- a Central American native species) after the geese have been culled- not at all a valid reason under the general licence.

She also mentioned “nuisance” and complaints- which later were found to be false (just 8 formal complaints in the parks in 5 years, as well as unsubstantiated rubbish concerning members of the public being “attacked”. The nuisance/complaints are not valid reasons for lethal action under the general licence. The “attacks” are hyperbole without evidence. Similar hysteria made news concerning gulls over the summer last year- though not in Sandwell. Neither are arguments involving “damage” to sports pitches and amenity grassland under the GL05 licence to preserve public health and public safety.

The guidance states that a specific one off licence could be applied for. It is clear that this does not apply to the council, given they have stated which licence they are relying on. Natural England have also confirmed that they have no record of any correspondence with SMBC regarding the culls. They also did not request any recorded advice from the wildlife licensing unit. The 1981 Act is clearly set out here in terms of “preventing nuisance”. It states that these methods can be tackled using “non-lethal methods.” The council do not report or cite this in John Satchwell’s report.

“Overview of licence-  This licence permits landowners, occupiers and other authorised persons to carry out a range of otherwise prohibited activities against the species of wild birds listed on the licence. This licence may only be relied upon where the activities are carried out for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety, and users must comply with licence terms and conditions. These conditions include the requirement that the user must be satisfied that legal (including non-lethal) methods of resolving the problem are ineffective or impracticable. “

The culls took place in the first weeks of July in both years at Victoria Park. The date of cull at Dartmouth Park in 2013 is unknown. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THIS, AND IF ALL 100 BIRDS WERE KILLED ON THE SAME DAY? It therefore appears that the birds would shortly have been able to fly again- thus leave the site when the culls were carried out.

The operation witnessed by myself and also videoed at the time in 2013 involving Pestex was shambolic and disorganized. They asked me for my help in encouraging the geese over to the Heras fencing they had set up. A professional contractor would not require the help of members of the public, nor lie to them. As the holders of the licence, why were they even lying about their job if the council were so certain of the reasons for the cull being justified? I was told to go and see John Satchwell, which appears to confirm their knowledge of his home location, and some possible personal connection.

There is no clear integrated approach made in John Satchwell’s report. It relies on culling and then appears to talk about public reaction as a means for taking further action, rather than addressing the problem which they are claiming to be one. Public complaints are not a valid reason for culling, public health and public safety are the reasons for culling under the licence cited, yet his report is short on any detail as to what these concerns actually are.  If he or the council understood the different types of licence, then why is there no specific reference/website links to them in his report. Why did the Cabinet member not ask for details on the licence or for further advice?

There appears to have been no consideration as to “adverse public opinion”, not a reason for culling in any case under the terms of the licence, nor about non-breeding birds filling the void. In fact the council claim to have carried out a further cull of birds at Victoria park in 2014 (70) because of more birds appearing, not those left when they had reportedly killed 50 in 2013.

It is not known what reconnaissance had been undertaken by pestex. No members of SMBC were present in the park.

The erection of the holding pen in 2013 appears to have been made on the morning itself. The geese were clearly alarmed by the actions undertaken as it witnessed on the video I took. Only 4 staff were present at the site. Less than stated in this guidance.

It is not entirely clear from the council’s own observations as to how the birds were killed given that none of their staff were present, despite them opening up one of their barns at Forge Mill Farm for the purpose.

This week is likely to see the revealing of the joke questionnaire results, which the council consider to be “consultation”, which was never publicly advertised by them. A showdown is looming, and it will not be the geese digging themselves into further embarrassment.

The Alfred Hitchcock 1935 film involved espionage, murder and deception. A music hall performance character known as “Mr Memory” fabled for his egg head knowledge and recall of facts  held a secret code for the design for a silent aircraft engine which a foreign power wanted.

Mr memory on stage

Sandwell council have their very own secret policy of managing Canada geese. It involves multiple deception by its agents and is about as convoluted as any Hitchcock film. Mr Memory would have difficulty in being able to recall what it was. Let’s review the evidence.

What is Sandwell council’s policy of managing Canada geese in its formal parks?

Council “policy” and lack of public consultation in a change of council policy.

