Content uploaded by Kyle Spragens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kyle Spragens on Feb 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
3
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Recovery of the Aleutian Cackling Goose
Branta hutchinsii leucopareia: 10-year review and
future prospects
ANNE E. MINI1,2, DOMINIC C. BACHMAN1,3, JOSH COCKE1,
KENNETH M. GRIGGS1,4, KYLE A. SPRAGENS1&
JEFFREY M. BLACK1*
1Waterfowl Ecology Research Group, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University,
Arcata, California 95521 USA.
2Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA.
3Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 1610, 5364 County Road 115, Alturas,
California 96101 USA.
4Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 576, Loleta, California 95551
USA.
*Correspondence author. E-mail: Jeff.Black@humboldt.edu
Abstract
Aleutian Cackling Geese Branta hutchinsii leucopareia were feared extinct until a remnant
population was discovered on Buldir Island by Robert “Sea Otter” Jones in 1962.
Population declines, primarily due to predation by Arctic Foxes Alopex lagopus
introduced to the breeding islands, resulted in the listing of Aleutian Cackling Geese
as endangered in 1967. Fox removal, translocation of captive birds and captive
breeding programmes boosted the remarkable recovery of this sub-species from 790
individuals in 1967 to > 30,000 in 2001, when it was removed from the United States’
Endangered Species List. Population estimates currently exceed 100,000 birds.
However, the population recovery has brought complex management issues,
including the harvest of a once-endangered sub-species and conflict with agricultural
interests. This review comes 50 years following rediscovery of the remnant
population, 20 years after initial reclassification from endangered to threatened, and
10 years after formal delisting from the United States’ Endangered Species Act. This
review describes the events leading up to the bird’s recovery, details management
actions taken on the sub-species behalf, and recommends strategies to continue this
endangered species success story.
Key words: Aleutian Cackling Goose, endangered species, habitat, hazing, hunting,
recovery.
4 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Maintaining habitat to support species
biodiversity is a hallmark of conservation
biology (Carroll & Fox 2008), yet single
species initiatives are emphasised when
populations are critically endangered (Mills
2007). Species recovery begins with
identifying population size and status
through monitoring programmes, followed
by the development and testing of
hypotheses regarding limiting ecological or
bio-political factors (e.g. habitat needs or
strength of wildlife protective laws) that
may hinder recovery. Stepwise recovery
initiatives and actions are then required,
beginning with strategies that treat the
root cause for the species’ decline, and
continuing through protective legislation
and sometimes by refuge establishment
(Black 1998a). In the United States, these
actions are carried out under the authority
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Should a population fail to respond,
increasingly intensive actions may be
required. Proactive strategies on behalf of
avian species include managing habitat or
supplying food, reducing predators and
competitors, providing nest sites, and
translocation/reintroducing eggs or birds
from other wild or captive stocks (Black
1991; Cade & Temple 1995). If the species
is both endangered and a game species,
which is not common in the U.S., actions on
its behalf are especially important. The
Aleutian Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia (formerly the Aleutian Canada
Goose and hereafter Aleutian Goose) is
an example of a once-endangered sub-
species, successfully recovered to favourable
conservation status, but now considered
a problem by affected farmers and
ranchers, which is harvested by wildfowlers
throughout its non-breeding range. This
paper summarises some of the steps taken
to promote the bird’s recovery and describes
post-recovery management issues.
From the brink of extinction:
persistence of an imperilled
population
After his extensive surveys of the Aleutian
Islands (Fig. 1) in 1936–1937, Murie (1959)
reported that Aleutian Geese “had
disappeared on most of the islands, and our
total observations indicated that only a few
pairs remained in the Aleutians. In fact, these
geese are so scarce that the migration is no
longer noticeable.” This small white-cheeked
goose, characterised by a distinct white neck
ring, formerly bred on most of the Aleutian,
Commander, and Kuril Islands (Springer et
al. 1978, Byrd and Woolington 1983), but the
widespread introduction of Arctic Foxes
Alopex lagopus for fur farming (reviewed in
Williams et al. 2003), together with hunting
in the non-breeding season, caused
major reductions in population size and
distribution (Murie 1959; Byrd & Springer
1976; Springer et al. 1978; Byrd et al. 1991). In
the late 1940s, a resident refuge manager,
Robert “Sea Otter” Jones, was hired for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) and began a fox removal programme
(Spencer 1980). Over the next 20 years, foxes
were eliminated from Amchitka and
significantly reduced on Agattu Island (Byrd
& Springer 1976). By 1991, foxes were
eradicated from nine other islands (Byrd et al.
1991). Two additional non-native mammals
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 5
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Pacific City
New River
Crescent City
Humboldt Bay
Butte Sink NWR
San Joaquin River
NWR
Delta Islands
Western population
Semidi population
Autumn
Winter
S
p
rin
g
Figure 1. Distribution map of Aleutian Geese depicting breeding grounds in the Aleutian Islands to
autumn, winter, and spring migration areas in Oregon and California. Semidi Island population migrates
from the Semidi Island group to Pacific City in Tillamook County, Oregon. The remainder of the
western-most Aleutian population migrates from the Near Island and Rat Island groups to autumn and
wintering areas in California. Original autumn and wintering areas were primarily in central California;
however, recently Aleutian Geese migrate to Humboldt Bay in the autumn. During spring migration,
Aleutian Geese originally migrated to the Crescent City area, but now also migrate to the Humboldt Bay
area and New River, Oregon.
6 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
– Brown Rats Rattus norvegicus (introduced in
1780) and Ground Squirrels Spermophilus
parryii (introduced c. 1819) – may have
impacted breeding populations, both directly
through egg predation and indirectly as an
additional prey for foxes (Bailey 1993;
Ebbert & Byrd 2002).
Fortunately, Aleutian Geese persisted on
islands where foxes were never introduced;
c. 60 adults and at least seven goslings were
observed at Buldir Island in 1962 and 156
were counted there the following year (Jones
1963; Fig. 1). This record of the continued
existence of Aleutian Geese and its
imperilled status led to its listing as an
endangered species in 1967 under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act
(USFWS 1967) and under the formal
legislation of the ESA in 1973 (Public Law
93–205). Aleutian Geese were subsequently
placed on the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red List as “rare” in
1986 (IUCN Conservation Monitoring
Centre 1986). Additional surveys in the east
Aleutian Islands led to the discovery of
another remnant colony on Kiliktagik Island
in 1979 (Hatch & Hatch 1983) and on
Chagulak in 1982 (Bailey & Trapp 1984; Fig.
1), both in the Semidi Island Chain. The
Semidi Island birds, which migrate to the
northern Oregon coast in autumn and
remain until returning to the breeding
grounds (Stephenson 2010; Fig. 1), are
considered a distinct population segment
from the western-most population and had
potential for separate listing status (Pierson
et al. 2000). This review primarily focuses on
the west Aleutian breeding population, not
the Semidi Island birds.
Recovery and delisting years:
from success to concern
Recovery: 1975–2000
An Aleutian Goose Recovery Team was
formed in 1975 led by six biologists (Byrd &
Springer 1976), who developed the Aleutian
Goose Recovery Plan to guide sub-species
management following listing under the
ESA (USFWS 1991; Byrd 1998). The initial
goals were to restore breeding habitat and
re-establish breeding populations. Early
attempts to re-establish the geese in the
Aleutian Islands included re-introduction of
captive-bred birds and translocation of
wild-caught birds from the remnant Buldir
population (Byrd 1998). By 1991, nearly
2,500 geese had been released on four fox-
free islands, though the success of these
early efforts were limited due to Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus predation (Byrd 1998).
A few wild birds from Buldir served as
migration guides (Byrd 1998), but re-
sighting rates (5–15% of the released birds,
marked with coloured rings) were low in
wintering areas (P. Springer, unpubl. data).
Byrd (1998) suggested that lack of
migratory tradition and the physical
capabilities of captive-reared birds might
have affected their survival. Pairing captive-
bred geese with wild geese from Buldir
Island and the translocation of groups of
wild geese from Buldir proved more
successful. Eventually breeding attempts
were recorded on or adjacent to release sites,
especially on Agattu and Nizki-Alaid (Byrd
1998; Fig. 1).
Aleutian Geese were first documented
migrating south of the Aleutian Islands
during the mid-1970s (Woolington et al.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 7
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
1979) after 8 years of listing under the
ESA. They were sighted during the autumn
of 1975 in Crescent City, California
(Woolington et al. 1979; Fig. 1), roosting on
Castle Rock, a 5.7 ha offshore island, and
foraging in nearby pastures. Some Aleutian
Geese remained in Crescent City through
late autumn, while others migrated directly
to the Sacramento Valley (near Butte Sink;
Woolington et al. 1979; Springer & Lowe
1998; Fig. 1) or further south to the San
Joaquin Valley (near San Joaquin River
NWR; Woolington et al. 1979; Fig. 1). In
subsequent years, Aleutian Geese were
observed in the San Joaquin Valley through
mid-March and later in spring back at Castle
Rock and the Crescent City area before
returning to the breeding grounds (Fig. 1).
In the late 1970s, nearly the entire
population staged near Crescent City,
California during spring migration
(Woolington et al. 1979).
Once the migration route was identified,
securing and managing habitat in migration
and wintering areas for feeding and
roosting, together with closure of hunting in
these areas, became priorities (Byrd et al.
1991). The Butte Sink, as part of the
Sacramento Valley NWR Complex, has
served as a key roost and sanctuary for
wintering Aleutian Geese since the birds
were first detected there in the late 1970s
(Fig. 1), but use of this site has declined in
recent years (Griggs 2005). In the southern
end of their range, the San Joaquin River
NWR was established in 1987 (USFWS
2006), and later refuge staff created roost
ponds and began farming crops (Maize Zea
mays and Winter Wheat Triticum aestivum) to
provide nutrient-dense forage. In 1980,
Castle Rock NWR was established to
protect the critical roost (USFWS 2009) and
the Lake Earl Wildlife Area, managed by the
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), was established just north of
Crescent City to provide pasture and
wetland habitat for foraging geese and other
wildlife. Private lands at each stop-over site
also provided and continue to provide food,
roost sites, and some sanctuary for geese.
In the San Joaquin Valley, the USFWS
entered into cooperative agreements with
landowners to flood wetlands and provide
Maize on their property (USFWS 2006).
Beginning in 1975, all hunting of “white-
cheeked” geese was curtailed in closure
zones in California (on the north coast and
areas surrounding Butte Sink and San
Joaquin River NWR) and Oregon in 1982
(Tillamook and Langlois County; Gregg et
al. 1988) to minimise the possibility of
harvesting Aleutian Geese.
The Aleutian Goose population
responded rapidly to fox removal on
breeding islands, translocations of birds to
islands cleared of foxes, and protection
afforded on the wintering grounds,
rebounding from the original 790
individuals counted in 1979 to 7,000 in
1990, at which time it was down-listed in the
ESA to “threatened” status (USFWS 2001;
Fig. 2). It was removed from the IUCN
Red List by 1988 (IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Centre 1988). By 1996, the
population reached c. 20,000 and was
recommended for delisting by the Aleutian
Goose Recovery Team and Pacific Flyway
Council (hereafter PFC; PFC 1998). In
accordance with the Aleutian Goose
Recovery Plan (Byrd et al. 1991), a flyway-
8 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
wide management plan was created in 1999,
as a guideline for responsible management
over a 5-year period up until 2004. The goal
was to provide “optimal aesthetic,
educational, scientific, and hunting uses”
throughout the migratory range of the geese
(PFC 1999, p. 3).
The 1999 Aleutian Goose Management
Plan identified current and future
management problems and relevant
management actions to address those
problems including: 1) no long-term
population goal; 2) limited public lands; 3)
changing agricultural practices; 4) lack of
funding; 5) disease; 6) climate issues on
wintering grounds; and, on the breeding
grounds: 7) predation by Bald Eagles; 8)
predation by foxes; and 9) introduced rats
and squirrels (PFC 1999). Recommended
management actions were to: 1) protect
breeding habitat through terrestrial predator
removal; 2) acquire adequate funding to
protect migration habitat; 3) manage
depredation (i.e. crop loss) by better
management of public land or acquisition;
4) conduct annual winter population indices
through direct counts and neck collar
monitoring; 5) continue marking and
Figure 2. Aleutian Goose population size and management actions from 1973–2011, with important
milestones noted. Data sources: 1975–1995 were direct counts (Collins & Trost 2011); 1996–2011
shown with standard errors from indirect (mark-recapture) estimates (Collins & Trost 2011); 2001–2002
indirect estimates from Drut & Trost (2004); 1996–2006 peak direct counts for Crescent City (USFWS
2010a).
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 9
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
banding of geese in California; 6) conduct a
breeding population estimate at least once
during the five year post-delisting period; 7)
set a population objective; 8) develop a
harvest strategy; 9) continue translocations;
and 10) control disease (PFC 1999).
Delisting to current status: 2001–2011
Delisting was to be considered when the
first two (of three) recovery objectives
below were satisfied: “1) an overall
population of at least 7,500 geese and an
upward long-term trend; 2) at least 50
breeding pairs of geese nesting in each of
three geographic parts of the historic range
for three or more consecutive years; and 3) a
total of 10,125–14,175 ha of feeding and
roosting habitat for migration and
wintering, secured and managed for
Aleutian geese” (PFC 1999, p. 5). Byrd
(1998) outlined other factors that would
support delisting Aleutian Geese, including
a programme to re-establish the geese in the
far western part of their range in
cooperation with Japan and Russia, a plan to
reduce crop depredation in Crescent City
area, and new procedures to monitor geese
wintering in California to allow early
detection of, and response to, population
declines.
The Aleutian Goose was formally delisted
in 2001 when the population exceeded
30,000 (Fig. 2). The reasons for delisting at
that time included: 1) the estimated Aleutian
Goose population was approximately five
times the recovery goal; 2) the population
trend was increasing annually by c. 20%
from 1990; 3) the population of geese
nesting in the western Aleutian Islands was
self-sustaining and exceeded the delisting
objective (although the ≥ 50 pairs nesting in
each of three geographic parts of the
historic range criterion was not met); and 4)
foxes had been removed from islands in the
central Aleutian Islands and translocations
had been successful (USFWS 2001). When
the Federal Register (USFWS 2001)
document delisting Aleutian Geese was
written, authors stated that “the recovery
objective of conserving and managing
10,125–14,175 ha of migration and
wintering habitat” had not been achieved;
“however, the recovery team allowed that
not attaining this acreage target would not
preclude delisting” if otherwise warranted
(USFWS 2001, p. 15647). Several large-scale
conservation easements were being pursued
with landowners adjacent to San Joaquin
River NWR in the wintering area at the time,
so it was considered “that not all the lands
utilised by the Aleutian Goose must be held
in the public trust to ensure the long-term
survival of the species” (USFWS 2001,
p.15647).
Five years of monitoring were required
following delisting from the ESA and the
1999 management plan covered three of
these years. In 2004, the PFC revised the
1999 management plan for the next five
years (2005–2009) and solicited public
input. The updated plan sought “to improve
monitoring surveys, develop a progressive
harvest strategy, and address agricultural
depredation complaints in the context of
habitat management efforts” (PFC 2004,
p. 1). The population goal was set at
60,000 geese, based on a three-year
average of indirect population estimates
from 2002–2005 (PFC 2006). Updated
management issues included: 1) the first
10 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
occasion for regulating the size of a recently
delisted population of migratory game
birds; 2) “the high rate of population
growth and lack of experience in
development of hunting regimes” limiting
“the precision of managing the population”;
3) “the capacity of public lands to support
these geese” being limited, “especially along
the northwest coast of California, but also
potentially in other migration and wintering
areas”; 4) “additional funding needed for
management of public lands…to provide
optimum feeding conditions…and to
reduce depredations”; 5) “changing
agricultural practices… negatively affect[ing]
current migration and wintering areas”; 6)
“public land managers need[ing] goose
habitat treatments that are cost-effective and
balance[d] for other wildlife”; 7) avian
cholera as a source of mortality; 8) Bald
Eagle predation preventing sustainable
nesting in the central Aleutians; 9)
introduced rats and ground squirrels
indirectly limiting expansion of nesting
geese to other fox-free islands; and 10)
potential effects on seabird habitat from the
population using offshore roosting islands
along the northwest California and Oregon
coasts (PFC 2006, p.16–17). The 2006
Aleutian Goose Management Plan
suggested monitoring distribution and
habitat use on spring staging areas, using an
aerial inventory for population assessment,
removing translocations as a priority, and
expanding research to include public pasture
management and spring staging habitat
carrying capacity (PFC 2006).
When the 2006 management plan was
written, the Aleutian Goose population was
estimated at 94,034 ± 5,071 (mean ± s.e.),
based on a three-year average of mark-
recapture data (2003–2005; estimated from
Collins & Trost 2011). From 1975–1998
direct counts in winter were sufficient when
the population was small and used only a
few areas. However, as the population grew
and spread out among areas, managers
began using indirect methods (mark-
recapture) of estimating population size
from 1996 to the present (Collins & Trost
2011). By 2011, the population was
estimated at 111,809 ± 10,212 (95%
confidence intervals = 91,793–113,824; Fig.
2), which was c. 11.5% lower than the
previous year. The three-year average from
2008–2011 is estimated at 107,158 ± 12,174
(from Collins & Trost 2011).
Expanding population creates
depredation and seabird habitat
concerns
Concern regarding crop depredation
As Aleutian Geese recovered and increased
in numbers, so did private landowner
concerns regarding crop depredation in the
original spring staging area (Crescent City,
near Castle Rock NWR). Based on
conversations with landowners, some
ranches and farms on the north coast during
spring months were either reducing
livestock herd size, providing supplemental
feed, moving stock to inland sites, or
converting pasture to flower bulb
production. Crop depredation concerns
surfaced in 1986 while the population was
still considered threatened under the ESA
(Mini & LeValley 2006; PFC 2006). The
Aleutian population had reached 5,000
geese and landowners in the Crescent City
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 11
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
area voiced displeasure with goose grazing
that occurred on private land from February
through April (PFC 2006). Although the
population was small, the timing of the
birds’ grazing pressure and local crop
phenology were incompatible, as is
common in many depredation situations
across the globe (Moser & Kalden 1991).
Goose-landowner conflicts appear to be
less serious on the wintering grounds, for
four main reasons identified through
interviews with landowners, discussions at
public meetings, complaints to public land
managers, and published reports (Griggs
2005; Mini & LeValley 2006; USFWS 2010a;
D. Woolington, pers. comm.). First, the
majority of geese in this region use the
San Joaquin River NWR, which produces
Maize and Winter Wheat for the geese,
manages wetlands for roosting/loafing, and
prohibits hunting within its boundaries.
Second, adjacent private landowners have
established conservation easements with the
USFWS that prevent development/habitat
degradation, support producing wildlife
friendly crops, and promote conserving
and enhancing wetlands, while allowing the
land owner to receive income through
farming and grazing. Third, the timing of
bird migration and crop phenology and
distribution is not a problem. Geese arrive
in October–November, when Maize is
harvested on private land, and feeding by
geese on the residual waste grain is tolerated.
As depredation of newly planted winter
wheat occurs in late autumn, the hunting
season opens for geese in adjacent areas and
hunting pressure pushes birds to other fields
and back to NWR lands. This is in contrast
to the spring staging grounds, where large
concentrations of geese coincide with the
emergence of new, sought-after pasture
vegetation. Lastly, there is a long tradition of
historic waterfowl use in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Valleys, where landowners
are accustomed to thousands of geese and
ducks using public and private land. This is
in significant contrast to the north coast
of California and coastal Oregon, where
large populations of waterfowl (especially
grazing species) did not exist before the
Aleutian Geese arrived, although traditional
migration routes likely encompassed this
region.
Concern regarding conflict with other
species
Nocturnal use of Castle Rock NWR has
been documented since birds were first
discovered in the area. As the number of
Aleutian Geese increased, the potential for
conflict with nesting seabirds and habitat
degradation became a concern (USFWS
2009). Castle Rock NWR is the second
largest breeding seabird colony in
California, supporting eleven species of
burrow and above-ground nesting birds
(Jaques & Strong 2001). Numbers of many
species (especially burrow nesters) have
declined here in recent decades (Carter et al.
1992; Jacques & Strong 2001). There is
evidence that the vegetative composition
has changed significantly since the 1970s,
and concern that large numbers of geese (as
many as 30,000) using the island may
damage the thin soil layer present and
remove most of the vegetation, resulting in
burrow collapse, erosion, and increased
predation due to cover loss (Jacques &
Strong 2001).
12 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Cooperative strategies to
address spring-time crop
depredation concerns
Establishment of working groups
Concern over depredation of grass pastures
in northern California led to the first
formation of a working group of
landowners and agency personnel in 1990,
the “Lake Earl Working Group,” with the
aim of finding solutions to reduce
springtime goose grazing on private land
(USFWS 2001). When the Aleutian Goose
was first listed as endangered (1967–1991),
the geese foraged on lands immediately
adjacent to the Castle Rock roost site
(Woolington et al. 1979). However, as
numbers increased and the birds became
more widespread, landowners wished
to commence hazing (i.e. scaring).
Cooperatively, landowners and agencies
began to identify a “corridor” of 375 ha
of public land that could be used for
Aleutian Geese (some of which needed
improvement), plus an additional 28 ha if
the original Point Saint George area were
once again managed as short-grass habitat
with livestock grazing (potential total 403
ha; Mini & LeValley 2006). Goose hazing
by landowners was planned on the
remainder of the area (private land). The
strategy included splitting the area into
four hazing quadrants, and each quadrant
was managed by an individual landowner
or hazing group consisting of private
individuals (Mini & LeValley 2006).
Unfortunately, the management “corridor”
was fragmented and few landowners
coordinated with each other, so hazing was
not entirely effective although it accelerated
a landscape redistribution of Aleutian
Geese.
A second group, with some overlap in
participants, began to meet in 2003 when
goose numbers rose to appreciable levels
using Crescent City farms (c. 20,000) and
newly discovered pastures adjacent to
Humboldt Bay (c. 40,000; Black et al. 2004).
The Aleutian Goose Working Group project
goal was to “work cooperatively to develop
and implement management strategies
acceptable on public and private lands on
the spring staging area so that the Aleutian
Goose is an asset to the community”
(Aleutian Goose Working Group 2005).
Five subcommittees were formed: mapping,
habitat, hunting/hazing, education/
documentation, and other solutions/hope.
An important proposed “roadmap” of tasks
(D. Lancaster, in litt. 2004) included: 1)
determine habitat required to meet the
flyway objective; 2) identify available public
land and improve attractiveness to geese;
3) augment with private land via easements;
4) if a shortfall still exists, implement
coordinated hazing and hunting on private
land to rotate geese among landowners; 5)
establish goose-safe areas first, including
designated public lands, lands under
easement for Aleutian Geese, and lands
provided in the hazing/hunting rotation; 6)
seek increased bag limits and season
duration; and 7) pursue grants and identify
research needs for efficient implementation
of the project. The hazing/hunting
subcommittee made progress faster than
others, so the concept of ensuring that high-
quality goose-safe habitat was in place prior
to efforts to shift the birds was not fully
achieved.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 13
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Habitat improvements on public land
In the late 1980s to early 1990s, many state
lands in the original spring staging area had
ceased grazing programmes (Mini &
LeValley 2006). Much of the pasture
formerly used by geese became fallow and
there were insufficient high-quality pastures
that could be used by geese. Other public
areas in the Humboldt Bay region lacked
established grazing programmes because
Aleutian Geese were not known to use these
areas before 1997. Nutritional analysis in
2003 and 2004 indicated that the sward on
some public lands differed in protein or
fibre content than that on some private
lands (Mini 2005). Based on the cooperative
efforts of the Aleutian Goose Working
Group, habitat enhancement became a
higher priority from 2004 onwards. Public
land managers in coastal northwest
California either used livestock grazing,
mowing, field replanting, and fertiliser
treatments to lure Aleutian Geese away from
private pastures (Bachman 2008). Following
a few years of sward management, Spragens
(2010) showed that forage quality on some
public lands was similar to that found on
private cattle pastures.
Public land managers, especially in the
San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley, and
Humboldt Bay area, and the surrounding
communities have made significant progress
in providing foraging habitat for Aleutian
Geese. On National Wildlife Refuges
(Sacramento and San Joaquin NWR
Complexes) and easement lands in the
wintering areas, 15,854 ha of foraging
habitat are available to Aleutian Geese (M.
Hamman, pers. comm.; M. Lloyd, pers.
comm.; K. Griggs, unpubl. data). These
include irrigated and native pasture grazed
by cattle and agricultural crops (e.g. Maize
and Winter Wheat). As of 2011, the total
area in the Humboldt Bay region in public
ownership (local government, state, and
federal) managed as short-grass habitat for
geese is estimated at 825 ha, with an
additional 284 ha in protected non-profit
ownership (K. Spragens & J. Black, unpubl.
data); 375 ha in Crescent City (Mini &
LeValley 2006); and 81 ha in Oregon (PFC
2006). This amounts to a total of 1,565 ha in
protected short-grass habitat for foraging
Aleutian Geese on the spring staging
grounds.
Hazing and hunting during spring
staging period
Hazing of Aleutian Geese in the Crescent
City area began in the mid-1990s (c.
1995–1997) when geese expanded foraging
areas (Mini & LeValley 2006). Hazing
activities by private landowners were
concentrated from late February, when the
staging population reached c. 10,000,
through April when geese migrated north
(Mini & LeValley 2006). Firecrackers and
less forceful means such as deploying
ribbons, mirrors and other objects on the
land, or landowners walking into fields, were
the original methods used to displace the
geese (Mini & LeValley 2006). As the
population grew, hazing became more
intense, including the use of all-terrain
vehicles, pick-up trucks, and non-lethal
shotgun rounds (Mini & LeValley 2006).
By 2001, coordinated and aggressive
hazing was initiated using an ultra-light
aircraft to drive geese off private lands
14 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
and back to public lands (Mini & LeValley
2006).
Geese began to arrive in the Humboldt
Bay area in 1997 (direct count: 600 geese in
1997; Black et al. 2004). By 2002, 19,750
geese were counted in pastures adjacent to
Humboldt Bay (Black et al. 2004). Geese
that remained at the Crescent City area
experienced reduced foraging opportunity,
resulting in elevated energy expenditure and
poorer body condition (Mini & Black 2009).
As numbers increased on pastures adjacent
to Humboldt Bay, some landowners there
also began a hazing programme (Spragens
2010).
Hunting was added to the repertoire of
tools used to manage geese when protection
was removed on the north coast in 2002 and
all areas of California in 2003. Harvest
strategies for all geese are set by a federal
framework, the PFC and individual states;
however, managing and assessing harvest
for one sub-species is difficult due to other
sub-species of Cackling and dark geese in
the Pacific Flyway. Beginning in 2007,
Aleutian Geese were hunted solely on
private land for 14 days in February–March,
in an effort to push birds on to agency
owned pastures (Table 1). Hunting could
not extend past 10 March due to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. By 2008, hunters
could take up to six Aleutian Geese per day
during a c. 100 day waterfowl season and
during the 17-day late-season hunt on
private lands (Table 1). Additionally, a well-
coordinated SHARE (Shared Habitat
Alliance for Recreational Enhancement)
hunt programme was established in
cooperation between California Waterfowl
Association and CDFG to assist with
access on private fields. The state of
Oregon initiated a “Fertiliser for Access
Programme” in which farmers and ranchers
in southwest Oregon, who allowed
access during the hunting season, were
compensated with fertiliser for grasslands
impacted by Aleutian Geese (USFWS
2010a). Fortunately, areas supporting geese
along the north coast had some amount of
public land adjacent to private lands, but
these areas varied in total size and quality
(Spragens 2010).
A decrease in the number of grass
depredation complaints was observed as
soon as the late-season hunt was initiated in
2007 (USFWS 2010a). In the northern
portion of Humboldt Bay, geese used public
land in greater numbers than previously
recorded (Spragens 2010). However,
following the hunt, Aleutian Geese
immediately returned to using private land,
albeit at lower densities across a greater
extent of the landscape (Spragens 2010). In
the southern portion of Humboldt Bay in
2007, and in subsequent years, geese used
public land more intensively during the late-
season hunt (USFWS 2008; USFWS 2010a),
indicating that hunting appeared is an
effective means of shifting birds to public
land at this time of year.
Landscape distributional
changes
Aleutian Goose use of the San Joaquin
River NWR during winter has remained
consistent over the years, due to consistent
production of high-quality forage, the no
hunting policy, and undisturbed roost areas,
whereas winter use of Butte Sink has
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 15
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Table 1. History of Aleutian Goose hunting regulations from 1973–2010.
Year Bag limit Timing Action
1973 No Season No Season Alaska hunting moratoriuma
1975 No Season No Season California hunting moratoriuma
1982 No Season No Season Oregon hunting moratoriuma
1984 No Season No Season Aleutian Goose & all small Canada Goose hunting moratorium for Pacific Flywaya
1994 No Season No Season Small Canada Goose moratorium lifted in California in areas outside special closure areasa
2001 Limited Oct.–Jan. Aleutian Goose federally delisted. California & Alaska limited hunt outside of special closure areasa
2002 1 goose per day Nov. & California: 5 day hunt in coastal areas
Oct.–Jan. c. 100 day hunt in wintering areas with special closure areasb
2003 1 goose per day Nov. & California: 16 day hunt in coastal areas
Oct.–Jan. c. 100 day hunt in wintering areas with special closure areas openedb
2004 2 geese per day Oct.–Jan. California: c. 100 day hunt in coastal & wintering areasb
2005 4 geese per day Oct.–Jan. California & Oregon: c. 100 day hunt, Oregon removes special closure areasb,c
2006 4 geese per day Oct.–Jan. California & Oregon: c. 100 day hunt. Washington state removes Aleutian Goose from state ESA listinga,b
2007 4 geese per day Oct.–Jan. & California & Oregon; c. 90 day season, 14 day late season hunt on private lands in coastal areas,
Feb.–March c. 100 day season in inland areasb
2008 6 geese per day Oct.–Jan. & California & Oregon; c. 90 day season, 17 day late season hunt on private lands in coastal areas,
Feb.–March c. 100 day season in inland areasb
2009 6 geese per day Oct.–Jan. & California & Oregon; c. 90 day season,17 day late season hunt on private lands in coastal areas,
Feb.–March c. 100 day season in inland areasb
2010 6 geese per day Oct.–Jan. & California & Oregon; c. 90 day season, 19 day late season hunt on private lands in coastal areas,
Feb.–March c. 100 day season in inland areasb
a 2006 Pacific Flyway Management Plan for Aleutian Canada Geese.
b California Department of Fish and Game & Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife annual hunting regulation booklets.
c A portion of Tillamook County, Oregon remains closed to hunting to protect the Semidi Island Aleutian Goose population segment.
16 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
recently declined (Fig. 3). In 2001, geese
began to occur in the San Joaquin-
Sacramento River Delta and use of this area
had increased substantially (Delta Islands;
Fig. 3). Approximately 2,000–4,000 Aleutian
Geese also have been observed in the
Humboldt Bay area throughout winter
(USFWS 2010a).
During the 1970s to 1990s, most Aleutian
Geese passed through the Humboldt Bay
area on spring migration without stopping
(Woolington et al. 1979; Springer & Lowe
1998). Hazing efforts in the Crescent City
area, coupled with increasing population
size, led to shifts in geese from Crescent
City, 150 km south to the Humboldt Bay
Figure 3. Landscape distributional changes of Aleutian Geese in 10-year increments from 1991–2011,
including all known counties used for wintering and migration. Circles in central California are autumn
and wintering grounds (October–February). Circles along the north coast of California and coast of
Oregon represent counts in spring staging areas (February–April), although autumn and wintering use
of Aleutian Geese now occurs on the north coast of California. The southern Oregon coast circle
represents a two-week window at the end of spring staging before return to the Aleutian Islands; the
northern Oregon coast (cross-hatched) area is where Semidi Island birds migrate, and have recently
mixed with the other Aleutian Geese in the spring.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 17
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
area, which has a greater area for
accommodating birds (Mini & Black 2009).
The period of greatest Aleutian Goose
population growth occurred from
1998–2004 (Fig. 2), and major range
expansions occurred between 1997–2000
and 2007–2010 (Fig. 3). Following the start
of late-season hunts in 2007, the population
as a whole expanded and changed foraging
sites to other regions along the entire
northern California and Oregon coasts.
During 2003–2007, as many as 25,000
Aleutian Geese used the New River area for
1–2 weeks in April before heading north
(Fig. 3). However, since 2007 there has been
a drastic decrease in the number of birds
using this area and small groups of Aleutian
Geese have been pioneering new staging
and wintering areas in several locations
along the Oregon coast (Stephenson 2010).
This change in distribution from southwest
Oregon to the north central coast in
Tillamook County concerns land managers
and owners because western Aleutian and
Semidi Island populations now intermingle
in this area (Fig. 3).
Recommendations and
research needs
A set of monitoring and research priorities
for the Aleutian Geese have recently been
outlined by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture
(AGJV Technical Committee 2008),
including: 1) continued special management
for Semidi Island birds, such as hunting
closures; 2) continued surveys to re-sight
birds marked with neck collars; 3) aerial
surveys of spring staging areas; 4) direct
counts of Aleutian Geese on the Oregon
coast; 5) surveys to provide an index of
Semidi Island birds; 6) continued marking of
birds to evaluate harvest distribution and
survival rates; 7) an assessment of whether
post-season banding would be useful; 8)
research into what prevents an increase in
numbers for birds breeding on Semidi
Island; 9) continuation of the 2006 harvest
strategy to meet the population objective of
60,000 birds; 10) continued fox removal; 11)
provision of funding to protect and manage
goose-use areas; 12) determination of the
amount and timing of use on staging areas
to detect shifts in distribution, changes in
foraging patterns and response to habitat
management; and 13) encouragement of
optimal management of public lands
for goose forage to relieve agricultural
damage. Some of the above priorities
were also in the 1999 and 2006 Aleutian
Goose Management Plans (PFC 1999; PFC
2006).
Black et al. (2004) echoed meeting these
priorities, added the importance of using
mark-recapture methods to assess survival,
site fidelity, migration chronology and
movements among staging areas, and
emphasised assessing the carrying capacity
of goose habitat and the response of
grasses to varying amounts of grazing.
