������������������������

Pacific Flyway Management Plan

Northwest Oregon / Southwest Washington CanadaGoose Agricultural Depredation

Control

Northwest Oregon / Southwest Washington Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation

Control Plan

MARCH, 1998

PACIFIC FLYWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR

NORTHWEST OREGON - SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON

CANADA GOOSE AGRICULTURAL DEPREDATION CONTROL

Prepared for the:

Pacific Flyway CouncilU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture - APHIS, Wildlife Services

by the

Pacific Flyway Study Committeeand the

Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation Working Group

Approved by: ____________________________ ________

Chairman, Pacific Flyway Council Date

______Suggested Citation: Pacific Flyway Council. 1998. Pacific Flyway management plan for NorthwestOregon - Southwest Washington Canada goose agricultural depredation control. Canada gooseagricultural depredation working group, Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR 97232-4181. Unpubl. Rept. 31pp. + appendices.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Canada Goose Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Canada Goose History in WV-LCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Wintering Population Objective for the WV-LCR Region . . . . . . . . 7

Population Assessment and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Habitat Management and Public Use on Public Lands . . . . . 10Habitat Management on Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Land Acquisition and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Depredation Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Depredation Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20USDA-APHIS, Wildlife Services Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Depredation Permits and Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Harvest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Harvest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Public Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Funding and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix A: Management Agencies and Farm Bureaus

Appendix B: Existing Pacific Flyway Management Plans

Appendix C: Summary of Wintering and Breeding Ground Surveys, Bandingand Collaring Programs in the WV-LCR

Appendix D: Canada Goose Forage Acreage Totals for Wildlife Areas and Refuges in the WV-LCR

Appendix E: Pacific Flyway Council Depredation Policy

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAt the recommendation of the Pacific Flyway Council (PFC) (March 16, 1997,Recommendation No. 18), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (WS) and theOregon and Washington Farm Bureaus have participated in the development of acomprehensive nine-point plan to address the agricultural depredation problemsassociated with Canada geese in the Willamette Valley - Lower Columbia River(WV-LCR). This document was available for public comment and responses areavailable upon request from the Pacific Flyway Representative, 911 NE 11th Avenue,Portland, Oregon, 97232. Many of the proposed strategies contained in this documentare, at present, unfunded by any agency or organization. Addressing many of theproposed strategies will require additional resources or reprogramming existingresources away from other high priority issues. Participation in the development of theplan should not be interpreted as endorsement of all options by the participatingagencies or organizations.

Primary Goal:

The primary goal for this plan is to establish a systematic andcomprehensive approach for minimizing depredation losses causedby Canada geese in the WV-LCR.

The following primary objectives will be utilized to implement the plan. None of theseobjectives are intended to meet this goal alone, but, rather were established to work inconcert and to provide a range of options to solve the problem. The primary objectivesof the plan are:

1. Wintering Canada Goose Population Objective: Stabilize and eventuallyreduce the number of Canada geese wintering in the WV-LCR to minimizeagricultural depredations on private lands. The objective is to limit the number ofCanada geese wintering in the WV-LCR to no more than 133,000, the currentpopulation index (as measured by the midwinter inventory), and reduce thenumber of wintering Canada geese in the WV-LCR to 107,000 (20%, asmeasured by the same index) by the year 2002. Such reductions are to occurconsistent with existing Flyway management goals for specific Canada goosepopulations recognized in the Pacific Flyway and the broad public intereststhroughout their range. The reductions will be achieved either through directpopulation reductions or redistribution of geese to other areas.

2. Population Assessment and Monitoring Objective: Develop and employ

monitoring techniques to accurately assess goose populations, distribution and

iii

survival rates of Canada geese on breeding and wintering grounds. Theobjectives are to develop and implement survey techniques to better assess thepopulation status of all the Canada goose populations affiliated with the WV-LCR. This will involve improvements in both breeding ground and wintering areasurvey programs for these Canada goose populations. The use of mark-resightsurveys to determine population size, distribution and survival of Canada geesewintering in WV-LCR will continue to be vital to the assessment of themanagement programs.

3. Habitat Management and Public Use Objective: Increase the amount ofCanada goose use on public lands, while subsequently decreasing the amount ofCanada goose use on private lands. The approach will be to review habitatmanagement programs on Federal refuges and State wildlife areas to assure thateverything possible is being done to provide abundant, high quality goose forageon public lands. Additionally, management agencies will implement public userestrictions on public lands to decrease harassment of wintering Canada geeseand increase their use of these lands. Finally, management agencies willrecognize private landowners for their role in providing Canada goose foragingareas on selected private lands and consider developing voluntary agreement,conservation easement, or coordinated hunting programs to address adverseagricultural impacts.

4. Land Acquisition and Management Objective: Decrease agriculturaldepredation of private lands by acquiring additional Canada goose habitats in theWV-LCR through fee title acquisition, donation, trade or easement. Theapproach will be to form a land acquisition working group consisting of personnelfrom USFWS, ODFW, WDFW and private conservation organizations to developand implement a Canada goose habitat acquisition program. This group will beintegrated with other existing agency efforts to maintain and enhance wildlifehabitat throughout the WV-LCR region.

5. Depredation Research Objective: Objectively determine the severity and extent

of winter goose grazing on private agricultural lands. The approach will be toconduct damage assessment studies of goose grazing impacts on grass seed,grain, vegetable crop and pasture lands in the WV-LCR to objectively determinethe extent, amount and economic cost of damage from geese.

6. USDA-APHIS Activity Objective: Increase the capability of WS agents to assistprivate landowners in the WV-LCR to alleviate agricultural depredations causedby Canada geese. The approach will emphasize development of a WS hazingprogram designed to effectively monitor and address agricultural depredation complaints throughout the WV-LCR and to redistribute geese from areas whereagricultural damage is occurring. Additionally, an evaluation will be conducted todetermine the potential effectiveness of using depredation permits and/or orders

iv

consistent with Pacific Flyway policy to further reduce agricultural depredation byCanada geese in the WV-LCR. The relative and combined effectiveness ofnonlethal and lethal control to address crop damage problems in the region willbe reviewed during all stages of implementation. Lethal control methods wouldonly be used on a limited basis and would be consistent with the existing PacificFlyway policy on depredation control (Appendix E).

7. Harvest Management Objective: Increase Canada goose hunting opportunitiesin accordance with harvest guidelines in Pacific Flyway population managementplans. The approach is to first utilize hunting opportunity during established openseasons to reduce agricultural depredation of Canada geese in the WV-LCR byincreasing harvests to limit overall populations consistent with Flyway populationmanagement goals and to redistribute geese from areas where agriculturaldamage is occurring.

8. Public Outreach Objective: Increase public awareness of both the benefits andproblems associated with Canada geese throughout the Pacific Flyway. Theapproach will be to develop a public outreach program to increase the awarenessand understanding of Canada geese and agricultural depredation problems in theWV-LCR and the need for balance in addressing these problems in ways thatmaintain the benefits of geese to a larger number of consumptive andnoncomsumptive users throughout their range. The intent is to increaseawareness among all affected interests, particularly Oregon and Washingtonlandowners and Alaskan native subsistence hunters, concerning the needs of alluser groups, with a primary focus on achieving population managementobjectives for all Canada geese wintering in the WV-LCR.

9. Funding and Implementation Objective: Reduce agricultural depredations inthe WV-LCR by increasing funding for Canada goose management activities andimplementing all facets of the depredation plan. The approach will be to gainpublic acceptance of both the problem and the need for government action toaddress the problem in a constructive fashion such that the public at large willsupport increased expenditures for goose management.

1

INTRODUCTION

Goose management in NW Oregon and SWWashington is one of the most complex wildlifeissues in North America. Seven subspecies ofCanada geese are found in the region during thefall and winter. Nowhere else in the UnitedStates are so many different subspecies ofCanada geese mixed together on winteringgrounds. These geese are an important naturalresource to many diverse constituenciesthroughout the coastal States and Provinces ofthe Pacific Flyway. These geese are also thecause of increasing problems, primarilyagricultural depredations, in this major winteringregion of the Pacific Flyway. Managementagencies are striving to achieve a balancebetween maintaining healthy, naturalpopulations of all subspecies of migratoryCanada geese without adversely impactingother human uses, particularly agriculturalinterests. Unfortunately, the population status ofsome subspecies is below Pacific Flywayobjective levels (i.e. Aleutian, dusky, andcackling Canada geese) while other populationsare healthy and growing. The differing status ofthe populations results in a complexmanagement problem that is the subject of thismanagement plan.

As the total number of Canada geese winteringin the Willamette Valley-Lower Columbia River(WV-LCR) region of NW Oregon and SWWashington has increased, so have agriculturaldepredation complaints. Federal and stateagencies have worked with landowners toaddress depredation concerns. However, thescope and severity of landowner complaints hasgreatly increased in recent years. A coordinatedresource management plan dealing withagricultural depredation problems in the regionwas cooperatively written by a team of privatelandowners and state/federal agency personnelin 1990. Two additional landowner groups alsoworked during 1994 and 1995 to developadditional recommendations to addressagricultural depredation issues.

This plan was developed at the request of thePacific Flyway Council (PFC) (March 16, 1997,recommendation no. 18). The PFC requestedthat the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)help coordinate the development of a plan to

address the goose depredation issue in NWOregon and SW Washington. As part of thiseffort, federal and state wildlife managers andFarm Bureau representatives from Oregon andWashington formed a collective group to provideguidance and input to this plan (see Appendix Afor description of management agencies andfarm bureaus). The participation of the variousagencies and organizations should not beinterpreted as complete endorsement of all thespecific details contained in the plan. This planfocuses on issues surrounding agricultural, noturban depredation and nuisance problemsassociated with geese.

The primary purpose of this plan is to reduceagricultural depredation in the WV-LCR whilemaintaining population objectives for Canadageese in the Flyway. The PFC recommendedseven specific topics to be addressed in the NWOregon/SW Washington depredation controlplan. These topics were: (1) depredationresearch needs, (2) optimal Wildlife Services(WS) - formerly Animal Damage Control - staffing levels, (3) habitat management on publiclands, (4) acquisition and management ofadditional habitat, (5) hunting season structure,(6) use of kill permits and (7) fundingmechanisms. In addition to addressing thetopics recommended by the PFC, the workinggroup recommended that a total winteringCanada goose population and public outreachprogram objectives be included. Under each ofthese main topics, goals, objectives andstrategies have been developed.

After completion of a public review period andPFC adoption, implementation of this 5 yearplan will begin. However, strategies identifiedduring development that can be addressedsooner will be implemented as opportunitiesarise and when there is consensus that suchstrategies are desirable. This plan is intended tocomplement existing Pacific FlywayManagement Plans (Appendix B) andagreements that guide the cooperativemanagement programs for the sevensubspecies of Canada geese throughout thePacific Flyway. No part of this plan is intendedto alter any aspect of these existingmanagement plans and agreements. Theresponsible management agencies will work toresolve any conflicts between objectives

2

contained in the referenced FlywayManagement plans in a timely manner.

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

The total goose population in the WV-LCR hasincreased to the point where damage caused bygeese has adversely affected a large group ofland owners who have suffered substantialagricultural losses. Concurrently, certainsubspecies of Canada geese present in thearea, including the cackling and the duskyCanada goose, are below desirable populationlevels. Contributing to the complexity is the factthat while cacklers are below populationobjectives they are the most abundantsubspecies in the area. The challenge is toreduce depredation losses caused by geese inthe WV-LCR while maintaining the variousgoose populations at Flyway objective levels.

AREA DESCRIPTION

This plan will be implemented in the WV-LCRarea of NW Oregon and SW Washington (Fig.1).

Willamette Valley:

Oregon - All of Clackamas, Washington,Yamhill, Polk, Marion, Linn, Benton and Lanecounties.

Lower Columbia River:

Oregon - All of Clatsop, Columbia andMultnomah counties.

Washington - All of Clark (except the area southof the Washougal River), Cowlitz, Wahkiakumand Pacific counties.

BACKGROUND

The following information provides backgroundand history on issues related to Canada goosemanagement and agricultural depredation. Thisinformation is provided to increase publicawareness regarding the complexity of thegoose management problem and reduceconjecture surrounding the status of subspecies.

Canada Goose Taxonomy

The Pacific Flyway continues to recognize thesubspecific classification of Canada geese asdescribed by Delacour (1954). This classificationrecognizes seven distinct subspecies of Canadageese within the Pacific Flyway: cackling(Branta canadensis minima), Aleutian (B.c.leucopareia), Taverner's (B.c. taverneri), lesser(B.c. parvipes), dusky (B.c. occidentalis),Vancouver (B.c. fulva), and western (B.c.moffitti). All of these subspecies are known tooccur in the WV-LCR. Identification ofsubspecies is based on a series ofmeasurements of geese from specific breedingareas throughout the Pacific Flyway (Johnson etal. 1979). Additional information from ongoinggenetics studies, band recovery data, andmorphological characteristics obtained frombreeding birds (including breast color obtainedfrom the Copper River Delta, Alaska) are beingincorporated into these determinations asinformation becomes available.

The recognition of subspecies in Canada geeseis not consistent among authorities and severalalternative classifications have been proposed. Palmer (1976) recognizes only eight subspeciesacross North America and combined the duskyand Vancouver subspecies of Delacour (1954). Sibley and Monroe (1990) do not recognize thedusky as a separate subspecies, either. However, Delacour (1951), Johnsgard (1975)and Johnson et al. (1979) all recognize twelve,including one extinct subspecies and it is thisclassification that is most widely employed byNorth American waterfowl managers.

Canada Goose History in the WV-LCR

Before the 1960's, the wintering Canada goosepopulation of WV-LCR averaged fewer than25,000 geese and most of these were the duskyCanada goose subspecies. Sport harvest of thedusky was relatively high and was concentratedon a few privately owned areas in themid-Willamette Valley (Timm et al. 1979). During the 1950's, the need for refuges toprotect the dusky was recognized and beginningin 1964, the first of three federal refuges wasdeveloped to provide wintering habitat for thedusky Canada goose. By the end of 1965, a10,609 acre, three refuge complex was created

3

Oregon

N

Washington

Federal Refuge

State Wildlife Area

Legend

City

Clatsop

Washington

Pacific

Polk

Benton

Eugene

Salem

Wahkiakum

Columbia

Yamhill

Portland

Cowlitz

Clark

Clackamas

Marion

Linn

Lane

Multnomah

Figure 1. County map of the Willamette Valley - Lower Columbia River Region.

4

61-6566-70

71-7576-80

81-8586-90

91-9596-97

Years

0

5

10

15

20

25

Thou

sand

sAv

erag

e Po

pula

tion

Inde

x

DUSKY CANADA GOOSEPOPULATION TRENDS

Figure 2. Dusky Canada goose 5 year populationtrends, 1961 - 1997.

in the mid-Willamette Valley. In addition, the5,149 acre Ridgefield refuge in SW Washingtonwas created in 1965, to provide wintering habitatfor the dusky. To attest to the effectiveness ofthe refuges, from 1963 to 1969, the post huntingseason population of the dusky increasedsubstantially from approximately 14,000 birds toover 23,000 (Timm et al. 1979). This occurreddespite a daily bag limit of three geese (except1967 and 1968) and seasons that extended aslate as January 12.

The dusky population, however, began decliningabout 1979, with an accelerated drop in themid-1980's (Fig. 2). The decline is attributed toseveral earthquake-related ecological changeson Alaska breeding grounds nesting habitat,combined with excessive harvest on thewintering grounds. The duskys behaviorappears to make it more vulnerable to sportharvest (Simpson and Jarvis 1979).

Hansen (1962) described the breeding range ofthe dusky Canada goose as extending from theBering Glacier to the Cook Inlet, a distance ofabout 275 air miles with the population reachingits greatest abundance on the Copper RiverDelta (CRD), near Cordova, Alaska. Morerecent studies classify Cook Inlet geese aslessers and more narrowly delineate duskys tothe CRD. However, the taxonomic identity ofsome groups of geese breeding near the CRDis still in doubt. There are small, unsurveyedgroups of large, dark Canada geese breeding inthe forested habitats of Prince William Sound,

adjacent to the CRD to the west, and eastwardalong the Gulf of Alaska, but they are widelydispersed and not numerous. The extent towhich these geese migrate south and mayconfound winter inventories of dusky geese isunknown and warrants study of their taxonomicidentities and winter distribution.

Before 1964, the low elevation of the CRD andperiodic flooding during high tides maintainedbroad expanses of sedge meadow dissected bya reticulated pattern of drainage channels andsloughs. A mixed forb/low shrub communitywas found only on slightly elevated sloughbanks (Trainer 1959). Brackish conditionssignificantly influenced productivity of watersand controlled the composition of plantcommunities. Early surveys (Trainer 1959)showed that dusky geese selected mixedforb/low shrub nest sites and that flooding wasthe primary cause of relatively infrequent nestlosses. Nest predation by gulls was slight andmammalian predators were considered rare onthe outer delta. Overall, nest success was high.

In March, 1964, the "Good Friday" earthquakeuplifted the CRD by 1.9 meters. This changedrastically altered the frequency of flooding,reducing the extent of tidal inundation andpromoted drying of slough banks and meadows(Reimnitz 1972). The drier conditions and lackof suppression by saltwater have allowed theinvasion and growth of shrubs such as alder andwillow. Between 1974 and 1984, shrub coverhas increased nine-fold on the coastal delta(Campbell 1990).

The effects of habitat changes on dusky Canadagoose production are not fully known. Nestinggeese have apparently adjusted to changes invegetation physiognomy and composition, andare using the drier, shrubby habitats extensively(Bromley 1976, Campbell 1990). Thesecondary effects of habitat change may bemore significant. The species composition ofpredators on the delta has changed (Campbelland Griese 1987) and nest predation hassharply increased. Avian predators still destroynests, however, predation by coyotes (Canislatrans) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) hasbecome prevalent. In part, this is attributed tothe increase in tall shrub habitats that arepreferred by the large mammalian predators.

5

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

nest

inde

x

Western Canada GeeseActive nest survey: WV-LCR

Figure 3. Lower Columbia River westernCanada goose active nest survey, 1985 - 1997.

During the 1980's, predation by brown bearsand coyotes was significant as shrub habitatsbecame more extensive. Since then, a widevariety of avian predators, including bald eagles,ravens, and gull species have joined the suite ofpredators taking eggs, goslings and adult birds. Concurrent to the change in predator species'numbers and diversity, nest predation increasedfrom less than 6% in 1959 (Trainer 1959) to anaverage of over 55% during the 1980's and anaverage of over 60% in the 1990's. Consequently, production has droppeddramatically. Continuing poor production hasnot only resulted in a population decline, but hasalso lead to an unfavorable age structure in thedusky goose population. A population modeldeveloped by the Alaska Department of Fishand Game (unpublished data) suggests thatnearly 60% of the population likely exceeded 7years of age in 1990.

Beginning in the late 1970's, the number ofTaverner’s Canada geese wintering in the WV-LCR increased from 2,000 to more than60,000 (Simpson and Jarvis 1979, Jarvis andCornely 1988). This increase occurred despitethe liberal goose hunting season. Reasons forthis increase are unknown. During this period,wintering Taverner's geese exploited newrefuges in the northwest region and graduallyremained north of their traditional Californiawintering areas.

The Taverner's Canada goose nests in a broadbelt of tundra bordering the western andnorthwestern coast of Alaska (Johnson et al.1979). Primary nesting areas include BristolBay, the outer Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-KDelta), Seward Peninsula, KotzebueSound/Selawik Lowlands, Upper Noatak Riverand several disjunct areas of the Alaskan NorthSlope. Unlike the dusky, the Taverner's nestsare widely dispersed so that it is difficult tomonitor nesting success and production. Because of its widely dispersed nesting pattern,this bird is not subject to significant subsistenceharvest or concentrated predation. It is a warybird and difficult for hunters to harvest.

Along with the buildup of the Taverner'spopulation, numbers of the resident westernCanada goose also increased steadily duringthe 1970's and 1980's, with significant increases

between 1985-90 (Fig. 3). Also known as theGreat Basin Canada goose, this is the onlygoose that nests in Oregon and Washington andcan be found breeding throughout both states(Krohn and Bizeau 1980). Over the long term,westerns have been increasing in Oregon andWashington. The wintering population is madeup of both resident and migrant birds. Estimatedannual survival rates for westerns in theWV-LCR is 64% (ODFW unpubl. data 1995). Population change is a function of both survivaland recruitment rates and western Canadageese seem to enjoy fairly high and consistentrecruitment coupled with moderate survivalleading to steady population growth.

The smallest of Canada geese, the cacklingCanada goose, like the dusky, also experienceda sharp decline throughout the Pacific Flywayduring the late-1970's and early 1980's. The"cackler" nests in a narrow fringe along thewestern coast of Alaska, between the Yukonand Kuskokwim Rivers and has traditionallywintered in the Central Valley of California with afew wintering in Oregon. Numbers dropped froman estimated 400,000 in the late 1960's, to fewerthan 25,000 in the mid-1980's. The decline isbelieved to be largely due to sport harvest inCalifornia and subsistence harvest on the Y-KDelta in Alaska (Raveling 1984). The huntingseason for this subspecies was closedbeginning in 1984. While recreational harvestswere being reduced through various restrictivemeasures, efforts were also underway to reducesubsistence hunting taking place on the Y-KDelta. In 1984, the Y-K Delta GooseManagement Plan was cooperatively developed

6

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Year

0

50

100

150

200

Thou

sand

sPo

pula

tion

Inde

x

Fall Cackling Canada GoosePopulation Indicies

Figure 4. Cackling Canada goose fall populationindex, 1979 - 1995. 61-65

66-7071-75

76-8081-85

86-9091-95

96-97

Years

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Thou

sand

sAv

erag

e M

WS

Inde

x

Oregon

Washington

WV-LCR

Trends in Canada Goose PopulationsWillamette Valley - Lower Columbia River

Figure 5. Northwest Oregon and southwestWashington Canada goose 5 year midwinter index,1961 - 1997.

and implemented by management agenciesand user groups throughout the flyway toenhance protection of cacklers, brant,white-fronted geese and emperor geese andrestore these populations (Pamplin 1986). Substantial moderation of spring harvest of botheggs and geese and increased protection duringfall and winter were accomplished as a result ofthis plan, further protecting the cacklerpopulation.

In 1993, the cackler fall flight was estimated at164,000 birds (Fig. 4), which allowed thepopulation to reach the minimum flyway harvestobjective of 110,000. In recent years the cacklerpopulation has continued to increase at a rapidrate, warranting a reopening of the cacklerseason, beginning in 1994. Along with thecurrent buildup, there is a significant increase inthe proportion of birds wintering in the WV-LCRwith a proportional decrease in California (R. E.Trost pers. commun.).

The wintering goose flock also includes smallernumbers of lesser and Vancouver Canadageese. Lesser Canada geese are similar in sizeand coloration to the Taverner's. The lessernests from interior Alaska eastward into theYukon Territory in a widely dispersed patternand is not significantly affected by subsistenceharvest or predation (Johnson et al. 1979, Kingand Hodges 1979). Some lesser Canada geesewintering in the WV-LCR originate from anurban goose population now numbering 5,000birds in Anchorage, Alaska.

The Vancouver Canada goose is a large darkcolored bird that closely resembles the dusky inappearance. The Vancouver nests along theforested coastline of southeastern Alaska andBritish Columbia (Lebeda and Ratti 1983). Thisbird is believed to be relatively non-migratory,with only a small percentage of the populationwintering in Washington and Oregon (Hansen1962, Ratti and Timm 1979).

Aleutian Canada geese, a federally designatedthreatened species number about 20,000. Thissubspecies nests on the Aleutian Islands ofAlaska and primarily winters in the San JoaquinValley of California. A small group of Aleutian'sfrom the Semidi Islands winters along theOregon coast. A few individuals associated withthe wintering areas in California have beenobserved in the WV-LCR. As this populationincreases, there is potential for this subspeciesto increase in the WV-LCR region.

In summary, the midwinter Canada goosepopulation index in the WV-LCR increased fromaround 40,000 to over 130,000 in the past 20years (Fig. 5).

Restrictive harvest regulations are believed tohave contributed to the increase in the totalnumber of Canada geese wintering in theWV-LCR, both through increased survival andlowered disturbance. Major shifts in the

7

wintering distribution of two subspecies,Taverner’s in the 1970's and cacklers in the1990's have resulted in greatly increasednumbers of Canada geese wintering in theregion. This increase in total numbers ofCanada geese has resulted in an increase inagricultural depredations and, correspondingly,landowner tolerance for geese on private landshas diminished.

PRIMARY GOAL OF THEDEPREDATION PLAN

Reduction of agricultural losses caused bydepredating Canada geese is the primarygoal of this plan. The following primaryobjectives of the plan describe how this willbe accomplished while maintaining and/orenhancing goose populations Flyway wide. Each primary objective, although presentedseparately, should be considered as anintegrated approach to Canada goosemanagement in the region. The approachwill be to utilize all the management toolsavailable in concert and complimentary withone another to achieve the primary goal ofthe plan.

Primary Objective 1. WINTERINGPOPULATION OBJECTIVE FOR THE

WV-LCR REGION

The establishment of a total Canada goosepopulation management objective has beenidentified by the 1997 depredation workinggroup as an essential component of this plan.

The primary method of population managementfor wintering Canada geese in the WV-LCR isharvest regulation. Concurrent with harvestregulation is the need for accurate populationmonitoring and assessment. Objectives for thewintering goose population in the WV-LCR mustbe consistent with: (1) recent population levelsand trends, (2) the capacity of public and privatelands to support goose populations withoutadverse impacts, (3) objectives for hunting, (4)landowner tolerance for goose use on private

lands, and (5) Pacific Flyway populationobjectives.

Goal: To limit the number of Canada geesewintering in the WV-LCR in order to minimizeagricultural depredations on private lands.

Objective 1: To limit the number of Canadageese wintering in the WV-LCR to no more than133,000 (95-97 average midwinter populationindex) and reduce the number of winteringCanada geese by 20% to 107,000 (as measuredby the midwinter index) by the year 2002. Thisplan recognizes that the actual number ofCanada geese present in the region is greaterthan the index, however, this number is the onlylong-term, consistent measure of the populationavailable and is therefor used for comparativepurposes. The actual number of Canada geeseis likely 2-3 times this number and the goal is tostabilize and then reduce both the index and theactual number by 20%.

Strategy: The initial focus of reduction effortsshould be to increase harvest pressure onCanada geese through alterations to existinghunting seasons as proposed in this plan withinFlyway management guidelines.

Rationale: This goal establishes a populationlimit of no further increase in the total number ofCanada geese wintering in the WV-LCR areabeyond the average number counted during thelast 3 years (1995-97). Wintering Canada goosenumbers are derived from the midwinter surveyindex. The midwinter index is the only long-termsurvey of Canada goose populations in theWV-LCR. This plan recognizes that themidwinter index does not provide a totalpopulation estimate but rather a consistentlong-term index to changes in population size. Current evidence suggests that the index valueis less than the actual number of Canada geesepresent.

Sport harvest will be given first consideration butother lethal means will be considered if harvestefforts are deemed ineffective at reducing totalwintering Canada goose numbers. Other lethalmeans will be used on a limited basis toenhance the effectiveness of management toolsoutlined in this plan. Also, since cacklingCanada geese represent a significant portion of

8

the wintering population, methods to redistributecacklers back to wintering areas in California orchanging Flyway population objective must beevaluated. However, past efforts to redistributeCanada geese in other parts of the country haveproven to be ineffective (Rusch et al. 1985).

Objective 2: Delist the Aleutian Canada goose.

Strategy: The directors of ODFW, WDFW,ADFG and CDFG should facilitate discussionswith Regions 1&7 of the USFWS to gain supportand finances to begin the delisting process.

Rationale: This subspecies has recoveredrapidly in recent years and the federalthreatened status is no longer warranted. In1996, delisting was recommended by theAleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team andthe Pacific Flyway Council. Although fewAleutian Canada geese were encountered in theWV-LCR area, options to deal with depredationissues will be increased, particularly with regardto harvest and depredation control activities, bydelisting this subspecies.

Objective 3: Increase awareness amongOregon and Washington landowners andAlaskan subsistence hunters concerning needsof all user groups, with a primary focus on thecackling Canada goose population managementand programs.

Strategy: As soon as feasible (1997-98),conduct a meeting between wildlifemanagement agency personnel, privatelandowner representatives, hunting groups andnative Alaskans to discuss cackling Canadagoose management issues.

Rationale: Recent increases in the cacklerpopulation and a winter distributional shift fromCalifornia to the WV-LCR has causedagricultural depredation problems to increase. The cackler population is approaching theproposed flyway management objective(Appendix B) and is heavily utilized by nativeAlaskans on the Y-K Delta for subsistencepurposes, thus efforts to control the winteringpopulation in the WV-LCR must be developed inconcert with the needs of all user groups.

Primary Objective 2. POPULATIONASSESSMENT AND MONITORING

Attaining and maintaining population goals andhabitat management programs depends onaccurate monitoring of population size (Hindmanand Ferrigno 1990). During recent years,waterfowl managers have attempted to workwith about 30 identifiable populations of geesein North America (Nelson and Bartonek 1990). However, only a limited number of thesepopulations are surveyed regularly, some not atall. Some goose populations are surveyed onthe breeding or wintering grounds or while intransit between breeding and wintering grounds. Appendix C details the types of surveys andbanding programs conducted in the WV-LCR forCanada goose management purposes. Thestrategies listed under the population monitoringobjectives were derived from flywaymanagement plans described in Appendix B. These strategies pertain to population surveysand collar reading programs of wintering geeseand breeding population surveys of residentCanada geese (western subspecies). Theseefforts will assist in achieving other goals of thisplan and assess achievement of limiting thenumber of wintering Canada geese in theWV-LCR.

Goal: Develop and employ monitoringprograms to accurately assess goosepopulations, distribution and survival rates ofCanada geese on the breeding and winteringgrounds.

Objective 1: Develop survey techniques tobetter assess the total wintering Canada goosepopulation on the wintering grounds (WV-LCR).

Strategy: Continue the current midwintersurvey (MWS).

Rationale: The current MWS provides an indexto the total wintering Canada goose populationin the WV-LCR. This survey is the only long-term index to Canada goose numbers andabundance throughout the area. To maintaincomparability for assessment of the

9

management program, it is essential to continuethe midwinter survey in its current form.

Strategy: Conduct additional aerial and groundsurveys October - April to acquire data on thetotal wintering Canada goose population anddistribution of subspecies in the WV-LCR.

Rationale: Improved survey methodologiesdeveloped specifically to estimate total Canadagoose numbers and distribution throughout thearea will assist managers in evaluating impactsof management actions and help to focusmanagement programs on those geographicareas with the highest goose densities and/ormost depredation damage. The development ofa scientifically rigorous survey that employstransect designs and variance estimationtechniques would provide a better estimate ofthe total wintering Canada goose population(Martin et al. 1979) than is presently obtainedfrom the midwinter survey.

Objective 2: Continue to use mark-resightsurveys to determine population size,distribution and survival of Canada geesewintering in the WV-LCR.

Strategy: Periodically conduct banding andcollar marking of dusky Canada geese on theCRD, cackling Canada geese on the Y-K delta,western Canada geese in the WV-LCR andlesser Canada geese in Anchorage and otherknown breeding areas, where feasible. Continue observation effort in the WV-LCR.

Rationale: Use of mark-resight data has beenproven to be effective in providing reliableinformation regarding effects of restrictiveharvest regulation changes on survival andrecovery rates for Canada geese (Hindman andFerrigno 1990). Data from neck collaringprovides timely and reliable information that canbe collected to reflect distribution outside thehunting season or in areas where hunting is notallowed. To support indirect winter populationestimates, distribution studies and researchobjectives outlined in the dusky, cackler andTaverner's/lesser Canada goose managementplans, neck collaring programs should beconducted on these four subspecies.

From 1990 to 1994, several thousand westernCanada geese were neck collared in theWV-LCR to determine population size,distribution and survival. Previously unknowninformation regarding distribution patterns(movement) was gathered from that effort. Anew neck collaring program should be evaluatedfor this subspecies.

Objective 3: Maintain and continue to refinebreeding ground surveys of dusky and cacklingCanada geese.

Strategy: Continue the aerial transect surveyson the Y-K Delta and CRD in Alaska to monitorpopulations of cackling and dusky Canadageese.

Rationale: These surveys provide populationspecific information on these goose populationsat a time when they are geographicallyseparated and relatively sedentary on theirprinciple breeding grounds. Such surveys offerthe best long term opportunity to accuratelymonitor these populations.

Objective 4: Evaluate the development ofadditional breeding ground surveys to monitorpopulation trends of Taverner’s and lesserCanada geese.

Strategy: Conduct experimental, fixed wingaerial transect surveys throughout the breedingrange of these subspecies to determine thefeasibility of a periodic operational survey tomonitor populations.

Rationale: The large number of subspecieswintering in the WV-LCR region makesmonitoring individual subspecies through aerialsurveys a difficult, if not impossible, means ofmonitoring these populations. The developmentof a comprehensive breeding population surveyprogram for all Canada goose populations wouldgreatly facilitate population management.

10

Primary Objective 3. HABITATMANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC USE

Quality habitat for wintering geese is critical andmore important than often realized. Winter isthe time for geese to form pair bonds, rechargebody reserves in preparation for springmigrations and breeding and survive huntingpressure and highly variable weather conditions(Hartman 1995). On the wintering groundsgeese prepare for their next breeding season byacquiring important reserves of lipids andproteins necessary for migration to northernbreeding grounds and successful reproduction(Raveling 1979). If the birds do not acquire thenecessary nutrients by the time they arrive onthe breeding grounds, their reproductive effortsmay be diminished.

Winter food acquisition by Canada geese is acomplex interaction of nutritional needs,resource availability, habitat quality and behavior(Baldassarre and Bolen 1994). Habitatmanagement for Canada geese requiresproviding three essential elements, food, water,and sanctuary, to sustain geese from arrival infall (October) to departure in spring (late April). Food, in the form of grasses (green forage),grains, and natural vegetation, should beprovided proximate to open water for successfulhabitat management. Canada geese prefer tograze on short (< 4 inches) grasses. Alsoknown as green forage, various types of grassesand grass-legume mixes comprise the majorityof the diet of geese in the WV-LCR.

Wildlife refuges and wildlife areas are vitallyimportant wintering areas for Canada geese. These areas provide considerable goose foodresources and human activity (disturbance) isusually regulated. Goose habitat managementefforts are geared to maximize (dependent uponpersonnel and funding) food production. Practices include creating, enhancing orrestoring wetlands to provide natural (moist soil)vegetation, planting and flooding of managedareas, and providing agricultural crops andpastures. In addition, portions of these areasprovide sanctuary from human disturbance.

Sanctuaries on public lands that provideforaging and roosting areas free from humandisturbance are essential for successful Canadagoose management and would help alleviatedepredation on private lands. Sanctuary areabenefits can be attained through a combinationof spatial and temporal areas that aremaintained essentially or totally free from allhuman disturbance. Effects of disturbance fromhunting, vehicle and foot traffic, viewing,management or research activities can lead tochange in habitat use, behavior and food habits. Fredrickson and Drobney (1979) cited depletionof energy reserves, delay of migration andpairing, and elimination of wintering traditions aspossible consequences of disturbance. Continued disturbance of wintering Canadageese on public lands could potentially increaseagricultural depredation of surrounding privatelands.

Public access on Federal refuges and Statewildlife areas varies greatly. The type and levelof regulated public use is determined by thecompatibility of that activity with the goals andobjectives of the individual refuge or wildlifearea. Some of the major public use activitiesthat occur on refuges and wildlife areas includehunting, fishing, bird watching, hiking,photography, dog training, and environmentalresearch and education.

Public Lands - Federal and State

Ten Federal National Wildlife Refuges (NWR)(Willapa, Ankeny, Baskett Slough, Julia B.Hansen, Lewis and Clark, Ridgefield,Steigerwald Lake, Tualatin River, Wapato Lakeand William L. Finley), three state of Oregon(E.E. Wilson, Fern Ridge and Sauvie Island) andtwo state of Washington (Shillapoo andVancouver Lake) wildlife areas lie within theWV-LCR Region of NW Oregon and SWWashington. Existing habitat management andpublic use programs are mandated byestablished policies and/or approvedmanagement plans.

Federal Lands

The USFWS administers approximately 60,000acres within the goose depredation area;however, not all of this area is capable of

11

providing habitat suitable for Canada goosemanagement. The USFWS provides agriculturalhabitats on some of the refuges throughcooperative farming agreements with locallandowners.

Western Oregon NWR Complex (Ankeny,Baskett Slough, Tualatin River, Wapato Lakeand William L. Finley)

Ankeny, Baskett Slough and William L. FinleyNWR’s were initially established in the mid-1960's to provide wintering habitat for the duskyCanada goose. Ankeny NWR is located nearthe town of Jefferson, Baskett Slough NWR islocated near the town of Dallas and the WilliamL. Finley NWR is located near Corvallis. Thesethree Willamette Valley refuges encompassapproximately 10,613 acres, of which over 5,000acres are farmed to provide winter feed forgeese (Appendix C).

Under the cooperative farming program onAnkeny, Baskett Slough and Finley NWRs,farmers plant grass, pasture and grains andthen harvest all of the grass seed. All of theforage provided by these crops is available towintering waterfowl during the fall-spring period. The farmers harvest grass seed and hay fromthese areas during the summer, after the geesehave migrated north to their breeding grounds.Cooperative farming agreements on otherNWR’s vary, but generally allow the farmer toremove a significant portion (75%) of the cropwhile leaving a small portion (25%) of theharvest behind for foraging geese. The threemain crops planted on the NWR’s are annualryegrass, perennial ryegrass, and fescue. Inrecent years, these refuges have also beendeveloping several hundred acres of moist soilunits which have also been heavily used bygeese.

Wildlife observation, photography, hiking,hunting, interpretation and environmentaleducation are the major public use activities onthe refuges. Large portions of Ankeny, BaskettSlough and Finley NWR’s are closed to publicaccess when the geese arrive in the fall andremain closed until geese migrate out of thearea in the spring. This closure includes allwetlands and green forage areas utilized bygeese. The public can drive through the refuges

along county, state or federal main roads, butare instructed to stay in their vehicles except atdesignated viewing areas. The refuges wereopen to public waterfowl hunting until 1985 atwhich time they were closed due to the lowmidwinter index of duskys and the disturbancethat resulted from hunting. Refuge staff andfarming activities are also minimized during thewinter to reduce disturbance to geese. Visitorsare allowed access throughout the refugesduring the summer months.

Established in 1992, the Tualatin River andWapato Lake NWR’s are located in the northend of the Willamette Valley and currently total913 acres with an approved future boundary of 3,166 acres. Although small in size and largelyundeveloped for refuge purposes, these tworefuges could provide significant winteringgoose habitat in future years. All public accesson Tualatin River and Wapato Lake NWR’s isprohibited at this time.

Ridgefield NWR Complex (Ridgefield andSteigerwald Lake)

Ridgefield NWR is located 20 miles north ofPortland along the Columbia River near thetown of Ridgefield in SW Washington. This5,149 acre refuge was established in 1965 toprovide a wintering area for migratory waterfowl,especially dusky Canada geese. Farming onthe refuge is through a cooperative farmingprogram and limited cattle grazing occurs on thearea. Steigerwald Lake NWR is located alongthe Columbia River in eastern Clark County nearthe town of Washougal. This 900 acre area wasinitially established in 1984 to serve as awintering waterfowl area and providesapproximately 150 acres of goose foraginghabitat. No farming program exists for thisrefuge.

Major public use activities on Ridgefield NWRinclude waterfowl hunting, wildlife observationand photography and environmental education. Public entry onto the refuge varies bymanagement units (River S, Roth, Bachelor andBridgeport Dairy). Portions of the River S unitare closed to all public use from October 1 -April 15. The remaining portion is open tohunting only on waterfowl hunt days. TheBridgeport Dairy and Bachelor units are closed

12

year-round to all public use, with the exceptionof vehicle use along the lower River Road. Public use on Steigerwald Lake NWR isprohibited except for group tours conducted byrefuge staff.

Lower Columbia River NWR’s

The Julia Butler Hansen and the Lewis andClark NWR’s are collectively known as theLower Columbia River NWR’s for purposes ofthis plan. The Julia Butler Hansen NWR islocated near the town of Cathlamet,Washington, and encompasses approximately5,516 acres. This refuge was established in1972 for the protection of the endangeredColumbia white-tailed deer. The 38,214 acreLewis and Clark NWR was established in 1972for the purpose of providing habitat for migratorybirds, primarily waterfowl. Currently, the farmingand grazing programs on the two refuges aregeared towards providing green forage forwhite-tailed deer and wintering waterfowl.

The Julia B. Hansen NWR is open daily on ayear-round basis, from dawn to dusk. Publicentry on the mainland unit is limited to foot travelon the Center Road. Public entry onTenasillahe Island is limited to foot traffic on thedike. These restrictions are in place to protectthe endangered Columbia white-tailed deer fromdisturbance. Major public use activities includewildlife observation, hiking, hunting, sport fishingand environmental education.

The numerous islands of the Lewis and ClarkNWR are accessible only by boat. As a result,the major winter public use activity is waterfowlhunting. But fishing and boating activity canincrease in March. All lands are open towaterfowl hunting except all dikes, all exposedlands on Miller Sands and its partially enclosedlagoon and the diked portion of Karlson Island. The refuge is open to day use only.

State Lands:Oregon: Sauvie Island Wildlife Area

Established in 1948 as a wintering waterfowlarea, the Sauvie Island Wildlife Area is locatedat the confluence of the Columbia andWillamette Rivers. This 12,000 acre area islocated 10 miles from downtown Portland and

approximately 4,359 acres are currentlyavailable for goose food production. Most of thefarming is conducted by ODFW personnel, withsome limited sharecropping occurring.

With the location so close to the Portlandmetropolitan area, the Sauvie Island WildlifeArea is very popular with the public for outdoorrelated activities. The most popular public useactivities include swimming and beach activitiesand fishing which together account for 65% of allrecreational use. Public access restrictions varyamong management units, but generally call forareas to be closed to public access (except fordesignated hunting seasons) from October 1through February 1(Stillman Lake and OakIsland), March 15 (Seal Lake and Mud LakeUnits) and April 15 (Eastside and Crane Unitsand Sturgeon Lake). The Columbia Riverbeaches and the North Unit are openyear-round. Public hunting (waterfowl, uplandbird, deer and dove) is a traditional use on thewildlife area and is an objective for the area.

Fern Ridge Wildlife Area

Fern Ridge Wildlife Area is located 7 miles westof Eugene adjacent to the Fern Ridge Reservoir.This 5,103 acre area was established in 1957and has approximately 150 acres of croplandthat are annually planted and 450 acres of moistsoil impoundments are actively managed forwaterfowl forage by ODFW personnel. Arealands are leased by ODFW from the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers for the purpose of wildlifemanagement.

The majority (85%) of the Fern Ridge projectland and water areas is open to public accessyear-round. Seasonal restrictions (Nov. 1 -March 30) to public access on the Fisher Butte, East Coyote and West Coyote Units are in placeto protect wintering waterfowl. Major public useactivities include hunting, fishing and boatingrelated activities. Waterfowl, upland game birds,dove and deer hunting occur on the wildlifearea.

E.E. Wilson Wildlife Area

E.E. Wilson Wildlife Area was acquired from theU.S. Army in 1948, after the Camp Adair MilitaryReservation was closed. This 1,683 acre area

13

has primarily served as a pheasant propagationfacility, however, beginning in 1997, thepropagation program was targeted for closuredue to budget cuts by ODFW. E.E. WilsonWildlife Area contains numerous fallowgrassland fields that could potentially be farmedfor goose forage. This farming would becontingent on either an increase in operatingdollars for the wildlife area, or developingcooperative farming agreements with localfarmers. In an effort to provide goose forage inthe mid-Willamette Valley, wildlife area staff planted 30 acres of goose forage in 1996. However, to date no wintering Canada gooseuse has been recorded (Dave Budeau pers.commun.). In addition, since 1993approximately 170 acres of seasonal wetlandshave been restored on the area.

The E.E. Wilson Wildlife Area is open to publicaccess on a year-round basis, except for severalsmall designated areas. Major public useactivities include viewing of upland game birddisplay pens, bird watching, hunting, fishing andhiking. Hunting for waterfowl, upland birds,rabbits and doves occurs on the area fromSeptember 1 through February 28, with uplandbird hunting constituting a majority (60%) of thehunter visits.

Washington: Shillapoo and Vancouver LakeWildlife Areas

Shillapoo and Vancouver Lake Wildlife Areasare located in Clark County in southwestWashington. This 1,549 acre area extendsalong the Columbia River floodplain from the cityof Vancouver to the mouth of the Lewis River. Initial parcels of these wildlife areas werepurchased in 1952 (Shillapoo) and 1960(Vancouver Lake). WDFW has recently beenexpanding these areas through an extensiveacquisition program in the Vancouver Lowlandsin cooperation with Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) and the WashingtonWildlife and Recreation Program. Approximately880 acres of food crops and green forage areprovided for wintering waterfowl throughsharecropping agreements with local farmers.

Like the Sauvie Wildlife Area, the Shillapoo andVancouver Lake Wildlife Areas are very populardue to their proximity to the Portland

metropolitan area. The areas are open topublic access on a year-round basis and majoractivities include upland game bird andwaterfowl hunting, bird watching, mushroom andfruit picking. Non-wildlife oriented recreation iscentered primarily around Vancouver Lake andthe adjacent county park.

Habitat Management and Public Use -Objectives and Strategies

The following goals, objectives and strategieswere developed by state/federal land managersin an attempt to bolster wintering Canada goosenumbers on public lands and to assist with othermanagement aspects of this plan.

Federal and State LandsHabitat Management

Objective 1: To increase the amount of Canadagoose use on public lands, while subsequentlydecreasing the amount of Canada gooseoccurrence on private lands.

Strategy: Reduce time period of pheasant huntsto reduce disturbance of geese using theseareas during late winter and spring.

Strategy: Restrict public access for all purposesduring late winter and early spring.

Rationale: Disturbance on public lands maycontribute to agricultural crop depredationproblems by displacing geese from public toprivate lands. To the extent possible, it isrecommended that such disturbance be reducedor eliminated beginning with the end of the duckhunting framework (Sunday closest to 20January) and continuing through 15 April toenhance public lands for attracting and holdinggeese.

Objective 2: Review habitat managementprograms on refuges and wildlife areas todevelop programs to increase and improvegoose forage.

Strategy: Conduct an annual meeting withlandowners to discuss management of publiclands with a focus on Canada geese.

14

Rationale: Investigation and development ofalternative farming techniques is vital tomaximizing goose food production on publiclands. Current farming programs successfullyprovide quality forage for wintering geese;however, the quality and quantity of forage maybe increased by implementing alternativefarming strategies or altering existing habitatsthat are deemed unproductive for winteringgoose forage. Bringing local farmers and refugeand wildlife area staffs together to discussfarming practices on public lands to increasegoose use is an important task. In addition, thismeeting would provide the opportunity todiscuss recent wetland restoration efforts onstate and federal lands.

Strategy: Review farming, livestock grazingand wetland management programs on allNWR’s and wildlife areas to provide increasedgoose use, with a goal of increasing use bydusky Canada geese.

Rationale: Farming, grazing and wetlandrestoration/enhancement efforts will be reviewedto determine their compatibility with providingwintering Canada goose habitat and to identifypossible program modifications to maximizegoose use on each refuge.

Public Use

Objective: Decrease disturbance to winteringCanada geese and increase goose use of publiclands by implementing public use restrictions.

Strategy: Increase public education effortsconcerning Canada goose management in theWV-LCR.

Rationale: Management problems includingagricultural depredation associated withwintering Canada geese in the WV-LCR are littleknown outside the farming and scientificcommunities. An increased education effortdirected toward visitors to refuges and wildlifeareas is recommended. Updated informationkiosks and literature detailing goosemanagement including agricultural depredationproblems in the WV-LCR and the role of refugesand wildlife areas are proposed.

Strategy: Review all public use programs on allNWRs and wildlife areas to reduce disturbanceand increase goose utilization. Rationale: A number of studies have shown thathuman disturbance can be an important factoraffecting goose feeding distribution (Owen 1972, Madsen 1985, Percival 1993). Recurrentdisturbance of goose foraging and sanctuaryareas on public lands could create agriculturaldepredation problems on surrounding privatelands. All current public use programs should bereviewed to determine their compatibility withproviding wintering Canada goose sanctuaryand identify possible program modifications tomaximize goose use on each refuge.

Federal LandsWestern Oregon NWR ComplexHabitat Management

Strategy: Continue wetland restorationprograms in conjunction with established forageareas. Recent wetland restoration efforts haveincreased goose utilization of refuges andpriority should continue to be placed onconverting areas of low goose use to wetlands.

Rationale: Since 1992-93, USFWS refuge staffhas closely evaluated goose utilization ofindividual crop fields and wetlands. Croplandswhich have produced unacceptable results, bothin regards to yields and low utilization by geese,have been converted to other uses. Some fieldsthat received little goose use were converted tomoist soil wetlands, where millet, smartweedand other natural plants were encouraged. These changes were made with the overallobjective to increase goose use of these areas. Preliminary results indicate that goose use hasgreatly increased in these areas. Fields thatreceived little use before wetland conversionsare now the most highly used areas on therefuges. Additional wetland restoration effortsare planned to further increase goose use onthe Willamette Valley refuges.

Strategy: Increase capability to managewetlands and croplands with enhanced watersupplies.

Rationale: Additional refuge water suppliescould enhance both wetland and cropland

15

habitats for Canada geese by providing thecapability to irrigate and thus, produce a greateramount and higher diversity of goose food. Thedrilling of wells and/or obtainment of additionalwater rights/delivery on these refuges should bepursued in order to increase the managementcapability for Canada geese.

Strategy: Review and evaluate experimentationwith alternative crops.

Rationale: The refuges have experimented tosome degree with alternative crops, primarilypasture mixes, and the results have beenpositive (Jim Houk pers. commun.) bymaintaining high goose use and reducing theamount of fertilizer and herbicides used forgrowing grass seed. Pastures comprised ofboth grasses and legumes seem to be highlyused by Canada geese throughout the winteringseason. The refuges will continue to explore theuse of providing alternative crops for Canadageese including pasture, timothy, trefoil, etc. There are limitations associated with all of thesecrops including the interest/capability to growthem by refuge cooperative farmers. Crops thathave a higher sustainability during the wintermonths will be a priority. Some grain crops,such as corn may be attractive to geese but lastfor shorter periods of time.

Strategy: Increase forage enhancementpractices associated with the crop program.

Rationale: The refuges have seen highergoose use in fields that are fertilized and limedat a higher rate than those that receive thesetreatments infrequently. The refuge will requireall cooperative farmers to conduct thesetreatments at sufficient times/rates in order toreceive better sustained goose use.

Strategy: Increase burning of grass fields.

Rationale: The refuges have observedincreased goose use of some grass fields thatare burned compared to those that are not. Therefuges would attempt to increase the use ofprescribed fire as a goose managementpractice. However, it is well known that fieldburning in the Willamette Valley is acontroversial practice and is tightly regulated bystate and federal agencies.

Strategy: Increase Integrated PestManagement (IPM) program.

Rationale: The presence of noxious weeds(blackberry, tansy, leafy spurge, Canada thistle,knapp weed, purple loosestrife, etc.) within andadjacent to refuge farm fields reduces thequality of these areas as producers of Canadagoose food. The refuges propose to increaseIPM program efforts to reduce noxious weeds. Strategy: Provide adequate composition of themajor grass types used by Canada geese.

Rationale: The refuges have observed whatappears to be seasonal variation in goose useamong the three major grass crops (annualryegrass, perennial ryegrass and fescue). Eachof these high-protein crops vary in palatability forgeese. In general, geese prefer the annualryegrass during the fall, and gradually switchtoward the perennial ryegrass and fescue in thewinter (W. OR. Refuge Complex unpubl. report). It is the annual ryegrass that is much moresusceptible to depredation concerns than othercrops. However, all three of the refuges do notprovide adequate amounts of all three grasscrops. The refuges will ensure that all threegrass types are adequately represented on eacharea.

Strategy: Increase experimentation with use ofgrazing of grass crops in late winter/early spring.

Rationale: During the late winter/early springperiods, grass height on some of the refugefields begins to increase such that it actuallybecomes less desirable as possible gooseforage. The refuge proposes to experiment withgrazing of grass crops at this time of year inorder to determine if it would increase itsdesirability by geese. There is recognition thatthis practice could affect grass seed productionand would be a major concern of refugecooperative farmers.

Strategy: Develop 500 acres of wetland and200 acres of cropland habitats on Tualatin RiverNWR. Rationale: To provide additional Canada goosewintering habitat on public land in the northernWillamette Valley, the USFWS, Bureau of

16

Reclamation and Ducks Unlimited, arepartnering to restore wetland habitat on landswithin the newly established Tualatin RiverNWR. In addition to these wetlands, croplandswill also be managed for wintering waterfowlincluding Canada geese. As additional landsare acquired in the future, the refuge willcontinue to develop habitat for wildlife, includinggeese.

Strategy: Develop 90 acres of wetland habitaton Wapato Lake NWR. Rationale: To restore wintering Canada gooseuse in the historic Wapato Lake Basin nearGaston in Yamhill/Washington counties andreduce agricultural depredation in the northWillamette Valley, the USFWS, Ducks Unlimited,and the Oregon Waterfowl and WetlandsAssociation will restore wetland habitat whichwill be managed primarily for winteringwaterfowl, including Canada geese. Ridgefield NWR Complex Habitat Management

Strategy: Implement habitat improvementsprojects funded as part of the Lower ColumbiaRiver-North American Wetlands ConservationAct (NAWCA) grant.

Rationale: Rehabilitation of water supply anddistribution systems on the River S Unit willallow for improved farming, grazing and wetlandmanagement capabilities, resulting in improvedwintering Canada goose habitat and increasedgoose use of refuge lands.

Strategy: Implement farming and grazingmodifications to provide green forage forCanada geese.

Rationale: The USFWS recently reviewed andevaluated the farming and grazing programs atRidgefield NWR. It was determined thatconversion from grain and clover cropping togreen forage/pasture management wouldprovide more sustainable foods for geese. Thismanagement scheme would result in moreintensive management for geese andapproximately 150 acres of additional goosehabitat over past management. Improved

pasture lands will be maintained by grazing,mowing and haying.

Lower Columbia River NWR’s Habitat Management

Strategy: Evaluate existing lands for additionalgoose foraging and wetland restorationopportunities.

Rationale: Cattle grazing of pasture areas cangreatly benefit wintering Canada geese bystimulating growth of young succulent shoots. Grazing can be beneficial or detrimentaldepending upon the intensity, timing andduration of grazing of green forage areas. Tomaximize green forage production, alternativegrazing strategies should be investigated todetermine their effects on green forageproduction and subsequent use by winteringCanada geese. Creation and/or improvement ofwetland areas also has the potential to increasethe amount of use by Canada geese of thesepublic lands.

Strategy: Develop suitable goose foraginghabitats on sand disposal islands of the LowerColumbia River.

Rationale: Irrigation and soil amendments couldpossibly reduce the rate of wind erosion on sandspoil islands where revegetation efforts havefailed. If successful, soil amended islands couldbe reseeded and would increase the amount ofgoose foraging areas along the lower ColumbiaRiver. Successful establishment of grass covercrops on these areas will require development ofirrigation systems and regular fertilization. Strategy: Investigate potential land exchangeswith James River Corp., ODFW and USFWS toput lands in wildlife management for gooseforage.

Rationale: The State of Oregon, USFWS, andJames River Corp. all own small parcels of landalong the Lower Columbia River that could beexchanged to provide additional winteringCanada goose habitat.

Currently, James River Corp. owns small landparcels that are unproductive for cottonwoodgrowing, but would provide wintering goose

17

habitat. USFWS and the State of Oregon ownsmall land parcels that do not provide goosehabitat opportunities but could be used ascottonwood growing areas. Exchanging theseland parcels would benefit all parties andprovide additional wintering habitat for Canadageese along the lower Columbia River.

Oregon: Sauvie Island Wildlife AreaHabitat Management Strategy: Begin grazing of Westside Unit greenforage areas by March 1 of each year. Rationale: To increase the availability andpalatability of goose foraging areas on theWestside Unit, cattle grazing would begin onMarch 1. Currently, cattle grazing is initiated onMarch 15, if water levels are favorable. Extending the grazing period by two weeks willfurther enhance green forage areas,subsequently increasing goose use. Strategy: Implement cattle grazing on 55 acreparcel of Oak Island to establish new gooseforage area.

Rationale: Introduction of cattle grazing onportions of Oak Island would enhance the areafor goose foraging use. Currently, the proposedarea is unused by foraging geese due to theheight and quality of the green forage area.

Strategy: Increase fall fertilizer application onall green forage areas.

Rationale: Application of fertilizer to greenforage areas in the fall has been shown tosignificantly increase goose use, versus areasthat receive no fertilizer treatments. It isbelieved that increased goose use is a result ofincreased biomass and protein content offertilized green forage areas (Vickery et al.1994).

Strategy: Implement habitat improvementsprojects funded as part of the Lower ColumbiaRiver-North American Wetlands ConservationAct (NAWCA) grant.

Rationale: Rehabilitation of water supply anddistribution systems on the wildlife area willallow for improved farming, grazing, and wetland

management capabilities, resulting in improvedwintering Canada goose habitat and increasedgoose use of wildlife area lands.

Public Use

Strategy: Except for traditional huntingprograms, close entire wildlife area (exceptGilbert River access and Columbia Riverbeaches) to public access from October 1 toApril 15.

Rationale: The public use restrictions currentlyin place are managed on a unit by unit basis thatcalls for separate public use restriction dateswithin each unit. This proposal calls for all publicuse restriction dates to be uniform and extend toApril 15. Implementing this strategy woulddecrease disturbance of wintering Canadageese by providing more sanctuary areasthroughout the wildlife area for longer periods oftime. The traditional program on the wildlifearea is waterfowl hunting and this would bemaintained.

Strategy: Close goose season concurrent withthe closure of duck season.

Rationale: In an effort to decrease disturbanceof wintering Canada geese, the area would beclosed to public use from the end of duckseason (mid-January) to April 15. This wouldcall for the elimination of all step (unit by unit)closures that are currently in place and wouldclose goose hunting at the end of duck season.

E.E. Wilson Wildlife Area Habitat Management

Strategy: Continue farming of 30 acreexperimental green forage area and reviewother potential developments for green forage.

Rationale: In 1996, a 30 acre green foragearea was developed to provide food forwintering Canada geese. With increased fundingor a cooperative farming program, a potential of150 acres of goose foraging areas could befarmed on the area. Currently, this areareceives little wintering Canada goose use.

Fern Ridge Wildlife Area Habitat Management

18

Strategy: Implement diking project to increaseavailability of moist soil impoundments in theFisher Butte Unit.

Rationale: Currently, portions of this area aredominated by reed canary grass and receivelittle goose foraging use. A proposedcooperative project between the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Ducks Unlimited, andODFW would create wetland impoundments andinstall control structures, which would allow foryear-round management of water resources. Creation of these impoundments would promotemoist soil vegetation and subsequently increasegoose use of the area.

Washington: Shillapoo and Vancouver LakeWildlife Areas Habitat Management

Strategy: Improve green forage areas byreseeding and increased weed control efforts.

Rationale: Research has shown that newlyreseeded pastures can increase goose grazingdensity by 60-130% over unseeded pastures(Percival 1993). Some existing pastures on thewildlife areas have become unproductive due tothe age of the pasture and the encroachment ofweed species (tansy, thistle and blackberry). Therefore, increased weed control efforts andreseeding of pastures would enhance greenforage areas and subsequently increase gooseuse. Strategy: Initiate experimental fall fertilizing ofgreen forage areas.

Rationale: Application of fertilizer to greenforage areas in the fall has been shown tosignificantly increase goose use, versus areasthat receive no fertilizer treatments (Percival1993). It is believed that increased goose use isa result of increased biomass and proteincontent of fertilized green forage areas (Vickeryet al. 1994).

Strategy: Implement habitat improvementsprojects funded as part of the Lower ColumbiaRiver - North American Wetlands ConservationAct (NAWCA) grant.

Rationale: Rehabilitation of water supply anddistribution systems on the wildlife area willallow for improved farming, grazing, and wetlandmanagement capabilities, resulting in improvedwintering Canada goose habitat and increasedgoose use of wildlife area lands.

Other Public LandsHabitat Management

Strategy: USFWS, ODFW and WDFW shoulddevelop partnerships to provide goose foragingareas on non-wildlife management orientedpublic lands.

Rationale: Public lands in the form of state andfederal prison facilities, state parks, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamationproperties could be farmed to provide additionalgoose foraging areas that could reduceagricultural depredation of surrounding privatelands. As an example, the Oregon State ParksDepartment in cooperation with arealandowners, has implemented a farmingprogram on the Mission Bottom State Park,north of Salem. Under this program, state parkproperties that were previously left fallow duringthe winter months are planted with anassortment of cover crops to reduce depredationproblems on surrounding private lands. Plantingof cover crops is conducted by local farmers.

Private LandsHabitat Management

Geese have been among the greatestbeneficiaries of modern agriculture throughoutNorth America (Wendt and Boyd 1990). Largefields, heavy use of fertilizers, improved strainsof grasses, cereals and corn has all helped tomake life easier for them away from theirbreeding grounds. This means that, more thanever before, the future of geese is tied to thefuture of farming (Wendt and Boyd 1990). Sincethe vast majority of the farming land base in theWV-LCR is on private lands, development ofagreements with private landowners to providegoose foraging areas remains a viable option toreduce agricultural depredations on privatelands. Cooperative programs betweenlandowners and wildlife management agencies,which call for providing waterfowl foraging areason selected private lands, have proven to be

19

successful in reducing agricultural depredationscaused by wintering waterfowl throughout NorthAmerica.

Objective: Recognize and compensate privatelandowners for their role in providing Canadagoose foraging areas on selected private landsby developing voluntary agreement,conservation easement or direct paymentprograms.

Strategy: Develop agricultural easementprograms to provide goose foraging habitat onprivate lands.

Rationale: Additional goose foraging areascould be provided by private landowners whoenroll lands in this program. Landowners wouldbe financially compensated for planting gooseforage on selected lands. Under this program, alandowner would receive a one-time payment inexchange for providing goose foraging areas. Hunting and hazing activities on these landswould be prohibited. Strategy: Expand existing wetland easementsand/or Wetland Reserve Program efforts in theWV-LCR.

Rationale: The Natural Resource ConservationService, USFWS, ODFW, WDFW, and DucksUnlimited could provide technical assistance tolandowners who are enrolled in this program. Newly created or restored wetlands on theselands would benefit geese by providingadditional food (moist soil vegetation) androosting areas.

Strategy: Develop agreements with privatelandowners or corporations to provide goosefeeding areas in fields that are left fallow.

Rationale: Under this program, privatelandowners would enroll fallow lands into thisprogram on a short-term basis (1-5 years). These lands would be planted to annual grassesor legumes by the landowner with monetary andtechnical assistance provided by federal andstate agencies. As an example, the PacificCoast Joint Venture and the James RiverCorporation have developed an agreement thatwill result in the planting of annual grasses andlegumes on 1,000 - 2,000 acres of fallow

ground. James River and the USFWS areseeking funds to implement this program on atrial basis.

Primary Objective 4. LANDACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT

The acquisition and management of additionalgoose habitats in the WV-LCR is another optionto help reduce agricultural depredation of privatelands. By expanding the existing state/federalwildlife management land base for goosemanagement purposes, hazing birds to thesenewly acquired areas will help to assist inreducing depredation problems. Geese will beafforded additional public lands to help sustainthem.

However, the possibility of acquiring substantialtracts of wetlands and/or waterfowl foragingareas in the WV-LCR by state and federalagencies is decreasing. Rapid urbanization andindustrialization of farmlands continues at arapid pace, particularly in the Willamette Valley. In addition, wildlife management agencies faceshrinking budgets, further reducing their habitatacquisition and management capabilities. Without increases in operating budgets, manyagencies are unwilling to acquire new tracts ofland due to their inability to effectively managethese lands on an annual basis. Therefore,wildlife agencies should work with local, regionaland state planning and zoning groups andprivate organizations to develop programs forgoose habitat conservation and development.

Goal: Decrease agricultural depredation ofprivate lands by acquiring additional Canadagoose habitats in the WV-LCR through fee titleacquisition or donation.

Objective: Form a land acquisition workinggroup consisting of personnel from the USFWS,ODFW, WDFW and private conservationorganizations to develop and implement aCanada goose habitat acquisition program.

Strategy: Identify and prioritize potential tractsof land that could be acquired through fee titleacquisition or donation from willing landowners.

20

Strategy: Obtain funding from targeted sourcesand implement goose habitat acquisitionprogram.

Strategy: Develop an information andeducation program for landowners andstate/federal politicians regarding theimportance of acquisition of additional goosehabitats in the WV-LCR .

Rationale: A viable option to reducingagricultural depredation of private lands wouldbe to develop a Canada goose habitatacquisition program. Potential tracts of landwould be identified and prioritized. Prioritywould be ranked according to present gooseuse of the area, the potential of the land toreduce agricultural depredation on surroundingprivate lands and the cost and size of the parcel. Emphasis would be placed on locating andacquiring tracts of land near existing wildlifeareas and federal refuges. Acquisition can alsoprotect many lands from growing urban sprawlespecially in the Willamette Valley.

To implement the program, various public andprivate funding sources will be sought. Inaddition, an education program informing thepublic about the importance of acquiringadditional goose habitat will be developed. Developing and implementing a Canada goosehabitat acquisition program could assist inreducing agricultural depredation problems inthe WV-LCR. Lands acquired through fee titleacquisition or donation would be managed bystate or federal agencies as wintering Canadagoose foraging or sanctuary areas.

Primary Objective 5. DEPREDATIONRESEARCH

Depredation of crops by waterfowl often causesserious economic damage and has been arecurrent management problem (Linduska 1976,Clark and Jarvis 1978). Research has shownthat grazing by geese can be either beneficial ordetrimental to crop yield and is influenced bymany factors including: crop type, the stage ofthe growth of the crop at the time of grazing, the

intensity of the grazing, the soil type and theweather (Wright and Isaacson 1978).

Several studies have shown that grazing bygeese can reduce yields from agriculturalgrasslands (Patton and Frame 1981, Kahl andSamson 1984, Bedard et al. 1986, Conover1988, Groot Bruinderink 1989, Percival andHouston 1992) though others have found nosuch effect (Kear 1965, Kuyken 1969). Kear(1970) and Taylor (1961) found that foraging bygeese on winter crops may be beneficial to seedproduction except in abnormally wet seasons. Clark and Jarvis (1978) found that grazing ofryegrass by geese in the Willamette Valleyresulted in slightly higher seed yields, whencompared with ungrazed fields.

Crop depredations occur in several ways: (1)consumption of the harvestable portion of thecrop, (2) consumption of the new shoots of agreen crop, and (3) damage caused from thephysical presence of the birds (Linduska 1976). In addition, introduction of weed species inagricultural fields has been documented(Patterson et al. 1989).

Goal: Increase the knowledge of the effects ofwinter goose grazing on private agriculturallands, including the geographic extent, amount,and economic value of goose damage.

Objective: Conduct damage assessmentstudies of goose grazing impacts on grass seed,grain, vegetable crop and pasture lands in theWV-LCR.

Strategy: Conduct damage assessmentresearch on the major grass seed types found inthe Willamette Valley. The three major grassseed types grown in the Willamette Valleyinclude annual ryegrass, perennial ryegrass andfescue. Future research studies should beconducted by university personnel incooperation with the farming communities andwildlife management agencies.

Rationale: Quantitative information on theeffect of grazing by geese during winter on theseed yield of the subsequent grass crops isessential to the establishment and acceptanceof realistic population goals that balance localdamage concerns with the broader public

21

interest in geese and the acceptance of thosegoals by the public. Information on the effect ofgrazing by geese is also important to grass andlegume farmers (ryegrass, fescue, clover,alfalfa, bentgrass, bluegrass) and the economyof Oregon. In 1996, in the WV-LCR, 423,790acres of grass and legume seed acres wereharvested worth an estimated $288,684,000(OSU Extension Service 1997).

Strategy: Continuation of damage assessmentstudy on Sauvie Island. In Fall 1996, OregonState University, Department of RangelandResources began a two year study of the impactof goose use on winter wheat on Sauvie Island,near Portland.

Rationale: Findings from this study will be usedto develop damage assessment techniques thatfarmers can use on wheat fields to determinethe monetary loss of goose grazing. In 1996,grain farming in the Willamette Valley accountedfor 104,550 acres worth an estimated$36,890,000 (OSU Extension Service 1997).

Strategy: Conduct damage assessment studyof pasture lands along the lower ColumbiaRiver. Rationale: A research study has beenproposed by Columbia Region Staff (ODFW) todetermine if there is a significant correlationbetween the decrease in livestock forage(pasture) production and utilization by geeseafter the hunting season and just before thetraditional cattle grazing period along the lowerColumbia River. Additional studies should bedeveloped to assess damage to other crops inthe area.

Strategy: Develop a statistically valid surveyprocedure to determine the number of privateagricultural areas effected by Canada geese, inboth time and space, and develop asubsampling methodology to determine theextent of these impacts on the region as awhole.

Rationale: Although there is little doubt thatexcessive numbers of Canada geese canadversely impact agricultural interests, there islittle quantitative data available to place suchimpacts into a larger perspective. Statistically

reliable knowledge of the extent and severity ofsuch adverse impacts will allow managers tofocus control efforts where they will be mosteffective. Additionally, such a program will, inthe end, be the true test of the success or failureof this management plan. If the strategies in thisplan work, the result should be that the numberof areas with problems should decline and thoseareas with continuing problems shouldexperience some reduction in effects.

Primary Objective 6. USDA-APHIS,WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS)

ACTIVITIES

The responsibility for damage control involvingmigratory game birds is delegated to the U.S.Department of Agriculture through the Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) -Wildlife Services (WS) program (Appendix A).

In Oregon and Washington, WS is responsiblefor responding to complaints involving migratorygame birds, by providing technical assistanceand equipment to private landowners. Inaddition, WS agents are actively involved inhazing activities.

Various hazing techniques used singly or in acombination with one another can be effective inharassing geese from fields. Frighteningdevices such as scarecrows, which resemblehumans, or a combination of flags, pie pans, orplastic bags cut into flags and attached towooden stakes can be fairly effective. Reflectivemylar flash tape or helium inflated balloons canbe attached to stakes to move freely in the windare examples of other types of frighteningdevices that may prevent geese from landing inthe fields. Other techniques include the use ofpropane cannons, 12 gauge cracker shells and15 mm pyrotechnic scare devices to haze geesefrom fields.

In addition to existing hazing techniques,research is currently being conducted intoalternative methods. Repellents, such as MethylAnthranilate, has been shown to be effective inlimited applications (Avery et al. 1995). However, due to the need for multiple

22

applications, repellents can be cost prohibitiveon large areas. Other repellents (PolycyclicAnthroponones) are currently being tested thatmay prove to be longer lasting and more costeffective; however, research results andacceptance may be several years away.

The use of livestock herding dogs, primarilyborder collies and Australian shepherds, to hazegeese away has been gaining in popularityamong golf course owners in the eastern UnitedStates. In Oregon, the manager of Black ButteGolf Course, located near Sisters, Oregon, hasused a livestock dog to effectively haze 300-400geese from the golf course. The use ofchemical repellents and livestock herding dogsmay not be initially accepted by manylandowners; however, they do offer a newdimension to addressing goose depredations onprivate lands and should be further investigatedas potential hazing tools.

Under this plan, to help with the hazing ofCanada geese in the WV-LCR, WS agentswould continue to provide landowners withtechnical assistance and equipment and wouldbe actively taking part in hazing activities on afull-time basis during the fall, winter and earlyspring months (November - April).

Goal: Increase the capability of WS agents toassist private landowners in the WV-LCR toreduce agricultural depredations caused byCanada geese.

Objective: Develop an WS hazing programdesigned to effectively monitor and addressagricultural depredation complaints throughoutthe WV-LCR. Strategy: Increase the number of Washingtonand Oregon WS personnel and equipment toaddress agricultural depredations in theWV-LCR.

Rationale: As the wintering Canada goosepopulation in the WV-LCR has increased, thescope and distribution of agriculturaldepredation complaints has increased. However, due to inadequate funding, Oregonand Washington WS programs have beenlimited in their ability to address the growingnumber of complaints. To properly address this

issue, increased funding for Oregon andWashington WS programs is warranted.

Under WS proposals, in Washington, one WSbiologist would coordinate planning andhazing/control activities from October 1998 -September 1999 for the lower Columbia River. A WS biologist will coordinate with Oregon WS,ODFW, WDFW, USFWS, and universities in theoverall planning of hazing activities. They wouldalso coordinate hazing activities, late seasonhunts, and any damage assessment data, withinvolved agencies. WS would also beresponsible for report write-ups required fordamage control activities. Three wildlifetechnicians would work from November-April forhazing, exclusion and coordination with affectedlandowners. One technician for Clark/CowlitzCounties, one for Cowlitz County and one forPacific/Wahkiakum Counties are proposed. Depending on depredations noted, fieldpersonnel can be relocated to concentrateefforts on areas of heaviest damage.

In Oregon, one full time WS wildlife biologistwould be responsible for field supervision of theproject. Duties would include developingdamage assessment and reporting, evaluationof field techniques, public relations, etc. A totalof five field technicians will conduct the hazingactivities on private lands from November-April. Two technicians would work the lower ColumbiaRiver, two in the mid-Willamette Valley, and onein the southern Willamette Valley.

Strategy: WS will develop and implementalternative techniques to effectively haze ordeter geese from private agricultural lands.

Rationale: Alternative control methods includethe use of livestock dogs to haze geese fromfields and the use of chemical repellents to detergeese from using selected areas. As anexample, farmer D. Puckett of central Oregonhas used border collies and Australianshepherds to protect his alfalfa fields from geesefor the past 16 years. The approximate cost of asingle, trained dog ranges from $1,000 to$3,000. In addition, research is beingconducted on the use of chemical repellentssuch as Methyl Anthranilate and PolycyclicAnthroponones. Repellents have been usedeffectively in repelling geese when used in pools

23

of standing water and are currently registeredfor use on turf. WS should continue to searchfor effective chemical repellents for use onagricultural lands. Initial tests could beconducted on smaller locations in urban areas(i.e. golf courses, public parks, residences) untileffective results can be achieved on large-scaleapplications.

Strategy: WS would collect information on theextent and nature of depredation problems.

Rationale: WS would collect information on thenature and extent of agricultural depredationcomplaints. WS would provide the USFWS,ODFW and WDFW with summaries ofcomplaints, including specific locations, problemand crop description, number of birds involved,estimated economic impact, and managementaction recommended to be taken. WS would beresponsible for developing a standard collectionand reporting procedure for all depredationcomplaints handled. This information would beused to both assess the impact of theimplemented strategies and to help focus controlactivities on specific problem areas throughoutthe WV-LCR region.

Depredation Permits And Orders

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918established Federal authority to managemigratory birds and prohibit killing or take ofspecified birds (including eggs and nests) unlesspermitted by regulation. Prohibition of takeincluded continual closed seasons on migratorynongame birds and insectivorous birds. The Actalso established authority to promulgate takeregulations for such activities as huntingseasons, capture and possession, scientificcollection and depredation control. Thedeterminations are based upon "due regard tothe zones of temperature and to the distribution,abundance, economic value, breeding habitsand times of migratory flight". Closed huntingseasons were mandated between March 10 andSeptember 1; hunting seasons were restrictedso not to exceed a period of 3.5 months induration. Authority in the Migratory Bird TreatyConvention allows issuance of permits to kill thejurisdictional birds under extraordinaryconditions when they become seriously injuriousto agricultural or other interests.

Use of sport hunting to alleviate depredations isthe preferred approach of the USFWS and thePacific Flyway Council (Appendix E, PacificFlyway Depredation Policy). Sometimes, due tothe complexity of management, otherapproaches may be necessary. Lethal controlor killing of birds is possible through migratorybird depredation permits and depredationorders. Killing of birds can be targeted ataugmenting hazing and other depredation reliefprograms or to reduce populations. Theseoptions are covered in Title 50 Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) Part 20 Subpart K (huntingseasons) and Part 21 for migratory bird permits(Subpart D for depredation control).

50 CFR 21 Subpart D outlines the specificrequirements for issuance of permits for controlof depredating birds. Two regulatory options areavailable for control of depredating birds:permits or depredation orders.

Depredation permit requirements are outlined insubsection 21.41. These include applicationrequirements and procedures and conditions ofpermits. In general, applications must containinformation on the nature of the damaged crops,the extent of the injury and the species causingthe injury. Applications are made to theMigratory Bird Management Office in eachUSFWS regional office. Permit conditionsauthorize the kill of a maximum number of theinjurious birds by authorized individuals; birdsmay only be killed by shotgun (other methodsmust be specifically authorized) on or over thearea described on the permit; blinds, calls, orother enticing devices may not be used; and allkilled birds must be disposed by either donationto charitable institutions or to USFWSemployees.

Depredation orders are authorized in subsection21.42. A depredation order may be issued bythe USFWS director upon the receipt ofevidence that migratory game birds haveaccumulated in such numbers in a particulararea as to cause serious agricultural damage. The order is subject to publication in the FederalRegister and permits killing of birds underspecified conditions. Birds may only be killed byshotgun; over or on the threatened areas; andbirds may be used for food or must be disposedof by methods prescribed by the director. Any

24

order must be consistent with state laws andregulations and is specified to be an emergencymeasure only.

Goal: Investigate the possibility of usingdepredation permits and/or orders to reduceagricultural depredation by Canada geese in theWV-LCR.

Objective 1: Conduct a review of how effectivelethal control is in certain situations and whetherit could work in this situation.

Objective 2: Develop appropriate techniquesfor using lethal control to augment hazing andother damage control efforts for Canada geesein the WV-LCR.

Strategy: During Winter 1997-98, personnelfrom WS in cooperation from USFWS, ODFW,and WDFW should develop and experiment withlethal control of geese on designated areas inthe WV-LCR.

Rationale: Development of methods toincrease the effectiveness and efficiency ofhazing and other damage control measures isessential to reduce agricultural depredations inthe WV-LCR. These measures would only beused on an extremely limited, case by casebasis.

Primary Objective 7. HARVESTMANAGEMENT

Regulation of the harvest is among the mostvisible and important aspects of waterfowlmanagement. Generally, harvest managementemploys a variety of strategies, each seeking tocontrol the size, distribution and composition ofthe harvest, but other objectives are alsoassociated with harvest regulations (Baldassarreand Bolen 1994). These include, limit harvest ofmigratory game birds to levels compatible withtheir ability to maintain their populations, limittaking of other protected or sensitive specieswhere there is reasonable possibility thathunting is likely to adversely affect theirpopulations and prevent depredations onagricultural crops by migratory game birds(Blohm 1989).

Harvest regulations are a result of Federalrulemaking. These Federal frameworks aredeveloped in consultation with the PacificFlyway Council. The Council, in turn bases itsrecommendations on the goals and objectivesestablished in the cooperatively developedFlyway population management plans. Nothingin this plan will alter this process or theadministrative procedures and constraintscurrently applicable to the establishment ofhunting seasons in the United States.

History

Before the implementation of goose harvestrestrictions in 1984, the majority of the Canada geese harvested in the WV-LCR were duskyCanada geese (Chapman et al. 1969). Ingeneral, goose hunting seasons were long (approximately 93 days in length), with a dailybag limit ranging from 2 - 3 birds. The areaopen to hunting was unrestricted but wasgenerally confined to federal refuges andsurrounding private lands in the WV-LCR wheregeese were concentrated. Duskys are relativelyless wary than other Canada goose subspeciesand will readily use small fields, even fieldsringed with brush. This vulnerability led to highharvest levels on the wintering grounds(Simpson and Jarvis 1979).

After the 1964 earthquake, the reproductivesuccess of the dusky began to decline, resultingin lower recruitment into the population. Thecombination of high harvest on the winteringgrounds and reduced reproductive success ledto a decline in the dusky population.

Beginning in 1984, in an effort to protect thedusky Canada goose, while still providingharvest opportunities for other Canada goosesubspecies, a series of restrictions were placedon fall Canada goose hunting in the WV-LCR. Designated open hunt areas were createdaround refuges and wildlife areas where geesecontinued to concentrate. The remainingportions of the WV-LCR were closed to goosehunting. Each hunt area was allocated a dusky"quota", which when reached, resulted inclosure of that hunt area. Daily bag limitsranged from 2 - 3 birds, with a season duskylimit of one bird. To participate in this hunt,hunters were required to attend goose

25

85 90 95

Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Thou

sand

sEs

timat

ed H

arve

st

Check Station Harvest

Federal Harvest Survey

Estimated Canada Goose Harvest

Figure 6. Willamette Valley - Lower Columbia RiverCanada goose harvest, 1984 - 1996.

identification courses offered by ODFW andWDFW. Hunters were asked to shift harvestefforts away from the dusky and concentrateharvest efforts on the rapidly expandingTaverner's Canada goose wintering population.

From 1984 to 1995, this season structureremained relatively stable and provedreasonably successful at protecting the dusky. During this time period, annual survival rates forthe dusky ranged from 76% to 85% (Sheaffer1993). However, the level of harvest of Lesserand Taverner's Canada geese was largelyunaffected and the population continued toincrease. Also during this time other Canadagoose subspecies (western and cackling) beganto winter in the region in increasing numbers. As a result of the increasing resident westernCanada goose population, a September Canadagoose season was initiated in 1990, in bothOregon and Washington.

Two estimates of the Canada goose harvest areavailable for the WV-LCR region. The firstestimate is the total number of geese examinedat the check stations in Washington andOregon. Checking geese is a mandatoryrequirement within the WV-LCR region. Estimated harvest during the period 1984-96ranged from less than 2,000 birds in 1984-85 toover 10,000 birds in 1996-97 (Fig. 6). A secondestimate of the harvest is obtained from theannual waterfowl harvest survey and theassociated parts collection survey conductedannually by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Trost and Carney 1989). This harvest estimateis, on the average, twice the estimated harvestfrom the check stations. This discrepancy is amatter of concern and will be investigatedfurther. Regardless of the method used tomeasure the harvest, it is clear that the harvestof Canada geese is increasing as the totalnumber of Canada geese increase in the area. Despite increases in the harvest, the winteringpopulation continues to grow, with a subsequentincrease in agricultural depredation complaints.

Beginning in 1996, WDFW offered operated anexperimental late season in which hunters whohad completed an advanced hunter educationcourse were given the opportunity to participatein a special depredation hunt during the month

of February and early March. Under this season,hunter efforts were focused on private landswhere goose depredation problems weresevere. In 1997, this season was continued inWashington. In addition, in 1997, ODFWextended their regular Canada goose season through February. Hunters who possessed avalid permit from the fall permit season wereallowed to participate.

Harvest Management

Current Federal frameworks allow for threeseparate Canada goose season structures to beemployed to harvest Canada geese. Theseseasons are governed by the annual regulationsprocess and reviewed annually through theFlyway Council system. Seasons authorizedcan include a special early Canada gooseseason, a regular Canada goose season, and aspecial late Canada goose season. The totalnumber of days in all three seasons cannotexceed 107 days and all seasons must occurbetween September 1 and March 10 asmandated in the Migratory Bird Treaty (1916) asimplemented by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(1918). All three season types are currentlyused in the WV-LCR region of Washington andOregon.

Goal: To maximize harvest opportunity onabundant subspecies of Canada geese presentin the WV-LCR region while limiting, to theestablished guidelines, the harvest of dusky andcackling Canada geese and preventing the takeof any Aleutian Canada geese.

26

Special Early Seasons

Special early seasons are intended to directharvest pressure at locally nesting goosepopulations before the arrival of migratoryCanada geese from northern nesting areas. Therefore, the focus of these seasons is onlocally nesting western Canada geese. Because special early seasons are timed tooccur when Canada goose subspecies ofconcern are not present, hunter educationdirected at subspecies identification is notnecessary, facilitating participation by morehunters.

Objective 1: To stabilize and reduce, whereappropriate, the local breeding population ofwestern Canada geese.

Strategy: Maintain and expand existing Specialearly Canada goose hunting seasonsthroughout the WV-LCR region.

Rationale: Locally breeding Canada geesecontinue to increase and contribute to the totalnumber of Canada geese wintering in the WV-LCR region. Stabilization and reduction of thiscomponent of the wintering Canada goosepopulation can help contribute to the overallwintering Canada goose population objectivewithout appreciable risk to Canada goosesubspecies of concern. Therefore, theseseasons should be utilized to their full potentialto maximize the harvest on this component ofthe wintering population.

Objective 2: Determine dates of first arrival ofCanada goose subspecies of concern into theWV-LCR region.

Strategy: Conduct observations for neckbandedCanada geese throughout the period betweenSeptember 15 and the opening date of theregular Canada goose hunting season in theregion.

Rationale: Special early Canada gooseseasons may be held between September 1 andbefore the opening of the regular Canada gooseseason. At present, such seasons may be heldbetween September 1 and 15 without additionalevaluation in the WV-LCR region. These datesare based on previous evaluations that indicted

the absence of migrant Canada geese duringthis period. Further study through theobservation of marked geese may enable furtherexpansion of the early seasons affordingadditional harvest opportunity on Canada geesewithout threats to those Canada goosesubspecies of concern.

Regular Seasons

A permit and harvest registration system hasbeen used in the WV-LCR region since 1984 tomanage the harvest of Canada geese. Thissystem has proven effective in limiting theharvest of dusky Canada geese. The harvestquota for dusky Canada geese is established inthe dusky Canada goose management plan(1997) and is currently set at 250 (165 inOregon and 85 in Washington) (Appendix B). This total harvest quota applies to all specialand regular Canada goose seasons within theWV-LCR region. Harvest of dusky Canadageese during the Special early seasons isassumed to be zero, based on previousevaluations. Cackling Canada goose harvest ispresently managed under the harvest strategyfor cackling Canada geese, an attachment to theY-K Delta goose management plan. (SeeAppendix B for additional details regardingPacific Flyway Management Plans). A seasonlimit of one dusky is allowed in both Oregon andWashington before a hunter's permit is revoked. At present, permit revocation is State specific.

Objective 1: Maintain and enhance the permitCanada goose hunt within established quotaallocations for dusky and cackling Canadageese.

Strategy: Continue to employ the permithunting system currently in place and continueto require all harvested geese be examined atestablished check stations for monitoring theharvest of subspecies within established quotas.

Rationale: Continued harvest opportunitieshelp to alleviate depredation problems during falland winter while providing recreationalopportunities and support for wildlifemanagement programs.

Objective 2: Maintain or improve requiredgoose hunter education courses.

27

Strategy: Develop a new education program tobe administered in a consistent fashion in bothstates. Require hunters to pass a written testregarding subspecies identification

Rationale: Hunter education courses aredesigned to instruct goose hunters how tosuccessfully identify the various subspecies ofCanada geese while afield. In addition, thiscourse stresses the importance of hunter ethicsand how sport hunters are vital to addressingthe agricultural depredation situation in theWV-LCR.

Strategy: Make the dusky harvest limit forpermit holders 1 per season in either state.

Rationale: Currently, hunters can harvest 2dusky Canada geese per season, if they holdpermits in both Oregon and Washington. Byimplementing a consistent permit and testingprocedure, permit hunters in both states shouldbe equally informed and by making permitrevocation reciprocal the harvest of duskyCanada geese could be further reduced.

Objective 3: Expand hunting opportunitieswithin the permit Canada goose control zonewhile maintaining subspecific harvestmanagement quotas.

Strategy: Open additional portions of WV-LCRcounties to Canada goose hunting.

Rationale: Presently, in Oregon, most of theland within the WV-LCR region is closed togoose hunting by state regulation. Openingthose areas with limited use by dusky Canadageese during the regular Canada goose seasonwill provide additional harvest pressure toreduce Canada goose numbers and help toalleviate depredation problems. This strategycan only be employed if adequate harvestmonitoring can be accomplished to ensureharvest quotas are maintained. Therefore, allareas that would have a reasonable probabilityof harvesting subspecies of concern would stillbe subject to mandatory harvest check stationsand the permit requirement and provisionswould still apply. Adding additional areas to theexisting hunt areas will result in additional costsfor check stations and law enforcement efforts. Without supplemental funds, ODFW and

USFWS would have to redirect funds from otherhigh priority work.

Strategy: Increase the number of hunt dayswithin the existing regular season structure whilemaintaining subspecific harvest quotas.

Rationale: The current procedure is to limithunting to selected days within the regularCanada goose season in both States. Thisapproach is used to try and extend the huntingseason across the longest time interval to helpalleviate depredation complaints. Additionalhunting days could increase the realized harvestof Canada geese and contribute to reducingagricultural depredation problems, provided theycan be added without increases in the harvest ofthose subspecies whose harvest is controlled byquotas.

Special Late Season Permit Goose Hunt

Objective: Maintain (Washington) and evaluatethe establishment (Oregon) of special lateseason agricultural depredation control hunts,specifically targeting private agricultural lands tohelp address depredation control programs.

Strategy: In Washington, continue the specialseason on agricultural damage areas only,January 24 - March 10.

Strategy: In Oregon, evaluate theestablishment of a similar program and reducethe regular season ending date to accommodatethe special season.

Rationale: Late season hunting (late January -early March) has recently been implemented inOregon and Washington. The initial years havesuggested that this approach can be effective inhelping to alleviate depredation on specificfarms by reenforcing nonlethal depredationcontrol activities. The reason for considering the change in Oregon is to better addressagricultural damage complaints and to focus thelimited quota available for this hunt to specificproblem areas. Bag limits for this hunt areidentical to those enacted during the fall permitgoose season. The total harvest quotasdesigned to protect the dusky and cacklingCanada geese would be maintained.

28

Primary Objective 8. PUBLICOUTREACH

Canada geese are a valuable public resourcethat annually provide thousands of residents ofthe Pacific Flyway with a multitude ofrecreational opportunities. However, outsidemost of the farming and scientific communities,the general public is unaware of themanagement complexity and the agriculturaldepredation problems associated with Canadageese in the WV-LCR. The public is alsounaware of the diversity of stakeholders whohave an interest in goose populations, and thenecessary trade-offs in public values necessaryto develop balanced management strategies. This plan proposes an organized effort todevelop a public outreach plan to educate allinterested parties and to assist in theachievement of the goals outlined in this plan.

Information and education efforts will focus onproviding the public with information on thebenefits and detriments that Canada geeseprovide. The effort should highlight the important contribution that private landownersmake by providing Canada goose habitat in theWV-LCR and how landowners are affected bythe increasing wintering goose population. Itshould also highlight the value of these geese toNative American and other resource usersthroughout the Pacific Flyway. In addition, themanagement history of Canada geese in theWV-LCR will be discussed and the proposedstrategies to reduce agricultural depredation,while ensuring healthy Canada goosesubspecies populations will be presented.

Goal: Increase public awareness of the benefitsprovided by Canada geese and the agriculturaldepredation problems in the WV-LCR.

Objective: The USFWS, in consultation withODFW, WDFW, WS and Farm Bureaus willdevelop a public outreach program to increasethe awareness of agricultural depredationproblems associated with Canada geese in theWV-LCR and the benefits provided by thesesame geese throughout the Pacific Flyway. There is a need for outreach in Alaska,California, and Canada, with material that clearly

shows how constituent interests may beaffected, as well as the depredation dilemma.

Strategy: In winter 1997-98, USFWS, ODFW,WDFW, WS and Farm Bureau personnel woulddevelop a public information and educationprogram to increase the awareness ofagricultural depredation problems associatedwith Canada geese and the complications oftrade-offs in values across the flyway. Primaryfocus will be on developing informationbrochures, radio, television and newspaperarticles detailing problems associated withCanada goose management in the WV-LCR andeffects elsewhere in the Pacific Flyway.

Rationale: To successfully implement this plan,public support for proposed strategies isessential. Information and education effortswould inform the general public about the needto actively manage the wintering Canada goosepopulation to reduce agricultural depredation inthe WV-LCR, consistent with the needs andinterests of other stakeholders in the PacificFlyway. In some cases, existing managementplans may need to be modified, which willrequire broad base public support.

