![\"S1060007\"](\"http:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/S1060007.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Back in August last year<\/a>, we revealed that Sandwell council had launched what it called “a consultation exercise” <\/a>concerning the management of geese in two of its parks, where they had previously admitted to killing 220 birds, against their own existing policy <\/a>which they appeared to have forgotten, and without carrying out any consultation on a change of policy.<\/a><\/p>\n We pointed out\u00a0the ludicrous bias of the wording of the\u00a0questionnaires <\/a>that were\u00a0sent out for organisations, and how the results could be used by the council to \u00a0invent a “praise” response to justify more culls under the guise of “public opinion”. A public survey was also reported to have been undertaken at the same time in the two parks, yet there was no media announcement from the council concerning this.<\/p>\n The questionnaire survey, a totally pointless exercise in\u00a0our opinion\u00a0has dragged out, or been dragged out until now where the results are in.<\/p>\n Two documents have been released by the council in respect of this.<\/p>\n The first is another report with the names John Satchwell, parks and countryside manager (author of the original hidden culling report<\/a>), and Adrian Scarrott Head of Neighbourhoods, who at various times throughout this farce has delayed giving us timely information which could have strengthened our argument concerning the petition presentation<\/a> which was ignored when “No Action”<\/a> was taken.<\/p>\n Outcome of Consultation Exercise Regarding the\u00a0 Future Management of Canada Geese <\/a><\/p>\n Why this material has once again been reused only serves to leave a bad taste in the mouth- WHEN THE COUNCIL HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY OF THEIR OWN DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENTS MADE. THIS UNCHALLENGED RUBBISH IS WHY WE ARE IN THE POSITION WE ARE NOW.<\/strong><\/p>\n Canada Geese Management Survey Results for\u00a0 <\/a> Firstly I am not the type of person who pisses around with pretty graphs and pie charts with axis used to further skew results.<\/strong> Percentages can also be widely used to flout data and skew results. There are some concerns with some of the figures presented here.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The questionnaire is opened with this closed question. There is no definition of the word \u201cproblem\u201d, but automatically the idea is put in the respondents mind, whereas they may not have even considered Canada geese any differently to any other bird\/animal in the two parks. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n These results are encouraging, and appear to show that the council have got it wrong on this issue when the majority of people DO NOT THINK THAT CANADA GEESE ARE “A PROBLEM” IN THE TWO PARKS.<\/strong><\/p>\n On the basis of this answer alone, the rest of the survey appears to be largely redundant.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another yes\/no question, but this time the council wanted elaboration from people who consider the geese cause them a disability in using the park. This information can of course be misused to suggest that the geese are causing a greater issue than they actually are with members of the public. It should be asked why do Sandwell council want to know more if people answer yes to this question, whereas if they answer no, then the council is not interested? <\/strong><\/p>\n In all categories, the answer appears to be a majority said “NO” CANADA GEESE DO NOT AFFECT PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO USE EITHER PARK.<\/strong><\/p>\n Out of all the questions, this is without doubt the most ludicrous and appears to confirm the amateurish designer\u2019s lack of knowledge regards geese, their behaviour and different times of year when different numbers of geese will be present in parks. <\/strong><\/p>\n The results show that the highest number of people support there being 50+ geese in both parks.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The council now resort to repeating and attempting to coerce people into ticking a box which they have pre identified as being \u201ca problem\u201d about the geese. Most of these are based on statements made in John Satchwell\u2019s original report, but it is an attempt to merely justify the lies by inciting public opinion to back them. Anyone who answered \u201cNO\u201d to the first question is left baffled by this one, yet there is no box provided to state that the respondent considers that the geese cause no problems and the council have got it wrong. The council have not proven that any of the \u201cproblems\u201d that they identify actually exist with any scientific evidence. <\/strong><\/p>\n This result is nonsense! 76% of people\u00a0 answering the organisational survey for Victoria park and 37% in Dartmouth park are extremely unlikely to have had concerns relating to Canada geese, ON THE BASIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST THREE QUESTIONS!<\/strong><\/p>\n Given that our organisation added a box stating “no concerns” or similar on the basis that the council had not added one, and that they have pointed out that we completed the majority of organisational questionnaires, this percentage claim is unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n We are therefore expected to believe that the results shown as percentages for members of the public stopped are also accurate (86%), when once again the first three question results show otherwise.<\/p>\n The council give the top three concerns, but not how many people actually ticked each box.<\/p>\n Of these we would note<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This question is ambiguous and could be misleading to respondents. It also provides a Hobson\u2019s choice answer. Canada geese may be \u201cmanaged\u201d , but there is a major difference between answering \u201cyes\u201d and then agreeing to killing them off. If stating \u201cNo\u201d they should not be managed this should not rule out egg pricking, but the results could be skewed to present such a black and white answer for the council. <\/strong><\/p>\n The theme that the council are trying to promote- ie the goose population is too high prejudices the answer before it has been posed. Why should goose numbers be \u201cmanaged\u201d when the council have not proven that other species numbers are in decline, or even if those other species numbers may also need \u201cmanaging\u201d? <\/strong><\/p>\n Once again the council’s own view here (as expressed by it’s biased statements made in 2.3-2.8), appears to have been defeated. Two thirds of Dartmouth Park public survey respondents do not think so, which again makes the results of the previous question even more difficult to follow. This I am afraid is where the design of this questionnaire can be seen to be poor.<\/p>\n This now assumes two things for the council which lead to bias. They state that there are \u201clarge numbers\u201d of geese and tie it to how the council should \u201cmanage\u201d them. This further confuses people who do not agree with either of these two statements, largely because the council fail to provide any recorded evidence to prove the statements. What population can be\u00a0described as \u201clarge\u201d? It is also ignorant of the fact that the geese numbers vary by time of year, so are not as \u201clarge\u201d at different times as others.<\/strong><\/p>\n Given that the majority of people do not believe that geese should be managed in the previous question , this question would appear redundant. Pricking and oiling eggs clearly appears to be the favoured option, yet does the previous question result not supersede this, in that they consider management via egg pricking unnecessary and appear to have no problem with goose numbers?<\/p>\n This is claimed that the council did not ask people the question in the parks.<\/p>\n On this point it should be noted that John Satchwell sent out a misleading letter supplying a statement of purpose mark 2 (not the one mentioned in this report from February 25th) which is NOT COUNCIL POLICY.<\/a><\/p>\n Given that only 73<\/strong>\u00a0 of 707<\/strong> total responses were organisational (634 individual<\/strong>), it cannot be claimed that somehow the majority of organisational responses,\u00a0 supposedly from us, somehow produced a set of figures that altered the entire public opinion results on this issue. Perhaps this is what the council are trying to create here, but let’s deal in figures rather than percentages.<\/p>\n So who wins from this exercise, and what will the council do next? Our support will always remain with Sandwell’s Canada geese.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Back in August last year, we revealed that Sandwell council had launched what it called “a consultation exercise” concerning the management of geese in two of its parks, where they had previously admitted to killing 220 birds, against … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\nVictoria Park, Tipton and Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n