They have clever and catchy names:
"Goosebusters, Lose-A-Goose, Geese Relief."
The names are designed to attract clients and depict the geese in as demeaning and negative a light as possible.
As any good business person knows, the more you can convince others of the "need" for your product or service, the more successful you will be and the more money you will make.
The companies listed are "goose harassment (or hazing)" operations that usually use trained Border Collies or other means to non-lethally scare and chase "unwanted" Canada geese from lakes, ponds, parks and other properties.
Often they are promoted and supported by animal advocates and humane organizations as humane and non-lethal alternative to goose killings.
This is true of course.
However, the question to ask might be, "When does something designed to address a problem humanely become part of the problem itself?"
"Better harassed, than dead" is the true and logical thinking.
But, sometimes things are not quite as simple and clear-cut as they might appear.
A few days ago, news reports and videos of "goose hazing" at Burns Park, Arkansas aired on local TV as humane alternative to a planned pre-Christmas hunt that had been canceled due to public pressure:
While most animal advocates viewed this as a very positive development, there were several things from the videos and news coverage that disturbed me -- the main grievance being that they seemed to exude and promote intolerance for the geese and depicted the animals in a substantially negative light.
That is in fact, my problem with goose harassment companies in general.
In effort to convince others of the needs for the service, there seems to be marked tendency to exaggerate and demonize the geese as much as possible.
It is common, for example, when checking out goose harassment company web sites to note the geese accused of everything from "aggressiveness" to health threats to taking down airliners. Other times the animals are simply portrayed as "nuisances" that need to be "gotten rid of" for the sake of wearing "low cut golf shoes."
While the gentleman operating "Lose-A-Goose" in the video doesn't actually say these things directly, the implication is clear.
And while the footage of the Border Collie chasing geese off a pond doesn't show egregious cruelty to animals, one has to question the hidden message and the perceptions it helps to perpetuate.-- That is, that even 30 geese on a 1,700 acre property (twice the size of Central Park) cannot be tolerated.
As the Parks and Recreation Director says in the clip, "Hopefully, the geese will relocate somewhere out of the country." (Or, in other words, some remote area where they can be shot.)
It is obviously not enough to simply chase geese from a heavily used golf course or soccer field to a less used area of a park or to a lake.
The real message (and goal) seems to be that the geese will not be tolerated anywhere other than a hunting site.
The goose harassment companies are not of course responsible for the negative attitudes of Parks Directors, politicians or others who disdain geese, but they do help to foster, cater to and perpetuate them. (Indeed, they make a living from them.)
Moreover, while chasing the geese from a park is far preferable to holding a canned hunt in the location, one has to realize that the result of both actions is to empty the location of ALL geese and that the probable result is that many, (if not most geese) will ultimately end up dead anyway. The true goal of hazing (apparently) is to chase the birds into hunting or culling areas.
While I initially viewed the cancellation of the pre-Christmas canned goose hunt at Burns Park as a victory for the geese (and goose advocates), I was less enthusiastic when seeing the news clips and videos of the harassment. Rather, they gave me cause for concern due to the attitudes of intolerance they seemed to promote and perpetuate.
Others argued on this point. "Better harassed than dead. At least the geese will live." etc., etc.
But, the real question to ask in my judgment is, how long will the geese live?
Was the true political objective simply to get the geese out of the glare of media spotlight and a public setting? A "stay of execution" so to speak -- past the holiday season?
Set the dogs on the geese to chase them from a public park to a more remote location where the geese can be hunted legally without the scrutiny of media?
Those were my questions because, in my view, the perpetuation and promotion of negative attitudes and perception towards animals is never going to have ultimately positive result regardless of whatever "good intentions" might have prompted the particular action in the first place.
The intentions (and actions) of goose harassment companies may be noble and actually humane. But the attitudes of intolerance and vilification that most goose hazing companies indulge in and perpetuate for the sake of business are ultimately destructive to the geese.
It therefore did not surprise greatly to read on the Coalition to Save the Burns Park Geese FB page (37) Coalition to Save the Geese of Burns Park
the other day that the Mayor of North Little Rock was then trying to get a legislative ordinance passed that would have allowed for "hunts" of any "nuisance" animals (most notably, geese) in the park at any time with just 3 days notice to the public. -- This after promising the media and the public that non-lethal goose management methods would be used for at least six months before any hunts would be considered (as long as the Coalition was willing to raise and provide half the funding for non-lethal measures).
Many people, including myself, contributed money to the implementation of non-lethal management only to later learn that apparently, not only would the geese be harassed at Burns Park, but they could still be shot as well!
It seemed that we merely contributed to add to the geese's misery, rather than alleviate or prevent it.
And so yes, one has to look at the attitudes and perceptions that are perpetuated by harassment companies (and inadvertently supported by animal advocates) and not just a specific action.
Any time we as "advocates" for animals find ourselves in the position of agreeing to the depiction of said animals as "pests" that need to be "gotten rid of" (one way or the other), we essentially sign their death warrants even if not using a pen, typing the words or saying aloud.
It is, after all, a very small leap from merely "harassing pest animals" to killing them.
(The key words are, "pest, nuisance, unwanted and getting rid of.")
It is one thing to chase 100 geese off of a small ball field or golf course to another area of the park or to a lake. It is quite another to chase a couple of gaggles of geese out of huge park with the hope and anticipation they can be shot or rounded up elsewhere.
Put simply, we as advocates for the geese should be very careful about supporting anything that disparages, demeans or adds to the already negative and grossly exaggerated perception of these (or any other) gentle and majestic creatures, regardless of how "desperate" we may be or how threatened.
To do so is to basically sell the geese down the river, regardless of otherwise good intentions. Perception becomes and is reality.
Since the announcement the other day of the Mayor's proposed "ordinance" to conduct hunts on "nuisance" animals (i.e. geese) in the park at any time, matters have once again, reversed.
Due to protests from the Coalition to Save the Geese at Burns Park and a threat to sever agreement to help fund non-lethal measures, Mayor Hays backtracked and did not put the goose hunt proposal on the table at last night's City Council meeting:
That is good news of course.
But, it still serves to remind us of the delicacy, contradictions and unpredictability of our political struggles to protect these animals.
Most important among them is to be constantly aware of any negative messages or perceptions pertaining to geese we may be inadvertantly supporting in our efforts to "save" them.
Even the names of most goose harassment companies demean and depict the animals in extremely negative light.
Why can't they just rightfully refer to themselves as they are? "Humane Goose Management" or "Shoo a Goose?"
Not sexy or catchy enough?
Or, not demonizing and demeaning enough?
For the moment, I reluctantly "support" (while holding my nose) the goose chasing at Burns Park because it is obviously preferable to blasting the birds out of the sky.
But, I worry that in possibly bending over too far for "compromise," we ultimately show our asses and sell out the geese.
A "Goosebuster" I am not and nor shall ever be. -- PCA
************
No comments:
Post a Comment