Despite issuing statements in this article around Botulism being the likely cause of death and attempting to focus attention on the unproven toxin rather than the environmental conditions at the park in question , there were also some unanswered questions as well as issues surrounding what I had seen two of Sandwell council’s environmental health officers or pest controllers doing at this location at an earlier date with baited stations and rat poison. THIS REMAINS THE CASE.
Despite using a media platform initially to suggest that they were in control of the situation as regards removing any dead birds from the water, unfortunately subsequent inaction by council officers has failed to alleviate what has occurred at this site or even attempt to investigate it. There were conflicting statements made at different times by councillors/officers as to how many birds had died and what was happening with the alleged post mortems.
The limited post mortem APHA reference number 26-B0162-07-18 , hampered by the decaying carcass quality was only tested for avian influenza, and so no botulism was even considered or looked for.
Numerous more deaths of several species have since been noted since August, and these were also reported to Sandwell council, and the RSPCA have been heavily involved in catching sick birds, as well as retrieving dead ones from the lowered water levels. These birds were then given to Sandwell council to arrange further post mortems with Defra. Unfortunately it appears that this did not happen.
Another Dead mallard
I am setting out below the full email correspondence between myself and Sandwell Council surrounding this issue for the record. What can be seen here is the dithering, inaction and inconsistent statements which in themselves raise questions as to why SMBC are rather muted about issues surrounding this lake and what is behind the cause of the birds’ demise.
Contacted Max Cookson, “waste and transportation manager” SMBC copying in cabinet members Cllr Bill Gavan and Cllr Dave Hossell.
Reference made to conversation with MC a few weeks earlier following publication in Express and Star of multiple bird deaths at this site. At meeting with Max cookson I had asked who had collected the dead birds and where they had been taken? He had said that he would contact me with this information but hadn’t done so. I query a number of issues surrounding the litter in the pool and also the fact that SMBC are aware that the pool cannot retain water due to the collapsed and unrepaired drainage channel underneath the pool. N.B The picture of a Severn Trent water van in this park is noted, but what were they doing there? Is there no link to anything going on or may have transpired in the pool?
Reply from Max Cookson stating that he would supply me the information in the next week or so and also claiming that the council were looking at aerating the pool. He had copied in to this council officers Matt Darby, Jo Miskin and Darren Jones.
Reply from Cllr Gavan acknowledging the email and also asking the above named officers whether it would be possible to clear up the litter around the edge of the pool? (Sent from his I phone.) N.B this being one month since the dead mallard had been submitted to the AHPA and longer still from the claimed deaths of dead birds weeks earlier that had been “left rotting” by the council in the lake.
I Emailed Max cookson also copying in Cllr Gavan and other officers that he had previously tasked with clearing the litter. I pointed out that no action at all had been taken and that I had also not been contacted by Max Cookson or anyone else as had he had stated would happen in his email of 21/8 . N.B Three weeks had gone by without reply. I also had at this point obtained the “post mortem” of the single bird that they had sent for post mortem myself via an foi request, also without having been informed by MC as to whom he had contacted at DEFRA. (see above)
A forwarded email from John R satchwell sent to myself and for some reason him copying in chief executive Jan Britton and someone called Alan Caddick (no idea). Many claims made in the email but no detail as to when the council would be taking action, and largely telling me what I already knew and had found out myself via the freedom of information request. I am certain that he did not compose this email himself, and the fact that it was a forwarded email would appear to confirm this. The wording of this is very similar to that I had received from the APHA , then vla about deaths at Rattlechain lagoon and is deliberately non specific. So who wrote this email really?
On 8th October, I visited Victoria Park and was horrified to see a dead swan carcass on the pool, as well as a dead goose on the island and at least two dead mallards in the water. Another mallard was visibly sick on the water. I am aware that the swan had not been at the site on my previous visit of 4th October. A passer by reported that it had been alive the day before on the water.
I contacted the RSPCA for assistance in rescuing the mallard.
The open bait box, minus any bait was also noted at the edge of the pool.
As Sandwell council continue to procrastinate and dither on taking environmental action, one can only hope that someone who is not out of their depth at two feet of water will hopefully seize the initiative and start caring about this park. Here is a video I took on 16th August concerning the litter and issue surrounding the collapsed and badly “repaired” water leak. Two months on- still no action.
A chance encounter some time back with some suspicious looking geezers led me to enquire about so called “pest control” in Sandwell’s parks and open spaces. The issue of “what is a pest and when does it become one?” is obviously a moral question and not one with which this local authority would of course have been historically interested. The fact that there exist non-lethal methods of managing populations of certain mammals or birds does not appear to compute to those in power or “responsibility, and we have certainly seen the sinister side of “pest control” by a private company that SMBC hired to kill geese.
