Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

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.

A belated report, though a story worth sharing for all fans of “The Beautiful game” as well as “The beautiful Bird”.

Whilst at Victoria Park Tipton last year, I noted some strange behaviour on one of the football pitches involving some tracksuited geezers. One had a bucket, the other a bowl and they were going up and down both wings of the field weaving in and out of the potholed turf complete with shovels in hand. It only became clear what they were up to when I noticed what was contained within one of the receptacles- freshly piped goose turds.

It was clear that given the lack of uniform that these were not employees of Sandwell council, who I presume in their maintenance of sports pitches- you would think given the statement made about geese “soiling pitches” would be keen to facilitate the removal of such “deadly” material themselves in “the interests of public safety.”

Bucket of turds

But no, these England Heroes and fellow  turd cullers  appear to have been doing the job themselves. Fair play thought I, ensuring that those poor little kiddies don’t go blind and “inadvertently swallow” animal excreta before kicking off.

But then what happened next shocked me and I cried “Foul”. One of the players simply emptied his third full bucket into the long grass, just a couple of metres out of the touchline, and out of immediate sight to the naked eye. RED CARD OFFENCE SURELY!

No referee turned up or Russian linesman to halt play as the task continued with more turds ending up in the green stuff.

It all seemed like a hopeless task, but just when the turds were getting on top, in from nowhere popped substitute “Bobby Charlton” complete with wallpaper paste tray and trowel chipping in to save the day.

The serious point to all of this is what these “match officials” were doing just dumping this material a few yards out off the pitch? Closer examination revealed goose pats had been formed.

Some of the turds are on the pitch- they aren’t now

Much was made in John Satchwell’s culling report and in submissions to the joint scrutiny committee about health risks associated with this one birds excrement, yet here is an example of the stuff merely being dumped out of their selfish sight.

One wonders if  obsessions with measuring things by time and weight is all part of the anal retentiveness that can build up the stress levels in later life- certainly it appears to be the case with some who participate in amateur sport.  Equally I can imagine having to suffer the misery of a father who believes he was a great unsigned talent having to try and live his fantasies through his kid who “ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH!!!”, by shouting at them on the pitch like some form of bullying fat controller. I’ve seen this aggressive behaviour whilst passing some games on different parks and it really isn’t pleasant at all- in fact you could call it “domestic abuse“.

But back to goose turds- if it is so much of a problem, the council themselves do not appear to be tasking themselves to remedy the situation themselves. There are chemical repellents available to deter birds from eating the perfectly prepared habitat of short grass that they enjoy grazing on. Why are the council not providing the amateur teams with the proper health and safety materials or a waste bin that the turds can be emptied into and disposed of in the correct manner?

Of course having encountered the stuff myself frequently over the years and never suffered any ill health effects, from something which is basically recycled grass, it is difficult to see what all this time wasting is really about. Are you men or mice?

But on the theme of management, I also happen to have stumbled on an amateur team that played in the hallowed elite of The Sandwell Division 2 – yes the mighty SPS FC.

SPS, Don’t know what the initials stand for- maybe “Self preservation society”? No idea if they are still going, but they were active just 3 years before the April 2013 report written by Mr Satchwell Senior. Why is this important you cry, well just take a look at who the manager of this team was.

Not only that but his son, Jnr and Dartmouth Park project manager, an integral part of the defensive lineup.

“mascot” Lol

It seems SPS had some mixed fortunes that season, winning some and losing some, at the end of the day… it’s a funny old game… shit I’m starting to sound like a pundit now, though thankfully I don’t use football analogies in everything I do.

At least one of these games was on Victoria Park Tipton itself, classed as an “away” match for some reason- not sure why there 😆

There are some interesting match reports concerning some of the conduct of the players- I didn’t write this- just sharing it as it’s all in the public domain already.

Foul language being used to the referee

The following week “Papa John” took the fledgling team under his wing by giving an ironic pep talk apparently

Were the changing rooms shipping containers. LOL

So here we have a situation where the main proponent of goose culls is in fact involved in football at a very amateur level. I don’t think I’m being unfair to the man in pointing this out, or singling him out, as he would the geese. This I’m afraid is just one example of the idiotic Darren Cooper era of Sandwell council where everything it seems revolved around football- particularly with West Bromwich Albion- for whom the ex leader claimed to sneak into matches without paying as a boy. The other issues being of course nepotism and not being transparent about personal interest being declared in the decision making process.