• In 1997 the council appear to have adopted a formal policy on Canada geese, as I had to remind them via a letter I received at the time from the man in charge of Sandwell’s parks and open spaces.
• this stated “It has at no time been the Local Authority’s intention to pursue any other policy..”
• None of this was mentioned in John Satchwell’s April 2013 report.
• The council did not consult the public before this cull had taken place and in implementing this apparent new “policy”
• This has been admitted by its monitoring officer.

• It was not admitted by head of Neighbourhoods Adrian Scarrott at the meeting discussing our petition calling on a senior officer to give evidence under scrutiny. The monitoring officer claims in her letter that she wrote to Adrian Scarrott with the points mentioned above.
• This is Adrian Scarrott’s claimed version of events, which earlier statements contradict.
• 
• The council did not “obtain” or “apply” for any licence as none is needed under the general licence that they claim to be using – protection of public health and safety.
• The statement concerning “relevant permissions” are therefore complete nonsense. Except to say that Satchwell’s report was so poor on evidence, that it now cannot be used to justify a cull- as was evidenced at the scrutiny meeting with his lack of evidence for the geese causing human health risks in the two parks.
• The Cabinet member who allegedly had powers to approve the cull under her portfolio did not ask any questions about this maladministration (changing existing policy)before approving “verbally” this new policy.
• Steve Handley (the director of Streetscene) stated the following himself in a freedom of information request to myself, which predates this explanation- 13th August 2014.
• “There was no cabinet report regards approval to relocate the geese. A cabinet briefing was presented to the cabinet member – this is not a public document. We do not hold any information regarding the approval of the process; as such approval was given verbally for 2013/14.”
• The council can offer no formal record of the decision ever being taken at any meeting, and it appears it was approved “informally”.
• The councillors on the joint scrutiny committee failed to launch an investigation into why any of this had occurred. They failed in their task of holding the executive to account in what is clear maladministration on the part of the council.
• They also did not even consider the provision of false information which their officers gave.
• WHY WAS THE EXISTING POLICY OF 1997 NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS?
• A “draft statement of purpose” was proposed to be consulted upon, which would be used as a new policy on all of Sandwell’s open spaces- as revealed at the scrutiny meeting.
• Unfortunately this document is described as “policy”, within the document itself, and also on the council’s own website.

• 

  “policy” not “statement of purpose” or “draft policy”

• Consultation on this draft ” policy” never materialised after the February meeting.
• A questionnaire was then sent out IN OCTOBER with one of the questions asking members of the public whether they agreed with “council policy” , the same public  who had already been left out of the change in policy as admitted by the monitoring officer due to councillors and officers not following proper procedure.

• A letter was received by myself from John Satchwell, which attached a different statement of purpose to the one which was supposedly being consulted upon from the February meeting. He is quite clear in what he states is now “council policy”. THIS IS CLEARY MADE IN BLACK AND WHITE. This therefore bears no relevance to the existing 1997 approved policy, which the monitoring officer claimed should have been consulted upon if changed.
• We have looked at the differences in the two statements of purpose at the following links.
• page one
• page two
• page three

• This statement in writing on council headed paper by John Satchwell appears to be more provision of false information, and which he is aware is untrue, as the new statement of purpose, or the previously worded one has ever been ratified as “policy” because it has not to date ever been consulted upon, nor approved by any formal process, (unless the cabinet member has once again undertaken unrecorded change in policy without consultation). His letter misleads, and was I state an attempt to alter responses to the questionnaire in agreeing with whatever the council considers “policy”.
• The whole basis of the questionnaire is therefore misleading in that answers received will not reflect what the policy ever was. Did those completing the forms get the 1997 policy or the statement of purpose in its two different forms?

John Satchwell recently wrote to  Animal Aid where “policy” was again mentioned. Animal Aid sent a non lethal pest control consultant who met us at Victoria Park Tipton and Dartmouth Park West Bromwich. He sent a report to the council, as mentioned in the letter below.

This letter reveals that 644 responses have supposedly been received by the council from members of the public. The council did not consult on a “change of policy” but asked about whether they agreed with the current one. The statement of purpose (two versions)is not even mentioned in the questionnaire.

His claims about non bias are ludicrous. All members of Parks and countryside are under his direct management, as are the street wardens whom it is alleged counted the geese. As was seen by numerous officers of Sandwell Valley providing false information, the chances of anyone in his team providing truthful results or conclusions is extremely small, given HIS direct involvement.

This repeats information regards egg pricking which they can only produce from the two years which their own officers were not actually tasked with the job. We note the error in the second table  headers which should read 2013 and 2014.

