HomeMy WebLinkAbout#3 Goose Droppings in Royal GolfSTAFF REPORT
DATE: July 14, 2020
DISCUSSION
AGENDA ITEM: Goose Droppings in Royal Golf
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, I received the email below from a new resident in Royal Golf:
Kristina,
We have a significant problem with goose droppings all over the sidewalk and road along Palmer Drive.
The geese reside in the storm ponds which are on land that belongs to the City of Lake Elmo (LOT F
SUBDIVISIONCD 3163 SUBDIVISIONNAME THE ROYAL GOLF CLUB AT LAKE ELMO 2ND
ADDITION). The sidewalk and road adjacent to this out lot are covered with goose droppings as shown
in the photos below:
This has been an on-going problem all summer. My wife and I along with the neighbor have cleaned the
walk several times, but the problem needs a better solution. One that comes to mind is to install a fence
along the sidewalk to keep the geese from crossing this area to go between the golf course and the storm
pond. This is a significant health issue and needs to be addressed for all concerned. In the short term, the
City needs to keep the sidewalk and street cleaned of the goose droppings. This is dedicated right-of-way.
I do not think the City would tolerate this mess if it was originating on property owned by anyone else.
This area has a lot of residents from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 walking down the sidewalk. Many of them
now go on the road as it is easier to dodge the piles of goose droppings. However, this creates a safety
concern as you have pedestrians dodging goose droppings in moving traffic.
Please take a ride by this area to get a real sense of the unsanitary mess that has existed all summer. I
would guess that you have not been made aware of this previously. I would be glad to meet you on site to
discuss the issue and potential solutions as I live within short distance.
Sorry for adding another problem to your already heavy work load.
Nick Dragisich
1374 Palmer Drive N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Would the council like to do anything regarding the goose droppings in Royal Golf 2nd Addition?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Mr. Dragisich sent another email citing city code (see below) so I asked out engineer what BMPs we have
in our stormwater management plan for goose droppings.
150.309 REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT, CONTROL, AND REDUCE STORM
WATER POLLUTANTS BY THE USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
The City of Lake Elmo will adopt requirements identifying best management practices for
any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to pollution or
contamination of storm water, the storm drain system, or waters of the United States. The
owner or operator of such activity, operation, or facility shall provide, at their own expense,
reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into
the municipal storm drain system or watercourses through the use of these structural and
non-structural BMPs. Further, any person responsible for a property or premise that is, or
may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's
expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of
pollutants to the MS4. Compliance with all terms and conditions of a valid NPDES permit
authorizing the discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity, to the extent
practicable, shall be deemed compliance with the provisions of this subchapter. These BMPs
shall be part of a storm water management plan (SWMP) as necessary for compliance with
requirements of the NPDES permit.
(Ord. 2012-59, passed 6-5-2012)
The city does not have any BMPs in our approved stormwater management plan for goose droppings. The
city engineer did some research and found that some cities do such as Plymouth, Oakdale and Eden Prairie.
Copies of their communication is attached. The engineer is not recommending we adopt a similar plan but
only shares this as a point of information. If the city did want to adopt some plan we would further
recommend that the plan not apply to an active construction site where a developer is still responsible for
the stormwater management, and SWPPP management. It appears from the photos that they are located in
RGC 2nd Addition which is still under the control of the developer. Typically as the development gets filled
up with new homes, the geese problem is minimized. For example this happened in Royal Golf 1st Addition.
We received geese complaints last year however no issues have been reported this year.
I spoke with Jim Felton from Royal Golf to see what they do to address the geese problem on the golf
course since that will have permanent large open spaces. He said he instructs his staff to mow around the
pond areas in the spring and then not touch them until fall. The tall grass then is effective at keeping geese
away. He also mentioned that the HOA may purchase coyote decoys to place in areas to scare the geese
away.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Depends on direction from Council
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend not adopting a goose management plan. We will follow a similar mowing schedule
as described by Royal Golf once the stormwater pond improvement is accepted by the city. Much like in
first addition, as the grass has time to grow we except the geese problems to take care of themselves.
ATTACHMENT:
• Plymouth Goose Management Info
• Eden Prairie Goose Management Plan
• Oakdale Goose Management Plan
Geese: Don’t want them? Don’t
make them feel at home
The many lakes, ponds and wetlands that dot the City
of Plymouth make it a prime stopping place for
Canada geese. But it takes more than water to
create a haven for the long-necked fowl.
Look at it from the goose’s point of
view:
First, there’s the favorite menu selec-
tion – grass. Better still, the grass is fertilized to
a lush green, then clipped short enough to allow you to keep a lookout
for predators. Without looking too far you can find grass all the way
down to the edge of a pond or lake. Now you can enjoy a snack of the
tender, emergent plants growing just beyond the water’s edge.
Finally, there are those friendly folk who toss you sumptuous treats of
corn or stale bread. What a place to raise a family!
It sounds nice, but we are paying a price for our hospitality? The ris-
ing populations of geese are destroying developing plant beds along
fragile lakeshores. Their droppings are polluting local waterways and
adding phosphorus that promotes excessive algae growth.
Without suggesting any drastic or cruel measures, how can we make
life not quite so comfortable for the geese? Just a few simple measures
may help discourage them from some of their haunts. A buffer of
taller plants and grasses next to the shore of a lake creates an unap-
pealing hangout for geese. (Who knows what fox or dog is hiding
there, after all?)
Discourage family members from feeding the geese. Geese aren’t
likely to leave a place where they get free handouts.
Protect young plants with fences that don’t allow geese to fly in and
harvest what you worked hard to plant.
In other words, as much as possible, don’t roll out the welcome mat for
these graceful birds whose growing populations are becoming a growing
problem for water quality.
Canada geese are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so
any lethal management methods or trapping are not allowed without
federal or state permits. Instead, the most effective way to deter
geese is to make an area uninviting to them. Here are some techniques
that anyone could use in an effort to deter geese from making their homes
where they are not wanted.
Eliminate feeding
Wildlife in general should not be fed. As long as residents feed
the geese, any goose management or removal strategy will be ineffective.
Hazing
People or trained dogs chase the geese out as
soon as they land in an area.
Exclusion
A fence placed around the water body
restricts movement of geese from water to
upland areas, preventing nesting.
Landscaping
A buffer of natural landscaping restricts
the movement of geese and minimizes
their feeding.
Repellents
Naturally derived chemicals are sprayed on the grass to make it less
palatable to the geese.
Scare techniques
Various devices are used to scare geese. Life-sized plastic owls,
pop-up balloons with eyes and dead goose look-alikes are some
techniques.
* Best Management Practices
Plymouth’s environment can support more Canada geese than are
compatible with public health, good water quality and public tolerance. The
core of an affordable, long term solution to coexisting with these
birds is in the hands of Plymouth citizens.
As long as the geese find their favorite habitat (see article below),
they will continue to make their home around Plymouth’s ponds and lakes.
The best management practices (BMP’s) listed at right are the tools
residents can use to make Plymouth less hospitable to geese.
Getting Help
Canada geese are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so
physical management methods or trapping requires federal or state
permits. The University of Minnesota’s Canada Goose Program
holds these permits and provides goose management services to both
public and private parties through Canada Goose Management, Inc.
Individuals or groups wishing to use their services can contact
Tom Keefe at 612-812-0224 or by email at
tomkcanadagoose@aol.com
Options to manage geese
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN
June 11, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE CANADA GOOSE ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 NESTING ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 BROOD-REARING ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 MOLTING ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 GOOSE DAMAGE ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 EDEN PRAIRIE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 SUMMER GOOSE POPULATION ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 FALL GOOSE POPULATION .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 GOOSE COMPLAINTS ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 DRAFT PLAN PREPARATION / DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................... 6
3.2 FIELD SURVEY............................................................................................................................................. 6
4.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS ................................................................................... 7
5.0 CANADA GEESE AND PUBLIC HEALTH ...................................................................................................... 8
5.1 GENERAL HEALTH RISKS ............................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 AVIAN INFLUENZA RISKS ............................................................................................................................ 8
6.0 TCMA CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 10
7.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... 11
7.1 CURRENT GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 11
7.2 HABITAT MODIFICATION ........................................................................................................................... 11
7.3 REDISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................................................................... 12
7.3.1 High effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 12
7.3.2 Moderate effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 12
7.3.3 Low effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 12
7.4 POPULATION REDUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 13
7.4.1 Egg Removal................................................................................................................................ 13
7.4.2 Egg Destruction / Embryocide Use ............................................................................................. 13
7.4.3 Vasectomization / Sterilization .................................................................................................... 14
7.5 TRAP AND RELOCATE ................................................................................................................................ 14
7.6 TRAP AND PROCESS ................................................................................................................................... 14
7.7 HUNTING ................................................................................................................................................... 15
7.0 EDEN PRAIRIE GOOSE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 16
9.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX A - MNDNR Canada Goose Removal Policies and Procedures (1/10/2001)
APPENDIX B - MNDNR Urban Goose Hunting Policy
APPENDIX C - MNDNR Contractor Requirements for Conducting Canada Goose Management Programs in
Minnesota
APPENDIX D - Eden Prairie Site Assessment Sheets
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 1 of 32
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE CANADA GOOSE
The Canada goose is the most widespread and abundant North American goose, found in every state
and Canadian province at some time during the year. In spring, the species breeds from Labrador,
throughout the high Canadian arctic islands to Alaska, south to California, and eastward to Georgia.
