Branta canadensis - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Canada Goose
Other English Common Names: Canada goose
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Branta canadensis (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 174999)
French Common Names: bernache du Canada
Spanish Common Names: Ganso Canadiense
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.770965
Element Code: ABNJB05030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Waterfowl
Image 21534

© Dennis Donohue

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Anseriformes Anatidae Branta
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2004. Forty-fifth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 121(3):985-995.
Concept Reference Code: A04AOU01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Branta canadensis
Taxonomic Comments: Various authorities recognize 8-12 or more subspecies. Generally tundra populations comprise small birds, whereas southern birds are much larger, with intermediate-sized birds in intermediate localities. Within these size groupings, birds from the Pacific coast tend to be much darker than are eastern birds. However, reintroductions from mixed stocks have greatly muddied the traits of many southern populations. (DeBenedictus, Birding, Dec. 1991). Northern populations of small Canada Goose have been variously treated as three separate species: B. hutchinsii, B. minima, and B. leucopareia; as a single species, B. hutchinsii; or as one or more subspecies of B. canadensis (AOU 1983). B. hutchinsii is now recognized based on genetic studies, including recent work with mitochondrial DNA (AOU 2004). Mitochondrial DNA data indicate that Canada goose subspecies fall clearly into two sister groups, large-bodied and small-bodied, which share no mtDNA types (Van Wagner and Baker 1990, Quinn et al. 1991); in contrast, nuclear-gene-encoded protein evidence associates all the subspecies very closely (Van Wagner and Baker 1986, 1990).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 06Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 20Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N5N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,N5N,N5M (29Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S4B,S5N), Alaska (S5B), Arizona (S1B,S4N), Arkansas (S5B,S5N), California (SNRB,SNRN), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S4B,S5N), District of Columbia (S5), Florida (SNA), Georgia (S4), Hawaii (SNA), Idaho (S5B,S5N), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S5), Iowa (S5B,S5N), Kansas (S4B,S5N), Kentucky (S3S4B,S4N), Louisiana (S3), Maine (S4N,S5B), Maryland (S4B,S5N), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNRB,SNRN,SNRM), Mississippi (S4N), Missouri (S5), Montana (S5B), Navajo Nation (S3B,S4N), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (S5), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S5B,S5N), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5B,S5N), North Dakota (SNRB), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (SU), Oregon (S5), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S4B), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S5B,S5N), Tennessee (S5B), Texas (S5), Utah (S4), Vermont (S5N), Virginia (S3S4), Washington (S5B,S5N), West Virginia (S5N,S5B), Wisconsin (S5B), Wyoming (S4N,S5B)
Canada Alberta (S5B), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S5B,SUN,S5M), Manitoba (S5B), New Brunswick (S5M), Newfoundland Island (S4), Northwest Territories (S5B), Nova Scotia (S4N), Nunavut (S5B,S5M), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S5M), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M,S2N), Yukon Territory (S4S5B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Breeds from central and southeastern Alaska east across northern Canada and southern Victoria Island to western Melville Peninsula, northeastern Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and southern Baffin Island (recently naturally established in western Greenland) south to southwestern British Columbia, northeastern California, northern Utah, south-central Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, northern Arkansas, western Kentucky, southern Ohio, Pennsylvania, northern Virginia, and Maryland. Breeding populations in the southern prairie states were extirpated, but many have become reestablished. Birds in eastern states south of Great Lakes and Massachusetts result from relatively recent natural southward extension of breeding range and to great extent from introductions. Feral populations resulting from introductions may occur almost anywhere in the United States (AOU 2004).

Winters from the southern part of the breeding range through most of the United States and into northern Mexico. Introduced and established in Great Britain, Iceland, southern Scandinavia, and New Zealand. Accidental in Hawaii, Greater Antilles, and the Bahamas.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Pesticide use is a potential threat; for example, 1600 died in a wheat field that had been sprayed with parathion (see Franson 1994).

