Significant milestones in attempts to understand and manage superabundant light geese

Transcription

1 Significant milestones in attempts to understand and manage superabundant light geese Michael A. Johnson,* North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 100 N. Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, ND, 58501, USA Extended Abstract: The overabundance of light geese in North America presents management challenges that are unprecedented in the annals of wildlife management. Habitat problems caused by overabundant light geese were first recognized in 1984 by botanist Dr. Robert Jefferies at La Pérouse Bay (Robert Rockwell, pers. comm.) with research directed to document these losses beginning in 1985 (Jefferies and Rockwell 2002). Ankney (1996) called for significant management actions to deal with exponentially growing populations of Canada and lesser and greater snow geese. But, the significant problems created by midcontinent light geese, in particular, were not officially recognized and widely publicized until Batt (1997), predating the work tenure of many of today s waterfowl biologists, managers and policy makers. Efforts to resolve these problems for midcontinent light geese have brought significant and unprecedented management actions. The original report edited by Batt (1997) led to extraordinary management measures such as the special harvest provisions initiated in the U.S. in 1997, the Conservation Order initiated in March 1999 in the U.S., and spring harvests in parts of Canada in These new management measures were allowed, in part, because the report by Batt (1997) also facilitated legal actions such as the 1999 amendment to the U.S. - Canada migratory bird treaty, the 1999 Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act of the U.S. Congress (H.R ) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement Light Goose Management (2007). Since efforts at population reduction began, a huge volume of work has been accomplished to better understand the problems, potential solutions, and population response to harvest management of greater snow geese (Batt 1998, Reed and Calvert 2008), Ross s geese (Moser 2001, Leafloor et al. 2012), and midcontinent lesser snow geese (Leafloor et al. 2012). As well, contingency studies - about cost and feasibility of direct control of light goose populations by large-scale directed removal (Johnson and Ankney 2003) - were conducted in case attempts at population reduction through increased hunter harvests failed to achieve objectives. Much of this research and review was made possible by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture. However, these goose populations continue to increase, habitat losses are expanding and management solutions have yet to be realized. Consequently, this has led to the current need for the management community to consider whether a new direction should be followed, or to accept high populations of light geese and their impacts to habitats, other species and hunting opportunity. For example, Alisauskas et al (2011) have suggested that the ineffectiveness of essentially unfettered hunter harvest to affect survival and abundance of midcontinent snow geese might warrant a revision of original objectives (Batt 1997). Currently, the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada, the Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils and their member states and provinces are struggling to agree on next steps to deal with this long-standing and difficult management issue.

2 A review of the history of these issues might provide a useful perspective from which to reevaluate original notions about our ability to manage a highly mobile resource. Such understanding might assist with decisionmaking to guide future efforts. This paper will briefly review a timeline of the significant events that have brought us to this special session on the superabundance of light geese and what to do about it. Literature Cited: Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G. Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O Leafloor, T. J. Moser, E. T. Reed Harvest, survival, and abundance of Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1-42. Ankney, C. D An embarrassment of riches: too many geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: Batt, B. D. J. (editor) Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 120pp. Batt, B. D. J. (editor) The greater snow goose: report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 88pp. Jefferies, R. L. and R. F. Rockwell Foraging geese, vegetation loss and soil degradation in an Arctic salt marsh. Applied Vegetation Science 5:7-16. Johnson, M. A., and C. D. Ankney (editors) Direct control and alternative harvest strategies for North American light geese: report of the Direct Control and Alternative Harvest Measures Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 128pp. Leafloor, J. O., T. J. Moser, and B. D. J. Batt (editors) Evaluation of special management measures for midcontinent lesser snow geese and Ross s geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 248pp. Moser, T. J., (editor) The status of Ross s Geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 71pp. Reed, E. T. and A. M. Calvert (editors) Evaluation of the special conservation measures for greater snow geese: Report of the Greater Snow Goose Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada. 85pp. + appendices. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Final Environmental Impact Statement: Light Goose Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 243pp.

