WILDFLIGHT RESCUE
FOUNDATION

January 17, 2000

TO:	Sioux Falls Regional Airport Authority
FROM:	Donald D. Feare Executive Director Wildflight Rescue Foundation:
RE:	Wildlife Habitat Utilization and Risk Analysis For Sioux Falls Regional Airport Prepared by: PBS Environmental

Dear Members:

I am the founder and executive director of an organization dedicated to the rescue and rehabilitation of waterfowl. I have worked with waterfowl for some seventeen years and provide consultation services on urban waterfowl management and behavior to local governmental entities and other groups, around the country. A copy of the above-referenced report was provided to me by one of your local citizen groups and I have been asked to review and comment on the study.

I found the report to be well drafted and covered all of the necessary topics for development of data upon which recommendations could be made. However, as with any study, which relies mainly upon personal observation and assumptions drawn therefrom, the danger exists that a presumption of fact will lead the reviewer to conclusions, which might otherwise be inappropriate. I have taken the report in the topical order in which it was presented and respectfully submit my comments as provided below.

2.0 Study Area

Regardless of which came first, the described land usage or, development of the airport facility, it is evident that the airport is situated between or surrounded by, the two most important factors in the life of waterfowl; water and food source.

2.0 Existing Conditions

This section adopts the fact that there is a mixture of both migratory and "resident" Canada geese present. While this is certainly possible, the issue of "resident" geese and a scientifically sound description has eluded the waterfowl field. The term "resident" has developed more as a layman term, simply to describe geese that are not wanted. It has been found that most "resident" geese actually do migrate and the question then becomes, how far do geese have to migrate before they are migratory, as opposed to "resident". In most cases, it has been found that "resident" geese in fact migrate through one or more states, as habitat conditions require. Since there has been no peer reviewed study undertaken to actually identify particular birds that could be demonstrated not to return to the northern areas where migratory geese normally move, the acceptance of certain geese as "resident" is certainly dubious. The statement that certain activities of man (refuge feeding programs, etc.) have altered the normal patterns of migratory geese is correct. As is accepted, the Giant Canada goose was almost extinct in this country. In order to provide increased hunting opportunities, state and federal programs were undertaken to breed and release large numbers of the geese. As is common when man attempts to manipulate development of natural events, the result exceeded the desire and now there are more geese than wanted. This problem continues through programs, which remove natural predators from protected federal lands and development of feeding areas to draw the geese. However, at no point should we underestimate the instinctive behavior patterns of geese. They will move as far as necessary during the migratory season. In other words, they will only go as far as necessary to reach acceptable water and food source. One would be foolish to discount the dramatically changing weather patterns over the last few years (global warming and mild winters), as a significant factor in the behavior of geese.

4.2 Regional Canada Goose Population

While it is probably true that South Dakota has experienced a steady increase in the breeding population of Giant Canada geese, the same must be said of many states. Therefore, one must look to a common factor or factors. As previously discussed, the biggest error made and continuing, is the desire of certain governmental entities to provide increased hunting and therefore, increased development of goose populations. While it is not readily admitted, such programs are ongoing, rather than attempts to reverse the initial errors made.

4.2 Sioux Falls Canada Goose Population

The reviewer is correct that many of the birds with which you are now dealing, originated from the aforementioned breeding programs. More importantly, the reviewer pointed out that this has been a program, which has extended over 20 years. It is therefore unreasonable to believe that such a lengthy problem can be overcome by a quick-fix solution.

4.2 Habitat Use

The study correctly points out some of the habitat use, which has attracted the geese. When a large body of water is situated in the same general area as agricultural fields in which is grown the food source of waterfowl; one could hardly expect anything short of the problem now visited upon the region.

