[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MID-CONTINENT LIGHT GEESE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-22
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-803 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
RICHARD W. POMBO, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
Carolina SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho Rico
ADAM SMITH, Washington
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
Dave Whaley, Legislative Staff
Jean Flemma, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 15, 1999...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa, prepared statement of...................... 3
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 4
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, prepared statement of............. 4
Pickering, Hon. Chip, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Mississippi....................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Minnesota..................................... 7
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Tanner, Hon. John S., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, prepared statement of.................. 5
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, prepared statement of........................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Adams, Tom, Senior Policy Adviser, National Audubon Society.. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Alison, Dr. Robert, Orillia, Ontario, Canada................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Batt, Dr. Bruce, Chair, Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
and Chief Biologist, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Rogers, Dr. John, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Taylor, Gary, Legislative Director, International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.............................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Thomas, Dr. Vernon, Professor of Wildlife and Management,
Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario.................................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Additional material supplied:
Background paper, Committee on Resources..................... 65
Chretien, Raymond, Ambassador, Canada, prepared statement of. 71
News from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................. 41
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MID-CONTINENT LIGHT GEESE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife, and Oceans will come to order.
Today, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing
on the impact that light geese are having on the fragile
Canadian Arctic tundra. We will examine the likely
effectiveness of two rules that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has recently issued to address this impact, and we will
inquire whether additional population control measures may be
necessary in the future.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been monitoring
light geese populations for over 50 years. During this time,
the population has increased from 800,000 birds in 1969 to over
5 million mid-continent light geese today. It is projected that
the breeding population could rise to more than 6.8 million in
the next 3 years.
These birds are world-class foragers, and their favorite
foods are found in the 135,000 acres that comprise the Hudson
Bay lowland salt-marsh ecosystem. In fact, they like this
vegetation so much that they are eating it much faster than its
ability to regrow. According to various scientists, one-third
of the lowlands have been destroyed, one-third are on the brink
of destruction, and the remaining one-third are being consumed
by the ever-expanding population of these geese.
While a solution to the overpopulation problem will not be
easily found, there are certain undeniable facts. It is clear
that man created the problem by planting thousands of acres of
cereal crops, and unless some management practices are
implemented, the destruction of the Arctic tundra will continue
in the future.
On February 16th, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
two final rules to reduce the population of Mid-Continent light
geese. At that time, the Director of the Service stated that,
quote, ``We are not ruling out any other solutions that could
help solve this problem and ensure healthy population levels.''
I am interested in learning what additional steps may be
contemplated; what is a healthy population level for this
species, and how quickly will the tundra recover if foraging
pressure is reduced?
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
on how we should address these serious environmental problems.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey
Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will conduct an
oversight hearing on the impact that light geese are having on
the fragile Canadian Arctic tundra. We will examine the likely
effectiveness of two rules that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has recently issued to address this impact, and we will
inquire whether additional population control measures may be
necessary in the future.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been monitoring
light geese populations for over 50 years. During that time,
the population has increased from 800,000 birds in 1969 to more
than five million Mid-Continent light geese today. With a 10
percent growth rate, it is projected that the breeding
population could rise to more than 6.8 million birds in the
next three years.
These birds are world-class foragers, and their favorite
foods are found in the 135,000 acres that comprise the Hudson
Bay lowland salt-marsh ecosystem. In fact, they like this
vegetation so much that they are eating it much faster than its
ability to regrow. According to various scientists, one-third
of the lowlands have been destroyed, one-third are on the brink
of devastation, and the remaining one-third are being consumed
by an ever-expanding population of light geese.
While a solution to this overpopulation problem will not be
easily found, there are certain undeniable facts. It is clear
that man created this problem by planting thousands of acres of
cereal crops and, unless some management policies are
implemented, the destruction of the Arctic tundra will continue
unabated and dozens of species, including light geese, will be
unable to live there in the future.
On February 16th, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
two final rules to reduce the population of Mid-Continent light
geese. At that time, the Director of the Service stated that
``we are not ruling out any other solutions that could help
solve this problem and ensure healthy population levels in the
future.'' I am interested in learning what additional steps may
be contemplated, what is a healthy population level for this
species, and how quickly will the tundra recover if foraging
pressure is reduced.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
and I am anxious to hear the various recommendations on how to
address this serious environmental problem.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
Mr. Chairman, I compliment you for holding this oversight
hearing on the destruction of the Canadian Arctic tundra by a
growing population of light geese.
Three years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service joined
with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the
National Audubon Society, and several state fish and game
departments in forming the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group.
After carefully studying the problem, a report entitled
``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril'' was released.
While there are many recommendations in this report, the
bottom line is that immediate steps must be taken to reduce the
population of Mid-Continent light geese.
This population has exploded from 800,000 in 1969 to more
than five million birds today. The fundamental cause of this
dramatic increase is the expansion of agricultural areas and
the abundance of food for these geese. In Arkansas, Louisiana
and Texas alone, there are more than 2.25 million acres of rice
farms that have become a buffet bar for these birds.
With this improved diet, these geese are living longer and
reproducing at about 10 percent each year. As a result, the
135,000 acres of the Hudson Bay lowlands ecosystem are being
systematically destroyed. What was once thickly vegetated marsh
is rapidly becoming a virtual desert that will no longer
sustain life. This fragile Arctic habitat recovers extremely
slowly and unless this population is significantly reduced,
dozens of species, including light geese, will not survive in
the future.
In an effort to address this escalating problem, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has issued two final rules to slow
the destruction of the Arctic tundra. These rules, which allow
for expanded hunting opportunities, were drafted after a long
and difficult process. More than 1,100 comments were considered
and the rules are fully consistent with the recommendations of
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group.
While the rules by themselves will not save the ecosystem,
they are a responsible step in the right direction. This is a
problem created by man, and the Service should be commended for
its leadership in this matter. The easy decision would have
been to do nothing. After all, some might say this is a
Canadian problem. However, to endorse the idea of simply
allowing nature to run its course, to allow the population of
light geese and dozens of other species that depend on this
habitat to crash is irresponsible. We cannot sit idly by and
allow this environmental catastrophe to occur.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
and to working together to solve this problem of an
overabundance of Mid-Continent light geese.
Mr. Saxton. In as much as the Ranking Member is not here, I
guess I would ask if any other members have statements? Okay.
I ask unanimous consent that all Subcommittee members be
permitted to include their opening statements in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
Statement of Hon. Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa
Thank you and good morning Mr. Chairman. Before we begin I
would like to extend a welcome to our assembled witnesses here
this morning, and especially, I would like to thank Dr. Vernon
Thomas and Dr. Robert Alison who have traveled from Ontario,
Canada to be with us today. I look forward to hearing from both
of you.
I commend Chairman Saxton for the timeliness of today's
oversight hearing. I am sure that several members of this
Subcommittee were interested in the Fish and Wildlife Service's
decision earlier this month to withdraw final rules designed to
remedy the ongoing destruction of arctic and subarctic breeding
habitats caused by the population surge of mid-continent light
geese.
I am inclined to agree with Judge Thomas Hogan's recent
decision that found that the Fish and Wildlife Service had
acted within its authority under the Migratory Bird Act Treaty
to invoke emergency measures to protect migratory birds. I
sympathize with the Service, because few activities in the
management of natural resources are more challenging than the
management of highly migratory species, whether that species is
a Pacific tuna or a North American migratory bird.
Nonetheless, concerns have been raised regarding the actual
scope of habitat damage; the variability in the total
population estimates of light geese; the identification of
problem colonies in Canada; and whether the proposed remedy is
an appropriate response to what may be a natural, cyclic
population boom. In light of these unknowns, it was a fair
judgement by Judge Hogan to rule that an environmental
assessment (EA) was insufficient.
I think it is a wise decision by the Service to develop a
comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS). A more
rigorous evaluation of management alternatives would appear
reasonable in light of the real likelihood for unintended
impacts. Certainly, the last thing we want to do is
unnecessarily apply lethal controls that are too broad or too
indiscriminate, especially if more localized management options
are available.
I look forward to hearing from the Service on how they
intend to complete this EIS within one year, what new research
and data they expect to find, and what other management
options, or combinations of options they intend to re-evaluate?
I also look forward to learning more about the actual
extent of arctic and subarctic breeding habitat damage. It is
my understanding that there is documentation of severe habitat
damage--principally in the La Perouse Bay region of Manitoba
and at Cape Henrietta Maria in Ontario--but that overall damage
estimates throughout the entire span of available Canadian
summer breeding habitats have not been seriously quantified. It
would seem that this basic ecological information is necessary
for the Service to be able to approximate the true scope of the
threat to breeding habitat.
It also would be helpful to learn how other migratory bird
species that share overlapping habitats with light geese have
been impacted outside of the areas of documented damage? What
might happen to these other populations should the population
of light geese drop sharply?
In concluding, as I said earlier, the management of highly
migratory species is difficult, and mid-continent light geese
are no exception. I commend the Service for its decision to
develop an EIS, and I hope as a result that the Service might
find suitable management alternatives to enable it to act in a
timely and effective manner that is in the best interests of
the both the birds and the threatened ecosystems.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Your leadership on this issue is
important and I look forward to working with you in keeping
track of the progress made by the Service to complete this
important EIS.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this oversight hearing
on the ongoing destruction of the Arctic Tundra by the Lesser
snow geese. This is an important issue which must be addressed
because its effects will permanently damage the environment and
ecosystem of the Arctic Tundra.
Since 1948, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been
monitoring the snow geese population. Their studies have shown
that the snow geese population has increased from 800,000 in
1969 to more than five million birds today. Biologists at Fish
and Wildlife have attributed the population explosion to
changes in the landscape and the availability of grain crops.
Easy access to food during migration, coupled with low
mortality rates, has allowed the species to grow at an enormous
pace.
Unfortunately, due to the vast increase in numbers, the
snow geese have destroyed thousands of acres of vegetated salt
and freshwater marsh. Due to the need for more feeding grounds,
the geese have driven out numerous bird species and now
threaten an ecosystem that would take decades to rebuild.
Reports indicate that the snow geese have destroyed a third
of habitat, another third is almost destroyed, and the geese
have focused on the final third. This feeding frenzy has caused
millions of dollars in damage to agricultural crops and
permanent damage to the ecosystem.
Fish and Wildlife has tried to tackle this problem with
increased hunting opportunities, such as expanding the hunting
season and increasing bag limits. This has failed. The current
harvest of the geese is the lowest in 25 years and the species
continues to grow by 5 percent per year.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and I hope
that today's oversight hearing will help us move in the right
direction so that we can develop a plan that best protects the
snow geese population and the valuable ecosystem of the Artic
Tundra.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Statement of Hon. Duncan Hunter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking you for
this opportunity to provide testimony to your Subcommittee
regarding the irreversible damage currently occurring in the
tundra ecosystem of North America by the mid-continent lesser
snow goose. As you are aware, this valuable international
resource, which provides habitats for hundreds of different
wildlife species, is in great danger of irreversible damage
because of overpopulation of these geese.
The mid-continent lesser snow goose is an Arctic-nesting
waterfowl whose population has thrived in recent years as a
result of increased agricultural and urban development and
their ability to successfully exploit human modified
landscapes. Whereas in most cases this would be viewed as
successful wildlife management, in terms of the mid-continent
lesser snow goose this emerging pattern has moved beyond
desired levels to become an immediate threat to the very
survival of this species.
Since 1969, the mid-continent lesser snow goose has been
steadily increasing at a rate of 5 percent a year from 900,000
to more than 5,000,000 today. These geese forage by grubbing,
or overturning soil, to reach the plant growth beneath the
ground. This practice, coupled with the overpopulation, has
caused severe environmental degradation to the Arctic
ecosystem, almost rendering it useless for future plant growth.
Fragile breeding grounds in Northern America, including the
areas of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and parts of the Northwest
Territories, have experienced irreparable damage to large areas
of vegetation. Unlike most cases of wildlife population
explosions where nature will balance species and habitat on its
own, waiting for this to occur could be devastating. Current
land-use practices have increased food supplies and reduced the
winter mortality rate of these geese, thereby sending healthy
birds back to breeding grounds where they continue to expand,
destroying more and more of the North American tundra each
season.
This overpopulation also increases the potential for
outbreaks of disease and could cause a decline in other species
that nest in these regions. This includes semipalmated
sandpipers, red-necked phalaropes, yellow rails, American
wigeons, northern shovelers and a variety of passerines.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that a
decrease of one million geese, every year for the next several
years, is what would be necessary to bring the mid-continent
lesser snow goose population to one that is acceptable by
wildlife managers. Taking this into consideration, the
liberalization of many hunting frameworks is warranted. This
includes modifying several current game-hunting regulations
regarding baiting, electronic calls, concealment, bag limits
and late-season expansion on and around state, provincial and
Federal refuges. Though some conservation groups may consider
these actions as severe, complacency can only be characterized
as irresponsible.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
implemented two rules in an attempt to address this growing
problem. Specifically, this new policy provides more
flexibility for states to allow the use of electronic goose
calls and unplugged shotguns which had been prohibited in the
past. Additionally, an extension of the harvest of snow geese
for southern hunters beyond the current restrictions (March 10)
in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has also been authorized
allowing hunters to take light geese outside the traditional
hunting season frameworks. I would like to applaud U.S. Fish
and Wildlife for these actions and their willingness to pursue
viable alternatives.
Despite these steps forward, however, more work remains
necessary. Congress has the responsibility to encourage the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to utilize the most efficient
conservation measures possible to reduce the population of mid-
continent snow geese to levels that are consistent with sound
biological management principles. This includes the development
of a comprehensive management strategy, the liberalization of
hunting frameworks and the modification of public land
management practices. With these efforts, further destruction
of the tundra ecosystem may be prevented and the mid-continent
lesser snow geese can populate in a more healthy manner.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to express
my thoughts regarding important matters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tanner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John S. Tanner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee
Chairman Saxton, Delegate Faleomavaega, Members of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I
want to first thank you for your continued leadership in the
conservation of our fish and wildlife resources. It is that
leadership that brings us here today to examine the plight of
the Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Goose, the work of the Arctic
Goose Habitat Working Group, and the recent action taken by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee for
holding this hearing, particularly in light of recent actions
involving the Service's final regulations aimed at reducing the
populations of lesser snow geese and Ross' geese to a
manageable level over the next five years. The action taken by
the Service is appropriate and advocated by a host of
conservation partners including the state fish and wildlife
agencies and Ducks Unlimited. I look forward to hearing from my
fellow colleagues here in the House as well as from
representatives of some of our conservation partners who have
well stated interests in this critical issue and have worked
hard to find common ground.
The Problem
Let's face it, the problem is staggering. Over the past 30
years the population of Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese has
exploded by more than 300 percent. Roughly 900,000 Mid-
Continent Lesser Snow Geese were recorded in surveys taken in
1969. Today, many of the estimated five million Mid-Continent
Lesser Snow Geese are struggling to survive in the same arctic
and sub-arctic breeding habitats that sustained only 900,000
snow geese 30 years ago. Many biologists believe those breeding
habitats are capable of sustaining fewer than two million snow
geese today. The population of these snow geese is growing at
an annual rate of about 5 percent. Indeed, in 1968 when
scientists began studying snow geese in the breeding grounds
around La Perouse Bay there were 2,000 breeding pairs. Last
year scientists found more than 40,000 pairs. Nesting colonies
at Cape Henrietta Maria have exploded from roughly 2,000 pairs
in 1960 to 225,000 pairs last year that had hatched more than
one million goslings. That means trouble in the states where
these birds winter. State waterfowl managers in Arkansas,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma are facing more
severe problems in the southern regions of the Mississippi and
Central Flyways where snow goose numbers have more than doubled
in the last five years alone.
Equally stunning, of the 1,200 mile coastline of Hudson Bay
and the Southern James Bay, more than 30 percent of the
original habitat is considered destroyed, another 35 percent is
severely imperiled, and the remainder is overgrazed. These
geese have eaten themselves into crisis.
Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese rely on habitats in the
arctic and sub-arctic regions of Canada primarily the western
coasts of the Hudson Bay and the southern James Bay as well as
the Baffin and South Hampton Islands for their nesting and
staging areas. Beginning in August these snow geese begin their
migration south over the Canadian boreal forests and along the
Central Flyway corridor and the Mississippi Flyway corridor to
their wintering grounds in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Texas, and Oklahoma.
Many waterfowl managers believe the virtually unlimited
food source provided by many farmers in the Mississippi and
Central Flyway states is part of the reason for the sustained
growth rates these geese are experiencing. The available
breeding habitats can no longer sustain the present population
and that raises a number of threats to both these snow geese
and other migratory birds that include the spread of avian
cholera and increasing salinity levels in the soil because of
the removal of virtually all of the tundra's protective turf by
an over-abundance of snow geese.
The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
The Arctic Goose Joint Venture, which is one of the Joint
Ventures formed to implement the goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, put together the Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group in 1996 to address booming snow goose
populations and the resulting degradation of prime breeding
ground habitat.
By the end of 1997, the Working Group produced a series of
recommendations in its report, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril, that
took a significant step towards achieving the necessary
consensus needed to begin solving the pressing habitat issues
facing Canada and the United States.
Remove existing hunting restrictions on techniques
including the use of electronic calls, baiting, and the
practice of creeping.
Provide for a Conservation Order that permits snow
goose hunting beyond the between March 10th and August 31st.
Encourage native hunters to increase subsistence
harvests of eggs and adult birds.
Expand hunting opportunities on some National Wildlife
Refuges in an effort to help disperse the geese from typically
protected areas.
Work with waterfowlers and land owners to improve
access to private lands.
Encourage state wildlife agencies to develop
reciprocal agreements among the states to exempt nonresident
waterfowlers from purchasing multiple licenses to hunt snow
geese.
And finally, remove or greatly expand current bag and
possession limits.
