SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
56–803 CC l
1999
MID-CONTINENT LIGHT GEESE
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 15, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–22
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
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
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ADAM SMITH, Washington
HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director
DAVE WHALEY, Legislative Staff
JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held April 15, 1999
Statement of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate in Congress from American Samoa, prepared statement of
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, prepared statement of
Pickering, Hon. Chip, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi
Prepared statement of
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Prepared statement of
Tanner, Hon. John S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, prepared statement of
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Adams, Tom, Senior Policy Adviser, National Audubon Society
Prepared statement of
Alison, Dr. Robert, Orillia, Ontario, Canada
Prepared statement of
Batt, Dr. Bruce, Chair, Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and Chief Biologist, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Prepared statement of
Rogers, Dr. John, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Prepared statement of
Taylor, Gary, Legislative Director, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Prepared statement of
Thomas, Dr. Vernon, Professor of Wildlife and Management, Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Background paper, Committee on Resources
Chrétien, Raymond, Ambassador, Canada, prepared statement of
News from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MID-CONTINENT LIGHT GEESE
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. SAXTON. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans will come to order.
Today, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing on the impact that light geese are having on the fragile Canadian Arctic tundra. We will examine the likely effectiveness of two rules that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently issued to address this impact, and we will inquire whether additional population control measures may be necessary in the future.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been monitoring light geese populations for over 50 years. During this time, the population has increased from 800,000 birds in 1969 to over 5 million mid-continent light geese today. It is projected that the breeding population could rise to more than 6.8 million in the next 3 years.
These birds are world-class foragers, and their favorite foods are found in the 135,000 acres that comprise the Hudson Bay lowland salt-marsh ecosystem. In fact, they like this vegetation so much that they are eating it much faster than its ability to regrow. According to various scientists, one-third of the lowlands have been destroyed, one-third are on the brink of destruction, and the remaining one-third are being consumed by the ever-expanding population of these geese.
While a solution to the overpopulation problem will not be easily found, there are certain undeniable facts. It is clear that man created the problem by planting thousands of acres of cereal crops, and unless some management practices are implemented, the destruction of the Arctic tundra will continue in the future.
On February 16th, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued two final rules to reduce the population of Mid-Continent light geese. At that time, the Director of the Service stated that, quote, ''We are not ruling out any other solutions that could help solve this problem and ensure healthy population levels.'' I am interested in learning what additional steps may be contemplated; what is a healthy population level for this species, and how quickly will the tundra recover if foraging pressure is reduced?
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on how we should address these serious environmental problems.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing on the impact that light geese are having on the fragile Canadian Arctic tundra. We will examine the likely effectiveness of two rules that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently issued to address this impact, and we will inquire whether additional population control measures may be necessary in the future.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been monitoring light geese populations for over 50 years. During that time, the population has increased from 800,000 birds in 1969 to more than five million Mid-Continent light geese today. With a 10 percent growth rate, it is projected that the breeding population could rise to more than 6.8 million birds in the next three years.
These birds are world-class foragers, and their favorite foods are found in the 135,000 acres that comprise the Hudson Bay lowland salt-marsh ecosystem. In fact, they like this vegetation so much that they are eating it much faster than its ability to regrow. According to various scientists, one-third of the lowlands have been destroyed, one-third are on the brink of devastation, and the remaining one-third are being consumed by an ever-expanding population of light geese.
While a solution to this overpopulation problem will not be easily found, there are certain undeniable facts. It is clear that man created this problem by planting thousands of acres of cereal crops and, unless some management policies are implemented, the destruction of the Arctic tundra will continue unabated and dozens of species, including light geese, will be unable to live there in the future.
On February 16th, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued two final rules to reduce the population of Mid-Continent light geese. At that time, the Director of the Service stated that ''we are not ruling out any other solutions that could help solve this problem and ensure healthy population levels in the future.'' I am interested in learning what additional steps may be contemplated, what is a healthy population level for this species, and how quickly will the tundra recover if foraging pressure is reduced.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I am anxious to hear the various recommendations on how to address this serious environmental problem.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Chairman, I compliment you for holding this oversight hearing on the destruction of the Canadian Arctic tundra by a growing population of light geese.
Three years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service joined with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the National Audubon Society, and several state fish and game departments in forming the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. After carefully studying the problem, a report entitled ''Arctic Ecosystems in Peril'' was released.
While there are many recommendations in this report, the bottom line is that immediate steps must be taken to reduce the population of Mid-Continent light geese.
This population has exploded from 800,000 in 1969 to more than five million birds today. The fundamental cause of this dramatic increase is the expansion of agricultural areas and the abundance of food for these geese. In Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas alone, there are more than 2.25 million acres of rice farms that have become a buffet bar for these birds.
With this improved diet, these geese are living longer and reproducing at about 10 percent each year. As a result, the 135,000 acres of the Hudson Bay lowlands ecosystem are being systematically destroyed. What was once thickly vegetated marsh is rapidly becoming a virtual desert that will no longer sustain life. This fragile Arctic habitat recovers extremely slowly and unless this population is significantly reduced, dozens of species, including light geese, will not survive in the future.
In an effort to address this escalating problem, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued two final rules to slow the destruction of the Arctic tundra. These rules, which allow for expanded hunting opportunities, were drafted after a long and difficult process. More than 1,100 comments were considered and the rules are fully consistent with the recommendations of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While the rules by themselves will not save the ecosystem, they are a responsible step in the right direction. This is a problem created by man, and the Service should be commended for its leadership in this matter. The easy decision would have been to do nothing. After all, some might say this is a Canadian problem. However, to endorse the idea of simply allowing nature to run its course, to allow the population of light geese and dozens of other species that depend on this habitat to crash is irresponsible. We cannot sit idly by and allow this environmental catastrophe to occur.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and to working together to solve this problem of an overabundance of Mid-Continent light geese.
Mr. SAXTON. In as much as the Ranking Member is not here, I guess I would ask if any other members have statements? Okay.
I ask unanimous consent that all Subcommittee members be permitted to include their opening statements in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Thank you and good morning Mr. Chairman. Before we begin I would like to extend a welcome to our assembled witnesses here this morning, and especially, I would like to thank Dr. Vernon Thomas and Dr. Robert Alison who have traveled from Ontario, Canada to be with us today. I look forward to hearing from both of you.
I commend Chairman Saxton for the timeliness of today's oversight hearing. I am sure that several members of this Subcommittee were interested in the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision earlier this month to withdraw final rules designed to remedy the ongoing destruction of arctic and subarctic breeding habitats caused by the population surge of mid-continent light geese.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am inclined to agree with Judge Thomas Hogan's recent decision that found that the Fish and Wildlife Service had acted within its authority under the Migratory Bird Act Treaty to invoke emergency measures to protect migratory birds. I sympathize with the Service, because few activities in the management of natural resources are more challenging than the management of highly migratory species, whether that species is a Pacific tuna or a North American migratory bird.
Nonetheless, concerns have been raised regarding the actual scope of habitat damage; the variability in the total population estimates of light geese; the identification of problem colonies in Canada; and whether the proposed remedy is an appropriate response to what may be a natural, cyclic population boom. In light of these unknowns, it was a fair judgement by Judge Hogan to rule that an environmental assessment (EA) was insufficient.
I think it is a wise decision by the Service to develop a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS). A more rigorous evaluation of management alternatives would appear reasonable in light of the real likelihood for unintended impacts. Certainly, the last thing we want to do is unnecessarily apply lethal controls that are too broad or too indiscriminate, especially if more localized management options are available.
I look forward to hearing from the Service on how they intend to complete this EIS within one year, what new research and data they expect to find, and what other management options, or combinations of options they intend to re-evaluate?
I also look forward to learning more about the actual extent of arctic and subarctic breeding habitat damage. It is my understanding that there is documentation of severe habitat damage—principally in the La Perouse Bay region of Manitoba and at Cape Henrietta Maria in Ontario—but that overall damage estimates throughout the entire span of available Canadian summer breeding habitats have not been seriously quantified. It would seem that this basic ecological information is necessary for the Service to be able to approximate the true scope of the threat to breeding habitat.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It also would be helpful to learn how other migratory bird species that share overlapping habitats with light geese have been impacted outside of the areas of documented damage? What might happen to these other populations should the population of light geese drop sharply?
In concluding, as I said earlier, the management of highly migratory species is difficult, and mid-continent light geese are no exception. I commend the Service for its decision to develop an EIS, and I hope as a result that the Service might find suitable management alternatives to enable it to act in a timely and effective manner that is in the best interests of the both the birds and the threatened ecosystems.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Your leadership on this issue is important and I look forward to working with you in keeping track of the progress made by the Service to complete this important EIS.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this oversight hearing on the ongoing destruction of the Arctic Tundra by the Lesser snow geese. This is an important issue which must be addressed because its effects will permanently damage the environment and ecosystem of the Arctic Tundra.
Since 1948, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been monitoring the snow geese population. Their studies have shown that the snow geese population has increased from 800,000 in 1969 to more than five million birds today. Biologists at Fish and Wildlife have attributed the population explosion to changes in the landscape and the availability of grain crops. Easy access to food during migration, coupled with low mortality rates, has allowed the species to grow at an enormous pace.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, due to the vast increase in numbers, the snow geese have destroyed thousands of acres of vegetated salt and freshwater marsh. Due to the need for more feeding grounds, the geese have driven out numerous bird species and now threaten an ecosystem that would take decades to rebuild.
Reports indicate that the snow geese have destroyed a third of habitat, another third is almost destroyed, and the geese have focused on the final third. This feeding frenzy has caused millions of dollars in damage to agricultural crops and permanent damage to the ecosystem.
Fish and Wildlife has tried to tackle this problem with increased hunting opportunities, such as expanding the hunting season and increasing bag limits. This has failed. The current harvest of the geese is the lowest in 25 years and the species continues to grow by 5 percent per year.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and I hope that today's oversight hearing will help us move in the right direction so that we can develop a plan that best protects the snow geese population and the valuable ecosystem of the Artic Tundra.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to provide testimony to your Subcommittee regarding the irreversible damage currently occurring in the tundra ecosystem of North America by the mid-continent lesser snow goose. As you are aware, this valuable international resource, which provides habitats for hundreds of different wildlife species, is in great danger of irreversible damage because of overpopulation of these geese.
The mid-continent lesser snow goose is an Arctic-nesting waterfowl whose population has thrived in recent years as a result of increased agricultural and urban development and their ability to successfully exploit human modified landscapes. Whereas in most cases this would be viewed as successful wildlife management, in terms of the mid-continent lesser snow goose this emerging pattern has moved beyond desired levels to become an immediate threat to the very survival of this species.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1969, the mid-continent lesser snow goose has been steadily increasing at a rate of 5 percent a year from 900,000 to more than 5,000,000 today. These geese forage by grubbing, or overturning soil, to reach the plant growth beneath the ground. This practice, coupled with the overpopulation, has caused severe environmental degradation to the Arctic ecosystem, almost rendering it useless for future plant growth. Fragile breeding grounds in Northern America, including the areas of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and parts of the Northwest Territories, have experienced irreparable damage to large areas of vegetation. Unlike most cases of wildlife population explosions where nature will balance species and habitat on its own, waiting for this to occur could be devastating. Current land-use practices have increased food supplies and reduced the winter mortality rate of these geese, thereby sending healthy birds back to breeding grounds where they continue to expand, destroying more and more of the North American tundra each season.
This overpopulation also increases the potential for outbreaks of disease and could cause a decline in other species that nest in these regions. This includes semipalmated sandpipers, red-necked phalaropes, yellow rails, American wigeons, northern shovelers and a variety of passerines.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that a decrease of one million geese, every year for the next several years, is what would be necessary to bring the mid-continent lesser snow goose population to one that is acceptable by wildlife managers. Taking this into consideration, the liberalization of many hunting frameworks is warranted. This includes modifying several current game-hunting regulations regarding baiting, electronic calls, concealment, bag limits and late-season expansion on and around state, provincial and Federal refuges. Though some conservation groups may consider these actions as severe, complacency can only be characterized as irresponsible.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented two rules in an attempt to address this growing problem. Specifically, this new policy provides more flexibility for states to allow the use of electronic goose calls and unplugged shotguns which had been prohibited in the past. Additionally, an extension of the harvest of snow geese for southern hunters beyond the current restrictions (March 10) in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has also been authorized allowing hunters to take light geese outside the traditional hunting season frameworks. I would like to applaud U.S. Fish and Wildlife for these actions and their willingness to pursue viable alternatives.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite these steps forward, however, more work remains necessary. Congress has the responsibility to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to utilize the most efficient conservation measures possible to reduce the population of mid-continent snow geese to levels that are consistent with sound biological management principles. This includes the development of a comprehensive management strategy, the liberalization of hunting frameworks and the modification of public land management practices. With these efforts, further destruction of the tundra ecosystem may be prevented and the mid-continent lesser snow geese can populate in a more healthy manner.
Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts regarding important matters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tanner follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. TANNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Chairman Saxton, Delegate Faleomavaega, Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I want to first thank you for your continued leadership in the conservation of our fish and wildlife resources. It is that leadership that brings us here today to examine the plight of the Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Goose, the work of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, and the recent action taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee for holding this hearing, particularly in light of recent actions involving the Service's final regulations aimed at reducing the populations of lesser snow geese and Ross' geese to a manageable level over the next five years. The action taken by the Service is appropriate and advocated by a host of conservation partners including the state fish and wildlife agencies and Ducks Unlimited. I look forward to hearing from my fellow colleagues here in the House as well as from representatives of some of our conservation partners who have well stated interests in this critical issue and have worked hard to find common ground.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Problem
Let's face it, the problem is staggering. Over the past 30 years the population of Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese has exploded by more than 300 percent. Roughly 900,000 Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese were recorded in surveys taken in 1969. Today, many of the estimated five million Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese are struggling to survive in the same arctic and sub-arctic breeding habitats that sustained only 900,000 snow geese 30 years ago. Many biologists believe those breeding habitats are capable of sustaining fewer than two million snow geese today. The population of these snow geese is growing at an annual rate of about 5 percent. Indeed, in 1968 when scientists began studying snow geese in the breeding grounds around La Perouse Bay there were 2,000 breeding pairs. Last year scientists found more than 40,000 pairs. Nesting colonies at Cape Henrietta Maria have exploded from roughly 2,000 pairs in 1960 to 225,000 pairs last year that had hatched more than one million goslings. That means trouble in the states where these birds winter. State waterfowl managers in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma are facing more severe problems in the southern regions of the Mississippi and Central Flyways where snow goose numbers have more than doubled in the last five years alone.
Equally stunning, of the 1,200 mile coastline of Hudson Bay and the Southern James Bay, more than 30 percent of the original habitat is considered destroyed, another 35 percent is severely imperiled, and the remainder is overgrazed. These geese have eaten themselves into crisis.
Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese rely on habitats in the arctic and sub-arctic regions of Canada primarily the western coasts of the Hudson Bay and the southern James Bay as well as the Baffin and South Hampton Islands for their nesting and staging areas. Beginning in August these snow geese begin their migration south over the Canadian boreal forests and along the Central Flyway corridor and the Mississippi Flyway corridor to their wintering grounds in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many waterfowl managers believe the virtually unlimited food source provided by many farmers in the Mississippi and Central Flyway states is part of the reason for the sustained growth rates these geese are experiencing. The available breeding habitats can no longer sustain the present population and that raises a number of threats to both these snow geese and other migratory birds that include the spread of avian cholera and increasing salinity levels in the soil because of the removal of virtually all of the tundra's protective turf by an over-abundance of snow geese.
The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
The Arctic Goose Joint Venture, which is one of the Joint Ventures formed to implement the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, put together the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group in 1996 to address booming snow goose populations and the resulting degradation of prime breeding ground habitat.
By the end of 1997, the Working Group produced a series of recommendations in its report, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril, that took a significant step towards achieving the necessary consensus needed to begin solving the pressing habitat issues facing Canada and the United States.
• Remove existing hunting restrictions on techniques including the use of electronic calls, baiting, and the practice of creeping.
• Provide for a Conservation Order that permits snow goose hunting beyond the between March 10th and August 31st.
• Encourage native hunters to increase subsistence harvests of eggs and adult birds.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
• Expand hunting opportunities on some National Wildlife Refuges in an effort to help disperse the geese from typically protected areas.
• Work with waterfowlers and land owners to improve access to private lands.
• Encourage state wildlife agencies to develop reciprocal agreements among the states to exempt nonresident waterfowlers from purchasing multiple licenses to hunt snow geese.
• And finally, remove or greatly expand current bag and possession limits.
The recommendation to reduce the lesser snow goose population by half has been endorsed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, its Canadian counterpart, the state fish and wildlife agencies, Ducks Unlimited, the Ornithological Council, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Arctic Geese Stakeholders Committee, the National Wildlife Federation, and the National Audubon Society.
Earlier this year, the Service adopted a series regulatory strategies aimed at giving state wildlife agencies in 24 states, primarily those in the Mississippi and Central Flyways, the flexibility to begin addressing the problems identified above with stepped up conservation measures.
• States will be permitted to implement conservation orders under the Migratory Bird Treaty that allow hunters to take light geese outside the traditional migratory bird hunting season frameworks. This essentially would permit hunters to pursue light geese between April 1st and August 31st.
• Hunters will also be permitted to use electronic goose calls and unplugged shotguns.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This action is expected to reduce the snow goose population by 1.25 million geese in the first year, 1.9 million in the second year, and 2.7 million in the third year. These estimated figures included the average 600,000 geese that are harvested under existing hunting frameworks.
I want to make it abundantly clear, the Service's Conservation Order must be implemented. If these actions are not taken and the snow goose population is allowed to grow even more, the consequences will be such that in the years ahead we may not have the options we have today.
Restoring these critical habitats for not only the lesser snow goose, but the many other species of migratory birds and wildlife that depend on the same habitat for their existence, is already expected to take decades. To delay further, in my view, borders on a complete abdication of our stewardship responsibilities.
The Future
Like many who have been working on this issue for much longer than me, I don't believe the solution to this problem now or in the future will be a simple one. But I do believe we need to take several steps to prepare for the long-term management of the Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Goose population at sustainable levels in an effort to restore these critical habitats.
Finally, as I said a year ago when this Subcommittee held a hearing on this issue, funding for migratory bird programs is not sufficient to meet our responsibilities. The Service requested an increase of $2.3 million for its migratory bird management programs, which includes $200,000 specifically for snow geese. The Joint Flyway Councils have recommended a budget increase of $5 million to better address goose population monitoring and related management and research needs. Both the Service and the Congress would do well to seriously consider the merits of the Joint Flyway Council's recommendation.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Cost Of Doing Nothing
The cost of doing too little or nothing at all will be excruciating if not irresponsible. The Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese have now become a serious threat to their own existence in the view of many. Their destruction of these prime habitats are threatening the existence of many other species of migratory birds including shorebirds and songbirds. Specifically, puddle ducks like the American wigeon and shovelers no longer use the freshwater wetlands in and around the colony, according to experts like Dr. Batt. They are finding that many non-game migratory birds like the stilt sandpiper in the arctic and subarctic habitats are declining in numbers because of the extreme habitat degradation brought about by the abundance of these snow geese.
