Atlantic Flyway Canada Goose Study February, 1986
SQeC i al Report
The Status of Wintering Canada Geese in the "Southern Region" of the Atlantic Flyway by Richard Malecki, Project Leader New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Fernow Hall, Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853
Prepared for Cooperators: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Pennsylvania Game Commission New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife Maryland Wildlife Administration Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
The following is a progress report and not intended for publication. In our previous descriptions of Canada goose sub-populations, we have found it convenient to generalize about the "southern region"; those wintering birds predominantly associated with the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (Trost and Malecki 1985). As we begin to build our data base from neck collar observations we should improve our ability to differentiate and manage various segments of geese within this group. The following is an update on how things are progressing to date.
The classic reference on Canada geese by Hanson and Smith (1950), "Canada geese of the Mississippi Flyway: With special reference to an Illinois flock" described a "South Atlantic" population that nested along the eastern portion of James and Hudson Bays and wintered along the Atlantic coast from southern New Jersey to North Carolina. Lake Mattamuskeet in Hyde County, North Carolina was at that time the most important wintering area for this population. The authors also wrote of, "the existence of a distinct and heretofore unrecognized group of Canada geese that winter in the inland areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama and on the Gulf Coast of Florida". This group was identified as the "Southeast" population. Band returns for this latter group indicated that they nested near the southern part of James Bay; their breeding ground merging with that of the Mississippi Valley population and the South Atlantic. The fall migration of Southeast geese was reported to follow that of MVP birds as far south as the Jack Miner Sanctuary near Kingsville, Ontario. Here, they appeared to diverge, fanning out south and southeast over a number of courses. Fourteen years later, Hansen and Nelson (1964) added a bit more information on the Southeast population by redefining the breeding range as, "a small area inland from the south coast of James Bay north along the east side of Hudson Bay to southern Baffin Island, and on Akimiski Island". However, this was soon followed by Hankla and Rudolph's paper (1967) describing dramatic declines in Canada goose numbers over much of the southern wintering grounds. The St. Marks' flock in Florida, which once numbered 25-30,000 birds, was reported reduced to a remnant flock estimated at 6,300, while goose flocks in Georgia, which may never have been a significant wintering component, were described as essentially eliminated. Though geese in Alabama were increasing, due to the attraction of the Wheeler NWR, their migration and wintering habits became altered to the point where they no longer were considered part of the Southeast population. The mid-1960's was also the period when major declines in wintering numbers of geese at Mattamuskeet NWR were being realized (Hankla and Rudolph, 1967; Florschutz, 1968). Peak populations on the refuge went from 135,000 in 1959-60 to 39,700 in 1966-67. The only bright spot in the south at this time was South Carolina where, despite moderate declines, there were still more wintering geese (-25,000) in the state than at any time prior to 1950. Little has been published since the mid-1960's to expand on the status of these wintering flocks. The intent of this report is to update the available data on these southern goose populations to allow a more complete look at future options for their management. • present Status Florida In 1967, Crider warned of the inevitable demise of the St. Marks' flock due to the interception of these geese at more northern latitudes. Recoveries of birds banded at this wintering location showed a high proportion of returns coming from eastern Canada and the coastal portion of the Atlantic Flyway north of Florida. On southern Baffin Island, recoveries from early bandings of geese show a strong affiliation with the St. Marks' flock (fig. 1, from H. Lumsden, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) and also highlight the disproportionate number of recoveries from northern latitudes. The St. Marks' flock in Florida is presently considered too small to warrant anything but very conservative measures to protect the birds that remain. Today, few geese actually frequent the areas in and about the St. Marks' NWR; most of the birds being reported on state and private lands near Tallahassee. Their number has been estimated at about 500-600 (Tom Goodwin, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, pers. comm.), although estimates are difficult because of mixing with resident geese in this region. The future of the migratory Florida population remains very speculative. Little information exists regarding the present distribution of this group. Reports from native Inuit in the southern Baffin Island area indicate that the numbers of nesting geese in this region may be increasing (Harry Lumsden, pers. comm.). However, to what extent these birds still maintain an affinity for the Florida wintering area is unknown. Similarly the use of the southern James Bay area for nesting and as a fall staging area remain uncertain. The use of neck collars at these locations or on migrant birds frequenting the Tallahassee area might provide information needed to help supplement any future efforts to re-establish this flock. Baffin Island
