To fine or not to fine: the waterfowl feeding question
By KW
It’s both charming and sad.
It’s charming to see the faces of children when they feed the ducks and geese at Canyon Lake.
And it’s sad to see waterfowl that are supposed to be wild, waddling around in their own feces, begging for Cheerios and stale white bread.
So I always have mixed emotions when I watch the feeding of the birds, which often occurs within a few feet of informational signs encouraging people not to feed.
The Rapid City Council has been fussing with this issue for months. Or is it years? The council still hasn’t figured out what to do. Members would like to reduce the waterfowl population at the lake. But they were told by GF&P officials that the agency won’t issue kill permits unless the city imposes a feeding ban.
Based on what the commission has done so far, I don’t expect that feeding ban to happen anytime soon.
So the charming, sad feeding spectacle is likely to continue.
Any suggestions?
October 29th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I was first stationed at Ellsworth in 1971 and this issue was going on then! Sort of reminds one of how our Congress functions!
October 29th, 2009 at 9:35 am
The question comes to mind as to whether these birds are actually attracted to Canyon Lake merely because of people feeding them. There is little doubt that the practice does create an enviroment whereby they acquire an acclimation to people, yet I doubt that a kid being prohibited from feeding feeding them will alter that greatly. They will still find that comfort zone there, whether they are being fed or not.
Their attraction to the area is largely influenced by the year around open water; the immediate grass covered area; and finding grain fields in close proximity. These factors cause them to become local, and in my opinion, very few of them will ever join the migration. Their numbers have increased by normal population expansion, and I doubt that very few of the migration birds have joined the local flocks. I contend that for the most part, these are two different societies.
I believe that rather than directing the attention to the Canyon Lake area as the point of contention, that it should be directed at controling the population at an outside point. Undoubtedly, their feeding goes beyond the Canyon Lake area. This population cannot find adequate sustenance in the adjoining grass alone, and I doubt there is enough nutrition provided in the volume of food distributed by local feeders to keep one duck alive for a year. Their true feeding areas are in the grain fields located many miles from Canyon Lake. I contend that issuing special hunting of them in the surrounding areas should be a first consideration as a method of controling the population.
I agree the thought that feeding any wildlife is not a good practice, yet I do this in the winter to keep birds around my house. Should this also be prohibited? In acknowledging that this does somewhat alter nature, it does help to keep nature at my doorstep, which I find enjoyment in. Equally, I find it enjoyable to see kids being able to interact with these birds at Canyon Lake. I can’t argue with the fact that cheerios and bread does not do much for their diet, yet I doubt that this is really harmful to them either. We feed it to our kids, don’t we? That issue could be resolved by prohibiting the feeding of anything other than grain, and provide a vending machine to dispense it.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
kw:
As usual, politics has contributed significantly to the convolution of this issue and paranoia on all fronts reigns supreme.
First of all, GFP is not going to permit anyone to kill waterfowl without considerable conference with and permitting from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Anyone who says or even implies that sole authority for “quote unquote” depredating or nuisance waterfowl” lies exclusively within the state’s jurisdiction GFP is powerless to permit the City of Rapid City to kill ducks and geese covered exclusively under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act at Canyon Lake, or anywhere else for that matter, without the express consent and authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and I seriously doubt that the Fish and Wildlife Service is going to bless any sort of lethal control for these small populations of birds when trap and translocation exercises have been the gold standard solution to these types of problems for decades.
Secondly, there is all this mundane theory floating around that the ducks and geese on Canyon Lake somehow contribute or will eventually contribute to additional water quality issues for the City. I know of absolutely no scientific evidence that shows these waterfowl populations have deleterious impacts on water destined for human consumption, particularly when the water is filtered and treated according to strict EPA standards before it even gets into the system. Years ago, when the first “Duck Yuk” allegations began flying about like richocheting bullets, City engineers, and some folks from DENR and GFP did some investigation into why there were some “issues” with water quality in the Rapid City system and it was revealed that the biggest problem was the fact that the discharge back into the creek from the water treatment plant was above the primary intake. Facts are that Rapid City risks greater water quality problems from the effects of urbanization , septic tanks, ground water polution of all sources higher in the water shed in the Black Hills.
