BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 755 2 ' / WfTb UNIVERSITY LfBRARY DOPUMENX-GgttEeflON WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1966 MAY 2 ? ?G02 '■ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDUFE Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 99 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary Stanley A. Cain, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Fish and Wildlife Service, Clarence F. Pautzke, Commissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1966 Compiled and edited by Henry A. Hansen and Mildred R. Hudgins Branch of Management DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT in collaboration with DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report- -Wildlife No. 99 Washington • October 1966 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 50 cents CONTENTS WINTER SURVEY. Page 1 BREEDING GROUND SURVEYS ^ Alaska and Yukon Territory ^ Northern Alberta, northeastern Columbia, Northwest Territories 4 Southern Alberta Oregon California Nevada Utah J Southern Saskatchewan ^ Montana Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota J^ Tri-State Area (Minnesota, North and South Dakota) '■^ Nebraska Colorado J^ Northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and western Ontario 1^ Southern Manitoba j^ Wisconsin Missouri Eastern Ontario, Quebec, and Labrador 1" WATERFOWL KILL SURVEY 17 APPENDIX 21 A. Waterfowl winter survey tables 21 B. Waterfowl breeding ground survey tables 25 C. Waterfowl harvest data tables 74 11 lir ,r M STATUS REPORT WATERFOWL 1966 The 1966 waterfowl hunting regulations were developed from four broad, closely related categories of information as herein reported. The groups of data are organized by flyways, from Pacific to Atlantic, with appendixes of tables to correspond. Credit has been given to each individ- ual or organization that submitted a report. Although many of the narrative statements have been briefed, and a few tables deleted or shortened if they contained data sub- mitted previously or in another form the essential information from each report has been retained to the greatest extent possible. WINTER SURVEY Durir^ the first 2 weeks of January, 1, 700 people participated in a survey to estimate the size of individual waterfowl populations concentrated on a wide variety of winter habitat (tables A-1 and A-2). Contrary to popular belief that a figure representing the continental, waterfowl population can be derived from a single coimt during a specific period each year, the annual survey is designed to determine the status of winter habitat and its efioct upon the distribution of waterfowl. Rarely are weather, habitat conditions, visibility factors, and survey conditions comparable in any single location or in any portion of the four flyways to permit an accurate and reasonable comparison of waterfowl num- bers from year to year. Generally, unusually mild temperatures prevailed throughout most of the nation. The lack of snow cover, except in the most northern States, made more habitat avail- able and caused a wider distribution of waterfowl than in 1965. Pacific Fljrway Good to excellent survey conditions pre- vailed in the Pacific Flyway except in the Puget Sound area in small local areas of Oregon and Idaho where rain, snow, fog, and high winds seriously affected the survey. Comparable coverage was not possible in these areas because of re- stricted visibility. Because of the mUd weather this fall and winter, the concentration of ducks in this Flyway was less spectacular than in prior years and the ducks remained scattered throughout the Flyway. An excellent stand of sago pondweed made available by higher than normal water levels in southern Oregon attracted large numbers of dabblii^ ducks that normally would move into California. In the Willamette Valley, flooded corn fields also attracted large numbers of ducks. More black brant were seen in the upper portion of the Fljrway this year and fewer were seen along the west coast of Mexico, possibly because of the mild weather. Central Flyway In the Central Flyway, mild temperatures prevailed and survey conditions were excel- lent throughout the Flyway except in Mon- tana where snow and fog caused some delays. Light rains were encountered in Oklahoma and northern Texas where larger permanent water areas were open. Large concentrations of ducks remained in several of the northern States— Kansas, Utah, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. Mississippi Flyway In the Mississippi Fljrway, the weather was mild with no snow cover. Food was readily available to the larger number of birds that remained in the upper and central States. Flooding in northern Arkansas and Kentucky and along the Mississippi Pdver made addi- tional habitat available. More ducks lingered in the upper flyway States than during recent years including an estimated 40, 000 canvas - backs on the Mississippi F?iver near Keokuk, Iowa. For the first time in many years, more snow geese were found in the midflyway States than in Louisiana. Larger numbers of blue geese also remained in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. It was unusual to find 1, 200 swans still remaining in Michigan. White- fronted geese continued an upward trend but a decrea:^e is indicated in the Canada goose population. Atlantic Flyway In the Atlantic Flyway habitat conditions and the distribution of waterfowl differed only slightly from last year. Lower than normal water levels in South Carolina concentrated more waterfowl in the Santee- Cooper Delta area than in previous years. Black ducks in the northeast were able to better utilize their habitat this year because the fresh wa- ter areas remained open for a greater length of time. Greater numbers of divers were estimated on the F?appahannock and Potomac Rivers in Virginia, offshore in South Carolina and Georgia, and in the Cape Kennedy area in Florida. There was a higher count of Canada goose in the Delaware-Maryland- Virginia area. However, the geese were concentrated on the open water of Chesapeake Bay and were more easily counted than in the past when they were scattered in small flocks on field and small interior ponds. The January survey confirmed a decrease in the eastern snow goose population. The brant count was also down from last year, but the population level is near the long-term average. BREEDING GROUND SURVEYS ALASKA AND YUKON TERRITORY James G. King, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Peter E. K. Shepherd, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Weather and habitat conditions The birds arrived on schedule in late April and early May. They found some open water and very little snow and dispersed rapidly to open waters on the nesting grounds. Ice breakups in the major rivers were only a day or two later than long-term average. Following the relatively normal breakup the weather remained unusually cool for two to three weeks and the ice on the lakes melted very slowly, especially on the larger bodies of water. In some areas nesting appeared to have gone ahead in spite of considerable ice cover. In other areas nesting seems to have been delayed. The net result, another late spring and expect only mediocre produc- tion. On the plus side there was very little flooding this year, a phenomena that prevents production on extensive areas on some years. The lingering ice delayed the air survey possibly to a greater extent than it delayed nesting. If a substantial percent of the wa- ter areas is ice covered it changes the distribution of the birds which could affect visibility rates and reduce the comparability of the survey. On the Yukon Delta and in the Kotzebue area the survey was delayed 6 days later than it has ever been before and 13 days later than normal. Even so the larger bodies of water were 90 percent ice covered and the ponds on 10 of the segments were almost completely ice covered. In spite of the late season many pintails were observed as small flocks of deserter males and broods of dabblers were showing up in the interior by the time the survey was ended. The largest lakes on the Old Crow Flats in the Yukon Territory still had ex- tensive sheets of ice on June 16. Breeding population indexes The breeding population index of 1.4 million ducks is still 17 percent below the 10-year average but has increased 16 per- cent over 1965. The indication is that the population is recovering slowly from the disastrous 1964 season. From the aerial survey important species, except widgeon and canvasback, all showed an increase. Because the ground count at Minto showed an increase in both of these species, and air counts of these species are apt to be inade- quate, it is likely there may be about the same population of canvasbacks and widgeons as in 1965. The only species for concern is pintails which have been hard hit by a series of late springs, and show no indication of recouping their numbers this year. The cor- relation between ground counts at Minto and the air survey indicates the relatively poor status of pintails (table B -1 to B-6). In many respects the nesting season this year has been similar to the 1965 season. The season is late but not disastrously late. The habitat appears to be unflooded and in very good condition. Four of the last 5 years have been as late or later than this year so the bulk of the duck breed- ing population must now consist of birds that were raised in late seasons. In spite of a late season all species except pintail should hold their own or increase slightly to give a fall flight comparable with last year. Production indexes There seems to be some indication that ducks are adjusting to the current trend of later spring nesting conditions. By now a fairly large proportion of the breeding population were themselves hatched in late seasons. Teal, widgeon, and scaup appear to have had very good production this year. The indications are that pintail, mallard, shoveler, and canvasback are up slightly from 1965; however, the samples of these species are small (table B-7). Reports from the Yukon Delta are that all species of geese show increased brood sizes and that nesting appears to have been consistently successful. Les3 information is available on ducks from the Delta but the impression is that they have done better than last year also. NORTHERN ALBERlTA NORTHEASTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Data supplied by Edward G. Wellein and G. Hortin Jensen, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions Temperatures of the winter months were very low and precipitation was light. The Yukon Territory had the coldest winter recorded. These below normal tempera- tures in the survey area continued through February, March, and April. Inuvik re- corded the coldest temperature pattern for any station. Precipitation in April was above normal in the southern parts of the Northwest Territories. Northern area temperatures were above normal in April and normal in May. The mean temperature for Sachs Harbor was 8 ° above normal. Precipitation was in excess of normal at Sachs Harbor and Fort Simpson. F?ain also occurred at Yellowknife and Norma Wells, while a snowfall of 4 inches fell at Inuvik in late May. Most of the lakes in northern Alberta were open at the time of the survey. Only the deep and larger lakes had ice, but open water was available around the edges. In the north, Great Slave Lake, Great Bear Lake, and Eskimo Lakes were still icebound. Other larger deep lakes were mostly ice- bound and the degree increased farther north. Even so, many of these had some water available for ducks. The Mackenzie River was clear of ice at all points crossed except for ice floes in the lower delta. By the close of the survey period all channels to and beyond Inuvik were open. With warm tempera- tures of May and early June, the season advanced rapidly. Temperatures in the sixties were recorded at Inuvik. During the survey period the days were mostly sunny except a few days lost from flyingo Breedir^ population indexes The duck population index was up 11 per- cent from 1965 but was 11 percent below the 10-year average. White-fronted geese de- creased while Canada geese increased. The whistling swan index was 20 percent below 1965. Both geese and swan indexes were be- low average. Coots showed a good increase over 1965, but even so are just at the average index. Estimates for other than ducks are subject to quite variable results, and, while indicative, cannot be considered completely reliable. Dabbling ducks, though 8 percent above the 1965 index, are below average by 33 per- cent. This was true for all species except greenwinged teal. By strer^th of numbers the scaup controls the diving duck category, but most species recorded an increase over average. Indexes for diving ducks are above the 1965 and 10-year average by 13 and 9 percent, respectively. The index for scoters decreased and the index for old- squaw and mergansers increased (tables B-8 and B-9). The Old Crow Flats are now included in the Alaska survey and summarized in that report. Combining the nine strata, estimated error on the population index of 4, 159, 000 is 15 percent, or plus or minus 637, 000. It appears that the northern areas are producing near normal population of diving ducks. One exception is the scoter which is below both 1965 and the average indexes. Dabbling ducks are still in short supply and will probably be so until prairie produc- tion is able to fill the void in improving southern Canadian habitat. Wnen carrying capacity is reached on the prairies, more dabbling ducks will seek nestir^ habitat in northern area. SOUTHERN ALBERTA Data supplied by K. Duane Norma and R. David Purinton, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions Except for a week early in the month, January was the coldest since the early 1950' s. February was warm and dry. March was mild and very dry. All time highs of 72 degrees at Calgary and 63 degrees at Edmonton were set on the 29th. April started mild and dry but later became cold (7th cold- est in history) with excessive precipitation. The 23„ 5 inches of snow recorded for April at Calgary was exceeded only once, during 1955 when 25. 0 inches were recorded. Pothole conditions are good around Cardston and the Milk Fdver FUdge in the southwest and in the Medicine Hat and Cy- press Hills of the southeast. Water quantity is considered lower in stratum 28 than it was last year but the quality is about the same or slightly better„ Water levels near Brooks, Tilley, and Rolling Hills are near normal. The water quality within a 50-mile radius of Calgary was very good. The water level in most permanent potholes was at or above the permanent vegetation line. Water con- ditions were very good in the coteau areas north of Calgary to Edmonton. The area east of Edmonton to Vegreville and the North Saskatchewan River also contained good to excellent water. The areas near Viking, south of Wainwright, and near Kirk- patrick and Misty Lakes are islands of water in the more or less dry east-central portion of the Province. The May pond indexes were normal in stratum 26 and only slightly be- low normal in stratum 27, Stratum 28 was still much below normal and probably will require many years of above normal pre- cipitation to bring back the permanency of the potholes (table B-10). The progress of the season appeared to be ahead of normal in the most southern portion of the Province, near normal between Lethbridge and Calgary and slightly ahead of normal between Calgary and Edmonton be- coming more advanced going northward. Breeding population indexes The greatest increases in the waterfowl population occurred with the dabblers, 57 percent over 1965. However, they are still 24 percent below the 14-year average. Widgeon and green-winged teal show the greatest increase but the increases shown for the mallard and pintail are more significant. Only the gadwall population is higher than its 14 -year average. It is interesting to note that the blue-winged teal population has in- creased almost 45 percent from 1965. All divers increased about 30 percent from last year, but like the dabblers, are still nearly 22 percent below the 14-year average. The Canada goose population increased over last year but is near its 3 -year average. Coots increased only slightly and are still about 43 percent below their long-term average (table B-11 and B-12). The lone drake index for mallards was greatest in stratum 27, near normal in 26 and below normal in stratum 28. However, the overall index is very near the previous years. The pintail index is highest also in stratum 27 but is considerably below previous years. The canvasback index is near that of previous years. As a whole, the progress of the season is about the same as last year but below that indicated between 1962-64 (table B-13). An exceptional number of lone and flocked drakes were noted at the start of the survey in stratum 28 but larger numbers of flocked drakes were not seen again until near the completion of the survey in stratum 27. The first brood was observed on May 12 near McGregor Lake. Several broods, mostly pintail and an occasional mallard, were seen during the remainder of the survey. In summary, the weather this year until late April was rather mild and dry. Exces- sive precipitation fell in late April and temper- atures dropped m.iking April the 7th coldest in history. May continued cool and dry. The snow of April 25 may have had a serious effect on the nesting population with a 50-mile radius of Calgary. The dabbler population index increased 57 percent from last year and the divers increased 30 percent. The duck index is still 24 percent below the 14 -year average. The lone drake index indicates that the progress of the season is about the same as in 1965 but behind that of the period 1962-64. Although water areas have decreased from 1965, the quality is better and with an indicated increase in the breeding population, the outlook for a good production is excellent. Production indexes The breeding pair survey in May indicated a 5 1 percent increase in the duck breeding population but which was also 24 percent be- low the long-term average, Tt is interesting to note the correlation with the brood index which increased 59. 8 percent from 1965 and is also 22, 6 percent below the long-term average. The greatest incretses in the brood index from last year were in stratum 27 where 83 percent is indicated. Stratum 26 in- creased 42 percent but stratum 28 increased only 6 percent. The coot brood index also shows a substantial increase, 25. 9 percent, from last year. The greatest increase in coots was alsonoted in stratum 27 (table B-14). The average brood size increased 10 percent in stratum 26 over last year and 13 percent in stratum 28. An increase of 3 percent was indicated in stratum 27. The overall brood size increased 8. 2 percent over last year and 11.9 percent over the long-term average. The close correlation between the in- crease in the breeding population index and the brood index, and an increase in brood size indicates that the initial nesting effort was highly successfuL The late-nesting index is almost identical to last year in strata 26 and 28 but an increase of 20 percent in the dabbler index is indicated in stratum 27. An over- all increase of 6. 2 percent in the dabbler index is noted but a 23. 8 percent decrease is indicated for the divers. A 2. 9 percent decrease from last year in the duck index indicates that the initial nesting attempt by most species was initiated early in the year and that it was highly successful. The waterfowl crop prospect for southern Alberta is considerably better than it has been for the past 2 years. Using the Lynch crop forecast, there was an index of 99 for this year as compared to 72 for last year and 87 for 1964. OREGON Data supplied by Chester E. Kebbe Oregon State Game Commission Weather and habitat conditions The major waterfowl breeding grounds in eastern Oregon are again suffering from a severe drought. A very light winter snowpack followed by one of the driest springs on record has resulted in the loss of many of the small marshes and potholes. Many water areas in the large marshlands, such as at Malheur Refuge, have also been eliminated or drastically reduced in size. Water conditions were still good in April and May and provided good breeding habitat for geese and early nesting ducks. Less suitable territory, however, was available to late nesting birds. Production indexes An excellent hatch of Canada geese was recorded on all major breeding areas in the State. The number of young recorded on established transects showed a 22 per- cent increase in production from 1965. This is 25 percent higher than the average production for the 1961-65 period. In spite of drought conditions, duck production was 9 percent above that recorded in 1965. The peak of the hatch was 2 weeks earlier than normal, with early nesters having good success and bringing off large broods. Production by dabblers was down 7 per- cent but divers increased 61 percent. Red- heads and ruddy ducks showed the best recovery from the recent years of low diver production (tables B-15 to B-17). CALIFORNIA Data supplied by J. R LeDonne, F. M. Kozlik, Harry George, T. B. Stone, and E.J. O'Neill Weather and habitat conditions Water conditions in Northeastern California were below normal this year. Most of the permanent water impoundments and marshes had enough water to produce and raise water- fowl to flying stage, but the marginal water- fowl habitat created in 1965 by heavy pre- cipitation was nonexistent this year. Rainfall and snowpack was below normal in almost all areas. In summation, water conditions were adequate for production this year but down from the good water conditions of 1965. The Central Valley received below normal amounts of rainfall, although more import- ant to production in this area is the weather and rain during the late winter and spring months which affects farmir^ operations. This area is mostly composed of artificial and regulated water impoundments such as rice fields, grasslands and pastured areas. The rice and associated vegetation was a week to two weeks earlier than in 1965 due to the mild warm and dry weather that occurred in March, April, and May. Breeding population and production indexes Comparable figures of breeding pairs and fall population of waterfowl are presented in tables B-18 and 19. NEVADA 1966 duck breeding population as compared to last year of 8 percent. Dabblers, with the exception of mallards (up 8 percent), were down 4 percent from 1965. The diving group was down 16 percent in the aggregate with decreases noted in all species. There was a 3 percent increase this year over 1965 in the Canada goose breeding population (table B-20). Production indexes Brood surveys on comparable trend areas indicate a decrease in duck production from 1965 of 24 percent. In view of only a slight decrease this year in the breeding population, the decrease in production is attributed to loss of habitat due to water shortage in the western part of the State, Water conditions are expected to deteriorate through the re- mainder of the summer, and in all likelihood production will be down considerably more than is indicated at this time. Data supplied by C, V. Oglesby Nevada Fish and Game Department UTAH Weather and habitat conditions Nevada experienced an exceptionally dry. late winter and spring this year with above normal temperatures. Unseasonally hot weather caused the snowmelt to begin much earlier than usual and at faster than normal rates. Principal reservoirs, as a result of a good carry-over from 1965 and early snow- melt this spring, were well above average at the start of the production period. However, with very little water to supplement irriga- tion releases, stored water supplies quickly diminished. Water conditions in most of the marshes in the western part of the State had deteriorated quite badly by mid- July . There is very little likelihood that conditions will im- prove through the remainder of the summer. Breeding population indexes Results of aerial surveys on comparable sample areas indicate a decrease in the Data supplied by Utah Fish and Game Department Weather and habitat conditions The winter of 1965-66 provided Utah with slightly below average amounts of precipita- tion. Ffunoff during the spring of 1966 was less than 50 percent of normal. However, irrigation and storage reservoirs were at capacity levels due to heavy precipitation during the previous 2 years. Consequently, managed marsh areas had adequate supplies of water during the spring breeding and nesting seasons. Natural marsh areas on the periphery of the Great Salt Lake were most affected by the spring shortage of water. Irrigation and storage reservoirs are being emptied at an alarming rate as pro- longed dry periods have plagued the State during late spring and early summer. Un- less adequate amounts of rain are received during the remainder of the summer and in the early fall, the outlook for habitat con- ditions during the fall hunting season is bleak. Breeding population and production indexes Aerial surveys indicate a fairly sub- stantial decrease in breeding birds from 1965. Those areas hardest hit are natural marsh areas along the east shore of the Great Salt Lake. Even managed marsh areas with adequate water supplies show rather pronounced decreases in breeding waterfowl. Ground counts on Management Areas showed slight decreases in total numbers of breeding birds. Pintail were the one ex- ception to this trend with all major census areas showing increases in breeding pair. Breeding populations of mallards, red- heads, and gadwall can be considered as normal. There was a distinct decrease in breeding ruddy ducks (tables B-21 and B-22). No major shift in species composition between northern and southern breeding areas was noted, and it appears that the de- crease in breeding divers on southern pro- duction areas has finally stabilized itself. Canada goose brood counts made during the spring of 1966 indicate generally above average breeding conditions and a gener- al improvement over 1965 production levels. All State controlled Waterfowl Management Areas, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, and southern Utah production areas show an increase in breeding pairs and gosling production. Goose production in Utah during the spring of 1966 is comparable to the record pro- duction year of 1963 and must be considered as excellent (table B-23). SOUTHERN SASKATCHEWAN Data supplied by Rossalius C. Hanson and Glenn V. Orton, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions Generally, water conditions were good except for one area in the midcentral por- tion of the Province from Regina to Saskatoon that is poor on water. The quality in some areas leaves room for speculation as to whether it would last out the season for broods of the late nesting species. Compared to 1965. the pond index was up in all strata except 19. The total pond index of 1, 880, 000 was an increase over last year of 15 percent, and 32 percent above the long-term average. It was not as high as 1956 or 1960 but surpasses all other years in between. Ponds still appear to be down in carrying capacity by one- third to one-half ( table B-24). Habitat conditions were good. Last year's increase in moisture left considerable amount of cover in the potholes. There still appears to be a shortage of emergent aquatics for over-water nesters. The wet spring retarded burning and there were few stubble or marsh fires. Reports in- dicated some farmers would attempt stubble seeding this year with the moisture condition as good as it was. This would have an adverse effect on field nesters. There was considerably more use of fertilizer in seeding operations this year than in past years. With good moisture conditions this may be a trend in farm operations that could mean more nest destruction for field nesting species. There is a continued trend in the clearing of brush and aspen surrounding the potholes. This farm practice gained momentum during the dry years and appears to be continuing even though improved water conditions would tend to discourage this type of opera- tion. There is continued draining of small, shallow potholes into larger ones. Breeding population indexes The over-all duck population this year is 57 percent above 1965 but 22 percent below the long-term average. Mallards are up 61 percent but still below the average by 40 per- cent. Total dabblers are up 62 percent over 1965 but remain 22 percent below the long- term average. Redheads, canvasback, and scaup show increases over 1965. All divers show in- creases of 35 percent above last year but still 22 percent below the average. Coots showed a 19 percent Increase when com- pared to 1965. In summary, like last year, more water was present than there were ducks to fill the water areas. The quality is still down and summer rains will be needed in some areas to carry them through the late nesting sea- son. Generally, the water should suffice if the rest of the season is normal. Habitat and cover conditions were good. Duck popu- lations were up considerably over 1965 but still down 22 percent from the long-term average (tables B-25 to B-27). Production indexes Earlier reports indicated a possible poor early nesting attempt. The very early hatch did not materialize to any extent. However, early nesting species did produce as time went along. This was evidenced by flying and class HI broods recorded in the count. Renesting and later nesters' efforts were evidenced by a sizeable percentage of class n broods. Broods counted were made up of class I, 22 percent; class II, 54 percent; and class ni, 24 percent. The early hatch was later in eastern portions of the Province but caught up rapidly after mid-May. Most of later nesting species were about on time due to generally normal conditions after mid- May. All broods were up over last year by 93 percent but still remained below the long- term average by 51 percent. The size of the broods was exactly the same as last year, 6. 0 ducklings per brood. This was 13 percent above the long-term average. Coot broods were 7. 6 percent down from last year and well below the long-term aver- age. Coot production was definitely late, evidenced by many sightings of nesting coots and singles still on the ponds (table B-28). After finishing stratum B-West, B-East, and A- East there was a strong late nesting effort in the parklands and eastern portions of the Province. The three latter stratum were all up over 1965. Stratum A-West and C were as reported, below last year. Last year's good late nesting index was topped this year by an even better one, showing a 20 percent over last year and up 56 percent over the long-term average. Both dabblers and divers showed increases, although the 8 percent increase in dabblers indicated no significant improvement over last year. MONTANA Data supplied by Henry A. Hansen, Alva Weinrich, and Donald W. Combs, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions Habitat conditions varied widely from fair to excellent. Very light precipitation through- out the fall, winter, and spring south of the Missouri River left many stockdams and pot- holes dry or with only temporary water at best. Conversely, there were many more intermittent streams with water than in 1965. This may have been residual ground water from the past several wet seasons. Conditions were considerably better north of the Missouri River. A marked decline m natural potholes was partially offset by a gain in number and quality of stockdams (tables B-29 and B-30). The season was much earlier than in 1965 and advanced much more rapidly. This was reflected in a higher lone drake index and earlier emergence of broods. Breeding population indexes Diving ducks of several species remain as summer residents in Montana but only in insignificant numbers. Of the numerically important dabblers mallards increased most significantly, 45 percent. The pintail popu- lation remained the same, shovelers declined 17 percent and all the remainder increased in abundance, in spite of a more severe de- cline in habitat conditions in stratum 40 (south of the Missouri River) the duck popu- lation increased there as well as in stratum 41. It may be possible that some late mi- grants were included in the southeastern part of Montana that inflated the breeding popu- lation index somewhat. The lone drake in- dex was up about 10 percent for both mal- lards and pintails. The population index figures listed in the 1965 Status Report should be replaced with those given in tables B-32 and B-33. An inaccurate conversion factor was used to compute the original population index. Production indexes The duck brood and late nesting indexes are summarized in table B-31. Inasmuch as this was the first production survey con- ducted in Montana there are no past data with which to compare this year's result. Because of the very few lone drakes and pairs observed as late nesting indicators, and the high percentage of class II and in broods it appears that the production pros- pects from Montana are excellent. CHIPPEWA NATIONAL FOREST MINNESOTA Data supplied by Harry Pinkham Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions The water level reading at the Winnibi- goshish Dam at the time of the census was 11. 2, or . 8 foot above normal. Water lev- els in all areas censused were above nor- mal, and about the same as 1965 census period, except Mud - Goose Lake, which was eight inches to a foot higher than the pre- vious year. Submergent vegetation was generally less abundant than the previous year and con- siderably less vegetation was noted in both Mud -Goose and Bowstring Lakes. The wild rice growth was fair to poor in the area. Emergent vegetation was less than normal throughout the area. TRi-STATE AREA (Minnesota, North and South Dakota) Data supplied by Gerald Pospichal and Robert Slattery, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions Except for a December ice storm and general light winter snows, the tri-State survey area experienced an open winter. In March and April heavy snows fell over parts of South Dakota and most of North Dakota. Alternate periods of mild and cold weather caused good runoff, particularly in North Dakota. Spring planting operations in South Dakota were completed ahead of schedule but were delayed by wet fields and cold weather in North Dakota. A heavy ice and snow storm in late April may have had adverse effects on the early nesting attempts in central North Dakota and northern South Dakota. Migrations were normal in the southern two-thirds of South Dakota but were delayed to the north of this line. Blue-winged teal were paired off at the time the survey was begun on May 9, but large flocks of scaup were still present until approximately May 18. High winds, to 50 miles per hour were common to mid-May and delayed the survey operations. Pond vegetative growth had reached 6 to 8 inches in North Dakota which made the observation of some species, par- ticularly teal, very difficult. Water indexes for the tri-State area showed an increase of 66 percent over 1965 with a 40 percent increase over the 1959-65 average (the "dry years"). All three states showed improvement with the east and cen- tral showing the greatest gain (table B-36). Breeding population index The population index and adult - young ratio are summarized in tables B-34 and B-35. Breeding population indexes Total ducks were about the same as in 1965 and 16 percent above 1959-65 average. Mallards and blue-winged teal were down 10 9 percent and 38 percent from 1965 whereas gadwall and pintail showed good increases. Both redheads and canvasback showed in- creases over the average. Coots were down 6 percent from 1965 but 31 percent above the average (tables B-37 and B-38). The lone drake index for the survey area was 70 percent, slightly above both 1964 and 1965. More lone drakes were evident in the west stratum and data showed the season progressed from west to east. The meeting appeared normal and on schedule. No broods were noted during the survey although ground observers reported pintail and mallards by May 24 (table B-39). In summary, the survey area experienced an open winter but late spring snow and rain improved water levels. Migrations were de- layed in the north part of the area by freez- ing weather and snow. Pond indexes were above 1965 and the 1959-65 average. The lone drakes index shows a nesting season slightly advanced from both 1964 and 1965. A late April ice and snow storm in North Da- kota may have had adverse effects on some of the early nesting effort. Production indexes Early duck nesting efforts met with excel- lent success and broad indexes showed sub- stantial increases in all three strata. The 1966 tri-State brood index was 181. 8 per- cent above 1965 and 55. 9 percent above the 1959-65 average. Average brood size was seven which is 42.8 percent greater than 1965 and 40 percent larger than the average. All three age classes were well represented, class I and HI approximately 25 percent each of the total observed and class n approxi- mately 50 percent. Class I broods were common as of July 26. Coots, the indica- tors of water conditions and quality, showed brood increases of 700 percent over 1965 and 800 percent over the long-term average. The birds were distributed most heavily through the eastern and central strate with the largest numbers again in North Dakota. Many coots were still incubatir^ at the end of the survey. The 1966 July water indexes were 109 percent above the average and 117 percent above 1965. This is one of the "good years" particularly in North Dakota since with only token rains, ponds should last through the season. One dark spot on the picture is that many broods will not be on the wing by the time the early teal season opens in September. Observations, though hindered by vege- tation, were not any more difficult than in any other high-water years. As could be expected in a good early pro- duction year, the indexes do not show too strong on late-nesting effort. The most common nester, blue-winged teal, was down 77 percent from 1965 and down 78 percent from the average. Mallards were down 10 percent from 1965, but up 2 per- cent from the average. Gadwall, an im- portant bird in the area, was down 22 percent from 1965 but up 100 percent from the aver- age. Total dabblers were down 28 percent and 6 percent in the above comparisons. Divers showed decreases of 12 percent from 1965 and 8 percent from the average. Redheads were down 81 percent and 74 per- cent, but ruddy ducks were up 20 percent and 31 percent. Total ducks were down 26 percent from 1965 and 6 percent from the average (table B-40). NEBRASKA Data supplied by John Sweet and George Schildman ' Nebraska Game. Forestation and Park Commission Weather and habitat conditions Water conditions were fair to good throughout the Nebraska Sandhills portion of the waterfowl breeding area during spring migration, and until shortly after the breedir^ ground survey was made. The water index was 45. 8 percent above the index of the 1965 May Survey. Water conditions declined steadily throughout the entire area during the spring and early summer period. Rains in some areas main- tained fair conditions in some local areas, particularly in the southwest. All of the area was generally quite dry by mid- July. The July water index as 6. 9 percent below the 1965 index for the same period. 11 Weather conditions were quite cold and dry throughout the spring. Light frosts occurred locally as late as the first week of June. Though dry, nearly normal tem- peratures were experienced until the first week of July when extremely high tempera- tures began to rapidly deplete existing water supplies. Breeding population indexes The 1966 aerial breeding groimd transects were flown over the Sandhills and the south- central portion of the State during the period May 13 through May 21. The breeding waterfowl index for the Sandhills was 89 per- cent above the 1965 index but was 3 percent below the average of the previous 5 years. The calculated breeding population for the Sandhills was 99, 000 ducks of all species. The calculated breeding duck index for the Rainwater Basin area was 14, 300. repre- senting an increase of 76 percent above the 1965 population of 8, 140 (table B-41). Production indexes Aerial brood transects were flown over the Sandhills breeding and production are during the period July 6 through July 12, 1966. A total of 48 broods were observed dur- ing the July aerial survey. The total number of broods sighted was 100 percent above the 1965 figure, and the number of ducklings was 95 percent above that of 1965. The ducklings per brood, 5. 