Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

Perhaps they were

VN850223

Did they show her any evidence that could be classed as ESTABLISHED FACT? This is irrelevant to the culling licence given the legal requirement to adhere to the type of licence being relied upon- in this case we learn as ESTABLISHED FACT from SMBC that this was about preserving public health and safety.

• “native species and plant life were being endangered”-

Opinion not established fact. Where is the evidence to substantiate this claim, and also this point is irrelevant to the type of licence the council are relying upon.

• “members of the public were making officers aware of their concern about  the adverse impact  the  growing numbers of geese were having on park amenities.”

These members of the public are not identified, and it is merely their OPINION that goose numbers were causing any issue at all. We have learnt as established fact, that only 8 complaints were recorded by this council in these two parks. In any case, the licence Sandwell council rely on is for public health and safety, not “park amenities.”

Letters presented at the health and Neighbourhoods scrutiny board meeting written deliberately for the purpose are all dated 2015.

4 The briefing note did not state that other options should be explored, it stated that birds would be culled in two unspecified parks with egg pricking continuing. This can be read HERE as established Fact.

5 Established FACT,  it did state this, and it has received widespread public condemnation. “Certain sections of the public” is a derogatory term, which although well disguised shields the personal opinion of the investigator to whom this appears to stem from. It is a “certain section of the public”- as described above that want wildlife slaughtered in parks for their own selfish reasons. NB THE TERM “ADVERSE PUBLICITY” IS THE TERM USED BY JOHN SATCHWELL.

6 The cabinet member for Neighbourhoods was the member for whom the issue was presented. WAS THIS MARIA CROMPTON AT THE TIME?

7 Established fact,

The video footage was taken on the day of 10th July 2013.

Points 8,9,10 ESTABLISHED FACT.

I was sent pictures by Matt Darby, senior countryside ranger. There are some questions which he has never answered about this, at least to myself.

Point 11

“IC did receive some pictures of geese being unloaded from a trailer but the geese were not those from Victoria park.”

This statement is bizarre, and is not explained which it must be. The geese are clearly being released if they were unloaded from the trailer. If not from Victoria Park then where had these captured birds been released from? This is admitting to a criminal offence, and yet the supposed wildlife officer PC Rob Pritchard has claimed that no offences were committed, though he does not state as to whom he questioned or whether any of this was under caution.

Matt Darby took these pictures, that is undisputable. He sent the pictures from his phone to his Sandwell.Gov email account where he then later forwarded them to me. So how can this be? There are some serious questions to answer for all those who were involved in this illegal release as well as the person claimed to be “investigating” this illegal activity. WATCH THIS SPACE ON THAT ONE.

Points 12-14 Established fact

Point 15 John Satchwell did not admit to me that he had told lies about relocation, this is completely false. My complaint and question to Maria Crompton contained no mention of John Satchwell admitting to lie, at this point I had no confirmation as to what had really happened to the geese, though I suspected that they had been killed.

Only her response and the pathetic reasons for the cull were revealed at this time in her letter, and formally by Steve Handley’s FOI response. NB THESE LETTERS MAKE NO REFERENCE TO LYING, OR THAT JOHN SATCHWELL HAD ADMITTED ANY LIES. THIS IS ESTABLISHED FACT AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS ANOTHER LIE AND ATTEMPT TO REWRITE HISTORY.

point 16 “JS’s attempted deception was undertaken for the best of reasons. He tried to avoid offending the sensitivities of certain sections of the public who it was recognised found culling distressing even when proved to be necessary.”

WHERE DO I START WITH THIS ONE!

THERE ARE NO ESTABLISHED FACTS IN THIS STATEMENT WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN JOHN SATCHWELL “ATTEMPTED DECEPTION.

THE REST OF THIS IS I AM AFRAID  UTTER AND COMPLETE RUBBISH ON BEHALF OF THIS SO CALLED “INVESTIGATOR”, AND TO USE SUCH UNESTABLISHED OPINION IN A SO CALLED “INDEPENDENT REPORT” BRINGS INTO QUESTION HER INTEGRITY TO EVEN BE CONDUCTING THIS WORK ON A PROFESSIONAL BASIS.

JOHN SATCHWELL LIED FOR HIS OWN STATED REASONS- TO AVOID “ADVERSE PUBLICITY” BOTH FOR HIM AND SANDWELL COUNCIL.  THEY WERE NOT “THE BEST OF REASONS”  THEY WERE PURELY SELFISH ONES. HE MADE VERBAL THREATS TO MYSELF ON THE PHONE, WAS HE TRYING TO AVOID MY SENSITIVITY BEING HURT HERE FOR GOD’S SAKE?

IT HAS NOT BEEN “PROVEN TO BE NECESSARY” !!!!! QUITE THE CONTRARY BASED ON DIRECT EVIDENCE AND NOT THIS PILE OF RUBBISH WHICH IS PURE OPINON, AND BIASED ON BEHALF OF THIS PROVEN LIAR.

THE PUBLIC DESERVE THE TRUTH, NOT LIES, AND THESE ARE PATHETIC LINES WHICH DESERVE THE CONTEMPT AND RICICULE THAT WILL FOLLOW FROM THEM.

Point 17 oh she actually attempts a bit of criticism here of the council paying her £25 per hour of her time.

point 18 He has not admitted anything to me at all.

point 19 Another dressed up excuse which should not be presented in such a way by an “independent investigator.” SHE ACTUALLY SOUNDS MORE LIKE A DEFENCE LAWYER THAN A JUDGE.

I WOULD HOPE THAT HAVING READ SOME OF THE STUFF WRITTEN HERE SO FAR, THAT YOU CAN SEE WHY I WILL BE TAKING SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS MADE HERE NOT UPHELD TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, AND IT CAN ONLY BE HOPED THAT THEY ARE NOT AS EASILY FOOLED OR PREJUDICED BY SEPERATING THE FACTS FROM OPINION AS THIS INVESTIGATOR CLEARLY IS.

• In agreement with whose pretence, they appear to be complicit  in it, and against it!
• They are all at this point involved in the same deception as John Satchwell and should all be conducted under the same punishment as he.
• In 2014 they were still continuing the same pretence yet Chris Moore appears to tell a version that the geese from Victoria Park were “probably released” . I really don’t know where this bloke is coming from , but I do know where he should go.

• Pestex’s integrity as being “highly reputable” is one of opinion, or perhaps she uses them herself?  Some of it’s employees can be brought into question from the amateurish methods used in capturing the geese, lying  repeatedly to the public with abysmal excuses, and also one of them spitting on the grass.

Then there are likely offences under the Animal Welfare Act such as the method used to pack in the geese, the slaughter not witnessed independently as well as the lack of integrity of the licence being used for the purpose intended. THERE HAS BEEN NO CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS, NOT BY NATURAL ENGLAND AND CERTAINLY NOT BY THE POLICE- WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED.

• We have here admission that Sandwell council allowed geese which they claim when challenged about the cull were capable of spreading disease, yet they introduce them onto a farm where they are rearing turkeys. Where is the biosecurity here? Who could be confident in eating anything from this farm, or the health and safety attached to it, especially when revealed that there was no security of any council employee on the scene?  Is it not the case that unsupervised non personnel of Sandwell Council can wander freely around their sites?

• Were they under duress to lie, and if so by whom?
• Did they discuss the construction of the lie as it developed and became untenable as I picked it apart as they only continued to lie?
• They have a duty to whistle blow wrong doing and are protected from doing so in the officer code of conduct.
• Why did they not bring it to the attention of a senior manager like Adrian Scarrott that John  Satchwell was making statements that would bring the council into disrepute, as well as themselves?
• The recorded phone call conversations, which will be published in upcoming blogs will show how they lied and exactly what they said.
• I do not see how any of them can remain as trusted employees of Sandwell council, and I believe accordingly they should be sacked.

BOY HOW THESE THINGS DO ESCALATE JUST OVER THE CULLING OF SOME GEESE WHEN PEOPLE DON’T TELL THE TRUTH! STILL FOLLOWING HOW TO DO A PROPER INVESTIGATION MRS “INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR”?

DARBY IS A SERIAL LIAR. Perhaps it was the big green duck what told him to do it, Son of Sam style.

“I wish I could LIE RIGHT, up the the sky but I can’t……”

ON YER BIKE?

THUNDERPANTS SHOULD GO!

BACKGROUND

At the start of this campaign, it was made clear that officers of the council had stated that the geese in 2013 at Victoria Park Tipton had been “relocated to the Sandwell Valley”. This was expressed by John Satchwell, senior parks manager , as well as the pest control company themselves, whose representative on the day made numerous claims about what they were there to do, at no time stating that they were going to cull them. This information was clearly utterly false and therefore a lie.

Added to this, the Sandwell Valley manager Chris Moore, nature conservation officer Paul Smith and Matt Darby senior countryside ranger, all based in offices within the Sandwell valley claimed to know nothing about any “relocation”, which is illegal without a specific licence, or any proposed  cull of the geese.

Matt Darby was asked to send me pictures of the geese being released, and this he did in 2013, the email of which I have already published along with the pictures which he claims to have taken. He also stated quite clearly that he had seen the geese from Victoria park exiting the trailer onto the causeway at Forge Mill Lake, an RSPB nature reserve which is also part managed by Sandwell Council.

