Hey Western Washington Tweets:

Here is your chance to make your voice heard on the so-called "goose
problem". Monday's PI features an article on various non-lethal and lethal
methods to control Puget Sound's burgeoning population of Canada geese, as
outlined in the US Dept. of Agriculture's Wildlife Services' newly released
environmental assessment. Whatever your take on the extent of this
"problem", the address to which you can send your input for consideration
before the May 26 deadline is:

US Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Services
720 O'Leary Street NW
Olympia, WA 98502


According to the article, as recently as 30 years ago Canada geese were
rare in this region. I can personally testify that they were not rare 15
years ago, and indeed efforts to limit them have been going on for twelve
years. Most of the geese are thought to descend from nests of eggs rescued
from the McNary and John Day dams and introduced to Puget Sound in the
1960s. Roger Woodruff of Wildlife Services estimates that there are
20,000-25,000 geese in urban areas around Puget Sound, and expects the
number to quadruple in ten years. The present goal is to reduce the current
goose population by 3,500 to slow population growth.
The article tells us where the geese came from, but never addresses why
they thrive here, yet failed to populate the region centuries ago. The
answer is implicit in the accompanying photograph: the widespread
replacement of lowland forest with the non-native invasive weeds that we
call lawn grasses, which the geese eat enthusiastically.
The article discusses such absurdly ineffective methods of control as
discouraging people from feeding the geese without ever mentioning that
local parks departments provide the geese with a year-round all-you-can-eat
buffet by insisting on blanketing most public shores with lawn grasses.
Methods that seem slightly more on track include planting unpalatable
plants and "limiting a goose's ability to move from water to land by
landscaping with fences, hedges and boulders at shoreline". Personally, I'd
rather deal with goose feces than put fences up along the shorelines, and I
suspect that many geese will fly over these barriers, but at least these
solutions recognize that the problem arises from abundant artificial habitat.
Bizarrely, hazing by dogs (the practice pioneered by the City of Kirkland
in which certain people are paid to let their dogs chase geese while the
rest of us would receive hefty fines if we let our dogs do the same thing)
is still on the list of methods, even though Woodruff recognizes that "all
this does is move the geese from one area...to another".
Most controversial (at least unless the idea of getting rid of lawns
catches on) are the lethal methods. Wildlife Services proposes to round the
geese up in June or July when they are molting and can't fly and gas them
with carbon monoxide. They would like to donate the meat to charity if it
can be done safely.
My own favored "solution", as you may have guessed, is to drastically
reduce the amount of lawn grasses in "problem" areas and replace it with
native shrubs and ground covers. This would make our parks more
interesting, create habitat for other wildlife, and reduce the air and
noise pollution produced from our cultural obsession with mowing lawns.
Lawns are popular largely for historical reasons having to do with social
status that date back to the 17th century or so, but also because of their
durability. I am happy to leave lawns in highly trafficked areas such as
Green Lake and help people realize that the trade-off is dealing with
geese. There are many less trafficked areas, however, where the lawns could
be replaced with something more interesting and useful.
Perhaps you have a better solution, or don't think having abundant urban
geese constitutes a significant problem. Let Wildlife Services know your
thoughts. It would be nice if they heard from people who are actually
interested in birds and not just from people interested in keeping their
shoes clean.

Happy goosing,

Paul Talbert
Seattle
tuisto at oz.net