BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 707 3 /SI DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES intendent ot i MAY 4 1972 DEPOSITORY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 151 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ROGERS C. B. MORTON, SECRETARY Nathaniel P. Reed, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Spencer H. Smith, Director (Acting) DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES By Aelred D. Geis Migratory Bird Populations Station Division of Wildlife Research Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Laurel, Maryland 20810 and F. Graham Cooch Canadian Wildlife Service Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 151 Washington, D. C. • February 1972 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402- Price 25 cents Stock Number 2410-0313 CONTENTS ABSTRACT iv DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES 1 REFERENCES !+ TABLES 1 Average distribution of the duck harvest between Canada and the United States during the 1967-69 hunting seasons based on mail questionnaire and wing collection data 5 2 Average distribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United States, 1967-69, expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]. . 6 MALLARD, BLACK DUCK, GADWALL 6 AMERICAN WIDGEON, GREEN-WINGED TEAL, BLUE- WINGED TEAL 7 SHOVELER, PINTAIL, WOOD DUCK 8 REDHEAD-, CANVASBACK, GREATER SCAUP 9 LESSER SCAUP, RING-NECKED DUCK, COMMON GOLDENEYE . 10 BUFFLEHEAD, RUDDY DUCK 11 111 ABSTRACT Marked differences are noted in the distribution of harvest of various duck species between and within Canada and the United States, on the basis of data obtained from mail questionnaire and wing collection surveys. IV DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES When managing waterfowl populations it is frequently important to know where the harvest of various species of ducks is likely to occur. This is true both within and between Canada and the United States where most of the North American waterfowl harvest is taken. Although data on the size and distribution of the duck kill have been available for a number of years in the United States, it was not until 1967 that national surveys were initiated to measure the kill in Canada. Data from three hunting seasons in Canada are now available. The purpose of this report is to present the distribution of the kill by species in the United States and Canada for the years I96T-69 based on mail questionnaire and wing collection survey data. Since there is some variation from year to year in the distribution of harvest among States and Provinces, data for the 3-year period were averaged. Unless there are major changes in hunting regulations, it seems likely that the distribution of the duck harvest during the next few years will be generally similar to the average distribution described in this paper. Although the data-gathering methods employed in Canada and in the United States are similar, there are some differences. In the United States, mailing addresses were obtained and questionnaires sent to individuals who purchased duck stamps during the current year, while in Canada questionnaires were sent to individuals whose names and addresses were obtained when they purchased hunting permits during the previous year. In the United States, the kill reported by hunters is adjusted downward about 20 percent in recognition of a reporting bias (Atwood, 1956). No such adjustment is made in Canadian data. In Canada, however, it is estimated that the kill by natives is much greater than in the United States, and this kill is not included in either the Canadian or the United States estimates. Also, none of the harvest in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada is measured. In addition, there are some differences in the questionnaires used in the two countries. For these reasons, it is likely that kill estimates are more comparable