Canada Geese New Jersey 


Public opinion polls play a vital role in providing the general public with the opportunity to voice their opinion on various issues and in this case, the public’s opinion on the way U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the USDA Wildlife Service manage “resident” Canada goose populations. As evidenced by the polls below, the general public opposes the lethal management practices of U.S. FWS and USDA WS, yet public opinion is virtually ignored as U.S. FWS and USDA WS continue to kill hundreds of thousands of Canada geese a year – and for profit.   




New Jersey Canada Goose Opinion Poll

 (opinion of New Jersey “registered voters”)

Conducted by

Blum & Weprin Associates, Inc.

New York, NY


New Jersey and Union County Voters say “NO” to killing, “YES” to Statewide Non-lethal Program.


New Jersey and Union County voters strongly oppose the carbon dioxide gassing of Canada geese and want a program to standardize procedures and training for controlling the goose population by non-lethal methods.



1. Are you currently registered to vote in the election district where you now live or haven’t you had a chance to register yet?


     1. Yes              NJ State     Union

                             100%          100%

2. The presence of Canada Geese in areas of New Jersey have created nuisance and public health concerns. Do you favor or oppose a statewide program in New Jersey which would institute standardized procedures and training for controlling goose populations without killing any geese?


                            NJ State     Union

     1. Favor          74%            74%

     2. Oppose       19                20

     3. NS/Ref         8                  6


3. In order to control the population of Canada Geese in areas of New Jersey, would you ever approve of killing large numbers of Canada geese, or wouldn’t you?


     1. Yes, approve (ASK #3a)                                                   NJ State     Union

                                                                                                    28%            37%

     2. No, not approve                                                                 56                48

     3. Approve, but only after other methods exhausted             14                11

     4. NS/Ref                                                                                 2                  3


3a. (IF APPROVE WITHOUT QUALIFICATION)  Do you think that all government authorities should be required to try all known non-lethal methods of goose population control before they are given a permit to kill the geese, or don’t you think so?


                                    NJ State            Union

                                    N = 108             N = 139

     1. Yes                     50%                   49%

     2. No                      48                       44

     3. NS/Ref                 2                         7


*** NET Q3: In order to control the population of Canada Geese in areas of New Jersey, would you ever approve of killing large numbers of Canada geese, or wouldn’t you?


                                                                                            NJ State     Union

1. Yes, approve – with or without non-lethal first              14%            16%

2. No, never approve                                                           56                48

3. Approve, but only after other methods exhausted          28                29

4. NS/Ref                                                                              2                  6


4. Thousands of geese in New Jersey were recently herded into specially equipped trucks where they were suffocated by carbon dioxide gas. Do you think this method of killing geese should be banned or permitted?


                                                                                           NJ State     Union

1. Banned                                                                           70%             61%

2. Permitted                                                                        21                28

3. NS/Ref                                                                             9                 11





Government Analysis of Public Opinion Comments on Management of “resident” Canada Geese

(Lethal versus Non-lethal Management)





Executive summary - On August 19, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Wildlife Services program of the USDA, published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on resident Canada goose management. This action was in response to the growing numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within the conterminous United States and our desire to examine alternative strategies to control and manage resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause damage to personal and public property. Public comment was solicited on each of the six identified preliminary alternatives and other potential alternatives. A subsequent notice was published on December 30, 1999, identifying nine public scoping meeting locations at various sites across the United States. Public comments were accepted from the opening of the comment period on August 19, 1999, until March 30, 2000. In summary, over 1,250 people attended the public scoping sessions and over 3,000 submitted written comments. Analysis of the comments were separated into seven major groups: private individuals, businesses, non-governmental groups (NGOs), local government agencies and associations, Federal agencies, State agencies and Flyway Councils and Canadian interests.


Scoping meeting locations: Tennessee, New Jersey Connecticut, Illinois, Washington,

                                                  Minnesota, South Dakota, Virginia, Colorado.




·        Support for Alternative A - No Action (4) 


·        Support for Alternative B - Increased Promotion of Nonlethal Control and Management (7)


·        Support for Alternative C - Nest and Egg Depredation Order (6)


·        Support for Alternative D - Depredation Order for Health and Human Safety (3)

           ( lethal)

·        Support for Alternative E - Conservation Order (4)


·        Support for Alternative F - General Depredation Order (725) (lethal)

·        Support for Alternative “G” (a site-specific nonlethal control alternative offered by several NGOs) (760) (non-lethal)

·        Support for nonlethal methods and egg addling (465) (non-lethal)

·        Support for only nonlethal methods (no egg addling) (533) (non-lethal)

·        Support for use of hunting or modification of existing seasons (159)  (lethal)

·        Support for food shelf program (62) (lethal)

·        Support for “doing something” (67) (support of lethal or non-lethal unknown)

·        Other (184) (support of lethal or non-lethal unknown)

The ratio of support for lethal action versus support for non-lethal action is almost 2 to 1 in favor of non-lethal action. (Support for “Do something” (67) and “Other” (184) were left out of the equation because position is unknown and wouldn’t result in reversing the outcome.)


                             Non-lethal Support                             Lethal Support


                                        4                                                           3

                                        7                                                           4

                                        6                                                        725

                                    760                                                        159   

                                    465                                                          62



Totals                       1,775                                                       954



What is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?  (Scroll down to “United States”)




Return to Home Page