SOSCG ADVENT 5

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 5 of the story opens today.

Scan_20151205 (3)

scan0015

On not believing the story concerning “relocation”, I officially asked via a freedom of information request what had happened to the geese. The response confirmed that the geese had in fact been killed by the contractors on behalf of Sandwell Council in not just Victoria park in 2013 and 2014, but in Dartmouth Park in West Bromwich as well. THUS THIS CONFIRMED THAT SEVERAL OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE CONTRACTORS HAD LIED ABOUT THE “RELOCATION”.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SOSCG ADVENT 5

SOSCG ADVENT 4

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 4 of the story opens today.

Scan_20151202 (3)

IMGA0562

Arriving in Victoria Park Tipton in August 2014, the same fencing was noted to be set up on the grass. Around 70 geese were missing. I was told once again by the parks manager that the geese had been “relocated” to the Sandwell Valley.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SOSCG ADVENT 4

SOSCG ADVENT 3

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 3 of the story opens today.

Scan_20151202 (2)

 

 

20130710_093021

I was told by the parks manager at Sandwell that the geese had been “relocated” to the Sandwell valley. The senior countryside ranger at Sandwell claimed to have seen the geese from Tipton released and sent me three pictures taken with his phone and sent via his .gov email address. The location is clearly Forge Mill lake, part of which is an RSPB nature reserve.

It remains my view that these geese were illegally released, yet on enquiry later, the council would make other shocking claims.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SOSCG ADVENT 3

SOSCG ADVENT 2

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 2 of the story opens today.

Scan_20151202

20130710_063435

Around 50 geese were observed to be corralled within a fence. The pest controllers stated that they were putting rings on their “feet”, then claimed that they were putting powder on them to control “pests”, and finally stated that they were being “relocated” to The Sandwell valley. I did not believe a  word they were saying and started to ask questions of those within Sandwell council.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SOSCG ADVENT 2

SOSCG ADVENT 1

 

It’s advent calendar time. 24 doors mixing the fight against corruption with hope to save the geese of Sandwell. Door 1 of the story opens today.

Scan_20151201 (2)

20130710_063435(3)

Four men acting suspiciously in Victoria park Tipton one early morning in 2013. “Pest controllers” who claimed to be rounding up geese to “relocate” them. Out came the video camera, and the story had begun.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SOSCG ADVENT 1

Whoosh of wings

 

12189993_161696304181051_1465086426215128745_n

Whoosh of Wings

The winter air, cold, dense

Penetrating to the bones

Conveys with rising crescendo

A symphonic skein of geese

Trumpeting beyond

Barren trees, shivering, huddled still.

Whirling overhead in v-formation

I hear the whoosh of wings

Cutting air, propelling sleek

Down-covered craft

To an uncertain destination.

The honking dies off, fades

Crystalline silence returns

Its rightful place restored

As if never disturbed

Clove twain by anserine arms

Fleeting sunward.

Original poetry by Mike Nettles, West Columbia, SC December 2011

12029831_158153991201949_5791517918326466919_o

photos by Goosesaver/facebook

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Whoosh of wings

Revealing “Scrutiny”

We have now posted the full and unedited filming of the Sandwell joint neighbourhoods/health scrutiny meeting of 25/2/15 held at Sandwell council house. As we await whatever fate geese in the future face in Sandwell from what appears to be on the basis of a biased and flawed questionnaire which the council failed to advertise either publicly or on its own website, here is an opportunity to see how their woeful councillors deal with tackling the executives decision about another issue where they failed to consult on a change of policy.

Bizarrely it appears that the scrutiny committee annual report for 2014-15 appears to believe that it did “hold the executive to account in its annual report- which unfortunately shows up the committee for what it is- a head nod without any. Page 18 refers.

scrut

 

On this point  we would reiterate that Head of Neighbourhoods Adrian Scarrott at the time of this meeting was in full knowledge of John Satchwell and other parks and Countryside staff’s lies concerning the goose cull, but deliberately chose not to release the independent report to me until after the farce of the scrutiny meeting. Questions would have of course been asked if we had had this information, so it was deliberately withheld by this director.

That he chose to allow the unmasked liar to provide commentary on Sandwell council’s actions is indeed a case of poor integrity on his part which reflects badly on his professional judgement. We have noted this to the Local Government Ombudsman in a wide ranging complaint.

We have chronicled OUR CASE HERE.

Analysis of the meeting and the council’s decision to take “NO ACTION” is given HERE.

Just a few pointers to key questions/ statements made in the youtube video.

27.44 Councillor Webb questions John Satchwell over any reported injuries suffered by members of the public concerning goose faeces in Sandwell.

Councillor Webb: “Thank you Chair. Question to the officers- Have there been any reported injuries of members of the public slipping on this faecal matter?”

