<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:48615.wais]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ARCTIC SNOW GEESE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-615 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
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 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
Carolina SAM FARR, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
Christopher Mann, Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 23, 1998...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 2
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 2
Tanner, Hon. John S., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, prepared statement of.................. 29
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, prepared statement of........................... 28
Statement of Witnesses:
Batt, Bruce, Chairman, Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and
Chief Biologist, Ducks Unlimited, Inc...................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Gill, Dr. Frank, Senior Vice President, Science, National
Audubon Society............................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Holmes, Roger, Chairman, Migratory Wildlife Committee, and
Vice President, International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.......................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, letter to
Senator Gorton............................................. 53
Schmidt, Paul, Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Sparrowe, Rollin, President, Wildlife Management Institute... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Additional material supplied:
Canadian Wildlife Service, prepared statement of............. 56
Chretien, Ambassador Raymond, prepared statement of.......... 55
Grandy, John W., Ph.D., prepared statement of................ 42
Putten, Mark Van, President, National Wildlife Federation.... 41
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ARCTIC SNOW GEESE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources, Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [acting chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. [presiding] The Subcommittee will come to
order. Good afternoon. The purpose of today's hearing is to
discuss the ongoing destruction of the Arctic tundra by lesser
snow geese, and H. Con. Res. 175, introduced by Duncan Hunter
and Duke Cunningham.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, whose
biologists have been monitoring the snow geese population since
1948, there has been a dramatic increase in snow geese, from
800,000 in 1969, to five million today. This huge population
increase has reduced thousands of acres of once thickly
vegetated salt and fresh water marsh to a virtual desert. This
has had the net effect of driving other species out and
destroying valuable habitat.
Under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service has tried
to address the problem of overabundance by increasing hunting
opportunities. Despite liberalizing hunting regulations, the
population continues to increase by at least 5 percent each
year. This increase is causing irreparable damage to fragile
Arctic ecosystems.
House Con. Resolution 175 expresses the sense of Congress
that there is a need for a comprehensive management strategy to
save the tundra from excessive deprivation by mid-continent
snow geese. It also directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to
take comprehensive action to reduce the population of mid-
continent snow geese to levels that can be supported without
the destruction of tundra ecosystems, and are consistent with
sound biological management principles.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. Mr.
Tanner was to be one of our witnesses, but unfortunately his
mother passed away, so he can't make it here today. Does Mr.
Pallone have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the phenomena
and I know that in New Jersey they've also tried to have, you
know, greater amounts of hunting seasons to try to deal with
the problem, and apparently that has not had a lot of success
in New Jersey as well, so I can certainly relate to the
problem. But I understand there's no consensus on the best
approach at this point to solve the issue, so I will be
interested in hearing what Mr. Cunningham and the others would
say on the issue. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sam, you want to say anything?
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although this is not
something that's affecting our back yard in California, it is
affecting the nation's back yard. I would hope in the testimony
to learn two things I couldn't pull out from reading the
resolution. As I understand it, the geese are born in Canada
and they come back to the tundra there to breed, and there's a
big problem with the excessive degradation of the tundra
nesting habitat.
But it seems to me, if you're going to have a comprehensive
management strategy, you're going to have to, one, involve the
Canadians, because the geese originate there and go back there.
And two, how do you determine that the geese we hunt in this
coutry are from an area of Canadian tundra that is being
destroyed? Is there a causal connection between what you're
doing, the management program, the hunting program down here,
and the habitat destruction in Canada? Are they the same geese,
or are they different flocks? Are we really dealing with the
tundra problem? That wasn't clear in the resolution, and I'd
appreciate perhaps if we could hear that in the testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I'll make a quick comment about
the snow geese. Fifteen, twenty years ago, you would be hard-
pressed to find snow geese on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Right now, and I know the snow geese that we see on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland are not from the same flyway as the kind of
snow geese we're talking about today, but the snow geese on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland now pretty much rival the Canada
geese, so there is a huge increase. And not only are they
rivaling the Canada geese, but also they are beginning to move
the Canada geese out of their traditional grounds on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland.
While we've had a 5-year moratorium, I think we're in the
third or fourth year now of the Canada geese, you can hunt snow
geese from September to January, 5 a day, 6 days a week, not on
Sunday. And people don't--it's very difficult to hunt the snow
geese in the same way that it would be difficult to shoot a
swarm of bees. The Canada geese come down in a beautiful V-
shape, they're easy to decoy, not that I want to do it any more
because I can go to the grocery store, so I like to see them
fly, but people do and that's fine. But when the Canada geese
come down--and they come down, they swirl around like bees, and
if you spook them up, they're not going to come back for a
while, they'll land someplace else. So they're very difficult
to hunt.
So I think, to a great extent, this legislation is
important, and Duke, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like
to thank you, and I hope I can answer Mr. Farr's and Mr.
Pallone's questions in the testimony.
First of all, you know about our colleague, Mr. Tanner. I
lost my dad a couple years ago, and I understand the pain that
he's going through, and I'm sorry that he can't be here. He is
the co-chairman, with myself, of the sportsman's caucus, and we
will miss his presentation. Congressman Hunter, who just
arrived, is always late, so that's excusable.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cunningham. Hi, Duncan. But we miss Mr. Tanner, and Mr.
Hunter is also on the sportsman's caucus.
Secondly, I empathize with Mr. Pallone with the Canadian
geese up in New Jersey, because, as you're well aware on the
Eastern Shore, they've not been able to hunt Canadians for the
last three years. They say that they were immature Canadians
and they wanted them to grow, but it also affects other
portions of the country. So this does tie in, as well, with the
Canadian geese.
I would say that what we've done, much like you have done,
Mr. Chairman, on the tuna-dolphin bill. We've gone with a
working group of a diverse group. We've included environmental
groups, private groups, hunting groups, to sit and look at a
real problem we have, and I think that's the reason why we're
going to have success within the program itself.
And if you look at the tundra, where over 200 species of
birds feed, and nest, and propagate, it is a desert. There are
areas in which they can't feed, they can't nest, and it's not
only going to decimate the snow geese. It's going to decimate
the environment and the other species that live and propagate
off this portion of the land itself.
But the working groups--we've got U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
Canadian wildlife services, State wildlife agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and it's documented within this
text that I have. I'd be happy to give a copy to the Committee,
on what the recommendations are. And again, this is a very
diverse group that sat down and said, we've got a problem, how
do we fix it in a very partisan-like way. And I'm proud of that
working group and what they've been able to accomplish.
Mr. Gilchrest. Duke, would you like--I could ask unanimous
consent that that document be put into the record.
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, I'd like to do that, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Cunningham. ``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the
Goose Habitat Working Group--A special publication of the
Arctic Goose Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.''
And it'd be available for anybody that would like to read
it. It's 118 pages, and I think it will point out some good
things.
What's happened is that there's about a 50 percent increase
on the snow geese, and they've decimated--I mean, absolutely,
completely decimated about 35 percent of tundra. And if you
look at it, we have pictures in the book, and I think we've got
some posters, that show just how devastating this is. Over half
of it has been damaged, besides the 35 percent. And if we allow
this to go in the same order, that over 200 other species of
birds--not just birds, but other wildlife that depend on the
tundra--will be decimated in the fragile Arctic ecosystem
itself.
The working group has a final goal of reduction of snow
geese by about 50 percent. Now, I would tell you that the
Canadians have come up with some pretty extreme measures,
including poisoning, napalming, everything across the board to
decimate these birds, which is totally unacceptable, I think,
to most Americans, and most any group to get rid of the birds.
But it is destroying their homeland and they want to get rid of
them.
The working group has come up with some pretty good areas.
Hunters count for about 68 percent of the harvesting of these
animals, and that's one way, but that's only a part of the
solution. We want to encourage more people, like you say, to
extend the hunting season, to allow us to go into areas where
we haven't gone--refuge systems, and areas to where they
reside. But including that is a better information system to
our cities, to people that hunt, for example, on Internet, or
the Fish and Wildlife, to let people know, as you--as the
chairman mentioned, these are pretty wary birds. They're
difficult to hunt, they're smart, they even see a glint of
something and they're gone. They go to another area. So just
knowing where they are, and the way to do that is very, very
helpful.
I would say the direct control, which is an alternative, is
of last. That's from trapping, netting, even poisoning and some
of the other things that I've mentioned before. But the area in
which I think we can really work together to help this is, look
at the management system for not just snow geese, but for the
rest of it, because the Canadians, along with the snow geese
and 200 other birds' habitat in this specific area.
I think the American sportsman has stepped up to the plate
in many, many areas. The fees, the licenses, have gone to
purchase additional lands, in which we'll help. There's such
things that we can recommend, like, for example, putting in
feed lots for the birds in the tundra area, which will attract
the birds while the tundra is able to restore itself. To keep
the birds away from tundra, there's noisemakers, there's other
things that we can do that are all recommendations within the
report itself.
But I thank the Committee for looking at this. It's an area
in which I think we can, like the oceans bill, we can support
unanimously with the different efforts, because they save the
ecosystem, they work with wildlife management, based on a
scientific plan, and that's based from a very diverse group
itself.
And I yield back the balance of my time, and would yield to
my colleague, my late colleague, Mr. Hunter.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]
Statement of Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Subcommittee Chairman Saxton, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for offering me the opportunity to speak on the
``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril'' report. As Co-Chairman of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and an avid hunter, I believe
that today's hearing will provide this Committee a glimpse at
the success of our nation's waterfowl management programs.
We are here today to address the Arctic Goose Habitat
Working Group report ``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril.'' The Arctic
Goose Joint Venture Technical Committee formed the Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group to establish a scientific approach to the
problem of habitat degradation on the Canadian tundra. The
working group contained representatives from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife service, several state
wildlife agencies, and nongovernmental conservation
organizations.
This well documented 118-page report shows that across
Canada, lesser snow geese have permanently destroyed as much as
35 percent of their nesting habitat; severely ``damaged''
another 30 percent so badly that it no longer will serve as a
reliable food source; and the remaining 35 percent of habitat
is beginning to show signs of overpopulation stress. If this
trend is not checked and reversed, the geese populations will
be in serious jeopardy of catastrophic collapse.
Simultaneously, this habitat destruction is severely
impacting 200 other species of birds and wildlife that share
the fragile arctic ecosystem.
The working group report recommends that we should
establish a goal of reducing the snow goose population by
between 5-15 percent per year, toward a final goal of a 50
percent reduction by 2005.
To reach this goal, I believe that hunters can and must be
a part of the solution. Right now hunters account for 68
percent of adult snow goose mortality. Because snow geese are
most susceptible to harvest during their migration and in
winter, American hunters and waterfowl managers have a
responsibility to craft solutions to this problem.
The Working Group report offers recommendations that they
believe will increase the annual recreational harvest. These
recommendations include the use of electronic callers,
increased access to refuges and private lands, longer hunting
seasons, and review of laws regarding shell limits, creeping,
and baiting.
While we should examine all of those recommendations and
will likely increase the take of hunters, I believe that we
should use this opportunity to encourage more people to begin
hunting.
The working group report discussed several programs that
might accomplish that goal. These programs should focus on
giving people who live in our suburban neighborhoods
opportunities to return to the outdoors and enjoy hunting.
In addition, I believe that states should consider
expanding informational resources hunters can use to track and
hunt snow geese. In my southern California coastal district,
surfers use the Internet to track surf and weather. State
wildlife agencies or regional sportsmen's groups could begin a
similar Internet-based update program for hunters of snow
geese. Such a program would allow farmers and waterfowl
managers to report areas where geese remain for an extended
period. They could publish these reports on the Internet,
allowing hunters to plan trips with a greater likelihood of
success.
Even if we initiate these solutions, there is a chance that
recreational hunting cannot solve the problem. Such failure
would force state and Federal agencies to initiate ``direct
control'' through trapping, netting or even more severe
alternatives.
For that reason, it is important that we begin to take
action now. Rep. Hunter and I have introduced H.Con.Res 175,
which lends Congress' support to the need for immediate action
to develop a comprehensive management strategy to save the
vital tundra ecosystem of North America.
America's sportsmen have always responded when called upon
to conserve our nation's resources. Sportsmen's dollars,
through the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux fees,
established the refuges used by these waterfowl. American
sportsmen stand ready to help solve the problem facing the
Canadian arctic tundra.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hunter. Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's a pleasure to
be here with my good, good friend and fellow conservationist,
Duke Cunningham, and I'm glad that he had the foresight and the
wisdom to co-sponsor my bill. He's a good man.
But, seriously, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned, as I think
most Americans are about wildlife and their well-being. Our
waterfowl populations are, generally speaking, on a rebound
throughout the country. A great of deal of that should be
credited to people who hunt and fish in this country. As you
know, as a resident of the Eastern Shore, who also is a great
conservationist, these hunters buy licenses, they pay in taxes
under Pittman-Robinson for wetlands that are developed, and as
a result of that, are conservationists in the tradition of
Teddy Roosevelt. And Mr. Chairman, I commend you for everything
that you've done, because you've done a lot.
But in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, we've really
brought back a lot of wildlife species, and this is an unusual
problem, because we brought back the snow goose to numbers that
are now detrimental to the environment. And the interesting
thing about the Arctic tundra, particularly around Hudson Bay,
which is being decimated by this five million goose population
of mid-continent, lesser snow geese, is that tundra is
irreplaceable. We can go in other places in the continent, we
can build nesting ponds, we can excavate sloughs and marshes.
You can't replace tundra. And in these places where we've made
the test, where the snow geese have overgrazed the tundra,
we'll actually have a fence around a piece of tundra, so it's a
place where we can see the difference between places that are
being grazed by the geese and places that are fenced off. The
fenced off areas have not come back, Mr. Chairman. And it looks
like some of it may be permanently damaged, which is very
tragic.