on a within-country than a between-country basis. Nevertheless, it is believed that the similarities and compensating differences in the two methods permit a reasonable approximation of the distribution of the duck kill by species between the United States and Canada. Information concerning the distribution of the duck kill by species between Canada and the United States is presented in table 1, together with the esti- mated annual harvest for both countries combined. The distribution of the kill within Canada and within the United States is presented in table 2. Although an estimated average kill by species in each State and Province is not presented in this report, it is possible to calculate it from data in the two tables. Table 1 indicates striking differences among species in the pro- portion of the total kill occurring in Canada. The proportion for black ducks (h2.rJ%) and common goldeneyes (kQ.k%) was much higher while the proportion for pintails (l^.3%) and shovelers (15.5$) was lower than the average for all species (23.2%). It is interesting to note that for the 3 years the second most important species in the combined Canadian-United States harvest was the green-winged teal. Table 2 shows the distribution of the harvest by species within Canada and within the United States. The mallard harvest was more widely distributed throughout both countries than that of any other species. The black duck kill was strongly concentrated in eastern Canada and the Atlantic Flyway. It is apparent that the proportion of the total black duck kill in the United States occurring in the Mississippi Flyway has declined in recent years. It was estimated that during the period 195^ through 1962 (Geis, Smith, and Rogers, 1971 ) 38.8 percent of the United States black duck kill was taken in the Mississippi Flyway, but table 2 shows only 26.2 percent for the period 1967 to 1969. The gadwall harvest was heavily concentrated in Alberta and in the Central Flyway. The American widgeon harvest was unique in that the average kill in British Columbia was greater than in any other Canadian Province, while over half of the kill in the United States was concen- trated in the Pacific Flyway. The green-winged teal harvest tended to be widely scattered. In Canada, however, the largest harvests were in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec; in the United' States they were in California, Louisiana, and Texas. The blue-winged teal harvest in Canada is interesting in that it occurred chiefly outside the known important production areas. Seventy-two percent of the Canadian kill occurred in Ontario and Quebec, suggesting an eastward movement from the principal production areas in the Prairie Provinces. Major blue- winged (and cinnamon) teal harvest areas in the United States were Minnesota (28% of the U.S. kill), followed by California (l6%) and Wisconsin (11%). The shoveler harvest was taken in the west in both Canada and the United States. Major harvest areas were Alberta in Canada and Cali- fornia in the United States, each with about ko percent of the respective national total. The Pacific Flyway averaged 59 percent of the total U.S. shoveler harvest. The pintail harvest was concentrated in the west even more than that of the shoveler. Alberta and British Columbia accounted for 51 percent of the Canadian harvest, while the Pacific Flyway took 71 percent of the U. S. harvest. Over half of the entire U. S. pintail kill occurred in California. Texas and Louisiana were the only significant harvest areas outside the Pacific Flyway. As would be expected, wood ducks were harvested mostly in eastern North America. Practically the entire Canadian kill was taken in Ontario and Quebec (95-8%), while within the United States, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York were major harvest areas. In Canada the redhead was harvested mostly in Manitoba and Ontario; the leading harvest areas in the United