Dear Mr Carroll, Re: FOI 9893981 – Rodenticides and poisons used in parks and green spaces
I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request made on 22 November 2016 relating to the use of rodenticides in parks and green spaces within Sandwell. I would advise you that pest control in parks is generally carried out by the council’s own Pest Control team but at Sandwell Valley Park it is undertaken by a private company.
I have set out the answers your questions below for the financial year April 2015 – March 2016
1. Could you please reveal a list of the rodenticides and other chemicals used for controlling species in parks and green spaces within the borough of Sandwell?
The Rodenticides used on our sites are:
Rascal Difenacoum Grain
Rascal Difenacoum Paste
Ratimor Difenacoum Wax Blocks
Sakarat Difenacoum Grain Bait
2. If held can you state the volume/cost of these chemicals used in 2015/2016 financial years?
Rascal Difenacoum Grain = 16.5 kg at a cost of £17.32
Rascal Difenacoum Paste = 900 grams at a cost of £10.60.
Ratimor Difenacoum Wax Blocks 95 Kg at a cost of £216
Sakarat Difenacoum Grain Bait 20 Kg at a cost of £32.40
3. Are rodenticides / chemicals used near children’s play areas, areas of open water or are there any areas where they are restricted from use- and for what reasons?
“Rodenticides are always placed in a safe location, by trained operatives based on a site specific risk assessment and depending on the nature of rodent activity in the area. Rodents are often attracted to water sources so it may be appropriate to bait adjacent to this area but all reasonable steps are taken to protect non-target species. All rodenticides are used strictly in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines, particularly in relation to health and safety. Other than the precautions referred to above, there are no restrictions on the location where rodenticides are used. “
4. Are they employed for use in any of Sandwell’s judged Green flag parks?
“Rodenticides are deployed in parks which have gained the Green Flag award.”
All this is rather interesting, especially given my encounter with two individuals who appear to be in the employment of Sandwell council- appearing at Victoria Park Smethwick in a van with a Sandwell council logo. It was clear that they had with them a tub of something, yet no apparent means with which to conceal it and were gazing into the water and surrounding vegetation.
On closer inspection it was apparent that this tub was a container of Ratimor wax blocks– as confirmed in the FOI answer from Sandwell council. But this container is at direct odds with Sandwell council’s answer that it uses Ratimor Difenacoum blocks- as closer inspection reveals that this particular container has red blocks on it. This means that this particular container is Ratimor Bromadiolone blocks instead. Here is the proof of this, so please compare the two with the picture above that the SMBC operatives had with them. An online search of this particular anti-coagulant substance reveals quite a lot about it and also the methods that should be deployed when it is unfortunately used.
The following data sheets sets out how the company producing this poison say that it should be used.
There have to be concerns as to what these two individuals were doing with this bait, in this, a so called “Green flag” Sandwell park and also the ways in which it was being deployed. I expressed my concerns at the time to the RSPCA.
It is evidently clear that the SMBC operatives WERE NOTfollowing the guidance of the manufacturers about valid PPE. No gloves were being worn.
It was also clear that one of them was also smoking at the time, and to add further insult to injury, the fag end was discarded into the bushes- now I wonder if a member of the public had done this they would be fined?
The two individuals promptly left when they knew that I was on to them, though it remained a mystery to me on close inspection of where they had been that there were No bait stations visible at all. I am certain of that because I clearly searched for them. I also do not know what they were doing using a stick- but I’m sure they weren’t bloody fishing- so were any blocks being dropped!
At a later date however, I observed rat bait stations in clear reach of hands in plastic easily destroyable containers, “secured” only by a couple of loose cable tags.
One wonders why this poisonous material was being left at this site, clearly against the guidance use of the manufacturers.
It is reported here that just one bird has been sent for post mortem, which if looking to confirm botulism poisoning is a hopeless task. There are dead birds on the island, and the pool has also been supposedly “fenced off” even though there is a fence around the pool already.
There have to be questions asked about the new housing development taking place on the site of a former Sandwell college, immediately adjacent to the pool, and what may have entered the water from this site. Why is it that this side of the pool has been fenced off to fence off the fence?
This pool has long had a problem of a collapsing drain underneath that every time there is a heavy downpour it collapses severely depleting the pool. This happened a few weeks ago again, and has yet to be repaired- but it is clear that it has never been repaired properly to start with.