But the second tragedy, and the compounding of this
tragedy, would be if we don't do anything about it. Now, as
Duke said, you've got about five million snow geese, so they've
increased, these mid-continent and lesser snow geese have
increased in numbers, from 900,000 to over 5 million between
1969 and the present day. The problem is further compounded by
the fact that you have very smart birds. The average age now of
a snow goose is about 8 years old. They're very wary. They tend
to congregate in very large flocks. And they know when to find
a refuge.
So the alternatives that Duke laid out, particularly of
poisoning in their nesting grounds, is, I think, something that
most Americans don't want to see. And the answer has to be a
marriage, or a partnership between sportsmen and
environmentalists who do most of the harvesting of snow geese
in this country.
And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, these snow geese go to
families who enjoy geese, not just having a goose for
Thanksgiving or Christmas, but it's excellent table fare. It
goes to feed people. We have programs, Food for the Hungry for
example, that sportsmen run, so if we shoot, if we increase our
harvest of snow geese in the United States, we're going to see
that resource, that food, that meat go to people who can use
it. We've done an excellent job of doing that in the past with
all types of wildlife, from deer on down. We can do that with
snow geese. That's much preferable to poisoning snow geese in
their nesting grounds as a last, desperate attempt to keep them
from destroying the Arctic tundra.
So our bill, the bill that Duke and I are offering, says to
the Fish and Wildlife, we're behind you. Let's get on with this
business of reducing the snow goose population, from the five
million numbers that we are experiencing to something that can
be biologically supported, and the expert evidence is to the
effect that that's about 2.5 million birds. Now, to do that,
we're going to need probably to extend seasons. We're going to
need to--that means that the season, instead of ending, say,
January 30, or January 15 in most of the snow goose areas, and
that's about, that's where the latest seasons run, generally,
only to the end of January, extending those seasons.
It also means educating farmers, so if one farmer has
60,000 snow geese on his particular ranch or farm, he allows
Fish and Wildlife to go in, and either let hunters come in and
hunt them, or disturb them so they will move off into areas
where they can be harvested, where they can be taken. So it
involves an education program in the communities where snow
geese congregate.
It also involves our wildlife hunting areas that are
maintained by the State and by the Federal Governments, where
you have great congregations of snow geese, and these smart
birds find out where they can't be shot. But it's going to
involve seeing to it that those wildlife managers that manage
that area are given, I think, a quota of birds to be reduced,
and that they develop a hunting pattern or a hunting blueprint
that will allow America's sportsmen to come in and take the
requisite number of birds that will allow the Arctic tundra to
be saved, and to have that certain ratio or number of birds
harvested from their particular area of responsibility.
So this has to be a partnership between lots of folks who
haven't necessarily been partners before, and that includes the
sporting community, the hunting community, the fishing
community, and the community that's just concerned about
wildlife, like the Audubon Society, the Humane Society, and
other groups that want to see not only the snow geese survive
as a species, but also the other 200 species of birds that Duke
mentioned that also share that nesting ground. Every time an
acre of Arctic tundra is permanently destroyed, it's destroyed
not just for the snow goose, it's destroyed for every single
nesting specie that utilizes that particular type of habitat.
So, Mr. Chairman, this bill urges Fish and Wildlife to move
forward promptly, put this blueprint in place, and start this
very, very important conservation process of bringing these
numbers down to a biologically sustainable level and a
manageable level.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, incidentally, thank you for
all of the great conservation work that you do in this House,
and the great stewardship that you have undertaken for fish and
wildlife not only nationally, in your role as chairman, but
also in your home State of Maryland. I very much respect that
record, I think you've got a great record there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[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 present 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 depredation 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. Additionally, an extension of the harvest of
snow geese for southern hunters beyond the current restrictions
(March 10) in the Migratory Bird Treaty should be considered as
well. Though some conservation groups may consider these
actions as severe, complacency can only be characterized as
irresponsible.
It is for this reason that I, along with my colleague Randy
``Duke'' Cunningham, have introduced H.Con.Res. 175. This
resolution expresses the sense of Congress that immediate
action must be taken to address this growing problem.
Specifically, H.Con.Res. 175 calls upon 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 and, at the same time, prevent further
destruction of the tundra ecosystem. This includes the
development of a comprehensive management strategy, the
liberalization of hunting frameworks and the modification of
public land management practices. It is our firm belief that by
taking these actions now, we can save the North American tundra
and the mid-continent lesser snow geese for the future.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify
today regarding these important matters.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Cunningham.
I think the group that has been assembled to look at this
problem, to sit down and exchange information on solutions, and
have a tolerance for each other's opinions, can go a long way
into not only solving the problem of the devastation in the
tundra, but continuing to understand the balance of nature, how
ecosystems work, and how we, through human activity, can, for
the most part, have a positive impact instead of a negative
impact. So I really appreciate your effort and your work on
this.
Duke?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I've given Mr.
Farr the copy of the book that we entered into the record, but
you can see just how devastating this has been to the
ecosystem. The revenue from the additional permits to harvest
these birds could be used for not only to save the land itself,
it can be used--like, as I mentioned, as feed plots--it can be
used to recondition the land and to even purchase other lands,
which I think is very important also.
On a personal note, I don't know if the chairman's aware a
good friend of yours, Joe Judge, in which these Canadians
affect the crops on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, has been
diagnosed with cancer.
Mr. Gilchrest. Joe?
Mr. Cunningham. Joe is undergoing chemo and radiation
treatment. He is a good friend of yours as well as ours, and I
didn't know if you were aware of that.
Mr. Gilchrest. No, I wasn't. Thanks, Duke, for telling me
that.
Mr. Farr, any questions for the witnesses?
Mr. Farr. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I notice in the
resolved clause og H.Con.Res. 175, that it is the sense of
Congress of the United States, that the Fish and Wildlife
Service, together with its State flyway council partners should
take action. Do those council partners include the Canadians?
Are they in on this?
Mr. Hunter. Yes, this is intended to take in the Canadians
and the Mexicans, because Mexico, to some degree, hosts
populations of snow geese. But primarily, our overall plan is
intended to work with them, Mr. Farr. In terms of managing our
conservation practices, however, whether we extend limits,
whether we liberalize the hunting areas, or extend seasons, for
example, that's something that we can't affect in Mexico and in
Canada. In other words, they are working with Canadians and
Mexicans right now, but in terms of us coming up with a
conservation plan that we can oversee, it can only be done in
the continental United States. That's where our jurisdiction
is.
Mr. Farr. As you know, I have no duck in this hunt. But the
issue here, I think, is that the problem is a tundra problem,
degradation of the tundra in Canada. And then you're suggesting
that this selective reduction of the flock is the solution--
using more efficient technology, and including modification of
management practices--which essentially we control on our
ground in this country. It gets back to the issue of how much
of the tundra is being damaged--and how you're really going to
solve the tundra problem. If that is the problem, then where is
the causal connection that----
Mr. Hunter. Well, here----
Mr. Farr. Needs to be there. The article you just gave me
also says that weather has a lot to do with it. If you're going
to allow more egg harvesting and collection, then maybe you
don't have to reduce by hunting. Also, do the revenues derived
from this hunting go back into this effort, or do they stay
with the States that sell the hunting license?
Mr. Hunter. Well, here's what you have. First, the hunting
license thing, we have a Federal duck stamp that you buy if
you're a hunter. That Federal wildlife stamp was introduced
back in the 1930's, and that goes to Federal wildlife projects.
So we can have--so you have increased moneys that come back
through the waterfowl stamp process, and the more people who
are enjoying that sport, the more revenue you have.
But my point is that the snow geese are a product, really,
of the great grain harvests and grain planting in the United
States in the Midwest. This is a mid-continent, lesser snow
goose problem. The snow geese in my State in California come
from the Wrangell Islands, and that's--they're a stable
population right now. What has happened is that we have these
enormous grain harvests right now, as a result of our
agriculture practices. So these birds come back to the Hudson
Bay, in another country, in incredibly good condition. You have
very little winter mortality or spring mortality because they
come back very big, very strong, very robust, because they've
been eating prime American grain all the way down the flyway.
As a result of that, they have big broods, and so you had this
increase from what was considered the stable population in 1969
of 900,000 snow geese, to over five million today.
They've increased their numbers by 500 percent. So, while
the effect is in another country, that is the total destruction
of about 10 percent of the tundra around Hudson Bay to date--
and, we're afraid, permanent destruction--the cause is the
great grain factories of the United States that send these
birds back to their nesting ground in extremely robust
condition, and the result of that is having big hatches.
Now, the Canadians tell us they may have to start
poisoning. They don't want to lose these nesting grounds
either, they don't want to lose the tundra. And, once again,
the tundra's not something that can be replaced somewhere else,
like you can replace a marsh, or you can mitigate the
destruction of wetlands. So the only way to take these birds in
a way that they can be utilized, that is where the meat can be
used, is by hunters and their families--I'm a hunter myself,
it's a tradition in my family. On Thanksgiving dinner, for
example, we'll often have all wild game. American families, and
the chairman can vouch for this on the Eastern Shore, American
families enjoy their wild game. Snow goose is good to eat, and,
you know, it's as much a product of our grain fields in the
Midwest as the geese, as the domestic geese and turkeys and
ducks that we raise domestically. They're very good eating.
What we can do is take these excess birds and have a
program where if you come off of a refuge, and that refuge has
taken, say, a thousand snow geese in a given period of time,
they can have Food for the Hungry. Many sportsmen have food for
the hungry programs, we have a number of them throughout the
United States, where if you don't want to take back five or 10
snow geese, if that's more than your family needs, you deposit
with the Salvation Army or another entity these snow geese, and
they help to feed hungry people. So we don't waste them. That's
a lot better than poisoning them in the tundra.
Mr. Farr. I don't think I disagree with a lot of the things
you've said, but what the bill really speaks to is the tundra
ecosystem problem.
Mr. Hunter. Yes.
Mr. Farr. But most of your statement addresses the need to
increase the hunting of these geese. Can you tighten this bill?
You told me just now, in your statement, that the problem
wasn't a California problem. But the bill says that you could
modify the management practices on public lands for any lesser
snow goose. Is that what the name of these are?
Mr. Hunter. The mid-continent doesn't exist in California.
Ours are from the Wrangell Islands in California.
Mr. Farr. But your bill doesn't speak to that.
Mr. Hunter. Well, I mean, the only place where you're going
to manage them is where you have the problems. I mean, what
we're doing is we're urging Fish and Wildlife to develop a
blueprint and execute the blueprint. And what Fish and Wildlife
will tell you is there's about a dozen refuges in the Midwest
that have enormous populations of snow geese during the
migration--the winter migration. And if they develop a plan
whereby they direct a refuge manager to harvest so many birds
on that particular piece of land, and you have that as part of
a bigger blueprint, then that will achieve an overall
reduction.
So the answer is, Sam, the way that you effect the
reduction in the flock--there's only two ways that it can be
done. One is to take the snow geese when they are--and increase
the harvest, which right now is about, between 400 and 500,000
birds a year, which is not enough. Increase that harvest to
several million, and utilize the meat for people who like to
eat it, which is a reasonable thing to do; or poison the
nesting ground, which is what some Canadians are proposing. We
think that's the most repugnant of alternatives, but if we
don't do something, we're going to be in trouble.
Mr. Farr. Your bill says, though, that you should use the
most efficient technology. You might say that poisoning them is
more efficient technology than hunting them, which, I don't
think you want to do.
Mr. Hunter. Well, you know, we put technologies--see, that
addresses the Lower 48. I would--we're trying to give some
discretion to Fish and Wildlife. But, I'll tell you, if Fish
and Wildlife said, we're going to poison birds on refuges, let
me tell you this is one Member who would be moving immediately
to try to stop that. I think that would be terrible.
Mr. Cunningham. Sam, one of the problems, if you use that
technology, it may not be the most efficient, because you're
going to poison birds besides just those that the other species
that are there. And that's why we reject the Canadian plan.
Mr. Farr. What I'm trying to do is tighten your bill so
that it has more of causal connection. This is a general
hearing on the bill and not a mark-up, isn't it?
Mr. Gilchrest. A general hearing, Sam.
Mr. Farr. OK, then----
Mr. Cunningham. Listen, we're willing to hear all kinds of
things, and I think the bottom line is if we affect the
population in the United States, and in Mexico, when they do go
back up to the tundra, that there's lesser numbers to
proliferate the tundra up there.
Mr. Farr. I've always supported game management. I think
we've done it well in California, in big horn sheep. There were
battles in the State legislature when I served there, and we
always tried to make it, you know, practical management. In
California, the State you're both from, we don't do these
trophy fees, because our State constitution says that the game
belongs to everyone. So you can't, for example, auction off a
hunt for very high fees, which other States have been able to
do. I don't know whether that's good or bad.
I think the more revenue you can turn back into the whole
fish and game management system the better. I'm not a hunter,
but I support the duck stamp program. Do you want to bring that
revenue back into it?
Mr. Cunningham. Oh, yes.
Mr. Farr. Are you sure that this is tight enough to do what
you want to do?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, yes, we are, and that revenue is used
even today. This just increases the revenue for ecosystem
management and good conservation practice. Another question you
had when we spoke up there is, how do you know, first of all,
in say the Salton Sea, I'm not going to be shooting this kind
of goose, because it's not there. I do know a story--matter of
fact, I was on the Eastern Shore with my friend the chairman,
and a gentleman walked up to the game warden, and he had a
goose whose neck hung clear to the ground. Well, it wasn't a
goose, it was a swan, which is totally illegal.
