BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 06317 800 6

HUNTING AND HARVEST TRENDS
FOR MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS
OTHER THAN WATERFOWL: 1964-76

J/X

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 218

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Martin, Elwood.

Hunting and harvest trends for migratory game birds other than water-
fowl, 1964-76.

(Special scientific report— Wildlife; no. 218)

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 49.1533:218
1. Fowling— United States. 2. Fowling— United States— Statistics. 3. Up-
land game bird shooting— United States. 4. Upland game bird shooting-
United States— Statistics. I. Title. II. Series: United States. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Special scientific report— wildlife; no. 218.
SK361.A256no. 218[SK313] 338.3'72'830973 79-607015

NOTE: Use of trade names does not imply U.S. Government endorsement of commercial products.

HUNTING AND HARVEST TRENDS FOR MIGRATORY GAME
BIRDS OTHER THAN WATERFOWL: 1964-76

By Elwood M. Martin

* M J \

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 218
Washington, D.C. • 1979

Hunting and Harvest Trends for Migratory Game Birds
Other than Waterfowl: 1964-76

by

ElwoodM. Martin

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Office of Migratory Bird Management

Laurel, Maryland 20811

Abstract

Hunting activity and harvest estimates for 10 species or groups of migratory game birds other
than waterfowl, based on data collected for 13 seasons (1964-76) in the Service's Annual Ques-
tionnaire Survey of U. S. Waterfowl Hunters, are presented. The 1964-75 data, available in time
for additional analysis, are discussed in terms of their usefulness as index values for detecting
short-term changes and long-term trends and demonstrating regional differences. Species or
groups for which estimates were obtained include the white-winged dove {Zenaida asiatica), band-
tailed pigeon [Columba fasciata), mourning dove {Zenaida macroura), American woodcock {Philo-
hela minor), common snipe (Capella gallinago), sandhill crane {Grus canadensis), sora {Porzana
Carolina), other rails, gallinules, and American coot [Fulica americana). Among an average annual
population of 2,013,300 duck stamp purchasers (1964-75), the mourning dove was the most
popular of these game birds (averaging 478.000 hunters per year), followed by the coot (172,600
hunters), woodcock (168,700 hunters), snipe (74,600 hunters), band-tailed pigeon (25,400 hunters),
white-winged dove (23,700 hunters), rails other than the sora (14,300 hunters), sora (6,300
hunters), gallinules (4,600 hunters), and crane (4,000 hunters). The average annual harvest index
(unadjusted for reporting biases), for each species during this period was 12.05 million mourning
doves, 1.17 million coots, 588,000 woodcock, 422,000 snipe, 314,000 white-winged doves, 192,000
band-tailed pigeons, 105,000 rails other than the sora, 32,100 soras, 26,400 gallinules, and 7,200
cranes. Several significant year-to-year changes were detected in mourning dove and woodcock
average annual bag estimates at the management unit-flyway level. A number of long-term
trends were noted as well, including significant increases in the proportions of duck stamp buyers
also hunting mourning doves (about 1% annually), woodcock (3%), snipe (2%), cranes (8%). and
rails other than the sora (6%). Significant long-term changes in average annual bag included a
decrease for band-tailed pigeons in the three Pacific coast States and an increase in the Atlantic
Flyway and nationally for rails other than the sora. In addition, a significant long-term increase
averaging 2% per year was noted in the ratio of duck stamp sales to hunting license sales. High
correlations obtained between certain results in the survey and the results of independent
surveys are discussed. Various problems associated with using a waterfowl-hunter sampling
frame as the basis for a survey of the hunting of migratory game birds other than waterfowl are
evident throughout these analyses. The inescapable conclusion is that, although this survey of
waterfowl hunters provides valuable data on the subject, a better sampling frame (or frames) for
measuring the activity and success of all hunters of migratory game birds other than waterfowl
is needed to meet the high standards now being set for the management of this valuable resource.

Since 1964, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
collected information on the hunting of most migra-
tory game birds other than waterfowl through its
Annual Questionnaire Survey of U.S. Waterfowl
Hunters. Ten species or groups of such birds are now
included on the questionnaire: white-winged dove (Zen-
aida asiatica), band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American wood-
cock (Philohela minor), common snipe (Capella gal-
linago), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), sora (Por-
zana Carolina), other rails, gallinules, and American
coot {Fulica americana). In addition, the barnyard
pigeon or rock dove (Columba livia) has been included
since 1967 to reduce the apparent tendency to report
them as band-tailed pigeons; rock dove harvest data
are not included in this report.

The population of duck stamp buyers is used in the
absence of a more suitable sampling frame for hunters
of migratory game birds other than waterfowl. It is
incomplete in varying degrees depending on the geo-
graphic area and species of interest. Therefore, for
most of these species, hunting activity and harvest
figures obtained are index values, useful primarily as
indicators of changes and trends and not as measure-
ments of total hunting activity and success. Mac-
Donald and Martin (1971) summarized survey data for
the first 5 years, and a detailed description of the
survey will be found there. These early estimates, with
some revisions and corrections, are included here
together with estimates for an additional 8 seasons.
Information on coot hunting activity and success, as
obtained in the waterfowl harvest survey since its
inception in 1952, was not examined by MacDonald
and Martin (1971) but is included here. Annual
changes and long-term (1964-75) trends are examined
briefly (estimates for the 1976-77 season became avail-
able after work on the 1964-75 data had been com-
pleted) and, for several species, data from this survey
and several independent surveys are compared.

I gratefully acknowledge the help and advice of
J. W. Artmann, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in the
planning and assembly of material for this report.

Procedures and Limitations

The survey and its analysis have remained essen-
tially as reported by MacDonald and Martin (1971).
Certain aspects, however, deserve closer examination
or re-emphasis.

The Sampling Frame

The information source is the sample of duck stamp
purchasers selected for the annual waterfowl harvest
survey. M. F. Sorensen, Office of Migratory Bird Man-

agement, Laurel, Maryland, in an administrative
report on sandhill crane hunting dated 7 July 1977,
found that 71% of the 1976-77 season crane hunting
permit holders also bought duck stamps. In most
States, for hunters 16 years old or older, probably at
least 90% of the coot hunters, somewhat fewer (75 to
90%?) rail, gallinule, and snipe hunters, and still fewer
woodcock, dove, and pigeon hunters purchased duck
stamps. Although these figures are speculative, they
reflect the inconsistency of the relationship between
waterfowl hunting and other migratory game bird
hunting, an indication that waterfowl hunters form a
poor sampling frame for hunters of other migratory
game birds.

The possibility that some of the estimates presented
here for waterfowl hunters may contain substantial
response/nonresponse biases is a further complication.
For example, both 1975 and 1976 surveys of all crane
hunting permit holders (the best sampling frame one
could hope to have) produced somewhat lower esti-
mates of crane hunting activity and success than did
the waterfowl hunter surveys (M. F. Sorensen and
H. M. Reeves, Office of Migratory Bird Management.
Laurel, Maryland, administrative report on sandhill
crane hunting dated 9 July 1976; M. F. Sorensen,
administrative report cited above). Such biases do not
necessarily negate the value of data provided by
waterfowl hunters as indicators of changes and trends,
however.

The relative importance of waterfowl hunting to all
hunting in each State (Table A-l) is obviously an
important consideration in using the data obtained in
the survey. The average proportion of all licensed
hunters also buying duck stamps in 1964-75 was 13%,
ranging from less than 1% (West Virginia) to over 51%
(North Dakota). Furthermore, these percentages in-
creased significantly in about one-half the States
during this period; there were no significant decreases.

Obviously, waterfowl hunters will not be representa-
tive of all hunters in a State, and the problem is com-
pounded when waterfowl hunters from the various
States are combined to produce totals for larger units.
However, basic information on the relative importance
of each species to hunters and to individual States and
on trends in harvest, particularly changes in its size
and distribution, should be almost as apparent from a
sample of waterfowl hunters as from a sample of all
hunters. Ruos and Tomlinson (1968) developed a
complicated procedure for extrapolating total dove
harvest from dove harvest by waterfowl hunters, but
some problems remained, and it was not practical to
repeat this procedure every year or use it for other
species. Clark (1972:13-14) calculated that less than
50% of the total U. S. woodcock harvest can be attrib-
uted to waterfowl hunters. In view of such problems,
no attempt has been made to project estimates beyond

the waterfowl hunter framework for any of the species
included in this report.

The Survey

Except for the addition of several species, the ques-
tionnaire design introduced in 1964 remained un-
changed through 1968. A slightly revised design was
tested concurrently with the original questionnaire in
1967 and 1968 and has been used exclusively since.
Some differences in results attributable to ques-
tionnaire differences were noted and appropriate
adjustments (unpublished report by E. M. Martin,
Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Mary-
land, dated 17 December 1970) have been made to
maintain comparability among years.

Harvest estimates for coots have routinely appeared
in Federal reports on waterfowl hunting. Application
of the bias-adjustment procedure developed for water-
fowl in the 1950's by E. L. Atwood (mimeographed
report dated September 1959 on file at Migratory Bird
Management Office, Laurel, Maryland) resulted in a
sizeable reduction (averaging 35%, see Benning et al.
1975:64) for response bias in coot harvest figures
through the years. For the present report, the data on
coot hunting activity and success were re-examined for
all years of the waterfowl harvest survey and recal-
culated without bias adjustment; nor have bias adjust-
ments been applied to data for other species. However,
because coots have been handled like waterfowl since
the survey began, coot data still differ somewhat from
those for the other species included here. Active coot
hunters were not identifiable, but successful coot
hunters were. In addition, estimates of harvest by
waterfowl hunters under 16 years; of age (conserva-
tively, an additional 9%) and of unretrieved kill are
available from this survey for coots but not for the
other nonwaterfowl species.

Analysis of Results

To demonstrate potential uses of the survey results,
I provide several comparatively simple examples of
data analyses. These are intended to show the
strengths and weaknesses of the data and point the
way for further analysis by those interested in par-
ticular aspects.

The approaches used fall into two general categories:
(1) seeking evidence of significant differences and
changes or trends on the basis of this survey alone,
and (2) evaluating the degree to which the results of
this survey are supported by (correlated with) the
results of independent surveys. The independent
surveys examined include other Fish and Wildlife
Service surveys and selected State surveys. Many

States collect harvest data on at least some of the
species treated here, and more detailed comparisons
with these data are encouraged. A better under-
standing of the harvest, and of each survey, should
result.

Survey Results and Discussion

Activity and harvest estimates for the hunting of
other migratory game birds by waterfowl hunters in
the United States from 1964 through 1976 are sum-
marized by species in Table 1. A more detailed sum-
mary (by State, flyway, and management unit) of the
1964-75 data available for inclusion in the additional
analyses noted above appear in Appendix A, and
similar detail for the 1976-77 season, which became
available later, are presented in Appendix B. Statis-
tical examinations of differences and trends are sum-
marized for each species in Tables 2 through 6. The
results are discussed briefly in this section by species.

White-winged Dove

During 1966-75, in the five States in which white-
winged dove hunting has been permitted, an average
of 23,700 waterfowl hunters (7.7% of the duck stamp
buyers) harvested about 313,500 white-winged doves
(13.2 birds per hunter) annually (Table A-2). Both the
percentage hunting white-winged doves and the
average bag decreased slightly during the period, but
neither change was statistically significant (Table 2).
However, on an individual State basis, decreases in the
percentage hunting in Texas and the average bag in
Arizona were significant, if all statistical assumptions,
which tend to be weakest for the less widely hunted
species, are met.

Band-tailed Pigeon

These game birds have been hunted in seven States
since 1970; only three States participated before 1968.
In 1975, an estimated 19,200 (5.2%) of the waterfowl
hunters in these seven States also hunted band-tailed
pigeons, bagging about 107,900 or 5.6 each (Table A-3).
The 1975 figures were the lowest obtained during
the 1966-75 period. In the three States for which data
for the entire period are available, both the percentage
hunting and the average bag showed downward trends
(Table 2). These trends were detected in all three
States but were significant only in the Washington
and combined area average bag figures.

Mourning Dove
In the 12 seasons 1964-75, an average of 478,000

o ^ o ©

© © © oo

o cm o -v

o CO o OS

o T © -v

of "fl*"

O CM O ©

O m © CM

O t- O CO

o co o —

O CM O O

o o o ^

o

CO

CO

CN

©

fr-

o

fr-

O CO

O — '

o o

a

CO

o

W

o m

O CO

©

X

o

en

t-"

■V

o

ee

o

00

o •-<

O CO

|cJ

o

^

o

lA

O CM

o *

o

CO

X

00

in

CM

o

CO

« id

q to

in

CM

d

'"I -v

co ,_;

to

od

-*

CM

—

CM

of

rH

N

CO

o

fr-"

OS

OS

©

a?

id

O © CM ©

°i CD CO -*

h N CJl CN

O t- ifl t-

i-H CM

© CO O CM
© in O id
M. CM ^1 CO

O f o m

© fr- © ©

© in © r-

© co © ©

O CM © CO

°. 6 °. a

o

CO

in

©

CO

o

rH

©

c-

O m

CO

CM
CO

CO

©

CO

a

LO

o

00

© ©

■*

^P

ae>

ri

*T

CO

CO

CO

» in

CN

CM

CM

fr*

i— i

CO

of

t-

■s»

© O © m

© © © fr-

CM rH CO

O © O CO

"i co ". m

© CM © ©

- © © i-

© CO © lO

© CO CO CO

=3

© '-P O CO

© © © CM

© cm © en

© fr- _; ©

°- CO CM CO

CO

* d *-t U3

Orttcd

m. d "I c^

"o

CO fr-

CO CO

m CM

© ©

co

— . -<f

"*!•

CO

BO

s

© CM © id

© ■-* © o

O fH © CO

© CM Tp CM

1

© Tj- o CO

© fH © 5"

© CM © CO

g °° cm q

■* © N. CO

*. rH 1 f"

w d •"! «

s

© fr- © ©

00 ^

O CM CM CM

© 00 © 00

© CO © ©

© FH © CO

© CM O ©

© rH © ©

© © © o

o m oo co

O 00 ^ 00

\n in ■*

© 00 © rH

© © o m

<=■ -h 0 -J

© q

O tJ| O CO

© fh o CM

© cm © m

2 *^ © q

". co io r-

•*. © -* CO

*. » -1 id

•-* © -i co

-* r-i °l 00

q © » ^

CO CM © CM

© rH CO

■V ©

CO* »d

00 t-

.-» m

fr- oo

© ©

f O CO

! *> S «

© m o oo

© i— © Tf

g « oo «

°i TP rH in

fr- CM fr- CM

^ CM

© © co «n

fr- CM CM CM

© CM © m

© © © CO

© © © -t

© ■* © CM

O CM O CM

© fr- © ©

.5

© ■"* © m

© cm © m

© CM O CO

o t- ,J c-

q, d "1 ■*

© ©

» rt © »

© ©

» d q co'

•v m

T CO © «0
© CM

09

5

© © CM ©

8 1 « 1

q © fr- ©

© fr- © CO

3

CN

©

CO

T

CM

©

^r

C3

rH

©

^H

o

m

©

fr-

©

CN

o

—

©

©

©

CN

©

in

o

■w-

CM O

©

ad

©

CO

X

©

©

e3

CO

©

o

CM

©

eo

o

CO

©

fr-

o

r-

©

CJ

©

q

©

©

cm q
© ©

T

co_

CO

CO

in

OS

•~i

CO

CM

CO

in

CO

CO

d

r~

id

00

d

ro

od

f*

©

CO

in

fr-

03

©

co"

CM

in

CM

C-"

t>"

»rf

t>

m*

of

©*

-T

*r

co'

CM*

CO

■«p

H

CO

<T,

©

o

CU
CO

CN

o>

CM

fr-

^

~"

■<r

"-1

-f

■*

0)

rH

a

CO

o

CO

m

o

c-

O

m

o

o

o

CM

S

p.

s

o

CJ

©

©

O

■*

o

X

©

CO

o

X

o

o

©

©

© fr-

o

CO

©

01

ad

CO

t-

©

CO

o

■*

©

CO

a

©

o

CO

©

©

T

©

in

o

©

00

O

X

00 q

O 00

X

©_

CM

t>

CO

od

in

CO

©

CO

CO

iri

o_

©

t

to

I>

d

EO

fr"

CN

d

©

in

o_

of

fr-"

Iff

-M

CM

CM

CO

00*

of

c

m*

©'

©"

©

CO*

co"

■<*"

in

N

©

£"

©

in

CN

co.

m

fr-

CN

t

1-1

T

CO

1—1

o

CO

^,

.

o

o

3

m

©

o

—

m

o

CO

o

CO

©

©

©

CO

o

m

©

,_,

o

©

© H

©

r^g

a
en

©

©

in

5

CO

o

o

CO

©

■^

o

CM

©

T

©

©

CM

o

^r

©

© q

CO

CM

in

en

CO

CO

in

CO

CN

id

.5

©^

d

©

id

00

o

•"-«

■*

00

d

X

■^

■^1

ad

©*

CM

q

CM

(N

co"

tr-"

^"*

m"

co"

m*

-*

CO*

CO

m*

©

CO

x"

fr-

■*

m

0)

CN

CM

CM

CO

OO

CM

>"

T3

>!

