Who For?

It is realized that in quoting certain statements from a government official yesterday ("Management to Extinction," blog entry) one could be accused of "taking out of context" for one's own purposes or political objective.

 

In fairness to Carol Bannerman, Public Affairs Specialist for the USDA, Wildlife Services, I am including her full, unedited letter written yesterday at the end of this entry.

 

As said yesterday, there were numerous aspects of the USDA response that were personally disturbing.  However, I only addressed the most glaring grievances in a fairly short journal posting.

 

However, there was more.

 

For example, Ms. Bannerman never acknowledges anywhere in this or other communications that the geese were actually slaughtered.

 

Rather, euphemistic terms like "removal," "processing" or (inexplicably) "euthanasia" are used repeatedly to describe roundups of park birds who are flightless and totally helpless to escape a moribund trip for gassings or slaughter.

 

Bannerman is not of course the only one who does this.  Public agency officials and politicians also use the same euphemisms to cloak and cover-up ugly realities.

 

Sometimes I wonder who they are really doing this for?

 

Do they really have so little respect for the recipients of these communications that they truly believe we are swallowing these dress up lines like cotton candy?

 

The geese are being "removed" to Disneyworld or Shangri-La.

 

Some are being "processed" into wholesome, McDonald's type meals for the nation's "hungry."

 

Others are being "euthanized" and "having nice dreams" (a quote from Bloomberg).

 

Such pretty pictures.

 

But, the constant use of these terms has now given new meaning to many of us who have learned to equate innocent-sounding words to ruthless roundups, brutal massacres and programs of mass destruction.

 

Sometimes, I believe the USDA and the politicians typically use these words to shield themselves from the grim realities.   Who, after all, wants to think they are earning their paycheck off the persecution and near-annihilation of other species?

 

Certainly, they are not fooling or shielding us -- the recipients of this marshmallow-coated fluff -- from  the truth.

 

I will never look at the terms, "removal, processing, euthanasia" or even "safety" the same ways again.

 

They have all come to unfortunately symbolize certain evils to me.  -- Or, at least to the degrees they are used to refer to and cover up the unjustified roundups and slaughters of wildlife otherwise living peacefully in a public park.

 

Though presumably paid well to do her job and performing those duties with efficiency and professionalism, Ms. Bannerman's  letter comes off (to me) as in some ways, pathetic.

 

It seemingly speaks more to the indoctrination of the writer than to the attempted education of the recipient.

 

Indeed, Bannerman didn't seem to even "get" my actual reasons for inquiry which had absolutely nothing to do with, "aviation safety in New York."

 

I am quite aware that had we killed every goose in NY state, it would not have prevented flight 1549 from landing in the Hudson on Jan, 15, 2009 after colliding with two migratory geese from Canada.

 

Had I concerns about "aviation safety," I would have written the FAA suggesting modernization of airline fleet, returning to four engine planes and expanded use of avian radar.

 

But, I wrote the USDA to protest and question the NYC goose slaughters of 2011, as well as to demand where exactly our NYC geese ended up dying this past summer?

 

Even something as plain, direct and simple as that was labeled into something it wasn't.

 

Still, perhaps the most troublesome and revealing part in the entire letter is when Ms. Bannerman writes, "The population of all resident Canada geese in the entire country in 1970 was equal to the population of resident Canada geese in New York State in 2008." (Emphasis supplied.)

 

Resident Canada geese in the USA were tottering on the brink of extinction from the 1950's through the early 1970's due to destruction of habitat and over-hunting. -- A circumstance that the USDA and other government entities apparently want to return to now.

 

The main question remaining is who was the USDA letter actually written to and most notably, for? -- PCA

 

Below, Ms. Bannerman's entire, unedited letter:  

 

 

Good Morning Ms. Adjamine:

 Below please find answers to the questions posed in your correspondence with Lee Humberg on Oct. 21 regarding aviation safety activity in New York. 

 

1.      The geese were processed for breast meat which yields on average one pound of meat.  Some of these geese were smaller and produced a lesser amount and some were not large enough to provide meat.   

2.      Resident Canada geese within seven miles of metropolitan New York airports are removed to increase aviation safety by reducing the risk of Canada goose strikes related to the abundance of resident Canada geese populations.  They are not being removed to provide a food source, although utilizing the meat was deemed more respectful and appropriate than disposal, which is also allowed under the permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3.      That name and location of the custom meat processor was provided to the media that asked in September. According to MapQuest, the distance ranges from 182.67 and 200.49 miles depending on the route. All geese were alive upon arrival at the processor. All were euthanized there and those of sufficient size for breast meat were processed. 

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture tested samples of goose meat. Among the items looked for were lead, salmonella and other diseases.  All samples of the goose meat tested were deemed acceptable for human consumption. This is consistent with State of New York testing in which urban resident Canada geese have been tested since 1996 with no findings to prevent human consumption.

4.      The number of geese captured may not represent all geese in a park on a given day.  The molting period for individual geese can vary and not all geese may be flightless on the day of capture, which also affects the total number of geese present.  Because of these circumstances, seven geese were able to be captured at the mentioned park.

Capture sites were selected, in part, based on the number of geese present during visits conducted prior to the roundups. As previously noted, the number alone is not the only factor involved in assessing the overall risk.  Other factors include the site location and characteristics that may attract hazardous birds.

5.      According to the band return data we received from USFWS the 3 geese had the following banding data:

a.       Band Number 1078-45241.  Banded in Sunbury, Northumberland Co., PA

b.      Band Number 1068-65648.  Banded 1 mile south of Knight Point State Park, VT

c.       Band Number 1068-65662.  Banded 1 mile south of Knight Point State Park, VT

 

6.      The New York State DEC Bureau of Wildlife is the state management agency for waterfowl, including Canada geese.  The estimate of resident Canada goose populations is provided by that agency, which can provide information on survey methods.  The population of all resident Canada geese in the entire country in 1970 was equal to the population of resident Canada geese in New York State in 2008.

For a further information, see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EIS http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/cangeese/finaleis.htm. 

7.      The City of New York requested WS to assist with removal of geese. It has not entered into a cooperative service agreement with WS to conduct habitat management, egg treatment or other nonlethal methods in other parks.  It is our understanding that some parks have instituted public-private partnerships to institute nonlethal methods.  

Wildlife Services provides legal and appropriate assistance to requesting individuals and agencies to help resolve damage related to wildlife.   For example, USDA was asked to assist on Riker's Island and undertook an integrated approach to wildlife management that includes egg oiling, habitat management, and capture-removal over several years. The number of eggs to be treated has decreased each year.  The number of geese required to be removed each year has dropped, from more than 500 in 2004 to 32 in 2010.  Goose strikes at the nearby LaGuardia airport have been reduced significantly: in the five years prior to removals, there were a total of 9 Canada goose strikes at LGA with just 3 in the five years since removals began.

8.      Information about wildlife in any particular city park should be directed to the parks authority and the alliance that manages the park.

 Carol A. Bannerman

301/734-6464

Publication Affairs Specialist

Wildlife Service & Bio. Reg. Svcs.

                                                                                    **********