. . . it has always been in demand as a game bird; it is so wary, so sagacious, and so difficult to outwit that its pursuit has always fascinated the keen sportsman and taxed his skill and engenuity more than any other gamebird - A.C.Bent 1925
Consider this an installment in the conversation we are having regarding introduced avian species to Ohio. This aspect of the conversation, involving the Canada Goose, was brought up in this passage by Bill Whan
There are indeed parallels offering potential lessons regarding the
Trumpeter Swan program in Ohio. Here is a brief outline of some commonly
available summaries of the history behind Canada Goose restoration efforts
in the midwest. This in turn I hope will counter some remarks that ensued
within the thread involving Canada Geese that only served to obfuscate.
Namely the following:
Within the same post as above Bill Whan further remarked
and . . .
Well yes - insofar as these are contributing elements. However, these
remarks gloss over the role wildlife managers had in directly establishing
the Giant Canada Goose, Branta canadensis maxima. Inasmuch as
I read "people" to be read as the general public, Colleen ascribes all of
what we see today as a result of societal choices (expansive golf-
courses etc.). Going so far as to suggest "With or without
re-introduction/introduction assistance from the DNR, I would guess that
Canada goose numbers would be much the same in Ohio as they are today."
I propose that
Here is a very brief run down of how various authors in Ohio and
adjacent states have viewed the process through time.
I will address three time periods.
Historical Status:
Summary: With records just to the west of Ohio and possibly immediately to the
north, the occasional nesting of Canada Geese could have taken place in
Ohio but
even references citing nearby breeding records question whether these birds
were
Giant Canada Goose. Peterjohn (1989) was unaware of any historical breeding
records
for Ohio for any Canada geese.
Ohio:
West Virginia:
Kentucky:
IIlinois:
Wisconsin:
Michigan:
Ontario:
New York:
Summary:
As widespread and locally intense as this effort was, numbers remained
modest and
very localized. Robbins (1991) hints at why that may be.
He goes on to say . . .
Why would that be? Read Belrose (1976) . . .
Now read the thoughts of these authors regarding the explosion that took
place with the
augmentation of these breeding efforts with the Giant Canada Goose.
Pennsylvania:
West Virginia:
Kentucky:
Indiana:
IIlinois:
New York:
Ohio:
Summary: You now have waded through a snapshot history of the restoration
of the Giant canada Goose. There are two equally valid viewpoints from
which to look upon the result.
Quoting W.C. Joe Johnson (in Robbins 1991):
Quoting B.P. Peterjohn (1989):
Either way you choose to look at it, I find the notion that Ohio breeding
Canada Goose populations would be as they are without human manipulation
insupportable. There are those who cite the exploitation by the species of
a changing landscape as the basis for the explosive growth witnessed only
in the last 25 years (well after much of those same environmental changes
cited took place), yet we will do well to keep in mind that first we
changed the species to fit the landscape. As to the hypothesis put forward
in a recent Audubon article - I have not seen the article, but the gist of
it was repeated on several regional listservs at the time of its
publication and I did read those. I will only say to read the article
having read the above. The restoration of the Giant Canada Goose was a
massive undertaking with many sites of dispersal identified within the
above citations. Virtually all these dispersal centers correspond to a
wildlife managers release point. To suggest that
had any real impact on the result we see today ignores the number of
statements throughout the history of Giant Canada Goose restoration
commenting on the lack of breeding success by captive or injured birds
absent the Giant Canada Goose stock.
More on this in "Parallels"
Literature Citation
Victor W. Fazio, III
"I can't resist pointing out another parallel here with our discussion
about the trumpeter swan project. Froehlich quoted Peterjohn on the
swans; go forward two pages, and look at what he says about Canada
geese. Nowhere will you find it stated that they ever bred in Ohio
before they were artificially introduced as nesters half a century ago."
"If anyone knows of a good article dispassionately looking back at
how and why Canada geese were allowed to get out of control . . "
The responses were . . . .