3 Evaluation of special management measures for midcontinent lesser snow geese and Ross s geese: the main points. James O. Leafloor,* Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Main Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 4W2, Canada. (Jim.Leafloor@ec.gc.ca) Extended Abstract: Following numerous reviews about superabundance of arcticnesting geese in North America since 1997, a recent assessment (Leafloor et al. 2012) evaluated (1) the continued increase by midcontinent lesser snow goose and continental Ross s goose populations, and (2) the absence of clear population response to increases in harvest specifically intended to reduce both of these populations. Harvest of lesser snow geese and Ross s geese increased substantially before and during the period of conservation actions, but after initial increases in the early years, the kill by hunters declined. Harvest rates (i.e., the proportions of each population that are harvested annually) have continued to decline following implementation of conservation measures, as the kill by hunters has not kept pace with increases in population size. We found evidence of declining survival of adult lesser snow geese from the southern-most nesting colonies, but survival of arctic-nesting snow geese, constituting 90% of the midcontinent population, remained high and overall survival rates remained above the level required to induce a population decline. Increased harvest has not resulted in reduced survival of Ross s geese, whose numbers have continued to increase at a higher rate than have lesser snow geese since the start of conservation actions in Indices of abundance and estimates of population size also suggest that growth of midcontinent lesser snow goose and Ross s goose populations has continued, though perhaps at a reduced rate. Use of banding and harvest data to estimate population size suggested that population size of midcontinent light geese may be much higher than previously thought, and this likely explains why increased harvest has not led to expected declines in population size. Surveys on nesting areas suggest that growth of midcontinent populations has been uneven, but that most recent growth for both species appears to be occurring in the central arctic, where there may be room for considerably more expansion. We predict continued growth of lesser snow goose and Ross s goose populations where favorable habitat conditions still exist, particularly in the central and western arctic. Evidence suggests that damage to staging and nesting habitats in coastal areas along James and Hudson Bay has continued, and that the area affected by foraging activities of the geese continues to expand. Much of the salt marsh habitat along this coast has been severely degraded, and impacts to adjacent freshwater marshes are continuing as birds move inland to feed, away from the most severely degraded coastal areas. Our knowledge of habitat conditions farther north, where most of the midcontinent populations of lesser snow geese and Ross s geese nest, remains inadequate. However, observations suggest that many light geese that nest north of 60 N latitude do so at inland locations, and rely much more on freshwater marshes than salt marshes compared to those in the southern subarctic stratum. There is evidence from at least some northern nesting areas, such as those on Southampton Island and near large colonies in the Queen Maud Gulf region, that habitat damage has occurred there also,

4 and that Ross s geese contribute to the degradation where they exist in large numbers. We have limited knowledge of the use of staging habitats north of agricultural regions in prairie Canada, and this limits our ability to document and/or predict habitat degradation caused by lesser snow geese and Ross s geese as their distribution expands and abundance increases over time. To date, management actions have not been successful in reducing populations of midcontinent lesser snow geese and Ross s geese, though there is some evidence that growth rates may have slowed over the past decade. It is clear that even with regulatory changes aimed at increasing harvest of midcontinent lesser snow geese and Ross s geese, the goal of reducing their numbers is not likely to be achieved through increased harvest by hunters alone, at least with current hunter numbers. Reducing these populations to levels that could be controlled through hunting in the future will likely require implementation of a large scale direct control program. In the absence of drastic population control measures, continued increases in population size of midcontinent lesser snow geese and Ross s geese are expected, and are likely to lead to more destruction of arctic wetland habitats used by geese and other species. The difficulty of reducing migratory goose populations once they have reached such a large size points to the need for earlier, more aggressive harvest management policies when goose populations show signs of sustained increases over time. Our collective experience suggests that it is likely easier to recover goose populations that reach low levels than to reduce them after they experience runaway growth. Literature Cited: Leafloor, J. O, T. J. Moser, and B. D. J. Batt, (editors) Evaluation of special management measures for Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross s Geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

5 Management of an overabundant population: the case of the Greater Snow Goose. Josée Lefebvre, Canadian Wildlife Service - Québec Region, 1550, avenue d Estimauville, Québec, Québec, Canada, G1J 0C3, (josee.lefebvre@ec.gc.ca) Eric Reed*, Canadian Wildlife Service, Place Vincent Massey, 351 St. Joseph Blvd, Gatineau, Québec, Canada, K1A 0H3, (eric.reed@ec.gc.ca) Gilles Gauthier, Département de biologie & Centre d'études nordiques, Pavillon Vachon, 1045 avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval Québec, Québec, Canada, G1V 0A6, gilles.gauthier@bio.ulaval.ca Min Huang, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 391 RT 32, N. Franklin CT 06254, (min.huang@ct.gov) Extended Abstract. From a few thousands in the early 1900 s, the Greater Snow Goose population expanded to over 800,000 individuals in the late 1990 s. This dramatic population explosion was a consequence of increased use of farmland as feeding grounds, creation of refuges on migration and wintering grounds and a decrease of hunting pressure (Batt et al. 1998). Management of the Greater Snow Goose population has received a lot of attention in both Canada and the U.S. over the last several decades. International, national and regional collaboration and coordination has been important over the years, from a time in the 1970 s where Greater Snow Goose hunting was re-opened in the U.S. after a long period of closure, to the abundant populations of the late 1990 s. Because of its importance, the population has historically been well monitored and managed based on the best available science. Given the important population growth of that occurred in the late 1980 s and early 1990 s and resulting increased stakeholder interest, the Committee for the Integrated Management of Greater Snow Geese in Québec was created in Over twenty representatives from the Québec provincial and Canadian federal government and key non-governmental organizations are involved in the many aspects of goose population management through this committee, which meets annually. In 1998, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group published, a first scientific assessment of the situation of the Greater Snow Goose and concluded to the overabundance of the subspecies (Batt et al. 1998). Following this report, CWS adopted special conservation measures (liberalization of fall hunting regulations, spring conservation harvest) and produced, in partnership with provincial stakeholders, three Action Plans to set objectives and better manage this population (Service canadien de la faune 1997, Bélanger and Lefebvre 2006, Comité de la Table de concertation sur les espèces surabondantes, in prep). In 1998 the U.S., regular season frameworks were already at 107 days, but regulations were liberalized by increasing the daily bag limit to 15. Due to legal challenges, a special conservation order that would allow a spring harvest was not in place until The implementation of liberalized regulations during regular seasons across the range and special measures in Canada had an immediate impact on the growth of the population, which showed an initial decline in size. With time, geese adapted their behavior to a new pattern of hunting pressure and the population has since