One thing is clear to everyone who has objectively reviewed this issue. Doing nothing is neither scientifically viable, nor is it an acceptably responsible solution.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, Delegate Faleomavaega, Members of the Subcommittee, and those who have been working on this problem through the Working Group for helping to raise awareness about the plight of the lesser snow goose and its habitats.
Mr. SAXTON. With that, I would like to introduce our first panel. The Honorable Collin Peterson who is with us, and the Honorable Chip Pickering is or will soon be; he is here. If you gentleman would like to take your places at the table, you may begin, and we will begin with Collin. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate your interest in this issue, and we are interested in hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I guess I thought that Chairman Young was going to be here. I was going to let him get into all of the details of this. I guess, I don't know that I am any kind of expert, but I wanted to just relay some of my personal observations that some other members may not have had the opportunity to be involved in.
One of the things I do for work and for fun is fly airplanes, and we go up into the Arctic with our floatplanes every once in a while, and I have had the opportunity to fly over this area that is in question, and I don't think a lot of people have had the opportunity to be up in this part of the world. It is a whole different situation, and things grow very slow up there, and it is a serious situation if we allow this to deteriorate any further. I don't know that it will ever come back or if it does, it will be extremely in happening.
The other thing that I don't know if a lot of people realize just exactly what this kind of country is like up there. There is from Churchill up to Baker Lake, which you fly across this area, there are no roads; there is nothing there; no way to access it. So, if we don't figure out some way to control these populations, they are going to decimate the area, and I don't know how you would ever get in there and do anything to turn it around.
So, I don't know if the solutions that we have are working all that well. The other thing that I can report on, I have had a lot of my friends and neighbors have been over in North Dakota and South Dakota and other places—Minnesota chose not to have a hunting season this spring—but I have been getting mixed reports on the success of these hunts.
These geese, if any of you have ever hunted snow geese, are very difficult to hunt. Back in the old days when most of the flock was young birds, they were pretty dumb, and you could decoy them in and get a decent chance of harvesting some birds, but as this population has become healthier and older, they are a lot smarter—it doesn't matter whether it is the fall or the spring—and they are very difficult to hunt, and so the success rate—some people have had some decent success, but others have gone over and harvested one or two birds after hunting for 2 or 3 or 4 days. So, I am not sure taking these limits off, increasing these limits, or having the spring hunt, just from anecdotal evidence, I am not so sure how much we are taking off the top of the population with this hunt.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I mean, it is the right thing to do, I think, and it is an idea that gets at the problem, but, frankly, I just think we have kind of let this thing get ahead of us, and we were a little slow in getting to the—putting some solutions in place, and I don't know exactly what the overall harvest has been, but my sense is that in our part of the world they are not taking that many geese. I can tell you in the fall, I have been out snow goose hunting, and we usually come home skunked or close to it. They are very, very smart; very, very hard to hunt, and I just commend the Fish and Wildlife Service and all the other groups that have been working on this trying to come up with a solution, and we in the Sportsmen's Caucus have been concerned about this and have tried to do our part to publicize it and to work with all the other folks to try to come up with a solution, and I don't know if this is going to work. I am not sure what else you can do. Eventually, what probably will happen if this keeps on, is we are going to end up with some kind of a disease problem, and it will take of itself maybe, which would be an unfortunate situation.
I would be interested in hearing from, I guess, the witnesses today just how successful this has been, but up in our part of the world, at least, I am not sure they were that tough on the population, but, as I say, it is the right to do.
So, we commend you for having this hearing, and we in the Sportsmen's Caucus will do anything we can to help you and the Committee and others work on this issue, and I would be happy to answer any questions. I defer to my colleague from the Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Pickering.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Collin.
We will turn now to the gentleman from Mississippi.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHIP PICKERING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to commend you for holding this hearing. I do, as Collin, serve in the Sportsmen's Caucus as the vice-Chair. I am an active hunter and conservationist from my region; Collin gives a good perspective from his region, but we are beginning to see the impact of the overpopulation of the snow goose in the southern flyway, the Mississippi Flyway, that includes 24 States, including my home State of Mississippi.
Now, the southern States are seeing the harm because of the availability of food in the rice farms of Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. More than 2 million acres of rice crops and millions of acres of grain farms in the Midwest are becoming feeding grounds for the snow geese. As a result of the increased food supply, snow geese are living longer and reproducing at a higher rate which causes the destruction of 135,000 acres of the Hudson Bay lowlands, the Arctic habitat of the snow geese.
With the addition of the abundance of food in the South and Midwest, combined with the establishment of sanctuaries along the flyways and the decline in harvest rates of snow geese, there is a need for action to control the population of these migratory birds.
Now, over the last few years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the National Audubon Society, and many States' Department of Fish and Game to formulate a report called the Arctic Ecosystems in Peril which outlines methods to stop the destruction of the Arctic tundra. In February, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife issued two rules that would help solve the current snow geese situation. One allows hunters to use unplugged shotguns and electronic duck calls to hunt snow geese during the normal hunting season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons are closed. The second authorizes certain States to implement action to harvest snow geese by shooting in a hunting manner inside or outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting season framework.
I believe these two policies are good steps in the right direction, but more needs to be done to solve the overall problem. I support many of the recommendations of the U.S. Wildlife Service, the report that they have issued, and I hope that these recommendations are considered and implemented.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, finally, I want to emphasize the need for quick action on this issue. The habitat of the snow geese and numerous other species is threatened by the destruction of the Arctic habitat. Furthermore, the farmers in the South and Midwest need relief from the damage done to their crops by the snow geese. Reducing the population of snow geese is a priority for conservationists and sportsmen, and it is my hope that action is taken quickly to protect the habitat of these birds and the other animals that live in the same environment.
And, again, I just want to emphasize the need for the quick implementation of the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife report, and I hope that we can work with you, the Sportsmen's Caucus, as we have worked with other committees. Anything we can do to help carry these out and meet this immediate need I think is of critical importance. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pickering follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to speak to the Subcommittee about the issue of Mid-Continent light geese, also called snow geese.
It is my privilege to serve as a Co-Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. As an active hunter and conservationist, I believe we must address the population explosion of snow geese. Snow geese migrate in winter to the United States portions of the Central and Mississippi Flyways that include twenty-four states, including my home state of Mississippi.
The overpopulation of snow geese hurts southern states because of the availability of food in the rice farms of Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. More than two million acres of rice crops and millions of acres of grain farms in the Midwest are becoming feeding grounds for snow geese. As a result of this increased food supply, snow geese are living longer and reproducing at a higher rate which causes the destruction of 135,000 acres of the Hudson Bay lowlands—the Arctic habitat of snow geese.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of the abundance of food in the South and Midwest, combined with the establishment of sanctuaries along the flyways and the decline in harvest rates of snow geese, there is a need for action to control the population of these migratory birds.
Over the last few years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with the Canadian Wildlife Service; Ducks Unlimited; the National Audubon Society; and many states' Department of Fish and Game to formulate a report called ''Arctic Ecosystems of Peril'' which outlines methods to stop the destruction of the Arctic tundra. In February, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife issued two rules that would help solve the current snow geese situation. One allows hunters to use unplugged shotguns and electronic duck calls to hunt snow geese during a normal hunting season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons are closed. The second rule authorizes certain states to implement actions to harvest snow geese by shooting in a hunting manner, inside or outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting season framework.
I believe these two policies are good steps in the right direction but more needs to be done to solve the overall problem. I support many of the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ''Arctic Ecosystem in Peril'' report and I hope some of these recommendations are considered and implemented.
Finally, I want to emphasize the need for quick action on this issue. The habitat of the snow geese and numerous other species is threatened by the destruction of the Arctic habitat. Furthermore, the farmers in the South and Midwest need relief from the damage done to their crops by the snow geese. Reducing the population of snow geese is a priority for conservationists and sportsmen and it is my hope that action is taken quickly to protect the habitat of these birds and the other animals that live in the same environment.
Thank you.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. I would just like thank you both for your observations and your perspectives on what is obviously a very serious issue and one that has been under consideration by the Fish and Wildlife Service and by the Sportsmen's Caucus, I might add. Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham and others have been urging legislation on this matter, and, frankly, I have been holding back, because the Fish and Wildlife Service has been engaged with the biologists and experts in trying to manage this situation correctly, and, unfortunately, they have hit a couple of snags now which are unfortunate.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate, Collin, your description of the problem and the difficulty of hunting them. The Fish and Wildlife Service believes that they do have some new methods or some new tools that can be used in hunting that will be quite effective, and we are going to hear from them a little later.
By way of observation, these birds, even on the East Coast, get so thick—of course, the main problem now is in the center of the country—but even on the East Coast, they are becoming very prolific and very thick and are digging up mud flats all up and down the coast, and my son-in-law who is a great hunter, went out—he lives on a farm, and he went out and laid down behind the stone wall; the snow geese flew over him; with two shots, he killed nine geese; that is how thick they are, and I guess there was little luck involved in it, but he has told that story enough that I don't think he is exaggerating; I think he really did that.
