Upmarket £2,664-a-year private tennis club axes its social media over geese cull backlash
St George's Hill Lawn Tennis Club in Weybridge, Surrey, has removed all of its social media accounts and staff photos from its website following widespread anger over its decision to hire a marksman to cull a family of resident Canada geese. The club, which charges members £2,664 a year, had previously posted affectionate photos of the geese online, making the backlash particularly pointed once news of the shooting emerged. Both members and the wider public have criticised the move, with some accusing the club of overreacting to a mess problem that could have been solved less drastically.
Neighbours reported being woken by gunshots in the early hours of 16 July, and it later emerged that eight birds, including goslings, had been killed, with some distressed survivors reportedly spotted nearby afterwards. Club members say they were not consulted beforehand, with one telling The Times the geese were merely "a bit annoying" rather than a reason for culling. Chief executive Miles Hill said the cull was carried out "on the grounds of public health and safety," but critics have suggested a wildlife organisation could have rehomed the birds instead, and one commenter questioned why the club couldn't simply have paid for extra cleaning.
- Surrey tennis club deleted its social media after a geese cull backlash
- Marksman killed eight Canada geese, including goslings, on 16 July
- Members say they weren't consulted; club cites public health and safety
New here? Start with this
The dispute concerns a private tennis club and its management of geese on or near its grounds. Wild geese can create practical issues for landowners, including fouling, damage to grass and concerns about health or safety, and some sites use measures to control their numbers.
A cull means killing animals to reduce a population. It can be carried out under wildlife rules in certain circumstances, but it is often controversial because people disagree about whether it is necessary and whether non-lethal methods should be used first.
The club’s membership fee and upmarket image have drawn additional attention to the issue. The reaction has also focused on how organisations respond when decisions about animals or the environment prompt public criticism online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The club may argue that responsible grounds management sometimes requires controlling geese where numbers create significant hygiene, safety or damage problems, particularly if non-lethal measures have proved inadequate. A carefully regulated cull can be presented as an unpleasant but proportionate last resort, intended to protect members, staff and the wider site. Removing social-media accounts may also be viewed as a practical response to harassment or a channel that had ceased to support constructive discussion.
The case against
Critics may argue that killing geese should require a clear, publicly explained necessity and that an affluent private club has particular capacity to pursue humane alternatives such as deterrence, habitat changes or relocation. In the absence of detail about the scale, evidence and safeguards, people may reasonably fear that convenience was placed above animal welfare. Closing social-media channels can also be seen as reducing accountability at the point when the club most needed to explain and defend its decision.