Wintering Canada geese are found from southeastern Alaska to Hawaii and northern Mexico
eastward to Massachusetts and Florida (Bellrose, 1976). The Canada goose is one of the earliest
spring migrants, first among Midwestern waterfowl to return to the breeding grounds.
Current surveys indicate that the species exceeds 4 million individuals. At one time virtually
extinct, the Canada goose was re-established over much of its former range by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), state wildlife departments, and conservation clubs. The population,
particularly in urbanized areas, is now growing exponentially. The Minnesota wild giant Canada
goose population went from zero in 1954 to more than 360,000 in 2004.
The Canada goose shows great variation in body size and regional differences in plumage, bill
shape and call. One resident and three migrant Canada goose subspecies are found in Minnesota.
These include Richardson’s goose, Canada goose and Todd’s Canada goose. The largest birds
average 12 to 14 pounds, although some weigh up to 18 pounds.
Mowed lakeshores, parks and golf courses provide an abundance of brood-rearing habitat and food
sources. Predator densities are low, hunting is limited and the bird is unaffected by most human
activities. As such, the bird has become supremely adapted to an urban environment. When
Canada geese damage crops, golf courses, parks; reduce water quality; or endanger human life on
roads and airports, intensive management programs are needed.
1.1 Nesting
Female geese build the nest and incubate the eggs without direct aid from the gander (the male).
The gander guards the female from disturbance by other mature pairs and assists the female in
protecting the eggs, and later, the goslings. Eggs are laid as soon as there is open water for mating
and snow-free nest sites. It is not unusual for the birds to continue nesting in spite of temperatures
as low as zero degrees Fahrenheit and snowfalls up to 10 inches.
Pair bonding takes place in spring among young geese at 1 or 2 years of age. The pair remains
steadfast until the death of one of the members. There are no known cases where a female has
successfully nested after the death of her mate.
Nests are typically built on isolated sites separated from adjacent dry land by a moat of open water;
this could include nesting islands, beaver lodges or sedge hummocks. Females often use the same
site year after year or alternate between 2 nest sites in close proximity. Young females nesting for
the first time attempt to nest close to the location where they were reared.
The female incubates from 97 to 98% of the day, taking only one or two brief recesses from
incubation. Because she feeds so little, the female can lose up to 30% of her body weight during
incubation and is within 4-10 days of starvation when the eggs hatch.
Canada goose nest success normally ranges from 60 to 80%. On average, 4 goslings are hatched
per successful nest. Nests can be lost to predators such as coyote, fox, skunk, raccoons, crows,
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 2 of 32
ravens and large gulls. Nests can also be lost to flooding or desertion (usually due to interference
by adjacent territorial pairs).
1.2 Brood-Rearing
Once the young have hatched, the family abandons the nest site and travels overland, up to 5 miles
in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA), to a suitable brood-rearing site. Most commonly,
brood concentration sites have expanses of grass (such as bluegrass turf) where visibility is good,
food is abundant and open water is only a short run away. Geese are social animals and flocks can
exceed 100 or more birds.
1.3 Molting
Five weeks after hatch, the breeding female loses her flight feathers and enters what is termed a
molt period. The male molts 4 to 10 days later. Both remain flightless until the young can fly,
which is approximately 9 to 10 weeks of age. Because of the energy and nutrients needed to replace
the adults’ flight feathers and for the goslings to grow from fist -sized to nearly full-grown in less
than 10 weeks, large quantities of forage must be consumed during this period.
1.4 Goose Damage
Damage complaints due to Canada geese have been filed for damage to crops, golf courses, lawns,
gardens, decks, vehicles, ponds and lakes due to feeding habits, excretion of fecal matter and
walking or flying into traffic. When human health or safety is endangered, intensive management
programs are often needed.
Goose digestive systems are relatively inefficient and results in production of approximately 3 to 4
lbs. of droppings or fecal matter per day. The amount of droppings produced can reduce water
quality in lakes and ponds adjoining brood-rearing and feeding areas. In 1994, Manny, Johnson,
and Wetzel found that goose droppings were contributing up to 70% of the phosphorus entering a
small Michigan lake. The goose serves as a transport vector, moving nutrients derived from upland
grass into or near a wetland, pond or lake. The potential for impact depends on size of goose
population, volume of water, time spent on the water body and water inflow and outflow.
In summary, the Canada goose has adapted to both highly human altered and wilderness settings.
Predation is low, hunting is limited by human safety, and the bird is unaffected by most human
activities.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 3 of 32
Table 1 - Canada Goose Damage Reported in 1998 in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
(Government and Non-governmental organizations)
Damage Type Number
Grass damage 40
Decreased water quality 34
Road Traffic Hazard 32
Droppings on residential yard 30
Droppings on playground 25
Droppings on public park 25
Damage to gardens 25
Droppings on golf course 24
Attacks on people 24
Droppings on commercial property 21
Droppings on swimming beach 19
Shoreline erosion 17
Other 4
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 4 of 32
2.0 EDEN PRAIRIE INFORMATION
No comprehensive surveys of the Eden Prairie Canada geese have been done previously. Using
University of Minnesota Extension Service (UMES) data, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
goose damage databases and additional sites provided by City of Eden Prairie staff, 101 potential
goose damage locations were identified. The sites evaluated include marshes, lakes and ponds that
were greater than ½ acre in size. These sites were visited during the June through July and
November 2004 periods. Sites with evidence of summer goose use were visited again June through
August in 2005.
Goose broods were sighted at 46 wetlands in Eden Prairie, with more than 400 non-breeding birds
found at Purgatory Creek Park alone in the summer of 2004. Among the 101 sites evaluated, 57
ranked high or excellent quality for summer use, 66 ranked moderate to excellent quality for fall use
and none were ranked as high or excellent quality for over-winter use due to the lack of open water
in the winter. Summer complaints for goose damage, health safety risks or aggressiveness were
recorded at 60 different sites.
Canada goose damage was first reported in 1986 at the Olympic Hills Golf Course. A trapping
program was implemented and 134 birds were captured and relocated in 1987. Removals at the
course continued until 1995, when the population stabilized at approximately 34 geese. Since that
time a dog has been used to harass and disperse the geese to adjacent wetlands.
The first removal for management of goose damage and beach health concerns occurred in 2000 at
Round Lake Park. The summer population of geese at Round Lake has declined from 52 in 2000 to
5 in 2005. Since 2000, the City has expanded its program to more than 20 locations. A total of 86
goose damage locations have been identified based on complaints made to the City, DNR and
UMES or The Canada Goose Program between 1982 and 2005.
Based on an ecological impact assessment survey of 48 TCMA municipal governments, lakeshore
homeowner’s associations and corporations reporting goose damage in 1997, a median economic
loss of $2,001 to $5,000 for Canada goose damage sites was estimated (University of Minnesota,
2001). Based on this estimate, the cost of the damage in Eden Prairie was estimated as between
$172,000 and $430,000 per year, not including the cost of harassing birds at Flying Cloud Airport.
The
2.1 Summer Goose Population
In summer 2004, the population was near 1,550 (9% of the TCMA population) and goose broods or
goose damage were found at 86 Eden Prairie water bodies. Sites ranked as high for damage during
the summer included Purgatory Creek Park, Round Lake, Duck Lake, Hidden Ponds, Bearpath Golf
& Country Club, Bryant Lake, Water Treatment Plant, Emerson-Rosemount property, GMAC-RFC
property, Mitchell Lake / Miller Park, Olympic Hills Golf Course, Smetana Lake, Red Rock Lake
and the intersection of Highway 5 / Prairie Center Drive.
