We assessed the effectiveness of an extensive and unprecedented wildlife reduction effort directed at a wide‐ranging migratory population of geese. Population reduction efforts that targeted several populations of light geese (greater snow geese [Chen caerulescens atlantica], lesser snow geese [C. c. caerulescens], and Ross's geese [C. rossii]) began in 1999 in central and eastern North America. Such efforts were motivated by a broad consensus that abundance of these geese was causing serious ecological damage to terrestrial and salt marsh ecosystems in central and eastern parts of the Canadian Arctic and subarctic regions along Hudson Bay. Starting in February 1999, special conservation measures (or, in the U.S., a conservation order) were added to the respective federal regulations that permitted hunters to take snow geese (in parts of Canada and the U.S.) and Ross's geese (in parts of the U.S.) during specified harvest periods outside of the hunting season. These measures were accompanied by increase or removal of daily kill and possession limits and by permissions to use previously prohibited equipment for hunting these species in certain regions of the continent. The intent was to reduce adult survival through increased hunting mortality, which was judged to be the most cost‐effective approach to reversing population growth. Our principal goal was to assess the effectiveness of reduction efforts directed at the midcontinent population of lesser snow geese, which was thought to be the most serious threat to arctic and subarctic ecosystems of the 3 light goose populations. Our multiple objectives included the estimation and detection of change in the response measures of total annual harvest, harvest rate, survival rate, and abundance, using the 1998 hunting period (defined as 1 Aug 1998 to 31 Jul 1999) as a point of reference. We used information about hunter recoveries of leg‐banded snow geese and estimates of regular‐season harvest to estimate 1) conservation‐order harvest and total annual harvest, 2) geographic and temporal distribution of recoveries by age class, 3) survival and recovery probability, and 4) abundance of snow geese each August using Lincoln's (1930) method. We also modeled population growth to infer the form of population response to management efforts. Toward that end, we also proposed a method of estimating conservation‐order harvest and tested for differences in band‐reporting rate between Canada and the United States. Overall, the balance of evidence favored the conclusion that the midcontinent population has continued to grow during the conservation order, although perhaps at a reduced rate. We suggest that annual rate of population growth $({\hat {\lambda }})$, derived from estimates of annual population size in August, likely provides the most reliable inference about change in the midcontinent population. There was a decline in annual survival probability between these 2 periods from about 0.89 to about 0.83 among snow geese from the southern‐nesting stratum (south of 60°N...

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. University of California Press and AmericanOrnithologists' Union are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ornithological Monographs.

We assessed variation in reporting probabilities of standard bands among species, populations, harvest locations, and size classes of North American geese to enable estimation of unbiased harvest probabilities. We included reward (US$10, $20, $30, $50, or $100) and control ($0) banded geese from 16 recognized goose populations of 4 species: Canada (Branta canadensis), cackling (B. hutchinsii), Ross's (Chen rossii), and snow geese (C. caerulescens). We incorporated spatially explicit direct recoveries and live recaptures into a multinomial model to estimate reporting, harvest, and band‐retention probabilities. We compared various models for estimating harvest probabilities at country (United States vs. Canada), flyway (5 administrative regions), and harvest area (i.e., flyways divided into northern and southern sections) scales. Mean reporting probability of standard bands was 0.73 (95% CI = 0.69–0.77). Point estimates of reporting probabilities for goose populations or spatial units varied from 0.52 to 0.93, but confidence intervals for individual estimates overlapped and model selection indicated that models with species, population, or spatial effects were less parsimonious than those without these effects. Our estimates were similar to recently reported estimates for mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). We provide current harvest probability estimates for these populations using our direct measures of reporting probability, improving the accuracy of previous estimates obtained from recovery probabilities alone. Goose managers and researchers throughout North America can use our reporting probabilities to correct recovery probabilities estimated from standard banding operations for deriving spatially explicit harvest probabilities.