Primary Objective 9. FUNDING ANDIMPLEMENTATION

Many of the management strategies outlined inthis plan will require additional funding for stateand federal wildlife management agencyactivities to specifically address increasingdepredation problems caused by Canada geesein the WV-LCR. Coordination of fundingactivities will be handled through the PacificFlyway Council. Without proper funding ofstrategies outlined in this plan, efforts to reduceagricultural depredation in the WV-LCR will bedifficult to achieve.

Goal: Reduce agricultural depredations in theWV-LCR by increasing funding for Canadagoose management activities and implementingthose strategies of this depredation planidentified as feasible and desirable approachesto address the problem.

29

Objective: Formation of a committee by thePacific Flyway Council to seek funding sourcesand implement strategies for Canada goosemanagement activities in the WV-LCR.

Strategy: During 1997-98, state/federal agencydirectors representing the Pacific FlywayCouncil will meet to prioritize managementprograms and develop a funding strategy toimplement activities outlined in this plan.

Strategy: Land managers and populationbiologists should develop a cost and timeimplementation schedule for all strategiesoutlined in this plan.

Strategy: Conduct periodic meetings of thegoose depredation working committee to reviewthe progress of implementation of this plan.

Rationale: Strategies outlined in this plan willno doubt require increased funding for Canadagoose management activities by state andfederal agencies. Funding from state legislativeand federal congressional levels needs to besought to implement these activities, but thesefunds will likely be limited. In addition, fundingprograms within all management agencies mustbe investigated.

Representatives from the USFWS (MBMO, Regions 1 and 7), ODFW, WDFW, AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, WS and theOregon and Washington Farm Bureaus shouldannually meet to discuss the progress of thedepredation plan and should develop a progressreport to be reviewed by the Flyway Council attheir annual March meeting.

LITERATURE CITED

Avery, M. L., D. G. Decker, J. S. Humphrey, E. Aronov, S. D. Linscombe, and M. O.Way. 1995. Methyl Anthranilate as arice seed treatment to deter birds. J.Wildl. Manage. 59(1):5-56.

Baldassarre, G. A., and E. G. Bolen. 1994. Waterfowl ecology and management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York,NY. 609pp.

Ballou, R. M. and F. W. Martin. 1964. Rigid plastic collars for marking geese. J.Wildl. Manage. 28:846-847.

Bedard, J., A. Nadeau, and G. Gauthier. 1986. Effects of spring grazing by greatersnow geeseon hay production. Journalof Applied Ecology, 23, 65-75.

Blohm, R. J. 1989. Introduction to harvest: understanding surveys and seasonsettings. Int. Waterfowl Symp. 6:118-129.

Bromley, R. G. H. 1976. Nesting and habitat studies of the dusky Canada goose(Branta canadensis occidentalis) on theCopper River Delta, Alaska. M. S.thesis. Univ. Alaska. Fairbanks. 81pp.

_____, D. C. Heard, and B. Croft. 1995. Visibility bias in aerial surveys relating tonest success of Arctic geese. J. Wildl.Manage. 59(2)364-371.

Campbell, B. H. and H. J. Griese. 1987. Management options for dusky Canadageese and theirpredators on the CopperRiver Delta, Alaska. Unpub. Rep.,Alaska Dep. Fish and Game. Anchorage. 91pp.

_____. 1990. Annual waterfowl program progress report. Unpub. Rep., AlaskaDep. Fish and Game. Anchorage. 41pp.

Chapman, J. A., C. J. Henny, and H. M. Wight. 1969. The status, population dynamics,and harvest of the dusky Canada goose. Wildl. Monogr. 18:1-48.

Clark, S. L. and Jarvis 1978. Effects of winter grazing by geese on ryegrass seedyield. Wildl. Soc. Bull, 6(2)84-87.

Conover, M. R. 1988. Effect of grazing by Canada geese on the winter growth ofrye. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(1)76-80.

Craighead, J. J. and D. S. Stockstad. 1956. A colored neckband for marking birds. J.Wildl. Manage. 20:331-332.

30

Delacour, J. 1951. Preliminary note on the taxonomy of Canada geese, Brantacanadensis. Am. Mus. Novit., 1537: [1]- 10.

_____ . 1954. The waterfowl of the world. Vol. 1. Country Life Limited. 284pp.

Fredrickson, L. H. and R. D. Drobney. 1979. Habitat utilization by postbreedingwaterfowl. Pages 119-131 in T. A.Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and Wetlands- an integrated review. N. Cent. Sect.Wildl. Soc., Madison, Wi. 147pp.

_____, and T. S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally flooded impoundments forwildlife.U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.Resour. Publ. 148:1-29.

Groot Bruinderink, G. W. T. A. 1989. The impact of wild geese visiting improvedgrasslands in the Netherlands. Journalof Applied Ecology, 26, 131-146.

Hansen, H. A. 1962. Canada geese of coastal Alaska. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 27:301-329.

Hanson, H. C. 1962. Characters of age, sex, and sexual maturity in Canada geese. Ill. Nat. Surv. Biol. Notes, 49: 1 -15.

Hartman, F. 1995. Waterfowl wintering habitat In W. R. Whitam, et al., ed. Waterfowlhabitatrestoration, enhancement andmanagement in the Atlantic Flyway. Third ed. Environmental Manage.Comm. Atlantic Waterfowl CouncilTechnical Section. Pages C-9 to C-11.

Helm, L. G. 1955. Plastic collars for marking geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 19:316-317.

Hestbeck, J. B., D. H. Rusch, and R. A. Malecki. 1990. Estimating population parametersfor geese from band-recovery andmark-recapture data. Trans. N. Am.Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 55:350-373.

Hindman, L. J. and F. Ferrigno. 1990. Atlantic Flyway goose populations: status and

management. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat.Resour. Conf. 55:293-311.

Jarvis, R. L. and J. E. Cornely. 1988. Recent changes in wintering populations ofCanada geesein western Oregon andsouthwestern Washington. Pages 517 -528 in M. Weller. ed. Waterfowl inWinter. University of Minn. Press,Minneapolis. 624pp.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1975. Waterfowl of North America. Indiana Univ. Press,Bloomington, Ind. 575pp.

Johnson, D. H., D. E. Timm and P. F. Springer. 1979. Morphological characteristics ofCanada geese in the Pacific Flyway. Pages 56 - 80 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C.Bartonek, eds. Management and biologyof Pacific Flyway geese. Oregon StateUniv. Press, Corvallis, Or. 364pp.

Kahl, R. B. and F. B. Samson. 1984. Factors

affecting yield of winter wheat grazed bygeese. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:256-262.

Kear, J. 1965. The assessment by grazing trial of goose damage to grass. WildlfowlTrust Annual Report, 16, 46-47.

_____. 1970. The experimental assessment of goose damage to agricultural crops. Biological Conservation, 2, 206-212.

King, J. G. and J. I. Hodges. 1979. A preliminary analysis of goose banding

on Alaska's Arctic Slope. Pages176-188 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C.Bartonek, eds. Management andbiology of Pacific Flyway geese. Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, Or. 364pp.

Krohn, W. B. 1977. The Rocky Mountain Population of the western Canadagoose; Its distribution, habitats, andmanagement. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.Idaho, Moscow. 300pp.

31

_____, and E. G. Bizeau. 1980. The Rocky Mountain population of western Canadagoose: Its distribution, habitats andmanagement. Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl.229. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,Washington D. C. 93pp.

Kuyken, E. 1969. Grazing of wild geese on grassland at Damme, Belgium. Wildlfowl, 20, 47-54.

Lebeda, C. S., and J. T. Ratti. 1983. Reproductive biology of Vancouver

Canada geese on Admiralty Island,Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(2):297-306.

Linduska, J. P., ed. 1976. Waterfowl tomorrow. U.S. Government Print. Office,Washington, D. C. 770pp.

MacInnes, C. D., J. P. Prevett, and H. A. Edney. 1969. A versatile collar for individualidentification of geese. J. Wildl.Manage. 33:330-335.

Madsen, J. 1985. Habitat selection of farmland feeding geese in West Jutland,Denmark: an example of a niche shift. Ornis Scandinavica, 16, 140-144.

Martin, F. W., R. S. Pospahala, and J. D. Nichols. 1979. Assessment andpopulation management of NorthAmerican migratory birds. Pages187-239 in J. Cairns, G. P. Patil, andW.E. Waters, eds., Environmentalbiomonitoring, assessment, predictionand management - certain case studiesand related quantitative issues. Statistical Ecology Ser. Vol. 11,International Cooperative PublishingHouse, Fairland Md. 483pp.

Nelson, H. K. and J. C. Bartonek. 1990. History of goose management in North America. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour.Conf. 55:286-292.

O. S. U. Extension Service. 1997. 1996 Oregon county and state agricultural

estimates. Economic Information Office,Oregon State Univ. 13pp.

Owen, M. 1972. The selection of feeding site by white-fronted geese in winter. Journal of Applied Ecology, 8, 905-917.

Palmer, R. S., Ed. 1976. Handbook of North American birds, Vol. 2. Waterfowl (Pt.1). Yale Univ. Press, New Haven CT. 520pp.

Pamplin, W. L. 1986. Cooperative efforts to halt population declines of geesenesting on Alaska's Yukon-KuskokwimDelta. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat.Resour. Conf. 49:555-575.

Patterson, I. J., Abdul Jalil, S. and East, M. L. 1989. Damage to winter cereals bygreylag geeseand pink-footed geese innortheast Scotland. Journal of AppliedEcology, 26, 879-896.

Patton, D. L. H., and J. Frame. 1981. The effect of grazing in winter by wild geeseon improved grassland in west Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 18,311-326.

Percival, S. M. and D. C. Houston. 1992. The effect of winter grazing by barnaclegeese ongrassland yields on Islay. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29, 35-40.

_____. 1993. The effects of reseeding, fertilizer application and disturbance onthe use of grasslands by barnaclegeese, and the implications for refugemanagement. Journal of AppliedEcology, 30, 437-443.

Pewe, T. L. 1975. Quaternary geology of Alaska. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap.835. 145pp.

Ploeger, P. L. 1968. Geographical differentiation in Arctic Anatidae as a

result of isolation during the last glacial. Ardea (56): 1 - 159.

32

Raveling, D. G. 1979. The anual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages81-93 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C.Bartonek, eds. Management and biologyof Pacific Flyway geese. Oregon StateUniv. Press, Corvallis, Or. 364pp.

_____. 1984. Geese and hunters of Alaska's Yukon Delta: Management problemsand political dilemmas. Trans. N. Amer.Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 51:555-575.

Ratti, J. T. and D.E. Timm. 1979. Migration behavior of Vancouver Canada geese:recovery rate bias. Pp 208-212 in R.L.Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek (eds). Management and biology of PacificFlyway geese. Oregon State Univ.Press, Corvallis, Or. 364pp.

Reimnitz, E. 1972. Effects in the Copper River Delta. Pages 290 - 302 in The greatAlaska earthquake of 1964: Oceanography and coastal engineering. Nation. Acad. Sci. Pub. 1605. Washington D. C.

Reinecke, K. J., R. M. Kaminski, D. J. Moorehead, J. D. Hodges, and J. R.

Nassar. 1989. Mississippi AlluvialValley. Pages 203-247 in L. M. Smith,R. L. Pederson, and R. M.Kaminski,eds. Habitat management for migratingwaterfowl and wintering waterfowl inNorth America. Texas Tech Univ.Press, Lubbock, Tx. 560pp.

Rusch, D. H., S. R. Craven, R. E. Trost, J. R. Cary, R. E. Drieslein, J. W. Ellis, and J.Wetzel. 1985. Evaluation of efforts toredistribute Canada geese. Trans. N.Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 50:506-524.

Sheaffer, S.E. 1993. Population ecology of the dusky Canada goose. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, Or. 127pp.

Sherwood, G. A. 1966. Flexible plastic collars compared to nasal discs for markinggeese. J.Wildl. Manage. 30:853-855.

Sibley, C. G. and B. L. Monroe. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the

world. Yale Univ. Press. New Haven,Ct.

Shields, G. F. and A. C, Wilson. 1988.

Sub-species of the Canada goose(Branta canadensis) have distinct typesof mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 41:662 - 666.

Simpson, S. G., R. L. Jarvis. 1979. Comparative ecology of several

subspecies of Canada geese duringwinter in western Oregon. pp 223 - 241.in R. L. Jarvis and J. C. Bartonek, eds.Management and biology of PacificFlyway geese. Oregon State Univ.Press, Corvallis, Or. 364pp.

Taylor, W. H. 1961. Utilization, preference, and nutritional value of winter-greenagricultural crops for goose foods onHog Island Refuge. Virginia WetlandsInvest., W-39-R-6. 11pp.

Timm, D. E., R. G. Bromley, D. E. McKnight, and R. S. Rodgers. 1979. Managementevolution of dusky Canada geese. Pages 322-330 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C.Bartonek, eds. Management andbiology of Pacific Flyway geese. Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, Or. 364pp.

Trainer, C. E. 1959. The 1959 western Canadagoose (Branta canadensis occidentalis)study of the Copper River Delta, Alaska. 9 pages + 2 tables. In AnnualWaterfowl Report; Alaska. U. S. Bureauof Sport Fish. Wildl. Mimeo.

Trost, R. E. and S.M. Carney. 1989. Measuringthe waterfowl harvest. Pages 134-141in K.H. Beattie, ed. Troubled times forwaterfowl: Sixth _ Int. WaterfowlSymposium, June 8-10, 1989. DucksUnlimited, Chicago, IL.

_____, K. E. Gamble, and D. J. Neiman. 1990. Goose surveys in North America:current procedures and suggested

33

improvements. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat.Resour. Conf. 55:338-348

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Final supplemental environmental impactstatement: issuance of annualregulations permitting the sport huntingof migratory birds. Off. of Mig. BirdManage. Laurel Md. 340pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1984. North Americanbirdbanding. Off. of Mig. Bird Manage.Laurel, Md.

Vickery, J. A., W. J. Sutherland, and S. J. Lane. 1994. The management of grasspastures for Brant geese. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 31, 282-290.

Wendt, J. S. and H. Boyd. 1990. Goose management in Canada. Trans. N. Am.Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 55:333-337.

Wright, E. N. and A. J. Isaacson. 1978. Goose damage to agricultural crops in England. Annals of Applied Biology, 88:334-338.

Appendix A

Management Agencies and Farm Bureaus

Migratory game birds are an international resource whose welfare and utilization are thevested interest of several countries. Many laws and statutes pertain to the legalauthority for management of migratory game birds at national and state levels and helpset a framework for cooperative management. This plan was developed to comply withmandates for management of migratory game birds by state and federal agencies in thePacific Flyway.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): In the United States, preeminent authorityand responsibility for migratory game birds lies with the Secretary of the Interior and isderived from international treaties to which the US Constitution specifies that only theFederal government can be signatory. Federal authority is legislated by the MigratoryBird Treaty Act of 1918 and its amendments (USDI, SEIS 1988). Countries involved inbilateral migratory bird treaties with the United States include Canada, Mexico, Japanand the Russian Commonwealth. The USFWS is the lead Federal agency for migratorygame bird management. The mission of the USFWS is to conserve, protect, andenhance fish and wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the Americanpeople. USFWS regulations concerning taking of migratory birds are contained in 50Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20 Subpart K (hunting seasons) and 50 CFRPart 21 for migratory bird permits (Subpart D for depredation control).

