DATE: Friday, September 5, 1997             TAG: 9709040007

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Opinion 

SOURCE: BY KATHLEEN M. CARTER 

                                            LENGTH:   80 lines

STOP KILLING OUR GEESE

The Virginian-Pilot reported in July on the massive slaughter of geese in Northern Virginia and in Ford's Colony, James River County, but The Pilot missed the opportunity to educate the public as to the alternatives and adverse ramifications to this shortsighted solution to a ``perceived'' problem.

Tax-paying citizens need to be made aware of the egregious waste of their tax dollars by the arbitrary bureaucracy of Animal Damage Control (ADC), which falls under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

First of all, some history: In 1931, Congress established the federal Animal Damage Control program. This became institutionalized at the federal level within the Department of Interior under the auspices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Congress was persuaded by sheep ranchers and other livestock interests to pass legislation calling for campaigns of destruction of ``animals injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wild game animals, fur bearing animals and birds.''

In December 1985, submitting to pressure from Western members, Congress amended the appropriation bill to transfer the ADC program to the Department of Agriculture. Predator control is now solely in the hands of an agency wedded to the livestock industry.

On a personal note, I have had direct dealings with Animal Damage Control through conversation with Martin Loweny, state director. In my opinion, the entire process of depredation represents bureaucracy run amok and at best is a misdirected attempt to resolve animal/human conflicts.

I ascertained through conversations with Mr. Loweny that the ADC was making recommendations to have ducks and geese removed from the cove behind my house without ever having visited the site. I questioned Loweny on the protocol of this, and I was told that this was standard procedure. I then inquired as to whether or not it was possible to ascertain the credibility of the amount of damage being claimed without the ADC initializing a site visit. Mr. Loweny did not have an answer for this question.

And herein lies the rub. I feel the ADC takes action arbitrarily and impulsively without educating its constituents as to more humane methods, such as making habitats unattractive or inaccessible through the use of the following means: habitat modification; exclusion (fencing, grids or netting); frightening (flags, mylar tape and noise, where applicable, to name a few); repellents; population control through reproductive management; and the use of border collies. The most natural deterrent is long grass grown around ponds, a means of exclusion because geese fear lurking predators in such grasses.

An initiative by state jurisdictions to feed the homeless the meat of slaughtered geese has in some cases been proved to be dismal failure.

Commenting on a report on studies conducted by the University of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Warren P. Porter, professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin found no evidence that the geese are safe for consumption. Assuming that the geese are consuming and storing golf-course herbicides which are listed in the Minnesota study, their fats should be check for these compounds.

The assumption here is that the feeding of meat from the slaughtered geese to the homeless is little more than a smoke screen to cover inhumane management. The government is basing its management practices on the premise that there are two separate populations of Canada geese: migrant geese, which fly the Atlantic Flyway each year between Quebec and North Carolina, and resident geese, which settle in urban areas.

Scientific research has shown that the lines of distinction between resident and migrant geese is not as clearly defined as game officials have stated. There is intermingling between the two groups. Therefore, when the government kills ``resident'' geese it is, in fact, indiscriminately killing internationally migrating birds, thereby violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The geese which visit the cove behind my house might have befallen this fate had the ADC successfully carried out its mission. These geese disappear in March, returning in late August, with some remaining until the following March. These migrating birds have chosen our cove as their winter habitat. Had the Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the ADC carried out their scheme, these agencies would, in my opinion, be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

I urge the humane readers of this newspaper to contact their legislators and the attorney general of the United States to express their outrage at the needless slaughter of these majestic animals and to put an end to the ADC's animal-management program, which is a blatant fiasco for taxpayers. KEYWORDS: ANOTHER VIEW

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu