We compare properties of parameter estimators under Akaike information criterion (AIC) and 'consistent' AIC (CAIC) model selection in a nested sequence of open population capture-recapture models. These models consist of product multinomials, where the cell probabilities are parameterized in terms of survival ( ) and capture ( p ) i i probabilities for each time interval i . The sequence of models is derived from 'treatment' effects that might be (1) absent, model H ; (2) only acute, model H ; or (3) acute and 0 2 p chronic, lasting several time intervals, model H . Using a 35 factorial design, 1000 3 repetitions were simulated for each of 243 cases. The true number of parameters ranged from 7 to 42, and the sample size ranged from approximately 470 to 55 000 per case. We focus on the quality of the inference about the model parameters and model structure that results from the two selection criteria. We use achieved confidence interval coverage as an integrating metric to judge what constitutes a 'properly parsimonious' model, and contrast the performance of these two model selection criteria for a wide range of models, sample sizes, parameter values and study interval lengths. AIC selection resulted in models in which the parameters were estimated with relatively little bias. However, these models exhibited asymptotic sampling variances that were somewhat too small, and achieved confidence interval coverage that was somewhat below the nominal level. In contrast, CAIC-selected models were too simple, the parameter estimators were often substantially biased, the asymptotic sampling variances were substantially too small and the achieved coverage was often substantially below the nominal level. An example case illustrates a pattern: with 20 capture occasions, 300 previously unmarked animals are released at each occasion, and the survival and capture probabilities in the control group on each occasion were 0.9 and 0.8 respectively using model H . There was a strong acute treatment effect 3 on the first survival ( ) and first capture probability ( p ), and smaller, chronic effects 1 2 on the second and third survival probabilities ( and ) as well as on the second capture 2 3 probability ( p ); the sample size for each repetition was approximately 55 000. CAIC 3 selection led to a model with exactly these effects in only nine of the 1000 repetitions, compared with 467 times under AIC selection. Under CAIC selection, even the two acute effects were detected only 555 times, compared with 998 for AIC selection. AIC selection exhibited a balance between underfitted and overfitted models (270 versus 263), while CAIC tended strongly to select underfitted models. CAIC-selected models were overly parsimonious and poor as a basis for statistical inferences about important model parameters or structure. We recommend the use of the AIC and not the CAIC for analysis and inference from capture-recapture data sets.