One of three pictures taken by Matt Darby and sent to me via email using his Sandwell.Gov email account matt_darby@sandwell.gov.uk

In 2014, after the disappearance of geese at Victoria park again, and seeing the same fencing set up in the park, I attempted to contact the same officers to ask what they may know. None appeared to be at work that week , and it was with some reluctance that I accepted to speak to John Satchwell to see what he would actually admit. During this phone conversation, he repeatedly claimed that the geese had again been relocated, whereby I informed him that this would be illegal. He also claimed that this had been done over a number of years, whereby geese from formal parks had been relocated to Sandwell Valley, Sheepwash Nature Reserve and Woden Road. All these sites were named by him directly. The phone call conversation ended abruptly when he put the phone down, this after making unfounded allegations against myself in a smokescreen attempt to change the subject and divert the pursuit of the truth, and his perverted version of it.

“CANADA GEESE ARE QUITE PAROCHIAL” HE CLAIMED WHEN STATING THAT THE RELOCATED BIRDS WOULD FLY BACK TO TIPTON- DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW WHEN THEY HAVE HAD THEIR NECKS BROKEN.

He also made verbal threats before this.

JS “…I might do something that you might regret and something that I might regret.”

IC “Is that a threat”

JS “Yes you can take it as a threat.”

• AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR, THAT HE DID NOT RETRACT HIS VERSION OF EVENTS THAT THESE GEESE HAD BEEN “RELOCATED” IN BOTH YEARS.
• NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH JOHN SATCHWELL TOOK PLACE BETWEEN HIMSELF AND MYSELF, EITHER WRITTEN, EMAIL, TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OR OTHERWISE, AND IF HE CAN PROVE THAT IT DID, THEN I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE IT.
• I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT HIM AT ALL SINCE THIS TIME IN ANY FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE.
• I DID HAVE THE MISFORTUNE TO BUMP INTO HIM ON THE BIRMINGHAM CANAL WHERE HE AGAIN ATTEMPTED TO PROVOKE A CONFRONTATION WITH UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS. THERE WAS NO CONVERSATION WITH HIM, DESPITE HIS VERBAL COMMENT

“YOU LITTLE SHIT.”

As officers of the council, I took their words at face value, as I have known them for a number of years, and believed that they could be trusted. Alas it now appears that these liars were part of a conspiracy of silence within the corrupt Parks and Countryside Department at this council , and I use this word carefully under the terms of the dictionary definition. “CORRUPT” adjective

This is a species conservation alert!

I would urge people to be on the lookout for that most aggressive of species The Labou rare idle swine. Please inspect your composts, garden sheds and outside toilets to make sure that there are no Labou hiding out waiting to devour your hard earned possessions, as they appear to like banking in land.

At this time of year the Alpha male of the group will typically sound the call in a trumpeting bellow “UP THE BAGGIES, BOING BOING!”, which is a signal to the rest of the herd that “the mating” season has begun. This prompts a plumage of red and yellow patches to grow on the labou, and they will gregariously gather in large numbers as a fixed action pattern to mass at your front doors, or even stop you in the street, but please do not encourage them as many of them are a “non- native” species, originally hailing from Russia.

Large numbers have been reported in the Sandwell area, and as many as 70 may be present at any one time. A large flock is often seen grazing in the streets around Oldbury town centre.

A general election and individual regional election licence to control their numbers at this time is available when they are fightless. Please be advised not to apply for this by post however as there have been some strange discrepancies of irregularity, which could render the licence invalid. This may be controversial if the public find out about it.

FEEDING

The Labou rare idle swine are particularly allergic to greens and kippers and will projectile vomit bile when given feed containing these. They are also extremely coprophobic towards excrement of other species, but enjoy wallowing in plenty of their own. Egg and flour suit them best.

They may foul your property at a rate of every six minutes with their deposits and this could encourage other vermin to do the same. This material is very dangerous if you inadvertently swallow it. There are documented cases of fat Labou punching members of the public, and they may also foul public highways by advertising themselves which could lead to children and families slipping up; so they may present a threat to public health and public safety.

Their lack of natural predators means that they are naturally tame and easy to feed at the bank. Measures to control their numbers have included oiling with skiddy material but this has failed to reduce their numbers to acceptable levels.

Under no circumstances, do not GET CROSS with them. Humour them and they will eventually go away to hibernate again in mid May.

The following was supposedly written by Adrian Scarrott and Steve Handley, directors of Neighbourhoods and Streetscene respectively. Both appeared with John Satchwell  to defend Sandwell councils’ actions at the scrutiny meeting. It was quite apparent from the body language that the two senior officers really did not want to be there and looked ill at ease throughout.

So we are left to look at their submission, in greater detail here than we had time to (5 minutes) at the presentation of our petition. More detail and scrutiny is required of the points made in their submission, and also the “statement of purpose” proposed as some sort of future policy. We are left wondering however what their “purpose” really is from reading such an ambiguous set of sentences. More on this in a future blog post.

THEIR STATEMENTS ARE IN RED ITALICS, OUR RESPONSE IN BLUE. WHERE WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR STATEMENTS, EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO REFUTE THIS.

Joint Neighbourhoods and Health Scrutiny Board
25 February, 2015
Consideration of Petition “Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese”

1. Summary Statement

Consideration of Petition “Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese”

1. Summary Statement

1.1 On 26 January, 2015 the Council received a petition entitled “Save Our Canada Geese”. The petition contains around 1700 signatures and reads “We the undersigned, strongly condemn the actions of Sandwell Council by instigating the unnecessary cull of Canada geese at Victoria Park, Tipton. We call on a senior officer to give evidence under public scrutiny to explain this extreme course of action and on SMBC to never again allow this measure to take place anywhere in the Borough, but to continue with non-lethal methods of site management.”

AGREED

1.2 The Council’s Petitions Scheme, adopted by Council on 2 September 2014 (Minute No. 85/14 (3), states that for petitions with 1500 signatures or more, an officer can be called to give evidence in a public meeting.

AGREED

1.3 In April 2013 the Director – Street Scene, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Environment, took a decision to carry out a cull of Canada geese at two locations in Sandwell, namely Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich and Victoria Park, Tipton. Further details are contained on the context of this decision and the procedures followed within the background details.  

THIS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS THOSE MADE EARLIER BY SANDWELL COUNCIL. THE DIRECTOR OF STREETSCENE IS STEVE HANDLEY. IT HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CULL, MOREOVER THAT IT WAS JOHN SATCHWELL’S REPORT THAT LED TO THE CULL. STEVE HANDLEY REPLIED TO OUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS, BUT NOWHERE WITHIN THIS DID HE STATE THAT HE WAS IN ANY WAY INVOLVED IN THE REPORT, AND IT DID NOT BARE HIS NAME.

THIS IS WHAT HE STATED IN AN FOI REQUEST DATED AUGUST 13TH 2014.

“We do not hold any information regarding the approval of the process; as such approval was given verbally for 2013/14.”

SO SUDDLENY IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE COUNCIL DID HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCESS, AND THUS STEVE HANDLEY/SANDWELL COUNCIL WERE CLEARLY  LYING WHEN ANSWERING THIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST. WHY?

THERE IS NO STATEMENT AS TO WHO AND ALSO WHY THIS REPORT WAS DRAFTED, BASED UPON LACK OF MEASURABLE EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN GOOSE NUMBERS, WHICH APPEARS TO BE RATHER AN OBSESSIVE PREOCCUPATION GETTING IN THE WAY OF VALID ARGUMENT OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FROM THIS COUNCIL. THE REPORT DID NOT NAME THESE TWO PARKS DIRECTLY, SO THE CHOICE OF CULLING SITE WAS ARRANGED BY SOME MEANS NOT REVEALED IN ANY CURRENT FORM BY THIS COUNCIL.

ANY FOOL CAN COUNT BIRDS, BUT HOW DOES THAT EQUATE TO INFORMED DEBATE AS TO WHETHER THEY POSE ANY HUMAN HEALTH RISK?

1.4 The Council has, for a number of years, made attempts to try and manage the numbers of Canada geese by adopting different control measures, namely oiling and egg pricking, installing perimeter fences around pools, both permanent and temporary fencing, discouraging overfeeding and installing perimeter planting around pool perimeters but these measures have proved to be ineffective.

THIS IS STRONGLY DISPUTED. IN 1997 THE COUNCIL APPEARED TO BE WAIVERING ON THIS ISSUE BUT STATED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PURSUING A CULLING POLICY OF ADULT BIRDS. THIS HAS BEEN MADE AS A STATEMENT OF FACT FROM THIS COUNCIL. 

WE  HAVE ASKED THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHICH SITES HAD EGG PRICKING CARRIED OUT, HOW MANY NESTS/EGGS WERE DESTROYED AND WHO CARRIED THIS OUT. THIS IS IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, AND IF THEY CANNOT PRODUCE IT THEN IT WEAKENS THEIR ARGUMENT CONSIDERABLY. WE HAVE RECEIVED THEIR RESPONSE WHICH FURTHER DAMAGES THEIR CLAIMS, GIVEN THAT THEY ONLY HAVE FIGURES FOR 2013-14. MORE DETAIL HERE.