Third. Stopping the feeding of these birds will not alter their behavior or cause them to go elsewhere to seek food. If we stop feeding them, they may leave the lake daily to seek out feed elsewhere but they will continue to use the lake for resting and roosting because it largely remains open water during most of the winter. It is generational learned behavior that will persist whether somebody feeds the birds or not. They will still graze the lawn around the lake and the adjoining properties all winter long and the doo doo will remain on the sidewalk in spite of the complaining and whining about “soiled linen”.
I’ll have more later
John: It’s possible we misconstrued something. Sometimes that happens. I’ll check. Meanwhile, would you swim in Canyon Lake, over there by the “feeding piers,” on a nice, sunny summer day? K.W.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
kw:
I most certainly would swim in Canyon Lake just as my mother did some 80+ years ago. We need to get a grip. One would think that the City of Rapid City is experiencing some sort of waterfowl contamination nuance unlike any experienced any where else in the world. How naieve and vane!! People on the east coast in particular have been living with these birds under similar circumstances for decades and have learned to accept and live with the slight inconveniences these birds and animals present seasonally. And it is a seasonal issue! The bulk of the birds show up in mid-fall and leave in mid-April- (the season of the year when most people don’t go to the park anyway. This isn’t about sanitation or human or wildlife welfare. It’s all about someones perception of how things “should be” based on no facts and no reality plus a healthy refusal to learn about environmental cause and effect. Famers and ranchers plod around in cow dug, pig poop, chicken manure in feed lots, calving barns, egg houses etc for the entirety of their lives and suffer no ill effects!! People swim in waters with more abundant swans, ducks, geese, shorebirds etc. than we have in Canyon Lake without consequence, largely because disease and ailments from waterfowl, and bird species in general “do not cross species boundaries.” Things like fowl cholera, botulism, and a couple of other diseases routinely appearing in waterfowl populations have no affect on bi-pedal mammals. Now the bird flu is a bit of a different story but we don’t have bird flu in the US and we’ve been actively looking for it for the past 4 years. It’s not here and not likely to get here any time soon. The disease potential argument is much ado about nothing! KW, have you ever heard a legislator or governor or any state employee or member of the general public that has to walk the capital grounds periodically in the winter espouse the notion that all the geese on capital lake be removed so that they can march the sidewalks of the capitol without concern for slipping and sliding in the goose poop. The birds are there for 5 months out of the year and everybody has learned to tolerate it and even, in a lot of cases, learned to love it. For crying out loud lets get some perspective here.
If we’re to be concerned at all about waterfowl populations in Canyon Lake, it should be a concern about density dependant disease affecting that population of birds not our population because our population is, statistically safe. Concentrating waterfowl on a body of water can often times trigger somethings like fowl cholera, DVE (Duck Viral Enteritis), botulism and of course lead poisoning if a lot of hunting with lead took place over that water over the years. If we think the duck doo doo on the side walk is a mess, just wait until GFP and others have to go in and start picking up dead, dieing and rotting dead ducks by the hundreds. I’ve been there and done that on Lake Marsh in Hamlin County and it will make a person think about reality! That was a combination of botulism and DVE all wrapped into one and involved a lot more birds than what is found on Canyon Lake.
John Kanta is right about one thing……….. People need to learn and be taught that it is simply not good practice to feed any species of wildlife. When we feed wildlife, we think we’re doing it to serve them when the reality is clear; we’re doing it to serve our own selfish, ill conceived motives. The fact is, the birds and animals don’t need it and they’ll do better without it but……………if feeding starts and they become dependant upon that feed as a source, it can’t stop without the undesireable population impacts that stimulated our desire to feed in the first place. This is particularly true of passerine and neo-tropical birds at back yard bird feeders. Even then, a lot of people fail to keep sanitary conditions at their feeders and wind up causing a whole bunch of disease mortality that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Those people who proclaim that the increased waterfowl use at Canyon Lake represents a serious human health issue don’t understand one thing about waterfowl and wildlife and simply spout that nonsense as a substitute for their perception of aesthetics.
