DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of the Trumpeter Swan in New York State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of the Trumpeter Swan in New York State STATUS OF THE TRUMPETER SWAN IN NEW YORK STATE Dan Carroll New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge Sub-office Casey Road, PO Box 422 Alabama, NY 14003 Bryan L. Swift New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wildlife Resources Center 108 Game Farm Road Delmar, NY 120% 'For several years now, Trumpeter Swans have been listed in Regions 2 and 6 , and now in Region 3.The species is not on the official New York State Checklist and the report usually carries the cautionary note "origin unknown ." Since such a large and imposing bird is difficult to ignore, it was decided to ask Dan Carroll and Bryan Swift of the NYSDEC to bring us up to date on the species in NY, as somewhere down the line, probably within a decade, it may be added to the official avifauna of the state. The Editor The Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) is the largest native waterfowl in North America. It was once common throughout the northern United States, Alaska, and Canada. The historic breeding range extended in a wide band from the Bering Sea east to the Atlantic Coast and south to northern Kentucky, north- ern West Virginia, northern Maryland and northern Delaware. Since it disap- peared very early in the period of European colonization, this breeding range is based on limited evidence from fossil and archeological records, scarce museum collection specimens, colonial literary accounts and the records of colonial trad- ing companies. In New York State, prehistoric fossil evidence was recovered from an Orange County site (Steadman 1998), but in historic times there is unfor- tunately no specimen or substantiated record before those in this report. At one time there were an estimated 100,000 wintering along the Atlantic Coast of North America. This bird was extirpated from the Atlantic Flyway by the early settlers almost 200 years ago. Despite dwindling numbers in the remain- ing portions of its range, the species did not receive federal protection until the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was passed in 1918. Even with this protection it con- tinued to decline. In 1932, when the Trumpeter Swan was first considered (but not formally declared) an endangered species, there were only 69 known indi- viduals left in the United States. 232 The Kingbird 2000 September; 50(3) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) The Kingbird 2000 September; 50(3) Currently there are three populations. The Pacific Coast population is the most naturally functioning with approximately 16,000 birds that breed in Alaska and winter along the Pacific Coast. The other two populations are the Rocky Mountain population of approximately 3,000 birds and the Interior population of approximately 1,000 birds. These populations contain migratory and nonrnigra- tory individuals. Surveys have been conducted every five years since initial surveys in 1968 and 1975. Based on these surveys, the overall population in North America has increased by 26% since 1990 and over 400% since 1968. Although the species is increasing, all three populations are still considered vulnerable to various threats. The primary risk factors include lead poisoning, loss of winter habitat, habitat degradation and lack of migratory traditions. In 1996 wild Trumpeter Swans were confirmed breeding in New York State for the first time in recent history. One pair nested at Perch River Wildlife Management Area in Jefferson County (Region 6), and another nested in a pri- vately owned wetland north of Newark in Wayne County( Region 2). Both pairs raised 3-4 young cygnets that year. For the next 3 years, these pairs (presumably the same birds, although none was marked) returned to the same locations to nest, and were successful in most years. Two additional pairs were reported in New York in 2000, a second pair at Perch River, and a new pair at Lake Como in southern Cayuga County (Region 3). Nesting by the latter pair was not con- firmed at the time of this writing. New York's first two nesting pairs are believed to have come from private col- lections, the most likely source being a private game bird breeder, located just north of Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge, who has had Trumpeter Swans in his possession since 1990. The breeding pair is pinioned, but cygnets produced are free-flying and able to come and go from the property. The first breeding sea- son sighting of a free-flying Trumpeter Swan in New York State occurred near there in April 1993 (NYSARC 1995). Most trumpeters begin nesting by 4-6 years of age, so that bird, and any others released at the same time, would have been sexually mature by 1996. The second pair at Perch River may be progeny of the first pair, while origin of the pair at Lake Como is anyone's guess. It is unlikely that trumpeters nesting in New York came from southern Ontario, where