We assessed the effectiveness of an extensive and unprecedented wildlife reduction effort directed at a wide‐ranging migratory population of geese. Population reduction efforts that targeted several populations of light geese (greater snow geese [Chen caerulescens atlantica], lesser snow geese [C. c. caerulescens], and Ross's geese [C. rossii]) began in 1999 in central and eastern North America. Such efforts were motivated by a broad consensus that abundance of these geese was causing serious ecological damage to terrestrial and salt marsh ecosystems in central and eastern parts of the Canadian Arctic and subarctic regions along Hudson Bay. Starting in February 1999, special conservation measures (or, in the U.S., a conservation order) were added to the respective federal regulations that permitted hunters to take snow geese (in parts of Canada and the U.S.) and Ross's geese (in parts of the U.S.) during specified harvest periods outside of the hunting season. These measures were accompanied by increase or removal of daily kill and possession limits and by permissions to use previously prohibited equipment for hunting these species in certain regions of the continent. The intent was to reduce adult survival through increased hunting mortality, which was judged to be the most cost‐effective approach to reversing population growth. Our principal goal was to assess the effectiveness of reduction efforts directed at the midcontinent population of lesser snow geese, which was thought to be the most serious threat to arctic and subarctic ecosystems of the 3 light goose populations. Our multiple objectives included the estimation and detection of change in the response measures of total annual harvest, harvest rate, survival rate, and abundance, using the 1998 hunting period (defined as 1 Aug 1998 to 31 Jul 1999) as a point of reference. We used information about hunter recoveries of leg‐banded snow geese and estimates of regular‐season harvest to estimate 1) conservation‐order harvest and total annual harvest, 2) geographic and temporal distribution of recoveries by age class, 3) survival and recovery probability, and 4) abundance of snow geese each August using Lincoln's (1930) method. We also modeled population growth to infer the form of population response to management efforts. Toward that end, we also proposed a method of estimating conservation‐order harvest and tested for differences in band‐reporting rate between Canada and the United States. Overall, the balance of evidence favored the conclusion that the midcontinent population has continued to grow during the conservation order, although perhaps at a reduced rate. We suggest that annual rate of population growth $({\hat {\lambda }})$, derived from estimates of annual population size in August, likely provides the most reliable inference about change in the midcontinent population. There was a decline in annual survival probability between these 2 periods from about 0.89 to about 0.83 among snow geese from the southern‐nesting stratum (south of 60°N...

No abstract

We assessed variation in reporting probabilities of standard bands among species, populations, harvest locations, and size classes of North American geese to enable estimation of unbiased harvest probabilities. We included reward (US$10, $20, $30, $50, or $100) and control ($0) banded geese from 16 recognized goose populations of 4 species: Canada (Branta canadensis), cackling (B. hutchinsii), Ross's (Chen rossii), and snow geese (C. caerulescens). We incorporated spatially explicit direct recoveries and live recaptures into a multinomial model to estimate reporting, harvest, and band‐retention probabilities. We compared various models for estimating harvest probabilities at country (United States vs. Canada), flyway (5 administrative regions), and harvest area (i.e., flyways divided into northern and southern sections) scales. Mean reporting probability of standard bands was 0.73 (95% CI = 0.69–0.77). Point estimates of reporting probabilities for goose populations or spatial units varied from 0.52 to 0.93, but confidence intervals for individual estimates overlapped and model selection indicated that models with species, population, or spatial effects were less parsimonious than those without these effects. Our estimates were similar to recently reported estimates for mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). We provide current harvest probability estimates for these populations using our direct measures of reporting probability, improving the accuracy of previous estimates obtained from recovery probabilities alone. Goose managers and researchers throughout North America can use our reporting probabilities to correct recovery probabilities estimated from standard banding operations for deriving spatially explicit harvest probabilities.

No abstract

An important assumption of mark—recapture studies is that individuals retain their marks, which has not been assessed for goose reward bands. We estimated aluminum leg band retention probabilities and modeled how band retention varied with band type (standard vs. reward band), band age (1–40 months), and goose characteristics (species and size class) for Canada (Branta canadensis), cackling (Branta hutchinsii), snow (Chen caerulescens), and Ross's (Chen rossii) geese that field coordinators double‐leg banded during a North American goose reward band study (N = 40,999 individuals from 15 populations). We conditioned all models in this analysis on geese that were encountered with ≥1 leg band still attached (n = 5,747 dead recoveries and live recaptures). Retention probabilities for standard aluminum leg bands were high ( = 0.9995, SE < 0.001) and constant over 1–40 months. In contrast, apparent retention probabilities for reward bands demonstrated an interactive relationship between 5 size and species classes (small cackling, medium Canada, large Canada, snow, and Ross's geese). In addition, apparent retention probabilities for each of the 5 classes varied quadratically with time, being lower immediately after banding and at older age classes. The differential retention probabilities among band type (reward vs. standard) that we observed suggests that 1) models estimating reporting probability should incorporate differential band loss if it is nontrivial, 2) goose managers should consider the costs and benefits of double‐banding geese on an operational basis, and 3) the United States Geological Survey Bird Banding Lab should modify protocols for receiving recovery data.