Another area was in the California newspapers, the
gentleman asked the ranger, said, if I catch a deer, can I keep
it? Well, of course, they laughed and said, yes, if you catch a
mule deer, we'll let you keep it. Well, they went out to the
truck, and this guy had stolen some farmer's goat, thought it
was a deer. I mean that problem, you're never going to get rid
of, but most of the people who hunt are aware of the actual
species, and these, you know, are very difficult birds to hunt,
and they're in specific areas, so it makes it much easier to
have a management plan.
Mr. Hunter. Sam, also, I understand what you're trying to
do, and that's to put some specifics in this thing that make it
tighter. What we intended to do here was to, because we think
the Fish and Wildlife are fairly efficient and effective in
their business, was to given them broad discretion. But
certainly what I intended when we put in this language
technological capability was things like, for example, these
noise machines that would scare the geese if they were
congregated in a particular area and you couldn't harvest them.
Fish and Wildlife could go in and put in some type of
noisemakers that would disperse them so that they could be
harvested. But certainly I didn't contemplate poisoning.
My point is that it's your bill now, and if you folks think
that specific directions are in order to Fish and Wildlife,
we're certainly in accord with that. This is going to take a
lot of common sense, Sam. I think with our Fish and Wildlife
experts here in Washington sitting down and listening, I think
they need to listen to the wildlife managers throughout the
Midwest, and kind of ask them their opinion. How many birds
should we take per refuge, how do we best get the story out to
the farmers, what kind of program do we have to make sure no
meat is wasted, and do that type of thing.
And U.S. Fish & Wildlife were consulted, my staff reminded
me, we talked with them a lot before we put this together. They
wanted a broad brush, broad mandate, if you will. And, as you
know, we do that sometimes with agencies we really trust. Other
agencies, we write everything down in the fine print. And I've
always thought of Fish and Wildlife as an agency that has quite
a bit of common sense and can figure this out if they come to
the conclusion that Congress has a mandate to reduce these
populations, and that we're behind them.
But if you think, if the Committee in its wisdom thinks
that more detail is needed, and specific direction is needed,
we're not adverse--we're not against that.
Mr. Cunningham. One other thing I'd say to my colleague,
Mr. Farr. There's a provision, or one of the recommendations I
totally disagree with, and it's more practical than anything.
And that's to increase the number of shells you can hold in the
magazine. Right now, almost any wild birds you hunt, you can
only carry three shells. You have to have a plug in your
shotgun, unless you've got an over-and-under, which you only
carry two, or a side-by-side shotgun.
The practical reason is I know that quite often when you're
hunting snow geese, there are other geese or other birds. You
can hunt ducks, for example. Which says you can only have three
shells in your gun. If you've got somebody next to you that's
got ducks in the blind, and you've got somebody that's got snow
geese in the blind, a game warden can come up and say, hey
look, and fine the guy that doesn't have three shells in the
chamber. I see a problem there, or even taking your shotgun
hunting goose one day, and going out and shooting quail or
something the next day, and forgetting to put the plug back in
your gun. I think you're going to have excessive violations
because of that, and not what this intended for. So there's
different areas in there I think we can tighten up.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Farr. Gentlemen, I appreciate
your testimony.
I'm just going to make one quick statement that I've read
that might help Mr. Farr out a little bit as far as the
process, and how we work with the Canadians.
The Canadian ambassador to the United States, I'm not sure
if I'm going to pronounce the name right, Raymond Chretien.
I'll just read two of many statements. ``Some of the more
extreme ideas, such as the use of chemicals delivered into
breeding colonies by aircraft are clearly unacceptable. From
considerations of humaneness, damage to non-target species, and
ineffectiveness of the use of the chemicals.'' And then he goes
on to describe some of the more traditional ways of reducing or
managing this particular type of wildlife.
I think there's been a number of suggestions made here
today, or at least some comments have been made here today
about the management of this huge volume of snow geese. But
what I see coming out of, at least the United States and
Canada, and I'm sure Mexico as well, are those kinds of
traditional ways to manage a flock, manage wildlife, while
protecting the other species, and also protecting the ecosystem
in general. So I think we're moving along pretty well.
And, gentlemen, thank you very much for coming this
afternoon. Mr. Hunter and Mr. Cunningham, you're welcome any
time in Kennedyville.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Is the canoe
still in the loft?
Mr. Gilchrest. The canoe is still there, Duncan, it's right
down there.
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Gilchrest. You just beware of the beaver.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Gilchrest. The next panel will be Mr. Paul Schmidt,
Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Dr. Rollin Sparrowe, President, Wildlife
Management Institute; Dr. Bruce Batt, Chairman, Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group and Chief Biologist, Ducks Unlimited; Mr.
Roger Holmes, Chairman, Migratory Wildlife Committee and Vice
President, International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies; he's accompanied by Mr. Richard Bishop, Chief, Bureau
of Wildlife, Iowa Department of Natural Resources; Dr. Frank
Gill, Senior Vice President, Science, National Audubon Society.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your attendance here this
afternoon. I would ask the indulgence of the witnesses if Dr.
Rollin Sparrowe may go first with his testimony, because he has
to leave at three to catch an airplane. Dr. Sparrowe.
STATEMENT OF ROLLIN SPARROWE, PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE
Mr. Sparrowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Arctic nesting
goose stakeholders committee is a distinct group from the
working group that filed the major report that you were
discussing earlier. My primary role in testifying today is to
clarify the nature of that group and its deliberations, and its
contributions. I have included the report of that stakeholders
group as a part of my testimony for the record. It includes, I
think, some interesting perspectives from a wide array of
participants.
I want to point out that this was not an official group
representing any entity. Because this issue became one of
considerable interest, I asked a group of people to come
together on an international basis to discuss it at some
length. Our Institute often serves as kind of a gathering place
for discussing issues such as this. Participation was
voluntary; the expenses were paid by each of the participants;
and while not everyone who was asked to participate did, nor
did we ask every group across both Canada and the United
States, we had a wide array of interest groups directly
involved. We communicated with many others by issuing drafts
and our final report. I believe the participants included a
very wide array of viewpoints, and that everyone had a
considerable opportunity to look at the information base and
respond to it.
The basic information used by the participants included the
report, ``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril, a Report of the Arctic
Goose Habitat Working Group.'' But, probably more importantly,
the working group, the stakeholders committee, had access to
all of the experts, key scientists from both the United States
and Canada, on several occasions to hear detailed briefings
about the substance in the basic reports and research findings,
and to ask any questions and have interchange as they wished.
We provided extra evening briefings for those who caught up
with us late in some of the meetings, so that everyone was on
an equal basis of information.
This included the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Canadian
Wildlife Service, the Animal Damage Control people from USDA,
representatives from three of the flyway councils, the American
Museum of Natural History, Ducks Unlimited, and any other
organizations.
I think it's important to note that the stakeholders
committee didn't treat this as a hunting issue. This is an
issue of a wildlife population grown beyond the capacity of its
habitat. The information we saw in reports and was presented to
us by the various experts generally convinced this stakeholders
committee that there is a serious problem that requires
direction action that should begin now.
The group concluded that the degradation of habitats around
Hudson Bay is well documented, and affects not only geese, but
many other species. They called for a long-term plan that
includes both habitat measures on migration and wintering
routes, as well as attention to the size of the population. In
general, the stakeholders group endorsed the intent of the
larger working group report, to make a sizable reduction in the
population as a major part of the management activity. At the
same time, there are habitat management plans being drafted for
work on migration and wintering areas, and I'm sure that you
will hear about those in testimony from others on this panel.
Hunting was recognized as one of the most cost-effective
tools available to managers, if employed in concert with other
actions. While there were some specific actions about hunting
practices which were recommended for consideration and are in
the report that I have filed as part of my testimony, all of
those actions would occur only through legal, public processes,
and the stakeholders groups, each organization, reserved the
right to look at any specific action proposed by the agencies
and respond to it.
Finally, the key question asked in the invitation to speak
was ``why not allow nature to take its course?'' On balance,
the stakeholders committee found that this indeed is not a
naturally occurring problem, and they felt that allowing lesser
snow geese to continue to expand unchecked and literally eat
their breeding habitat, and then presumably die off in large
numbers, would be irresponsible. Many experts believe long-term
habitat damage would likely be so severe that natural recovery
could not occur.
While hunting programs are not guaranteed to solve the
whole problem, they have been the key to reducing or building
other goose flocks in America. They address adult survival
directly, which is a key biological and management fact. Mr.
Chairman, the stakeholders committee will likely reconvene in
the future to examine progress. A continued involvement by a
wide array of groups seems to be a healthy thing to watch this
very difficult management problem evolve. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Sparrowe. It's five to three,
so at any time if you wanted to, we appreciate your testimony,
but we don't want you to miss your plane.
Mr. Sparrowe. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sparrowe may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Paul Schmidt.
STATEMENT OF PAUL SCHMIDT, CHIEF, OFFICE OF MIGRATORY BIRD
MANAGEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Schmidt. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your support in this conservation effort, as well as
others. Today, I'm, as you indicated, I'm chief of the
migratory bird management program for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and here to talk about the challenge we have in front
of us.
North American geese are a natural resource, as you know,
of enormous economic and social value. In fact, migratory game
bird hunting alone, economic activity is over four billion
dollars annually. And that doesn't include the billions more
contributed to local and regional economies from birdwatchers
and other non-consumptive use.
But the challenges we face in the management of over twenty
populations of geese are fairly significant these days. And, in
fact, we have a case of--in some cases too many, and in some
cases too few. The overabundance of this mid-continent lesser
Canada snow goose is one of the more critical challenges we
face. That population, as you're aware, has increased
substantially since 1969 to now between four and a half and six
million birds. The Service believes that the snow goose
population has exceeded the carrying capacity of its breeding
habitat, and the population must be reduced the avoid the long-
term consequences that we're already seeing. That includes
impacts to other species and the ecosystem in general.
An indicator of the degradation is a narrow strip of 1,200
miles of prime nesting habitat along the west Hudson Bay. Of
this 135,000 acres, 47,000 acres are considered destroyed,
41,000 damaged, and 47,000 heavily grazed. Other Arctic
habitats may be suffering the same fate, as existing snow geese
colonies expand and new colonies are established.
The Service believes that population control by hunters
should be considered before using more direct control measures,
such as trapping and culling commercial harvest, and other
methods. These more direct control methods may be necessary,
but should be only considered after it's been proven that these
changes to the migratory bird regulations have not been
successful. These direct control measures are highly
controversial and costly.
The Service has been trying to stabilize the growth of this
population for some time. Back several years ago, the Service
increased the bag limit on snow geese in the mid-continent area
to 10 birds, expanded the season to 107 days. Although the
harvest has not increased sufficiently to reduce the population
growth rate, the Service believes that this management tool
still has the potential to be effective if it's aggressively
expanded. The Service believes this management intervention is
necessary and a credible alternative.
Without that, we're going to continue to see degradation of
the habitat and other wildlife species affected. Research has
already shown the decline of other bird populations in some of
these badly degraded areas. It's possible that the snow goose
population itself could have a crash and go down to extremely
low levels in the future.
During the last year, we've been in significant
consultations with our U.S. and Canadian partners in the States
and Federal agencies, and discussing with also non-governmental
experts. We've been developing regional action plans, and an
evaluation and monitoring program that would be helpful to
monitor our progress in reaching the goal of a reduced
population.
Our work to document the problem, and in consultation with
stakeholders, combined with the recent media attention, has
created an environment where the need for responsible
management action is recognized, both within the conservation
community and the general public. On April the 6th, the Service
published a notice of intent, announcing our plans to prepare
an environmental assessment to review migratory bird
regulations with the intent of reducing the snow goose
population. In this assessment, we are considering strategies
to implement population control measures to increase the take
of snow geese outside of the normal season. The Service will
have a draft environmental assessment and a proposed rule
available later this summer, and our goal is to have a final
rule published in January, 1999. If those final regulations are
approved in early 1999, this population control measure would
be in place for the spring, before the geese return to the
Arctic.
In closing, I'd like to put this in a little larger
context. Some of you have already mentioned this. We face some
significant challenges in goose management throughout the
country. While we're focusing today on snow geese, other goose
populations are increasing at rapid rates as well, including
the resident Canada geese that are mentioned along the east
coast and throughout many parts of the United States, and the
greater snow goose along the Atlantic flyway. On the other
hand, a number of populations--the dusky Canada goose in the
Pacific flyway, the Atlantic population of Canada geese, and
the threatened Aleutian Canada geese--require careful
management to protect and/or restore these populations.
Given the reality of limited personnel and funding, and the
increased complexities I've mentioned, we have never faced
bigger challenges in goose management than we do today. But the
Service is committed to working with our State wildlife
partners, the Canadian wildlife authorities, and the
stakeholders to address the critical issue of the overabundance
of lesser snow geese.
At this point, I'd just like to thank you again for the
opportunity to testify, and to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.
Dr. Bruce Batt.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE BATT, CHAIRMAN, ARCTIC GOOSE HABITAT WORKING
GROUP AND CHIEF BIOLOGIST, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.
Mr. Batt. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bruce Batt. I'm the
chief biologist of Ducks Unlimited, headquartered in Memphis,
Tennessee.
For the past two years, I have served as the chairman of
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, which was formed to
examine the issue of overabundant mid-continent lesser snow
geese. The working group consisted of 17 scientists, water fowl
managers, and academics who came together to examine all the
information that was available on the status of the snow goose
and the ecological consequences of their rapidly expanding
population.
We completed our report, which you heard about today,
entitled Arctic Ecosystems in Peril in October, 1996 and
published it for general release in February 1997. The title of
the report was coined after we completed our work, and came to
realize just how disastrous the extraordinary abundance of snow
geese was to the Canadian Arctic breeding grounds around Hudson
Bay. We concluded that the extraordinary population growth is
being driven by several human-caused factors.
