4 ms·

Cull them. Controlling their numbers and loving animals are not mutually exclusive.

Zak 4y ago
Less violent alternatives include: Finding nests and oiling the eggs to prevent them from developing. Landscaping parks to include more tall grass and similar obstructions to sight lines. Geese are comfortable where they can see predators a long way away.
- pigsty 4y ago
  Oiling eggs seems like a laborious and environmentally bad solution (oil, even vegetable oil, being dumped everywhere and flowing into ponds doesn’t seem good). If you’re going to strangle eggs, I think there are much more efficient methods.
  - master_crab 4y ago
    Not to mention that modifying landscaping is not always a viable option.
    - Zak 4y ago
      There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to conflicts between humans and wildlife, but I think generally speaking killing the wildlife shouldn't be plan A. Other options should be tried first when the wildlife isn't an imminent danger to people, including changes to human-made habitats, changes to human behavior, and non-lethal population control.
      - pigsty 4y ago
        Putting enough tall grass in a park to keep geese away would also have the consequence of making it keep humans away. Some untouched areas are fine, but if geese are avoiding it because they sense danger, humans will do the same. It comes with the reality of snakes, and worse, ticks. Nobody will let their kids play there and no adults will run or relax there. It’d be closed off and paved over if it’s meant as an urban park.
        Zak 4y ago
        Tall grass is not the only option for reducing sightlines near the shore of lakes/ponds, and reducing sightlines is not the only option for reducing the appeal of an area to geese. Another comment suggested introducing a pair of swans, though that also has potential downsides (swans can be aggressive toward humans).
  - Zak 4y ago
    I lack the expertise to offer a comprehensive environmental impact analysis, but it is an established population control technique. I suspect the amount of oil used is small enough that it doesn't have a significant environmental impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_egg_addling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_egg_addling
- fedeb95 4y ago
  Less violent alternatives may have unwanted consequences, while killing animals is something that actually benefits their genetic pools. It's amazing how usually animal lovers and knowledge don't intersect
  - Zak 4y ago
    Introducing natural predators might improve the gene pool of a wild animal population, but humans randomly selecting animals to kill does not. Of course, introducing predators is almost certain to have unwanted consequences.
    - fedeb95 4y ago
      How can you say that? Dogs and cattle survived to this day by being killed (or neutered) by humans. It's a win genetically
      - Zak 4y ago
        I can say that easily; culling a population of free-roaming wild animals because people believe there are too many of them is very different from breeding a population of captive domestic animals with a goal of achieving specific results. As for whether humans are good at breeding when done intentionally, the evidence is a bit equivocal. Mixed breed dogs and cats are usually much less prone to heritable health issues than purebred, but I think that's less true for farm animals where health issues impact profits.
        fedeb95 4y ago
        We probably don't have enough evidence to say something about my point, even less for culling. Let me restate "love for animals and knowledge don't intersect" as "love for animals and skepticism don't intersect"

Zak 4y ago

Less violent alternatives include: Finding nests and oiling the eggs to prevent them from developing. Landscaping parks to include more tall grass and similar obstructions to sight lines. Geese are comfortable where they can see predators a long way away.

pigsty 4y ago
Oiling eggs seems like a laborious and environmentally bad solution (oil, even vegetable oil, being dumped everywhere and flowing into ponds doesn’t seem good). If you’re going to strangle eggs, I think there are much more efficient methods.
- master_crab 4y ago
  Not to mention that modifying landscaping is not always a viable option.
  - Zak 4y ago
    There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to conflicts between humans and wildlife, but I think generally speaking killing the wildlife shouldn't be plan A. Other options should be tried first when the wildlife isn't an imminent danger to people, including changes to human-made habitats, changes to human behavior, and non-lethal population control.
    - pigsty 4y ago
      Putting enough tall grass in a park to keep geese away would also have the consequence of making it keep humans away. Some untouched areas are fine, but if geese are avoiding it because they sense danger, humans will do the same. It comes with the reality of snakes, and worse, ticks. Nobody will let their kids play there and no adults will run or relax there. It’d be closed off and paved over if it’s meant as an urban park.
      - Zak 4y ago
        Tall grass is not the only option for reducing sightlines near the shore of lakes/ponds, and reducing sightlines is not the only option for reducing the appeal of an area to geese. Another comment suggested introducing a pair of swans, though that also has potential downsides (swans can be aggressive toward humans).
- Zak 4y ago
  I lack the expertise to offer a comprehensive environmental impact analysis, but it is an established population control technique. I suspect the amount of oil used is small enough that it doesn't have a significant environmental impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_egg_addling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_egg_addling
fedeb95 4y ago
Less violent alternatives may have unwanted consequences, while killing animals is something that actually benefits their genetic pools. It's amazing how usually animal lovers and knowledge don't intersect
- Zak 4y ago
  Introducing natural predators might improve the gene pool of a wild animal population, but humans randomly selecting animals to kill does not. Of course, introducing predators is almost certain to have unwanted consequences.
  - fedeb95 4y ago
    How can you say that? Dogs and cattle survived to this day by being killed (or neutered) by humans. It's a win genetically
    - Zak 4y ago
      I can say that easily; culling a population of free-roaming wild animals because people believe there are too many of them is very different from breeding a population of captive domestic animals with a goal of achieving specific results. As for whether humans are good at breeding when done intentionally, the evidence is a bit equivocal. Mixed breed dogs and cats are usually much less prone to heritable health issues than purebred, but I think that's less true for farm animals where health issues impact profits.
      - fedeb95 4y ago
        We probably don't have enough evidence to say something about my point, even less for culling. Let me restate "love for animals and knowledge don't intersect" as "love for animals and skepticism don't intersect"