Management Implications of Molt Migration by the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population of Canada Geese, Branta canadensis

Abstract

We used satellite-tracked transmitters in 2001 and 2003 to document the timing, location, and extent of molt migrations by female Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) affiliated with the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population (AFRP) of Canada Geese that breed in the temperate region of eastern North America. Twenty-seven adult females were captured during the nesting period in late May and fitted with a satellite transmitter mounted either on a plastic neck collar or backpack harness. Nests of 24 birds were destroyed late in incubation to prevent renesting and ensure nest failure; three females did not have nests. Twelve of the 27 birds (44%) made a northward migration to molt in northern Quebec, Canada: seven to the eastern coast of Hudson Bay (58°12'N, 76°60'W), three to lowland areas east of James Bay (53°30'N, 79°02'W), and two to interior locations south of Ungava Bay (55°54'N, 68°24'W). Molt migrants were present in northern Quebec from June to September, a period that coincides with breeding ground aerial surveys and banding operations conducted for Atlantic Population (AP) Canada Geese that breed in this same region of northern Quebec. With >1 million AFRP geese estimated in the Atlantic Flyway, the potential exists for substantial numbers of yearling, sub-adult, and nest-failed or non-breeding adults to molt migrate to northern breeding areas and bias efforts to survey and mark AP geese. Within AFRP breeding areas, many local flocks have reached nuisance levels. We hypothesized that by inducing molt migration in breeding adults, through destruction of nests late in incubation, we would lessen recruitment, reduce numbers of summer resident adults with young, and increase adult mortality from hunting. However, molt migration behavior was not uniform throughout our study area. Molt migrants were from rural areas in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, whereas marked birds that did not make molt migrations were from more coastal regions of the flyway. The 14 birds that did not make a molt migration remained within 60 km of their banding site. A genetic comparison of these two groups revealed no detectable differences. We conclude that failure to undergo a molt migration is likely attributed to the historical origin of captive-reared birds of mixed subspecies that comprise AFRP flocks in the eastern regions of the flyway and the availability of quality local habitat, distinct from brood-rearing areas, for molting.

Full text

313
Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) often undergo a
late spring migration, flying long distances from their
breeding locations to more northerly areas, where they
undergo an annual molt. A form of molt migration,
these movements have been documented for Canada
Geese from both subarctic-nesting populations, which
typically breed in remote areas of northern Canada
(Sterling and Dzubin 1967; Abraham et al. 1999), and
temperate-nesting populations, that breed in southern
Canada and the United States (Zicus 1981; Davis et al.
1985; Lawrence et al. 1998). Birds that undergo a molt
migration are primarily nonbreeding subadults and un -
successful breeding adults (Salomonsen 1968; Law -
rence et al. 1998).
There are two subarctic-nesting populations (Atlantic
Population [AP] and North Atlantic Population [NAP])
associated with the states of the Atlantic Flyway, where-
as temperate-nesting geese are collectively recognized
as the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population (AFRP;
Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Council 1999*). Because
these populations are mostly indistinguishable when
they mix in the field on migration routes and wintering
locations, their population and harvest management
depends on monitoring efforts directed at their popu-
lation-specific breeding areas. For example, annual
assessments of population size are dependent on spring
aerial surveys of breeding areas. However, movement
of molting groups of temperate-nesting geese from
Michigan to subarctic breeding areas in northern
Canada has been confirmed through monitoring with
satellite-tracked transmitters (Mykut et al. 2004). If
molt migrations by temperate-nesting geese occur while
spring surveys are being conducted on northern breed-
ing grounds, then population estimates for subarctic-
nesting populations can be positively biased by the
inclusion of molt migrants (Abraham et al. 1999).
Management Implications of Molt Migration by the Atlantic Flyway
Resident Population of Canada Geese, Branta canadensis
SUSAN E. SHEAFFER1,6, RICHARD A. MALECKI2,6, BRYAN L. SWIFT3, JOHN DUNN4, and KIM SCRIBNER5
1Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA
2U.S. Geological Survey, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA
3New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Wildlife, Game Bird Unit, 625 Broadway, Albany,
New York 12233 USA
4Pennsylvania Game Commission, 911 Big Spring Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 USA
5Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 USA
6Present address: Livingston Ripley Waterfowl Conservancy, P.O. Box 210, Litchfield, Connecticut 06759 USA
Sheaffer, Susan E., Richard A. Malecki, Bryan L. Swift, John Dunn, and Kim Scribner. 2007. Management implications of molt
migration by the Atlantic Flyway resident population of Canada Geese, Branta canadensis. Canadian Field-Naturalist
121(3): 313-320.
