Secondly, this concept is to keep the public into believing that hunting is the only way to control wild populations. Canada geese as with any game specie, management on them has always been designed to enhance hunting opportunities not to reduce their populations. Also according to the proposed rule, if resident Canada goose populations happen to be in areas that can not provide any sport hunting opportunities, then there would be ample reason to issue the depredation permits. To the contrary there are natural predators in many urban and suburban areas. Of course, natural predation will be more effective on goslings and on eggs than on the adult geese.
Foxes can also pose a threat to goslings and to eggs.
Then there are other birds such as crows and gulls that look for eggs to eat. It states that the Service would only issue permits after applicable non-lethal alternative means of eliminating the damage problem have been proven to be unsuccessful or not feasible. I place this last in my comments because I have to question just how serious the Service is on seeing the non lethal alternatives used. By this proposed rule it seems obvious that the Service is reacting to strong demands by state agencies, that only believe that solving the problems is to remove and kill geese. FATE believes the Service should be defending the geese rather than attempting to change the current regulation so geese can be easily kill geese.