Short-term Trend Comments: Most populations are stable or increasing, but see EGR records for subspecies. Total midwinter population in Atlantic Flyway declined from 955,000 in 1981 to 655,000 in 1992; decline was due to low survival rate and poor reproduction in migrant geese; the resident population increased or was stable (Connecticut Dept. Environ. Protection). In the northeastern U.S., the "resident" Canada goose population has approximately doubled since 1989 to nearly 800,000 birds (USFWS 1996). In contrast, the migratory population of Atlantic Canada geese that breeds in northern Quebec and winters in the Atlantic Flyway declined from 118,000 in 1988 to 29,000 in 1995 (USFWS 1996). Population of Mississippi Flyway giant Canada geese increased at a rate of 5% per year from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s; in some areas numer have increased to record high and nuisance levels (USFWS 1996).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Protect migratory population in Atlantic Flyway while reducing size of nuisance resident population (USFWS 1996).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Breeds from central and southeastern Alaska east across northern Canada and southern Victoria Island to western Melville Peninsula, northeastern Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and southern Baffin Island (recently naturally established in western Greenland) south to southwestern British Columbia, northeastern California, northern Utah, south-central Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, northern Arkansas, western Kentucky, southern Ohio, Pennsylvania, northern Virginia, and Maryland. Breeding populations in the southern prairie states were extirpated, but many have become reestablished. Birds in eastern states south of Great Lakes and Massachusetts result from relatively recent natural southward extension of breeding range and to great extent from introductions. Feral populations resulting from introductions may occur almost anywhere in the United States (AOU 2004).

Winters from the southern part of the breeding range through most of the United States and into northern Mexico. Introduced and established in Great Britain, Iceland, southern Scandinavia, and New Zealand. Accidental in Hawaii, Greater Antilles, and the Bahamas.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FLexotic, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MSnative and exotic, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VTnative and exotic, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NSnative and exotic, NT, NU, ON, PEnative and exotic, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; NatureServe, 2005


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Valdez-Cordova (CA) (02261)
ID Ada (16001), Bear Lake (16007), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Bonner (16017), Boundary (16021), Camas (16025), Canyon (16027), Cassia (16031), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Fremont (16043), Gooding (16047), Jefferson (16051), Kootenai (16055), Nez Perce (16069), Power (16077)
WA Benton (53005)+, Clark (53011)+, Cowlitz (53015)+, Douglas (53017)+, Franklin (53021)+, Grant (53025)+, Grays Harbor (53027)+, Klickitat (53039)+, Okanogan (53047)+, Pacific (53049)+, Skamania (53059)+, Wahkiakum (53069)+
WY Sublette (56035)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
14 Big Sandy (14040104)+
16 Bear Lake (16010201)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Chief Joseph (17020005), Okanogan (17020006), Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010), Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016), Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Middle Snake-Payette (17050115)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101), Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105), Lower Columbia-Sandy (17080001), Lower Columbia-Clatskanie (17080003), Lower Columbia (17080006), Lower Willamette (17090012), Upper Chehalis (17100103), Lower Chehalis (17100104), Grays Harbor (17100105), Willapa Bay (17100106)
19 Lower Copper River (19020104)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A goose.
General Description: A goose of geographically variable size, averaging 64-117 cm long (smallest in the north); black head and neck marked with a broad white chin strap extending from ear to ear; plain large dark wings; black tail with U-shaped white band on rump (NGS 1983).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from the brant (BRANTA BERNICLA) in having a broad white chin strap rather than a small whitish patch on either side of the neck. Differs from the barnacle goose (BRANTA LEUCOPSIS) by the lack of a mostly white face and by having plain dark wings instead of blue-gray upperparts barred with black (NGS 1983).
Reproduction Comments: Clutch size 2-11 (usually 5-6). Incubation 25-30 days, by female (Harrison 1978). Nestlings precocial. Young tended by both adults, remain with adults until next spring. Some individuals begin breeding at 2 years, most by age 3 years.
Ecology Comments: Mean annual survival rate for Rocky Mountain birds banded on nesting areas: 53% for immatures, 64% for adults (Krohn and Bizeau 1980).

In winter, flocks foraged up to 48 km from roost in Texas (Glazener 1946).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Found year-round in central part of range. Flocks of family groups migrate together.

The percentage of the population wintering in the north is now higher than in the past, due at least in part to increased availability of planted corn. A large percentage of geese that spend a winter in the Carolinas winter in more northerly locations (e.g., Chesapeake) in subsequent winters (Ecology 72:523).

Some western geese, mainly prebreeders and unsuccessful nesters, make molt migrations to and from molting areas during and after the brood-rearing season; apparently, molters of Pacific and Rocky Mountain populations that leave those regions go to the Northwest Territories of Canada (Krohn and Bizeau 1980). See Johnson and Herter (1989) for information on migration of various subspecies.

In the Mississippi Valley population, fall and spring migration is concentrated in a corridor in central Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin; a major spring staging area is the Kaskaskia River Valley in central Illinois; chronology of departure from wintering areas and of fall migration vary annually (Tacha et al. 1991). See Samuel et al. (1991) for information on fall and winter distribution in the Mississippi Flyway.

