Sections
July 2, 2012 / Brooklyn news / Meadows of Shame

Prospect Park geese execution

No Prospect Park geese will be executed this summer — because there are no geese left to kill

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

The feds won’t slaughter geese in Prospect Park this year — because there aren’t any left to kill, wildlife advocates say.

Two years after the US Department of Agriculture exterminated more than 250 waterfowl in Brooklyn’s backyard, city officials announced the feathered creatures are safe this summer because the goose count is too low.

So low, bird lovers say, the commitment is akin to promising not to murder any flamingos in Central Park.

“There are literally zero geese in Prospect Park,” said David Karopkin, director of GooseWatch NYC — an organization committed to keeping urban waterfowl alive. “It’s depressing.”

Park watchdog and goose advocate Anne-Katrin Titze gives a higher count, saying there are two goose nests in the park and 15 Canada geese molting in and around the park’s water features.

Either way, federal officials won’t collect geese in the park during this year’s annual round-up because fewer than 20 of the birds were counted there this spring, the New York Times reported last week.

The goose population is significantly lower than last year due to a management program that involves oiling eggs to keep them from hatching and using dogs to chase away geese, city officials say.

Numbers never fully recovered after a massive late-night slaughter in July 2010 when United States Department of Agriculture officials gassed the squawkers in the name of airplane safety.

A Parks Department spokeswoman confirmed that, like last year, federal authorities won’t visit Prospect Park this summer — but declined to say whether the agency will cull birds in Williamsburg’s East River State Park.

That’s part of why Karopkin said GooseWatchers plan to keep an eye on the dozen-or-so geese who call that park home.

“Until the round ups are over, we’re gonna be camping out,” he said.

Reach reporter Natalie O'Neill at noneill@cnglocal.com or by calling her at (718) 260-4505.

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Or from Yellow Hook says:
It works.

And birds are smarter than to repopulate.
July 2, 2012, 7:39 am
Elizabeth from Prospect Park West says:
It's really depressing to go to an empty lake with my young kids. They keep asking me "Where are all the geese?"

I tell them that people in charge had them killed.
July 2, 2012, 9:29 am
o3 from Bushwick says:
do hunters slaughter & execute geese during the hunting season in all 50 states including new york? get real...
July 2, 2012, 9:58 am
John from Billyburg says:
03 you need some O2-
These are city parks not the boondocks.
July 2, 2012, 10:38 am
Or from Yellow Hook says:
Elizabeth,

When your kids see black ducks in the park, you can tell them that the black ducks were the native birds, displaced by the invasive canada geese.
July 2, 2012, 10:44 am
Elizabeth from Prospect Park West says:
Or, I know all about Black Ducks and they are yes, their presence is becoming less and less due to over harvesting, habitat loss, and competition with mallards.

Black Ducks generally lose habitat to Mallards in areas that become deforested or otherwise developed for human use.

http://www.audubon.org/species/amebla

Stop blaming everything on the geese.
July 2, 2012, 10:54 am
Or from Yellow Hook says:
And do tell those children about wings, and how birds make use of them.
July 2, 2012, 11:09 am
ty from pps says:
Now that we have these Canadian vermin down to a low level, are there programs in place to make the few stragglers "uncomfortable"? I've seen programs where volunteers use barking dogs, noisy sticks, etc.

If folks want to avoid these culling programs, they'd better get to the park to prompt the birds to continue their migration.
July 2, 2012, 11:30 am
Dolores from Parkside says:
ty,
Where have you been? They've been using border collies.

btw, these birds, thanks to the mess humans have created, do not migrate. They are resident geese, which were stocked into our parks years ago by money hungry government.

btw, This government is pathetic- Wildlife SERVICES? hardly.
July 2, 2012, 11:38 am
Annie from Prospect Park Southwest says:
Or and Ty - get lost, let the rest of us enjoy what wildlife is left in the park. You qualify as vermin to me more than any Prospect Park goose could ever. Or - stop the lies, these birds have never posed any threat to human health or safety, ever. Bloomberg's fear mongerer over here. Goebbels and Mengele died a long time ago, that's where they belong.
July 2, 2012, 1:05 pm
PattyA from Manhattan says:
Canada geese don't "displace" anything. That is just one more lie about them.

If there aren't many black ducks or other birds in PP start looking at Goosebusters. Do you not think that terrorizing tactics scare OTHER birds?

Face it. Prospect Park is not a hospitable place for ANY wildlife.
July 2, 2012, 1:31 pm
ty from pps says:
Dolores,
That's good to hear. Canada Geese are not supposed to live here... Brooklyn should be a brief stop on the way.