In 2009, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated permit regulations for the unintentional lethal take (anthropogenic mortality) and disturbance of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). Accurate population trend and size information for golden eagles are needed so agency biologists can make informed decisions when eagle take permits are requested. To address this need with available data, we used a log‐linear hierarchical model to average data from a late‐summer aerial‐line‐transect distance‐sampling survey (WGES) of golden eagles in the United States portions of Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 (Great Basin), BCR 10 (Northern Rockies), BCR 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau), and BCR 17 (Badlands and Prairies) from 2006 to 2010 with late‐spring, early summer Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data for the same BCRs and years to estimate summer golden eagle population size and trends in these BCRs. We used the ratio of the density estimates from the WGES to the BBS index to calculate a BCR‐specific adjustment factor that scaled the BBS index (i.e., birds per route) to a density estimate. Our results indicated golden eagle populations were generally stable from 2006 to 2010 in the 4 BCRs, with an estimated average rate of population change of −0.41% (95% credible interval [CI]: −4.17% to 3.40%) per year. For the 4 BCRs and years, we estimated annual golden eagle population size to range from 28,220 (95% CI: 23,250–35,110) in 2007 to 26,490 (95% CI: 21,760–32,680) in 2008. We found a general correspondence in trends between WGES and BBS data for these 4 BCRs, which suggested BBS data were providing useful trend information. We used the overall adjustment factor calculated from the 4 BCRs and years to scale BBS golden eagle counts from 1968 to 2005 for the 4 BCRs and for 1968 to 2010 for the 8 other BCRs (without WGES data) to estimate golden eagle population size and trends across the western United States for the period 1968 to 2010. In general, we noted slightly declining trends in southern BCRs and slightly increasing trends in northern BCRs. However, we estimated the average rate of golden eagle population change across all 12 BCRs for the period 1968–2010 as +0.40% per year (95% CI = −0.27% to 1.00%), suggesting a stable population. We also estimated the average rate of population change for the period 1990–2010 was +0.5% per year (95% CI = −0.33% to 1.3%). Our annual estimates of population size for the most recent decade range from 31,370 (95% CI: 25,450–39,310) in 2004 to 33,460 (95% CI: 27,380–41,710) in 2007. Our results clarify that golden eagles are not declining widely in the western United States. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

In the United States, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits take of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) unless authorized by permit, and stipulates that all permitted take must be sustainable. Golden eagles are unintentionally killed in conjunction with many lawful activities (e.g., electrocution on power poles, collision with wind turbines). Managers who issue permits for incidental take of golden eagles must determine allowable take levels and manage permitted take accordingly. To aid managers in making these decisions in the western United States, we used an integrated population model to obtain estimates of golden eagle vital rates and population size, and then used those estimates in a prescribed take level (PTL) model to estimate the allowable take level. Estimated mean annual survival rates for golden eagles ranged from 0.70 (95% credible interval = 0.66–0.74) for first‐year birds to 0.90 (0.88–0.91) for adults. Models suggested a high proportion of adult female golden eagles attempted to breed and breeding pairs fledged a mean of 0.53 (0.39–0.72) young annually. Population size in the coterminous western United States has averaged ~31,800 individuals for several decades, with λ = 1.0 (0.96–1.05). The PTL model estimated a median allowable take limit of ~2227 (708–4182) individuals annually given a management objective of maintaining a stable population. We estimate that take averaged 2572 out of 4373 (59%) deaths annually, based on a representative sample of transmitter‐tagged golden eagles. For the subset of golden eagles that were recovered and a cause of death determined, anthropogenic mortality accounted for an average of 74% of deaths after their first year; leading forms of take over all age classes were shooting (~670 per year), collisions (~611), electrocutions (~506), and poisoning (~427). Although observed take overlapped the credible interval of our allowable take estimate and the population overall has been stable, our findings indicate that additional take, unless mitigated for, may not be sustainable. Our analysis demonstrates the utility of the joint application of integrated population and prescribed take level models to management of incidental take of a protected species.