In a stunning act of betrayal to New York's animal loving community and nature lovers, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) NY again issued another press release yesterday calling for destruction of nearly all of New York City's Canada geese -- including those on Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge before the end of this summer:
Kirsten Gillibrand - United States Senator for New York: News
Please contact
Secretary of the Interior, Salazar and tell him that Gillibrand is
not representing the New Yorkers she was elected to represent -- millions of whom care deeply about animals, nature and wildlife.
http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm
It is clear that we need to work for Gillibrand's defeat this November. No one who cares about any animals could possibly support someone whose main crusade and agenda is wiping out a species of gentle bird peacefully living in public parks -- regardless of the histrionics and rationalizations the Senator provides for such a mass slaughter..
It was interesting and telling yesterday that Senator Gillibrand chose a Friday afternoon to "dump" her latest, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" press release.
This is the typical time of the week politicians "dump" news and press releases they generally don't want the media to report on or the public to see. And probably much to Gillibrand's relief, no media has yet to pick up on the press release nonsense -- which was mostly a rehash, nearly word for word to the one Gillibrand issued this past April.
Also, noteworthy is Gillibrand's latest "newsletter email alert" sent out to constituents and supporters yesterday. In it, Gillibrand talks about her efforts to restore funding to food stamp program and her support of the farm bill currently being debated in the Senate. (Yes, the same farm bill that her "kill the geese" proposal is tacked on to.) The letter is manipulatively titled, "Words No Mother Wants to Hear" and reads as follows:
"Dear XXXXX,
I just wanted to reach out to you and give you a quick update on something I am fighting for in Congress. Currently we are debating what is known as "The Farm Bill," a five-year piece of legislation that impacts all of America's agriculture policy through 2017. It also dictates vital funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps.
On Thursday, I discussed the need to restore SNAP funding on PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton -- and spoke out against the baseless attacks from its opponents. Please click here to watch the segment now.
The current draft of the bill cuts funding for this vital anti-poverty program by $4.5 billion. To put that in context, what it means is that nearly 300,000 families in New York alone will receive $90 less a month for food. That is basically the last week of the month in groceries. In this already tough economy, a family losing this help will be devastating. More than half of food stamp recipients are children, 17% are seniors and now, unfortunately, as many veterans are using food stamps as any time in history.
Imagine hearing your child say, "Mommy I am hungry" night after night and not being able to give him or her the food they need. It breaks my heart. As a mother and a legislator, I can not stand quietly by as this happens.
I have an amendment to restore these funds that does not add a penny to the national debt, ask any sacrifice of our hardworking farmers, or raise taxes on anybody. Hopefully we will have a chance to vote on this bipartisan, common-sense solution. But the outcome is still not clear.
Our fight is a tough one, but one worth having. And I just wanted to thank you for standing with me, and our families and children in need, as we continue to push for what is right.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Gillibrand
U.S. Senator."
What Gillibrand cleverly leaves out of this sophomoric slop and obvious attempt to manipulate human emotions is the fact that she tacked on to this very same "farm bill" her proposal to wipe out birds at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge and Canada geese throughout most of New York City.
That is cleverly left out of this emotional twisting and guilt-tripping excuse for a newsletter.
Just like the facts are cleverly left out of Gillibrand's proposed "war on geese" which, of course is also emotionally twisting and guilt-tripping.
Gillibrand says she "can't wait around another day" while the geese continue to live and threaten our airliners. I personally "can't wait" to see the day this air head is booted from Congress.
As a native New Yorker and woman, I am deeply ashamed that this manipulative member of my sex is representing me and millions of fellow New Yorkers. In my view, Gillibrand is New York State's equivalent to Sarah Palin -- only far worse and greatly more sleazy, slick and destructive.
Although Gillibrand provides as excuse for her latest rant on Canada geese, the fact that "public commentary has now ended to the SEIS," the fact is that neither she nor others in leadership likely gave the public comments any notice or consideration. I was in fact advised by a lawyer friend some weeks back that public comments would have little impact as the wheels for destruction of our geese were already well set into motion. I also recall some place in New Jersey where an EIS for a proposed goose slaughter was prepared and invited public comment. 92% of the responses were against the proposed cull, but it went forth anyway.
Nevertheless, knowing all these facts, I went ahead and prepared a comment anyway to the EIS -- though admittedly, did not put as much time and effort into this as could have been. It was simply important to take a stand.
Below is the comment I actually submitted to the SEIS. Comment, I am sure, Senator Gillibrand did not bother to take two minutes to read:
"To Whom it may Concern,
I seek to go on record as opposing suggested Alternative Six as discussed and outlined in report.
For one matter, there is question regarding the oft quoted number of "20,000 -25,000" resident Canada geese in the NYC metropolitan area. This number has been "estimated" and cited for some years -- including times prior to Canada goose roundups over the past several years that have resulted in more than 3,000 resident Canada geese rounded up and either gassed or slaughtered from New York City parks and other locations.
Considering that geese only breed once a year, that they don't breed until at least three years of age and that most adult geese in a flock will not produce young in a given year, this number appears questionable and likely inflated under prevailing circumstances.
