Talk:Canada goose

Redirects

Canadian goose Canadian geese Canada geese

23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)I have a question and can't find the answer anywhere,, how old do goslings have to be before they can swim? They are in danger of flooding here and the babies will all die,,, Please help! Dianalee 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold textItalic text==Capitalization==

---

At least in American spelling, the "goose" is not capitalized -- see the Columbia Encyclopedia Article about geese, goose. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, which does not capitalize the second word. I think the Columbia Encyclopedia is as reliable a source as any, and I have not seen any encyclopedia but Wikipedia that capitalizes both. Bobburito 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Its spelt both ways:Canada Goose (if its a title of a book or section ie chapter, encyclopidia topic, and canada goose, but Canada goose could mean any kind of goose that origenated from canada, and canada Goose is improper spelling, relly all this stuff is confusion with the diferent forms.

---

• Please, we've been through the capitalization discussion. This is the convention we reached after much discussion. Both terms are capitalized. Danny
  • Where is this discussion? Is this only for titles? All dictionaries I've reviewed (including Canadian Oxford) do not capitalize the "goose". Jade Squirrel
    • No, it is for all appearances. I did not take part in the discussion, but it is in one of the naming convention articles. Danny

---

I just reviewed the Wikipedia naming conventions. It states:

"Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words." (my emphaisis) http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization) Jade Squirrel

---

An exception was made in the case of animals. You might want to check the Australian animals, becauzse that is where the discussion took place. It was not too long ago. Please don't start it off again. Danny

---

I didn't find any relevant discussion on this. If that decision was made, the naming conventions have not been updated. I noticed most of the Australian animals follow the convention you stated, but there are a few other animals where only the first word is capitalized. Since the Wikipedia is inconsistent, I'm not going to bother with this issue. Jade Squirrel

---

Tannin has informed me:

"You'll find several discussions of the naming conventions for animals around the place, but (for complicated reasons I won't go into) there isn't a naming conventions page that sets them out yet. Sorry abut that. The heat has gone out of the debate now, and the compromise that was hammered out is working well, so I'll see if I can attend to that over the next few days. But in the meantime, you will find the essentials at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. That's bird-specific, but the same rules apply to mammals." Jade Squirrel

I noticed that bird books by National Geographic capitalize the names. --Evice 02:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

These geese also occur in the City park of [[de:F%FCrth|Fuerth]] (Germany); this year the population grew remarkably - the last days I observed 50 or more. There are also some with white or red-orange heads. A picture is here; I can add some more, if wanted: http://de.wikipedia.org/upload/1/15/Wildgans-schwarzer-kopf-fuerth.jpg

---

Thats because(The geese are in gemany) the geese were raised in captivity and then they flu allong side a plane to europe

Gallery

At what point will this article contain enough images of this bird? I think three or four images for the article would suffice and that no gallery is warrented. Rklawton 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, better yet, there are enough photos within the actual article itself. Anyone who still wants to put their photos up should upload them to Wikimedia Commons. There can simply be a link to it from the article itself. there is no canada goose page yet so someone should create it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Canada+goose&go=Go

Anyway, this article is illustrated best of what I have seen in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.42.13 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada v. Canadian

Jim Bleak, quit excising mention of "Canadian" as an alternative. It's not in any books you have laying around, but that doesn't change its very common usage amongst the millions of Americans who live in the frequent habitat of this bird. I've got a couple dozen sleeping within a hundred yards from my back window right now, and if I referred to them as "Canada Geese" to anyone in California, they'd wonder what the hell I was talking about. Your pedantry doesn't change reality; besides which, I'm pointing out that it's vernacular, not trying to claim it's any sort of proper scientific usage. Get over it. 74.38.10.245 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is regrettable for the integrity of Wikipedia than a single person, apparently Jim F. Bleak, can exercise unilateral control over content, completely suppressing the well documented fact that not everyone calls the Canadian goose a Canada Goose. Removing a simple sentence to this effect constitutes an act of vandalism. Complaining about the removal is not vandalism but democracy. It is true that many people consider the insistence on Canada Goose an ungrammatical affectation of self-proclaimed elites. The independently minded should read the complete discussion. Several challenges were set including finding dictionary references and doing a Google search. Two American dictionarys list Canadian goose as an alternative. The listings contain no perjorative remarks. The Google search gave overwhelming support for fact than many people prefer Canadian goose to Canada goose. Note that the search was for documents that contained the term "Canadian goose" and did not contain the term "Canada goose." Mr. Bleak's sole argument that has not been refuted is the he has never heard the term Canadian goose used in Europe. I note that Europe is not included in the normal range for this bird.

jimfbleak had in-line demanded Where????. I've moved his question down here, and ask it myself. Produce a citation for this "documented fact" and your submission will likely survive. Until then, I concur with its removal. mdf 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a reasonable discussion occur when someone chooses to delete even the discussion in addion to deleting well supported additions to the main entry? This behavior is sophomoric. Who are you?

