Vulnerability of Lesser Snow Geese to Hunting with Electronic Calling Devices
The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended several management actions, including use of electronic calling devices, to reduce the mid-continent population of lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens; hereafter snow geese). We compared the vulnerability of snow geese to hunting with...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.983-993 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 993 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 983 |
container_title | The Journal of wildlife management |
container_volume | 64 |
creator | Olsen, Richard E. Afton, Alan D. |
description | The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended several management actions, including use of electronic calling devices, to reduce the mid-continent population of lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens; hereafter snow geese). We compared the vulnerability of snow geese to hunting with electronic calling devices and traditional calling methods (hand-held and voice calls) with cooperative goose hunters (96 commercially guided and 47 non-guided hunters) during the 1997-98 snow-goose-only seasons in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Iowa. We found that snow goose flocks were 5.0 times more likely to fly within gun range (≤50 m) in response to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Mean size of snow goose flocks that flew within gun range during electronic calling periods averaged 1.8 times larger than that during traditional calling periods. Mean number of snow geese killed/hr/hunter averaged 9.1 times greater for electronic calls than that for traditional calls. Ages of harvested snow geese were similar between calling methods (P = 0.12), but differed among states (P < 0.05) and between sexes (P < 0.05). Adult snow geese were 1.7 times more likely to be shot in Louisiana than in Iowa and 1.8 times more likely to be shot in Arkansas than in Iowa. Relative to their juvenile counterparts, adult males were 1.5 times more likely to be shot than were adult females. Body condition (body mass adjusted for size) generally was greater for snow geese killed during electronic calling periods than that during traditional calling periods. Flock response, kill/hr/hunter, and adult body condition of harvested snow geese generally decreased, whereas observed flock size increased from south to north, i.e., from Louisiana to Iowa. Our results indicated that snow geese are more vulnerable to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Finally, our calculations suggested that use of electronic calls during current snow-goose-only season frame-works (i.e., before 10 March) alone will not achieve desired population reduction goals for the mid-continent population of snow geese. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2307/3803208 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17770712</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3803208</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3803208</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-b280c3392ab7b781149849c811d9e26876059392e57aeb61e0daaf300aef7d653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1LAzEQBuAgCtYq_oWgoqfVfOxuskeptQoVD37gbcmms5qSJjXJWvz3bmnxIHiaYebhZRiEjim5ZJyIKy4JZ0TuoAGtuMiYpGIXDQhhLCty-raPDmKcE8IpleUAPbx21kFQjbEmfWPf4inECAE_Ob_CE4AIOHl817lk3DtemfSBxxZ0Ct4ZjUfK2vX8Br6MhniI9lplIxxt6xC93I6fR3fZ9HFyP7qeZppzmbKGSdJ3FVONaISkNK9kXum-mVXASilKUlT9GgqhoCkpkJlSLSdEQStmZcGH6HyTuwz-s4OY6oWJGqxVDnwXayqEIIKyHp78gXPfBdffVjOeszynrOzRxQbp4GMM0NbLYBYqfNeU1Ouf1tuf9vJ0G6eiVrYNymkTf7momCx4r842ah6TD_-G_QDS8n5j</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234244126</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vulnerability of Lesser Snow Geese to Hunting with Electronic Calling Devices</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Olsen, Richard E. ; Afton, Alan D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Richard E. ; Afton, Alan D.</creatorcontrib><description>The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended several management actions, including use of electronic calling devices, to reduce the mid-continent population of lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens; hereafter snow geese). We compared the vulnerability of snow geese to hunting with electronic calling devices and traditional calling methods (hand-held and voice calls) with cooperative goose hunters (96 commercially guided and 47 non-guided hunters) during the 1997-98 snow-goose-only seasons in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Iowa. We found that snow goose flocks were 5.0 times more likely to fly within gun range (≤50 m) in response to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Mean size of snow goose flocks that flew within gun range during electronic calling periods averaged 1.8 times larger than that during traditional calling periods. Mean number of snow geese killed/hr/hunter averaged 9.1 times greater for electronic calls than that for traditional calls. Ages of harvested snow geese were similar between calling methods (P = 0.12), but differed among states (P < 0.05) and between sexes (P < 0.05). Adult snow geese were 1.7 times more likely to be shot in Louisiana than in Iowa and 1.8 times more likely to be shot in Arkansas than in Iowa. Relative to their juvenile counterparts, adult males were 1.5 times more likely to be shot than were adult females. Body condition (body mass adjusted for size) generally was greater for snow geese killed during electronic calling periods than that during traditional calling periods. Flock response, kill/hr/hunter, and adult body condition of harvested snow geese generally decreased, whereas observed flock size increased from south to north, i.e., from Louisiana to Iowa. Our results indicated that snow geese are more vulnerable to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Finally, our calculations suggested that use of electronic calls during current snow-goose-only season frame-works (i.e., before 10 March) alone will not achieve desired population reduction goals for the mid-continent population of snow geese.