an active restoration program has been ongoing since 1982. More than 100 swans have been released there, and nearly all were wing-tagged before release. The first wild breeding pair in Ontario was confirmed in 1993, and by 1998, there were 16 wild nesting pairs. The release sites closest to New York 234 The Kingbird 2000 September; 50(3) were just east of Toronto (>lo0 miles from New York's nest sites), whereas the Wayne County breeder is only 20 miles from Newark and 60 miles from Perch River. Some of the Ontario birds have been seen in western New York during fall and winter, but to date, none have been seen in New York during summer. In addition to nesting birds, reports of other unmarked trumpeters in New York are becoming more common. These include four swans at Montezuma in July- August 1996, two swans on Cayuga Lake near Lansing (Tompkins County) in February 1997, and a family group (no young from that year) at Montezuma in June 1998 (K. McGowan, Cornell Univ., pers. comm.). In summer 1999, we counted a total of 14 trumpeters in New York (2 adult pairs, 6 cygnets, plus 4 non-breeding subadults). Thus it appears that the local population is growing and expanding its range. Seasonal movements of New York's nesting trumpeters are largely unknown. The Newark family group stayed near the nesting area through the winter of 1996-97 and may have in other years too. The Perch River birds may go to east- ern Lake Ontario, where swans are some times seen, but sightings have not been documented. Trumpeter Swans have not been recorded in that area during Federation Waterfowl Counts, except in 1999, when a single bird was reported. Both the Mississippi and Central flyways have approved restoration plans for the Trumpeter Swan and several states including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa and Ohio have initiated restoration programs. These efforts are producing largely resident, non-migratory populations of trumpeters. In the Atlantic Flyway no restoration plan has been approved and only Ontario has initiated a swan restoration program. Atlantic Flyway states, including New York, are more interested in establishing a migratory population of trumpeters. Therefore, the future of a restoration pro- ject in the flyway depends in part on results of ongoing experiments using ultra- light aircraft to teach young swans to migrate. A 1998 experiment using cygnets hatched from the eggs of non-migratory captive swans and imprinted on humans was unsuccessful. In 2000, a second experiment is planned using cygnets taken from, and imprinted on, wild migratory trumpeters in Alaska. Both of these experiments have been conducted by Environmental Studies at Airlie from Warrenton, Virginia and involve an attempt to teach swans to follow a predeter- mined migration route from western New York (near Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge) to Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. For information about that project, visit the website: www.trumpeterswans.org. DEC currently has a "wait and see" policy towards restoration of Trumpeter The Kingbird 2000 September; 50(3) 235 Swans in New York State. We will continue to monitor nesting and productivi- ty of wild pairs, but have not yet decided whether to encourage an active restora- tion program. Trumpeters may be desirable because they can displace Mute Swans (C. olor), which are not native to North America and sometimes displace other waterfowl species and attack people. Where trumpeter populations have been established, the birds generally seem to be more wary of people, have larg- er nesting territories, and have caused relatively few conflicts with other wildlife or human activities. Before any restoration is allowed, however, we will need to assess biological feasibility as well as public support. In the meantime, it appears that our non-migratory nesting population is grow- ing, so we may need to address this issue in the near future. We invite readers to offer their views about whether an active restoration program would be desirable. Reports of any sightings in New York State would also be appreciated. Literature Cited NYSARC. 1995 Report of the New York State Avian Records Committee 1993 Kingbird 45:7 1 Steadman, D. W. 1998 Bull's Birds of New York State, E.Levine ed. p.68 Cornell University Press The Kingbird 2000 September; 50(3) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative
    2021 GRANT SLATE Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative NFWF CONTACTS Bridget Collins Senior Manager, Private Lands and Bird Conservation, [email protected] 202-297-6759 Scott Hall Senior Scientist, Bird Conservation [email protected] 202-595-2422 PARTNERS Red knots ABOUT NFWF Chartered by Congress in 1984, OVERVIEW the National Fish and Wildlife The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Foundation (NFWF) protects and Southern Company announce a fourth year of funding for the Atlantic Flyway Shorebird restores the nation’s fish, wildlife, program. Six new or continuing shorebird conservation grants totaling nearly $625,000 plants and habitats. Working with were awarded. These six awards generated $656,665 in match from grantees, for a total federal, corporate and individual conservation impact of $1.28 million. Overall, this slate of projects will improve habitat partners, NFWF has funded more management on more than 50,000 acres, conduct outreach to more than 100,000 people, than 5,000 organizations and and will complete a groundbreaking, science-based toolkit to help managers successfully generated a total conservation reduce human disturbance of shorebirds year-round. impact of $6.1 billion. The Atlantic Flyway Shorebirds program aims to increase populations for three focal Learn more at www.nfwf.org species by improving habitat functionality and condition at critical sites, supporting the species’ full annual lifecycles. The Atlantic Flyway Shorebird business plan outlines NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS strategies to address key stressors for the American oystercatcher, red knot and whimbrel. 1133 15th Street, NW Suite 1000 approaches to address habitat loss, predation, and human disturbance.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of New England Forested Land Cover, Nutrient-Poor Frigid and Cryic Soils (Mostly Spodosols), and Numerous High-Gradient Streams and Glacial Lakes
    58. Northeastern Highlands The Northeastern Highlands ecoregion covers most of the northern and mountainous parts of New England as well as the Adirondacks in New York. It is a relatively sparsely populated region compared to adjacent regions, and is characterized by hills and mountains, a mostly Ecoregions of New England forested land cover, nutrient-poor frigid and cryic soils (mostly Spodosols), and numerous high-gradient streams and glacial lakes. Forest vegetation is somewhat transitional between the boreal regions to the north in Canada and the broadleaf deciduous forests to the south. Typical forest types include northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch), northern hardwoods/spruce, and northeastern spruce-fir forests. Recreation, tourism, and forestry are primary land uses. Farm-to-forest conversion began in the 19th century and continues today. In spite of this trend, Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and 5 level III ecoregions and 40 level IV ecoregions in the New England states and many Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, Ecological regions of North America – toward a common perspective: Montreal, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 71 p. alluvial valleys, glacial lake basins, and areas of limestone-derived soils are still farmed for dairy products, forage crops, apples, and potatoes. In addition to the timber industry, recreational homes and associated lodging and services sustain the forested regions economically, but quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states or provinces. they also create development pressure that threatens to change the pastoral character of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvest Distribution and Derivation of Atlantic Flyway Canada Geese
    Articles Harvest Distribution and Derivation of Atlantic Flyway Canada Geese Jon D. Klimstra,* Paul I. Padding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, Maryland 20708 Abstract Harvest management of Canada geese Branta canadensis is complicated by the fact that temperate- and subarctic- breeding geese occur in many of the same areas during fall and winter hunting seasons. These populations cannot readily be distinguished, thereby complicating efforts to estimate population-specific harvest and evaluate harvest strategies. In the Atlantic Flyway, annual banding and population monitoring programs are in place for subarctic- breeding (North Atlantic Population, Southern James Bay Population, and Atlantic Population) and temperate- breeding (Atlantic Flyway Resident Population [AFRP]) Canada geese. We used a combination of direct band recoveries and estimated population sizes to determine the distribution and derivation of the harvest of those four populations during the 2004–2005 through 2008–2009 hunting seasons. Most AFRP geese were harvested during the special September season (42%) and regular season (54%) and were primarily taken in the state or province in which they were banded. Nearly all of the special season harvest was AFRP birds: 98% during September seasons and 89% during late seasons. The regular season harvest in Atlantic Flyway states was also primarily AFRP geese (62%), followed in importance by the Atlantic Population (33%). In contrast, harvest in eastern Canada consisted mainly of subarctic geese (42% Atlantic Population, 17% North Atlantic Population, and 6% Southern James Bay Population), with temperate- breeding geese making up the rest. Spring and summer harvest was difficult to characterize because band reporting rates for subsistence hunters are poorly understood; consequently, we were unable to determine the magnitude of subsistence harvest definitively.
