![\"S2060001\"](\"http:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/S2060001.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTHEIR STATEMENTS ARE IN RED ITALICS, OUR RESPONSE IN BLUE. WHERE WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR STATEMENTS, EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO REFUTE THIS.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Joint Neighbourhoods and Health Scrutiny Board<\/strong> 1. Summary Statement<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Consideration of Petition \u201cSave Our Sandwell Canada Geese\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 1. Summary Statement<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 1.1 On 26 January, 2015 the Council received a petition entitled \u201cSave Our Canada Geese\u201d. <\/a>The petition contains around 1700 signatures and reads \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n AGREED<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 1.2 The Council\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n AGREED<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 1.3 In April 2013 the Director \u2013 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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 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\u2019S 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. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n THIS IS WHAT HE STATED<\/a>\u00a0IN AN FOI REQUEST DATED AUGUST 13TH 2014.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n “We do not hold any information regarding the approval of the process; as such approval was given verbally for 2013\/14.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n SO SUDDLENY IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE COUNCIL DID<\/span> HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCESS, AND THUS STEVE HANDLEY\/SANDWELL COUNCIL\u00a0WERE CLEARLY \u00a0LYING WHEN ANSWERING THIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST. WHY?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n ANY FOOL CAN COUNT BIRDS, BUT HOW DOES THAT EQUATE TO INFORMED DEBATE AS TO WHETHER THEY POSE ANY HUMAN HEALTH RISK?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n WE\u00a0 HAVE ASKED THE COUNCIL <\/span><\/a>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\u00a0THEN IT\u00a0WEAKENS 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.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n PERIMETER FENCES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AT SOME POOLS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A ROSPA<\/a> 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. \u00a0SANDWELL 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. <\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u00a0REPLY\u00a0FROM MARIA CROMPTON TO ME OBJECTING TO THIS FENCING. I OBJECTED TO THIS AS IT\u00a0CLEARLY PREVENTED ALL WILDFOWL FROM ACCESSING BETWEEN THE TWO POOLS- IN MANY INSTANCES THE ONLY PATHWAY THAT WILDFOWL COULD ACCESS NATURAL FOOD- EG GRASS.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n “Whilst it is acknowledged the erection of the fencing did disrupt the bird movements initially, evidence suggests the swans, geese<\/span> and \u00a0ducks are adjusting to the physical changes AND THERE HAS BEEN NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO THEIR WELLBEING.”<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n YOU CAN STUFF YOUR PROJECT CROMPTON, YOU CARRIED OUT A MASSACRE IN THIS PARK AND YOU DESERVE NOTHING BUT C0NTEMPT AND SUFFERING<\/p><\/div>\n FURTHER EVIDENCE OF WHEN THIS FENCING WAS ERECTED IS SHOWN BELOW IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS, SHOWING THE DATES THAT THEY WERE TAKEN.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Fence in process of being erected in August 2013, after the goose cull on the lower pool.<\/p><\/div>\n swan fenced in with geese on the top pool (duck pool).<\/p><\/div>\n THE “OVERFEEDING” ISSUE IS INTRODUCED AT THIS POINT AS A DISTRACTION TO THE CULLING ISSUE. THE COUNCIL DO NOT APPEAR TO APPRECIATE THAT IT\u00a0 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.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n [IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Adrian Scarrott Director \u2013 Neighbourhoods<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Steve Handley Director \u2013 Street Scene<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT THE SCRUTINY BOARD HAD NO INTEREST IN SCRUTINY AT ALL, AND NEITHER DID THE TWO OFFICERS PRODUCING THIS REPORT.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Consideration of Petition \u201cSave Our Sandwell Canada Geese\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 2. Background<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n THIS IS DISPUTABLE AND MISLEADING.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n THIS IS A BLATANTLY INFLAMMATORY STATEMENT NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE MEASURED. WE KNOW\u00a0 THAT THE COUNCIL INFLATED THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS MADE FROM AN FOI REQUEST.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n “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<\/em><\/strong> 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.”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The impact of nutrient loading from Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) on water quality, a mesocosm approach<\/strong> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Black headed gulls and their shit at Victoria Park Tipton- are the council counting them?<\/p><\/div>\n \u00a0WHY ARE ROAD SWEEPERS ONLY EMPLOYED ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN THERE IS A COMMUNITY FUNDAY ON IN A PARK?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 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? <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n WE DO NOT KNOW HOW OR WHY CAROL HARTILL <\/a>ENGAGED IN OR BECAME THE SECRETARY OF THIS GROUP, BUT HAVING ATTENDED THE FIRST MEETING OF \u201cTHE FRIENDS OF DARTMOUTH PARK\u201d , 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.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n 25 February, 2015<\/strong>
\n Consideration of Petition \u201cSave Our Sandwell Canada Geese\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a>\n
\n
\nRobert L. Unckless \u00c6 Joseph C. Makarewicz<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/a>