Now it may come as a surprise to Tipton’s answer to The Cloughs, but we were once “united” in support of the same team at Wembley Stadium seeing the Boing Boingers in a losing effort against Derby County. My visit to the nations premier stadium is not my only one over the years in seeing this team play- though I wouldn’t call myself “a fan.”

The area of Brent, reminiscent of a dog turd with a giant dog biscuit in the middle of it, has much the same grimy appearance as Great Bridge on the Tipton/West Bromwich border- so it could be said this felt like a home game. I also remember playing football on those park pitches with goal posts as jumpers and everyone naming themselves after famous international stars of the day. I was “Socrates”- I’d like to think the philosopher , not the bearded Brazilian.

I also remember watching England go out of successive World cups, swearing at an Argentinian and cursing German penalty takers, but it’s only a game, the world goes on and nothing should have to die for it.

On 15th February, the same night as the council’s scrutiny committee discussed the results of the “consultation exercise” into geese and parks, we handed in a second paper petition. This concerned the council undertaking non-lethal methods of site management, and also the way in which the council have brought about conflicts between park users in the manner in which they manage the formal parks and open spaces. With particular emphasis, this concerns what happens with the wildfowl that park managers appear unable to see are attracted to a creation of their own making.

Grey skies over the Oldbury Kremlin

On May 18th, the agenda  of the cabinet petitions committee included a chance to address it, and for officers to report back at a future meeting. This is the statement made in support of the petition, and relevant points are linked with supporting picture evidence. This blog post will be sent to the committee comprising of Councillors Crompton, Hackett and Davies who were present at the meeting.

The recording of the meeting can be downloaded below.

VN850347

“This petition calls on SMBC to undertake non-lethal methods of site management regards Canada geese in its formal parks and open spaces. Both ourselves and Animal Aid have made recommendations to the council in respect of this, but key to exploring why there appears to be a the “perceived” conflict of interest between these birds and other users lies with SMBC managers themselves.

This is an entirely man-made conflict, facilitated by poor management of formal parks and nature reserves over the last 20 years. Whilst Sandwell has ploughed vast amounts of public money in shaping formal parks with manicured lawns, its nature reserves have been left to rot and become overgrown jungles.

It is this key reason why Canada geese prefer to reside and moult in formal parks, and shun the nature reserve areas. The council “feed” the geese by providing fresh short grass with a clear line of site right next to the waterside. Meanwhile brambles and nettles are left to thrive, with 3 foot high grass in the nature reserves. The park manager even admitted under scrutiny that their management had not been being carried out satisfactorily.

Into this minefield let’s look at Victoria Park Tipton. Can I ask why it was decided to site most of the parks’ facilities in the area of Victoria Road/Queens Road including picnic benches near to where the geese are known to graze near the park pool? In minutes from the Victoria Park Steering group 2^nd June 2003, plans are submitted showing a picnic area fenced and enclosed near to the pool, yet these never materialised. The council therefore placed the benches near the pool, and therefore the geese. Why? There were also outline proposals for the park, yet it appears the skate park totalling £125,000 was the most expensive estimate for “improvement” costs.

This together with the children’s play area, the recycling facilities, the exercise equipment and disabled parking facilities were also located near to the pool.

I’m sure the people of Mayfair Gardens would have been seen to be fully accommodating in sacrificing their privacy by nurturing the local disadvantaged youth to the heart of their philanthropic bosoms, if the choice had been made to locate all of these facilities nearer to their homes and away from the “demonic” waterfowl.

Why are road sweepers alleged by park staff to be unable to sweep areas around the park pool because the paths were made too narrow? Why are they only seen in the park for special events like the “funday” and why were the council comfortable leaving excrement around the lakeside whilst conducting their “consultation” about geese, thus highlighting only the fact that their ground care regime at the site was in itself “crap”? Hypocritically the council claimed that this was a risk to the public, yet they appear happy to leave it there, and no direct evidence of harm has ever been presented.

Your 2006 Sandwell Green Spaces audit makes no mention of geese being a problem to members of the public. The recent consultation revealed that the greater number of people did not consider geese to be “a problem” . That really should have been the end of the matter. But questions remain about the council and its management of parks. We would like to see a statement from senior councillors as to the admitted lies told by parks and countryside staff about the culls, and also the exposed lies concerning the reasons for the original cull report, set out in our report “the prejudiced lie”

which was  submitted as a link with this petition. This includes misleading the cabinet member into making false statements on radio about egg pricking and also ignoring existing policy by changing it without consultation.

