NAME:

TITLE: PREVENTING CROP DAMAGE BY GEESE- EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT SCARING TECHNIQUES

Geese populations have drastically increased in Sweden in the past decades .This has resulted to
increased crop damages causing low productions of agricultural products. The increasing populations of
geese can have a detrimental effect on vegetation and ecosystems (Abraham et al., 2005a, 2005b) and
also bring geese into conflict with farmers as they cause crop damage (Ankney, 1996; Fox et al., 2017).
The rapid increase in goose numbers present serious management challenge, and therefore applied
research is required to increase knowledge about the effectiveness of various scaring techniques to
mitigate impact and harvest losses.

Common crane (Grus grus), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) and greylag goose (Anser anser) caused 90
% of the reported damage, yield loss and costs for compensation in Sweden between 2000 and 2015,
while bean goose Anser fabalis and whooper swan Cygnus cygnus combined represented 8 % of the
reported damage (Montràs-Janer et al., 2019). Common tools to reduce damage by grazing geese aim to
divert geese from economically sensitive crops to alternative feeding areas where they do not cause
damage by using scaring and diversionary fields (Conover, 2002; Fox et al., 2017). Practical experience
from these tools are available from both Europe and North America, but very little has been published
and a strong need for studies under controlled conditions to inform management has recently been
highlighted (Fox et al., 2017).

Current legislation states in Sweden that damage caused by wildlife should primarily be prevented by
conventional hunting, lethal scaring and other non-lethal preventive measures (SFS, 1987a:259 Hunting
act) such as scaring and diversionary fields, i.e., fields cultivated to attract foraging birds (Hake et al.,
2010; Vickery and Gill, 1999). In situations where hunting is not a feasible option; for example, if the
focal species is protected, damage should be prevented by other means (the European Community
Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds EEC/79/409). In Sweden, compensation and subsidies for
preventive measures have increased the last 20 years and summed to approximately 0.8 million V per
year over the last five years (Frank et al., 2016). In addition, it is assumed that the extent of unreported
damage is also large (Anon, 2015). One consequence of increasing damage levels is a growing conflict
between conservation and agriculture, especially at sites where the birds are attracted to protected
wetlands (Hake et al., 2010). Areas of conflicts occur in many parts of Sweden (Frank et al., 2016; Hake
et al., 2010). The conflicts become particularly evident in cases where birds are protected and where
non-lethal preventive tools do not have the intended effect. Moreover, farmers often claim that these
preventive measures are ineffective.

This study aims to disentangle the perceived and real effect by increasing knowledge about whether use

of scaring techniques (scaring-‘‘pushing’’ birds away, sacrificial crops-“pulling” the birds to certain fields

use of passive scaring –placing devices such as propane cannons,kites,scarecrows and flags in damage-

prone fields and use of active scaring e.g. firecracks, greenlaser,dogs,walking,shooting,drones ), as

performed by hunters and farmers in Sweden, is decreasing the number of foraging geese in fields

where the above techniques has been performed. From previous studies on hunting of geese and water

birds (Jensen et al., 2017, 2016a, 2016b; Madsen and Fox, 1995) it is predicted that: 1) the techniques

will reduce the number of birds at a local spatial level and therefore decrease damage risk; and 2) the

birds will increase escape distance to an approaching man after scaring. The study will increase our

understanding of appropriate methods and may therefore provide important and urgent guidelines for

decision makers and stakeholders involved in the complex issue of goose management and crop

protection (Fox et al., 2017; Hake et al., 2010; Tuvendal and Elmberg, 2015).