Atlantic Flyway population consists of migrant geese and a resident population which generally migrates only short distances; migrant population breeds primarily in Labrador, northern Quebec, and James Bay area and winters south to North Carolina, western Pennsylvania, the western Carolinas, and Mississippi Flyway states.

Estuarine Habitat(s): Bay/sound, Herbaceous wetland, Lagoon, River mouth/tidal river, Tidal flat/shore
Riverine Habitat(s): Low gradient
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Grassland/herbaceous, Tundra
Habitat Comments: Various habitats near water, from temperate regions to tundra. In migration and winter, coastal and freshwater marshes, lakes, rivers, fields, etc. On Admiralty Island, Alaska, commonly perches in trees. In the eastern U.S., common on lawns adjacent to water in urban-suburban areas.

Breeds in open or forested areas near lakes, ponds, large streams, inland and coastal marshes. The nest is built on the ground or on an elevated place (muskrat house, abandoned heron's nest, rocky cliffs, etc.) (Terres 1980). Usually returns to nesting territory used in previous year.

Adult Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore
Immature Food Habits: Granivore, Herbivore
Food Comments: Grazes on marsh grasses, sprouts of winter wheat (spring), grain (fall); eats clover, cattails, bulrushes, algae, pond- weed, and other plants. Feeds in shallows, marshes, fields. Also eats mollusks and small crustaceans (Terres 1980). Subspecies OCCIDENTALIS of west coastal North America: exogenous sources of lipid and protein are important to energy and nutrient requirements of nesting geese (Condor 95:193-210).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: May be active day or night during migration. Usually feeds in early morning and late afternoon.
Length: 114 centimeters
Weight: 4741 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Sport hunting accounts for more than 86% of the mortality of fledged geese in Rocky Mountain region (Krohn and Bizeau 1980).
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Methods for reducing goose problems on lawns include habitat modification (such as planting vegetation that reduces long-distance visibility or that interferes with take-offs or landings, draining bodies of water, or eliminating palatable vegetation), use of fear-provoking stimuli, and hunting (see Converse 1985, Conover and Chasko 1985, Conover 1991, and Conover and Kania 1991 for further information on resident nuisance geese in the northeastern U.S.). See Conover (1989) for information on the use of methiocarb to reduce damage to grain fields and winter cover crops. See Cummings et al. (1991) for information on the use of dimethyl anthranilate and methyl anthranilate to repell Canada geese from grassy areas. In Wisconsin, farmers rated mylar flags and human effigies as fully successful or at least helpful in reducing crop damage; Av-Alarm (a sonic deterrent) also was effective but not well accepted by farmers (Heinrich and Craven 1990). See Aguilar et al. (1991) for an evaluation of goose alarm or distress calls and screamer shells to disperse wintering urban geese.

See Reese et al. (1987) for recommendations on construction of artificial nesting islands.

Tacha et al. (1991) found no evidence to support the existence of manageable subpopulations in the Mississippi Valley population.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Swans and Geese

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Nest Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding , or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.
Mapping Guidance: Map Foraging Areas in separate polygons from the nest site if they are separated from the nest by areas simply flown over on commuting routes.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas and foraging areas used during the nesting season, but the separation distance is based on nesting-area polygons. Thus different occurrences may overlap if birds from different nesting areas travel to the same foraging area during the nesting season. The separation distance is arbitrary but is intended to yield occurrences that are not impracticably large for conservation purposes.

Canada Geese usually forage near nest site, but adults will forage up to 8 kilometers away (Williams and Sooter 1941, Hammond and Mann 1956) and young will occasionally travel up to 16 kilometers to a foraging area as well (Palmer 1976). Mean home ranges of brood-rearing Snow Geese ranged from 6.6 to 21.7 square kilometers on Bylot Island (Hughes et al. 1994).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 3 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on the conservative, smaller mean home range for Snow Geese of 6.6 square kilometers (Hughes et al. 1994).
Date: 26Apr2004
Author: Cannings, S. and G. Hammerson
Notes: Contains all species of swans and geese, as well as whistling-ducks.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Some swans - Cygnus buccinator, in particular - have known migratory routes and staging areas. For these, evidence of past or present recurring presence of migrating or staging flocks and potential recurring presence at a given location. Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season and habitat; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance arbitrary, set to yield occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes.
Date: 07Aug2017
Author: Ormes, M.
Notes: Created at request of NE; needs review by zoologist.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging area, Roosting site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of past or present recurring presence of flocks of nonbreeding birds, including nonbreeding birds within the breeding season and breeding individuals outside the breeding season, and potential recurring presence at a given location. Normally only areas where concentrations greater than 50 birds occur regularly for at least 20 days per year would be deemed EOs.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance arbitrary, set to yield occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of foraging birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations. Swans and geese can travel considerable distances on a daily basis; in winter, flocks of Canada Geese foraged up to 48 km from roost in Texas (Glazener 1946).
Date: 26Apr2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson
Notes: Contains all species of swans and geese, as well as whistling-ducks.