The conflict of interest between sports users and geese is also council managed. What do councillors make of amateur sports teams collecting goose turds in buckets and then merely dumping them in the long grass? Who has sanctioned this? Are the council happy with this practice- standing by and not bothering to remove this so called “hazard” that could be “inadvertently swallowed”?

The majority of cancelled sports fixtures are down to bad weather. It was stated at one park friends meeting that the council spent around £300-400,000 per annum on sports pitch maintenance, how much is spent on nature reserve mowing?

Manage these areas better and stop scapegoating one species for man-made problems.

Stop culling geese, it’s some of your staff’s behaviour that needs controlling!”

At the start of this campaign several large national organisations were contacted concerning the manner in which Sandwell council had acted in terms of both ordering the clandestine destruction of birds in two of their Green flag parks and also the welfare standards involved. Birds were crated up and confined in a trailer box- in nothing like their natural surroundings- transported to a farm environment and then allegedly one by one having their necks broken.

The RSPCA were not interested. This was surprising given the fact that they had become involved in the Windermere goose campaign in 2012, where no actual birds had been killed, but vocal opposition, including from this large organisation managed to avert such a draconian action. Perhaps Sandwell is so little known outside the West Midlands that it doesn’t matter what goes on there- and there is little chance of winning any PR here by speaking out. I for one would like to know why a post code lottery appears to exist for geese for this large behemoth of an “animal welfare” charity?

Animal Aid however are very different. Their ethos appears to be active and less passive than other top table “animal welfare” organisations- in that they are not about aggressive self PR – and they actually do care about the animals. Director Andrew Tyler and his team wrote letters to the council , sent a consultant to look at the two parks and produce a report, and have followed these up with a stark message put to the council setting out two paths that they can take- choose non-lethal methods of site management which will work and gain respect or carry on with abhorrent culls which will win little public acclaim.

As part of the quarterly Outrage magazine, I was asked to write an article about my experiences with this campaign and others where sheer persistence, has hopefully made some difference to the welfare of birds. Individual birds matter whereas to the conservationist, only the conservation status of a species matters. I am glad to say that I am not a conservationist.

So in Summer Edition 2016 there it is. I consider myself as part of a group of individuals that has hopefully stopped the council from continuing down a clandestine unchallenged path.

To read more about issues concerning white phosphorus poisoning of wildfowl at Rattlechain lagoon, visit the website here.

There are of course still many unanswered questions surrounding the bizarre pictures of geese being “released” that I was sent, and the silence of SMBC councillors to condemn the fact that their officers had both lied to the public and misled them on the need to kill any birds. It was their officers failings to manage sites that facilitated any later claims that geese numbers were “out of control” etc, which of course they were not.

Given that Animal Aid are what I consider to be animal advocates and have helped tremendously in this struggle, I decided to join them as a life member. I would encourage others to join Animal Aid in some capacity , and please be assured that your donation will go towards active campaigning and investigations rather than passive administration.

It’s been a while since putting any new blog posts up, but we are now in that limbo period of awaiting Sandwell council’s actions, and whether it intends to pursue “non-lethal methods” that we have been campaigning for.

Of course their own heavily biased pro cull questionnaire concluded that people did not want to see further culls of geese.

A recent Express and Star story, where I was asked for an update, confirms that the petition handed in on the same day as the results of the questionnaire were discussed at the scrutiny meeting will be discussed by the cabinet petitions committee. This currently consists of Crompton the culler, Khatun the councillor for Tipton Green who puts on fundays on in Victoria park in financial benefit to a charity where she is paid as CEO , and new acting leader of the council Steve Eling. Fat chance then that this petition will be given consideration by impartial people.

The online poll tied to the Express and Star story is concerning in that it gives the reader the option of deciding the fate of living creatures with the simple cold click of the finger, unlike the breaking of vertebrae.

One is reminded of the Nazi concentration camp guards who decided on whether those passing through the gates of hell should live or die, with a simple pointing of the thumb. In one direction instant death, the other a slow death. All part of the dehumanisation I’m afraid.