Eden Prairie has an abundance of high quality breeding and broodrearing sites for Canada geese.
Among the 101 sites evaluated 20 ranked high and 14 excellent for goose nesting. Goose broods
and flightless adult geese in summer require areas with open water and shorelines with ample grass
for food. Among the 101 Eden Prairie summer sites evaluated, Purgatory Creek Park, Round Lake,
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 5 of 32
Duck Lake and Lake Smetana ranked as excellent and 57 sites ranked as high for goose
broodrearing. The Minnesota River Valley also supports a goose population but is relatively light
(85 geese counted by aerial survey)
2.2 Fall Goose Population
There are 23 excellent and 18 high quality fall use sites in the city. In fall 2004 large numbers of
flying geese populations were identified at:
Purgatory Creek Recreation Area (200-600 birds)
Olympic Hills Golf Course (up to 300 birds)
Eden Prairie High School (75-400 birds)
Bearpath Golf and Country Club (100-150 birds)
Eden Lake School (50-150 birds)
Eden Lake Park / Eden Lake School (100-300 birds)
Eden Prairie High School (50-150 birds)
Prairieview School (up to 150)
Prairieview Park (up to 150 birds)
Round Lake Park (up to 100± birds)
Flying Cloud Airport (up to 500 birds) (the Airport has their own goose management
program)
Summer and fall goose use typically extends to neighborhood businesses, streets, and highways,
especially in locations such as the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area.
3.3 Goose Complaints
There are 86 Eden Prairie locations where complaints were recorded by the City, DNR, UMES, or
The Canada Goose Program during the 1982 to 2005 period or from the field assessment conducted
for this plan. Complaints included:
Residential (35)
Business / Commercial (16)
Parks (11)
Golf courses (4)
Beaches (3)
Schools (3)
Highways (3)
Churches (1)
Water treatment plant (1)
Nature center (1)
Airport (1)
In most cases, the complaint arose from both the physical impact of grazing on turf and the impact
of the goose droppings. For example, concern for contracting disease from droppings was
expressed in 14 cases.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 6 of 32
3.0 DATA COLLECTION
A comprehensive survey of the Eden Prairie Canada geese was done by The Canada Goose
Program in 2004 and 2005. University of Minnesota Extension Service (UMES), DNR goose
damage databases, and data provided by City of Eden Prairie staff were used to identify potential
goose damage locations.
3.1 Draft Plan Preparation / Data Collection
All data used to prepare this Plan was collected by James A. Cooper, Ph.D. with The Canada Goose
Program, Inc. The data was compiled and submitted to the City in December 2007 by Dr. Cooper
and Erin Cooper of The Canada Goose Program. City staff edited the draft plan and information
submitted and this report is a compilation of both the data provided and that collected by staff.
3.2 Field Survey
A total of 101 potential locations were identified and visited during the June through July, and
November 2004 periods. Sites with evidence of goose use were surveyed again in May through
June 2005. To assess fall damage, managers of golf courses, schools with playgrounds and athletic
fields, large parks, and the Flying Cloud Airport were contacted by phone, followed by a site visit to
reported damage sites in November 2004.
In comparison with most TCMA cities, Eden Prairie has an abundance of high quality breeding,
summer broodrearing, and fall sites for Canada geese. Among the 101 sites evaluated:
Goose Nesting – 20 sites ranked high and 14 excellent for nesting.
Goose Broodrearing – 57 sites ranked either high (24%) or excellent (33%) for goose
broodrearing. Purgatory Creek, Round Lake, Duck Lake, and Lake Smetana in particular
ranked as excellent.
Fall Use / Grazing - 23 sites ranked as excellent and 18 as high qu ality for fall usage. Major fall
goose concentrations were identified at the Olympic Hills Golf Course (up to 300 birds), the
Bearpath Golf Course (100-150), Eden Prairie High School (75-400), Eden Lake School (50-
150), Prairieview School (up to 150), Purgatory Creek Park (200-600), Eden Lake Park (50-
150), Prairieview Park (up to 150), and Round Lake Park (approximately 100).
In the Purgatory Creek Park area, both summer and fall goose use extends to neighborhood
businesses and streets.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 7 of 32
4.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
The Canada goose is a migratory bird protected by federal and state law. The Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 prohibits the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs except during
established hunting seasons or by USFWS permit. Activities covered by permits include capture
and banding (Banding Permit), collection for scientific or educational purposes (Scientific
Collecting Permit), removal of eggs from wild nests and possession of captive birds by
aviculturalists (Special Purpose Permit), and the removal of birds, nests or eggs to protect people or
property from damage (Depredation Permit).
Due to the rapid expansion of Canada geese and the concurrent increase in requests for depredation
permits, the USFWS has implemented a policy allowing states broader authority to address goose
damage under a 5-year Resident Canada Goose Permit. The precedence for issuing a depredation
permit was upheld in federal court under Humane Society of the United States vs. USFWS.
Currently this permit is being used in states such as Minnesota where an urban Canada goose
management plan has been prepared.
Minnesota statutes also protect migratory birds. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) was established as the regulatory authority to review and issue permits to manage goose
populations (Appendix A). The legality and humaneness of the procedures used in the Twin Cities
were upheld in state court by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) vs. the DNR and
the University of Minnesota.
More information on state and federal provisions and permits can be found online at the following
websites.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
http://www.fws.gov/
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/cangeese/finaleis.html
State of Minnesota
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 8 of 32
5.0 CANADA GEESE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Due to their inefficient digestive systems, grazing habits and molting patterns, geese do pose a risk
to human health and safety. Canada geese can also cause a deterioration of water quality in ponds
or lakes that support geese.
5.1 General Health Risks
Potential health risks posed by the abundant droppings of the Canada goose are a relatively
untouched area of study as the urban goose concentrations are a relatively new phenomenon.
Human pathogens, such as Giardia sp. and Cryptosporidium sp. have been found in goose
droppings in New Jersey Canada goose droppings (New Jersey Wildlife Dept.), although the
longevity of the pathogens in the droppings or the likelihood of human ingestion or inhalation were
not studied.
A study conducted in London, England (Feare et al. 1999), where introduced Canada geese are also
causing damage in urban parks and at airports, showed that bacterial species such as E. coli and
Salmonella sp. remained viable in Canada goose droppings for at least a month after they were
deposited. Because fecal material is readily tran sferred to human hands by the handling of soccer
and other game balls, the authors concluded that pathogens present in waterfowl droppings
constitute a potential health risk to humans using parkland for recreation activities.
Locally, high fecal coliform levels attributed to goose droppings have been identified in lakes in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, including Round Lake in Eden Prairie. These findings have
resulted in mandatory beach closures after analysis of water samples by the Minnesota Depar tment
of Health for lakes such as Round Lake.
Due to the fact that it is possible to contract disease from goose fecal matter, following are general
recommendations for areas where these droppings may be present.
Wash hands, clothes and sports equipment immediately after exposure
Small children, pregnant women or immune-compromised individuals should avoid areas
with high concentrations of droppings
Small children who may put hands in their mouths should not be placed in contact with
these areas
5.2 Avian Influenza Risks
Currently there is serious concern and research on the potential pandemic threat of avian influenza
(otherwise known as bird flu or the H5N1 virus). At present, there appears to be three likely
scenarios for bird flu. From best to worst they are:
1. The virus will loose it virulence and while still spreading be less of a threat to humans and
birds. This is hypothetical, based on changes between influenza strains found in the past and
current flu outbreaks.
2. The virus will remain as it is and be spread widely by migratory birds. Management of
bird/bird and bird/human contacts is and will continue to be required to follow the spread of
the virus and will be important if the virus reaches Minnesota.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 9 of 32
3. The virus will mutate and be transmitted human to human. This could produce a worldwide
pandemic and would need to be addressed by the development of effective rapid quarantine
methods and production of a vaccine.
There is a high likelihood that H5N1 will be brought to Minnesota by migratory birds. The Tundra
swan is a likely vector candidate and their migratory route includes Minnesota in both spring and
fall where they mingle with migrating geese. Ducks may also carry the virus to the Midwest. There
are a number of measures that are and should be done now.
Monitor for the virus. The DNR and the Canada Goose Program, Inc. agreed to cooperate
with the University of Minnesota’s H5N1 monitoring program beginning in summer 2007.