The recommendation to reduce the lesser snow goose population by
half has been endorsed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, its
Canadian counterpart, the state fish and wildlife agencies, Ducks
Unlimited, the Ornithological Council, the Wildlife Management
Institute, the Arctic Geese Stakeholders Committee, the National
Wildlife Federation, and the National Audubon Society.
Earlier this year, the Service adopted a series regulatory
strategies aimed at giving state wildlife agencies in 24 states,
primarily those in the Mississippi and Central Flyways, the flexibility
to begin addressing the problems identified above with stepped up
conservation measures.
States will be permitted to implement conservation
orders under the Migratory Bird Treaty that allow hunters to
take light geese outside the traditional migratory bird hunting
season frameworks. This essentially would permit hunters to
pursue light geese between April 1st and August 31st.
Hunters will also be permitted to use electronic goose
calls and unplugged shotguns.
This action is expected to reduce the snow goose population by 1.25
million geese in the first year, 1.9 million in the second year, and
2.7 million in the third year. These estimated figures included the
average 600,000 geese that are harvested under existing hunting
frameworks.
I want to make it abundantly clear, the Service's Conservation
Order must be implemented. If these actions are not taken and the snow
goose population is allowed to grow even more, the consequences will be
such that in the years ahead we may not have the options we have today.
Restoring these critical habitats for not only the lesser snow
goose, but the many other species of migratory birds and wildlife that
depend on the same habitat for their existence, is already expected to
take decades. To delay further, in my view, borders on a complete
abdication of our stewardship responsibilities.
The Future
Like many who have been working on this issue for much longer than
me, I don't believe the solution to this problem now or in the future
will be a simple one. But I do believe we need to take several steps to
prepare for the long-term management of the Mid-Continent Lesser Snow
Goose population at sustainable levels in an effort to restore these
critical habitats.
Finally, as I said a year ago when this Subcommittee held a hearing
on this issue, funding for migratory bird programs is not sufficient to
meet our responsibilities. The Service requested an increase of $2.3
million for its migratory bird management programs, which includes
$200,000 specifically for snow geese. The Joint Flyway Councils have
recommended a budget increase of $5 million to better address goose
population monitoring and related management and research needs. Both
the Service and the Congress would do well to seriously consider the
merits of the Joint Flyway Council's recommendation.
The Cost Of Doing Nothing
The cost of doing too little or nothing at all will be excruciating
if not irresponsible. The Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese have now
become a serious threat to their own existence in the view of many.
Their destruction of these prime habitats are threatening the existence
of many other species of migratory birds including shorebirds and
songbirds. Specifically, puddle ducks like the American wigeon and
shovelers no longer use the freshwater wetlands in and around the
colony, according to experts like Dr. Batt. They are finding that many
non-game migratory birds like the stilt sandpiper in the arctic and
subarctic habitats are declining in numbers because of the extreme
habitat degradation brought about by the abundance of these snow geese.
One thing is clear to everyone who has objectively reviewed this
issue. Doing nothing is neither scientifically viable, nor is it an
acceptably responsible solution.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, Delegate Faleomavaega, Members of
the Subcommittee, and those who have been working on this problem
through the Working Group for helping to raise awareness about the
plight of the lesser snow goose and its habitats.
Mr. Saxton. With that, I would like to introduce our first panel.
The Honorable Collin Peterson who is with us, and the Honorable Chip
Pickering is or will soon be; he is here. If you gentleman would like
to take your places at the table, you may begin, and we will begin with
Collin. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate your interest in
this issue, and we are interested in hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I guess I
thought that Chairman Young was going to be here. I was going
to let him get into all of the details of this. I guess, I
don't know that I am any kind of expert, but I wanted to just
relay some of my personal observations that some other members
may not have had the opportunity to be involved in.
One of the things I do for work and for fun is fly
airplanes, and we go up into the Arctic with our floatplanes
every once in a while, and I have had the opportunity to fly
over this area that is in question, and I don't think a lot of
people have had the opportunity to be up in this part of the
world. It is a whole different situation, and things grow very
slow up there, and it is a serious situation if we allow this
to deteriorate any further. I don't know that it will ever come
back or if it does, it will be extremely in happening.
The other thing that I don't know if a lot of people
realize just exactly what this kind of country is like up
there. There is from Churchill up to Baker Lake, which you fly
across this area, there are no roads; there is nothing there;
no way to access it. So, if we don't figure out some way to
control these populations, they are going to decimate the area,
and I don't know how you would ever get in there and do
anything to turn it around.
So, I don't know if the solutions that we have are working
all that well. The other thing that I can report on, I have had
a lot of my friends and neighbors have been over in North
Dakota and South Dakota and other places--Minnesota chose not
to have a hunting season this spring--but I have been getting
mixed reports on the success of these hunts.
These geese, if any of you have ever hunted snow geese, are
very difficult to hunt. Back in the old days when most of the
flock was young birds, they were pretty dumb, and you could
decoy them in and get a decent chance of harvesting some birds,
but as this population has become healthier and older, they are
a lot smarter--it doesn't matter whether it is the fall or the
spring--and they are very difficult to hunt, and so the success
rate--some people have had some decent success, but others have
gone over and harvested one or two birds after hunting for 2 or
3 or 4 days. So, I am not sure taking these limits off,
increasing these limits, or having the spring hunt, just from
anecdotal evidence, I am not so sure how much we are taking off
the top of the population with this hunt.
So, I mean, it is the right thing to do, I think, and it is
an idea that gets at the problem, but, frankly, I just think we
have kind of let this thing get ahead of us, and we were a
little slow in getting to the--putting some solutions in place,
and I don't know exactly what the overall harvest has been, but
my sense is that in our part of the world they are not taking
that many geese. I can tell you in the fall, I have been out
snow goose hunting, and we usually come home skunked or close
to it. They are very, very smart; very, very hard to hunt, and
I just commend the Fish and Wildlife Service and all the other
groups that have been working on this trying to come up with a
solution, and we in the Sportsmen's Caucus have been concerned
about this and have tried to do our part to publicize it and to
work with all the other folks to try to come up with a
solution, and I don't know if this is going to work. I am not
sure what else you can do. Eventually, what probably will
happen if this keeps on, is we are going to end up with some
kind of a disease problem, and it will take of itself maybe,
which would be an unfortunate situation.
I would be interested in hearing from, I guess, the
witnesses today just how successful this has been, but up in
our part of the world, at least, I am not sure they were that
tough on the population, but, as I say, it is the right to do.
So, we commend you for having this hearing, and we in the
Sportsmen's Caucus will do anything we can to help you and the
Committee and others work on this issue, and I would be happy
to answer any questions. I defer to my colleague from the
Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Pickering.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Collin.
We will turn now to the gentleman from Mississippi.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHIP PICKERING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Pickering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
commend you for holding this hearing. I do, as Collin, serve in
the Sportsmen's Caucus as the vice-Chair. I am an active hunter
and conservationist from my region; Collin gives a good
perspective from his region, but we are beginning to see the
impact of the overpopulation of the snow goose in the southern
flyway, the Mississippi Flyway, that includes 24 States,
including my home State of Mississippi.
Now, the southern States are seeing the harm because of the
availability of food in the rice farms of Mississippi,
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. More than 2 million acres of
rice crops and millions of acres of grain farms in the Midwest
are becoming feeding grounds for the snow geese. As a result of
the increased food supply, snow geese are living longer and
reproducing at a higher rate which causes the destruction of
135,000 acres of the Hudson Bay lowlands, the Arctic habitat of
the snow geese.
With the addition of the abundance of food in the South and
Midwest, combined with the establishment of sanctuaries along
the flyways and the decline in harvest rates of snow geese,
there is a need for action to control the population of these
migratory birds.
Now, over the last few years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has worked with Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks
Unlimited, the National Audubon Society, and many States'
Department of Fish and Game to formulate a report called the
Arctic Ecosystems in Peril which outlines methods to stop the
destruction of the Arctic tundra. In February, 1999, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife issued two rules that would help solve the
current snow geese situation. One allows hunters to use
unplugged shotguns and electronic duck calls to hunt snow geese
during the normal hunting season when all other waterfowl and
crane hunting seasons are closed. The second authorizes certain
States to implement action to harvest snow geese by shooting in
a hunting manner inside or outside of the regular open
migratory bird hunting season framework.
I believe these two policies are good steps in the right
direction, but more needs to be done to solve the overall
problem. I support many of the recommendations of the U.S.
Wildlife Service, the report that they have issued, and I hope
that these recommendations are considered and implemented.
And, finally, I want to emphasize the need for quick action
on this issue. The habitat of the snow geese and numerous other
species is threatened by the destruction of the Arctic habitat.
Furthermore, the farmers in the South and Midwest need relief
from the damage done to their crops by the snow geese. Reducing
the population of snow geese is a priority for conservationists
and sportsmen, and it is my hope that action is taken quickly
to protect the habitat of these birds and the other animals
that live in the same environment.
And, again, I just want to emphasize the need for the quick
implementation of the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife report, and I hope that we can work with you, the
Sportsmen's Caucus, as we have worked with other committees.
Anything we can do to help carry these out and meet this
immediate need I think is of critical importance. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickering follows:]
Statement of Hon. Charles W. ``Chip'' Pickering, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Mississippi
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
allowing me to speak to the Subcommittee about the issue of
Mid-Continent light geese, also called snow geese.
It is my privilege to serve as a Co-Chairman of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. As an active hunter and
conservationist, I believe we must address the population
explosion of snow geese. Snow geese migrate in winter to the
United States portions of the Central and Mississippi Flyways
that include twenty-four states, including my home state of
Mississippi.
The overpopulation of snow geese hurts southern states
because of the availability of food in the rice farms of
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. More than two
million acres of rice crops and millions of acres of grain
farms in the Midwest are becoming feeding grounds for snow
geese. As a result of this increased food supply, snow geese
are living longer and reproducing at a higher rate which causes
the destruction of 135,000 acres of the Hudson Bay lowlands--
the Arctic habitat of snow geese.
Because of the abundance of food in the South and Midwest,
combined with the establishment of sanctuaries along the
flyways and the decline in harvest rates of snow geese, there
is a need for action to control the population of these
migratory birds.
Over the last few years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has worked with the Canadian Wildlife Service; Ducks Unlimited;
the National Audubon Society; and many states' Department of
Fish and Game to formulate a report called ``Arctic Ecosystems
of Peril'' which outlines methods to stop the destruction of
the Arctic tundra. In February, 1999, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife issued two rules that would help solve the current
snow geese situation. One allows hunters to use unplugged
shotguns and electronic duck calls to hunt snow geese during a
normal hunting season when all other waterfowl and crane
hunting seasons are closed. The second rule authorizes certain
states to implement actions to harvest snow geese by shooting
in a hunting manner, inside or outside of the regular open
migratory bird hunting season framework.
I believe these two policies are good steps in the right
direction but more needs to be done to solve the overall
problem. I support many of the recommendations of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's ``Arctic Ecosystem in Peril'' report and
I hope some of these recommendations are considered and
implemented.
Finally, I want to emphasize the need for quick action on
this issue. The habitat of the snow geese and numerous other
species is threatened by the destruction of the Arctic habitat.
Furthermore, the farmers in the South and Midwest need relief
from the damage done to their crops by the snow geese. Reducing
the population of snow geese is a priority for conservationists
and sportsmen and it is my hope that action is taken quickly to
protect the habitat of these birds and the other animals that
live in the same environment.
Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. I would just like thank you both for
your observations and your perspectives on what is obviously a
very serious issue and one that has been under consideration by
the Fish and Wildlife Service and by the Sportsmen's Caucus, I
might add. Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham and others have
been urging legislation on this matter, and, frankly, I have
been holding back, because the Fish and Wildlife Service has
been engaged with the biologists and experts in trying to
manage this situation correctly, and, unfortunately, they have
hit a couple of snags now which are unfortunate.
I appreciate, Collin, your description of the problem and
the difficulty of hunting them. The Fish and Wildlife Service
believes that they do have some new methods or some new tools
that can be used in hunting that will be quite effective, and
we are going to hear from them a little later.
By way of observation, these birds, even on the East Coast,
get so thick--of course, the main problem now is in the center
of the country--but even on the East Coast, they are becoming
very prolific and very thick and are digging up mud flats all
up and down the coast, and my son-in-law who is a great hunter,
went out--he lives on a farm, and he went out and laid down
behind the stone wall; the snow geese flew over him; with two
shots, he killed nine geese; that is how thick they are, and I
guess there was little luck involved in it, but he has told
that story enough that I don't think he is exaggerating; I
think he really did that.
So, there are good reasons, and you have outlined them with
your observations especially well, and I am hopeful that we
will collectively be able to come to grips with this very
serious issue before they do run out of food in the tundra and
before they do, therefore, become diseased and die miserable
deaths. I don't know whether any of my other colleagues have
observations, comments or questions that they would like to
make at this point.
Mr. Hansen. What is the limit on snow geese? How is your
son-in-law enjoying his time in prison?
Mr. Saxton. Well, it was a mistake, you know. He just had
those two shots and try that in front of a Federal judge
sometime.
Mr. Hansen. Tell him you got a double at the last, so you
pushed one down in the mud or you----
Mr. Saxton. Harry is defending my son-in-law, and says the
bag limit is 15.
Mr. Peterson. I think the limit was 10 before we started
the special season, so I think he was probably okay.
[Laughter.]
I am not a game warden.
Mr. Hansen. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to say, I hope we don't overreact on some of these things.
Sometimes I think we are a reactionary group, but I will be
interested in seeing what comes out of all this.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your son-
in-law is all right. I know in Maryland the limit is 15 from
about October through February.
I want to emphasize to our colleagues that it really is--it
isn't a growing problem on the Atlantic Flyway, it is a major
problem on the Atlantic flyway, and I hope the Fish and
Wildlife when they come up with this ever-changing policy with
snow goose--and I want to thank them for all their efforts in
this--but it is growing so fast on the Eastern Shore of
Maryland that you can literally lose 100, 200, 300 acres of
wheat in a matter of--winter wheat--in a matter of a couple of
days. You can go out there and chase those buggers away, and if
you happen to have 1,000, 2,000 acres and you are someplace
else, they will come back in 10 minutes.
They have really--they have adapted to the fact that gas
guns won't hurt them; they have adapted to the fact that flags
won't hurt them; they have adapted to the fact--just like a
beehive--that as soon as a pick-up is gone, they come back in.
So, it is going to be a major undertaking.
I agree with my colleague from Utah that we don't want to
overreact, but to get back in and strike this very complex,
difficult position of bringing nature back into balance because
of extraordinary human activity or because of the fundamental
dynamic of natural systems, but I will think we will be able to
do it, and good luck in your area, fellows.
Mr. Pickering. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add, in
many ways we are benefiting from the success from our
conservation efforts and the set asides that we have done, the
practices setting aside the habitat and the food supply, but if
we don't take drastic action on the snow geese problem--just
for the Mississippi Flyway where we are seeing, like you, Mr.
Gilchrest, just talked about how they can wipe out a field in
an agricultural area and the habitat--it will begin to affect,
and it has already begun to affect, other species, and so where
we have made great strides in regaining the populations of
waterfowl, it not only affects the snow geese population but
all other waterfowl populations.
So, we want to be wise and prudent, but we do need to take
action now to be able to keep all other populations increasing,
and the success that we have had from our other conservation
programs continuing, and if we don't, it becomes out of
balance; it could spiral downward, and we do need to take
action now.
All of the recommendations that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, I think if they are implemented now and done quickly
and urgently, that we can rebalance or correct the situation we
now face.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, if I could just--you know, I
would like to--I think the people in the Sportsmen's Caucus
would like to know what these new hunting methods are, so we
can go out and be more successful. So, if the Fish and Wildlife
Service wants to come over and teach us, we would be more than
happy.
Mr. Gilchrest. If the chairman will yield for just 30
seconds, I can tell you on the Eastern Shore of Maryland they
go out there, and it is correct, you can shoot 15 a day for
months at a time. They are difficult to shoot, just like
shooting beehives, but what these fellows do is they go out
there in the fields and they cover themselves with a mat made
of cornstalks, and then the guide at one point will say okay.
Even if those geese are flying over you 3 feet above your head
he is the one that triggers the assault, if you will. You throw
those mats off, you get up there, and a friend of mine with
four other fellows got, I don't know, something like 80 geese,
and they eat them all; they don't throw them away; they eat
them all. So, that is one method, Collin.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, I understand the method; I have been out
and tried that. The problem is in our part of the world, you
never know exactly where they are going to go, and it is a lot
of luck. If you happen to be in the field and you have got
yourself covered well enough, you may be able to get them to
decoy in, but they are smart, at least in our part of the
country, very smart, and they will sit up there 200 yards and
circle above you, and more often than not go someplace else.
Maybe they are dumber in Maryland than they are in North
Dakota, but I will have to come out there and check it out.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. Well, I would like to thank both of you for
your comments again and suggest, if you have time, if you would
like to stay with us, we are going to have a full discussion
here about what Fish and Wildlife has been up to. In any event,
we thank you for being here; we appreciate your comments.
We will, at this point, move on to our next panel, which
is--we are going to hear from Dr. John Rogers who is the Deputy
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and, Dr.
Rogers, we do have a 5-minute rule, but, obviously, we are very
interested in hearing a thorough discussion this morning, so
why don't you take such time as you need to enlighten us on the
activities that you have undertaken in the last year or two and
where we are and how well you think things are working.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN ROGERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Dr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is, once
again, a pleasure to appear before you and the rest on the
Committee on an issue that is of increasing importance to all
of us, whether we are wildlife professionals, agriculturalists,
hunters or wherever we find ourselves. We appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the
ecological problems that are being caused by the overabundance
of light geese, particularly in the Mid-Continent.
As you alluded to earlier, management of light goose
populations in North America has presented the wildlife
management community with one of its most challenging tasks.
This is in stark contrast to the efforts earlier in this
century to stem the market hunting and other commercialization
of these birds that happened in the 1800's and 1900's. We are
now faced, in contrast to those years, with managing some
populations of geese that have become so overabundant that they
are literally destroying their breeding habitat.