It may well be the case that this factor along with the weather conditions has caused an outbreak of botulism in this park- but this is an environmental issue very much in Sandwell council’s own hands. Before they look at water quality, I would be looking at what is being dumped around it- and this extends to more than a few loaves of bread and rotting chapattis.
Pest controllers, local authority bent council officers, aviation industry , conservationists with a black and white view of life and a God complex, “educators” with obvious childhood issues- they all appear to have it in for Canada geese. But whilst they moan and whinge and give nothing but lies, here Gooseman and Swanderwoman set out some of the virtues of the humble goose.
Perhaps they’re just jealous of a bird species that is everything that they are not.
It’s June and that means the annual gathering in Birmingham to celebrate wildlife in all its various forms at The Birmingham Wildlife Festival. This was the fourth year that we have attended and it always offers a variety of stalls and guest speakers fused with musical interludes.
The stall provided information about Canada geese and their efficacy highlighting how the much maligned species does not deserve such a negative label as “pest species”.
It wasn’t long before Gooseman, the Park Knight appeared to lend a hand with proceedings. This was Gooseman’s fourth appearance at the festival also, but it still seems that some people think he’s a penguin in disguise.
This year however he was flying solo, posing for selfies, high fiving and on his best behaviour given that the rossers were nearby.
He also met Brenda the badger and Tigerman whilst perusing the other stalls.
It wasn’t long however before he got a little bored and set off in search of food.
But suddenly a plethora of furry characters appeared as if by magic. With the world cup on, gooseman wondered if these were invading Russian ultras cunningly disguised. If these rufty toughty football firm mafiosa are ultras “till they die” , does that make them always ultras? pondered gooseman? 😆
But gooseman needn’t have worried as these were no football hooligans , it was just the Birmingham furs doing a walkthrough in celebration of the same cause.
Foxes, cats, phoenix’s , goats and who knows what else offered a truly anthropomorthic feeling around Victoria Square.
But as his new found friends departed Gooseman saw what he thought was an egg and decided to try and hatch it.
Must have been oiled he thought, as it failed to hatch- still at least there were no chance of any culls of wildlife taking place in the square given the people and superheroes gathered there in support of celebrating compassion and advocacy of the natural world.
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”.
Canada geese are also protective of their young, but don’t kill anything.
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.
I have recently discovered an old Express and Star clipping from 1997, as well as a letter from Sandwell council at the time concerning a letter that I wrote back then when it was intimated that the council were thinking of culling geese.
Following the controversial cull in 2013/14 where several Sandwell council officers lied, (as well as lying in a freedom of information request to another individual about not lying!) I had asked for the original report from 1997 under a freedom of information act request, yet the then Head of Neighbourhoods, Adrian Scarrott, claimed that no copies remained. I always believed this to be another pack of lies and very convenient, as this report would no doubt have given an estimate of numbers of geese in Sandwell’s parks and open spaces as they then stood, which would have informed opinion or not of how their numbers had supposedly increased as the council claimed in their defence in 2014- or at least that would be a basis for a theory.
The report which went to the so called “scrutiny committee”, compiles by Scarrott
But this article from 1997 gives a clear reference to the number that Sandwell council were claiming to be present in 1997 at the time of their policy- and that number is “more than 700 Canada geese”!
This then provides clear evidence that in the intervening 16 year period between a policy that the council officers had appeared to have forgotten, and the ludicrous and heavily Natural England plagiarised Satchwell report, that Sandwell council’s own estimates of geese had in fact not gone up at all, but were the same or had gone down.
From Express and Star 14/1/1997
We do not get which officers drew up this report or the verification of the cogence of evidence about the claims about footpaths and lakes being fouled. Of course they attempted the same thing after culling in 2013/14 and it didn’t stack up then.
Two former councillors are quoted in this article, Bill Archer and Jim Mckenzie. I have never heard of the latter, though it was not uncommon for Bill Archer to be quoted on just about anything at this time given the lack of Conservatives in this Labour dominated council. Mckenzie’s claims are garbage and unsubstantiated. I have no idea how he does not agree with the council officer figure, though like most amateur politicians, pet theories trump any scientific evidence- “the Satchwell way” it appears was rife back then too it seems. Of course, if this ex councillor was right, which he wasn’t, then that would make the situation even worse for this Labour controlled authority which culled on the basis of figures that were their own invention.
The key figure about Canada goose numbers in Sandwell- from Sandwell council’s own report
I am aware that I made numerous points in a letter following this article, and another that had appeared on the front page of this paper. The letter from Stuart Gallacher, then director of Education and Community services states that the article in the paper was misinformed and that the council in fact would not be culling any birds but undertaking egg pricking. We have to take his claims at face value.