Use Class: Wintering site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Overlaps with Nonbreeding LUC, but some swans - Cygnus buccinator in particular - have distinct wintering and staging areas. For these, evidence of past or present recurring presence of flocks of nonbreeding birds, and potential recurring presence at a given location. Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season and habitat; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Date: 07Aug2017
Author: Ormes, M.
Notes: Created at request of NE; needs review by zoologist.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 06Dec1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., REVISED BY S. CANNINGS

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Aguilera, E., R. L. Knight, and J. L. Cummings. 1991. An evaluation of two hazing methods for urban Canada geese. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:32-35.

  • Alabama Ornithological Society. 2006. Field checklist of Alabama birds. Alabama Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Alabama. [Available online at http://www.aosbirds.org/documents/AOSChecklist_april2006.pdf ]

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • American Ornithologists Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pages.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2004. Forty-fifth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 121(3):985-995.

  • Anderson, S., White, M., and D. Atwood. 1991. Humboldt National Forest Sensitive Field Guide. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Intermountain Region: Ogden, UT.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des oiseaux du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 13 pages.

  • B83COM01NAUS - Added from 2005 data exchange with Alberta, Canada.

  • Banks, R. C., and M. R. Browning. 1995. Comments on the status of revived old names for some North American birds. Auk 112:633-648.

  • Bartelt, G., W. Wheeler, D. Doberstein. 1984. Survey of Radio-marked Canada Geese in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario. Research Report No. 127, Wisonsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, Wisconsin. 24 pp

  • Belling, K. 1985. Winter wheat depredation by Canada geese in central New York. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse, NY.

  • Bierly, M.L. 1980. Bird Finding in Tennessee. 3825 Bed- ford Ave., Nashville, TN 37125.

  • BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • Campbell, B. H., and J. E. Cornely. 1992. Dusky Canada goose: an annotated bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Resource Publ. 187. 30 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I.McT. Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 1. Nonpasserines: Introduction, Loons through Waterfowl. Royal B.C. Mus. in association with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. 514pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Conover, M. R. 1989. Can goose damage to grain fields be prevented through methiocarb-induced aversive conditioning? Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17:172-175.

  • Conover, M. R. 1991. Herbivory by Canada geese: diet selction and effect on lawns. Ecological Applications 1(2):231-236.

  • Conover, M. R., and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose problems in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:228-233.

  • Conover, M. R., and G. S. Kania. 1991. Characteristics of feeding sites used by urban-suburban flocks of Canada geese in Connecticut. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:36-38.

  • Converse, K. A. 1985. A study of resident nuisance geese in Connecticut and New York. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts.

  • Craven, S. R. 1981. The Canada goose (BRANTA CANADENSIS)- an annotated bibliography. U. S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Spec.Sci. Rep.-Wildl. No. 231. 66 pp.

  • Craven, S.R. 1981. The Canada goose (BRANTA CANADENSIS)- an annotated bibliography. U.S. Dept. of Interior, FWS. Special Scientific Report No. 231. 66 pp.

  • Cummings, J. L., et al. 1991. Evaluation of dimethyl and methyl anthranilate as a Canada goose repellent on grass. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:184-190.

  • DICKINSON, MARY B., ED. 1999. FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, 3RD ED. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 480 PP.

  • DeGange, A. 1999. Proposal to remove the Aleutian Canada Goose from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 64:42058-42068.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Di Silvestro, R. L., editor. 1986. Audubon wildlife report1986. National Audubon Society, New York. 1094 pp. [available from Academic Press, San Diego, CA]

  • Dionne C. 1906. Les oiseaux de la province de Québec. Dussault et Proulx.

  • Dunn, E. H., C. M. Downes, and B. T. Collins. 2000. The Canadian Breeding Bird Survey, 1967-1998. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 216. 40 pp.

  • Franson, C. 1994. Parathion poisoning of Mississippi kites in Oklahoma. Journal of Raptor Research 28:108-109.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • Glazener, W. C. 1946. Food habits of wild geese on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 10:322-329.

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 596 pp. + plates.