The population of Mid-Continent light geese is, that
principally lesser snow and Ross' geese, has grown to more than
300 percent over the last 30 years, from an index of 900,000
birds in 1969 to an index of over three million birds today.
These population levels far exceed any historical estimates.
The rapid growth of the population has been primarily
attributed to the expansion of agriculture along the Central
and Mississippi Flyways and the resultant low mortality and
increased winter survival.
As you alluded to earlier, both you and Mr. Gilchrest, Mr.
Chairman, another population of geese that is steadily
increasing as a result of increased use of agricultural lands
is the greater population snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway--or
the population of greater snow geese. Arctic habitats that are
harmed by Mid-Continent lesser snow geese may take decades to
recover if they ever do. Currently, as you mentioned, 35
percent of the 135,000 acres of habitat in the Hudson Bay
lowlands is considered destroyed; another 30 percent is
damaged, and 35 percent is heavily grazed. Habitat damage is
not limited to that done by the breeding geese, and breeding
goose colonies; it is also caused by northward-bound spring
migrants who stop and feed in these same areas.
Although you may hear from some individuals and some
organizations who are opposed to our actions, the Fish and
Wildlife Service along with the Canadian Wildlife Service and
virtually every wildlife biologist with experience in the
Arctic in both countries believes that the Mid-Continent light
goose population has exceeded the carrying capacity of its
breeding habitat, and the population must be reduced to avoid
long-term damage to an ecosystem that is important not only to
those birds but to every other species of wildlife that shares
that habitat. This is based on the virtual unanimity in the
scientific peer review literature that supports our
understanding of the damage that is being done to this habitat.
In a paper submitted to this Subcommittee for the hearing
record, Canadian authorities have stated that, quote, ``There
is a broad consensus that the present growth rates of the geese
cannot be sustained and that the particular kinds of habitat
preferred by the geese are threatened in many areas.'' In 1997,
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the Arctic Goose
Joint Venture recommended that wildlife agencies take steps to
reduce the Mid-Continent light goose population by 50 percent
by the year 2005, and I would like to submit a copy of that
report for the record, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Without objection.
Dr. Rogers. An environmental assessment of the Mid-
Continent light goose situation was completed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service after extensive consultation with State, with
provincial, private, academic, and non-governmental partners in
both the United States and in Canada. Several alternative
management actions for reducing light goose populations were
examined in that assessment. The preferred alternative was to
use new methods of take, namely electronic calls and unplugged
shotguns, for use by hunters during normal waterfowl hunting
frameworks when all other waterfowl and crane seasons were
closed and also to advocate the creation of a conservation
order that is a special new management action designed to
decrease populations. This order authorized takes of snow geese
during the normal framework closed period of March 10 to August
31st.
The Service published two rules in February 16th of this
year implementing that alternative in 24 States of the
Mississippi and Central Flyways. Several of those States
implemented those regulations immediately as we published those
rules, and based on reports from field biologists, the new
regulatory approach appears to be successful. The Canadian
Wildlife Service has implemented similar regulations.
To compliment harvest management actions, we have initiated
land management practices that will increase susceptibility of
light geese to harvest and make some lands less suitable for
utilization by these birds. These actions will focus on five
points: first, providing increased hunter opportunity; second,
decrease food availability; third, manipulating wetland areas
to decrease their attractiveness to snow geese; fourth, allow
altering winter habitat, and, five, conducting an aggressive
communication and outreach program so that everybody understood
both the situation and potential solutions. In addition, the
Canadian Wildlife Service has been working with aboriginal
groups to encourage them to take more geese in and around the
breeding areas.
It is known, however, that this can only be part of the
overall solution. To date, no feasible method for reducing
population numbers in the northern areas has been proposed. The
Service's management action has received widespread support
from the scientific and conservation community. Conservation
groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife
Management Institute, the Ornithological Council, the American
Bird Conservancy, and Ducks Unlimited--who you will hear from
today--have expressed strong support for the light goose
population reduction program.
In addition Flyway councils, the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and individual State wildlife
agencies have worked closely with the Service to implement
these management actions. Nevertheless, on March 3rd of this
year, the Humane Society of the United States and several other
animal rights groups filed suit against the Service challenging
these new regulations maintaining that the Service had violated
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by enacting new regulations and
that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been
completed prior to implementation of these rules.
On March 18th, Judge Thomas Hogan denied a preliminary
injunction sought by the plaintiffs indicating that the
Service's actions constituted a reasonable use of its authority
under the Migratory Bird Treaty and that the population
reduction program was based on sound scientific evidence.
However, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs had
demonstrated the substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of their NEPA claim and that an Environmental Impact
Statement should have been prepared. Based on the written
opinion of the court, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not to
continue with litigation and will initiate preparation of an
EIS immediately and to withdraw the two regulations on light
goose population reduction after the northward migration is
complete. It is possible that the time requirements for
preparing this EIS may preclude resumption of light goose
management actions next spring and therefore prolong a
resolution of this issue of habitat destruction.
The Fish and Wildlife Service firmly believes that
aggressive management intervention is a necessary and
scientifically sound approach for the control of white goose
populations. Without intervention, we will likely witness the
destruction of an ecosystem that is important to snow geese as
well as every other species of wildlife that shares this
habitat, and it also possible that the snow goose population
will crash and remain at extremely low levels due to lack of
suitable breeding habitat, the spread of disease, and
predation.
We are committed to continuing to work with State fish and
wildlife agencies, Canadian wildlife authorities, and public
stakeholders to address this issue of the overabundance of
white geese. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today. I am prepared to answer any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Rogers. In my
testimony, I mentioned that the current population, which is an
estimated five million, is projected to increase over the next
3 years to almost seven million, 6.8 to be more precise. What
affect will that potential increase have on habitat?
Dr. Rogers. It will continue the destruction that has
already occurred. I think one can expect that the complete
destruction of habitat from 30 percent will rise into the range
of 40 percent. You will start seeing effects on--increased
effects on young birds with reduced size, weight, date of
fledgling, increased disease occurrence and potential,
increased starvation of young birds, increased freezing of
young birds who haven't developed the necessary flight feathers
to leave the Arctic before winter sets in. Concomitantly, in
the southern areas--you heard from both Mr. Pickering and Mr.
Peterson as well as Mr. Gilchrest--the agricultural damage that
these birds cause in the winter; an increase by another almost
two million birds will increase dramatically the depredations
they cause on agricultural crops. The situation won't get any
better.
Mr. Saxton. Can you guess at how long it would take with a
population of seven million birds for the destroyed tundra to
reach the 40 percent level?
Dr. Rogers. How long it would take to reach that level? I
cannot project directly, but I would suspect in a matter of 2
to 3 years. We can get a better answer for you for that for the
record.
Mr. Saxton. And at what point do you suppose the population
would level off because of lack of food and disease?
Dr. Rogers. Again, we are not certain of that. Dr. Batt,
who will appear later, probably has a better idea, but these
birds are very mobile, and after destroying the habitat along
the Hudson Bay lowlands and the coast or traditional areas,
they have shown amazing plasticity to begin using other areas
that they have not historically used. So, it is potentially--it
is at least a potential that the population may not immediately
crash but move on to destroy other habitats that are, right
now, very little if at all affected.
Mr. Saxton. Well, what other critters depend upon the
habitat in the Hudson Bay area that is being destroyed?
Dr. Rogers. There is a wide variety of, particularly,
migratory birds. It is a heavily used area, of course, by the
polar bears and others--polar bears, of course, making it
logistically difficult to work up there--but all species of
birds that use the area are potentially affected, particularly
semi-palmated sandpipers and red-necked phalaropes. The
breeding pair counts of those have declined over the last
number of years. Yellow rails, a species once abundant at
LaPerouse Bay on Hudson Bay are not seen there at all right
now. Other shorebirds as well as shovelers, American widgeon,
are potentially affected, but, really, any species of bird that
shares that habitat is potentially at risk.
Mr. Saxton. A little later, we are going to hear from some
other witnesses, and I will anticipate that we will hear a
phrase which is ``Let nature take its course.'' This is an
option which, obviously, has been talked about and considered.
Why not simply allow the population to crash and let nature
takes its course?
Dr. Rogers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a--the
statement that leads one to believe that nature will take its
course is based on an incorrect premise and that is that it has
been a natural situation that has got us here. What we have is
an unnatural situation where the population has been kicked up
to unusually and unnaturally high levels by the change in
agricultural practices in the Mid-Continent of the United
States, so the birds are essentially released from the normal
limiting factors, that is winter survival, on their population.
So, the option, in my view, might better be termed the ``do
nothing'' option, and it is, in my view, the Fish and Wildlife
Service's view, not a responsible option to take, though maybe
it ought to be considered.
The results of that--we talked about a little bit a minute
ago--would be continued destruction of habitat, more
widespread, and the potential that many of the scientists
believe that this will never recover. You end up with smaller,
weaker young; susceptibility to disease that would affect both
birds in the North as well as along the migratory routes;
starvation; freezing for those that can't fly away when winter
comes; irreversible impacts on the habitat lead to irreversible
impacts on other species, and, as you suggested, ultimately,
the snow goose population, once the habitat is destroyed, may
stabilize but at a considerably lower level and with a habitat,
a breeding habitat, that cannot support higher populations, I
believe would be in a positive feedback situation that would
lead us to a catastrophic and permanent crash and the habitat
and the populations of birds that depend upon it.
Mr. Saxton. My time has almost expired, but let me ask one
final question. It is obvious that your proposal has some
opponents, otherwise, there wouldn't have been the activity in
court. Obviously, you have got some supporters, and, obviously,
you have got some folks who disagree. Can you kind of give us a
lineup of the scientific and environmental groups and animal
rights groups and where they all line up on this?
Dr. Rogers. Every conservation group that I am aware of,
every scientific group that I am aware of, all of the
scientific literature, and all of the scientists who have
produced that literature are in support of our approach to this
problem. Those who on the animal rights side who do not agree
that we should be intervening in what they view as a natural
situation, such as those you will hear from today, oppose us,
but the way I characterize it, it is a matter of the science
supports the Fish and Wildlife Service; sometimes the emotion
and the opinion of others leads people to line up on the other
side.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers, where
do the snow geese along the Atlantic Flyway spend their spring
and summer months?
Dr. Rogers. They are breeding in the eastern Arctic.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, that is a completely different--so, the
eastern Arctic, is that being damaged as much as the Hudson Bay
area?
Dr. Rogers. Not to this point. The populations have not
reached a point where they are critically damaging their
breeding habitat. The major problems at this time caused by the
greater snow geese are in the salt marshes and agricultural
areas. We--and I didn't mention--as we prepare this EIS, we
will be bringing into that the greater snow geese on the East
Coast, because, though the problem is not as severe right now,
if we were to let it go without action and consideration, it
will become so.
Mr. Gilchrest. You mentioned a couple of times about one of
the reasons for the explosion of population is the change in
agricultural practices in the Midwest. Now, is this within the
last 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? I think they have been
growing grain out there for a long time.
Dr. Rogers. Yes, and it took the snow geese time to adapt
to it. Historically, they wintered in the coastal areas along
the Gulf, but as the habitat was altered to support rice
farming and as corn growing in the upper Midwest allowed them
to winter farther north, the population slowly expanded. I can
remember when--the Fish and Wildlife Service is not totally
blameless in helping to encourage snow geese. A number of our
refuges for years planted crops and encouraged crops around the
refuges and on the refuges to support these critters.
Mr. Gilchrest. You mentioned five fundamental policy
changes that you thought would help reduce the exploding
population. One is increased hunting or increased hunters.
Could you give us some specifics like encouraging increased
hunting to the State Department of Natural Resources,
lengthening the season, take the plugs out of the shotguns,
electronic calls? What exactly would you recommend?
Dr. Rogers. Okay, what we had done before this year was to
allow the full 107-day season that the Migratory Bird Treaty
would allow and double the Federal limit on snow geese to about
20 birds and remove possession limits. Unfortunately, as at
least Mr. Peterson alluded to, most hunters certainly of the
Mid-Continent, like geese, are not approaching their limits. We
recognized that more had to be done. Therefore, we have
instituted or had instituted during the regular season a
situation that would allow the use, subject to State authority,
of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns. These, at least
from anecdotal reports of hunters, have been very successful.
Of course, we won't know the success----
Mr. Gilchrest. Were these implemented this season?
Dr. Rogers. These were implemented in late February of this
season, so we don't have----
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, is that also in the Atlantic Flyway?
Dr. Rogers. No, it was mostly in 24 midwestern States.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will it be in the Atlantic Flyway next
season?
Dr. Rogers. It will not be in the Atlantic Flyway season or
anywhere else until we finish an EIS. So, under the present
condition, we have removed----
Mr. Saxton. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Rogers, Dr. Rogers, would you explain what
the current situation is relative to the court ruling as it
pertains to the ongoing status of the regulations?
Dr. Rogers. Yes. The judge, in hearing the preliminary
injunction requested by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit,
determined that we were, as I said earlier, acting within our
authority and responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act but suggested that if this were pursued in court, we would
be vulnerable on the grounds of not having followed the
National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, we have suspended
both of these actions pending the completion of an EIS.
Mr. Saxton. Which will be accomplished over what period of
time.
Dr. Rogers. Which will take 12 to 18 months, which I would
suggest, at least at this time as far as we know it, would mean
that we would not be able to use these more liberalized
regulations in the future.
Mr. Gilchrest. Which means we have got a lot of family
members out there running through the winter wheat fields
chasing geese.
You mentioned decreasing food in agricultural lands. How do
you decrease their food?
Dr. Rogers. Well, that is a land management practice that
would fall upon refuge managers whether they be State managers
or Federal managers; that is to stop planting food crops that
the geese use that, in many cases, hold them on refuges.
Mr. Gilchrest. It may cause them to go to the----
Dr. Rogers. It may cause them to go out there where they
are more vulnerable.
Mr. Gilchrest. You mentioned manipulating wetlands. How
would you do that?
Dr. Rogers. Well, by controlling the--again, in managed
wetlands, principally, in State and Federal areas, we can
control the water level. The snow geese tend to like shallower
waters, so it would be managing a water level that was deeper
that was less attractive to them.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there that many wetlands that have water
that you can control the level?
Dr. Rogers. Again, on many Federal and State management
areas, yes, and these have become very important to snow geese
in the wintertime.
Mr. Gilchrest. How would you--I am going to--Mr. Pombo
yielded some of his time to be my proxy, if I could just say
that, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. That is unusual, but since it is your birthday,
we will----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just two quick questions. What methods are you now using
with the Canadians in coordination with what we are doing down
here as far as trying to find some method of altering those
spring and summer habitats to reduce the breeding up there?
Dr. Rogers. The Canadians have instituted very similar
hunting regulations, as we did, so we are in complete
coordination there. Of course, all the lands where they breed
are in Canada, and the Canadian government has indicated in
their statement suggested there has not been any proposal or
any serious consideration yet of actions on the breeding
ground. They are logistically very difficult; safety concerns;
it would be very expensive, and in doing so, the harvest rights
of aboriginal Canadians would have to be considered. So, the
hope is that we, with the hunting process, can reduce the
population to the levels needed and not have to think of more
draconian levels that would take--draconian actions on the
breeding grounds.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So, the change of policy implemented
in the Midwest in February will be withdrawn until the lawsuit
is done?
Dr. Rogers. It will be withdrawn until the Environmental
Impact Statement is done.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. And that will be done----
Dr. Rogers. And that will be done over the next 12 to 18
months.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see. So, a State, for example, cannot
implement any changes like electronic calls, unplugged
shotguns?
Dr. Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. Those kinds of things.
Dr. Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Well, thank you very much, Dr.
Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. You are welcome, and next year on your
birthday, we will give you extra time again.
Mr. Gilchrest. Appreciate that.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Rogers, thank you very much for your
comments and for your testimony. The members may have some
additional questions, and we ask that you respond to them in
writing. The record for that will remain open for 30 days.
Thank you for being with us.
Dr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Gilchrest.
Mr. Saxton. Our third panel this morning consists of Mr.
Gary Taylor, legislative director of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Dr. Vernon Thomas,
representing the Humane Society of the United States; Dr.
Robert Alison, from Orillia, is it? Canada, Ontario, who is, I
understand, also a member of the Humane Society but is here
today on his own behalf; Mr. Tom Adams, senior policy advisor
of the National Audubon Society; and Dr. Bruce Batt, who is the
Chairman of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and chief
biologist of Ducks Unlimited who I understand is also from
Canada.
Thank all of you for being with us. Let me remind you of
the 5 minute time limit, and, Mr. Taylor, when you are
prepared, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF GARY TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Taylor,
legislative director for the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to share
with you today our perspectives on the increase of the Mid-
Continent lesser snow goose population and the impact they are
having on the Arctic tundra habitat.
The association firmly supports the Fish and Wildlife
Service's final adopted rules on the management of Mid-
Continent light geese as a very measured response, implemented
after extensive discussions with the resource managers in the
States and Canadian provinces, between the Federal governments
of the United States and Canada, and with interested
constituencies and publics. We would urge the Subcommittee's
support for these actions and also your support for increased
funding to the Service for monitoring the effectiveness of
these conservation measures.
The association and its member agencies are very familiar
with the necessity for action to address the overpopulation of
snow geese that is causing substantial adverse impact on the
Arctic tundra. As you may recall, we appeared before this
Subcommittee last April to address this issue, and, at that
time, we stressed the need for immediate action. We have also
been involved with the deliberations of the Arctic Goose Joint
Venture and the Stakeholders' Committee on Arctic Nesting
Geese, and the association has endorsed the recommendations of
both of these groups.
The association continues to be concerned that snow goose
populations are expanding at an average rate of 5 percent a
year and now exceed five million breeding birds. This
overabundance of snow geese is attributed mainly to changing
agricultural practices on the wintering grounds and the coastal
areas along the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the Central and
Mississippi Flyway migration corridors. These practices, as you
have heard, have inadvertently increased the food available to
snow geese during migration and wintering periods.