The most significant is a tremendous expansion of
agriculture through the mid-continent and Great Plains region
of the continent. The abundant agricultural foods exploited by
the geese on the Great Plains assure that year in and year out,
more birds survive through the wintering period to go back
north in excellent physical condition to breed than was likely
ever the case in pre-settlement days.
The second key factor was the establishment of many
private, State, and Federal wildlife refuges, which are
designed to protect migrant and resident wildlife. Refuges are
at the heart of many of today's wildlife conservation
practices, but snow geese have an uncanny ability to recognize
and exploit refuges, and they have done so with gusto. Many
refuges provide safety for hundreds of thousands of snow geese,
where their most significant predator in modern times, the
hunter, is excluded.
A third factor related to the birds' use of refuges is
their unequaled ability to recognize a hunting situation and
successfully avoid it. After more than a decade of modifying
hunting regulations to increase the harvest of snow geese, it
is clear that with the traditional hunting methods and
timeframes, hunters will not be able to arrest the persistent
growth of the population.
The last factor is a moderate change in the climate that
has resulted in generally warmer temperatures and a longer ice-
free season in the summer, when the birds breed. This results
in fewer unsuccessful breeding seasons that previously helped
to check population growth.
Their massive numbers put such a high demand on the limited
food supplies that vast tracts of the Arctic have been
converted to highly saline, bare soil where few plants can
grow, virtually none of which are used by the geese. This is
similar to ecological processes to what is occurring on vast
tracts of the African continent, where desertification is
causing the destruction of arable soils and the growth of the
desert in that area.
The destroyed marsh will take many decades to recover, at
least most of the next century, and scientists are uncertain if
some tracts will ever recover. More northern areas do not
appear to be damaged as much yet, and population growth on the
larger scale is probably fueled primarily by increases from
those areas.
But this is a bigger story than just the effects of the
geese. This is an ecosystem in peril. All the other wildlife
and plants that live in this ecosystem will also be decimated
as it is destroyed. The migratory birds are the most
spectacular and most abundant. All of them migrate through
Canada and the United States between breeding and wintering
areas. Many winter in Central and South America, and they are
truly important treasures of the rich bird fauna shared by all
the Americas.
The working group recommended that this unnatural phenomena
be arrested by strong goose-population reduction measures to
bring the numbers to a level that can be sustained by their
ecosystem. We projected that this would mean reducing the
numbers by half, and we urged that this reduction would take
place by the year 2005.
It is not possible to be certain that a 50-percent
reduction is needed, or that it is enough, as this problem has
never been encountered before. Thus, we recommended that any
population reduction program should be accompanied by an
extensive monitoring system to measure the changes in the
ecosystem so that the point at which the stable number was
achieved would be recognized and the control measures would be
stabilized.
The Arctic Ecosystems in Peril report has been made
available to the scientific community for their review for over
a year now. It was a prominent topic at the largest ever
gathering of the world's goose biologists last January in
Victoria, Canada. It has survived this scientific scrutiny,
with the only debate focusing on just how many geese will have
to be removed from the population to establish a sustainable
level. There is little disagreement in the scientific community
about the causes of the problem, or the consequences of
continued population growth on the ecosystem, on the geese
themselves, or on other species that will suffer collateral
damage.
The snow goose crisis has been subject to hundreds of
newspaper, magazine, radio, and television pieces. These have
stirred virtually no negative responses from the public as to
the importance of reducing numbers to a more sustainable level.
Communications have been thorough, balanced, and accurate, and
the message is scientifically defendable. In short, the
scientific community and the public are well informed and well
prepared to address this issue with a strong and asserted
effort.
As we have worked so diligently to change the face of North
America to support our agricultural, urban, and rural
enterprises, wildlife has responded in a variety of ways. Many
species have been reduced in number and distribution, and we
have come to grips with serious issues like endangered,
threatened, and extinct species. The on-going commitment to
those needs will assure many successes in the future. However,
overabundant species are the other end of the continuum of how
species respond to the new landscapes that we have crafted.
They demand an equally effective commitment to their
management.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Batt may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Batt.
Mr. Roger Holmes.
STATEMENT OF ROGER HOLMES, CHAIRMAN, MIGRATORY WILDLIFE
COMMITTEE, AND VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Holmes. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to share the perspectives of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I would point out
that I am currently the vice president of the International,
and I also have served as the chair of the International's
Migratory Wildlife Committee for the last 8 years. I'm also the
director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife for the
Department of Natural Resources in the State of Minnesota, and
prior to that served as the section chief and started out 40
years ago as a water fowl habitat biologist with the State of
Minnesota. During my tenure with the Minnesota department, I
served on the Mississippi Flyway Council for 22 years.
I'd like to point out particularly, in response to a
question earlier, that the International Association is just
what it says, an international agency that has in its
membership all 50 States, plus all of the Canadian provinces,
and also Mexico. So, as an international association, all three
countries that have a piece of this problem have been involved
in considering the solution, and it would certainly be our
expectation that all three countries would be involved in any
of the procedures or programs that could be implemented.
I will skip over most of my testimony because other people
have covered it. I would like to highlight a couple of things,
however, and, as has already been commented on, there were
several mentions of the report, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril. And
I would only point out here that, of the working group members,
six of those people were in fact representatives of Canada, so
that the chair and the committee is aware of the fact that
there has been a considerable amount of Canadian input into
this issue, and particularly into this report.
I would point out too that under recommendations, there are
a number of recommendations that came out of this report that
are in my testimony, and I want to highlight the first five.
The first one is the United States and Canadian government
should permit a conservation harvest of white geese between
March 11 and August 31 where and when appropriate. And it says
white geese----
Mr. Gilchrest. Would you give those dates again, please?
Mr. Holmes. Between March 11 and August 31. And any kind of
a white goose. Any kind of harvest directed that these geese
would involve not only the mid-continent snow geese, but also
the greater snow geese, and probably include Ross' geese also.
All three populations of which are at very high levels. And in
a hunting situation, it's virtually impossible for hunters to
distinguish between those different species, and all three of
them would be harvested.
The second recommendation is that subsistence harvest,
including egging, should be encouraged in Canada, where
appropriate.
No. 3, the survival and productivity of lesser snow geese
should be reduced through the appropriate management of public
lands, including State, Federal, and provincial refuges and,
where appropriate, on private land.
No. 4, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian
Wildlife Service should consider allowing the use of electronic
callers.
Five, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should consider
increasing bag limits and possession limits.
I'll read No. 6 too. The various governments are encouraged
to develop mechanisms to facilitate snow goose hunting between
jurisdictions.
Also, commented upon earlier, was the fact that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has published a notice of intent on
April 6 regarding this issue, and the International strongly
supports the statements that are made in that notice of intent.
I want to address another issue here that has not come up
yet, and that is that it must be recognized that there is a
distinct lack of funding for goose management programs. The
need for better biological data through monitoring programs,
habitat management, and other forms of population management is
increasing. The joint flyway councils have recommended a budget
increase of approximately $10 million to adequately address
goose population monitoring, management, and research needs.
And, Mr. Chairman, the International did write a letter to
the chair of the Interior Appropriations Committee, the
Honorable Slade Gorton, and perhaps what I should do is provide
you with a copy of that and enter it as a part of the record.
It is dated March 30, and it was signed by our executive vice
president, R. Max Peterson. And that specifically requests this
$10 million--and I'd like to draw that to your attention,
because a program like this does require funding, and the
estimate that we have is it's going to take about $10 million
to do the proper evaluation, the monitoring, and the habitat
improvement and so forth to try to address this problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. That's a letter from Senator Gorton?
Mr. Holmes. It is to him----
Mr. Gilchrest. To him.
Mr. Holmes. From our International Association.
Mr. Gilchrest. We'll enter that into the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Holmes. Then, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the
Association firmly supports the recommendations contained in
the Arctic goose stakeholders report, and I would urge the
Subcommittee to support increased funding. As I've said, I
would also like to point out that we have a person who's served
on the stakeholders committee, and he's on the end of the table
here, but his sign is right here, Mr. Richard Bishop. So if you
get us confused, he's the chief of the Bureau of Wildlife from
the State of Iowa. We've talked about mid-continent snow geese,
and we are definitely from the mid-continent, and we're very
concerned about that entire problem, and that's why we are
here.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmes may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. I guess you're about
as mid-continent as you can get.
Mr. Holmes. That's correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Frank Gill.
STATEMENT OF FRANK GILL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENCE,
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Dr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to testify about
the detrimental impact of the snow goose situation in the
Arctic. I am the senior vice president and director of science
of the National Audubon Society, and I am also the president of
the American Ornithologists Union, the country's foremost
society of professional ornithologists. With me is Miss
Genevieve Thompson, the executive director of North Dakota's
State office and, like Iowa, she's right on the front lines of
the mid-continent problems.
The National Audubon Society is one of the nation's leading
environmental organizations. We have over half a million
members organized in 520 chapters throughout the U.S. and
Central America. Our members love and are concerned about
birds, wildlife, and their habitats, and many of our members
are sportsmen as well as birdwatchers.
Audubon's involvement in the snow goose issue has included
representation on the Arctic goose habitat working group,
participation in the excursion to Hudson Bay lowlands
coordinated by the joint venture management board, and
representation in the stakeholders committee on Arctic nesting
geese that you have just heard about. The National Audubon
Society endorses the recommendations of the Arctic goose
habitat working group, the international team mandated to
document scientifically this urgent environmental problem.
We are here today to publicly state the unanimous
resolution of the board of directors of the National Audubon
Society to protect wildlife habitat and ecosystems in the
Arctic, and sub-Arctic, which are currently under threat from
damage by the burgeoning populations of the lesser snow goose.
The board voted in September 1997, last fall, to support the
recommendations of the Arctic goose task force to reduce the
mid-continent population of the lesser snow goose through
expanded hunting and other means.
Mr. Chairman, you have our written statement, which I won't
repeat here. Let me just summarize, quickly, four main points.
First, Audubon's concern in this situation is in line with our
mission to protect birds, wildlife, and their habitat, using
the best tools available. We view this as a habitat issue, not
a hunting issue.
Second, we are convinced of the reality, and the severity,
of the problem, namely these geese are a major threat to a
critical habitat on which many other species depend.
Third, this is a problem of our own making. It's well
documented. We understand what's happening. To some degree it
was a conservation success, and we have to learn how to manage
conservation successes. And, given that it is a problem of our
own making, we have a responsibility to address and correct it
as soon as possible.
Finally, we look forward to working with government
agencies and the sportsmen's groups to define all reasonable
options, and to implement them as soon as possible to bring the
system back into balance.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for providing us with the
opportunity to testify today. We are available to answer any
questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gill may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Gill. I think I'm going to
start with Dr. Gill, and ask you to elaborate on your statement
that this is a habitat problem, not a hunting problem. Do you
have any specific recommendations on how--would you agree that
the population needs to be reduced? What would your specific
recommendations be to reduce that population? And does it
include any increase in hunting at all?
Dr. Gill. We are not opposed to hunting as a solution. In
the Audubon family, there are issues about hunting versus non-
hunting, but in the board discussion about snow geese, it
emerged that we're talking strictly about a habitat problem.
Hunting is one of the tools we can use to solve that problem.
So we are not opposed to the options under discussion as tools
to solve a major habitat problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. One of the recommendations from Mr. Holmes
was to--and I don't know what I did with it up here in my
mess--was to expand the hunting season, was to include the
hunting season, or make March 11 through August 31 part of the
hunting season, which, I suppose, would have to have the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act changed. Would you agree that an
expansion of any type or any length of the hunting season would
be necessary to manage the snow goose population? Dr. Gill.
Dr. Gill. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the last part of that
question?
Mr. Gilchrest. It's my understanding that part of the
management of reducing the snow goose population, as
recommended from the Audubon Society, is hunting. That's a part
of a management tool. Would you agree with some of the
recommendations, specifically with Mr. Holmes, that the hunting
season should be expanded?
Dr. Gill. Well, I'm in charge of science, not policy, so I
may be getting myself into trouble here. But Audubon's position
is that that would be a reasonable option.
Mr. Gilchrest. It would be a reasonable option?
Dr. Gill. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. It's my understanding, I guess, Mr. Schmidt,
that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, in order to
accommo-
date some of the changes that have been discussed here today,
would have to be amended.
Mr. Schmidt. Actually, it's likely it would not have to be
amended. The Migratory Bird Treaty itself underwent an
amendment process a couple of years ago and the U.S. Senate has
endorsed that. We're waiting for final exchange of notes that
would indeed--some of the amendments that were made would
indeed open up the opportunity for us to take specific
management actions on a conservation issue such as this one.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where is that proposed change now, with the
State Department?
Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. What are they likely to do with it?
Mr. Schmidt. The next step is to exchange instruments of
ratification with Canada and Mexico in our two bilateral
treaties. We would expect that to be done in the near future,
but I can't represent their timeframe on that.
Mr. Gilchrest. What's that? Always a diplomat, that's good.
Are you referring to me, or Mr. Schmidt?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Schmidt. That's the first time I've been called that
before.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, you have a future outside of Fish and
Wildlife.
Any one of you can answer this question. Can you describe
in some detail the long-term consequences of permanent habitat
destruction of the tundra?
Mr. Schmidt. The long-term, in terms of the Arctic, the
damage that we have seen to date and documented by Dr. Batt's
report would suggest that recovery of some areas may be longer
than human lifetimes. As the studies were discussed by
Congressman Hunter, there have been areas that have been
excluded from goose use for up to 15 years, and virtually seen
no regeneration of the tundra. And so we don't know how long it
will take, but it's not like in the temperate areas that we're
used to here, where recovery of habitats can be fairly quick,
in a matter of years. I think we're looking at recovery of some
of these area--if we can keep geese off of them--in terms of
decades, and not years. So that's significant.