States were Minnesota, Texas, and Michigan. The canvasback harvest in Canada was well distributed among the three Prairie Provinces and Ontario. In the United States, it was widely distributed; California (13-9$), Maryland (lO.W, and Texas (8.U$) were the chief harvest areas. The kill of greater scaup in Canada was concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, while within the United States it occurred chiefly in New York (23.0$), California (l8.5$), and Michigan (lU.5$). Except for the black duck, the greater scaup is the only species with a larger harvest in the Atlantic than in other fly- ways . The kill of lesser scaup was more concentrated in the central portions of Canada and the United States. Manitoba and Ontario were the major Canadian harvest areas, while Minnesota hunters took more than twice as many lesser scaup as hunters in any other State. The ringneck harvest in Canada was mostly in Ontario (63.3$), while in the United States Minnesota was the most important harvest area with one- third of the total; Florida had 15-3 percent. The kill of common goldeneyes in Canada occurred largely in Ontario (k6.3%) and Quebec (2J.k%). In the United States, the goldeneye harvest was widely dis- tributed although the greatest kills occurred in Minnesota (13-9%), New York (9-8$), Wisconsin (8.7 $) , Washington (8.6%), and Michigan (8.1$). In Canada, Ontario was the chief harvest area for bufflehead (6l.5$). This species was taken in relatively small numbers throughout the United States with the greatest harvest in Minnesota (13.6$) and Michigan (ll.9$)- The ruddy duck harvest in all areas was small; the greatest harvest in Canada was in Ontario, while within the United States the largest harvest (30.6$) was in California. Data for the ruddy duck emphasize the importance of having infor- mation on the distribution of the harvest as well as the more commonly available data on species composition of the kill in each State. Although California is the most important harvest area for the ruddy duck in the United States (with a kill over three times that in any other State) the ruddy duck makes up less than 1 percent of the California duck harvest. REFERENCES Atwood, Earl L. 1956. Validity of mail survey data on bagged waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 20, no. 1. p. l-l6. Geis, Aelred D. , Robert I. Smith, and John P. Rogers. 1971- Black duck distribution, harvest characteristics, and survival. U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report —Wildlife No. 139- 2^1 p. Table 1. — Average distribution of the duck harvest between Canada and the United States during the 1967-69 hunting seasons based on mail questionnaire and wing collection data Average Percent of harvest in- harvest* Species Canada United States Total 1967-69 Mallard 27.1 72.9 100.0 It, 766 Black duck 1+2.7 57-3 100.0 675 Gadwall 18.1+ 81.6 100.0 662 American widgeon l8.lt 81.6 100.0 1,080 -Green-winged teal l8.it 81.6 100.0 1,578 Blue-winged teal 30.0 70.0 100.0 681 Shoveler 15.5 8^.5 100.0 U90 Pintail lit. 3 85-7 100.0 1.VT9 Wood duck 15.1 8U.9 100.0 835 Redhead 23.it 76.6 100.0 220 Canvasback 19.0 81.0 100.0 130 Greater scaup 32.3 67.7 100.0 156 Lesser scaup 22.1 77-9 100.0 ^75 Ring-necked duck 22.3 77-7 100.0 h63 Common goldeneye it8.lt 51.6 100.0 175 Bufflehead 28.9 71.1 100.0 170 Ruddy duck 8.6 91.it 100.0 60 All ducks 23.2 76.8 100.0 lit,3it0 License buyers (potential hunters ) 16.8 83.2 100.0 2,306** * in thousands. ** average license sale in thousands, U. S. and Canada combined. Table 2. — Average distribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United States, 1967-69, expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace] MALLARD BLACK DUCK GADWALL Average Range Average Ran ge Average Range CANADA: British Columbia 11.5 8. 1-13. U 0 1.0 0.8- 1.3 Alberta 29.5 26.7-31.2 0 50.1 It7.6-51.lt Saskatchewan 22.1 18.6-2U.3 0.1 0 - 0.1 26.6-35.8 Manitoba 13.8 9.6-17.5 0.3 T - 0.5 lit. 7 9-3-18.5 Ontario 19-9 17-1-22-5 It It. 6 39-9- 51.8 2.3 1.6- 2.8 Quebec 3.0 2.2- l*.l 29.5 25.8- 31.8 O.lt 0.3- 0.5 Nova Scotia 0.1 T - 0.1 8.7 7.8- 9.7 0 P. E. I. T T - T 1.9 1.6- 2.5 0 New Brunswick . T - 0.1 7.9 6.0- 8.9 0 Newfoundland T T - T 6.9 5.1*- 8. It 0 r: :al 100.0 99-9 100.0 PACIFIC FLYWAY: Alaska 0.5 0.3- 0.6 0 0.1 0.1- 0.2 Washington 7-5 5.9- 9-7 0 1.5 1.3- 1.7 Oregon It. 2 3-8- U. 7 0 1.8 l.U- 2.6 Idaho 5-9 5.5- 6.6 0 1.7 1.5- 2.1 Montana 2.5 2.1- 2.9 0 1.1 0.5- 2-0 Wyoming 0.2 0.2- 0.2 0 0 California 8.8 7.6-10.1 0 9.6 5.8-12.3 Nevada 0.9 0.7- 1.2 0 1.6 1.3- 2.1 Utah 2.U 1.9- 3.2 0 5.7 3.2- 8.0 Colorado 0.5 O.lt- 0.5 0 0.1 0.1- 0.1 Arizona 0.2 0.2- 0.3 0 0.6 O.lt- 0.8 New Mexico 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0 0.1 T - 0.2 TOTAL 33.7 0 23.9 CENTRAL FLYWAY: Montana 0.6 0.5- 0.7 0 0.3 0.2- 0.5 North Dakota 3.7 3.2- !*.l 0.1 T - 0.1 8.5 6. 5-10. It South Dakota 3.1 2.6- 3.5 T 0 - 0.1 5.9 It. 3- 8.6 Wyoming 0.5 0.3- 0.8 0 0.5 0.3- 0.7 Nebraska 3.3 2.9- 3.6 T 0 - T 2.7 2.2- 3. U Colorado 2.0 1.8- 2.2 0 1.1* 1.2- 1.8 Kansas 2.5 2.3- 2.9 T T - 0.1 3.8 3.0- lt.1* New Mexico 0.2 0.2- 0.2 T 0 - T 1.0 0.5- l-1* Oklahoma l.U 1.2- 1.7 T 0 - T 3.3 1.8- 1*.5 Texas 2.9 1.9- 3.8 0.3 0.1- 0.6 13.0 8.3-20.8 TOTAL 20.2 0.U lt0.lt MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY: Minnesota 6.8 5-9- 8.2 1.0 0.9- 1.0 3.5 3.2- 3.8 Wi scons in 3.8 3.2- k.2 3.1 2.6- 3. It 1.3 1.0- 1.1* Michigan 2.3 2.2- 2.5 5. It 3.1*- 7.3 0.3 0.2- O.lt Iowa 2.5 1.6- 3. l» O.lt 0.2- 0.6 1.6 0.9- 2. It Illinois k.l 3.2- 5-1* 3.0 l.lt- 5.2 1.1* 0.7- 2.U Indiana 0.5 0.5- 0.5 1.5 1.2- 1.6 0.2 0.1- 0.2 Ohio 0.9 0.7- 1.0 3.0 2.7- 3.2 0.2 0.1- 0.3 Missouri 2.8 2.1- 3.1 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.9 0.8- 1.1 Kentucky 0.3 0.3- 0.1* 1.3 0.8- 1.8 0.2 0.2- 0.2 Arkansas 5. i< U. 7- 6.0 0.5 0.3- 0.7 2.9 1.2- lt.lt Tennessee 1.5 l.U- 1.5 3.9 2.6- 5. It 1.0 0.6- 1.2 Louisiana 5.1 It. 2- 6.6 1.1 0.5- 1-7 16.2 lit. 5-18.1 Mississippi l.U 1.0- 1.9 1.0 0.7- 1.2 0.9 0.7- 1-0 Alabama 0.1) 0-it- O.lt 0.8 0.3- 1.0 1.0 0.7- 1.3 TOTAL 37.8 26.2 31.6 ATLANTIC FLYWAY: Maine 0.1 T - 0.1 9-3 8.1- 10.2 T T - T Vermont 0.1 T - 0.1 1.7 1.5- 2.0 T 0 - T Hew Hampshire 0.1 T - 0.1 2.2 2.0- 2.5 T 0 - T Massachusetts 0.3 0.2- O.lt 9.1 7.9- 9.9 0 Connecticut 0.2 0.2- 0.3 3.3 2.3- lt.1 T T - T Rhode Island T T - 0.1 1.7 1.5- 2.1 T T - T New York 2.1 1.3- 2.8 10.9 9.8- 11.6 0.2 0.1- 0.3 Pennsylvania 1.5 1.2- 1.8 3.6 3.1- It. 3 0.1 0.1- 0.1 West Virginia T T - T 0.2 0.1- 0.3 T T - T Hew Jersey 0.6 0.5- 0.9 10.7 10.1- ll.lt 0.1 0.1- 0.1 Delaware 0.I4 0.2- 0.5 2.7 2.U- 3.3 0.1 T - 0.1 Maryland 0.8 0.5- 1.0 5.2 3.8- i.6 0.5 O.lt- 0.6 Virginia o.<5 0.5- 0.8 lt.3- 7.5 0.7 0.2- 1.1 Horth Carolina o.l* 0.3- O.lt 3.3 3.0- 3.8 0.6 O.lt- 0.9 South Carolina 0.7 0.5- 0.9 2.8 2.1.- 3.1 1.2 1.0- 1.1* Georgia 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.7 0.6- 0.8 0.2 0.1- 0.3 Florida 0.1 0.1- 0.1 O.lt 0.3- ... O.lt 0.3- 0.5 TOTAL 8.2 73.3 lt.1 U. S. TOTAL 99.9 1 99.9 100.0 Table 2. — Average distribut States, 1967-69, (continued) ion of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace] AMERICAN WIDGEON GREEN-WINGED TEAL BLUE-WINGED TEAL Average Range Average Range Average Range CANADA: British Columbia 31.it 21. Ma. 8 19-1 17.3-20.8 0.9 0.3- 1.5 Alberta 26.6 22.0-33.6 5.5- 6.8 7.8 0.7-15.8 Saskatchewan 17.9 15.3-21.3 It. 5 2.8- 5.8 U.O 0.2- 7-3 Manitoba 10.6 9.U-11.7 8.2 1*. 9-11.0 7.1* 0.2-15.6 Ontario 10.1 7.6-12.2 25.1 23.1-26.6 1*0. U 33.!*-53.3 Quebec 3.0 1.8- U.O 19.3 1 U. 6-26. 3 31.U 20.5-38.7 Nova Scotia 0 5-1 l*.l- 6.2 0.7 0.6- 0.9 P. E. I. 0.1 T - 0.2 3.1* 3.3- 3.5 ' 2.7 2.3- 3.2 New Brunswick 0.3 0.2- 0.U U.O 2.1- 5-1* U.5 2.6- 6.3 Newfoundland 0.1 0 - 0.1 5-1 U.7- 5.7 ; o.l* 0.1- 0.6 TOTAL |Q.] 100.1 ' 100.0 PACIFIC FLYWAY: Alaska 1.0 0.8- l.lt 0.8 0.5- 1.0 0.1 T - 0.2 Washington 12.2 8.0-17.3 lt.9 U.l- 5.6 0.6 0 - l.U Oregon 6.8-10.8 3.6 3.1- it. 5 0.3 0.2- 0.1* Idaho 2.8 2.2- 3.8 1.3 0.9- 1.6 0.2 0.1- 0.1* Montana 1.2 0.9- 1.8 0.5 0.3- 0.8 0.1* 0.2- 0.6 Wyoming 0.1 T - 0.1 T 0 - T T 0 - 0.1 California 22.6-30.1 2U.0 22.6-2l*.Q 16.0 10.6-21.0 Nevada 0.7 0.6- 0.9 1.5 1.2- 2.1 0.8 0.U- 1.0 Utah 2.1* 2.1- 2.8 It. 3 2.5- 6.1* 2.5 1.0- U.2 Colorado 0.1 T - 0.1 0.1 0 - 0.1 0.1 0 - 0.2 Arizona . 