Scientists and wildlife managers agree that Mid-Continent
lesser snow geese have become so numerous that fragile tundra
nesting habitats along the Hudson and James Bay coastal
lowlands have been severely degraded or destroyed. This is a
serious ecological problem affecting all indigenous species of
flora and fauna, thus decreasing the diversity of these
biological communities.
There are indications that other bird species, such as
shorebirds and other waterfowl that nest in these areas, are
already in decline because their breeding habitat is being
destroyed. As snow goose populations continue to increase and
brood rearing habitat declines, birds are dispersing to
adjacent areas, and the zone of damaged habitat is spreading.
Population levels are now well above the sustainable levels for
the Arctic and sub-Arctic habitats upon which they depend. In
addition, as carriers of avian cholera, snow geese are a
potential health threat to all other bird species that share
their nesting or wintering habitats. Furthermore, as you have
heard, reports of damage to agricultural crops that lie along
the migration route between these areas are also increasing.
As you have heard, the snow goose population has now become
a threat to itself, and without immediate action, ecological
damage in affected habitats could be catastrophic. There is
credible and mounting evidence to substantiate that this damage
could, in fact, be permanent. Habitat recovery in areas that
are not even permanently damaged will take decades or even
centuries to recover.
Resource managers have a responsibility and an obligation
to protect this fragile habitat through the appropriate
measures to control the escalating snow goose population. To
let nature take its course for snow geese is neither acceptable
nor responsible. If the adult snow goose population is not
reduced to appropriate and self-sustaining levels in the very
near future, millions of geese will die from starvation and
disease. Should the population crash in this manner, it is
likely that snow geese would not recover because of long-term
or even permanent loss of the habitat necessary to support the
rebuilding of these populations.
The association concurs that effective management measures
must be directed towards reducing adult bird survival. The Mid-
Continent population must be reduced by approximately 50
percent of its current size. To do this, the association
concurs with the alternative regulatory strategies adopted by
the Service. Under the authority of this rule, States, through
their State fish and wildlife agency, will be able to develop
and initiate aggressive harvest management strategies. An
increase in harvest will assist with habitat management on the
wintering grounds and relieve both population and habitat
pressure on the Arctic breeding grounds. Remedial actions must
be applied now. Any delay may result in consequences that are
significant and, in some cases, virtually irreversible.
One other point we would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is
that there is a decided lack of funding for goose management
and, in particular, snow goose management programs. The need
for better biological data, enhanced habitat management, and
intensified population management is increasing while Federal
dollars for natural resources are decreasing. The Joint Flyway
Councils on which sit all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies,
have recommended a budget increase of approximately $5 million
to the Service's budget to adequately address goose population
monitoring, management, and research needs. The association
fully supports this request and also urges the support of this
Subcommittee for that request.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share
our perspectives, and I would be pleased to address any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Taylor, thank you very much for your
testimony.
We now move to Dr. Vernon Thomas.
STATEMENT OF DR. VERNON THOMAS, PROFESSOR OF WILDLIFE AND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH,
GUELPH, ONTARIO
Dr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here
today.
First, I will give you my credentials. I am a professor of
zoology at the University of Geulph in Ontario, Canada. I have
been in that position for the past 25 years. I teach at both
the undergraduate and graduate level in animal ecology,
ornithology, fish and wildlife management, and areas of applied
resources policy. On the research side, I have conducted
research in the area under question, James and Hudson's Bay. I
have worked on the feeding ecology of snow geese and Canada
geese in this region. I have published on those results in
international journals. I have done work in that area in the
wintertime, spring, and fall; I know it well. For three
consecutive springs, I have lived with the native people as
they took geese in the spring. I am also involved in the
development of non-toxic shots for the past 5 years, so I have
a certain sympathy with the ammunition and hunting industry. On
a personal level, I am a shooter. I have shot in five
countries, and, at this point in time, my kill of geese is just
below 400. Those are my credentials and I believe my basis for
appearing here today as an expert in this area.
Let me begin by saying that I take a somewhat different
view of this issue compared with the Service, and the
differences lie in the fact that I have taken a more long-term
ecological approach to this issue rather than a short-term
approach and an approach which is based on the somewhat
outmoded style of single species management as opposed to
ecosystem management. Central to this issue, as you have heard
already, is the idea that there is a huge agricultural subsidy
in the United States which is burgeoning this population. Now,
I would say that that is, perhaps, true, but, yet,
overexaggerated for two reasons. There is no empirical evidence
that numbers of white geese have ever been controlled or
limited by their winter habitat conditions. This is a belief,
an assumption, that is being used in this case. Secondly, there
is the statement that these birds, fed on prairie grains, go up
into Canada fat and then continue to breed at much, much higher
levels. I contend there is no carryover of this prairie grain
effect into the Canadian lowlands. In fact, published data have
indicated that for the past 19 to 20 years, there has been a
reduction in the clutch size; that is the number of eggs laid
by females in the southern Hudson Bay population of snow geese,
and that is a very significant decline in their reproductive
output over that time. In other words, I feel that on those two
counts, the impact of agriculture, while real, has been,
perhaps, overexaggerated.
The goal of this management plan it has given is to
conserve Canadian Arctic habitat. Now, I would say that while
we have heard and seen many statements that geese are causing
destruction, damage, and periling an entire ecosystem, I would
argue that as an ecologist that those are somewhat
sensationalistic statements. Yes, geese do have impact on
vegetation; that is their natural role, but there is an
alternative ecological explanation. The role of geese in this
situation, particularly when their grazing is heavy, is to
cause change; change in the nature of those plant species'
composition of the lowland vegetation over time, and I
emphasize here that we should not confuse change in plant
species composition with destruction of an ecosystem. That is
not, in my professional opinion, the case.
We have seen what geese in this area have gone through over
the millennia. Three successive waves of glaciation and
retreat. A thousand years ago, the major warming trend that
afflicted North America, 500 years ago, 300 years ago, the
little Ice Age, and now, we are in another warming period. In
my opinion, over the millennia that these geese have existed,
they have not suddenly become delinquent in the last two
decades.
In the reports that you have seen, we have not seen much
evidence given or stated about the role or the uplift of these
lowlands in creating new habitat each year. The Hudson Bay area
is, perhaps, one of the most dynamic parts of North America,
and new habitat is being created every year at an astonishing
rate of approximately 15 to 25 yards of new shoreline above the
tidal zone. This is soon to be occupied by geese every year.
This population of birds, as do all animals, has the
capacity to regulate its own numbers. It is happening at Hudson
Bay for the last 15 to 20 years that we know of. We see it in
the form of lower clutch sizes; fewer gosling surviving;
smaller adults that are produced from these areas where grazing
is affected. We have seen major dispersal. These are natural
processes, yet this is being dismissed by government.
Government has said that if we allow this population to undergo
natural self-regulating processes, it will crash, and, again,
there is no implicit--there is no empirical evidence for such a
behavior of populations in the wild. This is a native
population in its natural habitat. It is unconstrained; it can
move, and I would argue that this population, when stabilizing,
will not crash.
You have seen the point made that a burgeoning population
of geese is going to cause enormous damage to other species,
disease. Well, these snow geese and Ross' geese already number
five to six million birds; they travel in huge flocks, and if
disease such as cholera, enteritis, and others were to
outbreak, I must argue that it would have already happened on a
major, major scale; it has not.
The idea of displacement has been based on the idea of two
reports, somewhat contradictory, incidentally; the latest one
saying that 9 out of 35 species looked at have undergone change
while the other 26 have not. There is no conclusive evidence of
widespread decline in another species, and I would actually
take this report and read to you one statement that has been
overlooked very frequently. The authors say, ``We have found no
compelling evidence that these impacted species are declining
on larger spacial scales.'' Therefore, I say, that we should
not use the preliminary report based upon one very, very small
geographic area to indict at least two-thirds of the
continent's snow geese.
My last point is that as an ecologist I see evidence of
ecological processes fashioning populations very adaptively
over time. We should allow that process to continue. This is
not to deny hunting its role. Where appropriate, where
populations have grown and grazing is heavy, natural selective
factors can fashion that population of birds far more
effectively, far more adaptively than any hunting can do,
particularly thousands of miles from the places where it needs
to happen. And I would suggest that we focus management in
areas where there are species that need, perhaps, a lot more
attention and dollars--pintails, scaup.
In conclusion--and I will make this very, very quick--I, as
an ecologist, see this goose issue as not a problem for nature,
but, perhaps, one for managers. And my last statement is that
as an ecologist if I cannot agree scientifically with the
definition of the problem, then I cannot agree with the
specific nature of the solution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Dr. Thomas.
Dr. Alison, would you do me a favor? I am just curious,
would you pronounce the name of the city that you are from,
please? I don't say that to be smart, I just am very curious.
Mr. Alison. It is pronounced Orillia.
Mr. Saxton. Say it again, please.
Mr. Alison. Orillia.
Mr. Saxton. Orillia. Thank you very much. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT ALISON, ORILLIA, ONTARIO, CANADA
Dr. Alison. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak
today. I, too, will start out with mentioning my
qualifications. Just to correct the record, I am not with the
Humane Society; in fact, I am not with any pro-hunting or
animal rights organization at all.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Dr. Alison. I am here as an individual with Ph.D. in
ornithology; did my research on Hudson's Bay. I have been going
to the area under discussion today for 30 years. I lead nature
tours there, have done that for 15 of those years. I was
involved as a professional waterfowl manager for 10 years,
committee chairman in both the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway
for 7 of those 10 years, and I was Ontario's voting
representative in both of those flyways throughout that period.
In that capacity, I had quite an amount of effort and time
devoted to lesser snow geese. I was on the Snow Goose Committee
in the Mississippi Flyway for 5 of those years. On the other
hand, I am also a hunter and a sportsman, and I am the editor
of Canada's largest circulation hunting magazine. So, I guess I
try and see this predicament from both sides.
It is quite true that there has been a rather significant
habitat change, deterioration, in Arctic Canada. An area of
approximately 200,000 square miles on the west and south coast
of Hudson's Bay which in the mid-seventies was lush and green
is now brown and dry and appears dead. There is enormous
interest in what has caused this deterioration or this change,
and I think that, just for the record, I would like to point
that I think there has been a slight misunderstanding of the
area that we are dealing with.
I have trudged over and flown over this area for over 25
years. Now, this is not lesser snow goose breeding habitat.
There is one very trivial colony at LaPerouse Bay that has
centered in the area of major concern. The rest of the major
snow goose colonies that we are dealing with, of which there
are approximately 15, are not in this contested area at all,
and most of them several hundred miles away. This is not snow
goose breeding habitat that we are dealing with, with the
exception of the LaPerouse Bay colony itself, which I will
reiterate is a very trivial colony and also a colony of very
recent roots.
I think the area that we are dealing with is rather an area
that is used by staging geese, fall and spring staging geese,
and the part that I find most puzzling is that despite the fact
that the habitat has deteriorated and that the geese are blamed
for it, it is very probable and indeed likely from information
that the Canadian Wildlife Service has made available, that
some of it isn't used by geese at all, particularly the part
that is inland. I have some trouble figuring out how geese can
damage an area that they don't go to.
This is my main interest for being here. What I would like
to suggest is that there are other possible explanations for
what has occurred in the Arctic. Vern Thomas referred to
isostatic uplift a moment ago. This is a geologic process that
causes the land to rise as a result of the melting of glaciers,
which in Hudson Bay were in some places over a mile thick. The
land was depressed, it is now rising, and this has caused some
change in wetland distribution and in entirely wetland ecology,
and I have seen that in the 30 years that I have been going
there.
Perhaps, as significant as climate change, which is
occurring up there, climate change is not only affecting the
habitat, but it is affecting the geese. So far, the geese have
been unable to adapt their breeding strategy to the changes in
climate that are occurring. The last year, for example, the
geese nested too early; they were fooled by the warmer weather,
and, as a result, when the goslings emerged, there wasn't
enough for them to eat, and there was rather large scale
starvation. This may or may not be a case of the birds adapting
to these changes.
The Arctic summer is now approximately 2 weeks longer than
it was 20 years ago. The temperature has risen approximately
five degrees centigrade in the past 20 years. These are
enormous changes; Nature doesn't like abrupt change, and I
think that species are having a difficult time adapting to it.
I think the bottom line is that these birds are in the
process of adapting to something that is very far-reaching. I
think it is dangerous to extrapolate the findings at one small
colony so as to appear to apply to the rest of the breeding
population. There is no data, no data whatsoever, to suggest
that any of the other breeding colonies are eating themselves
into oblivion as has been suggested for LaPerouse Bay.
Having been to LaPerouse Bay many, many times, I will admit
that the core of the colony seems to be deteriorating, but I
would say that the other colonies have not been proven to have
that kind of deterioration, and so I would say that it is
dangerous to blame the geese for what is occurring there.
I guess to summarize, I would like to say that there are
many, many more important processes that are occurring in this
area that I think should be of much more concern to the
governments of Canada and the United States, and I would be
glad to deal with those if I have time, but the final point I
would like to make is that, in my capacity as an editor for a
major hunting magazine, there is some concern among Ontario
sportsmen that the process of establishing what amounts to a
war on snow geese may give hunters a black eye. I, in fact,
share that fear, and, secondly, I don't think that it is
possible for the sportsmen of the United States and Canada
combined to kill enough geese to make much of a difference even
it is established by the rigorous research that I would
recommend that these birds are, in fact, doing the damage that
they are purported to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make these
comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alison may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Alison, thank you very much, and I
apologize for mischaracterizing your appearance here by
mentioning the Humane Society, and we will certainly get that
right in the record. Thank you.
Dr. Tom Adams.
STATEMENT OF TOM ADAMS, SENIOR POLICY ADVISER, NATIONAL AUDUBON
SOCIETY
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for upgrading my
credentials. I am not a doctor, but I appreciate that.
On behalf of the more than one million members and
supporters of the National Audubon Society, we appreciate the
opportunity to testify today here, and we are also representing
our 520 chapters.
I have to admit I am relatively new to this issue. Probably
the person in our organization with the most expertise is
currently tied up in our internal version of an omnibus
conference committee, which is our annual budget meetings, so
he regrets not being able to be here; that would Frank Gail.
In the time that I have been looking into this issue, I
have also been preparing my taxes, and I am probably one of the
few Americans who will say taxes are not that complicated,
especially compared to this.
I know our statement is in the record, and there is just a
few points that I would like to touch on that other witnesses
have done, so I will expedite what I had planned to say and
just associate myself with some of the remarks. Audubon feels
that the science that has been put into this decision is
credible, and we support its findings. We also want to
associate ourselves, especially, Congressman Pickering made a
remark about the impact this is having on other species, and
the habitat depletion in both areas, and that, I think, is our
primary concern is that there is more than one species at risk
here, and so we support the action while recognizing, as others
have said, a more comprehensive solution or approach is going
to be needed to get to the heart of this matter, particularly
in the winter habitats and the expansion of agriculture that a
number of witnesses have testified towards.
Just a few quick few points, and I do want to go through in
here in order to--one of the ironies, I think, of this issue
and what we are looking at is as the amount of habitat is being
overgrazed and overgrubbed in the Arctic, you are seeing a
pattern where the population is just expanding, fueled in part
by the winter habitat. I couldn't help but find that sort of
being analogous to the issue of sprawl in that we are just
continuing to expand habitat in a lot of communities that is
affecting wildlife, and I think at some level you have an
analogous situation with the expansion of the snow geese
habitat.
We also, I think, share Congressman Gilchrest's concern.
Several of us in our DC office have been out there and
witnessed the winter populations, and we see a similar
situation arising there.
In closing, I would just summarize, once again, that we
appreciate the Subcommittee having this hearing and looking
into this important matter in that we see more broader actions
that are going to be needed to get this issue under control,
and we stand ready to help in that effort, and we, again, just
urge this Subcommittee to look for and encourage the Fish and
Wildlife Service to look to means beyond just hunting, which we
don't think will accomplish the goal, and with or without
hunting, there is the possibility of a crash of the species
occurring. So, we urge you to help the Fish and Wildlife
Service in a more broader approach to this problem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Dr. Bruce Batt.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE BATT, CHAIR, ARCTIC GOOSE HABITAT
WORKING GROUP AND CHIEF BIOLOGIST, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.
Dr. Batt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
share the views of Ducks Unlimited on this issue. I am chief
biologist of Ducks Unlimited in Memphis, Tennessee, and I am
also chairman of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. This
is the group that produced the report that Dr. Rogers
presented.
The Working Group developed two scientific reports that are
the basis for decisions by the U.S. and Canadian governments to
reduce the numbers of geese to levels that can be sustained by
their environment. This Working Group consists of 17 public
agency, university, and non-government organization scientists
and natural resource managers. I have been in this field for
over 30 years, and I rate this as the strongest group of
professionals ever drawn together to analyze a goose
conservation issue of such scope and consequence. Our work was
objective and very critical in coming to solid conclusions.
Technical review by other peer scientists has resulted in the
broad-based agreement with our conclusions about the cause of
the problem and the need to reduce numbers of geese to a
sustainable level.
Your invitation asked us to address three questions. The
first was to review the impact the overabundant geese are
having on the ecosystems, and I think you have got a reasonable
look at that already. Agriculture is the main factor we believe
that drives increased survival of adults and young during the
winter, and it also assures that the adults return to their
breeding grounds in excellent conditions every year, because
their last stopping point on the prairies is from agriculture
and then to the tundra. Their condition on arrival is a very
important detail here, because the nutrients that they bring
with them in their bodies is what goes into their eggs, and it
is what the females use to sustain them through incubation.
When they get to the Arctic, however, they continue to feed,
and the local destruction of the habitat there means the clutch
sizes decline, because that is where they top up for the
nutrients that they use when they get there. We can go on with
some of these technical details, but I won't take you into that
for now.