He did however enclose a copy of a Defra report on the subject of Canada goose control at the time, and I will look at this in an upcoming post in more depth as it is quite interesting.
Two recent press releases from The Environment agency offer a very contradictory response to issues of water pollution and subsequent prosecution of those responsible.
My dealings and experiences with this government quango, have shall we say over a considerable period of time been less than impressive to put it very politely. In fact you could say I find them about as useful and popular as a hard backed copy of The Da Vinci Code in an Oxfam shop.
Previous gems relating to the notorious chemical dump at rattlechain lagoon involved one “pollution/prevention control” officer telling me that phosphorus wasn’t toxic- as “I’m a scientist, I did A level chemistry” – (not appearing to know the difference between elemental white phosphorus and total phosphorus!) His line manager added that phosphine was “marsh gas” ,whilst adding that his major at university had been zoology. 😯
Time and time again as a wildfowl bird rescuer I have dutifully rang the 0800 807060 incident number to report chemical pollution of watercourses, in an effort to try to prevent and save birds from being affected by the contaminants, whereby you would hope that timely intervention would prevent such incidents, and also save volunteers and charities the task of having to deal with a situation of rescuing them at a later date. Time and time again, I have been let down, and so have the birds.
One example concerned the firm Masefield Epson Limited in Tipton. Their environmental release onto a canal was one of the few that I have reported that the EA actually traced, but the recording of the fact that a family of swans apart from the surviving female was wiped out by their chemicals was not in the prosecution.
The EA really only appear to care about fish deaths- it’s where they make their money from rod licence sales, but you’d hope that their thinking wouldn’t be so shallow. Unfortunately it is.
The first press report quotes chair of the EA, Emma Howard Boyd and details the annual state of water report from the EA which they published at the same time. I will look at this in more detail below, but the quote from Ms Boyd is what you would want to see from an organisation claiming to want to be “creating a better place”. You would hope that this place would be one where polluting companies- especially multi million pound for profit water companies were punished every time for environmental pollution that they caused.
“Emma Howard Boyd, Chair of the Environment Agency, said:
“Water quality is better than at any time since the Industrial Revolution thanks to tougher regulation and years of hard work by the Environment Agency and others.
But there are still far too many serious pollution incidents which damage the local environment, threaten wildlife and, in the worst cases, put the public at risk.
I would like to see fines made proportionate to the turnover of the company and for the courts to apply these penalties consistently. Anything less is no deterrent.” “
The second press release therefore comes across as being rather odd in relation to the above line. This concerns the Environment agency effectively removing themselves and the polluter from the court system, and instead introducing an “Environmental undertaking” scheme, whereby the polluter can offer up some cash to restore the environmental damage which they created.
Personally I have great problems with this, particularly when the polluter has a dire environmental record, and can be seen to be somehow getting good PR for themselves by bunging gratefully receiving “charities” with a few quid. “The polluter pays principle” may be being met, but the way in which it is decided , and by whom in the EA gives cause for concern. Who decides to prosecute, and on what basis? Who decides which charities benefit, and are the top table charities the only ones likely to ever receive any money?
I have no idea how the ramblers association connect themselves with water pollution , or how they make the EA approved charitable list, if there even is one. It concerns me that some charities here will be more equal than others in terms of receiving cash- particularly the more established well known ones, or how are we to know what connections the polluters have with these charities, or even the EA officials making the decisions?
United Utilities to put it mildly and if you’ll excuse the pun have a shit record for water pollution and being fined and prosecuted by the environment agency.
TheEA officer in this last case is quoted “The case illustrates that the Environment Agency will not hesitate to take action where companies pollute the environment, especially where measures could have been put in place to avoid it.”
In short this company who have also engaged in goose murder are a grubby shambles of an operation and persistent serial polluter of the environment and of water. Why should they get good PR for stumping up a miserly £150k when they are a £1.5 billion profit company?
The latest EA state of water report makes interesting reading, particularly on some themes which I have gone into before about the manner in which geese have at certain times been scapegoated for causing “environmental damage”.
Thus we learn that agricultural and farming practices and the water industry are the main polluters and reason why river pollution is so bad- and nothing to do with wild birds and animals like geese.
One of the most interesting parts of the report concerns phosphorus. “The main cause of phosphorus in rivers are sewage effluent and run-off from agricultural land. “
In context the ludicrous Defra report outlining why geese can be culled contains the following misnomer. Like the author of this report, “Dr” John Allen, it is a fucking joke.
Perhaps Defra then, on the pure “scientific evidence” should be issuing general licences in how farmers can be “humanely culled” to prevent such incidents from occurring. 😆 Unfortunately scientists are bought and paid to make up lies on behalf of economic interest lobby groups like the agricultural/farming industry.
