Harvest, survival, and abundance of midcontinent lesser snow geese relative to population reduction efforts

Abstract

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...

Making do with less: must sparse data preclude informed harvest strategies for European waterbirds?

“…Results suggest that the intrinsic growth rate and form of density dependence in Taiga Bean Geese are similar to those reported for other, well-studied species of geese , Hauser et al 2007, Dillingham and Fletcher 2008, Alisauskas et al 2011, Johnson et al 2014. 6.…”

“…Although no data specific to Taiga Bean Geese are available, we assumed that young-of-theyear are twice as vulnerable to harvest as older birds based on studies of other goose species (Frederiksen et al 2004, Madsen 2010, Alisauskas et al 2011, Clausen et al 2017. Therefore, we assumed annual, population-level harvest quotas in increments of 1,000 from 0 to 30,000, with the assumption that harvest could be regulated with this degree of precision.…”

A Migratory Northern Ungulate in the Pursuit of Spring: Jumping or Surfing the Green Wave?

“…This is particularly important, because ungulate conservation and management is often tightly linked with the management and mitigation of costs/damages (Reimoser and Putman 2011). In addition, migration patterns can affect the management of ungulate hunting seasons and possibly vice versa (Rudd et al 1983;Holdo et al 2010;Alisauskas et al 2011). The conservation of migration corridors, buffer zones, and stopover sites is now receiving substantial attention (Thirgood et al 2004;Sawyer et al 2009).…”

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) survival, recovery, and harvest rates derived from 55 years of banding in Prairie Canada, 1960–2014

“…Estimating these parameters and understanding why they vary can aid managers in determining the effectiveness of management actions and whether modifications are needed. With regard to harvest regulations, one can monitor the aforementioned rates during periods of regulation change to determine if regulations may be affecting survival and, in turn, population abundance (e.g., Alisauskas et al 2011, Arnold et al 2016.…”