0.5- 0.6 1.0 0.9- 1.1 0.7 0.1*- 0.9 New Mexico T T - 0.1 T 0 - T T 0 - 0.1 TOTAL . 1*2.0 21.7 CENTRAL FLYWAY: Montana 0.2 0.1- 0.2 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.2 0.1- 0.3 North Dakota 2.0 1.9- 2.1 1.1 0.9- 1.3 U.2 2-9- 5-1 South Dakota 1.6 l.U- 1.9 1.1* l.lt- l.lt 3.0 2.6- 3.3 Wyoming 0.3 0.1- O.lt 0.1 0.1- 0.1 1 0 - 0.1 Nebraska 1.5 1.3- 1.6 2. It 2.3- 2.5 2.8 1.3- U.5 Colorado 0.7 0.7- 0.8 0.6 0.1*- 0.8 0.1 0.1- 0.2 Kansas 1.6 1.2- 2.2 3.2 2.1- l*.6 1.1 0.2- 1.8 New Mexico 0.3 0.2- 0.U 0.2 0.2- 0.3 T 0 - 0.1 Oklahoma 1.1 0.5- 1.8 l.lt 0.5- 2.1* 0.8 T - 2.0 Texas . 3.1-10.2 9-7 7.6-13.5 2.6 2.1- 3.3 TOTAL 15.1* 20.2 1U.8 MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY: Minnesota 5.8 5.7- 6.0 6.9 6.0- 8.1 28.0 2U.5-30.6 Wisconsin 3.2 2.6- 3.8 3.0 2.7- 3. It 11.0 6.6-17.0 Michigan 0.8 0.6- 1.2 1.5 1.3- 1.7 2.8 2.U- 3.U Iowa 1.1 0.8- l.i* 1.9 l.lt- 2.3 1.8 0.6- 3.1 Illinois 1.2 0.9- 1-5 1.1 1.0- 1.2 0.5 0.3- 0.9 Indiana 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.1 T - 0.1 Ohio 0.1* 0.2- 0.8 0.7 0.7- 0.8 0.8 0.3- 1.1 Missouri 0.9 0.5- 1.2 0.9 0.8- 1.0 0.3 0.1- 0.5 Kentucky 0.1 0 - 0.1 T T - T T 0 - T Arkansas 0.6 0.1*- 0.9 0.8 0.1*- 1.3 0.1 0 - 0.1 Tennessee 0.7 0.5- 1.2 0.2 0.1- 0.1* 0 Louisiana 6.8 5.0- 8.2 10.3 9.2-11.9 8.7 6.9-11.1 Mississippi 0.5 O.lt- 0.6 0.6 0.1*- 0.7 0.1 0.1- 0.2 Alabama 0.5 0.1*- 0.6 o.l* 0.3- 0.5 0.1 T - 0.1 TOTAL 22.8 28.5 51*. 3 ATLANTIC FLYWAY: Maine T T - T 0.8 0.1*- 1.0 0.9 0.U- 1.3 Vermont T 0 - T 0.2 0.1- 0.2 0.2 0.1- 0.3 New Hampshire T 0 - T 0.1 T - 0.2 0.2 0.1- 0.3 Massachusetts 0.1 T - 0.1 0.3 0.2- 0.5 0.1 T - 0.2 Connecticut T T - 0.1 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.1 T - 0.1 Rhode Island T T - 0.1 T T - 0.1 T 0 - T New York 0.7 0.1- 0.2 1.3 0.8- 1.9 2.1. l.U- 3.8 Pennsylvania 0.2 0.1- 0.2 O.lt O.lt- 0.5 0.7 0.6- 0.7 West Virginia T 0 - T T T - T T 0 - T New Jersey 0.1* 0.3- 0.1* 0.9 0.6- 1.1 0.2 T - 0.6 Delaware T T - 0.1 0.8 0.7- 0.8 0.1 T - 0.1 Maryland 0.8 0.U- 1.0 o.l* 0.2- 0.5 T T - 0.1 Virginia 0.9 O.lt- 1.6 0.5 0.2- 0.8 0.1 T - 0.1 North Carolina 1.3 0.6- 1.7 0.6 0.6- 0.7 0.1 0 - 0.1 South Carolina 0.5 0.1*- 0.7 0.9 0.5- 1.2 0.2 0.1- o.u Georgia 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.2 0.1- 0.3 T T - T Florida 1.0 0.8- l.lt 1.5 1.0- 1.7 U.O 3.1- U.7 TOTAL 6.0 9.1 9-3 U. S. TOTAL t 00.' 100 . 1 Table 2« — Average dist States, 1967. (continued) ribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United 69, expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace] SHOVELER PINTAIL WOOD DUCK Average Range Average Range Average Range CANADA: British Columbia 11-5 5.7-22.0 21.0 lit. 9-28. 6 1.8 1.1- 2.9 Alberta 1*0.1 3l*-5-1t3.0 30.1* 26.1*-3lt.O 0.1 0 - 0.3 Saskatchewan 20.7 15.1-25.8 13.0 8.U-20.1* 0 Manitoba 20.2 18.7-23.0 13.3 12.6-ll*.2 0.5 0 - 0.9 Ontario 2.6 1.9- 3.9 9-8 7-3-11.5 82.5 79.8-85.0 Quebec I*. 7 It. 2- 5.3 . . 9.0-12.1* 13.3 9.6-16.6 Nova Scotia T 0 - 0.1 0.3 0.2- 0.3 0.2 0 - 0.3 P. E. I. 0 o.l* 0.2- 0.5 0 New Brunswick 0 0.7 0.6- 0.8 1.6 1.2- 1.9 Newfoundland 0 0.1. 0.1- 0.8 0 TOTAL 99.8 100.1 100.0 PACIFIC FLYWAY: Alaska 1.0 0.2- 2.1 1.2 0.5- 2.3 0 , Washington 3.9 . - ,". lt.1 3.2- 5.7 0.3- 0.6 Oregon 2.7 2.2- 3.6 It- 5 3.1*- 5-7 . 1.5- 2.1 Idaho 0.5 O.I4- 0.8 0.9 O.lt- 1.2 O.lt 0.1- 0.9 Montana 1.2 O.lt- 2.3 0.5 0.2- 0.9 . 0 - 0.2 Wyoming T 0 - T 0 0-0 T 0 - T California 1*0.6 38.9-1*1.9 52. 