Vol. 135, No. 49 — December 8, 2001

Regulations Amending the Migratory Birds Regulations

Statutory Authority

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994

Sponsoring Department

Department of the Environment

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

In recent years, populations of greater and mid-continent lesser snow geese have risen dramatically. The rapid population growth is attributed to increased food availability during winter months from agricultural operations, and a declining rate of mortality. As a result, these birds are no longer controlled by the carrying capacity of winter habitat as they were previously. Analysis of the effects of increased numbers of snow geese on staging and arctic breeding habitats shows that key habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife are being adversely affected by overuse. Left unchecked, overabundant snow goose populations may become seriously injurious to migratory birds themselves, and will compromise the biological diversity of the arctic ecosystem.

The goal of these amendments to the Migratory Birds Regulations is to help to protect and restore the biological diversity of arctic wetland ecosystems and the ecosystems of important migration and wintering areas by reducing the population size of overabundant snow goose populations. To curtail the rapid population growth and reduce population size to a level consistent with the carrying capacity of breeding habitats over a period of about five years, the mortality rate must be increased by two to three times the level of the past decade. To this end, beginning in 1999, amendments to the Migratory Birds Regulations created special conservation measures, outside the regular hunting season, during which hunters are permitted to hunt overabundant species for conservation reasons, and, in some cases and subject to specific controls, to use special methods and equipment, such as electronic calls and bait. The 1999 and 2000 Regulations applied in selected areas of the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. The dates and locations for application of the conservation measures were determined in consultation with the provincial governments, other organizations and local communities.

In 2001, amendments to the Migratory Birds Regulations were made in relation to the dates of the hunting season, as well as the establishment of special conservation measures in Saskatchewan and Nunavut.

The purpose of the current proposal to amend the Regulations is to make minor adjustments to season dates for 2002 as well as to permit the use of recorded snow goose calls during the overabundant hunting season, so as to improve overabundant species hunter success in those regions where special conservation measures have been established.

Alternatives

In evaluating the alternatives to the problem of the overabundance of snow geese, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) has been guided by the principle that snow geese are a highly regarded natural resource, valued as game animals and for food, as well as for their aesthetic importance.

The international body of federal agencies responsible for coordinating wildlife management among federal agencies, the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management, agreed in March 1998 that the scientific rationale was sound for considering mid-continent lesser snow goose and the greater snow goose as overabundant populations. (see footnote 1) They concluded that it would be appropriate for each country to take special measures as they saw fit to increase the harvest rate of those groups of birds. This consultation helps ensure that these actions conform to Canada's treaty obligations with the United States in the Migratory Birds Convention. Beginning in 1999, the United States also implemented a regulation authorizing the increased harvest of snow geese in that country.

Alternatives to increasing harvest levels in Canada, such as allowing hunting in wildlife refuges on the wintering grounds in the United States, are also being undertaken. While helpful, these measures cannot alone meet the goal of reducing the population size adequately. Without such a reduction, staging and arctic breeding habitats will continue to be degraded, the damage will become more widespread, and habitats will cease to support healthy populations of the overabundant species and the other species that share the habitat. Plant communities will not recover unless grazing pressure is reduced; even with such reduction, recovery will take at least many decades because of the slow growth of arctic plant communities. Some of the habitat changes are expected to be essentially permanent. The overall effect will be a reduction of biological diversity. Scientists and managers agree that intervention is required. For these reasons, the status quo has been rejected.

Modeling has demonstrated that reducing the survival rate of adults is considered to be the most effective means of controlling population growth and subsequent size. Actions aimed at reducing production of young birds are impractical on the broad scale required. Two alternatives are available to reduce adult survival. The first, a government cull by officials, was rejected not only because of the enormous expense that would be incurred on an ongoing basis, but because of the waste of birds that would result.