    [Show full text]
  • Age Ratios and Their Possible Use in Determining Autumn Routes of Passerine Migrants
    Wilson Bull., 93(2), 1981, pp. 164-188 AGE RATIOS AND THEIR POSSIBLE USE IN DETERMINING AUTUMN ROUTES OF PASSERINE MIGRANTS C.JOHN RALPH A principal interest of early students of passerine migration was the determination of direction, location and width of migratory routes. In such studies, it was presumed that an area where the species was most abun- dant was the main migration route. However, during fall, passerine mi- grants tend to be silent and inconspicuous, rendering censusing subjective at best. Species also differ in preferred habitat, affecting the results of censuses and the number captured by mist netting. In this study, I used the abundance of migrants with another possible criterion, their age ratios, in order to hypothesize possible migratory routes. Based upon information about species abundance in different areas, a lively debate sprang up in the past between a school favoring narrow routes and one advocating broad front migration. The former suggested that birds followed topographical features (“leading lines”) such as river valleys, coast lines and mountain ranges (Baird 1866, Palmen 1876, Winkenwer- der 1902, Clark 1912, Schenk 1922). The latter group proposed that a species migrated over a broad geographical area regardless of topograph- ical features (Gatke 1895; Cooke 1904, 1905; Geyr von Schweppenburg 1917, 1924; Moreau 1927). Thompson (1926) and later Lincoln (1935), sug- gested that both schools were probably right, depending upon the species involved. Early ornithologists were possibly misled because of the differ- ences between easily observable (and often narrow front), diurnal migra- tion and less obvious, but probably more common, nocturnal movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Species Assessment (PDF)
    WATERFOWL ASSESSMENT January 19, 2005 FINAL Andrew Weik Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Wildlife Division Wildlife Resource Assessment Section 650 State Street Bangor, Maine 04401 WATERFOWL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 10 NATURAL HISTORY..................................................................................................... 12 Taxonomy........................................................................................................... 12 Life History.......................................................................................................... 12 Breeding Ecology ............................................................................................... 13 Wintering and Migration...................................................................................... 16 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 18 Regulatory Authority ........................................................................................... 18 Past Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 18 Past and Current Management........................................................................... 22 Harvest Management ......................................................................................... 25 • Unretrieved Kill or Crippling Loss............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Conservation Business Strategy a Call to Action Phase 1
    atlantic flyway shorebird conservation business strategy A Call To Action Phase 1 June 2013 table of contents summary Summary .......................................................................... 1 The Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Conservation Business Strategy is an What is a Business Strategy? ......................................... 2 unprecedented endeavor to implement conservation for shorebirds across an Conservation Need ......................................................... 4 enormous geographic scale that involves numerous federal, state, provincial, A Flyway Approach ......................................................... 5 and local governments, conservation groups, universities, and individuals. The Focal Species .................................................................... 6 business strategy approach emphasizes the involvement of scientists, advocates, Focal Geography ............................................................. 7 funders, and other practitioners all working together for prioritized on-the- Implementing Tactical Conservation ........................... 8 ground actions that move toward specific, measurable outcomes. In short, Key Strategies ................................................................ 10 this strategy presents the needs, actions, and individuals that will recover this remarkable suite of species. Hemispheric Engagement: A Phased Approach ...... 12 Threats ............................................................................ 13 The conservation needs of these species
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Banding Fred Hartman
    Atlantic Flyway waterfowl banding Fred Hartman Here I present a summaryof 2 reportsof the Atlantic Nova Scotia 1, Prince Edward Island 2, Newfoundland Waterfowl Councilon the progressof waterfowl band- 2, and New Brunswick 13. ing in the Atlantic Flyway. Bandingwas done co-opera- Black Duck banding activity was intensified in New- tively by the ProvincialGame Departmentsof Ontario, foundland.Surveys were flown in Quebecto locatenew Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Black Duck banding sites. Island, and Newfoundland;state wildlife agenciesin the Atlantic Flyway; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Pre-seasonbanding was conductedin the Atlantic Fly- Canadian Wildlife Service; the Wildlife Management way statesalso, under the quotasestablished by the U.S. Institute;and variousprivate agencies. Fish & Wildlife Service. The stationswere, approxi- mately,ME 4, VT 2, MA 2, CT 2, RI 2, NY 12, PA 10,NJ 5, Background:The AtlanticFlyway CooperativeBanding WV 1, VA 2, DE 2, MD 5, NC 3, SC 4, GA 3, & FL 2. Programwas initiated in 1965by the Atlantic Waterfowl Councilto determinepopulation dynamics of selected The Wildlife ManagementInstitute continues to provide waterfowl speciesin easternCanada. This information administrative and financial assistance. is required to formulatewaterfowl huntingregulations and to have some knowledgeof waterfowl population levels in the Atlantic Flyway. These data are important to the states because much of their hunted waterfowl originates in Canada. The last 5-year study period ended in 1980. The Atlantic Waterfowl Council (July 1980] approved another 5-year extensionof this pro- gram, through1985. Revised banding quotaswere esta- blished and distributedby the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servicein 1980.Emphasis has been and will continueto be on Black Ducks, Wood Ducks, and Mallards.