1* U7.U-56.3 2.7 1.8- It. 2 Nevada 2.2- 3.3 1.6 1.2- 1.9 0.1 0 - 0.1 Utah 5-1 U. 5- 5.8 Si* 3-9- 7.0 0.1 0.1- 0.1 Colorado 0 0 T 0 - T Arizona l.l. 1.3- 1.5 0.7 0.6- 0.7 T T _ T New Mexico 0 0 0 TOTAL 59-3 71.3 5.9 CENTRAL FLYWAY: Montana 0.2 0.1- 0.1* 0.1 T - 0.2 T 0 - T North Dakota 3.3 2.3- 1*.0 1.7 1.5- 2.1 0.1 0.1- 0.1 South Dakota 1-5 1.5- 2.5 0.7 0.5- 0.9 0.1 0.1- 0.2 Wyomi ng 0.1 T - 0.2 '■ T - 0.1 0 Nebraska I.I4 1.0- 2.0 0.5 0.5- 0.6 0.3 0.3- 0.1* Colorado 0.1* 0.2- 0.7 0.3 0.2- 0.1* 0 Kansas 2.2 1.3- 2.8 0.9 0.8- 1.0 0.6 0.5- 0.9 Mew Mexico 0.1* 0.2- 0.5 0.1 0.1- 0.1 T 0 - T Jklahoma 1.0 0.2- 2.0 0.3 0.2- 0.6 0.9 0.2- 1.5 Texas 9.2 7-1-12.1 7.1* 7.0- 8.0 It. 3 2.6- 6.6 TOTAL 19.7 12.0 6.3 MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY: Minnesota 2.9 2.2- 3.1* 1.7 1.3- 2.2 12.9 12.1-lit.i* Wisconsin 0.9 0.1*- 1.2 0.9 0.9- 1-1 8.8 7.l*-10.6 Michigan 0.2 0.2- 0.3 0.6 0.5- 0.7 3.7 3.1*- 1*.0 Iowa 0.8 0.1*- 1.3 o.l* 0.3- 0.6 2.7 2.5- 2-9 Illinois 0.7 0.1*- 1.1 0.6" 0.1*- 0.7 3.1* 3.1- l*.l Indiana 0.1 0 - 0.2 0.1 0.1- 0.1 1.5 0.9- 2.2 Ohio 0.1 0.1- 0.2 0.2 0.1- 0.1* l*.l 3.2- 5.1* Missouri 0.7 0.5- 0.9 0.5 0.3- 0.7 2.1 1.5- 2.8 Kentucky 0 T 0 - T 0.1 T - 0.1 Arkansas 0.6 O.lt- 1.0 0.3 0.1- 0.6 2.0 1.2- 2.8 Tennessee 0.1 T - 0.3 0.2 0.1- 0.2 0.9 0.5- 1.5 Louisiana 10. h 9.2-11.1* 8.3 6.2- 9-7 13.0 10.3-16.3 Mississippi 0.5 0.1- 0.9 0.1 0.1- 0.1 3.3 2.1*- 1..0 Alabama 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.2 0.2- 0.3 1.2 0.9- 1-1* TOTAL 18.2 11*. 1 59-7 ATLANTIC FLYWAY: Maine T 0 - T T T - 0.1 0.7 0.6- 1.0 ' Vermont T 0 - T T T - T 0.6 0.1*- 0.7 Hew Hampshire 0 T 0 - T 0.5 0.5- 0.6 Massachusetts T 0 - T T 0 - T 0.8 0.5- 1.2 Connecticut 0 T T - T 0.1* 0.3- 0.1* Rhode Island T 0 - T T 0 - T T T - T New York 0.1 T - 0.2 0.3 0.2- 0.1* 6.2 5.9- 6.5 Pennsylvania 0.1 T - 0.1 T T - T 3.1 2.1*- 3.7 West Virginia T 0 - T T 0 - T 0.3 0.2- 0.3 Hew Jersey . 0.1- 0.3 0.2 0.1- 0.3 1.0 0.7- 1.5 Delaware 0.1 T - 0.3 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.1 T - 0.2 Maryland T 0 - 0.1 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.3 0.2- 0.1* Virginia 0.3 0.1- 0.6 0.3 0.2- 0.1* 1.1 0.6- 1.1* North Carolina 0.5 0.2- 0.8 0.5 0.3- 0.7 2.5 1.6- 2.9 South Carolina 0.1* 0.3- 0.6 0.1 0.1- 0.2 1*.9 lt.1- 6. it Georgia 0.1 T - 0.1 T T - T 2.6 2.1*- 2.8 Florida 0.8 0.3- 1.2 0.5 0.1.- 0.8 3.0 2.2- l*.l TOTAL 2.6 2.2 28.0 U. S. TOTAL 99-6 99.9 Table 2. — Average distribut States, 1967-69 (continued) ion of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace] BEDHEAD CANVASBACK GREATER SCAUP Average Range Average Range Average Range CANADA: British Columbia 1.2 0.9- 1-7 U.3 2.0- 7.1 2.8 1.3- 3.8 Alberta 15-2 11.1.-17.8 25-1 19-1.-30.9 0 Saskatchewan .' 8.2-17.3 26.5 22.7-30.8 0 Manitoba 32.7 29.3-36.0 23.1* 19 . 2-29 . U 1.8 0.3- 3.2 Ontario 29.5 21*. 1-33.0 . 18.1-23.1. 56.8 50.U-67.0 Quebec 7.7 1*. 1-10. 7 . 0 - 0.9 35-8 25.3-U3.3 Nova Scotia 0 1-3 0.3- 2.6 P. E. I. 0 0 0.2 0.1- 0.2 New Brunswick 0 0 0.5 0.1- 0.9 Newfoundland 0 0 0.8 0 - 1.7 TOTAL 99.9 99.9 100.0 PACIFIC FLYWAY: Alaska T 0 - 0.1 0.1 0.1- 0.2 l.U 1.1- 1.6 Washington 1.1) 0.8- 2.5 2.1* 1-2- 3.9 3.0 l.U- 5.9 Oregon 1.0 0.5- 1.7 3.7 2.1- It. 9 2.U 1.5- 3.8 Idaho 1.5 0.3- 2.5 0.2 0 - 0.7 0 Montana O.U 0.3- 0.7 0.2 0.2- 0.3 0.1 0 - 0.2 Wyoming T 0 - 0.1 0 0 California U.9 2.9- 7.9 13.9 9.6-17.2 18.5 10.9-29.1 Nevada 2.7 1.8- 3.8 2.2 1.3- 3.2 0.1 0.1- 0.2 Utah 6.5 U.8- 8.1* 1-7 0.9- 2-8 0.1 0 - 0.2 Colorado T 0 - 0.2 0 0 Arizona 1.1) 0.8- 1.8 1.0 0.6- l.U : . 0.1- 0.3 New Mexico T 0 - 0.1 0.1 0.1- 0.2 T 0 - 0.1 TOTAL 19.8 25-5 . CENTRAL FLYWAY: '■ICTlt lit:': 0 - 0.1 0.1 0 - 0.2 0.2 0 - O.U North Dakota 7.1. 6.9- 8.1. U.5 3-9- 5.1 0.1 0 - 0.2 South Dakota 5.6 3.3- 9-8 3.U 2. It- It. 5 T 0 - 0.1 Wyoming 0.1 0 - 0.3 T 0 - 0.1 T 0 - 0.1 Nebraska 1.8 1.2- 2.2 0.7 0.1- 1.1* 0.1 0.1- 0.1 Colorado 0.6 0.1.- 0.8 0.2 0 - 0.5 0.1 0 - 0.1 Kansas 6.1. U.U- T.6 1.3 0.8- 2.2 0.3 0.2- O.U New Mexico 0.2 0.1- 0.3 0.1* 0.1- 0.8 0 Oklahoma 2.3 0.6- it. 6 1.5 0.5- 2.6 T 0 - 0.1 Texas . 6.9-18. U 8.1* U. 7-11. 