CD

c

_3

i

©

-r

o

©

©

CO

o

t~

O

CO

o

■*

*o

©

01

Q

©

o

©

©

in

©

^

©

rH

©

©

t- ©

a

©

od

kO

m

©

00

o

o

©

UD

©

CO

|

3

o

©

CO

©

©

©

o

CN

©

CO

©

id q

© ©

CD

T*.

*f

^

©

©

UD

CO

•— i

CO

CO

CO

*-*j

to

q

©

fr-

CO

©

©

CO

id

fr-

©

©

in

m

t-1

cm"

ci

CM

©*

CN

©*

m"

O

in*

fr-*

CO*

rH

eo*

©"

©*

o

Table 2. Summary of statistical evidence of long-term trends in the hunting of other migratory game birds by
waterfowl hunters in those States that had an open season on the designated species every year during the
period indicated.

Percentage hunting

each species

Average bag

Average

Average

Area

Period

annual

Period

annual

Species and period

included

average8

change

t value1'

average3

change

t valueb

White-winged dove

5 States

7.75

-0.15

-1.44

13.15

-0.35

-1.59

(1966-75)

Band-tailed pigeon

3 States

8.63

-0.13

-1.03

7.85

-0.20

-2.76*

(1966-75)

Mourning dove

Eastern Manage. Unit

41.23

0.37

4.30**

28.13

-0.14

-1.43

(1964-75)

Central Manage. Unit

44.79

0.51

3.66**

27.74

-0.13

-0.83

Western Manage. Unit

33.44

0.03

0.42

19.44

-0.19

-3.34**

Total

39.80

0.37

4.69**

25.68

-0.09

-1.13

American woodcock

Atlantic Fly way

20.26

0.50

6.77**

3.45

-0.02

-0.83

(1964-75)

Mississippi Flyway

10.73

0.39

3.62**

3.58

0.01

0.33

Central Flyway

1.54

0.07

2.63*

2.58

-0.01

-0.10

Total

12.20

0.38

6.03**

3.51

-0.01

-0.37

Common snipe

Atlantic Flyway

3.94

0.03

1.33

6.48

-0.09

-1.12

(1964-75)

Mississippi Flyway

4.26

0.08

1.84

5.22

-0.05

-1.52

Central Flyway

2.39

0.10

2.52*

5.39

0.02

0.22

Pacific Flyway

3.87

0.18

5.28**

6.05

0.04

0.68

Total

3.78

0.09

3.15*

5.68

-0.04

-1.38

Sandhill crane

7 States

1.25

0.10

2.88*

1.79

0.12

1.37

(1968-75)

Sora

Atlantic Flyway

0.71

-0.04

-4.83**

6.52

0.13

0.94

(1964-75)

Mississippi Flyway

0.36

0.01

1.66

4.32

-0.12

-1.20

Central Flyway

0.28

0.02

1.27

3.46

-0.32

-1.62

Total

0.44

-tr.

-0.17

5.12

-0.09

-1.09

Other rails

Atlantic Flyway

1.59

0.06

3.15*

9.66

0.38

2.88*

(1964-75)

Mississippi Flyway

0.89

0.08

4.11**

3.58

0.01

0.33

Central Flyway

0.48

0.02

0.75

3.85

0.19

1.83

Total

1.00

0.06

3.27**

7.20

0.23

2.37*

Gallinules

Atlantic Flyway

0.38

-0.03

-3.76**

5.32

-0.20

-1.54

(1964-75)

Mississippi Flyway

0.30

0.03

3.31**

6.36

0.44

2.79*

Central Flyway

0.15

0.02

2.63*

4.10

0.31

1.76

Pacific Flyway

0.14

tr.

1.15

5.53

0.11

0.42

Total

0.27

0.01

1.77

5.95

0.19

1.84

American coot1'

Atlantic Flyway

6.60

-0.10

-0.81

6.38

0.02

0.45

(1964-75)

Mississippi Flyway

10.44

-0.03

-0.21

7.92

-0.06

-0.71

Central Flyway

5.05

0.18

2.78*

4.02

0.04

1.55

Pacific Flyway

8.34

0.13

2.34*

7.41

0.01

0.08

Total

8.21

0.01

0.14

7.13

-0.04

-0.56

aAll years weighted equally in regression calculations.

h*Indicates an average change significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level; **denote the 99% confidence level.

cCoot data based on successful coot hunters; data for other species based on active hunters of respective species.

waterfowl hunters (24.2% of all duck stamp buyers)
harvested slightly over 12 million mourning doves
(25.2 doves per hunter) annually (Tables A-4, A-5).
Almost 40% of the duck stamp buyers in those States
in which dove hunting was permitted throughout this
period hunted mourning doves. The proportion in-
creased significantly (about 1% annually, a crude indi-

cator of change obtained by expressing average annual
change as a percentage of the period average) during
this period in the Eastern and Central Management
units and in the overall figures. In 13 of 30 States
there were significant increases, but in 1 (Louisiana) a
significant decrease was indicated (Table 3).
Success rates were lowest (averaging 19.4 doves per

>

<

5

bo

2 3 C

o 5 ffl

> 5 -c

•*■ co o

>

o

c
'3

u

3

^

a; c ca

> S J=
< « o

T3 CD

•§ P

c
-o

c

3

C

a

cv

-a

CD

cu

-

E g «

0) CO ^

M- 3

CO -J

OS CO ^ CO OS t- ID 00 O O C-

in o n in w to n co w n h
i-otNCNNOO'-'nddeN

TT CD irt CO
CM i-> CM 00

CD 00

O ^

O rH iD O

w o

N in CO CO

OS CN

•-< TT

CO CM 00 O

_ r-, ^ ©

P -

■ O O

fc. O O O T

©oooooo-^oo

o o o o o

OOOO— 'OO^CN^OC

oooooooooooooo

o ^ o © o

o o o o o

cotMcocotDcNco^cococoNncovnnn cococnncocdcocn'^cncocncoco — < cn cm cm co

xtDtDcCHtoiTfr-Hf-HOinocoh

COCO^Oi^WW^OltOCOQiO^O^Cib

ONHNiriNNH ^dc0NC0HHiON«0

OOO0^OO00000000O<-i©

CNCNCNOSCNCOeNt- OtDCDiONOt-at-CC
COCCOlt-tDCD^tMCCftCDOfCOCOCCCON

't'codiocdiOHOiot-cod

CO CO (N CM O) M HN ^- CM

NONfficot'HcoacooomcN
locoiH^qcNOit-cococoHaico

NHind^OHCDHi-idiONn

cD--*cMa^i^''^'t~-^j'i-it~-aiiccoai
coHcooO'tqcoifiNoqco^w
oooooooooooooo

o cn ff) t- t-f-cccD»r-aof- oco
N^icioiOHqcflHoiair-qi^

QCO'cO^^H^^odcNCOCOco'd

H H CN — H ■-" <— I

a

CM

OS

OS

CO
CD

CO

o

.2
CD
O

c

cu

TP

3

CN

CD

OS

o

CM

CM

CO

C

o

00

CO

e
o
u

o

o

—

=

o

t-

CN

CO
CO

ID

id

iD

o

CM

s s

C

.£ 2 "u .S
o S 5 3

CO > CO CO *J

<

HiOaiflBHajaao

EoSSSzzzz

coOSiDC-TCO'-'CNeDt-aOTrt-O

ID CO
rH O CM

NcOinq'-;<Noiaico
co drid H

c

ca

§ °
■9 5

si

—

c

o

£

U

>

Ed

c

•a

>

>

(A

n

— i
z

'S,
a

'to

■I,

"»

CO

CO

Ed

CO

<

CO

ed

CO

G
ca

<

CO

'3

ca

q

c

CJ

a

a

c
ffl

H

c

i

*

CM

t>

CO

CM

OS

TT

LD

CO

O CO

q

c

-r

ID

-r

o

i—i

O

CM

t- oo

^

CO

"7

d

d

cm"

CM*

d

c

rH* d

CO

ID

Tf

o

ID

CO

•^

M

ID

O CO

■— i

ID

— 1

CM

C

CM

CO

c

—

^ .—I

en 3

.22 o

CO CO

CO CO

o c cj

■a c .23
Of-S

-O —
3 CO

,_, ^H <-l ,-t CM

ca ca „_,

: o h

t co m
w r- tt

r-" i-" d

CN CO 00
l> OS p
CM CM O

TJ- CO i-H

CO CO i-5

ooooooooooooooooo

oooooooo

o o o o

CM O CO --t O

o d d d d

h h iO O T « h
O 00 CN O CO OS O
CO h ^ CO CN h

.-. ~h >-. CN

CNOO-— < CO «— "COCOCOCOC-COCNCOO— i ^T

OOOOOOOOOO-HCOO--'

O CO CO

OHO

.— 'OOCS-HOiDCOCOCNOmaSiDCDCOCNCO

coqcoooqoCH(NcD--qNqqcoHiN
lodddHoiiOHXco'cNaJdcooo'dH
mcoTiocoTconiomniNioiOTriN'r

(NNhNOCOhCO

OOOOOOOO

COt-OSCNXCNt-OS

Tros^oosoor-

N O f O

CD r- OS 00 CN

if) 00 f CO ^

o ^h d

oooooooo

£ « co

Jr Xi co "C

-2 « -o> o

S < Q tu

CO CJ CO CO

•sb-S

0)3 1> o

O = « J

S Sz

ed

"c

CO

C
!tj

o

0)

'c

'S

>

o

CO

CO

•>

c

en

B

c

O

3

cu

c
c

.a

CO

JO
CO

CL tf c« e- >

M

5 5 .5

f? bo -C

r

<o!<:SZOh

C M ^S cu C -e ^

E
o

-u

c

cu

CD

DO

c

^

0

>i

c

a

3

c

1

Q

CO

«

Ul

eu

c

>^

c

_.

c

03

&

Si

0)

51

§

>

J=

5

a

c

01

CO

-:

CO

en

s

s

s

(•."O

C

< r

hunter per season) in the Western Management, Unit
(Table A-5), and decreased significantly (about 1%
annually) during the period (Table 3). Elsewhere, Loui-
siana showed a significant decrease while West Vir-
ginia showed a significant increase. The overall down-
ward trend was not statistically significant, but, as
noted by Clark (1972:13) with reference to woodcock,
such a decrease in average success as participation
increases would not be surprising, since most of the
additional hunters must be newcomers to the sport
and relatively inexperienced. In year-to-year compari-
sons, significant increases in average bag were indi-
cated for the 1966-67 and 1972-73 seasons whereas a
significant decrease was recorded for 1967-68
(Table 4).

American Woodcock

During 1964-75 an average of 168,700 waterfowl
hunters (10.6% of the duck stamp buyers in the three
eastern flyways; 12.2% in those States having a wood-
cock season) harvested about 587,500 woodcock (3.5
per hunter) annually (Tables A-6, A-7). Waterfowl
hunters in the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways
participated in woodcock hunting in about equal
numbers, but, although the rate of participation in the
Atlantic Flyway has been about twice that in the Mis-
sissippi Flyway (20% vs. 10%), success rates have dif-
fered little (3.4 vs. 3.6 birds per hunter per season). The
average annual harvest by waterfowl hunters ex-
ceeded 50,000 in four States, of which Michigan was
the leader (89,000).

The proportion of waterfowl hunters also hunting
woodcock has increased significantly since 1964 in all
three flyways and in 19 of the 33 States in which wood-
cock have been hunted regularly (Table 3); the increase
has averaged about 3% per year. Significant long-term
changes in average bag were indicated in seven States
but not at flyway or U.S. levels. Indications of signifi-
cant changes from the previous year in average annual
bag (Table 4) were found in the Atlantic Flyway in
1969 (decrease) and the overall 1972 average (increase).

Common Snipe

Annually, an average of 3.7% (74,600) of the duck
stamp purchasers in the United States hunted snipe
during 1964-75, bagging about 422,000 snipe (5.7 per
hunter) each year (Tables A-8, A-9). The average an-
nual snipe harvest by waterfowl hunters was highest
in Louisiana (96,000) and also exceeded 50,000 in two
other States. The proportion of waterfowl hunters also
hunting snipe increased significantly by more than 2%
per year during this period, with significant increases
recorded for 15 of 46 States; the increases appeared to

become progressively larger from east to west across
the country (Table 5). No long-term trend was evident
in the average snipe bag. Significant increases were
recorded in two States (Georgia, Mississippi), as were
significant decreases (Nebraska, North Carolina).

Sandhill Crane

Currently, sandhill cranes are hunted in nine States,
and this survey has included all crane hunting States
since 1968 when seven States were involved. During
1968-75, duck stamp buyer participation in crane
hunting in the seven States continuously involved
averaged 1.2% (4,000 hunters), and they bagged an
average of 7,200 cranes (1.8 per hunter) each season.
Texas was the most important State for crane hun-
ting, accounting for 39% of the hunters and 58% of the
harvest during this 8-year period (Table A-10). The
proportion of duck stamp buyers participating in the
crane hunt in these seven States increased signifi-
cantly since 1968 (averaging 8% annually); average
bag has not changed significantly (Table 2).

Sora

An annual average of 0.4% (6,300) of the duck stamp
buyers in the three eastern flyways hunted the sora
during 1964-75, bagging about 32,100 birds (5.1 per
hunter) each year (Tables A-ll, A-12). Harvests aver-
aged over 2,000 birds per year in only five States in-
cluding Iowa, which did not have a rail season until
1972. Louisiana and New Jersey were the top States,
each with harvests of 5,300 birds per year by duck
stamp buyers. Both percentage hunting and average
bag become progressively smaller from east to west
across the country. The only statistically significant
long-term change during this period was a decrease of
almost 6% per year in percentage hunting in the
Atlantic Flyway (Table 2).

Other Rails

Through the years, this category has included the
king rail {Rallus elegans), clapper rail (i?. longirostris),
Virginia rail {R. limicola), yellow rail {Coturnicops
noveboracensis), and black rail ILaterallus jamai-
censis). In 1967, the black rail was omitted from the
list of hunted species, followed a year later by the
yellow rail, and these omissions continue. Very few
birds of either species have been taken by hunters.
Also, in most noncoastal States, the king rail has not
been hunted since 1967. Even before then, the king rail
was rarely, if ever, important in the rail harvest
(Sanderson 1977:99-101). Thus, although hunters were
not asked to report separately any rails but the sora.

Table 4. Statistical evidence of year-to-year differences in the average annual bags of mourning doves and

American woodcock by waterfowl hunters, 1964-75.

Mourning

dove

American woodcock

Eastern

Central

Western

Mississippi

Seasons

Management

Management

Management

Atlantic

and Central

compared

Unit

Unit

Unit

Total

Flyway

flyways

Total

1964 vs. 1965

x"(n)a

0.04(16)

1.71(7)

-1.56(7)

0.06(30)

-0.09(17)

-0.54(16)

-0.31 (33)

f-valueb

0.03

1.39

-2.07

0.07

-0.29

-2.12

-1.55

1965 vs. 1966

x(n)

2.31(16)

1.50(7)

1.04(7)

1.83(30)

-0.05(17)

0.35(16)

0.14(33)

f-value

3.05**

1.42

2.18

3.78**

-0.34

1.89

1.23

1966 vs. 1967

x(n)

-1.91 (16)

-1.10(7)

0.0 (7)

-1.27(30)

0.43(17)

0.23(16)

0.33(33)

f-value

-1.94

-1.06

0.0

-2.15*

2.07

0.80

1.91

1967 vs. 1968

x(n)

0.48(16)

0.62(8)

-1.19(7)

0.14(31)

0.18(17)

-0.08(17)

0.05 (34)

f-value

0.68

0.38

-1.27

0.24

0.64

-0.17

0.20

1968 vs. 1969

x(n)

1.84(16)

0.10(8)

-0.51 (7)

0.85(31)

-0.63(17)

0.29(17)

-0.17(34)

f-value

1.47

0.08

-0.59

1.13

-2.77*

0.56

-0.59

1969 vs. 1970

x(n)

-1.31 (16)

-1.11(8)

0.29(7)

-0.90(31)

0.02(17)

-0.82(16)

-0.39(33)

f-value

-1.66

-0.67

0.47

-1.50

0.07

-1.80

-1.47

1970 vs. 1971

x(n)

-0.42(16)

-0.20(8)

-1.00(7)

-0.49(31)

-0.05(17)

0.16(16)

0.05(33)

f-value

-0.60

-0.10

-1.13

-0.76

-0.34

1.21

0.50

1971 vs. 1972

x(n)

2.32(16)

2.95 (8)

0.33(7)

2.04(31)

0.38(17)

0.31(16)

0.34 (33)

f-value

2.35*

1.89

0.23

2.82**

1.83

1.30

2.23*

1972 vs. 1973

x(n)

-2.64(16)

-1.33(7)

0.94(7)

-1.50(30)

0.05(17)

0.03(17)

0.04 (34)

f-value

-1.84

-1.25

2.35

-1.79

0.30

0.11

0.25

1973 vs. 1974

x(n)

-0.15(16)

-1.89(8)

-1.39(7)

-0.88(31)

0.04(17)

0.05(17)

0.04 (34)

f-value

-0.13

-1.38

-1.98

-1.26

0.19

0.24

0.31

1974 vs. 1975

x(n)

-0.01(16)

2.39(8)

0.77(7)

0.79(31)

-0.06(17)

-0.05 117)

-0.06 (34)

f-value

-0.01

2.03

0.86

1.50

-0.29

-0.32

-0.43

ax = average difference between State-level estimates of annual bag per waterfowl hunter; n = number of States.
b* Indicates a significant correlation at the 95% confidence level; **denote the 99% level.

some degree of separation is still possible. In most
instances, rails reported from States not permitting
hunting of large rails will be Virginia rails. However,
harvest in these States has amounted to only 6% of
the total. Clapper rails are probably dominant in the
harvest in most other States although the degree of
dominance will vary, and more knowledge of the sit-
uation in each State is necessary should a separation
be desired.