PERIMETER FENCES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AT SOME POOLS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A ROSPA REPORT, WHICH HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CANADA GEESE. THIS FENCING WAS UNDERTAKEN TO PREVENT PEOPLE ON BICYCLES FALLING INTO THE WATER, OR SO IT WAS STATED AT THE TIME BY THE COUNCIL.  SANDWELL COUNCIL ARE NOT IN ANY WAY OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THIS CHARITIES ADVICE AND THEY ARE NOT A PROSECUTING ENTITY EITHER. READ THE WATER SAFETY POLICY HERE.

FENCING AT DARTMOUTH PARK WAS, ACCORDING TO MARIA CROMPTON, INSTALLED TO REINVENT THE PAST SPECTACLE, NOT TO DETER GEESE. IN ANY CASE THIS WAS INSTALLED AFTER 100 BIRDS HAD ALREADY BEEN MURDERED BY THE COUNCIL IN 2013 AND NOT BEFORE. THIS IS FACT, AND CAN BE EVIDENCED IN THE REPLY FROM MARIA CROMPTON TO ME OBJECTING TO THIS FENCING. I OBJECTED TO THIS AS IT CLEARLY PREVENTED ALL WILDFOWL FROM ACCESSING BETWEEN THE TWO POOLS- IN MANY INSTANCES THE ONLY PATHWAY THAT WILDFOWL COULD ACCESS NATURAL FOOD- EG GRASS.

NOTE THE PRICELESS PHRASE OF CABINET MEMBER MARIA CROMPTON, THIS LYING WITCH , JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER 100 GEESE WERE EXTERMINATED IN THIS PARK WHICH SHE KNEW FULL WELL ABOUT.

“Whilst it is acknowledged the erection of the fencing did disrupt the bird movements initially, evidence suggests the swans, geese and  ducks are adjusting to the physical changes AND THERE HAS BEEN NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO THEIR WELLBEING.”

YOU CAN STUFF YOUR PROJECT CROMPTON, YOU CARRIED OUT A MASSACRE IN THIS PARK AND YOU DESERVE NOTHING BUT C0NTEMPT AND SUFFERING

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF WHEN THIS FENCING WAS ERECTED IS SHOWN BELOW IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS, SHOWING THE DATES THAT THEY WERE TAKEN.

Fence in process of being erected in August 2013, after the goose cull on the lower pool.

swan fenced in with geese on the top pool (duck pool).

THE “OVERFEEDING” ISSUE IS INTRODUCED AT THIS POINT AS A DISTRACTION TO THE CULLING ISSUE. THE COUNCIL DO NOT APPEAR TO APPRECIATE THAT IT  IS NOT THE AVAILABLE FOOD GIVEN OUT BY PEOPLE THAT ATTRACTS THE GEESE TO REMAIN AT THE FORMAL PARKS, BUT THE OPEN GRASSED AREAS THAT THEY NATURALLY WANT TO GRAZE ON THAT THE COUNCIL THEMSELVES HAVE PROVIDED. THIS IS THEIR ONLY “NATURAL” SOURCE OF FOOD, IN STERILE VICTORIAN PARKS.

1.5 If the Scrutiny Board feels that the Authority needs to respond to points raised within the petition it may decide to use any of its scrutiny powers under the Local Government Act 2000 which may include instigating an investigation, making a recommendation to the Executive or referring the matter to full Council.

[IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]

Adrian Scarrott Director – Neighbourhoods

Steve Handley Director – Street Scene

WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT THE SCRUTINY BOARD HAD NO INTEREST IN SCRUTINY AT ALL, AND NEITHER DID THE TWO OFFICERS PRODUCING THIS REPORT.

Consideration of Petition “Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese”

2. Background

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.

THIS IS DISPUTABLE AND MISLEADING.

• NOT ALL BIRDS PRODUCE GOSLINGS,
• NOT ALL BIRDS LIVE TO 20 YEARS, AND NOR WOULD THEY LIKELY TO BE PRODUCING GOSLINGS AT A RATE OF FERTILE PRODUCTIVITY OVER 20 YEARS. TYPICALLY THE NUMBER OF FERTILE EGGS WOULD DECREASE OVER THE LIFETIME.
• NOT ALL GOSLINGS WOULD SURVIVE, MANY ARE EATEN BY PREDATORS. THEY HAVE MANY MAN MADE THREATS, NOT IDENTIFIED HERE.
• CLEARLY IF EGG PRICKING WAS CARRIED OUT, THERE WOULD NOT BE 100 GOSLINGS PRODUCED PER PAIR. FROM THE OUTSET, THE OFFICERS ARE MISLEADING ABOUT GOOSE NUMBERS.
• AS WITH EVERY STATEMENT MADE ABOUT THE GEESE BY THIS COUNCIL, THERE ARE NO CITATIONS AS TO WHERE THEY ARE GETTING THEIR INFORMATION FROM. MARIA CROMPTON IN A RECENT LETTER TO ANIMAL AID CLAIMED THAT THEY LIVE UP TO 30 YEARS, SO SUDDENLY TEN YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CUT FROM THEIR LIVES WITHOUT EXPLANATION.
• WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT GOOSE RINGING IS UNDERTAKEN TO PRODUCE A CLEAR ACCURATE PERSPECTIVE OF LONGEVITY AND SURVEILLANCE OF MOVEMENT BETWEEN SITES. THIS WOULD PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF RESIDENT BIRDS AND ALSO MOBILE BIRDS. THIS WAS ARRANGED AT THE LAKE DISTRICT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RSPCA, AND WHERE A CULLING PROPOSAL WAS THWARTED . THIS WAS BEING UNDERTAKEN IN THE LATE 1990’S EARLY 2000’S, ON GOSLINGS FROM UNPRICKED EGGS AT DARTMOUTH PARK.

2.2 The geese numbers within our formal parks can be seen as a constant source of nuisance, primarily due to the fact that their droppings, which are up to two inches long, are produced on average one every six minutes whilst feeding on grassed areas. They also excrete into water while swimming, potentially having an impact on oxygen levels within our pools and affecting the local habitat.  

THIS IS A BLATANTLY INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE MEASURED. WE KNOW  THAT THE COUNCIL INFLATED THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS MADE FROM AN FOI REQUEST.

• IT IS AN OPINION. THE STATISTICS CONCERNING GOOSE MESS ARE OBSSESSIVE ON THE PART OF THIS COUNCIL, AND MAKE THEM LOOK RATHER ANAL.
• DOES SIZE MATTER, DOES FREQUENCY MATTER IF IT IS NOT A PROVEN HEALTH ISSUE?
• WHAT CONTEXT DO THEY DRAW TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES A SWAN GOES TO THE TOLIET, OR A DUCK OR A SEAGULL?
• ISSUES CONCERNING NUTRIENT LOADING ARE PUT FORWARD BY THE LIKES OF WATER COMPANIES SUCH AS UNITED UTILITIES, WHO DISCHARGE HUMAN EXCREMENT INTO WATERCOURSES LIBERALLY UNDER LICENCE.
• UNTIL RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HIDE BEHIND HAVING TO DISCLOSE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, THOUGH THEY HAVE NOW LOST A LANDMARK RULING OPENING THE WAY FOR SCRUTINY OF THEIR EXCREMENT MANAGEMENT AND THEIR POLLUTION OF WATERCOURSES.

THE STUDY BELOW CONTRADICTS INFORMATION PUT FORWARD BY THE LIKES OF NATURAL ENGLAND WHO CLAIM THAT GEESE PRESENT A RISK OF “PHOSPHORUS” POLLUTION. THIS IS QUITE LAUGHABLE COMPARED TO THE PHOSPHORUS CONTAMINATION OF A CERTAIN LOCAL WATERBODY BY MAN.

“In the short term, nutrient loading by geese seemed to have no measurable impact on water chemistry in the mesocosms or phytoplankton. We suggest that the bulk of the nutrients contained in the faeces simply sank to the sediment where they will eventually become part of a benthic detritus food web or be cycled back into the water column during a mixing event. Therefore, the impact of these nutrients will not be evident until long after they have been added. Because cyanobacteria populations were unaffected by fecal loading, we, therefore, observed no increase in cyanotoxin concentrations in the high treatment groups.”

The impact of nutrient loading from Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) on water quality, a mesocosm approach
Robert L. Unckless Æ Joseph C. Makarewicz

• IT IS ALSO TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THERE IS LITTLE WATER FLOW AT BOTH OF THE TWO PARKS IN QUESTION. THEY CONTAIN LITTLE WATER COMPARED TO SILT WITHIN THE BED OF THE POOL. 
• I  HAVE BEEN WAIST DEEP IN THEM BOTH TO RESCUE BIRDS.
• THERE IS LITTLE MANAGEMENT OF FISHING AT BOTH SITES, AND WHATEVER ANGLERS ARE THROWING INTO THE POOL, BOTH FLOATING AND SINKING DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE EVER CONSIDERED BY THIS COUNCIL. PRIMARILY THE BIRDS EAT THE MATERIAL GIVEN TO THEM. CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF THE FISH?
• NO BOATING OR SWIMMING TAKES PLACE AT THE TWO PARKS. PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY REGARDING WATER QUALITY ARE NOT RELEVANT.
• WHAT MEASUREABLE EVIDENCE THAT GOOSE DROPPINGS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR LOWERED OXYGEN LEVELS ALONE CAN BE PRESENTED BY SMBC IN ANY CASE?