Mr. Gilchrest. In those areas that have been destroyed, if
the goose population can be kept out, is there any possibility
of reseeding? Does that work up there?
Mr. Schmidt. There are research efforts underway to look at
that possibility through the use of artificial means,
fertilization, et cetera. But it's a fairly costly exercise.
Even if it becomes possible to do that, the expense associated
with it would be tremendous, and we're talking about 100--
excuse me, 1,200 of coast land in a very isolated part of the
world to try to regenerate that.
Dr. Gill. Mr. Chairman, could I add to that?
Mr. Gilchrest. Please do. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gill. One of the threats, as I understand it, and these
folks could correct me if I'm wrong, is that the grubbing far--
the way snow geese eat and rip up the roots of the grass--
allows salt to move into the system from below, and it changes
the chemistry of the soil. Once the chemistry of the soil is
changed, it allows and promotes the invasion of a salt-tolerant
plant called Salicornia.
Once Salicornia has taken hold of these areas, it's there
virtually forever, and hardly anything lives in Salicornia. It
becomes a botanical desert, so there's a real transformation of
the habitat.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where does the salt come from? Is it because
this tundra is near the Hudson Bay? Is the salt likely to have
this happen in the interior, away from the bay?
Dr. Gill. Bruce?
Mr. Batt. These soils on the coast are all former marine
soils, and they're heavily laden with salts. And when the geese
tear off the turf, they take away the insulation of the turf,
and it warms it up, and that causes the evaporation rates to
increase dramatically. And when it evaporates, the salt is left
behind. It's the same thing as a pan of water that evaporates
away and leaves a little residue. Well, it's the same on the
coast up there.
And there's areas up there now that are two and three times
sea-strength salt. That's how high they are. And not even
salicornia grows there. Where salicornia grows, it's just--it's
the only plant that can survive. Salicornia is 60 percent, by
weight, salt, and nothing eats it. It has no nutritional value.
It just happens to be something that can live there. So when it
goes--but it can get too salty for salicornia also. And it
eventually just becomes a big, baked mudflat that nothing grows
on. And I guess, it's a bit of conjecture as to how long it
takes to recover. If there were no geese, it's many decades
into the future. Nobody's every been able to study this, no
one's seen it, no one's lived long enough to witness this
before, and we don't think it ever happened before.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do any of you--would any of you,
representing your various groups, recommend, under any
circumstances, poisoning?
Mr. Batt. We would not.
Dr. Gill. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. So, I--because it has been done in this
country by Fish and Wildlife under certain, limited
circumstances. So, can I assume that everybody up here, at
least now, with the information that you have before you, you
would not recommend poisoning?
Mr. Schmidt. I would say, with the information we have now,
that's very correct. We would like to consider all other
options possible before taking such dramatic actions as you've
suggested, and the Service firmly believes there are--that we
can be successful in this effort if we work together, Canada,
the United States, even Mexico, as has been mentioned, in some
of other ways besides the unacceptable poisoning that you've
mentioned.
Mr. Gilchrest. Since this is predominantly a destructive
problem in Canada, and I guess we don't have anybody here from
Mexico, would the United States defer to Canada on the
poisoning recommendation? Suppose Canada never recommended
poison, suppose the United States felt, well, that the
situation is so bad we may do it in North Dakota or Iowa or
someplace. What would happen under those circumstances?
Mr. Schmidt. Let me see if I understand. If we recommended
poisoning----
Mr. Gilchrest. And Canada didn't.
Mr. Schmidt. Canada didn't? Well, we--each are, obviously,
sovereign countries and can indeed implement things, but
typically the way we have managed migratory birds in this
continent has been through a coordinated effort using the
flyway system that involves the States and Canada, in
particular. And our counterparts, we're in consultation with
them virtually on a weekly basis on this issue and others, and
I can't foresee that we would be out of step down the road with
our partners in the north.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is the gathering of eggs in the springtime
in the tundra--I know there's no silver bullet here, but is
that a viable option to consider and to--and then how would you
do that? Would you hire people to go out there and collect the
eggs?
Mr. Batt. It's viable. Its logistics are enormous. Not many
goose colonies are near where people live, so the logistics and
expense are enormous. If we--we did some calculations, and
something like two million eggs would have to be taken each
year to stabilize the population. It would not cause it to
decline, and you'd have to do that year after year after year.
Mr. Gilchrest. Given the gravity of the problem, would
Canada or the United States consider a joint military exercise
to go in there, without ammunition, and gather the eggs? And to
see how--to test the endurance. Oftentimes, military people go
out on 50-mile hikes, they go out on overnight camp overs, and
things like that. You fly them in there and----
Mr. Batt. Well, I don't personally find that unpalatable. I
don't know if each government would go along with it. But it
would take that scale of an effort. I mean, that scale of an
expense to logistically support people in these remote,
dangerous places. So it would take something like that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there polar bears up there?
Mr. Batt. Yes, plenty. I flew a thousand miles on the coast
last August, and we counted 132 on that trip, and that was
early in the year, so there's plenty of polar bears.
Dr. Gill. My staff has just asked me to tell you that's a
great idea, to mobilize the armed forces on this one.
Mr. Gilchrest. I might re-enlist if that's the case.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes?
Mr. Bishop. Speaking from the Flyway Council's side, and a
lot of the stakeholders in the discussions that have been going
on for several years on this issue, I think that while there
are several things that you've been talking about, by taking
eggs and actually maybe reducing some of the geese on the
particular colonies where some of those problems are existing,
are definite options.
But it is felt, and it was felt by the stakeholders
meeting, by most all of the people participating, the
utilization of the sporting opportunity that is generally
socially acceptable at this point in time needs to be
exhausted, and all opportunities at this time need to address
these potential possibilities, utilizing our sporting people.
Because if this is not done, there will be a major reaction
from the sporting world against any action that those of us in
the flyway councils, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian
Wildlife Service, anybody would take before other options are
taken.
Mr. Gilchrest. Understanding the sporting option, and
everybody at the table apparently agrees with the sporting
option, can we, whoever makes these recommendations, as we
pursue aggressively the sporting option, is it also a
consideration to pursue the gathering of eggs option at the
same time?
Mr. Bishop. The stakeholders meeting recognized that we
should look at both lethal and non-lethal options at the same
time. Yes, we have the recommendation that we should explore
the--looking into this egg collection as part of a solution.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there anybody that can say with some
assurance--and I'm not against the hunting option, and I think
we ought to pursue the hunting option. Can you tell us, with
the hunting option, the percentage of reduction of snow geese
over a period of time.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I'd like to speak to that, because back
in the early, or the mid-1960's and late 1960's and early
1970's, I was part of flyway program that worked from the
Mississippi flyway with the central flyway, and we were trying
to build these populations of snow geese.
Mr. Gilchrest. You were trying to build them up?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. We are partly responsible for this, as
well as the agricultural changes in the Gulf Coast States of
Texas and Louisiana, and our expansion of feed grains in the
upper Midwest. But what we did is we helped build these closed
areas and refuge areas for snow geese, primarily to increase
their populations, because back in the late 1960's, there was a
major concern from Louisiana and Texas that the midwest States
were shooting too many geese, and holding them north too long,
and the Canadians wanted to increase their harvest, and so we
built this population in response to the request from people
wanting to utilize this resource. The geese became older, and
become very wise in their use of these refuge areas. They do
not come down across the continent----
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, I'm just going to--I'm going to
interrupt you for just a second, because I have a vote and I
have to run. And I understand what you're saying. We go through
very similar things on the Eastern Shore with the rise and fall
of the population of the Canada goose. We've seen a huge
increase, and the difficulties of snow geese over there.
So I think I understand the difficulty of trying to raise
the population, then trying to manage the population. I guess
what I'm asking is, with an agreement on expanding the hunting
season, is there some sense as to the percentage of reduction
of this snow goose population over a period of time?
Mr. Bishop. I was getting to that, and I will address that.
Yes, we feel that there is an opportunity. No one has the
ability or knowledge though----
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you come close to 50 percent?
Mr. Bishop. We don't know that we could get to that, but we
feel that we can reduce the survival rate of those birds. Back
in the years past, we've had serious snow lingering in some of
those colonies where we've had major busts of production north
of the Manitoba border on some of those areas. So we feel that
if we expand the hunting seasons in the spring, and also--and
disrupt this concentration of birds in the fall, that we can
push those birds back out to the many areas where hunters and
sportsmen can get to it, where you're mortality rates will rise
on the adult birds, but we're going to have to have an
opportunity to see the geese respond to this hunting pressure.
We can't give you an exact answer, but we think it will.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I appreciate that. And we really
need to carry this conversation on long beyond the point where
we can today, and I look forward to hearing, I hope, from all
of you once again before the bill is finally passed. And I hope
that we can get together in a cooperative fashion to find some
solution, as quickly as possible, to this problem. And thank
you very much for traveling here to Washington.
I just have to read a few things into the record. I'll ask
unanimous consent--I don't think anyone in the room will
object--to put into the record a statement by Don Young, a
statement by John Tanner, the statement by the Canadian
government, the Ambassador Raymond Chretien, two statements by
the Ambassador, National Wildlife Federation, Mark Van Putten,
the HSUS--Humane Society, entered into the record, John--I
almost said this was Fred Grandy, but it's John Grandy, John
Grandy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska
I would like to compliment you for conducting this
oversight hearing on the destruction of the Arctic tundra by an
ever-increasing population of Lesser snow geese.
Over the last 30 years, the number of Lesser snow geese has
dramatically risen from 800,000 birds in 1969 to more than five
million today. While they are fully protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, this population explosion is causing
serious problems. For instance, the geese's appetite for Arctic
coastal tundra has created a strip of desert stretching 2,000
miles along the Hudson Bay in Canada. These geese are literally
eating themselves out of house and home and, in the process,
destroying thousands of acres of essential nesting habitat.
These wetlands are critical to the survival of not only snow
geese but hundreds of other migratory birds including brants,
black ducks, and mallards.
With the population of Lesser snow geese increasing by
about 5 percent each year, unless immediate steps are taken,
the fragile, slow-recovering, cold Arctic tundra will continue
to be destroyed.
In response to this problem, representatives from the
United States and Canada formed the Arctic Goose Habitat
Working Group. This group carefully investigated the impact
that Lesser snow geese are having on the tundra and issued a
report entitled ``Aretie Ecosystems in Peril.''
While there is no consensus on how to solve this
overpopulation problem, suggestions include doing nothing,
allowing the collection of goose eggs, or intentionally baiting
snow geese to reduce their number.
Clearly, this is a serious problem. It will not be solved
in a matter of weeks and it will require a comprehensive
management strategy. It is my hope that both our government and
Canada will reject the ``let nature run its course'' option.
Allowing the population to simply crash is a misguided approach
that will have dire consequences for snow geese, other tundra
inhabitants, and the coastal environment. As we wait for the
crash to occur, thousands of additional acres of the Arctic
tundra will be irreplaceably destroyed for generations. In
addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not try to
duplicate the disaster they created in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
It was a mistake to poison thousands of gulls, and this option
should not be given any serious consideration.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
witnesses and I want to compliment our colleagues, Duncan
Hunter and Duke Cunningham, for their leadership in proposing
House Concurrent Resolution 175. This problem does cry out for
a comprehensive management strategy to save the Arctic tundra
from the ravaging appetites of Lesser snow geese.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tanner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John S. Tanner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee
Chairman Saxton, Representative Abercrombie, 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 and the work of the Arctic
Goose Habitat Working Group.
I look forward to hearing from my House colleagues; Paul
Schmidt, chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Office
of Migratory Bird Management; Ron McIntosh, counselor for
environment and fisheries at the Canadian Embassy; Dr. Bruce
Batt, Ducks Unlimited's chief biologist; Roger Holmes, director
of the Minnesota Division of Fish and Wildlife and chairman of
the IAFWA's Migratory Wildlife Committee; Rollin Sparrowe of
the Wildlife Management Institute; and Dan Beard of the
National Audubon Society.
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 more than four 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 5 percent to 8 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 30 percent is
severely imperiled and the remainder is overgrazed. These geese
have eaten themselves into crisis.
As Duck Unlimited's chief biologist Dr. Bruce Batt wrote
earlier this year, ``When we first surveyed Cape Henrietta
Maria by helicopter, we were surprised to see only a handful of
family groups of snow geese, knowing that more than 225,000
breeding pairs had hatched more than one million goslings there
just eight weeks ago. The reason for the birds absence,
however, was soon readily apparent from the air.
``Vast expanses of tundra in and around the nesting colony
resembled a moonscape after years of intensive feeding by
hordes of geese. The hungry birds had denuded most of the
vegetation from the landscape, forcing adult birds and their
hatchlings to wander down the coastline in search of food.''
Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese breed 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. 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.
Last year, the Working Group produced a series of
recommendations that will hopefully take a significant step
towards solving the pressing habitat issues facing Canada and
the United States.
<bullet> Remove existing hunting restrictions on techniques
including the use of electronic calls, baiting, and the
practice of creeping.
<bullet> Permit snow goose hunting beyond the March 10 closing
date.
<bullet> Encourage native hunters to increase subsistence
harvests of eggs and adult birds.
<bullet> Expand hunting opportunities on some National Wildlife
Refuges in an effort to help disperse the geese from typically
protected areas.
<bullet> Work with waterfowlers and land owners to improve
access to private lands.
<bullet> Encourage state wildlife agencies to develop
reciprocal agreements among the states to exempt nonresident
waterfowlers from purchasing multiple licenses to hunt snow
geese.
