Conflicts and Environmental Issues

Resident Canada geese are most often the target of public complaints and management actions as their numbers are considered to be excessive (NYSDEC, n.d). Migratory geese are less often considered to be an issue, except in the case of airports which may engage in geese management at all times out of concern for bird strikes. The year-round presence of resident geese on Long Island has created conflicts for residents which range from daily struggles to lurking disturbances. The evidence which condemns the birds in the eyes of some people is at times clear and at other times, controversial. Issues with geese in the New York area can be traced back to at least several decades ago. An article titled “Annual Roundup of Geese Readied” published by the New York Times in 1980 claims:

It all started when President Dwight Eisenhower played golf at one of Westchester's clubs and wondered aloud if something couldn't be done about the geese that were fouling the fairways and greens. The Department of Interior took up the problem, and in 1958 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service began relocating the county's Canada geese (NY Times, 1980). Although the translocation of geese is no longer permitted in New York, issues with the geese on golf courses remain (USDA, 2004). According to Timothy Benedict, Superintendent of the Woodmere Club in Woodmere, NY the golf course sustains damage from the geese eating the grass. Brian Benedict, Superintendent of the Seawane Club in Hewlett, NY said the golf course grass sustains damage from goose feces. Some people point to Canada geese as the source of bacterial growth and eutrophicationwhile others worry about the safety of geese and fellow humans when it comes to road travel. The following topics discuss the main human-wildlife conflicts specific to Canada geese on Long Island.

A Canada goose in Mill Pond Credit: Terry Ballard

Contamination of water bodies

In 2011, the Long Island Groundwater Research Institute at Stony Brook University analyzed water samples from Laurel Hollow Beach in Oyster Bay (Pfoertner, 2011). The goal of the study was to try to trace the source of contamination that often resulted in closures of the beach (Pfoertner, 2011). The samples were obtained from the Nassau County Department of Health, which took samples each week at the beach from April until August or September (Pfoertner, 2011). For their study, the research institute looked at samples from 2002 to 2011 (Pfoertner, 2011). They found that high coliform levels were present in the months of June and July in 2002 and 2010 (Pfoertner, 2011). The report suggested that the high levels of bacteria may be partly due to the presence of Canada geese (Pfoertner, 2011). However, the statement was followed by clarification that the contamination could be from many sources and not just the geese (Pfoertner, 2011).

The researchers concluded by saying that the source of contamination could be more accurately discerned with the use of DNA analysis (Pfoertner, 2011). In a later report from Friends of the Bay, it was stated that the Nassau County Department of Health concluded that the cause of elevated bacteria at the beach was most likely due to Canada geese (Friends of the Bay, 2013). The Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County sampled water from 16 locations in Goldsmiths Inlet in Southold, NY in 2013 (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). They intended to study the levels of coliform, as well as the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus in the inlet (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). Additionally, the researchers attempted to track sources of E. coli in the samples by matching the DNA from water samples to a library of E. coli DNA found specifically on Long Island, which was created by the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). The DNA matching and statistical modeling used showed where sources of E. coli most likely came from (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). The library was specific to species names some for E. coli DNA matches (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). Through using the library, they were able to source the coliform in Goldsmiths Inlet to group types (humans, birds, wildlife, and domestic animals) and a few species (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). Out of the four stations around the inlet that were tested for E. coli only two of them contained E. coli samples which were matched to be most likely from Canada geese (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). Most of the E. coli DNA was sourced to birds and wildlife, then domestic animals. Potential sources for the bird group for the study included Black Ducks, Herring Gulls, Cormorants, Mute Swans, Greater Black Backed Gulls, and Mallard ducks (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). The wildlife group included raccoons, muskrats, deer, and red fox while the domestic animal group included dogs and horses (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013). In March 2012, a study on pathogen loading in the Peconic Estuary in Yaphank, NY, was detailed in a report for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). The focus of the study was to estimate the amount of pathogens that might enter the Peconic Estuary from different sources in the area (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). The study looked at waterfowl, dogs, septic systems (also known as onsite wastewater management systems) and other wildlife as potential sources (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). In their examination of waterfowl, the company that conducted the study, focused on Canada geese and Mute Swans due to the two species being blamed most often in cases of elevated bacteria found in water bodies (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). In order to assess potential pathogen loads from each source the company utilized multiple strategies (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). Scientific literature reviews, pet ownership surveys, and census data were employed in determining how to calculate estimates for pathogen loads (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). For the waterfowl analysis, the company conducted a population survey of all waterfowl around the estuary and inserted the count totals into a mathematic formula (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). The formula accounted for the location of the birds around the estuary and how much fecal coliform per bird was released each day according to previous studies (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012).