So, there are good reasons, and you have outlined them with your observations especially well, and I am hopeful that we will collectively be able to come to grips with this very serious issue before they do run out of food in the tundra and before they do, therefore, become diseased and die miserable deaths. I don't know whether any of my other colleagues have observations, comments or questions that they would like to make at this point.
Mr. HANSEN. What is the limit on snow geese? How is your son-in-law enjoying his time in prison?
Mr. SAXTON. Well, it was a mistake, you know. He just had those two shots and try that in front of a Federal judge sometime.
Mr. HANSEN. Tell him you got a double at the last, so you pushed one down in the mud or you——
Mr. SAXTON. Harry is defending my son-in-law, and says the bag limit is 15.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON. I think the limit was 10 before we started the special season, so I think he was probably okay.
[Laughter.]
I am not a game warden.
Mr. HANSEN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say, I hope we don't overreact on some of these things. Sometimes I think we are a reactionary group, but I will be interested in seeing what comes out of all this.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your son-in-law is all right. I know in Maryland the limit is 15 from about October through February.
I want to emphasize to our colleagues that it really is—it isn't a growing problem on the Atlantic Flyway, it is a major problem on the Atlantic flyway, and I hope the Fish and Wildlife when they come up with this ever-changing policy with snow goose—and I want to thank them for all their efforts in this—but it is growing so fast on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that you can literally lose 100, 200, 300 acres of wheat in a matter of—winter wheat—in a matter of a couple of days. You can go out there and chase those buggers away, and if you happen to have 1,000, 2,000 acres and you are someplace else, they will come back in 10 minutes.
They have really—they have adapted to the fact that gas guns won't hurt them; they have adapted to the fact that flags won't hurt them; they have adapted to the fact—just like a beehive—that as soon as a pick-up is gone, they come back in. So, it is going to be a major undertaking.
I agree with my colleague from Utah that we don't want to overreact, but to get back in and strike this very complex, difficult position of bringing nature back into balance because of extraordinary human activity or because of the fundamental dynamic of natural systems, but I will think we will be able to do it, and good luck in your area, fellows.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add, in many ways we are benefiting from the success from our conservation efforts and the set asides that we have done, the practices setting aside the habitat and the food supply, but if we don't take drastic action on the snow geese problem—just for the Mississippi Flyway where we are seeing, like you, Mr. Gilchrest, just talked about how they can wipe out a field in an agricultural area and the habitat—it will begin to affect, and it has already begun to affect, other species, and so where we have made great strides in regaining the populations of waterfowl, it not only affects the snow geese population but all other waterfowl populations.
So, we want to be wise and prudent, but we do need to take action now to be able to keep all other populations increasing, and the success that we have had from our other conservation programs continuing, and if we don't, it becomes out of balance; it could spiral downward, and we do need to take action now.
All of the recommendations that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I think if they are implemented now and done quickly and urgently, that we can rebalance or correct the situation we now face.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, if I could just—you know, I would like to—I think the people in the Sportsmen's Caucus would like to know what these new hunting methods are, so we can go out and be more successful. So, if the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to come over and teach us, we would be more than happy.
Mr. GILCHREST. If the chairman will yield for just 30 seconds, I can tell you on the Eastern Shore of Maryland they go out there, and it is correct, you can shoot 15 a day for months at a time. They are difficult to shoot, just like shooting beehives, but what these fellows do is they go out there in the fields and they cover themselves with a mat made of cornstalks, and then the guide at one point will say okay. Even if those geese are flying over you 3 feet above your head he is the one that triggers the assault, if you will. You throw those mats off, you get up there, and a friend of mine with four other fellows got, I don't know, something like 80 geese, and they eat them all; they don't throw them away; they eat them all. So, that is one method, Collin.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON. Yes, I understand the method; I have been out and tried that. The problem is in our part of the world, you never know exactly where they are going to go, and it is a lot of luck. If you happen to be in the field and you have got yourself covered well enough, you may be able to get them to decoy in, but they are smart, at least in our part of the country, very smart, and they will sit up there 200 yards and circle above you, and more often than not go someplace else. Maybe they are dumber in Maryland than they are in North Dakota, but I will have to come out there and check it out.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SAXTON. Well, I would like to thank both of you for your comments again and suggest, if you have time, if you would like to stay with us, we are going to have a full discussion here about what Fish and Wildlife has been up to. In any event, we thank you for being here; we appreciate your comments.
We will, at this point, move on to our next panel, which is—we are going to hear from Dr. John Rogers who is the Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and, Dr. Rogers, we do have a 5-minute rule, but, obviously, we are very interested in hearing a thorough discussion this morning, so why don't you take such time as you need to enlighten us on the activities that you have undertaken in the last year or two and where we are and how well you think things are working.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN ROGERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Dr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is, once again, a pleasure to appear before you and the rest on the Committee on an issue that is of increasing importance to all of us, whether we are wildlife professionals, agriculturalists, hunters or wherever we find ourselves. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the ecological problems that are being caused by the overabundance of light geese, particularly in the Mid-Continent.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you alluded to earlier, management of light goose populations in North America has presented the wildlife management community with one of its most challenging tasks. This is in stark contrast to the efforts earlier in this century to stem the market hunting and other commercialization of these birds that happened in the 1800's and 1900's. We are now faced, in contrast to those years, with managing some populations of geese that have become so overabundant that they are literally destroying their breeding habitat.
The population of Mid-Continent light geese is, that principally lesser snow and Ross' geese, has grown to more than 300 percent over the last 30 years, from an index of 900,000 birds in 1969 to an index of over three million birds today. These population levels far exceed any historical estimates. The rapid growth of the population has been primarily attributed to the expansion of agriculture along the Central and Mississippi Flyways and the resultant low mortality and increased winter survival.
As you alluded to earlier, both you and Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Chairman, another population of geese that is steadily increasing as a result of increased use of agricultural lands is the greater population snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway—or the population of greater snow geese. Arctic habitats that are harmed by Mid-Continent lesser snow geese may take decades to recover if they ever do. Currently, as you mentioned, 35 percent of the 135,000 acres of habitat in the Hudson Bay lowlands is considered destroyed; another 30 percent is damaged, and 35 percent is heavily grazed. Habitat damage is not limited to that done by the breeding geese, and breeding goose colonies; it is also caused by northward-bound spring migrants who stop and feed in these same areas.
Although you may hear from some individuals and some organizations who are opposed to our actions, the Fish and Wildlife Service along with the Canadian Wildlife Service and virtually every wildlife biologist with experience in the Arctic in both countries believes that the Mid-Continent light goose population has exceeded the carrying capacity of its breeding habitat, and the population must be reduced to avoid long-term damage to an ecosystem that is important not only to those birds but to every other species of wildlife that shares that habitat. This is based on the virtual unanimity in the scientific peer review literature that supports our understanding of the damage that is being done to this habitat.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a paper submitted to this Subcommittee for the hearing record, Canadian authorities have stated that, quote, ''There is a broad consensus that the present growth rates of the geese cannot be sustained and that the particular kinds of habitat preferred by the geese are threatened in many areas.'' In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the Arctic Goose Joint Venture recommended that wildlife agencies take steps to reduce the Mid-Continent light goose population by 50 percent by the year 2005, and I would like to submit a copy of that report for the record, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.
Dr. ROGERS. An environmental assessment of the Mid-Continent light goose situation was completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service after extensive consultation with State, with provincial, private, academic, and non-governmental partners in both the United States and in Canada. Several alternative management actions for reducing light goose populations were examined in that assessment. The preferred alternative was to use new methods of take, namely electronic calls and unplugged shotguns, for use by hunters during normal waterfowl hunting frameworks when all other waterfowl and crane seasons were closed and also to advocate the creation of a conservation order that is a special new management action designed to decrease populations. This order authorized takes of snow geese during the normal framework closed period of March 10 to August 31st.
The Service published two rules in February 16th of this year implementing that alternative in 24 States of the Mississippi and Central Flyways. Several of those States implemented those regulations immediately as we published those rules, and based on reports from field biologists, the new regulatory approach appears to be successful. The Canadian Wildlife Service has implemented similar regulations.
To compliment harvest management actions, we have initiated land management practices that will increase susceptibility of light geese to harvest and make some lands less suitable for utilization by these birds. These actions will focus on five points: first, providing increased hunter opportunity; second, decrease food availability; third, manipulating wetland areas to decrease their attractiveness to snow geese; fourth, allow altering winter habitat, and, five, conducting an aggressive communication and outreach program so that everybody understood both the situation and potential solutions. In addition, the Canadian Wildlife Service has been working with aboriginal groups to encourage them to take more geese in and around the breeding areas.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is known, however, that this can only be part of the overall solution. To date, no feasible method for reducing population numbers in the northern areas has been proposed. The Service's management action has received widespread support from the scientific and conservation community. Conservation groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Ornithological Council, the American Bird Conservancy, and Ducks Unlimited—who you will hear from today—have expressed strong support for the light goose population reduction program.
In addition Flyway councils, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and individual State wildlife agencies have worked closely with the Service to implement these management actions. Nevertheless, on March 3rd of this year, the Humane Society of the United States and several other animal rights groups filed suit against the Service challenging these new regulations maintaining that the Service had violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by enacting new regulations and that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been completed prior to implementation of these rules.