Ever-increasing numbers of geese are returning to this
habitat year after year. The best studied area is an 1,100-mile
strip of salt marsh habitat; it is not trivial piece of
countryside. Thirty-five percent of it has been destroyed; 30
percent of it has been damaged and so on. This is clearly not a
localized problem as a very few individuals have claimed. And
destroyed is the correct term, because the process of
devegetation of the salt marsh results in changes in soil
chemistry that present the goose food plants from becoming
reestablished.
There is no doubt that the Hudson and James Bay salt marsh
ecosystems are in peril. Goose enclosures placed in an already
destroyed marsh 15 years ago have not been revegetated. This
strongly supports the conclusion that this damage is
effectively permanent.
Assertions that natural mechanisms, such as isostatic
rebound, will help solve the problem are not correct. Once the
geese have destroyed the entire coastal marsh, there will be no
source of propagules that can colonize the newly-emerging
coastal area. The optimism that isostatic rebound may solve the
problem is further negated by the reality of sea level rise
which will soon be flooding salt marsh as fast as it emerges.
Likewise, the contention that climate change and isostatic
rebound may be the cause of the problem is not supported. A
simple reality check shows that all the Arctic is subjected to
these same two forces, but the only place that ecosystem
destruction occurs is where there are unsustainable goose
numbers.
Scientists, on the largest northern breeding colonies away
from Hudson Bay coastline, see similar ecosystem impacts.
Quantification of those impacts is underway now through the use
of satellite images on which the damaged areas are easily seen
from space. However, there is no doubt among the scientists on
the ground that the damage has been enormous. In some areas,
they see horizon to horizon devastation. The finite amount of
suitable snow goose breeding habitat is rapidly being consumed,
and it will be lost. The lessons being learned on the Hudson
Bay lowland salt marsh ecosystem provide an unambiguous model
of what will happen in other Arctic ecosystems if this problem
goes unchecked.
The destruction of these areas is manifested by low
survival of goslings, because there are no food plants to eat
when they hatch. If you go to colonies along the Hudson Bay
lowlands, you will find hundreds of dead and dying goslings. I
have done it myself at Cape Henrietta Maria and LaPerouse Bay.
I could have found thousands as they were so abundant that the
scavengers can't keep up with them. If these populations are
not controlled, millions of young will die each year.
In most animals, what we call density-dependent population
regulation would have occurred because of lowered reproduction
caused by lack of food. The twist on this story is that the
geese are mostly free from local conditions, because they
return from the South fat and nearly ready to breed because of
agriculture in Canada and the U.S. adults and broods also move
to other areas causing a wave of destruction up and down the
coast as the remaining salt marsh disappears. As a result,
population regulation mechanisms are reducing numbers on some
colonies by killing the young, but the overall population
continues to grow as colony boundaries expand. But, note again,
there is a finite amount of habitat in which to expand. After
all 1,100 miles of the Hudson and James Bay salt marshes have
been destroyed, the geese will decline but at the price of a
whole ecosystem.
Extensive collateral damage will occur, because the
collapsed ecosystem will no longer be able to support other
wildlife species, especially migratory waterbirds that use this
area. As unhappy as the forecast is the geese, in the big
picture, the collapse of an ecosystem is an even more serious
consequence. Most of these other species are not threatened or
endangered, but major segments of the population depend on the
coastal salt marsh. These are the true birds of the Americas as
the countries of North, Central, and South America all share
them.
We conclude that goose populations were unlikely to have
been at these levels for at least the last several centuries.
There is no evidence from recent recorded history that we can
only objectively reason what might have happened previously.
Our rationale is simply that most of these geese are sustained
for two-thirds of the year by agricultural crops that were not
there until this century.
We believe it became possible for the geese to move from
their traditional marsh habitats when new food resources became
available on the farmland. For example, the Mississippi Delta
consisted of 25 million acres of forestland in 1900. Clearing
for agriculture accelerated through the 1970's and today only 3
million acres remain. Rice, winter wheat, and soy beans
dominate that landscape now in Louisiana, Mississippi,
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri where it was once forest and
where a large portion of Mid-Continent lesser snow geese now
live in the winter. These are perfect goose foods that did not
grow in the forest, and the geese couldn't live there. The
geese could not have thrived as they do now on most of the
North American landscape until agriculture came along. The
winter habitat was simply not there to allow them to grow to
numbers that they are today.
Managers should intervene to prevent the continued growth
of this problem, because it is caused by changes that, although
unwittingly, we have wrought on the North American continent.
To fail to do so would be an abrogation of our most fundamental
responsibility to conserve the biodiversity of life in the
ecosystems that we influence.
The second question was how successful Fish and Wildlife
Service actions to reduce the size of the white goose
populations would be. I can only speculate as the first
conservation order is still in effect, and we just don't have
the data yet. There are plenty of restraints on this first
effort as it was not authorized until late in the winter which
was short notice for hunters and outfitters to become engaged
in the harvest. The cultural shift of hunters participating at
this time of year will also take time to develop, and all
jurisdictions were not able to fully participate. Nevertheless,
the harvest is underway. I believe we will learn after the
final data are in hand that enough birds were harvested to
verify that future seasons with this year's restraints removed
should, indeed, be able to get the job done.
The third question was about additional steps that might be
taken if the current activities are not successful. This would
involve direct culling of the population by management
agencies. This is a distasteful prospect with profound
political and economic consequences. It is hard to conceive of
an army of paid government employees trapping and euthanizing
geese whether it occurred in Texas, South Dakota, Manitoba or
the Northwest territories. Planning for this eventuality has
not proceeded very far, because a reasonable test of the much
preferred current methods will take a few years.
Everybody with a honest concern about the future of these
precious resources hopes deeply that increased harvests will do
the job. It is not clear that the necessary political and
economic support can come together to allow direct culling by
the government. It is far more prudent, economically and
politically, to maintain and improve the current course, and it
is crucial to do so without delay. Every technical,
administrative, legal, and political delay just adds to the
problem. There is urgency here as we may not be far from the
point where it is simply too late to intervene effectively.
We also know that other goose populations are benefiting
from agricultural crops and growing to unprecedented numbers.
Thus, it is critical that we learn as much as we can from this
first experience with overabundant geese, because we are facing
the same thing with numerous other populations in the near
future.
We must not leave our role in this challenge to be reduced
to only recording for history the crash of the geese and the
ecosystem destruction that looms in the near future. We must
address this issue with a full commitment to solving one of the
greatest challenges that wetland and the waterfowl conservation
has ever faced.
All of us here have an interest in sustaining the
magnificence spectacle of snow geese. The actions that are
being pursued by the Federal agencies in both countries will
help us all successfully assure a bright future for the Arctic
geese and the Arctic ecosystems and the other wildlife that are
in peril.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Batt may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Batt, thank you very much. Let me just
pursue a couple of questions, if I may.
Dr. Thomas, when we invited you we realized that you have,
perhaps, a unique perspective and a different notion about the
nature of this problem or, perhaps, that is not even saying it
correctly that you don't think it is a problem, and I don't
mean to characterize your thoughts, but that is the general
impression that I got, and you seem to be in a rather small
minority of scientists. I have a resolution here from the
Ornithological Council, the Ornithological Union, the
Association of Field Ornithologicus, the Cooper Ornithological
Society, and the Wilson Ornithological Society endorse the
science-based recommendations of the Arctic Goose Habitat
Working Group as necessary steps for reducing the Mid-Continent
snow goose numbers to a level of about 50 percent of the
current numbers by the year 2005. That seems to be a fairly
strong statement by a fairly broad-based group of people who
are--groups that are made up of members of people who are
fairly well-renowned experts in the field of birds. How is it
that you have such a different view of this issue than most
others in your profession?
Dr. Thomas. There are several points to respond with them.
First is that when we deal with this whole issue of birds,
particularly geese in Hudson's Bay and the ecology of the
lowlands, there are very few people who actually have been
working there professionally. The report that has been entered
into evidence today, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril, has probably
been written by no more than about six or seven authors in
total. There is one primary botanist in that whole region
together with his students. A lot of the people who are in the
wildlife profession are not particularly competent in plant
ecology, and I would argue that what you are seeing here is a
report that has been written by a relatively small number of
people whose entire professional research experience is
confined to this area, is reviewed by, perhaps, a few more, and
then given the blanket blessing of the committee, and I think
that we are seeing second-hand, third-hand points of view and
information being accepted as though it were gospel.
I alluded earlier to the one report that talks about
collateral damage and the impact upon other species, and there
are one or two statements in here which have never been
amplified. We see in this report, emphasis upon species in
decline, species in decline, yet if you were to go through this
very report you would see greenwing teal up quite considerably.
In recent years, pintail ducks going up, black ducks stable,
mallards stable, 9 out of 35 species apparently in decline in a
very restricted part of the sub-Arctic.
A lot of people don't go back to the fundamental data. A
lot of people don't have the first-hand experience with this
area, and this is why I think it is easy for a particular
position to become pirated across many groups.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Batt, you just heard your report
challenged. Would you like to respond?
Dr. Batt. That was not a report that was part of the Arctic
Ecosystems in Peril; that was something that was done
subsequently with bird observation data collected over 25 years
at LaPerouse Bay, and we agree that the decline of the species
that have been measured to decline at LaPerouse Bay, none of
them are in endangered or threatened, and a lot of them live in
other places. I see them basically as canaries in the coal
mines. As the ecosystem collapses and a large subset of these
species can no longer live there, some of them--I think John
mentioned the yellow rail--have disappeared, and some of these
species can't live there, it tells you that this is becoming a
dysfunctional ecosystem, and there is new work underway. There
are graduate students that are now working on some of these
issues. This was not anticipated many years ago that these data
would be important and would ever be used for this purpose. So,
the use of those data was an extension of them, really, beyond
what they were ever intended to be used for.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Dr. Batt, Dr. Alison takes some
issue with the notion that the damage to the tundra and the
ecosystem is due to overgrazing by snow geese. I have a copy of
your report here where you studied this very notion with
enclosures that were intended to keep snow geese out of certain
small areas while they were free to graze in adjoining areas,
and the enclosed areas appear to have remained healthy as much
as the geese couldn't get to them, while the other areas appear
to be decimated would be the correct word. Would you comment
relative to Dr. Alison's notion on this subject?
Dr. Batt. Well, this whole region is undergoing the process
of isostatic uplift, and it is undergoing some degree of
climate change. The difference between the green areas inside
these enclosures and the devastated area outside is that the
geese are outside. This whole--inside and outside are both
undergoing the same process, but it is not correct that when
you look inside that this is what the tundra would naturally
look like. This is an ungrazed area. Geese are part of the
system, and this exaggerates the contrast, but it does show
that outside the area it is destroyed; inside it is not. To me,
there is a picture that is not shown in the report which is
more devastating, and that is an area where an enclosure was
put in that had already been destroyed about 15 years ago to
see how long it takes for it to come back, and 15 years later
nothing has responded. So, to me, that is even a more serious
issue.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, there has been some
discussion as to the effectiveness of the current new
regulations that will suspended here apparently for the next
season because of the court's action. Do you have any
information to share with us that would indicate that
population control measures undertaken by the new regulations
will be successful to the extent that you believe it will solve
the problem that we experience and move to, in fact, the
recommendation of the statement of the ornithologists that the
current level of reduction of 50 percent by the year 2005, is
that a realistic goal?
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a goal that we need
to strive for. If you recall, as Dr. Rogers indicated, we don't
have data yet on success of the implementation of the
conservation order for this season that started late. I am not
sure of the exact number of the States that have taken
advantage of that. There are logistical requirements for
putting in place some of the measures that are provided for
under the rule. Nonetheless, we do believe that this is a very
appropriate and measured response and should be given the
opportunity to be substantiated as to what effect it has had,
and if, as anticipated, preliminary indications suggest that
this by itself will not solve the problem, then we believe that
the resource agencies need to deliberate further on other, as
Mr. Rogers characterized them, more draconian measures that may
be necessary to control this population.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Alison, for one, in his testimony,
questioned whether hunting would be an effective tool. I
understand that basically you have done several new things. One
is to provide for unplugging of shotguns; two is to provide for
the use of electric calls, and I guess three would be to
increase the bag limit, is that correct?
Mr. Taylor. To provide for, also, an additional season
outside the frameworks, and, again, I think that this is a very
appropriate and efficient way of attempting to bring some
management to these numbers. As many have alluded to, the
logistics of population management in the Arctic are pretty
formidable. The cost of implementing measures up there, I don't
know that anybody has good estimates of. So, it makes sense to
us that using sportsmen, by allowing these type of
opportunities under the appropriate oversight of the Federal
and State fish and wildlife agencies, is very cost efficient,
and we will determine how effective it is to bring some
management to this population.
Mr. Saxton. Have other measures--I guess, maybe, Dr. Batt
would be the appropriate person for me to pose this question
to. There have been suggestions that, perhaps, activities in
the breeding--human activities in the breeding ground, such as
egg collection or egg shaking, would be something to look at. I
am sure that that is not a new notion; I am sure you have
examined these issues. Can you comment relative to that
approach?
Dr. Batt. In our report, we did some mathematical modeling
looking at what stage of the annual cycle we could be most
effective at reducing the population and what would happen at
all the different stages throughout it, and far away the most
effective way to reduce adult survival--other factors like
scaring the birds so they wouldn't lay as many eggs or wouldn't
use as much food or destroying the nests or such matters like
that. We calculated, actually, that it would take something
like 1.8 million eggs to be destroyed to stabilize the
population, and that wouldn't bring about any decline, and that
would have to be done for at least 7 or 8 consecutive years,
because that is about how long adult geese live is about 8
years. There is no practical mechanism to do that; there is no
communities nearby. This is all remote work with helicopters
and with associated costs and dangers and everything else.
There really isn't a sensible way to go about doing this.
Mr. Saxton. And if the current regulatory scheme doesn't
eventually kick in and work, what then?
Dr. Batt. I believe the current scheme will work, and I
will just give you a little data. Four or 5 years ago, there
was only about 400,000 snow geese being killed in the U.S. and
Canada in the hunting season. In the last couple of years,
there has been 700,000 to 800,000 killed. The only change was
that the duck population came back; more people went duck
hunting, and there was more incidental contact. There was some
changes in the rules relative to bag limits and that sort of
thing, but the harvest went up with pretty benign changes. Now,
with these more significant changes, it should not be big deal
to double and triple the harvest with these new measures that
are being allowed at the end of the normal season and through
the spring, and when they get kicked in Canada, too, we think
that will help do the job.
As far as what next, in my statement, I said, I guess we
don't know. That is going to take a while to figure out. We
believe that it is most crucial to follow through on the
current plan, and evaluate it, and find out, in fact, if it
will work. Let us find out; let us get some real world
experience by doing and learning as we go.
Mr. Saxton. But it sounds like the problem is that unless--
the problem is that unless everybody agrees there is a problem,
we wouldn't want to try to solve the problem, because there is
none.
Dr. Batt. Right, well----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] I believe that there is a problem that we
should solve, and I think that the path that we are on is the
correct one for this stage of the process.
Mr. Saxton. Dr. Thomas, am I characterizing you correctly?
Do you believe that there is not a problem? I think that is the
crux of your testimony, is it not?
Dr. Thomas. I agree that there is an increasing population
of snow geese, and I agree that there are areas of the sub-
Arctic lower Hudson's Bay which have shown quite heavy levels
of grazing by geese. What we define as the problem is, is it a
problem for management or is this a problem for the geese that
they are unable, incapable of resolving this at a population
genetic level? I am convinced that snow geese, as has already
been shown over the last 15 or 20 years, can begin to stabilize
to numbers as resources become limited, and I would say that
you would expect to see this self-regulatory process become
more extensive, more intensive as the months and years go by. I
have full faith in the ability of geese to undergo mortality,
reproduction regulation in such a way that it shapes that
population deliberately and very adaptively for the years to
come in a very dynamic, changing environment.
Natural selection operates on a population which is very
often not readily apparent to us. It is not random; hunting is.
Mr. Saxton. Let me ask this, then. I think you started to
answer this question by saying, there is an increase in the
population which is a problem, yes?
Dr. Thomas. Well, I don't think it is a problem for the
geese in so far as it will arrive at some point at which
numbers will stabilize, perhaps, even decline in some areas. I
don't think we have reached that point yet. It is a little bit
like people in an economic sense saying, ``Well, heck, the dow
isn't going go to above 10,000.'' It has, and they are
surprised. I think we are seeing surprise on the part of
managers that geese have gone above 5,000; they have. Clearly,
there are resources that support them. Geese seem to know more
about their habitat than we, as managers, do.
Mr. Saxton. Let me ask this: Do you think there is any room
in this process at all for agency management of snow geese?
Dr. Thomas. I think you already have some of it in the form
of ongoing spring hunts--I am sorry, ongoing fall hunts.
Mr. Saxton. Do you support those hunts?
Dr. Thomas. As an individual--and I will remove myself here
from representing the views of the Humane Society of the United
States--as an individual, I have no problem with fall hunting.
I think that I have yet to see a really valid, compelling
reason to introduce, for the first time since quite a large
number of years, a special condition for spring hunting.
Mr. Saxton. I see.
Dr. Thomas. Because I am convinced that those goose
populations will stabilize at some point. I have no reason to
suspect that geese are going to be totally different from any
other animal species on this Earth.
Mr. Saxton. Do you agree or disagree with the notion that
the food supply has significantly changed within the lower 48
and that they, therefore, tend to live a longer life, and,
perhaps, a healthier life?
Dr. Thomas. I agree that there is an enormous amount of
grain. I would contend that, perhaps, what we are seeing is a
placement of natural non-agricultural types of food that may
have prevailed throughout the 1800's and before and, perhaps,
into the early 1900's. So, what we could be seeing is an
agricultural exchange for wilder types of food which
disappeared when so much land was cleared by agriculture in the
U.S. I agree that there is a subsidy; I would agree that,
perhaps, geese are living, perhaps, a little bit longer, but to
contrast my view with Dr. Batt's, I do not think that this is
resulting in enhanced rates of reproduction in the Arctic. As I
have indicated before, there is a significant long-term decline
in the clutch size of birds laying in southern Hudson's Bay,
and that, the authors of the report contend, is due to food
shortages there.