We used satellite-tracked transmitters in 2001 and 2003 to document the timing, location, and extent of molt migrations by
female Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) affiliated with the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population (AFRP) of Canada Geese
that breed in the temperate region of eastern North America. Twenty-seven adult females were captured during the nesting
period in late May and fitted with a satellite transmitter mounted either on a plastic neck collar or backpack harness. Nests of
24 birds were destroyed late in incubation to prevent renesting and ensure nest failure; three females did not have nests.
Twelve of the 27 birds (44%) made a northward migration to molt in northern Quebec, Canada: seven to the eastern coast of
Hudson Bay (58o12'N, 76o60'W), three to lowland areas east of James Bay (53o30'N, 79o02'W), and two to interior locations
south of Ungava Bay (55o54'N, 68o24'W). Molt migrants were present in northern Quebec from June to September, a period
that coincides with breeding ground aerial surveys and banding operations conducted for Atlantic Population (AP) Canada
Geese that breed in this same region of northern Quebec. With >1 million AFRP geese estimated in the Atlantic Flyway, the
potential exists for substantial numbers of yearling, sub-adult, and nest-failed or non-breeding adults to molt migrate to
northern breeding areas and bias efforts to survey and mark AP geese. Within AFRP breeding areas, many local flocks have
reached nuisance levels. We hypothesized that by inducing molt migration in breeding adults, through destruction of nests
late in incubation, we would lessen recruitment, reduce numbers of summer resident adults with young, and increase adult
mortality from hunting. However, molt migration behavior was not uniform throughout our study area. Molt migrants were
from rural areas in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, whereas marked birds that did not make molt migrations were
from more coastal regions of the flyway. The 14 birds that did not make a molt migration remained within 60 km of their
banding site. A genetic comparison of these two groups revealed no detectable differences. We conclude that failure to
undergo a molt migration is likely attributed to the historical origin of captive-reared birds of mixed subspecies that comprise
AFRP flocks in the eastern regions of the flyway and the availability of quality local habitat, distinct from brood-rearing
areas, for molting.
Key Words: Branta canadensis, Canada Geese, molt migration, temperate-nesting, Resident Population, Atlantic Flyway.
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 313

Similarly, population-specific assessments of harvest
rely on band recoveries obtained from birds marked on
their breeding grounds as flightless adults and young.
In recent years, recaptures on subarctic breeding
grounds of previously banded adults and young from
temperate-nesting areas (Abraham et al. 1999; Nichols
et al. 2004) have raised concern over the potential bias
in the banded samples of subarctic-nesting geese.
Molt migrations of temperate-nesting geese to north-
ern breeding areas can also increase competition for
resources and potentially degrade brood-rearing habi-
tat for subarctic-nesting geese. Previous studies have
demonstrated that a large proportion (50% – 60%) of
temperate-nesting flocks potentially undergo a molt
migration (Zicus 1981; Lawrence et al. 1998). Given
that estimated numbers of temperate-nesting geese cur-
rently exceed 1 million birds in each of the Mississippi
and Atlantic flyways (United States [U. S.] Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007*), the potential problems with
survey efforts and impacts to habitat could be substan-
tial.
Temperate-nesting Canada Geese also are of con-
cern within their breeding range, where they often
occur in areas with few natural predators. Because of
their relatively high survival and stable reproductive
rates, local flocks can rapidly reach nuisance levels in
urban areas and rural areas with low harvest pressure.
Given that some unsuccessful breeders undergo a molt
migration, we reasoned that deliberate nest destruction
late in the incubation period, to ensure nest failure,
would induce these birds to molt migrate. This proce-
dure has the potential to reduce annual recruitment of
young into the population, lessen the number of adults
and young residing in local areas during the summer,
and expose this component of the population to hunt-
ing pressure in other regions when they return in the
fall. Our objective was to assess both the efficacy of
this technique and to monitor the resultant timing, loca-
tions, and extent of molt-migration movements as they
relate to management of AFRP Canada Geese in the
Atlantic Flyway.
Methods
In 2001, eight female Canada Geese were captured
at four locations in New York during late May (Table
1). Nests of five birds were destroyed during the last
7-10 days of incubation; no nests were detected for
three of the eight (Table 1). Each goose was fitted with
a 30 g satellite-tracked transmitter (PTT Model 100,
Microwave Telemetry, Inc., Columbia, Maryland; men-
tion of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by
the U.S. Government) attached dorsally with a harness
constructed of Teflon ribbon. Transmitters had speci-
fications for ~480 hours of battery life and were pro-
grammed to transmit for an eight-hour period every four
days. Expected battery life was about eight months.
We expanded the study in 2002 to include 19 nesting
females captured under similar nesting conditions in
New York (n= 4), Pennsylvania (n = 6), New Jersey
(n = 4), Massachusetts (n = 2), Connecticut (n= 1),
Vermont (n= 1), and Maine (n= 1). To simplify attach-
ment procedures and reduce costs, we switched to trans-
mitters mounted on plastic neck collars produced by
Telonics, Inc. of Mesa, Arizona. Program features were
similar to those used in 2001. Unfortunately, most of
the transmitters deployed in 2002 did not provide
sufficient signals to the satellites to produce usable
locations. The 2002 transmitters were replaced by the
manufacturer and 19 nesting females were marked in
2003: New York (n= 4), Pennsylvania (n= 4), New
Jersey (n = 4), Massachusetts (n= 2), Connecticut
(n= 2), Vermont (n= 1), Maine (n = 1), and Maryland
(n= 1) (Table 1).
Data from the radio transmitters were obtained from
the Argos satellite system of the French Space Agency
via a preferential tariff agreement with the U. S. Depart-
ment of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration. Location estimates were classi-
fied by Argos based on their estimated accuracy and
the number of transmissions received from a transmit-
ter during a satellite overpass. Location classes 3, 2, and
1 had accuracy ratings within 1000 m. Accuracy for
location class 0 was >1000 m, and location classes A
and B did not receive enough transmissions during an
overpass for accuracy to be estimated (Service Argos
1996*). However, Britton et al. (1999) demonstrated
that poor locations (classes 0, A, and B) received from
satellite transmitters (30 g) averaged 35 km from the
true location of the transmitter. We therefore included
all locations with a classification of 3, 2, 1, 0, A, or B,
because the accuracy of these classes was sufficient to
describe large-scale movements.
Argos estimated locations by measuring the Doppler
shift of the received signals, which produces two pairs
of latitude and longitude coordinates from an individ-
ual satellite overpass. Argos designates the location
with the better frequency continuity as the most prob-
able location (location 1), and the alternate location is
designated as the image (location 2). Examination of
our data occasionally indicated that sometimes loca-
tion 2 was a more probable fix than location 1 based on
the flight dynamics of Canada Geese. We developed a
sorting routine similar to that of Britton et al. (1999)
that sequentially examined the location pairs to iden-
tify locations that appeared most probable. The initial
location for each bird was the site of banding. For each
subsequent pair of locations, flight speed (distance/hr)
was calculated from location 1 in the previous location
pair to location 1 of the next location pair. If the bird
had flown <65 km/hr to reach both locations 1 and 2,
we selected location 1. If the bird had flown >65 km/hr
to reach location 1, but <65 km/hr to reach location 2,
we selected location 2. If both locations violated our
65 km/hr rule, we deleted both. We retained all loca-
tions with an accuracy classification of 3, 2, and 1.
When an 8-hour transmission period contained only
locations with a classification of 0, A, and B, we esti-
314 THE CANADIAN FIELD-NATURALIST Vol. 121
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 314

mated one location for that period as the centroid of
the most probable latitude and longitude coordinates.
During the course of our study, we hypothesized that
the differential propensity to undergo a molt migration
could be related to genetic differences among geese
from interior and coastal areas comprising our sample.
In 2004, we attempted to test this by collecting blood
samples from molting adult geese with young in rural
areas of central New York (n= 15) and Pennsylvania
(n= 15) and compared these with similarly collected
samples from more coastal and urban/suburban areas
of Long Island, New York (n= 5), New Jersey (n = 15),
Massachusetts (n= 5), and Connecticut (n= 5). Genet-
ic testing of microsatellite markers and mitochondrial
DNA was done using methods described by Scribner
et al. (2003a).
We used seven microsatellite loci that have previous-
ly been described for Canada Geese for other popula-
tions across North America (Scribner et al. 2003a,
2003b). Loci included TTU-CG-1, TTU-CG-5 (Cathey
et al. 1998) and Bcaµ7, Bcaµ9, Bcaµ11, and Hhi1,
(Buch hollz et al. 1998), and CRG (Baker, unpublished
data). After electrophoresis on denaturing 6% acry-
lamide gels, PCR products were visualized using an
FMBIO II laser scanner (Hitachi Software Engineering
Co., Alameda, California). Genotypes were scored
based on 20 base-pair standards and reference samples
of known allelic size.
We obtained sequence information from a ≈385 base-
pair (bp) fragment of the 5' end of the Canada Goose
mitochondrial DNA control region using primers and
conditions described in Pearce et al. (2000). Sequenc -
ing was performed using a SequiTherm Excel DNA
sequencing kit (Epicentre, Inc.), following product
protocols for use of fluorescently labeled primers.
Sequences were aligned manually.
We estimated degree of differentiation in allele and
haplotype frequency between Canada Geese sampled
from coastal and interior regions using a Fisher’s exact
test in program GENEPOP and using F-statistics (Weir
1996) using the program F-STAT (Goudet 1995). Mea -
sures of inter-population variance in allele frequency
were summarized as pair-wise estimates of population
Fst. Significance of mean Fst values (across the seven
loci) were determined by jack-knifing procedures (Weir
1996). Analyses of population differences in mtDNA
haplotype frequency were conducted using an analy-
sis of molecular variance (Excoffier et al. 1992).
Results
Of the eight birds marked in New York in 2001,
seven made molt migrations to areas in Quebec, Cana-
da: four traveled to the eastern coast of Hudson Bay
(58o12'N, 76o60'W), two went to lowland areas east of
James Bay (53o30'N, 79o02'W), and one moved to an
interior location ~350 km southwest of Ungava Bay
(56o06'N, 70o04'W) (Figure 1). Locations from four
transmitters deployed in 2002 (two from Pennsylvania,
one from New York, and one from Vermont) suggested
that these birds also made a molt migration to northern
Quebec; however, the data were not sufficient to iden-
tify migration timing or provide reliable locations.
Only five of the 19 birds marked in 2003 made molt
migrations to northern Quebec (three from Pennsylva-
nia, one from New York, and one from Vermont). Three
traveled to the eastern coast of Hudson Bay (58o12'N,
76o60'W), one went to eastern James Bay (53o54'N,
79o00'W), and one moved to an interior location south
of Ungava Bay (57o00'N, 74o36'W) (Figure 1). The
14 females that did not make a molt migration exhibit-
ed little movement during June through early Novem-
ber; movement of these geese was limited to within
60 km of the banding site. All of the birds that did not
make a molt migration were from more coastal regions
of the flyway (Figure 2).
Molt migrations in both 2001 and 2003 occurred in
June. Marked geese that molt migrated (n= 12) were
located in the U.S. as late as 30 May – 20 June. They
arrived at terminal locations in northern Quebec (Fig-
2007 SHEAFFER, MALECKI, SWIFT, DUNN, and SCRIBNER: CANADA GEESE 315
TABLE 1. Bird identification numbers, state and year of band-
ing (cohort), latitude and longitude of banding location, and
approximate distance between banding and molting location
(km). Females with no nest are identified with an (*).
Banding location
ID Cohort latitude longitude km
33115 NY-2001 43o06'N 78o30'W 1122
33116* NY-2001 43o06'N 78o24'W 897
33117 NY-2001 42o12'N 78o54'W 1830
33118 NY-2001 42o06'N 78o36'W 1295
33119* NY-2001 41o36'N 74o06'W 1641
33120 NY-2001 41o36'N 74o06'W ≤60
33121* NY-2001 42o42'N 75o30'W 1941
33122 NY-2001 42o42'N 75o30'W 1725
19873 CT-2003 41o20'N 71o32'W ≤60
19874 PA-2003 40o39'N 77o45'W 1830
19875 MD-2003 38o35'N 76o07'W ≤60
19876 CT-2003 41o32'N 73o04'W ≤60
19909 ME-2003 44o43'N 68o54'W ≤60
19911 MA-2003 41o37'N 71o06'W ≤60
19916 MA-2003 41o17'N 71o27'W ≤60
19922 NJ-2003 40o42'N 74o30'W ≤60
19923 NJ-2003 40o25'N 74o29'W ≤60
19930 NJ-2003 39o35'N 75o29'W ≤60
19932 NJ-2003 41o00'N 74o09'W ≤60
19934 NY-2003 41o05'N 73o51'W ≤60
19940 NY-2003 42o50'N 73o50'W 1573
19955 NY-2003 40o45'N 73o07'W ≤60
19957 NY-2003 40o37'N 73o15'W ≤60
19962 PA-2003 39o48'N 80o03'W 1396
19973 PA-2003 40o07'N 72o24'W 564
19978 PA-2003 40o32'N 75o95'W ≤60
20024 PA-2003 40o36'N 80o00'W ≤60
20036 PA-2003 42o09'N 80o02'W ≤60
20043 PA-2003 41o15'N 75o18'W ≤60
20059 VT-2003 44o05'N 73o20'W 1521
NY = New York, CT = Connecticut, PA = Pennsylvania,
MD = Maryland, ME = Maine, MA = Massachusetts,
NJ = New Jersey, VT = Vermont
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 315

ure 1) between 9 and 26 June. Fall migration of these
molt migrants occurred primarily in September. Birds
were located in northern Quebec as late as 28 August
– 29 September. They arrived in southern Canada or
the U.S. between 6 September and 3 October (Figure
3). There was no distinguishable difference in timing
of molt and fall migrations between marked geese in
2001 and 2003. Molt migrations ranged in distance
from 564 – 1941 km (Table 1).
Genetic analysis of the two groups of geese showed
no evidence across loci of significant differences in
microsatellite allele frequency (F= 0.005, P> 0.05).
Likewise, analysis of variance results for mtDNA hap-
lotype frequencies also revealed no evidence of sig-
nificant differences between the two groups (Φ= 0.00,
P > 0.40). When analyses were extended to include
reference samples from the two subarctic-nesting Cana-
da Goose populations (AP and NAP), we observed dif-
ferences in allele frequencies among all three popula-
tions for both microsatellite loci and mtDNA haplotype
(P< 0.05 for both markers).
Discussion
Our results provide convincing evidence of the
move ment of some molting AFRP geese to the north-
ern breeding ground of AP geese at a critical time dur-
ing the spring population monitoring and summer pre-
hunting season banding periods. Zicus (1981) and
Law rence et al. (1998), working with temperate-breed-
ing Canada Geese in Wisconsin and Illinois, each re -
ported 50-60% of their spring population departing on
molt migrations. Mykut (2002) satellite-tracked female
Canada Geese in Michigan, whose nests were des -
troyed, as in this study, late in incubation. He found
62% (n= 37) in 2000 and 73% (n= 52) in 2001 of
these birds molt-migrating to James and Hudson Bays
in northern Canada. The literature is replete with other
reports of long distance molt migrations in temperate-
nesting geese.
The propensity to molt migrate, observed in nest-
failed females from rural New York and Pennsylvania,
but not for birds nesting in more coastal areas of the
flyway, prompted us to suspect a possible genetic dif-
ference resulting from regional differences in the ori-
gin of these birds. Blandin and Heusmann (1974) re -
ported that geese breeding in eastern Massachusetts
were of mixed racial stock, nonmigratory in nature, and
the progeny of decoy birds released in the late 1930s.
Morphometric measurements of these birds (Pottie and
Heusmann 1979) indicated a probable mixing of sev-
eral sub-species, in which B. c. maxima (Giant Canada
Goose) predominated. In contrast, geese in rural New
York and Pennsylvania are primarily large Canada
Geese of the B. c. maxima and B. c. moffitti (Great
Basin Canada Goose) stock introduced after the 1950s
to areas previously devoid of breeding geese. These
birds may be more similar to mid-continent temperate-
nesting populations of restored or reintroduced giant
Canada Geese. Molt migration in giant Canada Geese
is considered a common behavior (Abraham et al. 1999).
We were able to detect genetic differences of sufficient
magnitude to discern the AFRP geese we sampled from
subarctic-nesting populations of geese occurring in the
flyway (AP and NAP), but we did not detect genetic
differences between the two regional cohorts sampled
within the AFRP.
Two factors favoring movement of waterfowl to re -
mote regions to molt are the reduced risk to survival
and greater food availability (Hohman et al. 1992;
Baldassarre and Bolen 2006). In Canada Geese, suc-
cessful breeders also are often behaviorally dominant
over nonbreeders (Raveling 1970), which may influ-
ence movement of the nonbreeding segment away
from nesting areas. However, in New Jersey, Nichols
et al. (2004) estimated that only 22-31% of resident
Canada Geese migrated out of the state to molt. They
suggested that birds in and near urban-suburban dom-
inated landscapes may have many suitable molting sites
consisting of large expanses of lush, fertilized lawns
interspersed with water bodies and few predators. The
gathering of nonbreeders into larger flocks to molt on
or near breeding areas may also lessen stress associat-
ed with behavioral interactions of adults with young.
Lawrence et al. (1998) also noted that in more recent
times, with greater emphasis on hunting of temperate-
nesting geese to manage their numbers, birds leaving
the sanctuary of local breeding areas are more likely
to be harvested.
The coastal region of our study, from which molt
migration did not occur (Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maryland, and New Jersey), contains ~21% (N=
245351) of the AFRP spring population estimate (Unit-
ed States Fish and Wildlife Service 2007*) in the U.S.
Geese in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont make
up ~45% (N= 514181) and the coastal states of Dela -
ware and Virginia, where geese were not sampled as
part of this study, comprise ~14% (N= 163655). If we
assume that 50% of the geese in New York and Penn-
sylvania are molt migrant non-breeders or unsuccess-
ful breeders (Zicus 1981; Lawrence et al. 1998), then
the potential exists for a substantial movement of geese
(≥250 000) to subarctic breeding areas in northern
Canada. This number is further increased by temper-
ate-nesting birds moving into subarctic regions from
the Mississippi Flyway.
The population estimate for AP geese in northern
Quebec, where we suspect most AFRP birds molt mi -
grate to, is ~1.2 million (Harvey and Rodrique 2007*).
However, the authors caution that differences in survey
timing and the abundance of molt migrants can clearly
introduce substantial variability in the total population
estimate. Similar conflicts are reported by Abraham et
al. (1999) for Southern James Bay Population Canada
Geese in northern Ontario. Spring surveys of AP geese
are timed to cover the mid to late incubation period;
generally the last two weeks in June. Arrival of AFRP
316 THE CANADIAN FIELD-NATURALIST Vol. 121
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 316

2007 SHEAFFER, MALECKI, SWIFT, DUNN, and SCRIBNER: CANADA GEESE 317
molt-migrants coincides very closely with the begin-
ning of these surveys. Similarly,summer banding of
AP geese, which usually takes place in late July –
early August, also occurs when molt migrants are
still on the AP breeding grounds. Given that molting
large Canada Geese can require up to 40 days to
obtain the 85% of primary feather development
required to regain flight (Hanson 1965), geese arriving
in mid-June have the potential still to be flightless
when subarctic-breeding adults with young are being
banded. This mixing of populations re-enforces the
need to (1) monitor the status of subarctic-breeding
populations using numbers of breeding pairs surveyed,
rather than total counts in volving groups of geese of
unknown origin, and (2) band only flightless adults
with young during the summer pre-season banding
period to ensure a representative sample of subarctic-
nesting populations of Canada Geese.
In the late 1980s, as an aid in the control of increas-
ing numbers of temperate-nesting geese, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service endorsed the implementation of
special hunting seasons in September and late-winter,
when subarctic-nesting goose populations would be
less likely affected (Heusmann et al. 1998). While
effective in many rural areas, geese in urban and sub-
urban environments often receive little exposure to
hunter harvest (Smith et al. 1999). Efforts to control
nuisance geese generally rely on non-lethal methods
involving addling and oiling of eggs in nests (Chris-
tens et al. 1995) and harassment techniques to move
birds from heavily used residential and industrial areas
(Holevinski et al. 2007). Both methods provide only
a moderate degree of relief, at best.
FIGURE 1. Locations of Atlantic Flyway Resident Population Canada Geese during spring molt migration in 2001 and 2003.
Locations were identified using birds marked with satellite-tracked transmitters. Birds arrived at terminal molting
areas in northern Quebec between 9 June and 16 June.
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 317

Many studies have demonstrated that altering sur-
vival of adult geese is much more effective in changing
population size than altering recruitment rates (Trost
et al. 1986; Schmutz et al. 1997). However, direct
culling of molting birds continues to remain a socially
unacceptable option for population control in many
areas. One alternative, transplanting flightless adults
with young from nuisance areas to rural areas prior to
the fall hunting season, successfully reduced survival
of adults in comparison to non-transported birds, but
was both time consuming and costly (Holevinski et al.
2006). Inducing molt migration of adult breeding geese
by destroying nests late in incubation, as demonstrated
in this study, showed potential for both removal of birds
from their breeding area during the spring and sum-
mer period and exposing them to hunting outside the
region. However, our failure to demonstrate this in
coastal areas, which have more prominent nuisance
Canada goose issues, was problematic. We can only
assume that the reason for this was attributed to the
historical origin of captive-reared birds of mixed sub-
species making up AFRP flocks in this part of the fly-
way and the availability of quality local molting
habitat distinct from brood-rearing areas.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the valuable assistance and fund-
ing received from the following individuals and their
respective agencies: P. Castelli and T. Nichols, New
Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife; H. W. Heusmann,
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; M.
Huang, Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection; W. Crenshaw, Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department; B. Allen, Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife; L. Hindman, Maryland Wildlife
and Heritage Service; and the agencies and university
affiliates of the authors. Valuable editorial comments
were provided by G. Baldassarre, College of Environ-
mental Science and Forestry at Syracuse University, L.
Hindman, and the anonymous referees for this journal.
Documents Cited (marked * in text)
Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Council. 1999. Atlantic Flyway
Resident Canada Goose Management Plan. Canada Goose
Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council, Laurel, Maryland,
USA.
Harvey, W. F., and J. Rodrique. 2007. A breeding pair sur-
vey of Canada Geese in northern Quebec – 2007. Unpub-
lished Report, Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Council, Lau-
rel, Maryland, USA.
318 THE CANADIAN FIELD-NATURALIST Vol. 121
FIGURE 2. Banding locations of Atlantic Flyway Resident Population Canada Geese marked with satellite-
tracked transmitters during May 2001 and 2003.
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 318

2007 SHEAFFER, MALECKI, SWIFT, DUNN, and SCRIBNER: CANADA GEESE 319
Service Argos. 1996. User Manual. Landover, Maryland,
USA.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Waterfowl population
status: 2007. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Literature Cited
Abraham, K. F., J. O. Leafloor, and D. H. Rusch. 1999.
Molt migrant Canada geese in northern Ontario and west-
ern James Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 649-
655.
Baldassarre, G. A., and E. G. Bolen. 2006. Waterfowl ecol-
ogy and management. Krieger Publishing Company, Mal-
abar, Florida, USA.
Blandin, W. W., and H. W. Heusmann. 1974. Establishment
of Canada Goose populations through urban gosling trans-
plants. Transactions of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife
Conference 31: 83-100.
Britton, M. W., P. L. Kennedy, and S. Ambrose. 1999.
Performance and accuracy evaluation of small satellite
transmitters. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 1349-
1358.
FIGURE 3. Locations of Atlantic Flyway Resident Population Canada Geese returning from molting locations in the fall 2001
and 2003. Locations were identified using birds marked with satellite-tracked transmitters. Birds initiated fall migra-
tion between 28 August and 29 September.
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 319

Buchholtz, W., J. M. Pearce, B. J. Pierson, and K. T. Scrib-
ner. 1998. Dinucleotide repeat polymorphisms in water-
fowl (family Anatidae): characterization of a sex-linked
(z-specific) and 14 bi-parentally inherited loci. Animal
Genetics 29: 323-325.
Cathey, J. C., J. A. Dewoody, and L. M. Smith. 1998. Mic -
rosatellite markers in Canada Geese (Branta canadensis).
Journal of Heredity 89: 173-174.
Christens, E. H., H. Blokpoel, G. Ranson, and S. W. D.
Jarvie. 1995. Spraying white mineral oil on Canada goose
eggs to prevent hatching. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:
228-230.
Davis, R. A., R. N. Jones, C. D. MacInnes, and A. J. Paku-
lak. 1985. Molt migration of large Canada Geese on the
west coast of Hudson Bay. Wilson Bulletin 97: 296-305.
Excoffier, L., P. E. Smouse, and J. M. Quattro. 1992.
Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric dis-
tances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mito-
chondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131: 479-491.
Goudet, J. 1995. FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program
to calculate F-statistics. Journal of Heredity 86: 485-486.
Hanson, H. C. 1965. The giant Canada Goose. Southern Illi-
nois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois, USA.
Heusmann, H. W., T. E. Early, and R. G. Burrell. 1998.
Experimental late Canada Goose season in Massachusetts.
Pages 121-126 in Biology and management of Canada
Geese. Edited by D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. Hum-
burg, and B. D. Sullivan. Proceedings of the International
Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Hohman, W. L., C. D. Ankney, and D. H. Gordon. 1992.
Ecology and management postbreeding waterfowl. Pages
128-189 in Ecology and management of breeding water-
fowl. Edited by B. D. J. Batt, A. D. Afton, M. G. Anderson,
C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec, and G. L.
Krapu. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.
Holevinski, R. A., P. D. Curtis, and R. A. Malecki. 2007.