The second alternative to reduce adult survival rates is to increase harvest by hunters. This method is cost-effective and efficient, as it draws upon aboriginal and other hunters, and ensures that birds are used and not wasted. This method will help reduce overall population size, while ensuring that the intrinsic value of the snow goose population as a valuable resource is maintained.

Benefits and Costs

These proposed amendments make an important contribution to the preservation of migratory birds and to the conservation of biological diversity in the arctic ecosystem and the ecosystems of staging and wintering areas by protecting and restoring habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. The amendments will help Canada to meet its international obligations under the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention and the amending Parksville Protocol. Both of these agreements commit Canada and the United States to the long-term conservation of shared species of migratory birds for their nutritional, social, cultural, spiritual, ecological, economic and aesthetic values, and to the protection of the lands and waters on which they depend. These amendments also address the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Canada is a party. The Convention on Biological Diversity calls on parties to address the "threat posed by degradation of ecosystems and loss of species and genetic diversity."

These amendments will help to reduce economic losses from crop damage, and ensure that the benefits, such as the annual contribution of nearly $18 million resulting from bird-watching tourism in Quebec alone, are sustained into the future. Moreover, the suggested alternative is the most cost-effective of the alternatives considered. More generally, the economic benefits of hunting are considerable.

According to estimates based on the 2000 Environment Canada document, The Importance of Nature to Canadians, activities associated with migratory birds contribute $527 million in direct annual benefits to the Canadian economy, of which $94.4 million were associated with hunting.

The amendments will also help to secure the future use of migratory birds as part of the traditional lifestyle of Aboriginal peoples.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Assessments of the environmental effects of the rapidly growing population of mid-continent lesser snow geese and greater snow geese were completed by working groups of Canadian and American scientists. The consensus among members of the working groups, all with high standing in the scientific community and extensive experience working on arctic habitats, lends weight to their findings. Their analyses are contained in the comprehensive reports entitled Arctic Ecosystems in Peril — Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and The Greater Snow Goose — Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group.

The working groups concluded that the primary causes of the population growth are human induced. Improved nutrition from agricultural practices and safety in refuges have resulted in increased survival and reproductive rates of snow geese. These populations have become so large that they are affecting the vegetation communities (on which they and other species rely for food) at staging areas and on the breeding grounds. Grazing and grubbing by geese not only permanently remove vegetation, but also change soil salinity and moisture levels. The result is the alteration or elimination of the plant communities, which, in all likelihood, will not be restored. Although the arctic is vast, the areas that support breeding geese and other companion species are limited in extent. Some areas are likely to become permanently inhospitable to these species and to other species whose populations are not abundant enough to sustain them over the long term. Increasing crop damage is also an important result of the growing populations.

Evaluation plans have been developed which will track progress toward the goals of reduced population growth and ultimately, improved response by plant communities. In the past three years across the arctic, more than 30,000 snow geese and Ross' geese were marked with bands. The data obtained through observation networks and band recoveries will enhance the ability of wildlife managers to make sound management decisions. Investigations of the condition of staging and breeding habitats were continued along the coast of West Hudson Bay, where severe effects on habitat are well documented. Assessments were also carried out at other major colonies.

The special conservation measures implemented in 1999, 2000 and 2001 were successful in increasing harvest rates for snow geese. The harvest rates were estimated from surveys of hunter success. For greater snow geese, the total estimated harvest rate of adults was between 13 percent and 14 percent for each of the three years. These rates were significantly higher than during 1985-1997 (average harvest rate of six percent), a period of rapid population growth, and similar to the harvest rates during 1975-1984 (average harvest rate of 11 percent) when the population was relatively stable. In Canada, during the special conservation seasons, the total harvest rate for lesser snow geese has been much less than that achieved for greater snow geese. In the west, several hundred birds were harvested in 1999 and 2000, and some 5 000 birds were harvested in 2001. The continental program, however, has been successful in increasing harvest rates to about double that achieved prior to the implementation of special measures.