In addition to Black’s et al. (2004)
recommendations, we suggest that the
safeguarding of sufficient high-quality
goose-safe habitat in spring staging areas for
at least 60,000 geese (i.e. the population
goal) should be considered, to reduce
private land depredation. This may require
further habitat improvements on public
pastures, initiating agreements for adjacent
lands with private landowners (easements),
18 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
and calculation of carrying capacity of lands
already used by the birds.
Improving habitat
In an agricultural setting, livestock grazing is
the preferred management tool for creating
a short grass habitat to attract migratory
geese (Owen 1990; Vickery & Gill 1999).
Public land managers on the north coast
have worked with ranchers to graze public
land pastures to provide quality habitat.
For example, Humboldt Bay NWR,
which began to be used by geese in 2001,
arranges agreements with ranchers to graze
refuge pastures, trading in-kind services
(e.g. additions of fertilisers/lime, weed
management, and pasture mowing). In one
study, Aleutian Geese spent twice the
amount of time feeding on cattle-grazed
pastures on the refuge compared to
mechanically mown pastures (Bachman
2005). Aleutian Geese spent most time in
refuge pastures that were 3–5 cm in height
and discontinued use as average pasture
height reached > 10 cm (Bachman 2005).
Public lands managing for prolonged use
should aim for grass heights of > 3 cm to
increase available biomass of vegetation for
the geese (Bachman 2005), but should also
aim for < 9 cm based on other studies of
Aleutian Geese (Dahl et al. 1999) and other
similar sized geese (Lang & Black 2001;
Durant et al. 2003; Heuermann et al. 2011).
In refuge pastures, mowing after grazing
removed weeds and less palatable grass
species and created uniform pasture height
preferred by Aleutian Geese (Bachman
2005). Fertilised grasslands on refuge
received 42% more Aleutian Goose grazing
pressure compared to unfertilised pastures
(Bachman 2008) and planting clovers
Trifolium sp. may be another effective way to
attract geese to a site (Owen 1975; McKay
et al. 2001). Mini (2005) and Bachman
(2008) found evidence that Aleutian Geese
selected clovers while foraging on pastures
in spring.
Safeguarding habitat
A common feature of international action
plans for species of concern, including those
conflicting with other species or humans, is
to set aside habitat that is used by ≥ 1% of the
population (Scott 1980; Black 1998b; Taylor
et al. 2005). Acquiring enough well-managed
habitat or securing it through agreements
with landowners (i.e. safeguarding) can
encourage current use and subsequent return
of wildlife (Hunter & Gibbs 2007). In the
San Joaquin Valley, the USFWS has a
proactive easement programme to protect
land for wildlife, which has also provided
geese a place to forage. Additionally, Butte
Sink has one conservation easement for
Aleutian Geese. However, on the spring
staging grounds of northwest California
and southwest Oregon, few viable easement
programmes exist specifically for geese.
Several long-term or permanent easement
programmes in the “Farm Bill” (formally
the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008; Public Law 110–246) may
be valuable, including the Wetland
Reserve Programme, Conservation Reserve
Programme and Grassland Reserve
Programme (Gray & Teels 2006). In the most
recent Farm Bill, there is a new pilot
easement programme (Wetland Reserve
Enhancement Programme) that may apply to
the spring staging areas.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 19
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Management of grasslands for geese has
been widely discussed in Europe (Owen
1979, 1990; McKay et al. 1996; Vickery &
Gill 1999; Vickery et al. 2001). Owen (1977,
1990) suggested that establishing well-
managed refuges to accommodate as many
geese as possible would reduce the ‘goose
burden’ on farmland. Similarly, Vickery et al.
(1994) suggested that the optimal financial
solution for taxpayers for crop depredation
was establishment of goose refuges. The
use of alternative feeding areas for geese
has worked well in the U.K. and The
Netherlands (Owen 1977, 1990; Van Eerden
1990; Vickery et al. 1994; Vickery & Gill
1999; Cope et al. 2003; MacMillan et al. 2004)
and is similar to how some NWRs and state-
run Wildlife Areas are managed in the U.S.
(USFWS 2009; USFWS 2010a). Intensive
management of alternative feeding areas is
timed so that optimal quality and quantity of
forage is available when geese arrive (Owen
1977, 1990; Owen et al. 1987; Cope et al.
2003). With this strategy, geese may
redistribute across the landscape, thus
reducing crop depredation. We emphasise
that high-quality habitat must be in place
before disturbance schemes are undertaken,
if they are to be effective.
Calculating carrying capacity
Determining the amount of habitat
necessary to “service” a particular number
of individuals (essentially, carrying capacity)
requires detailed knowledge regarding a
study population’s demography, social
structure, annual energy needs, food
availability, true metabolisable energy
(TME) of food items, and migration
chronology (sensu Belovsky et al. 1994;
Central Valley Joint Venture 2006). For
Aleutian Geese, the amount of suitable
publicly owned habitat for foraging geese
on the north coast is currently being
determined, but better assessment is
needed. Numbers, distribution, movement,
return rates, diet, disturbances, and change
in body condition are understood, but may
need further study.
The next step required for an evaluation
of carrying capacity for Aleutian Geese is to
quantify intake rates, energy value and
availability of food resources in a range
of habitats (high-quality, moderate, and
marginal), and how body mass patterns
change over the annual cycle. Within
seasons and from one season to the next,
geese determine whether to return or go
elsewhere by the deficit or surplus in daily
energy budgets and ability to build body
stores (Black et al. 2007). Fat and nutrients
can be stored when (1) energy intake
exceeds energy expenditure (including
flights from roosts and between foraging
patches), (2, 3, 4) food is abundant, available,
readily digestible, and nutritious, and (5)
ample time to feed is achieved without
disturbance from humans, predators, or
competitors (Black et al. 2007). A carrying
capacity model would include a sliding
threshold, achieved by individuals over time
after a certain date, and all birds must leave
at the end of the spring season even if they
do not achieve the threshold. It is assumed
that the site has served (enabled) breeding
birds that meet the threshold and partly
served others who are non-breeders (Goss-
Custard et al. 2002, 2003; Goss-Custard
2003; Prop et al. 2003; Black et al. 2007).
Such models can determine, for example,
20 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
how many geese are able to maintain body
mass on a daily basis, or the energy
threshold needed to trigger migration and
subsequent breeding.
Prospects for expansion of breeding
colonies in Aleutian Island Chain
Further research in the Aleutian Islands is
required to assess current nesting and
colony distribution in relation to fox
removal (Byrd 1998; sensu Byrd et al. 2005).
Nesting densities are thought to be
increasing and Aleutian Geese may be
approaching carrying capacity in some
breeding areas. Following Woolington &
Early (1977) and Byrd & Woolington (1983),
researchers revisited 30 plots in 2009 to
quantify changes in distribution of geese on
Buldir (J. Cocke, unpubl. data). Aleutian
Geese have extended their nesting
distribution into all habitats on the island,
including occurring in vegetation
communities not previously occupied (J.
Cocke, unpubl. data). Thirty-five years on
from the initial studies, there is now
preliminary evidence to suggest that geese
on Buldir are at higher nesting densities,
have smaller clutch sizes, and that post-
breeding female body mass is reduced (J.
Cocke, unpubl. data), which may suggest
nearing or exceeding island nesting capacity.
Since 1970, USFWS has removed foxes
from 40 islands, for an area of > 4,000 km2
(Byrd et al. 2005) and the region is returning
to historic fox-free conditions (Ebbert
2000). In the western Aleutians, where there
are no predatory Bald Eagles, Attu Island
(90,320 ha) now provides a substantial
amount of available nesting habitat
(USFWS 2001), and geese have recently
established a nesting population there,
probably from reintroduced populations
nearby (V. Byrd & J. Williams, pers. comm.).
On islands east of Buldir (e.g. at Amchitka
Island and Rat Island; Fig. 1), where Bald
Eagles are present, there is evidence of at
least a few pairs of nesting geese (J.
Williams, pers. comm.). Expansion to
unoccupied islands east of Buldir is
not expected to occur as rapidly as the
Near Island group. Quantifying future
breeding densities could be undertaken with
available information on suitable habitat
characteristics of fox-free islands.
Discussion
The recovery of Aleutian Geese is a
remarkable achievement in the conservation
of a once endangered population. The
success of the population is a testament to
the patience, perseverance, and collaborative
efforts of federal and state agencies,
landowners and private individuals. The
geese have recovered to healthy population
levels and many people can once again view
and harvest these geese. A successful
Aleutian Goose Festival, celebrating the
recovery of the geese, took place in the
Crescent City area from 1999–2010. The
Humboldt Bay NWR holds an annual fly-off
weekend to highlight benefits to the public
provided by the Aleutian Goose, and this
has gained in popularity with the local
community. The SHARE programme is
growing and is well-liked by landowners
(USFWS 2010a). Other landowners gain
economic benefit from leasing their lands as
hunting clubs (USFWS 2010a).
