I agree about civility, but acceptance by either side is not a given. I will not act uncivilly if the board decides not to kill geese if it looks like it is the only recourse, but that does not mean I will accept it as any FINAL decision forever. The board is a POLITICAL body and board opinions can change from year to year.  

OPA Board of Director advisory committees like Environment & Natural Assets are just that, advisory.  In the case of ENA, the committee is inclined to explore alternative methods to euthanasia perhaps with more vigor than previous committees (or maybe not).

No argument from me about advisory, not exploring alternative methods of control. The geese cannot be legally killed until all other reasonable options are tried as required by federal law..

However, I consider euthanasia the practice of painlessly putting to death HUMANS suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures. What is the point in trying to use the word euthanasia to sugar-coat the FACT that the the geese would be killed?

However, when the committee takes the position that killing some of an overpopulation of geese is not even an option, the committee lacks balance.