Annie,
These are not the animals that are supposed to live in Prospect Park. You'd rather see Canada Geese instead of the actual diversity of waterfowl and other animals that *used to* live in the park? Yes, they are vermin and are displacing other animals... and it's our fault.
July 2, 2012, 1:33 pm
ty from pps says:
PattyA -- You're wrong. But that's ok.
July 2, 2012, 1:35 pm
Jay from Pslope says:
Good, I am VERY happy, as a person who lives on the park, to know that the geese are gone and are not going to cause one of the low flying aircraft that go over my place all day and all night to crash into the building where I live or into the park, or for that matter one of the schools that are near the park.
I FULLY support this program 1000%. Seems like the programs worked, good job feds!!
While I understand some people may not like the goose eradication programs, Annie, they ARE a necessary reality for safety of aircraft and people on the ground in the flight path of aircraft.
Comparing this to Hitler? really? The fact is birds do cause planes to crash, and bird strikes have killed people, so your comments are really out of line.
DO you have any idea what a 757 being bought down by a bird strike in a crowed area like park slope would do?
There would be hundreds dead on the aircraft and who knows how may killed on the ground, but you could look at the crash in Belle Harbor or the one in park slope from the 1950s (much smaller aircraft then) as an example.
I get that you and others don't like the bird killing programs, but aircraft are here to stay we live in a modern city and your comments and position really do not reflect that reality nor the issues of safety that come with reality.
But having said that, I would be willing to make the following deal with you, we stop killing the birds and in exchange you agree to take all of the risk that people on the planes take and people who live around the park take, so that if a plane is damaged or bought down by a bird strike, you agree to pay for all financial damages incurred, and anything you can't cover will come out of every single last member of your family no matter how distant a retaliative they are
In addition, in the event of a crash from a bird strike, you agree to be dropped off a 7 story building and set on fire and burned to death along with your entire family in front of your own eyes.
Don't like that deal? Seem crazy and extreme, not reasonable, and maybe Hilter-ish?
Then why do you think people who fly or live near the park should take that deal, because that is what you are asking people who fly or live near the park to take on by not getting rid of the birds.
If you want that risk on yourself that is one thing, but you can't ask others to take that risk.
July 2, 2012, 2:27 pm
Jay from Pslope says:
Good, I am VERY happy, as a person who lives on the park, to know that the geese are gone and are not going to cause one of the low flying aircraft that go over my place all day and all night to crash into the building where I live or into the park, or for that matter one of the schools that are near the park.
I FULLY support this program 1000%. Seems like the programs worked, good job feds!!
While I understand some people may not like the goose eradication programs, Annie, they ARE a necessary reality for safety of aircraft and people on the ground in the flight path of aircraft.
Comparing this to Hitler? really? The fact is birds do cause planes to crash, and bird strikes have killed people, so your comments are really out of line.
DO you have any idea what a 757 being bought down by a bird strike in a crowed area like park slope would do?
There would be hundreds dead on the aircraft and who knows how may killed on the ground, but you could look at the crash in Belle Harbor or the one in park slope from the 1950s (much smaller aircraft then) as an example.
I get that you and others don't like the bird killing programs, but aircraft are here to stay we live in a modern city and your comments and position really do not reflect that reality nor the issues of safety that come with reality.
But having said that, I would be willing to make the following deal with you, we stop killing the birds and in exchange you agree to take all of the risk that people on the planes take and people who live around the park take, so that if a plane is damaged or bought down by a bird strike, you agree to pay for all financial damages incurred, and anything you can't cover will come out of every single last member of your family no matter how distant a retaliative they are
In addition, in the event of a crash from a bird strike, you agree to be dropped off a 7 story building and set on fire and burned to death along with your entire family in front of your own eyes.
Don't like that deal? Seem crazy and extreme, not reasonable, and maybe Hilter-ish?
Then why do you think people who fly or live near the park should take that deal, because that is what you are asking people who fly or live near the park to take on by not getting rid of the birds.
If you want that risk on yourself that is one thing, but you can't ask others to take that risk.
July 2, 2012, 2:27 pm
Margaret from Park Slope says:
Jay,
You must work for Bloomberg or the FAA. Or you are buying into the BS the city is throwing at you.

The geese that the plane flew into on the Hudson were migratory geese from Labrador Canada flying at 5000 ft. Killing every last bird on the ground would have never and will never stop a birdstrike from happening at that altitude.

Why the hell would people construct an airport on a wetland area located on the Atlantic Flyway is mindboggling.

Who will they blame should it happen again? Such baloney.
July 2, 2012, 2:39 pm
jay from pslope says:
no margaret I do not work for Bloomberg or the FAA, but I am still correct, and you are still wrong, but that type of smear attack you engaged in is pretty typical of people who don't know facts or want to pretend that facts are not real and as a result only know how to call people names.
As for the U.S. Airways flight it ACTUALLY struck the birds at an altitude of 2818 feet, which is less than half the 5000 feet you fictitiously claim in your post, so already your credibility is in the toilet.
Further birds strikes to this aircraft occurred at around 1,600 feet, so basically on the face of it your post is just flat out wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.
In addition bird strikes can also occur at much lower altitudes than 1,600 feet, like even at zero feet.
Do you know the altitude that planes go over the park at? Here is a hint, it is WAAAAY less than 5,000 feet and within easy reach of a pack of geese to get hit by. The geese that were in the park were a hazard to aviation, and it really is that simple.
You may not like it, but that does not change the fact that it is true and that you are wrong.
As for the location of where airports are built, they got built there a looong time ago and that is where there was open land. You need miles of land and there is no other place to put the airport in NYC, its not mind boggling its really actually simple, the only thing baloney is your post.
Unless of course you think we should get rid of airports so we can keep the geese in the park, in which case you really are not living in the 21st century.
Again though, I will offer to you the same deal I offered to Annie, step up to get burned alive by jet fuel along with your entire family, assume the same risk that you are demanding that people who live around the park and on aircraft are taking should the geese be left in the park, and then we will have something to talk about.
Put your family where your mouth is Margaret.
July 2, 2012, 3:22 pm
James from Park slope is Truly Dead says:
"Margaret from Park Slope says:
Jay,
You must work for Bloomberg or the FAA. Or you are buying into the BS the city is throwing at you.

The geese that the plane flew into on the Hudson were migratory geese from Labrador Canada flying at 5000 ft. Killing every last bird on the ground would have never and will never stop a birdstrike from happening at that altitude.

Why the hell would people construct an airport on a wetland area located on the Atlantic Flyway is mindboggling.

Who will they blame should it happen again? Such baloney."

Magaret - What you said is spot-on! Good to see that someone here actually knows something about the Canada Goose.
They'll blame the homeless, or pidgeons, or something. These 'professional victims' ALWAYS need to be busy - feel threatened. It's the very core of their existence! Maybe it will be the fault of some bird that doesn't fit with the image that these newcomers to the slope think should be when they're sitting in the park, scowling at the real, old timer residents of park slope, who are actually having a good time.
July 2, 2012, 3:25 pm
jay from pslope says:
James it has nothing to do with image or who has lived here longer, you clearly just don't get it, but I have lived in the slope for a really long time, and all that aside, your post does not contain one single fact.
July 2, 2012, 3:39 pm
Annie from Prospect Park Southwest says:
Jay - you are not correct. First of all, why would I offer to pay for the damages, when it is clearly - CLEARLY - the responsibility of the airline industry to protect people's safety. It's a private industry. The profits are 100% profit. Why should I pay even one cent to them for anything other than ticket fares, let alone my tax dollars being cyphoned off to kill birds in the park I have thought of as an extension of my backyard for my entire life. Their inability to do so, as exhibited by the numerous incidents unrelated in any way to birds, has led them to focus the attention of the public on birds that live in our parks, which I believe folks like you and ty already took issue with, for other garbage reasons. I'm not going to apologize when others break out the propaganda and gas chambers for comparing them to the masters of their trade, and simply attempting to follow in footsteps. This whole charade has made me very angry at the decision makers, as well as my neighbors who clearly lack compassion, as well as critical thinking.
July 2, 2012, 3:40 pm
james from Park slope is Truly Dead says:
Jay, I was using a bit of hyperbole there, actually, but you didn't get that. Look at what Annie says here to you. She is also correct.
July 2, 2012, 3:51 pm
Margaret from Park Slope says:
I have lived here my entire life Jay, as has my parents and grandparents.