6 stabilized between 700,000 and 1,000,000 individuals since 1998 (Lefebvre, unpublished report). The addition of a spring harvest in the U.S. in the last few years has resulted in an increase of the harvest. Contrary to the mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose example, liberalization of the Greater Snow Goose harvest and implementation of special conservation measures in Canada and conservation order in the U.S. have had the desired effect of stabilizing the population, in large part due to the additional harvest and disturbance related to the spring harvest (Reed and Calvert 2007). In hindsight, the key to success in this case were related to the timing at which measures were enacted, when the population was still at a size that was manageable through recreational harvest, and the collaboration of a large suite of international, national and regional partners towards a shared objective of population stabilization. Unfortunately, the timing of the conservation order in the U.S. was a few years too late to reduce the population. If the U.S. conservation order had been implemented coincident with the special measures in Canada, the population likely could have been reduced to a level that would be manageable in the absence of special measures. Literature Cited: Batt, B.D.J. (editor) The Greater Snow Goose: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. Bélanger, L. and J. Lefebvre Plan for Sustainable Integrated Management of the Greater Snow Goose in Québec: Action Plan. Canadian Wildlife Service, Québec Region, Environment Canada, Sainte-Foy, 34 p. Service canadien de la faune Plan d action de la Grande Oie des neiges Sainte-Foy, Québec Reed, E.T. and A.M. Calvert (editors) Evaluation of the special conservation measures for Greater Snow Geese: Report of the Greater Snow Goose Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. Canadian Wildlife Service, Sainte-Foy, Quebec. 85 pp. + appendices..

7 Wrangel Island Snow Geese Wintering on the Fraser (BC) and Skagit River (WA) deltas: population dynamics, foraging impacts, and management via a flexible harvest strategy W. Sean Boyd*, Environment Canada, Science and Technology Branch, RR#1, 5421 Robertson Rd, Delta, BC V4K 3N2, Canada sean.boyd@ec.gc.ca Extended abstract: The Wrangel Island subpopulation of Snow Geese wintering on the Fraser and Skagit river deltas has more than doubled in size over the last 2 decades. Good weather conditions during the breeding season resulted in a ca. 10% increase in the proportion of goslings on the wintering areas and harvest declined by ca. 10% compared to historical levels. These and other factors (agricultural subsidization and refuges) have caused the Fraser-Skagit sub-population to grow from ca. 40,000 birds in the early 1990s to ca. 100,000 in recent years (Fig. 1). Relatively high recruitment is expected to continue as the Arctic warms so the potential for the subpopulation to increase even further and become unmanageable is high, as has occurred with other N.A. white geese (Alisauskas, 2009 & 2011). The increase above ca. 60,000 geese has resulted in a severe decline in bulrush biomass on the Fraser delta, increased potential for air traffic collisions at the Vancouver International Airport, and increased damage to local farms and sport fields. The interaction between the geese and bulrush marshes on the Fraser delta was at a low-level, steady-state throughout the 1990s, meaning that plant biomass was relatively low but the geese were consuming bulrush rhizomes at about the same rate as they were being produced. However, once the sub-population increased above ca. 60,000 geese, bulrush density began to decline significantly (Fig. 2). Other factors are acting in concert with goose grubbing to cause large parts of the bulrush zone to move toward a state of functional extinction and they could reach that state in as little as years. This has serious, negative implications for other components of the estuarine food web as well as for the Snow Geese themselves. Bulrush is still an important part of their diet, especially during extreme weather events when farms are frozen or snowed under and the geese are entirely dependent on bulrush for food. To help ensure the long-term sustainability of the geese and the marsh, overall grubbing pressure needs to be reduced and, if possible, the goose-marsh interaction elevated to a higher level. Given that the Fraser-Skagit sub-population is a closed one, recruitment and harvest are the primary factors responsible for changes in abundance from year to year and over the long term. We have no control over weather conditions on Wrangel Island (and therefore recruitment) so the only option is to manage harvest on the winter grounds. From the 1950s to 1970s, the proportion of the Fraser- Skagit sub-population taken by hunters ranged between 15-20%. However, from to , harvest dropped to 5-10% and this no doubt contributed to the growth of the sub-population. In response to the dramatic increase in the number of geese, hunting regulations were relaxed in the mid-2000s. This raised the harvest rate back to its historical level and, in the process, eventually helped reduce size of the sub-population. To maintain abundance within prescribed limits, harvest will need to average 15-20% over the long-term but the actual rate each year will depend on the

