ATLANTIC POPULATION OF CANADA GEESE

STATUS AND MANAGEMENT

The Atlantic Population (AP) of Canada geese was once considered the      largest Canada goose population in North America and the staple of      waterfowl hunters in the Atlantic Flyway. Winter indices approached one      million birds by the mid-1980s and annual harvests often exceeded those of      any duck species. However, between 1986 and 1995, the number of wintering      Canada geese in the Atlantic Flyway declined from 900,000 to 650,000. This      alarming decline occurred despite a rapid increase in numbers of local      breeding or “resident” Canada geese. 

Breeding surveys of key AP nesting areas in northern Quebec documented a      more precipitous decline in AP numbers from 118,000 nesting pairs recorded      in 1988 to 90,000 in 1993, 40,000 in 1994, and 29,000 pairs in 1995. This      dramatic change in numbers of AP geese, greater than 75 percent in less      than a decade, prompted State, Federal, and Provincial wildlife agencies      in 1995 to suspend the sport hunting season of AP geese in the United      States and in the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Today, waterfowl managers are faced with the challenge of restoring AP      geese as quickly as possible to meet current and future resource demands.      At the same time, resident geese are increasing exponentially, now      exceeding a million birds in the Atlantic Flyway. Crop damage and public      nuisance complaints are at an all time high and are increasing annually.      Thus, wildlife managers have contrasting management problems with two      similar but yet, distinctly different populations of Canada geese.

Populations of Canada geese are often difficult to delineate and manage      independently, especially when they overlap during migration or      intermingle on their wintering areas. Because of their similarity in      appearance, both size and plumage markings, the general public is often      confused by the idea of separate populations. However, biologists are well      acquainted with several distinct groups of Canada geese (*Branta      canadensis spp.*), which are distributed widely throughout the      temperate and arctic regions of Canada and the United States. 

For management purposes, wildlife managers define populations according      to regional boundaries, preferably on the breeding grounds where they tend      to separate themselves. Each is described as a single population unit,      represented by individuals having similar migrational patterns and/or life      history traits. In these instances, conventional population surveys and      leg-band or neck-collar data provide managers with valuable information      used to monitor the status of each and regulate their annual harvests. To      date, this information suggests strong population affiliation or fidelity      to specific breeding, migration, and wintering areas with little or no      crossing-over between populations. Simply put, there is no evidence to      suggest that migrant AP geese become members of resident flocks and forego      their tradition to migrate northward in the spring.

The breeding range of AP geese extends from Labrador and Newfoundland      westward to the Ungava Peninsula of Quebec, with nesting concentrations      occurring around Ungava Bay and along the northeastern shore of Hudson      Bay. Banding data have revealed that AP geese winter from southern Ontario      eastward to Prince Edward Island and southward to North Carolina. Once      this population wintered primarily in the southern portions of the      Atlantic Flyway, but since the 1960s, wintering concentrations occur      mainly in the Chesapeake Bay Region and extend northward to New Jersey and      New York. Resident geese (AFRP) breed locally throughout the Atlantic      Flyway, extending into southern Ontario and Quebec. They are largely      nonmigratory, shifting distributions only slightly in winter, depending on      the severity of weather. Thus, both populations have significant      overlapping distribution during fall and winter      periods (Fig. 1).

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, low annual survival caused by      high harvest pressure, and substantially below average gosling production      were the primary factors responsible for the AP decline. Hunting      regulations were modified as early as 1988, and again in 1992, to reduce      harvest rates and increase survival, but these measures proved ineffective      in encouraging population growth. Subsistence harvest of AP geese in the      spring by Cree and Inuit groups is also an important source of mortality,      but estimates of take during this period are poorly measured. The absence      of any breeding-ground population surveys, banding programs, and reliable      harvest estimates limited the ability of management agencies to monitor      the status of AP geese closely and to effectively reduce harvest rates in      time to avoid a total suspension of sport hunting in 1995.

Since the hunting ban on AP geese, managers have turned their attention      towards the breeding grounds in hopes of identifying the biological      characteristics unique to this goose population. After years of attempting      to manage Canada geese from a wintering ground perspective, annual      population and production surveys, and banding/marking programs centered      on the breeding grounds are now recognized as being crucial to the      recovery of AP geese and to the future management of all Canada geese in      the Atlantic Flyway.

In July 1996, the Atlantic Flyway Council approved an Action Plan to      address the immediate survey and research needs that would help to rebuild      AP goose numbers. With support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,      Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Flyway States and Provinces,      aboriginal groups in Canada, and Ducks Unlimited, this Plan established a      short-term population goal of 150,000 breeding pairs in the Ungava Region,      15,000 in the Maritimes Region, and 15,000 in the Boreal Forest Region.      Also, the Plan contains provisions for resuming the sport harvest of AP      geese and states that “no additional harvest of AP geese will be      considered until the breeding population index in the Ungava Region      reaches at least 60,000 pairs.” Any resumption of a sport harvest      would require evidence of a sustained recovery over several years, and is      contingent upon having the necessary monitoring and assessment programs in      place to provide a reliable measure of population status and trend. In      addition, effective harvest controls will be put in place to ensure that      harvest rates are not exceeded that could jeopardize population recovery.

Funding to implement the initiatives outlined in the Action Plan      approach one-half million dollars annually and will require long-term      commitments among State, Federal, Provincial, Aboriginal, and private      partners. Such funding requirements present new challenges for wildlife      agencies that have not budgeted for these activities in the past. These      constraints must be overcome through new funding initiatives. Public      support is also needed to promote greater awareness of sport harvest      restrictions in the future. However, we believe that a better      understanding of the biology and population dynamics of AP geese will help      to consolidate favorable public opinion and provide the base funding      necessary to improve the management of AP Canada geese. 

Since the ban was placed on sport hunting during the 1995 hunting      season, the status of AP geese appears to have improved substantially from      the low of 29,000 pairs estimated in 1995. In the spring of 1996, and      again in 1997, the index of breeding pairs surveyed in the Ungava Region      of Quebec increased to 46,000 and 63,000, respectively      (Fig. 2).

Habitat conditions in all areas of the Ungava Peninsula were also      dramatically improved in 1997 from those observed in 1996, due to warmer      spring temperatures and limited snowfall during last winter. These indices      suggest good gosling production in 1997. With the absence of any adverse      weather conditions during the brood rearing period, production of young is      expected to be the best in many years. Several years of above average      production will be needed however to restore AP geese to their former      status of the mid- 1980s.

Overall, the recovery of AP Canada geese will depend on renewed      cooperation and involvement of all user groups to strengthen our      commitment to this valuable resource. Without this level of commitment, we      are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. Ultimately, the real      costs will be lost recreational opportunities and reduced economic      benefits. Today, as we look cautiously towards the future, a message by      Michael McIntosh, from *The Grand Passage,* rings true “...our      job is to accommodate the present, with all its realities, pleasant and      otherwise” and recognize that “...we own from the past a great      lesson and a costly one. We know now that the Grand Passage could all too      easily pass beyond every reach but that of memory. What we do with what we      know will be the measure of what we are.” 

*Prepared by Jerry Serie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlantic      Flyway Representative, and Larry Hindman, Maryland DNR, Chairman, Canada      Goose Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council, October 6, 1997.*