Jay, perhaps you didn't realize that JFK was built on existing wetlands-not just "open land" but crucial habitat for wildlife. Perhaps you don't know that NYC is located on the Atlantic Flyway, a major migratory route for millions of birds each year.

In my post I did not dismiss lower altitude birdstrikes, I was referring to the 2009 strike which involved migratory birds and shortly after that Bloomberg put an APB on resident geese within 7 miles of the airports. (btw, Prospect Park is between 9 and 11 miles from the airports).

How do you propose to stop millions of years of evolution of birds from flying on instinct?
July 2, 2012, 4:17 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from pslope - you want facts?

Here are some facts about Flight 1549:

Flight 1549 ran into MIGRATORY GEESE FROM LABRADOR, CANADA in January, 2009. You could have killed every Canada goose in the USA in the summer of 2008 and it would not have prevented Flight 1549 from hitting migrant Canada geese.

Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320.

The FAA had issued warnings in 2004 that the Airbus A320 was prone to double engine failure.

“An emergency safety directive has been issued to airlines using twin-engine Airbus A320s after both engines on one stalled over the Mediterranean, just 18 days after an Air New Zealand A320 crashed killing all seven on board………. American authorities warned such stalling problems could prevent continued safe flight or landing.”

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/246674/

About 645 people died in ten years in A320 crashes...NONE of those crashes was related to a Canada goose or any other wildlife.

Fatal and significant airbus A320 incidents:
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a320.htm

The engines of Flight 1549 did not meet the current engine standards for bird strikes...and you have to wonder if they had would this plane have been so disabled it couldn't make it back to land safely at an airport.

"In 1996, the engines that would later be used on U.S. Airways Flight 1549 were certificated for bird ingestion according to these standards. In 2007, the FAA adopted new regulations regarding bird strikes, and the new rules increased the size of the birds used in the core tests to 5½ pounds. HOWEVER, engines certificated prior to 2007 were not obliged to meet the new requirements."

NASA: SystemFailureCaseStudyFile
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnsc.nasa.gov%2FSFCS%2FSystemFailureCaseStudyFile%2FDownload%2F181%2F&ei=9q3YT5b7L8ycmQWH7qGbAw&usg=AFQjCNF7rGvJ4BQcaCxiEMZQqC0BASg4Nw&sig2=yIoWBw9Q7R221jhly0gamQ

Are certain aircraft more likely to get hit than others?
Bird strikes are FIVE TIMES MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR on planes with engines mounted under the wings, such as the Boeing 737 or the AIRBUS A320, than on planes with engines mounted on the fuselage, like the Boeing MD-It is probably because the airflow over the MD-80 causes the birds to get blown away from the engines.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-a-bird-strike&page=2

So Jay, how much safer are planes after the USDA has rounded up and killed thousands of innocent resident Canada geese? Come on, you must be able to quantify this if you believe it is accomplishing anything.
July 2, 2012, 4:19 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from pslope - you want facts?

Here are some facts about Flight 1549:

Flight 1549 ran into MIGRATORY GEESE FROM LABRADOR, CANADA in January, 2009. You could have killed every Canada goose in the USA in the summer of 2008 and it would not have prevented Flight 1549 from hitting migrant Canada geese.

Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320.

The FAA had issued warnings in 2004 that the Airbus A320 was prone to double engine failure.

“An emergency safety directive has been issued to airlines using twin-engine Airbus A320s after both engines on one stalled over the Mediterranean, just 18 days after an Air New Zealand A320 crashed killing all seven on board………. American authorities warned such stalling problems could prevent continued safe flight or landing.”

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/246674/

About 645 people died in ten years in A320 crashes...NONE of those crashes was related to a Canada goose or any other wildlife.

Fatal and significant airbus A320 incidents:
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a320.htm

The engines of Flight 1549 did not meet the current engine standards for bird strikes...and you have to wonder if they had would this plane have been so disabled it couldn't make it back to land safely at an airport.

"In 1996, the engines that would later be used on U.S. Airways Flight 1549 were certificated for bird ingestion according to these standards. In 2007, the FAA adopted new regulations regarding bird strikes, and the new rules increased the size of the birds used in the core tests to 5½ pounds. HOWEVER, engines certificated prior to 2007 were not obliged to meet the new requirements."

NASA: SystemFailureCaseStudyFile
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnsc.nasa.gov%2FSFCS%2FSystemFailureCaseStudyFile%2FDownload%2F181%2F&ei=9q3YT5b7L8ycmQWH7qGbAw&usg=AFQjCNF7rGvJ4BQcaCxiEMZQqC0BASg4Nw&sig2=yIoWBw9Q7R221jhly0gamQ

Are certain aircraft more likely to get hit than others?
Bird strikes are FIVE TIMES MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR on planes with engines mounted under the wings, such as the Boeing 737 or the AIRBUS A320, than on planes with engines mounted on the fuselage, like the Boeing MD-It is probably because the airflow over the MD-80 causes the birds to get blown away from the engines.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-a-bird-strike&page=2

So Jay, how much safer are planes after the USDA has rounded up and killed thousands of innocent resident Canada geese? Come on, you must be able to quantify this if you believe it is accomplishing anything.
July 2, 2012, 4:19 pm
Margaret from Park Slope says:
and may I say that I do not propose the killing of migratory birds, I was simply referring to the fact that January of 2009 at 5000 ft, migratory birds were journeying over the NYC area.

By the way, did you know that just two days prior, there were mechanical issues with that plane?

There are more problems with human errir and mechanics than there are with birds.

and oh, birds are supposed to fly.
July 2, 2012, 4:21 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
J from Pslope: Here is a list of fatal crashes related to just one airport - JFK Airport - since 1960. Over 700 people have died ..and not one of these crashes was related to wildlife or a Canada goose.

December 16, 1960 – a United Airlines Douglas DC-8 bound for Idlewild collided with a TWA Super Constellation bound for La Guardia; the United jet crashed in Park Slope, Brooklyn, the TWA plane on Staten Island, killing 127 people on board and five on the ground.