The study found that the population of ducks in many locations around the estuary was the same or greater than the population of Canada geese (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). Regarding these observations, the report stated: This finding is of critical concern to this study because the daily production of fecal coliform that is reported for a duck (see table 3-2) is approximately 1,000 times greater than that for a Canada goose and over 150 times higher than that for a mute swan. (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). Additionally, the report found that the standard amount of fecal coliform released per day by Canada geese varied within literature on the subject (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). They described high quantities for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports, with the highest amount (amongst the papers they reviewed) belonging to a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). Lower figures came from research in scholarly papers, which are thoroughly scrutinized by other researchers and publishers (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). Meanwhile the TMDL reports often cited weak evidence or studies that were not reviewed by others in the field (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). The USEPA’s approximated amount came from a paper published in 1978 which contrived the standard quantity through the correlation of results not directly involving the connection between coliform and Canada geese (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). The report concluded with the suggestion that ducks are more likely to be one of the biggest contributors to E. coli loading in the estuary than Canada geese (Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLP, 2012). Lake Ronkonkoma has a history of being in turmoil when it comes to water quality. The sporadic beach closures that have occurred for years due to elevated bacteria go back at least as far as 2003 (Nelson & Voorhis, 2008). Suspicions about Canada geese as a major source appeared in a New York Times article published in 2004, where geese feces were referred to as the “most problematic” material found in storm water runoff which enters the lake (Everitt, 2004). In 2015, the situation had not changed. In an article from Newsday published in July, Canada geese were said to be the source of elevated E. coli levels that caused closures of the Ronkonkoma several times over the summer (Chang, 2015).

E. coli exists in the bodies of people as well as animals, but not every type of E. coli puts people at risk of becoming sick (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), n.d.). However, coming into contact with feces can increase the chances of illness due to the types of bacteria, including E. coli that can exist within it. Additionally, it is important to distinguish between fecal coliform and E. coli. Fecal coliforms are a type of bacteria, and E. coli is a type of fecal coliform (CDC, n.d.). According to Dana Flint, an employee with the USEPA Watershed Management Branch, New York State does not require information on E. coli levels from water bodies to be submitted to the NYSDEC and USEPA for regulation in accordance with water quality laws. However, she explained that the state does require that coliform values are submitted. Although many people implicate Canada geese as the source of inadequate water quality and/or E. coli for some Long Island water bodies, in most cases the belief is not grounded in a definitive link between the geese and bacteria in the water. Rather, the idea seems to come from observations of geese in the water and in some cases the knowledge that Canada goose feces contains E. coli. The USEPA, NYSDEC, and local Long Island health departments work together to monitor and establish safety regulations for water quality on Long Island. However, information collected through interviews contrasts with assumptions made about geese conclusively being a large source or the main source of bacteria in the water over other sources. Dana Flint confirmed that the USEPA does not have established guidelines to determine a link between certain bacteria levels or types and Canada geese. According to Mike Jensen, a Supervisor for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, it is only a hypothesis that Canada geese cause elevated bacteria levels at Lake Ronkonkoma-one which arose due to staff observing geese when they sample water. Furthermore, Mark Rothstein, a Director for the Nassau County Department of Health said Canada geese are only suspected to be the source of elevated bacteria in some Long Island water bodies. Thus, it would appear that the only study showing scientific evidence for a possible link between the geese and bacteria on Long Island was the 2013 Goldsmiths Inlet study (Brousseau & Curatolo-Wagermann, 2013).

During a 2009 study for the Nassau County Department of Public Works, de Bruin Engineering, PC sampled water from Merokee Pond in Bellmore, NY and the water sources feeding into it (deBruin Engineering, P.C., 2009). The goal was to examine water quality there and make subsequent management suggestions (deBruin Engineering, P.C., 2009). After testing for coliform they concluded that Canada geese may be the source for increased bacteria levels in the water after storms (deBruin Engineering, P.C., 2009).

Additional sanitation concerns

The majority of the Long Island municipalities interviewed for this report cited feces as their number one complaint from the public regarding Canada geese. The complaints about feces within the districts surround different facets, from concerns about contracting illnesses to general messiness. Some cited complaints from parents who were unhappy that the feces would get on their children’s clothing while they played or participated in athletic events. These concerns sometimes intertwined with fears about sickness caused by bacteria from the feces. Others expressed unease with geese leaving behind droppings on their lawns.