58 was up Slightly from 1965 figure. The hatch in the Sandhills appears to be somewhat irregular, and later than normal, possibly due to the cool spring. New broods were still appearing during the third week of July. The percentages of ducklings sighted during the aerial surveys were 37, 33, and 30 percent, respectively, for the classes I, 11, and in. Ground counts indicated that 32 percent were class I, 31 percent were class U, and 37 percent were class III. COLORADO Data supplied by William H. Rutherford Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department Weather and habitat conditions Weather conditions in Colorado during the spring and early summer were generally good to excellent for nesting waterfowl. Water supplies were low in some areas, even though reservoir storage holdover from 1965 was high. The high mountain snowpack was below normal, and many meadows which are normally flooded in the spring were dry this year. The effect of the dry spring was particularly noticeable in the Cache la Poudre, South, Platte, and Yampa Valleys, where waterfowl nesting habitat was not as abundant as in past years. Breedir^ population indexes Examination of the duck breeding-pair estimates by area (table B-42) reveal that the 1966 counts were down 10 percent from 1965 but were 19 percent above the 1954- 1965 average. The reduced water levels and resultant decrease in nesting habitat in 1966 had a noticeable effect when compared with recent past years, but breeding popu- lations were still considerably above the long-term average. The South Platte Valley, the Cache la Poudre Valley, and the Yampa Valley all showed decreases from 1965; and the Yampa Valley and the San Luis Valley showed de- creases from the long-term average. All other breeding grounds showed increases in the number of breeding-pairs over 1965 and over the long-term average. Species composition percentages of the breeding duck population showed some changes as noted in table B-43. Teals (all species) and widgeon were down con- siderably; shovelers, redheads, and scaup showed increases; and other species percent- ages remained stable. 12 In 1966, the western slope Canada goose breeding area showed an increase in number of geese and total gosling production over both last year and the long-term average. Flock size, in fact was the largest ever recorded since the survey was initiated. The phenology of the season was advanced over the past 2 years, and the spring runoff had begun to recede at the time of the survey. Nest hatching was about 90 percent completed, all hatched nests remained high and dry, and no evidence of nest flooding could be detected (table B-44). NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, NORTHERN MANITOBA, AND WESTERN ONTARIO Data supplied by Arthur R. Brazda and Gust J. Nun Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions With the exception of northwestern Saskatchewan, a heavy winter snowfall resulted in excessive water levels through- out the survey area. Considerable local flooding was observed primarily in Ontario and to a lesser degree in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. In many cases, water levels extended well beyond the per- manent vegetation line, suggesting the possi- bility of some nest loss to early-nesting species. Spring was later than normal this year. Sioux Lookout, Ontario, reported the latest breakup since 1954, and a considerable amount of old snow was still evident in the sheltered areas in Ontario in late May and early June. On May 27, the northern two- thirds of Lake Winnipeg was still ice covered, and on June 1, Big Trout Lake, 200 miles northeast of Sioux Lookout, still retained over half of its ice cover. The ice on some of the more exposed bays on the north end of Reindeer Lake went out June 9 , and all ice had disappeared from this area prior to June 17. In Saskatchewan, within a north- ward radius of 150 miles of Prince Albert, Lac La Ronge, and Candle Lake were ice covered on May 20. On May 24, Clearwater Lake and Moose Lake near The Pas, Manitoba, were still almost completely ice covered. The phenological progress of the season was slower than in 1965, but caught up rapidly toward mid- June. Temperatures remained consistently cool, though there were occasional warm, sunny periods. Winds were strong during the early part of the survey period, creating many severe dust storms in the Saskatoon- Prince Albert Region. Excellent rains in late May and early June brought relief to this area and raised pothole water levels considerably. By mid-June, forest fires were prevalent in western Saskatchewan and eastern Alberta. Breeding population indexes A small decrease in dabbling ducks, both from 1965 and from the long-time average, was offset by gains in the divers. The net result was a 6 percent increase from last year but no measurable change from the av- erage (tables B-45 and B-46). Coots were 38 percent below last year and 39 percent the average. Canada geese showed a gain of 59 percent although the distribution of geese does not create a favorable sampling pattern. Production indexes With exception of 1964, the 1966 total duckling index of 537, 095 was the highest recorded in these strata since 1960, which was the first year comparative areas were surveyed. Class n and HI broods made up 80 percent of the total in 1966 as compared with 85 percent in 1965. Including class I broods, 274 broods were observed in 1966, compared with 95 in 1965. The average brood size for ducks was 5. 4; for geese, 4.5 (tables B-47 to B-49). The overall duck brood index increased 69. 5 percent over 1965 and 11. 1 percent over the 1962-1965 average. The late nesting index for dabblers was 16. 1 percent less than 1965, and 46. 6 per- cent less than the 4-year average. For all species, the 1966 late-nesting index was 9.9 percent below 1965 and 43. 6 percent below the 4-year average. 13 SOUTHERN MANITOBA Data supplied by Morton M. Smith and Richard Droll, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions The winter of 1965-66 was extremely cold in southern Manitoba with a low temperature of 49" recorded in Winnipeg. Snowfall was above normal, partly as a result of two severe blizzards- -one in early March and another in the Portage -Winnipeg area on April 27, 1966. May 1966 was unusually cold. Brandon recorded a minimum temperature of 5° above zero on the first day of May. At Winnipeg, for the period May 1-12, the mean temperature was 39°. At Brandon the maxi- mum daily temperature exceeded 65° on only 5 days in May. The summer, fall and winter of 1965 were wet. As a result, soil moisture reserves were very good at the start of the 1966 growing season (April 1). Precipi- tation in the Province continued about 30 percent above average during April and May. Each spring the wind blows over the prai- ries and 1966 was no exception. After the surveys started, more days were lost to wind than to rain or low ceilings. The last half of May was windy and on the 23rd gusts exceeded 50 miles per hour at Brandon. Blowing dust was widespread in Saskatchewan during the last week of May but the wet soils in Manitoba did not drift much this season. On May 6 in south-central Manitoba, most potholes were open but all dugouts and deeper lakes were frozen. The ground was still snow covered in the Portage area and drifts there remained in shelter belts and wooded areas until the last week in May. Emergents were beginning to show in shallow ponds by May 8 but aspens did not start to leaf until May 20 and later. This season was late in southern Manitoba and the phenology appear- ed to be about 10 days behind that of an average year. In contrast to 1964, there was little burning of pond margins and uplands last fall. A surprising amount of land was work- ed following the harvest in 1965 and stubble fields were scarce in some sections this spring. Nesting cover seemed adequate over most of the Province, although there were exceptions such as the Minnedosa area where unusually high water levels flooded out most of the emergent cover and spread through pond margins to the bare edges of plowed fields. In western Manitoba, burning of stubble and uplands was widespread during the last week of May and assuredly some nests were lost. Land clearing continues at a rapid pace and more efficient drainage pro- grams are now underway in the eastern prairies. These operations are steadily reducir^ the waterfowl production habitat in southern Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. Water conditions were excellent in south- ern Manitoba this May. Pond numbers were up and pond quality was generally good. The 1966 pond count in stratum A was 14 percent higher than 1965 and 36 percent above the 13 -year average. In stratum B, the 1966 pond count was 8 percent greater than in 1965 and 36 percent above the long- term average. The count for strata A and B combined was 10 percent above that of 1965 and 36 percent above the 13 -year average. There should be adequate brood habitat in southern Manitoba through the 1966 season (table B-50). Breeding population indexes The duck breeding population in southern Manitoba in 1966 is higher than 1965 but still 20 percent below the average population level of the past 13 years. The important dabbling duck index is 10 percent above 1965 but 33 percent below the index for the 1953-65 period. Mallards are 13 percent higher than 1965. This is the first gain in mallard num- bers in Manitoba since 1963 but even this improved population remains 33 percent be- low the 13 -year average. The blue-winged teal index is 20 percent below 1965 and 60 percent below the long-term average. After a substantial gain in 1965, the number of pin- tails declined 25 percent in 1966 and 50 per- cent below average levels. Gadwall showed a marked gain this May and the 1966 index is 85 greater than the average. The 1966 diving duck index is almost the same as that found in 1965 and remains 20 14 percent above the long-term average. Al- though redhead and canvasback numbers de- clined slightly in 1966 their populations re- main 86 percent and 17 percent respecitvely, above the long-term average indexes. Scaup and ruddy ducks were both up in numbers ac- cording to the May figures while the other less numerous divers showed declines. Coot numbers in May 1966 in Manitoba were the lowest since 1957. The coot seems to be an opportunist and readily accepts good habitat wherever it occurs, This year's decline in Manitoba is probably balanced by another area's gain elsewhere on the prai- ries. The coot has exhibited wide annual fluctuations in numbers in Manitoba since surveys were begun in 1953 (tables B-51 and B-52). The ratio of lone drakes to total drakes observed is considered an indicator of the progress and intensity of the nesting effort. Ground studies found that nest initiation in stratum A was a week to ten days late among the early nesting species. Aerial surveys were started late and a majority of the tran- sects were covered after May 20. But the surveys apparently coincided with the peak of the nesting season since the 1966 lone drake index was 85 percent — the fourth high- est in 14 years. Added evidence of a late season was the absence of any brood obser- vations on transects this May. Usually a few broods are seen in late May but none had been recorded when surveys were com- pleted on May 29 (table B-53). Production indexes The 1966 duck brood index for stratum A and B was 41 percent above that of 1965 and only 6 percent below the long-term average (table B-54). To find a duck brood index greatly in excess of the 1966 figure, it is necessary to go all the way back to 1958. The coot brood index declined 44 percent from that of 1965 but remains 6 percent above the long-term average. The duck brood count this year in stratum A was more than twice that in 1965. Average brood size was 5. 7 compared to 5. 2 in 1965. The 1966 coot brood index was only slightly higher than that of last year. The hatch this year was a little late but still ahead of the late hatch of 1965. Duck production in stratum B in 1966 was about 20 percent better than that of 1965. Stratum B is three times the size of A and contributes about twice as m.any broods to the southern Manitoba index as does A. Brood size declined in B to 5. 1 from the fig- ure of 5. 7. Only about a third as many coot broods were seen in B in 1966 as were found in 1965. Coot numbers were down in May also probably because of the better water conditions elsewhere on the prairies. The 1966 late nesting index for southern Manitoba was the third lowest on record. Both aerial and ground data indicate very few late nesting adults remained in southern Man- itoba when surveys were concluded in late July. Apparently the surveys hit the peak of the hatch and with the exception of a few divers there was no important late hatch or renesting efforts in southern Manitoba this season. WISCONSIN Data supplied by Wisconsin Conservation Department Weather and habitat conditions Warm temperatures at the end of March got breeding waterfowl off to an early nest- ing start in 1966. This produced the earli- est brood records in 3 years for mallards. Subsequent cold weather apparently destroyed some nesting attempts made by mallards, and wood ducks especially in northern coun- ties, and some gatherings of pairs were observed. However, more permanent water was available statewide this year than in 1965 and water levels held up well into July sug- gesting that considerable renesting would occur and that brood survival would be bet- ter than normal. Breeding population indexes Aerial survey were conducted over all but 9, 900 square miles of 56, 000 square miles of land area during May 6-20. For the area surveyed, 1. 03 breeding ducks were observed persquare mile (weighted value). These data produced a population index of 48, 000 (plus or minus 10, 000) breeding ducks for a 23 percent decrease from the 1965 estimate 15 of 62, 000 (plus or minus 9, 000) breeding ducks. The estimated mallard population (raw index) was 11 percent less than 1965, while blue-winged teal declined 32 percent. A total of 58 linear miles of air /ground correction routes were flown. The data re- vealed that the aerial crew observed one in- dicated pair of breeders for each 4. 70 breeding pairs on the ground (table B-55). Utilization of wood duck nest boxes checked by State personnel was somewhat less than in 1965. Of 131 houses checked in 1966, 24 (18 percent) were used, while 51 of 214 (24 percent) were used in 1965. Production indexes Field observations by personnel from most of 72 counties in the State indicate a prolonged nesting season with a flattened hatching curve. The presence of flying broods and freshly hatched young suggests that "hoped-for" renesting occurred. Brood sizes are generally greater than in the last 2 years (table B-56). Brood data, renest- ing efforts, and the field reports suggest that mallard production will be unchanged to slightly greater and blue-winged teal pro- duction unchanged from 1965, in spite of breeding population decreases. Wood duck production should be unchanged to slightly greater than in 1965 and other duck species will be slightly down. Overall duck produc- tion from Wisconsin will be unchanged from that of 1965. MISSOURI Data supplied by G. K. Brakhage Missouri Conservation Commission Weather and habitat conditions Wood ducks are the only migratory water- fowl that nest in Missouri in appreciable num- bers. Mallards and blue-winged teal are considered occasional breeders and their contribution to the fall flight is of no conse- quence. Since they are cavity nesters, wood ducks are immune to most nest losses caused by inclement weather or high water levels. In 1966, nesting phenology was delayed about a week by cool weather, but there is no rea- son to believe that nesting success was ad- versely affected. 16 Production indexes The stream float system for evaluating wood duck density, distribution, and pro- ductivity is considered unreliable under Missouri conditions. The biases of variable stream levels, age of broods, vegetative cover, time of observations, cloud cover, behavior of flying young, etc. , appear too complex to correct with accuracy under Mis- souri conditions of relatively low population densities. The technique is being phased out as a survey method. It will be replaced on an experimental basis in 1967 with the spring flight count system. The latter method will involve making annual counts of adult wood ducks flying upstream in search of nesting cavities. The counts will be made in early morning hours from permanent observation points near the mouths of tributary streams. Supervisors and biologists on waterfowl management areas in the State were polled for their opinions on wood duck abundance in 1966 as compared with 1965. Nesting popu- lations at Duck Creek, Upper Mississippi River, Squaw Creek Refuge, and Swan Lake Refuge were all reported as improved over 1965, while Mingo Refuge reported a stable population. Stream floats were conducted on 125 miles of fairly representative habitat. Twelve broods were observed for an average of . 10 broods per mile of stream. In 1965, these same streams yielded 15 brood observations. It is believed that wood duck populations are about the same as in 1965. EASTERN ONTARIO, QUEBEC AND LABRADOR Data supplied by E. B. Chamberlain and C. F. Kaczynski, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather and habitat conditions Weather, as usual, was bad. Out of 45 days in the field 20 operational days were lost to weather. Spring came late, with breakup 2 weeks late in most places and the start of the growing season from two to four weeks late. Temperatures remained below normal throughout most of the period. Habi- tat appeared to be excellent, with water at the highest levels noted in the past 5 years. Breeding population indexes Based on comparable coverage the popu- lation index appeared to be very low. The 1965 index was the highest recorded and the 1966 index was the lowest. Most of the transects were completed within a phenologi- cally similar period in both 1965 and 1966. It has been assumed, because of the gen- eral stability of water levels and the vege- tative types present, that visibility rates remain relatively constant from year to year in eastern Canada. However, from past sur- vey reports and experience during the past 5 years, there has been no instance when water levels have been as high. Therefore, while there very well may be a decline in waterfowl populations in this survey area, it is less serious than it appears. Birds were present but not seen because of high water levels (tables B-57 and B-58). WATER FOWL KILL SURVEY Data supplied by M. Edwin Rosasco Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Scope and methods Each year, immediately after the hunting season, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife conducts a national mail question- naire survey of waterfowl hunters designed to meet the following objectives: 1. Estimate, at the flyway level, the total waterfowl bag by species (ad- justed for response bias) and the total crippling loss for ducks, geese, and coots. 2. Estimate, at the State and flyway level, the total number of potential adult hunters, average number of days hunted and ducks and geese bagged per potential adult hunter, and total days hunted and ducks and geese bagged by all waterfowl hunters (adult and junior), un- adjusted for response bias. 3. Estimate, at the State and flyway level, the total number of duck stamps sold, the percent sold to nonhunters, the number of potential adult hunters, the percent of active adult hunters (hunted at least once), and the percent of active adult hunters who were successful (bagged one or more birds). 