Hazing of Canada geese is unlikely to reduce nuisance
populations in urban and suburban communities. Journal
of Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1(2): 257-264.
Holevinski, R. A., R. A. Malecki, and P. D. Curtis. 2006.
Can hunting of translocated nuisance Canada geese reduce
local conflicts? Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 845-849.
Lawrence, J. S., G. A. Perkins, D. D. Thornburg, R. A.
Williamson, and W. D. Klimstra. 1998. Molt migration
of giant Canada Geese from west-central Illinois. Pages
105-111 in Biology and Management of Canada Geese.
Edited by D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and
B. D. Sullivan. Proceedings of the International Canada
Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Mykut, R. C. 2002. Evaluating satellite and conventional
VHF telemetry to document molt migration of giant Cana-
da Geese (Branta canadensis maxima) from southeastern
Michigan. PhD thesis, Michigan State University, Lans-
ing, USA.
Mykut, R. C., H. H. Prince, and D. R. Luukkonen. 2004.
Evaluating satellite and conventional radiotelemetry to doc-
ument molt migration of giant Canada Geese from south-
ern Michigan. Pages 203-211 in Proceedings of the 2003
International Canada Goose Symposium. Edited by T. J .
Moser, R. D. Lien, K. C. VerCauteren, K. F. Abraham, D.
E. Andersen, J. G. Bruggink, J. M Coluccy, D. A. Graber,
J. O. Leafloor, D. R. Luukkonen, and R. E. Trost. Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
Nichols, T. C., N. L. Zimpfer, R. V. Raftovich, and P. M.
Castelli. 2004. Molt migration of New Jersey resident
Canada Geese. Pages 169-177 in Proceedings of the 2003
International Canada Goose Symposium. Edited by T. J .
Moser, R. D. Lien, K. C. VerCauteren, K. F. Abraham, D.
E. Andersen, J. G. Bruggink, J. M Coluccy, D. A. Graber,
J. O. Leafloor, D. R. Luukkonen, and R. E. Trost. Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
Pearce, J. M., B. J. Pierson, S. L. Talbot, D. V. Derksen,
D. Kraege, and K. T. Scribner. 2000. A genetic evaluation
of morphology used to identify hunter-harvested Canada
geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 863-874.
Pottie, J. J., and H. W. Heusmann. 1979. Taxonomy of
resident Canada Geese in Massachusetts. Transactions of
the North east Fish and Wildlife Conference 36:132-137.
Raveling, D. G. 1970. Dominance relationships and agonistic
behavior of Canada geese in winter. Behavior 37: 291-317.
Salomonsen, F. 1968. The moult migration. Wildlfowl 19:
5-24.
Schmutz, J. A., R. F. Rockwell, and M. R. Petersen. 1997.
Relative effects of survival and reproduction on the pop-
ulation dynamics of Emperor geese. Journal of Wildlife
Management 61: 191-201.
Scribner, K. T., R. A. Malecki, B. D. J. Batt, R. L. Inman,
S. Libants, and H. H. Prince. 2003a. Identification of
source population for Greenland Canada geese: Genetic
assessment of a recent colonization. The Condor 105: 771-
782.
Scribner, K. T., S. L. Talbot, J. M. Pearce, B. J. Pierson,
K. S. Bollinger, and D. V. Derksen. 2003b. Phylogeog-
raphy of Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) in western
North America. Auk. 120: 889-907.
Smith, A. E., S. R. Craven, and P. D. Curtis. 1999. Manag-
ing Canada Geese in urban environments. Jack Berryman
Institute Publication 16, and Cornell University Coopera-
tive Extension, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Sterling, R. T., and A. Dzubin. 1967. Canada goose moult
migration to the Northwest Territories. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-
ence 31: 355-373.
Trost, R. E., R. A., Malecki, L. J. Hindman, and D. C.
Luszcz. 1986. Survival and recovery rates of Canada geese
from Maryland and North Carolina. Proceedings of the
Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies 40: 454-464.
Weir, B. S. 1996. Genetic Data Analysis II. Sinauer and Asso-
ciates, Sunderland, Massachussetts, USA.
Zicus, M. C. 1981. Molt migration of Canada geese from Crex
Meadows, Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management
45: 54-63.
Received 8 August 2006
Accepted 7 May 2008
320 THE CANADIAN FIELD-NATURALIST Vol. 121
11_07034_geese.qxd:CFN 120(2) 11/27/08 6:01 PM Page 320