2.3 More overly they defecate on formal grassed areas and hard standing areas around pool perimeters, which impacts on families being allowed to play safely in a clean environment. They also foul footpaths, which restricts the safe movement of families. (See Appendices 1 and 2). A statement from the friends of Dartmouth Park in regards to specific concerns they raise is attached at Appendix 3 as well as a letter from Community Volunteer Gardeners based at Dartmouth Park.  

• THE IMAGE OF FAMILIES IS ONE PUT FORWARD BY THIS CLEANLINESS OBSSESSED AUTHORITY. THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE PURELY EMOTIVE AND OBVIOUSLY SENSITIVE TO SOME PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER ANIMALS AND BIRDS “UNCLEAN”.  I’M NOT SURE WHAT A FAMILY WOULD BE DOING “PLAYING” AROUND A POOL, OR IF A PARK OR EVEN THEIR OWN GARDENS COULD BE CONSIDERED “A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT”.
• THIS COUNCIL HAS A JOKE RECORD ON CLEANING UP ITS OWN ENVIRONMENT UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION. WE LEARNED THIS AFTER THIS COUNCIL ATTEMPTED TO STOP US ACCESSSING THIS INFORMATION VIA AN FOI REQUEST, BUT THEY FAILED.
• WE SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PICTURES PRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE MEETING.  THESE PICTURES APPARENTLY SHOWING PATHWAYS SOILED IN GOOSE EXCREMENT SHOW A VARIETY OF FAECAL DEPOSITS, BOTH SOLID AND FLUID, WHICH CANNOT ALL BE ATTRIBUTED TO GEESE. SEAGULL SPLASHES ARE CLEARLY EVIDENT IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS BUT IT APPEARS TO BE THE GEESE THAT ARE SINGLED OUT AS CAUSING ALL OF IT. THIS IS LIKE THE COUNCIL STATING THAT ALL DOG MESS IN SANDWELL IS CAUSED BY JACK RUSSELLS AND SINGLING OUT THAT ONE BREED OF DOG.

Black headed gulls and their shit at Victoria Park Tipton- are the council counting them?

 WHY ARE ROAD SWEEPERS ONLY EMPLOYED ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN THERE IS A COMMUNITY FUNDAY ON IN A PARK?

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED IF THIS IS SO MUCH OF A PROBLEM TO SANDWELL COUNCIL, THEN WHY ARE THEY LEAVING THE MESS TO GATHER OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL WEEKS, ONLY FOR THE PHOTO OPPORTUNITY, AND NOT CULLING THE TURDS?

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW OR WHY CAROL HARTILL ENGAGED IN OR BECAME THE SECRETARY OF THIS GROUP, BUT HAVING ATTENDED THE FIRST MEETING OF “THE FRIENDS OF DARTMOUTH PARK” , IT WAS A SANDWELL COUNCIL SUGGESTED ENTERPRISE, NOT STEMMING FROM THE COMMUNITY ITSELF. THIS IS BECAUSE TO APPLY FOR SIGNIFICANT LOTTERY MONEY, COUNCILS HAVE TO APPEAR TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY LED BID. THIS IS ALSO PART OF THE GREEN FLAG BUSINESS MODEL -FUNDING “KEEP BRITAIN TIDY” AS A CHARITY.

FROM MRS WELCH’S LETTER AND COMMENT CONCERNING PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES SIGNING OUR PETITION, (TOTALLY INACCURATE AND FALSE, SHE IS REFERING TO THE ONLINE PETITION NOT THE ONE PRESENTED HERE), IT IS CLEAR TO SEE THE XENOPHOPIC PARAMETERES OF HER ARGUMENT, AND HOW THIS IS SUBLIMATED INTO THE ATTACK ON A “NON-NATÏVE SPECIES LIKE THE CANADA GOOSE. “THE SENSORY GARDEN”, CONSISTING OF VERY LITTLE, OCCUPIES VERY LITTLE SPACE WITHIN THIS VACUOUS PARK, AND IS NOT WITHIN 200 METERS OF THE POOL WHERE ANY GEESE WOULD BE. THEY DO NOT FOUL THE SENSORY GARDEN.

Sense any geese?

THE FRIENDS OF DARTMOUTH PARK SHOULD REALISE THAT THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND NOT ALL THE USERS OF DARTMOUTH PARK. MANY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND NATIONALITIES SIGNED OUR PETITION IN THIS PARK, INCLDUING MEMBERS OF “SANDWELL STRIDE”. THEY ENJOYED FEEDING THE WILDFOWL AND THE GEESE, ONLY VISITING THE PARK FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND THEY DID NOT AGREE THAT THEY POSED A RISK IN THE MANNER THAT THE COUNCIL WERE TRYING TO SUGGEST.

WHEREAS OUR PETITION WAS SIGNED BY A RANGE OF DIVERSITY, SADLY THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF “THE FRIENDS OF DARTMOUTH PARK”, ALONGSIDE MOST OF THE OTHERS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT. THEY ARE A GROUP OF ELDERLY PEOPLE, MIDDLECLASS, WHITE, WHO ARE APPROACHING THE TWILIGHT YEARS OF THEIR LIVES WITH INFIRMITY AND ILLNESS AND THEIR NUMBERS WILL CONTINUE TO DECREASE YEAR UPON YEAR WITHOUT REPLACEMENT BY NATURAL WASTAGE.

IN THIS REGRESSION THEY RETREAT INTO THE PAST AND LONG TO RETURN TO SOME ROSE TINTED VIEW OF THE VICTORIAN PARK, A TIME WHEN THERE WERE NOT MANY FOREIGNERS IN PARKS, WHEN EVERYONE SUPPOSEDLY “KNEW ONE ANOTHER AND YOU COULD LEAVE YOUR DOORS WIDE OPEN”. (PERHAPS THAT IS WHY THERE WERE SO MAY ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN DUMPED IN CARE HOMES?).

 GLORIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL GANGSTERS WHO GAVE AWAY A PIECE OF LAND APPEARS ANOTHER OBSESSION, AS DOES ERECTING SOME FORM OF PARK PHALLUS, (THEY CAN NEVER SEE THIS  HOWEVER), POINTING SKYWARD.

TIME MOVES ON AND TIME WILL NOT REMEMBER THEM, WHATEVER PLAQUES, MONUMENTS AND OTHER FEATURES THEY CHOOSE TO  ERECT USING PUBLIC FUNDS, FUNDED BY US ALL, THE TAXPAYER TO SERVE ONLY A VERY FEW WHO WANT TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK AND PREVENT THE HANDS OF TIME TICKING ON.

2.4 Published reports show that the droppings of Canada geese contain several types of bacteria that are harmful to human health. These can survive and multiply in the droppings, giving rise to the risk of infection if they are inadvertently ingested, for example, by transfer from hands which have become contaminated.

ON THIS POINT WE SUCCESSFULLY LEARNT THAT SANDWELL COUNCIL HAD ZERO EVIDENCE TO PRODUCE OF THEIR OWN, WITHIN THEIR OWN SITES TO SUPPORT THESE STATEMENTS FROM THE LIPS OF JOHN SATCHWELL. CLICK BELOW TO CONFIRM THIS.

VN850223

WE ALSO SHOWED THAT FARM ANIMALS POSE A MORE SIGNIFICANT RISK THAN GEESE IN TERMS OF HANDLING AND FAECAL MATTER. EVIDENCE OF PETTING AT FORGEMILL FARM OF NEW BORN LAMBS WAS PRESENTED, AND THE COUNCIL WERE INFORMED OF THE PUBLISHED ANIMAL AID REPORT CONCERNING HUMAN HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE TYPES OF ANIMAL. READ THIS BELOW.

disease

ONE OF THE MAIN CITED NONSENSES CONCERNING GOOSE DROPPINGS IS CONCERNED WITH CRYPTOSPIRIDIUM. Cited pathogens in council promoted literature include Cryptospiridium. Public health England state on their website “outbreaks of cryptospirosis have been linked to drinking or swimming in contaminated water and contact with infected lambs and calves during open visits to farms. “ THEY DO NOT MENTION CANADA GEESE, NOR THIS SOURCE BEING LIKELY TO AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

According to patient.co.uk there were 3000 cases of Cryptospiridium in England and Wales in 2011, down from 4000 in 2010. How many of those were within Sandwell, and furthermore how many of those cases were directly connected from Canada goose infection?