The report also mentions chemicals entering rivers- from of course more economic interest lobbies like the pharmaceuticals industry- to which farming is heavily linked- particularly in the form of antibiotics.
The pharmaceuticals industry along with fake “doctor” psychiatry is intent on hooking people on drugs and false hope. They invent a so called mental health “illness” , then encourage people to “talk about stigmas” etc which no doubt has boosted sales of their human body malware enormously, especially with copious pious celebrity/political endorsements. But all of these happy pills are eventually going down the shitter, into the water and poisoning the environment- so before you are “depressed”, perhaps try getting something that others before the snowflake quack science of the late 2oth Century came along and grasped, and that is
Overhead power lines are ghastly things. Designed by man, there is ongoing and frequent debate about their links with cancer and human health and incidents where they have killed people when falling down in high winds, as well as fatal accidents involving youngsters . But to wildfowl they are snares in the sky- particularly perilous when they cross nature reserves and bodies of open water that entice the wild birds to gather there.
My experience of power lines and birds started quite by accident when I saw a swan collide with some at Sheepwash Nature Reserve in Tipton. But for that I would probably never have become interested or involved in bird rescue or any other animal related activities- and there are some people that would wish that had happened. 😆
I knew this female swan by ring number- LBV and she had been nesting with her mate on a nearby canal. The worst thing about the collision was the horrendous snapping noise of the collision- amplified by a rising shhhhhhh sound of generation. But because of the landing she was still alive and had splashed into the water falling several metres.
Unfortunately it was three days before I found any contact details for any rescue organisation and by this time on rescue the injuries were too severe and the swan died.
It would turn out to be the first of many such similar events and the start of trying to get something done to stop it.
Firstly I need to explain about power lines and “towers” as those in the industry refer to them- electric pylons to the layman.
Most towers have a unique number plate such as this one VT 24
The National Grid Company control the major towers in the UK- and they own the ones that cross Sheepwash. At the top of each tower runs the single conductor wire known as “the earthwire”. Underneath this are three arms on each side known as cross arms. These arms support three sets of conductors making up the circuit. Insulators hang from the cross arms and are circular.
Running from the conductors are the phase conductors– three lines referred to as bottom , middle and top phase conductors. The diagram below explains this set up, and if you look up at your nearest set of power lines you can identify the terms referred to here. Two types of National Grid tower “suspension towers” and “tension towers” exist- A suspension tower has the insulators hanging vertically whereas a tension tower will have the insulators hanging horizontally from the cross arm.
The other factor in this post is the importance of the location of the incidents at Sheepwash. There are three pylons that cross the reserve, and all three spans have produced collisions for the birds.
Sheepwash was created as a nature reserve in the early 1980’s from a former refuse tip. This tip had a water feature, and along side it ran the River Tame. The power lines and the positions of the towers at this point were well established. Unfortunately there wasn’t much thought in that the power lines crossed two of the created pools- so basically wildfowl attracted to the site- especially flying from the South in a North West direction would be faced with a ghastly hazard on attempting to land. The choice being either go over the power lines- i.e the top earthwire and curve around to land, or attempt to fly underneath them- the bottom phase conductor.
Added to this menace is the central position of VT24- known as an angle tower on account that it links two spans of powerlines together. So two whole sides of the main lake at Sheepwash are surrounded by these two spans hanging from the two towers. A third span connects from another tower (VT 25) across the Birmingham mainline canal and the West Coast railway line between Birmingham and Wolverhampton. This produces a further hazard in that the train electrified lines create another obstacle which force the birds to fly upward on route towards the national grid lines.
Pic bing maps. Lines crossing River Tame and Western side of site
pic bing maps power lines crossing the main pool
View of the angle tower VT24
The powerline carnage continued at the site and it was a short time later that I made contact with the National grid, coming across their wayleave officer Ted Yates. It was clear that national grid wanted “evidence” of collisions, and I had also seen some articles on bird diverters being fitted and so began this campaign.
A young swan witnessed to have collided with overhead lines and landing in the shallow River.
Dead birds were collected that had hit or were suspected to have hit powerlines. Ted yates then arranged for them to be taken to the WWT at Slimbridge for independent post mortem.
It was also the case that some birds had horrific wing breaks but had survived the fall by landing in the water- as I had witnessed myself. It was clear that birds could survive the impact of the collision, but if they fell to ground or landed on the islands they would die from associated “ground impact” injuries. The post mortems mainly conducted by highly experienced and published avian vet Martin Brown confirmed many of these ground impact injuries associated with overhead collision. Typical injuries were broken ribs, clavicle and sternum with bone fragments puncturing the heart and liver of falling birds causing massive haemorrhage.