A number of new important statements are made by John Satchwell in this third page.

• He claims that the levels of geese in the two parks are now “acceptable levels”, yet one of the questions in the questionnaire asked this very same question with bizarre quota numbers.
• References to notices around the lakes refers to the public feeding birds. This is irrelevant to control of geese who feed on grass provided to them by the council itself- the primary reason why they graze on the grass in formal parks.
• His comments concerning goose excrement are biased in that the questionnaire specifically invited this response.
• His groundcare team under his direction failed over the course of the summer to undertake any cleansing of the park lake paths, a pure attempt to raise this issue in light of the questionnaire. Once completed, the road sweepers were suddenly seen in the parks again.
• At this point John Satchwell mentions the statement of purpose, yet the version he sent Animal Aid was the first original version, (Appendix 7) as revealed at the scrutiny meeting in February. SO WHY DID HE SEND ME A DIFFERENT VERSION WHICH HE CLAIMED WAS NOW “COUNCIL POLICY”?
• He appears to speak on behalf of the council members as though he already has their opinion and approval on what is supposed to be a public consultation. This exceeds his office. Who does he think he is?
• He claims that these members have not ruled out culling in the future- where is the record of this and what information is it based on?
• He claims to want to achieve a non lethal method of goose number management, which his original report did not consider at all, yet the questionnaire invites public opinion on this exact question.
• THIS RAISES THE SPECTRE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL USE THE FRAUD RESULTS OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO DIRECT ITS POLICY- THUS OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS HIDE BEHIND MADE UP ANONYMOUS RESPONSES PASSED OFF AS “PUBLIC OPINION”. REMEMBER THEY IGNORED OUR PETITION TOTALLY WHERE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF REAL PEOPLE WERE RECORDED.
• THE COUNCIL MADE NO PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT ANY CONSULTATION WAS TAKING PLACE. ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE AS JOHN SATCHWELL CLAIMED WOULD BE THE CASE, IN ITS COUNCIL TAX PAYER FUNDED NEWSPAPER, ON SOCIAL MEDIA, OR IN THE MEDIA.
• He has provided the charity with false information.

I queried “what is the policy” formally with the council in a freedom of information request. As usual the council delayed answering it with some rubbish about a computer mix up; (after the questionnaire “consultation” had ended they provided a response.)

Q. “Confirmation as to the status of the Council’s current policy on the management of Canada geese, given that question 7 of the questionnaire is extremely unclear and misleading when considering the circumstances of how this “policy” arrived at being so. Are you stating that the re-written “statement of purpose” was once again verbally waived
through by a councillor without being formally consulted on beforehand and without any formal record being made of it being changed?”

“The Statement of Purpose is not a policy document, but a document that explains in more detail the reason the Council chooses to manage numbers within its formal Town Parks.  The statement of purpose was amended following direction from our Cabinet member, Cllr Crompton and amendments were made as instructed.”

“The policy on controlling goose numbers was determined in 1997 and I understand you already have a copy of this.”

So this appears to prove that John Satchwell sent me false information concerning what he clearly states is “council policy”. It also appears to suggest that Councillor Crompton reworded the statement, yet this was not what the joint scrutiny committee recommended in its ten minute “consideration” of our  petition. FORMAL RECORD OF THE MEETING STATES THAT THEY APPROVED THE DRAFT AS “A BASIS FOR CONSULTATION.”

• When was the proposed framework for the consultation submitted to the board for approval? This did not happen.

“THIS NOT A POLICY DOCUMENT ” IS NOT REFERRED TO IN QUESTION 7 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ,BUT THEIR EXISTING “POLICY” IS. THEY HAVE THEREFORE NOT CONSULTED ON THIS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AT ALL!!

ANIMAL AID.

When opposing the cull and writing to the Cabinet member still responsible for this fiasco- Councillor Maria Crompton, her reply letter stated the following.

“Once a final decision is made on our future approach, we will seriously consider approaching Animal Aid for advice.”

Well that didn’t happen. I approached Animal Aid and the reply from John Satchwell says it all. In light of the confusion surrounding what they had been sent, the Director of the charity Andrew Tyler sent a clarification email to the Leader of Sandwell council Darren Cooper.

The reply below, where they cannot even get his name right is perhaps indicative of this council.

What’s the score Pauline Dawes?