IN ADDITION TO THIS OTHER ACADEMICS HAVE ALSO GONE ON RECORD TO PUT IN CONTEXT THE “RISK” ASSOCIATED WIH GEESE FAECES BEING LOW. A FORMER MAFF VETERINARY PATHOLOGIST THAT I KNOW COMPARES THE RISK AS “LIKE WINNING THE LOTTERY”

Furthermore doctor Timothy Ford formerly Microbiology Dept. of Environmental Health – Harvard School of Public Health

“Numbers of Cryptosporidium oocysts associated with Canada geese and waterfowl in general are likely to be minimal, unimportant, relative to the potential for oocysts shed from other forms of wildlife and humans. In my mind, there is no possibility that the Canada goose will ever be a major route of infection. To suggest otherwise is utterly ludicrous, and you can quote me.”

2.5 The behaviours of the geese also impacts on some of our sports facilities, preventing participation in sports activities. A letter from the Warley Sunday Football League expressing their concerns and support for action to be taken is attached at Appendix 4.  

WE DO NOT KNOW WHO PETER LOWE IS OR WHY HE SHOULD FEEL SO AGGRIEVED TO ONE SPECIES. HIS CLAIM OF NUMBERS SUPPORTING HIS LETTER IS AGAIN ONE OF BOAST WITHOUT CLARITY OR EVIDENCE. WE ALSO NOTE THE NAME “CROMPTON” BEING ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS NOT A RELATION OF COUNCILLOR MARIA CROMPTON AND SEEK CONFIRMATION THAT THERE IS NO CONNECTION.

EVIDENCE OF THE DAMAGE THAT AMATEUR FOOTBALL DOES TO PARKS IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIND EVIDENTIALLY OR ANECDOTALLY. THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM A FRIENDS OF THE PARK MEETING FROM ONE SANDWELL SITE, WHERE JOHN SATCHWELL HIMSELF WAS PRESENT, AND HEARD CONCERNS RAISED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT SOME FOOTBALLERS FROM THIS LEAGUE WERE URINATING OUTSIDE THEIR HOUSES, AS WELL AS DUMPING RUBBISH. DID HE INVESTIGATE?

SOME OF THIS CROWD ARE ON THE PISS

FURTHERMORE AT ANOTHER MEETING SATCHWELL REVEALS THAT BETWEEN £300-400,000 OF COUNCIL TAXPAYERS MONEY PER ANNUM IS SPENT ON THE NEEDS OF THIS SELFISH SPORT. NOT IF I WAS  HIS MANAGER JOHN WOULD IT BE.

ADD TO THIS THE SPITTLE, WHICH WHEN NOT BEING AIMED AT ONE ANOTHER IS PROJECTED WITH GREAT FREQUENCY ONTO THE VERY PITCHES WHICH THEY CLAIM ARE “UNSAFE” TO PLAY ON BECAUSE OF GOOSE FAECES. THE GREATER RISK IS OF COURSE HUMAN TO HUMAN CONTACT OF BODILY SUBSTANCES, WHICH COULD BE “INADVERTANTLY SWALLOWED.”

THE MOST “AGGRESSIVE” CREATURE ON THE FOOTBALL PITCH HOWEVER AND THE GREATEST RISK TO THOSE ON IT ARE THE PEOPLE ON THE PITCH PLAYING FOOTBALL THEMSELVES.

WE CAN BE GRATEFUL TO “GRASS ROOTS” FOOTBALL HOWEVER FOR PROVIDING US WITH SUCH MODEL CITIZENS WHO AS “PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS” HAVE BEEN REVEALED TO BE BITERS OF PEOPLE, WIFE BEATERS, SERIAL ALCOHOLICS, DRUG USERS, DRUNK DRIVERS WHO CAUSE DEATH BY DANGEROUS DRIVING AND MORE LATTERLY RAPISTS AND ALLEGED PAEDOPHILES. WHAT HEROES THEY ARE TO THEIR DRUNKEN HOOLIGAN FOLLOWERS.

OH HOW EASY IT IS MR LOWE TO GENERALISE ABOUT ONE CERTAIN GROUPING OF INDIVIDUALS AS YOU DO OF ONE SPECIES OF BIRD.

2.6 There is very little evidence to suggest that natural factors (such as a limited food availability), which could become more severe as numbers increase, act to control current numbers. A reduction in feeding alone therefore has little effect.

WHAT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN STUDIED? WHAT DATA CAN THEY PRODUCE?

2.7 Canada geese have few natural predators and so, with such a low mortality rate, adult bird numbers have the potential to increase year on year. During the breeding season they can also be very ferocious thereby excluding other indigenous wildlife from potential nesting and breeding.

CANADA GEESE HAVE MANY NATURAL PREDATORS AND A HIGH MORTALITY RATE  OF GOSLINGS. HOW CAN ADULT BIRD NUMBERS INCREASE IF EGG PRICKING HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT?

• FOXES
• CROWS
• MAGPIES
• GREY HERONS
• PIKE
• GREAT BLACK BACKED GULLS
• MUTE SWANS DROWNING THEM
• AND OF COURSE MAN, HIS CHILDREN, AND HIS DOGS.

WE HAVE SEEN ALL OF THESE SPECIES INVOLVED IN ATTACKING OR TAKING  GOSLINGS, AND EVIDENCE OF FOX PREDATION IS CLEARLY EVIDENT AFTER THE EVENT. IF THEIR SOURCE OF FOOD IS REMOVED, IE THE GOSLINGS, THEN THESE INDIGENOUS SPECIES  WOULD BE AFFECTED NEGATIVELY AS WOULD THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

• THE TWO PARK POOLS IN QUESTION ONLY ALLOW BIRDS TO NEST ON THE ISLANDS.
• AT VICTORIA PARK TIPTON, THERE ARE TWO ISLANDS AND NO POOLSIDE VEGETATION AROUND OR ON THE POOL AT ALL.
• THERE IS ONE ISLAND AT THE MAIN LAKE AT DARTMOUTH PARK, AND A NUMBER OF ISLANDS ON THE SMALLER “DUCK POND”. THESE ISLANDS ARE MANAGED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY OFFER LITTLE OR NO WILDLIFE VALUE AT ALL, AND WHY SHOULD THEY GIVEN THAT AS THE COUNCIL LIKE TO KEEP POINTING OUT, THESE ARE “FORMAL PARKS” AND NOT NATURE RESERVES.
• WHILST SOME ISLANDS ARE OVERGROWN, OTHERS ARE SPARSELY BARE, SUGGESTING PAST USE OF INSECTICDES AND PESTICIDES.

Poor quality islands do not encourage much to nest

WHAT EVIDENCE CAN THE COUNCIL PRODUCE TO CONFIRM THAT INDIGENOUS SPECIES (LIST THEM PLEASE) HAVE BEEN PUT OFF FROM NESTING ON THESE OVERGROWN AND  UNMANAGED ISLANDS?

THOUGH GEESE MAY BE LARGE THE PERCEPTION THAT THEY ARE DOMINANT OVER OTHER SPECIES IS MERELY A HUMAN PERCEPTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

“there is little hard evidence that Canada geese cause significant problems by competing directly with other wildlife” (NATURAL ENGLAND THE MANAGEMENET OF PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CANADA GEESE; A GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICE . TECHNICAL NOTE TIN009.

I AM CURRENTLY GOING BACK THROUGH DATA SETS DATING BACK TO 1997 OF SWAN RECORDS FOR SANDWELL AND SITE HATCHING SUCCESS. NO ONE IN SANDWELL IS LIKELY TO HAVE MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION, AFTER ALL I AM THE CO ORDINATOR OF SWANWATCH. THESE FIGURES WILL BE PRESENTED IN ANOTHER FUTURE BLOG POST, BUT I ALREADY KNOW THAT THE SUCCESS/FAILURE OF SWAN HATCHLINGS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY INCREASED ABUNDANCE OF GEESE. IT IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF MAN.

2.8 The Council has, for a number of years, made attempts to try and manage the numbers of Canada geese by adopting different control measures namely oiling and egg pricking, installing perimeter fences around pools, both permanent and temporary fencing, discouraging overfeeding and installing perimeter planting around pool perimeters but these measures have proved to be ineffective.

THIS IS COMPLETELY DISPUTED, AS STATED ABOVE.

2.9 A count 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. In light of this, the Director looked to alternative methods to control the geese population.  

THE FIGURES ARE DISPUTED, AND AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THE COUNCIL HAVE CITED DIFFERENT FIGURES CONCERNING GEESE AT DIFFERENT TIMES. THE 300+ FIGURE IS NONSENSE. IN MARCH THE MAJORITY OF GEESE AT VICTORIA PARK TIPTON HAVE BY THIS TIME MOVED TO SHEEPWASH NATURE RESERVE TO BREED. THE RETURNING NON BREEDERS MAY INCREASE THE NUMBERS AT THIS SITE BY JULY/AUGUST IN TIME TO MOULT, BUT NOT BEFORE. THIS FIGURE IS A LIE. IN HAVING VISITED THIS PARK FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS I HAVE NEVER SEEN IN EXCESS OF 100 GEESE AT ANY ONE TIME, AND NEVER OUTSIDE OF THE MOULT.

THE FACT THAT GEESE ON THIS PARK AFTER THE CULL HAVE ONCE AGAIN LEFT THIS SITE, WITH UNDER 20 NOW “RESIDENT” CONFIRMS THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS CORRECT. IF SANDWELL COUNCIL WERE IN ANY WAY CREDIBLE EXPERTS ON THIS ISSUE, THEY WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE NUMBER OF BIRDS AT SHEEPWASH HAS NOW INCREASED- HAVING COME FROM THIS PARK.