  • Hammond, M. C., and G. E. Mann. 1956. Waterfowl nesting islands. Journal of Wildlife Management 20:345-352.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Heinrich, J. W., and S. R. Craven. 1990. Evaluation of three damage abatement techniques for Canada geese. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:405-410.

  • Hess, Q. 1942. Canada Geese summering in northern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 57:46.

  • Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

  • Hughes, R. J., A. Reed, and G. Gauthier. 1994. Space and habitat use by Greater Snoow Goose broods on Bylot Island, Northwest Territories. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:536-545.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pages.

  • Imhof, T. A. 1976. Alabama birds. Second edition. Univ. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 445 pp.

  • Johnson, S. R. and D. R. Herter. 1989. The Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 372 pp.

  • Kortright, F.H. 1967. The ducks, geese, and swans of North America. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, PA, and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 476 pp.

  • Krohn, W. B., and E. G. Bizeau. 1980. The Rocky Mountain population of the western Canada goose: its distribution, habitats, and management. USFWS Spec. Sci. Rep.--Wildl. 229:1-93.

  • Leberman, R.C. 1987. A FIELD LIST OF THE BIRDS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND ADJACENT REGIONS. UNPUBLISHED.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The Birds of Louisiana. LSU Press. 651pp.

  • McAtee W.L. 1959. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. 74 pages.

  • Mills, Charles E. 1991. The Birds of a Southern Indiana Coal Mine Reclamation Project. 69 Ind. Aud. Q. 65-79.

  • Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1998. BC Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. 88pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1984. Preliminary species distribution maps, 1980-1984. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

  • North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 1998. Expanding the vision 1998 update. Canadian Wildlife Service. 32 pp.

  • Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.

  • Ouellet H., M. Gosselin et J.P. Artigau. 1990. Nomenclature française des oiseaux d'Amérique du Nord. Secrétariat d'État du Canada. 457 p.

  • Palmer, R. S., editor. 1976. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 2. Waterfowl (first part). Whistling ducks, swans, geese, sheld-ducks, dabbling ducks. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven. 521 pp.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 1984-1987. UNPUBLISHED

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 384 pages.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980b. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner, and D. G. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 409 pp. + 45 plates.

  • Quinn, T. W., G. F. Shields, and A. C. Wilson. 1991. Affinities of the Hawaiian goose based on two types of mitochondrial DNA data. Auk 108:585-593.

  • RAY, JAMES D. AND HARVEY W. MILLER. 1997. A CONCENTRATION OF SMALL CANADA GEESE IN AN URBAN SETTING AT LUBBOCK, TEXAS. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 42(1):68-73.

  • Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele. 1998. A guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 511 pp.

  • Reese, K. P., J. A. Kadlec, and L. M. Smith. 1987. Characteristics of islands selected by nesting Canada geese, BRANTA CANADENSIS. Canadian Field-Nat. 101:539-542.

  • Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds: An analysis of Christmas Bird Count data. University of Chicago Press. 336 pp.

  • Samuel, M. D., et al. 1991. Fall and winter distribution of Canada geese in the Mississippi flyway. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:449-456.

  • See SERO listing

  • Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 391 pp.

  • Shields, G. F., and A. C. Wilson. 1987. Subspecies of Canada goose (BRANTA CANADENSIS) have distinct mitochondrial DNAs. Evolution 41:662-666.

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Sinclair, P.H., W.A. Nixon, C.D. Eckert and N.L. Hughes. 2003. Birds of the Yukon Territory. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 595pp.

  • TURCOTTE, W. BIRDS OF MISSISSIPPI (DRAFT OF BOOK; IN PREPARATION FOR PUBLICATION AS OF 1997)

  • Tacha, T. C., et al. 1991. Migration patterns of the Mississippi Valley population of Canada geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:94-102.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United States- Aleutian canada goose. FWS/OBS-80/01.34, Slidell.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 22 July 1996. Migratory bird hunting; proposed frameworks for early-season migratory bird hunting regulations. Federal Register

  • Van Wagner, C. E., and A. J. Baker. 1986. Genetic differentiation in populations of Canada geese (BRANTA CANADENSIS). Can. J. Zool. 64:940-947.

  • Van Wagner, C. E., and A. J. Baker. 1990. Association between mitochondrial DNA and morphological evolution in Canada geese. J. Molecular Evol. 31:373-382.

  • Williams, C. S., and C. A. Sooter. 1941. Canada Goose habitats in Utah and Oregon. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 5:383-387.

  • Wood, MERRILL. 1979. BIRDS OF PENNSYLVANIA. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK. 133 PP.

  • eBird. 2016. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed in 2016.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.