The Greenland White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris

ers (J. Madsen unpubl. data). In this way,
wildfowling could potentially select for the experienced
breeding adult element of the population,
even though these individuals are numerically
few amongst Greenland White-fronted
Geese. Hence, through the death, or sub-lethal
crippling of one or both partners of an experienced
pair, the most productive element of the
potentially breeding population is being lost by
break up or total loss of successfully breeding
pairs. Although there are no data to support such
an assertion, this would provide some explanation
for the secondary effect of the cessation of
winter hunting on the increased reproductive
output of the population since the early 1980s. It
would be essential, should winter hunting ever
be reinstated in this population, to at least monitor
these secondary effects on the population dynamics
of the race, in addition to tracking the direct
effects on annual survival rates.
At present, we can say little about the effects of
the continuing kill of some 3,000 birds in Iceland
on autumn migration every year, but it is clear
that removal of this number of birds has not
stopped the increase in the population over the
last 25 years.
9.3 Current conservation issues of
concern
It would therefore seem that the population was
restored to favourable conservation status by simple
legislative manipulation of human-induced
mortality processes. Restrictions on hunting have
undoubtedly restored this population to a more
favourable conservation status since 1982, most
notably at Wexford and Islay, where a direct effect
can be demonstrated. However, amongst the
numbers wintering elsewhere in Britain, flocks
continue to decline and disappear. Having reversed
the overall decline in the population, the
next priority is to identify factors affecting the
continuing declines and extinctions that are occurring
at wintering areas other than the major
sites. This is necessary in order to achieve the
declared aim of maintaining the current geographical
range of the population.
A variety of land-use changes have been taking
place since the early 1980s in Britain and Ireland.
In the 1980s and 1990s, intensification of grassland
management (especially on Islay) resulted
in many birds wintering there moving to feed on
new rotational grass leys. This might have resulted
in geese retaining higher levels of nutrient
and energy stores throughout the winter period
than would have been possible on more traditional
natural and semi-natural habitats. This in
turn brought Greenland White-fronted Geese into
local conflict with agriculture (including shooting
mortality permitted under licence). Now, with
the cessation of dairying on Islay in 2000, there is
the prospect of wide scale changes in grassland
management on that island, this time involving
reduction in levels of management intensity in
some areas. In addition, many of the outlying
flocks in Scotland and Ireland were affected by
the general decline in the rural economy, with the
result that low intensity agricultural land has become
abandoned or neglected in recent years.
Hence, away from the large concentrations, geese
are facing habitat loss and degradation.
Even at Wexford Slobs, there have been substantial
changes in land use in the last 50 years. This
was initially through improvements to grassland
management techniques, but in the last two decades
due to increasing tillage (including cultivation
of crops such as carrots, maize and linseed)
and even forestry on the South Slob (now largely
lost as a goose feeding resort in very recent years).
Hence, the geese have faced a range of different
changes to land use at wintering resorts over differing
time scales. Can we learn anything from
the historical perspective regarding goose responses
to changes in agricultural practice? Given
the competition from Canada Geese and/or global
climate change look set to affect the population
adversely through impacts on the breeding
grounds, what mitigation measures on the wintering
areas might be possible or appropriate to
reverse these trends?
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the
flocks declining most rapidly are those with the
fewest and least extensive feeding areas (MS14).
Although a link has never been demonstrated, it
seems likely that these sites are the most susceptible
to disturbance by humans, since their restricted
winter range limits escape options to
undisturbed areas (Norriss & Wilson 1988). It is
important to determine for those flocks whether
the changes in number are due to changes in demography
(i.e. low survival and/or fecundity) or
patterns of immigration and emigration. Although
there have been many studies of the effects
of disturbance on birds (e.g. affecting spatial
distribution, Madsen & Fox 1995, Fox &
79