Determine where humans would be exposed to infected birds. Unlike the current situation
overseas, where human contact has been primarily with infected domestic poultry and
waterfowl, North American exposure is likely to come from wild bird populations as most
domestic North American fowl are reared indoors. Top among the wild birds that have the
potential to transmit the virus to humans is the Canada goose. This is because viruses are
common in geese and other waterfowl, are shed in the droppings, and Canada geese
concentrate droppings in numerous public areas that are frequently used by people.
If bird flu were detected, The Canada Goose Program recommends that a massive goose reduction
program be implemented to reduce the chance of human-goose dropping contact in parks, playing
fields, beach areas and others. In addition, goose harassment should be used in areas where geese
remain on or near playing fields, beaches or others to further limit human exposure to the
droppings.
Additional information on the avian flu and its risks can be found at the following web sites:
U.S. Center for Disease Control
www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/
U.S. National Wildlife Health Laboratory
www.nwhc.usgs.gov/research/avian_influenza/avian_influenza.html
U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration
www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib121304.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/AvianFlu/WBAvianFlu.html
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 10 of 32
6.0 TCMA CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In 1982 when it became clear that the Canada goose population was negatively impacting people
and the environment, the DNR took the lead in developing an urban Canada goose management
program as well as joining U of M and UMES cooperative research program. The DNR has
established an Urban Goose Management Plan for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA).
This Plan includes information on:
Canada goose history and biology
Social goose carrying capacity within the TCMA
Rationales for management technique recommendations
The damage site management decision making process
Policies for goose hunting and goose removal
Requirements for goose removal contractors
Population management
Central to the management plan is the acceptance of the fact that the biological carrying capacity
(the level the goose population would reach if left alone) far exceeds the social carrying capacity
(the number of geese people will tolerate). The former has been estimated at 400,000 to 500,000
birds in the summer, the latter at 25,000 in the summer.
The decision-making process for dealing with goose damage was adapted in 1982 from the DNR’s
urban deer control policy. This policy requires that where a hunting harvest cannot be used to
manage a wildlife population, the local governmental unit (usually a city council or township board)
must establish population goals, select control procedures, fund the operational phase and evaluate
the program. Procedures must comply with state and federal statutes and permit requirements. The
DNR, USFWS, and the UMES provide technical input, and a contractor provides operational
assistance and evaluation.
A goose hunting policy was adopted state-wide in Minnesota in 1994. Based on the distribution of
open space, metropolitan area municipalities are classified by the potential for safe hunting.
Priorities are set for removal of problem geese based on the potential for hunting harvest.
Assistance in determining the potential for safe hunting is provided by DNR Area Wildlife
Managers.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 11 of 32
7.0 CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Current Goose Management Program
Successful management of the goose population typically includes a mix of management measures.
The City currently utilizes public education on how to manage geese, trapping and removal of
adults and young in summer and allowing sport hunting wherever it can be done safely (such as in
the Minnesota River floodplain).
The City has a private / public management program for trapping and removal of geese. Private
businesses or individuals who wish to participate in the program, either for a survey of the property
or collection of geese due to damage to property, must complete a Wildlife Management Report
Form. The form includes a requirement that alternate measures used on site to manage geese be
listed and incorporated where feasible. The form is available on the City’s web site and through
Environmental Services. Federal authorization of goose population management is based on the
depredation provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This means that a goose damage
management program must be complaint-based.
7.2 Habitat Modification
A comprehensive evaluation of the utility and effectiveness of habitat modification is lacking.
However, the University of Minnesota did use TCMA goose population, goose damage, and
wetland data to assess the potential biological and economic efficacy, social acceptability, and
application of landscape alterations as an urban goose management tool.
Potential alterations of Twin Cities nesting habitat for either short- or long-term goose management
are limited. Alternatives that could be used include:
Remove and replant shoreline areas with tall vegetation, such as grasses or shrubs. This
would only serve to displace geese to open turf areas such as parks, playgrounds, school
fields, lawns and golf courses where they would become more concentrated.
Reduce or eliminate mowing. Again, this would only displace geese to more open areas and
the vegetation may not grow to a desirable height to limit goose usage.
Drain or fill ponds and wetlands to limit goose habitat. This would negatively impact other
wildlife and diminish water quality and habitat.
From a long-term management perspective, if sufficient shoreline were converted from grass to
natural vegetation not used by geese, the population would be limited through higher gosling
mortality, that is, summer starvation. The magnitude of habitat conversion necessary to limit the
Twin Cities goose population at its desired level (25,000 birds in summer), was estimated in a 1998
U of M study. Using the area of the TCMA Public Waters wetlands, it is estimated that the Twin
Cities has a minimum of 3,308 miles of shoreline. Based on estimates of grass shoreline made at
227 wetlands in 1994, one-quarter (25%) of the TCMA shoreline is in mowed grass or pasture.
Therefore, 750 miles of shoreline is currently suitable for goose broodrearing. Because goose
broods will go at least 100 yards from the water to feed, the TCMA has about 30,000 acres of
suitable brood habitat.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 12 of 32
One acre of un-manicured pasture grass will support a minimum of 13 geese per acre. Assuming
this is representative of the capacity of fertilized and mowed urban lawns to support geese, the Twin
Cities brood carrying capacity is approximately 375,000 birds.
Stated another way, 93% of the existing shoreline turf in TCMA would have to be converted to
limit the population to 25,000 geese. Based on the cost of planting tall grass prairie, trees and
shrubs, the cost of controlling the goose population by habitat change would be nearly $34 million.
However, returning shorelines to native vegetation provides many other environmental benefits and
decisions to resolve goose damage should consider habitat modification where feasible, particularly
on small wetlands and ponds where water quality is likely to be impacted by the geese.
7.3 Redistribution
Short-term or redistribution techniques involve denying or limiting goose access to specific sites for
periods ranging from hours to weeks. Twelve TCMA redistribution techniques have been evaluated
on a scale of low (no or little effect), moderate (worked temporarily, but the geese returned), or high
(birds were displaced permanently). The most effective measures are listed below.
7.3.1 High effectiveness
Permanent or electric fences to block access during the broodrearing period in June and July.
Barriers must be sturdy enough to deter geese from going under, over or around them.
Harassment with dogs in late summer and fall. Harassment works best at locations that lack
large water bodies and alternative foraging areas are nearby.
Elimination of nesting islands
7.3.2 Moderate effectiveness
Temporary barriers constructed from products such as Mylar tape, rope or wire to deter
flightless geese.
Harassment with dogs during broodrearing. However, the broods will either return or walk to
nearby areas when the dogs are gone.
7.3.3 Low effectiveness
Spray area with aversive chemicals such as Rejex-It TM or Flight Control TM. These will be very
effective for the short-term; however, the effect of these chemicals only persists about 14 days
or until the first rain or irrigation.
Harassment or hazing using various sounds, swans, decoys, vehicles, or humans. However,
geese often become habituated to these tactics.
Habitat modification. The extent to which the modifications would have to change the
landscape would preclude human use of the area as well and are often not used. In addition,
habitat modification of the entire shoreline could also entrap goose broods, including goslings.
Prohibition of feeding by ordinance. Human feeding of waterfowl tends to concentrate birds
and their impacts on localized areas and has a negative impact on the health of geese and other
birds. Such a ban will not reduce bird populations because of the abundance of grass, but it
could spread the impact of the geese over a wider area.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 13 of 32
Use of live swans.
Use of decoys such as swans or dead geese.
Drawbacks to redistribution techniques include:
Displaced geese frequently cause damage elsewhere.
The techniques don’t stem overall goose population growth.
Barriers erected around the entire shoreline of a pond or wetland with nests may entrap goose
broods, which could result in starvation.
The likelihood of displaced geese being accepted elsewhere is low (U of M graduate student (Al
Eiden) research).
7.4 Population Reduction
Long-term approaches to population reduction act by directly decreasing reproductive success and
survival. Reproduction has been reduced by using techniques such as use of embryocides, egg
destruction, and vasectomization. Hunting, shooting, and capture and processing for human food
are also used to reduce populations. Habitat modification can lower nesting and bird survival.
Whether by removing eggs or killing embryos, reproductive management of a goose population can
be expensive. In a study in the TCMA during the 1990-96 period, the average cost to destroy each
egg was $4.17 (based on an $8/hour wage plus travel and equipment). Currently, the DNR has only
approved this method for population reduction in airport areas and for research.
