Vol. 136, No. 47 — November 23, 2002

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 to a declining rate of mortality. As a result, these birds are no longer controlled by the carrying capacity of winter habitats, 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 protect and restore the biological diversity of arctic wetland ecosystems and the ecosystems of important migration and wintering areas by reducing the 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 were applied in selected areas of the Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. Beginning in 2001, special conservation measures were also established in Nunavut and in Saskatchewan. In these regions, in 2002, the use of electronic calls was extended to include the fall snow goose hunting seasons, to help improve hunter success rates. Local application of the conservation measures was determined in consultation with the provincial governments, other organizations, and local communities.

The purpose of this amendment is to make minor adjustments to the 2003 dates in Quebec and Saskatchewan. Manitoba and Nunavut tables for 2003 remain the same. In addition, it is proposed to amend the expiry date on the Migratory Game Bird Hunting Permit from August 31 to July 31 in order to improve administrative clarity relative to the management of special conservation seasons.

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 the mid-continent lesser snow goose and the greater snow goose as overabundant populations. 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 alone cannot 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 of 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 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 in the ecosystems of staging and wintering areas by protecting and restoring habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife. The amendments will help Canada 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 reduce economic losses from crop damage, and will 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 those 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, migratory birds and activities associated with migratory bird hunting 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 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 that will track progress toward the goals of reduced population growth and, ultimately, improved response by plant communities. Since 1997, 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 affects on habitat are well documented. Assessments were also carried out at other major colonies.

The special conservation measures have been successful in increasing harvest rates for snow geese. For greater snow geese, the total estimated harvest rate of adults was between 13 and 14 percent for each of the three years from 1999 through 2001. These rates were significantly higher than during 1985-1997 (average harvest rate of 6 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 5 000-7 000 birds were harvested in each of the following two years. The continental program shows signs of success; preliminary analyses indicate that the survival rate of mid-continental lesser snow geese were reduced during the years of special conservation measures. Since 1999, adult survival rates at most mid-continent colonies were between 60 and 70 percent. In contrast, the survival rate was over 80 percent at a western colony not affected by the special measures.

While the analysis indicates that progress is being made to control the growth of greater and lesser snow goose populations through the use of 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 U.S. 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 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 reports 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 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. The CWS also conducted in the Prairie Provinces a number of surveys of public opinion 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 favored 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. After working together for more than seven years, the Committee has developed an action plan for the management of greater snow geese, and in 1999 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 Technical Committee undertakes an annual re-evaluation of the situation. There was debate related to the fact that we have reached the preliminary target of no more growth, and some of the participants were not comfortable with the revised international population goal of 500 000 birds. Nevertheless, a large consensus was achieved to continue the special measures for the next year.

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 2001 issues). Specific alternatives were fully described in the annual December Reports on Migratory Game Birds in Canada; Proposals for Hunting Regulations (1997 through 2001 issues). Information was also provided in the annual July reports Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations in Canada (1998 through 2002 issues). These documents are distributed to more than 600 government, Aboriginal and non-government organizations, including hunting and other conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Nature Federation, and the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Many stakeholders have reiterated their support for the Regulations. This includes 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 a) 

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.

The technical issue of the expiry date for the Migratory Game Bird Hunting Permit has been discussed with wildlife managers and enforcement officers, and there has been no opposition to the proposed change. The change, from August 31 to July 31, would ensure that there is no overlapping period between the permits of two consecutive years, since new permits are valid from the date of sale and start being sold on August 1 of each year.

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 under 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 Jason Travers, Regulatory Analyst, Legislative Services, Program Integration Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, (819) 997-1272 (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 b) , proposes to make the annexed Regulations amending the Migratory Birds Regulations.

Any interested person may make representations concerning the proposed Regulation within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be addressed to the Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3 and cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of this notice.

Ottawa, November 21, 2002

EILEEN BOYD
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRDS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. Paragraph 4(9)(b) of the Migratory Birds Regulations (see footnote 1)  is replaced by the following:

(b) for the purposes of killing migratory game birds in accordance with section 23.1, until July 31 of the calendar year in which the date referred to in paragraph (a) occurs.

2. The portion of items 1 to 7 of Table I.2 of Part V of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Period during which Snow Geese may be killed
1.	May 1 to June 30 and September 1 to December 10
2.	September 20 to December 26
3.	April 1 to May 31 (a), September 6 to September 19 (a) and September 20 to December 26
4.	April 1 to May 31 (a), September 6 to September 19 (a) and September 20 to December 26
5.	April 1 to May 31 (a) and September 20 to December 26
6.	April 1 to May 31 (a), (b), (c) September 6 to September 26 (a), (d) and September 27 to December 26
7.	September 27 to December 26

3. The portion of items 1 and 2 of Table I.2 of Part VIII of Schedule I to the Regulations in columns 1 and 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Area	Column 2 Period during which Snow Geese may be killed
1.	East of 106°W longitude	April 1 to May 31
2.	West of 106°W longitude	April 1 to May 5

COMING INTO FORCE

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

[47-1-o]

Footnote a 

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

Footnote b 

S.C. 1994, c. 22

Footnote 1 

C.R.C., c. 1035

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).