John Satchwell : “NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.”

28.53 question asked about any studies that SMBC have carried out regards laboratory evidence/proof of pathogens on the two parks in question.

IAN CARROLL: “I would like to again stress, and I can’t stress this fundamentally enough, this general licence was applied for by the council; only allows them to  do this method “to preserve public health and public safety”. Any issues regarding unsightliness, nothing to do with it whatsoever. Can I ask the officers, what laboratory evidence and analysis have Sandwell council undertaken of geese faeces on these two parks of pathogens present? Can you produce any factual evidence of pathogens in a laboratory report rather than just theoretical studies that you have found off the internet?”

John Satchwell: “THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION CHAIR IS “NO”.

30.47 question about biosecurity at Forge Mill farm where birds the council claim carry certain pathogens were introduced onto a site which breeds turkeys for public consumption which it sells as meat.

Ian Carroll

“If you didn’t screen the birds for any of the public health risks that you state (the geese) are capable of carrying, why did you introduce them onto a farm where you are actually rearing turkeys for the table to be sold at Christmas? Isn’t that a public health risk, isn’t it a biodiversity risk, and isn’t it a bio-security risk?

John Satchwell

“I would say no to that.”

Ian Carroll

“Well you’ve identified all of these pathogens present, but you are introducing them onto a farm  by relocating them where there are birds present for the human table, I would have thought that that is defeating your own argument there because if they are not harmful, you haven’t undertaken any laboratory evidence that they are harmful so therefore there isn’t any harm is there; that you’ve taken these birds to “preserve public health and pubic safety”, yet you’ve taken them to a farm where you’re serving birds for the table, for the public to buy and that strikes me as rather odd.

John Satchwell

“It is fair to say chair that the turkeys were bred in a controlled, a controlled, way that’s quite clear.”

 

WELL IS IT CLEAR?- DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE TURKEYS ARE BATTERY FARMED AND NOT FREE RANGE?

 

 

 

The Audible recording of the meeting can be heard by clicking on the link below.

VN850220

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Revealing “Scrutiny”

Changing policy- influencing opinion.

We are now in the midst of two things from looney Sandwell council and its obsession with exterminating geese from its two green flag parks, and be in no doubt that is their desired outcome of their green spaces staff and certain individuals who call themselves “friends” of these two particular areas.

The first is an attempt to show that public opinion is on their side, which it is not, and the second to use an ambiguously worded but leadingly biased “questionnaire” as an instrument to achieve this.

  • HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONAIRES?
  • THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT TO CERTAIN PEOPLE WITHIN THE FRIENDS OF GROUPS TO OF COURSE TARGET CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO WILL FILL THEM IN, AND NOT ALLOW ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEIR CULLING POLICY THE OPPORTUNITY.
  • WHO IS UNDERTAKING THE DATA COLLATION OF THESE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRES- IT SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS ONLY- NOT SANDWELL COUNCIL, AND NOT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHOM JOHN SATCHWELL CALLS “COLLEAGUES”.
  • WHY HAS THE COUNCIL YET TO ADVERTISE THIS CONSULTATION PUBLICLY OR ON ITS OWN WEBSITE?

We are still of course to learn of Sandwell council’s evidence base , of which it could offer none when our petition was presented at the so called “scrutiny meeting”.

The response to this at the time from Adrian Scarrott and Steve Handley was a “Statement of purpose” draft policy framework– again an ambiguously worded nonsense which claimed it would continue with egg pricking and non-lethal methods of management, (whilst ignoring the fact that they had misused a general licence without evidence being proven of a risk to public health and safety). The penultimate paragraph of this consultation piece however read as follows-

Wild Waterfowl Whilst The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) makes it an offence to capture, kill or  injure any wild bird, or to damage or take their nests or eggs, there are exceptions to  this act. Therefore, should nonlethal control methods be ineffective or  impracticable, the Council may consider implementing lethal methods of control.  Any such control would take place subject to the conditions of a general licence or, if  required, subject to the conditions of an individual licence obtained from Natural  England. “

Over the Summer I awaited the consultation exercise of this document but it never came, none was ever put forward. I made phone calls to Adrian Scarrott’s secretary, who could offer me no advice on what had happened to this. Apparently he was to hold a meeting on with Maria Crompton in August but what came out of this is currently unclear.

The questionnaire with all its ambiguous questions has now been partially circulated, yet there is no mention of the previous draft policy document. There is also the problem with question 7

“Do you agree with SMBC policy on managing Canada goose populations?

The question I raised was “What is your policy?”

So imagine my surprise  when receiving a letter from John Satchwell attaching a new “statement of purpose”, which he claims is now council policy. Well how did that happen? When was this approved and who by, at what meeting, where was the consultation that the scrutiny committee recommended for consultation?