7.4.1 Egg Removal
Reduction of reproduction is one potential option for the management of geese doing damage. This
is done by searching out nests and removing eggs, which replicates natural predation, or killing the
embryos and leaving the nest intact.
Nest searching in spring can be difficult as Canada geese nest in early spring and use lakes and
marshes for nesting. Searching can be dangerous and time consuming. Once a nest is found, the
eggs may be removed, but if they have been incubated less than 2 weeks, the female may re-nest if
all of the eggs are taken.
7.4.2 Egg Destruction / Embryocide Use
Different techniques can be used to eliminate egg hatching.
Blocking air passage through the shell with mineral oil, thus killing the embryos
Shaking the egg to break the egg aircell resulting in asphyxiation, but does not work well on
advanced stage embryos.
Injecting eggs with an embryocide such as 10% formalin.
The drawback to techniques that leave eggs in the nest is that Canada geese are indeterminate
incubators and use a fasting incubation strategy. This means that if at least 1 egg does not hatch, the
female will continue to attend the clutch until she reaches starvation conditions, and has to abandon
the effort. To be humane, it is necessary to return to the nests and remove the eggs after the 14th day
of incubation and before the 28th day of incubation when hatching would have occurred.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 14 of 32
7.4.3 Vasectomization / Sterilization
Males can be captured in summer, surgically vasectomiz ed, and then returned to the wild. No
studies have evaluated the efficacy or cost of vasectomization as a population control method, but
would likely be expensive. Several multiple-year chemical sterilents are also available for birds,
but none are labeled for use in wild geese because of the unknown health risk to humans who eat
the meat.
7.5 Trap and Relocate
As part of a U of M research program, 22,477 flightless adult and 44,183 young geese were trapped
in and relocated from the Twin Cities between 1982 and 1995. The efficiency of trapping was high,
averaging 98%, and ranging from 96 to 99%, of the flightless geese present at the time of capture.
Mortality during trapping and transport totaled 45 birds (0.07%). An analysis of banded birds
trapped in the Twin Cities at sites from which birds had been relocated in previous years shows that
22-42% of the adults sent to southern states returned to the TCMA. Less than 0.01% of the young
geese released were trapped again.
In spite of the return of some of the relocated adults, removal and relocation reduced populations at
TCMA removal sites significantly. Overall, after 5 years of continuous removal, the population was
60% lower than at the start, after 10 years an 80% reduction was attained.
However, after 10 years of relocation, the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi
indicated that they would no longer accept geese. As a result, if population control through removal
was to continue, an alternative to relocation was needed for adults by 1996 and for goslings a few
years thereafter.
The DNR found locations for gosling release between 1996 and 2006, with more than 58,000 young
transported to Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, Iowa, or Minnesota and
set free since 1982. However, since 1996, releases have been limited to Iowa and Minnesota. In
2006, the Iowa Conservation Department indicated that they would not take additional geese.
7.6 Trap and Process
Due to requests by citizens and elected officials who suggested that using the surplus geese for food
would be an acceptable alternative to relocation, a feasibility study was done in 1995 . Operational
processing of geese for TCMA food shelves began in 1996.
St. Paul and Minneapolis food shelf distribution center operators indicated that they had difficulty
obtaining donations of high protein products, and that the centers would take all the goose products
that were available. The centers agreed to accept the frozen goose products provided the geese were
processed by either a USDA or state inspected plant. As a result, a total of 16,551 geese were
trapped and processed from 1995 to 2005.
In 1999, a white paper was prepared on the disposal of goslings if they could not be relocated.
Using U of M and Goose Program research on gosling disposal options and costs, two options
appeared feasible: use for human food and use as animal food. A third option, killing and
landfilling or incinerating was discussed and rejected. This option may be necessary if geese
become infected with avian influenza in the future.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 15 of 32
In 2002, the Goose Program explored gosling pasturing by surveying the availability of rental goose
pastures and costs by contacting Minnesota elk ranchers. Survey results showed no individual
properties large enough to take the 2,500± goslings trapped each year. Combined with processing
costs, labor, and transportation, the pasturing option would increase the program cost about $25 per
gosling. Holding the goslings in pens and feeding them grain until they could be processed in
September was less expensive, at $18 per gosling. However, this option would require construction
of new pens.
The Wildlife Science Center, a non-profit education and research program, indicated interest in
using the birds as food for captive wolves and bears. The animal food option was approved by the
USFWS and DNR in 2006. Initially 400 goslings were humanely killed and frozen for use by the
Wildlife Science Center (WSC). The Center’s freezer space was quickly filled, and by early July,
other options for the 2,000 remaining geese were explored.
The DNR has a Southeast Asian Program (SEA) that utilizes donated wildlife for human
consumption. While the SEA Program was given whole humanely killed goslings, the Goose
Program objected to this practice due to concerns it might potentially violate Minnesota Public
Health standards for food handling. In 2007, all goslings were provided to WSC at a cost to the
Canada Goose Program of $6 per bird.
7.7 Hunting
In response to the growth of re-established Canada geese in the U.S., the USFWS approved
provisions for special early and late Canada goose hunting seasons in 1983. Minnesota initiated
experimental early and late seasons in the TCMA in 1987; these seasons became non-experimental
in 1991. Early seasons occurred during the first 10 days of September, prior to the arrival of
migrant geese, with a 5-bird bag limit. In 1999, the early hunting season was extended to 20 days
on an experimental basis until the proportion of migrant geese shot was evaluated. Late seasons
have also lasted 10 days beginning in mid-December with a 2-bird limit. Harvest data for these
seasons were attained from DNR and the USFWS surveys. The effect of hunting on the TCMA
goose population was also measured by comparing the number of geese counted in the hunted and
non-hunted zones in 1994 and 1999, and from neckband goose re-observation in 1987-89.
Data from the DNR surveys indicate that the goose harvest during the early September special
season ranged from 2,782 to 16,345 and late season harvest from 376 to 895. Because the latter was
incorporated into the regular hunting goose season, which extended from on or near 1 October to 1
December, there were no data after 1992 for the late season. However, if the harvest has been
similar to that of the 1994-96 period, from 10,000 to 16,000 additional TCMA geese were killed
during the special hunts.
The number of geese found in the hunted and non-hunted wetlands in the TCMA averaged 30.9 and
46.1 in 1994, and 25.2 and 35.3 in 1999. These differences were statistically significant with
hunting determined to be the significant variable. The effect of hunting on survival was also
evident in the survival of geese neck banded in 1987. When survival estimates were compared for
class 1, 2, and 3 cities, geese banded in class 3 cities with hunting had a statistically significantly
lower survival rate than those banded in cities with no or restricted hunting.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 16 of 32
7.0 EDEN PRAIRIE GOOSE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are recommendations developed that will be implemented as part of this Plan.
Develop an educational program: Provide a basic understanding of goose biology and
management to the citizens of Eden Prairie. This would include items such as the objectives,
background, methods, complaint process and applicable ordinances and policies regarding the
City’s goose management program. This could be done through newsletters, the City’s web
page, and public access programming. If needed, signs will be developed to educate park
patrons who may be feeding geese.
Respond to aggressive goose complaints: Aggressive geese who have attacked humans,
especially the young or elderly, should be handled quickly and efficiently to prevent future
attacks. This would include actions such as removal of nests and/or geese by a permitted
contractor.
Replace shoreline turf with native species: Where feasible, establishment of shoreline
buffers on private and public properties will be encouraged to help reduce goose movement
between the water and the upland and displace the geese to other locations. The buffers
should include a mixture of tall grasses, shrubs and trees to deter ground and flight
connections and be at least 15 to 30 feet wide. The action would also improve biodiversity
and water quality. Because geese are attracted to new plantings, intensive removal or
harassment may be needed until the vegetation is well established. Plantings could also be
extended into the shoreline area by adding emergent vegetation such as water lilies which
cover the water.
Minimize use of Kentucky bluegrass: Where feasible, Kentucky bluegrass should be
replaced or interspersed with other vegetation. Warm season grasses could be considered as
they are less desirable to geese for feeding. Areas that are infrequently used should have the
height of the grass kept as high as possible, as much as 8 inches, to deter feeding. Use of
grasses that don’t require fertilizer would reduce the nutritional value of the grass. Other
options that could be considered include planting islands of trees or tall grasses within open
areas to reduce the open feel of the space or use of lure crops in nearby areas to provide
alternative habitat near public use areas.