The statement above confirms that the “statement of purpose”(which of the two versions John Satchwell sent out?) has been accepted by The Cabinet Member for Highways and Environment. The scrutiny Board for Neighbourhoods and Public Health does not exist. The new scrutiny board which this fiasco is supposed to be reported is now called “Leisure, Culture and the Third Sector Scrutiny Board.”

There has been no explanation as to why this scrutiny board, which has nothing to do with health issues or the environment- (remember the alleged reason for the cull?) is now involved with this. It is not even within Crompton’s portfolio.

But wait, look at the disclaimer at the bottom of the email

“This information has been provided by John Satchwell, parks and Countryside Manager”

You can take what he says with a very large pinch of salt, as has already been demonstrated on numerous occasions.

So In light of where we are now?

CONFUSED BY SANDWELL COUNCIL AND THEIR BIZZARE “POLICY” NO IT’S NOT “POLICY” ITS A “CONSULTATION DOCUMENT”?  SO ARE WE, SO WE INVITED THE MEMORY CHAMPION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHICH APPARENTLY NOBODY APPEARS TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO- PERHAPS IT’S TOP SECRET?

Q “Mr Memory, what is Sandwell council’s policy on managing Canada geese in its formal parks?”

We hope that the Local Government Ombudsman, who is investigating numerous issues regards this cull fiasco will perhaps be able to unravel the mystery of Sandwell Council’s 39 goose steps.

I have already asked a similar question in relation to other matters. But on returning to formal statements made by SMBC, the most telling and candid,   before the spin doctors started to try and tie up Satchwell’s loose cannon threads, were the original statements made by the cabinet member for Highways and Environment Maria Crompton. It is alleged that her portfolio included the parks and open spaces and she approached the cabinet asking for advice. IT SHOULD BE NOTED HOWEVER THAT SATCHWELL’S REPORT IN APRIL 2013 WAS ACTUALLY MADE TO “THE CABINET MEMBER FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES”– WHOEVER THAT WAS.

The abysmally cringing radio interview with her on BBC Radio WM is perfect evidence of the denials and deceit behind this cull.

To listen to the substantive part of this interview click below.

Unrehearsed and unprepared, there are numerous statements made which are now extremely damaging to Sandwell council, and to her reputation personally. This in itself prompted a formal complaint against her, which being “investigated” by her colleagues , was only ever likely to lead to a none investigation as to what she had actually said. The statement which is most telling however in that meeting’s minutes were

“The Sub-Committee took into consideration that the Cabinet Member was confirming information supplied to her by officers which was made in good faith..”

THIS IS RELEVANT TO SANDWELL COUNCIL’S JUSTIFICATION THAT THEY ARE NOW RELYING ON IN TERMS OF USING A NATURAL ENGLAND GENERAL LICENCE AND ALSO THIS QUANGO’S “GUIDANCE” TO CULL THE GEESE.

I have previously looked at how they have confabulated numbers. But on this post I want to focus on one part of the radio interview which raised the topic of egg pricking- an alternative method of non-lethal control mentioned in Natural England guidance, and the method which the council claimed that it’s countryside rangers would undertake during a two week period after the 1997 policy was passed on Canada geese management.

This is what John Satchwell claimed in his April 2013 report.

It should at this point be noted that when asking a formal Freedom of Information Request concerning historic figures of eggs/nests/sites pricked between 1997-2012, Sandwell Council via John Satchwell , parks manager, could offer no recorded figures.

SO LETS TURN TO A SECTION OF THE INTERVIEW WHERE MARIA CROMPTON WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC SUBJECT. CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW.

VN850330

TRANSCRIPT

MOLLIE GREEN:

“Why did the council feel the need to however they were killed/culled, whatever term you want to use, why did the council feel the need to get rid of 220 animals from your park?”

MARIA CROMPTON

” This has been over two years, we only took 70 this year. Unfortunately there are so many, they  breed so well, they’re doing so well all over the country that right across the country other authorities are having to take the same measures to remove geese. There are just too many of them they’re doing so well, and because they foul on the footpaths and in the grass, they they they can poo  every six to twenty minutes. So can you imagine how how much poo we have to remove from the parks?”

MOLLIE GREEN

” So”

MARIA CROMPTON 

” We don’t allow dogs to do this, and geese have got erm, germs within their droppings , so you can get listeria or e-coli or salmonella, from, from their droppings, and we, It’s only in the formal parks where we’re doing this and that’s because people go there with their children and they want to play and they don’t want to have to worry about whether they’re slipping or treading in the poo from the goose…”

MOLLIE GREEN

” Do you ask the public not to feed the animals to stop encouraging them?