9 0.3 0 - 0.6 TOTAL 35-5 20.5 1.1 MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY: Minnesota 19.1* 16.6-22.9 6.7 0.7-12.2 3.8 l.U- 5.2 Wisconsin 3.1 2.9- 3.3 6.7 U.3- 8.1* U.8 3.5- 6.0 Michigan 10.2 6.5-12.7 5.6 3.7- 7-8 1U.5 11.0-18.8 Iowa 1.1* 1.1- 1.5 0.9 0 - 1.8 0.1* 0.2- 0.5 Illinois 1.2 0.8- 1.8 3.3 0.8- 6.3 0.9 0.5- 1.2 Indiana 0.1( 0.3- 0.5 0.3 0 - 0.9 0.2 0.2- 0.3 'hi 0.8 0.6- 0.9 0.9 0.6- I-1* : . : 1.0- 1.5 Missouri 0.8 0.6- 0.9 . 0.9- 1-0 0.5 0.1- 0.8 Kentucky 0.1 0 - 0.2 0.2 0 - 0.6 . 0 - 0.2 Arkansas 0 0.1 0 - 0.2 0 Tennessee 0.1 0 - 0.2 1.3 0.5- 1.7 0.6 0.2- 1.3 Louisiana 1.3 0 - 3.0 3.0 1.0- U.7 1.3 O.U- 2.U Mississippi 0.14 0 - 0.6 0.8 0.7- 1.0 0.3 0 - 0.8 Alabama 0.6 0.5- 0.7 1.2 0.1*- 2.0 0.6 0 - 1.3 TOTAL 39.8 32.0 29-3 ATLANTIC FLYWAY: Maine 0 0 0.2 0.1- 0.2 Vermont T 0 - T T 0 - T 0.6 0.3- 1-1 New Hampshire 0 T 0 - T Massachusetts T 0 - T 0.1 0.1- 0.2 0.3 0.1- 0.7 Connecticut 0 0.2 T - 0.1* 3.2 l.U- It. 3 Rhode Island T 0 - T 0.1 T - 0.2 0.6 0.3- 1.1 New York 0.7 0.3- 1.2 1.1* 1.0- 1.6 23.0 19.3-27.7 Pennsylvania 0.3 0.2- 0.3 o.l* 0.2- 0.8 1.1* 0.9- 1.8 West Virginia T 0 - T 0 T 0 - T New Jersey 0.1 T - 0.2 0.9 0.7- 1-1 2-9 2.1- 3.5 Delaware T 0 - 0.1 0.1 T - 0.2 0.2 0 - 0.5 Maryland 1.1. 0.9- 1.8 6.8-16.1 5.9 1.1-15.5 Virginia 0.5 0.2- 0.8 U.9 2.9- 6.3 2.1 l.U- 3.2 North Carolina 0.5 0.1.- 0.6 2.1 1.3- 2.5 0.6- 1.3 South Carolina 0.2 0.1- 0.1* 0.5 0.2- 0.8 o.U 0.1- 0.7 Georgia T 0 - T T 0 - 0.1 0.1 0 - 0.2 Florida 1.1 0.9- l.U 0.8 0.1*- l.U 1.9 0.8- 3-U TOTAL U.8 21.9 1*3.7 U. S. TOTAL 99-9 99-9 99-9 Table 2. — Average distribut States, 196T-69 (continued ion of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace] : SSSEF SCAUP RING-NEC KED DUCK G0LDENEYE Average Range Average :•::!:.,-' Average Range CANADA: British Columbia 3.6 1.2- 5-1 2.2 1.6- 3.3 l*.l* 2.6- 7.8 Alberta 11.3 7.8-13.6 0.8 0.5- 1.2 1.1* 0.3- 2.2 Saskatchewan l».l 2.3- 5.8 0.9 0.2- 1.6 0.8 0.5- 1.1* Manitoba 29.0 21*. 1-33- 7 12.2 11.3-13.1 2.7 2.6- 2.9 Ontario 38.1 28. 6-1*1*. 9 63.3 58.9-68.2 1*6.3 1*2.1*-1*9.2 Quebec 12.7 10.8-llt.l 12.3 8.7-ll*.l* 27. !* 21.2-35.7 Nova Scotia 0.3 0 - 1.0 1.1* 0.1*- 2.0 1..3 2.1*- 5.8 P. E. I. 0 '■■■ 0.2- 0.1* 0.2 0.1- 0.3 New Brunswick 0.1) 0.1- 0.8 lt.O 3.1*- 1.. 6" l*.l 3.2- l*-7 Newfoundland 0.1* 0 - 0.7 2.6 1.7- 3.0 8.2 7.6- 8.7 TOTAL 99.9 100.0 99-8 PACIFIC FLYWAY: Alaska 0.3 0.1- 0.8 T 0 - T 2.7 1.7- 3.2 Washington 1.1. 0.1*- 3.0 0.9 0.1*- 1.1* 8.6 6.3-12.1* Oregon 1.2 0.8- 1.5 1.0 0.6- lJ* 3.8 2.1- 5.5 Idaho 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.3 0.1- 0.5 6.0 3.6- 8.1 Montana 0.3 0.2- 0.1* 0.1 0 - 0.2 3-1 1.2- 6.6 Wyoming 0 T 0.2 0.1- 0.3 California 7-6 5.0- 9-9 3.8 3.0- H.8 5.9 3.2- 8.8 Nevada 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.1 T - 0.1 0.2 0.1- 0.3 Utah 0.3 0.1- 0.6 0.2 0.1- 0.2 2.1* 1.9- 2.7 Colorado T T 0 - 0.1 0.1* 0 - 1.1 Arizona 0.3 0.2- 0.5 0 . 6 0.3- 0.7 0.1* 0.1- 0.7 New Mexico T T 0.2 0 - 0.5 TOTAL 11.6 7.0 33.9 CENTRAL FLYWAY: Montana 0.1 T - 0.1 T 0 - T 0.2 0 - 0.1* North Dakota 2.0 1.3- 2.1* 0.8 0.6- 1.0 0.5 0.3- 0-9 South Dakota 1.2 0.6- 1.6 0.6 0.3- 0.8 0.3 0.2- O.U Wyoming T 0 - 0.1 T 0 - 0.1 0.5 0.2- 1.0 Nebraska 0.9 0.1*- 1.5 0.5 0.1*- 0.6 0.8 0.6- 1.0 Colorado 0.2 0.2- 0.2 0.1 T - 0.1 0.7 0.2- 1.1 Kansas 2.7 1.1- 5.8 1.6 1.0- 2.0 0.6 0.1- 1.1 New Mexico T T - 0.1 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.2 T - 0.1* Oklahoma 1.1* 0.6- 2.2 1.0- 2.6 0.5 0.3- 0.7 Texas 5-3 It. 7- 5-8 5-0 2.1*- 7.1 0.6 0 - 0.7 TOTAL 13.8 10.5 It. 8 MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY: Minnesota 23.8 ll*. 8-35. 9 33.0 2U.9-U0 .2 13.9 8.6-20.9 Wisconsin 9-1 6.0-11.5 9-9 8.9-11.3 8.7 6.1-10.1 Michigan 9-9 9.6-10.1* i*.l 2.3- 6.0 8.1 3.9-10.7 Iowa 1.3 1.1- 1.5 0.9 0.6- 1.2 0.3 0 - 0.6 Illinois 2.7 1.5- 3.5 1.7 1.0- 3.0 1.7 0.7- 3.1* Indiana 0.6 0.1*- 1.0 0.5 0.5- 0.5 0.1* 0 - 0.7 Ohio 1.6 1.0- 2.2 0.5 0.3- 0.8 1.3 0.6- 2.0 Missouri 2.9 0.8- 5.2 1.2 0.7- 1-9 0.1* 0.1- 0.6 Kentucky T 0 - 0.1 0.1 T - 0.3 0.3 0.1- 0.1* Arkansas 0.1 0 - 0.2 0.7 0.5- 0.9 0 Tennessee 0.2 T - 0.5 0.9 0.3- 1.3 0.9 0.7- 1.1* Louisiana 5-6 3.2- 9-1* 6.1 5.2- 7.1* 0.2 0 - 0.5 Mississippi 1.6 0.6- 3->* 1.1. 