2.10 In order to cull geese the Council had to obtain a licence from Natural England. Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the decision to apply for this licence, and to proceed with the cull, was taken by the Director – Street Scene, in accordance with the responsibilities associated with his post. Although no authority was required from the Cabinet Member for Highways and Environment, nor was it a decision to be taken under the Director’s delegated responsibility, a political steer was sought on the matter.

THIS STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE COUNCIL DID NOT HAVE TO APPLY FOR A LICENCE, THEY MERELY HAD TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN GENERAL LICENCE, WHICH THEY NOW APPEAR TO BE UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE, BY THEIR LACK OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY.

BY STATING THAT HE FOLLOWED SOME PROCEDURE, STEVE HANDLEY IS BY THIS ADMISSION SHOWING THAT HE DID NOT, GIVEN HIS TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT OF LICENSING. NATURAL ENGLAND GUIDANCE CLEARLY STATES ON THE LICENCE THAT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE APPLIED FOR, SO WHY WOULD HE THEN HAVE APPLIED FOR A LICENCE? NATURAL ENGLAND ALSO STATE IN A FOI REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE NOT HAD ANY CORRESPONDENCE WITH SANDWELL COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE.

2.11 The Cabinet Member for Highways and Environment was presented with a briefing report outlining the issue and a proposed way forward. (See Appendix 5). The Cabinet Member prudently sought to gain a direction from the wider Executive and discussed the matter at an informal meeting of the Cabinet.

THERE IS NO RECORDED EVIDENCE OF THIS, IN WHAT WAS A CLEAR CHANGE OF POLICY. NO RECORD OF THE DECISION EQUATES TO LIES AND CORRUPTION IN THIS COUNCIL, WITH UNPOPULAR DECISIONS APPEARING TO BE ERASED OR NEVER DISCUSSED. THE REPORT FROM APRIL 2103 IS PRESENTED TO “THE CABINET MEMBER FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES”, ACCORDING TO THE TITLE OF THE REPORT- THE POST FOR “HIGHWAYS AND ENVIRONMENT DID NOT THEN EVEN EXIST!

 I WISH THIS COUNCIL WOULD NOT KEEP DIGGING THEMSELVES A HOLE IN WHAT IS AN INVENTED, UNBELIEVABLE SET OF LIES.

2.12 Following consideration of this matter at a political level, the Director instructed officers to proceed with obtaining the relevant permissions to proceed with the course of action.

ACCORDING TO JOHN SATCHWELL, HE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A LICENCE WHEN QUESTIONED ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK FOOTAGE OF PESTEX ROUNDING UP GEESE ON HIS PARK. HE WAS ADAMANT THAT GEESE WERE BEING “RELOCATED” TO THE SANDWELL VALLEY EVEN IN 2014. ONCE AGAIN IT IS WORTH REPEATING STEVE HANDLEY’S EARLIER STATEMENT-

“We do not hold any information regarding the approval of the process; as such approval was given verbally for 2013/14.”

HE IS A LIAR.

2.13 The Council employed a local pest control company to undertake egg pricking /oiling and to undertake a culling process in the two parks identified. Strict guidelines were followed, as stipulated by Natural England technical information note TIN046. (See Appendix 6). The gathering of the geese was undertaken during the moulting season during the months of May/June.

• THIS STATEMENT COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS THEIR CLAIM TO BE UNDERTAKING EGG PRICKING OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. THE EMAIL TO PESTEX WAS OBTAINED BY US AGAIN USING FOI.
• THE GEESE DO NOT MOULT IN MAY/JUNE, THEY ARE STILL HATCHING NESTS INTO MAY, SO WHEN WAS THE EGG PRICKING BEING UNDERTAKEN?
• PESTEX WERE VIDEOED ROUNDING UP GEESE IN VICTORIA PARK TIPTON ON 10TH JULY 2013. ARE THIS COUNCIL FACTUALLY INCOMPETENT?
• GEESE WERE NOTED TO BE MISSING IN VICTOIRA PARK IN 2014 ON 17TH JULY. THIS IS THE DATE WHEN THEY WERE ROUNDED UP AND KILLED.

WE HAVE ALWAYS DISPUTED THE NUMBER OF GEESE ALLEGED TO BE PRESENT AND TAKEN IN DARTMOUTH PARK IN 2013.

SANDWELL COUNCIL, AGAIN VIA STEVE HANDLEY, HAVE STATED IN AN FOI REQUEST THAT NO ONE EMPLOYED BY SANDWELL COUNCIL WAS EVEN PRESENT WHEN THE BIRDS WERE KILLED. NEITHER COULD ANY OF THEIR OFFICERS BRIEF MARIA CROMPTON WHEN QUESTIONED ON THE RADIO AS TO HOW THE GEESE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN KILLED.

2.14 During 2013 and 2014 a total of 220 geese were culled in Victoria Park and Dartmouth Park. There are still over 100 Canada geese at these two locations.  

 THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. THERE ARE CURRENTLY LESS THAN 20 GEESE AT VICTORIA PARK TIPTON AND AROUND 40 GEESE AT DARTMOUTH PARK ON THE TWO POOLS.

2.15 The briefing report to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Environment highlighted that there could be a public concern from the actions taken, and officers would gauge this public reaction. Following public reaction the Council has drafted a Statement of Purpose Policy in relation to the control of geese within formal parks. (See Appendix 7). The Board’s views are sought on the draft policy as a basis of further consultation.

• THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT SHOW HOW THE OFFICERS HAVE GAUGED THE PUBLIC REACTION.
• THEY CHOSE IN THIS BIASED REPORT TO INCLUDE LETTERS FROM SATCHWELL’S CRONIES, YET EXCLUDE LETTERS OF OBJECTION FROM ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS ANIMAL AID, THE NATIONAL SWAN CONVENTION AND SWAN RESCUE- A RESOURCE WHICH ITS COUNCIL HAVE USED TO DUMP BIRDS OFF ITS SITES IN THE PAST WHEN INJURED BY MISMANAGEMENT OF ANGLING.
• THE POLICY IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER ANY GEESE IN THE FUTURE WILL BE KILLED, HOW THIS WILL BE DECIDED AND WHAT MEASURABLE CRITERIA THOSE TAKING THE DECISION WILL BE GUIDED BY.
• A FEW COMPLAINTS FROM A FEW USUAL SUSPECTS IS NOT A VALID REASON TO CULL MORE HEALTHY BIRDS.

2.16 The culling process was to address the issues within our formal parks and there was never any intention to cull geese within our Nature Reserves and Countryside areas.

THE CULLING PROCESS COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE GEESE BEING A PROVEN RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY, AS EXPRESSED UNDER LAW BY THE GENERAL LICENCE THAT THE COUNCIL CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN USING, BUT TO WHICH THEY ARE UNABLE TO PRODUCE MUCH EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN THAT THE GEESE IN THE TWO PARKS WERE A CREDIBLE RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY.

THE IDIOTS DO NOT APPEAR TO APPRECIATE THAT IF THEY PRICKED EGGS WITHIN THE NATURE RESERVE SITES THEY HASTENED THE DEPARTURE OF THE GEESE TO THE INFORMAL PARKS, THUS CREATING THEIR OWN PERCEIVED PROBLEM OF GOOSE NUMBERS.

3. Options

3.1 If the Scrutiny Board feels that the Authority needs to respond to points raised within the petition it may decide to use any of its scrutiny powers under the Local Government Act 2000, as follows to:-

i) instigate an investigation; ii) make recommendations to the Council Executive; iii) arrange for the matter to be considered at a meeting of Council;

3.2 The Board may also choose to take no further action on the matter if it is satisfied with the action taken by officers.

3.3 The Board’s views are also sought on the draft policy as a basis of further consultation.  

WE KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THIS, BUT NOT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCILLORS IN PRIVATE. THERE IS NO FORMAL RECORD OF ANY VOTE, NOR WHY THEY DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION.

Source Documents Briefing Document to Cabinet Member Natural England Technical Information Note TIN046

References Clark, Larry. “A review of pathogens of agricultural and human health interest found in Canada geese.” USDA National Wildlife Research Center-Staff Publications (2003): 205.

Converse, Kathryn, et al. “Screening for potential human pathogens in fecal material deposited by resident Canada geese on areas of public utility” USGS National Wildlife Health Centre (1999)

Kullas, Heather, et al. “Prevalence of Escherichia coli serogroups and human virulence factors in faeces of urban Canada geese (Branta canadensis).” International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12.2 (2002): 153-162.

Moriarty, E. M., et al. “Survival of Escherichia coli, enterococci and Campylobacter jejuni in Canada goose faeces on pasture.” Zoonoses and public
 

THESE SOURCES ADD UP TO NOTHING. ONCE AGAIN THE ONLY VALID EVIDENCE THAT THE COUNCIL COULD PRODUCE WOULD BE THAT TAKEN FROM WITHIN ITS OWN PARK BOUNDARIES. THEY FAILED TO DO THIS AND SO THE THREAT POSED BY THE GEESE, THE “DAMAGE” THAT THEY POSE AND THE “RISK” IS MERELY AN OPINION UNMEASURED BY ANY RELEVANT DATA SET AND CONTRIVED BY VISUAL OBSERVATION WITHOUT COLLATING ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE.