    [Show full text]
  • ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE And
    ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE and DOMINION ENERGY TRANSMISSION, INC. SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT Implementation Plan EC19 Attachment 1 Update to the Migratory Bird Plan ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 & CP15-554-001 and DOMINION ENERGY TRANSMISSION, INC. SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT Docket No. CP15-555-000 Migratory Bird Plan Updated, Rev. 5 Prepared by September 2017 Migratory Bird Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND ................................................... 1 2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................... 1 2.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 2 3.0 MIGRATORY BIRDS POTENTIALLY UTILIZING THE PROJECT AREAS ...... 2 3.1 Species ................................................................................................................. 2 3.1.1 Nests ........................................................................................................ 3 3.1.2 Rookeries ................................................................................................. 3 3.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagles.......................................................................... 15 3.1.4 Other Avian Species ............................................................................... 15 3.2 Habitat
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Flyway Disturbance Project
    Atlantic Flyway Disturbance Project • Biological Data Collection Report • FINAL • Report prepared by • Kelsi Hunt, Daniel Gibson, & Daniel Catlin (Virginia Tech Shorebird Program) This study was funded by the National Audubon Society through a grant awarded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • With significant contributions from • Walker Golder (National Audubon Society) Ashley Dayer & Carolyn Comber (Dayer Human Dimensions Lab) James Fraser & Sarah Karpanty (Virginia Tech Shorebird Program) • With special thanks to our partners • Nova Scotia: Sue Abbot, Laura Achenbach, Jaya Fahey, Benn Himmelman, Jenn Samson, & Jonny West Maine: Lindsey Tudor & Laura Minich Zitske Connecticut: Corrie Folsom-O'Keefe, Genevieve Nuttall, Shelby Casas, Ewa Prusak, Lena Ives, Kat Hutchins, Chandler Weigand, & the Audubon Wildland Stewards New York: Susan Elbin, Kaitlyn Parkins, Amanda Pachomski, Lindsey DeLuna, & Jillian Liner North Carolina: Lindsay Addison, Curtis Smalling, & Hope Sutton South Carolina: Nolan Schillerstrom, Aija Konrad, Ed Konrad, Mike Walker, Lori Sheridan Wilson, Judy Fairchild, Peggy Lucas, Mary Beth Roy, & Jonathan Cauthen Florida: Marianne Korosy, Beth Forys, Holley Short, Chris Farrell, Pat Leary, Doris Leary, Adam DiNuovo, Robin Diaz, Mark Rachal, & Jason Sigismondi • Cover photo provided by Pat and Doris Leary • Highlights from the Atlantic Flyway Disturbance Project: Biological Data Collection Phase 1 Human disturbance is a significant threat facing shorebirds throughout the annual cycle, and threats to shorebird habitats
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Conservation Order for Light Geese in the Atlantic Flyway in 2018
    Assessing the Conservation Order for Light Geese in the Atlantic Flyway in 2018 Submitted in Fulfillment of the Reporting Requirements of the Conservation Order on Behalf of the Participating States in the Atlantic Flyway Snow Goose, Brant, and Swan Committee of the Atlantic Flyway Council Assessing the Conservation Order for Light Geese in the Atlantic Flyway in 2018 In 2018, eight Atlantic Flyway states participated in the conservation order (CO) on light geese that was established by the light goose final rule (Federal Register Vol. 73, no 227) (Table 1). States differed in their administration of the CO season. All of the states, except for New York, required participants to obtain a permit to participate. Permits were obtained either online or through the mail. Maryland also issued permits through their automated licensing system. Maryland ($5) and New Jersey ($2) charged a fee for the permit. Pennsylvania, Delaware, Vermont, North Carolina and Virginia issued free permits. Participation in New York was complimentary of existing waterfowl hunting privileges. Hunter activity was solicited through a paper hunting diary and/or online data entry administered by each state agency. Reporting of activity, regardless of participation, was required in six states that issued permits. New York surveyed a sample of people who registered in the Harvest Information Program (HIP) to estimate participation and harvest. Likewise, Maryland sampled a portion of hunters that had obtained their Snow Goose Conservation Order Permit. Follow up letters, emails, or phone calls to non-respondents were conducted in most states. Table 1. 