{"id":1100,"date":"2016-02-07T19:17:10","date_gmt":"2016-02-07T19:17:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/?p=1100"},"modified":"2016-12-03T21:06:10","modified_gmt":"2016-12-03T21:06:10","slug":"the-goose-the-bad-and-the-ugly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/?p=1100","title":{"rendered":"The Goose, The Bad and The Ugly"},"content":{"rendered":"

The key basis of Sandwell Council\u2019s arguments for goose culls.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Natural England \u201cGuidance\u201d in context<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sandwell council claim to have followed Natural England guidance. In a freedom of information request <\/a>and in Adrian Scarrott and Steve Handley\u2019s report they defend their actions by making this claim.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is a fact that Natural England\u2019s \u201cguidance\u201d stems from a DETR funded paper written by one man in 1999 by the name of \u201cDr\u201d John Allan who appears to have worked for the quango (Central Science Laboratory) and latterly the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). <\/strong><\/p>\n

The_Management_of_Problems_caused_by_Canada_Geese (1)<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n

It has since appeared to be rewritten four times and the last edition has now been archived and is called TIN009. <\/strong><\/p>\n

This was entitled<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Management of Problems caused by Canada Geese – A Guide to Best Practice\u201d<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Mr Allan\u2019s credentials are not explored in his paper, and the conclusions he makes do not appear to have been peer reviewed by independent observers interested in animal welfare, rather than economic partisan industries.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe aviation industry continues to express concern about the increasing numbers of Canada Geese on water bodies near aerodromes.\u201d\u00a0<\/span> Cited from Mr Allan\u2019s paper<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0Indeed Mr Allan\u2019s involvement in \u201cbirdstrike\u201d seminars involving planes and hosted by the aviation industry leaves one questioning to what extent his paper and conclusions were bought and paid for by the aviation industry lobby itself, especially when he amplifies their \u201cconcerns\u201d into Government policy? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Canada geese are a scapegoat for this unsafe industry whose expansion, particularly with extended runways requires the demise of wildlife legislation protection, most usually through paper weight \u201clicences\u201d that are not worth the paper that they are written on. They have little enforcement, and Natural England have admitted that they are unlikely to ever prosecute anyone for breaching them. <\/strong><\/p>\n

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

The first criticism of Allan\u2019s work comes from his estimates of geese in the UK.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1999 the paper opens<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Canada Goose population in Britain numbers over 63,000 birds and is still increasing.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In edition 4\u00a0 it is stated<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Canada goose population in <\/em><\/strong>southern Britain <\/em><\/strong>numbers <\/em><\/strong>over 80,000 birds <\/em><\/strong>and is still increasing. However, in recent years the overall rate of growth has slowed and in some areas numbers have stabilised or declined.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

So in just twelve years the entire population of the UK has suddenly appeared to have increased by 17,000 into just the undefined \u201cSouthern Britain.\u201d Is it a surprise that this region is highlighted given the debate concerning extra runway expansion at airports in Southern Britain? I think so. <\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

1999 report states \u201cThe causes of death are:<\/p>\n