As  consultation on this document never happened how can this be the current policy of the council, without it being formally ratified?  Stranger still, the only change in what he is calling “council policy” is the omission of the offending penultimate paragraph talking about culling. So if a nameless person ratified this document then did they also dismiss this paragraph at the time, and where is the formal record of this at any meeting?

The whole thing smells like crap to me, but it is the latest in a series of blunders, denials and deliberate misinformation emanating from the same council department, and it’s time someone went.

The desired outcome no doubt is for those who oppose the cull to tick “yes” I agree with SMBC policy, yet I do not believe that this document is the council’s policy at all- for the lack of evidence of it ever being consulted upon, or formal process of it being ratified as policy. In his April 2013 culling report, the absence of the council’s formal policy is conspicuous by its absence- actually ratified in January 1997 at a formal meeting. This stated that egg pricking would be undertaken by the countryside rangers, though we know that it didn’t.

THIS AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IS THE COUNCIL’S BOROUGH WIDE POLICY.

A new one for these two particular parks appears to be being formalised through subterfuge.

 

Scan_20151023

Below I have placed side by side the February drafted “draft statement of purpose”  on the left together with what Mr Satchwell is now terming “council policy”- though there appears no record of it ever being approved.

There are some slight changes as can be seen.

Scan_20151023 (2)

 

Scan_20151023 (3)

Scan_20151023 (4)

CLEARLY ABSENT FROM THE NEW “POLICY” IS THE OFFENDING PARAGRAPH PREVIOUSLY STATED. ONE CAN ONLY WONDER IF THE COUNCIL ARE ONCE AGAIN DELIBERATLEY TRYING TO MISLEAD OR CONFUSE PEOPLE WITH THESE TACTICS.

I HAVE IN CURRENTLY A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY CLEAR THIS UP- BUT I AM NOT HOLDING MY BREATH – WE ARE AFTER ALL TALKING ABOUT SANDWELL COUNCIL.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Changing policy- influencing opinion.

More pricks

A recent Freedom of information request has revealed the number of eggs and nests dealt with by Sandwell Council’s exterminators in 2015. This now gives a three year record of data which may tentatively lead to some basic conclusions about nesting habits and numbers of birds involved. Of course this would have been more complete if Sandwell council had kept official records when its countryside rangers were supposedly tasked with egg pricking from 1997, when the policy passed by the Leisure Committee in January of that year stated that they would be.

We do not believe this happened from either anecdotal evidence or direct evidence observed ourselves through goslings that had hatched. Many on Dartmouth park were actually ringed with BTO and darvic rings. This is irrefutable evidence that egg pricking was not taking place in these years as it was stated it would be. Consequently any increase in numbers can largely be blamed on Sandwell council’s own lack of following its own policy.

We asked as part of this request;

(i) I am requesting a list of Sandwell sites where egg pricking of Canada goose eggs was carried out in 2015, the number of nests identified and eggs pricked at each site.

The council replied with figures.

The tables below show the number of sites visited in 2015 which this year includes Forge Mill Nature Reserve where Pestex were observed and also Swan Pool. We also believe that Icehouse pool was also targeted, though there are no figures given here. Egg pricking on Nature reserve sites  is in itself worthy of discussion and we will look at some of the ramifications of this below. The figures for 2013 and 2014 are shown in a table below that for comparison.

 

SITE NUMBER OF NESTS 2015 TOTAL EGGS TREATED
DARTMOUTH PARK- WEST BROMWICH 9    51
HYDES ROAD-WEDNESBURY  1  
REDHOUSE PARK- WEST BROMWICH  1    5
SMETHWICK HALL-SMETHWICK  1    4  
VICTORIA PARK -TIPTON  6   34   
VICTORIA PARK SMETHWICK  2   12   
 WEST SMETHWICK PARK    
 FORGE MILL LAKE WEST BROMWICH  22    144
SWAN POOL WEST BROMWICH    18
TOTALS  48    281
SITE NUMBER OF NESTS 2013 TOTAL EGGS TREATED 2013 NUMBER OF NESTS 2014 TOTAL EGGS TREATED 2014
DARTMOUTH PARK- WEST BROMWICH  6  29  3  10
HYDES ROAD-WEDNESBURY 1 4 0 0
REDHOUSE PARK- WEST BROMWICH  2  7  2  8
SMETHWICK HALL-SMETHWICK  2  7  2  8
VICTORIA PARK -TIPTON  2  12  1  5
VICTORIA PARK SMETHWICK  6  21  4  15
WEST SMETHWICK PARK   2  7  1 4
 TOTALS  21  87  13  50

DISCUSSION.