MARIA CROMPTON

” We, have erm always asked the public not to feed them..

MOLLIE GREEN

“So there are signs around, the signs are out?”

MARIA CROMPTON

“Well, it’s the same as pigeons, we ask people not to feed pigeons, but people like to feed pigeons, and to be fair these geese are so territorial that they will attack people so it’s only, you know, we’ve had numerous complaints of people being attacked by the geese . We wouldn’t tolerate this from other animals”

MOLLIE GREEN 

” OK”

MARIA CROMPTON

” So unfortunately it’s not something that we want to do  but we felt the need that it was getting out of control we had to do something.”

MOLLIE GREEN

“So Maria none of these birds have been bred in Tipton in Victoria Park, none of them have hatched with you, you deal with the eggs do you?”

MARIA CROMPTON

” Over the years we oil and prick the eggs   to try and keep the number of geese down, because there are just too many of them.”

MOLLIE GREEN 

” So nothing has hatched?”

MARIA CROMPTON

” There should have been no babies. I’ve been told that there are no babies. No goslings were taken, only adult birds.”

MOLLIE GREEN

” So all of these hundreds of birds fly in to your park?”

MARIA CROMPTON

” We have numerous birds within our parks. Erm and the ones we took from erm Tipton, I don’t know whether it was 50 or 70 birds , they’re now back up to 50 again at the moment.”

MOLLIE GREEN

“These are the ones that have flown in, they’re definitely not hatching with you? It’s very easy to take eggs off.

MARIA CROMPTON

” No, No No, They’re not hatching with us, No.”

 THE EVIDENCE

I have looked extensively about the nonsense concerning complaints that were none existent which were revealed in another FOI request.

I have looked at the nonsense concerning health risks and SMBC’s own farm animal risks to the public at the scrutiny meeting, and I note that she cites notifiable animal health diseases,  yet cannot appear to see the bizarre logic in introducing unscreened birds into a farm setting where they are breeding turkeys for human consumption!

Her claims about geese flying in appear to contrast with the statement made by the leader of the council Darren Cooper in a later letter to a resident.

But what about the egg pricking myth 1997-2012, being put forward here by the Cabinet member?

VN850331

What about her claims that ” No, No No, They’re not hatching with us, No.”

Juvenile Canada goose goslings at Dartmouth Park taken 16^th July 2011.

Sheepwash Nature Reserve circa 1999.

Note the young goslings in evidence, but also note the Ryder house Block of Flats within the shot, with which Sandwell council boasted about demolishing. These were demolished in October 2002, which proves beyond doubt that egg pricking was not carried out at this site by the countryside rangers. Numerous goslings hatching at several sites were in evidence throughout the period when the council claimed that egg pricking would be carried out. IN SHORT THE CLAIMS ARE LIES. Note the council PR puff piece on youtube of the demolition event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7-6saeQjA

http://www.friendsofdartmouthpark.org.uk/images/No.%2025%20-%20June%202012.pdf

The above Friends of Dartmouth park newsletter is rather damning as a piece of evidence which shoots down in flames the council’s and Maria Crompton’s on air claims as lies.

Shown on page 3 are pictures taken at the park by one of the FDP group at a time when John Satchwell’s son, John Satchwell was in charge as project manager.

Perhaps the goslings are being “relocated” by their parents?

Goslings hatched in Dartmouth Park June 2012, 10 months before John Satchwell’s report which claimed egg pricking had been undertaken

At least 25 goslings are clearly visible in this June 2012 photo, and not only that but it confirms that swan breeding success were not affected by those numbers also, as some officer liars had tried to claim, and which the leader of the council Darren Cooper even stated in a letter to a resident.  

“Their aggressive behaviour during the breeding season prevented other wildfowl resident in the park from rearing their young”

Compare this irrefutable evidence with the nonsense stated by John Satchwell in his report just months later and Maria Crompton in her radio interview concerning egg pricking. THEIR CLAIMS WERE KNOWN LIES, BUT DID JOHN SATCHWELL AND OTHERS MISLEAD HER INTO MAKING THESE FALSE STATEMENTS?

