1. Comparisons of Hunting Seasons and Light Goose Conservation Order Participation and Harvest in the Central and Mississippi Flyways,
H.M. Johnson, M.P. Vrtiska, R. Murano, K.L. Kruse, and D. Fronczak
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE USA, South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USA
Methods
Introduction
Results
The mid-continent populations of lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens cearulescens) and Ross’s geese (C. rossii) (hereinafter, light geese) have been exponentially expanding over the last thirty years (Ankney 1996). Damage to arctic and sub-arctic habitats by light geese (Abraham and Jefferies 1997) resulted in efforts to reduce population levels through regulations changes (e.g., daily bag limit) during regular hunting seasons and implementation of a light goose conservation order (LGCO) in the Mississippi and Central Flyways in 1999 (Cooke et al. 2000).
Efforts to reduce light goose populations appear to be ineffective, primarily due to under- estimating light goose populations, increased wariness of light geese, and changes in hunter behavior or interest (Alisauskas et al. 2011). Additionally, waterfowl hunter numbers have declined since 1999 (Vrtiska et al. 2013) and overall participation in regular and LGCO seasons also may have limited the effectiveness of these efforts. Therefore, we wanted to compare participation and harvest trends in the Central and Mississippi Flyways since the initiation of the LGCO.
We examined participation and harvest trends in the regular hunting season and LGCO since 1999 to calculate harvest per hunter and participant during the regular season and the LGCO, respectively. We used U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates derived from the Harvest Information Program (HIP) of goose hunters and harvest in the regular hunting season (Kruse 2014). For LGCO participants, we used estimates provided by state wildlife agencies (survey methods may very between states) derived from surveys of potential participants and their harvest (Kruse and Fronczak 2014).
Approximately 550,000 goose hunters and over 75,000 individuals participated in the regular hunting season and LGCO, respectively, in 1999, and over 1.4 million light geese were harvested. Since 1999, participation during the regular season and LGCO has steadily declined (Figures 1 and 2). During the regular season, participation and harvest has declined 37% and 62%, respectively. However, during the LGCO, while participation has declined 43%, harvest has steadily increased (Figures 1 and 2). Harvest per participant decreased by 40% during the regular season but increased by more than 60% during the LGCO (Figure 3). 
Figures
Figure 1. The number of participants and light goose harvest during the light goose regular season in the Central and Mississippi Flyways
Figure 2. Average harvest per participant in the Central and Mississippi Flyways during the Light Goose Conservation Order,
Figure 3. Average harvest per participant during the Light Goose Conservation Order in the Central and Mississippi Flyways,
Management Implications
Acknowledgments
Literature Cited
Discussion
Although the overall number of waterfowl hunters may be stable to gradually declining (Vrtiska et al. 2013), goose hunters may be declining at a faster rate. The decrease in light goose harvest/hunter in the regular season may be due to changes in hunter interest or behavior in harvesting light geese, changes in light goose migration patterns, or hunters may be concentrating more effort at harvesting light geese during the LGCO than the regular season. Estimates of harvest derived from the Parts Collection Survey (PCS) also may not accurately reflect actual harvest as parts from all geese harvested may not be submitted to the PCS by hunters.  
Decreases in participation in the LGCO may be due to declining goose hunter numbers but also a decline in interest by individuals in pursuing light geese. Increased effectiveness of LGCO participants is likely due to improved skill at harvesting light geese and those less-avid or proficient at harvesting geese have stopped participating. 
Increased participation during regular hunting seasons and/or the LGCO may help achieve light goose population objectives.
Implementation of new measures or tactics may increase harvest proficiency.
Examination of other factors that may affect participation and harvest estimates during the regular season is needed.
Standardization of participant and harvest estimates during the LGCO among states in the Central and Mississippi Flyways.
Abraham, K. F., and R. L. Jefferies High goose populations: causes, impacts and implications. Pages 7–72 in B. D. J. Batt, editor. Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Alisauskas, R.T., R.F. Rockwell, K.W. Dufour, E.G. Cooch, G. Zimmerman, K.L. Drake, J.O. Leafloor, T. J. Moser, E.T. Reed Harvest, Survival, and Abundance of Midcontinent Lesser Snow Geese Relative to Population Reduction Efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179:1–42.
Ankney, C. D. 1996, An embarrassment of riches: too many geese, The Journal of Wildlife  Management 60:
Cooke, F., C. M. Francis, E. G. Cooch, and R. T. Alisauskas Impact of hunting on population growth of mid-continent lesser snow geese. Pages 17–31 in H. Boyd, editor. Population modeling and management of snow geese. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 102, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
Kruse, K. L., compiler Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Kruse, K. L., and D. Fronczak   Light geese in the Central and Mississippi flyways. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Vrtiska, M. P., J. H. Gammonley, L. W. Naylor, and A. H. Raedeke Economic and conservation ramifications from the decline of waterfowl hunters. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:
Photo by: Heather Johnson 3/2011