Below are some examples of post mortems carried out, and the picture which began to emerge.
The highest number of known casualties appeared to be swans, though Canada geese and pigeons were also victims of the metal wires. Some were inexperienced juveniles, but others were adult birds. Wind conditions were no doubt a factor, but collisions occurred throughout the year- apart from the main moulting period when the birds were flightless. October would always be a worrying time however when they started to fly again. Some birds collided flying alone, but others collided flying in groups. It was apparent that group flyers in formation may panic when another bird saw the lines and took evasive action, but those flying behind were too late and unable to take a similar course.
Eventually Ted Yates and others in the company managed to get the high ups in National Grid to fit diverters on the bottom phase conductor on one side of the span crossing the main lake. The picture below shows the cable car used by National Grid crossing the power lines and fitting the bird diverters to this span. It was stated that the top earthwire was unable to be fitted with diverters for technical reasons.
The diverters themselves were bright orange steering wheel sized disks. In all twelve were evenly spaced across the lengthy span.
A few years later and with a reduced number of collisions, National Grid were undertaking major works along the network which included the complete rebuild of tower VT 25 on Sheepwash. The opportunity was taken to fit additional diverters on the middle and top phase conductors on the same side as those already there. This would obviously provide additional surveillance for the birds and make the lines stand out more in darker conditions.
Other types of bird diverters exist and have been trialled at other sites, but I am not sure of the success rate achieved.
Picture national Grid
There are other electricity providers such as the former MEB- now known as Western power who had lines marked at such locations as Chasewater , Forge Mill lake and Fens pool Nature reserve. Unfortunately these wire coils were of extremely poor quality and the orange paint on them has completely faded making them totally useless. They resemble more metal additional ornaments on the hazard than highlighting the hazard to the birds in the air. These sites, particularly Chasewater get high fatality rates among wildfowl. This company do not have a very good record regards environmental responsibility.
Western Power Suspension tower with useless “bird diverters” that are practically now indistinguishable from the hazard.
Not only are these rubbish they are also far too small
Smaller wooden poled power lines can also be fitted with snap on devices, such as the ones made by Clydesdale below. These lower voltage type of lines have the advantage of not having to be turned off. There are therefore no excuses from power companies that are made aware of overhead power line strikes involving these type of apparatus.
Reporting bird strikes.
If you are aware of any set of lines where bird strikes are occurring, please make all efforts to find out who owns the apparatus- which should be marked on the towers- and contact them with specific information. As a guide, here are the type of question that these companies will need- this was the type of question national grid were looing for.
Monitoring at sheepwash has continued , and though the rate of collisions has decreased, they still occur. I am committed to getting all the phases crossing the main pool and others currently unmarked across this site marked with diverters, and it is a worthwhile exercise given the many dozens of birds I have known to have died as a result of this overhead apparatus. We obviously live in a world where electricity is essential to modern life, but I’m not sure that nature reserves have to be stuck in places where these lines exist without putting in serious mitigation factors or even laws compelling companies to mark ALL power lines near All nature reserves/SSSI sites where their apparatus exists. Of course it would be better if these things were not in the sky, though it is clear they probably will be for many years to come. Environmental responsibility should go hand in hand with corporate profit there is no doubt that power companies are making plenty of that.
From this initial meeting Councillor Hossell confirmed that “a lot of people weren’t happy about it either”– this in relation to his predecessor and also Max Cookson’s predecessor’s goose cull.
We talked about potential strategies for reducing conflicts in certain areas and this resulted in a site visit where suggestions were put forward in this regard.
We also asked for increased sweeping at Victoria Park Tipton, and it was stated that the sweeper could be deployed around the circumference of the lake, and would be on a regular basis. A small area was also in fact redesigned so that this could happen.
There was some suggestion of fencing off part of the pool from the football pitch- though it was later revealed that no one leases the pitch for this activity.
It was agreed to look at vegetation management on the countryside sites to make them more attractive to geese- in an attempt to encourage them to remain at these areas.
Egg pricking was a grey area and we queried whether the serious questions surrounding Pestex and their actions would see them continue to be employed by Sandwell council.
It was agreed that number of eggs pricked by the contractor could not be confirmed by the council, and concern was also expressed as to why this company had been used to “round up” a feral cat on one of the Sandwell farms!
It appeared that the council were looking at doing the egg pricking task themselves and it was stated that officers would be looking into this.
A minibus tour of certain areas was suggested.