Set a drop net, capture a few birds and move them to the Missouri River, add a few words to the no feed deer ordinance that prohibits feeding all wildlife, and the complainers will move on to another “pseudo” issue to find fault with.
John: We swam in Canyon Lake all the time on our vacations, back before the flood. That north beach was sweet, and there were about 12 ducks on the entire lake, if my memory serves. Now, you couldn’t pay me to swim in that water. I don’t know if it’s a health threat or not, but the number of waterfowl and the amount of time they spend in that little patch of blue tells me that bottom is mostly feces. Sorry, not wading around swishing goose poop between my toes. By the way, Art Smith tells me that GF&P has a sub-permit from the feds allowing them to issue kill permits on Canada geese. So he says they can do it, at least on the geese. K.W.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
John W - It would appear to me that the fact that these birds do not join the migration as others of the species do, that that would seemingly exclude them from being included as part of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Or would that logical thinking be denied by the bureaucracy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service and SDGFP? Further, as I live only a few hundred yards from the lake, I drive past it a number of times daily. From this, I can state unequivocally that, like all waterfowl, they leave the lake every day to go to their feeding grounds, which are the grains fields in the area.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
kw and Norm:
Wild species of ducks and geese indigenous to North America are all covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regardless of their behavior or movement patterns and that includes elements of domestication out of the wild. Lets not forget that Congress is the one that entered into the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada and Mexico. The Fish and Wildlife Service is not charged with interpreting the language of the treaty; just enforcing it so the status of the birds and their perceived behavior can’t be layed at the feet of the “bureacracy” of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Want something changed with regard to the MBTA. Let’s start talking to our Congressionals rather than blaming the Fish and Wildlife Service whose job it is to protect and conserve that which belongs to all North Americans!
There is little question that some of the birds using Canyon Lake are what could be referred to as resident birds; in that they don’t conform to an expect pattern of flyway behavior and move south in winter and north in summer. I would point out DES’s observation that these deliberations have been ongoing since the 1970s and have ebbed and flowed with the populations of birds on the lake. To say that there are more birds there than last year or the year before is perhaps an accurate statement but to suggest that the bird numbers are at an all time high and growing is nothing but pure speculation. I did the midwinter waterfowl and eagle survey for the fed from 1988 until 2007 and my recollection of those survey numbers are a great deal different than what is being tossed around at City Hall. None the less, what is the real issue here? Is it a biological problem or a social problem?
kw: I suspected it was a canada goose permit and that has been around for quite a while. Forgot about that thing temporarily. That doesn’t mean I agree with it. The fact still remains, GFP hasn’t applied the permit in Pierre, or anywhere else that I know of so why is it an entertaining thought that they’d apply it in Rapid City. Same basic permit GFP uses to puncture eggs in nests etc like the do in the eastern part of the state to try and control the population. Fact of the matter is that there are fewer Canada Geese in summer than there is in winter. They can’t do that sort of thing with ducks or other goose species or shorebirds and I’ll almost guarantee that the fed won’t permit killing ducks under any circumstance. Trapping and moving them might be negotiable with the fed but killing them…… no sirree…….. As far as killing canada geese is concerned, about the only way I can envision that being done is with some sort of chemical laced feed that is spread on the ground for the birds to consume. I actually proposed this 5 years ago and was told it wasn’t a practical solution to the complaints. The practice doesn’t necessarily kill the birds (it can if they get a heavy enough dose) but just puts them to sleep and they will revive after a period of time. Put something like that out in an urban environment and see how long it takes for the EPA to start asking hard questions and regulating alternatives!
Can you imagine GFP or anyone for that matter standing on the shores of Canyon Lake blasting geese????? Requires amendment to city ordinance I would think and then there is the issue of public relations…………Advancing the notion of killing waterfowl on Canyon Lake is a sight different than proposing to kill canada geese under a sub-permit issued to GFP. I continue to maintain that killing waterfowl, even Canada geese, on Canyon Lake is an unreasonable option to the degree that it deserves no further debate. It is a seasonal type issue that is being held up to be an annually growing problem.