<bullet> 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. Consideration of
the Working Group's recommendations is advocated by many of these same
organizations. Many believe those recommendations represent a good
first step, but we need to begin planning for the possibility these
recommendations alone may not be enough. American and Canadian hunters
harvest an average of roughly 400,000 snow geese each year proof enough
that these crafty birds are difficult to hunt.
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.
First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should begin, if it
hasn't already, to identify what future steps or options should be
formulated for consideration in the event the Working Group's
recommendations do not achieve the needed goals to sustain both the
snow geese and the available habitat. This process needs to be an
adaptive process that leaves Federal, provincial, and state waterfowl
managers, working in concert with those in the conservation community,
the flexibility to manage this problem and adapt to changes in the
nature of the goose population and its habitats as required.
The Joint Flyway Council has recommended a $10 million increase to
allow the Service to better address with its partners goose population
monitoring, management and research needs. This recommendation is
supported by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. I believe the Joint Flyway Council's recommendation is the
direction we need to be moving if we are ultimately going to solve this
problem and begin restoring critical parts of this imperiled arctic
ecosystem. The bottom line is that we need to take the advice,
experience, and recommendations of state, Federal, and provincial
waterfowl management experts not-to-mention those in private
conservation organizations and work within the constraints of a
balanced Federal budget to give these professionals the resources and
tools they need to adequately meet the challenges facing lesser snow
geese on the breeding grounds of the arctic tundra.
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 the most 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.
Again, Dr. Batt recently wrote, ``One persistent argument to
managing snow geese populations via harvest is that nature should be
allowed to take care of the problem. That will happen, of course, if
managers don't intervene. Choosing that path, however, will result in
the destruction of remaining gosling feeding areas.
``Unfortunately, the adult geese will not stop laying eggs each
spring because of a lack of habitat. The birds will continue to return
from the southern agricultural areas fat, healthy, and ready to nest,
and the birds are capable of storing enough nutrients to successfully
hatch their broods with little supplemental feeding. As a result, the
unhappy saga of starving goslings will be repeated year after year.''
The problems facing these snow geese and the degradation of their
breeding ground and wintering habitats require vigilance on the part of
our waterfowl and migratory bird managers as well as those partners in
the Arctic Goose Joint Venture, participants in the Working Group, and
those in the private sector.
Doing nothing is neither a scientifically viable, nor acceptably
responsible solution.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Abercrombie, Members
of the Subcommittee, and those who have been working on this problem
through the Working Group for working together to achieve the kind of
consensus that will allow us to effectively solve the problem in a way
that benefits both the snow goose and its habitat.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Chretien may be found
at end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Putten may be found at
end of hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grandy may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. And there was one other little item that I
forgot to do here, and if I can't find it, I guess the world
won't come to an end. Well, I ask unanimous consent that any
member on this Committee has five legislative days to submit in
writing something to put into the record for the Committee.
Thank you gentlemen very much. The hearing's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Paul R. Schmidt, Chief of the Office of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of The Interior
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am Paul Schmidt, Chief of the of Office of
Migratory Bird Management, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss the Service's position regarding the ecological
problems associated with Mid-continent lesser snow geese.
Background:
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,
and millions of people further enhance local and regional
economies as they view geese throughout the year. Management of
this diverse and widely distributed resource is becoming
increasingly complex. The management challenges include dealing
with both overabundant goose populations that are destroying
fragile arctic ecosystems or causing significant economic
losses on agricultural lands; and dealing with some goose
populations that are declining. These declines have
occasionally resulted in the closure of hunting seasons, and in
some cases increased the likelihood of their listing under the
Endangered Species Act. The overabundance of Mid-continent
lesser snow geese is one of the more critical challenges we
face.
Mid-continent lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens
caerulescens), hereinafter referred to as snow geese, 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. Snow geese migrate southward
in the fall through the Central and Mississippi Flyways.
Historically, snow 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 snow goose population has grown more than 300 percent
over the last 30 years, from 900,000 birds in 1969 to between
4.5-6 million birds today. 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. During the 1950s, industrial,
agricultural, and urban expansion along the Gulf Coast
contributed to a wide-spread decline in salt marsh-habitat and,
at that time, snow goose numbers were constrained in part by
limited suitable winter habitat and low overt survival. In
spite of the establishment of refuges and other sanctuaries
along the Gulf Coast to protect such habitats, snow geese
expanded their feeding range during the winter into the
adjacent rice prairies, where high energy food resources were
abundant. As a result, the snow goose population grew with the
expansion of the rice industry. Further north, snow geese were
quick to utilize the increasing acreages of high energy cereal
grain crops throughout the Midwest, assuring that the birds
always arrived on their breeding grounds in prime condition to
breed.
Today, there are approximately 2.25 million acres of rice
fields in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas, in addition to the
millions of acres of cereal grain crops in the Midwest.
Consequently, food availability and other habitat requirements
are not limiting snow geese during the migration and wintering
portions of the annual cycle. Conversely, suitable breeding
habitat in the arctic tundra is diminishing due to the effects
of escalating snow goose numbers and will continue to decline
if the population is not soon reduced. The Service believes
that the snow goose population has already exceeded the
carrying capacity of its breeding habitat and that the
population must be reduced to avoid long-term consequences to
an ecosystem important to many other wildlife species, in
addition to snow geese.
In 1996, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the
Arctic Goose Joint Venture documented the ecological problems
associated with overabundant goose populations in the
publication Arctic Ecosystems Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group. The report emphasizes the need for
action and encourages Canadian and United States wildlife
agencies to take immediate steps to reduce the snow goose
population by 50 percent by 2005.
Report findings illustrate the severe degradation of
coastal salt marsh habitat along west Hudson Bay by large
concentrations of feeding, migrating, molting, and staging
geese. In addition to the approximate one million snow geese
that nest in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, 3-3.5 million geese from
colonies north of Hudson Bay stage along the Lowlands during
migration. Consequently, salt marsh habitats within this region
have been damaged to the point that desertification, soil
salinization, and the depletion of vegetative communities are
obvious throughout the region. Preliminary results of recent
research investigations in the La Perouse Bay area indicate
that numbers of more than 30 avian species have declined,
presumably due to loss of suitable habitat to foraging snow
geese. The loss of vegetation and decline of many bird
populations represents an overall decline in the biological
diversity of the Hudson Bay Lowlands salt marsh ecosystem.
Currently, 47,000 acres of the 135,000 acres of habitat in
the Hudson Bay Lowlands are considered destroyed, 41,000 are
damaged, and 47,000 are heavily grazed. Other arctic habitats
may be suffering the same fate as existing snow goose colonies
expand and new colonies are established. Ongoing research has
identified new and expanding colonies and has indicated that
habitat degradation is occurring in those areas also. However,
these research efforts are still in early stages, and habitat
degradation in other areas has yet to be documented to the
extent that it has been in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. The Service
intends to do what we can to halt further habitat degradation
in new and existing areas and restore biological diversity to
the Hudson Bay Lowlands.
Report findings further indicate the expansion of existing
colonies and the establishment of new colonies in areas north
of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Many of the new colony areas are
experiencing rapid habitat deterioration from large
concentrations of snow geese, similar to the deterioration
observed on the Hudson Bay Lowlands.
The report substantiates the need to reduce the population
to a size that the arctic habitat can sustain. Adult survival
has been the key factor influencing the growth of the
population and therefore, adults must be removed from the
population if the population is to be significantly reduced.
Service Position:
The Service concurs with the results of the report and
agrees with the recommendations to reduce the population. The
Service believes the recommendations associated with population
control by hunters should be considered before using more
direct control measures, such as trapping and culling,
commercial harvest, and other methods. These more direct
control measures may be necessary, but should be considered
only after alternative strategies within the migratory bird
regulations do not succeed in significantly reducing the
population within 3-5 years. Although likely more effective,
the more direct control measures are highly controversial and
costly. However, should the initial strategies within the
migratory bird regulations not be successful, we feel that
public acceptance for the more direct control measures would be
obtainable.
The first phase of management for this expanding snow goose
population actually began several years ago when the Service
increased the bag limit to 10 birds and expanded the snow goose
season to 107 days, the maximum allowed under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act). Despite an increase in overall
harvest, the rate of harvest has declined, indicating the
population is still growing and that these strategies alone are
not working. It is clear that adjusting regulatory management
strategies within the current Act requirements are not enough
to stabilize or reduce the population and the Service must
consider new alternatives to increase the rate of harvest.
Although harvest has not increased sufficiently to reduce
the population's growth rate, the Service believes that this
management tool still has the potential to be effective.
Therefore, the Service will be implementing this population
control measure with the intent to significantly increase take
of snow geese outside of the season frameworks prescribed by
the Treaty.
The Service believes that aggressive management
intervention is a necessary, professional and credible
alternative. The problem of overabundant snow geese is the
result of human activities and our changing agricultural and
other land management practices. It is a Service responsibility
to manage the migratory bird resource and to maintain both
healthy sustainable populations and their associated habitats.
Without management intervention, we would likely witness the
destruction of an ecosystem that is important to other
migratory birds and wildlife species. Research has already
demonstrated a decline in local avian populations in badly
degraded areas. It is also possible that the snow goose
population would crash and remain at extremely low levels due
to lack of suitable breeding habitat, the spread of disease,
and predation. Massive disease outbreaks, in particular, could
have devastating effects, not only on snow geese, but on other
avian species as well. Large numbers of birds that migrate and
stage with snow geese, including species of management concern
such as whooping cranes, bald eagles, northern pintails, and
many others, could suffer significant losses. The Service
believes that responsible management action must be taken soon
to avoid such catastrophic events.
In the last year, considerable consultation within and
among United States and Canadian wildlife agencies has occurred
regarding overabundant snow geese, including numerous
discussions with Federal, State, private, academic, and non-
governmental experts and staff. Snow goose management workshops
were conducted in the fall of 1997 along the Central and
Mississippi Flyways by the Service to examine the potential
role of public lands and public land managers in resolving this
issue. As a result, Regional Action Plans were developed in
cooperation with the States and will be implemented over the
next three years to help reduce snow goose numbers. These plans
will focus on 5 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.
An international Arctic Geese Stakeholder's Committee met
over the winter to discuss the role of non-governmental
organizations in the snow goose issue and provided the Service
and the Canadian Wildlife Service with recommendations for
acceptable management strategies. The Committee represented
United States and Canadian non-governmental conservation
groups. It recognized and supported the need for immediate
actions and identified lethal and non-lethal methods that would
be acceptable to reduce the snow goose population and preserve
arctic biological diversity. Most importantly, the Committee
recognized and supported the need for immediate action.
United States and Canadian media have given significant
attention to the snow goose issue over the last year. Articles
have appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times, and many
other local and regional Canadian and United States papers.
Local and national TV news programs have also aired pieces on
snow geese, including National Public Radio and CBS News. The
Service believes that the media attention and our work with the
Stakeholder's group has created an environment where the need
for responsible management action is recognized both within the
conservation community and the general public.
The Canadian Wildlife Service has also taken this issue
very seriously and has paralleled efforts in the United States
to educate and involve the public and the wildlife management
profession. They will be implementing control strategies
similar to our own including the use of electronic callers and
Sunday hunting during the spring migration.
On April 6th of this year, the Service published a Notice
of Intent announcing plans to prepare an Environmental
Assessment that will review migratory bird regulations with the
intent of reducing the Mid-continent lesser snowgoose
population. In this EA, we will be considering strategies to
implement a population control measure to increase the take of
snow geese outside of the normal season. Strategies may include
the use of electronic callers, unplugged shot guns, baiting,
live decoys, rallying without the use of a motorized vehicle,
and others. The Service will have a draft EA and a proposed
rule available for public review and comment this summer with a
goal of a final rule published in the Federal Register by
January 1999.
If final regulations are approved in early 1999, this
population control measure would be in place for the spring
before the geese return to the arctic. Should the initial
phases of the management strategy be unsuccessful in
significantly reducing the snow goose population within 3-5
years, the Service will seriously consider more radical
management alternatives to reduce the Mid-continent lesser snow
goose population.
In closing, I want to reiterate the many and increasing
challenges we face in management of the more than 20
populations of geese in North America. Other goose populations
are increasing at rapid rates as well, including ``resident''
Canada geese throughout many parts of the United States and
greater snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway. On the other hand, a
number of populations, such as dusky Canada geese in the
Pacific Flyway, the Atlantic population of Canada geese, the
Southern James Bay population of Canada geese in the
Mississippi Flyway, and the threatened Aleutian Canada geese,
require careful management to protect and/or restore these
populations. The Service is committed to working with the State
fish and wildlife agencies, Canadian wildlife authorities, and
public stakeholders to address the critical issue of the
overabundance of snow geese as well as these other challenges
we face.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and your
support for our efforts to deal with these important wildlife
resource management issues. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have regarding snow geese and the Service's
response to this issue.
------
Statement of Bruce D. J. Batt, Chief Biologist of Ducks Unlimited,
Inc., Memphis, Tennessee
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Bruce Batt. I am the Chief Biologist
of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
For the past two years I have served as the Chairman of the
Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group which was formed by the
Arctic Goose Joint Venture Management Board to examine the
issue of over-abundant Mid-continent Lesser Snow Geese. Ducks
Unlimited has made my time available to this exercise because
we have come to believe that the unprecedented large numbers of
these geese are causing widespread and irreversible damage to
the arctic ecosystems that support the birds during the
breeding season in Canada Ducks Unlimited is the largest non-
government waterfowl and wetlands conservation organization in
the world and this issue warrants our most serious attention.
The Working Group consisted of 17 scientists, waterfowl
managers and academics who came together to examine the
published and unpublished information that was available on the
status of the snow goose and the ecological consequences of
their rapidly expanding population. We concluded that their
numbers were at such a high level that something should be done
to lower the population. Subsequently, we were asked to
recommend to what level it should be reduced and to suggest
methods that might be used to bring the numbers down. We
completed our report entitled, Arctic Ecosystems Peril, in
October of 1996 and published it for general release in
February 1997.