While the analysis indicates that progress is being made to control the growth of greater and lesser snow goose populations through use of the special measures, the CWS has determined that continued special conservation seasons will be necessary in the short term to help achieve desired population goals. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Arctic Goose Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is similarly continuing to follow the special measures established for that country by the United States Congress.

Consultation

At a North American arctic goose conference held in January 1995, the scientific community spoke with one voice on the seriousness of the effect of overabundant snow goose populations on arctic wetland ecosystems. Since then, the CWS has been working closely with the provinces and territories, the USFWS, Flyway Councils, Ducks Unlimited and other groups through the Arctic Goose Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan to understand the issue and to determine the optimal response for wildlife management agencies.

The CWS co-convened, with the USFWS, an international workshop in October 1995 to hear the diversity of opinions and assembled scientific teams to develop an analysis of the issue. They produced the Arctic Ecosystems in Peril — Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group and The Greater Snow Goose — Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. The involvement of Canadian non-government organizations was also encouraged in an International Stakeholders' Committee assembled by the Wildlife Management Institute for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Inuvialuit Wildlife Management Board sat on the Committee. With one exception (the U.S. Humane Society), the Committee was unanimous on the need for intervention.

A federal/provincial/territorial committee (Canadian National Snow Goose Committee) agreed that intervention is required and considered the recommendations for management actions. The key jurisdictions on this issue are the Prairie Provinces, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Quebec. In the Prairies, input was solicited from each of the three Prairie Wildlife Federations through their annual conventions and through the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Board, the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation Board, and the Alberta North American Waterfowl Management Plan Board in the winter of 1998. Also in the Prairie Provinces, the CWS conducted a number of public opinion surveys about the management of snow geese. The results showed that all audiences had a high level of awareness of the issue. In addition, a large proportion of landowners and farmers favoured the government taking action. There was strong support for extending the hunting season dates and increasing subsistence harvest.

More detailed discussions with the Wildlife Advisory Committee of the Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management Department began in February 2000 and continued through September 2000. The CWS also consulted with the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation through their annual convention and with the Board of Directors of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM). Following the support expressed by these stakeholders, Saskatchewan endorsed the proposal to implement special conservation measures in the spring of 2001.

Similarly, the CWS has been consulting with regional Inuit organizations (Kitikmeot Hunters' and Trappers' Association, Keewatin Wildlife Federation and Qikiqtalluuk Wildlife Board) for a number of years. Based on the support of these organizations, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board approved the CWS proposal to implement special conservation measures to begin in the spring of 2001.

In Quebec, the Technical Committee for the Integrated Management of Greater Snow Geese was established in December 1996. The members consist of representatives of many stakeholders with divergent interests, including farmers and agricultural organizations, hunters, bird-watchers, and other conservation groups and agricultural and wildlife representatives of both governments. Now working together for more than five years, the Committee has developed an action plan for management of greater snow geese and considered the recommendations made by the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Special conservation measures to control the population growth, including increases to the harvest rate and use of electronic calls and bait under permit, were unanimously accepted with the proviso that certain rural communities where bird-watching tourism is very important would be avoided.

The CWS has also drawn upon the formalized process used each year to consult on annual hunting regulations. First consideration of the need for intervention was presented in the November 1995 Report on the Status of Migratory Game Birds in Canada. The issue was further developed and consulted on in subsequent November Reports on the Status of Migratory Game Birds in Canada (1996 through 2000 issues). Specific alternatives were fully described in the December 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Reports on Migratory Game Birds in Canada: Proposals for Hunting Regulations. Information was also provided in the July 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports entitled Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations in Canada. These documents are distributed to approximately 600 government, Aboriginal and non-government organizations, including hunting and other conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Canadian Nature Federation, and Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Many stakeholders have reiterated their support for the Regulations. These include non-government conservation organizations, the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, northern wildlife co-management boards, tourist industry representatives, individual hunters, and Aboriginal organizations directly affected by these Regulations. In conveying their support, some stakeholders emphasized the importance of evaluating the Regulations on an ongoing basis. The CWS will continue its monitoring of the goose population and plant communities in affected areas and will be conducting harvest surveys of hunters who participate in the new spring/fall conservation seasons.