An annual average of 0.9% (14,300) of the duck
stamp buyers in the three eastern flyways hunted rails
other than the sora during 1964-75, and bagged about
105,000 such birds (7.4 per hunter) annually (Tables A-
13, A-14). Louisiana and South Carolina were the most
important harvest States for these birds, each har-
vesting well over 20,000 annually and together ac-
counting for 50% of the U. S. harvest by waterfowl
hunters during this period. Outside Louisiana, the
harvest of other rails was strongly concentrated along
the Atlantic coast. Both the percentage hunting and
the average bag showed significant increases in most
areas (Table 2).

Gallinules

Included here are the common gallinule (Gallinula
chloropus) and the purple gallinule (Porphyrula martin-
ica). The latter is much more restricted in range, occur-
ring primarily in parts of eight southeastern States. It
has been excluded from Florida's list of hunted species
since 1972. On the other hand, in Louisiana it appar-
ently becomes numerous enough at times to be the
subject of depredation control measures in rice fields.

Some hunters undoubtedly fail to distinguish galli-
nules (at least common gallinules) from coots. How-
ever, in many areas, few, if any, gallinules are present
when coots are being hunted, and vice versa, because
of differences in migration dates (and therefore season
dates), and main wintering grounds. A possible clue to
the extent of this misidentification is found in the
Service's Duck Wing Collection Survey which, since
1965, has also asked for coot (but not gallinule) wings.
Common gallinule wings are received at the rate of
about three per thousand coot wings (no purple galli-
nule wings have yet been received), whereas waterfowl

Table 5. Statistical evidence of long-term trends in the hunting of common snipe by waterfowl hunters in those
States that had a snipe season every year during the period 1964-75.

Percentage hunting snipe

Average snipe bag

Flyway and State

Average

Average

Period

annual

t

Period

annual

t

average8

change

valueb

average"

change

valueb

1.91

0.03

0.54

2.72

-0.07

-0.82

2.57

-0.13

-1.48

3.78

0.14

0.74

20.62

0.67

3.47**

10.99

-0.03

-0.20

8.31

0.10

1.12

5.28

0.23

3.69**

2.65

0.12

1.72

3.74

-0.13

-1.04

0.89

-0.01

-0.31

3.56

0.05

0.33

1.97

0.12

2.33*

2.42

0.04

0.55

1.67

0.10

1.15

2.07

0.01

0.09

2.82

0.06

0.70

3.72

-0.18

-2.07

1.35

0.06

2.12

2.12

0.08

1.58

5.84

-0.08

-0.76

3.58

-0.16

-2.34*

1.33

0.05

1.24

2.20

-0.03

-0.85

3.12

0.27

3.36**

2.80

-0.03

-0.09

7.80

0.13

1.76

5.54

-0.09

-0.42

2.10

0.19

3.61**

3.00

-0.27

-1.54

3.82

0.01

0.18

3.29

-0.06

-1.02

3.20

0.36

1.82

2.30

-0.29

-1.09

3.94

0.03

1.33

6.48

-0.09

-1.12

9.27

0.36

2.31*

5.40

0.15

1.23

1.72

0.06

1.16

5.59

-0.22

-1.31

1.83

0.03

0.87

3.72

0.04

0.91

3.16

0.24

3.11*

2.48

-0.02

-0.24

3.78

0.27

6.20**

3.89

-0.03

-0.58

2.27

0.10

1.26

2.52

-0.05

-0.57

11.02

-0.16

-1.32

8.35

-0.02

-0.29

4.13

0.07

1.03

3.21

-0.04

-0.54

2.74

0.16

3.11*

3.38

0.07

0.77

6.14

0.12

1.24

5.12

0.23

2.49*

1.51

0.02

0.47

4.02

-0.08

-1.00

2.64

-0.03

-0.43

3.07

-0.06

-0.67

2.96

0.16

2.15

3.61

0.12

1.01

4.27

0.18

2.30*

3.21

0.01

0.16

4.26

0.08

1.84

5.22

-0.05

-1.52

1.11

0.12

4.76**

3.88

0.06

0.65

2.00

-0.01

-0.15

3.33

-0.18

-1.65

2.33

0.06

1.34

3.50

-0.18

-2.89*

1.92

0.07

2.14

5.81

0.02

0.10

1.64

0.15

2.20

3.63

0.12

1.00

1.12

tr.

0.02

3.88

-0.12

-0.83

3.81

0.20

2.40

6.58

0.09

0.74

2.39

0.10

2.52*

5.39

0.02

0.22

2.01

0.12

1.25

4.86

-0.32

-1.10

4.62

0.25

6.14**

7.12

0.10

1.12

1.41

0.11

2.64*

3.19

0.07

0.67

1.78

0.16

4.83**

3.88

-tr.

-0.02

2.49

0.20

2.59*

4.55

0.05

0.31

3.92

0.25

3.99**

4.83

0.06

0.94

2.57

0.18

2.39*

3.48

0.12

1.34

4.41

0.07

1.12

5.84

0.01

-0.12

3.87

0.18

5.28**

6.05

0.04

0.68

3.78

0.09

3.15*

5.68

-0.04

-1.38

3.26

0.10

1.46

5.65

-0.02

-0.09

Atlantic

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia
Subtotal
Mississippi

Alabama

Arkansas

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Ohio

Tennessee

Wisconsin
Subtotal
Central

Colorado

Kansas

Nebraska

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Texas
Subtotal
Pacific

Arizona

California

Colorado

Idaho

Nevada

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Subtotal

Total

Alaska (1965-75)

"All years weighted equally in regression calculations.

b*Indicates an average annual change significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level;
fidence level.

denote the 99% con-

10

Table 6. Statistical evidence of long-term trends in the hunting of American coot by waterfowl hunters in each

State during the period 1964-75.

Percentage bagging

coot

Average coot bag

Average

Average

Period

annual

t

Period

annual

t

Flyway and State

average*

change

valueb

average*

change

valueb

Atlantic

Connecticut

3.38

-0.02

-0.16

2.78

-0.05

-1.31

Delaware

3.54

-0.09

-0.55

5.01

0.25

1.11

Dist. of Columbia

2.68

-0.20

-2.16

3.23

-0.59

-2.01

Florida

21.65

-0.29

-1.15

9.82

0.07

0.68

Georgia

6.71

-0.07

-0.47

5.41

0.08

0.61

Maine

5.32

-0.21

-1.85

5.88

-0.06

-0.34

Maryland

2.04

0.10

0.13

4.10

-0.33

-2.08

Massachusetts

3.97

-0.07

-0.60

3.83

-0.15

-1.17

New Hampshire

2.45

-0.13

-0.97

2.68

-0.12

-0.90

New Jersey

5.25

-0.13

-1.14

3.60

-0.03

-0.53

New York

3.95

-0.13

-1.10

3.48

-0.11

-1.90

North Carolina

11.29

0.43

1.69

7.55

0.15

0.59

Pennsylvania

5.73

-0.09

-0.51

3.45

-0.06

-0.75

Rhode Island

5.19

-0.32

-1.79

3.21

0.08

0.67

South Carolina

10.76

-0.04

-0.22

5.74

-0.13

-1.62

Vermont

2.21

-0.13

-1.76

2.62

0.10

1.01

Virginia

9.42

0.88

3.65"

10.66

0.71

2.36*

West Virginia

7.94

-0.08

-0.21

3.60

-0.33

-1.64

Subtotal

6.60

-0.10

-0.81

6.38

0.02

0.45

Mississippi

Alabama

13.32

-0.17

-0.62

7.65

0.29

1.37

Arkansas

3.69

0.01

0.11

4.86

0.15

1.16

Illinois

8.13

-0.17

-0.77

5.19

0.06

0.81

Indiana

10.50

-0.06

-0.22

4.95

0.08

0.63

Iowa

6.46

0.05

0.35

4.12

-0.07

-1.14

Kentucky

5.09

0.01

0.04

3.79

0.09

0.67

Louisiana

16.81

0.45

1.34

17.85

-0.51

-1.14

Michigan

11.60

-0.17

-0.78

4.02

-0.01

-0.14

Minnesota

10.28

0.03

0.29

5.33

-0.05

-0.98

Mississippi

6.29

0.02

0.10

6.75

0.11

0.60

Missouri

4.17

0.12

1.59

3.66

0.15

1.73

Ohio

10.97

-0.10

-0.33

4.10

tr.

0.04

Tennessee

8.54

0.25

1.05

4.83

-0.21

-1.31

Wisconsin

13.17

-0.23

-1.17

7.36

-0.05

-0.55

Subtotal

10.44

-0.03

-0.21

7.92

-0.06

-0.71

Central

Colorado

3.06

0.09

1.52

2.81

-0.02

-0.25

Kansas

5.35

0.05

0.66

3.69

0.04

0.55

Montana

3.90

0.09

1.31

3.01

0.21

3.25**

Nebraska

4.40

0.25

2.31*

3.23

-tr.

-0.01

New Mexico

6.02

0.26

1.50

3.24

0.12

1.31

North Dakota

5.12

0.09

0.62

5.31

-0.07

-0.35

Oklahoma

6.37

0.19

1.23

4.27

0.21

1.37

South Dakota

4.70

0.25

2.91*

4.56

0.09

0.92

Texas

5.51

0.26

4.52**

4.12

0.07

1.09

Wyoming

4.33

0.19

1.41

2.99

0.22

1.58

Subtotal

5.05

0.18

2.78*

4.02

0.04

1.55

Pacific

Arizona

8.55

0.17

1.71

5.25

0.15

0.65

California

12.29

0.22

2.51*

9.13

0.04

0.23

Colorado

4.38

0.19

1.82

3.55

0.11

0.76

Idaho

5.06

-tr.

-0.01

4.96

-0.01

-0.14

Montana

4.07

-0.02

-0.24

5.23

-0.03

-0.07

Nevada

5.87

0.12

0.97

6.57

0.08

0.55

New Mexico

6.40

-0.28

-1.14

3.29

-0.06

-0.32

Oregon

5.84

0.30

4.16**

5.68

0.15

1.35

Utah

8.07

0.38

2.71*

4.54

0.02

0.41

Washington

5.06

-0.06

-0.90

4.62

-0.10

-1.23

Wyoming

2.84

0.09

0.86

4.43

0.19

0.71

Subtotal

8.34

0.13

2.34*

7.41

0.01

0.08

Total

8.21

0.01

0.14

7.13

-0.04

-0.56

Alaska (1965-75)

1.66

-0.03

-0.84

4.24

-0.30

-1.97

•All years weighted equally in regression calculations.

■"Indicates an average annual change significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level; "denote the 99% con-
fidence level.

11

hunters report bagging about 22 gallinules per thou-
sand coots. Thus, waterfowl hunters could be misiden-
tifying as many as 12% of the gallinules they take as
coots.

An average of about 4,600 (0.2%) of the duck stamp
buyers in the United States during 1964-75 hunted
gallinules, taking an average of 26,400 gallinules (5.8
per hunter) annually (Tables A-15, A-16). About 31%
of the gallinule hunters and 50% of the harvest by
waterfowl hunters were attributed to Louisiana.
Statistically significant long-term trends were
detected in both percentage hunting (decrease in
Atlantic Flyway, increases in Mississippi and Central
flyways) and average bag (increase in Mississippi
Flyway) at the flyway level, but there was no evidence
of nationwide trends (Table 2).

American Coot

Coot hunting activity and harvest are undoubtedly
overestimated in the New England-New York coastal
areas where scoters (Melanitta spp.) are routinely
referred to as coots and reported as such to an
unknown degree by waterfowl hunters. However, this
overestimate involves comparatively few birds (Table
A-17) in areas where the American coot is relatively
uncommon (Sanderson 1977:133).

On the average, each year during 1964-75, about
8.2% (164,000) of the duck stamp buyers in the United
States hunted coots successfully. Probably very few
(assume 5%) who hunted coots were unsuccessful, so,
for purposes of comparing hunting pressure placed on
coots with that placed on other migratory game birds
by duck stamp buyers, an estimate of 172,600 hunters
(8.7%) seems reasonable. The harvest by all waterfowl
hunters, including those under 16 years old and
hunting without a duck stamp, averaged 1,175,000
coots (almost 7 per hunter) annually during the same
period. Allowing for survey differences, a similar range
in coot hunting activity and success was experienced
during 1952-63 (Tables A-18, A-19). Over 58% of the
harvest occurred in the Mississippi Flyway; Louisiana
accounted for over one-fourth of the harvest in the
United States (Table A-17). California and Wisconsin
together accounted for another 25%. No long-term
trends were evident in average bag, but average in-
creases of 3.6% in the Central Flyway and 1.6% in the
Pacific Flyway per year in the percentage of waterfowl
hunters hunting coots during 1964-75 were statis-
tically significant (Table 6).

Selected Comparisons with Other
Surveys

Some of the results of this survey are compared, at

the State level, with those of several other surveys
(Table 7). The predominance of high correlations is
encouraging and perhaps surprising, particularly since
those for total hunters and total bag are as prominent
as those for average bag. The latter, being less influ-
enced by variability in duck stamp sales, was expected
to be a better measure of the actual situation. The
reader is reminded that a high correlation between
surveys does not imply that the surveys yield the same
results, only that the results tend to differ by a con-
stant amount or factor which can be large or small,
positive or negative, depending on the species.

These high correlations look impressive but may be
somewhat misleading. Often very wide ranges are
involved (e.g., Nevada with 70,100 and California with
1,210,400 mourning doves bagged by duck stamp
buyers in 1972), and such data may show substan-
tial departures from a normal distribution. Even
comparatively insensitive surveys might agree well
enough in such situations to produce high correlations.
Thus, the degree of agreement between surveys should
be presumed to be exaggerated to some extent, partic-
ularly when used for comparisons among States. Com-
parisons among seasons tend to yield somewhat lower,
though still often significant, correlations, and these
results are probably more realistic and useful.

The waterfowl hunter survey has the advantage that
it is uniformly applied in all States whereas surveys
conducted by individual States may lack this uniform-
ity. The low correlations with band-tailed pigeon data
from Oregon and Arizona, contrasting with the gen-
erally high correlations found elsewhere, may indicate
that the surveys of Oregon and Arizona were less effi-
cient than those of the other States. Different survey
methods can produce markedly different results. For
example, a special mail questionnaire survey of white-
winged dove hunters in Texas in 1976, based on an effi-
cient sampling frame of white-winged dove stamp pur-
chasers, produced activity and harvest estimates
about 2.5 times larger than those produced by the tra-
ditional check station survey (J. H. Dunks, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, mimeo-
graphed report on white-winged dove harvest in Texas
dated 21 March 1977). Measurements of trends and
other relationships may be much less affected,
however. Simple questionnaire design changes can be
important, too. With the elimination of the waterfowl
calendar (for reporting daily success) from the Federal
questionnaire in 1969 after 2 years of testing, it was
necessary to reduce subsequent estimates of other
migratory game bird hunting activity by 4%, success-
ful coot hunters by 10%, and coot harvest by 16% to
maintain comparability with results obtained in pre-
vious years (E. M. Martin, Office of Migratory Bird
Management, Laurel, Maryland, unpublished report
on changes in the Federal questionnaire survey dated

12

Table 7. Correlation of estimates of total hunters, total bag, and average bag of migratory game birds from Federal

questionnaire (this report) with estimates from other sources."