Nevertheless, the recovery of this
population and its continued growth leave
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 21
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
managers and biologists with several
pressing issues. Questions arise regarding
the flyway population objective of 60,000
and whether it is reasonable, because there is
a lack of precise estimates of harvest levels
and carrying capacity on breeding areas.
Furthermore, depredation that is occurring
is difficult to quantify, and whether it could
or should be mitigated needs to be assessed.
Carrying capacity of spring staging areas has
yet to be calculated. Lastly, it is difficult to
address whether the majority of geese
would still use the original spring staging
haunt if more high-quality habitat were to
be made available prior to hazing in the
spring staging areas. Drent et al. (2003, 2006,
2007) developed a compelling argument
about the importance of traditional
migration sites that underpin the timing of
goose migration and subsequent breeding
success, where natural selection favours site-
faithful individuals (Black et al. 2007). Some
of these questions are especially challenging
due to a lack of historic population or
distribution data.
Perhaps the most contentious issue is
whether or not the current population size is
too large and at what size it will be managed,
because the current population size is
already giving rise to complaints of crop
damage in northern California and coastal
Oregon. North American wildlife managers
in several flyways are increasingly dealing
with the issue of ‘too many geese’ (Ankney
1996). However, compared to other defined
goose populations in North America, the
Aleutian Goose population is one of the
smallest, ranking 6 out of 20 in estimated
population size, excluding Hawaiian Geese
Branta sandvicensis (from Arctic Goose Joint
Venture 2008). In contrast, there are several
million mid-continent Lesser Snow Chen
caerulescens caerulescens and Ross’s Geese C.
rossii making use of a network of NWR,
state, and non-profit wetland complexes and
massive areas of agricultural land along their
migration corridors (Ankney 1996;
Abraham et al. 2005; Alisauskas et al. in
press). Managers are challenged with
attempting to reduce numbers through
liberal hunting regulations. The problem
with too many Lesser Snow Geese is their
feeding habits and trampling of the fragile
tundra ecosystem (Williams et al. 1993). The
original problem with Aleutian Geese in
spring was their impact on some dairy and
beef production operations near Crescent
City, but complaints have spread to include
areas adjacent to Humboldt Bay in winter
and spring, as well as coastal counties in
Oregon in spring. A benefit gained from the
coordinated hazing programme and having
fewer geese at the population’s original
spring staging area (near Crescent City) is
reduced concern regarding possible impacts
to nesting seabirds on Castle Rock NWR
and fewer depredation complaints from
landowners. However, ironically Béchet et al.
(2003) suggested that more crop damage
may have resulted from spring hunting
when more Greater Snow Geese C. c.
atlantica were pushed to previously unused
areas. It would be informative to conduct an
economic and tax-payer satisfaction study
(sensu Vickery et al. 1994) to determine the
total cost of geese remaining at few
(original) sites compared to spreading out
among multiple sites and communities. In
the meantime, the agricultural communities
on the north coast of California and coastal
22 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Oregon are adjusting to the impacts of large
numbers of geese that previously never
occurred in the areas.
How North American wildlife managers
cope with the problem of over-abundant
goose populations and in particular, the
once-endangered Aleutian Goose, are of
great interest to the scientific, management,
and public communities. From a global
perspective it might seem aggressive to
allow hunting on a once-endangered species
and allow late-season hunts which may
break pair ponds (Owen et al. 1988) and
result in poor body condition (Féret et al.
2003; Mainguy et al. 2003). However, in
North America, six birds per day seems
rather limited compared to bag limits for
light geese, such as 20 in Central and
Mississippi Flyway and 25 in Atlantic Flyway
(USFWS 2010b). Additionally, under the
1999 Conservation Order, the harvest of
light geese includes new methods (e.g.
unplugged shotguns, electronic calls, and no
daily harvest or possession limits) and a
hunting period extending beyond the 10
March deadline set in the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (Alisauskas et al. in press). Some
would commend the Pacific Flyway for
acting quickly on what was perceived as
a situation with Aleutian Geese that
might have spiralled out of control. As it
stands, the Aleutian Goose population has
remained around 100,000 for the past few
years (Collins & Trost 2011; Fig. 2).
As wild goose and human populations
continue to overlap in proximity, wildlife
managers will have increasing opportunity
to foster a positive image for geese through
outreach programmes and habitat
management that, in the end, attracts geese
and other wildlife for public viewing. More
emphasis should be placed on increasing an
understanding of population dynamics,
habitat needs, and management issues while
highlighting the benefits of geese to
communities (e.g., increased revenues from
hunting, bird watching, and local festivals,
and the wilderness values that wild geese
engender). Focus should continue on
managing sufficient high-quality habitat for
at least the flyway population objective
(60,000 geese) and collaborative research
should determine the amount of goose-safe
habitat such an objective would require.
Safeguarded habitat must be in every way
“suitable” to attract and hold geese, with the
aim of reducing the negative connotations
that some farmers and ranchers may have
of geese as burdens. It is rare that an
endangered species once thought extinct is
rediscovered or that it recovers as well as
Aleutian Geese. Biologists and managers
certainly need to do everything possible to
alleviate impacts Aleutian Geese may cause,
but all should celebrate this remarkable
conservation success.
Acknowledgements
This paper is dedicated to the late Paul
“Doc” Springer (1922–2007) and his
endless enthusiasm for the recovery and
biology of Aleutian Geese. The late Robert
Jones is remembered for initiating the
restoration of many species on the Aleutian
Islands. We also remember the late Dave
Pitkin who studied Aleutian Geese and the
Semidi Island population on the Oregon
coast. We acknowledge members of the
original Aleutian Goose Recovery Team
(V. Byrd, P. Springer, F. Kozlik, D. Timm,
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 23
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
P. Lehenbauer & R. Erickson), Lake
Earl Working Group, Aleutian Goose Del
Norte Stakeholder Team, Aleutian Goose
Monitoring Team and Aleutian Goose
Working Group for working cooperatively
to recover this species and address
management concerns. The following
partners were instrumental in the recovery
and continued management of Aleutian
Geese: members of the Pacific Flyway
Council (past and present), contributing
staff at Alaska Maritime National NWRC,
California Department of Fish and Game
(Northern Region, Eureka Field Office,
multiple Wildlife Areas, the Waterfowl
Programme Branch), Humboldt Bay
NWRC, Sacramento NWRC, San Luis
NWRC, Oregon Coast NWRC, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, USFWS
Division of Migratory Bird Management,
USFWS Endangered Species Branch,
Humboldt State University faculty and
students, and especially the private ranching
and dairy families. The findings, opinions,
and conclusions in this article are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent the views of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
References
Abraham, K.F., Jeffries, R.L. & Alisauskas, R.T.
2005. The dynamics of landscape change and
Snow Geese in mid-continent North
America. Global Change Biology 11: 841–855.
Aleutian Goose Working Group. 2005. Living with
Aleutian Geese on the pacific north coast. http://
www.humboldtfarmbureau.org/livingWith
AleutianGeese.pdf. (Accessed June 2011).
Alisauskas, R.T., Rockwell, R.F., Dufour, K.W.,
Cooch, E.G., Zimmerman, G., Drake, K.L.,
Leafloor, J.O., Moser, T.J. & Reed, E.T. In
press. Effect of population reduction efforts
on harvest, survival, and population growth
of mid-continent Lesser Snow Geese.
Wildlife Monographs 00: 000–000.
Ankney, C.D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches:
too many geese. Journal of Wildlife Management
60: 217–223.
Arctic Goose Joint Venture Technical
Committee. 2008. Arctic Goose Joint Venture
strategic plan: 2008–2012. Unpublished report,
Arctic Goose Joint Venture Coordination
Office, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Bachman, D.C. 2005. Aleutian Canada Geese field
selection in relation to grass quality and quantity
during spring staging. Unpublished report, U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay
National Wildlife Refuge, Loleta, California,
USA.
Bachman, D.C. 2008. Managing grassland pastures at
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge for
Aleutian Geese. M.Sc. thesis, Humboldt State
University, Arcata, California, USA.
Bailey, E.P. 1993. Introduction of foxes to Alaskan
islands – history, effects on avifauna, and
eradication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Research Publication No. 193. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Bailey, E.P. & Trapp, E.P. 1984. A second wild
breeding population of the Aleutian Canada
Goose. American Birds 38: 284–286.
Béchet, A., Giroux, J.-F., Gauthier, G., Nichols,
J.D. & Hines, J.E. 2003. A spring hunt
changes the regional movements of
migrating greater snow geese in southern
Québec. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:
553–564.