Evaluate the need for a policy or ordinance prohi biting feeding of waterfowl: Waterfowl
that are fed by the public will concentrate in these areas and increase goose impacts and risk
of the spread of bird disease.
Evaluate the use of harassment: This technique can be used to move geese from parks or
other open areas where they are unwanted to alternative locations. This does not manage the
size of the goose population and may shift geese to unwanted locations so the use of
harassment must be evaluated carefully and only used where feasible.
Maintain hunting policy: Hunting is an effective method for limiting goose populations
where sufficient open space exists for the safe discharge of shotguns. Allowing hunting where
it can be done safely is a DNR prerequisite for issuance of goose removal permits (see
Appendix B) to a City. Hunting near Flying Cloud Airport should be prohibited because
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 17 of 32
geese disturbed by shooting may fly into the paths of aircraft approaching or departing the
airport.
Continue summer goose removal and processing program: To maintain a goose population
at a level which can be sustained with fewer safety or health issues, a population reduction
technique is needed. Trapping and removal of geese for processing during the early summer
is an effective technique for goose population reduction (Appendix C). Areas of focus should
include parks, public beaches, elder care facilities or other areas where there are large goose
populations, safety concerns or high numbers of damage complaints. If requested, the City
will evaluate residential and commercial properties to determine if removal on private
property is warranted.
Continue wildlife management request policy: The current policy includes asking
applicants for the goose management program to participate in the program by matching the
cost on a 50% basis. We also partner with other agencies, such as the Three River Park
District, and individuals as needed. To effectively reduce the city population, it is necessary
to remove large concentrations of birds whether they are on public or private property.
Utilize a goose damage tracking system: The laws permitting goose removal require
documentation of damage. A goose damage report form for both public and private property
will be developed. Information such as date, location, damage type(s), estimated economic
loss, health and safety concerns, and an estimate of the number of geese present would be
included on the report.
Develop a health risk contingency plan: In case of a highly contagious disease, such as
Avian Influenza, developing in the Minnesota Canada goose population, the State of
Minnesota will be contacted to determine what steps would be required for dealing with this
event and a contingency plan would be developed as needed.
Reduce the construction and use of nesting islands: Nesting islands would be prohibited in
new development plans to reduce goose habitat for nesting. City staff would evaluate requests
for removal or modification of nesting islands where appropriate to reduce the number of
productive or desirable goose nesting wetlands.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 18 of 32
9.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANKNEY, C.D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: too many geese. J. Wildl. Manage 60: 217-223.
BELANT, J., T.W. SEAMENS, L.A. TYSON, AND S.K. ICKES. 1996. Repellency of methyl
anthranilate to pre-exposed and naive Canada geese. J. Wildl. Mange. 609:923-928.
BELLROSE, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA, 544
pp.
CONOVER, M.R. 1985. Alleviating nuisance Canada goose problems through methiocarb-
induced aversive conditioning. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:631-636
CONVERSE, K.A. AND J.J. KENNELLY. 1994. Evaluation of Canada goose sterilization for
population control. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:265-269.
COOPER, J.A. 1987. The Canada goose and its management. Minnesota Out-of-Doors, 33:16-19.
COOPER, J.A. 1998. Habitat management as an urban Canada goose control procedure. 18th Vert.
Pest Control Conf. Proced.18:18-25
COOPER, J.A. 2001a. Population ecology of the Twin Cities Canada geese. Proc. First Urban
Canada Goose Conf. Toronto Zoo.
COOPER, J.A. 2001b. Canada goose damage and population management in the Twin Cities of
Minnesota. Proc. First Urban Canada Goose Conf. Toronto Zoo.
COOPER, J.A. AND T. KEEFE. 1997. Urban Canada goose management: procedures and policies.
N. A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. Trans. 62:412-430
COOPER, J.A. AND R.D. SAYLER. 1974. A study of the ecology of urban nesting Canada geese:
first annual report. Dept. Ent., Fish, and Wildl., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN. 16 pp.
CUMMINGS, J.L., J.R. MASON, D.L. OTIS,. A ND J.F. HEISTERBERG. 1991. Evaluation of
dimethyl and methyl anthranilate as a Canada goose repellent on grass. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
19:184-190.
DOLBEER, R.A., T.W. SEAMANS, B.F. BLACKWELL, AND J.L. BELANT 1998.
Anthraquinone formulation (Bird Flight ControlTM) shows promise as avian feeding
repellent. J. Wildl. Manage. 62:1558-1564.
FEARE, C.J., M.F. SANDERS, R. BLASCO, AND J.D. BISHOP. 1999. Canada goose (Branta
canadensis) droppings as a potential source of pathogenic bacteria. J. Royal Society
Promotion of Health 119:146-155.
GOSSER, A.L, M.R. CONOVER, AND T.A. MESSMER. 1997. Managing problems caused by
urban Canada geese. Berryman Institute Research Publication 13, Utah State University,
Logan, 8 pp
GRANDY, J.W. AND J. HADIDIAN. 1997. Making our peace with Canada geese. HSUS News
Spring 1997, Humane Society of the U.S., Washington DC.
HAWKINS, A.S. 1970. Honkers move to the city. Pages 120-130 in H.H. Dill and F.B. Lee, Eds.
Home grown honkers. U. S. Dept. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D. C. 154 pp.
Goose Management Plan
June 11, 2008
Page 19 of 32
HEINTZELMAN, DONALD S. 2002. Canada goose habitat modification manual, Friends of
Animals. 16 pp.
JOHNSON, R. 1994. A long range plan for the management of Canada geese in the metro region.
Unpubl. Rep. Division of Wildlife, MNDNR, St. Paul, 17 pp.
KEEFE, T. 1996. Feasibility study on processing nuisance Canada geese for human consumption.
Minn. Dept. Nat. Res., St. Paul, MN 17 pp.
MANNY, B.A., W.C. JOHNSON, AND R.G WETZEL. 1994. Nutrient additions by waterfowl to
lakes and reservoirs: predicting their effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiology
279/280:121-132.
MARTZ, J., L. POSPICHAL, AND E. TUCKER. 1983. Giant Canada geese in Michigan:
experiences with relocations and nuisance management. Page 57-59 in M.A. Johnson, Ed.
Transactions of the Canada goose symposium. North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife
Society.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1994. Urban Goose Management
Program-Capture, Holding, and Relocation of Giant Canada Geese Alternative Environmental
Assessment Worksheet, 10 April 1994 and subsequent Finding of Fact, Conclusions, and
Order, 13 June 1994. DNR, St. Paul, MN.
PALMER, R.S. 1976. Handbook of North American Bird: Vol. 3. Waterfowl Part 2. Yale Univ.
Press, New Haven, 560 pp.
SAYLER, R.D. 1977. Breeding ecology of the Twin Cities, Minnesota, Metropolitan Canada geese.
MS Thesis, Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 61 pp.
SMITH, A.E., S.R. CRAVEN, AND PD. CURTIS. 1999. Managing Canada geese in urban
environments. Jack Berryman Institute Publ. 16, and Cornell University Cooperative
Extension, Ithaca, N.Y., 42 pp.
ULRICH, R.S. 1986. Human response to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban
Planning 13:29-44.
ZICUS, M.C. 1981. Molt migration of Canada geese from Crex Meadows, Wisconsin. J. Wildl.
Manage. 45:54-63.
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
APPENDIX A
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CANADA GOOSE REMOVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1/10/2001
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
MNDNR CANADA GOOSE REMOVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1/10/2001
The removal of nuisance geese from Minnesota cities and towns requires a state permit and is
subject to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) policies. Oversight of state-wide
goose management programs by DNR requires a federal permit. Removal and relocation/processing
for the food banks are considered when other methods of addressing nuisance situations are deemed
ineffective. To conduct a nuisance goose removal within the metropolitan Twin Cities area
(TCMA), the following DNR policies must be satisfied:
The removal of geese at any location within TCMA must be approved by the local government unit
(LGU) with jurisdiction over the site. If more than one LGU has jurisdiction over the site (i.e. Lake
Owasso in Roseville and Shoreview) then all LGUs must approve the removal. Removal approval
must include the establishment of a population goal (e.g., 25 geese on lake in summer).
Municipalities with open space where goose hunting might be done safely must provide an
evaluation of the potential for hunting if goose hunting is currently prohibi ted by a firearm discharge
(see Metropolitan Twin Cities Area Goose Hunting Policy). The steps for establishing and
conducting a goose population reduction program and the agencies involved are:
1. Determine whether your site is in a class 1, 2, or 3 goose hunting area (check city shooting
ordinances and contact your DNR Area Wildlife Manager.)