4. Measure the percent change of each of these estimates from those of the previous year. The 1965-66 hunting season is the I4th consecutive year of the survey since its start in 1952. In the past 4 years, pre- liminary kill estimates have been present- ed in an Administrative Report which is distributed prior to the Waterfowl Regu- lations Meeting in early August. These pre- liminary estimates are then revised and presented in the annual Waterfowl Status Report later in the fall. The early Admin- istrative Report is based on reports of duck stamp sales through the third quarter of the fiscal year, while the material in the Waterfowl Status Report is based on total sales through the fourth quarter. Until about 1959, reports on duck stamp sales through the third quarter were regularly within a few percentage points of total sales. Since i960 there have been con- siderable deviations in the proportion of the total sales reported through the third quarter in some States. Since these deviations in reported sales are not predictable, it has been necessary to revise the kill estimates presented in the earlier Administrative Report. Since there is no complete listing of water- fowl hunters, this survey, by necessity, uses as its sampling universe those post offices throughout the nation which sell Migratory Bird Hunting Stamps ("duck stamps"). This year, 2, 898 post offices were selected to cooperate in the survey as "sample outlets." These sample outlets were randomly selec- ted within four strata (small, medium, large, and very large duck stamp dollar sales) of post offices, within designated geo- graphic zones in each State. Names and addresses of hunters were ob- tainedby means of a postal card, "contact card, " distributed to all persons buying duck stamps 17 at sample outlets. This card requested the individual' s name and address, the number of stamps he purchased, the reason for his purchase, and the number of persons in his household under the stamp requirement age of 16 years who might hunt waterfowl during the season. All contact-card respondents who pur- chased stamps for the purpose of hunting were mailed a hunter questionnaire at the close of the season. The 1965-66 questionnaire asked each hunter the total number of days he hunted waterfowl, his total bags of ducks, geese, and coots, and the number of each he knocked down in sight but did not retrieve. These data, in combination with the total reported sale of duck stamps by State, have been used to derive the various survey estimates. For the analyses of the data, the same geographic zones were used as in 1964-65 but the stratification of sample post offices was modified this year to improve post office sample sizes within strata. For sim- plicity, the calculations again were based on potential rather than active waterfowl hunters. In developing the kill estimates for hunter- days and ducks killed and crippled, the means, variances, and totals were computed for each post office stratum (based on number of stamps sold) within each geo- graphic zone, and were weighted to give more accurate calculations for State and flyway. Because of high variability at the post office stratum level, sea duck estimates (in the six Atlantic Flyway States having a special sea duck season) and all goose and coot estimates were calculated and weighted only at the geo- graphic zone level. Data from those portions of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming lying west of the Continental Divide were again assigned to the Pacific Flyway for both 1964 and 1965. Flyway boundaries in Montana re- vised this year to include a larger area in the Pacific Flyway. The Colorado waterfowl harvest and activity figures in this report do not include the experi- mental October season in the San Luis Valley. Likewise, the harvest and activity figures for the Central and Missis- sippi Flyways do not include the special September teal season in 20 States of these two Flyways. For information on these special seasons refer to Administrative Report 120 for the San Luis season, and to Special Scientific Report No. 95 for the September teal season. In the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island, which had a special sea duck season lasting for 108 days, the estimate of total sea duck kill was calculated from answers to questions on the kill survey questionnaire concerning the number of sea ducks killed. Species composition (scoter, eider, and oldsquaw) of this total was determined from wing collection data. In these States the sea duck estimates were added to the esti- mated kill of other ducks. In all other States the percent composition of sea ducks among the wings collected was in- cluded in the total estimated duck kill, and the kill of scoter, eider, and oldsquaw were estimated therefrom. For more information concerning sea duck harvest estimates refer to Administrative Report 97. It should be noted that the hunting activity and harvest estimates are presented for the State and flyway where the duck stamps were purchased. Thus, for example, the small estimated goose kill for Arkansas (where the Canada goose season was closed in 1964 and 1965) may relate in part to Canada geese shot in neighboring States by hunters purchasing their duck stamps in Arkansas and, in part, to a small kill of blue and snow geese in Arkansas. In the past 4 years, the flyway bag esti- mates for ducks, geese, and coots were ad- justed for response bias in reported figures by using the correction factors calculated in 1960. The hunting activity and bag of junior hunters have again been estimated, using expansion factors based on studies in previous years. The species composition of the duck and goose harvest is based on the results of the annual Duck Wing and Goose Tail Collection Surveys. Alaska was included in the Mail Question- naire Survey this year and will be included in both the Mail Questionnaire and Water- fowl Parts Collection Surveys next year. Results of the Alaska questionnaire survey are presented in tables C-4 and C-17. 18 Pacific Flyway An estimated 2, 915, 100 ducks were bagg- ed in the Pacific Flyway during the 1965-66 waterfowl season, an increase of 16 percent from the previous season (table C-1). An additional 615, 300 ducks were knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approximately 3, 530, 400 ducks. Analysis of the total Flyway duck bag by species, as derived from data provided by the Duck Wing Survey, shows that the bag of mal- lards (995,900) comprised 34 percent of the total bag of all species. The bags of pintails (541, 100), green-winged teal (381, 400), American widgeon (353, 900), and shovelers (195,000), together with mallards, com- prised 85 percent of the Flyway bag of all ducks. The bags of most species of ducks increased from the previous year (table C-1). The duck kill at the State level is presented in table C-3. The total Flyway goose bag of an esti- mated 225, 500 birds decreased 23 percent from the previous season. An additional 45, 300 geese were reported knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approximately 270, 800 geese (table C-2). The State goose kill data are in table C-3. An estimated 107, 700 coots were bagged in the Flyway, an increase of 9 percent from the previous season. An additional 71, 000 coots were knocked down but not retrieved, yielding a total kill (bag plus cripples) of about 178, 700 coots. A total of approximately 340, 600 poten- tial adult hunters, an increase of 6 percent from the previous season, was registered for the Flyway. Of these potential adult hunters, 83 percent were active compared to 80 percent the previous year, and of the active hunters, 85 percent were successful, the same percentage as the previous year (table C-4). A total of 2, 089, 500 hunter- days afield (including junior hunter-days) was estimated for the Flyway, an increase of 3 percent from the previous season (table C-3). Central Flyway An estimated 1, 080, 100 ducks were bag- ged in the Central Flyway during the 1965- 66 waterfowl season, a decrease of 17 percent from the previous season (table C-5). An additional 305, 800 ducks were knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approxi- mately 1,386,000 ducks. Analysis of the total Flyway duck bag by species, as derived from data pro- vided by the Duck Wing Survey, shows that the bag of mallards (315,000) comprised 29 percent of the total bag of all species. The bags of green-winged teal (158, 000) and gadwalls (120, 900), together with mallards, comprised 55 percent of the Flyway bag of all ducks. The kill de- creased for approximately half the ducks, including mallards, American widgeon, green-winged teal and pintails, whereas the kill of gadwalls, shovelers, and red- heads increased (table C-5). All States registered decreases in the total duck bag from the previous season (table C-7). The total Flyway goose bag of an estimated 205, 100 birds decreased 20 percent from the previous season. An additional 41, 400 geese were knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples ) of approximately 246, 500 geese (table C-6). The State goose kill data are in table C-7. An estimated 39, 800 coots were bagged in the Flyway, an increase of 72 percent over the previous season. An additional 19, 600 coots were knocked down but not retrieved, yielding a total kill (bag plus cripples) of about 59, 300 coots. A total of approximately 258, 300 potential adult hunters, a decrease of 8 percent from the previous season, was registered for the Flyway. Of these po- tential adult hunters, 80 percent were active, the same percentage as the pre- vious year. Of the active hunters, 77 per- cent were successful compared to 82 percent successful the previous year (table C-8). A total of 1, 396, 400 hunter- days afield (including junior hunter-days) was estimated for the Flyway, a decrease of 15 percent from the previous season (table C-7). Mississippi Flyway An estimated 3, 315, 400 ducks were bagged in the Mississippi Flyway during 19 the 1965-66 waterfowl season, a decrease of 7 percent from the previous season (table C-9). An additional 799, 000 ducks were estimated to have been knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approximately 4, 114, 400 ducks. Analysis of the total Flyway duck bag by species, as derived from data provided by the Duck Wing Survey, shows that the bag of mallards (925, 000) comprised 28 percent of the total bag of all species. The bags of ten species -- wood ducks (337, 600), lesser scaup (337, 000), ringnecked ducks (320, 900), gadwalls (220, 800), green-winged teal (215, 100), American widgeon (212, 700), blue-winged teal (142, 500), pintails (116, 900), black ducks (103, 600) and mallards, comprised 88 percent of the Flyway bag of all ducks. The bags of most of the diving ducks increased, whereas those of only half of the dabbling ducks increased. The bags of the other half, including mallards, green-winged teal, blue -winged teal, and pintails, decreased (table C-9). The duck kill at the State level is presented in table C-11. The total Flyway goose bag of an estima- ted 253, 700 birds increased 2 percent from that of the previous season. An additional 42, 700 geese were reported knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approximately 296, 400 geese (table C-lO). The goose kill at the State level is presented in table C-11. An estimated 385, 400 coots were bagged on the Flyway, an increase of 35 percent over that of the previous season. An additional 101, 600 coots were knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approximately 487, 000 coots. A total of approximately 627, 200 poten- tial adult hunters, a decrease of 5 percent from the previous season, was registered for the Flyway. Of these potential adult hunters, 87 percent were active compared to 84 percent the previous year. Of the active hunters, 79 percent were successful compared to 82 percent successful the previous year (table C-12). A total of 3, 968, 700 hunter-days afield (including junior hunter-days) was estimated for the Flyway, a decrease of 2 percent from the previous season (table C-11). Atlantic Flyway An estimated 1, 021, 900 ducks were bag- ged in the Atlantic Flyway during the 1965-66 waterfowl season, an increase of 3 percent over the previous season (table C-13). An estimated 266, 900 ducks were knocked down but not retrieved, yielding a total kill (bag plus cripples) of approximately 1 , 288, 800 ducks. Analysis of the total Flyway duck bag by species, as derived from data provided by the Duck Wing Survey, shows that the bag of black ducks (216, 800) comprised 21 per- cent of the total bag of all species. The bags of six species — mallards (161, 300), wood ducks (154, 600) , green-winged teal (71, 100), ring-necked ducks (64, 700), American widgeon (54, 800), and black ducks, comprised 71 percent of the Flyway bag of all species. The kill decreased for approxi- mately half the duck species, including black ducks, green-winged teal, and ring-necked ducks, while the kill of American widgeon and wood ducks increased (table C-13). The duck kill at the State level is presented in table C-15. The total Flyway goose bag of an estimated 96,600 birds decreased 39 percent from the previous season. An estimated 15,900 geese were knocked down but not retrieved, for a total kill (bag plus cripples of approximately 112,500 geese (table C-14). The goose kill at the State level is presented in table C-15. An estimated 85, 900 coots were bagged in the Flyway, an increase of 19 percent over the previous season. An estimated 30, 000 coots were knocked down but not retrieved, yielding a total kill (bag plus cripples) of about 116, 000 coots. A total of approximately 297, 500 poten- tial adult waterfowl hunters, an increase of 6 percent over the previous season, was registered for the Flyway. Of the potential adult hunters, 81 percent were active com- pared to 78 percent active the previous year. Of the active hunters, 74 percent were successful compared to 76 percent suc- cessful the previous year (table C-16). A total of 1,537,700 hunter- days afield (including junior hunter-days) was estimated for the flyway, an increase of 3 percent from the previous season (table C-15), 20 APPENDIX A. WATERFOWL WINTER SURVEY TABLES TABLE A-1. --Survey of waterfowl on their winter habitat, Jaunary 1966 [nearest hundreds] Species Pacific Flyway Central Flyway Mississippi Fljrway Atlantic Flyway Total United Statesl Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Black duck Mottled duck Gadwall American widgeon- - Green-winged teal - Blue -winged teal — Cinnamon teal Shoveler — Pintail 1,702,600 63. 300 714,200 354, 400 6,700 218, 100 1,633,800 1, 692, 000 3,900 48, 000 144, 000 129, 300 1,700 23,500 267,900 4, 105,400 152, 100 15,200 990, 100 592,400 901,800 135,400 323, 100 1, 289, 000 207, 500 304, 800 3,700 24,400 141,600 72,400 21,900 28, 900 162, 100 7,707,500 456, 900 22,800 1, 125,800 1,592,200 1,457,900 165, 7002 593,600 3,352,800 Subtotal Divers: Redhead - Canvasback Scaup Rir^-necked duck -- Goldeneye Bufflehead Fiuddy duck 4,693, 100 10, 400 45, 600 117,200 7,800 55, 300 21,700 190, 800 2, 310, 300 329, 400 10,200 37, 300 3,500 3,500 2,300 7,700 8, 504, 500 51,700 68, 300 309, 800 97,500 30, 200 6,300 37, 100 967, 300 296, 600 148, 100 926, 700 111,400 94, 000 43, 500 52,800 16,475,200 688, 100 272, 200 1. 391, 000 220,200 183, 000 73,800 288,400 Subtotal Miscellaneous: Eider and scoter — Oldsquaw Merganser 448, 800 121,900 200 32, 000 393, 900 49, 100 600, 900 1,900 51,700 1,673, 100 76, 300 6,000 71,200 3, 116,700 198,200 8, 100 204, 000 Subtotal Unidentified 154, 100 70, 700 49, 100 15,900 53, 600 42, 900 153,500 83,900 410, 300 213,400 Total ducks 5, 366, 700 2,720, 100 9,201,900 2,877,800 20,215,600 See footnotes p. 22 21 TABLE A-1. --Survey of waterfowl on their winter habitat, January 1966- -continued [nearest hundreds] Species Pacific Flyway Central Flyway Mississippi Flyway Atlantic Flyway Total Geese: 308, 400 67, 000 183, 500 66, 200 30, 400 136,500 77, 700 13, 000 202, 500 123, 000 360, 600 45,700 381,400 43,400 1, 100 600,200 611,300 439 400 White-fronted goose- - Canada goose Cackling goose 125,700 1, 367, 600 66, 200 30, 400 Total geese Brant: American brant Rlcinlr VrnQTif . — — _ — — — 655,500 156, 900 429, 700 910,700 644, 700 165, 400 2, 640, 600 165,400 156,900 Total brant Swans: Whistling swan Trumpeter swan 156,900 36, 600 500 -- 1,200 165, 400 57,800 322, 300 95, 600 500 Total swans Coot^ 37, 100 506, 400 171, 100 1,200 903,200 57,800 669, 300 96, 100 2 2S0 000 Grand total 6, 722, 600 3, 320, 900 11,017,000 4,415,000 25,524,600 1 Black braut from Mexico included, but no ducks from Mexico. ^ Includes cinnamon teal. 22 TABLE A-2, --Distribution of wintering waterfowl, North America, 1966 [nearest hundreds] State Ducks Geese Brant Swans Coots Total Pacific Flyway: Washington Oregon Idaho Nevada California Utah Ariz ona Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Mexico (west coast) Flyway total Central Flyway: Colorado Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico Texas Montana Wyoming North Dakota South Dakota Flyway total Mississippi Flyway: Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Iowa Missouri Illinois Indiana Olio Arkansas Mississippi Louisiana Alabama Kentucky Tennessee Flyway total 1,041 417 433 70 3, 130 71 46 139 1 9 1 5,363 224 239 507 67 63 1,211 56 114 26 258 2,769 13 44 57 287 554 553 67 85 1,543 247 4,971 88 46 536 9, 098, 300 800 600 000 400 700 800 200 200 700 800 500 61,400 68, 000 13, 000 11,300 293, 300 2,800 5,900 3,500 100 22,200 800 3,300 1, 100 4,400 500 9,800 18,700 2,400 300 29, 800 44, 400 13, 400 16, 200 331, 100 5,500 54, 000 12, 100 130,600 700 700 900 000 200 600 300 400 300 400 400 459, 300 156,900 37,200 32 7 22 16 12 307 1 28 200 900 100 700 800 000 600 900 500 400 800 600 000 200 800 429 8 16 6 39 153 111 5 13 12 2 427 47 9 57 500 900 500 400 400 000 600 500 900 700 100 300 200 400 800 200 900 200 100 300 700 200 600 800 910,800 506, 500 1,000 400 5,400 164, 300 1,200 1,200 171, 100 8,000 1,800 300 83, 300 7,000 732,700 31, 100 39, 000 156 535 459 105 777 82 106 155 1 9 1 130 903, 200 6,521 258 247 529 84 81 1,682 57 115 26 287 3, 370 22 60 65 327 715 664 75 99 1,638 257 6, 132 166 55 633 10,913,500 23 TABLE A-2, --Distribution of winterii^ waterfowl. North American, 1966- -continued State Ducks Geese Brant Swans Coots Total Atlantic Flyway: Maine New Hampshire — Vermont Massachusetts Connecticut Rhode Island 43, 100 2,400 3,700 88, 200 17, 300 24, 900 156, 300 194, 700 22, 500 81,800 385, 900 132, 700 8,200 99, 000 466, 300 94, 700 1, 056, 100 2,000 7,800 400 700 3,000 11, 600 6,400 52,900 353, 000 77, 000 93, 000 30, 600 200 6, 100 300 1 1, 000 151,600 1, 100 1,400 100 100 45, 300 1,400 10, 900 100 600 200 100 7,200 1,000 40, 500 71,000 5,700 542, 900 43, 100 4,400 3,700 96, 300 17, 700 25,700 170 900 New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware 358,200 29, 100 135, 800 791,400 21 S "iOO West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina 8,200 243, 400 567, 900 100, 600 1, 605, 100 Florida Flyway total 2, 877, 800 644, 700 165,400 57,800 669, 300 4,415,000 24 B. WATERFOWL BREEDING GROUND SURVEY TABLES TABLE B-1. --Ten-year trend in waterfowl breeding population indexes by species, Alaska, 1957-66 [index numbers in thousands] Species Dabblers: Mallard American widgeon Green-winged teal Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Canvasback Scaup Goldeneye Buffi ehead Subtotal Miscellaneous: Scoter Eider Old Squaw Merganser Subtotal Total ducks 1, 186 1957 46 33 6 1 188 274 16 456 8 23 503 269 10 130 1958 409 63 53 7 10 273 406 3 588 6 19 616 324 24 108 1 1959 457 98 32 2 8 474 614 12 533 8 18 1960 78 26 1 7 356 468 19 597 27 24 1,479 571 183 17 59 259 1,444 667 324 17 90 1961 108 42 4 17 440 611 6 657 26 31 431 1,566 720 316 30 87 1962 60 42 2 7 476 1963 587 7 657 33 39 433 1,764 736 225 11 69 305 1,628 83 27 2 5 378 495 17 585 10 37 1964 67 36 10 7 379 499 11 562 9 32 1965 27 40 14 4 240 649 165 11 94 270 1,414 614 148 20 92 2 262 1, 375 325 21 355 9 29 1966 32 32 17 5 250 414 190 27 49 266 1,005 336 17 425 13 22 477 252 14 79 3 348 1, 161 Ave. 66 36 7 7 345 461 13 541 15 27 596 240 18 86 2 346 1,403 25 TABLE B-2. --Comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species and stratum, Alaska, 1957 to 1966 [index numbers in thousands] Species Stratum Total Average 1957 to 1966 Percent change from 37 38 1965 1966 1965 Average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard American widgeon - Green-winged teal - Shoveler Pintail 10 11 6 148 22 20 11 5 102 