Bird strikes

Birds are a threat to aviation safety, and Long Island airports have experienced their own share of accidents from bird strikes. From 2000 to 2014, there have been 43 Canada geese bird strikes between John F. Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, Francis S. Gabreski Airport, Republic Airport, and MacArthur Airport (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), n.d). MacArthur Airport and Francis S. Gabreski Airport had the least, with both having just one incident, followed by Republic Airport with four (FAA, n.d). John F. Kennedy International Airport had 19 and LaGuardia had 18 (FAA, n.d). In an article published by Newsday on June 28, 2015 it was reported that the overall number of bird strikes throughout the nation is increasing, and Joseph Sitt, Chairman of the Global Gateway Alliance was quoted as saying bird strikes would always be a hazard in New York due to the airports being in the Atlantic Flyway and near wildlife habitat (Ruud, 2015).

The Airbus engineswere tested to withstand the impact of a single bird weighing less than five pounds, according to Greg Feith, a former National Transportation Safety Board investigator. –Wall Street Journal “Double Engine Bird Strike Is Incredibly Rare (Pasztor, 2009).

One of the most well-known bird strike incidents occurred on January 15, 2009, when Canada geese flew into the engines of Airbus 320 which departed from LaGuardia Airport (FAA), n.d). The pilot safely landed the plane on the Hudson River and the incident brought national attention to the danger of bird strikes, resulting in increased fears about the presence of Canada geese at airports (Fallon, 2009). Though smaller birds such as doves and pigeons collide with planes most often, as the size of a bird increases, so does the likelihood that it will cause significant damage to an aircraft (FAA, n.d.). Due to the average size of Canada geese and the fact that several of them struck the Airbus 320 in 2009, it is no surprise that the pilot could not regain control of the engines to land at an airport once the damage was done. The size of Canada geese in comparison to smaller birds, combined with the subsequently increased risk of severe damage to aircraft is likely the reason for the heightened focus on their presence at airports.

Informing the public after a close call

After the Airbus 320 incident the Port Authority created a program geared towards public education about wildlife hazards at airports. The program consisted of staff from different departments in the Port Authority and informed people about wildlife hazards and what the airports do to manage wildlife in the area. Referring to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s terrorism awareness slogan Laura Francoeur, Chief Wildlife Biologist for the Port Authority explained, “A big part of that [the program] was just like ‘If you see ….something, say something’ [in regards to geese presence].” She went on to say that after the program was initiated people began to call in about geese being on roadways leading to the airport and in other areas

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy International Airport

Laura Francoeur, Chief Wildlife Biologist for the Port Authority confirmed that bird strikes are the only issue with the geese at John F. Kennedy Airport and said that it is a struggle to keep the geese off of airport property and out of the airspace. She added that in the winter it is even more difficult to keep the geese away because the frozen water near the bay reduces available food sources for the geese, which forces them onto the land at the airport. Francis S. Gabreski Airport Airport Manager Anthony Ceglio said that the movement of geese through the airport is considered an issue, though bird strikes have been prevented through tower personnel. He explained that seeing geese near the airport, staff will warn pilots or hold pilots until the geese pass by. Mr. Ceglio attributes the geese movement to the adjacent Quogue Wildlife Refuge, which he said provides habitat for the geese. He added that the geese pass through the airport to reach the refuge, and occasionally land on the airfield to forage. MacArthur Airport Robert Schneider, the Deputy Commissioner and Director of Operations at MacArthur Airport says bird strikes are the main concern of the airport. He said that aircraft utilizing the airport usually experience bird strikes with European Starlings, not Canada geese.

Republic Airport According to John Lauth, Airport Operations Manager, wildlife assessments done at the airport showed that 14% of wildlife strikes from 1990-2011 were from Canada geese. He also said that bird strikes are the only concern there.

Destruction of vegetation

Many establishments on Long Island claim that Canada geese do physical damage to their property. The diet of Canada geese consists of various types of grasses and the Long Island landscape provides acres of grass that are easily accessed by the geese (NYSDEC, n.d). In addition, the grass happens to sometimes be in the vicinity of open water bodies, making them an even stronger attractant (NYSDEC, 2007). Across the island many golf courses, parks, and lawns have experienced damage to their grass from overgrazing and defecation. Brian Benedict, Superintendent of the Seawane Club in Hewlett, NY described the damage to the golf course:

Pecking of turf to the point where there is no tissue left and left to dirt. The droppings have urea in them so large piles of Goose droppings create burn spots. During the winter it is worse because the turf isn’t growing and recovering. During snow events when only a few areas are exposed and most of the turf is under snow cover they congregate in the areas of exposed grass / tissue and devour those areas down to the dirt; resulting in resodding in the spring. [sic]

Timothy Benedict, Superintendent of the Woodmere Club in Woodmere, NY also described a similar situation:

Typically geese will eat the grass right down to the crowns sometimes

pulling the whole plant.

