By Wendy Harris
Wendy is a resident of Silver Beach on the north side of Lake Whatcom. She is an active citizen. Today she is our first guest writer.
This week, while Canadian Geese are molting and cannot fly, the City of Bellingham will fund an eradication plan. US Fish and Wildlife will lure geese at Bloedel Donovan and nearby residential waterfront lawns into Lake Whatcom, where they will be trapped and killed. You probably have not heard about this because there was no public hearing and it was not reported in the newspaper. I was told that this was scheduled for Friday, June 20th.
The geese have become a problem because waterfront homeowners are allowed to maintain lawns. Lawns not only attract geese, but are the primary source of phosphorus loading in Lake Whatcom. Prohibiting waterfront lawns would help save the Lake as well as the geese.
A 2007 City funded evaluation of stormwater phosphorus management stated that maintaining a vegetative border along the lakefront is one of the most effective and least expensive methods of discouraging geese. Moreover, a vegetative border would filter stormwater runoff prior to entering the Lake, thus reducing phosphorus loading. This same study concluded that stormwater management facilities would not be enough to restore Lake Whatcom’s water quality, and that the City would need to implement land use regulations.
Instead of following the recommendations of its paid consultants, the City is funding an eradication program that is proven to be ineffective. As long as the same inviting habitat remains, new geese will arrive. Given the stringent requirements set out in the TMDL, it is crucial that the City uses its limited funds wisely, adopting programs that are both effective and humane. Killing Canadian Geese is neither.
If you would like to weigh in on this issue, then please do so quickly. You may contact Bill Reilly, the City of Bellingham Storm and Surface Water Utility Manager, at 778-7900 or Email Bill Reilly at: breilly@cob.org
If you would like to learn more about alternatives to killing geese, visit the websites linked below.
Kill Lawns, Not Geese
By Wendy Harris
Wendy is a resident of Silver Beach on the north side of Lake Whatcom. She is an active citizen. Today she is our first guest writer.
This week, whil
By Wendy Harris
Wendy is a resident of Silver Beach on the north side of Lake Whatcom. She is an active citizen. Today she is our first guest writer.
This week, whil
To comment, please log in.
To comment, Log In or Register
Comments by Readers
g.h. kirsch
Jun 15, 2008“The geese have become a problem…”
Only the delusional, homo centric vision we have of ourselves, and our place in nature, allows such an illogical remark to be uttered with a straight face.
And speaking of problems, look who’s calling the kettle black.
Give ‘em hell, Wendy!
John Servais
Jun 16, 2008Well, if you don’t know yet, here are the latest developments - as best as I’ve been able to learn them. This report is based on some conversations with reliable people today. I’ve no first hand knowledge - and have waited all day for those with first hand knowledge to inform us. They seem to be laying low.
The city decided late last week to not kill the geese. However, we citizens did not get word on that till this morning - and Wendy submitted her post over the weekend. As far as I have been able to determine, Wendy acted on good information.
Did the city come close to killing the geese? It appears from what I have learned that Bill Reilly of Public Works was trying to make it happen - and tried to do it under the radar - despite plenty of warning signs that it was folly to try.
Here is the kicker. The US Fish & Wildlife folks may still be planning to kill geese later this week. We don’t know - and those in the know have given very qualified denials - leaving wiggle room for the killings. Anyone have the time to get straight answers?
If anyone wants to weigh in with contrary views - or more information on just what Reilly was up to - feel free. The only qualification for being registered to comment is that I am able to verify that you are you. Even Bill Reilly.
Tom Pratum
Jun 17, 2008Thanks Wendy for bringing this to many folks attention. Obviously we need to stay on top of this, since it appears it may come forward again; there are obviously a number of lakefront residents clamoring for it.
Several years ago, as I recall, Sudden Valley also proposed the exact same thing. It was also to be done by USFWS as I recall. I don’t think this ever happened due to public outcry, and Lois Garlick wrote something in Whatcom Watch that mentioned it (among other things), see ” Sudden Valley Golf Course Has Nuisance Value”:
http://www.whatcomwatch.org/old_issues/v10i12.html#6
Tip Johnson
Jun 18, 2008Geese can contribute quite a lot of soluble nutrient to the environment. Their diet determines how much.
Inland geese drop approximately 28 times a day at an average dry weight/dropping of 1.17 grams (28 x 1.17 = 32.76 dry grams/goose/day).