On March 18th, Judge Thomas Hogan denied a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs indicating that the Service's actions constituted a reasonable use of its authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty and that the population reduction program was based on sound scientific evidence. However, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim and that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been prepared. Based on the written opinion of the court, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not to continue with litigation and will initiate preparation of an EIS immediately and to withdraw the two regulations on light goose population reduction after the northward migration is complete. It is possible that the time requirements for preparing this EIS may preclude resumption of light goose management actions next spring and therefore prolong a resolution of this issue of habitat destruction.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Fish and Wildlife Service firmly believes that aggressive management intervention is a necessary and scientifically sound approach for the control of white goose populations. Without intervention, we will likely witness the destruction of an ecosystem that is important to snow geese as well as every other species of wildlife that shares this habitat, and it also possible that the snow goose population will crash and remain at extremely low levels due to lack of suitable breeding habitat, the spread of disease, and predation.
We are committed to continuing to work with State fish and wildlife agencies, Canadian wildlife authorities, and public stakeholders to address this issue of the overabundance of white geese. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am prepared to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers may be found at the end of the hearing.]
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Rogers. In my testimony, I mentioned that the current population, which is an estimated five million, is projected to increase over the next 3 years to almost seven million, 6.8 to be more precise. What affect will that potential increase have on habitat?
Dr. ROGERS. It will continue the destruction that has already occurred. I think one can expect that the complete destruction of habitat from 30 percent will rise into the range of 40 percent. You will start seeing effects on—increased effects on young birds with reduced size, weight, date of fledgling, increased disease occurrence and potential, increased starvation of young birds, increased freezing of young birds who haven't developed the necessary flight feathers to leave the Arctic before winter sets in. Concomitantly, in the southern areas—you heard from both Mr. Pickering and Mr. Peterson as well as Mr. Gilchrest—the agricultural damage that these birds cause in the winter; an increase by another almost two million birds will increase dramatically the depredations they cause on agricultural crops. The situation won't get any better.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. Can you guess at how long it would take with a population of seven million birds for the destroyed tundra to reach the 40 percent level?
Dr. ROGERS. How long it would take to reach that level? I cannot project directly, but I would suspect in a matter of 2 to 3 years. We can get a better answer for you for that for the record.
Mr. SAXTON. And at what point do you suppose the population would level off because of lack of food and disease?
Dr. ROGERS. Again, we are not certain of that. Dr. Batt, who will appear later, probably has a better idea, but these birds are very mobile, and after destroying the habitat along the Hudson Bay lowlands and the coast or traditional areas, they have shown amazing plasticity to begin using other areas that they have not historically used. So, it is potentially—it is at least a potential that the population may not immediately crash but move on to destroy other habitats that are, right now, very little if at all affected.
Mr. SAXTON. Well, what other critters depend upon the habitat in the Hudson Bay area that is being destroyed?
Dr. ROGERS. There is a wide variety of, particularly, migratory birds. It is a heavily used area, of course, by the polar bears and others—polar bears, of course, making it logistically difficult to work up there—but all species of birds that use the area are potentially affected, particularly semi-palmated sandpipers and red-necked phalaropes. The breeding pair counts of those have declined over the last number of years. Yellow rails, a species once abundant at LaPerouse Bay on Hudson Bay are not seen there at all right now. Other shorebirds as well as shovelers, American widgeon, are potentially affected, but, really, any species of bird that shares that habitat is potentially at risk.
Mr. SAXTON. A little later, we are going to hear from some other witnesses, and I will anticipate that we will hear a phrase which is ''Let nature take its course.'' This is an option which, obviously, has been talked about and considered. Why not simply allow the population to crash and let nature takes its course?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. ROGERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a—the statement that leads one to believe that nature will take its course is based on an incorrect premise and that is that it has been a natural situation that has got us here. What we have is an unnatural situation where the population has been kicked up to unusually and unnaturally high levels by the change in agricultural practices in the Mid-Continent of the United States, so the birds are essentially released from the normal limiting factors, that is winter survival, on their population. So, the option, in my view, might better be termed the ''do nothing'' option, and it is, in my view, the Fish and Wildlife Service's view, not a responsible option to take, though maybe it ought to be considered.
The results of that—we talked about a little bit a minute ago—would be continued destruction of habitat, more widespread, and the potential that many of the scientists believe that this will never recover. You end up with smaller, weaker young; susceptibility to disease that would affect both birds in the North as well as along the migratory routes; starvation; freezing for those that can't fly away when winter comes; irreversible impacts on the habitat lead to irreversible impacts on other species, and, as you suggested, ultimately, the snow goose population, once the habitat is destroyed, may stabilize but at a considerably lower level and with a habitat, a breeding habitat, that cannot support higher populations, I believe would be in a positive feedback situation that would lead us to a catastrophic and permanent crash and the habitat and the populations of birds that depend upon it.
Mr. SAXTON. My time has almost expired, but let me ask one final question. It is obvious that your proposal has some opponents, otherwise, there wouldn't have been the activity in court. Obviously, you have got some supporters, and, obviously, you have got some folks who disagree. Can you kind of give us a lineup of the scientific and environmental groups and animal rights groups and where they all line up on this?
Dr. ROGERS. Every conservation group that I am aware of, every scientific group that I am aware of, all of the scientific literature, and all of the scientists who have produced that literature are in support of our approach to this problem. Those who on the animal rights side who do not agree that we should be intervening in what they view as a natural situation, such as those you will hear from today, oppose us, but the way I characterize it, it is a matter of the science supports the Fish and Wildlife Service; sometimes the emotion and the opinion of others leads people to line up on the other side.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers, where do the snow geese along the Atlantic Flyway spend their spring and summer months?
Dr. ROGERS. They are breeding in the eastern Arctic.
Mr. GILCHREST. Now, that is a completely different—so, the eastern Arctic, is that being damaged as much as the Hudson Bay area?
Dr. ROGERS. Not to this point. The populations have not reached a point where they are critically damaging their breeding habitat. The major problems at this time caused by the greater snow geese are in the salt marshes and agricultural areas. We—and I didn't mention—as we prepare this EIS, we will be bringing into that the greater snow geese on the East Coast, because, though the problem is not as severe right now, if we were to let it go without action and consideration, it will become so.
Mr. GILCHREST. You mentioned a couple of times about one of the reasons for the explosion of population is the change in agricultural practices in the Midwest. Now, is this within the last 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? I think they have been growing grain out there for a long time.
Dr. ROGERS. Yes, and it took the snow geese time to adapt to it. Historically, they wintered in the coastal areas along the Gulf, but as the habitat was altered to support rice farming and as corn growing in the upper Midwest allowed them to winter farther north, the population slowly expanded. I can remember when—the Fish and Wildlife Service is not totally blameless in helping to encourage snow geese. A number of our refuges for years planted crops and encouraged crops around the refuges and on the refuges to support these critters.
Mr. GILCHREST. You mentioned five fundamental policy changes that you thought would help reduce the exploding population. One is increased hunting or increased hunters. Could you give us some specifics like encouraging increased hunting to the State Department of Natural Resources, lengthening the season, take the plugs out of the shotguns, electronic calls? What exactly would you recommend?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. ROGERS. Okay, what we had done before this year was to allow the full 107-day season that the Migratory Bird Treaty would allow and double the Federal limit on snow geese to about 20 birds and remove possession limits. Unfortunately, as at least Mr. Peterson alluded to, most hunters certainly of the Mid-Continent, like geese, are not approaching their limits. We recognized that more had to be done. Therefore, we have instituted or had instituted during the regular season a situation that would allow the use, subject to State authority, of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns. These, at least from anecdotal reports of hunters, have been very successful. Of course, we won't know the success——
Mr. GILCHREST. Were these implemented this season?
Dr. ROGERS. These were implemented in late February of this season, so we don't have——
Mr. GILCHREST. Now, is that also in the Atlantic Flyway?
Dr. ROGERS. No, it was mostly in 24 midwestern States.
Mr. GILCHREST. Will it be in the Atlantic Flyway next season?
Dr. ROGERS. It will not be in the Atlantic Flyway season or anywhere else until we finish an EIS. So, under the present condition, we have removed——
Mr. SAXTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Rogers, Dr. Rogers, would you explain what the current situation is relative to the court ruling as it pertains to the ongoing status of the regulations?
Dr. ROGERS. Yes. The judge, in hearing the preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, determined that we were, as I said earlier, acting within our authority and responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but suggested that if this were pursued in court, we would be vulnerable on the grounds of not having followed the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, we have suspended both of these actions pending the completion of an EIS.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. Which will be accomplished over what period of time.
Dr. ROGERS. Which will take 12 to 18 months, which I would suggest, at least at this time as far as we know it, would mean that we would not be able to use these more liberalized regulations in the future.
Mr. GILCHREST. Which means we have got a lot of family members out there running through the winter wheat fields chasing geese.
You mentioned decreasing food in agricultural lands. How do you decrease their food?
Dr. ROGERS. Well, that is a land management practice that would fall upon refuge managers whether they be State managers or Federal managers; that is to stop planting food crops that the geese use that, in many cases, hold them on refuges.
Mr. GILCHREST. It may cause them to go to the——
Dr. ROGERS. It may cause them to go out there where they are more vulnerable.
Mr. GILCHREST. You mentioned manipulating wetlands. How would you do that?
Dr. ROGERS. Well, by controlling the—again, in managed wetlands, principally, in State and Federal areas, we can control the water level. The snow geese tend to like shallower waters, so it would be managing a water level that was deeper that was less attractive to them.
Mr. GILCHREST. Are there that many wetlands that have water that you can control the level?
Dr. ROGERS. Again, on many Federal and State management areas, yes, and these have become very important to snow geese in the wintertime.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. How would you—I am going to—Mr. Pombo yielded some of his time to be my proxy, if I could just say that, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SAXTON. That is unusual, but since it is your birthday, we will——
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just two quick questions. What methods are you now using with the Canadians in coordination with what we are doing down here as far as trying to find some method of altering those spring and summer habitats to reduce the breeding up there?
Dr. ROGERS. The Canadians have instituted very similar hunting regulations, as we did, so we are in complete coordination there. Of course, all the lands where they breed are in Canada, and the Canadian government has indicated in their statement suggested there has not been any proposal or any serious consideration yet of actions on the breeding ground. They are logistically very difficult; safety concerns; it would be very expensive, and in doing so, the harvest rights of aboriginal Canadians would have to be considered. So, the hope is that we, with the hunting process, can reduce the population to the levels needed and not have to think of more draconian levels that would take—draconian actions on the breeding grounds.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. So, the change of policy implemented in the Midwest in February will be withdrawn until the lawsuit is done?
Dr. ROGERS. It will be withdrawn until the Environmental Impact Statement is done.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. And that will be done——
Dr. ROGERS. And that will be done over the next 12 to 18 months.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, I see. So, a State, for example, cannot implement any changes like electronic calls, unplugged shotguns?
Dr. ROGERS. That is correct.
Mr. GILCHREST. Those kinds of things.
Dr. ROGERS. That is correct.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. You are welcome, and next year on your birthday, we will give you extra time again.
Mr. GILCHREST. Appreciate that.
Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Rogers, thank you very much for your comments and for your testimony. The members may have some additional questions, and we ask that you respond to them in writing. The record for that will remain open for 30 days. Thank you for being with us.
Dr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. SAXTON. Our third panel this morning consists of Mr. Gary Taylor, legislative director of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Dr. Vernon Thomas, representing the Humane Society of the United States; Dr. Robert Alison, from Orillia, is it? Canada, Ontario, who is, I understand, also a member of the Humane Society but is here today on his own behalf; Mr. Tom Adams, senior policy advisor of the National Audubon Society; and Dr. Bruce Batt, who is the Chairman of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and chief biologist of Ducks Unlimited who I understand is also from Canada.
Thank all of you for being with us. Let me remind you of the 5 minute time limit, and, Mr. Taylor, when you are prepared, you may begin.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF GARY TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Taylor, legislative director for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to share with you today our perspectives on the increase of the Mid-Continent lesser snow goose population and the impact they are having on the Arctic tundra habitat.
The association firmly supports the Fish and Wildlife Service's final adopted rules on the management of Mid-Continent light geese as a very measured response, implemented after extensive discussions with the resource managers in the States and Canadian provinces, between the Federal governments of the United States and Canada, and with interested constituencies and publics. We would urge the Subcommittee's support for these actions and also your support for increased funding to the Service for monitoring the effectiveness of these conservation measures.
The association and its member agencies are very familiar with the necessity for action to address the overpopulation of snow geese that is causing substantial adverse impact on the Arctic tundra. As you may recall, we appeared before this Subcommittee last April to address this issue, and, at that time, we stressed the need for immediate action. We have also been involved with the deliberations of the Arctic Goose Joint Venture and the Stakeholders' Committee on Arctic Nesting Geese, and the association has endorsed the recommendations of both of these groups.
The association continues to be concerned that snow goose populations are expanding at an average rate of 5 percent a year and now exceed five million breeding birds. This overabundance of snow geese is attributed mainly to changing agricultural practices on the wintering grounds and the coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the Central and Mississippi Flyway migration corridors. These practices, as you have heard, have inadvertently increased the food available to snow geese during migration and wintering periods.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Scientists and wildlife managers agree that Mid-Continent lesser snow geese have become so numerous that fragile tundra nesting habitats along the Hudson and James Bay coastal lowlands have been severely degraded or destroyed. This is a serious ecological problem affecting all indigenous species of flora and fauna, thus decreasing the diversity of these biological communities.
There are indications that other bird species, such as shorebirds and other waterfowl that nest in these areas, are already in decline because their breeding habitat is being destroyed. As snow goose populations continue to increase and brood rearing habitat declines, birds are dispersing to adjacent areas, and the zone of damaged habitat is spreading. Population levels are now well above the sustainable levels for the Arctic and sub-Arctic habitats upon which they depend. In addition, as carriers of avian cholera, snow geese are a potential health threat to all other bird species that share their nesting or wintering habitats. Furthermore, as you have heard, reports of damage to agricultural crops that lie along the migration route between these areas are also increasing.
As you have heard, the snow goose population has now become a threat to itself, and without immediate action, ecological damage in affected habitats could be catastrophic. There is credible and mounting evidence to substantiate that this damage could, in fact, be permanent. Habitat recovery in areas that are not even permanently damaged will take decades or even centuries to recover.
Resource managers have a responsibility and an obligation to protect this fragile habitat through the appropriate measures to control the escalating snow goose population. To let nature take its course for snow geese is neither acceptable nor responsible. If the adult snow goose population is not reduced to appropriate and self-sustaining levels in the very near future, millions of geese will die from starvation and disease. Should the population crash in this manner, it is likely that snow geese would not recover because of long-term or even permanent loss of the habitat necessary to support the rebuilding of these populations.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The association concurs that effective management measures must be directed towards reducing adult bird survival. The Mid-Continent population must be reduced by approximately 50 percent of its current size. To do this, the association concurs with the alternative regulatory strategies adopted by the Service. Under the authority of this rule, States, through their State fish and wildlife agency, will be able to develop and initiate aggressive harvest management strategies. An increase in harvest will assist with habitat management on the wintering grounds and relieve both population and habitat pressure on the Arctic breeding grounds. Remedial actions must be applied now. Any delay may result in consequences that are significant and, in some cases, virtually irreversible.
One other point we would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a decided lack of funding for goose management and, in particular, snow goose management programs. The need for better biological data, enhanced habitat management, and intensified population management is increasing while Federal dollars for natural resources are decreasing. The Joint Flyway Councils on which sit all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies, have recommended a budget increase of approximately $5 million to the Service's budget to adequately address goose population monitoring, management, and research needs. The association fully supports this request and also urges the support of this Subcommittee for that request.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives, and I would be pleased to address any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Taylor, thank you very much for your testimony.
We now move to Dr. Vernon Thomas.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. VERNON THOMAS, PROFESSOR OF WILDLIFE AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, GUELPH, ONTARIO
Dr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today.
First, I will give you my credentials. I am a professor of zoology at the University of Geulph in Ontario, Canada. I have been in that position for the past 25 years. I teach at both the undergraduate and graduate level in animal ecology, ornithology, fish and wildlife management, and areas of applied resources policy. On the research side, I have conducted research in the area under question, James and Hudson's Bay. I have worked on the feeding ecology of snow geese and Canada geese in this region. I have published on those results in international journals. I have done work in that area in the wintertime, spring, and fall; I know it well. For three consecutive springs, I have lived with the native people as they took geese in the spring. I am also involved in the development of non-toxic shots for the past 5 years, so I have a certain sympathy with the ammunition and hunting industry. On a personal level, I am a shooter. I have shot in five countries, and, at this point in time, my kill of geese is just below 400. Those are my credentials and I believe my basis for appearing here today as an expert in this area.
Let me begin by saying that I take a somewhat different view of this issue compared with the Service, and the differences lie in the fact that I have taken a more long-term ecological approach to this issue rather than a short-term approach and an approach which is based on the somewhat outmoded style of single species management as opposed to ecosystem management. Central to this issue, as you have heard already, is the idea that there is a huge agricultural subsidy in the United States which is burgeoning this population. Now, I would say that that is, perhaps, true, but, yet, overexaggerated for two reasons. There is no empirical evidence that numbers of white geese have ever been controlled or limited by their winter habitat conditions. This is a belief, an assumption, that is being used in this case. Secondly, there is the statement that these birds, fed on prairie grains, go up into Canada fat and then continue to breed at much, much higher levels. I contend there is no carryover of this prairie grain effect into the Canadian lowlands. In fact, published data have indicated that for the past 19 to 20 years, there has been a reduction in the clutch size; that is the number of eggs laid by females in the southern Hudson Bay population of snow geese, and that is a very significant decline in their reproductive output over that time. In other words, I feel that on those two counts, the impact of agriculture, while real, has been, perhaps, overexaggerated.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The goal of this management plan it has given is to conserve Canadian Arctic habitat. Now, I would say that while we have heard and seen many statements that geese are causing destruction, damage, and periling an entire ecosystem, I would argue that as an ecologist that those are somewhat sensationalistic statements. Yes, geese do have impact on vegetation; that is their natural role, but there is an alternative ecological explanation. The role of geese in this situation, particularly when their grazing is heavy, is to cause change; change in the nature of those plant species' composition of the lowland vegetation over time, and I emphasize here that we should not confuse change in plant species composition with destruction of an ecosystem. That is not, in my professional opinion, the case.
We have seen what geese in this area have gone through over the millennia. Three successive waves of glaciation and retreat. A thousand years ago, the major warming trend that afflicted North America, 500 years ago, 300 years ago, the little Ice Age, and now, we are in another warming period. In my opinion, over the millennia that these geese have existed, they have not suddenly become delinquent in the last two decades.
In the reports that you have seen, we have not seen much evidence given or stated about the role or the uplift of these lowlands in creating new habitat each year. The Hudson Bay area is, perhaps, one of the most dynamic parts of North America, and new habitat is being created every year at an astonishing rate of approximately 15 to 25 yards of new shoreline above the tidal zone. This is soon to be occupied by geese every year.
This population of birds, as do all animals, has the capacity to regulate its own numbers. It is happening at Hudson Bay for the last 15 to 20 years that we know of. We see it in the form of lower clutch sizes; fewer gosling surviving; smaller adults that are produced from these areas where grazing is affected. We have seen major dispersal. These are natural processes, yet this is being dismissed by government. Government has said that if we allow this population to undergo natural self-regulating processes, it will crash, and, again, there is no implicit—there is no empirical evidence for such a behavior of populations in the wild. This is a native population in its natural habitat. It is unconstrained; it can move, and I would argue that this population, when stabilizing, will not crash.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You have seen the point made that a burgeoning population of geese is going to cause enormous damage to other species, disease. Well, these snow geese and Ross' geese already number five to six million birds; they travel in huge flocks, and if disease such as cholera, enteritis, and others were to outbreak, I must argue that it would have already happened on a major, major scale; it has not.
The idea of displacement has been based on the idea of two reports, somewhat contradictory, incidentally; the latest one saying that 9 out of 35 species looked at have undergone change while the other 26 have not. There is no conclusive evidence of widespread decline in another species, and I would actually take this report and read to you one statement that has been overlooked very frequently. The authors say, ''We have found no compelling evidence that these impacted species are declining on larger spacial scales.'' Therefore, I say, that we should not use the preliminary report based upon one very, very small geographic area to indict at least two-thirds of the continent's snow geese.
My last point is that as an ecologist I see evidence of ecological processes fashioning populations very adaptively over time. We should allow that process to continue. This is not to deny hunting its role. Where appropriate, where populations have grown and grazing is heavy, natural selective factors can fashion that population of birds far more effectively, far more adaptively than any hunting can do, particularly thousands of miles from the places where it needs to happen. And I would suggest that we focus management in areas where there are species that need, perhaps, a lot more attention and dollars—pintails, scaup.
In conclusion—and I will make this very, very quick—I, as an ecologist, see this goose issue as not a problem for nature, but, perhaps, one for managers. And my last statement is that as an ecologist if I cannot agree scientifically with the definition of the problem, then I cannot agree with the specific nature of the solution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas may be found at the end of the hearing.]
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Thomas.
Dr. Alison, would you do me a favor? I am just curious, would you pronounce the name of the city that you are from, please? I don't say that to be smart, I just am very curious.
Mr. ALISON. It is pronounced Orillia.
Mr. SAXTON. Say it again, please.
Mr. ALISON. Orillia.
Mr. SAXTON. Orillia. Thank you very much. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT ALISON, ORILLIA, ONTARIO, CANADA
Dr. ALISON. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. I, too, will start out with mentioning my qualifications. Just to correct the record, I am not with the Humane Society; in fact, I am not with any pro-hunting or animal rights organization at all.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.
Dr. ALISON. I am here as an individual with Ph.D. in ornithology; did my research on Hudson's Bay. I have been going to the area under discussion today for 30 years. I lead nature tours there, have done that for 15 of those years. I was involved as a professional waterfowl manager for 10 years, committee chairman in both the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway for 7 of those 10 years, and I was Ontario's voting representative in both of those flyways throughout that period. In that capacity, I had quite an amount of effort and time devoted to lesser snow geese. I was on the Snow Goose Committee in the Mississippi Flyway for 5 of those years. On the other hand, I am also a hunter and a sportsman, and I am the editor of Canada's largest circulation hunting magazine. So, I guess I try and see this predicament from both sides.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is quite true that there has been a rather significant habitat change, deterioration, in Arctic Canada. An area of approximately 200,000 square miles on the west and south coast of Hudson's Bay which in the mid-seventies was lush and green is now brown and dry and appears dead. There is enormous interest in what has caused this deterioration or this change, and I think that, just for the record, I would like to point that I think there has been a slight misunderstanding of the area that we are dealing with.
I have trudged over and flown over this area for over 25 years. Now, this is not lesser snow goose breeding habitat. There is one very trivial colony at LaPerouse Bay that has centered in the area of major concern. The rest of the major snow goose colonies that we are dealing with, of which there are approximately 15, are not in this contested area at all, and most of them several hundred miles away. This is not snow goose breeding habitat that we are dealing with, with the exception of the LaPerouse Bay colony itself, which I will reiterate is a very trivial colony and also a colony of very recent roots.
I think the area that we are dealing with is rather an area that is used by staging geese, fall and spring staging geese, and the part that I find most puzzling is that despite the fact that the habitat has deteriorated and that the geese are blamed for it, it is very probable and indeed likely from information that the Canadian Wildlife Service has made available, that some of it isn't used by geese at all, particularly the part that is inland. I have some trouble figuring out how geese can damage an area that they don't go to.
This is my main interest for being here. What I would like to suggest is that there are other possible explanations for what has occurred in the Arctic. Vern Thomas referred to isostatic uplift a moment ago. This is a geologic process that causes the land to rise as a result of the melting of glaciers, which in Hudson Bay were in some places over a mile thick. The land was depressed, it is now rising, and this has caused some change in wetland distribution and in entirely wetland ecology, and I have seen that in the 30 years that I have been going there.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps, as significant as climate change, which is occurring up there, climate change is not only affecting the habitat, but it is affecting the geese. So far, the geese have been unable to adapt their breeding strategy to the changes in climate that are occurring. The last year, for example, the geese nested too early; they were fooled by the warmer weather, and, as a result, when the goslings emerged, there wasn't enough for them to eat, and there was rather large scale starvation. This may or may not be a case of the birds adapting to these changes.
The Arctic summer is now approximately 2 weeks longer than it was 20 years ago. The temperature has risen approximately five degrees centigrade in the past 20 years. These are enormous changes; Nature doesn't like abrupt change, and I think that species are having a difficult time adapting to it.
I think the bottom line is that these birds are in the process of adapting to something that is very far-reaching. I think it is dangerous to extrapolate the findings at one small colony so as to appear to apply to the rest of the breeding population. There is no data, no data whatsoever, to suggest that any of the other breeding colonies are eating themselves into oblivion as has been suggested for LaPerouse Bay.
Having been to LaPerouse Bay many, many times, I will admit that the core of the colony seems to be deteriorating, but I would say that the other colonies have not been proven to have that kind of deterioration, and so I would say that it is dangerous to blame the geese for what is occurring there.
I guess to summarize, I would like to say that there are many, many more important processes that are occurring in this area that I think should be of much more concern to the governments of Canada and the United States, and I would be glad to deal with those if I have time, but the final point I would like to make is that, in my capacity as an editor for a major hunting magazine, there is some concern among Ontario sportsmen that the process of establishing what amounts to a war on snow geese may give hunters a black eye. I, in fact, share that fear, and, secondly, I don't think that it is possible for the sportsmen of the United States and Canada combined to kill enough geese to make much of a difference even it is established by the rigorous research that I would recommend that these birds are, in fact, doing the damage that they are purported to do.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make these comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alison may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Alison, thank you very much, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your appearance here by mentioning the Humane Society, and we will certainly get that right in the record. Thank you.
Dr. Tom Adams.
STATEMENT OF TOM ADAMS, SENIOR POLICY ADVISER, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for upgrading my credentials. I am not a doctor, but I appreciate that.
On behalf of the more than one million members and supporters of the National Audubon Society, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today here, and we are also representing our 520 chapters.
I have to admit I am relatively new to this issue. Probably the person in our organization with the most expertise is currently tied up in our internal version of an omnibus conference committee, which is our annual budget meetings, so he regrets not being able to be here; that would Frank Gail.
In the time that I have been looking into this issue, I have also been preparing my taxes, and I am probably one of the few Americans who will say taxes are not that complicated, especially compared to this.
I know our statement is in the record, and there is just a few points that I would like to touch on that other witnesses have done, so I will expedite what I had planned to say and just associate myself with some of the remarks. Audubon feels that the science that has been put into this decision is credible, and we support its findings. We also want to associate ourselves, especially, Congressman Pickering made a remark about the impact this is having on other species, and the habitat depletion in both areas, and that, I think, is our primary concern is that there is more than one species at risk here, and so we support the action while recognizing, as others have said, a more comprehensive solution or approach is going to be needed to get to the heart of this matter, particularly in the winter habitats and the expansion of agriculture that a number of witnesses have testified towards.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just a few quick few points, and I do want to go through in here in order to—one of the ironies, I think, of this issue and what we are looking at is as the amount of habitat is being overgrazed and overgrubbed in the Arctic, you are seeing a pattern where the population is just expanding, fueled in part by the winter habitat. I couldn't help but find that sort of being analogous to the issue of sprawl in that we are just continuing to expand habitat in a lot of communities that is affecting wildlife, and I think at some level you have an analogous situation with the expansion of the snow geese habitat.
We also, I think, share Congressman Gilchrest's concern. Several of us in our DC office have been out there and witnessed the winter populations, and we see a similar situation arising there.
In closing, I would just summarize, once again, that we appreciate the Subcommittee having this hearing and looking into this important matter in that we see more broader actions that are going to be needed to get this issue under control, and we stand ready to help in that effort, and we, again, just urge this Subcommittee to look for and encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to look to means beyond just hunting, which we don't think will accomplish the goal, and with or without hunting, there is the possibility of a crash of the species occurring. So, we urge you to help the Fish and Wildlife Service in a more broader approach to this problem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Dr. Bruce Batt.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE BATT, CHAIR, ARCTIC GOOSE HABITAT WORKING GROUP AND CHIEF BIOLOGIST, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. BATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the views of Ducks Unlimited on this issue. I am chief biologist of Ducks Unlimited in Memphis, Tennessee, and I am also chairman of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. This is the group that produced the report that Dr. Rogers presented.
The Working Group developed two scientific reports that are the basis for decisions by the U.S. and Canadian governments to reduce the numbers of geese to levels that can be sustained by their environment. This Working Group consists of 17 public agency, university, and non-government organization scientists and natural resource managers. I have been in this field for over 30 years, and I rate this as the strongest group of professionals ever drawn together to analyze a goose conservation issue of such scope and consequence. Our work was objective and very critical in coming to solid conclusions. Technical review by other peer scientists has resulted in the broad-based agreement with our conclusions about the cause of the problem and the need to reduce numbers of geese to a sustainable level.
Your invitation asked us to address three questions. The first was to review the impact the overabundant geese are having on the ecosystems, and I think you have got a reasonable look at that already. Agriculture is the main factor we believe that drives increased survival of adults and young during the winter, and it also assures that the adults return to their breeding grounds in excellent conditions every year, because their last stopping point on the prairies is from agriculture and then to the tundra. Their condition on arrival is a very important detail here, because the nutrients that they bring with them in their bodies is what goes into their eggs, and it is what the females use to sustain them through incubation. When they get to the Arctic, however, they continue to feed, and the local destruction of the habitat there means the clutch sizes decline, because that is where they top up for the nutrients that they use when they get there. We can go on with some of these technical details, but I won't take you into that for now.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ever-increasing numbers of geese are returning to this habitat year after year. The best studied area is an 1,100-mile strip of salt marsh habitat; it is not trivial piece of countryside. Thirty-five percent of it has been destroyed; 30 percent of it has been damaged and so on. This is clearly not a localized problem as a very few individuals have claimed. And destroyed is the correct term, because the process of devegetation of the salt marsh results in changes in soil chemistry that present the goose food plants from becoming reestablished.
There is no doubt that the Hudson and James Bay salt marsh ecosystems are in peril. Goose enclosures placed in an already destroyed marsh 15 years ago have not been revegetated. This strongly supports the conclusion that this damage is effectively permanent.
Assertions that natural mechanisms, such as isostatic rebound, will help solve the problem are not correct. Once the geese have destroyed the entire coastal marsh, there will be no source of propagules that can colonize the newly-emerging coastal area. The optimism that isostatic rebound may solve the problem is further negated by the reality of sea level rise which will soon be flooding salt marsh as fast as it emerges. Likewise, the contention that climate change and isostatic rebound may be the cause of the problem is not supported. A simple reality check shows that all the Arctic is subjected to these same two forces, but the only place that ecosystem destruction occurs is where there are unsustainable goose numbers.
Scientists, on the largest northern breeding colonies away from Hudson Bay coastline, see similar ecosystem impacts. Quantification of those impacts is underway now through the use of satellite images on which the damaged areas are easily seen from space. However, there is no doubt among the scientists on the ground that the damage has been enormous. In some areas, they see horizon to horizon devastation. The finite amount of suitable snow goose breeding habitat is rapidly being consumed, and it will be lost. The lessons being learned on the Hudson Bay lowland salt marsh ecosystem provide an unambiguous model of what will happen in other Arctic ecosystems if this problem goes unchecked.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The destruction of these areas is manifested by low survival of goslings, because there are no food plants to eat when they hatch. If you go to colonies along the Hudson Bay lowlands, you will find hundreds of dead and dying goslings. I have done it myself at Cape Henrietta Maria and LaPerouse Bay. I could have found thousands as they were so abundant that the scavengers can't keep up with them. If these populations are not controlled, millions of young will die each year.
In most animals, what we call density-dependent population regulation would have occurred because of lowered reproduction caused by lack of food. The twist on this story is that the geese are mostly free from local conditions, because they return from the South fat and nearly ready to breed because of agriculture in Canada and the U.S. adults and broods also move to other areas causing a wave of destruction up and down the coast as the remaining salt marsh disappears. As a result, population regulation mechanisms are reducing numbers on some colonies by killing the young, but the overall population continues to grow as colony boundaries expand. But, note again, there is a finite amount of habitat in which to expand. After all 1,100 miles of the Hudson and James Bay salt marshes have been destroyed, the geese will decline but at the price of a whole ecosystem.
Extensive collateral damage will occur, because the collapsed ecosystem will no longer be able to support other wildlife species, especially migratory waterbirds that use this area. As unhappy as the forecast is the geese, in the big picture, the collapse of an ecosystem is an even more serious consequence. Most of these other species are not threatened or endangered, but major segments of the population depend on the coastal salt marsh. These are the true birds of the Americas as the countries of North, Central, and South America all share them.
We conclude that goose populations were unlikely to have been at these levels for at least the last several centuries. There is no evidence from recent recorded history that we can only objectively reason what might have happened previously. Our rationale is simply that most of these geese are sustained for two-thirds of the year by agricultural crops that were not there until this century.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe it became possible for the geese to move from their traditional marsh habitats when new food resources became available on the farmland. For example, the Mississippi Delta consisted of 25 million acres of forestland in 1900. Clearing for agriculture accelerated through the 1970's and today only 3 million acres remain. Rice, winter wheat, and soy beans dominate that landscape now in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri where it was once forest and where a large portion of Mid-Continent lesser snow geese now live in the winter. These are perfect goose foods that did not grow in the forest, and the geese couldn't live there. The geese could not have thrived as they do now on most of the North American landscape until agriculture came along. The winter habitat was simply not there to allow them to grow to numbers that they are today.
Managers should intervene to prevent the continued growth of this problem, because it is caused by changes that, although unwittingly, we have wrought on the North American continent. To fail to do so would be an abrogation of our most fundamental responsibility to conserve the biodiversity of life in the ecosystems that we influence.
The second question was how successful Fish and Wildlife Service actions to reduce the size of the white goose populations would be. I can only speculate as the first conservation order is still in effect, and we just don't have the data yet. There are plenty of restraints on this first effort as it was not authorized until late in the winter which was short notice for hunters and outfitters to become engaged in the harvest. The cultural shift of hunters participating at this time of year will also take time to develop, and all jurisdictions were not able to fully participate. Nevertheless, the harvest is underway. I believe we will learn after the final data are in hand that enough birds were harvested to verify that future seasons with this year's restraints removed should, indeed, be able to get the job done.
The third question was about additional steps that might be taken if the current activities are not successful. This would involve direct culling of the population by management agencies. This is a distasteful prospect with profound political and economic consequences. It is hard to conceive of an army of paid government employees trapping and euthanizing geese whether it occurred in Texas, South Dakota, Manitoba or the Northwest territories. Planning for this eventuality has not proceeded very far, because a reasonable test of the much preferred current methods will take a few years.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Everybody with a honest concern about the future of these precious resources hopes deeply that increased harvests will do the job. It is not clear that the necessary political and economic support can come together to allow direct culling by the government. It is far more prudent, economically and politically, to maintain and improve the current course, and it is crucial to do so without delay. Every technical, administrative, legal, and political delay just adds to the problem. There is urgency here as we may not be far from the point where it is simply too late to intervene effectively.
We also know that other goose populations are benefiting from agricultural crops and growing to unprecedented numbers. Thus, it is critical that we learn as much as we can from this first experience with overabundant geese, because we are facing the same thing with numerous other populations in the near future.
We must not leave our role in this challenge to be reduced to only recording for history the crash of the geese and the ecosystem destruction that looms in the near future. We must address this issue with a full commitment to solving one of the greatest challenges that wetland and the waterfowl conservation has ever faced.
All of us here have an interest in sustaining the magnificence spectacle of snow geese. The actions that are being pursued by the Federal agencies in both countries will help us all successfully assure a bright future for the Arctic geese and the Arctic ecosystems and the other wildlife that are in peril.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Batt may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Batt, thank you very much. Let me just pursue a couple of questions, if I may.
Dr. Thomas, when we invited you we realized that you have, perhaps, a unique perspective and a different notion about the nature of this problem or, perhaps, that is not even saying it correctly that you don't think it is a problem, and I don't mean to characterize your thoughts, but that is the general impression that I got, and you seem to be in a rather small minority of scientists. I have a resolution here from the Ornithological Council, the Ornithological Union, the Association of Field Ornithologicus, the Cooper Ornithological Society, and the Wilson Ornithological Society endorse the science-based recommendations of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group as necessary steps for reducing the Mid-Continent snow goose numbers to a level of about 50 percent of the current numbers by the year 2005. That seems to be a fairly strong statement by a fairly broad-based group of people who are—groups that are made up of members of people who are fairly well-renowned experts in the field of birds. How is it that you have such a different view of this issue than most others in your profession?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. THOMAS. There are several points to respond with them. First is that when we deal with this whole issue of birds, particularly geese in Hudson's Bay and the ecology of the lowlands, there are very few people who actually have been working there professionally. The report that has been entered into evidence today, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril, has probably been written by no more than about six or seven authors in total. There is one primary botanist in that whole region together with his students. A lot of the people who are in the wildlife profession are not particularly competent in plant ecology, and I would argue that what you are seeing here is a report that has been written by a relatively small number of people whose entire professional research experience is confined to this area, is reviewed by, perhaps, a few more, and then given the b