March 1, 1962 – American Airlines Flight 1,[92] a Boeing 707 crashed on takeoff from Idlewild after its rudder separated from the tail. All 95 passengers and 12 crew members were killed.

September 8, 1970 – a Trans International Airlines DC-8-63CF ferry flight to Dulles International Airport crashed on takeoff from runway 13R, killing all 11 crewmembers on board.

December 1, 1974 – Northwest Orient Flight 6231 a Boeing 727 chartered to pick up the Baltimore Colts in Buffalo crashed near Thiells, New York. The flight departed John F. Kennedy International Airport with only the cockpit crew on board. The pitot heat was not turned on and the tube iced over during climb out making the airspeed readings unreliable. The plane stalled passing 23,000' and the crew was unable to regain control. All 3 crewmembers on board were killed.

June 24, 1975 – Eastern Air Lines Flight 66, a Boeing 727 on final approach from New Orleans, crashed into the runway lights short of runway 22L, killing 112 passengers and crew. The cause of the crash was wind shear during a heavy thunderstorm.

January 25, 1990 – Avianca Flight 52, a Boeing 707-321B arriving from Bogotá and Medellin, crashed at Cove Neck, Long Island, after a missed approach to runway 22L at JFK and subsequently running out of fuel. 73 passengers and crew perished. 85 survived

November 12, 2001 – American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300 crashed while en route to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. During climb, the aircraft lost most of its vertical fin due to overcontrol of the rudder while encountering wake turbulence, and CRASHED INTO THE Belle Harbor NEIGHBORHOOD OF QUEENS. THE CRASH KILLED ALL 260 PEOPLE ON THE PLANE AND FIVE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport

So Jay......killing thousands of innocent resident geese really makes you feel safer? Then you are totally irrational.
July 2, 2012, 4:25 pm
PattyA from Manhattan says:
Jay and Ty: Since you defend these loathsome actions, you should know that according to one USDA offical, "Were it up to me, I would cut down all the trees."

Many people are actually killed by falling tree branches every year.

So, I will call back Mr. G of the USDA and tell him the first place the USDA should start cutting down trees is Prospect Park as that is where he has the most support.

BOOM, BOOM, crash, crash: DOWN WITH ALL THE TREES -- just like the geese!
July 2, 2012, 4:39 pm
Jack from Park Slope says:
Marion has excellent information-

December 16, 1960 – a United Airlines Douglas DC-8 bound for Idlewild collided with a TWA Super Constellation bound for La Guardia; the United jet crashed in Park Slope, Brooklyn, the TWA plane on Staten Island, killing 127 people on board and five on the ground.

I lived through that day in Park Slope-
Pilot error not goose.
July 2, 2012, 4:39 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
J from Pslope

Did you pay special attention to the first crash described in my last comment: "December 16, 1960 – a United Airlines Douglas DC-8 bound for Idlewild COLLIDED WITH A TWA Super Constellation bound for La Guardia; THE UNITED JET CRASHED IN PARK SLOPE, the TWA plane on Staten Island, KILLING 127 PEOPLE ON BOARD AND FIVE ON THE GROUND".

CBS recently interviewed David Soucie, aviation expert, former crash investigator with the FAA, and author of ‘Why Planes Crash’. He says planes crash because of PILOTS. Not Canada geese, but PILOTS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7412058n&tag=mnRunDownTab%3BmnRunDownList

Ten top reasons for fatal plane crashes – wildlife and Canada geese specifically don’t even have their own category. Pilot error always has and continues to top the list. .
http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Now that YOU have some FACTS Jay, tell us how much safer you feel since thousands of innocent resident geese and goslings have been rounded up and gassed???
July 2, 2012, 4:43 pm
jay from pslope says:
Annie you are advocating that a known hazard to life be left in place, because you like the geese where they are, therefore you should bear the consequences for it, but you don't want to, which makes you intellectually dishonest.
Currently the airlines and the government are paying the cost of keeping flight paths as safe as they can, yes that involves your tax dollars, and maybe you don't like that, but tax dollars get spent on all sorts of things and there is not a single item in the entire federal budget that everyone agrees on is a good thing.
If you don't like that, then try and move to a country that has no airlines. I know of no such country, but maybe you can find one,.
Your complaint about tax dollars is really pretty weak, especially when you balance that against the fact that those tax dollars being spent by the FAA are trying to keep things safe and safe civil aviation is absolutely vital and is a lot more important than the delusion that you think a public park is your back yard.
"Numerous incidents unrelated in any way to birds"? Not sure what that has to do with anything, but there has not been a single fatal airline accident in the U.S. almost three years, (knock on wood) and that is precisely because of things like the bird killing in the park.
The FAA and the airlines do try to solve problems before they occur. Yes they sometimes get it wrong or miss things, but the amazing safety record is NOT occurring by accident or coincidence. You have thousands of people devoting their entire professional lives to keeping aviation safe and making it safer than it already is.
You want to argue about tax dollars and how they are spent, then by all means lets have a discussion about what is cheaper and what will take less tax dollars. Its a lot cheaper to kill a few geese.
Any idea how much a 757 crashing into a school and taking out a couple of blocks of million dollar plus brownstones in the slope would cost taxpayers because the feds failed to keep the flight path safe by allowing a known hazard to exist?
Wanna start with around a billion dollars, paid for by your tax dollars to cover it?
You may think of the park as your back yard, but it is not, it belongs to the city and 9 million other people who live here, all of who have an interest in not being turned in to flaming human bacon bits because of a bird strike on an aircraft.
The only way to eliminate the threat from birds is to a) not fly or b) get rid of the birds. There is no way we are gong to stop flying so the birds have to get removed.
This is a matter of public policy and the government has an interest in keeping civil aviation as safe as it can be, and the geese are a threat to that safety.
I have no other issue with the birds in the park other than safety to aircraft, but you are truly a sad person for trying to claim I said something when I have not. Please show me where I have said anything about birds in the park for "garbage" reasons. You can't because I never did, and that makes you a liar.
Who cares if you are angry, you can be angry all you want, but you are still wrong. Angry and wrong is a sad combination, and comparing people to Nazis because you are angry is just wrong.
If you care so much about the birds that you are willing to hazard hundreds of human lives everyday, all day, then why don't you come up with an invention to prevent bird strike or keep birds away?
Where is the action on your part? You have done nothing but run your mouth off and call people Nazis, but have not offered one thing to come up with a better solution, and keeping the birds as they are is not a solution.
Why don't you do something to mitigate and resolve the known risk of birds instead of insisting that everyone else bear the risk and cost of what you yourself are unwilling to bear?
You claim to care so much and yet you don't do jack.
July 2, 2012, 4:44 pm
Jack from Park Slope says:
There are ways to mitigate bird strikes- ask the FAA. They won't utilize them.