VN850331

MOLLIE GREEN

“These are the ones that have flown in, they’re definitely not hatching with you? It’s very easy to take eggs off.

MARIA CROMPTON

” No, No No, They’re not hatching with us, No.”

IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS LIED TO THE PUBLIC, AND COUNCILLORS AND HAS SHOWN INCOMPETENCE IN POSITION IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN CHARGE OF SANDWELL’S PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. THIS ONLY CONTINUES ONE TO WONDER WHAT “LEADERSHIP” IS IN CHARGE OF SANDWELL COUNCIL POLITICALLY?

We have challenged Sandwell council to present clear data regards “the significant increase” in adult goose numbers. This is important because it appears to be an issue with which John Satchwell/Sandwell council is obsessed. At different times he and others speaking on behalf of SMBC have made different claims about goose numbers, which taken collectively weaken the council’s case in that they are inconsistent. These statements concerning numbers are set out below chronologically and the source from which they are taken. The majority of these we have placed in the public domain on our website.

According to the park oracle, adult goose numbers have apparently increased year on year.

 SANDWELL COUNCIL CLAIM TO HAVE CULLED 220 BIRDS- 50 AT VICTORIA PARK IN 2013 WHICH WAS VIDEOED BY MYSELF AND 100 FROM DARTMOUTH PARK- FOR WHICH THERE APPEARS NO INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION. A FURTHER 70 WERE NOTED TO BE KILLED IN 2014. 27 SURVIVING BIRDS WERE COUNTED THAT MORNING BY MYSELF, AT WHICH POINT JOHN SATCHWELL AND OTHERS CONTINUED TO LIE ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THEM- THAT IS UNTIL I MADE A FORMAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST WHERE THEN AND ONLY THEN THE FIGURES WERE REVEALED.

 1. “Large numbers of Canada geese are reported each year on Sandwell’s Parks and Open Spaces; as many as 700 hundred birds may be present at any one time.”

John Satchwell’s report to Cabinet member for Neighbourhood services dated April 2013

Reported by whom, where is the evidence and breakdown of figures- and the change in figures on the two parks in question “year on year” which shows a “significant increase”. How can this have happened if egg pricking was being undertaken by the countryside rangers, as the 1997 policy claimed would be the case?

2  “It is clearly evident the numbers have significantly increased to a point where by they have become a concern to public health and public safety?”

Letter from Maria Crompton to myself dated 14^th August 2014  

What figures do the council have to justify such an action? By what numbers have they increased and over what time period?

Just two weeks later she appeared to have invented a number of geese

3. “With more than 1,000 geese grazing in our parks and a pair of geese rearing anything from four to eight goslings a season, the numbers had got out of control, especially at Victoria Park, Tipton, and Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich.”

Statement made by Maria Crompton via press release/SMBC facebook 27/8/14

NOTE- NO NUMBERS ARE GIVEN FOR THE TWO PARKS to prove that the figures had “significantly increased”- THE COUNCIL HIDE BEHIND A ROUNDED FIGURE FOR THE WHOLE BOROUGH- a number we dispute in any case.

4. “To answer your question regarding the variance in numbers I can inform you that counts have been undertaken over several years and there is clear evidence that geese can at times be migratory birds therefore numbers can fluctuate up or down.”

Steve Handley letter dated 17^th November 2014 as part of an FOI request

This statement makes a number of contradictions which do not help the council’s own arguments.

LET US SEE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE WHICH THE COUNCIL HAVE AS YET NOT PRODUCED. WHO UNDERTOOK THESE COUNTS? HE STATES THERE IS “CLEAR EVIDENCE” THAT GEESE CAN BE MIGRATORY- SO NUMBERS CAN FLUCTUATE. DOES HE NOT SEE THEREFORE THE MAJOR FLAW IN STATEMENTS MADE BY BOTH JOHN SACTHWELL AND MARIA CROMPTON REGARDS NUMBERS IN SANDWELL AND THE TWO PARKS IN QUESTION? YES THE BIRDS MOVE ABOUT AND FLY BETWEEN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS- SO ELEMENTARY THE NUMBERS ARE NOT STATIC AND THEREFORE HAVE NOT “SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED” IN THE TWO PARKS. THIS WOULD REQUIRE DAILY MONITORING- LET’S SEE THE COUNCIL’S FIGURES OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS.