Several municipalities on Long island report that Canada geese consume a lot of grass within their districts. According to Gerry Castro, a Village Clerk for the Village of Hewlett Harbor, Canada geese overgraze on the lawns of residents. Harry Weed, Superintendent of Public Works for the Village of Rockville Centre cited struggles with overgrazing on village athletic fields. Richard Groh, Chief Environmental Analyst for the Town of Babylon said that the town has overgrazing issues from the geese in parks. Georgine Posillico, a Village Official for the Village of Saltaire described issues with Canada geese eating the sod put down on a newly restored athletic field. Another type of grass that Canada geese consume is eelgrass, an aquatic type of grass found in brackish or salt water along the shores of eastern Long Island (Short, Koch, Creed, Magalhaes, Fernandez, & Gaeckle, 2006). The grass has been found to be in a state of decline, and efforts to restore the grass are threatened by human and wildlife factors (Cornell Cooperative Extension, n.d). According to researchers from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Eelgrass Program, Canada geese were recently observed to be feeding on eelgrass on Long Island shores (Cornell Cooperative Extension, n.d). Canada geese are considered to be a real threat to eelgrass restoration due to findings from previous studies which showed that the geese are capable of causing significant damage to eelgrass beds (Short et al., 2006). A technical report from 2003 by the Long Island Sound Study suggested that eelgrass restoration could be more successful through the management of birds that reduce its quantities (Long Island Sound Study, 2003). Additionally, according to Andrew Clapper, a District Supervisor for the USDA, the eastern end of Long Island encounters issues with Canada geese eating agricultural crops.

Aesthetics

A part of the unease with which goose droppings are met is due to its appearance. Some parks departments on Long Island struggle to clean up Canada geese feces which dots park pathways. Homeowners are also displeased with its appearance on their lawns. Frank Camerlengo, the Deputy Commissioner of Nassau County Parks said that two ponds that were constructed in Eisenhower Park and Christopher Morley Park have become green and acquired an unpleasant smell due to up to 20 inches of goose feces on the bottom of them. He added that the pond at Christopher Morley Park has become so unpleasant it will be filled in.

Nesting and Aggression

Mated Canada geese pairs remain together throughout their lives and nest on the ground each year during February and March (NYSDEC, 2007). According to Tom Licata, Assistant Director for the Department of Environmental Resources at the Town of Oyster Bay, the nests are concentrated around water bodies, with the male standing sentinel to guard the eggs as the female incubates them. Nests can create two potential issues in the eyes of Long Island residents. Besides the fact that a nest sighting represents a possible increase in the local resident geese populations, aggression from the geese while protecting their eggs is also a concern. According to Lindsay Ries, a Wildlife Biologist for the National Park Service at Fire Island, two pairs of Canada geese nest near the Patchogue Ferry Terminal in Patchogue, NY each year. She said that out of fear for public safety from goose aggression, the National Park Service at Fire Island staff use management strategies to discourage the geese from residing in the area. Despite several mentions of the potential hazard, the only incidents of attacks from Canada geese reported during interviews for this report were from private goose management companies.

Traffic

Every year the lifecycle of resident Canada geese meets with the daily activities of human beings. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate examples is on roadways. A New York State Department of Transportation employee said that detailed records on accidents with geese are not kept by the agency. However, the person did mention that there was an accident that occurred in the summer of 2015 on the Meadowbrook Parkway where one to two Canada geese were hit and multiple rear end collisions occurred as a result.