radar, sonar, pulsing lights......

it's out there, like you Jay.
July 2, 2012, 4:53 pm
Annie from Prospect Park Southwest says:
Jay, it doesn't get any simpler than this: just because the USDA says the geese are a threat because they make money of the killings, and just because the airline industry says they are a threat because they they need consumers to have confidence, and just because you say they are are threat because you believe the hogwash, does not make it true. If they are a threat, then why leave any? Why are you not advocating for killing every single bird.. no EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL... PERIOD. Because if you look at FAA stats you would see that geese are LOW on the list of animals that crash with commercial airlines, and they have NEVER been responsible for a SINGLE FATALITY on one. ZERO. Even the decision makers, USDA, PANYNJ agree, no matter how many geese you kill you are never going to reduce the chance of an incident to zero. NEVER. It's a craps shoot. Meanwhile, sure the killings have worked for a little while, for geese, but every ecologist knows that desirable vacant habitat does not stay that way for long. By eliminating the geese, for all we know we are INCREASING the chance of a catastrophe.

You want a solution? From someone who has no experience in aviation? Sure -- where are the radar technologies, and habitat modifications around the airports? Where are any of the 33 recommendations that were cited in the NTSB report after the Miracle on the Hudson that talked about increasing engine volume, lowering speed and increasing descent altitude, and increased visibility? And is it so impossible to redesign airplanes so that birds can't bring them down? The airline industry is cutting corners, and trolls like you do its bidding. How wonderful.

Meanwhile, as comments above point out - it doesn't take a bird to cause a plane to crash in a highly densely populated area, as has been proven time and again.
July 2, 2012, 5:08 pm
John Wasserman from Windsor Terrace says:
I've been reading these comments and, if I may, I would like to say that I'm shocked that nobody has even mentioned the hard fact that birds that don't have wings are unable to fly. Birds that don't fly have a very low percentage rate of interfering with airplanes that are in mid air.
July 2, 2012, 5:15 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
Jay from Pslope
Use your God given brain to assess the risks posed by Canada geese. There are millions of Canada geese in North America and millions of planes take off and land at airports across North America every year. If geese were killing people you would hear about it every year at least.

Not one person in North America has ever died in a commercial crash related to running into Canada geese. Not one. EVER.

I've done a lot of research and can find only two fatal crashes IN AVIATION history in North American involving Canada geese. This puts this into the category of the freakiest of freak accidents.

The first was a small Piper - on a training flight carrying two people that ran into a goose AT NIGHT - over a swampy area - in North Dakota in October, 2007.

“The report said the night flight contributed to the crash BECAUSE THE PILOTS COULD NOT HAVE SEEN THE GOOSE. “It’s terribly unfortunate,” said Bruce Smith, UND’s aerospace dean. “A foot in either direction and this wouldn’t have happened.”
http://www.birdstrikecontrol.com/news/birdstrike_news/ntsb-university-plane-crashed-after-hitting-goose/

The second was in Alaska in 1995 when a US Air Force plane ran into geese on take off...what is notable about this is the Air Force knew Canada geese were living on the base and didn’t do anything. There is no airport today that would have Canada geese living on the airport!! "A USAF AWACS aircraft was lost in 1995 and 24 airmen were killed when Canada geese were struck just after rotation. The USAF WAS AWARE OF GEESE LIVING ON THE AIRBASE YET HAD TAKEN NO DIRECT ACTION TO eliminate the birds (photo courtesy USAF)." http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/problem/media/2005_FAA_Manual_complete.pdf

jay from pslope, now that you have some FACTS explain to use why on God's green earth you FEEL so much safer now that thousands of your innocent resident geese and goslings have been cruelly and senselessly round up and gassed? Your opinion is totally irrational and based on nothing but senseless hysteria. How do you prevent the freakiest of freak accidents? It's total insanity.

In 20 years over 300 people have been killed by your domestic pets, dogs, so why aren't you going after dogs? You would save more lives by getting rid of them!!!
July 2, 2012, 5:18 pm
jay from pslope says:
actually your facts that all of you have posted are nice, but you don't mention all of the bird strikes that HAVE occurred, that is called manipulation by some, others call it stupid, and others would call it lying.
So here are some facts for you.
There are over 7,000 bird strikes on commercial aircraft every year. More than 200 aircraft have been destroyed by bird strikes since 1988, killing 219 people.
The single worse incident involving bird strikes took place at Boston Logan in 1960 when 62 people were killed. ANohter tidbit for you, In 1995 Canadian geese hit a U.S. Air Force aircraft on take off killing all 24 on board and totally destroying the 190 million dollar aircraft.
Bird strikes cause 600 million in damage to aircraft every year on average. Since 1960 bird strikes have caused more than 26 large aircraft to crash, in 23 of these crashes the bird strike occurred below 400 feet. In fact the majority of bird strikes occur at low altitudes by airports, 90% in fact according to ICAO.
In 2009 a study at LaGuardia and JFK airports conducted by the University of Nebraska, 45% of the Canadian geese remained within 9 miles of the airport over the course of two years, in other words non-migratory.
It is also worth nothing that geese are among the most common birds hit and among the ones that cause the most damage due to its size. In fact Canada Geese rank third in species that are a threat to aircraft
The attempt to claim that killing these birds would not stop the U.S. Airway flight on the Hudson from having happened as an excuse to stop killing birds really misses the obvious point, and that is most strikes don't happen that way.
All of you arguing against the bird kills are trying to claim that because one bird strike out of over 7000 a year would not be prevented by the bird kills (and that is a BIG maybe at best), that this is a is reason to stop the bird kills. Its pure and utter nonsense.
Its like saying the one guy who smoked 5 packs a day and lived to be 97 means smoking is safe for everyone. It just is not true.
July 2, 2012, 5:22 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from pslope
LETS STICK TO CANADA GEESE AND NOT BIRD STRIKES IN GENERAL, OK. It is Canada geese that are being killed. You are still totally ignoring the fact 99.9% of crashes are not related to wildlife or geese in particular.