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3803208</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society</publisher><subject>Agricultural seasons ; Animal behavior ; Animal populations ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Aquatic birds ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chen caerulescens caerulescens ; Electronics ; Exploitation and management of natural biological resources (hunting, fishing and exploited populations survey, etc.) ; Flocks ; Fowling ; Freshwater ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Geese ; Harvesting seasons ; Hunting ; Hunting seasons ; Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control ; Nuisances ; Snow ; USA, Arkansas ; USA, Iowa ; USA, Louisiana ; Waterfowl ; Wildfowl ; Wildlife habitats ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.983-993</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2000 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Wildlife Society Oct 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-b280c3392ab7b781149849c811d9e26876059392e57aeb61e0daaf300aef7d653</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3803208$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3803208$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=792853$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Afton, Alan D.</creatorcontrib><title>Vulnerability of Lesser Snow Geese to Hunting with Electronic Calling Devices</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended several management actions, including use of electronic calling devices, to reduce the mid-continent population of lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens; hereafter snow geese). We compared the vulnerability of snow geese to hunting with electronic calling devices and traditional calling methods (hand-held and voice calls) with cooperative goose hunters (96 commercially guided and 47 non-guided hunters) during the 1997-98 snow-goose-only seasons in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Iowa. We found that snow goose flocks were 5.0 times more likely to fly within gun range (≤50 m) in response to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Mean size of snow goose flocks that flew within gun range during electronic calling periods averaged 1.8 times larger than that during traditional calling periods. Mean number of snow geese killed/hr/hunter averaged 9.1 times greater for electronic calls than that for traditional calls. Ages of harvested snow geese were similar between calling methods (P = 0.12), but differed among states (P < 0.05) and between sexes (P < 0.05). Adult snow geese were 1.7 times more likely to be shot in Louisiana than in Iowa and 1.8 times more likely to be shot in Arkansas than in Iowa. Relative to their juvenile counterparts, adult males were 1.5 times more likely to be shot than were adult females. Body condition (body mass adjusted for size) generally was greater for snow geese killed during electronic calling periods than that during traditional calling periods. Flock response, kill/hr/hunter, and adult body condition of harvested snow geese generally decreased, whereas observed flock size increased from south to north, i.e., from Louisiana to Iowa. Our results indicated that snow geese are more vulnerable to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Finally, our calculations suggested that use of electronic calls during current snow-goose-only season frame-works (i.e., before 10 March) alone will not achieve desired population reduction goals for the mid-continent population of snow geese.</description><subject>Agricultural seasons</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Aquatic birds</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chen caerulescens caerulescens</subject><subject>Electronics</subject><subject>Exploitation and management of natural biological resources (hunting, fishing and exploited populations survey, etc.)</subject><subject>Flocks</subject><subject>Fowling</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Geese</subject><subject>Harvesting seasons</subject><subject>Hunting</subject><subject>Hunting seasons</subject><subject>Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control</subject><subject>Nuisances</subject><subject>Snow</subject><subject>USA, Arkansas</subject><subject>USA, Iowa</subject><subject>USA, Louisiana</subject><subject>Waterfowl</subject><subject>Wildfowl</subject><subject>Wildlife habitats</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10E1LAzEQBuAgCtYq_oWgoqfVfOxuskeptQoVD37gbcmms5qSJjXJWvz3bmnxIHiaYebhZRiEjim5ZJyIKy4JZ0TuoAGtuMiYpGIXDQhhLCty-raPDmKcE8IpleUAPbx21kFQjbEmfWPf4inECAE_Ob_CE4AIOHl817lk3DtemfSBxxZ0Ct4ZjUfK2vX8Br6MhniI9lplIxxt6xC93I6fR3fZ9HFyP7qeZppzmbKGSdJ3FVONaISkNK9kXum-mVXASilKUlT9GgqhoCkpkJlSLSdEQStmZcGH6HyTuwz-s4OY6oWJGqxVDnwXayqEIIKyHp78gXPfBdffVjOeszynrOzRxQbp4GMM0NbLYBYqfNeU1Ouf1tuf9vJ0G6eiVrYNymkTf7momCx4r842ah6TD_-G_QDS8n5j</recordid><startdate>20001001</startdate><enddate>20001001</enddate><creator>Olsen, Richard E.