Canadian Goose is an accepted variant in at least two American dictionaries: Webster's Third New International Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary. A Google search for the words “Canadian Goose” but without the words “Canada Goose” yielded 129,000 entries! There seems adequate support for recognizing that Canadian Goose is an alternative to Canada Goose that is preferred by many because the name then follows normal rules of grammar.

It appears an editor wishes to take issue with the name of this bird, changing it to "Canadian Goose" without supporting sources, and inspite of existing references to the contrary. Those wishing to discuss or debate the matter should do so here. As per policy, facts should be supported by sources, and this article has no sources as of yet supporting the name "Canadian Goose." Rklawton 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

nothing to debate, all sources use Canada. Bird names don't necessarily conform to the rules of grammar - thus Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, but Great (not Greater) Spotted Woodpecker. jimfbleak 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is something to debate. Dictionaries, e.g. the American Heritage Dictionary, do not recognize Canada as an adjective. The idea that birder should somehow be exempt from standard English grammar obviously applies to the binomial name for the animal. However, at issue here is the common name. At the very least, a few sentences should be allowed to present the issue and to represent an American opinion that words like America and Canada are nouns, not adjectives. It is worth noting that the article subsequently refers to a Canadian $100 dollar note (At least it is not a Canada note. However, North Americans would call it a bill, not a note).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnauman (talk • contribs)

That's a good idea but only if you can find a decent source that supports your position. I just checked with the all-American "Webster" dictionary, and it recognizes only "Canada Goose". If you don't have a few good sources supporting "Canadian Goose" then you're not going to get very far here. Them's the rules. Rklawton 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The (1985) American Heritage Dictionary itself also only has "Canada goose." But I'm conflicted. In conversation I've never used or heard anything other than "Canadian." Eleuther 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the Lesser and Great Spotted Wood Peckers, both lesser and great are perfectly acceptable adjective and both names conform to the rules of English grammar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnauman (talk • contribs)

The main English speaking bird organisations in N America and Europe all use Canada, so do all my American and European field guides, so does Wildfowl, the standard text - this is just a nuisance tactic by Ebnauman jimfbleak 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

It's not a matter of proper citations or formal reference. It's a matter of common usage. In common usage across broad regions where the Canadian Goose lives, that's what it's called. I've edited the main page to reflect this.kmmontandon

PS should it be World Series - World is a noun?

IMHO Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, if only for the reason that Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. "Canadian goose" and "Canadian geese" seem to be attested in use, so they can be justified to stay. --Kjoonlee 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that "Canadian Goose" should be advocated looks like linguistic prescription to me. That would be NPOV POV. --Kjoonlee 05:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this, where is it attested, apart from the editors above? I've added {{Fact}} and in anycase pointed it to NAm usage if true - certainly never heard Canadian Goose used in Europe. jimfbleak 06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Later -try typing Canadian Goose into Google. Unless a citation can be given, the Canadian will have to go - you can't just give in to persistent wrong info. jimfbleak 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

/me shrugs. Perhaps it isn't widely attested, but I always called them Canadian Geese when I used to live in London. I haven't done extensive research (and I shouldn't) but a quick google search for "Canadian goose" and "Canadian geese" yields non-zero results. Maybe it also includes mentions of "Canadian 'goose species'" as well, but nevertheless, I think people other than myself and Ebnauman would call it Canadian Goose as well. --Kjoonlee 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wrong" is a prescriptive POV. --Kjoonlee 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily accept that "wrong" is POV (eg 2+2=5 is wrong) although I see that it can be. I would be happier if there was a citation for this as requested at the start of this section - the fact that none has been found in nearly two months suggests that the usage is very unusual and of dubious validity. If I started calling it American Goose, would that merit mention in the article? jimfbleak 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics doesn't change but language does. If more and more people start saying "egg corn" to mean acorn, then yes, that does merit a mention somewhere. Minuscule mentions "miniscule," for example. --Kjoonlee 10:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You might argue that "Canadian Goose" is not widely attested, in which case I rest my case, and will not object if it were to be removed for that reason. But if you say it's not attested at all, or that it's incorrect, I'll probably complain to myself. --Kjoonlee 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any proper sourcing that this is a widely used variant,and in the face of a lot of evidence that it isn't (eg not in the US dictionaries or bird books) I intend to remove the statement. Note also that this construction is not uncommon - Canada Warbler, California Quail, (and California Thrasher and California Least Tern) Tennessee Warbler, Dartford Warbler, Sandwich Tern, Kentucky Derby, World Series. jimfbleak 05:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The proper slang is "Canada", but I think it is more of a regional thing. I think fewer people say "Canadian goose". *Daijinryuu*