Overall it appeared that the council were keen to draw a line under the previous regime and to inform rather than dictate what they would potentially be doing going forward. A joined up strategy of management of parks and open spaces, was it was agreed the correct way to reduce conflicts of interest between certain park users and geese.
But this is unfortunately I am afraid where the positive comments end, as most of what was agreed, or stated would happen, has to date either not or appears to have petered out.
I was unhappy about comments that Dave Hossell was making in contrast to those being spouted by Richard Marshall in this Express and Star article– now currently ex Leisure cabinet member with responsibility of Parks. Marshall’s public comments were at odds with Hossell’s in private. (Perhaps it’s wise not to “inadvertently swallow” all natural arisings that SMBC councillors produce). 😆
“Councillor Richard Marshall, cabinet member for leisure, said: “The council is not anti-geese but the mess they leave on paths and pavements is a cause for complaints from residents, especially when people stand in one place to feed them and that in turn attracts vermin and all of those associated issues.”
I was not happy about the council’s lack of statement as to what their actual position was, and also if Marshall had even been party to any of the comments and suggestions that we had discussed at meetings. It is clear that historically these “complaints” were highly suspect from vested interest parties, and it has also become clear that one ex councillor was writing anti goose letters to the express and star in a fake name.
This therefore is Sandwell council’s official statement regarding geese.
“Dear Mr Carroll,
Thank you for your recent e mail. Please find below my responses to your questions/comments in red.
Having had three meetings now , and having set out our position I would be grateful if you could put in writing Sandwell council’s in terms of what it believes to be “measurable success” in attempting non-lethal methods of site management?
Just to be clear we are not and do not wish to
*attempt to eradicate geese from Sandwell’s formal parks
Agreed, it is not the intention of SMBC to eradicate geese from Sandwell’s formal parks
*destroy all goose eggs so that no goslings ever hatch
It is not the intention of SMBC to “destroy” all goose eggs to ensure that no goslings ever hatch. We will continue to undertake a programme of oiling and pricking eggs, ensuring that some eggs remain and are allowed to hatch. In future the numbers of eggs pricked/oiled will be recorded against the total number of eggs present.
*against all feeding of birds in formal parks where this is usually the only mechanism where ill or sick birds can be observed, monitored and rescued
SMBC will continue to discourage the feeding of birds within its formal parks, particularly the practice of feeding bread to geese/swans/waterfowl. Seed based feed is acceptable, however, it should be noted that this type of feeding is not discriminate and can also encourage vermin within the parks, and this situation will need to be monitored and managed accordingly.
*fence off all pools and prevent wildfowl accessing their natural food source- i.e grass
Certain areas of pools will be fenced off to encourage wildfowl to access selected areas of feeding/access to grass. Access points to and from the water
will be maintained to allow geese/wildfowl to feed as required.
We do wish to
*reduce complaints from park visitors concerning goose excrement- by methods we have discussed- i.e increased sweeping around paths (preferably towards the end of the week, before the weekend when most visitors will be in the parks), and also trials of fencing in certain areas.
Agreed. Increased Sweeper visits are already in place at Victoria Park as is a plan to fence certain areas of the pool. This practice will continue throughout our formal parks where necessary and where budgets allow. Further meetings of the “Goose Group” will help to identify areas of concern and propose remedial action.
*Attempt to allay people’s misguided fears about geese and the very low human health risk associated with droppings.
This is primarily a matter of education. However, it is my sincere hope that some of the measures proposed above, will reduce the concerns that some people have regarding goose droppings, mainly by ensuring that the droppings are swept frequently, and areas where geese feed are, wherever possible, remote from areas of the park which are utilised frequently for sporting events.
*encourage the birds to graze on areas away from sports provision, but also realising that these areas are not in constant use are not desired by all park users.
See previous answers
*introduce natural food sources to pools/islands such as the formal park pools which enhance the visual amenity and encourage environmental improvements
Agreed. We have already agreed to try “Reed Beds” in pools and we will explore this measure further.
*There is a scenario which I foresee, and which I am not prepared to enter into whereby the council will be seen to do or agree to all of these things, yet maintain the notion that they will somehow “fail” because people keep making complaints. I am not sure what “fail” means to SMBC, so I would be grateful if you could clarify this. What would constitute a “failure” having undertaken non-lethal methods?
I am of the opinion that in order to constitute a “failure” of non-lethal measures to control geese numbers, the geese on site would have to present a clear and present nuisance/threat/danger to those persons using the park. In this case the use of the term “Failure is entirely subjective, what one person may consider a failure may be entirely different to another individuals view on the matter. I will state however, that as long as I remain in the post of Service Manager my primary goal will be to manage bird numbers within the park in a balanced and humane manner. SMBC have no plans to undertake culling at the present time and nor do we foresee planning to cull in the next three years at least. I can further assure you that no future culls will take place without consultation with yourself and other interested parties.