2. Establish target goose population reduction levels (DNR, city or township personnel, and
removal contractor).
3. Obtain city council or township board approval of proposed goose management program
(city or township, removal contractor, DNR).
4. Ascertain goose population and site characteristics (removal contractor).
5. Prepare and approve removal contract (proposer and removal contractor).
6. Obtain state permit (removal contractor).
7. Capture and ship birds in summer (removal contractor in cooperation with DNR).
8. Monitor population to determine effectiveness of removal program (removal contractor and
DNR).
9. Conduct additional removal as needed under contract (removal contractor).
The services provided by the removal contractor include the design of the removal program, public
meeting participation, technical information on goose ecology and management, humane and
professional removal of problem geese, coordination of permits and bird disposal, and evaluation of
effectiveness of the removal program.
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
APPENDIX B
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
URBAN GOOSE HUNTING POLICY
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
URBAN GOOSE HUNTING POLICY
It is the policy of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) to control and
maintain wildlife populations whenever possible through a hunting harvest.
There are three times Canada geese can be hunted in Minnesota; a regular season from October to
late November and two special hunting seasons specifically designed to harvest local Canada goose
populations. The first special season is held in early September before the arrival of migrant geese.
The second is held in mid-December after most migrants have left the Twin Cities metropolitan area
(TCMA). Bag limits are set at five per day in the September season and two per day in the
December season. TCMA goose harvest surveys indicate that 10,000 - 12,000 geese per year are
taken in these seasons. Increasing the harvest will help control TCMA goose populations.
Based on the distribution of open space, TCMA municipalities are classified by the potential for safe
hunting. These classes are:
Class 1: Open space is too limited for safe discharge of shotguns.
Class 2: Open space is patchy within the municipality but some areas may be hunted safely
with minimum restrictions.
Class 3: Extensive open space exists where shotgun hunting can be done safely.
The following priorities have been established for the nuisance goose removal program based on
potential for hunting harvest:
Class 1: High priority
Class 2: High priority at swimming beaches and airports; medium priority at locations
within extensive areas that cannot be hunted safely; low priority at other locations.
Class 3: High priority at public swimming beaches and airports; low priority elsewhere.
If your municipality is rated Class 2 or Class 3 and has prohibited the discharge of shotguns, it will
be necessary for you to assess the potential for hunting prior to requesting approval of a removal
program. For assistance please contact:
Diana Regenscheid Bob Welsh Bryan Lueth
DNR South Metro Wildlife DNR North Metro Wildlife DNR Urban Wildlife
7151-190th St. W., Rm. 135 5463-C W. Broadway 5463-C W. Broadway
Jordan, MN 55352 Forest Lake 55025 Forest Lake 55025
763-492-5461 651-296-3450 651-296-3450
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
APPENDIX C
MNDNR CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONDUCTING CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
IN MINNESOTA
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
MNDNR CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONDUCTING CANADA GOOSE CAPTURE AND REMOVAL IN MINNESOTA
3/21/2001
BACKGROUND: The Twin Cities Canada Goose Removal Program is an important component of
Canada goose management in the seven county Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The
program has captured and relocated over 66,000 geese since 1982.
The program has grown from one site and 456 geese per year in 1982 to over 140 sites and 6000 -
7500 geese per year more recently. The program has proven to be effective at reducing nuisance
goose problems at specific sites. The University of Minnesota's College of Natural Resources, Fish
and Wildlife Extension Department, has contracted the removal of the geese with local landowners
from 1982 - 2000.
This program is highly visible and receives close public review. The program has been challenged
in court by animal rights groups who claimed the program was ineffective at controlling goose
numbers, utilized inhumane handling techniques and that other management alternatives were more
feasible and prudent. These claims were shown to be false and ineffective. The program has been
held up as an example of a management program that has shown effective control, demonstrates
humane wildlife handling techniques and is considered a prudent alternative for nuisance Canada
geese problems.
The primary reason for the success of this capture and removal program from 1982 - 2000 is the
professional and knowledgeable University of Minnesota staff responsible for implementing this
management program.
As the removal program enters the private sector, DNR is concerned that future contractors
maintain a similarly high level of expertise and effectiveness that has been exhibited by the
University staff. Failure to maintain a high level of professional expertise and effort could impact
the entire metro program and our ability to successfully manage nuisance Canada geese throughout
the entire state.
The permitting of an organization or agency to conduct this removal requires more than simply
capturing geese. The ability to conduct surveys, measure program effectiveness, provide
information and expertise on Canada geese to local government units, handle public relations needs,
and capture geese in a variety of habitats and locations within the entire metro area is needed.
OBJECTIVE: To ensure that the Canada goose control program remains a viable program for
Canada goose management in the metro areas.
REQUIREMENTS: The following is a list of requirements, abilities and permit conditions that
must be met and/or demonstrated in order for DNR to provide a permit to remove geese in the Twin
Cities metro area by any private or public company, organization, agency or person(s). The
requirements, abilities and permit conditions were developed based on the experience and problems
encountered in the program. Further requirements may be added to address future problems or
concerns.
"Permittee" refers to the company, organization, agency or person(s) requesting or named on the
permit. The "permittee" may also include all employees, volunteers, interns, officers and
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
subcontractors conducting the removal or implementing the provisions of the permit under direction
of the named permittee.
A. PERMITTEE REQUIREMENTS AND ABILITIES:
The permittee must demonstrate the expertise, personnel and equipment necessary to implement the
following requirements. This can be accomplished through prior experience coordinating goose
removal activities or a one-year probation period with a series of trial removals. The permittee may
be required to present both a removal plan outlining details of proposed activities and an inventory
of equipment to adequately and humanely handle Canada geese.
1. The permittee must possess a BS or BA or higher degree in wildlife ecology, management
or a closely related field (e.g.. biology) and have a thorough knowledge of Canada goose
ecology, biology and management.
2. The permittee must be familiar with alternatives to capture and removal, be able to explain
alternative procedures to the public and be able to estimate costs and effectiveness of
alternatives.
3. The permittee must cooperate in the implementation of the following Minnesota
Department of Natural Resource (DNR) policies and plans.
A. Nuisance Wildlife Control Policy and Management Plan
B. Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Management Plan
C. Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Relocation Facilities Management and
Disease Contingency Plan
D. Policy directives on Canada goose management within Minnesota and as it relates to
the Twin Cities Canada Goose Management Program
4. The permittee must demonstrate the ability to capture Canada geese in a variety of
habitats within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and handle and transport captured
geese in a humane manner.
A. Conduct pre-capture and post-capture surveys and provide pre-capture data to the
DNR prior to initiation of capture at the site.
B. Capture 95% of the flightless geese present at nuisance control sites.
C. Capture geese in a variety of habitats including, but not limited to, golf courses,
parks, lakes, large (20+ acres) cattail marshes, large and small rivers and streams
located within the seven county metro area.
D. Capture, hold, load, and transport 350 geese from a single site.
E. Handle and transport geese to an approved staging area in an effective and h umane
manner that results in not more than 1 goose death per 1000 geese trapped and
transported.
F. Recognize sick geese prior to or during the capture process and determine cause of
the sickness (disease or toxin) or be able to submit sick or dead birds to an
authorized wildlife disease diagnostic laboratory.
G. Identify injured geese during capture and transport and humanely euthanize geese
that cannot be treated.
H. Follow and understand the Migratory Bird Banding Laboratory leg and neck band
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
removal and reporting procedures.
I. Maintain and provide accurate records of capture operations. These records include
but are not limited to; pre-capture and post-capture populations at specific nuisance
sites, disease and injury reports, age (adult/gosling), brood patch females, and sex of
adults captured and removed or released at each nuisance site.
5. The permittee must have a comprehensive public relations program and be able to
demonstrate conflict resolution skills.
B. PERMIT CONDITIONS:
The following conditions would be part of a MNDNR permit to capture geese in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area.
1. The permittee will obtain all local and state permits that pertain to this program and follow
all permit requirements and regulations.
2. The permittee may contract with private and public landowners to remove geese under this
program but such a program must include:
A. Development of a control program
B. Establishment of a population goal
C. Selection of control procedures
D. A public meeting to review the control program
E. A fee for all geese removed, staged/pastured and processed.
3. The permittee must provide evidence of insurance including but not limited to liability
($1,000,000), workman’s compensation and motor vehicle insurance.