Source

Season(s)

Category

Correlation coefficient for:

Total

Total

Average

Species and State or area

of datab

used

testedc

hunters

bag

bag

White-winged dove

Lower Rio Grande (Texas)

1

1966-75

Seasons (10)

—

0.60

—

Arizona

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

—

0.66*

0.91*

Band-tailed pigeon

California

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.76*

0.92**

0.87**

Oregon

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

-0.28

trace

0.43

Washington

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.74*

0.91**

0.75*

Arizona

2

1968-75

Seasons (8)

-0.37

0.31

0.57

New Mexico

3

1968-75

Seasons (8)

0.82*

0.64

0.44

Colorado

4

1970-75

Seasons (6)

0.92**

0.93**

0.76

Utah

2,5

1970-75

Seasons (6)

0.71

0.58

0.48

Mourning dove

Arizona

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.75*

0.70*

0.27

California

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.68*

0.43

0.71**

Idaho

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.87**

0.84**

0.27

Nevada

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.69*

0.69*

0.75**

Oregon

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.65*

0.57

0.78

Utah

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.71*

0.73**

0.82**

Washington

2

1966-75

Seasons (10)

0.38

0.76**

0.76**

Management Units

Eastern

6

1971 or 72

States (10)

0.55

0.69*

0.91**

Central

6

1971 or 72

States (7)

0.97**

0.99**

0.91**

Western

6

1971 or 72

States (7)

0.96**

0.97**

0.98**

Total

States (24)

0.86**

0.87**

0.94**

Sandhill crane

All states except Alaska

7

1975

States (8)

0.98**

0.99**

0.96**

aAsterisks indicate significant correlation: * at the 95% confidence level and ** at the 99% level.
bSource of data for comparisons with waterfowl hunter data from questionnaires:

1. Sanderson (1977:257) and telephone conversation with J. H. Dunks, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin.

2. Minutes of the Western Migratory Upland Game Bird Technical Committee, Report 15, dated June 1976.

3. Braun et al. (1975:14) and telephone conversation with J. L. Sands, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish,
Albuquerque.

4. Braun et al. (1975:14) and telephone conversation with C. E. Braun, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.

5. Braun et al. (1975:14) and minutes of Western Migratory Upland Game Bird Technical Committee, Report 14, dated June
1975.

6. Sanderson (1977:286).

7. M. F. Sorensen and H. M. Reeves, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Md., administrative report on sandhill
crane hunting dated 9 July 1976.

cSample sizes in parentheses.

17 December 1970). It is apparently coincidence that
this design change and the significant upward trends
in the percentages hunting several species occurred at
about the same time, in part because, if they were
related, then the number of significant decreases has
also been underestimated, probably a much less likely
occurrence.

The results of some general comparisons of Federal
questionnaire and wing collection surveys are shown in
Table 8. Duck survey data are shown as a standard
with which to compare woodcock survey data.
Whereas the agreement between the two surveys

appears increasingly good between 1971 and 1975 for
ducks, it has remained generally poor for woodcock,
well below the point of real usefulness. Although the
waterfowl-hunter sampling frame is acknowledged to
be least complete for woodcock, dove, and pigeon
hunters, the generally high correlations obtained with
dove and pigeon data (Table 7) led to the expectation
of similar results for the woodcock. Possibly regional
differences are a factor. Somewhat poorer agreement
was found in dove data from the Eastern Management
Unit where the lowest ratios of duck stamp buyers to
hunters occur (Table A-l), and where nearly all wood-

13

Table 8. State-level comparisons of Federal questionnaire and wing survey estimates of the average seasonal

success of duck and woodcock hunters.

Flyway

Number
of States

Correlation coefficient3 for x bag

Species

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

Ducks

Atlantic

18

0.48*

0.71**

0.80**

0.82**

0.87**

Mississippi

14

0.81**

0.88**

0.88**

0.93**

0.91**

Central

10

-0.17

0.12

0.30

0.70*

0.78**

Pacific

11

0.14

0.84**

0.72*

0.85**

0.82**

U.S.

54

0.57**

0.81**

0.81**

0.87**

0.86**

American

woodcock

Atlantic
Mississippi and

17

0.71**

0.51*

0.42

0.39

0.33

Central

14 to 17

0.24

0.52*

0.35

0.41

0.43

Total

31 to 34

0.54**

0.53**

0.45**

0.44**

0.37*

a*Indicates a significant correlation at the 95% confidence level; **denotes the 99% level.

cock hunting activity occurs. Secondly, the incidence
of mourning dove hunters in the States in which this
bird has been hunted is much higher than the compara-
ble figure for woodcock (40% vs. 12%), resulting in a
much larger sample of mourning dove hunters.
Thirdly, these wing surveys sample select groups of
high success hunters whereas the questionnaire survey
attempts to randomly sample all waterfowl hunters.
Although adequate for most estimates related to
waterfowl hunting, it appears that one or both of these
sampling frames yield poor results for woodcock
hunting.

Although some statistical tests were applied to data
at flyway, management unit, and U. S. levels (obtained
by adding various State estimates), it should be recog-
nized that an additional source of error is contained
in such figures because of the inability in this survey to
either sample the hunters of these various species pro-
portionately or to apply appropriate weighting or
expansion factors for making such combined-area esti-
mates. General indications are probably still valid but
it may be better, when applying the results in manage-
ment programs, to place more emphasis on the figures
for individual States. Undoubtedly, additional infor-
mation of better quality on changes and trends can be

extracted from the present survey with a more sophis-
ticated statistical approach, but it is also apparent
that, as concluded by MacDonald and Martin (1971:8),
a better sampling frame for measuring the harvest of
migratory game birds other than waterfowl is still
needed.

References

Benning, D. S., M. M. Smith, and S. L. Rhoades. 1975.

Waterfowl status report, 1973. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,

Spec. Sci. Rep. -Wildl. 188. 105 pp.
Braun, C. E., D. E. Brown, J. C. Peterson, and T. P. Zapatka.

1975. Results of the four corners cooperative band-tailed

pigeon investigation. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv.. Resour. Publ.

126.20 pp.
Clark, E. R. 1972. Woodcock status report, 1971. U. S. Fish

Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl. 153. 47 pp.
MacDonald, D., and E. Martin. 1971. Trends in harvest of

migratory game birds other than waterfowl, 1964-65 to

1968-69. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl.

142.29 pp.
Ruos, J. L., and R. E. Tomlinson. 1968. Mourning dove

status report, 1966. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci.

Rep.-Wildl. 115.49 pp.
Sanderson, G. C, ed. 1977. Management of migratory shore

and upland game birds in North America. International

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington,

D. C. 358 pp.

15

Appendix A

The 1964-75 survey results, the subject of various
analyses in this report, are summarized here at State,
flyway or management unit, and national levels. Other
investigators may wish to carry out additional anal-
yses after referring to the preceding sections for back-
ground information on the survey and the limitations
of its results.

16

Table A-l . Summary of average duck stamp and hunting license sales and relationships between
them at State, management unit, and flyway levels: 1964-75.

1964-75

average:

Percentage

buying duck

stamps

Flyway,

Duck

Hunting

1964-75

Average

Management Unit,

stamp

license

annual

5 b

and State

sales

sales

average

change

value

Atlantic Flyway

Eastern Management Unit

Connecticut

12,262

76,875

15.76

0.43

4.33**

Delaware

11,242

27,112

41.40

1.50

4.49**

Florida

29,748

242,001

12.35

-0.26

-1.56

Georgia

11,965

323,265

3.72

0.07

1.14

Maine

15,518

203,998

7.58

0.24

4.34**

Maryland

31,774

186,209

17.02

0.58

4.63**

Massachusetts

24,193

121,761

20.08

0.80

4.34**

New Hampshire

8,421

87,739

9.74

0.79

13.24**

New Jersey

32,425

184,310

17.49

0.46

4.53**

New York

88,414

728,452

12.19

0.58

2.93*

North Carolina

25,780

418,782

6.18

0.15

2.00

Pennsylvania

61,977

1,109,284

5.53

0.17

2.14

Rhode Island

3,167

16,113

19.55

0.73

5.38**

South Carolina

18,500

200,706

9.26

0.28

2.78*

Vermont

6,886

139,669

4.93

0.31

7.20**

Virginia

19,049

410,088

4.66

-0.01

-0.44

West Virginia

1,834

253,786

0.72

tr.

0.46

Mississippi Flyway

Eastern Management Unit

Alabama

14,247

339,408

4.20

-tr.

-0.06

I llinois

71,007

470,355

15.12

0.34

2.01

Indiana

23,820

471,342

5.11

0.21

2.97*

Kentucky

9,619

271,295

3.52

0.10

3.78**

Louisiana

105,379

323,977

32.47

0.12

0.41

Michigan

98,476

896,244

11.06

0.34

2.51*

Mississippi

22,025

288,926

7.59

0.20

2.01

Ohio

35,317

558,113

6.35

0.22

2.84*

Tennessee

26,250

449,714

5.80

0.12

1.94

Wisconsin

125,821

624,214

20.16

0.15

0.71

Central Management Unit

Arkansas

42,896

300,134

14.11

0.49

2.27*

Iowa

53,870

327,737

16.36

0.35

2.41*

Minnesota

149,520

418,497

36.33

0.51

0.79

Missouri

50,729

447,724

11.28

0.24

3.11*

Central Flyway

Central Management Unit

Colorado (East)c

36,503

284,859

12.84

0.58

3.31**

Kansas

50,735

220,705

22.72

1.16

6.77**

Montana (East)

Nebraska

40,959

195,586

20.97

1.06

4.72**

New Mexico (East)

6,332

118,640

5.38

-0.04

-0.63

North Dakota

46,020

89,337

51.39

0.83

2.63*

Oklahoma

29,896

237,170

12.65

0.23

1.29

South Dakota

40,263

156,892

25.82

0.16

0.68

Texas

115,196

745,854

15.42

0.04

0.30

Wyoming (East)

7,231

155,686

4.64

0.20

3.21**

Pacific Flyway

Central Management Unit

Colorado (West)
Montana (West)

26,646

186,846

14.46

-0.23

-1.55

New Mexico (West)

Wyoming (West)c

Western Management Unit

Arizona

11,363

156,994

7.21

0.12

1.34

California

156,155

704,288

22.19

0.33

2.84*

Idaho

30,444

210,393

14.49

0.11

1.26

Nevada

12,671

63,061

20.11

0.19

1.13

Oregon

51,585

349,733

14.76

0.25

2.14

Utah

33,698

218,195

15.47

0.21

1.48

Washington

72,402

325,053

22.29

0.14

0.92

Alaska 13,085 56,602 23.42 -0.04 -0.15

Management Unit Totals

Eastern 935,115 9,423,741 9.90 0.23 2.51*

Central 696,797 3,885,665 17.86 0.30 2.05

Western 368,319 2,027,718 18.15 0.18 1.85

Flyway Totals

Atlantic 403,154 4,730,150 8.49 0.23 2.87*

Mississippi 828,976 6,187,682 13.38 0.26 1.98

Central 373,135 2,204,728 16.82 0.37 2.97*

Pacific 394,965 2,214,564 17.82 0.13 1.40

U. S. Total (with Alaska) 2,013,315 15,393,725 13.04 0.25 2.38*

? All years weighted equally in regression calculations.

Asterisks indicate annual change significantly different from zero--* at the 95%

confidence level and ** at the 99* confidence level.
c Hunting license figures not separable by flyway; data for these States appear in the

flyway where most stamp sales occurred.

Table A-2. White-winged dove hunting activity and success by hunters purchasing duck stamps: 1966-75.

17

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

Average

New Mexico

Number hunting

330

350

310

320

580

440

320

290

440

670

400

Percent hunting

6.0

5.9

4.9

5.6

8.8

6.0

5.0

4.7

5.9

8.1

6.2

Total bag

4,400

5,600

6,400

3,600

4,200

4,400

3,800

3,500

3,900

11,100

5,100

Average bag

13.3

15.7

20.7

11.3

7.2

10.1

11.9

12.1

9.0

16.7

12.6

Texas

Number hunting

11,400

9,900

8,900

7,200

9,100

9,400

9,700

7,200

8.100

9,400

9,000

Percent hunting

11.5

8.9

9.4

6.3

6.3

6.9

7.6

6.2

6.7

7.2

7.5

Total bag

221,600

182,400

106.500

98,200

139,900

85,400

132,100

103,100

130,900

147,100

134,700

Average bag

19.4

18.4

12.0

13.6

15.4

9.1

13.6

14.4

16.2

15.6

14.9

Arizona

Number hunting

4,100

4,600

4,000

4,700

4,500

3,900

4,900

4,400

5,000

5,800

4,600

Percent hunting

47.0

44.5

39.9

37.1

31.8

25.6

41.9

39.9

37.5

50.5

38.6

Total bag

86,800

114,700

86,400

57,000

65,900

41,700

64,700

61,500

55,300

81,400

71 ,400

Average bag

21.4

25.2

21.2

12.2

14.7

10.6

13.1

14.0

11.1

14.0

15.6

Cal ifornia

Number hunting

10,600

10,700

7,500

10.700

11,500

1 1 , 200

6,900

5,600

9,500

9,200

9,300

Percent hunting

7.0

7.1

4.7

6.2

6.2

6.6

4.6

4.0

6.7

6.7

6.0

Total bag

101,000

155,100

68,800

102,500

129,000

114,600

69,100

69,700

80,600

97,500

98,800

Average bag

9.6

14.4

9.2

9.6

11.2

10.2

10.1

12.4

8.5

10.6

10.6

Nevada

Number hunting

360

530

370

310

500

340

280

220

290

350

360

Percent hunting

3.0

4.2

3.0

2.4

3.5

2.3

2.2

1.6

2.5

2.6

2.7

Total bag

3,900

4,300

2,000

4,200

3,000

5,000

4,200

1.500

3,000

3,500

3,500

Average bag

10.9

8.1

5.5

13.5

6.0

14.6

15.0

7.0

10.4

10.0

9.8

TOTAL

Number hunting

26,800

26,100

21,100

23.200

26,200

25,300

22,100

17,700

23,300

25,500

23,700

Percent hunting

9.7

9.0

7.4

7.3

7.1

7.3

7.2

6.1

7.9

8.4

7.7

Total bag

417.700

462,100

269.100

265,600

342,000

251,100

274,000

239,400

273,700

340,600

313,500

Average bag

15.6

17.7

12.8

11.4

13.1

9.9

12.4

13.5

11.8

13.4

13.2

Table A-3. Band-tailed pigeon hunting activity and success by hunters purchasing duck stamps: 1966-75.