8 difference between the mid-winter count and a suggested upper limit of 70,000 total birds. However, if goose habitat use and foraging patterns remain the same, this upper limit may still be too high to ensure that bulrush remains a functional part of the Fraser delta ecosystem. The primary means of increasing or decreasing harvest is by changing hunting regulations (bag limits, season lengths, open areas) in response to abundance. Most geese are now being harvested on the Skagit delta; not only are there more hunters and more places to hunt compared to the Fraser delta, the large majority of geese are on the Skagit delta during mid-winter when a substantial amount of hunting occurs. Hence, altering regulations in WA State has more potential to affect harvest and sub-population dynamics, and consequently (and indirectly) the bulrush marshes on the Fraser delta, than any measures undertaken in B.C. Monitoring of goose abundance, recruitment, harvest and bulrush density must continue on an annual basis to ensure that population and habitat objectives are achieved. Fraser-Skagit Snows Total Adults Young Figure 1: Growth of the Fraser-Skagit Snow Goose population in recent decades. Bulrush Bulrush Dens (Yr T+1) vs. FS Snow Pop'n (Yr T) y = x R 2 = Snow Geese Figure 2: Bulrush decline is negatively correlated with the size of the Fraser- Skagit Snow Goose population. Literature Cited: Alisauskas, R. T., K. L. Drake, and J. D. Nichols Filling a void: abundance estimation of North American populations of arctic geese using hunter recoveries. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 3: Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G. Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O. Leafloor, T. J. Moser, and E. T. Reed Harvest, survival, and abundance of midcontinent lesser snow geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1 42.

9 Illinois Snow Goose Hunters: Who They Are and Perceived Constraints Mark G. Alessi,* Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, Craig A. Miller, Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, Extended Abstract: In response to an overabundance of snow geese (Chen caerulescens), Illinois, along with many other states, began offering a Conservation Order Snow Goose season (hereafter, spring) in Although liberalizing hunting regulations was anticipated to reduce the snow goose population, the midcontinent population has continued to grow (Alisauskas et al. 2011). Very few snow geese were harvested in Illinois in 1999: ~2,200 geese (Miller 2001). In 2012, over 85,000 snow geese were harvested during the spring season, and the number of hunters increased 50% from the year prior. Approximately 9% or fewer of Illinois waterfowl hunters hunt snow geese during the spring season, and we investigated differences between spring and non-spring hunters, along with whether non-snow goose hunters perceived constraints to hunting snow geese during the spring goose seasons. We conducted a mail survey to 3,000 Illinois waterfowl hunters in 2012 to calculate harvest and perceived constraints of nonsnow goose hunters. We received 1,612 questionnaires for a 54% response rate. Nine percent of waterfowl hunters indicated they had hunted snow geese during the 2012 spring season, and hunters had harvested the most geese since the season began in Spring snow goose hunters were significantly younger (M = 41.7 years) than non-hunters (M = 48.0, t = 5.0, df = 1,510, p <.001). Spring hunters had been hunting spring snow geese for an average of 4.8 years, and 38% of hunters had been hunting snow geese less than three years. Hunters who had been hunting snow geese more than two years harvested significantly more geese (M = 21.7 geese) than hunters who had been hunting two years or less (M = 4.2 geese, t = 3.5, df = 113, p <.01), and had a higher success rate (geese per day). Fifty-three percent of snow goose hunters borrowed or shared snow goose equipment during the spring season; of these hunters 62% borrowed rag/sock decoys and/or 59% borrowed decoy shells. Half of the spring hunters took someone spring snow goose hunting for the first time this past year. Approximately 60% of non-snow goose hunters indicated they had an interest in hunting snow geese during the spring season; ~ 90% of these hunters showed they have an interest because they wanted to enjoy the outdoors and extend their hunting season. The top constraints perceived by hunters were no places to hunt snow geese (51%) and no snow geese available where hunters lived/hunted (45%). Only 16% of hunters specified that the cost of equipment is perceived to be a constraint. Past research has indicated that hunting disturbance causes snow geese to alter their movements (Béchet et al. 2003). In Illinois, the distribution of snow geese during the spring season has been changing annually (R. Marshalla, personal communication) with snow geese appearing in new locations each year. With such a high interest level by waterfowl hunters, the ever-changing distribution, coupled with the increasing

