Emperor goose fall–winter harvest monitoring and hunter's perspectives in Alaska

Monitoring harvests and understanding hunters' perspectives are key for effective harvest management. Emperor goose (Anser canagicus) harvest in Alaska was recently re‐authorized after a 30‐year closure, but relatively small numbers of geese are available for a sustainable harvest. We characterized participation in the fall–winter hunting permit program, evaluated harvest monitoring, documented hunter's perspectives, and provided management recommendations. Participants in fall–winter bird hunting include rural, urban, Alaska Native, non‐Indigenous, subsistence, and sport (recreational) hunters, and these categories may overlap. In 2017–2019, 1367 permits were issued to urban Alaska residents (49%), rural residents (47%), and nonresidents (4%). Permit reporting documented take below the fall–winter federal quota. However, ancillary harvest surveys in rural Alaska suggested a substantially higher harvest. In a survey of 2017 and 2018 permit holders, most Alaska urban and nonresident respondents as well as more than half of rural respondents identified sport hunting as their primary motivation for obtaining a permit. These respondents often mentioned a taxidermy mount as a reason for obtaining a permit. About half of respondents motivated by subsistence hunting mentioned food as a reason. Finetuning harvest management include actions to increase participation by rural hunters in the fall–winter permit program, adjustments to boundaries of hunt areas so they are meaningful for hunters, and complementary harvest monitoring for all regulatory seasons.

In 2015, the emperor goose population index reached the management plan threshold for the re-authorization of harvest (PFC, 2006). Re-opening harvest in 2017 involved the revision of population monitoring and harvest management strategies (AMBCC, 2016;Dooley et al., 2016;Osnas & Frost, 2016;PFC, 2016). Emperor goose is an important food and cultural resource for Alaska Native peoples (ADF&G, 2017;Wolfe & Paige, 1995). Non-Indigenous hunters also value the opportunity to hunt emperor geese and support economic activities related to hunting (McDowell Group, 2021). The emperor goose, an endemic species, attracts nature-oriented tourism and is sought-after at birding destinations in Alaska, despite its remote distribution (ADF&G, 2023a;Cerveny, 2008).
Harvest regulations for migratory birds in Alaska include a spring-summer subsistence season and a fallwinter general hunting season (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2023a, 2023b). Participants in fall-winter bird hunting include rural, urban, Alaska Native, non-Indigenous, subsistence, and sport (recreational) hunters, and these categories may overlap. Subsistence in Alaska refers to customary and traditional patterns of resource use, which tend to occur in rural areas where the population includes a higher proportion of Alaska Native residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011; ADF&G, 2017; 5 AAC 99.025 (12) (G) and (H)). Sport hunting in Alaska is usually associated with urban residents. Most harvest regulations in Alaska do not refer to ethnicity, including those for migratory birds. The emperor goose management plan of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC) outlined a harvest strategy for the spring-summer season (AMBCC, 2016). The Pacific Flyway Council emperor goose management plan outlined a harvest strategy for the fall-winter season (PFC, 2016). The two plans are complementary and recognize emperor goose as a shared resource including harvest and non-consumptive uses. The annual re-authorization of the harvest is based on the annual population index, and the management plans are to be periodically reviewed (AMBCC, 2016;PFC, 2016).
Alaska Native peoples have harvested wild foods for thousands of years following the seasonal availability of animals and plants (Wolfe et al., 1990). The 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act closed harvest for birds and their eggs from March 10 to August 31 each year. This provision intended to restore bird populations depleted by commercial hunting, but it failed to account for harvest by Indigenous peoples in northern latitudes. Historically, spring bird harvest alleviated hunger and starvation at a time of the year when resources were scarce (Fienup-Riordan, 1999). Law enforcement efforts in the 1960s to restrict spring-summer harvests of migratory birds resulted in hardships for Native communities and conflict with resource management agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). Improved collaboration among management agencies and Native organizations led to a Treaty amendment in 1997 to legally authorize the Alaska spring-summer subsistence harvest and include subsistence users in harvest management (AMBCC, 2023a). However, misalignments between fall-winter bird harvest regulations and harvest practices in rural Alaska remain unresolved. Alaska Native users tend to oppose the limited set of bird species opened to harvest, bag and possession limits, and special permit requirements for the fall-winter regulatory season (AMBCC, 2023b).
The fall-winter hunt was allowed with a federal harvest quota of 1000 emperor geese in 2017-2019 divided among seven hunt areas (125-175 birds/area) ( Figure 1) (ADF&G, 2023c). Consistent with other existing regulations, fall-winter harvest of emperor goose was closed within the Kodiak Island roaded area (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2023a;Federal Register vol. 68, no. 139, page 43010). Hunters interested in harvesting emperor goose in the fall-winter season were required to obtain a permit; the permit program is administered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). An unlimited number of permits were available to Alaska residents online, at local ADF&G offices, and other license vendors in rural communities. Alaska residents may obtain a permit for more than one hunt area in a year and can take one emperor goose for an entire fallwinter season across hunt areas. Twenty-five drawing (lottery) permits were available to nonresidents beginning in 2018. A nonresident permit allowed take of one emperor goose for an entire fall-winter season within game management units (GMUs) 8, 9, and 10 and the Izembek State Game Refuge (SGR) (ADF&G, 2023c) ( Figure 1). Permit holders must report emperor goose take within 24-72 h by phone or online. Hunt areas were closed on the last day of the season or by emergency order when quotas were met.
Harvest regulations for emperor goose in the Alaska spring-summer subsistence season do not involve a harvest quota, special permit, bag or possession limits, or mandatory harvest reporting (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2023a;Federal Register vol. 82, no. 63, page 16298). The season is limited to 122 days and includes a 30-day closure during part of the nesting and brood rearing periods. In the Kodiak Archipelago and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands, the emperor goose availability is limited during spring-summer thus hunters rely on harvest opportunities in the fall-winter season (Figure 1) (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2023b).
Many regulatory proposals submitted to the AMBCC and the Alaska Board of Game since 2015 documented high interest in harvesting emperor goose (ADF&G, 2023b; AMBCC, 2023b). Relatively low harvests documented by the fall-winter permit reporting have inspired regulatory proposals to increase harvest opportunities for nonresident hunters in the fall-winter season, although conservation concerns and conflicts of interest have stymied these efforts. Allocating a limited resource across regulatory seasons and regions has been a primary goal and challenge for harvest management of emperor goose. F I G U R E 1 Emperor goose distribution range, fall-winter hunt areas, and management regions for the spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska.
The overarching objective of this study was to evaluate the emperor goose fall-winter permit program in the 3 years following harvest re-authorization (2017-2019) and provide recommendations to improve harvest management. Monitoring harvests and understanding hunters' perspectives are key for effective harvest management. We (1) assessed whether participation in the permit program varied by region and residency in a way that could bias harvest monitoring; (2) compared results from permit reporting and harvest surveys conducted by the AMBCC; and (3) in a separate survey, documented permit holder's perspectives about emperor goose harvest management. This information has direct application for harvest management by the Alaska Board of Game, the AMBCC, the Pacific Flyway Council, and the ongoing revision of the emperor goose management plans.

| Study area
The emperor goose distribution range is limited to Bering Sea coastal habitats in Alaska and Russia ( Figure 1). Emperor geese breed primarily on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (western Alaska), but also on the Seward Peninsula and on St. Lawrence Island (northwestern Alaska) and the Chukotka Peninsula (Russia). Immature, nonbreeding, and failed-breeding birds migrate in late summer from western Alaska to St. Lawrence Island and the Chukotka Peninsula where they molt feathers. Emperor geese migrate along the Bristol Bay and the Alaska Peninsula in spring and fall. Wintering areas include the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Archipelago in Alaska and the Commander Islands in Russia (Lewis et al., 2021;Schmutz et al., 2020;Uher-Koch et al., 2021).
This study involved residents and nonresidents participating in emperor goose and migratory bird hunting in Alaska. We defined rural as communities and regions eligible to participate in the spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds and urban as noneligible communities ( Figure 1) (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2023a). Emperor goose fall-winter hunt areas overlap with the migratory bird subsistence harvest management regions, except for the hunt areas including GMUs 9, 10, and 17 (Bristol Bay and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands). We grouped permit holders' community of residence in rural Alaska based on the management regions defined for the Alaska spring-summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds because this framework reflects socio-economic, cultural, and ecological domains relevant for rural residents (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2023a).

| Hunting activity and characteristics of permit holders
We analyzed data for the first three permit years (2017-2019) to assess whether participation and harvest reporting varied by region and residency (rural, urban, nonresident) in a manner that could bias results of harvest monitoring. Some residents obtained permits for more than one hunt area in one year and for more than one year. Permit holders were required to report whether they did not hunt, hunted with the intent of harvesting an emperor goose (hunted permits), if an emperor goose was taken, and the number of days hunted. Reporting these hunting activities was required for all individual permits, including permits obtained by resident hunters for more than one hunt area in a year. We summarized hunting activity and demographic characteristics of permit holders (age, gender, community of residence). We referred to numbers of issued permits and harvested birds rather than numbers of individual people. Residence also referred to issued permits. Only age and gender data referred to individual people; we considered these data for the first year an individual obtained a permit. Following reporting standards defined for the permit program, harvests reported via the permit were not extrapolated to account for non-reported permits (in 2017-2019, 4% of the issued permits were not reported).

| Harvest monitoring in permit reporting and harvest surveys
We compared emperor goose harvests reported in the permit program with data collected in the AMBCC harvest survey to assess the effectiveness of the permit for harvest quantification Naves, Mengak, & Keating, 2021). Harvest reporting in the permit program intended to quantify all emperor geese taken in the fall-winter season-all hunters (urban, rural, and nonresident) potentially interested in harvesting emperor goose were required to obtain a permit and report harvest. However, this comparison included only harvests reported by rural permit holders and hunters because sampling for the AMBCC survey included only rural hunters.
The AMBCC survey documented spring-summer and fall-winter harvests by rural residents in three regions within the emperor goose distribution range-Bristol Bay, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and Bering Strait-Norton Sound. This survey used a random sampling of communities and households (Naves, Mengak, & Keating, 2021). Harvest estimates were calculated by extrapolating data from surveyed households to represent all households in the surveyed regions Naves, Mengak, & Keating, 2021).
Harvest estimates for species taken in relatively low numbers, such as the emperor goose, tend to have wide confidence intervals because of characteristics intrinsic to the data (Copp & Roy, 1986:11, H-15;Otis et al., 2016). The application of harvest estimates with wide confidence intervals for decision making has been contentious within the AMBCC. Thus, for unambiguity of comparisons presented in this study, we used non-extrapolated numbers obtained in the AMBCC survey as a measure of the minimum emperor goose harvest in rural regions. If participation by rural hunters in the fall-winter emperor goose permit program and its required harvest reporting was robust, the permit harvest reporting required for all hunters should yield larger numbers than nonextrapolated (raw) numbers obtained by a random sample in the AMBCC survey.

| Permit holder's perspectives
We surveyed hunters who obtained an emperor goose fall-winter permit in 2017 and/or 2018 to document their perspectives regarding harvest management and conservation. Questions addressed topics such as motivations, factors affecting hunting opportunity and experience, and preferred harvest management tools (Appendix S1). In July 2019, we mailed permit holders a letter explaining survey objectives, methods, expected uses of collected information, and that participation in the survey was voluntary (Dillman et al., 2014). We provided this information again in August when we mailed participants a cover letter, survey questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope. We mailed a postcard reminder 2 weeks later to permit holders who had not yet answered the survey. Finally, we mailed a second reminder 2 weeks later including cover letter, survey form, and return envelope.
We mailed surveys to 712 permit holders (687 Alaska residents obtained a permit in 2017 and 2018 and 25 nonresidents were awarded a permit in 2018; Table S1). Fifty-eight surveys were undeliverable. We received 408 completed questionnaires. We excluded from analyses answers by respondents younger than 18 years old (n = 11) because the survey was not designed for this age class. Analyses included 397 completed questionnaires (response rate = 61%).
Some survey questions pertained to individual years. However, the extended recall period (especially for 2017) may have affected respondents' ability to accurately recall events for individual years (Chu et al., 1992). Also considering some limited sample sizes, we combined qualitative and quantitative data across years. We calculated question percentages from responses. We categorized (coded) qualitative information from responses to open-ended questions into common themes (topics) and sub-themes. Responses may fit under more than one theme or subtheme (Bernard, 2011).

| Hunting activity and characteristics of permit holders
In 2017-2019, 1367 permits were issued to urban Alaska residents (49%), rural residents (47%), and nonresidents (4%) (Figure 2, Table S1). Rural residents tended to obtain permits for hunt areas within their region of residence (Table S2). Most permit holders were male (90%) and were between the ages of 31 and 60 years (66%). Four hunt areas accounted for most (89%) issued permits, and Kodiak Archipelago was the hunt area with the highest number of issued permits (40% of the total). These hunt areas also had a high influx of urban residents: Eastern Aleutian Islands and Bristol Bay (71% of permits issued to urban residents), Izembek SGR (71%), Western Aleutian Islands (54%), and Kodiak Archipelago (39%). Kodiak Archipelago residents accounted for about half (52%) of all permits issued to rural residents.

| Harvest monitoring in permit reporting and harvest surveys
Permit holders reported 422 harvested emperor geese (2017-2019 years combined, 129-150 birds/year; Table S1). Most harvest occurred in the Eastern Aleutian Islands-Bristol Bay and Izembek SGR (48%), Kodiak Archipelago (25%), and Western Aleutian Islands (15%) hunt areas. Urban hunters accounted for 55% of the total reported harvest. About half (49%) of harvests reported by rural permit holders occurred in the Kodiak Archipelago hunt area.
Non-extrapolated data from the AMBCC harvest survey indicated higher fall-winter emperor goose harvests than numbers provided by the permit reporting (Table 1). Permit reporting documented harvest of zero and one bird in the Bering Strait-Norton Sound and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta respectively, whereas 45 and 36 birds were reported in the AMBCC survey (non-extrapolated numbers, years combined). Permit reporting and AMBCC survey results were more aligned for the Bristol Bay region indicating a fall-winter harvest of dozens of emperor geese annually (Table 1).
The AMBCC survey fall-winter harvest estimates (extrapolated numbers) of emperor goose in 2017-2019 averaged 991 birds/year for the Bering Strait-Norton Sound and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta regions, although confidence intervals around these estimates were wide (Table 1). These estimates suggest that current harvest levels in these regions in the fall-winter regulatory season are similar to those for 1987-2016 during the harvest closure (724 birds/year, Table 2; Wentworth, 2007;Naves, Knight, & Mengak, 2021). Historically, more than half of the emperor goose harvest in these two regions occurred in spring-summer, although fall-winter harvest in the Bering Strait-Norton Sound also was substantial (Table 2). While recognizing low precision of these harvest estimates, considering the above evidence for incomplete participation of rural hunters in the fall-winter permit program, it is possible that harvests in the Bering Strait-Norton Sound and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta regions represented a substantial part of the 2017-2019 Alaskawide fall-winter harvest quota of 1000 birds.

| Topics included in survey questions
High correlations between demographic attributes of respondents and all permit holders supported that the survey properly represented the sampling universe (age distribution: R 2 = 0.827, representation of residence regions: R 2 = 0.998). Small numbers of responses from residents of the Bristol Bay, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Bering Strait-Norton Sound, Northwest Arctic, and other rural regions (outside the emperor goose range) were commensurate with a small number of permits issued to residents of these regions (Figure 2). This survey of permit holders was likely insufficient to fully represent perspectives of rural hunters because of their relatively low participation in the permit program. Acknowledging this shortcoming, we are conducting another study to more completely document knowledge and perspectives of rural users about emperor goose harvest management and conservation.
More than half (61%) of rural respondents identified sport harvest as their primary motivation to obtain an emperor goose permit (Table S3). A small proportion (7%) of urban respondents identified subsistence harvest as their primary motivation to obtain a permit (Table S3). Respondents who identified with sport harvest mentioned a taxidermy mount or trophy as a reason for obtaining a permit (34%), followed by uniqueness of species or hunting opportunity (27%) and food or taste (16%) (Figure 4). Respondents who identified with subsistence or traditional harvest explained their reasons as food (60%), followed by additional hunting opportunity among other waterfowl (15%) and tradition (15%) (Figure 4).
About half of responses (48%) indicated hunting specifically for emperor goose, 36% of responses indicated that emperor goose hunting was incidental to other waterfowl hunting, and 16% that it was incidental to other hunting and fishing. This pattern occurred for both urban and rural residents. Emperor goose-targeted hunts were more frequent in the Kodiak Archipelago, Western Aleutian Islands, Izembek SGR, and Eastern Aleutian T A B L E 1 Harvest of emperor goose by rural hunters in three Alaska regions as documented by the permit reporting and the harvest survey of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC), 2017-2019. Islands-Bristol Bay (44%-59% of responses). Other activities mentioned as coupled with emperor goose hunting were deer hunting on the Kodiak Archipelago and caribou hunting on Adak Island. The most important reasons for which permit holders did not hunt were often related to personal factors, remoteness of hunting locations, and unfavorable weather (Table S4). Reasons for not hunting related to harvest management (9%) included the Kodiak Island roaded area closure, temporal mismatch between hunting season and emperor goose availability, and the one-goose bag limit.

Regions
Urban (22% of 183 responses) and nonresidents (78% of 18 responses) used hunting guides or outfitters more often than rural residents (3% of 158 responses). Emperor goose hunting using guides or outfitters was most common in the Izembek SGR (32% of responses) and Eastern Aleutian Islands-Bristol Bay (24% of responses) hunt areas. Using guides or outfitters was not reported for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Bering Strait-Norton Sound, and Northwest Arctic hunt areas.
Seventy-three percent of Alaska residents indicated being very likely or likely to obtain a permit again in the future (5-point Likert-type scale from very unlikely to very likely). Urban residents (69%) reported being slightly less likely to obtain a permit in the future than residents of the Kodiak Archipelago (75%) and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands (92%) (sample sizes for other rural regions were small). Half of nonresidents (50%) reported being very unlikely or unlikely to obtain a permit in the future.
Respondents who obtained a permit for northern hunt areas reported higher dissatisfaction regarding diverse aspects of emperor goose hunting than respondents who obtained permits for southern hunt areas ( Figure S1a-d). Across hunt areas, 15% of respondents were highly dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the limit of one emperor goose in the fall-winter season ( Figure S1d). In general, a small proportion of respondents was dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with the processes to obtain a permit (4%) and report harvest (6%) and with the length of harvest reporting period (5%).
We asked respondents to consider four harvest management tools and suggest other tools to support emperor goose population sustainability (Table S5). For the four listed tools, 32% of respondents indicated preference for "reduce harvest quota for areas," whereas "drawing permit for all hunters" was the least preferred tool (18%). About half (46%) of the write-in responses referred to curtailment of spring-summer harvest of birds and eggs and one-fourth (26%) referred to elimination or further restriction of nonresident permits.

| Additional comments provided by survey respondents
A final, open-ended question asked respondents to describe "any other comments or concerns about emperor goose management in Alaska" (33% of respondents provided comments, Table S6). Respondents voiced appreciation (n = 33, or 23% of all responses) for the opportunity to hunt emperor goose (e.g., "Thankful to be able to harvest them at all"), for the conservation efforts that allowed population growth (e.g., "I saw a few large flocks on Adak. It was wonderful to see so many birds and to know that they are being managed to provide a small surplus to harvest"), and for the birds themselves (e.g., "Awesome birds").
Comments about the Kodiak Island roaded area closure (n = 18, or 13% of all responses) often indicated a desire to hunt within the closed area (e.g., "For Kodiak, [there is] too much closed area."). But one response supported the closure ("[There are] thousands [of emperor goose] around, glad they're hunted off the road so it is more challenging. Opening road system would be detrimental in a lot of ways […]").
Comments about the spring-summer harvest (n = 14, or 10% of all responses) contrasted the spring-summer and the fall-winter harvest regulations, harvest levels, and impact on the population of harvest of adults versus immature birds (e.g., "Continuing to provide for a sport hunting opportunity is very important. The sport hunting harvest limit (quota) is a tiny fraction of the estimated (approximate) subsistence harvest and is very tightly controlled. Subsistence harvest is largely unregulated, has no harvest limit, and has no harvest reporting requirement.
[…] It is unrealistic to think that future conservation measures (if necessary), if focused on the tiny and well-regulated sport harvest, will have any meaningful effect on the emperor goose population").
Responses by residents about the nonresident permit (11 out of 18 responses addressing the nonresident permit) reflected diverging perspectives: some indicated that preference should be given to Alaska residents (e.g., "I don't think we need any more nonresident permits"), whereas others indicated interest in increased hunting opportunity for nonresidents as an economic opportunity (e.g., "Why don't more non-residents have an opportunity? [They] can't get tags. It is so expensive [to go hunting], so much financial benefit to community. Quota for Kodiak hasn't been met, there's more opportunity, there is high demand in waterfowl forum. Could be huge economic benefit").
Responses by nonresidents about the nonresident permit (7 out of 18 responses addressing the nonresident permit) expressed a desire for more opportunity for nonresidents to hunt emperor goose (e.g., "If possible, consider increasing the amount of nonresident permits. I do believe the [population] recovery can support it and the increased revenues from nonresident hunters can help the hunting areas"). Some nonresidents felt the nonresident hunt had a limited impact on the emperor goose population (e.g., "I feel that a limited [nonresident] harvest would have very minimal impact on population and pay off in spades toward the conservation of the geese"). Several nonresidents said they would not apply for a permit again due to the low chances of obtaining a permit (e.g., "So few permits [available], won't apply [in the future], let someone else get the experience").
Comments regarding the bag limit (n = 12, or 8%) mostly reflected a desire for harvesting more than one bird (e.g., "I wish you can increase the limit to 2 per hunting year or season"). Nevertheless, some respondents thought the limit should be increased only in some areas (e.g., "I hunt the Port Moller area, lots and lots of emperor goose, I'd like to shoot two, very little hunting pressure out here").
Several comments (n = 7, or 5%) addressed harvest management in the Cold Bay area specifically referring to geographic boundaries and season dates (e.g.,

| Participation in the fall-winter permit and harvest monitoring
Data from the AMBCC harvest survey suggested that the permit reporting under-estimated the fall-winter emperor goose take for the Bering Strait-Norton Sound and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. We concluded that the permit reporting on its own was insufficient to gauge the fall-winter emperor goose take. In 2017-2019, only 4% of the permits issued were not reported. It is possible that a proportion of rural hunters are not obtaining a permit and thus subsequently not reporting their harvests. The fallwinter emperor goose permit with mandatory harvest reporting is akin to that for fall-winter harvest of tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), which was first implemented in 1988 (ADF&G, 2023d). Numbers from the AMBCC harvest survey also indicated a larger take than quantified by the tundra swan permit reporting (Table S7; ADF&G, 2021;Naves, Knight, & Mengak, 2021).
The 2019 emperor goose population index fell below the threshold defined in the management plans that prescribes additional conservation measures (AMBCC, 2016;PFC, 2016;Swaim & Wilson, 2019). Consequently, the 2020 fall-winter federal harvest quota was reduced from 1000 to 500 birds, egg harvest was closed in the 2021 spring-summer subsistence season, and outreach was further prioritized to communicate with harvesters about continued conservation concerns regarding emperor goose. These actions were aligned with preferences for harvest management tools reported by survey respondents in this study (see also Mengak et al., 2022). Yet, in 2021 the Alaska Board of Game received dozens of harvest regulation proposals requesting additional opportunity for nonresidents to harvest emperor goose in the fall-winter season. These proposals were motivated by a perception that fall-winter harvests were well below the quota, as suggested by permit reporting data. This study demonstrated that harvests likely met or exceeded the quota at 500 or even 1000 geese.
Reasons may vary for low participation by rural residents in the fall-winter emperor goose permit and harvest reporting. For example, the Northwest Arctic region is at the edge of the emperor goose range where hunters may seldom encounter this species and thus may not proactively seek a permit. Participation may increase over time as hunters become more familiar with this relatively recent program. However, the older tundra swan permit reporting illustrates persisting challenges for implementing some harvest regulations in rural Alaska (see also Naves et al., 2010;Schmidt & Chapin III, 2014). The fallwinter emperor goose and tundra swan requirements contrast with historical advocacy by Alaska Native leaders for traditional hunting practices for migratory birds and opposition to western harvest management tools such as permits, bag limits, and agency-driven law enforcement (AMBCC, 2023b). Overcoming these challenges will take long-term collaboration with hunters.

| Diverse perspectives and a shared appreciation for emperor goose
This study highlighted that urban and rural permit holders share a high appreciation for the opportunity to hunt emperor goose and for this species as a food resource. This study also identified heterogeneity among users groups that are relevant for harvest management. Urban hunters had a stronger identification with western harvest management tools as suggested by their higher participation in the permit and harvest reporting as compared with rural hunters of regions other than the Kodiak Archipelago. Some dissatisfaction reported by rural residents may result from misalignment between traditional hunting practices and fall-winter harvest regulations. In the context of emperor goose harvest management, the requirement for a special permit in the fall-winter season and a bag limit of only one goose exacerbated such misalignments.
More than half of rural respondents identified sport hunting as their primary motivation, especially Kodiak Archipelago residents. Information on ethnicity of permit holders was unavailable. Nevertheless, a high representation of sport hunting among Kodiak Archipelago residents may be related to its high non-Native population (83%) as compared with rural areas in west and northwest Alaska (14%-33% non-Native) (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2020). There is ambiguity and confusion in the meanings of "sport" and "subsistence" harvests and survey questions in this study were not specifically designed to address this complex topic. Where and who can participate in subsistence harvests has been the topic of social, political, and legal debate throughout the history of fish and wildlife harvest management in Alaska (Fall, 2016).
Geography naturally plays a role in how hunters arrange their logistics. Use of guides or outfitters was uncommon among rural residents likely because they hunt near their residence, in areas which they are familiar with, and using their own transportation and gear. Proximity, familiarity with hunting grounds, and the added cost of hiring guides or outfitters likely discourage rural hunters from hiring such services. Thus, economic opportunities related to emperor goose hunting largely depend on the continued participation of Alaska urban and nonresident hunters (McDowell Group, 2021).

| Management and conservation implications
Quantification of fall-winter harvests will require collaboration to increase participation of rural hunters in the permit and harvest reporting program. Considering the emperor goose distribution and phenology and the socio-cultural context of the local communities, it is important to ensure that permits are locally available and that outreach and communication efforts are deployed at specific times and locations characterized by greater harvest opportunity (e.g., fallwinter harvest on St. Lawrence Island communities).
Additional harvest data (e.g., dedicated studies and AMBCC harvest survey) besides permit reporting will continue to be needed to portray the fall-winter take more completely across user groups and geographic areas because of persistent challenges to implement mandatory permit reporting (this study; Naves et al., 2010;Schmidt & Chapin 2014). This includes conducting harvest surveys in rural regions not included in the AMBCC survey, especially the Kodiak Archipelago and Aleutian-Pribilof Islands regions, to fill data gaps in both fall-winter and spring-summer harvest monitoring (e.g., . This study also provided insights to refine geographic boundaries in harvest management. First, combining the Cold Bay area and the Izembek SGR into a single management unit would make regulations simpler and more meaningful (birds move freely between these areas) and would facilitate compliance (boundaries are challenging to identify on the ground). Second, restructuring the Eastern Aleutian Islands and Bristol Bay hunt area (Unimak Island in GMU 10, GMUs 9 and 17) to separate the Cold Bay and the Izembek SGR (with high influx of urban hunters) from the Bristol Bay region (where permits are primarily issued to rural hunters) would allow better alignment of cultural and harvest management contexts and data integration from the fall-winter emperor goose permit reporting and the AMBCC harvest survey.
Harvest management and resource conservation solutions require multi-faceted approaches. Since re-opening of emperor goose harvest in 2017, research on human dimensions of wildlife management (this study; Mengak et al., 2022 and ecology and population dynamics (Lewis et al., 2021;Swaim & Wilson, 2019;Uher-Koch et al., 2021) have been key to inform harvest management. Updated outreach and communication have made conservation messages and delivery clearer and more meaningful for harvesters (Davenport & Zeller, 2020). Ensuring the sustainability of the emperor goose population and harvest opportunities will depend on continued collaboration among researchers, managers, and diverse user groups to improve harvest management.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Liliana C. Naves, James A. Fall, and Jason L. Schamber conceived of the study and its main structure. Liliana C. Naves, James A. Fall, and Jacqueline M. Keating designed survey questions and process. Jacqueline M. Keating and Liliana C. Naves collected survey data. Jason L. Schamber provided permit data. Liliana C. Naves and Lara F. Mengak analyzed data. Liliana C. Naves led writing with participation by all authors.