Pacific Flyway Council (PFC): The Federal government, through the USFWS, activelycooperates with other countries, states and tribal organizations in the management ofmigratory game birds. Management in the United States and Canada is coordinatedthrough a flyway concept. Flyways are administrative units that describe migrationroutes and distribution of migratory birds. These flyways have similar managementproblems and provide convenient mechanisms for management. Four flyways havebeen established for migratory game bird management in North America; the Atlantic,Mississippi, Central and the Pacific. Oregon and Washington are part of the PacificFlyway.

Flyway Councils and Flyway Technical Committees exist and are comprised ofadministrative and technical representatives, respectively, from each state and mostprovincial wildlife agencies. In brief, states recognized the need for cooperativemanagement of migratory game birds and for a forum that would promote their interestin game bird research, investigations, surveys and harvest management. The USFWSemploys a flyway representative as a liaison to state and provincial agencies.

The Flyway Committees are composed of the principal waterfowl or migratory game birdbiologist of the state or provincial conservation agencies. Associate members includepersons working for private conservation agencies and organizations, universitystudents and staff and other groups interested in migratory game bird research andmanagement. These technical groups keep abreast of biological information aboutmigratory game birds, trends in populations, demands for hunting, conflicting uses ofhabitats and related matters. They prepare recommendations for action by the Councilsbased on their technical knowledge and experience.

Flyway Councils are governed by by-laws and members are comprised mostly of stateagency directors or their designated representative. Council recommendations areconveyed to the USFWS through the flyway representative and Council consultants. Itis important to note that while there is USFWS participation in flyway meetings, finalrecommendations are formulated by the state personnel involved and are submitted tothe Flyway Council for approval or further direction. Therefore, any subsequentrevisions to this plan must be approved by the Pacific Flyway Council.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW): The mission of the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife is to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife andtheir habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. ODFW is theprincipal state agency responsible for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources inOregon, including migratory game birds. In Oregon, migratory game birds are definedas wildlife by ORS 496.004. Management policies and goals pertaining to migratorygame birds are defined by ORS 496.012. On issues pertaining to migratory game birds,ODFW's primary representative is the Migratory Game Bird Coordinator. Policy andprogram direction dealing with migratory birds are outlined in a strategic managementplan approved by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 1993.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW): The mission of theWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife is to preserve, protect, and perpetuateWashington's diverse wildlife and wildlife habitats, and to maximize the recreational andaesthetic benefits of wildlife for all citizens. Laws and regulations pertaining to goosedepredation in Washington include: RCW 77.12.010, 77.12.040, 77.12.240, 77.12.260,77.12.265, and WAC 232-12-086. On issues pertaining to migratory game birds,WDFW's primary representative is the Waterfowl Section Manager.

It is the policy of the Oregon and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissions to sharethe management responsibilities for migratory game birds with the Federal government,primarily through the USFWS. These commissions recognize the importance of theFederal authority provided by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and its amendmentsbut encourages cooperative flyway management programs including biological surveys,habitat development and acquisition, research, species planning, and the establishmentof funding sources to maintain prescribed management programs.

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Animal Plant Health Inspection Service - WildlifeServices (WS): The mission of WS is to provide Federal leadership in managingproblems caused by wildlife. The WS program carries out the Federal responsibility forhelping to solve problems that occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict withone another. The statutory authority for the WS program is the Animal Damage ControlAct of March 2, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1468; 7 US.C 426-426b). Additionally,APHIS - WS field activities are conducted within authorizations received fromcooperating Federal and State regulatory agencies.

WS activities involving federally protected wildlife species are coordinated with theUSFWS. Activities involving resident wildlife (i.e., those protected by state laws) are

regulated by the respective state agencies and require appropriate authorizations. Additionally, other local laws and regulations often place further restrictions on WSactivities.

WS and WDFW work under the protocol of the Problem Wildlife Response Guidelines. This agreement signed by both parties in November 1990, calls for WS to respond to allmigratory bird problems primarily with extension type services. In cases where fundsare available from other sources, operational work will be undertaken by WS.

WS and ODFW operate under a Memorandum of Understanding which provides theframework and authority for ODFW and WS to enter into cooperative agreements forthe purpose of fulfilling ODFW wildlife management objectives. WS has agreed toassist ODFW in meeting their management objectives through these cooperativeagreements. These agreements authorize WS to act as an official agent of ODFW,when requested, for the purpose of conducting wildlife damage management involvingresident wildlife species.

In Oregon and Washington, WS can enter into agreements with private landowners toprovide wildlife damage management for the protection of livestock, other agriculturalcrops, property and human safety. These agreements provide specific details, andidentify the target species, methods to be used, and other stipulations requested by thelandowner or manager and agreed to by the WS specialist. These agreements providefor WS to conduct operational wildlife damage management on a specific parcel of land. No agreements are necessary when WS provides technical assistance to privatelandowners.

Oregon And Washington Farm Bureaus: The Oregon and Washington FarmBureaus are non-governmental, non-partisan and non-sectarian agriculturalorganizations dedicated to promoting agriculture on local, statewide, national andinternational levels. Comprised of volunteer farm and ranch families in Oregon andWashington, the Farm Bureaus analyze problems and act to achieve educationalimprovement, economic opportunity and social advancement on issues related toagriculture.

Appendix B

Existing Pacific Flyway Management Plans

The Northwest Oregon - Southwest Washington Canada goose agricultural depredation control plan isintended to complement the existing goals and objectives set forth in the following Pacific Flywaymanagement plans. Objectives from these plans that are applicable to Canada goose management inWV-LCR are listed. Many of the Flyways management plans are currently being reviewed and updated.

Dusky Canada Goose Management Plan - 1997

Maintain and enhance the number of dusky Canada geese to preclude listing under the EndangeredSpecies Act, at a level above the minimum viable population size.

To increase the number of dusky Canada geese to 20,000.

Maintain and enhance breeding ground habitat to maintain breeding populations and an annualproduction rate of at least 20 %.

Manage and enhance wintering and migration habitat to provide optimum food, water and sanctuaryconditions for dusky Canada geese.

Minimize the incidental harvest of duskys, to be consistent with population maintenance and growth,while allowing management of abundant subspecies as necessary to assist in depredation control.

Continue efforts on Copper River Delta to increase dusky Canada goose production.

Cackling Canada Goose Management Plan - 1986

Achieve a minimum population of 80,000 geese and maintain effective hunting prohibitions until thepopulation is at or above 110,000 as measured on a 3 year moving average obtained from a coordinatedaerial fall inventory in central California, Oregon and Washington.

To restore and maintain a fall population of 250,000 geese as measured on a 3-year moving averageobtained from a coordinated aerial fall inventory in central and northern California, Oregon andWashington.

Maintain nesting, migration and wintering habitats in sufficient quantity and quality to meet and maintainthe population objectives.

Expand the geographical distribution of birds into historic and/or new habitat use areas, both breedingand wintering, to facilitate population and public use objectives.

Manage cackling Canada geese and other Canada goose populations with which they mix to provide foroptimal aesthetic, educational, scientific and hunting uses, recognizing both subsistence and sportharvest needs. Taverner's/Lesser Canada Goose Management Plan - Draft

Begin identifying and quantifying nesting/molting, staging/migration and wintering areas for Taverner'sand lesser Canada geese in the Pacific Flyway.

Maintain adequate habitat to sustain current seasonal distribution of Taverner's and lesser Canadageese.

Begin population assessments of Taverner's and lesser Canada geese on nesting/molting,staging/migration and wintering areas.Manage Taverner's and lesser Canada geese and other Canada goose subspecies where they mix, toprovide for aesthetic, educational, scientific, and hunting uses, recognizing both subsistence and sportharvest needs.

Pacific Population - Western Canada Goose Management Plan - Draft

Monitor population trends so as to manage breeding levels as outlined in the management plan.

Maintain the currently known breeding and wintering distribution.

Maintain optimum sport harvest and provide for viewing, educational, scientific pursuits.

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan - 1984

To restore population levels of cackling Canada geese, emperor geese, Pacific white-fronted geese andPacific brant from the prime nesting areas on the Yukon - Kuskokwim Delta to Pacific Flyway winteringgrounds.

Cackling Canada White-fronted Pacific EmperorGeese Geese Brant Geese

Population Objective 250,000 300,000 185,000 150,000

MinimumPopulation 80,000 95,000 120,000 60,000Levels

No hunting when populations fall below minimum levels. Hunting is possible again when populations riseabove the following levels.

Cackling Canada White-fronted Pacific EmperorGeese Geese Brant Geese

110,000 120,000 140,000 80,000

A harvest strategy has been included in this plan that establishes a wintering distribution goal to limit thenumber of cackling Canada geese to no more than 50,000 wintering in WV-LCR.

Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan - 1991

The Aleutian Canada goose will be considered for delisting when the following criteria are met:

The overall population of Aleutian Canada geese includes at least 7,500 geese, and long-term trendappears upward.

At least 50 pairs of geese are nesting in each of the three geographic parts of the historic range: westernAleutians (other than Buldir), central Aleutians, and Semidi Islands, for three or more consecutive years.

A total of 25,000 - 35,000 acres of feeding and roosting habitat needed for migration and wintering havebeen secured and are being managed for Aleutian Canada geese.

Note: In 1996, a proposal to delist the Aleutian Canada goose was recommended by the AleutianCanada Goose Recovery Team and the Pacific Flyway Council.

Appendix C

Summary of wintering and breeding ground surveys andbanding and collar observation programs conducted in the

WV-LCR.

Wintering Ground Surveys: Population information for most goose populations inNorth America is derived from the mid-winter survey (MWS) (Trost et al. 1990). Thecoordinated MWS, initiated in 1936, still provides the best basic information formanaging goose populations in North America. Since there are only limitedexperimental surveys of the remote Arctic breeding grounds, estimates made of allmajor wintering concentrations of geese at a specified time provides indices topopulation trends. However, one major limitation of the MWS is that due to the lack ofracial integrity in many groups of wintering Canada geese, including those found in theWV-LCR, subspecific distinctions can be very difficult. Therefore, the MWS provides anindex of total wintering Canada goose numbers within a given area but does not reliablydifferentiate between subspecies. Since 1961, the MWS has been the primary surveythat has provided the index of the total wintering Canada goose population in WV-LCR(Fig. 4).

Breeding Ground Surveys: Because mixing among wintering populations makespopulation specific estimates difficult, breeding population estimates are needed toassess environmental conditions and local management practices (Bromley et al. 1995). One drawback to breeding ground surveys for geese is that they are markedly moreexpensive than winter surveys, due primarily to the remoteness of areas that need to beinventoried or the areas are extremely large in size (i.e. breeding grounds of Taverner'sand lesser Canada geese) and thus are not efficient to survey. Western Canada geesethat nest throughout Oregon and Washington are surveyed annually along the lowerColumbia River (active nest survey) by WDFW during April. In addition, westernsnesting in the Willamette Valley are surveyed as part of the annual Waterfowl BreedingPopulation Survey conducted by ODFW during late-April.

Banding and Collar Observation Programs: Aerial surveys can provide indices ofpopulation size, but to understand what causes population size to change, information isneeded about changes in reproductive recruitment, survival, emigration and immigrationrates (Hestbeck et al. 1990). Information on changes in these demographic parameterscan be obtained through the analysis of band-recovery and mark-recapture (resight)data. These data can be collected for individual geese that are marked on breeding,molting, migration and wintering areas with either standard aluminum leg bands(USFWS and Canadian Wildlife Service 1984) or with leg bands and individual,observable tags, most notably neck collars (Helm 1955, Craighead and Stockstad 1956,Ballou and Martin 1964, Sherwood 1966, MacInnes et al. 1969, Hestbeck et al. 1990).

Banding and neck collaring programs of Canada geese have been used throughout thePacific Flyway as early as the 1950s. From 1952 to 1965, approximately 5,692 duskyswere banded on the Copper River Delta (Chapman et al. 1969). In recent years,banding and collaring programs have been undertaken on several subspecies ofCanada geese that winter in the WV-LCR. Dusky and cackler banding and collaringprograms have been sporadic since the mid-1980s, in an effort to determine winteringpopulation size and survival. A neck collaring program was initiated in Oregon andWashington beginning in 1990 in an attempt to determine population size anddistribution of resident western Canada geese. During the past several years lesserCanada geese have been banded near Anchorage in order to determine their winterdistribution.

Appendix D

CANADA GOOSE FORAGE ACREAGE TOTALS FORTHE WILDLIFE AREAS AND REFUGES IN THE WV-LCR

Appendix D. Canada goose forage acreage for state wildlife areas and federal refuges in WV-LCR, 1996-97.

SauvieIsland

FernRidge

E.E.Wilson

ShillapooV. Lake

Ankeny BaskettSlough

Finley RidgefieldComplex

LowerColumbia

TOTAL

Annual Ryegrass - - - - 1,307 762 555 - - 2,624

Perennial Ryegrass - - - - 690 30 478 90 - 1,288

Fescue - - - - 53 689 448 - - 1,190

Clover - - - - - - - 676 - 676

Pasture Grasses 3,000 - 30 640 - - - 1,845 1,600 7,115

Trefoil - - - - - - 21 - - 21

Corn 275 40 - 120 75 - - 110 - 620

Barley - - - 120 - - - - - 120

Sudan Grass/Millet 500 110 - - 50 20 40 - - 720

Buckwheat 50 - - - - - - - - 50

Moist Soil* 534 450 170 140 450 480 385 425 - 3,034

TOTAL 4,359 600 200 1,020 2,625 1,981 1.927 3,146 1,600 17,458* Moist soil refers to natural vegetation that is produced on exposed mudflats after a controlled drawdown of water or when surface water disappears from anatural wetland in spring and summer (Fredrickson and Taylor 9182).

Appendix E

PACIFIC FLYWAY COUNCIL DEPREDATION POLICY

Policy: The Pacific Flyway Council (PFC) recognizes that the depredation ofagricultural crops can become a serious economic problem in specific locations and thatsolutions often require complex biological, social, and political considerations. Thechallenge of managing damage by migratory game birds is striking the balance betweenmaintaining game bird populations at levels that provide benefits to the majority ofcitizens while reducing the economic burden on the citizens who suffer losses.

Migratory birds are a shared international resource that provides significant benefits tothe citizens of the United States and other countries. Federal authority to manage andprotect migratory birds is derived from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 [16 U.S.C.503, as amended]. Through policy and practice the United States Fish and WildlifeService (Service) shares the authority for the management of migratory gamebirds withthe states through the Flyway Councils. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1956)authorizes the coordination between the states and Service for wildlife conservationpurposes. Although the Service has been delegated the responsibility and authority forthe management of migratory bird populations, the Animal Damage Control Act (1931,as amended in 1985 [P.L. 99-19]) delegates the federal responsibilities for conductingmigratory bird damage control activities to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services Division (WS). Many stateswithin the Flyway have developed Memoranda of Understanding with WS forimplementation of damage control activities in the states. Some states have additionalstatutory responsibilities to private landowners for depredations by migratory birds. Therefore, management of migratory birds including damage control throughout theFlyway should be considered the joint responsibility of state and federal agencies.

This Policy Statement establishes a set of principles developed so the PFC mayrespond to depredations in a consistent and fair manner.

Depredation Principles:

1) Depredation control programs are subject to Flyway management plan objectivelevels and should include consultations with all affected agencies and stakeholderswithin the range of the subject populations.

2) Public hunting is the preferred method of population control for reducing agriculturaldepredations by migratory gamebirds.

3) When public hunting is not possible and non-lethal control options have beenexhausted, other lethal control methods should be implemented. Other lethalpopulation reduction methods should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Therefore, it is the policy of the Pacific Flyway Council that depredation controlprograms be developed using the above principles and that management plans forcontrol of regional migratory bird depredations be approved by the Pacific FlywayCouncil.