10 population and few perceived constraints, may permit hunters to begin hunting snow geese as their distribution and population expands. Our data suggest that hunters who are in the first couple years of spring snow goose hunting have a lower success rate; the causal reasons for this are unknown. New hunters may not have acquired enough equipment, may live in the periphery of the snow goose migratory pathway, and/or may not be as familiar with snow goose habits. Future research should be aimed at identifying perceived constraints of nonparticipants in the spring snow goose seasons. HR Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. 6pp. Literature Cited: Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G., Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O. Leafloor, T. J. Moser, and E. T. Reed Harvest, survival, and abundance of midcontinent lesser snow geese relative to population efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1-42. Béchet, A., J. F. Giroux, G. Gauthier, J. D. Nichols, and J. E. Hines Spring hunting changes the regional movements of migrating greater snow geese. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: Miller, C. A Results of the 2001 Illinois Light Goose Conservation Action Hunter Survey. Job Completion Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112- R-10. Human Dimensions Program Report

11 Student Presentation Award. Vegetation Recovery Potential in staging, nesting and brood rearing habitats of the Lesser Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens caerulescens). Kathleen Schnaars Uvino*, AMNH, 79 th Street & CPW, NY, NY Robert Rockwell, AMNH, 79 th Street & CPW, NY, NY Robert Jeffries University of Toronto (deceased). Extended Abstract: Processes initiated by destructive foraging of the Mid-continent Population of Lesser Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) have led to severe degradation of portions of both coastal and inland landscapes in Wapusk National Park. A primary goal of the Canada/US management plan addressing this degradation is to reduce the population of Lesser Snow Geese until there is no further damage to the habitat and there are indications of recovery. It is not known what population size will result in a cessation of damage or the onset of recovery. It is possible, however, to begin assessing the potential for recovery in the region. Recovery of vegetation is predicated on the quality of the soil and the potential presence of a remnant seed bed or deposition of air, water or animal borne seeds of various plants and seeds or viable tissues from graminoids. Little is known about the recovery dynamics of the severely damaged freshwater habitat now being used by Lesser Snow Geese. Recovery exclosure work began in We established replicate, paired exclosed and associated control (unexclosed) plots at sites in 4 regions of the Cape Churchill Peninsula: Big Ass Lake Region 6 paired plots at two sites in 2005; Weatherhead Region 6 paired plots in 2005; Thompson Point North Region 6 paired plots in 2007; Thompson Point North Region 3 paired plots in In the following we summarize recovery progress in all 4 regions. Because we are interested in the recovery of the forage plants once used by LSGO (and CAGO), we have summarized the data as the annual percentage of barren habitat. Following Rockwell et al (2003), barren habitat is defined as that which does not include Puccinellia phryganodes, Carex subspathacea, C. aquatilis or other rarer graminoids typically eaten by LSGO and CAGO. Big Ass Lake Region Big Ass Lake is a fresh water habitat on the boreal forest edge. It was fresh water habitat and the Lesser Snow Goose changed it to slightly saline and Puccinellia phryganodes grows here now. This grass dominates the salt marsh and now appears in the recovery of this fresh water site. This site originally contained shrubs, graminoids, some black spruce and tamarack. There is evidence of recovery in all 6 exclosures in this region with two of them now containing nearly complete, pure stands of P. phryganodes in just 6 years. The paired control sites are also displaying recovery, although at a slower rate. Much of the recovery in the unexclosed sites stems from the fact that few LSGO now use this region for either staging or brood rearing. Weatherhead Region Recovery in this supratidal marsh region is much less and slower than in the Big Ass Lake region. There is evidence of recovery in four of the six exclosures and three of those include dead willow stumps that may be serving a nursing effect. The rate of recovery is higher in the plots containing