5.  “For a number of years there has been a significant increase in the Canada Geese population in our parks. In 2013 a count was taken which identified there to be in the region of 1000 Canada Geese living in these parks…

“The two parks in question had over 300 geese residing”

Letter from Darren Cooper to a Tipton resident dated 8^th December 2014

So from John Satchwell’s figure of 700 in April 2013 the leader of Sandwell council now appears to have acquired a figure of 1000 and now has arrived at 300 in just the two parks alone.

WE DISPUTE THESE FIGURES TOTALLY- THEY ARE INVENTION. THIS MEANS THAT JOHN SATCHWELL ESTIMATES THAT NEARLY HALF OF THE 700 GEESE HE QUOTES IN HIS ORIGINAL REPORT WERE RESIDENT IN JUST THESE TWO PARKS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTE UTTER NONSENSE. HIS BOSS STEVE HANDLEY HOWEVER RECOGNISES THEY ARE “MIGRATORY” DON’T FORGET and that

“therefore numbers can fluctuate up or down.”

6. “I would like to make it clear there still exists a significant number of Canada Geese within the two parks and at the last count in September over 120 geese were counted.”

Maria Crompton letter to Animal Aid dated 14^th November 2014

With this figure and the reported 220 killed in 2013-14 we arrive at a figure of 340 for the two parks- A FIGURE WE TOTALLY DISPUTE WERE PRESENT. THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE THAN 100 BIRDS AT EITHER SITE AT ANY ONE TIME- AND TO REQUOTE STEVE HANDLEY

“numbers can fluctuate up or down.”

7. “For a number of years the Canada geese population had grown to significant numbers, with recent counts identifying up to 1000 geese residing in parks across the borough.”

 “I must emphasise that it is not the council’s intention to cull all geese. Presently there are still over 100 Canada geese living in the parks and other geese will be allowed to flourish in our nature reserves, alongside other wildlife.”

Letter from Darren Cooper to a campaigner dated 20^th January 2015

So we get a slightly less accurate figure here, but still a rounded one which appears to be the council’s entire argument.

Cooper’s claim about allowing the geese to flourish was nonsense given that egg pricking took place on Forge Mill Nature reserve just 3 months after this letter– so his claims are lies and provide false information.

 8. “Regarding specific matters you raise, over 100 geese continue to reside at the two parks where culling took place. In the region of 600 geese can be found in our parks, nature reserves and canals within Sandwell. “

Undated letter from John Satchwell to a campaigner but after Darren Cooper’s earlier one.  

 So John Satchwell now states that 600 geese are present, including Sandwell’s canal system for which the council has no management responsibility. THIS OF COURSE MEANS THAT THERE ARE LESS THAN 600 ON SANDWELL’S FORMAL PARKS. IT ALSO MEANS THAT THERE ARE LESS ON THE TWO CULL PARKS.

9. “2.9 A report was undertaken in March 2013 which identified in the region of 700 Canada geese residing within our parks and green spaces. The count identified that two parks, namely Victoria Park, Tipton and Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich , had in excess of 300 geese within these two parks alone.”

Statement by Steve Handley and Adrian Scarrott 25^th February 2015

This obviously refers to John Satchwell’s original report, which did not identify any figures for the two parks, so one questions where these figures which we totally dispute suddenly appear from. WE ALSO QUESTION HOW THIS FIGURE “SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED” IN THESE TWO PARKS SINCE 1997 WHEN THEY CLAIMED THE COUNTRYSIDE RANGERS WOULD BE UNDERTAKING EGG PRICKING ON ALL OF SANDWELL’S POOLS?

 Recently we finally after “significant” (to use Sandwell council’s favourite word) delay got an answer to a question posed in a freedom of information request regarding how the council had arrived at their conclusions regarding numbers of geese at the two parks.

Q1.            Whether the Council holds any recorded information which confirms that adult goose numbers have increased on the formal park sites, as well as confirmation of whether the Council has any recorded counts of adult birds on the formal parks- specifically Victoria Park Tipton and Dartmouth Park West Bromwich.

A “I can confirm that in 2013, the Wardens undertook a visual count of all venues where Canada Geese were present and, in total, over 700 were identified. However, no recorded information is held.

With regards to numbers within formal Parks, Dartmouth Park and Victoria Park were identified as having the largest populations of Canada Geese within the Borough, the visual count identified over 300 adult Geese.” 

