The Unwanted On Our Doorstep

THE UNWANTED ON OUR DOORSTEP  

April/May, 2008 issue

I always get a few calls every year about unwanted Canada geese. I guess it’s because they are experiencing a population increase, and they seem to be turning up everywhere. But nobody seems to want them on their front lawns. And I can’t really blame them, having seen what they can leave behind. However, it is a struggle to  convince callers that it’s not the goose’s fault they are there, and  it is not the fault of some environmental agency picked at random from the phone book. Neither is it my duty as a naturalist to come and remove them. No kidding – I once had a fellow demand that I come and pick up “your geese”.

       Despite an increasing movement to naturalizing shorelines in an ongoing effort to minimize fertilizer and herbicide runoff into our watercourses, and to protect the shoreline from erosion, there are still those who insist on mowing their lawns right to the water’s edge; and therein lies the problem. Canada geese love manicured lawns,  and lawns lovingly trimmed right to the incoming waves is like erecting a flashing sign and rolling out a huge green welcome ramp for these winged creatures.

Thankfully, many shoreline property owners are gradually beginning to realize there is a side to country living other than picture perfect lawns rank with the smell of 2-4-D . But you can have the best of both worlds. It just requires a bit of compromising. Creating a shoreline buffer zone of native vegetation reduces shoreline erosion and impedes runoff.  A hardened shoreline on the other hand eliminates that “natural filter,” and actually ends up degrading water quality, by allowing lawn maintenance run-off.

Buffer zones of natural vegetation such as wildflowers, native bushes and grasses, will attract many species of desirable wildlife, and will go a long way in discouraging the presence of Canada geese since they prefer unimpeded access to the lawn. If done properly, the view of the lake will not be blocked by the vegetated buffer zone.  There are various scare tactics that can be used, none of which by themselves prove very effective unless they are rotated periodically. Bird scare tape, shiny ribbons of Mylar that flashes in the sun and rattle in the wind, can be effective, as can a series of small balloons tethered on monofilament fishing line so they rise a few feet in the air. Geese do not like to walk or feed under moving objects.

All are short term solutions, and as long as the manicured lawn continues to exist that geese feel has been created just for them as a goose pasture, there will always be problems. And threatening to shoot the interlopers if  “someone doesn’t do something about it” does absolutely nothing to endear me toward their problem either. Removal of the geese is also only temporary, since Nature dislikes a void and more geese will move in to occupy the space, as long as the attractant is there to draw them in. I am sure everyone has experienced the frustration in trying to remove what they initially believed to be two or three squirrels from their feeders, only to end the season with the removal of 10 times that many. Nature doesn’t work that way. Remove one, and two more will fill the space, if the feed or conditions are there to attract them. But try and tell that to the proponents of cormorant culls at Presqu’ile Park!

Actually, live trapping is not the humane alternative that it is purported to be. While live trapping a nuisance animal, and releasing it far away from the problem,  may give property owners a nice, warm fuzzy feeling, it may be a cruel and heartless alternative. As you step on the accelerator and watch the animal disappear in your rear view mirror, and confident that you have acted in a humane way, the practice causes great stress to the released animal. It must now find food, water and shelter in unfamiliar territory. There will undoubtedly be territorial disputes between the released animal and resident animals that can lead to injury and often death. Relocated animals may also introduce diseases into the resident population, therefore causing other animals to suffer or die.

We must learn the four basic needs of wildlife – food, water, shelter and space – and learn to work within those parameters to discourage those animals we prefer not to have on our properties. Most of us already know in order to discourage starlings from monopolizing suet we place out for chickadees, we must use feeders that are difficult for starlings to access. We put guards on feeder poles to prevent squirrels from reaching them. It is a matter of trial and error, and becoming intimate with animals’ needs and abilities, and using those as a tool to achieve success. We may not always succeed in totally discouraging nuisance animals from wandering into our backyards, but we can certainly employ ways to prevent them from becoming a nuisance while they are here. If you have bats getting into your attic, you don’t poison the bats; instead you close up the spaces where they are gaining entry. To use a popular phrase, “It’s a no-brainer.”

I once received an e-mail from someone about a raccoon problem. Raccoons were getting into their garbage every night and they asked what could be done to prevent this from continuing. I searched within the e-mail for something in the message I had surely missed, but ended up stating, quite simply, to either keep the garbage in a raccoon proof receptacle, or not put it out at the curb at all until morning. I never heard another word, and I am sure that this is not the answer this person was expecting to hear. The sender of the e-mail likely expected someone on a white horse to come riding in, scoop up the raccoon, and that would be the end of the problem, forever.

It is such a easy process to work with wildlife, instead of against it, I am surprised that so many homeowners refuse to catch on. It’s a learning experience, and there will be occasional breakdowns in the process. For example, for more than seven years, we have enjoyed a water garden. Eight goldfish resided there during all that time, and every year we had raccoons prowling around close to the water garden as they scrounged for leftovers from our barbeques. Knowledge of raccoon habits suggested if I provided cover for the fish at one end of the pond with heavy floating plants, the fish would instinctively  seek shelter from any danger in there. A series of patio lights around the perimeter of the pond itself provided some additional security from these animals that seem to prefer darkness. For seven years all was well, then one night it wasn’t. Next morning, one fish remained, and seven severed tails and a few scales on the ground were all that remained of the pond residents. The point is, we worked within the system and obtained some measure of success. Had we chosen to remove the raccoon when we first saw it, Nature would have recognized the void, and replaced that racoon with another, and we would have been perpetually busy for seven years, live trapping raccoons and transporting them elsewhere.  While that one single raccoon was present on our property, we had achieved some kind of understanding between the two of us, and it worked for awhile, until he realized that contrary to popular belief, in the final analysis, our brains are really quite inferior to theirs!

So-called nuisance animals are not an “agency problem,” it is a landowner problem. We need to work within the system. It can be a battle of wits by times, but for those who enjoy wildlife in the backyard, it is a way of enjoying the best of both worlds. And we can always get more goldfish.