I would have to question whether or not local citizen feeding of geese provides any significant factor as to the presence of geese. Unless the residents are feeding literally hundreds of pounds of feed each day, I rather doubt local feeding provides sufficient reason for goose presence. Waterfowl require a greatly increased intake of food during the winter months. It is unlikely that residents are providing such quantity as is necessary for an entire population of geese, in the numbers reported. However, preventing the freezing of the local lake is certainly a factor in the presence of any waterfowl. The same is true as to the presence of a spillway and possible thermal discharge from local businesses.

The reviewer hits upon the most important factor in controlling goose populations in a given area and that is the control of aquatic habitats. It is habitat control the moves the population of any wild animal, not attempts to control the individual animals.

It is interesting to note that there is no data contained in the report regarding the presence of other migratory waterfowl. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that species such a ducks are not causing a problem. However, review of their presence and movement might be instructive when developing an overview and suggested solutions.

4.2 Goose Patterns Early to Late Summer

Most of the reported activity in this section is from personal observation and reports. This is an area wherein the data is most questionable. Without capture and individual identification with further tracking, it is impossible to determine which geese are which. In other words, the distinction between truly migratory geese and those termed "resident" is impossible without undertaking a valid scientific study. Any data utilized absent such a study, is merely assumption. The data compiled, even though of questionable validity, seems to indicate that most of the geese at issue are probably migrating. Even so, the numbers reported in this section seem to indicate that there is not such a population in the area as to cause any problem. When a lake exists, it is certainly not uncommon to find the numbers of waterfowl, and even greater, in the area. It is reported that following the breeding season, most geese "disperse to northern counties to larger lakes for the post-breeding period." Without further study to determine what distance they move and, what factors are involved in why they stop at certain areas, little of value can be drawn from the statement. However, it is equally clear that habitat factors are the initiating cause of any such movement, not some instinctive desire of the geese to move from one area to another.

4.2 Goose Patterns Late Summer through Winter

This section presents the most significant problem in arriving at determinations regarding certain geese. Without identification of geese through capture, marking and tracking, it is impossible to determine if the same geese are even returning to the area or whether the population returning is made up of a mixture of new and old geese. From the fact that the numbers are reported to be increasing, it is logical to assume that a number of new geese are being attracted to the area each year. Again, a factor of habitat, not the geese themselves is the issue. It is also important to understand that geese move through certain areas as a matter of habit unless they are given some reason not to do so. As long as there is viable habitat, not only will the same geese, to a greater or smaller number return, but other geese will follow.

It appears, from the reports, that in the study year 1999, the goose population dropped significantly within about a month (1,600-1,900 during October to, 1/2 of that amount by mid-November). Credit for this decline is given to a feeding ban and, normal migratory patterns. It is far more likely that the natural migratory pattern was the cause. As previously discussed, the likelihood that resident feeding is of sufficient quantity to be a significant factor, is remote. However, the aerating of the lake would certainly present an enticement for the presence of geese.

The report contains a statement that the geese comprise a single flock without large numbers of individuals entering or leaving on a daily basis. Again, this is certainly possible, but would not be normal. Canada geese normally travel in flocks consisting of far lesser numbers. While a number of flocks may land in the same area, there is generally a constant movement. Again, without undertaking a proper study to determine which geese are which, a mere count will be of little value in determining what the geese are actually doing. It is as reasonable to assume that while the population may stay reasonably constant, actually numbers of geese are moving out and others are moving in. Whichever may be the case, a habitat will support that number which it can support, regardless of the movement of the geese.

It is reported that no flocks of highflying geese migrating south were observed from October 26 through November 2. This is a statement with an underlying assumption, which is not supported in goose behavior. While one might observe geese migrating at altitude, this is not the only method by which geese move. It is equally possible that the geese are moving from one area to another and then finally, having exhausted the easily available habitat, go to migratory flight, which would then be unobserved. Since the report does not note the observation times, it is impossible to determine if such a constant observation period was undertaken as to provide any supportable data that no geese were moving during that time. Casual observation will give little of value in such studies. If in fact the statement relies upon radar observations, then again, that assumes geese moving in such numbers as to be reflected on radar. This is not the normal movement pattern of geese. The movement from a water area to a feeding area "shortly before sunrise" is common behavior for geese and all waterfowl, as well as most other birds. The same is true for the movement reported in the evening. These are typical feeding patterns for birds in general. The 1999 reported roosting locations of both the river and lake are also unremarkable insofar as the normal patterns of waterfowl.

4.2 Airspace Conflicts

The report indicates the area of greatest risk is the "airspace within two miles of the ends of the runways at Sioux Falls Regional Airport..". It is that area and movement through it, which should then be the focus of any population control plans. The report cites a cornfield and soybean field as the sources of goose interest. This would not be unremarkable as both provide a food source. Knowing that the geese must have water and that water is supplied by both a river and lake, it would be quite amazing if the geese did not move to the two fields in question, as food source.

5.0 Recommendations

The reviewer is correct in the statement that the issues in question "will not be resolved easily nor in a short period of time." The options provided as methods of control are what could be considered "boilerplate" suggestions. They are the same as given in almost every report ever generated and really do not require a study.

5.2 Habitat Modification

Habitat modification is the only method proven successful in the control of any population of wildlife. Elimination of aeration will likely provide an almost immediate change the in the area population in winter. Geese move as far as is necessary to locate acceptable water and food source. Even if very attractive food source exists, the geese must have water and without it, they will, in all probability, move to another area and forego the attractive food source.

Since the population problem is not regional, but localized to the areas immediately adjacent to the airport, the suggestion of crop management (again habitat management) would seem far more reasonable and provide a more immediate solution. The presence of the geese at the water habitat does not appear to be a problem. It is their movement from the water habitat to the food source that results in a danger to air traffic. Therefore, remove the desire to fly through air traffic areas, and the problem is solved. Conversely, if the food source is removed, the geese may well find another water source. Again, they must have both water and food sources.

The reviewer properly points out that reduction in local resident feeding has not proven to be a significant curative factor in the presence of geese. This is because, as previously stated, the residents are simply not feeding a sufficient quantity to meet the needs of wintering geese. This is merely a human enjoyment factor, rather than a behavioral issue.

I will not comment on chemical treatment of the water for the simple reason I do not believe it is a viable solution. The amount of cost, time and effort needed to make such a plan work is probably not within an acceptable range and the outcome is quite uncertain.

Attracting geese to other feeding areas may be a viable solution, but only in concert with removal of the food source around the airport. If the source at the airport is removed, it would seem unnecessary to provide other food source, as the geese will naturally move to other areas out of necessity.

A suggestion is made as to the placement of food source and "pinned" which I conclude was intended to mean pinioned geese as decoys. It is doubtful that such an effort would result in any meaningful change. It is also unfair to cause a goose to be disabled in order to attract other geese. First, that would mean the geese cannot move from the area if necessary and would require year around care. Secondly, the use of decoys has not provided a constant effective method for hunters and it is illogical to believe it would be any different for this effort.

5.2 Population Control

Reducing Nesting Success. This method is often suggested, but unless you are dealing with a very localized and concentrated area, the effectiveness is greatly reduced. From the report, the number of geese actually nesting in the immediate area is minimal. The locating and destruction of nests or egg addling, would require a great deal of time and effort and would tend produce little in the way of results when other birds move into the area during the winter months.

Capture of flightless geese. This method has been used and falls in the category of doing something to appear that you are doing something. Even if large numbers of geese are removed at that particular moment, the attractiveness of the area (water and food source) still exists and what will keep those geese, or others, from returning in the winter? This method also requires having somewhere to take the geese and that effort has produced nothing but problems for other areas. The reported success by Cooper 1997, fails to recognize that the geese removed must be taken somewhere and also fails to report their activities from that point on. Given the makeup of the land area (private and public) this seems to be an unreasonable proposition. This suggestion also fails to take into account the public response to the killing of large numbers of geese, if used as human food source. It also fails to take into account the fact that testing of goose meat has revealed high levels of toxic substances. In short, this idea is not socially acceptable, not safe for humans and, provides no long-term solution as the cause of goose presence still exists.