A coalition comprised primarily of animal protection groups has opposed the special harvest. The group disputed the evidence of the extent of habitat damage caused by overabundant goose populations and maintained that natural reduction of population size by starvation, disease and predation is preferable to increased harvest by hunters. The adequacy of consultations, especially with Aboriginal groups, was also questioned. Finally, the group asserted that the special conservation measures are in violation of the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. (see footnote 2)

Article VII of the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention supports special conservation measures under extraordinary conditions when migratory game birds pose a serious threat to agricultural or other interests in a particular community. This authority is not limited to any time of the year or number of days in any year in either the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention or the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. Overabundant goose populations may become seriously injurious to migratory birds themselves, thereby threatening the main objective of the 1916 Convention, which is to ensure the preservation of migratory birds.

In April 1999, in a judicial review of the Regulations by the Federal Court of Canada, Judge Frederick Gibson agreed with the federal government that Article VII of the 1916 Convention provided for the Regulations to deal with the extraordinary circumstances now observed for overabundant snow geese. The decision of the Federal Court was appealed by the applicants. This year, however, the applicants discontinued their appeal.

Compliance and Enforcement

Enforcement activities oriented to hunting will be needed at those places and during those times of the year when hunting migratory game birds is not otherwise allowed. As enforcement officers generally work throughout the year, and as only one species is hunted in these special regulations, it is not expected that these measures will require additional staff to achieve the level of enforcement now available for the usual fall hunting season. These measures, however, may cause some redirection of effort. Enforcement officers of Environment Canada and provincial and territorial conservation officers enforce the Migratory Birds Regulations by such activities as inspecting hunting areas, hunters for permits, hunting equipment, and the number and identity of migratory birds taken and possessed.

Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and considering case law, the average penalty for a summary conviction of an individual for a violation under the Act is estimated to be approximately $300. Minor offences will be dealt with under a ticketing system. There are provisions for increasing fines for a continuing or subsequent offence. However, an individual may receive a $50,000-maximum fine and/or up to six months in jail for summary (minor) conviction offences, and a $100,000- maximum fine and/or up to five years in jail for indictable (serious) offences. Corporations face maximum fines of $100,000 and $250,000 for summary convictions and indictable offences, respectively.

Contacts

Hélène Lévesque, Migratory Birds Regulations Specialist, Migratory Birds Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, (819) 953-1419 (Telephone), (819) 994-4445 (Facsimile); or Carollynne Smith, Regulatory Analyst, Legislative Services, Program Integration Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, (819) 953-8582 (Telephone), (819) 953-6283 (Facsimile).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 12 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (see footnote a), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Migratory Birds Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Environment within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part 1, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Director, Wildlife Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3.

Ottawa, December 6, 2001

RENNIE M. MARCOUX
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRDS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Migratory Birds Regulations (see footnote 3) is replaced by the following:

(c) by the use or aid of recorded bird calls, except as permitted in any part of Schedule I;

2. Table I.2 (see footnote 4) of Part V of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

TABLE I.2

MEASURES IN QUEBEC CONCERNING OVERABUNDANT SPECIES

Item	Column 1 Area	Column 2 Period during which Snow Geese may be killed	Column 3 Additional hunting method or equipment
1.	District A	May 1 to June 30 and September 1 to December 10	Recorded bird calls (e), (g)
2.	District B	September 21 to December 26	Recorded bird calls (e), (g)
3.	District C	April 1 to May 31 (a), September 6 to September 20 (a) and September 21 to December 26	Recorded bird calls (e), (g)
4.	District D	April 1 to May 31 (a), September 6 to September 20 (a) and September 21 to December 26	Recorded bird calls (e), (g)
5.	District E	April 1 to May 31 (a) and September 21 to December 26	Recorded bird calls (e), (g) and bait or bait crop area (f)
6.	District F,G,H,I	April 1 to May 31 (a),(b),(c) September 6 to September 27(a), (d) and September 28 to December 26	Recorded bird calls (e), (g) and bait or bait crop area (f)
7.	District J	September 28 to December 26	Recorded bird calls (e), (g)

(a) Hunting is allowed only on farmland.