Fig. 1. Direct and indirect recoveries of Canada ~ geese banded on south Baffin Island (all years) :
(from H. Lumsden) South Carolina In South Carolina, the numbers of wintering Canada geese have declined dramatically over the past 10 years (fig. 2). Mid-winter estimates total a scant 1,900 birds and future projections for this population, based on the present trend, indicate that the situation in South Carolina is indeed serious. A total of 648 geese have been fitted with neck collars in South Carolina over the past 2 years; 454 at the Santee NWR and 194 at the Carolina Sandhills NWR. Few observations (13) have come from the Carolina Sandhill's birds, which were banded only last year. These have all been from South Carolina. However, over 850 sightings have been reported from geese banded at Santee. The distribution of these observations, using only those neck collar codes unique to each state or province (i.e., multiple observations of the same bird were omitted) is shown in Figures 3 and 4. Of these, 48 percent came from the coastal areas (east of 77° Long.) of North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland. About 28 percent was derived from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan and the remainder came primarily from South Carolina. The interpretation of the distribution data is quite speculative at this time. This is because we are still in the process of determining how to assess the probability of detecting a neck collared bird at the various locations where they are reported (i.e., a collar code read in New York may not be equivalent to one reported in Ohio or Maryland). In any event, the data suggest a probable fall movement of geese through central New York to Maryland. then along the coastline from Maryland south to North Carolina before reaching the winter terminus in South Carolina. Only 3 multiple observations have been made of birds seen in one of these northern states prior to being observed in South Carolina. All 3 observations were made in Maryland, and one bird was additionally observed in Virginia. . . -
...... lSI
.,... N
t:f't·Ol ...... ~ t:;a.l· tJ) ~ IJ.1 « c_::l z a--1 (t ~ r.:. 0 .. C!i) --··---····---r:--·------···-T------···----·-;···-·····--·····--··---·-··-·~·-··-··-··· ~ ~ " 0"'1 Lf) CSI Lt':R t.SI ...-f ..-f ..-1 \ \ I I I v !!--· ". / - \ \ - \ , ' _ _ Fig. 3. Total unique observations of \ i Canada geese marked at the ___. Santee NWR in South Carolina - (1984 and 1985). ____. - I - - ' I ) \ 1 ~ I I ~ __ ...-g -" - - - I - - / I I 1.,.-/ I {!gil) - - \ \ \ I .I I I Figure 4. Percent distribution of unique observations for Canada geese marked at the Santee NWR in South Carolina. I- ] 1984-1985;n=257 f{(:(:::;:;:\¥1 Oct.- Dec.1985; n=180 30 . % 20 10 NY PA MD DE VA NC sc ON Ml OH AL OTHER* STATE * less than 1% of the total in each year 1984-85: NJ, WI, TN, KY, PO. Oct.-Dec. 1985:TN, KY, PQ. Another fall movement appears evident west of the Appalachian range. This is suggested by the number of sightings in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania, plus those made in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. The importance of these observations is seen in the fact that we do not have paid observers in these states (except Pennsylvania), therefore, the probability of detecting these birds should be much smaller. The existence of two migration corridors for South Carolina geese is in line with earlier findings reporting the derivation of flocks associated with the "Southeast" population (Crider 1967; Hankla and Rudolph 1967). Further evidence for this association comes from the James Bay region in Canada where Ken Abraham (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) reported capturing 10 of our neck collared birds (July 17-23, 1985) on Akimiski Island, N.W.T. (east of Attawapiskat, Ontario). Six of these birds were banded at Santee, and the remaining 4 were banded in the vicinity of the Pee Dee NWR in central North Carolina. Two of 8 females captured Cl from South Carolina and 1 from North Carolina) had brood patches, indicating that they nested here. The trapping and placement of neck collars on 1,467 adult Canada geese on Akimiski Island this past summer CHarry Lumsdem, pers. comm.) should help to further substantiate the movement and population affiliation of these birds. The distribution data for Canada geese in South Carolina presents a particularly complex problem with respect to the management of this resource. No less than nine states and one Canadian province, with administrative affiliations spanning two flyways, have a potential impact on the dynamics of this population. The temporal distribution of observations 'of South Carolina birds in the Atlantic Flyway, using 2 week intervals, is shown in Table 1. Although no goose hunting is presently allowed in South Carolina, the majority of the sight1ngs (~74%) in states north of South Carolina occur after the Table 1. Temporal distribution of observations of Canada geese marked in South Carolina and seen in the Atlantic