Firstly it is important to note that not all eggs hatch naturally, and would not be fertile when laid, so it would be disingenuous to state that all these eggs would have become new goslings. Some nests may have been abandoned already before egg sitting had commenced as fighting between pairs can occur. This does not limit other species to breeding successfully, indeed the egg prickers may disturb birds when setting foot on the islands. Goslings are also prone to be predated after hatching. Numerous other wildfowl successfully breed on all of the sites where Canada geese lay eggs.

The figures also prove that not all pairs of geese actually breed, and this is consistent with mute swan studies over many years where ringing has shown clear trends that only a small percentage of pairs ever produce young. It would be advantageous to ring the geese to ascertain clear evidence of laying pairs and where these birds actually attempted to nest. This would enter some science into the equation, rather than the black and white figures offered by the council which prove very little.

The counts of adult birds on the sites obviously outnumber the totals of nesting pairs. If the figures on Dartmouth park and Victoria park Tipton are to be believed for 2015 this amounts to just 30 breeding and nesting birds, 15 male and 15 female. Clearly the rest of the flocks at these sites never attempt to breed, and therefore many of them are likely to be none resident with no interest in breeding at all. This is important because the council appear to not distinguish between non breeding ‘migrant’ birds and resident breeding birds. Natural England guidance clearly makes a distinction, so the council would do better to take these statistics on board when considering blanket eradication. There is also no science in rounding up birds without determining their sex, or if they are actually breeding birds or not. Unfortunately the council appear to believe that all the geese are likely to breed, which is not what their own figures or expert opinion confirm.

2.1 Canada geese can live up to 20 years of age and a pair of geese normally mates for life and can produce up to 100 goslings over that period.”

From report from Adrian Scarrott which is completely misleading.

The majority of the formal park sites have limited breeding appearing to take place over the three year period. This may effectively ensure no geese replace those which die on these sites, but it could also offer scope for others to fly in after the molt has ended. It could also encourage those unsuccessful birds to go elsewhere, including other parks where the council do not want them to go.

The increases in eggs at Dartmouth Park West Bromwich and Victoria park Tipton appear somewhat dubious to us. Having had occasion to go on both islands at Victoria Park, there was on one island only evidence of one nest. On the other island a pair of swans were nesting where the female unfortunately died. These eggs did not hatch. Neither did one of the pairs at Dartmouth Park, swan pool or icehouse pool which appears extremely suspicious.We hope the contractors are able to tell the difference between swan eggs and goose eggs when they encounter an “abandoned” nest!

At Dartmouth park two pairs of geese actually bred successfully producing 9 goslings which fledged. At Victoria Park, one pair produced 3 goslings, which were all presumed eaten by predators within a few days of hatching. Did the egg prickers deliberately leave these nests, or miss them?

S2570008

Dartmouth park goslings 2015

This has been consistent with swanwatch observations over a number of years, where survival rates at Dartmouth park are fairly good, whereas predation is heavy at the Tipton site, most prominently through great black backed gulls.

The inclusion of two and we believe three of the other Sandwell Valley pools which are not formal parks but “Nature Reserves” has obviously been  included by the council this year with the rationale of reducing numbers gathering at Dartmouth Park. The Forge Mill numbers look eye watering, yet taking into account the high levels of predation likely at such a site they should not at all be taken as evidence that these eggs would have all survived to become adult geese. The experience is quite different. At Sheepwash nature Reserve this year a total of 40 goslings were noted, yet of these only 3 actually survived to fledge- the rest all being presumed predated. There was clear multiple evidence of crow predation witnessed. A similar scenario at Forge Mill is therefore highly likely. The figure of 6.4 eggs per nest at Forge Mill appears high and is in itself a food source to other birds and animals. One could therefore question the rationale of egg pricking at such sites, given the likelihood that natural predators are likely to eat hatched goslings, and that removing this food source may only reduce the food chain chances of “native” species.

Furthermore as we have pointed out before, if those birds that had their nests addled decided to leave the site and fly to Dartmouth Park for example, the council and their contractors have merely provided the scenario that they do not want to achieve in facilitating this themselves through their direct intervention.

03-27-2015_154822(3)

The goose killers

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on More pricks

SIGN THE PETITION NOW

 

Last year we achieved a total of 3,122 signatures on the online petition. This was a great way of raising the profile of the campaign and provided Sandwell council with something to think about, as well as bad publicity. It no doubt helped prevent a cull in 2015.

So with the threat towards our geese still present in the shape of a ludicrous questionnaire that the council do not appear to want to advertise, this is your opportunity to show YOU care.

Please sign the petition HERE.

Science over superstition, Truth over lies, diversity over prejudice.

S3740006

SAVE OUR SANDWELL CANADA GEESE

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SIGN THE PETITION NOW