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

Average

California

Number hunting

11,400

10

,000

11,100

9,600

9,900

9,700

13,500

8,100

8,800

6,400

9,900

Percent hunting

7.5

6.6

6.9

5.5

5.3

5.7

9.1

5.7

6.3

4.6

6.3

Total bag

109,000

64

,600

97,400

70,900

82,700

86,400

142,100

67.000

74,600

39,300

85,400

Average bag

9.6

8.5

8.8

7.4

8.3

9.0

10.5

8.2

8.4

6.1

8.7

Oregon

Number hunting

6,000

7

,000

5,400

7,600

6,100

8,600

8,800

7,200

6,200

5,300

6,800

Percent hunting

12.3

14.6

11.3

13.8

10.0

14.8

17.1

14.2

12.1

9.8

13.0

Total bag

47,800

59

,400

44,400

65,600

43,100

75,300

66,900

58,100

45.500

37,900

54,400

Average bag

8.0

_

8.5

8.2

8.7

7.1

8.8

7.6

8.1

7.4

7.1

8.0

Washington

Number hunting

9,200

6

,100

8,000

8,100

8,600

9,400

7,000

7,500

6,400

5,800

7,600

Percent hunting

13.4

8.6

11.0

10.1

10.3

12.4

10.1

10.5

9.3

8.1

10.4

Total bag

71,000

45

,400

77,000

54,600

59,900

65,700

38,900

47,500

42 , 1 00

25,100

32,700

Average bag

7.7

7.5

9.7

6.7

7.0

7.0

5.6

6.3

6.5

4.3

6.9

COASTAL STATE SUBTOTAL

Number hunting

26,600

23

,000

24,500

25,300

24,600

27,600

29,400

22,800

21,500

17,600

24,300

Percent hunting

9.9

8.5

8.7

8.2

7.4

9.1

10.9

8.6

8.2

6.7

8.6

Total bag

227,800

189

,400

218,800

191.100

185,700

227,400

247.900

172,500

162,200

102.200

192,500

Average bag

8.6

8.2

8.9

7.6

7.5

8.2

8.4

7.6

7.6

5.8

7.9

Arizona

Number hunting

I'

600

510

450

770

510

330

640

640

440

Percent hunting

5.9

4.0

3.2

5.0

4.3

3.0

4.8

5.5

4.5

Total bag

2,200

790

1,660

2,280

540

1.620

2,140

2,440

1,370

Average bag

3.7

1.6

3.7

2.9

1.1

4.9

3.4

3.8

3.1

New Mexico

Number hunting

120

60

210

360

320

250

360

350

200

Percent hunting

1.8

1.1

3.2

4.9

4.9

4.1

4.8

4.2

3.7

Total bag

270

270

340

2,050

1,290

790

830

1.970

780

Average bag

2.3

4.2

1.6

5.7

4.1

3.2

2.3

5.7

3.9

Colorado

Number hunting

380

850

670

590

810

540

380

Percent hunting

0.9

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.9

1.2

1.5

Total bag

1,240

5,090

2,490

1,110

2,770

1.250

1,400

Average bag

3.3

6.0

3.7

1.9

3.4

2.3

3.6

Utah

Number hunting

110

110

350

60

230

120

100

Percent hunting

0.3

0.3

1.1

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.5

Total bag

540

200

910

90

570

60

240

Average bag

5.0

1.8

2.6

1.3

2.4

0.5

2.4

INLAND STATE SUBTOTAL

Number hunting

720

570

1,140

2,100

1,850

1,230

2,040

1 ,640

1,410

Percent hunting

4.3

3.1

1.2

2.0

2.0

1.3

2.0

1.6

1.8

Total bag
Average bag

2,470

1,060

3,770

9,620

5,230

3,610

6,310

5,720

4,720

3.5

1.9

3.3

4.6

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.5

3.3

TOTAL

Number hunting

26,600

23

,000

25,200

25.900

25,700

29,700

31,200

24.100

23,500

19,200

25,400

Percent hunting

9.9

8.5

8.5

7.9

6.0

7.2

8.6

6.7

6.5

5.2

7.4

Total bag

227.800

189,400

221.300

192,100

189,500

237,000

253.200

176,100

168,500

107,900

196,300

Average bag

8.6

8.2

8.8

7.4

7.4

8.0

8.1

7.3

7.2

5.6

7.7

a/ Blank space indicates that the season was not open on band-tailed pigeons.

18

imcNW'-iri'-inoowiNajo

a}(^(\j<cir>ir>oiic t—

<£siOWff.OMrr»a;c

1 iO CO r*> I — CT> O O O i"n O in

t .— cm c^wninniflr

.— VT> r-

O CO »— 10 00 in o"i r>. or

.— .— .— Cft

IffiiCiOUJOU

■> CT> (*> CO CO <"1 f

i CD (*1 tc WCO O (M in Oi p — >ON«iDicaiO OC^COr

TCI O CT o ro Ps s O ^

-«'incr>r-.*3'OOr-.u

ouiwicmio- coi-

- co cfi co co

IN coOCMCHf

lO IDr-fl-lOr-lflCDO

a> w • — in co m m . — m co

.ooisontof

i co p-mooinu

looM^otn o

"i cr» CO CO Oi iO CT* <■"

J Ol C\J *3- CO c

n \o i — fn in cri"!

3^<tCONr-C

-i cr> O cf> c

ioovio nuii — ionico

r co a- •— cm — u

i •— co o

- lO CT* C\J CH 10 r — CO

gONMiOi — r«. O ■-

0>i0C\jC0'vir».OCMOmc0CM*rc0r-

CTi CT> 0~> O

-OO'COOMkOr-CO i— *

-lOCnrv OOiu

.« iceoi — d cc ■-£> ■-

-OiniOOTUir

OMO CO i- ID in N ru ffif

r 101 — «3- o i — Mm nio oo on cfn

j CO co m co < — • — co csj in -j

JlClOSMi-

T*«CO CO

- lO «* C* csj -— i-

iNiOinmiowco

CO — — U3

ICO COOMXJ nfl)' — O CO 0> c\j lO

iOOi^mi--Oi

CO^MiCtCOmcoinOin 1O1OCU O CO ^

rOUOWincMfu

roo>-o-o

lOOinNcsjiMr-oi^O cocoeoeoinoicrir-

r*i m oo **■ o •*

winocooiMfliocor

lChM O

l£tr*1<— *3-l£>^Oi—

.— — .— O

T^incONino

rogoinoc*
mocO'Jio

iner>coiD«-ncfio

O (m in o r> en w ■;

0«riorio\^NO

in o r>. m m s pj a
io n ci co co m iO c

iO O m r-m io i- co

jogjwotco

.. lO .— ci r- .— c\j CO

loincocci-

**.— OOiOCOOO
coor-csjo-a-intsj

J O T *»■ O •:

r 10 cr> ^ oo p

MOimPiininniM^r

to in a> *r cm rv i- i — CTi O p

r o> <— «r r» co

iomo cm co c

ior»>- cam mcoin^

r incvim woiui in cm mu

\D C*> CTl O

O C\J CO C

io <» w

Oi O O c

, ^- r» <£> cr.

> o c -o *j c oi-t-

<Oii-0-

.Ezoaawi->30

c-ji^srzzzroi/it— 30

i c c => o

<- i— io > m is w
i. n TJ * l « n

<Oi-ZOD3

§i/l C
oj

19

— — — m o

o^o*r^f>©ot--'*i^

s

si

E O C

^ _J OM «ff O 1 0-J •» c

*i •£> O O ^r-io O r^w

!vj2'lZOaa:uii->JC

o E x: -c -c j.

20

■jOvO^J-CMiOr^CTiCOU

acoo^ro^^^u

* ,J (sj r-" rn cti «t TO u"> f"> O -— cm cm •— O .— e

.j r«. o o m o> i — m ro ci co (sjcoo,«-iiir~-f^c7ii — w ■— co m to ot cr> i — o^

1(OI — CM ID i — CM- — f> < — > — MOi — CTiOr%{MM«I i — CT> CT* i —

C--rvn^oii'>0(M>TO>',imsrsi — r- I — r~- CO

-1 — to TO TO CM •— «3- f— *3" -r cm

jOiOWMi — O r-. TO f"- O TO "

r^uiOTint^c

r. to cr> to CO

.jiOi— mor-m^rr-O^r- — to m m o r^ori>trvjnoifl«rOM>>«)i-|r-(\j

0IO"TUHOO>«lC0Oi-r-UlO\D('

incn f)iocotOTf'>(7ifTir--r--' — r-- Oi CO <-

lOTOCMCMCOlOin«*CMi — l^fllfl^i — CTi OC

j«t<JnO(OC

— i--.— corao-a-miou

-ooo — coto<o<— or-tocua-.— cr*om cvjTOCOt?>cooirooi--tnoo^o^mcsj «a- o to to cm cti

-TOtficMin'^^td^to^inc\Jdidr-"o*c' wnMOwWi-stconnniiiO .— cm .— O

30"iCOmOEMCMtOC7lO«a,tO«g-<T>0 ^ C

iimrsiO-WOCMO'^OCOi — Oi CM CM *

^r^OTOOracnTOiOLn«3-r--r--CCroiOO-iinO iDcmw«"»CO(D^iflNr>.r

TOOTO^^OTOr^OWi^OCT^CSir-.COr'irn oltJUiom'flCT'tvJr-.COmuiu

o co O r- « r- to to O id r- to cm in *3- "» O ci •— ^ffiWJiiorsflr-rur-aru^wo in «:

ro ro to ^ cm r^ TO r^ <^ to >o en *o 10 cr> CTt O I"- cm o> f> ci ro cm to cr. O to O ci £2 ** )£ JZ ■"" c

PioxMiflmi-NOi-eoNMtioo'O'ootr yDfoc-j'-rt'-oDto^r--':

aicr'TO^Winio'iococnWoiinO'— r-TO^-o oinmncMWCMTOmoc-

jomois*(C'-oiOiOttui*io ococsj£Monr-Pi(i)Oi'C«or~*0 o «:

r^o^f>aicnirieor^ui-:jno'^id to" ci «* ^ "^.-'to^tocMC'wrner. ,- o

JaJ»r-'l«J<lI«tdw'9BJNWi^l*'N"0 CONWCn 'poMCMincOtOCMCMCOO

, (ijiOrsUlOi — <tNOWfiWU>COCOii

w^N'Jco^cci^^nir>-Njpr-OjOP

[0(OeOM*iMnuiMJ>V^Oi»0 oi (Ji 0> r~ (vj O

r-^ CM «* Ci e>«TCMClTOCltO«3-"#0 r— I— i—

MOWCneOOiMDtN OdJMiOOOrsWO

ojoM3in<vJNCDM'roviOO><-*mp>'o^a

i r- *r Ot CO ■ — I — O CO to to I — TO O m CT> «:

-, co _ _ \n us *r t ui i— r*t «» cr< r- «=r co *r •— to •— *» — r- co ^- to r

>wwi\JdisO''jeoscOio^*,',rN'00' n<jnp- NOjnf

fr-N O

m (M ■ — (DOCjiiD^ONf It O1^1 — r

vOCTico*rcooinocnr>-incocoor».c

j .— to ro r- o cm «a- co ct< ■— o «r •* to m m er. co o ci m o u

■)0>Ot^TOOtOP--r-~iOr--iOLnOr«.OTtOP

gr*. roOiTOCMiOClciCMC

o><— cMOiu3«3-otmococr."frin«-TO***oinin ooiyiONin^oouiojniflwiON

Om«NoVlfl^»u'MNO'Nd't(OMD ud^-CMCO— MfMOrtCOM'— — r— O

S! 1

: « <=
i O T>

01 J

■D 3 O. u

i .— i- O* >, ■•-

_ : ^ o *j — ■- ? S

= — t/i O O ■«- l-^JJJl-CO

z> at ■" <— cu fg "

JOQU.OK

i(UQjOCUJSO0*-'-CU

: +j .-- .i- cu «- re

] O «n U 1" "1 J

n i/) in 3 i/> C >i

ja I

21

m.— mr-inc^cr>c\j — NOOOO«n^iO«ifln

in co «uii\jvoo'(sjiOa(ocOMis'r>.«Ti — en

»c. a- ij-iDO^'f'O'-fjaj'^fMaJ' — Of"1

in co m >3- o ■— inmcof~m'nc\jin*3'c\i*rcoco
r*i r«i ij-j, co co • — lOWnrifl^onn^MT

CO «■ ioio«-oOr»-rococvjco''ic\iincoin<— csi

poc\j^u^coin^'»nc^c^r^OcnesjOvr-.«a-*3'in
JJ o co.-csjr-.-W O

2*3"'— ro wr-nm in — £j

tf\o«roiifltM<OMi'iO!rif«Miootfi'-ino

OJOUJlOlDtO-OJi-M'-O'-'-r-.COOlflN

IOPO minajCTiCTiin*S-iOOsOCMCO*3-^'i — JJ-
Pj(0>DOr^r-.OiiHMCOOM,lCOCOiO'-00,<'1

, cm p^ 1/1 ^ m^ » — inr-ioOfyoCtsjc*!^^

CO CM f^(sji^r04ft<J^^Ti(JiOD^,ri^frl ' —

cocrirviincoesjroeMfowcocNi.— inr«.*3-coic>ie

lOr- ^ ^ ^ " J0, £! ,_ „ oj"- 0>

o,ct},— ,— en-— or-.in-— iflcomifliDfMiDMM
,_!,_" * c\j csj in co cti <o •— co ■£> cr> co *»■ cm jg

cm in r-- c\j cr* . — iSkSOOi — omroi»»coco«3-*i
roCMCvjcoromc\jcO*3'^'ro«3'C\jcOP">*TCO*3-Co

r— CTiCC'Cvic\jrvJvOCTir--csjc\jinOiOr«.iOcocy'«-
lf)rsfl.r_mlottjMOiofooir<JMiooi<-inifl

nNOKOOinOOVCTii-lDlOIOMlflMOl/l

co^O«3-*rinco*3-w«»cocot>jc\jroiriroinco

ICOJOflitUKSJCOlOUlNCIO-- CO •— lO CO U">

i — mmcr>eoinr'-.0'*c\jor^co«3'coc\ii r-« w «—

(MIOOniOl — OCMCNJvOCTirOinCOl — CM VO O OJ

•— coeooicoi— «*r-.cooo<— «a- «w w ■— wamrv

iflPi^.is.iTOiOp>.oiMi/>tfnomiDff>r^CTico
coPoeMco**r-!cocoin«rro<»CM«3-C'OCMCoroco

pjinroNioa>n«*OOMno»r\JCO>or-i-p-
rirJcococovDcococowcofl'Cvi'J-coiOCMcoco

en iv co >o cii cm i- r-- tn ■— o w v m * moi - ■c
mini<iwo(Dfw(D'-',i<',0(Di,"TOi«a3i/i

CO lO O CO *0 (D i- vO ' — (MOffiWW ' — CM «y O lO

rccif^|Oo%1DcciM"

"=r O ■— r>

-t— <o ■-

o cm oo o -

-~ s

-i/>CQ^ComknmOCr>inforom

J"W rtONtMr- .- COO

O CO i — c\jco*rc,'Wr-.«tf'inoai<3scxi
«* <* Os cm i — niootorKOCMinr-

r— CO •* «C

3r--iNjcTi»3-O«3-CMC0Cr>"3-u
jCTilO r\im*»WC0COCT>C

n m cfi o c

uC^MUIfoiO CO «i lOiOtOP

ri — ONNOiO'ioocwcxjioni —
3 ^ u"> •— m cue i-. n o r- o co

ncnc^^ioocio>^

co oi co i — cftu

am co

■> O m ■ — m nfflOnfliO

3r~-fo<3-0cococ0^;

O Cr. in co i— O r-

MOiOr-^OKrl^iNiO^Oricn

">K>c\)cocccom«*fopooc\jOiJ

i o in cf> o in

1 CO O •— CM CO ■— CO

• COCKIM' — vf lO r-

-r-.COCH-- OOCOCOCTitO

CONCOOCOCOCOI^W'OrOiO^iO ■— O r- r*»C0

looicofjcooion aoi*--c\i cc

<— O cm o — co

>o ^r co

■ A3 3C "

1 Q Q u- O E E H =

I >i —

•I t

I S C 3 O C I

"O 01 u

CO -C

o o >

22

•OOf nifli — cti cm in co >-

tcd — Nino'-'j-ajoicot

r o ■ O i — o>irn

JO^WHfl - O Ch CM ■ ■

-OCN(\HfltMO>NU5Nr-B3<¥lN1-lO rooi-oi — wrMOOintnwcoc

1CTlCTl^*3'eMin(Min. — CD

- kO CTi — f> cm CO CM m tf Oin iOW' — O O in *»■ O • — r»i O C

,i in •— co ci co ono

f .— f— r- .— m en

3 p— O ■ lO 03IOIO(«ID'*11~-,OC

idjOi — 00 cm 0"> i — m n(DCmOOIVi — MO--001C

io c • o c

c— 0<— m.— r>.i— CO mcoi'f-i-cdr-r«,irm-iO(-

- .— CO in m • — i — C7> in 0\ i — in c\j ei to vOC

"HOM ID B)«» r

.— CO CM CM .—

■co ■ m NM^MONOroi — i-

' CFi ■ m — CO ■ CT* m o

- Ol CO "T •— O i-

T CO — cm CO

-CT>r-c\i*3-r-~(\j .-co

■ o ■ c

oioui£Oif«i«oio«^s

ocOOmO^incOCM* — <Cc

iffl^N^VN OnioncvinC^COMIOCOO CO

fr^wOINjKO^(Nj^ror^>— iD^OJi/^roO oicoirdf^^OC^NOiu

■j CO tM i — O r-» r-

lOCOdC" r-.*>r r-i — CTv o

3r-rsCMOMroi-fflc>«rmco^ou,i ocnio*

Or~^lOr- ■—

oco o in <ji io pj C" w i — cm m r»i m ■ — cm cm co wc^oiflciJirMOoi — i-~. er» i-

3 m . — mclMiDOiO* Cr>i — CO cm • — fiiOOiu

oc"m<M'»cooi's'l^itMOh-'yiinMnoaiiB xii — oiocoMOMMioiomwi — c- oco^Ntowa)'

OMMONi — r-nncnojfnioni — oiflO OiriOVOi — OiOfli — r»« O 1-

1 — cm cm co r«- cm ■ — . — fi . — in. — MOM wn>t O < — ivinni — . — co ci CO . — isjr

-i/inrsriJO)tviPJ'ouic0iO"r'j,ro'*"'ii — ei cm . — tnCf-ONu

gt — r>. W S in lO ^O f^ ^^^JCOO^CDtOONf^Ci

■)0O Ol"I M MBO

irooiiM i-ina>oivi in

imioiflOiDiflmuii-oimonojioeOfO
j cm WOW1-1- cm r- 1— CM CO <— fi cm •»

-oomo>o>ooc

1 to 01 O 10 1- ifl in floi^oiwococ

SMvCMnuiooiioinni/iO — rotvjr. o ONdOcONSiom^co'Oi — in en cocm in w i — ■ — 10 m _ en
o ■ - -o o •

JO>p>.orNinf-ricO|OioioM^',>co|Y)ro<Ti Mir^ffli — in ro m O • — co-tfinin^- ior

- cm cm aim cm ■— — cm cm — -w ■— cm co — <a- o 10 cm ■— cm «— — cm cm <er — cm cm cm m

r en cm cm 10

TCijnoNMOOKrmoicocvjrhioooi — (-■- owp.<rOMDi-M»wNNcoinh. 10 co *

iji/ir- incocsi 1— p™ ^- ' ^ r— f~ mni ww w oo<— «— rjojcM^-incMin.— w <— w *» cm

!■ o in cm en r-

■o —
7 F
a — >/i o o

ji.-.-critU'— tJi-^;»-.ci/)CU.eO'.- ij.