4. The permittee must develop and implement a comprehensive safety training program that
covers human and goose safety.
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
ATTACHMENT 1
MNDNR AND CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR CANADA GOOSE CAPTURE AND REMOVAL IN MINNESOTA - 2001
DNR will be responsible for the following activities:
1. December 2000: DNR will identify the number of goslings to be pastured and fall
processed.
2. May 1, 2000: DNR will identify food banks in the Twin Cities metropolitan area which
will accept processed geese for distribution throughout Minnesota.
3. June and July 2001: DNR will be responsible for transporting goslings from the staging
area to relocation sites.
The contractor will be responsible for the following activities:
1. The contractor will be responsible for the daily management of geese in the staging
facilities including:
A. Purchase of specified waterfowl pellets and corn for feed (see Attachment 2).
Storage areas are available at staging facility.
B. Daily feeding
C. Daily cleaning of pools in occupied pens
D. Recording/reporting of injuries, illnesses or deaths
E. Daily inspection of pens.
2. The contractor will select a processor that is inspected and certified by Minnesota
Department of Agriculture (MDA) or inspected by the United States Department of
Agriculture. Processing plants must meet or exceed MDA requirements for slaughtering,
packing and processing as specified in MDA Regulations 1545.0890 - 1545.2040. Proof
of licensure and recent inspection must be submitted to DNR prior to processing activities.
Processors must make operations available for inspection by contractor, DNR and MDA
staff during contract period.
A. Geese must be handled and slaughtered humanely using accepted animal handling
practices.
B. Processing must be completed within 24 hours of delivery.
C. Dressed geese must be individually wrapped and cooled to 36 degrees Fahrenheit
within 24 hours and frozen solid in less than 60 hours.
D. All product donated to food banks will be labeled with information identifying the
product, the processing plant with MDA or USDA identification information,
USFWS permit number and additional information (see Attachment 4).
E. DNR must be notified of dates and quantities delivered to food banks within 24
hours of delivery.
3. The contractor will transport live geese to the processing plant.
4. The contractor will arrange for delivery of processed product to food banks identified by
DNR in approximately equal quantities.
5. The contractor will arrange for pasturing and fall processing of 500 goslings.
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
ATTACHMENT 2
WATERFOWL FEED SPECIFICATION
3/21/01
Feed in pellet form. Each 50-pound bag tagged.
Amount (lbs.) Item
1390 ground shell corn
430 44% soybean meal
50 17% alfalfa meal
50 55% meatmeal
40 40% fish solubles
35 dicalcium phosphate
10 calcium carbonate
6 QT turkey premix
5 dynamate
2 white stock salt
2 lysine
0.5 methionine
2020.5 lbs./batch
Canada Goose Management Plan June 2008
City of Eden Prairie
APPENDIX D
EDEN PRAIRIE SITE ASSESSMENT SHEETS
Standard Operating Policy City of Oakdale Policy Number: MIS-002 Pages: 3 Subject: Canada Goose Management Plan Date Approved: 2017 1.0 Background 1.1 Canada Goose populations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area pose a significant challenge for communities attempting to address the concerns of residents with regard to Canada Goose conflicts. The abundant habitat, low natural predation, reproductive success, and limited hunting in the Twin Cities metropolitan area are all factors in the abundance of Canada Goose. The City of Oakdale is among communities in which the abundance of natural habitat, open grass areas with generous food supply, and numerous wetlands for nesting all favor large populations of Canada Goose. The challenge is to maintain an acceptable population of geese in public areas without negatively impacting public safety. 1.2 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) manages Canada Goose populations primarily through regulated hunting seasons. When local governmental units (i.e. cities, townships, park departments etc.) preclude hunting through weapons discharge or other ordinances, responsibility for goose population management reverts substantially to the local government unit. The MN DNR then acts in a support role and provides technical assistance and coordination to local government units. MN DNR can issue special permits to take geese under the various federal control and depredation orders. 1.3 The MN DNR requires local government units have a DNR approved Canada goose management plan in place before Canada Goose can be trapped and removed. Once an approved plan is in place, the local government unit can then request a DNR permit for summer removal and may contract with a licensed service provider. The local area wildlife office maintains a list of licensed service providers. This council-approved policy is intended to meet the established DNR requirements. 1.4 For the purpose of this policy, any reference to “goose” or “geese” is a reference only to the Canada Goose breed. 2.0 Monitoring and Surveying 2.1 The Oakdale Police Department is responsible for animal control in the City of Oakdale. The City of Oakdale encourages residents to report geese-related problems and overpopulation by contacting the Oakdale Police Department at 651-738-1025 during business hours Monday –Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Residents should dial 911 for immediate police service in the event of a public safety concern, violation of city ordinance or state statute, traffic accident, aggressive, sick or injured geese. 2.1 Canada Goose conflicts and safety issues will be monitored and evaluated through police service data and surveys of the area population will be completed. Should the police department determine, on a case-by-case basis, some degree of mitigation needs to occur at a specific location, the department will report the situation to the city council for additional discussion and a determination how much, if any, city funds will be expended for the mitigation effort.
3.0 City-Managed Properties 3.1 The City of Oakdale will monitor property complaints of damage and goose droppings on all city-managed property. 3.2 As a matter of policy, the city council has determined that the highest priority for mitigation of the damage or disruption of the goose population will be active city-managed parks because of the wide use by residents for a variety of activities. The second-highest priority will be issues created by geese on city-managed streets, bikeways and sidewalks. The third-highest priority will be all other city-managed properties not previously discussed. 3.3 Because health and safety concerns of the park users are important, the City of Oakdale will use a variety of techniques and practices to minimize or eliminate goose related problems if necessary. The non-lethal techniques for dealing with goose problems might include, but not be limited to, strategies such as waterfront vegetative buffer zones, raking beaches for debris removal and using predator decoys or fencing. 3.4 In the event there is evidence of public health or safety concerns on city-managed properties, a combination of trapping and egg/nest predation may be employed. The City will contract with a MN DNR approved/licensed Canada Goose management and removal company to conduct egg and nest removal and/or the removal of geese from the affected public place. The goal will be to keep the summer population per site to a number that will reasonably minimize or eliminate the public safety concern. 3.4 In the event there is a complaint or evidence of poor water quality at Tanner’s Lake Swimming beach due to Canada Goose droppings the City of Oakdale will complete water quality testing to identify unsafe levels of E. coli, and or nutrient levels. The City of Oakdale will cooperate with Washington County Health and Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health if such a project is required. 4.0 Private Property Policy 4.1 For the purpose of this policy, private property is defined as any property in the city’s jurisdiction that is not owned or routinely managed by the city government. 4.2 For the purpose of this policy, the management of the geese is a private-property issue if the presence of the geese on the property is the source of the complaint, even if the geese have entered onto the private property from city-managed properties. 4.3 The council-approved policy with regard to the management of geese on private property is that the removal of the geese is the responsibility of the property owner or manager. City government resources will not be expended for the removal of geese from private property. 5.0 Public Information Policy 5.1 The City of Oakdale will inform citizens of Canada Goose management techniques that may be employed to reduce or eliminate problems on private property. Informational brochures are available at the City of Oakdale or Oakdale Police Department. Information may also be obtained on-line at the City Oakdale Website: www.ci.oakdale.mn.us 5.2 For owners of private property requesting assistance with goose problems and/or removal of geese, the guidelines set forth in this management plan for City Parks and Public Property are to be followed. An approved Canadian Goose Management Plan must be in place for private
land owners. Private land owners may choose to use the City of Oakdale’s Goose Management Plan as an umbrella plan to contract with a MN DNR licensed goose removal service provider. 5.3 The City of Oakdale will assist private property owners in contacting Canada Goose management companies to help with goose problems, including removal of problem geese. The City of Oakdale will not pay for removal or control costs on private property. Removal or control costs will be entirely at the private property owner’s expense. 5.4 The City of Oakdale will inform citizens of the management plan objectives, background, management methodologies, applicable ordinances, and policies through the City newsletter and the City web page. A particular informational effort will be made between December and March to remind residents to maintain a vegetative buffer zone and to employ hazing techniques for the upcoming season. 6.0 Aircraft Hazard 6.1 The City of Oakdale will cooperate with the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) and the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Service to control the Canada Goose population in the event a hazard exists within a designated radius of MAC property.