12 dead willows. There is no evidence of recovery in the paired controls. Like the Big Ass Lake region, this area is seldom used by LSGO anymore but was destructively foraged by both staging and resident LSGO for more than 30 year, a situation contrasting it with the Big Ass Lake region. We are investigating whether the length and intensity of destructive foraging could impact recovery. Thompson Point North & South Region This area is inland of coastal salt marsh and quickly grades into a fresh water sedge meadow consisting primarily of Carex aquatilus. The willow region has become quickly degraded (<5years) and willows are in various stages of dying. Exclosures around dead willows had some recovery and it was minimal, occurring at the base of the willow. This area is still in high use by staging and nesting Lesser Snow Geese. At Thompson Pt South, just as in the Weatherhead region, exclosed plots containing dead willow stumps are all continuing to show signs of recovery. In contrast to the Weatherhead region, however, control plots containing dead willow are beginning to show slight signs of recovery as well. This area had not been used by resident geese for nearly as long the Weatherhead region and the faster recovery here is consistent with the notion that the duration of consistent degradation may play a role in recovery potential. The poorer recovery in both exclosed and control plots devoid of dead willow stems supports the suggestion that such stems may serve a nursing role. Unfortunately, at Thompson Pt North the 3 exclosures were ripped out and crushed in 2010 and had to be redeployed. They survived well this year but essentially the recovery clock was reset. Literature Cited: Abraham, KF, RL Jefferies and RF Rockwell Goose induced Changes in Vegetation and Land Cover between 1976 and 1997 in an Arctic Coastal Marsh. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research Vol : Chang, ER, RL Jefferies and TJ Carleton Relationship between vegetation and soil seed banks in an arctic coastal marsh. Journal of Ecology 89: Handa, IT, R Harmsen and RL Jefferies Patterns of vegetation change and recovery potential of degraded areas in a coastal marsh system of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Journal of Ecology 90: Jefferies, RL, RF Rockwell and KF Abraham Agricultural food subsidies, migratory connectivity and large-scale disturbance in Arctic coastal systems: a case study. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44: Jefferies, RL, RF Rockwell and KF Abraham The Embarrassment Of Riches: Agricultural Subsidies, Goose Dynamics And Their Impact On Arctic Wetlands - Continuing Saga. Environmental Reviews (National Research Council of Canada) 11: Jefferies RL, RF Rockwell Foraging geese, vegetation loss and soil gradation in an Arctic salt marsh. Applied Vegetation Science 5: 7-1

13 Student Presentation Award. (July 14, 2012) Migratory Bird Hunter Opinions on Future Control Options for Light Goose Populations Andrew J. Dinges,* Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, Elisabeth B. Webb, U.S. Geological Survey, Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, Mark P. Vrtiska, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE Extended Abstract: Various light goose populations in North America have increased dramatically since the late 1960s resulting in the destruction of arctic breeding habitat throughout much of their range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). In an effort to increase light goose harvest, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented the Light Goose Conservation Order (LGCO) in The LGCO extended the hunting season, authorized use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns, removed bag limits, and extended shooting hours for light geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Recent research indicates that the liberalization of harvest regulations for light geese has increased light goose harvest, but is not sufficient to effectively reduce the size of the mid-continent population (Alisauskas et al. 2011). Alisauskas et al. (2011) suggested if the objective of reducing damage to arctic ecosystems is to be achieved, additional harvest measures will need to be implemented such as the direct control of light geese by wildlife officials. We used the Nebraska LGCO harvest survey in spring 2012 to gauge migratory bird hunter opinions on current and future management strategies for controlling light goose populations. We mailed 4,151 surveys along with a prepaid return envelope to hunters registering for Nebraska s Harvest Information Program in 2011 and We sent a thank you/reminder postcard to all participants 10 days after the initial mailing. All survey questions pertained to issues for controlling light goose populations. A five-point scale was used along with a no opinion option to gauge hunter opinion/support for each survey item. Frequencies and mean response scores were calculated for each survey question. We assumed the later a participants responded to the mail survey, the more they took on characteristics of a non-respondent (Brunke and Hunt 2008). We used a Kruskal-Wallis test to compare early responders (n = 211) with late responders (n = 291) for each survey question. We used a significance level (α < 0.05) with a Bonferroni adjustment for 13 individual tests to determine nonresponse bias. Six surveys were returned undeliverable for an effective mailing of 4,145 surveys. Of the 4,145 surveys, a total of 977 were returned for a response rate of 24%. Among the 977 returned surveys, 779 were determined usable with a response to at least one survey question. Of the usable surveys, 69% of participants were residents of Nebraska while 31% were from other states. We determined a difference in only one question between early and late responders and conclude that non-response bias in our study was relatively low.