- ' &. C >i V> «J C TS 4-» E HI*-»

_o— i-i^asji-eosCti/)

o 4)'- <uiT3rtj'o<itai<iioQjx:oai-'-Qj
£zzzzq.ceco>>3

1 o o u. o z: £ 3

. ■ ■.- Qj — j

-li H) IT) O l/l L. l/l l/l >,

IOC yr an" W 3

1 ■.- QJ ■.- O ti Ou.

IOO >i

< o e a 01 5*

*.— TJSCSUCl

■a 10 .* x o e c

1- >o 13 nj I r i 1 in -w- u

o^Ezzzomi— 3

1) o c >.

rai-'o re x o>c7i>,

.coal CrodiC C C •—

OH-i-OtJ-OEO — ■■- U.

N •«- O -C 4-> 1) CTl-C -C E

■r- •— — *J C > J «J ID W S

. l. nao-oo cu oi 1.4J fl >,

UxOU"S:zzO=)33

C 3

CO l/>
O. L-

23

ioi — i — ocimop

O p» en >— p

j<D tumif op.c>i-- f

inOMPio ifir

■>iDw»ffiinotrcoa3c\jiin

i> O O"* r— co *:

r co m ■ co "

CO NKONO CO u

cr>r-.<NiiD\oiooeo «a- o f*> <— pi in r-

co — *-> c

*TOi Ui "3- a r^ lO P

, O <Jip> *" • — P~- CO i-

3 lO O f-1 p-

CO — o-l ■— r

-Or-wa)r

CO CO O f

-OiOiOODiOOi}T-.pjisp~r

'teocM^p-.mcMCM -OOiNjin^c

O CM lO (V) O IS 0< CO P-. O U"> ID r- ^

lO CM *r CM CO M« OlOM^^-p

■>.— Irtr- O LI

j . f— COPllOUi-MulCO'

j +j r*i cnr>- csjco n en c

-OPjPgr-u

ricO«(i-eor

•j — — ON

.iflOOijn ajcDMojoio lo o c

j co r*i cm m cm co in co co m . —

O lo n «r r

- co co in — o>

"I Cr* p*'* ■ cr* CO r—

Jo-Of ^co -p-icooc

r cr. m — m »3- c

siO(n^*DOF' iOsOOi — ' — in COO O f- COCO f

O MJ> n iC nl CO iO I — COSIO C

-CO Mf-u

jOtflCOM IDCOU

MC 0"J M(\if- r~- (O

3^cvjincMO>cnc0P

■>0 r- f- nco

r>F- — o p-

■»r- • *r f- o • lo r

OCO^CONCONO

IChOCOisOii — I — WOCOi-cvjiOivjOinO ■ — •— •— OvOOCTi^

0 O •— CJ> < — Ifltflp. Mr- IC^rNlOCMPjOOC

iCTiCO ulNi — Kir-corsnjr/ioOmo
1 r-iO«»a!c\inlc\jWMMc\imp

"COOCMCOCTSCNJlDCOCNjO^IDrFj^

JWOOONneO'O' — C00iocoinr»«.if)r«.cri cm CO en m p-

o(Oi — caiOf- r«j , — r\j rj f , ^ , — moimpji — ld p-« ci cm r— p-

OcoOr-«r-r»- i wcoffOOv ro
uiiDmcM mpj mroioom co

rCf>in«'Pnin^*F— muiOcrioiOMiiocOr- o CO en cm m r*> i en o ci O «

ucor-iOF-iovoc

1 O cm p- O r-

i c& lo p>j co in <b o i c\ii — ai vn

fOr-F-ocOOfli/lcOMCOifu^CO cOOi/i^F-rvvOi-cOiOMMOiDO MJiOMfii-OC^'- Cfi CO CD COOM/>i — O f- r— in O CO r>- is

ivrtMi-rKMcioj w*j-t\j in m *r ro cm ^ < — h.c\im<jpiPnonui f"1 f— n ithj- c\j o lo f- ^ cvic in t/ i- p*i m m r— m cm u>

(Off OiOf-cmf. en Op

OOOCOCT\P-*TOO

JCM OMOlDr-VOHriOOW ■ — r-inO>COI*l IOVM1000 CM CO

iio iOPi--rijnp.c\jpiiflPi«T inr»>jnr;(ii ^■pf>io«-io in in

'iCOCO icr-iou

»Or-WIOUlN(MO>rO(-U10

r f. u o mjiid in m — **o

ooin«-p\iococriintn»— eo»-

en en

lOOMfl

r^mp-io

OCOOCOOOOp--WO*poio

*r

CM

F-P1

pn cymes,

r*Wr- w

o en

cOinmp-F-VN«)Wp.

m

to

P» en

momr-

— en i O

r-. O

U1C ip- I CM O r- O O

^

to

nM

POP-WCM

p-im m

polo

CMP-> PP, m«,-CMLO

*

to

o oi

irj r» w p-i

P.F-

lOCOPliO i CACOin !»—

CO

PO

ri ro en in COMCOPgMifiPlTjcjJr

k m meo i — iDCM0Oocoi£F-ircO(>iminior> cpi^ooivcvi'-o i^- osoonuicoccirrv i n .* p*i

oc7iMr-oi Kico<*icMP>»fco#"'TinpgNMifi cv ifl » io c\j v a n <o 10 cPiinPOPM^j-in.— WF-m in o lo

i j= >, o c « o

IVIU U *9 •— L.

i a. m j£ id > i/i «

- CJ J !-•-- D>CUr-

C C r- MDQ-ft

^ O ill <- " Cy to TJ 13 cu CU CU O df
-C->OOL4.L3£E£zzZZa.

Cf-</l0a'i-h.tf>3££l_C031-l-iA

o qj -^- . — cu^jojg ^j cucu o cu.t o cu-r- cu

-I3'5

I .,- 41 — O 01 O Li

J E E H I! Or.

O D O

(J -* —

x o e o

a, B

_ ^ ujO».liOlJflie — -r- U

— ECJ31-.F-3X5 nJ-P-r- r-<DC>*Cyi*»«/lB

.U^EZZZOlPlr-3 o < UO-IZIOSlJ

a. x

§ p

*J o

0) X
ig en

D. 10

o -.
o >

24

Table A-10. Sandhill crane hunting activity and success by hunters purchasing duck stamps: 1966-75.

1966

-67

1967-68 1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

Average

Alaska

Number hunting

590

310 290

340

470

250

290

540

560

350

400

Percent hunting

5.6

3.1

2.4

2.6

3.6

1.7

2.0

3.2

3.5

2.3

2.9

Total bag

460

440 340

380

720

160

100

1,440

1,050

290

540

Average bag

0.8

1.4

\ 1.2

1.1

1.5

0.6

0.3

2.7

1.9

0.8

1.4

Texas

Number hunting

-£/

74C

1,110

1,630

1,100

1,630

1,390

1,570

1,800

2,110

1,450

Percent hunting

-

o.;

' 1.2

1.4

0.8

1.2

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.6

1 .2

Total bag

-

1,390

1,110

3,860

2,560

4,130

2,270

7,500

4,700

7,010

3,840

Average bag

-

l.S

1.0

2.4

2.3

2.5

1.6

4.8

2.6

3.3

2.6

New Mexico

Number hunting

-

-

380

210

600

710

130

290

180

410

360

Percent hunting

-

-

6.0

3.8

9.1

9.8

2.0

4.8

2.4

5.6

5.4

Total bag

-

-

1,430

430

1,120

1,260

180

420

220

710

720

Average bag

-

-

3.7

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.7

2.0

Colorado

Number hunting

b/

-

no

330

410

750

360

310

670

350

410

Percent hunting

-

0.3

0.9

1.0

1.6

0.9

0.7

1.6

0.9

1.0

Total bag

-

0

230

590

500

370

610

760

80

390

Average bag

-

0

0.7

1.4

0.7

1.1

1.9

1.1

0.2

1.0

North Dakota

Number hunting

270

820

840

330

520

420

1,220

2,600

880

Percent hunting

0.7

1.9

1.7

0.6

1.0

0.8

2.2

4.4

1.8

Total bag

120

370

520

130

890

1,130

1,530

3,030

960

Average bag

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.4

1.7

2.7

1.3

1.2

1.1

Oklahoma

Number hunting

130

170

160

120

80

450

490

410

250

Percent hunting

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.2

1.4

1.5

1.2

0.8

Total bag

30

no

80

120

0

420

460

1,080

290

Average bag

0.3

0.7

0.5

1.0

0

0.9

0.9

2.7

1.2

South Dakota

Number hunting

0

0

20

90

250

30

220

0

80

Percent hunting

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.5

0

0.2

Total bag

0

0

50

90

120

90

380

0

90

Average bag

--

—

2.0

1.0

0.5

3.0

1.7

—

1.2

Montana

Number hunting

30

100

250

80

120

Percent hunting

0.1

0.4

0.9

0.3

0.4

Total bag

0

20

130

0

40

Average bag

0

0.2

0.5

0

0.3

Wyomi ng

Number hunting

20

70

10

130

60

Percent hunting

0.2

0.8

0.1

1.8

0.7

Total bag

0

80

30

0

30

Average bag

0

1.2

2.1

0

0.5

TOTAL

Number hunting

■1

2,300

3,500

3,600

3,900

3,000

3,800

5,400

6,400

4,000

Percent hunting

Survey

0.9

1.2

1.1

1.1

0.9

1.1

1.5

1.7

1.2

Total bag

incomplete

3,000

5,400

5,600

6,400

3,900

11,700

9,200

12,200

7,200

Average bag

1.3

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.3

3.1

1.7

1.9

1.8

a/ Dashes indicate that no data are available as questionnaire used did not include crane question,
b/ Blank space indicates that the season was not open on cranes.

25

ooooooooooooooo • o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO ■ O O 'OO o

ooooooooooooooocooo ooooooooooooooc

.1 o u-i uj o <& tvicjoicoi—r

g <£> <7> lO 0< 7IMr Of

300 OOOOO O

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOC OOO OOOOC

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O c> f) f> if> o \o ^ c^j cr> cnj r^MCA

CO n •£> cm O er»

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOOOO o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO o
O^ voiO cor-.r-.eO'S-.— co«3-r-.o Mcor^^M* r^. a,

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CUkOc^O^^-dCT*' — in^^M^r^. ^ co

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO O O O o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO o

o o o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO O O O O

^D 0"<

i^ajnncoiDMOio r">.— o

rOi-nmwiowOMiO'-

-) co t— ro r-i c

r l-> f> tsj CO •:

■ o o • o ■ o

■O -O

■ o ■ - o o

o - o o

■ o ■ ■ o

CO ^O ii"> ^ ' — ^

■ o ■ • o o

• o • ■ o

"loo • . o ■ ■ o

10 • — i — (^ ui w <» i\no o

• o ■ • o

o o ■ • o o

■ o • • o u

co m en o

■ o • ■ ■ o

• vO «3- CO I-.

f— t e^i m\Of

-lfl(\JO<f-r«

-O'ti-^MiJ.-OlW MBO

o o t. • o

CO NO«f fflOnOr- ■— . —

• o o ■ ■ o

3 O

cu .c =s o c m c
ifl m m i_ a •— i

— I- C71 >i

— , o *-> 't- -^ J
u is ■•- f ■- >e u <a w o >, c c =» >,

aiJU-'-cnaj.— .u:£Os-.ci/ia).cO'r- " —

CKt-Ui-l-C^I/l k CUM E DlWd.

C— l/>00-.-l.unJJSl.CO=tl»tn

o U't- ti m «n u ai ai o oi£ o gir u
^jooLi-OEEEZzzara.eci^iS'^i

i o I* C w,^i "S -^

W 5 c 5,

t ra "3 E J

. — QJ >>*

z z o y- arc

01 *J

<u o .c

S (0 ---

a. f

in OJ

c <u

o .e l.

*-> eu

o o >

26

■> lO lO CM *3- O

. jj . . o • ■

- ■— CM O m lOCOcO'-';

■ o • * oo

•Oi-MU5

- o t- • oo

it o ■— in c\i •— r- m .— t _

• -o -o • • -o • ■ -oo -o -o

co 6s ♦» •*-»

■ oo ■ i- • ■ • o • ■ - -L.OO ■ o • wo

j «3-*-> cm .— co -u *»- en +j

o ■ ■ o

i o «■ ■ 10 r-

- O ■ ■ O i. •

• o o o • o

■ O i- -OO ■ ■ ■ O ■ • L.

-OS. • O I

rcoi-ioco cm o

■ o o ■ • o • • o

_ O • O ■ fc- o • - o o

to «» — -— en *r ■ .— c

■J- ■ ■ o o

. o • • u ■ ■ o

• o -o ■ oo ■ -OO ■ ■ • O ■ 'OO

O ■ (- O 5- -OS

Jo ■ ■ <LL • O -O •

COCO. — co ^ O ^-O

o o o i. • ■ i. o

. O 1- • o • o

. O ■ ■ 1- o

■ O oo ■ o

• u j. o o

OOS-OOO • ■ -o ■ -o ■ - o -oo

■ O ■ I- o ■ o

I-MU'nOi-WOi-iB«ra\U)i>lr-.>»r>«nu>
30<CiO<rOVMU1Cvjmuii — CO cm O lO lO

rM O O lO O r-~ ifi i — i cm r-» ro CO O O

Otsj . co

■AOir

en to

i in co cm co co .- > co in

CSJ CO "1

I*) O I

en

—

-^cm*-<* coin csj cm in r- - cm

-co co

""

-cmnco

*>-*"-oi* ^

"" ^

r-*t

in

VJOmOiOOrsOOIViifltMO I O

, -om

o

: ^

uw

i coaiOroinrs,r-.CMCM

f On

O O 1 ■

°

^

£> co cm oo i — ci^rcii — u)i — 10 co co

CO-— sO

*

aoinicoioinoiiooini io

1 CO 1 fl

o

i r-

oo *r

*s- in en m m o ioco

cm en o-

i m i i

>o

co

NJIO *r -f^M m — in -

s ro

-

CM«-

u>~^^^^ ^co

CM-m

CO

"

m

— 1 1 lOOOifiN ■ r». CO O O O I

i ■ o •

in

■ %r

£C us

O^UIMO-MU . OCM

O O l->

■ O O 1

*G

«»■

n ^^-^n^- rMinoco-

o

"

-coin^*-- -*

■"•"*

mm

"

in

71 lOUO IOCOO i — io or-*

i in o

1 • o •
in co

-

"".

•fl

I lOMCO i lOinOr-N

omrn™

i en i o

^

m

vJOOn i CM O O i flffiOlUOs

O fs. o —

in

,"_

«",

o co — in co co in i csj en

O CO Csj

m

^

^.

O U5^ T CM OS CO U"> i — lO . — i —

*"•-•«

en

-T-iM-r-tM -~

CSJ CO

CO

n i inc. i mis i Nr~OMino

1 CO 1 sO

in

iTn

in°i

ISONOO-OIDIO

O CM O O O O 1 1

CO

in

**^ ^^ ■,"SN""

co -a-

*"

CsJUT- -

CM CM

CO

*

no iccnooo ir~.oooouo

i m i r*.

,

< O O r

1 NMO I rors i i O

CM O 1

O CO i o

o

in

OCM CVJCsJ-WCM t-r-MNCM

un co

~

in

<t-csj mm v

— CM —

<M

CO

r i/i wai i in o o i in ro o o cm co

i en i io

O O csj

o

i ccocoo<a<f i in cm

< a
I o o

o o O i

m

CO

o csjr-. <*>^- ^^^.oo^co

«■ m

■-

SJM

"

incsjiom;-^

«■!*,-

CO

m

gnioifln cm m o cm in r-- O (->.