27 40 14 4 240 32 31 17 5 250 66 36 7 7 345 + 19 - 20 + 21 ^ 25 + 4 - 52 - 11 + 143 - 29 - 28 Subtotal Divers: Canvasback - Scaup Goldeneye Bufflehead 175 1 220 5 4 160 16 206 8 18 325 21 355 9 29 330 17 426 13 22 461 13 541 15 27 + 3 - 19 + 20 + 14 - 24 - 27 4 31 - 21 - 13 - 19 Subtotal Miscellaneous: Scoter Eider - 230 196 14 78 3 248 56 1 414 190 27 49 478 252 14 79 3 596 240 18 86 2 + 15 + 33 - 48 + 61 - 20 + 5 - 22 8 Merganser + 50 Subtotal 291 57 266 348 346 + 31 + 1 Total ducks 696 465 1,005 1,161 1,403 + 16 - 17 26 TABLE B-3. --Ten-year trend in waterfowl breeding population index by species, Old Crow, Yukon, 1956-66 [index numbers in thousands] Species 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard 3 -- 1 2 4 4 2 -- 1 1 American widgeon- - 7 3 4 9 9 6 7 4 5 9 Green-winged teal - 1 -- 1 1 2 1 1 -- -- Shoveler 1 -- 1 1 -- -- — Pintail 21 15 16 37 16 6 10 6 4 2 Subtotal 33 18 23 50 31 17 19 11 10 12 Divers: Canvasback 9 2 6 6 1 -- 1 -- 2 16 Scaup 25 13 24 38 49 35 24 24 21 49 Goldeneye 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 -- 1 -- Bufflehead -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 Subtotal 35 17 32 46 52 37 28 24 24 66 Miscellaneous: 42 26 31 68 74 52 32 20 17 43 Eider 5 3 6 6 7 11 4 7 3 8 Merganser -- -- -- 1 -- -- 3 -- -- -- Subtotal 47 29 37 75 81 63 39 27 20 51 Total ducks 115 64 92 171 164 117 86 62 54 129 27 TABLE B-4. --Comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species. Old Crow, Yukon, 1965-1966 [index numbers in thousands] Stratum 05 Total Average_/ 1956 1966 Percent change from Species 1965 1966 1965 Average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard American widgeon- - Green-winged teal — Shoveler Pintail 1 9 2 1 5 4 1 9 2 2 6 1 13 + 80 - 50 - 50 + 50 - 85 Subtotal Divers: Canvasback 12 16 49 1 10 2 21 1 12 16 49 1 22 4 30 2 + 20 +700 + 133 - 45 +300 + 63 Bufflehead -- Subtotal Miscellaneous: 66 43 8 24 17 3 66 43 8 35 41 6 + 175 + 153 + 167 + 89 + 5 Eider + 33 Merganser Subtotal 51 20 51 47 + 155 + 9 Total ducks 129 54 129 104 + 139 + 24 1 1959 data missing. TABLE B-5. --Whistlii^ swan breeding population index, Alasl ca, 1958-1966 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Average Sq. mi. sampled Number counted Population index in thousands 640 600 64 644 546 59 604 710 79 648 759 79 492 470 56 468 567 64 414 481 50 208 298 62 212 256 52 63 28 TABLE B-6. --Survey of breeding drakes on Minto Flats, Alaska, 1962-1966 [three 4-sq. mi. plots] Species 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 5-yr. average Percent change from 1965 Average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard American widgeon-- Green-winged teal — Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Canvasback Scaup Goldeneye Bufflehead Subtotal Miscellaneous: Scoter Total ducks 65 73 50 25 201 414 10 158 4 15 187 610 83 75 43 24 97 45 73 34 27 78 28 44 28 22 43 37 69 42 10 42 52 67 39 22 92 332 4 152 5 35 257 16 202 17 20 165 4 103 5 19 200 14 215 1 17 272 10 166 6 21 196 255 131 247 203 523 519 296 447 479 32 57 50 55 2 + 21 +250 + 109 - 80 - 11 + 51 -29 + 3 + 8 -55 -54 -26 +40 +30 -83 -19 +22 29 CD Oi to CO a 3 o s o c 3 o CJ 73 O O .O > •1-1 O U I I I pa pa <: B o ^ «4-l QJ in 00 CO CO 00 05 C» lO lf3 CD T-l CO eg CO 00 o '-I D- 1— t + 1 t-H CO + + + + + + -M to c -M 0) jrt o ;^ E 01 c o 0^ CO CD 05 CM '-I 05 ir> C35 »— t 3 CO CD ■>s< m y~l r~< y~* ^ O iS ■a o o u X5 CM ID 03 05 CO 00 CO CO C '-* 1 c- S-l CD T-H 1 co 0) OJ 1 T— ( CO 00 *— ' CD O O 00 05 O) 3 CD ■^ I-H I— 1 CO CM z y—i 1 S o u ^4-t bX) ID o ^ CO C- O CM CD O '-' 1-1 CO o c>a 05 CVI ^ CO rt l-H CO jr T— 4 + + + + + + o -4-) c QJ O ^ 0) s •»-t C4 CD en CD CD 1 00 CD O in CD CO CO 1 ^~~* CO 9 C33 1—1 H rH in CO c- CO 1 CO CO 1 eg CO CD >-• 1 1 CO 73 Oi O o u 42 T-H ■^ C^^ CD 05 1 ■* CM c>q 1 ^^ CO r-* 1 CO "S t— ( CO CO CO C- 1 i-H 't' "-I 05 u CD c>a CM ej 1 T— ( 1-H t-H o 0) Oi 1—4 6 i—t CO •<»< 00 O --1 00 00 (>5 1— ( 3 CD »-H »-H CO i-H 1-1 o Z 1— < 1— t i-H TJH r}< CM eg CJ) •^ "*■ 05 CD CO c- rji T-l 1-1 i-l 05 OJ 1—1 1— 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 . U 3 CO (V -4-> O) I— ^ S o CJ c x: a a 3 cti O CO 30 (D CO 05 t-H w o OJ -w o c- a> ^ a2 to '-' >> „r •° ^ CO •r' 0 *i T3 t^ 5 ^ c H •H- ^ CO Ri (V -^ > f^5 ^ 2 ^H to a o T3 bc'Z C to St: T3 C 3 (U rt O 0 JH ^H _r -4-> x).2 .3 n-H i! ^ F to O 3 t< (1) m O -O Jiu Fi 3 0) ?£ .3 *^ 0) QJ o a U Si 00 CQ o CO CD eg C3 t- CD 03 ■^ oo in 1—4 in CD •^ in 1-* (33 03 I> CD I> [> CD 00 00 1-H ^ O CC3 CO 1—1 00 eg O ■^ eg o o in o in C33 (33 CO O in CO c- CO in 1-H CD •* CO 1-1 O CO •<*< 03 CO h- in ■* eg rt TH o c- eg 1—1 in eg 1-H C33 1—1 1— ( 1-H CM ■^ in O (^i •^ 03 CO CO CD "-I CO 1-H 1-H •^ 00 03 CO <-l CD 00 03 ■^ CD CO 00 in in eg 03 (33 c-^ in 1-H CD OCJ 'i' C- C- •^ •^ O CD CO c- CT> CD CO C^ 03 CO C^ 03 c- 1—1 CM •<* CO CD eg in CD in 03 1-H ^ CO 1—1 r-( (33 ■* CM CO CO ^ (33 c- 1—1 ^ CO CD O o o o o o o O o 1—) o o o o o 03 c- rf (33 eg o 1-H o CO o o o6 eg O in O in o O c- CO 03 eg CO CM o 02 CO r-l Tf C- C- 00 1-1 CO in in 00 in CD in eg 03 (33 00 00 CD (33 CD eg i-< 1-1 CM in in 1-1 00 00 CM CO CD 1— ( y-^ 1-H 1—1 ■* CO CO CO eg O -^ CD CO t- CO (33 eg CJ3 in o "-1 eg CD OCJ CD CO CO in o eg eg i-< o in CM CO CO in CD CD CO CO CO CD (33 03 eg in 1-1 in ■* in in CO CD CO ■^ »-l 1-1 1-H ej O 00 00 CO ■* CD T— ( 1-^ 1—* 1—1 in i-H CO CO c- t- 1—1 1-H 1—i co CD 0(5 CO eg CO 00 c- CO CO CD CO c^ o "^ ^ ^ CO 1— ' 1— ' CD eg 03 1-H in CO in 1—1 CM 03 CO 1-H in (N o o O eg o o 03 CD 00 CO ■<*' •^ 00 1-H in "-I 03 ■^ 00 t- CO t- -^ CO 00 CD iO T-H 1-H 1-H CO I-H c- in »-i t- CD 1-H 1-H 1-H CO CO in CO 1-1 ej 03 o 03 (33 1— ) ^ CO O 00 00 CO CM (O C- "-1 in d c CO (D (33 OCJ in in CO CO t-^ eg (-) in (33 1-1 03 •* in C- CM 00 D- 03 1-H eg •* CD c- in 00 CM in •^ t- in in CM CO 00 CO 00 03 1—1 ■* CO 1-1 CO CO >* 1-H oo CM 1-1 1-H in c- n n K ^ ^ ^ 1-H 1—1 1-H 1^ 1-H •^ O) t~ t- i-< CO CD in CO 00 (33 00 C- '*' O o in o in CO 1-H co t- 00 (33 in c- CM CD 1-1 in c- eg o ■* 03 in eg CO o 00 o CO c- CO in CO '3' o CM o (33 00 ^ CO (33 i-H (rg Tjt CM 1-1 i-< o CM O >-< CM CM 00 CM eg 1-H c- C- *, r. ■V K ^ ^ ^ 1—1 1— ( CO CM CM T-H 1— ( c- 00 ITS 03 CO t- o eg c- CO CM o 03 CO (33 CO ^ (33 C- cS -^ c-i c t- o CM -^ O in o T-H 00 O '9' CO CM 1-H O in o in 1—1 CO »— 1 t- eg 1—1 1— < ^ T-H CO eg ^ 1— ( 00 1-H t- eg 1-H 1-H 1-H CD 00 CO in -"f CM c- CO 1-H o in in CO •^ CO in ocJ (d (=3 t> CM eg CD eg (33 in CD (T3 •<*l ^ c- eg 1-c o CD eg eg •<*" 00 03 CJ3 CO t- -^ o 00 CM 1-1 eg Tf in 03 CD in o r- ■<1< 00 1-H ■^ eg CO 1-H 1-H CO 1-H 00 "-I 1—1 1-H 1-H CO co" II III 1 c -; 1 1 1 1 O ™ rt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 •« ! ! 1 S a) (Ti u CD >c- ^ IT) to e •r-4 C o 05 CO o a u 3 . bD ^ .3 5 Qj o X3 T3 "^ c3 rt 01 JD "S S •-^ U "^ j= C rn 0) .in ■^ U ^" >> u c *.* ' ^ I ■>-> . ;-i 00 o c 0) .£3 O !z; 03 in CO CM to CO T— ( QO in C) OS CM 7-i CVJ t-H CO ■^ t~ ■^ in CO C5 C-^ ai in a> i-H f-H i-H o o o O CO CO 1-H OJ CO a> eg T-i CM T— ) rr o 1-H 03 CO CD <-< d CM '^S 05 CO CO eg 1—4 (Tg in in I* CSI CD CD in CD CO CR cq e 05 "-I 03 ■^ T3 y—i c •»-l CO "* CO , CO > . 1 in O c>q CO C35 in 1-H T-H 00 o ^ 1 t- 1 m I> r^ 1-H 05 C^ i-H »-H (U 1 CO 1 O 1 O 1 bo I to T3 i •r-l c o CJ o o OJ t, be a 7 «i CO eese: Whiti Cana to c CO ■t-i CO o o O U 32 0) I t: o Z o u n a oa c -*-» (0 e« (U JS ■s o c a, 2 < »; is i" 2 so £ en o c .S g o T3 v rt rt 00 0 T-H in CO CO CO CM "-l ■* c- CM 0 CO a> CO ^ CO CO CM »— t •^ CM CO CO in -O" --i CO CO C* CO 1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 + + + 1 + + + 1 £ >! o 1 1 . 0 0) u in c- c- •^ 0 CM r- CO CO en in '-' "»■ rq 00 CM CO 00 ^ to CM 00 -H CD r~* CO •^ in CM c- r~t OJ 05 C14 + 1 + + 1 + 1 + + + + i 1 1 + + ' 0 ^ 01 to CO CD —1 CO 1-t T^ 00 a> CO —1 CO in CM in CD CM I> l> Tj' •^ d CO CO " CD 00 oi tT CD 00 in d 05 CD CO C- en CO C- Oi c- •-I CM •*■ CO CO CM in CO CO -H »— * ai Tf CM 00 CD ^ «" CD CD CM C- CD 0 -^ c CO 1 1 -S" 1 •^ in . 1 1 .1 1— t 0 CO d d i> I> d d 0 1-H 1-^ ^^ '"' oq CO CO —' „ in i 0 rt ^5" 1 o> 05 1 1 in in 00 1 1 CO ,_, CO c- 1 1 1 ■a 0 CT) 0 CD d r- CO CM in 1-H d c-^ rt CM in in in in 0] *"* •* ■^ CM ^ ^^ CO I 1 1 1 . 1 0 CJ5 0 cq ■<»< CO Oi ai 00 i> ■^ ^a" in d ti ^ CM -H CD en a M ^^ CO 1 -< ^_, CO CM ■* •* 1 1 CO 00 CO CO CO in 1 U in 1 1 1 1> 00 0 CM
1 1 ■*' •■r 1 1 *~^ 03 « C- 1 00 ,-H •^ ■ 1 1 1 1 . . 1 rt 0 CD 0 r^ 1— ( CD CM ir-^ CM in c-^ t-^ y CO C<1 r—l Ir- c- 00 in CM CM ■K 0) jr , , CO 1 CM CD 1 0 rt CM 1 1 CO 0 0 C- 1 CO 0 -•-1 CO 1 1 CD Oi tr- *-< TT d CM d TT TT C- CO t-^ in CO CO CO CO 1" CM c^ CO 3 0 '— ' •* tT CM CD C- CO in CM 00 0 CD CO 03 •* CO 0 CO ^ « r- g in C7i 0 CO CM CM CD CO CO CM ^ C-^ c-q 'T in d c^ d 3 *-H ^-* CO •^ ^^ c^ CO 1 CO in ■^ c- ■ C-^ CO »-■ in d •^ CO in I> CO CO C- CO CO CM '-' CM I-H t-" CO 03 r- CO CO *"* CO *"* CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 ■a 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 .. 0) 1 1 1 Oi 1 T3 • 1 1 : i 1 "S TO cj •5 ^ 1 Sj Pi m 1 c Hill .S K 0 ra K 1 1 1 1 to T3 0) u a CO 1 1 I b£ « -S "^ "S 2 S 1 1 1 1 1 -t-t C ] 3 > 2SS 033 0 D3 K 0 1 0 H It 0 0 gco a° Q 33 in (U •fH u o a U 01 H -4-* CO (U I o £! s T O u X in 4-) tn Rl 01 J3 t; T3 n tu C ^ O CD g CD < CD 05 C f— 1 u 0) rl (h o Q 3 o< o o. be 5 T5 0) V I— I I ct-l > 1 .^_, o 0) o in CD ■* CO f— 1 O eg o ■»< in in CM t- (1) 02 CM (^ + + + + 1 + ' + Oi in CD ■^ 00 "S" t~ ■a- in CD c-l •-< 00 C-^ CO c-^ d in 1 — 1 in 05 T-H ■a* t-H T-H CT> tr- rt co" o CD CD O ir- CO '-< CO eg o oi !T> in .-i CO CO in CM d O) 05 CO c- in CS3 T-H CM M •- cn ^^ ■^r CO 1 o CO as CD CO , O? I ■a< o6 oi " d CO C^ CO t-H t- 1 *"• (— 1 o s ir- CO o in 1 1 eg 1 1 1 13 d> ■-< ■^ esi eg tr- •"J- tt CJ3 CD 1 CSl CO 1 en ?■ 1 CD INI CO esi CD CM in T3 o C- --I Tf in s »-H CO CO o , . O 1 05 o 1 1 1 > CD . 1 1 1 1 0 U Oh II O CO CO CM 1 CO CO c>a 1 1 ^ t, in 1 1 1 QJ r-A *-H in E c CO o »-H 05 ■* rf CD 1 05 1 i-H 1— t CD d cvi ' f— 1 1-H CO in 1-* o I— 1 in ■t-i 01 s: , , CO c- O in 1 r- 1 CO 1 c co cvi CO ^ ■^ a> CD CD —1 CO o ^ O I-H CO CO ~ Q* ?J 1 cn 1 CO CO 1 in -f E in CD I-^ CO d CM d '" OM rt tH ir«] •^ in 00 l> I CD 1 "tn ^ ^ CO ^ in in ' o ^ CM CO in 0) 73 T-H 1 r- 05 CO 1 1 1 ■^ S Y— 1 ' d CO ocj 1 1 1 CM CO CD *-H CO ^ c- t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■O 1 Q) W 1 1 t 01 1 m 01 'cj ' u > 01 1 m 1 O 2 ' S> s 3 V 01 cs ,. i m 73 01 ^ CJ M S H > m o O O 34 TABLE B-10. --Long-term trend in pond indexes by strata with comparisons to average and previous year, central and southern Alberta, May and July, 1966 [index numbers in thousands] May: Stratum Total 1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 187 255 131 257 191 118 170 138 268 263 442 431 253 550 432 345 602 366 637 491 82 120 120 193 69 60 72 137 125 87 711 806 504 1,000 692 523 844 641 1,030 831 Average 1952-65 Percent change from 1965 Percent change from average July: 1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 263 -1.9 N.C. 120 136 93 84 51 65 145 78 233 168 502 -23.0 - 2.2 288 282 140 262 153 257 471 162 485 234 120 -30.3 -27.4 42 53 74 57 35 48 73 72 135 81 884 -19.4 - 6.0 450 471 307 403 239 360 689 312 853 483 Average 1952-65 Percent change from 1965 Percent change from average -169 -27.9 - 0.6 316 -51.8 -26.0 75 -40.0 + 8.0 559 -43.4 -13.6 35 TABLE B-11. -Ten-year trend in waterfowl breeding population indexes by species, Southern Alberta, 1966 [index numbers in thousands] Species Ducks: Dabblers Mallard Gadwall American widgeon - Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal - Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Ririg-necked duck - Goldeneye Buftlehead Ruddy duck Subtotal- Miscellaneous: Scoter Total ducks - Geese: Canada goose- Coots: American coot Grand total • 1957 1,038 61 157 31 134 155 595 2, 171 45 54 327 5 17 12 460 26 2.657 44 2,701 1958 1, 194 79 179 34 174 217 651 2,528 63 94 309 1 3 21 16 507 32 3,067 74 3, 141 1959 1,295 127 254 72 89 204 568 2,609 57 52 326 4 3 27 33 502 56 3, 167 131 3.298 1960 997 140 221 55 165 238 620 2,436 40 40 249 2 3 22 32 388 35 2,859 88 2,947 1961 848 109 187 64 169 167 284 1,828 40 37 249 2 3 32 19 382 43 2,253 97 2,350 1962 730 88 127 14 60 123 239 1,381 21 38 216 1 2 12 21 311 47 1,739 23 1,762 1963 739 84 133 15 60 188 347 1,566 38 49 261 Trace ] 14 10 373 17 1,956 61 2,019 1964 835 100 211 24 112 209 278 1,769 44 56 258 Trace 15 17 390 32 2, 191 89 2,286 1965 335 60 54 14 78 95 343 979 30 40 133 3 Tr. 10 7 223 20 1,222 47 1,272 1966 565 108 126 31 113 169 423 1,535 47 29 179 2 1 14 18 290 24 1,849 48 1,901 NOTE: Canada geese not included before 1963. 36 TABLE B-12. --Comperative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species and stratum, Southern Alberta, 1966 [index numbers in thousands] Species Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal - Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Ring-necked duck - Goldeneye Bufflehead ffuddy duck Subtotal Miscellaneous: Scoter Total ducks Geese: Canada goose Coots: American coot Grand total Stratum 26 27 28 Total 1965 1966 Average Percent change From 1952-65 1965 Average 152 29 39 5 44 73 209 551 11 3 35 1 1 3 54 606 1 18 625 332 71 72 26 55 72 109 81 8 15 T 14 24 105 335 60 54 14 78 95 343 565 108 126 31 113 169 423 874 83 167 37 129 170 552 + 68,6 - 80,0 + 133.3 + 121.4 + 44.8 + 77.8 + 23.3 35.4 30. 1 24.6 16.2 12.4 0.6 23.4 737 33 26 127 1 1 13 7 247 3 Tr 17 979 30 40 133 3 Tr. 10 7 1,535 47 29 179 2 1 14 18 2.012 45 50 236 1 3 17 18 56.7 + 56.7 - 27.5 + 34.6 - 33.3 + 40.0 + 157. 1 23.7 + 4.4 - 42.0 - 24.2 + 100.0 - 66.7 - 17.6 NC 208 23 28 223 20 290 24 370 35 30.0 20.0 21.6 31.4 968 1 275 1,222 1.849 2,417 51.3 + 33.3 - 23.5 NC 25 994 5 282 47 1,272 48 1,901 84 2,505 - 2. 1 + 49.4 42.9 24.1 37 TABLE B-13. Long drake index: Long-term trend expressed as a percentage of total ducks, Southern Alberta, 1957-1966 Year Mallard Pintail Canvasback Total 1957 — 92,03 88.82 81.60 90.00 1958 --- 85.80 84.34 75.47 85.00 1959 — 70.66 73.26 42.84 71.00 1960 --- 84.92 82.02 72.04 84.00 1961 - — 77.10 74.22 63.89 76.00 1962 -- 82.39 83.98 54.32 82.00 1963 - — 84.99 85.25 80.08 84.86 1964 — 85.28 88.14 52.65 84.57 1965 --- 82.07 75. 17 65.02 77.85 1966 — 80.97 74.99 56.09 77.94 38 TABLE B-14. Waterfowl brood and late nesting indexes by stratum compared to previous year and long-term average, central and Southern Alberta, 1966 [index numbers in thousands] Species Stratum 26 27 28 Total 1965 1966 Average 1956-65 Percent change from-- 1965 Average Broods: Duck brood index Average brood size 1 - Coot brood index Late-nesting index: 2 Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall American widgeon - - Green-winged teal - - Blue -winged teal Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Ring-necked duck Goldeneye Bufflehead Ruddy duck Subtotal Grand total 44 6.7 4 6 2 Trace 1 2 2 4 17 Trace 3 Trace Trace 20 110 6„6 29 17 6.2 1 107 6. 27 171 6.6 34 221 5,9 45 +59.8 + 8.2 +25.9 -22.6 + 11.9 -24.4 6 3 2 1 2 3 6 4 3 Trace 1 2 1 12 8 5 Trace 7 8 8 16 8 2 2 5 7 11 5 2 1 Trace 2 2 1 23 Trace Trace 5 11 48 2 Trace 14 Trace 11 21 34 13 69 51 Trace Trace 10 Trace 13 1 Trace 7 Trace Trace Trace 3 + 6.2 h292.3 16 67 10 23 -23.8 k60. 0 2.9 + 191.3 1 Class n and lH broods only. ^ As indicated by adult pairs and singles. 39 TABLE B-15, Goose production index, Oregon, 1965 and 1966 Transect Klamath River Sprague River Spring Lake Nuss Lake Agency Lake Wocus Bay Howard Bay Summer Lake N. Lake County S. Lake County Columbia River Wickiup Reservoir Ladd Marsh G. I. Ranch Klamath Forest Refuge Malheur Refuge Total Total broods 1965 210 21 4 42 48 74 13 21 25 9 12 7 5 19 78 222 810 1966 253 15 5 14 57 42 27 34 58 22 5 5 16 89 356 Total young 1965 1966 945 95 18 188 218 331 60 98 114 53 66 21 33 73 350 000 998 3,663 1, 137 67 24 65 255 189 122 136 252 101 30 29 68 400 1,600 4,476 TABLE B-16. Duck production index by areas Oregon, 1965 and 1966 Transect Total broods 1965 1966 Total young 1965 1966 Klamath Basin- - Summer Lake - _ N. Lake County - Umatilla County - Jefferson County Wasco County _ - Malheur County - G. I. Ranch Columbia County Jackson County - Davis Lake Umpqua Total 172 53 4 3 7 19 91 12 21 36 12 14 236 85 11 6 8 15 45 12 20 15 8 16 959 364 37 20 53 114 555 89 131 259 73 149 1,374 573 76 36 71 79 317 101 152 71 58 146 444 477 2,803 3,054 40 TABLE B-17. Duck production index by species Oregon, 1965 and 1966 Species Number of broods 1965 1966 Number of young 1965 1966 IXicks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall American widgeon- Blue winged/ cinnamon teal — Green-winged teal- Shoveler Pintail Wood duck Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Goldeneye Bufflehead Ruddy duck Subtotal Miscellaneous: Merganser Unidentified Total — - 167 21 11 48 3 23 20 293 114 2 3 1 3 12 135 1 15 444 129 1,071 36 162 3 85 67 336 2 15 1 -- 7 159 13 111 258 157 13 1 33 204 2 13 447 1,939 653 9 16 5 16 69 768 6 90 2,803 900 254 24 451 12 7 46 84 1,778 952 58 6 173 1, 189 11 76 3,054 41 CO CD Oi ili in CD CJ5 a o u 73 •i-t ;-■ •cS a g^ •iH -4-> CO 0) 00 m m < O o ^ in o o o CO t~ '"' o o o o o o o 0 0 in CSI CO rt c- rH c- o CO 1-^ CD 00 CD ■^ 05 •>*< CD t- OO CM o 0 T-t 05 3 1— 1 52 ^ ■^'~ c*< CM C- CO CO CO 1-i CO o 00 in 0 00 OO' CO co" evT Oi ca" y-* ■*- co" rn" ■>;1<" •* in CD CM in CD O O o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 05 CO CO Ol '-I CO £35 in CO c- ■>^ ^ CO 00 Klamath Basin »-( T-H ^ CO ^ CO in in "^ in c- 05 t- CO l-H t-Tco in" T-T T-T co" -ctT rn" o o o o o O o o o O o o rH 0 0 CD CD ■"^ ^ in ^ O •<*< esi o CD in o 05 in cm" CO ■«»< in CM CO CD CD O I-T th" CM co" y—i 1—i 7—^ in CO (35 o o o o o o o o o o O o 0 0 OS CO in c- CO eg o ;0 CO CO 00 o 00 0 in . c-a •^ Oi CO f-i c- rH in '-' t- CM o CO rH North 3aster alifor: 1-H ■"^"^ T-T oo' 05" rn" cm" o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 CO CM o> r-t C- 05 00 >-i in "-1 c- 00 a C35 c- CD in 00 O "-H c- CO ■^ i-H rH CD t- CM u C35 0" ^ T— 1 in »-H 1— 1 ctT f=i rH c in CD C3i 1-H o o o o o o o o 0 0 •iH t- o CO <-l »-l CVl CO 1 1 CO 1 in 0 South San Joaqu Valley CO T-H CM T— r 1 1 1 rn" <35 CD o o o o o o 0 0 CO cn O CO 1-1 t-H CO 00 1 1 o o 1 05 CO CO tH ■^ 1 , rH rH 1 ■^ c- i-H rH T-T rH c in CD o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 North an Joaqui Valley CO CO 00 "-I c- esi O 1 CO CD 1-^ 05 05 i-i in co y^ in 1-H 1 rH CD CO T-l esT eg" j—l CO o o O O o o O 1 o o f 0 0 CO ■* c- ■* CM CO in in 1 o in 1 0 t- 05 05 CD c- ^ °° in i-H r^ c- 00 CO i-H i-T co" co" rn" in o o O O 1 o O 1 1 o 1 0 0 CO CO t- CO CO 1 05 CO 1 1 CO 1 CM in 3 CO 00 t- in tH eg CO Suis Mar T-* co" co" CD CD OS o o o o o o 0 0 (M 00 CO CO c- Oi 1 1 1 1 1 C35 eg t-H ev] r-i CO 1 1 1 1 1 CO CO l-H t— t »—) I-T rn" o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o in •<4< CO 00 1 o o CM 1 CM •^ CM CD ■>!< CO ■<1< 00 1 CM CO tH I tH CM CO T-H CO 1— t co- i-T in" co" 00" s ^ co CO CO rH o o o o o O O o o 0 0 CD ■a< 00 00 CO CD 00 i-i i-H 1 e«< 00 CO 1—4 S 05 1-H *— 1 CO CJ5 Oi rH -^ CO in OI •^ CM in c- 00 N 0 Klamat Basin 03 I-H t^-^ co" cm" cm" 0' 0" co" co" cm" co" co" in" 0" CM ';r 1-H CS CO 1-H 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 CD C- CO 0 CO CM 00 0 E- CO 0 CO I-H t- 1-H CO CD 00 •^ 0 CD in ■^ CO 1-H C3i Oi •* in CM 03 t-H M CO CO •^ "-H in 1-H •rr CD 1-H CO in 01" CO r-t in rH CM c- TH 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 in CD CO CM CD t> c- CD t- CO CO Oi CM CM in a CO C- ■«»< CO C- CO -^ 00 CO Oi 1-H 01 CO CD 00 North- eastern Californi 03 h ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r-H 00 c- in 03 CM CO in 00 C- CM CM in in 1-H 1-H 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO "-I CO CM D- 1-H CM CO CO CO 0 Oi CO 0 CD Oi 00 03 in 0 CM CO 00 Oi CD CO ■^ CO CO CD T-H in" co" co" T-T 0" 0" cm" TT in" C-" C-" CO 1-H CO CO r^ (—• .im CO CD 0 0 000 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 C- 00 ^ CO CO in C3i 1 1 Oi 1 TJ< 1 0 South n Joaqu Valley CO CD ■ in 1 c- CM 1-H 00 CJ r-t CO CO CM CM i-H 1 CM ■^ c- 1-H i l-H co'csT cm" 1-H 1-H 1-H 1-H 0" 1-H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD Tf CO Oi cm I 1-H CM 1 1 CM CO 0 c _e C- 00 05 l-H 1 c- 1-H 1 1 1-H 00 CO Suisui Mar si T— ( t-^co" 1-H co" 1-H co" 1-H 1-H CD CD 05 0 0 000 0 0 0 "-I 0 0 TJ' CD I-H 1 1 1 1 1-H CM CD •<<< CO CM CM 1-H 1 1 1 1 1-H CO T-H ■<*<"'-<'' t>" C-" cm" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in CO in 0 CM tl ■>*' ■ 1 C^ 00 in 1 in 0 •^ CO CO 05 Oi C-" ' C-" 1-h" T-H 0" in" CO ■^ in 00 1-H 1-H 1-H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO 0 i-H 1 ^- T-H •<*' 1 •* 00 1-H 0 00 CO CO eo 1 D- CM in 1 in 0 in 00 00 Oi f-T ■<*<" t-" 1-H 00" C-" •^ •>»< ■^ c- t— 1 T-H T-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 "S .. ' ' ^ w -a :=J -g *- M "S f ^^^ i y ^ -^ -g 3 ^ I I QJ 1 1 -*-' 1 1 q' 1 1 S ^ 1 S ^ 1= m ft 1 1 eg 1 1 1 ; ' ^ oj 1 '-' 1^ si |K wis 1 1 1-H cS ■s 1 tc 3 0 > > D to 3 C CJ w < CO CO 03 ,—t , a CX! ^-H ■<*< ■^ CO -t-j o H o O --1 in CM T—H Ol CO in •<^' o CM CJ3 5 5 CO CD O ■rr CO ^Q l-H CO CD TJ< CO CM CD ■^^ c- ,-1 CD ^ § co" c- ■^ •"J* co' CM CM OT C D CM CD •5}' ■^ in (3(5 T—l CO t- CD in a> t- Weber County in CO c- in •^ CD ■^' » • r^ ^ 00 00 c- ^' oo' W g O O •^ CO 05 in 1^ cm'csT m 1 1 1 hj 1 1 ^ ^ • rH ^• s ; 1 s 0) 1 1 ^ 1 1 d* T3 ' 1 3 1 1 to QJ ' 1 C 1 , ^-' -*-» ' 1 to 1 1 t3 3 ' 1 S-, ' ' o 1 ; Q) 1 a O 1 1 a 1 ] s t-i ! I ii 1 1 03 ks: mbe 965 966- X! I" «3 C CD CD 03 0) O 3 '-' '-' 3 1 (T-H <; a^ 2; 45 TABLE B-22. -Species composition of breeding populations of waterfowl, Utah, 1965 and 1966 Species Northern area 1965 1966 Southern area 1965 1966 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall Widgeon Green-wir^ed teal- Blue- winged teal -- Cinnamon teal Shoveler Pintail Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Bufflehead Goldeneye Pfuddy duck 14.4 15.0 13.4 13. 