Belovsky, G.E., Bissonette, J.A., Dueser, R.D.,
Edwards, T.C., Jr., Luecke, C.M., Ritchie,
24 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
M.E., Slade, J.B. & Wagner, F.H. 1994.
Management of small populations: concepts
affecting the recovery of endangered species.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 307–316.
Black, J.M. 1991. Guidelines for bird recovery
programmes: re-introduction and re-
stocking. Bird Conservation International 1:
329–334.
Black, J.M. 1998a. Threatened waterfowl:
recovery priorities and reintroduction
potential with special reference to the
Hawaiian Goose. In J.M. Marzluff & R.
Shallabanks (eds.), Avian conservation: research
and management, pp. 125–140. Academic
Press, New York, New York, USA.
Black, J.M. 1998b. Flyway plan for the Svalbard
population of Barnacle Geese: a summary.
Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter 200: 29–40.
Black, J.M., Prop, J. & Larsson, K. 2007. Wild
Goose Dilemmas: Population Consequences of
Individual Decisions in Barnacle Geese. Branta
Books, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Black, J.M., Springer, P.F., Nelson, E.T., Griggs,
K.M., Taylor, T.D., Thompson, Z.D.,
Maguire, A. & Jacobs, J. 2004. Site selection
and foraging behavior of Aleutian Canada
Geese in a newly colonized spring staging
area. In T.J. Moser, K.C. VerCauteren, R.D.
Lien, K.F. Abraham, D.E. Andersen, J.G.
Bruggink, J.M. Coluccy, D.A. Graber, J.
Leafloor, D.R. Luukkonen, & R.E. Trost
(eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 international
Canada Goose symposium, Madison, Wisconsin,
USA, pp. 106–113. 2003 International
Canada Goose Symposium, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
Byrd, G.V. 1998. Current breeding status of
the Aleutian Canada goose, a recovering
endangered species. In D.H. Rusch, M.D.
Samuel, D.D. Humburg & B.D. Sullivan
(eds.), Biology and management of Canada Geese,
pp. 21–28. 1998 International Canada Goose
Symposium, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Byrd, G.V., Durbin, K., Lee, F., Rothe, T.,
Springer, P., Yparraguirre, D. & Zeillermaker,
F. 1991. Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta
canadensis leucopareia) recovery plan. Second
revision. Unpublished document, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska,
USA.
Byrd G.V., Renner, H.M. & Renner, M. 2005.
Distribution patterns and population trends
of breeding seabirds in the Aleutian Islands.
Fisheries Oceanography 14: 139–159.
Byrd, G.V. & Springer, P.F. 1976. Recovery
program for the endangered Aleutian Canada
Goose. Cal-Neva Wildlife Transactions 1976:
65–73.
Byrd, G.V. & Woolington, D.W. 1983. Ecology of
Aleutian Canada Geese at Buldir Island, Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special
Scientific Report. Wildlife 253: 1–18. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Cade, T.J. & Temple, S.A. 1995. Management of
threatened bird species: evaluation of the
hands-on approach. Ibis 137: 161–172.
Carroll, S.P. & Fox, C.W. 2008. Conservation
Biology: Evolution in Action. Oxford University
Press, New York, New York, USA.
Carter, H.R., McChesney, G.J., Jaques, D.L.,
Strong, C.S., Parker, M.W., Takekawa, J.E.,
Jory, D.L. & Whitworth, D.L. 1992. Breeding
populations of seabirds in California, 1989–1991.
Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
Centre, Dixon, California, USA.
Central Valley Joint Venture. 2006. Central Valley
Joint Venture Implementation Plan–Conserving
Bird Habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Sacramento, California, USA.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 25
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Collins, D.F. & Trost, R.E. 2011. Waterfowl harvest
and status, hunter participation and success in the
Pacific flyway and United States. Unpublished
report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Portland, Oregon, USA.
Cope, D.R., Pettifor, R.A., Griffin, L.R. &
Rowcliffe, J.M. 2003. Integrating farming and
wildlife conservation: the barnacle goose
management scheme. Biological Conservation
110: 113–122.
Dahl, A.L., Stabins, H.C., Grue, C.E. & Manuwal,
D.A. 1999. Management of Migratory and
Wintering Habitat for Aleutian Canada Geese.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
Services, Anchorage, Alaska. USA.
Drent, R.H., Both, C., Green, M., Madsen, J. &
Piersma, T. 2003. Pay-offs and penalties of
competing migratory schedules. Oikos 103:
274–292.
Drent, R.H., Eichhorn, G., Flagstad, A., Van der
Graaf, J., Litvin, K.T. & Stahl, J. 2007.
Migratory connectivity in Arctic geese:
spring stopovers are the weak links in
meeting targets for breeding. Journal of
Ornithology 148: 501–514.
Drent, R.H., Fox, A.D. & Stahl, J. 2006. Travelling
to breed. Journal of Ornithology 147: 122–134.
Drut, M.S. & Trost, R.E. 2004. Summary of goose
population monitoring programs [Pacific Flyway],
2003–2004. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Durant, D., Fritz, H., Blais, S. & Duncan, P.
2003. Functional response in three species
of herbivorous Anatidae: effects of sward
height, body mass, and bill size. Journal of
Animal Ecology 72: 220–231.
Ebbert, S. 2000. Successful eradication of
introduced Arctic Foxes from large Aleutian
Islands. In T.P. Salmon & A.C. Crabb (eds.),
Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference,
pp. 127–132. University of California, Davis,
Davis, California, USA.
Ebbert, S.E. & Byrd, G.V. 2002. Eradications of
invasive species to restore natural biological
diversity on Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge. In C.R. Veitch & M.N. Clout
(eds.), Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive
species, pp. 102–109. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Eradication of
Island Invasives, IUCN SSC Invasive Species
Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.
Féret, M., Gauthier, G., Béchet, A., Giroux, J.-F.
& Hobson, K. 2003. Effect of a spring hunt
on nutrient storage by greater snow geese
in southern Québec. Journal of Wildlife
Management 67: 796–807.
Goss-Custard, J.D. 2003. Fitness, demographic
rates and managing the coast for wader
populations. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:
183–191.
Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman, R.A., Caldow,
R.W.G., West, A.D. & Guillemain, M. 2003.
Carrying capacity in overwintering birds:
when are spatial models needed? Journal of
Applied Ecology 40: 176–187.
Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman, R.A., West, A.D.,
Caldow, R.W.G. & McGrorty, S. 2002.
Carrying capacity in overwintering migratory
birds. Biological Conservation 105: 27–41.
Gray, R.L. & Teels, B.L. 2006. Contributions of
the farm bill on fish and wildlife. Wildlife
Society Bulletin: 905–905.
Gregg, M.A., Eckhardt, T.M., & Springer, P.F.
1988. Population, distribution, and ecology of
Aleutian Canada Geese on their migration and
wintering areas, 1986–87. Unpublished
document, State of California, Department
26 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management,
Sacramento, California, USA.
Griggs, K.M. 2005. Aleutian cackling goose monitoring
program: summary of reports from the Sacramento
Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and coast of northern
California and southern Oregon, 2004–2005.
Unpublished document, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, San Luis National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, Los Banos, California,
USA.
Hatch, S.A. & Hatch, M.A. 1983. An isolated
population of small Canada Geese on
Kiliktagik Island, Alaska. Wildfowl 34: 130–136.
Heuermann, N., van Langevelde, F., van Wieren,
S.E. & Prins, H.H.T. 2011. Increased
searching and handling effort in tall swards
lead to a Type IV functional response in
small grazing herbivores. Oecologia 166:
659–669.
Hunter, M.L., Jr. & Gibbs, J. 2007. Fundamentals of
Conservation Biology, 3rd edition. Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA.
International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources Conservation (IUCN)
Monitoring Centre, Cambridge U.K. 1986.
1986 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK.
International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources Conservation (IUCN)
Monitoring Centre, Cambridge U.K. 1986.
1988 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK.
Jaques, D.L. & Strong, C.S. 2001. Seabird status
at Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge,
1997–1999. Crescent Coastal Research,
unpublished document, to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay National
Wildlife Refuge, Loleta, California, USA.
Jones, R.D. Jr. 1963. Buldir Island, site of a
remnant breeding population of Aleutian
Canada Geese. Wildfowl Trust Annual Report
14: 80–83.
Lang, A. & Black, J.M. 2001. Foraging efficiency
in Barnacle Geese Branta leucopsis: a
functional response to sward height and an
analysis of sources of individual variation.
Wildfowl 52: 7–20.
MacMillan, D., Hanley, N. & Daw, M. 2004. Costs
and benefits of wild goose conservation in
Scotland. Biological Conservation 119: 475–485.