. co I r-

o

,"u,

a a

, o Cxi *t in co ■«• i in —

o O I I

1 O 1

^

,_

csj »

r- n

r~-

*

m

'XMCONOOJMDOinM'-Oifl

i f com

!

■ en

O i

o ■ O O

*3- OS

• ■ o

°:

CO

r CSJ (\| PS CM CSJ CM CM *r ■— in <—

in

r i i icoion(\io9< cm co r in

1 nCOCM

o

"l

o ■

■ io m co <— en co corn

o m O I

o co

o

„

1 io in s N st (sj U3 in o

r- o I-.

*a- m — o co ** — «»

csiincsj

o

us

'-0)ji.T-pi4)r-itn>j:«i4i£O'r ^
i ocij: o «i> u

m irt * tj j( x e enirt J

01 Or- ^ fc ni «££ K^ Ui-

1 r- i. .— c o <u o ■!- ■<-■!- ■»- jc ai ■(- *; o <o oj ai j. _

i<<~ ™— ^JIEZIOHSI £ *J i^ Z Z O I- :

27

oooooooooooooooooo

N^^QOVtCC o t^ i& LTI CM Ol r^ p —

000000000000000
w w u^ cr* in ^ >— co co f^ co w c\j *— fi

oooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooo o

ooooooooooooooooooc
coco-— i—eoO'»u*ir-.(Njc,>jr\io ir> c\j c\j O a

ooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooo

3OO0O00OO o

3 o o o o

ooooooooo o

ooo ooooo o

oooooooooooooooooo

- '.£ 'JO CM •— \0 W <£j — O ^ O

iro m CO

ooooooooooooooo ooo ooooo o

3000000OOO000C

t^^iD^iC Q5 ^Oi r^ o

n id to o c

ooooooooooooooooooo

Oi c> <— «— O^fflr MM «COl/l MOi OJ W

ooooooooooooooooooc

Or»-''>«TCT>>OO'">r>.C0f-lOt— CMUt l£> »-

000000000000000 ooooooooc

ooooooooooooooo ooooooooo o

oooooo oo

ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooc

Sr^EcMrvwr-.eiwiOCOcr.r'iCT' .— «■ w r-. r~.r-.iO mKOcDCMO cr. C

O .— (M o- w — r-

300000 OO O

S tOC-JCHMW ■- O"

5N OJOJ MOf

O CO roeo — u

o • ■ t-

jrsuintfW^uiif^VcOO

o cr> r*> in o w u

ontocoor

■ o ■ o ■ ■ o ■ o o o

— «T CM O -

■ 0"^ -OO •"(- • • -o

• O - O O • O o

■ o ■ o

rhNknVCMMDiO

. o • ■ ■ o

• O O ■ i.

■~ o

: >, O I

3"

i a vi j< « > <a id c - t; a.
: 6 «- i. «_> «— — u «-> — -•- S ^

I n >- ^ t/t «» .C O — r-

: O (0 O ■_£ -.

„FZl

£ E ai ZL

1 Z 2= O £ 3 O

28

' i- in m o «

no — a\

j«n f> • O - o

• O 1- ■ i~ ■ O

CO Mr-CB

■> +j co en

■ o • ■ o

KOOiOi i-nioc

. o - ■ • o • • ■ ■ o

o .—

■ I. . - o

o co ■—

• J- • O s.

O "3- «■ r-

■ O • O O ■ O O

- o ■ o

• o i. • o o

■ O O • i.

1~ o • o

- O O • i.

£OMOi«jio»iNttJCOui'^MOiD(vjoiooi — ocsjcsjcocsjin^r.— mOi — m r— o in to cri • — O*

pjnuitvr^cMirKMi — «» csj m csj csj < — n «r o «a- csj ci . — [y*iO--niomr-trPiin ■ — csj csj i-

Oinocsjiocicsjos i

TO «■ or- r-

iOr--incO"*rOOO i". ^ O el 10 I O • —

ICO ^Op — r*l ^ LP N m CO

ico<r"9--*

iOr—00^'r».«**3-OcD i id rv OMOu

OMOmtDisioflONmoi i naooi

co

r-.

1 ID

CSJ —

' O co n

nom

Or- co

m r- co

i CSJ o

csir-

^MOOOir-ir .* in .— t— Cr. <\

o

o

CO

i—

r— CSJ

co<— csj

ID .— .—

CSJ -— ID

t— ■— CSJ

«T l—

<a- en

■"" ■"" """ ""

"~

■"~

«■ O i Ol-^iOO io«a-oo 'O

v>

^.

o o o

o in

. osr-o

eomin

o^^r

°°r,

o^

m" co in as csj *r .— ' «r csj id est i—

m

o

II?

m<—

CSJ

m m

in

o m

r- iO

l— ^

r-

•""

^■oj i uitDOOn/iO(cr^{\joon^

CSJ

r

CO

our

:«»»

„,.„,

1 o o

«,„«-

,„o

cs,m

co m

— CSJ

■"

*~

r~

r- r- i m r. coo i-a-r—coincoioincsj

„

«,

."»

o a

■—»

CO

O *3" ID

°~»"

o O 1

10 »r

.— .— CSJ

"~

*"

^- r- i •— mr-ooo.— oioiooio

^.

O

Ul

o

n o

1 IOU3CM

or- id

. «3-ro

or. mm

r-co ■

o CO

csj iflifl^«jr-i-m--r^ui(-cD

CM

o

«3-

CM f~

,—

■""

iOWOi---OOnt i Nr-ncuiP-

^

CO

CO

."in

m™.

OCO>OCSj

i o >

o o

o o in o

r-r- .

1 cs,

f— lO ^- IDI-r- r— CSJ 1— CM O I— CSJ CO

r^

ci

.—

,—

in *r r-

m

r» «»

^i— m.—

f— f-i

CO

"" i— i-

*""

■~

"~

MflONOUliO OM>-nlOOi- '

CSJ

10

o

t o

."i

i eooio

o o

. son

O IN 1

. co i

* o

«?

o

»—

.—

co .— .—

CI CM

— r-

m r—

n

ro

m .— ci

■—

■""

to

CSJ

o

i"ri

wVo

, mmo

flf-.CS,

, mc

ininoo

i o

, en

C7I

,—

r-

£71 O

r» r- CSJ

r>ini-

O U3

r— enrs- •—

in

*t

r» .— .— ,_ _ eg

i\j

""■

*"

en*3-o*rfi co i£> co en co ■"- «■ ci i

en

o

CO

1 os

u.-,

— »

~«

».»-

,™

*—

■""

r- o i oniCWMOncMOicO'-CM i

Ul

m

CO

o

i O

rJ%

. mcsjin

r- csj csj

. r-ic

r-mm I

1 ■

O <1-

nil— noinflni-KiMWi-iflO

«r

CSJ

U3

I-

V

CSJ

** CSJ .—

--inesi

i»l m

CSJ

^cn

- J *.

i at c

■ eu j b v crioj-— mn> r m ojx: O'l-

■ c tj •-' ■-. - c -. i/' 4-*cTD4->Ecrn
:c^-ifloo-<-i-^JiJi-co3Ci.i

I O U'-i — OJUJ'O'OQJOJtDO D£ O f i- i

L m ro ■<- i
■ E ia O i

OJ ■— O OJ o

"I

o c u u.

' i. s

-i_>oQu-oi:a

: Z Z O r- 3 o

29

OO -OOOOOOOOOOOO OO

oooooooooooooooooc

VO CT1 O CM Li

r m in cm r- 10

fflw O OiN O

OOOOOOOOOOO OO -ooooooc

ooooooooooo cooooooooooo o

ooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
in en cm mfgCMO^con cm *r cviinfoo lomna in mo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooo o

ooooooooooo oooooooooooo o

ooooooooooo oooooooooooo o

ooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooooooooooo oooooooooooo o

ooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooc

oooooooooooo o

ooooooooooo oooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ooooooooooo oooooooooooo o
coin •* <T> cm CD "3- O O co — r» cm j--. m r-i *j- r- tn —

OOOOOOOOOOO oooooooooooo o

ooooooooooo oooooooooooo o

J lO O CT> ■;

OOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOO o

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

r-- 10 cm r-» ci wfuri'j-MW *3- in m cm iO < — if) *s O m

J3 J3

30000000000 oo -ooooooooo o

X) J3 J3 J3 £)

• o ■ o ■ o ■ o

•O -OO ■ ■ o -o ■ • o

■ o o o -ooo • o

• o o • • o

• o o o • o

■ o • o o

■ o o - o ■ o o o

■ s- • o o

o o o ■ o o

co cm cm >n

O 1- o ■ ■ o

• o ■ ■ oo o • o o

■ oo oooooo • O -O - O -ooo -OO -OO

■ O I- • O -OOOOOO ■ O • O ■ O -OOO ■ O -o

• o o - o o

. O • i- o o • ■ o

-OV-OO -Oi-O • o -ooo -oo -oo

■J — >£>•— CO C

o ■ o -co ■ o • o

■ O - -OOO ■ L. o

■ ooooo -ooo

■ o -ooooo

- o - - o ■ o • o

• o o • o

-O -OO • -OOO -O!

- O i- ■ L.

o -o ■ -ooo -o • o -o -ooo • - ■ o

■ o ■ - o o

o -ooo -o -o -o

- i— CM CO f

■ o • -o -o ■ ooo -oo

- o ■ o o

■ o -oo -oo • o ■ o -ooo -ooooo

■ o -o -o • ooo ■ o

• O • ■ L.

■ O • • - O o . . O

■ O O O O • J- o

- o -oooooo

<D i t- ■!- en <U -_

: >i O C iz O
'. 10 ■— t-

>l C C > LL.

._ - ■ t- t* J

i a ^-. a > (/ n3 >ot.>v a

f| i/i o <=.

Z- -5 L _

■— c o a> o — — •<

: a» — *j

O m *-> i- «-> -o .j <o E
L>S£EZZZOl/ll— 3

] C > J JIO HO T3

: o n ai i. ^ «i >, c

-s:zzo=>33 <o

30

• o • • • o

o t- o ■ o o o ■ o ■ ■ - o

•O ■ O O 'OO -o ■ • o ■ oooooo ■ o • c

m tvj «■ t» >—

-00'l-0--l-l.--'000-0- u-'-00--'-0-0-- O ■ C - L O • o

-OOO 1- O O O O O

• o • - o o o ■ o o

O i- O -OO ■ O i- ■ ■ • U O O i. ■ O • i-OOOOO

-OO -O ■ O O © ■ • • -OOO • O ■ C O O 1- © O

3 O ■ OOOOOO -C

O -OOO -OO -OO

- O 00 >— — i— -co

O -OOOOOO -O ■ O - O OOO • o • o

.— en »

• o o ■ o o

■ 1- i- o o

-OO -l-OO ■ • O ■ • O -Ol-OO • o • G ■ O -OOO • O O • O O

- o ■ • ■ o o

OOO -l-OO ■ O ■ ■ • -OL.O • O

l-OO -OOOOO ■ 1- • O C O (- O

■OO -Ol-O -O ■ - ■ -O -l-OO

■ o - ■ (- o

3 © O O -OOO -o

O ■ O ■ O O t- o • o

■ O O -OOO - ■ o

■OOOOO -OOO

■ O -OO - ""^ O O O -OO - O c

-OOO • O • O ■ O J- O O O V. • • O

• O J- O ■ O ■ o • • o

■O ■ O • OOO -OO ■ fc-

-OO ■ 1- O O O 1- O ■ O -OOO ■ O -OOO

• OO ■ -Oi-OOOOO • O • O -OOO -OOOOO

O • O -l-O -l-O • O -l-O ■ O ■ O ■ OOOOOO ■ fc- ■ ■ O

J-OOOOOOO ■ O • O -OO ■ -OOOOO

o • o ■ ■ o ■ i- o

r-«N<Cr

-OOOOO • • ■ O (-

. 1. o o o o - ■ o

-O t- O O O O O O

OOO lOr-.OC-uOOf

ior-"iooioou">u->o om oooo

*» O u"i i Oi— lOiOOOr-. IO

j o o ci o

O) cr*iOicjicriu->r-.Oi<--C

-iOO«OOl*1OOC1C0OO lOU

-UJCOO-03-NlOC

o ■ o • ■ o - - o ■ o

OJ o

if\j i r*. o i in o > u-> © ci to o

O ID \£> O O u

mtNjOOim OCO <0

■> O o m o O *;

- o • o • o - ■ o

i oo w o o i oo

• O i OOOOO

*, o c <o o

T> 3 (

c c > S,
- , ™ X i. •— crai— m ar ~? >- -c tfl <u .e o->- i—

-■-■•:..'-- e > ■/■ 4->C'0*-'Ecr>+->LL.

e.ci- i/i o o— i-uijsjLco^Ci-i/i

t: O 1j ■-- f- 0> re re re 0/ OJ 0> O O .£ C Oj —- a>

■■-I re re o. <y c

al in ul >, C C +J -.- ■— <u •.-

l — [7> wi m 3
- ii- ai ■- o

O C <_i U. *>

— .— C O *0'r-r1-.|-r v —

5°BQ ?£
■ 5 "S 5 S e C

_ j i- ■— 3 x n

o o >, .-

>< cnoij *>

! a> c c c 5> o

CH.C £ El..

— UC>J4«)inO "O

O •*- U O ra -O 3

OJ

e o

31

-Cr>*MCOi"'>00*3-ii">ui«)mvO(7iii

>j Ul V C> cy 03 rv(v i- 1 — »-Ol/ii — 'f en w Ci CM «— *

rr«.O(\j"J — 0'iO(n»C0'OOWP. CM O ° U3 »-^ 1-

■- ^" JT r"- to ■— p. 10 coco««in(vOouii<A<rvco(sjn picopJ»a-(\Juieoc

OCOU3tOCOCOCML/>^'CTtPjeO CT%

mo"NO>

lotowmr- o«3-eou

3 CO ua r- O U

OJUIOM^C

O no pj»— <— ■-

- ocvj r-.^

JOCI^OMOOO

i-rvf^oui isijim ui<»

J^s»i-r« i-pjtnioc^O'weOi — C

r- <— CO

r— 10 111 in rs a) 1/1 . — p. o • \C>

t <X> *r *r en vo t/i «— p- us cm us «

CM .— .— ffilOOli — •— ■— 0 0

-r-r-r-o pj 01 CO •:

3 0"i "3" «* ■— p- <— Oin^dlO-^WOiOMi- u> US

1 O — OO c

uOMiniofyM • O P- CM O C

3iOWUiO(TiO P^ejuOirC^OiDCOO

r us O 1— p"> O Q

us pi >— *T •— CO « vOrvOO

nouiN-^

i O *r •— • — pi •"> to c

3»ui — "

lONMOJr-tO

5, J £

HCO m ■ c> 01 CO r-

-C0 — OO — .— r— OU

row «r

s < — Mffowuioiflf> tor«.op'>wio*j,opip"ip— coauioucouijisinua

owf>'r»f\Jwui',iffir* »oi/iu",Jinu3-o-m pi pi c 10 c c^-mc en

■o -o T> TS

-■ususcUPj^CMa

-louiffn- m<MOii

S O CM CM OU

jO^iOXiifi — cfuOOiOiini/iO
i «S u"> «*' ' Cm <\j «j — ' CO «t O P>! ci

- in rM CO cm ooifl'-iijCOiOf

.- ^- us

i.— o 0"> eo vo p» o <— o^cocn ooinsac"ifl'-inaT<\JOio--

- W (7> CO P- EM CM I— P- PI Ol •— <— {OM^fO Wl «■ ION

<— pj .— r^ p» ■— en co us pj pj «- pip-

r> O CO CT* * — 0> P

CO US

; co CCO C •— OO

: 10

0

p.

CO r-

'"

r«OjJj

1©

1

inw

_

CSJ

tMfl-r

0

us

*

us

IT)

USUI W

US

US O^

°J

:

en co co

CO rO T

U3

-

s

$

I 3 °

wi *' TS 3 Lj. ,' ^ T3 > un <B Tl U. >

10 ■■-■o-- « U « HC >> C C 2» .—

jL.rcaj--*n>-cinai£0'- ij-
_b*j 1. 1. e >ii« -W c -a « E er> «-

C C .— 1/1 O O 'I- L in J J J '- C Q St. t. tfl

* o oiti- iiiqnigaiaiaioiifDiU1- -

— pODu.U3)E:££zz3K0.ci:t03-^-3

3

o

E"££fi

* £ C £ £ .c .c £ ifl.-u
- C .O * I- 1- . a

0 a.