14 Table 1. Frequencies and means of hunter opinions on issues pertaining to the current and future control of light goose populations. Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Mean n (%) 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) The population control of light geese is an important wildlife management and conservation issue Since being enacted in 1999, the LGCO has been effective at controlling light goose populations The liberalization of hunting regulations during the LGCO, such as unplugged shotguns, electronic calls, and extended shooting hours increases my harvest of light geese Further liberalization of regulations, such as live decoys or baiting would increase my participation during the LGCO I am capable of harvesting more light geese during the LGCO, but limit my take due to the taste of light goose meat I would support legalizing the commercial trade of harvested light geese I would support wildlife officials using alternative methods other than spring hunting to control light goose populations Processing light geese that have been directly harvested by wildlife officials for human consumption or other uses is important to me Response categories: n = no opinion, 1 = completely disagree, 2 = generally disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = generally agree, 5 = completely agree. A majority of the migratory bird hunters we surveyed agreed that the population control of light geese is an important issue (Table 1). While a majority of hunters agreed the LGCO regulations increased their harvest of light geese, they remained neutral as to whether the LGCO had been effective in controlling light goose populations (Table 1). Respondents were generally unsupportive of both trapping and using bait to euthanize light geese on migration and wintering areas (Table 2). However, respondents were generally supportive of selectively shooting light geese on migration and wintering areas as a means of population control (Table 2). More needs to be learned about the effectiveness and cost efficiency of selectively shooting light geese on migration and wintering grounds, but this population control method has the support from hunters and has the potential to be an efficient method for population control. Table 2. Frequencies and means of hunter response to options for direct control of light goose populations. Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Mean n (%) 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) Selectively shooting light geese on arctic breeding grounds Trapping and euthanizing flightless light geese on arctic breeding grounds Selectively shooting light geese on migration and wintering areas Trapping and euthanizing light geese on migration and wintering areas Euthanizing light geese on migration and wintering areas using bait with approved chemicals Response categories: n = no opinion, 1 = completely unsupportive, 2 = generally unsupportive, 3 = neutral, 4 = generally supportive, 5 = completely supportive. Literature Cited: Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G. Cooch, G. S. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O. Leafloor, T. J. Moser, and E. T. Reed Harvest, survival, and abundance of midcontinent lesser snow geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179. Brunke, K. D., and K. M. Hunt Mississippi Waterfowl Hunter Expectations, Satisfaction, and Intentions to Hunt in the Future. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Environmental Impact Statement: Light Goose Management. Washington, D.C., USA.

15 Reconciling the number of lesser snow geese in the midcontinent population are Lincoln estimates too high? James O. Leafloor,* Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Main Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 4W2, Canada. Ray T. Alisauskas, Science &Technology Branch, Environment Canada, 115 Perimeter Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0X4 Canada David L. Otis, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Wagar Bldg., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO James S. Sedinger, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada/Mail Stop 186, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, NE Extended Abstract: Lincoln (1930) showed how population size of waterfowl could be estimated using the ratio of estimated annual harvest (H) to estimates of annual harvest rate (h), and so overestimates of harvest, and/or underestimates of harvest rate, can lead to overestimates of population size. Application (Alisauskas et al. 2009, 2011, 2012)of the Lincoln estimator (Lincoln 1938) to harvest and banding data for midcontinent lesser snow geese has provided population estimates as high as ~ 25 million adult birds in recent years (Figure 1). Lincoln's population estimate 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 - AHY HY This estimate far exceeds indices of abundance obtained by more traditional survey approaches (e.g., mid-winter counts, photo surveys of nesting colonies, Alisauskas et al. 2012), leading to questions about the accuracy of Lincoln estimates of population size. At the same time, longterm trends in abundance based on this estimator appear to exhibit the expected trend of exponential increase in population size over the past several decades (Alisauskas et al. 2011). Moreover, application of the same estimator to harvest and band recovery data of Ross s Geese results in estimates of continental population size (Figure 2) that correspond more closely with expectations based on other surveys. Lincoln's population estimate 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - AHY HY Clearly, abundance estimates using Lincoln s method is sensitive to overestimates of harvest, and/or underestimates of harvest rate, potentially leading to overestimates of population size. A recent evaluation (Padding and Royle 2012) of harvest estimates for migratory birds in the United States concluded that waterfowl harvests were overestimated, and that duck harvest estimates should be adjusted downward by approximately 27%, and goose harvests by about 40%, to account for bias. Such adjustment of harvest

16 . estimates would greatly reduce Lincoln estimates of population size for species of ducks and geese, including midcontinent lesser snow geese, but are such adjusted estimates more accurate, or less accurate? We examined the behavior of the Lincoln estimator when applied to several species of game bird to determine if there were consistent patterns that emerged for species thought to differ greatly in their abundance and in their expected trends over time. Literature Cited: Alisauskas, R. T., K. L. Drake, and J. D. Nichols Filling a void: abundance estimation of North American populations of arctic geese using hunter recoveries. Pages in D. L. Thomson, E. G. Cooch, and M. J. Conroy, editors. Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 3: Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G. Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O Leafloor, T. J. Moser, E. T. Reed Harvest, survival, and abundance of Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1-42. Alisauskas, R. T. J. O. Leafloor, D. K. Kellett Population status of Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross s Geese following special conservation measures. Pages in J. O. Leafloor, T. J. Moser, and B. D. J. Batt, editors. Evaluation of special management measures for Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross s Geese. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. Lincoln, F. C Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of band returns. Circular 118, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA. Padding, P. I., and J. A. Royle Assessment of bias in US waterfowl harvest estimates. Wildlife Research