Flyway from September through December, 1984 and 1985. The numbers refer to the number of observations and not the numbers of unique individuals. The 1985 figures are in parentheses. Date of Observations NY PA NJ DE MD VA NC SC Sept. 23 to Oct. 6 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (8) 1 (0) 0 (Q) 0 (0) Oct. 7 to Oct. 20 2 (0) 11 (6) 0 (0) 1 (2) 6 {13) 12 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oct. 21 to Nov. 3 1 (2) 18 (3) 1 (0) 7 (2) 10 (8) 14 (6) 2 (2) 0 (11) Nov. 4 to Nov. 17 10 (0) 24 (8) 0 (0} 1 (2} 4 (14} 7 (19) 6 (9) 2 (24) Nov. 18 to Dec. 1 8 (2) 19 (6) o ·co> 0 (1) 4 (10) 2 (17) 9 (1) 33 (29) Dec. 2 to Dec. 15 0 (6) 11 (4) 0 (0) 0 (2) 7 (22) 7 (13) 6 (1) 43 (18) Dec. 16 to Dec. 29 7 (3) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 8 (10) a· na> 7 (l) 0 (0) opening of their goose hunting seasons. This, in the roughest sense, implies that some component of this population is present and available for harvest in the flyway. The magnitude of that harvest or where and when it occurs is still uncertain. In the Mississippi Flyway, the majority of observations are found in the northeast corner of Ohio (Fig. 3). Here, the shoreline area of Lake Erie and state facilities, such as the Mosqufto Creek Waterfowl Management Area and the Pymatuning Wildlife Management Area (western Pennsylvania), appear to constitute an important stop-over area for southern migrants. Of 17 observations reported from northeastern Ohio this past fall, 6 birds were seen on September 14 and the remainder fn mid- to late October. The opening of the Canada goose season for this region is October 12. More work is needed to better define the movement of South Carolina geese through the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways and the dates of their arrival on the wintering ground. Critical to this is an assessment of what can be done to increase their survival. We plan to continue work on this in the coming months as we update our files and take a more indepth look at what we have. - North Carolina The decline fn the number of Canada geese reported for North Carolina in the late 1960's continued into the 1980's. Mid-winter estimates compiled for the period 1974-85 (Ffg. 5) show a strong downward trend, with present numbers (~0,000 geese) lower than ever before documented. In 1983-84 and 1984-85, a total of 1,915 geese were captured fn North Carolina and fitted wfth neck collars. To date, there have been 2 1 624 observations of these marked birds reported from 14 states and 2 Canadian provinces. The majority of sight1ngs are derived from geese banded in the ···-····lSI.,...... ,... ....-I Ll') C)) ·.- LJ._ ~ (1.1 1";1.1 ~ (t (..." .....z (t ~ ~ 0 a: ~ z ~ ------~----.------r-----·----- . : ·-·--·-·--·-· ---·-·-·::-···--··- r-- , ~ cr-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cal CO ...0 rt:.f4 N . ' eastern part of the state near the Mattamuskeet NWR and coastal areas where the greatest wintering concentrations occur. However, a limited number of observations (87) come from about 300 birds banded in the vicinity of the Pee Dee NWR in the westcentral part of the state. For descriptive purposes, these will be treated separately. The distribution pattern of unique observations from birds banded near the Pee Dee NWR show a strong correlation with that of birds banded at Santee NWR, South Carolina (fig. 6). Although there are fewer recoveries, the importance of northeastern Ohio-western Pennsylvania, western New York, southern Ontario, and eastern Michigan as stop-over areas for these birds is apparent. The identification of 4 birds captured on Akimiski Island, NWT, this past summer (1 with a brood patch), along with 6 birds from Santee, is further evidence of this association. Excluding birds banded in the Pee Dee area, the distribution patt~rn of unique observations for geese from the remainder of North Carolina is shown in Figure 7. The major occurrence of sightings in the DELMARVA area, 45% and 64% for 1984-85 and October-December, 1985, respectively, along with movement through Pennsylvania and New York is characteristic of the "South Atlantic" population described by Hanson and Smith (1950) or the "Mid-Atlantic" population more recently cited in Bellrose (1976). Migration of North Carolina geese through the New England states (15 sightings) and Nova Scotia (3 sightings) fn 1984-85 suggest the presence of a component of the "North Atlantic" population .... I - - - - L ~ j_ ' ~~ i i ~/r~~~~~~~~-~~~~~v~~r-11-nJ I • ·' I . I . I J t-igure 7. Percent distribution of unique observations for Canada geese marked in North Carolina (excludes birds banded near Pee Dee NWR ). c::::J 1984-1985; n=408 f:i:i:i=;:;:::;:l Oct.- Dec. 1985; n = 707 " 20 10 NY PA NJ MD DE VA NC ON OH N. ENG. OTHER* STATE * I ess than 1% of the total in each year 1984-85: PQ, WI, MO, IL, NS. Oct.