Hunting. I have reviewed hunting reports across the nation and found that it has little, if any effect on the continued population of a given area. When one stops to think about the plan, one would have to assume that geese communicate with each other as to a threat in a given area, for any long-term solution by use of hunting. They simply do not do so. While it may scare geese off for a short time, such efforts will not provide any long-term solution to a problem of population presence.

OVERVIEW and SUGGESTIONS:

The stated problem is the presence of geese at or near the immediate area of airport runways. This involves three factors, the presence of geese, the presence of water and, the presence of food source. It is the food source that brings the geese to the airport area.

There are certain absolutes in nature. One of these is that nature abhors a vacuum. The second is that a habitat will support that number of wildlife, which it will support. Given these two issues, even if every goose is removed from a viable habitat, others will move in to occupy that habitat. In areas around the country when all offspring have been capture and removed, the re-occupation of the habitat has been almost immediate. Not only have those areas experienced re-occupation, but in larger numbers than originally existed. The reason for this is that nature, without the arrogant attempts of man to control nature, will balance out a given population so that the habitat holds that which it can support. When all or large numbers of inhabitants are removed, it forces the natural controls to start over and too many waterfowl move into the area until a balance can once again be brought about.

Breaking the problem down into lay terms, if one has spilled some sugar in a house and an infestation of ants takes place, do you spend your time killing the ants by the millions, or do you remove the source that has brought them into the house? The answer is quite obvious and the same reasoning applies to a natural setting.

The presence of geese in the region is not the problem. The presence of geese in the immediate area of the airport is the problem. It is therefore reasonable to deal with the problem of geese in the immediate area of the airport, not throughout an area, which presents a logistical problem beyond reason. It is therefore only reasonable to change that which can be changed to present a long-term solution, the habitat food source. Efforts should be made to alter the use of agricultural land immediately surrounding the airport. Permitting the local waters to freeze during natural times of such events, may also result is some relief. However, there is probably some reason that the local government desires that the water in the lake not be permitted to freeze during the winter. That leaves the only viable solution as alteration of land use around the airport.

I am often consulted as to pigeon population problems in and around business districts. The first conclusion most people jump to is the killing methods available for pigeons. The pigeon presents a similar problem to geese. There are simply too many of them and they are too mobile to bring about an effective solution by attacking the wildlife population itself. The only viable solution is to alter the habitat, which attracts the birds. Thus, we return to the only viable, long-term solution for the population problem at the Sioux Falls Regional Airport, which is alteration of the agricultural use of the land at or near the runways, which attracts the geese. This is probably the least expensive and time-consuming method of relief from the problem.

Resolutions to wildlife population problems can only be effective if done from an understanding of the creature with which one is dealing. Due to the mindless bungling of man, an over-population of Canada geese exists in some populated areas. Anyone working with wildlife population issues could have predicted the outcome. However, since the goal was to provide extensive hunting opportunities, no thought was given to the natural movement of geese, nor what attracts them to a given area. They have selected a safe, viable habitat in the Sioux Falls area. Looking to the very long-term outcome of the man-made over-population of geese, reduction in viable habitat will likely bring about a reduction in goose hatch and survivability. This however is very long term, as are most effective natural events. We must permit nature to once again balance the population. Tampering with the geese themselves has brought about the problem, now let us address the issue from a responsible view and alter the habitat, which by natural selection, will eventually alter the population to a balanced position. Humans have little hope of winning a battle between man and the individual wildlife populations. This war has been ongoing with almost every known species of wildlife since man began manipulating populations and encroaching into natural wildlife habitat. Therefore, we can observe that the habitat is the key factor in any population movement and it is the habitat, which must be the focus of our control efforts.

It is my hope that this information will be of some value in your deliberations. If I can be of any assistance, it would be my pleasure to do so. I appreciate your time in consideration of these comments.

Respectfully,

Donald D. Feare, J.D.