Mr. Saxton. Well, let me just back up a couple of thoughts
there. If there are more birds--we know there are more birds,
and you just indicated that they are living somewhat longer. If
there are more big birds to make little birds, doesn't it
automatically mean there will be more baby birds?
Dr. Thomas. No, because you are making the assumption that
there are more and bigger birds, and I don't believe that----
Mr. Saxton. Well, you agreed with me.
Dr. Thomas. No, I disagree that there are more big birds. I
would agree that there are, perhaps, more----
Mr. Saxton. Adult birds, excuse me for using the wrong
word, adult birds.
Dr. Thomas. Yes, there are----
Mr. Saxton. There are more adult birds.
Dr. Thomas. Yes, but whether there are more adults breeding
in certain parts of the sub-Arctic where habitat is limiting is
yet to be determined.
Mr. Saxton. You mean, you don't think that the fact that
there are more adult birds means that there are more adult
birds breeding?
Dr. Thomas. Not necessarily. I can indicate to you from
some of my own data that there are significant numbers of non-
breeding adult birds returning in the spring to James Bay. We
have not looked at this issue of whether every adult bird is
going to be a breeding bird in the North, and this is one of
the classical areas of population self-regulation, that not
every female may breed in every year. If a female does breed,
will she lay the same amount of eggs each year? This is where
there is uncertainty; this is where we need to have some more
information.
Mr. Saxton. Well, unfortunately, we are running out of
time. This is a very interesting subject, and I would like to
and will pursue it in other forms, but we are going to have to
call today's hearing to a close. I would like to thank each of
you for being here. There may be some members who were here or
even some who were not who have additional questions, and, if
so, we will send them along to you and ask you if you would
answer them in writing. And, so unless there if further
business, which there is not because there are no members here,
the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
Dr. Thomas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Chretien may be found
at the end of the hearing.]
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Dr. John G. Rogers, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss
management activities associated with ecological problems
caused by overabundant light geese.
North American geese are a natural resource of enormous
economic and social value to both hunters and birdwatchers
throughout the United States. Migratory bird hunting, including
goose hunting, generates about $4 billion of economic activity
annually. Local and regional economies are further enhanced by
expenditures of millions of people viewing and photographing
geese during migration and winter. Management of light goose
populations in North America has presented the wildlife
management community with one of its most challenging tasks. In
contrast to the efforts to restore wildlife populations
depleted by years of market hunting in the late 1800s and early
1900s, we are now faced with managing some populations of geese
that have become so overabundant that they are literally
destroying their own habitat and a priceless ecosystem. Dealing
with this problem has forced the Service to change its
management approach to save goose populations from one of
population restoration and maintenance to one of population
control.
Mid-continent light geese are lesser snow geese (Anser c.
caerulescens) and Ross' geese (Anser rossii) that breed in the
subarctic and arctic regions of Canada, primarily along the
south and west coasts of Hudson Bay and the southern portions
of Southampton and Baffin Islands. These light geese migrate
southward in the fall through the Central and Mississippi
Flyways. Historically, mid-continent light geese wintered
primarily in the coastal areas of Texas and Louisiana; however,
today their winter range spans across Texas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the central highlands of Mexico.
The mid-continent light goose population has grown more
than 300 percent over the last 30 years, from 900,000 birds in
1969 to over 3 million birds today, as measured by mid-winter
surveys. These population levels far exceed any historical
records. The rapid growth of the population has been primarily
attributed to the expansion of agriculture along the Central
and Mississippi Flyways, low mortality, and increased winter
survival.
Another population of geese that is steadily increasing as
a result of increased use of agricultural lands and lower
mortality rates is the greater snow goose (Anser c.
atlanticus). These geese breed in the eastern Arctic of Canada
and Greenland and migrate southward through Quebec, New York,
and New England to their wintering grounds in the mid-Atlantic
U.S. The greater snow goose population has expanded from less
than 50,000 birds in the late 1960s to approximately 700,000
today. With a growth rate of about 9 percent per year, the
population is expected to reach 1 million by 2002, and 2
million by 2010.
Abundant food resources in migration and wintering areas
have fostered rapid population growth in these three species of
light geese. However, for the mid-continent population,
suitable breeding habitat in the arctic tundra is becoming a
limiting factor. This is a direct result of the intense feeding
activities of light geese, which leads to the loss of
vegetation and an increase in soil salinity.
Due to the short tundra growing season, such habitats may
take decades to recover, if they recover at all. Currently, 35
percent of the 135,000 acres of habitat in the Hudson Bay
Lowlands is considered destroyed, 30 percent is damaged, and 35
percent is heavily grazed. Other arctic habitats may be
suffering the same fate as existing snow goose colonies expand
and new colonies are established.
The Service, along with the Canadian Wildlife Service and
virtually every credible wildlife biologist in both countries,
believes that the mid-continent light goose population has
exceeded the carrying capacity of its breeding habitat and that
the population must be reduced to avoid long-term damage to an
ecosystem important to many other wildlife species in addition
to snow geese. In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
of the Arctic Goose Joint Venture recommended that wildlife
agencies take steps to reduce the mid-continent light goose
population by 50 percent by 2005. There was overwhelming
support for this action by the National Audubon Society, Ducks
Unlimited, the American Bird Conservancy and other conservation
organizations from both countries.
Although the greater snow goose population has experienced
similarly fast growth, studies in the high Arctic have not
documented extensive damage to breeding habitats as of yet.
However, large populations of greater snow geese are negatively
impacting agricultural crops in the U.S. and Canada, natural
marshes in the St. Lawrence estuary and some coastal marshes of
the mid-Atlantic U.S. In a recent report, the Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group recommended that the population be
stabilized by the year 2002 at between 800,000 to 1,000,000
birds. Hopefully, this will prevent a repeat of the destruction
of arctic habitats that has occurred as a result of the mid-
continent light goose population explosion and stabilize the
agricultural damage experienced annually in Canada and the U.S.
An Environmental Assessment of the mid-continent light
goose situation was completed by the Service after extensive
consultation with State/provincial, private, academic, and non-
governmental partners in the U.S. and Canada. Several
alternative management actions for reducing the light goose
population were examined in the Assessment. The preferred
alternative was to authorize new methods of take, namely
electronic calls and unplugged shotguns, for use by hunters
during normal hunting frameworks, when all other waterfowl and
crane seasons were closed. The preferred alternative also
advocated (included) creation of a Conservation Order--a
special new management action designed to decrease
populations--that authorized taking of geese during the normal
framework closing date of March 10 through August 31.
In early February 1999, the Service issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact along with the Environmental Assessment. The
Service subsequently published two rules on February 16, 1999,
that authorized use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns
with the restrictions cited above, and also established a
Conservation Order for the reduction of overabundant mid-
continent light geese. These regulations were made available to
the 24 States that comprise the Mississippi and Central
Flyways. The Service has projected that an additional 618,000
light geese would be harvested in the first year of
implementation of the new regulations in the U.S. In its
rulemaking, the Service announced that the new measures
represented short-term options for addressing the light goose
problem and that in 2000 it would initiate preparation of an
EIS that considered a range of long-term solutions to the
problem. The timeline for preparation of an EIS was established
after consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality.
Several states implemented regulations immediately upon
publication of the rules. Based on reports from field
biologists, the new regulatory tools appear to be very
successful for increasing harvest of light geese. However, due
to an unusually early spring migration this year, it is
possible that the projected level of harvest may not be
realized. Harvest information to measure the effectiveness of
these regulations will not be available until later this
summer. Recently, the Canadian Wildlife Service implemented
similar regulatory changes intended to increase harvest of
light geese in Canada.
We have no previous experience to guide us in determining
how effective increased harvest pressure will be in controlling
light goose populations. To complement harvest management
actions, we have initiated land management practices that will
increase susceptibility of light geese to harvest and make some
lands less suitable for these birds. Regional Action Plans were
developed in cooperation with the States and will be
implemented over the next 3 years to help reduce snow goose
numbers. These plans will focus on five points: (1) providing
increased hunter opportunity on public and private lands, where
feasible; (2) decreasing food availability for snow geese; (3)
manipulating wetland areas to deter snow geese; (4) altering
winter habitat; and (5) conducting communication and outreach
efforts.
The Service's management action has received widespread
support from the scientific and conservation community.
Conservation groups such as the National Wildlife Federation,
Wildlife Management Institute, the Ornithological Council,
American Bird Conservancy, and Ducks Unlimited have expressed
strong support for the light goose population reduction
program. In addition, Flyway Councils and individual State
wildlife agencies have worked closely with the Service to
implement management actions.
There have been challenges to the Service's proposed
actions. On March 3, 1999, the Humane Society of the United
States and several other animal rights groups filed a lawsuit
against the Service, challenging the new light goose
regulations. The plaintiffs maintained that the Service had
violated the Migratory Bird Treaty by enacting the new
regulations and that an Environmental Impact Statement should
have been completed prior to implementation of the rules. On
March 12, 1999, a preliminary injunction hearing was held in
Federal District Court in Washington, DC.
On March 18, 1999, Judge Thomas Hogan denied the injunction
sought by the plaintiffs. In his written opinion, Judge Hogan
indicated that the Service's actions likely constituted a
reasonable use of its authority under the Migratory Bird
Treaty, and that the population reduction program was based on
sound scientific information. However, Judge Hogan stated
further that the Service's Environmental Assessment represented
a ``hard look'' at the proposed action that ``comports with the
spirit of NEPA, though not its letter.'' The judge concluded
that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits of their NEPA claim if the case
proceeded further, and that an Environmental Impact Statement
should have been prepared prior to implementation of the new
regulations.
The Service believes that the Environmental Assessment of
its light goose population reduction program, and accompanying
Finding of No Significant Impact, sufficiently complied with
the requirements of NEPA. However, based on the written opinion
of the Court, the Service has decided not to continue with
litigation and will initiate preparation of an EIS immediately.
On April 2, 1999, the Service announced its intention to
withdraw the two regulations on light goose population
reduction after the northward migration later this spring. It
is possible that the time requirements for preparing an EIS may
preclude resumption of light goose management actions next
spring. If population reduction measures are not implemented
during spring 2000, the mid-continent population will
experience additional growth that otherwise would not occur.
Consequently, our ability to bring the population to more
desirable levels will become more difficult. Any delay in
further population reduction will allow goose numbers to
increase. In order to make the most efficient use of our
financial and personnel resources, the Service will incorporate
management options for greater snow geese in the analysis, in
addition to the mid-continent light goose analysis. The
resulting EIS therefore will represent a comprehensive
management strategy for white geese in the U.S. that includes
lesser snow geese, Ross' geese, and greater snow geese.
The range of management options to be analyzed in the EIS
process will likely include the two management options
authorized this spring, land management practices, as well as
direct management options such as trapping and culling on
wintering areas and cominercial harvest. The full range of
options to be considered will be determined during the public
scoping phase of the EIS process. Because the authority of the
Service is limited to actions in the U.S., the Service cannot
consider direct management actions on the arctic breeding
grounds, such as collecting eggs, destroying nests, or culling
on breeding colonies. However, if management actions in the
U.S., combined with regulatory changes implemented by Canada,
do not result in the desired population reduction within 3-5
years, it is likely that the Service will request that Canada
consider more direct measures on the breeding grounds.
The Service firmly believes that aggressive management
intervention is a necessary and scientifically sound approach
for the control of white goose populations. Without
intervention, we will likely witness the destruction of an
ecosystem that is important to other migratory birds and other
wildlife species. It is also possible that the snow goose
population will crash and remain at extremely low levels due to
lack of suitable breeding habitat, the spread of disease, and
predation.
The Service is committed to working with State fish and
wildlife agencies, Canadian wildlife authorities, and public
stakeholders to address the critical issue of the overabundance
of white geese.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and for
your support for our efforts to deal with these important
migratory bird management issues. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have regarding this issue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.002
Statement of Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director, International
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Taylor, Legislative
Director for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the
perspectives of the Association on the increase of the mid-
Continent lesser snow goose (snow goose) population and the
impact they are having on the Arctic tundra habitat. The
Association supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's final
rules on the management of Mid-Continent Light Geese (MCLG)
[Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 30, 7507-7529, 16 February
1999], and urges the Subcommittee's support for these actions
and for increased funding to the USFWS for monitoring the
effectiveness of these conservation measures.
The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental
organization of public agencies charged with the protection and
management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The
Associations governmental members include the fish and wildlife
agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal governments of
the United States, Canada and Mexico. All 50 states are
members. The Association has been a key organization in
promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal,
state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish
and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
The Association and its member agencies are very familiar
with the necessity for action to address the over population of
snow geese that is causing substantial adverse impact on the
Arctic tundra. As you may recall, we appeared before this
Subcommittee on April 23, 1998 to address this issue and at
that time we stressed the need for immediate action.
The Association continues to be concerned that snow goose
populations are expanding at an average rate of 5 percent a
year. With this level of increase, nesting colonies continue to
be impacted and damage to fragile Arctic tundra habitat is
expanding annually. As you are aware, waterfowl biologists and
wildlife managers have studied and clearly documented the
impact of the expanding snow goose population. We are pleased
that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing and urge you to
support actions to help redress the effects of increasing snow
goose numbers on Arctic habitat and the associated biological
communities.
Mid-continent lesser snow goose populations, which are an
international resource, now exceed 5 million breeding birds.
This is an increase since the mid-1970's of more than 300
percent. This over abundance of snow geese is attributed mainly
to changing agricultural practices on the wintering grounds in
the coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico, and throughout the
Central and Mississippi Flyway migration corridors. These
practices inadvertently increased the food available to snow
geese during migration and wintering periods. Also the
extensive network of state, provincial, Federal and private
wildlife refuges provide sanctuaries for snow geese and other
migratory waterfowl.
Scientists and wildlife managers agree that mid-continent
lesser snow geese, which nest in the central and eastern Arctic
and sub-Arctic regions of Canada, have become so numerous that
fragile tundra habitats along the Hudson and James Bay coastal
lowlands have been severely degraded or destroyed. This is a
serious ecological problem affecting all indigenous species of
flora and fauna, thus decreasing the diversity of these
biological communities. There are indications that other bird
species, such as shorebirds and other waterfowl, which nest in
the areas where severe damage has occurred, are already in
decline because their breeding habitat is being destroyed. As
snow goose populations continue to increase and brood rearing
habitat declines, birds are dispersing to adjacent areas and
the zone of damaged habitat is spreading. Population levels are
now well above the sustainable levels for the Arctic and sub-
Arctic habitats upon which they depend. In addition, as
carriers of avian cholera, snow geese are a potential health
threat to all other bird species that share their nesting or
wintering habitats. Furthermore, reports of damage to
agricultural crops in the states and provinces that lie along
the migration route between those areas are increasing.
The status and implications of increasing mid-continent
lesser snow goose populations have been addressed by an
international group formed by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture
(AGJV), which itself is an international joint venture under
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The State fish
and wildlife agencies are well represented on this and other
joint Ventures, and have been engaged in the deliberations over
solutions to this snow goose resource problem since the
beginning. We also understand that the Canadian Wildlife
Service and a number of non-governmental conservation
organizations in Canada fully agree that snow goose numbers
must be reduced to protect the Arctic habitat and the species
diversity of that ecosystem.
As you know, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
submitted its comprehensive report in 1997 entitled Arctic
Ecosystems in Peril. The Report documented the ecological
problems of the salt marsh habitats found in the Hudson Bay
Lowlands, such as desertification, soil salinization and the
depletion of vegetation communities. The IAFWA agrees with and
supports the findings of that report, which encouraged U.S. and
Canadian wildlife agencies to take immediate action.
Subsequently, a group of stakeholders from Canada and the
United States met to consider solutions to the over population
problem. The Report of the Stakeholder's Committee on Arctic
Neshing Geese (dated March 11, 1998) was accepted and endorsed
by the IAFWA Waterfowl subcommittee and Migratory Wildlife
Committee at their meetings in March, 1998. We understand that
this Committee has a copy of that report.
It must be recognized that the over-abundance of snow geese
is a result of changes to the landscape wrought by man, largely
as a result of changes in agricultural land use along the
migration route. Furthermore, the snow goose population has now
become a threat to itself and without immediate action,
ecological damage in affected habitats could be catastrophic.
There is credible and mounting evidence to substantiate that
this damage could be permanent. Habitat recovery in areas that
are not even permanently damaged will take decades or even
centuries to recover. We have a responsibility and an
obligation to protect this fragile habitat through appropriate
measures to control the escalating snow goose population. To
let nature take its course for snow geese is neither acceptable
nor responsible. If the adult snow goose population is not
reduced to appropriate and self-sustaining levels in the very
near future, in addition to the habitat degradation, millions
of snow geese will die from starvation and disease. Should the
population ``crash'' in this manner, it is likely that snow
geese would not recover because of long term or even permanent
loss of the habitat necessary to support the rebuilding of
populations. The Association concurs that effective management
measures must be directed towards reducing adult survival. The
mid-continent lesser snow goose population must be reduced by
approximately 50 percent of its current size. To do this, we
agree with the alternative regulatory strategies adopted by the
FWS. There is virtually no risk of the alternative regulatory
strategies causing over-harvest of mid-continent lesser snow
geese within the next several years.
The FWS has adopted the following alternative regulatory
strategies designed to increase the harvest of snow geese, in
concert with habitat management. The Association fully supports
these strategies.
1. Authorize States (through the State fish and wildlife
agency) to implement actions to harvest MCLG by shooting in a
hunting manner inside or outside the regulatory migratory bird
hunting season frameworks.
2.Authorize (through the State fish and wildlife agency) the
use of electronic callers and unplugged shotguns during a light
goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting
seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.
Under the authority of this rule, States (through the State
fish and wildlife agency) will be able to develop and initiate
aggressive harvest management strategies. An increase in
harvest will assist with habitat management on the wintering
grounds and relieve pressure on the Arctic breeding grounds.
Furthermore, a decrease in snow goose numbers will ameliorate
pressures on the habitat of other migratory bird populations
that share the breeding and wintering grounds and other areas
along the migration routes with MCLG. It is anticipated that a
decrease in MCLG populations will also contribute to increased
reproductive success of adversely impacted populations of other
bird species and reduce the risk of transmitting avian cholera
to other species. These management actions are appropriately
designed so that an increased take of non-target species should
not result.
If these actions are not taken, populations of MCLG will continue
to increase and become more unstable as suitable breeding habitat
diminishes. Losses to other avian species, from reduced breeding
success and avian cholera, may result in reduced hunting, bird watching
and other opportunities. Agricultural crop depredation will continue
and worsen, resulting in significant economic consequences. Remedial
actions must be applied now; any delay may result in consequences that
are significant and, in some cases, irreversible.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared an Environmental
Assessment reviewing the migratory bird regulations with the intent to
significantly reduce snow goose numbers. The Association supports the
findings of this environmental assessment.
If these alternative regulatory strategies are not effective, then
it is imperative that more drastic population control measures, for
example, trapping and culling, be utilized in both Canada and the U.S.
There is a decided lack of funding for goose management programs.
The need for better biological data, enhanced habitat management, and
intensified population management is increasing while Federal dollars
for natural resources are decreasing. The Joint Flyway Councils have
recommended a budget increase of approximately $5 million to adequately
address goose population monitoring, management and research needs. The
Association fully supports this request and also urges the support of
this Subcommittee.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association firmly supports the
regulations to increase the harvest of mid-continent fight geese and we
would urge the Subcommittee to support increased funding to ensure that
the problem of over-abundance of mid-continent lesser snow geese is
appropriately addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
perspectives, and I would be pleased to address any questions you might
have.
______
Statement of Dr. Vernon G. Thomas, Professor of Wildlife Ecology and
Management, Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario
WHITE GEESE POPULATION ISSUE: AN ALTERNATE, ECOLOGICAL VIEW.
SUMMARY
I do not believe that the growing population of white geese is
causing ecological destruction in the Hudson-James Bay lowlands and
that a major reduction of the population is warranted to conserve salt
marshes. The impacts of feeding by these geese are noticeable, and they
constitute the beginning of change in the plant species composition of
the community. This change is not to be confused with habitat
destruction or desertification, and certainly not imperilment of the
ecosystem. The role of waste grains from U.S. agriculture in the
bolstering of white geese populations has been exaggerated. Fears that
a large population of white geese may transmit disease and endanger
other species are not supported by the available evidence. Assertions
that white geese will displace other nesting birds from the salt
marshes of Hudson-James Bay are not based on a body of consistent
scientific evidence.
Lesser snow geese at southern Hudson Bay are already experiencing
population reduction due to natural, intrinsic, population-regulation
mechanisms. They have been working for at least a decade, and they
could bring about a long-term stabilization without the need for extra
hunting pressure. The natural mortality induced by these ecological
processes is preferable to random hunting mortality in shaping goose
populations and ensures their sustained adaptability over time.
Populations of white geese have increased recently without much
assistance from management and infusions of dollars. These populations
will adjust naturally in the absence of management intervention and
culling.
The ``do nothing'' approach to management is preferable in this
instance. Then management effort and finances can be re-directed to
species whose status warrants intervention.
THE ALTERNATE, ECOLOGICAL VIEW.
The reasons for my disagreeing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) definition of the problem (i.e. habitat damage in the
Canadian sub-arctic) and the solution (reduce population size of white
geese) are based on my taking an ecological approach within the context
of modern ecosystem management. The position of the USFWS and the
Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) lies in the outdated single-species
management approach and the untested belief that a lower white goose
population size will reverse the trend in salt marsh species
composition change. A detailed, scientific, review of this issue with
supporting references, appears as Attachment 1,-Thomas, V.G. 1999.
Response to ``Migratory Bird Hunting: Regulations to Increase Harvest
of Mid-Continent Light Geese.'' Proposed Rule. Federal Register,
November 9, 1998. Volume 63, Number 216, pages 60271-60278.
The Agricultural Subsidy to White Geese.
The USFWS argues that the large amount of waste grain left over in
the U.S. each year has benefited geese during the Fall and Winter, has
reduced the extent of over-winter mortality, and has allowed geese to
return in the Spring with greater stores of fat resulting in higher
rates of reproduction. The USFWS and the CWS contend that white geese
are no longer limited by resource availability on the wintering
grounds, and this is the reason for their population growth Ducks
Unlimited states that since the waste grain is a by-product of human
activity (agriculture), it behooves humans to deal with the increase in
white geese that they believe is caused by the grain subsidy.
There is no documented evidence to support the position that
population sizes of white geese were ever regulated by food resources
available on the wintering grounds, as opposed to the breeding grounds.
This position has been adopted, uncritically, by the USFWS to reinforce
their proposal to lower the population size by increasing hunter
mortality. Similarly, there is no evidence that snow geese return to
the breeding grounds and lay more eggs from their enriched grain-based
diet. On the contrary, long-term data collected at the La Perouse Bay
colony at southern Hudson Bay show a highly significant, long-term,
reduction in clutch size (i.e. the number of eggs laid per female) of
snow geese over 1973-1992. The authors of this result (1) suggest that
this decline in clutch size may be related to declines in food
availability just prior to nesting. This contradicts the view that
geese fattened by U.S. grain go on to breed better. If the grain
subsidy were to have this effect, there would be no long-term decline
in clutch size. Thus, the importance of grain in the Fall-Winter diet
of white geese has been exaggerated. While it may promote feeding and
survival on the wintering ground, there appears to be no carry-over
effect to the breeding grounds.
Geese Cause Habitat Change, Not Destruction.
The position of the USFWS, the CWS, and Ducks Unlimited is that
heavy grazing by geese causes habitat damage, desertification, and
imperilment of the entire ecosystem. I concede that heavy grazing by
geese has an obvious impact on the vegetative community. At low grazing
pressures, it maintains the plant species that are nutritious to geese,
but under heavy grazing pressure, those species are eliminated or
reduced, only to be replaced in time by species that are not nutritious
to geese. Thus feeding geese induce change and those changes appear as
different associations of plant species in the lowlands of Hudson Bay.
This certainly is not desertification or habitat destruction. These
changes have probably occurred many times in the past. This species has
existed for millions of years in a highly dynamic environment. They
have not suddenly become delinquent in the past 20 years.
The report Arctic Ecosystems in Peril (2) contends that the impacts
of geese on vegetation may be irreversible. However, statements have
been made in the above report and elsewhere to suggest that plant
communities will regenerate, but the time for the original plant
community to return is not known.
The concept of change in the vegetative community as a consequence
of feeding by geese has been addressed in detail by me in Attachment 1,
and in my published evaluation of the report Arctic Ecosystems in Peril
(3). I have shown, clearly, that vegetative change is not simply a
function of geese gazing, alone. In the Hudson Bay lowlands, three
factors are inter-acting to determine the vegetative features of goose
habitats. Besides gazing, the influences of isostatic uplift and a
pronounced, recent, phase of warming climate will influence the species
composition of habitats. Isostatic uplift is the physical rising of the
lowlands and coastal region at the very rapid rate of 1.0-1.2 in per
Century. This impact of raising and drying the land has an enormous
impact on plant species composition over just a few decades, quite
apart from the gazing, action of the geese. The process of uplift also
causes a tremendous amount of new shore line to appear each year (about
15-20 m) from Hudson Bay, and this will soon become feeding habitat for
geese. The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group was so fixated on the
idea of habitat loss by heavy gazing that they did not take into
account rates of new habitat formation at the supra-tidal zone.
In the videos on geese grazing and salt marsh vegetation produced
for the public by Ducks Unlimited, scenes depict the appearance of
vegetation in ``exclosures'' designed to exclude any animal grazing,
and adjacent grazed areas. Such scenes portray a contrived,
exaggerated, picture. The tall vegetation in the exclosures depicts
what would prevail if geese or other grazers were never present. White
geese are native species in their natural habitat, so some level of
goose grazing must be accepted. The same Ducks Unlimited video also
fails to show what occurs when exclosures are built around heavily-
grazed areas of salt marsh. There is rapid regrowth of vegetation in 1-
3 years. So much for ``irreversible damage''!!
Are Snow Geese at Record High Population Levels?
I accept, readily, the population estimates for white geese
produced during the past 30 years. They show a real increase in the
size of lesser and greater snow goose, and Ross' goose populations.
However, the fact that these populations have risen to record high
levels in the past 30 years does not negate the suggestion that geese
were equally as numerous in past times. I have dealt with this point at
length in my report (3). It has been suggested that during the major
climate warming that influenced North America about 1,000 years ago,
the population size of lesser snow geese may have been as numerous as
during the 1980s. We can surmise, again, that the population size may
have contracted during the Little Ice Age that influenced the sub-
arctic during the 15-17th Centuries. The recent population increase is
also coinciding with a renewed period of warming. Thus I believe that
over time, the numbers of white geese expand and contract as climatic
events affect their habitats. Given that three waves of glacial advance
and retreat have already affected their present-day summer habitats,
the current population trend is probably not new in ecological time,
even though it is new to goose managers.
Geese and Their Capacity for Self-Regulation.
The view of the USFWS, the CWS, and Ducks Unlimited is that geese
numbers have to be reduced for their own good and the benefit of their
summer habitat. Such a view gives little credence to the ability of
geese to regulate their own numbers, or opines that such regulation may
take too long. In the two reports of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working
Group (one on lesser snow geese and a parallel report on greater snow
geese) there is frequent reference to geese either having exceeded, or
being close to, their habitats' carrying capacity. This is a blatant
misuse of the ecological term Carrying Capacity. This term properly
applies to a population of animals, not their habitat. It is false for
managers to estimate the carrying capacity of the population based upon
their impressions of the habitat. This is why the statement ``exceeding
the habitat's carrying capacity'' is totally unscientific and
illogical. Animal populations determine what the carrying capacity is,
and based upon the trend in the growth of lesser snow geese numbers,
the carrying capacity is still to be reached at the entire Hudson Bay
population level. At a local level, there are many indications that the
carrying capacity has been attained and that intrinsic, natural,
mechanisms of population regulation are operating, and have done so for
over a decade. The dispersal of geese to feeding areas not known to
have been used by geese in the past is a natural process of dispersal
that typifies all animal life. Lower gosling survival rates have been
reported in the literature when broods remain in heavily-grazed areas
that do not provide adequate food. In the event that such goslings grow
up and enter the adult cohort, their body size is less than that of
well-fed geese and, as such, have lower reproductive outputs. These are
the self-regulating processes that are occurring already in some parts
of the entire population. I believe that they will play an increasingly
more important role, both locally and regionally, as the lesser snow
goose population expands. These processes are not unique to geese. They
typify every animal species in existence.
Do Lesser Snow Geese Pose Threats to Other Species?
This question has been examined by me in Attachment 1, and the
conclusion reached is negative, whether on the basis of contagious
disease outbreaks, or the displacement of other salt marsh species from
Hudson bay. More than 6 million lesser snow geese are believed to
exist, and during the Spring and Fall migrations they form aggregated
flocks that number in the thousands. Contagious diseases such as fowl
cholera are endemic to this species. Were the risks of significant
contagion to other avian species real, it would have already occurred,
and the wildlife literature would have documented it. Concerns that
areas of salt marsh that were heavily grazed by geese may contain
smaller numbers of other salt marsh avian species derive from two
reports. One report (4), published in 1994, reported that two species
were believed to have declined in an area of heavy snow goose grazing.
The second report (5), commissioned for Ducks Unlimited in 1997, and
conducted in the same area, did not report the same two species as
having gone through a decline. Thus there is some inconsistency between
what species are affected in the two reports. Report (5) states that
there appears to have been a decline in the numbers of some bird
species over time. However these authors conclude that: ``We have found
no compelling evidence that these impacted species are declining on a
larger spatial scale.''
The simple fact is that there is no sound, independently-confirmed,
scientific evidence to suggest that widespread population lowering is
being caused by heavy grazing by geese. Moreover, in such a case that
there is a local lowering of other species densities, one has to
distinguish between local extinction of those animals, and their
displacement to other sites where they continue to exist and breed.
This has not been investigated to date. The agencies that propose to
impose an extra heavy hunting mortality on snow geese have taken this
scant evidence of an impact on other species and used it as the basis
of the proposed action. The USFWS states in its November 9, 1998
proposed rule that:
``These declines and other ecological changes represent a
decline in biological diversity and indicate the beginning of a
collapse of the current Hudson Bay Lowlands salt marsh
ecosystem. Much of the degraded habitat is unlikely to
recover.''
This is a good example of the hyperbole and sensationalism that has
been used to justify the proposed plan of action.
Is the Do Nothing Approach to Management Appropriate?
The USFWS and the CWS both believe that, having identified what
they believe to be a real problem, they are compelled to introduce
remedial action. Accordingly, both agencies have dismissed the ``do
nothing'' option as inappropriate. I contend that populations of white
geese have increased in size in recent years without the benefit of
much management intervention and the spending of large sums of money.
Insofar as they have also shown the ability to deploy natural
population-limiting mechanisms (also known as density-dependent
responses), I am convinced that they can regulate their numbers around
their population's carrying capacity. If other species do this, I
expect native, wild, snow geese in their natural habitat to do it. Thus
the white geese issue is more of a problem for North American managers
than it is for the geese and Nature. The USFWS has cited one reason for
not letting natural regulating processes prevail. It is feared that
once the snow goose population has reached its peak, it will quickly
crash to very low levels, from which it will recover slowly. Again,
there is no documented evidence for this fear. While population crashes
have been reported for exotic species and populations under
confinement, there is no reason to believe that it will attend snow
geese, free to change their distributions in the sub-arctic and respond
to local habitat conditions.
The proposal to bring the Mid-Continental population of snow geese
down to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan's goal of about
1.5 million birds means that hunting mortality will have to be
increased to 4-6 times the current level (i.e. about 1.3-2.0 million
geese per year). The continental kill of lesser snow geese has declined
in recent years, coincident with a decline in the numbers of goose
hunters. If hunters were inclined to take a growing number of snow
geese, they might have already done so, especially during the period
when the rate of growth was rapid. I doubt that the North American
hunters, even with the proposed relaxed regulations, will respond with
a 4-6 times increase in goose harvest. If density-dependent population
regulating mechanisms are allowed to act throughout the flyway, goose
numbers will stabilize at some point. This will involve the reduced
survivorship of young and adult geese, as well as reduced reproductive
rates for the entire population. Any natural mortality will then be due
to diverse environmental selective factors. These factors will,
collectively, fashion the snow goose population in an adaptive, genetic
manner, ensuring its adaptability to changing conditions over the long
term. Hunting mortality does not act, deliberately, in this selective
manner and cannot hope to mimic the selective role of natural
processes.
As we enter the 21st Century, it is assumed that our wildlife
management will progress into ecosystem management and leave behind the
older, outdated style of single-species, game animal management. Such a
change will mean having to revise society's values towards all wild
life, so that the ecological importance of a wider suite of species is
realized, not only those that have utility to recreational hunters.
Ecosystem management may also entail letting natural processes prevail
in population regulation, as we have hitherto for the vast majority of
wild animal species. The assumption of managers that they have to
intervene and manage is based on the assumption that the management
problem to be resolved is valid in ecological terms, and that the path
of action is certain to lead to that objective. In the context of the
present white goose issue, I cannot agree with the stated definition of
the problem and so I cannot agree with the proposed terms of its
resolution.
The ``do nothing'' management option is appropriate in this
instance. It will free up management personnel and budgets to be
deployed for the better management of those species, such as pintail
ducks and scaup ducks, that warrant a greater level of management. It
is highly advisable to continue to monitor the different populations of
white geese and their habitats, if only to learn more about how the
different mechanisms of density-dependent processes operate in wild
populations. Such understanding would benefit enormously all future
management of North American wildlife species.
(1) ``The Snow Geese of La Perouse Bay. Natural Selection in the
Wild.' By F. Cooke, R.F. Rockwell and D. B. Lank. Oxford University
Press, NY 1995. Figure 6.4.
(2) ``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril.'' Report of the Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group. Edited by B.D.J. Batt. Special Publication of
the Arctic Goose Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and
the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pages.
(3) ``A Critical Evaluation of the Proposed Reduction in the Mid-
Continent Lesser Snow Geese Population to Conserve Sub-Arctic Salt
Marshes of Hudson Bay.'' V.G.Thomas and B.K. MacKay. The Humane Society
of the United States, Washington, D.C. 1998. 32 pages.
(4) ``Monitoring shorebird populations in the Arctic.'' C.Trevor-
Gratto. 1994. Bird Trends 3: 10-12.
(5) ``Are there declines in bird species using La Perouse Bay?''
R.F. Rockwell, D.Pollak, K.F. Abraham, P.M. Kotanen, and R.L. Jeffries.
1997. The Hudson Bay Project Status Report for Ducks Unlimited.
Unpublished report.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.012
Statement of Dr. Robert Alison, Orillia, Ontario, Canada
Lesser snow geese and Ross' geese, collectively ``white''
geese, are a shared international resource. They nest primarily
in the Canadian Arctic and winter mainly in the southern United
States. Their numbers seem to have increased substantially in
the past two decades, compared to mid-century levels, although
it is not known if current populations surpass historic
numbers. Anecdotal reports suggest there might have been more
geese at the turn-of-the-century than now.
All white geese next in traditional colonies, most with
long histories of uninterrupted use, and these colonies occupy
a minuscule fraction of the tundra as a whole. A few new
colonies have sprouted recently, but the vast majority of
breeding occurs at old established sites in the Far North.
Much attention has been focused recently on the lesser snow
goose, and in particular the mid-continent population, which
breeds in the Eastern Arctic and the Hudson's Bay basin, and
winters mainly within the Mississippi Flyway, chiefly in Texas
and Louisiana. Surveys suggest that population has at least
quadrupled since the early 1970's, and some biologists have
proposed that that population growth has generated foraging
pressure that is damaging the Arctic ecosystems vital to geese.
Consequently, dramatic goose population reduction has been
proposed to protect the tundra.
However, the actual scenario is much more complex than a
simple goose vs. habitat interpretation.
The United States and Canada have focused largely on the
mid-continent lesser snow goose, and so shall I. These birds
nest mainly at about 15 separate colony sites.
Beginning approximately 20 years ago, Arctic habitat
changes began to occur in a broad area comprising some 200,000
square miles. The region was mainly wetland, formerly green and
lush, and currently brown and dry and seemingly practically
lifeless. The main area of deterioration lies between the
Ontario-Manitoba border and the McConnell River in the new
territory of Nunivut, and largely parallels the Hudson's Bay
coast. White geese have been blamed for causing this
deterioration, a claim based mainly on ongoing research at the
La Perouse Bay snow goose colony on Cape Churchill.
A continental goose-culling initiative has recently taken
shape in response to the contention that the habitat
deterioration at the La Perouse Bay snow goose colony is a
general situation, and that snow geese are threatening vital
breeding habitat. I urge caution in jumping to such a
conclusion, and for the following reasons, I recommend that the
United States Government not be too hasty to cut goose numbers,
at least not in the guise of protecting vital Arctic habitat.
First, only a tiny fraction of the whole lesser snow goose
mid-continent population actually nests within the area that
has deteriorated, amounting to one single colony, at La Perouse
Bay, which comprises less than 2 percent of the entire mid-
continent breeding population. Two-thirds of the population
nests at Southampton and Baffin Islands, more than 400 miles
away from the contentious area. Less than one-third nests near
the northern edge of the deteriorating area, but most of these
geese are abandoning and relocating elsewhere.
There is convincing, but inconclusive, evidence that goose
foraging at the tiny La Perouse Bay colony has generated local
habitat deterioration, but similar habitat deterioration has
not been confirmed for any other lesser snow goose colony--not
one. To assume such deterioration is taking place elsewhere due
to goose foraging is mere extrapolation and presumption,
unwarranted by research. There might be a ``smoking gun'' at La
Perouse Bay, involving a trivial proportion of the goose
population as a whole. Elsewhere nobody knows for sure if geese
are damaging breeding habitat.
In addition, whereas goose numbers are rising and a
substantial area of important habitat has deteriorated, no link
between these two developments has been scientifically
established. In fact, survey biologists say that the habitat
deterioration began to occur before lesser snow geese began to
increase in numbers, and that at least some of the
deterioration has taken place in areas where white geese do not
occur.
Apart from the La Perouse Bay colony itself, the main area
in which habitat deterioration has been shown is used by white
geese only on migration, where they occur at ``staging'' sites.
It is not breeding habitat for geese, and the extent to which
these geese actually use that area has not been determined.
Survey personnel say that whereas some of the area of
deterioration is used by staging geese, much of it does not
seem to be used by white geese at all. It is hard to conclude
that the geese are damaging habitat in places where they do not
go.
Two major developments are simultaneously impacting on the
Arctic, and it is possible that one or both are contributing to
the observed habitat deterioration. Neither has been widely
publicised, yet both merit concern as possible explanations for
what is impacting upon northern habitats.
First, isostatic uplift. Much of North America, centered on
Hudson's Bay, was covered with glacial ice, up to two miles
thick. The weight of the ice depressed the land mass, and its
unloading by melting has caused the land to rise. The greatest
uplift is taking place around Hudson's Bay, a rise of about one
yard per century. A coastal area up to 200 miles inland has
risen by about 1,000 feet since the glaciers melted, and to
complete isostatic recovery, that area will rise an additional
540 feet.
The uplifting of the land mass has the effect of drying
wetlands, and its impact on the area of habitat deterioration
relevant to this discussion has not been studied, and has been
largely ignored.
Secondly, global warming is melting the permafrost
foundation on which Arctic wetlands float. As the permafrost
deteriorates, wetlands drain. Several studies have confirmed
such losses, not only in the Canadian Arctic, but also in
Alaska. Researchers at some institutions, including the
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in the United Kingdom, have
predicted dire consequence for some Arctic habitats.
The significance of warming on fragile Arctic vegetation is
not yet clear, but research in the Cape Churchill area suggests
that drying is transforming some former wetlands into expanses
of barren baked clay. I would suggest it would be wise to
examine the impact of warming on the area of deterioration to
determine its contribution.
Several possible factors, working alone or in combination,
could have resulted in the observed habitat deterioration in
the Hudson's Bay basin. To blame geese in particular is
unwarranted at this point. We simply do not know for sure what
has caused these habitat losses.
Furthermore, ecological research indicates that white geese
are facing unprecedented habitat challenges, especially due to
global warming, and to focus dramatic population reduction
strategies on these birds at this time carries some risk. It is
premature to claim the geese are imperiling their habitats, and
misleading to cut numbers in the guise of protecting habitats--
except perhaps in the context of a single relatively
insignificant colony.
I have hunted geese. I have even hunted snow geese. I have
not a single objection to goose hunting, per se. The current
abundance of geese seems to open more recreational
opportunities to sportsmen, and added harvesting seems
warranted so long as conditions prescribed by the Migratory
Birds Convention, including a season framework of September 1
to March 10, be met.
If, however, there is a special problem at a certain
colony, I'd suggest special remedial action at that site--but
not to target the entire goose population with extraordinary
reduction.
Hunting might not, in fact, be the best way to solve local
problems. Aircraft harassment or egging are alternatives. In
the absence of alternatives to hunting, the whole process seems
to have a distinctly pro-hunting agenda, rather than a broader
pro-conservation motive.
Naturally, I would prefer to let Nature take her course.
There are signs that that process is underway at La Perouse
Bay, where gosling survival is almost one-half what it was 25
years ago. It is natural regulation weeding out geese to
achieve equilibrium.
Finally, the plan calls for the culling of one-half of the
goose population, and that gives rise to concern. It is the
genetic impact I worry about, especially if adult breeders are
targeted. The old geese are the storehouses of genetic
excellence, and the target of wiping out half the gene pool
seems risky. One should wonder about the wisdom of removing
from a population such a high proportion of those geese whose
genetic information could be vital to geese heading into an
especially challenging period of climate change.
Caution. I urge caution.
------
Statement of Tom Adams, Senior Policy Advisor, National Audubon Society
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the more than one million
members and supporters of the National Audubon Society, and our
520 chapters in communities in the United States, Canada, and
South America, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
impact of Snow Geese on Arctic resources.
The National Audubon Society is one of the nation's leading
environmental organizations. Our members are concerned about
birds, wildlife, and their habitats. Audubon's involvement with
the issue of snow goose overpopulation has included: (1)
representation on the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group; (2)
participation in the Hudson Bay Lowland Excursion, coordinated
by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture Management Board; and (3)
representation in the Stakeholder's Committee on Arctic Nesting
Geese.
The National Audubon Society endorses the recommendations
of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, an international
team mandated to scientifically document this urgent ecological
problem. It is essential that we develop immediate steps that
directly reduce the mid-continent population of Lesser Snow
Geese. Long-term solutions that may involve changes in land-use
practices in the southern and central United States also need
to be developed.
The mid-continent population of Lesser Snow Geese (breeding
west of Hudson Bay, and wintering on the southern Great Plains
and western Gulf Coast) has grown by about 300 percent since
the 1960s, and is now estimated at well over three million
birds. The population is continuing to grow at an annual rate
of 5 percent. This unprecedented number of mid-continent Lesser
Snow Geese has had an extensive, destructive, and potentially
irreversible effect on arctic and sub-arctic staging and
breeding habitats.
The Snow Goose population nesting west of Hudson Bay,
Canada, has reached incredible densities (sometimes with as
many as 3,000 nests packed into one square kilometer of
tundra). Plant species are being destroyed at unprecedented
levels as a result of grubbing (by the root) and grazing by the
burgeoning Snow Goose population in the Arctic. These plants
are being replaced over vast areas by unpalatable, salt-
tolerant species. To quote Robert F. Rockwell, Kenneth F.
Abraham, and Robert L. Jeffries (Winter 1997 issue of the
Living Bird Quarterly) ``Scientists are concerned that the
increasing numbers of geese may soon lead to an ecological
catastrophe as these voracious feeders turn the delicate arctic
habitat they inhabit into a barren wasteland.''
Ironically, the problem of too many Snow Geese is one of
our own making. The rapid increase in mid-continent Snow Goose
populations is primarily a result of human modifications of
habitat on the wintering grounds, along the migratory routes,
and in the staging areas. Agricultural land-use and wildlife
management practices have provided a nutritional ``subsidy,''
and have led to high winter survival and recruitment rates.
Efforts to protect and enhance populations of waterfowl have
worked too well for Snow Geese. Each year, an expanded
population of Snow Geese has arrived in their arctic habitat in
a stronger condition, with increased breeding success.
These burgeoning numbers of mid-continent Lesser Snow Geese
have caused widespread and potentially irreversible devastation
to two-thirds of the habitat that otherwise would be mostly
pristine tundra west of Hudson Bay in Canada. Long term studies
show that populations of many bird species that depend on
tundra habitat are declining precipitously as a result of the
growing Snow Goose population. These include species from the
Partners in Flight ``WatchList'' of birds at risk such as
Hudsonian Godwit and Smith's Longspur, other rare species such
as Yellow Rail, American Golden Plover, and Stilt Sandpiper.
If we do not act, nature will not ``take its course'' in
the short time needed to halt devastation of the tundra. This
is due to the increased ability of Snow Geese to sustain
themselves on the wintering grounds in ever-greater numbers. It
is also due to the species' demonstrated ability and
willingness to extend their Arctic/Subarctic nesting and
foraging ranges continually as existing breeding grounds (i.e.,
smaller size, poor feather development, and increased disease
morality), adult survival continues to increase. A potential
scenario is that before millions of these geese suffer a
population crash, they will have spread across much of their
Arctic, devastating huge areas of tundra, and taken several
other valuable bird and animal species with them.
We are here to publicly state the unanimous resolution of
National Audubon's Board of Directors to protect wildlife
habitat and ecosystems in the Arctic and Subarctic currently
under threat from damage by burgeoning populations of Lesser
Snow Goose. The Board voted in September 1997 to support the
science-based recommendations of the Arctic Goose task force to
reduce the mid-continent population of the Lesser Snow Goose
through expanded hunting and other means. Audubon's concern in
this situation is in line with the Society's mission to protect
birds, wildlife, and their habitat, using the best tools
available.
The Board resolution commits the National Audubon Society
to work closely with Federal, state and Canadian agencies, and
other non-governmental organizations to define the most
effective mix of short-term and long-term solutions to the Snow
Goose population problem. By acting now, we hope to reduce the
loss of critical habitat and to protect the many bird species
and other wildlife that depend on this habitat.
Mr. Chairman, once again I want to thank you for providing
me with this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
------
Statement of Dr. Bruce D. J. Batt, Chief Biologist, Ducks Unlimited,
Inc., and Chair, Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, Arctic Goose Joint
Venture
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with
you the perspectives of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. on the impacts of
light goose populations on the Canadian arctic tundra and on
the effectiveness of management programs designed to reduce the
numbers of these birds. I am Bruce Batt, Chief Biologist of
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. in Memphis, TN and I am also Chairman of
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, which was established
by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture under the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan.
This Working Group has been responsible for developing two
scientific reports which have formed the basis for decisions bv
the U.S. and Canadian governments that the damage being caused
by the geese to the Canadian arctic tundra warranted
intervention by management agencies to reduce the numbers of
geese to levels that can be sustained for the long term. This
Working Group consisted of 17 public agency, university and
non-government organization scientists and natural resource
managers. This was the strongest group of professionals ever
drawn together to analyze a goose conservation issue of such
scope and consequence. Our work was objective and very critical
in coming to our solid consensus conclusions. Subsequent
technical review by other peer scientists has not resulted in
any substantive disagreement with our conclusions about the
cause of the problem or the desirability of reducing the
numbers of geese to a more sustainable level. Credible
criticism has only emerged on the question of how much
increased harvest is necessary to reduce numbers to desirable
levels.
Your invitation to be here today asked me to address three
questions. The first was to review the impact that the
overabundant geese are having on the Canadian Arctic tundra.
In recent years more geese than ever have been returning to
Canada's arctic and sub-arctic breeding areas. This increase
has been driven by several factors; the most important of which
has been the widespread conversion to agriculture of all the
areas in which they live outside the summer breeding period.
The birds now have an unlimited food supply for most of the
year, a fact that has led to increased winter survival of
adults and young-of-the year and the birds now return to the
breeding grounds in excellent condition every year. Their
condition on arrival is directly related to their breeding
success because most of the nutrients used for egg laying and
incubation are brought with them from their last stops on the
prairies of the U.S. and Canada. Thus, year in and year out the
birds are able to lay eggs no matter how poor are the food
supplies on the breeding colonies.
After arrival, the geese also feed heavily on the breeding
areas right up to actual nesting. Their spring feeding behavior
is very destructive, as they have to dig out the roots of their
food plants because, like your brown lawn in the spring, all
the nutritional value is below ground. The geese have fed like
this for thousands of generations. The difference today is that
so many return each year that the habitats upon which they feed
are so overwhelmingly destroyed by the large numbers of birds
that they cannot recover during the short summer growing
season. Thus, each year as ever-increasing numbers of birds
return, the area of destroyed habitat grows dramatically. On
the best studied area, an 1,100-mile strip of salt marsh
habitat along the Hudson and James Bays, 35 percent had been
destroyed by 1995 and another 35 percent was severely damaged.
This is clearly not a localized problem as a very few
individuals have claimed. The word, destroyed, is correctly
used because the process of devegetation of the salt marsh
results in changes in soil chemistry that will prevent the
goose food plants from becoming re-established. In some places,
salinity levels have reached three times sea strength.
Other observers on the largest breeding colonies further
north have seen similar impacts of salt marsh and upland
habitats. However, the degree of damage has not been so fully
quantified. That work is underway right now through the use of
satellite photographs on which the damaged areas are easily
seen from space. Because of the availability of archived
images, the scientists will be able to look at scenes from the
past two decades to measure the rate of destruction of the
ecosystem. However, there is no doubt among the scientists on
the ground that the damage has been enormous. The finite amount
of suitable goose breeding habitat is rapidly being consumed
and will eventually be lost.
The destruction of these areas is manifested in
increasingly low survival of goslings because there are no food
plants that they can eat when they hatch. It is easy to go to
colonies along the Hudson Bay Lowlands and find hundreds of
dead and dying goslings. I've done it myself at Cape Henrietta
Maria and LaPerouse Bay. There are already tens of thousands of
goslings dying each year and there will soon be millions.
Normally, density dependent population regulation would have
occurred before this condition emerged and the adults would
have reduced their egg production because of lack of food. The
unusual twist on this story is that the geese are freed from
local conditions because they return fat and ready to breed
because of agriculture in Canada and the U.S.
If we do not intervene, the likely course of continued
population growth is increased gosling mortality until so few
survive that the population eventually declines because the
natural mortality of adults is not being replaced. This could
be thought of as a population ``crash'' although it will be
protracted over several years. The population will decline to
some very low level and remain there for a very long time
because the habitat needed to fuel a population recovery will
have been destroyed and will remain that way for many decades--
much of the next century.
Extensive collateral damage will also occur because the
collapsed ecosystem will no longer be able to support all the
other wildlife species that depend on these systems for their
sustenance. As unhappy as the forecast is for the geese, this
collapse of an ecosystem may actually be an even more serious
consequence ``in the big picture.''
We concluded that managers should intervene to prevent the
continued growth of this problem because it is caused by
changes that, although unwittingly, we have wrought on the
North American continent. To fail to do so would be an
abrogation of our most fundamental responsibility to conserve
the biodiversity of life in all the ecosystems that we
influence. I believe Mr. Rogers has already explained how the
U.S. and Canadian governments have responded so far.
The second question was how successful we thought the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service's actions to reduce the size of the
white goose populations in the mid-continent would be. It is
only possible to speculate on the answer as the first
conservation order is still in effect and we do not yet know
how many birds are being removed from the population. There are
plenty of restraints on this first effort as it was not
authorized until quite late in the winter which was short
notice for hunters and outfitters to gear up for a new time
frame with new tools for the harvest. The cultural shift of
hunters participating in a harvest at this time of year will
also take some time to develop and not all jurisdictions are
yet able to fully participate. Nevertheless, informal feedback
indicates that the harvest is well underway and many geese are
being shot. I believe we will learn, after the final kill
estimates are in hand, that enough birds were harvested to
verify that future seasons, with more of the restraints
removed, should indeed be able to get the job done.
The third question was about additional steps that might be
taken if the current activities are not successful. This would
substantially involve direct culling of the population by
management agencies. This is an extremely distasteful prospect
for everybody. It has profound political and economic
consequences. It is hard to conceive of an army of paid
government employees trapping and euthanizing geese, whether it
occurred in Texas, South Dakota, Manitoba or the Northwest
Territories. Planning for this eventuality has not proceeded
very far because a reasonable test of how much can be
accomplished using the current methods will take a few years.
Everybody with a sincere concern about the future welfare
of this wonderful resource and the ecosystems in which it lives
hopes deeply that increased harvest will work because we have
even less experience with whatever the next steps might be.
Further, it is not at all clear that the necessary political
and economic support can come together to actually allow such
practices. It is far more prudent to maintain the current
course and it is crucial to do so without delay. Every
technical, administrative, legal and political delay just adds
to the problem. There is real urgency here as we may not be far
from the point where the only choice is to record the aftermath
of the crash of goose numbers with the related ecosystem
destruction with all the other species that live there with the
geese.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.037