I jog at a local track during the twilight hours during the winter when I have time and I’ll affirm Norm’s observation that some of the canada geese leave the lake late in the afternoon and fly north and north east to some location yet to be determined. I’ve noted a few morning feeding flights over my house as well. I have not yet observed a flock of mallards heading in any specific direction other than east down Rapid Creek or even over into Spring Creek when it has water. Then there are the few diving ducks that use the lake. They don’t fly out to feed at all. So is this a waterfowl issue, a duck feeding issue, a goose poop issue or what? Seems to me that offering solutions to solve a problem might be better received if the problem was fully understood in the first place.
I will point out again that people swim in lakes and rivers that have had historical waterfowl use far in excess of what we now have in Canyon Lake and without ill effect. kw; would you take off your shoes and wade into a slimy duck infested marsh to retrieve a duck or goose when you forgot your waders at home? At least in Canyon Lake you wouldn’t likely sink into your knees in the mud and mire that incorporates decades of duck and goose poop!
John: Most sloughs and ponds and stock dams I know have fewer waterfowl, by far, per square foot of surface than the little feeding slough on the north side of Canyon Lake. Even so, except in an emergency, I wouldn’t wade barefoot in most natural marshes, for a variety of reasons. But beyond that, don’t you agree that feeding ducks and geese diminshes them, and turns them into creatures that are much less than they were, and should be? And isn’t it just another example of people wanting to control wildlife, and make the critters accessible and convenient, whether it’s good for them or not? Let’s go to the lake, feed the birds some bad food and watch them become goofy cartoon characters for us…As I said, I think it’s sad. Charming for the kids. Sad for the birds. Canada geese - by the way - in what seems like increasing numbers since I first moved here seven years ago, fly over my house off West Boulevard on a fairly regular basis, and seem to be coming from and going to the east. K.W.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I say we pass a law allowing only children to feed the ducks and geese. Parents may hold the bread bag but would be heavily fined if they are seen laughing and giggling. We should also pass regulations to limit people to only walking on the approved concrete paths and no barefoot walking on the grass! Also no sitting in groups or holding hands in the park. That could lead to dancing or something worse. And Old men and kids shouldn’t fish together!
Old Sarg, ironical smack-down! Yeah, you go, bro! K.W.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
kw:
I have never supported feeding the birds and never will and I fully agree with you that it is a practice that is both detrimental to wildlife and self serving and selfish of people. I said and will always say that people (including me and my wife) who feed wildlife, do so to satisfy selfish benevolence that actually ignores the welfare of the species being fed. It is disengenuous behavior that rarely has long term positive benefit for the critters yet it makes us feel good when our feelings are not what is of foremost importance. Feeding wildlife does in fact diminish them and reduces them to unrealistic images. We want them to be something they are truly not but by manipulation, we can stimulate cute responses that they would otherwise not perform. It is the same thing as bribing a 3 year old with chocolate candy. They’ll do and perform just about any way for something to eat and if they can get it for free vs. work for it like all the rest of their bretheren, they’ll do it in a heart beat and suffer the consequences. Same foolishness as some unwitting pet owner letting his dog eat chocolate………… Having said that, what good does it do to pass a law that prohibits feeding wildlife. This sort of government intervention fails to address the issue and simply alienates the population. The 10 year old that feeds the ducks half a loaf of dry bread crumbs doesn’t deserve or need a ticket but the parent that takes the child there aught to receive a ticket for at least $50.00 for feeding the critters but also contributing to ignorance about wildife conservation and management. I won’t disagree that their could be too many Canada Geese on the lake during some parts of the year or maybe even mallard ducks but there has been no evidence produced to indicate just how many birds the lake and surrounding area will support and further, how much bird density will the lake support without waterfowl disease issues developing? All these people just look at the flock and say; “we didn’t have this many five years ago so the number we have now is more than in past years and must therefore be too many because we have to side step goose or duck poop on the sidewalk.during our evening stroll past or through Canyon Lake. There is no thought whatsoever to the condition of the resource or the habitat limitations that support it. Just that people may or may not be inconvenienced by the birds. Sorry but inconvenience does not translate into a human health emergency in my opinion and from that, it is very hard for me to swallow a “control” program that is based purely on speculation and rumor rather than realistic evaluation of the totality of the circumstances and the wildlife/habitat relationship. This is no different than the urban deer issue. We’ve shot deer in Rapid City now for at least 10 years and for some chronic whiners, we haven’t shot enough and for others, we’ve killed far too many. What it all boils down to is a group of complainants who are ignorant and insensitive to wildlife and believe wild birds/ animals to be unclean and unfit to cohabitate with human populations.