-Dec. 1985: MI. The chronology of movement of North Carolina birds through the flyway was assessed during the 1984-85 field season by looking at all geese that were seen in any state or province north of the state prior to being observed there. Only 24 birds were found to have this type of observation history. Of these, 16 were seen previously in Maryland, 3 in Delaware, 2 in New York, 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Virginia, and 1 individual was seen in both Maryland and Virginia prior to its arrival in North Carolina. The time at which these geese left the state to the north and migrated to North Carolina was estimated as the midpoint of the interval between the last observation in the northern state and the first observation in North Carolina. This approach showed that these birds moved into North Carolina late in the year; the mean julian day being 361 Cs.e. = 5.3 days). We used this same procedure for the October-December 1985 period and found 31 multiple observations of this type. This time, 21 were previously seen in Maryland, 6 in Virginia, 1 in Delaware, 1 in Pennsylvania, and again 1 was seen in both Maryland and Virginia prior to being observed in North Carolina. The mean julian day for the movement of these birds into the state was 313 Cs.e. • 2.5) or about the second week in November. The above procedure does not account for geese that migrate directly to North Carolina. November aerial surveys conducted in the state indicate that over the past 5 years, 75-80% of the mid-winter (January) estimate is present at this time (Dennis Luszcz, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, pers. comm.). Although not conclusive, these findings suggest that the majority of geese affiliated with North Carolina as a wintering terminus are not spending prolonged periods of time at more northerly locations during their fall movement. In 1985, there was evidence of a movement of birds into the state ,. from the DELMARVA area prior to mid-November. However, this was not detected in 1984. The late movement of birds into the state from this region in 1984 did not constitute a major influx if one looks at the mid-November survey estimate for that year, which was larger than the mid-winter (January) estimate. In general, it appears that late movements into the state, primarily from the DEL~1ARVA area, may account for about 20-25% of the birds found here ira January. This number tends to remain rAlatively stable into February (Dennis Luszcz, pers. comm.>. Reliable survival rate estimates for geese derived from observations of neck collared birds in the flyway are not available at this time. Preliminary comparisons of the proportion of individuals marked and seen alive again 1n succeeding years can provide insight into differential survival. Using the proportion of individuals marked during 1983-84 and seen alive in 1984-85, we compared states north of the Virginia-North Carolina border with the Carolina states and found a marked difference in reobservation proportions (57% vs. 42%: p < 0.01); the geese from the northern states being much more likely to be observed. Although there are other factors that need to be considered, this difference does suggest a lower survival rate for these southern groups of geese. Finally, the harvest rate for Canada geese in North Carolina appears to be increasing as population numbers decline (Fig. 8). This is based on figures of the number of geese harvested and mid-winter survey estimates provided by the u.s. Ffsh and Wildlife Service. Given the foregoing scenario of a continuing decline in the population trend of North Carolina geese, an increasing harvest rate within the state, and evidence which suggests that less than 25% of these birds may be subjected to prolonged harvest at locations to the north, it then seems reasonable to ·····lSI ere. ~ ~ "' .,...Ol r-1 LJ... (,f.l ~ ~ ~ 0 Ul 1:-. - (C ··- X ~ ~ a: -· ~ z .L ~ r·---·----·-······--··r--··-----··--···--r------··-·--··-····--·······;·····-·-······- ··-····-··-·--··-· ···-··-·~·-··· : -·········r--.,... lSI .-I IIi • • • conclude that initial attempts to improve the status of this population must come from some form of harvest restriction within the state. As more data becomes available from the present study, greater insight into other means to increase survival of these birds will hopefully become apparent. However, the present realization is that since populations increase in proportion to the breeding stock available, the greater the decline in numbers, the longer it will take to recover these losses. Some form of immediate action is therefore needed. Literature Cited Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 543 pp. Crider, E.D. 1967. Canada goose interceptions in the southeastern United States, w1th special reference to the Florida flock. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 21:145-155. Florschutz, o., Jr. 1968. Canada goose populations, hunting pressure, k111, crippling loss, and age ratios at Mattamuskeet, North Carolina. Pages 53-57 1n R.L. Hine and C. Schoenfeld, eds. Canada goose management. Dembar Educ. Serv., Madison, WI. 195 pp. Hankla, D.J., and R.R. Rudolph. 1967. Changes in the migration and wintering habits of Canada geese 1n the lower portion of the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways- wfth special reference to National Wildlife Refuges. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 21:133-144. Hansen, H.A., and H.K. Nelson. 1964. Honkers large and small. Pages 109-124 1n J.P. L1nduska, ed. Waterfowl tomorrow. u.s. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. 770 pp. Hanson, H.C., and R.H. Smith. 1950. Canada geese of the Mfssiss1pp1 Flyway, w1th special reference to an Illinois flock. Bull. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. 25(3):59-210. Trost, R.E., and R.A. Malecki. 1985. Population trends 1n Atlantic Flyway Canada geese: Implications for management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:502-508.