It is amazing how a supposedly open encyclopedia has fallen victim to a cult of pedantic birders. The widespread use of "Canadian goose" rather than the ungrammatical "Canada Goose" deserves at least one sentence in the article. I accept that birders prefer Canada Goose, apparently because is shows their erudition. However, Wikipedia is not a bird manual. I have added a perfectly true and well supported sentence: "The bird is commonly called a Canadian goose in North America." Adding this sentence is not an act of vandalism. Removing it again would be. 74.70.146.173 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Please reread Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is/isn't vandalism. --Kjoonlee 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See also descriptive linguistics; you seem to be prescribing a less-described term. --Kjoonlee 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

--- The proper term is "Canada." If you ask any serious hunter whether he got any "Canadians" on his hunt he'll laugh and say he doesn't hunt people, just geese. -- Cottonmather0'Cottonmather0

---

Ah hah ... this must be a "talk" page!

Enough already ! The fact that there exists a long-established consensus within the entire literature on ornithology to call this bird a "Canada Goose" should exercise enough authority to end the discussion. Grammatical rectitude and fundamentalism is entirely irrelevant to given names or established appellations, as shown by the names given to many other bird species, animal species, plants, trees and so many other things where an entitty is closely associated with a geographical region (Do I reaaly need to cite examples ? man, I hope not !). However common it may the fact that this bird is called a "canadian goose" in the U.S. simply points to a common misunderstanding about names and designations. Either that or americans can't telle the difference between Brunta canadensis and any other goose species migrating south from Canada. The fact that there exists yet another misnomer in the U.S. vernacular is not exactly news, not exactly a reference for anything as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Nobody, but nobody anywhere else calls this bird a "canadian goose" or makes the equivalent mistake in any other language. Perhaps, to remain "in touch with reality" the issue indeed deserves mention in Wikipedia pages but perhaps that belongs within pages about unitedstatsian sociology and culture, not ornithology. The rigour Mr Bleak is advocating is essential to the conservation of clarity and coherence anything else confuses the necessity of stable common knowledge bases and lexicon with lowest common denominator convenience. 09 August 2007 François Hogue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.17.44 (talk • contribs)

I agree that Mr. Bleak is out of touch with reality if he insists on "Canadian Geese" being wrong.

For what it's worth: I happened on this page randomly, and as I read it I found myself wondering, "Canada goose? I wonder why they don't call it the Canadian Goose?" That's actually why I bothered looking at this discussion page, which turns out to be kind of silly. I don't contest that the formal name is Canada Goose, but I will say that I, and everyone I know, have always called it the Canadian Goose. A quick google search reveals lots of sites that call it that (as mentioned above), and one of the top hits I found was http://the-stewardship.org/newsletters/2005-08-06.htm which acknowledges the fact that the formal name is "Canada Goose" and that "we have accordingly been directed to switch to the term ‘Canada goose’ for the species, despite the fact that many ordinary individual humans who have use for the term know this species as ‘Canadian goose’." (emphasis added). You can argue about grammaticality all you want, but there's no question the term is used. I don't see what the problem would be in changing the lede to "The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), also known as the Canadian Goose..." That said, this is a bit of a retarded argument. Have fun, kids. Eleusinian 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Geese Integration

One of the photographs in the article has a Snow Goose hanging out with the Canadas. Is it common for different species of geese to interact and flock together? Cranston Lamont 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Geese are very gregarious, and isolated individuals/escapes etc will join any available goose flock. Our local Canada flock currently contains an escaped Bar-headed Goose. jimfbleak 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A Pest

• Maybe we should include a section on how it is a pest and how in certain areas, like in Jersey, people view the creature as pest because of the constant noise they create and all the feces they leave behind? *Daijinryuu*
• I would like to see expanded discussions on the presence of Resident Geese -- How they started, etc. Appropriate control methods should also be included here, as well as population shifts when large numbers of geese are exterminated as a control method.