It seems that before embarking on any plans for widely sweeping "removals" and culls of Canada geese, it would be prudent and necessary to have current and certifiably correct statistics available for actual Canada goose number in the NYC metro area. "Estimates" alone do not appear to meet this criteria -- especially where lethal culls are not only considered but promoted.
While the report acknowledges (under "Aesthetics") that some human residents are upset when learning geese in a targeted area have been rounded up and killed, the report seems to conclude that such is balanced by other people pleased with the action and that other geese are likely to repopulate the area at some future point.
This appears to call for much speculation, fortune telling and attempts to "mind read" the feelings of most New Yorkers visiting parks and other nature areas of New York City, as well as it assumes other geese will eventually repopulate the area.
It is very difficult, if not impossible to gage the "feelings" of park goers thousands of whom (including children) have come to know and connect to individual geese in their parks. Unlike most wildlife (which generally remain shy and aloof of humans) Canada geese are extremely social birds who easily display trust in humans and gregariously engage interaction.
To assume that those park goers who have come to know and appreciate individual geese and gaggles over time will easily "forget and forgive" when those same geese are rounded up for slaughter is to assume most people to be either extremely fickle or lacking memory (a seemingly very cynical assessment of most New Yorkers). In fact, numerous pro geese Facebook pages have sprung up over the past few years with thousands of "likes" as direct response to the killings of Canada geese in New York City and elsewhere.
Specific to New York City should be the realization that for many urban poor, the connection to nature and animals in their local parks is often their only opportunity to learn about and engage with animals. Most New Yorkers do not have yards and many thousands of city residents live in "no pet" housing. Killing geese from local parks is not just about addressing a so-called, "nuisance" or "threat," but for many children, senior citizens and thousands of others, killing what they have come to regard and enjoy as "pets."
Although the SEIS provides data and reasoning for targeting geese within a 7 mile radius of airports, the reasoning appears to be highly stretched and improbable.
By far, the greatest complaint against resident geese in areas across the country is, "They don't go anywhere."
Resident geese in fact, fly very little compared with migratory populations and other flying bird species. According to the Wildlife Services own data, the typical resident Canada goose rarely flies more than a few miles from its original hatching and banding area.
Nevertheless, there are occasions when resident geese may fly further than what is typical.
These include, but are not limited to periods of severe (winter) weather when area ponds and lakes freeze over and the birds seek open water, the seeking of safe molting areas in late spring or the seeking of desirable habitat to raise offspring (which usually involves return to original hatching areas).
Another important factor not to overlook in the assessment of resident Canada goose flying patterns are the impacts and affects of intentional harassment which tend to send the birds flying into the air in disorganized "panic."
Since harassment is currently implemented in many areas adjacent to airports and many city parks, one has to consider potentially negative consequences in both altering and increasing normal resident goose flying patterns and therefore increasing the risk to flying aircraft.
It is suggested that it would be wiser and more prudent to better understand the causes and factors involved in the flights of Canada geese in order to better predict and prepare for as opposed to simply calling for more "reductions" in population.
Unlike many other bird species who may fly randomly and unpredictably, the flying patterns and habits of resident Canada geese are for the most part, predictable and therefore and presumably, easy to avoid.
According to the Airports Council International of North America, the chances of a person dying as result of an aircraft/wildlife collision are 750 million to one. Narrow that equation to Canada geese alone and we are likely talking one chance in a billion or less.
While of course understandable that the goal should be to eliminate any chance of catastrophic event as result of bird strike, the fact is that unless we kill every bird that flies, this goal is virtually impossible.
But, should focus for culls be mainly on Canada geese when they are not in fact the primary bird threat to flying aircraft?
Moreover, even were we to kill every resident Canada goose in New York State, how would that prevent a plane from colliding with a migratory goose (such as what occurred with flight 1549 that landed in the Hudson in 2009) or any one of millions of non-goose birds?
According to the SEIS although the resident Canada goose population increased three-fold in New York State over a period of 30 years, the number of Canada goose strikes with aircraft at JFK airport remained stable. One would expect a dramatic increase in goose/plane strikes to commensurate with the increase in population were Canada geese the main culprits in bird/plane collisions.
It appears the focus on resident Canada geese is out of proportion to the actual threat they pose to flying aircraft.
Finally, the SEIS mentions newer technologies that allow for "faster and quieter" planes ("Very Light Jets" -- VLJ's and two engine planes) that even according to the report "increase the risks for bird strikes" because birds cannot detect and get out of the way quickly enough. Impetus and responsibility to insure these newer aircraft are capable of predicting and detecting birds in the air (radar) and avoidance of them seems to be on the FAA and airline manufactures. This is as critical for human safety as well as that of birds.
As it is expected that the automobile industry is required to provide proper safety devices and mechanisms to coincide with faster, more efficient cars, no less should be expected and required of the airline industry, the scientific community and leaders in technological development. It is not enough to build "faster, quieter jets," if we cannot also insure that these same jets are adequately equipped to avoid potentially devastating impact and collision with birds in the skies.
We should not be killing birds in lieu of taking responsibility for our own transportation vehicles and seeming lack of technological development to avoid bird strikes.
Thank you for your time and consideration to these matters,
Sincerely,
Patty Adjamine,
New York City"
I figure I may as well post the comment to this blog as sending it to USDA or to our "kill the geese, kill the geese!" Senator was about as influential as pissing in the wind. -- PCA
************