The title of the report was coined after we had completed
our work and come to realize just how disastrous the
extraordinary abundance of snow geese was to the Canadian
arctic breeding grounds around Hudson Bay, on the arctic
islands of Southampton and Baton and in the Queen Maud Gulf
area.
The official index of the population, based on counts made
mid-winter when they gather in huge concentrations in the
states of Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi and
Tennessee, has increased from less than 900,000 in 1970 to
about 3 million today. That change reflects an average annual
population growth rate of about 5 percent which is very high,
especially to be sustained for such a long period of time.
However, independent surveys of individual colonies during the
breeding season indicate that there are more likely over 4.5
million birds in this population, making it the most abundant
arctic goose in the world.
We concluded that the extraordinary population growth is
being driven by several human-caused factors. The most
significant is the tremendous expansion of agriculture
throughout the mid-continent Great Plains region of the
continent. The geese spend about 8 months of the year in this
region which extends from the Canadian prairies to the Gulf
Coast of Texas and Louisiana. The abundant agricultural foods
exploited by the geese on the Great Plains assure that, year in
and year out, more birds survive through the wintering period
to go back north in excellent physical condition to breed than
was likely ever the case in pre-settlement days.
Historically, the geese wintered along the gulf coast and
fed in natural marshes that had limited food supplies. Some
degradation of the coastal marshes combined with the enormous
expansion of agriculture forced, or allowed, the geese to
exploit a new, and effectively unlimited, food source. For
perspective, 25 million acres of Mississippi River bottomland
hardwood forest, which was not goose habitat in these states,
was cleared after the second world war and converted to soy
bean and rice fields which the geese now exploit readily.
The second key factor was the establishment of many
private, state and Federal wildlife refuges, which were
designed to protect migrant and resident wildlife. These well-
intended efforts are at the heart of many of today's wildlife
conservation practices. Indeed, myriad species depend on
refuges to provide many of their life's requisites and wildlife
refuges provide enormous educational and esthetic benefits to
our society. But snow geese have an uncanny ability to
recognize and exploit refuges, and they have done so with
gusto. Many refuges provide safety for 100s of thousands of
snow geese where their most significant predator in modern
times, the hunter, is excluded.
A third factor, related to the birds' use of refuges, is
their unequaled ability to recognize a hunting situation and
successfully avoid it. And because they congregate in such
large numbers, the whole mass of geese more often than not,
will follow the leader to safety where there are no hunters.
After more than a decade of modifying hunting regulations to
increase harvest of snow geese, managers have concluded that,
with the traditional hunting methods and time frames, hunters
have not been able to arrest the persistent growth of the
population.
The last factor, is a moderate change in the climate that
has resulted in generally warmer temperatures and a longer ice-
free season in the summer when the birds breed. This results in
fewer unsuccessful breeding seasons that previously helped to
check population growth.
The consequences of this out-of-control population is that
more birds are returning each spring to breed than can be
supported by the finite and fragile breeding habitats upon
which the birds depend. Their massive numbers put such a high
demand on the limited food supplies that vast tracts of the
arctic have been converted to highly saline, bare soil where
few plants can grow, virtually none of which are used by the
geese. This is a similar ecological process to what is
occurring on vast tracts of the African Continent where soil
degradation is resulting in the expansion of the deserts and
the permanent loss of once arable soil. On the most well-
studied habitat, along the 1100 mile Hudson and James Bay
coastline, 35 percent of the salt marsh has been destroyed, 30
percent is heaviIy damaged and the remainder is just heavily
grazed. Each year, more habitats are moving up into the
destroyed category. The destroyed marsh will take many decades
to recover, at least most of the next century, and scientists
are uncertain that some tracts can ever recover.
The destroyed habitat does not provide adequate food for
the goslings. As a result many tens of thousands die from
starvation and disease each year. Some survive however,
especially those that are raised at the edge of the colonies
where some food remains or wherefrom the birds can disperse to
areas not yet destroyed. Dispersal still allows enough goslings
to survive to allow population growth. More northern areas do
not appear to be damaged as much yet and population growth, on
the larger scale, is probably fueled primarily by increases
from those areas.
Our Working Group concluded that the wide-scale damage on
the southern colonies provides an unambiguous warning of what
will happen to all the remaining habitat if the population is
not brought to a level that can be sustained by the habitat for
the long-term. The forecasts of what will happen if we don't
act to reduce numbers take a couple of different views, neither
one of which is very palatable. One view predicts that the
numbers will grow until all the vestiges of goose habitat are
destroyed. This would be accompanied by a population crash over
a decade or so while few young would be produced and as the
surviving adults left the population because of natural
mortality. After the crash, the population would be very low
for a very long period of time because the habitat base needed
to support population recovery would have been destroyed.
The alternate unhappy scenario predicts that even when
essentially all the habitat was destroyed, enough young would
survive from year-to-year that some level above a crash could
be sustained. Under either scenario, 100s of millions of
goslings would starve to death in the slum-like conditions of
the once pristine and wild arctic region.
But this is a bigger story than just the effects on the
geese. This is an ``Ecosystem in Peril.'' All the other
wildlife and plants that live in this ecosystem will also be
decimated as it is destroyed. Most species would have other
places in which they could survive but some are low in number
and themselves, face threats to their survival because of
impacts we have had on other habitats in which they live. The
migratory birds are the most spectacular and most abundant. All
of them migrate through Canada and the United States between
breeding and wintering areas. Many winter in Central and South
America and are truly important treasures in the rich bird
fauna shared by all the Americas.
As a result of these perspectives, the Working Group
recommended that this unnatural phenomenon be arrested by
strong goose population reduction measures to bring the numbers
to a level that can be sustained by their arctic ecosystem. We
projected that this would mean reducing the numbers by half and
we urged that this reduction would take place by the year 2005.
It is not possible to be certain that a 50 percent reduction is
needed or, if it is enough, as this problem has never been
encountered before. Thus, we recommended that any population
reduction program should be accompanied by an extensive
monitoring system to measure the changes in the ecosystem so
that the point at which a sustainable number was achieved would
be recognized and the control measures would be stabilized.
Our recommendations focussed on reducing the numbers of
birds harvested by hunters in the more settled areas of the
continent and in the Canadian north by aboriginal hunters.
These groups have always responded to wildlife management
crises in the past and will hopefully be able to play a major
role in solving this problem. They work for nothing, are
trained, equipped, experienced and motivated. Other more
``drastic'' measures such as culling and market hunting are
included in a second tier of steps that could be taken, but
besides their obvious unpalatability, they would be enormously
costly to the public purse and subject to all sorts of legal
and ethical challenges. We clearly do not want to have to
resort to the second tier of management measures.
The Arctic Ecosystems in Peril report has been made
available to the scientific community for their review for over
a year now. It was a prominent topic at the largest ever
gathering of the world's goose biologists last January in
Victoria, Canada. It has survived this scientific scrutiny with
the only debate focussing on just how many geese will have to
be removed from the population to establish a sustainable
level. There is little disagreement in the scientific community
about the causes of the problem or the consequences of
continued population growth on the ecosystem, on the geese
themselves or on the other species that will suffer collateral
damage.
The snow goose ``crisis'' has been the subject of hundreds
of newspaper, magazine, radio and television pieces. These have
stirred virtually no negative responses from the public as to
the importance of reducing numbers to a more sustainable level.
Communications have been thorough, balanced, and accurate and
the message is scientifically defendable. In short, the
scientific community and the public are well informed and well
prepared to address this issue with a strong and asserted
effort.
Other goose populations are growing and threatening to
manifest these same problems, not only in other areas in North
America, but also in Europe, in Australia and in New Zealand.
Each case can be traced to the same cause-and-effect
relationship with agricultural expansion and the ``escape'' of
the birds from traditional management practices. It is crucial
to get on with managing this problem, not only because of the
impacts of the snow goose on the places where it lives, but
also because crucial lessons must be learned to help us as we
face emerging problems with other geese in the future.
As we have worked so diligently to change the face of North
America to support our agricultural, urban and rural
enterprises, wildlife has responded in a variety of ways. Many
species have been reduced in number and distribution and we
have come to grips with serious issues like endangered,
threatened and extinct species. The on-going commitment to
those needs will assure many successes in the future. However,
over abundant species are at the other end of the continuum of
how species respond to the new landscapes that we have crafted
to satisfy our modern needs and wants. They demand an equally
effective commitment to their management.
------
Statement of Roger Holmes, Director, Minnesota Division of Fish and
Wildlife and Chair, Migratory Wildlife Committee, International
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with
you the perspectives of the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies on the increase of the mid-continent
lesser snow goose (snow goose) population and the impact they
are having on the Arctic tundra habitat. I am Roger Holmes,
Director of the Minnesota Division of Fish and Wildlife, a
position I have held for 8 years. Before serving as director, I
was chief of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Wildlife Division for 18 years. Prior to that I was a wildlife
manager and wetland habitat biologist with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
I was also the state of Minnesota's representative to the
Mississippi Flyway Council for 22 years, served on the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee for 6 years and
currently chair the Association's Migratory Wildlife Committee
and have done so for 8 years.
Mr. Richard Bishop, Bureau of Wildlife Chief for the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources and a member of the snow goose
technical team, who has also dealt with this issue over a
number of years, is with me to help answer questions.
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
Association's 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 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. We would like to summarize background information and
the Association's recommendations to address this problem.
The Association is concerned that snow goose populations
are expanding at an average rate of 5 percent a year. With this
level of increase, nesting colonies are being impacted and
damage to fragile Arctic tundra habitat is expanding annually.
We applaud you and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing
and urge you to support actions to help solve this problem.
Mid-continent lesser snow goose populations, which are an
international resource, now exceed 4 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 increased the food available 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 and
sub-Arctic regions of Canada, have become so numerous that
fragile tundra habitats along the Hudson and James Bay lowlands
have been severely degraded or destroyed. This is a serious
ecological problem affecting all the diverse species of flora
and fauna found there, thus decreasing biodiversity. There are
indications that other bird species, such as shorebirds and
waterfowl, which nest in the areas where severe damage has
occurred, are in decline because their breeding habitat is
being destroyed. As snow goose populations continue to increase
and brood rearing habitat declines, they are dispersing to
adjacent areas and the zone of damaged habitat is widening.
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 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.
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 the
findings of that report, which encourages U.S. and Canadian
wildlife agencies to take immediate action. More recently, 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 Nesting 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 the Committee
has a copy of that report.
It must be recognized that the over-abundance of snow geese
is a man made problem. It also must be recognized that the snow
goose population has become a threat to itself and without
immediate action, ecological damage in affected habitats could
be catastrophic and some scientists believe this damage could
be permanent. Habitat recovery in areas that are not yet
permanently damaged will take decades or even centuries to
recover. To let nature take its course for snow geese is not
acceptable. If the adult snow goose population is not reduced
to sustainable levels in the 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 habitat to support the
rebuilding of populations. 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 are recommending
that snow goose numbers be reduced by 5 percent to 15 percent
annually using the strategies noted below. Multifaceted and
multiagency approaches are required. There is almost no risk of
the recommended management policies causing over-harvest of
mid-continent lesser snow geese within the next several years.
As noted earlier, the IAFWA agrees with the Stakeholders
Report. The following are taken from the guiding principles and
recommendations sections of that report:
Guiding Principles
1. Lethal and non-lethal actions should be pursued simultaneously.
2. Adaptive management strategies involving enhanced evaluation and
monitoring of the ecosystem and populations of snow geese and other
species, as recommended in Arctic Ecosystems in Peril, must be a
component of a lesser snow goose population reduction program.
3. Necessary resources must be provided by the agencies to carry
out implementation, enforcement, evaluation, and monitoring of snow
goose reduction programs and long term population management.
4. Snow geese must be treated with respect as a valuable component
of the natural ecosystem. Geese that are killed for management reasons
must be killed as humanely as possible and utilized as food wherever
feasible.
5. Recommendations regarding harvest regulations apply to a white
goose only season when all other waterfowl seasons are closed.
6. Ecosystem restoration and sustainability should be the long-term
objective, with an intent to benefit all species of plants and animals.
Recommendations
1. United States and Canadian governments should permit a
Conservation Harvest of white geese between March 11 and August 31,
where and when appropriate.
2. Subsistence harvest, including egging, should be encouraged in
Canada where appropriate.
3. The survival and productivity of lesser snow geese should be
reduced through the appropriate management of public lands, including
State, Federal, and Provincial refuges, and, where appropriate, private
land.
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service
should consider allowing the use of electronic callers.
5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service
should consider increasing bag and possession limits.
6. Federal, State, and Provincial agencies are encouraged to
develop mechanisms to facilitate snow goose hunting.
7. State and Provincial agencies should consider innovative methods
such as reciprocal licensing to encourage non-resident hunters.
8. Agencies should develop and implement comprehensive education
and outreach programs for the public and address both positive and
negative impacts that habitat management actions have on migratory bird
populations, specifically regarding agricultural practices and private
lands management.
9. Agencies should review the effectiveness of hazing as a
management tool on a site specific basis.
10. Agencies should review the effectiveness of nest destruction on
a site specific basis.
We are aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a
notice of intent on April 6, 1998 indicating that it would prepare an
Environmental Assessment that would review the migratory bird
regulations with the intent to significantly reduce snow goose numbers.
We support the notice of intent and the preparation of the
environmental assessment dealing with this issue.