Oh. I had just removed the following from the article:

Some migratory populations in temperate climates frequent cities as well, due to convenient, predator-free open spaces. These birds are considered by many to be a nuisance , mainly because of the large volume of feces they produce, and like other water fowl, they also frequently walk with their young across roads, creating traffic tie-ups. Some cities have begun extermination programs against them . Other solutions have included relocation and the use of a substance to coat the eggs to prevent maturation and hatching. Many geese are also killed in collisions with automobiles and, occasionally, aircraft.

Is there any information on how it's considered to be a nuisance? We shouldn't be adding info we can't verify, and I don't think it's been verified properly. --Kjoonlee 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an entire industry dedicated to removal of Canada Geese from private property (espescially Golf Courses/Corporate Parks) see www.geesepoliceinc.com 72.88.249.60 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this NZ government report:

www.mwpress.co.nz/store/downloads/LRSS_30_Spurr4Web.pdf

The authors note that geese are considered a pest because they compete with livestock for grazing, and this is referenced.

Other reasons for their pestilent nature are described (defecation etc) but those points are unreferenced.Garethvaughan 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NZ Canadas aren't migratory - see text above. jimfbleak 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) in 2005 declared them to be a nuisance in localized areas Source

"Non-migratory Canada goose populations have increased drastically in recent years, causing crop damage and nuisance problems in residential neighborhoods. Park visitors often complain about goose excrement on state park beaches and other facilities, and water quality at some state parks has been adversely impacted."

--Nathan Gerber 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• An early season was implemented again during 2007 Source: PA DCNR. I also noticed on the front page the high fecal califorms are listed as needing a citation even though a reference listed on the article from DCNR makes mention of that statement, as well as the latest source listed here. --Nathan Gerber (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Map

The map of the distribution of Canadian Geese does not include Eastern Canada. I edited it to include it. Map of Canadian Geese distribution in North America

CuffX 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it include, for example, the Netherlands and Japan, which are mentioned in the text: Canada Geese have reached western Europe naturally, as has been proved by ringing recoveries. The birds are of at least the subspecies parvipes, and possibly others. Canada Geese are also found naturally on the Kamchatka Peninsula in eastern Siberia, eastern China, and throughout Japan.

Greater Canada Geese have also been widely introduced in Europe, and have established feral populations in Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Since the map is supposed to include feral populations, it might be time to either change the text or the map depending on which one is right. 87.78.134.22 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think......

I do not like what people do on these things!! It is so rude. Please Do not change the information on the birds please.

                               Thank You-
                          Big Tree Elementary Schools

Map Question

Is the map accurate I live in the southern U.S. and I would testify under oath that these pest are around for the whole year not just summer it is so bad that in some places in the middle of summer you can't go outside without stepping in their "gifts" ChrisLamb 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canadian goose with friends.jpg

Normally, I wouldn't post such a negative critique of someone else's work, but the editor insisted on re-adding the image after I removed it. This image is low resolution and low quality. The goose featured in the photo is very small and not at all clear. This article already has many very beautiful pictures of geese. Thus, the image is entirely redundant. If the article really does need another goose photo to illustrate the "See also" section, then there are many much higher quality examples to choose from in Commons. The editor who posted this photo is also the photo's uploader, so perhaps he's got a bit of an emotional tie to it. At any rate, folks who would like to discuss the relative merits of this image should do so here. Rklawton 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: nasty Canadian geese and their excrement

I am thinking that this article needs to address some of serious health concerns about having large folks of Canadian geese within surborban and urban areas: I recall watch a news program on television reporting that an adult Canadian Goose produces four to five pounds of excrement every day with droppings every seven minutes and these birds pose serious health concerns for those visiting park ares with rivers, lakes, ponds, etc.17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POV to me. I've read that Canada Geese may poop as much as 3 pounds a day, much of that water. There also is no study that connects goose poop with increased disease risk. Cases where high coliform levels have been measured in water have either been blamed on geese without testing, or when testing has been done, the geese were exonerated and humans were generally to blame. If you can document that geese are "nasty" go for it, but posting claims from recollections of a media story doesn't really cut it. I do agree that this alleged health concern should either be documented or debunked with documentation, so thanks for bringing that up. Bob98133 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

From the DEFRA reference on the article -

Fouling with droppings

• Because of their inefficient digestive system and the low nutrient value of plant material, Canada geese may need to eat large quantities of vegetation.
• When grazing they may produce droppings at a rate of one every 6 minutes.
• The droppings contain bacteria that may be harmful if faecal matter is inadvertently swallowed and they also make grassed areas unattractive and paths slippery.
• If the droppings are passed into water bodies they may cause increased nutrient loadings leading to possible toxic algal blooms and low oxygen levels in the water.