“I was driving three years ago on the Meadowbrook Parkway after noon on a weekday by exit M3 going north [sic]. Two adult Canada Geese with their four young crossed in front of my car while I was going 55 miles per hour. My passenger screamed and I came to a full stop. The cars behind me avoided hitting me and just went to either side of me. I immediately started up again. I have no idea what happened to any of the geese. I could have had a serious accident. That is when I started oiling eggs for the Town of North Hempstead [sic]. This environment is too urban or suburban for wild animals such as Canada Geese.” –Peggy Maslow, Vice President, North Shore Audubon Society

Though data on accidents involving Canada geese are not available, it can be said that several Long Island entities are worried about road safety. Airport Manager Anthony Ceglio explained that Francis S. Gabreski Airport experiences Canada geese crossing the main entranceway to the airport. Although there have not been any accidents in the past few years according to Mr. Ceglio, he did cite it as an issue. According to Bob Lietzke, Environmental Programs Coordinator for the Town of Huntington, Canada geese have nests next to ponds near Park Avenue. He added that during the molting season the geese walk across Park Avenue and New York State Route 25a, creating traffic concerns because people stop to let them across. Gerry Castro, a Village Clerk for the Village of Hewlett Harbor and Bob Barra, a Village Clerk for the Village of Valley Stream both said that their villages experience geese crossing roadways and that they consider it a hazard.

Abundance

Despite the lack of definitive population estimates for Canada geese on Long Island, it can be said that the geese have been seen on a great deal of designated natural and human made land area types. The birds inhabit lawns, parks, athletic fields, golf courses, beaches, nature preserves, river banks, and land surrounding lakes, ponds, and roadways. It is the proliferation of the geese throughout an expanded area which fuels conflicts between them and people. The geese even call recharge basins throughout Long Island their home, according to Christian Granelli, a planner for the Town of Huntington who is also involved in goose management.

Nutrient loading/algae

Canada goose feces contains nitrogen and phosphorous, and though these nutrients can be found naturally in water bodies, they can also be detrimental to water quality in large quantities (Unckless & Makarewicz, 2007) . Nitrogen and phosphorous are essential to plant growth, however excess plant growth can remove dissolved oxygen fr om the water , r esulting in a condition called hypoxia (NYDEC, n.d). Bob Lietzke, Environmental Programs Coordinator for the Town of Huntington explained that some of the water bodies in the town have been experiencing increased algae growth, and that Canada geese feces are suspected to be the cause.

Public Complaints

Data on public complaints can be used to reflect the magnitude of a conflict within a specified area. Not all entities on Long Island keep detailed records about complaints regarding Canada geese, and sometimes only estimates from personal experiences are available. Below is a snapshot of public complaint numbers from around Long Island. Sources and contexts for each quantity are included.

Table 1. Annual Canada Geese Complaints on Long Island

Entity

Village of Hewlett Harbor

Village of Rockville Centre

Village of Valley Stream

Town of Brookhaven

Town of Babylon

Annual Number of Complaints

10

1-2

5

10

5

Nassau Country Parks < 2

Group for the East End < 10

Source How estimate was developed

Gerry Castro, Village Clerk

Harry Weed, Superintendent of

Public Works Bob Barra, Village Clerk

Anthony Graves, Chief Environmental Analyst

Richard Groh, Chief Environmental Analyst

Frank Camerlengo, Deputy Commissioner of Nassau Country Parks Aaron Virgin, Vice President Person experience estimate

Person experience estimate

Person experience estimate

Person experience estimate

Person experience estimate

Person experience estimate

Person experience estimate

Negative impacts on Canada geese from humans

Many of the park and municipality representatives on Long Island who were interviewed for this report mentioned that they observe people feeding Canada geese, regardless of whether signs saying not to feed them were posted.

Artificial feeding of Canada geese and other water fowl can cause damage to their health (NYDEC, n.d). Although many people feed waterfowl at parks and other public establishments with the interpretation that they are caring for the animals, the opposite is actually occurring. The NYSDEC’s website describes the problems caused by artificial feeding (NYDEC, n.d). A few of the issues are described below (NYDEC, n.d).

 Malnutrition Many people who feed waterfowl give them food items which are not a part of their natural diet (NYDEC, n.d). These food products lack the nutrition that waterfowl require, and birds who consume them on a frequent basis can develop bodily deformities as a result (NYDEC, n.d).

 Illness Waterfowl who are fed artificially return often to the same location to feed (NYDEC, n.d). Large gatherings of the birds in the same place, increases the risk of disease transmission (NYDEC, n.d).

 Disrupted life cycles Consistently being fed can encourage the birds to rely on people for food instead of seeking outtheir own (NYDEC, n.d). Sometimes birds will remain at an artificial feeding site instead of preparing to migrate (NYDEC, n.d).

“…Residents themselves are causing the problems to escalate a little bit more by feeding them….You’re actually doing more harm physically to the goose by feeding it the breads and all the other stuff than you are helping it. And you’re also causing them to be comfortable and stay.” -Tom Licata, Assistant Director for the Department of Environmental Resources at the Town of Oyster Bay