Canada goose populations have expanded exponentially in
many North American urban areas. Without an intensive population management
programs, the expansion will continue and so will the goose related problems.
Fencing and harassment with a dog appear to be the only effective short-term methods
of reducing goose damage at site. These techniques simply redistribute the birds
and, more often than not, result in new problems elsewhere. Population limiting
techniques have long-term effects and, based on our findings, can reduce the
population growth rate and perhaps stabilize the population (Figure 1). Hunting,
trap and relocate, trap and process for human food, and egg removal or destruction
can reduce population expansion. Sport hunting is least costly but limited to areas
where it can be done safely. However, our findings suggests that hunting is
currently an important goose management tool in the Twin Cities. Geese breeding in
unhuntable urban/suburban locations can be managed by egg and live goose removals.
Molting goose groups can be located and trapped at about 25% ($10/$36) of the cost
of locating and destroying eggs. With relocation rapidly becoming a non-option, the
processing of geese for human food appears to be the economical alternative. Even
with additional costs of holding and processing the birds, the food shelf program is
still estimated to cost 67% ($24/$36) of that of egg removal or destruction.
We believe from our experience in managing the Metropolitan
Twin Cities Area geese, that this species with its many aesthetic qualities, can be
maintained at levels that are least harmful to human enterprise, and at reasonable
costs.
Acknowledgments
Research funding was provided by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, the Minnesota Extension Service, the Cities of Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Brooklyn Center and others, General Mills Inc., the Federal Aviation Administration, and Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. We thank the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture for coordinating permits and assistance with capture, relocation, and band recovery data.