The Boston crash involved a flock of STARLINGS. And engine standards have been increased twice since then.

YOU DON'T EVEN READ jay, I mentioned both crashes involving geese...in the Airforce crash in ALASKA in 1995 THEY KNEW Canada geese were living ON THE BASE and they hit THOSE GEESE ON TAKE OFF. No airport today would have Canada geese living on the airport.

Maybe you can explain Jay why the ONLY airports rounding up and killing birds off the immediate airport property are those airports that have the USDA WS do their mandatory 'wildlife hazard assessments'???? It's a BLATANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

"AGENCY FUNDING - "WS receives a limited amount of funds from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury that allows it to perform some services for the public good.

However, WS’s FUNDING IS ALSO BASED UPON ITS ABILITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO PROVIDE SERVICES and receive reimbursement for the cost of the services. Legislation allows WS to collect this money and return it to the program rather than the general funds of the U.S. Treasury.

Consequently, WS may enter into a cooperative service agreement with an airport operator for reimbursement of services to perform a wildlife hazard assessment on an airport."

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fairports%2Fairport_safety%2Fcertalerts%2Fmedia%2Fcert0409.rtf&ei=33POT6DZBqPC2QX0gqnHDA&usg=AFQjCNEI6_-2Hv1bDnHcjxvQIh_X-MI7Mw&sig2=eNpurOhQbrWBOw7vmTnmkg
July 2, 2012, 5:39 pm
jay from PSLOPE says:
OOOH, so you ONLY want to talk about incidents with JUST Canadian Geese ok here are just a few below....

3 December 1993. A Cessna 550 struck a flock of geese during initial climb out of DuPage County Airport (IL). Pilot heard a loud bang and aircraft yawed to left and right. Instruments showed loss of power to #2 engine and a substantial fuel leak on the left side. An emergency was declared and the aircraft landed at Midway Airport. Cost to repair 2 engines was $800,000 and time out of service was about 3 months.

3 June 1995. An Air France Concorde, at about 10 feet AGL while landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport (NY), ingested 1 or 2 Canada geese into the #3 engine. The engine suffered an uncontained failure. Shrapnel from the #3 engine destroyed the #4 engine and cut several hydraulic lines and control cables. The pilot was able to land the plane safely but the runway was closed for several hours. Damage to the Concorde was estimated at over $7 million. The French Aviation Authority sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and eventually settled out of court for $5.3 million

9 January 1998. While climbing through 3,000 feet, following takeoff from Houston Intercontinental Airport (TX), a Boeing-727 struck a flock of geese with 3-5 birds ingested into 1 engine. The engine lost all power and was destroyed. The radome was torn from aircraft and leading edges of both wings were damaged. The pitot tube for first officer was torn off. Intense vibration was experienced in airframe and noise level in cockpit increased to point that communication among crewmembers became difficult. An emergency was declared. The flight returned safely to Houston with major damage to aircraft.

04 September 2003. A Fokker 100 struck a flock of at least 5 Canada geese over runway shortly after takeoff at LaGuardia Airport (NY), ingesting 1 or 2 geese into #2 engine. Engine vibration occurred. Pilot was unable to shut engine down with the fuel cutoff lever so fire handle was pulled and engine finally shut down, but vibration continued. The flight was diverted to nearby JFK International Airport where a landing was made. The NTSB found a 20- by 36-inch wide depression on right side of nose behind radome. Maximum depth was 4 inches. Impact marks on right wing. A fan blade separated from the disk and penetrated the fuselage. Several fan blades were deformed. Holes were found in the engine cowling. Remains were recovered and identified by Wildlife Services.

3 August 2006. A Cessna Citation 560 departing a General Aviation airport in Indiana hit Canada geese on the take-off run. Left engine ingested birds causing an uncontained failure. Aircraft went off the runway during the aborted takeoff. Top cowling and fan were replaced. ID by the Smithsonian, Division of Birds. Aircraft was out of service for 13 days and costs were estimated at $750,000

11 October 2007. A CRJ-700 departing Denver International struck a flock of sandhill cranes at 1,500 feet AGL. The captain said several “geese” came at them, and they heard 3-4 thuds. The right engine immediately began to run roughly and the VIB gauge was fluctuating rapidly from one extreme to the other. Captain declared an emergency and said he didn’t think he was going to make it back to DEN. The aircraft landed safely. The engine fan was damaged and there were dents along the left wing leading edge slat. ID by Smithsonian, Division of Birds. NTSB investigated.

27 November 2007. A CRJ-200 descending into Memphis International Airport (TN) encountered a flock of large birds, sustaining ingestion into both engines, a cracked nose panel, damage to the right wing root and left horizontal stabilizer, and left engine anti-ice cowling. Bird remains were subsequently identified as geese. Maintenance made temporary repairs before aircraft could be flown for more permanent repairs

July 24 2008 Morristown Muni (NJ) During takeoff run a flock of 2-10 geese were struck. The #2 engine ingested a Canada goose causing damage and the wing was also damaged. Takeoff was aborted. Aircraft was out of service for 8 days and cost totaled $3 million.

All in all since 1990, there have been 127,391 Canadian Geese Bird Strikes. If you don't believe me you can go to the FAA bird strike data base and see for yourself its public info.
SO yeah, Marion, it is a problem and if furthermore if you think the Canadian goose is the only bird the FAA goes after you don't know what you are talking about. They go after all birds that create known hazards.

Again Annie you talk a bout a report to the NTSB but do nothing yourself, and sirens on a plane, where is the study that shows that works, and where is the product? NOWHERE its just more made up nonsense.
July 2, 2012, 5:43 pm
jay from PSLOPE says:
sorry delete the 11 oct 2007 one
July 2, 2012, 5:45 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from pslope
As far back as 2003 the International Bird Strike Committee was NOT impressed by the FAA or their bird strike reporting.

The International Bird Strike Committee stressed how important birdstrike reporting was in their 2003 document and it seems they were not impressed with how the database was maintained in the USA. I can’t copy from this pdf doc but scroll down to page 3, #4. Not impressive reporting from the FAA’s USDA WS maintained. http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Warsaw_Papers/IBSC26%20WPID4.pdf

An article from May, 2012 describes the FAA has still not made bird strike reporting mandatory. In fact the FAA has conflicting roles...one is to promote and protect it while also policing it. It seems the mass killing of innocent birds is just smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are doing something or air safety when in fact they are not.