17 Partitioning survival probability of midcontinent Snow Geese: climate, agriculture, densitydependence, and harvest. Ray T. Alisauskas,* Science & Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 0X4 Extended Abstract: Following a seminal paper by Ankney (1996), the North American waterfowl management community reached broad consensus that arctic-nesting snow geese were threatening the integrity of tundra ecosystems. This motivated unprecedented (since the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916) liberalizations in harvest for snow geese and Ross s geese during the traditional regular season, and extension of hunting into late winter and spring in Canada and the United States. Despite such efforts, neither survival nor abundance of adult midcontinent snow geese nesting in Canada s arctic had declined since the Conservation Order began in the United States in 1998 (Alisauskas et al. 2011). Traylor et al. (2012) showed that adult survival from Canada s central arctic, in fact, had continued to increase during the Conservation Order. Clearly, any harvest by hunters had been insufficient to induce additive mortality. Survival by these geese appeared to be governed largely by factors other than harvest. So, how are snow geese able to survive with such high probability? I examined, in addition to harvest by hunters, sources of variation in annual survival of adults (after hatch year, AHY) and young (hatch year, HY). Snow geese have largely abandoned traditional winter habitats in coastal brackish marshes in favor of agricultural ecosystems that tend to be dominated by corn and rice production. In fact, corn is particularly important as an energy source during spring migration. I used USDA data about annual production of grain corn in the winter and migration range of midcontinent snow geese to examine its influence in multifactorial models of survival. Other factors, in addition to annual harvest by hunters, included production of rice grain in the midcontinent, arctic weather during summer (indexed by the Arctic Oscillation), winter weather in the U.S. (indexed by the North Atlantic Oscillation), and annual hunter harvest. I also tested whether annual survival in either AHY or HY snow geese might be density-dependent, after adjusting for other orthogonal effects. Modeling of densitydependence was done with inclusion of Lincoln estimates of population size in August. I focused on a large sample of midcontinent snow geese captured from 1989 to 2011 in the large arctic-nesting stratum, north of 60 N latitude, thought to compose 90% of the midcontinent population. As of June, 2012, there were 5,718 AHY snow geese reported as dead out of the 69,592 banded, and 1,447 HY of the 24,463 banded since Survival AHY HY I compared quality of competing models using AICc and found that one was almost unequivocally best, and alone accounted for 60% of model weights. This model suggested increased AHY survival and declining HY

18 Survival survival from The model also included a positive relationship between annual production of grain corn and survival in both AHY and HY snow geese. As well, there was an orthogonal negative relationship between August population size and AHY survival, but no relation of AHY survival to rice production, arctic or winter climate, or hunter harvest. HY survival was also higher when winter weather in the midcontinent was mild and wet, than when cold and dry. HY survival was positively related to hunter harvest, suggesting that HY survival governed HY harvest by hunters, rather than the reverse, as has been suggested for Ross s geese (Alisauskas et al. 2006). AHY Survival about daily energy expenditure of 2500 kj/snow goose against available metabolizable energy of waste corn suggest that it could meet energy needs of ~100 million snow geese from October to March. Unless arctic carrying capacity is reached, increases in corn production to 2020, as projected by Mehaffey et al. (2012), may continue to sustain high adult survival leading to further expansion of winter and migration range possibly fueling continued population increase beyond current hyperabundance. Literature Cited: Alisauskas, R. T., K. L. Drake, S. M. Slattery, D. K. Kellett Neckbands, harvest and survival of Ross s Geese from Canada s central arctic. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: Grain corn Corn (billions of bu) N ahy August population (millions) Alisauskas, R. T., R. F. Rockwell, K. W. Dufour, E. G. Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K. L. Drake, J. O Leafloor, T. J. Moser, E. T. Reed Harvest, survival, and abundance of Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1-42. Recent AHY survival ( ) appears to be at or near a maximum, but the apparent insensitivity of AHY survival to climate and harvest suggest that these will likely play minor, if any roles, in the near future. However, evidence for density dependence in AHY survival suggests an interplay between goose abundance and grain corn production on carrying capacity. If corn production that was associated with increased AHY survival stabilizes, then snow goose abundance that approaches this carrying capacity may result in reduced survival, possibly resulting in selfregulation. However, simple assumptions Ankney, C. D An embarrassment of riches: too many geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: Traylor, J. J., R. T. Alisauskas, S. M. Slattery, and K. L. Drake Comparative survival and recovery of snow and Ross s geese from Canada s central arctic. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: Mehaffey, M., E. Smith, and R. Van Remortel Midwest U.S. landscape change to2020 driven by biofuel mandates. Ecological Applications 22:8-1