We can go on a binge and kill every Canada goose on the lake and it will still not satisfy a handful of people who believe they are inconvenienced by the birds or that they will transmit some hideous disease that will wipe out the population in Rapid City.. There will, after all, be ducks left that poop in the water and waddle after the five year old carrying a bag of popcorn down the sidewalk.
The matter of what is too many and what is too few, and what these birds/animals need to survive is rooted in baseless human subjectivity and until people reconnect and begin to understand how wildlife’s world is suppose to work, we will continue to try and compartmentalize things and “put wildlife where it belongs” so people can further control their environment and protect believe systems that are scientifically unsubstantiated or just plain selfish.
John: Good answer. K.W.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Some years ago I was at Flathead Lake, MT and they had signs posted warning that swimming in the lake could cause a rash, I believe. It was caused/carried by waterfowl. Ran into the same thing in Canada during that period.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Back in the day, when I began to consider the developing waterfowl conditions on Canyon Lake, I asked some hard questions of some knowledgeable waterfowl folks about what management’s reponsibility was in terms of regulating the density of what is essentially an unhuntable population of waterfowl. The answers I got were mixed but had a common thread. Under the those circumstances, alternative management strategies (non-lethal) were appropriate and reasonable as well as practical. The stress point was who should pay for the management actions.
Art Smith is dead on the money when he says it makes no sense in killing the birds to try and fix a problem created, in part, by feeding them. I think it is very important to remember that feeding the birds is only a small part of the issue. We can’t avoid the fact that people, over the past 30-40 years have, by their feeding, helped to increase the population size by altering behaviors that are now ingrained into multiple generations of birds and providing a refuge for them. Feeding is no longer the issue. Bird behavior is……..My point is, even if the City passed a feeding ban and everyone stopped taking their week old hot dog buns and stale popcorn to the Lake to feed the birds, it would not change the densities or their roosting, resting behaviors at the lake. We’ve already noted that the Canada Geese are conducting feeding flights morning and night most days but they still use the lake.
I have argued, unsuccessfully, that GFP and the primary managing authority have at least some responsibility to “manage” this population of birds simply because a failure to do so may result in additional harm or die off in that population. That is just good foresight and stewardship in my estimation. The question remains however; who pays for it? What Art is inferring is that the City should be responsible since GFP can not apply it’s primary management tool (hunting) to the situation. Seems pretty rigid too me. How about if the City pays the bills to have GFP and the Fish and Wildlife Service determine a reasonable carrying capacity for the lake and then trap and translocate the numbers every few years to places where they are accessible to hunters. Seems to me that fullfills the roles and responsibilities of each entity. The City, after all, pays to have deer shot in town and GFP does the surveys to recommend the numbers taken! If we simply leave human emotion out of this stuff and consider alternatives that best address the needs of wildlife populations and habitat, usually, the problems will dry up and blow away. I really do appreciate Art’s frank response to the City. Such pointed and direct remarks are needed to encourage people to grasp reality. I just think the focus of the discussion should have been directed more toward doing the right thing for the population of geese rather than addressing the human causes and effects.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I for one am glad to see John address the duck/goose poop issue. It’s what I have fought about on these very pages, only about cow poop. Go get them John!
November 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
rd:
Theres more than a slight difference between goose poop, cow poop, water chemistry and microbes deposited in situ by either species.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
If you say so John. You da man, when it comes to poop!
LOL