"Despite recommendations, FAA still not budging on mandatory bird strike reports by Nolan Peterson May 10, 2012. "While the FAA has not endorsed mandatory reporting, the administration has adopted another one of the NTSB’s key recommendations – mandatory wildlife hazard assessments and wildlife hazard plans for all certificated airports. THESE PROGRAMS HOWEVER ALSO DEPEND ON ACCURATE bird strike data to be effective."
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=205369
July 2, 2012, 5:46 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from PSLOPE
You appear to work for an airline. There is no reason for the taxpayers to be footing the bill to kill Canada geese when the damage is monetary and doesn't involve passenger safety.

Maybe you could also provide a run down of the costs of the thousands and thousands of dollars damage related to non wildlife crashes??

The hype given to the public to justify killing their park birds is SAFETY. Not reimbursing airlines for the cost of their doing business.
July 2, 2012, 5:50 pm
jay from PSLOPE says:
Marion your post on the WS makes no sense what so ever, so what, people have to get paid for work they do its called earning a living and you post it totally not relevant to anything, sheesh.
You make my point that no airport today allows Canadian geese to be around it, just like what is going on in prospect park, because it kills people. Sheesh.
And like I said, its not only geese that get killed, so maybe you need to do some more homework and get upset about all the birds that get killed and get on a soapbox about that too.
Oh wait then you would have to talk about all the other bird strikes that killed people then, and you would not be able to artificially limited and narrow the argument and you would really be hard pressed to justify that now wouldn't you.
July 2, 2012, 5:52 pm
jay from PSLOPE says:
no marion I don't work for an airline, try scrolling up again where I explained that to someone else, but thanks for attempting a smear tactic type thing when you have no facts on your side and instead just call people names.
REALLY REALLY sad.
It absolutely does involve passenger safety and now you are willfully ignoring facts that are put before you.
Non wild life crashes? Why would I get into that, you only want to talk about Canadian Geese? So which is it Marion? Huh?
July 2, 2012, 5:57 pm
Malembi from BK says:
What a God dammed ass hole
July 2, 2012, 6:01 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from PSLOPE

You still can’t explain why only airports that have the USDA WS do their ‘wildlife hazards assessments’ round up and gas birds living within a 7 mile radius of the airport and kill birds off immediate airport property. Other major airports do not.

The International Bird Strike Committee has recognized the value of using trained border collies to keep birds away from airports.
http://www.int-birdstrike.org/Amsterdam_Papers/IBSC25%20WPAS5.pdf

Southwest Florida International Airport received an award for being the first airport to utilize border collies to mitigate wildlife hazards....these collies were effective in KEEPING GEESE AWAY UP TO A 2.5 mile radius of the airport.
http://birdstrike.bcrescue.org/strikeprogram.html

Dallas Fort Worth Airport did not use the USDA WS to do their wildlife hazard assessment...they used an independent consultant, Geo Marine, and give reasons why INDEPENDENT consultants are better. ““Consultants have two major advantages in providing these types of services: (1) consultants are viewed as objective observers with no ties to either airport/airfield administrators or wildlife control personnel and (2) because of this objectivity, consultants can be brutally honest with all parties – and honesty fosters safer airfields.”
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=birdstrike2003

....there is no objectivity for the USDA WS to do ‘wildlife hazard assessments’ when WS’s income depends on them killing animals.

In Canada, YVR, Vancouver International Airport, does not round up and killed birds away from the airport. YVR has over 200 bird strikes a year and has never had a crash related to birds and specifically Canada geese although there are hundreds of year round permanent residents living in the city and within 7 miles of the airport.

“YVR is unique among Canadian airports in that the number of avian visitors actually skyrockets in the winter, thanks to our mild climate. To keep them away from our aircraft, Ball and his team pestered more than 200,000 birds last January. All told, two million birds—over three times the human population of Vancouver—were chased off the airfield in 2006.

The Vancouver airport’s wildlife management program is arguably the most rigorous in North America. “I don’t think there’s any airport that has quite as many resources dedicated to the job as Vancouver,” says Gary Searing, a wildlife biologist who has worked with the airport since 1989.”
http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/It_s_a_Bird_Hits_a_Plane
July 2, 2012, 6:16 pm
jay from pslope says:
Marion the reason I am not getting in to that it is because its not relevant to anything, its just stupid conspiracy crud. News flash the X files went off the air over a decade ago.
What is relevant is this, and this alone: Either the birds have to go or they don't, that is all that matters.
I could care less who gets rid of them as it is not relevant to the underlying issue that birds ARE a hazard to aircraft.
But if you really want to talk about border collies, and chasing the birds away, or even moving them a few miles away, studies have been done on that as well and the birds come back, its not effective, its only temporary.
In addition the article you refer to, that airport does ALOT of other things other than just have a dog run around, which by the way they are still testing out to see if its even effective, the jury is still out on it at this point.
In addition to the dog, they change the grass to a kind birds don't like, they change the length of the grass, they plant bushes that birds don't like, and all sorts of other things, You going to tear up the landscape at prospect park to do this?
Because that is what you would need to do in CONJUNCTION to using dogs to keep birds away, now how do you think THAT will affect all the prospect park nature lovers who are already mad about things? They gonna go along with that?
Now if you are willing to pay for someone to have full coverage of the entire park 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with multiple dogs and trainers, along with other measures to keep the birds out such as oiling eggs, changing the grass tress and plants and bushes, then you maybe would get somewhere with that, but you will be paying waaaaay more to do so, and wrecking the park in the process.
And if you think a robot would work instead of a dog, to save money, and you want to chase that windmill, here is an article about an invention that was tried and failed to do so at Schiphol airport. See it at http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/robot-bird-prey-designed-scare-birds-away-airports

A Dutch company has come up with an invention designed to ensure that birds don’t collide with jet airplanes at airports. Earlier this month a Royal Air Maroc passenger jet was forced to turn back to Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport shortly after take-off when one of its engines blew up, probably as a result of a collision with a flock of birds.

Many airports shoot the birds or try to chase them off in a number of different ways, including traps and loud noises. The problem is that these measures have only a very local effect.

Robots
A robot shaped like a bird of prey is reportedly effective in chasing away real birds. A company called GreenX from the town of Hengelo has developed the RoBird, which is available shaped like an eagle, a peregrine falcon or a hawk. The company has applied for a patent.