May be something to start with - Foxhill 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Goose, part 2

Ok, whoever it is that elects to edit this page at least seems to concede that Canadian goose is widely used. However, the discrepancy between standard English and the non-standard Canada goose should be recognized. Ebnauman 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research. Canadian Goose needs a verifiable reference Jimfbleak 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The term "Canadian goose" will generate 120,000 hits on Google. Who is the administrator for this entry. I ask that person to admit that Canadian goose is so widely used that it should be acknowledged as an alternative.

Look, the term "bow wow" generates 3.5 million hits on google, but that doesn't mean that it is a legitimate name for "dog". The name of this article and the name of this animal is Canada Goose. I have no objection to a simple line being included that many people refer to these animals as Canadian geese (it doesn't even have to say 'erroneously'), but claiming that "millions of people" use this term is totally undocumented and doesn't belong. Bob98133 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But if it is claimed that many people use it, that needs a references, the fact that no source has been added over months and numerous pleas to do so, suggest that the claim cannot be substantiated. It is not a non-standard construction, see Canada Warbler, California Quail, Tennessee Warbler, Dartford Warbler, Sandwich Tern, Kentucky Derby, World SeriesJimfbleak 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian

I've added "Canadian Goose" as an alternative term along with the only in-text citation thus far in the article. Neitherday 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jimfbleak 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Need Another Picture?

I have taken another picture of geese, you can find it here http://www.flickr.com/photos/21376635@N04/2074550543/

V-pattern

Is this the only bird species that flies south in the V-formation? Funnyhat (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, many large birds (geese, storks etc) do Jimfbleak (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Licence to handle Canada Geese in UK

I was watching a TV program about an RSPCA rescue of waterfowl after an oil spillage on a lake in the UK. Cleaning other birds, ducks and white geese, and I beleive even Swans (which are protected under the queen) were OK to handle. But the program said they had to obtain a special licence to handle the Canada Geese, but never went in to much detail as to why or where they got this licence.

I thought it was a peice of interesting information, but could not find it anywhere onlune. Is it because the Canada Goose is considered a pest? I'm not too sure, maybe someone could elaberate and add it to the article

yet another Matt (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aleutian Canada Goose

There is no mention of the Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) here or (remarkably) elsewhere on Wikipedia. Its range historically includes a population that breeds in Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands, wintering in Japan, as well as an Aleutian Islands-California population. The former are highly endangered, the latter have recovered from near extinction. Is there a reason for this omission? There should be some adjustment of the implication that the Canada Goose is only native to North America as well. No? Eliezg (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now that it has been reclassified as a Cackling Goose - I had no idea. Though, if an animal that looks like this: is a distinct species than this , I have newfound respect for birders' masochistic tendency for impenetrable systematics! In the meantime, I will make a redirect from Aleutian Canada Goose to the Cackling Goose article, since I believe it is still widely known (i.e. Googlable) as the former. Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada Goose sleeping habits

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure of the following:

• Canada geese do not burrow
• There is no such thing as an aveterra
• Canada geese do not construct these "aveterras" under large bodies of water
• That picture is totally photoshopped. Poorly, at that.

Still, it's mighty hilarious.--Stacecom (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Sleeping Habits para because there is no Google reference to the word "Aveterra" AND the pic of the bird is indeed photoshopped. The same pic (but reversed) can be seen in its proper surroundings by clicking on the long link on the Image Description page for the false image. It's not funny when people have to waste their time sorting out this vandalism - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

plane crash in NY

I understand that there has been media attention to this crash being caused by Canada Geese, but it is as valid as deciding that Iraq has WMD. Wiki is not news and placing the text you did is not only news but inaccurate. I do appreciate you referencing it, though. The NTSB will determine the cause of this crash, so anything else is specualtion. My revert was not due to vandalism. It clearly stated that it is too soon to attribute this to Canada Geese. I have changed "blamed" to "speculated". (also posted on editor's talk page) Bob98133 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How high can these birds fly?

In light of the recent forced landing of US Airways flight 1549 caused (seemingly) by hitting several Canada Geese at an altitude of about 3000 ft, it would instructive and useful to include a reference in the main article to the known, or typical, cruise altitude of a flock of migrating Canada Geese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.201.85 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In continental Europe

I've seen birds that definitely looked like Canada geese over the lake in École Polytechnique, so it seems there are semi-wild populations in France too... David.Monniaux (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)