(b) In District F, no person shall hunt south of the St. Lawrence River and north of the road right-of-way of Route #132 between Forgues Street at Berthier-sur-Mer and the eastern limit of Cap St-Ignace municipality.

(c) In District G, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, no person shall hunt north of the St. Lawrence River and south of a line located at 1 000 m north of highway no. 40 between Montée St-Laurent and the Maskinongé River.On the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, no person shall hunt south of the St. Lawrence River and north of the railroad right-of-way located near Route #132 between the Nicolet River in the east and Lacerte Road in the west.

(d) In District G, north of route #138 and south of route #132, hunting is allowed only on farmland.

(e) "Recorded bird calls" refers to bird calls of a species referred to in the heading of column 2.

(f) Hunting with bait or in a bait crop area is permitted if the Regional Director has given consent in writing pursuant to section 23.3.

(g) If using decoys when hunting with recorded bird calls, decoys must be white.

3. Table I.2 (see footnote 5) of Part VII of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

TABLE I.2

MEASURES IN MANITOBA CONCERNING OVERABUNDANT SPECIES

Item	Column 1 Area	Column 2 Period during which Snow Geese may be killed	Column 3 Additional hunting method or equipment
1.	Zone 1	April 1 to May 31 and August 15 to August 31	Recorded bird calls (a), (b)
2.	Zone 2	April 1 to May 31	Recorded bird calls (a), (b)
3.	Zone 3	April 1 to May 31	Recorded bird calls (a),(b)
4.	Zone 4	April 1 to May 31	Recorded bird calls (a), (b)

(a) "Recorded bird calls" refers to bird calls of a species referred to in the heading of column 2.

(b) If using decoys when hunting with recorded bird calls, decoys must be white.

4. Table I.2 (see footnote 6) of Part VIII of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

TABLE I.2

MEASURES IN SASKATCHEWAN CONCERNING OVERABUNDANT SPECIES

Item	Column 1 Area	Column 2 Period during which Snow Geese may be killed	Column 3 Additional hunting method or equipment
1.	District No. 1 (North)	April 1 to May 5	Recorded bird calls (a), (b)
2.	District No. 2 (South)	April 1 to May 5	Recorded bird calls (a), (b)

(a) "Recorded bird calls" refers to bird calls of a species referred to in the heading of column 2.

(b) If using decoys when hunting with recorded bird calls, decoys must be white.

5. Table I.2 (see footnote 7) of Part XIII of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

TABLE I.2

MEASURES IN NUNAVUT CONCERNING OVERABUNDANT SPECIES

Item	Column 1 Area	Column 2 Period during which Snow Geese may be killed	Column 3 Additional hunting method or equipment
1.	Throughout Nunavut	May 1 - June 7	Recorded bird calls (a), (b)

(a) "Recorded bird calls" refers to bird calls of a species referred to in the heading of column 2.

(b) If using decoys when hunting with recorded bird calls, decoys must be white.

COMING INTO FORCE

6. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[49-1-o]

Footnote 1

An overabundant population is one for which the rate of population growth has resulted in, or will result in, a population whose abundance directly threatens the conservation of migratory birds (themselves or others), or their habitat.

Footnote 2

In Canada, the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention is implemented through the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

Footnote a

S.C. 1994, c. 22

Footnote 3

C.R.C., c. 1035

Footnote 4

SOR/01-88

Footnote 5

SOR/01-88

Footnote 6

SOR/01-88

Footnote 7

SOR/01-88

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).