The RoBird flaps its wings like a real bird. GreenX director Robert Jonker says this is how birds identify raptors. “When a bird of prey flaps its wings, it's on the hunt.”

Immune
The downside of many of the conventional methods of chasing away birds is that they get used to them. “After a flash or a bang birds will return if they find out there is no real threat. On top of which most airports are very noisy anyway. You often see crows sitting right next to a runway.”

However, trials at Schiphol have shown that the RoBirds aren’t always effective either. The robot raptors were introduced there last year, but the airport ended the project after a number of months.

Schiphol spokesperson Mirjam Snoerwang says: “The results were unsatisfactory.” She adds that the RoBird was beautiful and impressive to see. “As a matter of fact, Schiphol conducts large numbers of tests to scare birds away.”

Collisions
At Schiphol, the number of collisions between aircraft and birds nearly doubled last year, even though the airport has 16 bird watchers on its payroll. In teams of two to three, they are on the job 24/7 to chase birds away from the runways.
July 2, 2012, 7:27 pm
ty from pps says:
Marion -- I heard they are poisoning the dog pond because the USDA decided there are too many dogs in Brooklyn.
July 2, 2012, 8 pm
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from pslope
the birds don't have to go because it is not doing a thing to keep air passengers safe as the facts about fatal crashes shows. Only the airports that have the USDA WS rounds up and kills birds repeatedly away from the airport. No resident goose in NY has ever contributed to a plane crash. Period. You originally started out worrying about a plane crashing in park slope and complaining because people didn't give you facts and when I did you are still prevaricating. Intelligent people will read through the propaganda and BS.
July 2, 2012, 8:14 pm
jay from pslope says:
no Marion you have not given me facts, you have posted x files tinfoil hat crap and called me names, that is not arguing, that is bullying, and you are not even good at it.
As for your No resident goose in NY has ever contributed to a plane crash comment. OK, so because 2003, when an American Airlines Fokker 100 plane hit a flock of geese upon takeoff, causing the right engine to fail. The flight was diverted to J.F.K. and no one died everything is ok then huh?
The fact is geese have killed people in other places, they are a known aircraft hazard which is why we get rid of them here in the first place because a plane crash into an area like NYC will be devastating and golly gee whiz, we think its kind of smart to try and prevent that from happening.
It is called being a stupid idiot to look at something and go, gee I know that is not safe but lets do it anyway, which is exactly the position you are arguing for. It also means a big fat huge lawsuit.
And you are 10000% wrong that it is airports that only have USDA WS which are rounding up birds, I got news for you, get out in the world a little bit and travel, they round up birds to protect aircraft ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Its not just New York or even the U.S.that does this. Your statement is "bs" (to quote you since you are incapable of expression yourself with out swearing ) on its face is false, wrong, and incorrect.
When I say then I will make a deal and you bear the cost of the plane crash that will occur from such a position you are arguing for, both financially and allow yourself and your entire family to be burned to death by jet fuel, you want no part of that, but you seem to think everyone else should have to be placed in that position. Go figure.
Fortunately people in New York are smarter than that and are usually interested in taking precautions that don't endanger people.
Maybe someday YOU will realize that its not the rest of the entire world that is wrong, that its REALLY is just you.
And TY since I see you are lurking around here, just saw a bicycle getting rear ended by another bicycle in the park at 8:15 tonight, biker taken away by ambulance in very bad shape, were worried about broken neck. Police are were on scene investigating.
July 2, 2012, 9:26 pm
old time brooklyn SLOPE from Slope says:
they are birds - get over it - i have seen geese attack a child holding a pizza crust in monroe ny (my counyry estate) - they are vermin and pests - good riddance
July 2, 2012, 9:56 pm
Or from Yellow Hook says:
Here's the solution:

Clip their wings, and Marion can walk them on a leash and keep them like pets.
July 2, 2012, 10:10 pm
jim from out of this world says:
Jay...

it's Canada Geese
July 2, 2012, 10:21 pm
jim from out of this world says:
Not "Canadian"

...geesh
July 2, 2012, 10:24 pm
jim from out of this world says:
Not Canadian Geese
July 2, 2012, 10:42 pm
old time brooklyn from slope says:
corn oil over the eggs - smother them in their mothers wings - mewya ha ha

what if they were rats with a blow dryer aka squirles
July 2, 2012, 11:27 pm
Eazy D from Sheepshead Bay says:
Norm plans to blog on how the geese will be hanging out by Barclays Center.
July 3, 2012, 12:19 am
Marion from Manhattan says:
jay from pslope
Every major airport has hundreds of bird strikes a year. They didn't begin and end with Flight 1549 that hit migratory geese from Canada. There is an average of 1.5 goose/plane strikes a year. This is nothing new. It's normal and expected. Not one person has died as a result of a goose strike on a commercial plane in aviation history. So despite all the plane crashes caused by pilots etc keep trying to tell us fliers will be safer if you kill all NYC's resident geese which by the way have been there for many many years.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/update westjet flight returns to yvr after alleged bird strike/6442570113/story.html

Geese are no more of a threat in NYC than they are anyplace else in America and most of the major airports are not rounding up geese away from airports and their safety record is as good as or better than NYC's airports. Wow...over 700 people killed in plane crashes connected to JFK Airport...and none of those caused by a goose but keep telling us 2 2 equals 10. If you had to go into a courtroom to convict these geese the judge would laugh you out of the room...there are no victims, never have been any.

BTW...check out the avian radars used by the US Airforce. "DeTect’s MERLIN Aircraft Birdstrike Avoidance Radar system is the first production model and most advanced, proven and widely used bird radar technology available for bird-aircraft strike hazard (BASH) management and for real-time detection, tracking and alerting of hazardous bird activity at commercial airports, military airfields, and military training and bombing ranges. " http://www.detect-inc.com/merlin.html
July 4, 2012, 1:23 am
Marion from Manhattan says:
correction - that should be an average of 1.5 goose/plane strikes - per year - per state. Although the bird strike database maintained by the USDA WS appears to have kept a very sloppy database but that is the info they gave.
July 4, 2012, 1:25 am
Terry from From the Nabe says:
just for gits and shiggles- http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/05/air-france-crash-report.html
July 5, 2012, 3:43 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

This week’s featured advertisers