"I would hypothesize that they were not allowed to get out of control,
but rather the change in habitat has allowed and encouraged the population
explosion. When Ohio was almost all woodland from Lake Erie to the Ohio River
there probably was not a lot of good Canada Goose habitat. There is now an
abundance of grasses growing in lawns, golf courses, pastures and certain
crops that these geese can eat. Restricting the hunting to allow the
population to recover and a changed habitat may be responsible for the
"explosion" in goose population." - Steve Edinger
"As for Canada geese getting out of control, people have no one to blame but
themselves." - Colleen
[**This is the title of a USFWS report by Dill, H.H. and F.B. Lee. 1970]
Early Restoration:
Peterjohn 1989 - "Concurrent with the establishment of refuges, the
development of a locally nesting Canada Goose population was undertaken.
This program has produced nesting pairs at Lake St. Mary's since 1953
and within the western Lake Erie marshes since 1955.
Pennsylvania: "probably first nested . . at the Pymatuning Wildlife
Management Area,
Crawford County, in 1937. These first nesters were pinioned adults
released . . in the
fall of 1936. In subsequent years more birds were released there.
During the 1950's and
1960's, NUISANCE geese were released throughout the state, especially
in the west,
in the southeast . . . , and on some islands in the Susquehanna River.
A number of
these released geese were probably the 'Giant' race of Canada Geese
[sic] (B.c.
maxima)" (1)
"Since [1955] it has been introduced by the Department of
Natural
Resources as a game bird at various times in at least 22 counties - in (2)
"nesting by other than crippled birds was unknown in Kentucky
half a century
ago" (3)
Indiana: "For many years, the breeding population at Jasper-Pulaski Fish
and Wildlife
Area was the only significant nesting aggregation in Indiana. Two pairs
of Canada
geese, released on the marsh there in either 1935 or 1937, nested
successfully".Most birds were released there through the years, and
their offspring
remained to breed". (4)
No account of re-establishment during this period given in (5).
Efforts to restore breeding populations experimentally began in
Brown County
in 1932, in Wood County in 1939, and in Juneau County in 1942. A
captive flock
established at Horicon in 1946 resulted in modest breeding success. In
1957, the
Wisconsin Conservation Department relocated some of these nesters at Crex
Meadows in Burnett County and Powell Marsh in Vilas County. Private
goose-rearing
projects were started in LaCrosse, Marathon, and Manitowoc counties. (6)
W. K. Kellogg and H.M. Wallace began restoration programs in the
1920's. In
1936, Wallace gave 332 geese to the Seney NWR in Schoolcraft Co.
Wallace also
provided birds to the Mason State Game Farm in Ingham County.Between
1928 and
1964 the Michigan DNR released 2500 geese on 30 Sites sites, resulting
in 14
breeding populations by 1969". (7)
During the last half-century, captive-breeding birds have
established a feral
breeding population throughout southern Ontario. . . in (8).
"introduced . . . in the 1930's, but early documentation is
scarce. The first
record of breeding at Montezuma NWR was in 1949. In 1961 at least 50
pairs bred
there. and at nearby Howland Island WMA. First recorded at Oak Orchard
WMA in
1950; in 1963 over 20 pairs raised broods there."(9)
Clearly before the rediscovery of a wild population of Giant
Canada Goose,
a number of attempts across the Great Lakes states and midwest were undertaken
to establish breeding populations. These regional efforts are summed up as:
Captive-breeding - 3 / State Government - 7; however the population source
is not revealed in the cited works but for the curious reference to
nuisance geese in Pennsylvania.
"Some efforts to establish breeding populations involved the planting of
formerly injured birds. These were presumably hunted birds of the 'interior
race' (B. canadensis interior), and efforts with this subspecies have
proved largely unsuccessful."
"It is the 'giant race' (B. Canadensis maxima) that has provided . . . the
successful breeders".
"Giant Canada geese are most amenable to management: they are readily
propagated under confinement; they take readily to artificial nest
structures; and their nest success and brood survival are high even on
areas subject to considerable human disturbance".
"The population recovery of the Canada Goose . . . is a
conservation
success story. Although Canada Geese [sic] were initially introduced in
the
southeastern and northwestern portions of Pennsylvania. they have
subsequently
expanded their distribution statewide." The breeding population is
estimated at 32,000
(ranking Pennsylvania 2nd in the Atlantic flyway). "The Canada Goose is a
prized and
valuable resource that must not be relegated to a semidomestic
situation." (1)
"It is now a regular breeder and permanent resident in many
places. The
heaviest concentrations appear to be in the major river valleys, the
lower Ohio, the
Tygart Valley, and the south Branch of the Potomac, where the major
introductions were
made by the DNR. The Canada Goose is semidomesticated, and it tolerates
human
presence well as long as it has a nesting place safe from predators. The
population of
these birds is likely to continue to increase as long as suitable habitat
remains for
expansion."(2).
"It is widely domesticated, but there are many feral resident
flocks . . . In
recent years, there has been much restocking in the state of breeding
populations of the
'Giant Canada Goose'. The species is now a common breeder throughout most
of the
state but mostly west of the Cumberland Plateau."(3).
"By 1978 this flock [Jasper-Pulaski] totalled more than 150 pairs.
Similar
breeding flocks were established on other state-owned areas. Since this
goose has
adapted to this type of management, Indana now has a large population of
nesting birds.
Determining the true breeding distributions of wild birds is virtually
impossible. So many
geese are kept captive or semicaptive throughout the state that breeding
may occur
anywhere. We wonder if any of the nesting Canada geese in the state are
wild stock,
free of the manipulation by man". (4).
[Keep in mind this 'modern' review
dates from
1984; one wonders what the authors would have said just 10 years later.] "The Canada Goose that now breeds in many of the counties is
probably not the
same race that bred originally. The 'Giant' Canada Goose has been
introduced in several
areas and has spread as a breeding bird . . . becoming very common in
some areas. (5)
Wisconsin: "Uncommon summer resident". See Robbins reference above. (6).
Michigan: "Atlas workers were able to confirm nesting in 81 counties.
(7).
Ontario: "Reintroduced popoulations . . . are now scattered throughout the
southern part
of the province". (8)
"Centers for the spread of this resident population [include]
Wilson Hill, Perch
River, and Three Rivers WMAs. Intorductions in southern Ontario, Canada,
may also be
supplementing the St. Lawrence River population. In 1970, 100 pairs were
estimated to
nest on Gardiners Island, and nesting has been documented at jamaica bay
Wildlife
Refuge since about 1976. The largest gaps in its distribution . . . are
farthest from the
introduction sites and, except for the Adirondacks, are generally
deficient in wetlands".
(9)
"Small flocks were established at Killdeer Plains Wildlife Area
(Wyandot and
Marion counties) and Mosquito Creek Wildlife Area (Trumbull County) by
the early
1960's. Expansion of inland flocks occurred . . .slowly, and breeding
pairs were not
regularly encountered away from the three inland [incl. St. Mary's noted
above] wildlife
areas until the 1970's.Their inland expansion gained momentum during the
late 1970's
and continued throughout the 1980's. In addition, the Division of
Wildlife established
another resident flock during the 1980's within the reclaimed strips of
southern
Muskingum and Morgan counties, which will ultimately result in increased
numbers of
breeding geese along the Unglaciated Plateau." (Peterjohn and Rice 1991).
"From taxonomic obscurity to
published extinction to one of the most abundant subspecies of Canada Geese
[sic] in North America, the restoration of Giant Canada Geese [sic] is
truly a conspicuous and spectacular accomplishment in wildlife
conservation. During the 1988 winter inventory, biologists estimated their
were 3.1 million Canada Geese [sic] in North America; 1.3 million were in
the Mississippi flyway and of these 250,000 were B.c. maxima.
"As a result of . . .intensive management,
a semidomesticated resident population has become permanently established.
But successful management was achieved at a priced. Unlike their warier
brethren,
our resident geese are accustomed to people and readily adapt to disturbed
habitats. No longer restricted to isolated marshes and lakes they appear
anywhere water is available. As this resident population expanded, it
developed a reputation as a nuisance, befouling beaches and lawns and
damaging corn and winter wheat crops. While the species
still looks the same, its behavior is entirely different, and the noble
character formerly associated with a skein of migrant geese passing
overhead has been tarnished."
"part of the introduction came when hunters who had been raising Canada
Geese as
live decoys were forced to release the Geese when this practice became
illegal.
The geese, which had been breed to be larger, were then imprinted on the area
where they were raised."
18722 Newell St., Floor 2
Shaker Hts., Oh 44122