For whatever reason local media appear unwilling to print the truth about Satchwell’s lies and the Sandwell council maladministration. I suppose we will have to wait for the ombudsman ruling on the complaint, but this has already been admitted by the council. If they ignore it after that, one can only draw conclusions about the impartial integrity  when they protect the guilty, yet expose the innocent to further violence.

The online petition is still running and can be signed,

Here’s a reminder of some comments made by signatories put to pictures as to why we think that geese deserve life and not death.

Nearly one month after Sandwell Council stated that it would not be carrying out any more goose culls in the foreseeable future, we have yet to see demonstrated any action plan or signs of intent from this local authority to undertaken any non-lethal methods.

There have been a few reportable developments involving the council process. Following the scrutiny meeting on 15/2, the minutes of this meeting are recorded below, yet they are in my opinion not really an adequate summary of what was expressed.

This appears to gloss over the fact that a greater number of people did not think Canada Geese to be a problem in the two parks, which fundamentally undermines the council’s entire original unadvertised, unjustified and unscrutinised cull. This is what real scrutiny would look at if it were really holding the executive to account. This is of course separate to the officer lies which promoted the cull in the first place.

This item agenda appeared at the recorded Full council meeting on 8th March at the council house. For those who can bear to watch the full cringing spectacle of each of the scrutiny chairs giving their reports, Zahoor Ahmed is the last to deliver his. Skip to around 1 hr 52 and 37 seconds to avoid the rest of the unquestioned waffle proceeding his report. It would be safe to say that he is unlikely to be applying for a job as news presenter anytime soon.

WATCH IT HERE

The council now appear to be swaying towards its own agenda of “public feeding”. This of course has nothing to do with the geese, or even to the two sites where culling took place. In Victoria Park Tipton, the issue is non apparent, largely because trade waste dumpers cannot pull up at the roadside and offload their ghee/chapati  based crap. Unfortunately however, politically correct Sandwell Labour will not tackle this “cultural issue” in the areas that it is occurring- i.e Smethwick . Ironically this is the area where both the leader of the council who claims to have endorsed the cull and Ahmed have their wards. We are also of course now into the mating season again and votes of Hindu’s/Sikhs are important in this part of the world. Let us be clear that we do not have an issue with either of these groups feeding the birds a well balanced diet.

Another development is a letter from Jan Britton, CEO of Sandwell council to Andrew Tyler, Director of Animal Aid, who have supported this campaign throughout.

At first sight, the chief officers comments are to be welcomed, yet the final paragraph is open to question because the officers of the council have yet to express what they are actually going to do. If this involved widening footpaths, more frequent ground care to reduce complaints and the continuation of egg pricking then this would be welcomed. Most importantly the management of nature reserves and formal parks being undertaken to benefit geese being attracted to the former and discouraged from the latter by grass cutting/ leaving the grass longer is crucial to any plan. Yet the absence of this commitment being stated publicly or decisive practical action suggests that all that will really happen is the park wardens will lecture a few people (white single mothers and dads) about feeding bread to birds in areas away from “cultural” sensitivity.

That of course raises the spectre of fines for feeding, which as we keep being informed by the local press, this council is “cash- strapped” and needs to raise dough to keep its delinquent dependants in cheddar.

It is basically the changing human face of public park visitors  which is the issue that Sandwell council and the geese find themselves in, and although Satchwell et al may publicly deny it, they know that what I am about to say is the real truth of the matter. Pitched on one side are an increasingly dwindling stock of elderly white residents who value civic pride and spotless parks. On the other are a young and increasingly prosperous non- white community whose culture encourages feeding birds. Where this conflict of interest arises public officials find themselves in the situation of appeasement , and it is with regret that the one thing that unites the said communities- feeding the birds in an act of compassion is frowned upon. The most disgusting aspect of this is that the birds are destroyed for politically correct “community cohesion”, even though no-one ever asked people what they think, and when they do, they appear to speak with one voice.

For the benefit of even the most dim-witted SMBC councillors pulling the strings, here is what scrutiny should have considered, and which the Local Government Ombudsman will hopefully summarise soon.

                         +

                         =MALADMINISTRATION

15/2/16

A hectic day. Firstly a radio interview on Radio WM where I was cut off by the presenter for stating what is established fact- and evidenced on this website concerning officers of Sandwell Council providing false information to both myself and members of the public, as well as misleading councillors in a biased plagiarised report.