2018 “Light Goose” harvest regulations in Atlantic Flyway states participating in the snow goose conservation order.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Flyway Multi-Stock Adaptive Harvest Management Background
    Atlantic Flyway Multi-Stock Adaptive Harvest Management Background Since 2000, the Atlantic Flyway has relied on an adaptive harvest management (AHM) strategy for eastern mallards as the basis for setting the season lengths and total bag limits for duck hunting in the Atlantic Flyway. A drawback of this strategy is that it relies on the status of one species to determine the overall regulatory package for all duck species. Several years ago, biologists realized that eastern mallards are not a good representative species of Atlantic Flyway ducks as they are not biologically representative of any of the other species and constitute less than 25% of overall harvest in the flyway. Testament to that is the fact that mallard numbers have declined 25% in the eastern North America (figure 1) and 36% in the Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Survey (AFBWS) since 1998. Over the same timeframe, all other species in eastern North America for which we have robust population estimates are stable or increasing. Consequently, the Atlantic Flyway Council and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been working together since 2011 to develop a new decision framework for determining annual duck hunting regulations in the Atlantic Flyway that is based on the collective status of four representative duck species: wood duck, American green-winged teal, ring-necked duck, and common goldeneye. Referred to as multi-stock adaptive harvest management (multi-stock), these species are used to represent the suite of waterfowl populations and habitats that governmental agencies and conservation partners are trying to conserve and protect, and together they comprise about 60% of the ducks harvested annually in the Atlantic Flyway.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Management of Canada Geese in New York State: a Departure from the Express Policies of New York's Environmental Conservation Law
    Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Fall 1995 Article 13 September 1995 Wildlife Management of Canada Geese in New York State: A Departure from the Express Policies of New York's Environmental Conservation Law Loriann Vita Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Recommended Citation Loriann Vita, Wildlife Management of Canada Geese in New York State: A Departure from the Express Policies of New York's Environmental Conservation Law , 13 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 399 (1995) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol13/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW Volume 13 Fall 1995 Number 1 COMMENT Wildlife Management of Canada Geese in New York State: A Departure from the Express Policies of New York's Environmental Conservation Law BY LojAN VITA* For generations, the sights and sounds of migratory Can- ada geese have led people to think of the far-away places from which the birds come and go. Sometimes called the aristocratof wildfowl, the Canada [goose] is seen by mil- lions of spectators at some season of the year-flying high in the air, over hill and valley, river and lake, forest and plain, country, town, and city. Our admiration of the goose is evident by its symbolic presence in our every-day lives as seen on items such as postage stamps, letterheads, paint- ings, and even on commercial aircraft.' * This Comment is dedicated to my family, for all their love, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]