Coin Tosses and Carnage at a Wildlife Refuge

According to Gateway National Recreation Spokesman, John Warren, "All the geese didn't cooperate" (with their executioners). 

Queens Tribune Deadline

The goose death count from Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge should have been 1,000 this past Monday. 

But, apparently some 250 of the lucky geese could fly --  unlike the 751 actual victims who still going through the molt, were incapable of escape.  

Life and death at Jamaica Bay Wildlife "Refuge" was apparently like coin tosses in No Country for Old Men which determined whether humans lived or died based upon a "heads or tails.".    

To this point, more than a dozen newspaper articles have been published "covering" the carnage at the refuge,  virtually all of which have simply run the press releases and assorted  euphemisms from Gillibrand and the USDA. 

A typical example is this piece from the Queens Chronicle:

Feds remove geese from Jamaica Bay - Queens Chronicle: Queenswide

I responded to this particular article with two comments, one of which apparently offended the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper.

This is the controversial comment:  

"It appears that when journalists fail to do proper research and ask questions (such as "How were the geese killed?) they resort to using euphemisms such as the geese were "euthanized."

This conjures up images of a vet stroking a dying and beloved pet before injecting lethal solution that brings quick and merciful ending to suffering.

But, that is hardly the case with the 751 geese.

The geese were not suffering and they were not "mercifully put to sleep" as represented by the "good death" definition of "euthanasia."

In fact, neither the writer of this article nor apparenly top personnel at the USDA know how the geese died (or are saying),

Were they gassed? Were they slaughtered?

Different media reports different things. And when reporters don't know and apparently don't investigate, they fall back on the term, "euthanasia" which makes everyone feel good, but in fact, renders the word absolutely meaningless.

Since the misapplication of this term to refer to geese rounded up, stuffed 4 to 5 in crates and transported long distance from NYC in summer heat to be killed by non-vet personnel lacks credibility, we have to surmise that the rest of this article (such as the different excuses for the massacre) lacks truth and credibility and thus represents the author mostly reporting canned press releases by those responsible for this carnage as "news."

This week has been a sad one for the 751 geese who sought safety at a wildlife refuge through the summer molt, but instead encountered cruelty and death.

But, it is even a sadder one for the principles of "accuracy in media" and investigative journalism.

Edward R, Murrow must be rolling in his grave."

Shortly after posting the above comment, I received a strange email from the Editor-in-Chief of this newspaper telling me, "Our understanding is the geese were gassed.  The editor who wrote this story wrote about eight other ones this week.....Give it a rest.    On the other hand, if you want this post or something like it to appear as a letter to the editor, resend it....." 

Stunned to receive the email, I thought about writing a "Letter to the Editor" as suggested, but elected instead to respond personally to the writer::

Dear Mr.XXXXXX,

With all due respect, whether the author had one or 20 articles to write in a week is not the point.

 

Accuracy in media reporting is.

 

"Understanding" is not actual fact. 

 

Other media sources indicated the geese were slaughtered.

 

But, whether slaughtered or gassed, neither are "euthanasia" as described in my post and defined in a dictionary. 

 

One cannot claim "euthanasia" without actually knowing how the animals died.  Such is to mislead and deceive. We know for a fact the 751 geese rounded up and killed were not suffering terminal disease or injury.

 

The newspaper should either print a correction (based upon faulty speculation) or actually investigate how the geese died in order to back up the claim.  If told by the USDA that the geese were gassed "according to UVMA guidelines for humane euthanasia," look up the actual UVMA guidelines that require waterfowl being gassed to be anesthetized before actual procedure. 

 

That could not be the case if the plan is to use the geese for "food."

 

In a conversation with Carol Bannerman of USDA last year, I was told that unanaesthetized geese being gassed "take from five minutes up to an hour" to die.

 

That is not "euthanasia" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Instead of advising me to send a letter that you will obviously never publish, it is suggested that your paper either correct the misapplication of this word or have a "talk" with your editors and writers about accuracy in journalism. 

 

I stand 100% behind my original post and take personal offense to your ("give it a rest") insult of it.

 

Have a nice day,

 

Patty Adjamine,

Manhattan    (phone number)

 

Amazingly, the gentleman called on the phone some ten minutes later and admonished me for not writing a Letter to the Editor!  Before I could answer that "Give it a rest" didn't sound like a warm and fuzzy invitation, the call was cut short.

 

Not long after this fairly strange email and call exchange (there were actually more), I checked out the  (27) GooseWatch NYC  Facebook page to find more than 200 photos from Monday's unconscionable goose roundup:

 

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.343263462418916.79961.175344192544178&type=1

 

One can be sure the USDA agents were on their best behavior knowing they were being photographed.  (We had a report from an eyewitness who claimed seeing USDA workers grab geese by the necks and swing them around.  This was in New Jersey some years back.)

 

But, even with the awareness of being photographed, the photos are highly disturbing when considering the relatively small crates these wild and large 12 lb birds are crammed into.  Heads have to be bent and geese are literally crammed into the crates.  To those of us who actually know geese and their extreme sense of alertness and vigilance, the photos are more than distressing.

 

Perhaps to those deriving a paycheck from either conducting the roundup or finding various excuses to justify it, the photos are innocuous.

 

There are apparently no limits to the blunting of human spirit and ethics.

 

But, according to two different witnesses a Brant goose was observed the following day at the "Refuge" stumbling around with broken wings and legs.

 

It must have been one of the 250 geese who got away -- or "didn't cooperate" with its would-be executioners. 

 

But, even having won the coin toss, it seems some geese weren't so "lucky" after all. -- PCA

 

 

                                                             **********