I would remind you, if you are not aware, that complaints alone are NOT a valid reason for culling birds under Natural England’s current guidance or general licences.
Please see above
We have noted that there are numerous individuals who will attempt to make spiteful and vexatious complaints in a deliberate attempt to get the council to destroy all the birds, before moving on to something else. I would be grateful therefore if you could set out clearly what the council’s position is.
As a local authority we are bound to investigate and wherever possible respond to complaints, wherever and whomever they may come from. If a vexatious claimant is identified, measures will be taken to deal with their complaints in a prescribed manner. We will continue to investigate all complaints and respond to them in the appropriate manner.
(redacted question and answer)
I would also wish that for future meetings that both Councillors Hossell and Marshall could be present, just to ensure that we are all working on the same page and are aware of the direction that we at heading in is one shared.
I shall invite both Councillors to our next meeting.
Waste & Transport Manager
Unfortunately after this Councillor Marshall and Councillor Hossell appear to have disengaged with this issue altogether- I wonder why?
But this is Sandwell council’s position. I have ALL meetings recorded- including all site visits made by officers.
Sweeping around Victoria Park was for some unexplained reason stopped before the summer- when it was of course most needed. WHY? Just to be clear at a recent meeting 10/10/17 we attended I asked if this was about a cost issue.
Max Cookson stated “no,no,no,no,no ..because Serco on a small area like that , and it is a small area in the grand scheme of things , you know when you look at the whole borough erm it’s not a problem for them, even if we have to send one off route technically, you know if he’s driving off to go somewhere else. He if has to scoot round there. “ and said that he would be fixing this issue and having the area jet washed. To be fair to him sweeping has resumed- and so it should remain as had been agreed. SO COST IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE TO REDUCE ANY FAECES AROUND THE POOL- IT IS IN THE HANDS OF MANAGEMENT AND SERCO STAFF TO DO THIS.
All talk of fencing appears to have been dropped, as has any plans concerning vegetation planting for now.
It is possible to acquire machines such as the one below for clearing football pitches of any goose or other animal excrement. Just remember to put some oil and water in it so it doesn’t blow up, and not crash it into a shed. 😛 (Though if you have family connections in SMBC this tends to be overlooked. )
“It is not the intention of SMBC to “destroy” all goose eggs to ensure that no goslings ever hatch. We will continue to undertake a programme of oiling and pricking eggs, ensuring that some eggs remain and are allowed to hatch. In future the numbers of eggs pricked/oiled will be recorded against the total number of eggs present.”
To start with this headline and tone of article is fake news and very poorly informed. I am not sure to what extent Eling has been briefed by his staff or cabinet members, or if like the vile gangster Darren Cooper deceased (ex SMBC leader who claimed to have made the decision to cull himself but without any paper trail to confirm this), he just makes shit up as he goes along. No one at the Express and Star contacted me for comment- they would see from this article and the content that some positive progress has been made with officers, but Eling’s comments appear to knock these back.
We have never as a campaign called for eggs not to be pricked- as can be seen above! Egg pricking is a non-lethal method put forward by groups such as animal aid and is vastly preferable to breaking necks. It is also clear from personal experience that natural predation of both eggs and goslings reduces numbers significantly without need for all eggs to be pricked.
A gull and goose egg dinner at Victoria park Tipton
This headline is therefore false. The reason that the council did not prick as many eggs in 2017 are-
Pestex figures were lies from the year before- the council admit they could not verify them
The council did not get around to egg pricking till late in the season- they have admitted this.
They did not appear to enter any of the formal parks to prick eggs- just some of the nature reserves.
This therefore is entirely an internal SMBC matter and policy matter- and not as the article misleads anything to do with outside pressure and there has not been any “storm” over the practice. Utter made up bullshit.
Steve Eling is quoted
“People who love them think nothing should be done to control the population.
“It is about the size of the population rather than having none at all. We actually get more complaints about geese than complaints that nothing should be done about them.”
Eling’s claimsabout “complaints” can be assessed by a direct question which I asked Max Cookson at the recent meeting on 10/10/17 , before the publication of this news story.
“I also think we have to look at this from the point of view of complaints …. I’ve not been made aware of any large number of complaints regarding wildlife”
There was also agreement at this meeting to look at the figures of hatching geese/eggs nest year and that “if it isn’t broke let’s not fix it.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Council talks- “if it isn’t broke let’s not fix it.”
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.