1 2

■W O

c -a
o

o <u

Sz z z o &i t- S u 1 t-> o ~ r z * o z> 3 :* « j m .0

32

o id o ld o co
o ro o -=r o r-*
co -i^. . ro •

"LD "ID "ID

*? r*. co ■ —

-id "ID -c
co r-^ r-^ r

oo t-^ i—

0 O ID

K co ■
-id

01 •— i—

-^t -id - cn

o ro o i—
cm i — «o-

OkDO^OCVJ
OlOO^Offi

•D • m • o ■

-( — - co •> o

O CO O CO O CM

o^omo^o

.— -ID • «3" •

• id •> r-- - CO

ID *t O CM

r- •— ID

OWOMON

o CM o <d o o

LD -ID -CM •
"CO "in -.—

CO r»* o cm

«3- ID

ooiotoo^

o CO O ' — O CM

r- • o • •— •
u-j co id co

CM

OMONOf

O O O CD O |—

«o- -I— ■ <* •

"ID "ID * I —
cn co «* cm
■ — en cm

■ id -id

- r*- "id - en
cm r-* m i—
lo ■ — en

-in -co

O O o r-~ o r^
o id o id o ■—
co • i— • *r #

OlflOlD O ID

O ID O O O CM

CO -CM -ID ■

• in -CO -O

r*-. CJ cn Cm

f -MO
£ O Q.

en (/)
r: <n cu

CU Qj "O
■^ 5- fO

O CO O ID O O

O CM O ID O r^

CO ■ t— • **■ •

-CM -CM "ID

"■O" ""=T

O CM o O O CO
O ID O CO o >—
id -en • i— •

O CO O CT> O CM

O O O i— O "3-

f— - ID .CO -

- O * r-. -\o

CM i— «3- CO i —

o m r-^.

f— r- co

O ID O CO O LD

O id O CO O i—

co -i— • ro •

-LD ""ST -ro

o CO o CO O CO
o o o en O CO
r-~ .cm -id •

-ID -CO -CM

id cm

CM

on

cm

O co o r-» o cn
O O O iD O ID

r r~~- " r~- ►ID

co co r^ i—

CM CO ■—

r— CM

-*a- »•—

O i— O r>. O <—
O CO o id o «a-

o cm o co o r^

OMOmON

CO -co -co .

-CT* "CM "ID

CO CO r— ID i—

ID >— LD r—

o en o en o id

O CM O O O LD

O ■ «tf 'I— ■

• i— -o -o
r-. r— «o- ■ — i*^ cm

O ID O CM O CO

«g- -id • •— •

"O "O "LD

CO i — id i — CM ■ —

"cm -r

IDr-N

i — r-^

T— CO

ID

O i — O LD O ID
O <* O LD O CO
KO . O • -— •

-co "O -r-

i — r— ID i —

3

cu XJ

u-

QJ

o en

O UD

O LD

u

(4-

4-1

oworno*

c

id

CO •

<* •

CM

-r-^

CO

3

(D

r^

0)

(J

ID

>=3-

o

CD

^t-

s_

ID

1

n

U

E

'£

-a

c -
CU "O

O CT> O CM

o

r_

cu

f

a, a>
j2 +->

"i-> E

o cn o cm

O LD

CM ■

CO ■

O

>*

-ID

-r-

P»*

4-J

0

O ■«-

CM

O

C 4->

•D

r-N

CM

"""

*~+

^J-

3

ai cu

i|-

10 <u

E

O £: tj

O <fr

o en

O CO

TD

T3

m 3
cu

cn >,

O r-.

o CTi

o CO

C

CO •

CO ■

fO

"r^.

ID

S- 4->

r-~

o

a>

■4-J

ai

QJ IT3

> Q}

r-

CM

(D

tA

*^r

<o

CU

HJ S-

>

cn

to

JZ

■0
0

E

'- c
cu aj

O LD

O CO

O ID

CO

J- +J CU

cu 1 jd

o •—

O CO

O CM

CO •

r^ •

cn

c cu

-en

"!■*«.

CO

-C

0 >

1— <o

CO

r-

en

2

r-

CM

CM

ID

cn

m

4-1

t-

rtJ 0

1

1

cu
in

cn4-> j->

(O

-a 1-

sz

o co

o *f

o

CO

(J

cu cu

O CM

O LD

o cn

S-

-0

** •

P~- •

cn

3

-CO

-r^

a.

E

r-»

LD

cn

r-*

CO

■X

Q.

O

in
4- C

i —

CO

ID

E

CO

CO

O CM o o o o
o o o i— o r*

•— • ID -CO •

"Cn "CO "io

CM

CO
<D

ID

cn

O »D O ID O r-^

o cm o cn o «*
<* . r- -co •

- o " cn -cn

- 1— co CO 1—

CO

ro

CO

CO

O r— O O O CO

O O O LD O ID
.— -en -co .

" CO " CO " o
ID CM ID CO

.— id r-»

o en o co o co

o ld o co o co

00 -cm -en ■

-ID -iO "LD

ID 1— t—

co

cn

ro

r— CM

£

+-> O

*-> CU

O O

1_ >

O CJ

0 CU

U

E ■•-

cn

i-

cn c

cn+J

c -i-

c cu

■1- .^

cn-.- i>

J-: (0

ro -M c

H) *->

cnxi

+j

ro

3

.a

cur *j

i- c

cn C

oj a>

ro •— QJ

f ^

(O

UfflU

4J

O+J L

3 cu

O

> 0 CU

Z O-

h- <£ t— Q.

+J O

o o
o u

(O +-> Cn.O C 3 >,

+-> ro 3 1—

+J^ CUD -P l-L-

1- c cn c

QJ d) 1— ra 1— QJ ■—

JD U ro 1- f0 U ro

~ s- +j at -p t. s-

qj o > o cu ■*->

■z. a. h- <z t— a. c

rO -M CnD> C 3
4-> rO 3

Pj3 air +J

1- c cn c

(U QJ 1— ro .— CU

J3 O fl l- nj u

1 t+J QJ+J i-

3 0J O > O <U

Z Q_ t— <t h- Q.

fO 4J CTi-Q

QJ CU 1— ffl I — CU

JD U ro I- fO U

E t-+> QJ+J 1-

3 CU O > O CU

zah<ho.

.-- j* cn-r-

-^ ro ro -t-1

rO 4-» Cnj3 C
4-» ro 3

■PJ2 air-
s- c cn

CU CU r— ro 1 —

ro D O ro I- ro

J* E S- 4-1 QJ -M

m 3 cu o > o

razai-<i-c

- CO *r-. "ID

in 4-> rq ^

■mo +j ai

00 t- >

O U Q QJ

U E ■--

cn I-

cn c cn4->

C t- C QJ

■1- jul cn-i- i-

J£ ro ID P C
ro +J CnjD C 3

4-J ro 3

■*-> -O CU -C -U

t- c cn -c

QJ QJ r— rO r- QJ

XI CJ ro 1- ro U

_j E s- +J cu ■*-* t.

<t 3CIO > O HI

i— s a. i— «a: 1— o-

c >—

C IO r—
O 3 ID
•r- CTCn

in cu

OJ (— T3
3 .O C

O" ro fO

C QJ 1— 4-»

qj cn o

T3 •+- ID

ro O cn 1—

I U U

QJ S- U

in co o 3

r OJ3

U in C

ro "O O

33

o^-ocnooi
onOcoom

IT) . ,— -CO •

O vO O <— O O-s
CM • (Ti • r— .

i— f— r— O

- in -vo *m

r— • crt • m •

O 10 o in o in

0050«J-OU1

*i— »C0 "in

o co o en o r^.

i— i— CM

CM ■— i— CO —

•— o> CO
■— o> I—

CM t— CM

O O O 0> O •—

OOOIOOl
r- -in ■ 1*^ ■

CTl ■— ■— r— r

Or-OlDO"

OlDOOOi-
r— - \£) -CO •

ooioi-oro
in ■ o ■ 10 ■

o r-* o co o -a-
o o o in o r-

rvi • r- -co ■

O ro o i— o CO
Oinoojon
o • <— • CO -

i— CM CO i—

CO CO r—

r- CO

OCOOMOCO

o m o <— o r*">
"* ■ n -en •

QC0O«O"
O O O CO o T*-
ro ■ r— - CM .

i— CM CM

o o o en o m

CD <?> O <— O *3"

U3 . O IP •

O U") O CO O CO
OCftO>*OM
<* ■ vO • O •

3TD
CO

■M o

o o
>J o u

1 Oi£ C 3 •>-

m 3 a.

'i3 (ur-P a.

.Q U (O 1- (O

1- •■-

i- +j

i

ZQ.h<h

a. w>

^

Q- h-

Q 0)

<a ■*-> cnjD c 3

J _Q O « t- fD O

- ^ 1> +J d) +J u

J 3 QJ O > O QJ

: z a- I— <* h- Q-

OVi- t-

«J -t-> C

C7>J3 C 3

-> <u <u r— re 1— a>

-4 U (B t ID U

- E t+J ()« l.

- 3 CO O > O 4)
J Z a. I— «£ I— O-

iO +J 0">-0 C. 3

CT>.0 C 3

35

Appendix B

Survey results for the 1976-77 season, which became
available after work on the earlier data had been
largely completed, are summarized in Tables B-l and
B-2. It is suspected that the 1976-77 results, and
perhaps to a lesser degree the 1975-76 results, were
affected by the unavoidable addition of Privacy Act
statements on survey forms. A further intrusion into
the survey in the form of a prohibition on the proper
testing of these changes has thus far frustrated efforts
to assess comparability with the results of previous
surveys. Response rates for the survey mailing list
were depressed by about 30% in 1976 when the
Privacy Act statement was implemented for this
phase of the survey, and some reduction, though much
smaller, in questionnaire response rates likely occurred
in both 1975 and 1976. A previous questionnaire
change which increased response rates inflated all
activity and harvest estimates, particularly those for
coots (E. M. Martin, Office of Migratory Bird Manage-
ment, Laurel, Maryland, unpublished report on
changes in the Federal questionnaire survey dated 17
December 1970). This latest change, by depressing
response rates, can thus be expected to have decreased
activity and harvest estimates, perhaps most notice-
ably for coots. It is hoped that some evaluation can
still be made and adjustments incorporated where
necessary. In the meantime, the suspicion remains
that activity and success figures for 1975 (to a slight
degree) and 1976 (to a potentially very significant
degree, at least for certain species) may be under-
estimates.

36

Table B-l.

Mourning dove, white-winged dove, band-tailed pigeon, and sandhill crane hunting activity
and success by duck stamp purchasers during the 1976-77 season.

Species,

Stamp buyers
participating
% Total

Birds harvested

Species

and

State

Stamp buyers
participating
% Total

Birds harvested

Management Unit,
and State

Per Total
hunter (thousands)

Per
hunter Total

Mourning Dove
Eastern

Alabama
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Ohio

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Other States^
Unit Total

Central
Arkansas
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Wyoming
Other States3
Unit Total

Western
Arizona
Cal i form' a
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Washington

White-winged dove

61.4
42.7
53.7
63.2
42.9
59.1
32.3
32.3
66.6
59.6
33.2
43.4
31.7
66.0
59.4
51.0
46.3
1.9
26.8

37.0
37.7
59.7
38.5
47.2
60.8
54.9
55.3
25.4
1.5
29.9

65.3
40.8
29.2
38.3
23.4
36.3
18.1

9,400

5,200
16,900

8,500
27,700

8,300
39,500
12,600
19,200
16,500
13,400
30,400

1,100

14,300

15,600

10,000

900

7,800
257,200

21,600

17,100

34,400

22,600

20,300

4,700

18,400

76,600

2,600

4,300

222,500

8,000
52,600
10,200

4,900
12,200
14,700
12,300

Unit Total 32.9 115,100

45.3
20.3
39.2
46.0
21.5
38.1
25.8
17.7
39.2
31.5
19.0
13.8
13.9
35.3
36.0
28.7
16.3
14.6
27.9

30.8
19.3
23.5
24.2
23.3
30.6
30.8
31.2
15.0
12.3
27.0

37.2
18.5
11.2
15.5
13.0
10.4
12.6
16.8

424.3
104.8
663.1
391.8
593.9
316.8

1,017.6
223.9
753.9
518.8
253.5
418.4
15.4
504.4
562.1
286.9
14.7
114.8

7,179.3

663.9
328.5
806.4
545.2
474.7
142.8
567.5

2,388.5
38.6
52.8

6,008.8

299.8
972.3
114.6
76.4
158.2
152.6
155.4
1,929.2

New Mexico
Texas
Arizona
California
Nevada
Total

4.0

7.4
43.9
4.6
1.8
7.4

Band-tailed pigeon

California 4.9

Oregon 11.9

Washington 7.9

Arizona 4.5

New Mexico 1 .2

Colorado 1.1

Utah 0.5

Total 5.4

Sandhill crane

Alaska
Texas

New Mexico
Colorado
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Total

5.5
2.5
6.5
1.1
2.4
0.9
0
0.2
0.9
2.0

310

10,200

5,400

6,000

240

22,200

6,300

6,200

5,400

560

100

480

210

19,300

1,020
3,420

500

510
1,350

300

0

70

100
7,300

2.9

15.5
13.4
11.0
12.3
13.6

5.7
5.6

5.0
4.8
0.9
5.1
3.5
5.4

1.1
1.9

0.5
0.3
0.3
2.4

0.5
2.0
1.3

880

158,600

72,300

65,900

2,910

300,700

36,100

34,900

27,100

2,640

90

2,430

740

104,000

1,080

6,660

250

130

380

730

0

30

190

9,500

Grand Total

29.0 594,800 25.4 15,117.3

aNo open season on mourning dove in State where duck stamp was purchased, and no data are available
for reassignment of hunters to State of harvest.

37

o .ooooooooooopoppp ooooooopogopooo ooooooooooo nooooooooooo
ouoooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo ggoooooooooo

- .— en _ C

M r- r- o

■.coe\i*oi/>cncor'

0OfMU">*J-<-"--OJ0

IIOIOOOMDi-

o o • o o o c

o o o o o oc

3 O O O O O O O O O O C

c; r- .— en -

o ■ — tNjt\ja)Oco*oio'"

» OCOCM (si — i-

o o o o o o o .oooooooog • o
- .o O i- ■ — O o o i. o

oooooooooooooo ooooooooooo

O O — OO OO O — — — . ■ -_» -— O-— -O

i o i o ■ ■ i o o o

3 o i i wo i o o i co

-ooooo • -oooooooo • • o
— o j- !_— - o oo 1-1-S

soooooooooooo oooooooooo

o o — oc

o oo ^ii"— — — 5 — 5

3 — o— - s-

oo — o oo ooo

■ o • • o o ••■0''°-_; oooooooo-o-

3 o O- ■ r\j o o oo OO . .. . . . . .o- — 'O

i. o o i. o

ooooooooooooooo .oooooooooc

ooo o o o o ooc

-o — o o

i o^^ iinnom inOffif^ Oi iOi i O ■ CO

^ooooooooooo -oo .oooooooooo
)i-c3(-o cj ooo oooo o u o o i. . . o - ■■ o ■ -c o

-OOOlOOW O (-- O u

so • o o • o - o

ooooooooooooooooooc
oo— o ooo— o oooo o c

— io m o «s- — -

- oeo c^ mo'io'i

-(-> CM CO f

ooooo i-ooooooooooooo
o o — O *J o o — o oooo o o

— i\j co *r — -

NNif>r>i — O >— w n «j tfi ic ui r-.

oo dtxi c\i — dodo— * odd o dii d — — d o'ci^d

■ o ■ o o ■ • ■ o

oopooopooopoooooooo

oooooooooooooc

- — o o ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
csjmi— o^,r~-i/iQO'^Cfifsi»j-f^f— m fi en r— r~> ij.j-(»iMfsnoc«<JOioc,ir--<MU5K

ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo

- o i o — u

aooooo -ooooo o o
oooooouooo o o

joowca^

ooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo oo-^oooooooo
ooooooooooooooo — o— o— oooo— o

£ONiniOOPiNvDONr--aii-i/i«T ;i J^ rv 55 — (M en

ooooooooooooooooooo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O f». >— OCstNCOCOI^i'lIM^OOM'- in in

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

g°S°°H°s=555So5 iSSS-SBSS^

oooooooooo ,2

^ Oi cnui O 9 ffi ' — Oo

o c m o

i t. >, a

jm T3-r- rtJUrtlCUO >, CCS»J

jaou.o^£E^^^zcLCct/i>>3

C C 3
O <o -O E O >2 •£ Sn

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the
Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public
lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of
our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserv-
ing the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and
historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through out-
door recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral
resources and works to assure that their development is in the best
interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsi-
bility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who
live in island territories under U.S. administration.

GPO 850- 079

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

EDITORIAL OFFICE

AYLESWORTH HALL, QSU

FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INT 423

NOTE: Mailing lists are computerized. Please return address label with change of address.