1.2- 1.5 0.2 0 - 0.5 Alabama o.l* 0.1- 0.7 0.3 0.1- 0.6 0.5 0.3- 0.7 TOTAL 59.9 61.3 36.8 ATLANTIC FLYWAY: Maine T T - 0.1 0.3 0.3- 0.1* 2.3 1.9- 2.5 Vermont 0.1 T - 0.2 0.1 0.1- 0.2 3.1* 3.2- 3.5 New Hampshire T 0 - T T T - 0.1 0.1 T - 0.2 Massachusetts T T - 0.1 T 0 - T 0.8 0.6- 0.9 Connecticut 0.1 0.1- 0.2 0 0.7 0.5- 0.8 Rhode Island 0.1 T - 0.2 T 0 - T 0.6 0.2- 0.9 New York 2.5 1.9- 3.0 1.0 0.9- 1.1 9-8 5. 8-11*. 0 Pennsylvania 0.5 0.5- 0.6 0.2 0.2- 0.3 0.7 0.1*- 1.1 West Virginia T 0 - T 0 0.1 T - 0.3 New Jersey o.l* 0.2- 0.7 T T - 0.1 0.8 0.3- l.U Delaware 0.1 0 - 0.1* T 0 - 0.1 0.3 0 - 0.7 Maryland 2.1. 0.1*- 5.9 0.3 0.2- 0.1* 3.1 2.1*- 3.7 Virginia 1.9 1.5- 2.1 0.5 0.3- 0.8 0.9 0.8- 1.2 .North Carolina 1.9 0.9- 3.2 1.3 0.6- 1.7 0.5 0.3- 0.7 .Couth Carolina 0.6 0.2- 0.9 1.0 0.8- 1.2 0.2 0 - 0.5 Georgia 0.3 0 - 0.6 0.9 0.7- 1-2 0.2 0.1- 0.3 Florida 3.6 1.5- !».8 15.3 12. 7-17- '* 0.1 0.1- 0.1 TOTAL il*.<5 ?] .0 2l*.6 U. S. TOTAL 99-9 99.8 1 • . 1 10 Table 2. — Average dist States, 1967 (continued ribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United -69 > expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace] BUFFLEHEAD RUDDY DUCK Average Range Average Range Average Range CANADA: British Columbia 12.5 7.0-15.7 7.3 2. 6-11. It Alberta U.3 3.2- 5.2 15-5 0 -U0.1 Saskatchewan 1.8 1.6- 2.2 6.1 0 -lit. 5 Manitoba 5.1* 3.3- 9-6 21.7 lit. 9-26. 9 Ontario 61.5 55.U-65.5 1(7. It 29.7-62.8 Quebec 11.7 7.6-17.2 2.0 0 - 5.9 Nova Scotia 1.9 1.0- 2.5 0 P. E. I. 0 0 New Brunswick 0.8 0.6- 1.0 0 Newfoundland 0 0 TOTAL 99-9 100.0 PACIFIC FLYWAY: Alaska 1.0 0.3- 1.7 0 Washington It. 5 3. it- 5.0 2.7 0.6- It. 6 Oregon 3.U 2.2- lt.1 3.8 2.6- 5.0 Idaho 0.2 0 - O.lt 0.1 0 - 0.1* Montana 0.5 0.3- 0.7 O.lt 0 - 1.3 Wyoming 0 0 California 11. U 6.6-15.3 30.6 17.5-1*1-5 Nevada O.lt 0.1- 0.6 2.6 1.8- 3.6 Utah 0.8 0.1- l.lt 3.3 1.8- 1*. 9 Colorado T 0 - T 0 Arizona 1.3 1.2- l.U 3.3 1.6- 1*.2 New Mexico 0.3 0 - 0.7 0.1 0 - 0.1* TOTAL 23.8 1*6.9 CENTRAL FLYWAY: Montana 0.1 0 - 0.3 0 North Dakota 1.6 0.7- 2. It 2.3 1.3- 2.8 South Dakota 1.3 0.7- 1.9 3.0 0.9- 5-0 Wyoming O.lt 0.2- 0.9 0.5 0 - 0.9 Nebraska 0.6 0.1- 0.9 0.3 0 - 0.8 Colorado 0.8 O.lt- 1.1 O.K 0.3- 0.6 Kansas 1.9 0.8- 3.1 1.5 1.0- 1.9 New Mexico O.lt 0 - 0.7 0.1 0 - 0.3 Oklahoma O.lt O.lt- O.lt O.lt 0 - 0.7 Texas 1.9 l.lt- 2. It It. 3 0 -12.8 TOTAL 9- It 12.8 MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY: Minnesota 13.6 10.1-18.1 6.1 5-9- 6.2 Wisconsin 8.3 5.5-10.1 7.8 6.1-10.8 Michigan 11.9 8.1-11*. 9 5.1 2.U-10.2 Iowa 0.7 O.lt- 1.1 0.9 0 - 1.6 Illinois 1.2 1.1- 1.2 O.lt 0.3- 0.5 Indiana 0.3 0 - 0.9 0.6 0 - 1.3 Ohio 1.5 1.0- 2.0 0.9 0.3- 1.9 Missouri 0.5 0.1- 0.7 1.3 0.7- 1.7 Kentucky . 0 - 0.1 0 Arkansas 0.1 0 - 0.3 0 Tennessee 0 0.9 0 - 2.1 Louisiana 0.2 0 - 0.5 2.5 0 - 5.6 Mississippi 0.9 0.3- 1.7 0.2 0 - 0.6 Alabama 0.6 O.lt- 0.8 0 TOTAL 39-9 26.7 ATLANTIC FLYWAY: Maine l.U 1.0- 2.0 0.1 0 - 0.3 Vermont O.lt O.lt- 0.5 T 0 - T New Hampshire 0.3 0.2- O.lt T 0 - T Massachusetts 1.5 1.0- 2.2 0.2 0 - 0.1* Connecticut 0.6 O.lt- 0.8 0.1 0 - 0.1 Rhode Island 0.3 0.2- O.lt 0 New York 6.9 3.7- 9- It l.h O.lt- 2.9 Pennsylvania 1.5 0.9- 2.5 0.7- 2. It West Virginia T 0 - 0.1 0 New Jersey 3.1 2.7- 3. It 0.5 0 - 0.8 Delaware 0.3 0.1- 0.6 T 0 - 0.1 Maryland h.k 3.8- 5.1 1.6 0.8- 3.0 Virginia 2.2 1.1- 3.7 1.8 1.1*- 2.0 North Carolina 2.7 2.6- 2.8 3.7 1.5- 5.2 South Carolina 0.5 0.3- 0.7 0.6 0.3- 1.1 Georgia T 0 - 0.1 T 0 - 0.1 Florida 0.7 O.lt- 1.2 2.5 0.5- i*.o TOTAL 26.8 13.8 U. S. TOTAL 99-9 1 ': ' 11 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O— 460-530 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Ter- ritorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of natural resources. The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to a better United States now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WASHINGTON. D C. 20240 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR