It has recently been widely reported that a school in Sussex- “Saxon primary school” decided to carry out a cull of Canada geese in a field which is apparently used by children at the school. The decision was supposedly based on misinformation about the goose droppings being “harmful” to the children- though no apparent evidence appears to be forthcoming of any previous incidents where this happened. I’m not sure of how long this school has been in operation, but the Trust which runs it along with two other neighbouring schools has existed since 2013.
So far it has been reported that 14 geese were shot- a very “limited” cull you might say and rather pointless given that birds return to such areas if surrounded by waterbodies- as this one appears to be. From what can be seen from this overhead picture below, the area in question is miniscule compared to the area of water that surrounds it. It almost appears as an insignificant quay.
I’ve zoomed in here from this google map, but if you zoom out, the surrounding water area makes the field itself almost lost. The school itself boats 4 playgrounds. I’m not sure why one of these could not be converted to an astro turf area or synthetic pitch, but that of course is up to “the educators”.
There are various elements to this story and tragic events- for the geese. It appears newsworthy as it obviously shows human conflict as well as being that time of year when newspapers are looking for what would be considered “odd” stories.
Let’s first look at the school ethos itself, based upon some comments made on their website- that is “The Lumen Learning Trust.”
“At the Lumen Learning Trust, we are a little bit different.
For a start, we are a small Trust, absolutely focused on supporting children to become curious, inquisitive and capable young people.
Saxon School is on a large site with four playgrounds, a trim trail, a 5-acre playing field and its own swimming pool.”
So we learn from this that the area in question is just 5 acres. Easily fenced and capable of geese being deterred from entering it- certainly from the waterside.
“The School Grounds
Saxon Primary is situated on a very large school site which includes a very large field and three separate playgrounds. Consequently we aim to make the best and most effective use of our school grounds. In addition to their use in our PE curriculum, the grounds are rich in animal habitats and plants which help us develop our science curriculum.”
The field is not large. The quote “the grounds are rich in animal habitats and plants which help us develop our science curriculum.” is one which I will be reminding you of throughout this post- as it is clearly is at odds with the decision which they appear to have taken and obviously not capable of seeing regards Canada goose habitat.
The National Curriculum places strong emphasis on the development of experimental and investigative science (Scientific Enquiry). It also provides children with knowledge and understanding in topics such as ‘Life Processes and Living Things’, ‘Materials and their Properties’, ‘Physical Processes’ (electricity, forces, motion, light and sound), and the ‘Earth in Space’. “
Our curriculum is organised into topics that year by year build on children’s prior knowledge and skills. They are taught the skills of prediction, testing results, measuring and recording accurately and explaining what they have discovered. We aim to ensure that, through Science, pupils will extend their knowledge and understanding of the natural and physical world and thereby develop a fascination and respect and ultimately a sense of responsibility for our world and the creatures and plants that inhabit it.”
One wonders from this waffle as to how the children at this school, based on the simple decision to slaughter geese entering their perfect habitat are able to develop any “respect” and “ultimately a sense of responsibility” for their world and “creatures and plants that inhabit it”.
The legitimacy of the cull.
The decision to cull, like that in Sandwell was based on lies. Lies perpetuated by the avarice of the pest control industry and also Natural England- to whom their civil servants are nothing but confederates and shills to the same end. Their policy is based on lies and misinformation as well as fake figures and ultimately supporting a law regarding so called “non native species” as being worthless which can be killed. All of this stems from the ghastly European Union Habitats Directive- championed by the likes of the avian eugenicists at the RSPB- who get a great deal of money from the Nazis from Brussels.
One can only hope that when we thankfully leave this corrupt union, that this piece of crap is written out of UK law forever and along with it “The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981”. The so called “general licenses” stem directly from European Union legislation to preserve flora and fauna within the continent of Europe. Those who wish to remain as part of this empire would do well to educate themselves as to how this vile political fakery pretends to have supported animal “sentience”. It is lies.
The EU Directive implemented into British law was written for farmers to protect landholders and also the likes of the allied pest control industry- but never for the wildlife itself. It was not written by wildlife rehabilitators or those championing welfare with an ounce of common sense or compassion. It was written by cold hearted conservationists, whose love of themselves and self importance no doubt finds favour in Royal circles, which is why these hypocrites appear to think nothing of blasting birds for “sport” and then getting all sentimental over the likes of red squirrels, that were themselves blasted by the same gentry as “pests” many years before.
There is nothing “complex” about this decision, it was one of laziness and ill considered snowflakery. Just because the pest control industry likes to make false claims about Canada geese, so there are those who use children as masks to hide their own paranoia and phobias of certain creatures.
I remember having long discussions with Andy Tyler, the late former director of Animal Aid about the cull in Sandwell and those in general who decide to carry them out. Andy had the view that such people see wildlife as “ornamental” and objects to be viewed or used as appropriate, whilst other animals inside their house were no doubt feted and given human names, to which the children of the house would be encouraged to “pet” and talk to – almost like surrogate parents to occupy their time whilst their parents were no doubt too busy to do anything with them themselves.
Such people are of course stark raving hypocrites. Should children be encouraged to draw pictures of swans and teach them to tag words such as “regal”, “beautiful”, “graceful”, etc to this species, whilst at the same time encouraging them to regard geese as “pests”, “vermin” and “dirty” for being of a different species? I can tell you that swan shit does not smell of rose petals and neither are the shaft lice that infest their wings so great either when they get everywhere you could think of. 😆
But such people describe and use wildlife as some form of “education” as though they are just objects to be used for this purpose, and to “entertain” the children rather than having a right to exist for anything else. Such logic is perverse.
The RSPB COMMENTS.
“We hope the school can use this as a learning opportunity for pupils to explore the interconnectedness of people with nature, the laws that protect wildlife and the difficult decisions that we all face at some point in our lives.”
Of all the stupid and hysterical comments made by the school’s executive principal , those attributed to the anonymous RSPB spokesman speak volumes about this particular organisation and its own connectedness with wildlife murdering organisations like the BASC and the NFU.
The only thing that children will learn from this is that anything which is considered “inconvenient” in nature can be killed. If it is a swan, that’s wonderful, if its a goose then kill it. Men with guns were invited into this school to shoot something that could not defend itself. What a great lesson that provided. The law as detailed above does not protect wildlife, it protects those humans with a vested financial interest who make money from killing it.
There was no “difficult decision” here and such platitudes show the RSPB for what they really are, which is a money making organisation masquerading as a charity offering “a voice for nature”. Where is the voice for the so called “non native species” of bird here?
I suggest that if anyone wants to help nature and care for it then they contribute to a local wildlife rescue organisation rather than an administrative Royal sponsored body which does not “protect” anything.
On a final note, I would point out that a school with a logo encompassing lethal weapons in a city that the world can see is now totally lawless with daily stabbings everyday perhaps sums up the mentality of those running it.
To date, over 67,000 people have signed a petition against the school’s actions.