</creator><creator>Afton, Alan D.</creator><general>The Wildlife Society</general><general>Wildlife Society</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20001001</creationdate><title>Vulnerability of Lesser Snow Geese to Hunting with Electronic Calling Devices</title><author>Olsen, Richard E. ; Afton, Alan D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-b280c3392ab7b781149849c811d9e26876059392e57aeb61e0daaf300aef7d653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Agricultural seasons</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Aquatic birds</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chen caerulescens caerulescens</topic><topic>Electronics</topic><topic>Exploitation and management of natural biological resources (hunting, fishing and exploited populations survey, etc.)</topic><topic>Flocks</topic><topic>Fowling</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Geese</topic><topic>Harvesting seasons</topic><topic>Hunting</topic><topic>Hunting seasons</topic><topic>Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control</topic><topic>Nuisances</topic><topic>Snow</topic><topic>USA, Arkansas</topic><topic>USA, Iowa</topic><topic>USA, Louisiana</topic><topic>Waterfowl</topic><topic>Wildfowl</topic><topic>Wildlife habitats</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Afton, Alan D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Olsen, Richard E.</au><au>Afton, Alan D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vulnerability of Lesser Snow Geese to Hunting with Electronic Calling Devices</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2000-10-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>983</spage><epage>993</epage><pages>983-993</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended several management actions, including use of electronic calling devices, to reduce the mid-continent population of lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens; hereafter snow geese). We compared the vulnerability of snow geese to hunting with electronic calling devices and traditional calling methods (hand-held and voice calls) with cooperative goose hunters (96 commercially guided and 47 non-guided hunters) during the 1997-98 snow-goose-only seasons in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Iowa. We found that snow goose flocks were 5.0 times more likely to fly within gun range (≤50 m) in response to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Mean size of snow goose flocks that flew within gun range during electronic calling periods averaged 1.8 times larger than that during traditional calling periods. Mean number of snow geese killed/hr/hunter averaged 9.1 times greater for electronic calls than that for traditional calls. Ages of harvested snow geese were similar between calling methods (P = 0.12), but differed among states (P < 0.05) and between sexes (P < 0.05). Adult snow geese were 1.7 times more likely to be shot in Louisiana than in Iowa and 1.8 times more likely to be shot in Arkansas than in Iowa. Relative to their juvenile counterparts, adult males were 1.5 times more likely to be shot than were adult females. Body condition (body mass adjusted for size) generally was greater for snow geese killed during electronic calling periods than that during traditional calling periods. Flock response, kill/hr/hunter, and adult body condition of harvested snow geese generally decreased, whereas observed flock size increased from south to north, i.e., from Louisiana to Iowa. Our results indicated that snow geese are more vulnerable to electronic calls than to traditional calls. Finally, our calculations suggested that use of electronic calls during current snow-goose-only season frame-works (i.e., before 10 March) alone will not achieve desired population reduction goals for the mid-continent population of snow geese.</abstract><cop>Bethesda, MD</cop><pub>The Wildlife Society</pub><doi>10.2307/3803208</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-541X |
ispartof | The Journal of wildlife management, 2000-10, Vol.64 (4), p.983-993 |
issn | 0022-541X 1937-2817 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17770712 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Agricultural seasons Animal behavior Animal populations Animal, plant and microbial ecology Applied ecology Aquatic birds Biological and medical sciences Chen caerulescens caerulescens Electronics Exploitation and management of natural biological resources (hunting, fishing and exploited populations survey, etc.) Flocks Fowling Freshwater Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Geese Harvesting seasons Hunting Hunting seasons Medically important nuisances and vectors, pests of stored products and materials: population survey and control Nuisances Snow USA, Arkansas USA, Iowa USA, Louisiana Waterfowl Wildfowl Wildlife habitats Wildlife management |
title | Vulnerability of Lesser Snow Geese to Hunting with Electronic Calling Devices |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T00%3A13%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vulnerability%20of%20Lesser%20Snow%20Geese%20to%20Hunting%20with%20Electronic%20Calling%20Devices&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=Olsen,%20Richard%20E.&rft.date=2000-10-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=983&rft.epage=993&rft.pages=983-993&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3803208&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3803208%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234244126&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3803208&rfr_iscdi=true |