Many urban Canada goose populations have grown exponentially during the past 3 decades (Ankney 1996, Rusch et al. 1996, Zenner 1996, Cooper and Keefe 1997). Complaints of goose damage have been reported for Anchorage, Vancouver BC, Seattle, Denver, Kansas City, Chicago, Milwaukee, Winnipeg, Toronto, Boston, Washington, D. C., and other urban centers (Conover and Chasko 1985, Ankney 1996, Cooper and Keefe 1997). Goose damage complaints include: droppings on golf courses, docks and swimming beaches, playgrounds, athletic fields, park shorelines, residential yards, and commercial grounds (Conover and Chasko 1985, Cooper 1987, Cooper and Keefe 1997), water quality reduction (Manny et al. 1994), and highway (Cooper and Keefe 1997) and aircraft hazards (Cooper 1991, Dolbeer 1996).
Cooper and Keefe (1997) divided urban goose management approaches into short-term redistribution techniques and long-term population management procedures. Short-term methods prevent or reduce goose use of a specific site for a period of days to several weeks, forcing the birds to use alternative sites. Long-term approaches reduce the population by decreasing reproduction or survival, or by removing geese from the population. Short-term, redistribution procedures include prohibition of artificial feeding, hazing using humans (Aguilera 1989), vehicles, dogs, swans, swan or dead goose decoys, and sounds (Mott and Timbrook 1988), erecting access barriers such as wire, rope, or bird-scare tape fences, and taste aversive chemicals (Conover 1985, Cummings et al. 1991, Belant et al. 1996, Gosser et al. 1997). Reproduction has been inhibited by embryocides (Baker et al. 1993, Christens et al. 1995), egg removal (Wright and Phillips 1991, Cooper and Keefe 1997), and vacsectomization (Converse 1985). Populations have been reduced by sport hunting, shooting (Cooper 1991, Cooper and Keefe 1997), capture and relocation of goslings and/or adults (Blandin and Heusmann 1974, Martz et al. 1983, Cooper 1987, Cooper and Keefe 1997), and capture and processing for human consumption (Cooper and Keefe 1997).
Habitat modification techniques can have both short- and long-term effects. For example, the replanting of upland grass with dense shrubs may eliminate goose use at a specific site. But, if the geese find adequate forage elsewhere, the effect would be short-term, whereas extensive turf conversion leading to insufficient forage and higher mortality, would have a long-term impact. While frequently mentioned as a potentially effective and environmentally sound approach (Gosser et al. 1997, Grandy and Hadidian 1997, Garner Lee Limited 1997), a comprehensive evaluation of the utility of habitat modification is lacking. Utilizing Twin Cities of Minnesota goose population, goose damage site, wetlands data (Cooper and Sayler 1974. Sayler 1978, Cooper 1987, 1991, and Cooper and Keefe 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Unpubl.) and existing literature, this paper assesses the potential biologic and economic efficacy, social acceptability, and application of landscape alterations as urban goose management tools.