In short if anyone really wants to bother doing any research on this issue, which is currently with the Local Government Ombudsman, then see the following links.

• The Pest Control company and Sandwell council officers lying about “relocating” the geese to the Sandwell Valley
• Culling only admitted after submitting a freedom of information request the following year.
• Sent staged photo’s of geese being released at Forge Mill Lake by the Senior Countryside Ranger
• recorded phone call conversations where officers lied about their involvement/knowledge of the culls.-
• Park Farm manager
• Conservation Officer
• Complaint about lies upheld by independent investigator
• part one
• part two
• Confirmation of this by the Head of Neighbourhoods in writing, though after our petition had been handed in and the joint “scrutiny” committee had passed a verdict of taking “No Action” on an investigation.
• A lie about no lies being told by Sandwell council to another person in an FOI request!
• Lies about number of complaints about geese being high
• More lies concerning what “policy” was in the recent questionnaire.
• Historic lies concerning egg pricking, and this being reported to the Cabinet Member, who on John Satchwell’s report decided to approve the culling after taking “advice” from the Cabinet- for all they knew on the subject, then went on radio claiming that egg pricking had been carried out.
• look at our report concerning the whole sorry council charade’s prejudiced attitude towards one species of bird.

But who can be bothered to look into any of that when talking about some twat footballer and his twitter and travel swipe cards?

A mini vox pop from the outside broadcast at Dartmouth Park revealed that the people there questioned about the geese didn’t have a problem with the birds themselves, but noted the excrement. Well if that is a “problem” then it is down to the council’s groundcare to sort it.

What wasn’t really clear from Maria Crompton’s recommendations following the results of the questionnaire is if the council had any plans to carry out any further culls? We still didn’t really get an unequivocal answer from her, though note that she still appears to believe that egg pricking was previously being carried out- deluded.

In the afternoon, the latest paper petition was handed into the council house, calling for non- lethal methods of management in parks and better groundcare to reduce conflicts between park users, before the Leisure Culture and The Third (turd) Sector Scrutiny committee meeting in Committee room one of The Oldbury Kremlin.

On entering the room, the small delegation of goose defenders were met by the sight of John Satchwell, Adrian Scarrott, Maria Crompton and her partner Cllr Allen (as observer) on one side and Cllr Zahoor Ahmed– chair of the committee on the other.

Some time after the meeting had been scheduled to start, Councillor Phillips appeared followed by a rather flustered Councillor Lloyd, and then bizarrely as though at some kind of casual pub dominoes meeting, a scruffy looking Councillor Tipper. Three others on the committee, didn’t show. One wonders after studying the council’s constitution documents that this meeting was even quorate before Tipper strolled in?

Completing the room ensemble were a manager from sport and leisure, a democratic services officer taking minutes, and a journalist from The Express and Star.

Item 4a- the geese was somehow promoted to first item and John Satchwell paraphrased his report to an excited room hanging on his every word. Some of the old rubbish streamed out but it was clear that he was on his best behaviour on this occasion, (collar felt?)

After some discussion, we butted into the meeting at the end to ask the direct question that was lacking from the mealy mouthed report and recommendations.

The following is a direct quote from Councillor Maria Crompton.

“Can I just ask a question, Are you going to cull any adult geese in the next ten years, yes or no?”

MARIA CROMPTON :”We have got no intentions of culling any Canada Geese, or any other kind of geese at this present time.”

Some question as to how long “this present time” means still remains, though it is quite evident that much of this rests with Sandwell Council itself and how it enacts its proposed recommendations. If they are just content with lecturing the public about feeding, and not changing their management habits of their parks and nature reserves, then do not hold your breath when we appear at the same place in time again with clandestine culling on the back of ill conceived officer reports.

LISTEN TO AN AUDIO  RECORDING OF THE MEETING BELOW.

VN850336

noun

The following report is written with the intention of informing councillors/officers and the general public of the situation regarding Canada geese and the manner in which Sandwell council have dealt with the situation to date.

It is not meant as a stick to beat with, but as a different perspective from the point of view of someone committed to animal welfare/avian rescue.

The title is self explanatory, the message clear. There are no need for culls of any species, they will only invite vacancy.

The management of parks need not lead to public conflict. Canada geese are not prejudiced, and they do not lie.

The prejudiced lie

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.