So we therefore finally  have confirmation from Sandwell Council itself that Sandwell council’s cull took place on the basis of a one off count undertaken by their dog dung finers, AND THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH RECORDED THIS LET ALONE GO BACK TO 1997 TO PROVE HOW MANY GEESE THEY HAD STARTED FROM, OR THAT THERE HAS BEEN A “YEAR ON YEAR” INCREASE AS SATCHWELL CLAIMED. THAT IS NOT A “SIGNIFICANT” INCREASE IN NUMBERS, IT IS SIGNIFICANT PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE SUCH A DRASTIC POLICY!

NO EVIDENCE CAN BE PROVIDED BY SANDWELL COUNCIL TO JUSTIFY THIS STATEMENT- FACT

It is clear from this that the council’s records are poor, and also we believe contrived even since after the cull took place which raises the question as to what real, credible and independent documented evidence the council has to prove that goose numbers have “significantly increased” or if they have even gone up at all?

Did the park wardens have nothing better to do with their time than start counting geese, and who (baring in mind that they come under the direct control of John Satchwell), instructed them to undertake the exercise? Why is there no consideration for other species being counted? It is evident that the reasons for the cull do not identify the geese as being a threat to other species, given the licence that the council applied for was ; “threat to public health and public safety.”

Given that it is claimed that they undertook the count in March (no date or time recorded or over what time period), are they not aware that numbers at this point in time would be different to those later or earlier in the year?  Did they synchronise watches and station themselves in all of Sandwell’s parks and open spaces when undertaking the counts?- Given that geese have wings and travel as Steve Handley acknowledges, there is the distinct possibility that they may have logged the same birds in different locations. Unfortunately controls and discussions on fallibility of statistics, which the council apparently have no recorded data for did not make it into John Satchwell’s briefing report.

The council also claim to be following Natural England Guidance, yet numbers alone do not constitute the need for a lethal cull or demonstrate a public health issue, especially when the council cannot when challenged produce any recorded evidence of an increase in numbers.

• “Culling the adult population at a site may simply allow non breeding adults from nearby waters to move in to vacated breeding territories. “
• “Before embarking on the large scale destruction of geese it is important to be sure that the birds that you are removing are actually the ones that are causing the problem.”

“Natural England Technical Information Note TIN009  The management of problems caused by Canada geese: a guide to best practice”

It is not evident that there is “a problem” in terms of public health at all with goose numbers- as was revealed at the scrutiny meeting where the council could offer no direct evidence from within their own sites.  It is less clear as to how the council were aware that birds counted in March at the two parks were the same ones there in July that were killed. There is no mention of this in John Satchwell’s report, indeed we pointed this out at an early stage. The only strategy promoted in John Satchwell’s report which was entitled “options” is for culling. Thus he does not take into account integrated management techniques mentioned in the Natural England guidance.

Finally in the week that the press finally caught up with health and safety failings regarding a firework fiasco in Brunswick park where a certain someone in SMBC  claimed that they would “take responsibility” for failing to adhere to health and safety legislation if something went wrong, it is quite ironic that the council appear to have little regard for the members of the public that they claim to be protecting from harmless geese. Indeed statements of description of the high numbers in the human crowd, (estimated 12,000+ did the wardens count them 😆 ?) being “aggressive” and “intimidating” appear to almost be strangely familiar to the council’s portrayal of less than “700” birds.

It’s advent calendar time for one last time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 24 of the story opens today.

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 23 of the story opens today.

JUST WHAT IS SANDWELL COUNCIL’S DIRECTION AND POLICY WITH CANADA GEESE?

It’s as clear as mustard.

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 22 of the story opens today.

Biased questionnaire. How to claim that a “consultation” has taken place to push through a policy where culling is still very much likely in the future. We have looked at this in more detail HERE. Of particular concern is what version of current “policy” was communicated to the public completing the questionnaires.

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 21 of the story opens today.

Non-lethal management. It has been tried elsewhere with success in reducing conflicts. Until Sandwell address their own issue of how they manage their formal parks and nature reserves, the geese will continue to graze on natural pasture available.

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 20 of the story opens today.

Forgotten policy. In 1997 the then leisure committee had passed a policy on Canada geese, which stated in a report that non-lethal egg pricking would be undertaken. No mention of this was revealed in the 2013 officer report, and it is conveniently stated that the 1997 report is no longer in council hands. This confirms that no consultation in a change of policy was undertaken before culling took place.