Mainguy, J., Béty, J., Gauthier, G. & Giroux, J.-F.
2002. Are body condition and reproductive
effort of laying greater snow geese affected
by the spring hunt? Condor 104: 156–162.
McKay, H.V., Milsom, T.P., Feare, C.J., Ennis,
D.C., O’Connell, P. & Haskell, D.J. 2001.
Selection of forage species and the creation
of alternate feeding areas for Dark-bellied
Brent Geese Branta bernicla bernicla in
southern UK coastal areas. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 84: 99–113.
Mills, L.S. 2007. Conservation of Wildlife Populations:
Demographics, Genetics, and Management. Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, USA.
Mini, A.E. 2005. Energy expenditure and body reserves
of Aleutian Cackling Geese utilizing three spring
staging areas in northwestern California. M.Sc.
thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata,
California, USA.
Mini, A.E. & Black, J.M. 2009. Expensive
traditions: energy expenditure of Aleutian
Geese in traditional and recently colonized
habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:
385–391.
Mini, A.E. & LeValley, R. 2006. Aleutian Cackling
Goose Agricultural Depredation Plan for Del
Norte County, California. California Coastal
Conservancy, San Francisco, California, USA.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 27
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Moser, M. & Kalden, C. 1991. Farmers and
waterfowl: conflicts or co-existence – an
introductory overview. In M.V. Roomen &
J. Madsen (eds.), Waterfowl and agriculture:
review and future perspective of the crop damage
conflict in Europe, pp. 13–19. Proceedings of
the international workshop “Farmers and
waterfowl: conflict or coexistence,” Lelystad,
The Netherlands, 6–9 October 1991. IWRB
Special Publication No. 21, International
Waterfowl & Wetlands Research Bureau,
Slimbridge, UK.
Murie, O.J. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands
and Alaska peninsula. North American Fauna
61: 1–134.
Owen, M. 1975. Cutting and fertilizing grassland
for winter goose management. Journal of
Wildlife Management 39: 163–167.
Owen, M. 1977. The role of wildlife refuges on
agricultural land in lessening the conflict
between farmers and geese in Britain.
Biological Conservation 11: 209–222.
Owen, M. 1979. The role of refuges in wildfowl
management. In E.N. Wright, I.R. Inglis &
C.J. Feare (eds.), Bird Problems in Agriculture
BCPC Monograph 23, pp. 144–156. Lavenham
Press, Lavenham, UK.
Owen, M. 1990. The damage conservation
interface illustrated by geese. Ibis 132:
238–252.
Owen, M., Black, J.M., Agger, M.C. & Campbell,
C.R. 1987. The use of the Solway Firth by an
increasing population of Barnacle Geese in
relation to changes in refuge management.
Biological Conservation 39: 63–81.
Owen, M., Black, J.M. & Liber, H. 1988. Pair
bond duration and timing of its formation in
Barnacle Geese (Branta leucopsis). In M.W.
Weller (ed.), Waterfowl in winter, pp. 23–57.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA.
Pacific Flyway Council. 1998. Pacific Flyway
management plan for Northwest Oregon–Southwest
Washington Canada Goose agricultural depredation
control. Unpublished report, Pacific Flyway
Study Committee, [c/o] U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Pacific Flyway Council. 1999. Pacific Flyway
management plan for the Aleutian Canada
Goose. Unpublished report, Aleutian Goose
Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study
Committee, [c/o] U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Pacific Flyway Council. 2004. Pacific Flyway
management plan for the Aleutian goose.
Unpublished report (draft for public review),
Aleutian Goose Subcommittee, Pacific
Flyway Study Committee, [c/o] U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon,
USA.
Pacific Flyway Council. 2006. Pacific Flyway
management plan for the Aleutian goose.
Unpublished report, Aleutian Goose
Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study
Committee, [c/o] U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Pierson, B.J., Pearce, J.M., Talbot, S.L., Shields,
G.F. & K.T. Scribner. 2000. Molecular
genetic status of Aleutian Canada Geese
from Buldir and the Semidi Islands, Alaska.
Condor 102: 172–180.
Prop, J., Black, J.M. & Shimmings, P. 2003. Travel
schedules to the high arctic: barnacle geese
trade-off the timing of migration with
accumulation of fat deposits. Oikos 103:
403–414.
Riddington, R., Hassall, M. & Lane, S.J. 1997.
The selection of grass swards by Brent
Geese Branta bernicla bernicla interactions
between food quality and quantity. Biological
Conservation 81: 153–160.
28 Aleutian Goose 10-year review
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Scott, D.A. 1980. A Preliminary Inventor y of
Wetlands of International Importance for Waterfowl
in West Europe and Northwest Africa.
International Waterfowl and Wetlands
Research Bureau Special Publication No. 2,
IWRB, Slimbridge, UK.
Spencer, D.L. 1980. Aleutian Islands National
Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Report, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife
Refuge, Homer, Alaska, USA.
Spragens, K.A. 2010. The fight for forage: distribution
and abundance patterns of Aleutian Cackling Geese
during spring staging. M.Sc. thesis, Humboldt
State University, Arcata, California, USA.
Springer, P.F., Byrd, G.V. & Woolington, D.W.
1978. Re-establishing Aleutian Canada
Geese. In S.A. Temple (ed.), Endangered birds:
management techniques for preserving threatened
species, pp. 331–338. University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Springer, P.F. & Lowe, R.W. 1998. Population,
distribution, and ecology of migrating and
wintering Aleutian Canada Geese. In D.H.
Rusch, M.D. Samuel, D.D. Humburg &
B.D. Sullivan (eds.), Biology and management
of Canada Geese, pp. 425–434. 1998
International Canada Goose Symposium,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Stephensen, S.W. 2010. White-cheeked geese surveys at
Nestucca, Nehalem, and Tillamook Bays, Oregon
2009–10. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Coast National
Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newport, Oregon,
USA.
Taylor, D., Diémé, E., Bracke, A. & Schneider-
von Deimling, K. 2005. Ramsar Sites: Directory
and Overview. Wetlands International
(compact disc), Wageningen, The
Netherlands. Available at: http://www.
wetlands.org/RSIS/_COP9Directory/ENG/
Default.htm (accessed on 18 June 2011).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Endangered
Species. Federal Register 32(48): 4001.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered
and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule
to remove the Aleutian Canada Goose from
the federal list of endangered and threatened
wildlife. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17
66(54): 15643–15656.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. San Joaquin
River National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive
conservation plan and final environmental
assessment. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California,
USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Aleutian
Canada Goose monitoring program annual progress
report for California and Oregon 1996–2008
summary report. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay National
Wildlife Refuge, Loleta, California, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Humboldt
Bay National Wildlife Refuge complex
comprehensive conservation plan and final
environmental assessment. Unpublished report,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento,
California, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Aleutian
Canada Goose monitoring program annual progress
report for California and Oregon 1996–2010
summary report. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Humboldt Bay National
Wildlife Refuge, Loleta, California, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b.
www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=110
(accessed in June 2011).
van Eerden, M.R. 1990. The solution of goose
damage problems in the Netherlands, with
special reference to compensation schemes.
Ibis 132: 253–261.
Aleutian Goose 10-year review 29
© Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2011) 61: 3–29
Vickery, J.A. & Gill, J.A. 1999. Managing
grassland for wild geese in Britain: a review.
Biological Conservation 89: 93–106.
Vickery, J.A., Tallowin, J.R., Feber, R.E., Asteraki,
E.J., Atkinson, P.W., Fuller, R.J. & Brown, V.K.
2001. The management of lowland neutral
grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural
practices on birds and their food resources.
Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 647–664.
Vickery, J.A., Watkinson, A.R. & Sutherland, W.J.
1994. The solutions to Brent Goose
problem: an economic analysis. Journal of
Applied Ecology 31: 371–382.
Williams, J.C., Byrd, G.V. & Konyukhov, N.B.
2003. Whiskered Auklets Aethia pygmaea,
foxes, humans and how to right a wrong.
Marine Ornithology 31: 175–180.
Williams, T.D., Cooch, E.G., Jeffries, R.L. &
Cooke, F. 1993. Environmental degradation,
food limitation and reproductive output:
juvenile survival in Lesser Snow Geese.
Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 766–777.
Woolington, D.W. & Early, T.J. 1977. Progress
report on study of Aleutian Canada Geese at Buldir
Island. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Aleutian Islands National
Wildlife Refuge, Adak, Alaska, USA.
Woolington, D.W., Springer, P.F. & Yparraguirre,
D.R. 1979. Migration and wintering
distribution of Aleutian Canada Geese. In R.
L. Jarvis & J. C. Bartonek (eds.), Management
and biology of Pacific Flyway geese: a symposium,
pp. 299–309. Oregon State University Book
Stores, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