It was with little surprise that the joint Health and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny board decided to take “no action” regarding their council’s clandestine cull of Canada geese, overseen by the loose cannon Parks manager John Satchwell.

No surprise because all the councillors belong to the Labour party who occupy 70 of the 72 council seats in this rotten borough, (though 2 cabinet members have now stood down and resigned at least temporarily from the party over allegations of wrongdoing.)

With this context, the deck was always stacked; whatever argument we presented, their decision was made before the meeting had even started. The councillors had three options outlined-

1To take “no action”- basically backing the cull without taking any further questions.

2. Referring the matter to full council- Not really anything other than a gesture for more councillors to ask questions and stack the deck even further in the council’s favour.

3. Launch an investigation. This was the only action that we supported because there is a clear case to answer that the officer overseeing this cull and the process behind it was flawed, totally off the record books and can also be shown to be illegal.

The bizarre “statement of purpose” document will be looked at in more detail in the weeks to come, but this indicates a change of policy, whereby it also admits that they did not have one prior to this, but this does not however appear to be the case.

Many years ago in 1997, there were reports in the local media that Sandwell would be culling geese. It never happened. I wrote a letter, and received the following response from the man in charge of parks at the time, Paul Cosgrove. This clearly states that the council would be maintaining egg pricking, though we know from Sandwell council sources that over the last 18 years this has not been happening to the extent that they claim. If it had then where have all the extra geese come from?

A change of policy is “maladministration” if not properly consulted

Fast forward to 2013, it appears that this policy went out of the window in an unapproved by any “change of policy” to exterminate 220 geese in two  parks ; one where the now parks manager lives, and his son of the same name is project manager of the other.

They think people have short memories.

The committee was told that the licence that Satchwell and cullers are relying on (and which you do not have to “apply for”, was clearly aimed at reducing “the risk to public health and public safety.”

In addition to this Cabinet member Maria Crompton, in a letter to myself dated 14^th August 2014 states

“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.”

There are clear guidance lines stipulated by Natural England that the licence should not be used as a general extermination of something seen as “a nuisance”. “Concern” is not a valid reason for killing Canada geese in itself. There needs to be proof. Dogs can be dangerous but they are not all killed. Cars can be driven out of control, alcohol can be consumed in large quantities…. you get the picture

This General licence can be read in full HERE..

“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 and 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.” 

 

WARNING 
Failure  to  act  within  the  purpose  of  this  licence  as  set  out  in  paragraph  1  or  failure  to  comply with the 
terms and conditions may mean that the licence cannot be relied upon and an offence could therefore be 
committed.  The maximum penalty available for an  offence under the Act is, at the time of the issue  of 
this licence, a level 5 fine (£5000) and/or a six month custodial sentence. 
 
Issued for and on behalf of Natural England on  
31st  December 2013 

BUT WHEN CHALLENGED AT THE SCRUTINY MEETING TO PROVE THAT THE GEESE WERE A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DISPATCHWELL AND CO FAILED WOEFULLY TO PROVE ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

On the issue of accidents resulting from slippage of faecal matter, an issue which Satchwell and co wanted to make a big deal out of, but only showed that they had left it there for the photo opportunity. HERE IS WHAT WAS LEARNT AT THE MEETING.

Councillor Sandars: “I see councillor Webb.”

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.”

NO AWARENESS OF ANY INJURY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS A RESULT OF SLIPPAGE ON GOOSE FAECES ACCORDING TO JOHN SATCHWELL.

LISTEN TO THIS RECORDED EVIDENCE BELOW.

VN850222

On the issue of Sandwell council having any laboratory evidence to prove that they had determined direct evidence of a threat to public health and public safety from pathogens in the two parks where they carried out culling for this supposed purpose. HERE IS WHAT WAS LEARNT AT THE MEETING.

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”.

NO LABORATORY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY SANDWELL COUNCIL ACCORDING TO JOHN SATCHWELL

LISTEN TO THIS RECORDED EVIDENCE BELOW.

VN850223

SCRUTINY SUMMARY

• OVER 1700 PEOPLE SIGNED THIS PAPER PETITION CALLING FOR SCRUTINY- AND OVER 3000 THE ONLINE PETITION, YET SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” TOOK “NO ACTION”
• THEIR OFFICERS COULD PRODUCE NO FACTUAL OR DIRECT EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM GOOSE DROPPINGS IN THE TWO SANDWELL PARKS, YET SANDWELL LABOUR  “SCRUTINY” TOOK “NO ACTION”
• NO LABORATORY EVIDENCE OF ANY PATHOGENS IN ANY GOOSE DROPPINGS THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL POINT TO, YET SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” TOOK “NO ACTION”
• NO MEASURABLE OR DOCUMENTED CASES OF A SINGLE PERSON BECOMING ILL AS A RESULT OF CONTACT WITH CANADA GEESE OR THEIR FAECES IN SANDWELL, YET SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” TOOK  “NO ACTION.”
• NO PROVABLE ACCIDENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE AS A RESULT OF SLIPPING ON GOOSE DROPPINGS, YET SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” TOOK “NO ACTION.”
• NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PERSON BEING ATTACKED BY GEESE IN SANDWELL, YET SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” TOOK “NO ACTION”.
• NO EVDIENCE AT ALL THAT THE 220 GEESE MURDERED UNDER THE LICENCE WERE “A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY” , YET SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” TOOK “NO ACTION.”

SO SANDWELL LABOUR “SCRUTINY” APPEAR TO TAKE ACTION ON THE BASIS OF VISIBLE MESS AND MEASUREMENTS OF COUNTING A SINGLE SPECIES , BELIEVING THAT NUMBERS INCREASE THE “RISK” TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY, WHEN THEIR OFFICERS HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT A SINGLE BIRD IS ANY RISK AT ALL.

THEY ALSO APPEAR TO TAKE ACTION ON A FEW OF THEIR SUPPORTING SHILLS GETTING HOT UNDER THE COLLAR ABOUT A NON EXISTANT “RISK” PRESENTED AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY PROOF, BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS LIKE THEMSELVES ARE PREJUDICED TOWARDS A SINGLE SPECIES WITHOUT APPARENTLY BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN “WHY?”

“DIRTY”, “TOO MANY”, “AGGRESSIVE” – ALL NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES THAT DO NOT JUSTIFY A CULLING POLICY ON THE BASIS THAT SANDWELL COUNCIL CARRIED OUT THE CULL. THE GEESE ARE NOT A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY, AND SANDWELL LABOUR SCRUTINY HAS ONLY SUCCEEDED TO SHOW THAT THEIR OFFICERS HAD NO EVDIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE THEIR DECISIONS, ONLY PREJUDICE OF ONE TARGET SPECIES.

WE WILL BE TAKING ACTION BY WRITING TO NATURAL ENGLAND AND DEFRA WITH A RECORDING OF THE MEETING, AS TO HOW SANDWELL COUNCIL Failed  to  act  within  the  purpose  of  this  licence  as  set  out  in  paragraph  1  and  failed to  comply with the terms and conditions meaning that the licence cannot be relied upon. 

So it was that after several months of petitioning many park users and the general public ,that our petition calling for an officer of Sandwell council to give evidence under scrutiny was put to a joint meeting of the neighbourhoods and health scrutiny board.

There is more to come on the aftermath of this and in the days and weeks ahead we will look at what was said and what it all could mean for Sandwell’s geese. Our case was based on science, and Sandwell council’s lack of it.

I think they were genuinely surprised by what they did not expect. Five minutes were allowed to speak, I just hope I did you all and the geese the justice that they deserve.

HERE IS THE CASE.

“This petition is presented on behalf of bird lovers against Sandwell Council’s clandestine cull of Canada geese in two of its Green Flag parks. The diversity of its signatories mirror our aims to stop the prejudicial slaughter of one target species.

The lack of scientific evidence behind the original cull, requires scrutiny from this committee. The origins of the report and its verbal approval, off record require scrutiny. The “options” in this 2013 report presented only a final solution of goose extermination based on exaggerated numbers of geese that can be refuted.

We have seen conflicting statements made by Sandwell Council, and lies in an amateurish attempt to hide scrutiny of the process. A natural England GENERAL LICENCE only requires the culler to abide by the conditions within that type of licence. Misusing or exceeding these parametres may lead to prosecution.

YOU CANNOT THEREFORE USE MULTIPLE LICENCES, ONLY 1

Anouk wendling (smbc) in an FOI request dated October 30^th 2014 appears to clearly state that smbc were using

 “LICENCE GENERAL TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY.”

Arguments concerning “nuisance and damage to flora and fauna, sports pitches etc, are therefore totally irrelevant to this general licence. John Satchwell’s original report contains

• No Evidence of danger to public health and public safety  from geese or their faeces set against risks from other potential sources,
• No measurement or evidence presented of the severity of risk to the public  or “Screening for potential human pathogens in faecal material deposited by resident Canada geese on areas of public utility” within its own six towns
•  No human health risk assessment
• No identification of what bacteria is present in the unlikely event that faeces may be “inadvertently swallowed.”
• No laboratory evidence of any pathogen isolated from goose faeces in the two cull zone parks which are claimed to be a risk to human health

RISKS APPEAR IMAGINED RATHER THAN PROVEN THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE IN ANY STUDY TO CONFIRM TRANSMISSION OF POTENTIAL CITED PATHOGENS CARRIED IN EVERY ANIMAL, INCLUDING MAN, THAT CAN BE TRACED BACK TO BEING CAUSED BY CANADA GEESE OR THEIR FAECES.

Public health England link “outbreaks of Cryptosporidiosis …..to drinking or swimming in contaminated water and contact with infected lambs and calves during open visits to farms. “

THEY DO NOT MENTION CANADA GEESE, as likely sources.

Another 2004 citable study Found

“the results… indicate that Canada geese might only serve as an accidental carrier of cryptosporidia infections to humans and probably play a minor role in the animal to human transmission cycle of the pathogens.”

  Ecoli is an ubiquitous pathogen found in the gut of warm blooded animals including man. Most strains pose no risk to human health. Ecoli 0157 is a strain that has been reported in the region in association with free roaming cattle at Sutton park in 2012.

SMBC cite a study by Moriaty et al. The same new Zealand author has also published a related study “Survival of Escherichia coli, Enterococci, and Campylobacter   (SPECIES) in Sheep Feces on Pastures” Sheep and cows of course graze within sandwell valley, where large numbers of people gather and pass through.

The study found concentrations of E. coli, enterococci, and Campylobacter (species) appear to be higher in sheep feces than in cow pats, but both may contain all the pathogens cited as being harmful to human health that the council cannot show any evidence of being present in Sandwell’s geese.

In short the risk of pathogens from farm animals are higher than from Canada geese, yet Sandwell council appear to hypocritically encourage the animal to human contact with farm animals at its farms, according to its own facebook page allowing children to handle new born lambs.

.

you can see the child’s mouth right next to the lamb.

I would urge the committee to look at the Animal aid’s “Is factory farming making you sick”     disease   , for context of the very low risk that Canada geese cause in Sandwell’s parks in terms of disease risk to the public from what some of you might eat on your plate.

I would like to add that I have been rescuing such wild birds for over 17 years, with others much longer. I have been covered in their blood and yes ” inadvertently swallowed” some of their faeces. It has never caused me any ill health, and so long as hygiene precautions are followed, it is very unlikely to do so.

In terms of objective risk, we implore the scrutiny committee to launch an investigation into this cull, look at the literature that myself and the organisation Animal Aid can provide including a successful geese management plan for lake windermere, and consider that children handling farm animals and then eating at a tea room pose a greater risk than the unlikely contact with wild birds?

The Council must get proportionate and not succumb to prejudice and reflex hostility to this one species, the Canada goose, nor scapegoat it for its failed management policy on its open spaces.

CULL TURDS, SANDWELL COUNCIL NOT BIRDS!!!

PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS AS TO WHETHER SANDWELL COUNCIL HAVE A CASE TO ANSWER. WE HAVE CERTAINLY MADE OURS ON BEHALF OF THOSE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT UNSCIENFIC EVIDENCE BEING TRUMPED BY PARK DICTATORS AND THEIR FAN CLUBS.

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

VN850220

21st February 2015 was the day of the Birmingham wildlife festival and badger march. This event saw several hundred activists, campaigners and wildlife lovers converge on the centre of Birmingham to protest against a variety of issues, principally the current Government’s ill thought out, unscientific mass extermination of badgers to “protect” farmers cash cows and an industry in terminal decline through public mistrust.

Many stalls offered ranges of cruelty free products and wares, and we were there to promote our own cause of Saving Sandwell’s Canada geese from inhumane slaughter. There was certainly an overt political theme around the birds nest library area; talk of “culling the Tories” was quite popular, and there appeared a large presence of Green party activists, competing with just a few Labourites (Labour animal welfare society had scheduled their meeting at Wolverhampton on the same day as others took action on the streets.) You could say some political animals were on heat!

At the nest

Gooseman had his big day out, meeting several new unlikely wildlife friends. In no particular order

A deer Lady

A little badger

Foxy Vixen

And then there was one taken dog who appeared to howl at our feathered hero, like he was some long lost relation, very funny to see.

Gooseman had a REP to protect and kept an eye on the stall, as members of anonygoose went on the march led by Mr Badger.

STOP THE CULL!

On massing in Centenary Square to hear the rallying calls of the various speakers, there was an eager sense of camaraderie amongst the campaigners that they had had their day of protest and achieved the aim of giving two fingers up to the wildlife cullers.

Little is known about the origins of Gooseman, the park knight, except hailing originally “from the North”. Our feathered superhero, known to be a shape shifter is a master of the avian arts, with his specialist finishing move “the goose shuffle” being next to unstoppable.

Having moved to Sandwell to campaign to save his friends in the parks from Sandwell council’s doom, he was keen to make new friends amongst the local population and meet some of Tipton’s finest martial artists. Tipton Shotokan Karate run by two local lads are top exponents of this ancient form of self defence. Shotokan, one of many styles of karate, originated in Okinowa, Japan and was founded by Gichin Funakoshi and his son Gigo (Yoshitaka) Funakoshi also influenced the development of the art.

Big bird met up with the  Sensei Fieldhouses, Daz and Jason before their class. Mutual respect was given- one of the principle teachings of the karate way.

Gooseman strikes a pose with Sensei Daz

The giant gander was eager to test out his skills, and soon learnt that Shotokan was very similar to his own training and self defence, but NOT AGGRESSION.

Is that a ura zuki Sensei Daz?

Sensei Daz took it on the chin and the two parted the best of friends. “You can be my wingman any time” said gooseman.

“The dynamic duo”

As gooseman had his picture taken with the students at the Dojo, he remembered something he had heard that the great man had said

Funakoshi  wrote: “The ultimate aim of Karate lies not in victory or defeat, but in the perfection of the character of the participant”

The decision to kill many geese in Sandwell in two parks appears to have been suggested by John Satchwell, Senior Parks Manager who in his so called joke of an “options” report gave only one- a final solution resulting in death. This same individual has replied to one of our active campaigners and the reply is just as cold and heartless as the man himself. There’s no need to refute the points, as its just rehashing his old lies and prejudices. Some of it is also nonsense English.

As just one of many local authorities in the country, Sandwell have now received the public views talked of. in the form of over 4000 people who have signed our petitions. But are they the worst?– Do you know better? Are the socialists of Oldbury the crème of the culling crop? Do other local authority officers deliberately lie to people who they have sometimes called on to do their jobs of saving wildlife? PLEASE TELL US VIA OUR FACEBOOK PAGE IF YOU KNOW OF WORSE.

A prize of the Golden turd awaits……..

Today a democratic missile payload was delivered through the front doors of Sandwell Council house. The paper petition of over 1500 signatures- a culmination of several months work , was handed over to “Democratic services” calling for a senior officer of Sandwell council to give evidence under scrutiny about the goose cull, and also demanding  no further culls to take place in the future.

The 85 sheet statement was presented by Gooseman, our mascot, whose rise we have been plugging on our facebook page for some time. Backed up by his flock from “Anonygoose” at 1500 hours, the feathered  delegation unleashed the tide of scrutiny, that the decision to cull never received from its biased officer report that recommended it. We now await the response from Sandwell Council- but a receipt was obtained for proof of delivery.

The look on some of the members of staff’s face was a picture, but we would like to state, that like the Canada goose whose demeanor and character that this council has so tarnished and misrepresented, the flock were non aggressive and left behind no turds in the council house that were not there already.

For Gooseman, this was not the first Sandwell outing since arriving South from his homeland. Alternatively known as Garry Gander, this park knight caped crusader is one big bird that packs a mean winged punch.

His arrival at the politburo, presented him with a curious mixture of investigation and interest. Firstly a body of water spouting from the ground, how curious he thought as he went to investigate.

Some names he had never heard of were “freemen” of the borough of Sandwell, quite in contrast to the stories he had heard of his caged brothers and sisters who had been so cruelly dispatched by the cruellest council in Britain- and who exactly was this “baggie bird” he had heard of?

A copy of a paper fluttered from the rafters of the large public building which appeared closed, and deserted of people, so like those, the many he had noticed when flying over West Bromwich from the Sandwell Valley. “Very interesting” thought the avian visitor as he thumbed the pages scanning the information contained.

After depositing the paper in the trash bin, he next noticed a large flagpole, not a green flag but another one.

Considered Gooseman, if he was to replace the flag, or even those in some of the parks in Sandwell with a red one, would they keep it flying there?

So much to do, and so little time. He had done his reccy, and couldn’t resist goose stepping in front of a large sign.

Hmm thought Gooseman, Sandwell may well boast having  “Great people” being a “Great Place” with “Great prospects”, but why were some people so prejudice towards some species of bird like himself? They must be very angry people indeed.