It must be recognized that there is a distinct lack of funding for
goose management programs. The need for better biological data through
monitoring programs, habitat management, and other forms of population
management is increasing while Federal budgetary resources are
decreasing. The Joint Flyway Councils have recommended a budget
increase of approximately $10 million to adequately address goose
population monitoring, management and research needs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association firmly supports the
recommendations contained in the Arctic Geese Stakeholders Report 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 addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
perspectives. Mr. Bishop and I would be happy to address any questions
you might have.
______
Statement of Dr. Frank Gill, National Audubon Society
Chairman Saxton, I appreciate this opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee today to testify on the detrimental
impact of Snow Geese on Arctic resources.
My name is Dr. Frank Gill, Senior Vice President and
Director of Science of the National Audubon Society. I am also
President of the American Ornithologists' Union, the country's
foremost society of professional ornithologists. With me is Ms.
Genevieve Thompson, Executive Director of Audubon's North
Dakota State Office.
The National Audubon Society is one of the nation's leading
environmental organizations. We have 550,000 members, organized
in 520 chapters in the U.S., Canada, and Central America. 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 which 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
deteriorate. Although negative effects of these factors have
been observed in Snow Geese offspring (i.e., smaller size, poor
feather development, and increased disease and mortality),
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 the Arctic, devastating
huge areas of tundra, and taken several other valuable bird and
animal species with them.
We are here today 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. Ms. Thompson and I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
------
Statement of Mark Van Putten, President, National Wildlife Federation
Office of the President
The Hon. Jim Saxton, Chairman,
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee,
Resources Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on April 23, 1998 to
examine the overpopulation of mid-continent arctic snow geese and its
subsequent impact to the arctic ecosystem. This is a wildlife
management issue of concern to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF).
In March of this year at the NWF Annual Meeting the resolution
``Protection of the Arctic Ecosystem'' was approved by our 46
independent state and territorial affiliate organizations. I ask that
this letter and the attached resolution be entered in the hearing
record.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Van Putten,
President
Attachment: NWF 1998 Resolution ``Protection of the Arctic Ecosystem''
PROTECTION OF THE ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation is the nation's
largest conservation education organization and is dedicated to
protecting our environment and conserving and restoring
wildlife and their habitats; and
WHEREAS, the mid-continent population of lesser snow geese
(Chen caerulescens) is a valuable waterfowl resource of
international importance that has increased dramatically in the
last ten years; and
WHEREAS, the fragile tundra habitat of these geese in large
portions of the Arctic ecosystem along and west of Hudson Bay
is undergoing widespread devastation caused by overgrazing due
to overpopulation of these geese as a result of the abundance
of food on winter ranges; and
WHEREAS, this largely pristine tundra habitats is important
not only to sustainable populations of lesser snow geese, but
to many other bird species as well as other plant and animal
species; and+
WHEREAS, scientific research suggests that the alterations
of plant community composition and structure and increased soil
salinity due to the overgrazing by lesser snow geese of their
nesting habitat may be irreversible; and
WHEREAS, current agricultural practices and hunting
regulations on the wintering grounds, along migratory routes
and in staging areas of Lesser Snow Geese are perpetuating
lesser snow goose populations at levels higher than breeding
habitat can endure without destruction of that breeding
habitat; and
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation has long
supported and endorsed the sound scientific management of
wildlife and the habitats upon which wildlife depend; and
WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Federation believes
controlled hunting and native harvests to be the most
appropriate scientifically based strategies for reducing the
mid-continent population of Lesser Snow Geese;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation in its Annual Meeting assembled March 19-22, 1998,
in Alexandria, Virginia, reiterates its support for the sound
scientific and sustainable management of wildlife and their
habitats; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation encourages and advocates the immediate development
and implementation of sound, scientifically based strategies to
reduce the mid-continental population of lesser snow geese to
levels at which their breeding habitat can be maintained; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation recommends that priority be given to harvest
strategies including more liberal Federal regulatory guidelines
specifically targeting lesser snow geese hunting methods and
native harvests before other control measures are employed, if
necessary; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation urges continued research and the restoration, where
possible, of the fragile and critically important subarctic
tundra habitat destroyed or degraded by snow goose overgrazing;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife
Federation encourages and advocates the development and
implementation of long-term strategies relative to land-use
practices, including agriculture, harvest methods and
regulatory controls on the wintering grounds, along migratory
routes, and in the staging areas of the mid-continental
population of lesser snow geese to help maintain their
population at a level which will conserve their Arctic
ecosystem.
------
Statement of John W. Grandy, Ph.D., on behalf of The Humane Society of
the United States
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present to
the Subcommittee the views of The Humane Society of the United
States on House Concurrent Resolution 175--expressing the sense
of Congress regarding the need for a comprehensive management
strategy to save the tundra from continued excessive
depredations by the mid-continent lesser snow goose. I am Dr.
John W. Grandy, Senior Vice President for Wildlife and Habitat
Protection. I hold a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology and management.
My doctoral dissertation focused on waterfowl biology; I have
been involved both professionally and personally in associated
issues throughout my career.
The Humane Society of the United States, or The HSUS, is
the nation's largest animal protection organization, with more
than six million members and constituents. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on behalf of these individuals.
The mid-continent population of lesser snow geese breeds in
the Canadian Arctic and winters in Texas, Louisiana and other
Gulf Coast states. Since the 1940s, the availability of
agricultural waste grain (e.g., soybeans and rice), has allowed
more geese to survive the winter in good condition relative to
earlier years in this century when wintering geese were
sustained largely on salt marsh grasses bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. As a result, the geese have been returning to their
Arctic breeding grounds in good condition. Reproduction has
been successful, leading to a population increase in scattered
portions of the Arctic.
Some researchers are now expressing concern that there are
more snow geese than their Arctic breeding grounds can support.
Habitat destruction has been documented, principally in the La
Perouse Bay region near Churchill, Manitoba and at Cape
Henrietta Maria (the western point at which James Bay opens
into the Hudson Bay).
Although damage has not been quantified or even seriously
documented throughout the huge areas in the Arctic used by
these geese, the Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter ``FWS''
or ``Service'') has announced that it plans to implement
changes in hunting regulations aimed at the killing of half or
more of the current population of mid-continent lesser snow
geese. Specifically, the Service will permit, encourage and
facilitate the indiscriminate slaughter of one and a half to
three million snow geese over the next eight years, regardless
of whether the geese are associated with so-called unacceptable
habitat alterations.
This is being proposed allegedly to alleviate a purported
``ecological crisis'' on their breeding grounds as a result of
snow geese eating vegetation and living their natural lives.
Recommendations and suggestions under active consideration
include: encouraging hunters to kill even more snow geese
during the regular hunting season; permitting spring hunting
(after March 10); increased daily kill (so-called bag) limits
(so that up to 100 snow geese per day could be legally killed
or, as an alternative, permitting unlimited killing); use of
electronic calls; use of baiting to lure hungry geese into
hunting areas; and, use of hazing to put excessive stress on
migrating snow geese so as to stop them from feeding, thereby
reducing their body condition and decreasing their nesting
success. In addition, Canadian natives would be encouraged to
collect as many eggs as possible, regardless of the status of
the snow goose population from which eggs are taken. The Humane
Society of the United States is strongly opposed to the entire
plan, and the aforementioned recommendations and the
indiscriminate, massive and brutal slaughter that would result.
The situation is this. There is evidence from La Perouse
Bay (a relatively small area on the western edge of Hudson
Bay), and parts of the Hudson Bay lowlands, and largely
anecdotal evidence from a few other areas that habitat change
is occurring as a result of use by snow geese. The area in
which this is occurring is approximately 100,000 acres, and two
or three snow goose colonies are implicated. By contrast, the
Arctic ecosystem is vast, consisting of millions of square
miles, and snow goose nesting colonies are scattered widely
throughout the Arctic, from Russia's Wrangle Island in the
west, north to and along the shores of the Arctic Ocean in
Canada, to and beyond Baffin Island in eastern Canada, and
south to Hudson and James Bay in Canada. In short, the Arctic
habitat for snow geese and other animals occurs across
literally millions of square miles.
These populations are by no means homogeneous. For example,
in contrast with the population in La Perouse Bay, the
population in West Hudson Bay has decreased from 400,000 to
less than 200,000 geese in recent years, and others are
relatively stable (western Arctic), declining or endangered
(Wrangle Island), or apparently large but unstudied (Baffin
Island and associated areas). Most populations of snow geese
have not been studied to any significant degree, and no
systematic surveys have been conducted to determine whether
they are having any measurable effect on their habitat. Yet, if
the pending FWS proposal is adopted, snow geese and other
``white'' geese (e.g., Ross' goose), will be subject to
slaughter in the spring, regardless of their species, or the
condition of their breeding habitats or the breeding colony. In
the opinion of The HSUS, this constitutes indiscriminate,
needless slaughter by any definition.
No governmental or private biologist involved in
formulating the current proposal has presented evidence that
would in any way justify this type of mass destruction or
annihilation of these magnificent animals. There is some
evidence of significant habitat alteration in La Perouse Bay
and along the Hudson Bay lowlands, but this must be put into
the context of the Arctic. The Arctic is vast, consisting of
one or multiple ecosystems. Catastrophic change is and has been
the operative factor influencing life in Arctic ecosystems
throughout history. The Arctic has been subject to at least
three periods of significant glaciation, and now, if current
predictions hold, much of the lowland Arctic is subject to
imminent flooding due to global warming and sea level rise.
Against this backdrop, how can the Congress and the FWS
conclude that habitat change caused by snow geese is so severe
as to be irreparable or to necessitate the brutal destruction
of millions of snow geese?
The well-known and sporadic eruptions of snowy owls,
lemmings, and Arctic hare testify to the dramatic population
changes of Arctic animals that occur with some frequency. The
current snow goose population dynamics are nothing more than a
continuation of this pattern. And, while snow geese may cause
some localized habitat alterations and alteration of
distribution patterns of specific species, these effects could
not possibly require or justify the kind of destructive
draconian solution that slaughtering one and a half to three
million snow geese would entail.
Specific Problems with the Pending Management Actions
Use of Lethal Control
An important principle of the control of damage that
wildlife sometimes causes is that control is most, and often
only effective, if it is targeted precisely at the area where
damage is occurring. Applied to this situation, this means that
if lethal control is justified at all, it must be centered
where the damage is occurring to be effective. A principal way
to do this would be to round up and slaughter geese on the
particular habitats where damage is occurring during the summer
flightless period when weather is good, if it can be shown that
habitat damage is severe enough to warrant such action. As
distasteful as this would be to The HSUS, it at least has the
chance to be effective in reducing the localized habitat damage
that is documented in specific areas.
It is telling that this alternative has not been seriously
considered by the FWS or the agencies and organizations
supporting it. Moreover, governmental and non-governmental
biologists supporting the FWS proposal never seriously
addressed the futility of trying to reduce habitat destruction
in specific areas in Canada by randomly killing snow geese
thousands of miles away. They are opting instead for the
indiscriminate, wanton and inhumane destruction that would
result from having hunters kill millions of snow geese in
Arkansas, Texas, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Frankly, given the
demonstrable futility of attempting to protect specific
habitats by randomly killing geese thousands of miles away,
this proposal seems designed more to convince hunters and the
public that random slaughter of wildlife is acceptable.
Generalized Egging
The FWS will likely endorse generalized egging (taking eggs
from nests), when only a few colonies in Canada may need to be
reduced. While collection of freshly laid eggs (or even nest
disruption or destruction) is more acceptable to The HSUS as a
means of population control than killing of adults, it is
equally unacceptable where it cannot be justified.
The point here, of course, is that snow geese are not an
animal for which generalized population destruction or
disruption can be or has been justified, and thus these
activities can only be permitted on the basis of serious
evidence demonstrating need in particular colonies.
The Proposed Eight-year Population Reduction Raises Serious
Doubts over the Rationale for the Entire Proposed Program
The FWS and its supporters have stated repeatedly that the
impact of snow geese on Arctic ecosystems rises to the level of
a crisis, thereby requiring an immediate and aggressive
response. The proposed response, however, entails an eight-year
effort to reduce the current snow goose population by half. If
damage at unacceptable levels is in fact severe and increasing
at an alarming rate, then that damage should be addressed now,
at the sites where it is occurring. A willingness to wait eight
years to alleviate the ``crisis'' belies the assertion that one
in fact exists, or that damage is so severe as to necessitate
indiscriminate slaughter.
Concern for Young Snow Geese
The FWS, and others, suggest that the proposed slaughter is
necessary in part to prevent the suffering of snow goose
goslings, which may suffer as a result of food shortage. This
is preposterous. It is absurd for the Service to suggest that
it wishes to stop natural population regulation in the form of
some goslings dying from a natural food shortage and then
suggest that the solution is to subject millions of adult geese
to unnecessary and indiscriminate suffering.
Message the Proposal Sends to the Public
Apart from all the issues addressed above, The HSUS is
gravely concerned about the message the proposed ``solution''
sends to the public, our children and future generations. That
massive slaughter of adult snow geese is the first and only
proposed remedy is appalling. These are magnificent birds,
which may live more than eight years, remain in family groups,
and teach their offspring. They are not inanimate objects; they
are living, breathing sentient animals that deserve our
respect. As a society and world, we must find better ways to
solve wildlife problems than by killing animals, much less than
by encouraging indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of millions
of animals.
The Congress and the Service are on the cusp of sending a
very clear message to an increasingly involved public that the
way to deal with wildlife problems, including those whose
ultimate cause is human activity, is by destroying wildlife.
Increasingly, an ever-more caring public is calling for
wildlife management that includes a sense of stewardship,
humility, respect and compassion, and makes significant and
reasonable efforts to solve wildlife problems in the least
destructive ways possible. The FWS proposal simply does not
meet that standard. The Humane Society of the United States
rejects it, and strongly urges the Subcommittee to reject House
Concurrent Resolution 175 as well.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8615.016