Coastal geese drop an average of 92 times per day with an average dry weight/dropping of 1.9 grams(92 x 1.9 = 53.2 dry grams/goose/day).
The dry phosphorus content ranges between 0.016 (inland)to 0.019 (coastal) grams per dropping.
Depending upon diet, each goose is estimated to contribute between 163 grams(inland) to 638 grams(coastal) of soluble phosphorus/year. Our geese are probably somewhere in between.
In addition, there is quite a lot of nitrogen. Nitrogen ranges from 521 grams (inland) to 1,410 grams(coastal)/goose/year.
(Manny, B.A., R.G. Wetzel and W.C. Johnson. 1975. Annual contribution of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus by migrant Canada geese to a hardwater lake.)
Any estimates on how many geese are out there?
Tip Johnson
Jun 18, 2008Just wanted you to have the straight poop!
Wendy Harris
Jun 18, 2008I appreciate the information. I have not heard estimates on the number of geese in the watershed, but I have reviewed a City study that ranked the sources of phosphorus input to Lake Whatcom.
The sources of phosphorus loading were ranked from high to low in the following order:
1. lawns and landscaped areas
2. residential streets, driveways and sidewalks
3. stream erosion
4. land clearing and other disturbed surfaces
5. animal waste
6. stormwater treatment facilities
7. household products
8. septic tanks
This list by itself is somewhat deceptive since it does not reflect the relative percentage of total phosphorus that each source constitutes. The City’s study indicates that the primary source of phosphorus loading is most likely lawns, streets and driveway/sidewalks, but the study references other studies that indicate that lawns, streets, driveways and sidewalks account for approximately 80% of phosphorus loading.
Perhaps I am being too cynical, but all this focus on geese, which are not even close to the top priority if your real concern is to restore the water quality of the Lake, leads me to conclude that the real agenda here is to eliminate the nuisance factor created by geese.
Wendy Harris
Tip Johnson
Jun 18, 2008Well, at least we don’t have to guess whether all those people out there contribute to the problem. I haven’t heard of any plans to cull them. It’s easy to blame lawns and septic tanks, but without the people I doubt they would be much of a problem. That’s why rational folks fence their watersheds if they can.
John Watts
Jun 20, 2008Just killing the geese won’t work in the long run because they are only a symptom of the problem. Making the shoreline unattractive to geese would be a much better strategy that would also help filter runoff into the lake. Geese don’t like an unobstructed view of their surroundings, so planting -or letting grow- vegetation that creates a visual barrier would be quite effective. About 2 feet high would likely be sufficient.
Goose poop -like ALL poop- is a problem, particularly adjacent to shorelines, and was likely the main culprit in closing down the Bloedel-Donovan swimming area a few years ago due, to fecal coliform - one of the contaminants that contributed to Lake Whatcom being 303 (d) listed by the Dept of Ecology. It has also positively identified as the major cause for the periodic closure beaches in the north end of Lake Washington over the last few years.
Look at Lake Padden for example. Where long expanses of grass border the lake, the geese congregate; where taller grass, bushes and trees line the shore, they stay in the water.
I have seen Canadian geese almost everywhere I’ve visited in the US in areas that provide safe grazing. So killing a few geese here will only invite others to visit Lake Whatcom.
We don’t kill dogs, cats, deer, raccoons, horses, cows, birds of the air, or other animals for pooping next to the Lake do we? For that matter, humans, with all our leaky septic tanks, fertilizers, pesticides, soaps, vehicles, fuels and garbage, are also exempt from that discussion!
We need to focus on substance and not cosmetics! Fining the landowners on whose property the geese are found near, would be a fair way of financing any extermination process. Of course, that would bring screams from the extreme property rights folks whose lands often extend well into the Lake.
A few years ago we had a candidate for Mayor who advocated a very simple solution to stopping the pollution into Lake Whatcom. One of the 2 or 3 planks in his platform was to ‘get rid of the geese’. Little did he know what it would really take to do that!
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. People and their development in inappropriate places is the problem, not geese.
While its more or less acceptable to kill chickens, turkeys and other fowl that are raised to eat, the gratuitous killing of geese -for pooping in artificial, but delicious lawns- is stupid, ineffective and likely to cause more problems than it solves.
But, that’s just my opinion.
Viki Warner
Jul 30, 2008Too bad we can’t kill the geese and give the meat to the food banks. Start a pillow-stuffing business and problem solved.