1 1. 1 1.4 0.9 1.6 1.3 1.4 17.6 17.9 7.7 6.4 11.8 10.4 24.7 22.9 0.7 0.4 6.4 9.5 16.2 17.2 7.5 4.4 1.9 1.0 7.4 6.4 1. 1 0.5 16.4 17. 1 8.1 9.4 16.2 18.3 11.0 12.0 2.1 1.5 7.5 4.4 TABLE B-23. —Canada geese production index, Utah, 1965 and 1966 Area Number of breeding pairs 1965 1966 Number of young 1965 1966 Cutler Reservoir Public shooting grounds Bear River Refuge and vicinity Ogden Bay Wildlife Management Area Farmington Bay Wildlife Management Area- Scipio Reservoir Remond Lake Gunnison Reservoir Clear Lake Wildlife Management Area Mona Reservoir Wales Reservoir Rich County (Bear River) Total • 18 11 348 64 61 4 12 6 5 2 7 90 628 20 11 404 94 76 5 12 9 7 9 28 87 762 90 47 1,566 288 281 14 60 30 24 9 39 440 2,888 103 53 1,939 497 378 22 57 51 28 38 132 410 3,708 46 TABLE B-24. --Long-term in pond indexes by strata and comparisons to average and previous year, Southern Saskatchewan, 1965 [index numbers in thousands] Year Stratum A-East A-West B-East B-West Total May: 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 -- 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 --- Average 1952-1965 Percent change: 1966 from 1965 1966 from 1952- 1965 average July: 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 -- 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Average 1952-1965 Percent change: 1966 from 1965 1966 from 1952 - 1965 average 296.4 508. 1 931.8 1,295.0 754.4 292.3 526.5 157.7 479.2 48.7 153.2 239 508 393 556 470.3 +41.3 + 18.2 131.4 748.9 1,326.9 1,493.6 601.7 403.4 212.8 143.0 212.4 34.4 75.7 173.8 177.8 157.3 172.5 420.2 + 9.7 -59.0 726.6 974.6 722. 1 886.6 700.3 357.9 350.5 160.2 377.3 171. 1 336.3 256.0 202. 1 453.0 392. 4 476.8 -13.4 -17.7 338.7 812.8 362.8 889.9 416.2 250.2 141.8 120.5 265.2 50.6 61.8 227.4 97.3 280. 1 239.6 308.2 -14.5 -22.3 772.2 1,362.3 1,606.8 1, 103.3 644.8 576.2 489.6 334.5 987 221 635 293 325 484.9 603. 1 384.7 678.7 800.5 549.7 284.2 148.5 191.0 57. 4 164.3 92.0 173.3 131.6 114.9 224.4 231. 1 126.4 203. 3 203.4 198.4 105.8 72.2 105. 1 73.6 90. 55. 49. 39. 37. 81.4 97.3 702.7 +24.4 -14.2 198.9 593.5 846.6 785.3 495.7 437.7 267.4 145.0 318. 1 61.2 68.6 161.8 121.6 288.5 502.8 285. 4 + 3.0 -19.0 99. 1 295.7 421.7 391.2 184.8 127.7 107. 1 36.8 88.0 37. 1 26.3 84.5 30.5 102.8 144.5 103.0 + 19.5 -05.5 86.9 100.5 79. 1 233.7 55. 1 35.3 33.8 26.0 32.7 9.8 13.3 41.6 12.3 92.6 63.8 342. 1 +74.3 +47.0 145.2 +40.6 0.5 60.9 -31. 1 + 4.8 2,306.3 3,727.0 4,264.6 4,033.0 2,489.5 1, 447. 1 1,662.7 783.4 2,098.3 588.9 1,347.3 960.4 1, 188.7 1,637.3 1,880.0 2,038.2 + 14.8 - 7.8 855.0 2,551.4 3,037. 1 3,793.7 1,753.5 1,254.3 762.9 471.3 916.4 193. 1 245.7 689. 1 439.5 921.3 1, 123.2 1,277.3 -21.9 -12.1 47 C^ t- O^ -^ CS) -^ t-i o -(^ -^ CO aj CM T-H T-H in o CO t-t i-H i-H csi in in CO en C»5 CVl O CQ ^ "-I I >-i o eo in cm' t- I CO CO »-t O '-^ 05 i-i »-l T-l CM t- in o c- CO Oi in in O 05 CO CD CM C35 ■<1' O CM rt rt CO 00 c^3 in o 00 CO CO I CO o CM CO CO 00 in CD CD oo 00 in -^ in CD in 00 ^ CM '-I o i-H CO t- iTi Cr- -^ 1 I^ CD CO CSJ t- lO I CO i-H '-•'-' CM ^ <-l C- ■* O "-I 03 o CO in CD *-< i-H o o "-I o ■* c- co CO cj^ c;5 ^ c- o t- in o in t-H "-H CM O -^ CO t- CO o o^ •^ CM CO in »-H o o^ f-H in in f-H ■^ CO in ■* CM CO '-I 00 o^ CO in CD CO co CD CO o o ^ in '^ I -^ 05 in CO t^ in I CO ^ CO CM »-l t- -^ tr- O CM i-H CO in o^ in •-' CD CO 8 to a 3 c X c CD 05 CO CM 05 CM C- CD in CM CO CM CO o CO 00 ^-t OS O CM in 05 00 CO C- CM CO CO CM O CO ^ »-< C- CM 00 CO "-I CM O C- ■^ in ^ CO o> ^^ ^~* ^~* c- t- 00 CM* -^ in CD CO CM CO Oi C^ i-H ^-H CM in in o i> in C33 o 05 f-H r- t- in CD ^ CO CM C^ t* CD 00 00 CD o '-< •-< CD in r^ -^ ■^ CD ■^ CM .-I rt in CM o ai O in co CO c- in 00 05 C3 O) Gi CO CO c:o 00 m ^ CO CO CM CM r^ OJ in CO CM o o ■5i< 05 CM CM CM t- »-< o i> in CO CO ^-H CO CO 03 t-H CM o -a" 030CMCOO -^incD odf-HrHcDCOI>-'^ir- CO CM Oi CO en CJ5 CO f-H 1-t 1-t CM C<1 T-t t- -^ CM CO O '-' '-I oo '^J^ O CD c- in T-t O O — I 1-1 CO 05 u > 5^ tf 6 m tf O m S CJ ^ 3 s ^ 0) cj S o M O O bC c« T3 QJ Cq O o o o u O 48 > < CO 00 o '*' CM in I CO CO o CM m o^ CO CM CO 1* 11+11 eg in o to CO cj <-i O '9' CO CO 00 UD 05 CSI CO i-H .-H CO o + en in 0) in °= > CT> ""* t- O CD 00 CO CD t- CO ^ CD 00 ^ CO "-H ^ CO 03 1 + + + + + in CO tr- "-I o oo in 02 in CM r- o '^ o3 CM CD CO i—i »-i CO in + + + 1 O CD ^■-lOSOOCOCMC-CO in c> o iri "-< CO 'S* CD 'S' C33 'J' CM in 00 03 •5t< .-H t-. rt in CO CM in -^ CO t-H o tr- in CM 00 in in o c^ in in eg CO in CM C- 03 "4* CM 1" .1 CM I "-I O ■^ ^ 00 03 CD CM T-i »-• in CD CO CO y~t T~t r-( CM in r- in o c- CO C33 in in o CJ5 oo CD CM 05 •^ O CM 1-1 T-l 00 I I CO o o oi to 73 c § en u o ^ in ^H OS in CO CD 1—1 1—1 1-1 CM CO CJS CM CO ■ ■^ CM OT '-I O O CO 1-1 CM CM CM 1-1 CM w I < o CO CM CO CM CO CD CD "^ CD O CD CO "-I CO in CO 1— ( T-t 1— I CO in in CM c- eo CM 00 o I 1-1 o I I O c^ faD*-' ^ to 0) -a •a i s c« J2 rt S t, .2 3 — . 73 O) j; 0) > " o .S o SDaa<;ocawft^ o -M 3 CO CJ _ a ■a £1 OJ to • • 0) Cti "5 J= > S? 01 cTi 3 73 73 CJ e 1- "2 " 3 bc;a ^ lii « fj ,^ CJ J ^ •StfUMiSoaaa; Q 73 73 3 3 "-MO) o 3 o tn ^ o 3 ', ■c rt ^H -*-» rt o -*-> o 3 H CO 01 tn o o bD ■o oi ^ to 5 Qi CO 0) U o o o O Cl! C3 49 TABLE B-27. --Lone drake long-term trend expressed as percentage of total drakes, Southern Saskatchewan, 1966 [Mallards, Pintails, and Canvasbacks] Year Percent of lone drakes 1956 1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 78.5 80.7 80.2 73.0 84.7 71.9 47.3 82.6 83.5 81.9 82.9 50 (0 3 O > (U u A O •a lU u Ri D,(D C CO S 05 S C 3 rt (0 u >, rt X3 ^ CO S e: 73 U J C Oi [0 -4-> .s CO 01 )-< 0) S 3 '-' > -o ^ X §S T3 •c S B O Z) O 1 (4 biO ^ c -^5 1 "2 ■^ c tl Cli S U ti d ^^ CQ W pa < s Si 0) > CO (M « "-H CO to 05 ^ in + CM CD —1 in O C- CM C- in CD CD t- 1 o in 1 O 1-1 en d 1 CO CD CM CO I> O I> CO CO •^ o in '-I c- '-H CM CO O '-^ ^ 03 in CM CD CM C- O CO CO in tH 1-H Tj* T-( 1— t CO r-l **-! 1 + 1 + + + + + + + + + 1 + 1 + + + + 01 c rt ti x: a! o 0) c o CO 3 CO ocj 1> -^ 00 O CD CO C- CO "-1 o CO o to d <6 (£ 1 o -^ 1 o c- ocj 1 00 05 CO o CO in CO in o 00 o en •-I o CD CO in •-H CD in in 00 o i~t > T-4 y—t CM T-H + 1 11 1 + + 1 + + + 1 + 1 + + + + a, Average 1958 to 1965 CO CO CO 03 CO T-< t~ \r> ci O C^ CD CO CM in ^ CM CD CM in -<■-< CD C3 CO -"l" ■* o o in CO CO in o o CO •-< c-^ in c> CM CO in CO 05 CO ■ cq CM CO d 00 d 1 CO in 1 CM CM 1 1 in CD c* c*- ■^ CD in o t-^ t— t -< CO d 1 o o 1 CM 1 •* CO C3^ CO CM CO C33 cr- oi -«• rj> rt rt o T— ( »— 4 c^ r-t O CO CO CO in in 1 o in CO CD CM 1 in CM 1 1 in ■<1- 1 o O CO t~ d "^ CM O CO o >-< CM d d d d »-H 1 1—t _^_j CO o CO in c^^ ir- -^ in in in in t- 00 O 1 O 1 • 1 1 CM CM 1 1 t- 1 1 co i 1 in CO CO t~ CO >-< CM CO CM O) 1 C^J *-( «-( ■* in t< m -*-> CO CD 05 00 o in »-i 05 O O 00 CO 00 05 c- Tl« Tl< CO 1 d d T-i 1 -^ —1 1 O CM t CD CM CO in cm' >-< 00 o in I> 1 CO *-H CO ^ < -t-t CO W t ■^ CO o ^ t Oi 1 ^ 1 ^ '-' CM 1 05 1 1 1 "-I CM 1 CO c-^ in "-H CO O CD ci in 1 1 O --I 1 1 CM •^ 1 oi < 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 *" 1 CM X! i 1 c -s 1 1 1 1 i O S ■- 1 1 1 1 o C C CO c 1 1 1 -a T3 *^ 1 1 i i '^ 11 i i rtSO iS Cflci U < ^ -I CM CO 51 TABLE B-29. --Water index, Montana, 1965-1966 [index numbers in thousands] Water type Stratum 40 1965 1966 Stratum 41 1965 1966 Total 1965 1966 Percent Trend Stock dam and dugout: Permanent Semipermanent Temporary Subtotal Pothole and lake: Permanent Semipermanent Temporary Subtotal Stream: Permanent Semipermanent Temporary Subtotal Total 34. 1 7.8 5.0 46.9 5.0 3.8 8.0 16.8 22.8 13.3 11.3 47.4 111. 1 22.5 6.6 4.8 16.5 2.4 4.2 20.3 6.3 3.4 50.6 10.2 9.2 42.8 12.9 8.2 33.9 1.4 .7 1.7 23. 1 37. 1 5.5 11.7 30.0 11.6 10.0 12.0 70.0 42. 1 9.3 19.7 63.9 13.0 10.7 13.7 3.8 15.0 23.5 21.4 54.3 14. 4 7.4 14.3 33.6 12.7 17.0 16.3 71. 1 37.2 20.7 25.6 37.4 27.7 40.5 37.7 59.9 36. 1 46.0 83.5 105.9 97.6 113.5 109.6 224.6 207.2 -15 +26 -10 - 9 -69 + 15 -30 -48 -25 +95 +50 +27 TABLE B-30. --Water index by stratum [in thousands] Stratum Year 40 41 Total Stock dam Pothole Stream Stock dam Pothole Stream May: 1965 --- 1966--- July: 1966 — - 46.9 33.9 19.9 16.8 3.8 1.4 47. 4 59.9 41.7 23. 1 30.0 14.8 54. 3 33.6 10.3 36. 1 46.0 37.6 224.6 207.2 125.7 52 TABLE B-31.--Lone drake index, Montana, 1965-1966 [expressed as percentage of total drakes] Year Mallard Pintail Total 1965 1966 69.7 79.1 76. 1 85.9 72.3 81.2 TABLE B-32. --Comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes, Montana, 1965-1966 [index numbers in thousands] Stratum Total Percent change from 1965 Species 40 41 1966 1965^ Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall 129.8 19.4 7.2 6.7 14.2 7. 1 18.2 233.0 40.6 22.5 3.5 19.0 17.5 144.3 362.8 60.0 29.7 10.2 33.2 24.6 162.5 233.2 52. 1 24.7 7.7 29.4 29.7 163.3 + 45 + 15 + 20 + 32 + 13 - 17 Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback 202.6 1.5 2.1 480.4 3.0 .5 15.0 683.0 4.5 .5 17. 1 540. 1 2.0 2.0 10.6 + 26 +125 - 75 + 61 Subtotal Miscellaneous: 3.6 1.5 18.5 2.0 22. 1 3.5 14.6 2.4 + 50 T* nt ol Hiir^Vc— — — — — — _ — — — 207.7 500.9 708.6 557.4 + 27 •^These figures supercede those given in the 1965 Status Report. 53 TABLE B-33. --Waterfowl brood and late nesting index by stratum, Montana, 1966 [in thousands] Stratum Total 40 41 Broods: 25.6 5.3 40.4 5.4 66.0 5.3 Average brood size Late nestir^ index: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall 1.8 1.0 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 3.2 2.0 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Green-winged teal Shoveler Pintail Total 5.6 4.0 9.6 TABLE B-34. — Waterfowl breeding population by area and year, Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota, 1965 and 1966 Area 1965 1966 Percent change from 1965 301 87 162 54 150 8 445 365 300 178 2,050 178 93 160 33 170 283 201 210 211 1,539 -40 + 7 NC -40 +13 Burns Kitchie -36 -45 -30 +19 -25 Lake Winnibigoshish Rabideau Tri+ol - 54 TABLE B-35. --Ratio by species for all ducks, adult-juvenile, Chippewa National Forest, Minessota, 1965 and 1966 Species 1965 Adults Juveniles Ratio 1966 Adults Juveniles Ratio Mallards Widgeon Goldeneye Blue-winged teal-- Ring-necked duck ■ Wood duck Other 495 107 62 51 26 82 65 539 216 115 48 53 148 43 1. 1 2.0 1.9 0.9 2.4 1.8 0.7 223 75 91 15 34 101 29 342 223 170 19 30 142 45 1.5 2.9 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.4 1.5 TABLE B-36. --Long-term trend in pond indexes by strata with comparisons to the average and previous years, tri-State area, 1966 Year Stratum East Central West Total May: 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Average 1959-1965 Percent change, 1966 from average Percent change, 1965 from 1965 July: 1959 1900 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Average 1962-1965 Percent change from average 1965 162 223 151 313 375 193 255 385 239 +61 +51 213 309 166 281 245 154 205 525 221 +137.5 + 156.0 209 397 105 348 413 207 338 475 274 +73.3 +40 110 311 108 231 275 211 245 471 241 +95.4 +92.2 41 52 33 72 80 60 84 90 60 +50 + 7 73 116 77 68 99 70 69 129 77 +67.5 +86.9 313 672 289 732 868 460 677 950 573 +66 +40 396 736 351 579 619 435 519 1125 538 +109. 1 + 116.8 55 CO (U ■»-t u 0) CO ^ CO (U X Qi ■c c •l-t c o •l-l I— I a, o a ■•-I CD O CD 0) a> J= 5 CJJ in 05 o CD "5 '^ ;h a I be •iH I I t-' 00 I CQ M n < m D O CO s D C X (M CO 00 .-1 rH t- CO o 1-H O t— CO Gi o o o o CD CD ,-( CD t-H 00 CO CO o in ■<;r CO -* ■<*< CO c- CO .-H i-H I-H CT> I-H o I-H I-H i—f I-H I-H in CD Oi CM O ^ O CO CO ■<*< CM 03 tj< CD I-H in 05 '* ^ CO 1 Gi Oi 00 ■'J' in CM CO 1 CM CD CO o CO .-( 1 CM Oi 1 I-H o I-H Cv] I-H I-H CD 03 .—1 CO CT) CO 1 05 CO CD CD in ,-H in 1 CM CO Oi t- CO oi in 1 o CO CO I-H "*i CM 1 c- 00 co in CM CO 00 00 Oi CO CD Oi O CO • CO 05 in 1— I CO t- C35 1 C- rH CM CM CM o in 11^ I-H CO CO I-H CD e ^ 1 1 1 Qj a^ cti 1 1 1 be CD 1 to 1 1 1 ^ 1 CD 1 1 1 CJ 1 •pH 1 1 -o -o •" 1 1 1 r 3 1 o : 1 'S Si-g ! •■ J, _ <^ s S ^ CO "P ^ o T ■> (u D Q I-H 1 r r T3 1 CO u D o a > K U OT K tf rt xs -*— > •I-H ft o 3 o Si 3 o H CO o o o Q Q u 56 TABLE B- 38. --Comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species and stratum, tri-State, 1965-1966 [Index numbers in thousands] Species Stratum East Central West Total 1965 1966 Average 1959 1965 Percent change from-- 1965 Average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal - Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Readhead Canvasback Scaup Ring-necked duck-- Ruddy duck Subtotal - Miscellaneous: Merganser Subtotal Total ducks Coots Grand total 120 41 2 1 62 31 33 290 15 13 17 1 2 48 338 36 374 160 119 4 9 101 52 82 527 35 26 17 2 7 87 1 615 94 709 32 8 2 1 18 4 18 342 130 1 290 98 83 312 168 8 11 181 87 133 294 71 9 224 97 138 - 8.8 + 29.2 +700.0 - 37.6 - 11.2 + 60.2 + 6.1 +136.6 - 11.1 - 19.2 - 10.3 - 3.6 83 944 52 29 34 900 51 40 37 3 9 829 28 14 32 2 8 4.7 - 1.9 + 37.9 + 8.8 + 50.0 + 8.6 + 82.1 +185.7 + 15.6 + 50.0 + 12.5 121 140 84 + 15.7 + 66.6 88 1,065 139 1,041 130 913 99 2.3 6.5 + 14.0 + 31.3 88 1,204 1,171 1,012 2.7 + 15.7 TABLE B-39.--Lone drake index: long-term trend expressed as percentage of total drakes, tri-State, 1959-1966 [Mallards, pintails, anc canvasbacks] Year Percent of total drakes 1959 1 QRO 45.5 73.3 67.1 73.9 77.7 67.6 66.6 69.96 1961 1QR0 1 Qcq 1 QR4 _ __ _ 1 qce; 1966 57 TABLE B- 40. --Waterfowl brood and late-nesting indexes by stratum compared to previous year and long-term averages, tri-State area, July 1966 [Index numbers in thousands] Species Stratum Total Average 1959 1965 Percent change from-- East Central West 1965 1966 1965 Average Brouds: Duck brood index Ave. brood size Coot brood index 33.9 7.2 13.9 44.3 6.7 17.2 13.0 7.1 .4 32.4 91.2 4.9 7.0 3.9 31.5 58.5 5.0 3.5 +181.5 + 42.8 +707.7 +55.9 +40.0 +800.0 Dabblers: Late nesting index — Mallard Gadwall Baldpate Green-winged teal — Blui^-winged teal 10.9 7.2 .8 .8 .8 14.2 6.3 .3 5.2 2.2 1.6 5.7 6.5 .8 34.1 30.8 26.6 20.0 1.2 .3 26.2 6.0 3.0 3.2 30.3 10.0 6.0 .1 21.9 .6 3.9 - 9.7 - 24.8 - 77.1 - 1.7 +100.0 +200.0 - 72.6 +400.0 - 17.9 Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback 20.5 3.0 29.8 .8 .3 6.8 13.0 88.1 63.3 4.2 .8 .3 8.2 9.8 67.2 3.1 .2 .4 .7 7.5 - 28.1 - 81.0 + 19.5 5.8 - 74.2 - 25.0 + 30.7 Ring-necked duck Ruddy duck Subtotal 3.0 7.9 -- 12.4 10,9 11.9 - 12.1 - 8.4 Grand total 23.5 37.7 13.0 100.5 74.2 79.1 - 26.1 - 6.2 Computed from class II and III broods only. Indicated by adult pairs and singles. 58 f TABLE B-41. --Statewide aerial Nebraska, 1965 breeding population index, and 1966 Species 1966 1965 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall Wi HcTPnn — i_ — — — — _.._ 29,674 23,009 181 820 31,542 12,134 8,575 105,935 2,495 400 4,372 898 8,165 36, 809 2,295 Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal Shoveler Pintail Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Ruddy duck Subtotal 185 10, 598 2,688 6,073 58,648 92 1,254 1,041 2,387 Total 114, 100 61,035 TABLE B-42. —Duck breeding ground population estimates, Colorado, 1955 and 1966 Total estimated breeding pairs Percent change from Area 1966 1965 12-year Average 1954-1965 1965 12 -year Average San Luis Valley North Park South Platte Valley Cache la Poudre Valley — 26,835 11,622 6,701 2,762 2, 105 392 26, 682 9,044 11,155 5,057 3,838 157 27,715^ 5,106 4,692 1,831 2,956 110 + 0.6 + 28.5 - 39.9 - 45.4 - 45.2 +149.7 - 3.2^ +127.6 + 42.8 + 50.8 - 28.8 +256.4 Brown's Park Tntal 50,417 55,933 42,410 - 9.9 + 18.9 San Luis Valley averages are based on results of 1964 and 1965 coverage only. The much less intensive coverage of previous years is not included in the calculations. 59 TABLE B-43. —Species composition of breeding ducks population, Colorado, 1965 and 1966 Number Percent 1966 1965 1954-1965 average 1966 1965 1954-1965 average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged/or cinnamon teal Shoveler Pintail Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Ring-necked duck - Bufflehead Ruddy duck Miscellaneous: Merganser 28,913 4,863 164 745 3,440 3,609 3,018 4,050 943 40 240 392 30,083 5,501 1,200 3,890 7,314 2,964 2,358 1,732 276 27 14 27 547 27, 470 3,570 558 1,167 3,934 1,451 2,876 1,469 27 532 72 5 96 270 57.35 9.65 0.32 1.48 6.82 7.16 5.99 8.03 1.87 0.08 0.47 0.78 53.78 9.83 2.15 6.95 13.08 5.30 4.22 3.10 0.49 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.98 63.16 8.21 1.28 2.68 9.04 3.34 6.61 3.38 0.06 1.22 0.17 0.01 0.22 0.62 Total 50,417 55,933 43, 497 100.00 100.00 100.00 60 TABLE B-44--Number of Canada geese by breeding classification, Moffat County, Colorado, 1966 Area Nesting pairs 2- year old pairs 2 Estimated Number goslings Number birds in groups Total birds Yampa -- Craig to Juniper Springs -- Juniper to Cross Mountain Lily Park 15 13 21 7 2 3 74 66 100 114 40 89 232 136 237 Subtotal Green (Brown's Park) Little Snake (lower bridge to State line) - 49 6 13 12 11 11 240 29 66 243 67 121 605 130 235 Grand total — 68 34 335 406 970 1 Novice pairs which are potential nesters next year. 2 This category includes both eggs and goslings counted. 61 TABLE B-45. --Ten- year trend in waterfowl breeding population indexes by species northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and northern Ontario, 1957 to 1966, (Index numbers in thousands) Species Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Black duck Gadwall American widgeon • Green-winged teal- Blue-winged teal -■ Shoveler Pintail Wood duck Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback Scaup Ring- necked duck-- Goldeneye Buf fie head Ruddy duck Subtotal Miscellaneous: Merganser Scoter Subtotal Total ducks Geese: Canada geese Coots Grand total 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 256 11 1 12 280 2 446 8 456 133 50 183 919 919 263 6 10 13 7 227 16 51 14 10 10 13 252 10 1 24 6 8 6 30 220 30 15 22 6 4 6 57 267 56 4 37 14 27 11 13 299 22 251 69 20 341 20 310 180 17 337 34 103 209 11 2 31 362 218 36 527 103 58 390 253 15 360 22 50 211 15 72 22 7 429 11 11 235 92 115 40 11 254 161 168 915 1,029 24 895 51 11 915 1,104 914 400 127 34 515 191 23 161 214 921 11 1, 158 11 178 25 8 24 10 30 12 20 192 30 9 33 19 37 26 21 183 13 12 36 15 14 17 9 307 10 32 256 121 47 27 4 367 17 37 197 42 23 9 1 299 18 24 248 78 17 16 3 497 166 22 326 109 8 404 145 7 188 117 152 30 962 1, 175 992 31 810 28 855 17 18 17 16 1,041 855 888 62 » E ■t-l TO > (D csiioir-coor>com i-c CO .-< eg CJ CD to o to OJ as in CO o to to t- I + CO <33 CO + + to + 05 to 05 co CO CO to + tJ . 0) c> ft =2 • _ •Q o y S S eS X .2 (U C •oo •-^ c o 22 ■S JS a u 3 C c a rt O 73 i/i ^S 3 6P r! 4-> •^ rt .a w -1 0) -gs .M c 3 t^ <-> C S 0) X ^s ■n c ^ c o tfl c 3 rt ^ ^ ^ OJ CO j= ., o V 4^ > m ^1 ti .5 c3 CO a c H >H 1 ^4 1 o • c to •<1< CQ U J III < H i; ID CD i-lOrHTTOinOiO CM CM 1— I C^3 »-H ,-t CO CM o CO CO CO 0> !> f-H t- 1-* CO »-i CO in ITS in CM CM Oi oo in e «— I CO »-l 1-H »— ( »— I CO c- to i-H in t- CO i-H »-i O in CO CM eg i-C as o ■>»< CO to CM CO m 05 cococMtoin^c^Oi 00 »— I ,— I CO »-H .-H »— I 00 -^ 00 CO c- to CO .-1 CM 'J' C- .-1 .-1 CM in t- CO CO 00 00 35 CO o a w in I in o in -^ to t- r in I T-t I CO c- in ■<»< to CM .-< in f-i O CM CO o CM in I i-H t- CO CO I 1-t I 00 ^ 00 o CO I-H rH Tt< ^ 00 I to in rH I to eg a> o CM CO CO to CO •* CM T-H CM CM CM to O Oi O CO in ■>»•■>* O CO CO Tl< CM CO en en CO 00 to CM to 1 CM in CO c- o in CM I i-l 00 in C3> O O I-H ,-( CO CM 1-1 •, 3 bp73 13 S O T! P 3 0) 0, Q 2 § be (U a) O » u 2 W to o 3 T3 4-> o H (0 o o bC CO S (4 o u O o o O 63 TABLE B-47, --Production survey indexes by area, northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba, July 1966 [brood index numbers in thousands] Species Manitoba Saskatchewan Totals Ducks: Dabblers: 17.4 3.0 0.3 5.3 0.7 2.8 4.4 17.2 0.6 1.1 4.6 0.6 1.1 34.6 iviaiiara — "^ fi /^oHiitqII — ___ — — — 1 4 9.9 Green- winged teal 1.3 2.8 5.5 33.9 2.5 2.4 13.0 13.9 0.2 1.1 25.2 28.7 22.7 0.6 4.6 0.6 59.1 DUDlOiai Divers: Redhead 2.5 2.4 L^anvasudCK 41.7 Ring-necked duck 36.6 0.6 Bufflehead 4.8 1.7 Qi iKf r\+Q 1 --_- 33.1 1.7 2.9 57.2 9.2 90.3 Miscellaneous: 1.7 12.1 QiiHfr^fol 4,6 9.2 13.8 71.6 0.8 8.9 91.6 5.6 0.9 163.2 6.4 Canada geese 9.8 uoois 81.3 98.1 179.4 lotai 64 TABLE B-48.--Duck broods, by age, class and stratum, northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba, 1965 and 1966 Stratum Total broods Year and age class Manitoba Saskatchewan Percent 1966: Class I Class II Class III 1965: Class I Class II Class III 33 110 41 5 25 9 21 43 26 9 33 14 54 153 67 14 58 23 18 58 24 15 61 24 TABLE B-49,--Duck production indexes, northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba, 1966 [Index numbers in thousands] Stratum Total Year Manitoba Saskatchewan 241.8 71.6 295.3 91.6 537.1 JNumoer oi young 2 163.2 j-iaie nesiing inaex 1 Number of broods multiplied by average brood size. 2as indicated by pairs and single drakes. 65 TABLE B-50. —Long-term trend in May and July pond indexes by strata and comparisons to average and previous year, southern Manitoba, 1966 [indexes in thousands] Year Stratum A Stratum B Total A and B May: 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Average 1954 through 1965 Percent change 1966 from 1965 1966 from 1954 - 1965 average July: 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 --- 1963 1964 1965 — 1966 Average 1954 through 1965: Percent change 1966 from 1965 1966 from 1954 - 1965 average- 258 315 391 262 352 160 324 158 135 298 398 327 372 428 428 615 404 264 482 295 263 295 331 331 478 515 686 743 1,006 666 616 642 619 421 430 629 729 805 887 281.5 + 14 +32 473 339 425 241 163 96 164 41 97 145 201 129 167 384.5 +8 +34 384 271 411 260 341 325 212 86 135 178 182 260 240 666.0 +10 +33 857 610 836 501 504 420 376 129 232 323 383 389 407 209.5 +29 -20 253.8 -8 -5 463.3 + 5 -12 66 CO •o c CO 3 O O) CO 1-1 i-H>-(00>-IC-T-lO>CO i OJ Tj" ■>;t< CO CD 00 00 i 05 i-H CM M eg CO CO CM CO CO CO OS in in CM 00 in O 00 CM* rH CO eo • CM 1-H in in • CO CM eg ai CO in CO c- CM CO c:s ■^ CO tr- 1-H o 00 I-H to 1— t O O CM .-H in CM cq • 1 1 t- 1 00 CO CO CM CM .-1 1 'i" CM CO CO in 1-H CM C-' Oi CM •^ C- rt OS C- 00 CO CM CM O CO* rH CM ■<1< CD cvi CO CO d CO OS d 1-H in in o c- CM CO t- CO ■^ ■^ CD rH I-H 00 1-H CD OCMOOOOOCMOCD 1 C- O O 00 00 .-H 1 CD .-H CM CO CO »*< 1— * to' rH CO OS O CO 00 CO OS CD CO O CO CO o cm' CO ■<4< CM d in CM d CO in rH CO CM 1-H 1-H CO rH CO CO t^ 1— i I-H CO I-H CO CD I-H ©•^coeMC-ocot- 1 CMi-H'^inTTC-coi-i 1 00 I-H ,-1 •<«< CO CO I— ( CD Os' in CO 00 in c- CO 1-H ■<*< CD OS 1 1 Tf OS o in in eo cm' CO in CO o in CO 1-H in ■"*! CO CO in 1-H I-H CM CD 03 CM CM CO TJ< 05 •<*' CO • 1 03 1 CT> O CO C- 1-1 1 CM rt TT rH •<*< CM CM in CM in o 1-H TT OS in CM CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 OS* c- co o •** CO 00 d I-H CO CO CO CM CM 1-H 00 rH C 1 CM »— I OS in OS CO CM in CO 'S" C35 CO CO rH 00 CM 1 1 1 1 t 1 in cm 00 o CO OS 1-H CM OS in t- in •>»' T}< -^ in CM CO •^ 1-H 1-H CO CO CM in CD OS CD in CO o 00 • 1 ^1 CO 1 ■»!< OS M< O CD O 1 O CM Tf CO ■<*< CO rt CM d CD in CO »< t- CO CO > 1 1 o 1 in i< CO CM CO OS 1 O CM CD CO OS in CJS co' CO OS TT CM CO •f •* O 1-H CO 1 • 1 I-H eo 1-H eo d CD 00 oo • o CM I-H rH OO CO CD 1-H o CO in t— rt CO CD in CM 1-H CD in OOOt~t-CM00O rt',-iincDr-(COc-o 1 OS cv] in csi in ' CD in OS CM 00 o in OS t- o j rH I-H 00 CD 1-H CJS O d CO CO in OS O OS 00 t- ■<1< 1-H CD CM CO t- en in ••-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 : 1 ^j. 1 1 : , . . . ^13 . . 1 1 1 1 1 -" 4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 73 -w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 q; T3 1 1 1 ^ iS is ^ S) S i Si B 1 -a ■s •4-J ja 3 TO 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 CJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 TJ r 1 i 1 -^ 1 ^ ' ' ^ y ^ Qj "2 CJ ^ . CJ >^ " 3 ni tn ' S S x: " o 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M ' ; a " Is 12 CJ S^ o m ^ CJ ;- 2 M 13 o 1 CO Mi CJ 3 ■a I-H a -4H o CO ■*-» o o O .-H -s 1 00 in OS 1-H CO a> 3 2 (^ 67 X 0) -a 1 hf) '~* cr> a CD J-i u cr5 0) 05 H > T-H o rt (1) u §> \m rt J3 U in -4-) CO c OS (U T-1 o u H 01 fin o u CO o !5 CO in «> OJ CO •^ to CD ■<}< CO CO CD t- i-H 00 C- CO CSI 00 <-l 00 00 CD O + + I I O (M CO o t> o CO O 1— 1 CM CM CM esi + + + 1 CM ITS CO CM in CD Jh o < in in ■>!< CJ5 O o in CO »-l CM "-H CM + + + I I I o + in (7s cj> CO CD "-i CO 00 00 CM •>«< I I + I I I + D- O O CO 00 >-H I + I CD + D- CM + o o o o O o o o o o o o o O o o o o 00 CM o CD >:(< ■^ T-H 1-H 1 CD ^ CO CM CO o o CM ^ CO CM t— CO c- o> CM •^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO o o CO CO 00 CO CO CM ^ ^ CO CO o^ CM CO t- o o o o o o o CO CO o o CO CO CD o o in o o in oo" 05 CD oooooooo oooooooo 1^1— ICO'— *l^-'— <05CO CM o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO CO C35 in in CM CO o o in o o o o O 00 o o •^ Tl< CO CD 00 00 ■-H CM CM CM CO CO CO CO t- CM ■^ CO t- o 00 CM 1-H in o o in co" CM o o ca Oi CO in m CO 3 CO ^ i-H U o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CM i-i in cQ cq oo" oo^ CO cm" cm' '-T cvi CO CO in o o CM CM o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ■5l< D- >-l C35 t- 00 CD in o c- CM CO c- CO ■5J< Tj< CO i-H o o CM o o o o CM O o o CO CM 00 o o CO co" CO o o Oi o o CO o o o o o o o o o o o o t- o CM en o c- o o CO o o o o o o o o o o o o 05 1-1 CD I in Oi CM o o CM o o o o 00 CD o o o o ■<1' C- CJ5 CM CJ5 •^ 00 CD O C- i-< CO i-< CM CM CO CD CM o o CO c-" CO CM oooooooo oooooooo coi-ii-ii-(incM03cn t— in i-l CD ^ 05 o o CM in o o o o o o o o o o o o ■^ CO CO in I CO CO « ~ - I ^ ^ CM O i-l CO O i-i CM in i-< O o CO co" C35 o o o o CM CM o o 00 o in CM o o o o c- CM w 0) •»H o a, M f-, 0 »— I o 3 o I — I PQ ^ JL, c » 5 SP 5 0) ^ ■ 3 g 0) c ? bp o 3 Si 0) 03 c C« Si bD a> O) o S CO CJ 3 ■9 OT o 01 CO o o bo cii .. "O tn 5 a) U o o o u i3 o B o 68 TABLE B-53. -Lone Drake Index Long - term trend expressed as percentage of total drakes, southern Manitoba, 1953-1966 Year 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Percent of Lone Drakes 70.1 79.6 87.5 79.4 88.9 81.9 70.0 86.5 67.5 62.0 83.7 78.0 73.8 84.6 Lone drakes include only mallards, pintails, and canvasback. 69 CO •o 3 O x: (0 01 S 3 C X 01 ^ ^ «3 ITS CD CO t- CD O in CD ■^ in CD in •^ CD 'J" T-i CO in g C- CD o 1 in 1 CM CD 1 CD rH 1 CO CO s i^ 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 M ' ' + + + 1 a ;h 01 1 oj be r-H ^ § JS o tn 1—* lO ^ ■^ ■«< CM 1 1 1 1 + 1 + CO 1 in CM CD + 1 1 1 + 1 + CM + 1 1 CM 1 > in in to f-H t- CD ■^ eg in 00 CO in CM cq in ^ CO i-i in T-i CO c- i-H oq o T— 1 CO in O CO CD CM ■<»< o rH T-l CO in T-l csi T-l CM CM co' <2 T3 05 o irj CO CD <-l CM CM •^ T— 1 I— 1 00 CO CO cj rH CO T-l T-l CSI !h •t-t CO e<5 t- cvi O 1 O O 1 1 1 t- t- 1 -^ 1 1 1 ■ 1 c- o T-l 1 <35 a m d ir> ■^ OS ' • 1 Til > • CM Cvl in . 1 • 1 ■^ co' rH T— 1 CD 3 C- C- Ol CD 'T t- CO in 1 OJ 1 • c- CO CO CD 1 1 1=^. o 1 t- < oi in Tf •<*< CM co ^ cd' •^' T-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '-^ 1 cq II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -^ 1 OJ 1 n-t -^ 1 3 a;' o XJ ^ 1 ■a CIS 1 01 03 ] ^ 2 s s 0 >> 01 Ol c c 1 0) be T3 0) >> ci -a 13 o -4-Ht X2 O cu ^H a! ■k o O 0) o o 3 > o a; ctfSomomOT(^ 3 M C rS MH 73 •- O 3 3 K o m « 5 o CO •iH o DO J Q Q a" n •d (3 , «1 T3 *> O -* ° « Si a XI m (-1 ■" ll CO a o< 70 TABLE B-55„ — Air/ Ground Correction Data Species^ Indicated pairs Correction Air count Ground count^ factor Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Blue-winged teal — Green-winged teal - Shoveler Other 35 50 5 7 10 142 279 28 22 31 4.06 5.58 5.60 3.14 3.10 Siihtntal -- 107 19 502 74 17 4.69 3.90 Divers: Ring-necked duck — Other diver Subtotal -- 19 91 4.79 126 593 4.70 1 Wisconsin breeders only. 2 Auto transects. TABLE B-56. --Waterfowl brood indexes, Wisconsin, 1964-66 [all ages combined] Species Number of broods Average number of young per brood 1964 1965 1966 1964 1965 1966 Mallard Blue- winged teal 62 23 36 32 47 79 13 21 137 78 37 64 6.8 6.7 6.4 7.5 6.8 6.2 6.0 6.9 7.0 7.9 7.4 Other species 6.8 71 TABLE B-57. —Trend in waterfowl breediiig population indexes by species, eastern Ontario, Quebec and Labrador, 1955-1966 1 [index numbers in thousands] Species 1955 1956 1963 1964 1965 1966 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard 0.9 247.4 1.9 0.9 11.4 9.5 288.7 4.0 3.3 47.2 274.7 4.0 27.7 19.5 25.3 219.9 5.7 9.0 2.6 10.8 3.9 11.8 258.1 0.4 5.4 1.3 7.0 __ 14.2 114 2 Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal 2.5 14.3 1.2 "Dinfail - 2 2 Subtotal Divers: Redhead Canvasback 262.5 0.9 76.5 254.5 305.5 201.9 2.9 154.5 21.5 373.1 0.5 39.4 28.3 77.3 64.1 277.2 41.3 15.4 166.0 15.1 283.9 30.4 18.0 497.2 37.2 148.6 7 6 Ring-necked duck 12.1 62 4 Bufflehead Ruddy duck 12.2 Subtotal Miscellaneous: 331.8 288.7 82.6 380.8 53.7 265.6 209.6 346.0 50.6 237.8 421.5 7.6 3.2 582.9 811.1 78.2 94.3 476 1 Scoter Oldsquaw 10.3 1.2 Subtotal 371.3 319.3 396.6 432.3 889.3 487.6 Total ducks Geese: Canada goose 965.6 64.9 1005.6 108.4 979.3 122.5 947.3 70.4 1756.0 81.0 730.5 36.7 Pr^ntc - -- -- -- -- -- Grand total 1,030.5 1,114,0 1,101.8 1,017.7 1,842„5 767.3 No survey conducted 1957-1962. 72 s D -i-i a u -«-) to T3 C a to (1) •fH U 0) a to >> JD to CO 01 CO X 05 0) 1-H 73 1 c in •f-i CO o ^ to ,4_) c rt t< ni 1^ to 3 g- OJ o 2 '-' X! ttXJ -4-> bC <^ c c J ■fH X3 -O to 0) c C •«-( 0 ° = 2 to c 3 O -4-> rt C *-■ ^ to S tu 7;; .S rt Zl OJ rt u c 03 o c tl) o 01 in CD CT5 l-H Tf O O) CD CM m T-H Tj< M tr- 111 + 11 CD CJl CD 03 CD 00 05 00 1 u 1-H \rt 1 00 M CO m 1 1 1 1 CO 1 .-1 CO 1 + 1 CO 1 in 1 05 CD in in c- 05 CO 1-1 in N CO CD ■^ in i-H + 1 + + 1 1 1 in en c- t- C- CO 00 CO CO CO '^i CO 00 CO in in in ■-I 00 CJ5 Csl c~ o 00 CO CM O T-H C35 in 1—1 CO T-l c- (N CM C^ CO O o CO in c-H C- D CD t- ^-1 co CO CO TT -^ t- CO T-H rjl T:f< CO O •^ O CM CM CO CO ,-1 O i-H 00 o in 1-1 c- "^r T-i in 00 CM CM O CO c- c~ CCl CO T-l 05 CO 00 ■* in T-l 00 1 Oi CD r-l t- 00 in 00 00 c- 1 CD CO o I CM 00 CM CM CO CO 00 CO o" CD in CO •^ ,-1 'S' C- >-H C- in CO CM CO ■^ in CO CM in in >-i ■* C- C- CM CO O i-l in in C- CO -^ c- CM 00 O 05 CO CO CM in CO 00 CD ID CO O (J5 00 O 1—1 o> CM CM 00 CO CM CO in CD "-I CD O O CO O »-i CM CM CO C35 CD in CO ■^' rH CO O CO o" in o O CM CO oi 0) T3 0) faX5 C •f-H ^^ 0) S 3 C X5 3 cQ ■< o pa Ph o 3 73 73 01 o O) G a I 3 b£)73 ^ .^ t« K o m p to u i2 3 cn CO 3 O 0) c 03 OI to c 03 ^ bc a> oj o CO »5 o zi <5 cn to 3 OI o CO 3 cr CO 73 o " oi 3 01 CO o o bXJ .. ^ oj rt to 5 S u o rrt ,__, 01 oj Lh OJ o ;h X2 o T! ^ O G ■ rH 03 o3 $-1 73 oi O) ;-> o c OJ §l<§' < CQ U S 3 -4-' ^ 03 - - U 73 C. WATERFOWL HARVEST DATA TABLES TABLE C-1. -Total duck and coot kill in the Pacific Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species 1964 1965 Percent change Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Domestic mallard Rlaflr y mallarH -- 968, 700 400 100 86, 400 289,800 328,600 64, 800 112,200 452,200 24, 500 995,900 200 93,500 353,900 381,400 87, 100 195,000 541, 100 41,200 + 3 - 50 - 100 + 8 + 22 + 16 + 34 + 74 + 20 + 68 Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged and cinnamon teal Shoveler Pintail Divers: Redhead — Canvasback 29, 000 13,800 7,600 26,200 17, 700 23,200 30,300 23, 100 39, 700 15,000 7,500 39, 100 21,000 42,500 22,100 29, 400 + 37 + 9 1 + 49 + 19 + 83 - 27 + 27 Ring-necked duck Goldeneye Bufflehead Ruddy duck Sea ducks: Scoter 600 3,400 + 467 Miscellaneous: Common and red- breasted merganser Hooded merganser Others and unknown 2,500 1,100 300 2,100 1,000 3,000 - 16 - 9 + 900 Total ducks: Retrieved 2, 502, 900 530, 600 3,033,500 99,000 66, 100 165,200 2,915,100 615,300 3, 530, 400 107, 700 71, 000 178,700 + 16 + 16 + 16 + 9 + 7 + 8 Coots: Retrieved Not retrieved Orxntis UillpH 1 Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 duck wing surveys. 74 TABLE C-2. -Total goose kill in the Pacific Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species 1964 1965 Percent change Canada goose^ 162,500 66, 600 900 57, 500 5,100 124,200 39,800 600 48, 500 12,500 - 24 - 40 - 33 - 16 + 145 White-fronted goose Rldplr hT^nt — — — — — — — — — __ — -._-.— Total geese: Retrieved 292,600 61,900 354,400 225,500 45, 300 270, 800 - 23 - 27 Geese killed - 24 ^ Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 goose tail surveys. 2 Includes all subspecies. 75 m CO a> 1-1 (U -t-> be c •f-t !-i 3 ■a >. CIS u cd Pn Qi £ tn •S o '^ en 01 •r' m h m cd £ a bC E -§8 tn o 3 HI •a m O CO »2 T3 ? c "■ c .■&•§ l> cd -*^ tn o f 3 S -c o u I I I eo I O tn en c o a CO OJ u o T5 (U tn 3 •r- ) T3 a CO to •J 1-H 0 0 CM 0 0 in 0 0 CO 0 0 T— 1 0 0 0 0 T-l 0) --1 0 0 in 0 0 CM 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 in -^ Cti (35 •^ •^ c- CO •^ CD in (35 0 ■>*< in -^ O 1 , 1 + 1 .. .- 1 bfi CM 1-1 CO CD t-'c-" CMC- CO CO ni CM CD I-H tH T— 1 01 CM "-1 tn ^^ o rt ^ 13 ID o O Season bag pe potenti adult hunter •* t- 0 0 "a* C35 <35 CO T}< t- (35 CO ■* c- -Q CO 00 CD CO i-l in CD T-H cq 0 ^ '»< CD CD 0.4 0.3 mpara CO in in d d ! »— 1 1— i I d d + d d + T-i d 1 0 0 Y-i 0 0 0 0 0 (X) 0 0 CO 0 0 in 000 0 0 c- "-H CO CD CD -^ •^ 0 ^ <=■ rn 00 00 cd -^ , 1 •- .. + . . 1 „ 1 ^ tn ^ 3^ S CO CO CO 03 CM •^ CO 0 00 C35 a; d^co in •-l •^ CO CO rt ^ E 0 Oi X2 in 00 CO CM T-l CJ a 1— I i-T •>-* lonal per ntial ult iter tn CO rH ■^ CM CM CO CO a> T-H CD CO CM 00 CO .- 00 t- CO >-H CO 1— ) t-H in T— ( CM tH CM 0 •<»> CM t- CM in (35 CO I-l " bfl oj T3 g * . . . . . CO . OT •" ft CD LO 1 Tl CM + ■<»< in + C 1 I> c- 1 C35 (35 1 (35 05 1 05 (35 1 c- 00 1 ^ -*-» 0 0 p) bi3 '^ in in 1 CO .-1 00 CO , in in 1 00 00 1 1-1 00 1 2 s s 1 1 in in 1 I 1 CO in 1 1 1 in in 1 ' 1 1 in •<»< a ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 CO c -4-> rt 1 1 -4-» > a CJ Si 0 ■^ in o •• Tr in CJ cil ^ in " ■*H to CO i" ■n ^ in " •" CO CD ^ 2 CO CD i-l cs CO CO r ■rt 03 CD 01 Ph ;:3 (35 (31 OJ ■5 (35 05 ^ != C35 (35 aJ > (35 C33 * tn >-l t-H (Tj T-H 1-1 Cli 0 rt >-i Ph (3 1-1 i-H Ph ig T-l T-l Ph a) T-l T-l Ph < u u 2 'Z 76 CO r-i 3 T3 >> ^ 7 U OJ ctf 5 (21.^3 u c J3 O -^j o c " s «« s bp 03 S ^ C .1-1 3 '*^ JS § •::; -C ? O ^4 01 ei ^ o u < 1-t O O CO O O CO O O CO O O CO O O O O O CO O O CM 2 be Ol 73 S . . . . . . . . . " cti -^ cti -^ rt O 1 T— 1 O 1 O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 T-J O' 1 oj S o jc w ■" a y—^ O O CD o o c- O O 00 o o t- O O CM O O CD O >~-i O O CO o o O O in O O .-H O O CO O O T-H ■*-» ftj CO -^ N CD CO ^- in C- CO 00 c- CM CO d ■^-t - . + . - + ., ., + ., _ + - - + ^ 3q5 m (M IM ^ 00 00 05 ^ CM CO O CM l-H 03 t-H i-l CO ^ •^ t-H t- 03 i: c>a CO . C o CO in in 1 O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 in o 1 1 1 1 =S 3 tij C- t- 1 05 1 a> o> 1 Oi Oi 1 t- O) 1 1 1 1 Q -a S CD •S '^^•■^ o o 1— ( 1-H 1 CO CO 1 in in 1 CO in 1 o T-H in 1 1 1 1 y "* 2 I 1 1 in in ' 1 1 ' ' 1 in in ' 1 •^ in 1 1 1 in in 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 r r t 1 1 o 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 CD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' ' OJ S 1 1 1J 1 1 I' 1 1 d' I 1 01 1 1 O' tal: Chang CD ..11^ Silo 1 1 ^ 1 nl 1 1 .c 1 1 bO 1 1 -C •• I 1 J5 1 1 b£ 1 c 1 1 cij 1 1 -^ CJ . ■ a C . ■ CJ .. , , u O 1 1 -w C 3 CJ 1 1 ^ X \ ', ^ 2 •<3< in " CD CD ^ (U i~< i~< Mh regon: 1964 -- 1965 --- Percent tah: 1964 --• 1965 --• Percent Washingto 1964 --■ 1965 --■ Percent Wyoming^ 1964 -- 1965 --■ Percent Flyway t 1964 - 1965 - Percen z O P 1 .5 Sh ■a !h en ■a CD c o o o c a CD CD 0) 4-» ni E a E CO >> u > c o ■a . u CJ _ a CD t. >= .» Sh -fH "* 3 .O fa ■=73 ti C . , O CTj ^ c >, 3 ■g '-S ^ •-- .s tJ "^ q S .4-) js .*-* CO 01 oj a; in «K2 T-H CM CO a CD 77 a 0) u S ^ ■^ E^ 5 r, "D to ■fH W i-t u cti &v. s: - t3 a C ^f u ..H o a TJ Cfl M-H "^ t-i o i^.S c B c ti) o 0) iSTS Q. to u; -O -w •s <" to ^ U to (U *J JD to E c 3 O Z X! 1 c t- ^ 3 to ? Oiifseo-^cooocooscocM CO CO ■<>• So t-cooooococoot-ooir-co T-I CO CO 00 to ^ t« "5 to f*1 r-»-(t-^^COOeO(MCS)»-4 t-H CO CD Number o potential adult hunters rgcsi(r3ir^'<*'C-ooosooiio c- in ■ t-OCD»-JCD05'-'C0CMC0 c- O w '<^' CO o -^j^ in irT 1-1 CO i-H eo CO in i b »H 1 1 to ^ to OJ I5l COCDCOCDtD T^CMCOtr-CM 131 o •* CDi-Ht-HCMCO mooc-coM t- to y^ fell 1-1 ^* o o" o o o o o o d d i-l S " c o c •a Ol^i-Ht-C-CO-^roOCO'^^ a CO in CD-««*O5CDr-* o 1 N t^ -•-' c*oooococor~ooc**oot™co CO 1 oo £ o to a; ^ rt d to M-l CO £ -g 3 S CDCOOiCMi-H'^CDTrcOCDCO t- 00 01 O'^iniOCDCMOlOOC-Oi tH in eooscoi-icocDoococDaoco CO 1 1 m >> ■S a- "2 s coeocMin'cDOs co4r3co»-< rH e>r _4 1 s. -^ CO CM ':»' CM CD eg •* "^ T-i CO in 1 z ?-i to •V ki CD ■a _ ocgcDco •q< T)< CO ^■^OOCMCOCDOOr-CDCMTj* 00 irT cm' lo CD oT CO irT ■<*«" t-T co" CO eo" CO CQ -^ CM CD eg CD .-< CO in i-i 1 1 1 1 1 j^-i' ! ' ' ! 1 1 t 3 1 1 1 1 1 (U ' 1 g fi ' 2 i3 ■4.J , cttt-i 1 1 1 -rt 1 1 0<-< o Arizona Californi Colorado Idaho -- Montana Nevada - New Mex Oregon - Utah — Washingt Wyoming to < CO D a B tn ctl Si u <3 3 e B O c« lU 5 0' a CO b H IV till n1 in Ri CD 1 0 w C T3 a 0 in 1 CO a Cti •n •0 ^ r. (II n TJ 0 t.' H u n B In to '^-i 11) 1 1 R >. ^H 0 a tn " 0 a» a 5 t ^ to ft ■£ il^ i-< M eo 78 TABLE C-5. —Total duck and coot kill in the Central Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species 1964 1965 Percer it change 40 - 100 + 25 + 100 - 15 + 12 - 20 - 5 + 19 + 20 - 35 + 15 + 87 + 75 - 92 + 20 - 17 - 47 - 6 + 152 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Domestic mallard Black duck Black X mallard Mottled duck Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue -winged teal and cinnamon teal Shoveler Pintail Wood duck Divers: Redhead Canvasback Greater scaup Lesser scaup Ring-necked duck Goldeneye Bufflehead Ruddy duck Sea ducks: Oldsquaw Scoter Miscellaneous: Common and red- breasted merganser Hooded merganser — Others and unknown -- Total ducks: Retrieved — Not retrieved Ducks killed - Coots: Retrieved Not retrieved Coots killed -- 526, 500 100 400 100 27, 700 108,200 104, 300 166,600 28,800 44, 600 122, 100 23, 100 33,500 13,800 1,200 40, 800 34, 000 3,600 8,900 2,300 500 1,800 2,200 400 1,295,400 315,000 1,610,400 23,200 17,600 40, 800 315,000 500 200 23,500 120,900 83,000 158,000 34,200 53,700 79,600 26, 500 62,600 24, 100 100 48, 800 28, 100 1,900 8,400 5,800 100 200 700 300 100 1,080,100 305, 800 1,386,000 39,800 19, 600 59, 300 - 60 61 95 75 17 3 14 + 72 + 11 + 45 ^Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 duck wing surveys. 79 TABLE C-6. —Total goose kill in the Central Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species^ 1964 1965 Percent change 2 Canada goose 128, 100 80, 000 25,200 24,200 83,000 72,300 36,300 13,400 - 35 10 + 44 - 45 Total geese: Retrieved 257, 500 43, 500 300,900 205,100 41,400 246,500 - 20 5 - 18 ^ Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 goose tail surveys. ^ Includes all subspecies. 80 m CO o> 01 jC bo c •IH 3 73 >. OS i— i a t^ •M C O) ^ CO -< o O ■<}< O O 0 0 tH 0 0 CM C- T-H CO 00 Tj. Tir OS 0 •^ en t-H ^2 ^ .. 1 1 ^ - , . + + eo »-t O t-H CD .-H eg in tH 1-H eg rt t-H t-H 0) CO o 1— I i-H ^^ o o Seasona bag per potentia adult hunter t- c- 1-1 in .-H CL> CO O) ^ CO 0 0 OS in 00 in in 1 t- CO in ■^ eg cii •^ CO ta" 0 CM c- . . 1 o o o" d 1 ■ • Sh O o cj 0' 0" + . t-H 00 + S y* o 1— t O O CO O O CM O O o 0 0 CO 0 0 CO O O (M O O -H 0 0 CO 0 0 CO M< ,-( ■* o CO CO 1 CO CD 3^2 ^ ^ 1 ., ^ 1 ., - CO ^ t- c- • ,-H CD t-H CO c- in in CO «D >-< -y cti 00 t-H CO t-H ^ >-H l-H r~t t-H ■g S ■iH -t-t a Seasonal bag per potential adult hunter ■^ (X> CO t- t- in CO 0 CO -^ tH oi in >-i 00 CO C33 eg CO o iJf 0 in CO OS CD eg n CO 1 If) CO 1 ^" ^ 'O ^ " 03 t-H r cd' ■^ 1 ta' CO 1 CO .2 oi S l-H O O rt O O Tf o o £ 0 0 CO 0 0 '*• "^ ':3 o o ^ O O 005 0 0 t-H 0 0 CM 0) CO c CO «2 in CO CO ■^ CD to c •^ o> CO CM t .. 1 Tj< tr- CD .-H ^ ■>a< CO - 1 t-H CD o O 05 C- CD CO 00 eg t-H a t-H T-t T-t T-H t-H CO C 0) ;-l • rH t^ OJ ■g ^ ^ (U O 3 0) C5t ^ Sh ■-H t-H 00 00 coc- ^ 0 t-H CO T-i CO <*-! ■S3*-' CO OO T-( CO c- t-i •^' CO ■§ CO CO 1 CO eo T3 0) Tjl Tjl + in rr 1 . 1 in in tj! tjl 1 CO 3 ■a 3 fia ^ >-. I— f ci T3 3 ni ^ CO O O O o o c- 000 0 0 CD 00 c- -i t-H 0 ^ CD t-H t-H (3S t- t-H Clj CSl CD CO 00 CO CO ^ - + t- CO 14,4 4,8 yway in t-H 00" ■^'" t-H ttl ^ ^ 1 ■^ CO E (S ^ CO ^ CO CO CO CM -*-> ^H to 2. f^ c^ Days in duck seasoi CO O CD 1 CD O I eg 0 CD 1 CO CD 0 1 0 0 1 ■^ CO 1 CO ^ I ■* CO 1 CO •^ 1 •* ■^ 1 Duck bag limit 00 00 1 CO CO 1 00 CO 1 JO 00 1 00 CO 1 ■ 1 1 < ■ 1 ' ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ^4 ' a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 o 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 , , CO CD (U 1 1 <'^ 01 1 1 <" a 1 ! ^ 1 1 b£ bO 1 1 tuO bX> H^ 3 3 .. 1 1 3 CO c3 1 1 <^ a 1 1 cci CO 11^ s ■C •C 1 1 -3 1 1 -3 0 1 1 J3 .. 1 j u <-> 1 1 '^ '^ 01." lorado^ 964 -- 965 -- 'ercent sas: 64 -- 65 -- ircent <"" ! I "S raska; 64 -- 65 — ircent ' Mexi 64 -- 65 — ircent C CJJ C33 ^ |22(S XI OS o5 ;^ oj Ti i-H Fli 2; !S OS OS ;f 0) t-< t-H |1( o ■-< »-t ft |2^"^ 81 in CO en T-H Q> SI •4-> ^ (4 3 Ti >> a » >, i—t iK •— < ct U T3 •y s OJ (U w en <^ n c W)rt o ■a ? 1-k 5 b <» rt o S- to " u o T3 ■.I 0) -*-* o m Ul en Tf 3 MCD T3 rt OS nt £ -1 ■o ^ --^ c .ti t/1 rt ^ OI >> nt ■E? C E •- S •i-C U Ctj C4 (U pL] b.-" J3 3 9) I o u ij o o c- o o CO o o CO o o o I— 1 o o o o o Oi O O CM o o CO o o CO O O CM '^ Iti o o CO o o ■V CTJ CO in CD T-l in CM So CO csi CD CO - - + 1 + - - 1 ^ t ^ + CD 00 cm" oo' *— j CD CD M -" IT) (J>' Ir- 00 •0 CO CO I— 1 CM 00 -^ in 05 eo r-l in 05 CM o CO >-i > oo' cd" c-Tcd" CO ci C-' cm" Oico in co" <« m -" r- t-H CM "-I CO tH CO O y-l CO 05 X! eg CM 1-i T-H CM CM •* ■>!< CD CO ^ t-l 1-1 t< ^ 3 ei) ni ^< K cuTi ±: 0) CO Oi O Oi •'T in in in CD CO CO in 00 CO CO 05 C- ays Dteni adu] hunt in 00 »-H CO rt CO CO 1 00 CM 1-i CM CO CO 05 id' in 1 in in 1 CD tD Tr TjJ 1 rr" ■^' + in -^ 1 o a 5 *. s- o o CO O O •* O O rl o o CD o o c- O O 00 *j ii 0) CO t- rH o ■^ t- ■* rt T)< ^ 00 o in o o C 3 -»i 05 00 tr- 00 in 00 05 CD .-1 00 •^ CO (U T3 5 1 , 1 ^ , 1 + 1 co" n ,-1 O •^ o cm' C-' v^' d^oo" CO CO CM CM CO CO 00 00 00 in CM C> c " S CM CM cfl -t; 3 2 en o o 1 CO O 1 O O 1 o o 1 CD O 1 1 1 1 ■^ •^ 1 CO ■«»< ' ^ -^ 1 ■<1< tT 1 CO ■'If 1 1 1 1 ^ ^ -" o iaD-r: CO 00 CO 00 1 00 CO 1 00 CO 1 00 oo 1 1 S £ Q -" z: 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 ' I I 1 '^ en 0) CD bD be 1 1 bc bc bC c c a C a en C4 1 1 [« d Dakota: ent cha eet d Cu ' 1 o bD •S ■s 3 X " 1 1 J3 JS J3 J3 O 1 1 CJ o o CJ O 1 1 *J s lahoma; 964 -- 965 -- c 0) oo" ] 1 bO 1 1 .3 0) Flyway t 1964 -■ 1955 -■ Percen j3 -^ in i3 tD CD o CJ ^ Tf in ^ en -^ in CJ c -^ in S CO CD o I-l ^ £<£> T-H rH A Pi z; o H ^ 1 en ai ■*-» § o CJ >. nt ^ >> i—t en k, en f~4 H d ti V -4-> a> en t) 0) u G Sf 3 .Q Xi T3 Sh C O nt .1 c o •rH > fl> UJ ^3 3 d eu en CJ d CJ -*-» ho C ^-^ u 4_) tn c en J3 5 nt en en J3 (U P. u V CO •s 0) c 3 1 •§ en o 01 CJ5 2::| g h .. cn oj en ft fc. CD Sr§ ^ > -c ^ >>-M -4-> Fl'^ *^ T3 ■O CO O . "I'm OJ CO CO 1 C« >> 1 1 irj CO ft 3 CO OCSlCOOT-HCM'-'t-'CJi'^ c-ir-t-cot-cx)t-cx>c-co c a, ft '^ C-01C-CJ)COC3at--<*'C3^T-< c-tr-c-t-cocot-c»c-c- o c» Number of potential adult hunters COD-CDCDC^C-IDTTOCX) crst-OiO'cDaDco'^r-Hcri tO(Mr-i-i'»-t .-(CO C>J CO C^^ CO CO CO OJ cn bi eii (U >. =3 3 1 to 05 1 » ?, CO 1) o ft 3 CO c£>»-3 COCMCOCO Percent sold to non-hunters rtOJCOO 1 tocsicooco CDCDincD 1 CO'^WCOOJ d o" o" o dodo cm' 00 in o Total duck stamps sold eo^^if3CJCSlOt-c»NC33 CJ)OCJSC0C3^CslC0CD'^O COCO-^C-T-HT-lt-CO-^CO Co" C-" ^^ oo" *!**" (35 1-i -^ CO ^ pqiM'-icvi cocsicoco 00 Colorado Kansas Montana^ Nebraska New Mexico^ North Dakota Oklahoma South Dakota -- Texas Wyoming^ ■t-t o ■*-> ft ft a •n 3 o a T3 ' ' > o a in CO m a »-t a CU .3 ■o ■*-» c o U > e«-t n cn ■", '? lU nj ^ 73 >, O X> CO n1 u n c S ig y-i CO 83 TABLE C-9. —Total duck and coot kill in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species^ 1964 1965 Percent change Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Domestic mallard 1,317,000 1,900 97, 300 6,000 36,700 147, 100 205,400 288,200 175, 100 58,000 163,600 320, 500 925, 000 5,700 103, 600 4,500 30,200 220,800 212,700 215,100 142, 500 76, 300 116,900 337,600 - 30 + 200 + 6 - 25 - 18 + 50 + 4 - 25 - 19 + 32 - 29 + 5 Rlark V mplli:»rH - Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Shoveler Pintail Divers: Redhead Canvasback 48,200 37, 400 18, 700 244, 100 301, 500 19, 700 34, 400 17,000 65, 800 46, 800 13,900 337,000 320,900 30, 800 47, 600 22, 800 + 37 + 25 - 26 + 38 + 6 + 56 + 38 + 34 Ring-necked duck Bufflehead Ruddy duck Sea ducks: Oldsquaw Eider Scoter 300 trace 4,200 600 100 3,500 + 100 - 17 Miscellaneous: Common and red- breasted merganser Hooded merganser Others and unknown 3,300 13,500 1,100 3,400 30,200 1,200 + 3 + 124 + 9 Total ducks: Retrieved 3, 560, 300 897, 000 4,457,300 3,315,400 799,000 4,114,400 - 7 - 11 - 8 Coots: Retrieved Not retrieved Pnr>t« ki11f>H 286, 300 84, 800 371, 100 385, 400 101,600 487, 000 + 35 + 20 + 31 Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 duck wing surveys, 84 TABLE C-10. -Total goose kill in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species 1964 1965 Percent change Canada goose^ 148, 300 22, 800 65,600 11,500 1,400 139,800 42,000 53, 500 17, 700 700 - 6 + 84 - 18 + 54 - 50 White-fronted goose Total geese: Retrieved 249, 500 41,900 291,300 253,700 42, 700 296, 400 + 2 + 2 Geese killed + 2 ^Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 goose tail surveys. 2lncludes all subspecies. 85 CO OS 1-1 0> c >> & v x: C c o ' ' •r-l rn •rH m ^ W CTl ii 01 a; he 73 ft E o 0) to c o c ft rt c Wl o 0) rn tH ^ (Tf o 01 Sh 3 (0 o T3 ■^ •n O to flj 03 Ul »-< tn •o c J3 3 rt C w ^ o 01 -^ O) ■^ CM CM ^ ^ O - . + 1 _ « 1 » » + ^ > 1 OT -M in ;d T-l CD -*• in CO CO t- TJ< CO a CO CM 1-1 CO 0) CO o o o 1 a;3 -M s- CD CO CO in 'J' o CO CO in Tj< O »-l 05 T-l CO t- in 1-1 CO T}< CO O O CM CD Tl< CO CO CM ^ ^ 05 00 in "^i CM rt g^s-g § O o + O O 1 d d 1 d d 1 d d + d d 1 c^^a "= ■4-1 rt o o c» O O 00 o o in o o •* O O CD O O 00 O O CM O O CM o o o o ^ O O rt O O 1-1 rt -w CO C- Tr CD CM o CM "-H ■* Oi 1-1 00 J2 *J O - . + ^ ^ 1 . ^ + - ^ 1 - ^ 1 M *J C- 'J" ^ 00 1-H CO cn CM 00 in TJ. c- in tr- c- CO • CD CO t>- CD O O th 00 cj> t- O CD ■<«> CM I>- rH CO CO 1 00 OO 1-1 CD CM CM in c- 1-c 5 hp 0) T3 b •«< in + d> T^ -^ . . 1 CM CM I CD in 1 •> K2 CO OS rt CO 00 CO CO 05 CO 05 ■^ in rt t- t- C- 00 00 in 00 t- in in ■^ "^i ■a 1 Li 0) CM 1-1 CM CO CM CO ti — ! 3 Days pe potentia adult hunter O CD CO o o» t- CM ^ t- 05 CT> CM CO »H CO 00 CO CO (M CO t-l co t- t— 1 O 1"* c:5 CO 1-1 CO 1-1 00 o . , • . in in + t- t- + in CO + •"ji •^ 1 d d 1 in d + itential adult unters »-l CO o o c~ CO in CO S2 in CO t^ O O CM in 1-1 O O CO CO c^ O O CM CM 1—1 00 CD t- 00 CD •<*' CD o Tjt CO 11 O crTcsT ' « 1 CvTin" "*" CO t- « ^ 1 Oh T— < f— t CO CM in in i-i i-< CO CO Days in duck eason CM CM eg O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 CD CO 1 CD O 1 O O 1 •5}. Tt< 1 ■"f "S* 1 If •^ 1 CO CO 1 CO •^ 1 ■* ■* 1 CO Duck bag limit 00 00 1 03 CO , 00 CO 1 CO OO I CO 00 1 00 00 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ^4 • ■»< ' 1a< Tjl ' c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 0) 1 1 '^ ! 1 '^ 1 1 '^ 1 1 in " •-H ^ in " C 'J' in " a CO CD ^ Tf in " c« CD CO •;< O CO CO '^ > en CTl ^f* g iH 1-1 fl| ^ 05 03 a) « "^ <^ ft^ ^ 1-1 1-1 p< a o> Oi ^ 0) 1-1 1-1 Ch < 1=1 5 O « 86 ITS CD tJ3 C U 3 >. c« to S to C •S c o a; CO CO •r' 0) ^ o CJ c o CO ol «< T-( in ■* CO i-H 05 CO 1-^ <6 O 1 CO i-l Tj< d d 1 >-l CM t~ d d + O th t- o o + i-H i—( »H CM CM d d + tn ft O O CO o o in O O CO i-H o o o o O O CM O O tT O O '-1 O O CM <" -^ <35 CM CD t- o ^ o o o o O O '^ +J CU ^ -. + - - + ^ ^ 1 in CO Tfl l-H t- o ^ 00 •^ CO ai in CD in CO c- o ■>J< CD in CM ^ rt (M cq CM i-< CO CO as -f •f 00 CM i-i 1-1 1—4 o i-I i-t i-t lonal per ntial ult iter CJ3 <-l 03 CM C- »-< CO O ■^ CO CO CD ^ CO CO Oi t- Oi O CO »-) ■^ T-i in in CM i-i in CM CD 00 CM en CO ^^^■§1 CO •<«< + CO CO + co" d 1 • • in CD + CO CO + CO tP + eg -2 a ■= 1-H T-( CO o o ■sr o o eo o o o O O CD O O CM O O CO tH o o o o O O <-! O O i-i O O o o O CO 00 O Oi o CO CO « » 1 >s ^ 1 -. ^ 1 ^ ^ 1 - ^ + - . + c >> ^2 CO CD in .-< Oi 1-1 CD CM in o CM CM o 1 u 1-1 c» o t- Oi CM 00 t- CJ> O •<»< in CO CD in 'tfi eo c- c- i-t CM 1-1 1-t tn U -H o s pe ntia ult iter t- CD <-< i-H C- CO co CM in 00 i-l CO cn CM c- t- t- .a< s CD C- CO CD CO in C35 <-l C- 1-1 CO in 73 Dayi pote ad hui CD CD + ■*' ^* 1 in in 1 •^ in + ■^' in + in in + CO 3 •a 1 •^ CO CO 2 jj t-i O O CD O O CD O O in O O CO o o •^ O O CO Potent) adul hunte ^ CD C- •* c- t- ^ 00 <-i 00 oo CO l-H O O ^ _ 1 CD CO ^ ^ 1 rt CM i-< CM 1-1 •^ CO in E CD i-H 00 •f co"cm" CO CO oo^cd" Ti< in 00 00 r- D- eg c^a »— ( T-H CO CO CM CM CO W^ c CO _« O CM CM Day in duel seas O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 CD CD 1 1< ■^ i TJ< Tf 1 Tf -^ 1 ■* •^ 1 •^ •>*< 1 CO eo 1 Duck bag limit CO CO i 1 1 1 00 00 , ■ ■ °f°? ■ CD 00 1 * < 00 00 1 ■ ■ CO 00 1 1 1 1 ^ ■<»< ^TT 1 ^ <3< 1 ■* •^ T}< •5}< •qi Tl> c o CO ! ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■y S 1 I C 'S ' ' c 3 -; CO CO CD ^ .2SS| o o5 (35 ;^ •^ r-t 1-1 (M d 05 03 ^ CD <35 C5 ^ ^ tH T-l Ph !/> t-i a> ■>-> bO c (-, I— I 1^ •t-t ft ft » S 10 cS T3 a) o to 61D.S c § 3 -c .s U I U n rH 0 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 0 CM a) ' — ' 0 0 ":»< 0 0 0 0 ^ ^ -«^ C^ •^ CO 05 T-I CM CM c^ -K . - + - ., + a2 ■^"csT in in Oi Oi a> CM CM ra Q cS Seasonal bag per potential adult hunter 0 CO in ^ in CO CO t- OS C^J --1 CO in in TJH Tf 0 0 1 d 0" + d d + 0 0 CO 0 0 t- 00 c- 1— t -*-» TO 0 0 CO 0 0 tH 0 0 CO CM CM 1-1 C- CO cS -'-' ^ " 1 ^ ^ + ^ ^s T-I in ■^ en c- 00 CM tH 00 CD X2 1—1 in CD in c ■^"^co 0 Days per potential adult hunter in y-l T-I 1-1 CM CO CO CM CO T3 C- •^ rt in CD + 00 C- T-* in CO + c- 05 in in + cn p ■a i 3 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 in tn to 0 eg in in 0 0 QJ in in 05 tH I 0 CO •s - 1 . „ 1 .> .. 1 Pote ad hunt T-^ CO CO ^ 0 t- E CM y-^ 0 0 CO CM V-» 1-1 i-< CD CO M w a Days in duck ease 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 ■^ T^ 1 •^ "iif 1 1 1 1 tn ^ -w Duel bag limi CO e» , 1 1 CO CO 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t a> S 1 1 ' 1 * bp .. 1 1 nJ Co 1 1 CJ a a> 1 1 ^ (V (0 ! ! ^ 1 1 bsj 1 1 ^ a a ■*:; §* 1 1 -c •• . I 0 1 1 s ... u 0 *J K ennessee 1964 — 1965 — Percent Wisconsin 1964 — 1965 — Percent lyway 1964 - 1965 ■ Perce P4 H en 2 T3 Ca 3 ^£ "< ^ ^ 0) S"'3 *" .S'-o « in d Si tn 13 3 c o "i "^ in "o " E S "St. D. C c- CO r- P< 3 CO ■t-i CJl CO c- CO CD c- CD in o ^ in t- t- en i> t-t ■*-• CO 00 oo 00 oo 00 00 CO o> 00 00 co CO oo CO 0) " CO P, cs OJ rt C/} t*-( ^^ tn ° rt in ^ 00 T-H ■^ in 00 CM CO a> I-H -tT CM t- C35 CM rt 01 C 3 0) CO ";}< t- »— t CO o CD CO CD CO CO 05 •^ CO Q) tO CO -3< o CD o o CO CM CM •* in ■r T-H CM >> ^ CD T3 -i E o "< § CM rt in t- en c- 'I" CM co' d in CD 1< D-' ■—] '-' CM lO r-^ CO CO c- CM ^ CO CM o CM 3 3D, x: CO 1 Z 10 ' ^ in CD rcent Id to •hunte IT) in 05 i-H C35 CD CM •i "^ *"* ^^ c T3 S in .-1 05 in CO rH o CM 00 CM CO in in I-H c- o E 3 5 o 05 CD CM CO ^ ^ CM Tj- in CM O to CO co c- CD 05 ^ ^~* 133 o CO co c- CO . 00 D- CD CO ■'5' o CO I-H I-H 00 in en o 3 co" -a-' cm' co' C-' C-' CD 00 oo' CD Co' TJ"' I-H CO o" *-H CO in CO 00 c- CM I-H CO CM CM o CO 1 1 I-H r-t CO en ■ o •^ CD CO O CO CO 03 in I-l 1-4 cu -^ c O-o 3 ^-t CO o c- CD CO I-H t- ^ in in ^~* CM in CO tH ^H J- 0) o 1 p, in c o" o" -< I— ' d d d d d d d I-H d d d o c to •^ 00 05 in 00 CD CM 00 ^ i-l CM 00 CD CM CO Total duck stamp sold CM CO CM rr CO '^ CD CO CO Cd en ir- I-H CM r- 00 00 CM en CD I-H CM t- CM CO i-H CD in t- CO •^' CO to' c-' C-' co' CD co' doo" in ^ ■'r'^ co T-H CO in CO CO t- CM ^H CO CM CM o CD ^~' r-H CO 01 rt ■i-> tn L » 1 CO M P m in cU d C! o in 'a. ' a „ 10 3 01 0) in in c 'in c Alabai Arkan niinoi c :3 in ID ■rH O 1) o .3 s !c c in to o c o >> c: 3 tj c to in c; in ■a ^ 3 §ssl !c tu OH ^ P^ 89 TABLE C-13. —Total duck and coot kill in the Atlantic Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figures include junior hunter estimates) Species 1964 1965 Percent change Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Domestic mallard 160,200 1,500 242, 400 7,300 14,200 13, 000 44, 300 86,200 18,600 8,100 25,800 105,600 161,300 3,000 216,800 10, 500 14, 300 19, 000 54, 800 71, 100 20, 800 6,900 21,200 154,600 + 1 + 100 - 11 + 44 + 1 + 46 + 24 - 18 + 12 - 15 - 18 + 46 Black X mallard Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue -winged teal Shoveler Pintail Divers: Redhead Canvasback 9,800 26,700 19,600 19, 400 69,300 20, 000 23,100 9,500 14, 800 25, 500 22, 000 24, 700 64, 700 20, 800 30, 900 3,400 + 51 - 4 + 12 + 27 - 7 + 4 + 34 - 64 TiPQQPv Qr^aiTn — — — -..____—_ Ring-necked duck Goldeneye Bufflehead Ruddy duck Sea ducks: Oldsquaw Eider Spr»i"PT — — -. — — — — — — — — _ 4,200 3,300 36,800 3,100 3,300 32, 700 - 26 - 11 Miscellaneous: Common and red- breasted merganser Hooded merganser Others and unknown 11,500 11,500 1,900 7,700 13,600 300 - 33 + 18 - 84 Total ducks: Retrieved 993, 500 246, 700 1,240,200 72,200 20, 100 92, 300 1,021,900 266,900 1,288,800 85,900 30, 000 116,000 + 3 + 8 + 4 + 19 + 49 + 26 Duckt? killpH Coots: Retrieved Cnot<5 killpri Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 duck wing surveys. 90 TABLE C-14. -Total goose kill in the Atlantic Flyway during the 1964 and 1965 hunting seasons (retrieved kill estimates adjusted for response bias; all figiu-es include junior hunter estimates) w Species^ 1964 1965 Percent change 2 Canada goose 125, 100 trace 31,800 2,100 81,000 100 15, 500 - 35 American brant Unknown - 51 - 100 Total geese: Retrieved 159,000 25, 100 184, 200 96, 600 15,900 112, 500 - 39 - 37 - 39 ^Species composition derived from the 1964 and 1965 goose tail surveys. ^Includes all subspecies. 91 to 0) w c o a 0) U o T5 O) -t-» M 3 •f— » T3 C CO W 0 0 00 0 0 ■>*< 0 0 -^ 000 000 0 0 in ■4-» Cq 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 in 0 0 in 000 0 0 "* CO C*< Oi •* 0 c- - - + ^ ^ + « - + ^ ^ 1 •X .^ 1 CO CD "S^'in ^ T-H 03 CO C- "-1 CM CO be w -^ CM CO CO (M in CO CM in CD CD 0 00 d 1—1 i-H 1-H o a rt t< cti sh S X ^ i^ s CM 0 "-I £33 CO CM t- t- CO C<1 ^ <£> CD 0 03 •^ t- 0 ° a c 3 -a i-H i-H CO CM Ol CO in CM '-1 t- "^ -^ 03 in £33 "-I eg oJ W>^ ^ 3 (U g O " J= CO •^ + ■, M -*-' CO CO CD in y-l CM CO ^ in CD CD in CS *— t i—< »— 1 T— 1 T3 1 c Days per potential adult hunter CO m 0 rq £33 CO CD 03 in f CM 0 03 c>q in CO CD -^ ffi CM CD ^ ■-H CM CM y—t t» 1-H 03 CO <-! CD 03 CM 03 •5l< -515 + 06 CD 1 rr ■* + CO '^ + n^ Tj5 + CO in 1 ^^ Potentia adult hunters 0 0 CO 0 0 C- 0 0 in 0 0 CO 0 0 03 0 0 1 in CD co t- in in 03 in CM 00 CO 00 0 1 CD 00 t- CM 00 CD CD ■* 00 00 0 ^ ^ ^ + ^ ^ + ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ + ^ „ + .V -V c- c- C- CO in •* D- 03 0 --1 in in CM CM j-i 1-H CM CM c Days in duck seaso CM CM CM CM C>) m in 1 0 0 1 0 CD 1 0 0 1 in in 1 0 0 1 •* rf 1 in in 1 ■^ CO 1 rr -^ 1 ■<*< ■* 1 in in 1 Duck bag limit CO CD 1 CO CO 1 00 00 1 00 00 1 CO CO 1 CD CO 1 1 1 1 CO CO 1 1 1 CO CO ■4< 4' ^4- ' 1 1 1 CO CO CO CO S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (U 1 1 1 1 1 (U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (U 0 1 I ^ 1 1 be 1 1 be 1 1 bC 1 1 be 1 1 bO 5 1 1 C 1 1 c 1 1 c 1 1 C 1 1 c rt 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 1 d 1 1 a (U • ; 1 1 x; 1 1 sz 1 1 Si 1 1 Xi 1 1 J= 1 1 j= (0 3 I ' " 1 1 0 1 1 CJ 1 1 u 1 1 CJ CO 1 1 CJ bc d -M ! I -a I ! -a I ! -*-* •c I ! -a C n ' c • • \ ^ .is 1 1 S C C ? •3 rt 1 1 0) 1 1 0) rt ' ' 0^ elaw; 1964 1965 Perc "H ^ in " bD-* in w oj ^ in w Maryl; 1964 1965 Perc C CO CD ^ 'C CD CD ^, ^ ^ '-I Ph t, CD CO 5;< Main 196 196 Per 0 <-l i-H &( 0 03 03 ^ 01 >-l ^ fl( u Q P^ 0 92 Ifi CO Oi 1—1 (U -C -4-» be .3 !-c -§ >> rt ^ Pn o •»-i -S-C "J 2 ^ 3 <^ 0, g J= o -M o p 1 s I CO CO o c J-i m o O «4-l ^ 0) -4-> rt 1 1 in l-H o H J ta < H Q) CO O O o CO c 1^ 1^ cti (h cti «_, 0) S o £ w Cti Jh Ci Lj 2 faD S-o c (u TO o x: CO ■^ Q. .^-i cd CO cti c ^5 CO Q -a c o CO c« -• e<) CO + OO CM CO CD O •-' o o ■* o o CO o o •* o o O O CM O O CM O O --I o o in -^ 00 00 00 CD in "-H ^ „ + - „ + „ „ + CO c- a> CD ,-1 o 03 '^ 00 o CM CO CO in ■^ CJ> y—i T— ( f— ( CM CM O O CO O O '-H CO -"ti ^ ^ I •* CM CM O C- "* O CD »-H l-H '^ in + o o ^ •* + in ■^ I CM CM in in I CM CM CM eg O in 1 in in 1 O in 1 O O in '!»' 1 ■^ ^ 1 in ■^ 1 in in CD CO I I CO CO CO CO I CO CD I I CO CO CO CD I I I I CO CO CO > 01 CO u O) & O) I I 01 bX) c cTi CJ C 01 •<*< in P CD CD 'H r-( T-H Pl( it o 01 0) be c a J5 CJ c a> ■ bX) c CJ c (D O U 0) O O CM O O CM T-H C33 CO (33 C- CM --I CM o o CO o o CO O O CO o o c- o o -^ o o in o o o o ^ O O r-i O O --1 o o eg o o o c- O CO CO c- in CM i-H CO CD CM ^ „ + „ ^ + ^ ^ + ^ - + - ^ 1 „ ^ + O CM O eg ^ 00 Tj< •<*< O CO O in 00 CO CM CM O —1 1—* 1— t c- o —1 CM Oi CD (33 03 •^ CM in CO eg o o CO o o CO CM ^ > I CO "-H C33 00 CM CM CO CD in l-H CO c- eg CM c- in ■^03^ O -^ "-I (33 O O CO O O CO o o 00 O O CO O o c- o o o O in r-H 03 03 CM T-H t;!* <-l —1 C- 00 l-H rr 03 l-H CO 00 CD C- 03 03 CM ^ CO CO ■^ eg ^ » + » ^ + „ ^ + ^ - + ^ « 1 » ^ + t- 03 Tf in rH ID CO CO CO ^ t- l-H l-H rH CM CM in in eg CM CO ■"*< CM o in I in 1* I CO CO I I CO CO 0) bc c a o ■t~> c 0> CJ u l-H l-H ft c to ■^ in C CO CO C 03 CD 01 ft 93 CO CO c o a to u, u o ^-» U3 .3 •a C5l c 3 0} a S •^^ CO W o o o o o o 0 0 00 0 0 Tf . <=> 0 0 0 CJl 1— t o o o o o in 0 0 >-< 0 0 • C^ + + 1 .. -. 1 + -> .. 1 ^ in 00 c- 0 a> CM l-H T-H CO r'^ .__, o t« ti rt L. o c S ^ ^ 1^ C- l-H t- in CD o c- CO CO c- cq 0 ■^ 0 0 0 CO O 2 Q< C 3 -« O ■-< in O O CM CM --I CO CO in ■* 1 rt 0 C- rr •>*< a, d o " x: (6(6 + d <6 + d d 1 d d 1 1 . 1-1 0 + d d 1 O) -^ a o o c- o o o a 0 oi 0 0 '^ 0 0 OJ 0 0 CO O O (M O O CM 00—' 0 0 CM 0 0 CD 0 0 »— 1 00 M Oi ■^ CD 00 00 0 CD C- Oi CD .w O . ., 1 ^ ^ + ,. > 1 ^ .. 1 .- - + „ .- + as c- 00 CM in 0 i-( Oi y-< CO CM in ^ CD 00 CM CM CD Tr Tf t- T— I T-H xs *H T-H ^£ O 5 rJ t< cfl t. g a> Z! ii QJ a> ■'J" ■* C- t- CD in (M ■ CO CO CO O a c 3 -B C35 O (M O CO CO CM CO T*" 03 --1 cq CD CM C- CD 0, rt o x; ci CO 1 in in + CD tT I CO CM 1 »— ( l-H + 00 CO 1 OT -2 a O O CD O O CO 0 0 '-1 0 0 CO 0 0 l-H 0 0 CO O O O O "-1 0 0 --1 0 0 CO 0 0 -^ 0 0 T-H tr- O CO CD CO in cj> 0 C- cq T-H C- •u ■:3 ^ ., + .s 1 .s .^ 1 » ., + .~ . + ■a J3 ccTcnT ■>»* eo in cq 00 CD CO in 05 I^ CO *j o CO -^ r—t tH t- 00 CO CM CD CD 00 CO ■^ in •o T-H T-H 1 ■*-» c fci ^ 3 in 1 in in 1 in in 1 tT rr 1 1 1 1 EXick bag limit CD CD 1 1 1 1 CO CO 00 CO 1 4* CO CD CD 1 1 1 1 CO eo CD CD 1 1 1 1 CO CO CD CD 1 1 1 1 CO eo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! -^ (U V, > > -^ 1 1 x: 1 1 x: .3 1 1 u " 1 1 u ca S 1 ' " ■3 1 1 o 1 1 U 1 1 0 0 1 1 *J hn 5 > 1 ^ . . ' ! .*-» co' 1 ! ■*-' bC 1 1 ^ i3 ! ' C Flyway t 1964-- 1965 -- Percen ff CO I 1 c a ' ' c ermont 1964 - 1965 -- Percen rt C .s t— t 1 1 dj South C 1964- 1965 - Perce 42 ' ' 0) West V: 1964- 1965 - Perce 01 -^ in P ^ CD CD S^ O CT> CT> ^ J2 '-I --I P< irgin 1964 1965 Perc tf > > 1 94 .!< tu 0) > J= rt a, (u ti > 3 rt fr< •*~| £ CJ 3 Ti to ci fit JS ci ^ 5! C x: 0) x: P > -*-» c o rt ■a to o t> to J2 c (LI 3 t< h C U rf Tt u. (U Tl j<: rt (Tt o H 3 T3 m O (L> 0] ^_^ u (/J J3 ti c -1 o Z 1 1 1 CO tn 1 U) u c o a CJ - cc < H S to 0 m CD'-^CO-^mcO-^OlOt-COCDOCMCOOOO)^ ■* U 0) C-t-r-COC-C-fC-t-t-C^CDC-D-C^t-COCO t- a; 0 Ph 3 to si CDCMCOC>]»-HCS)OCMCOeoC-OCDOOCDOOir^lO i-i t^oocooooooocococococ^cocor— oor~D~c^ CO (0 5 0 s, ft "" rt to Li nj er of ntial ult ers 00>»-'U^'-'05ir3 § t> 00" *-r tt" cT ^"^ CO oi in in co" ^ ^ ci -^ ^ in i-T t-^ ■3 M *-lCMr-l CJlrtCM-^ *-< y-* a> 1 3 CU J= CM CO in t4 CD 1— t t; 0 -a t-W^i-tCOint-CDOJCD^DCvl'^C^^NCOCO c- 0) _ 3 0 2 j= t-eou3t-t-t*c*t-coiomir)r-coc*cor-os n iTi r-H ^' 0" 0 0 -^ T-H 0 »-H «-*' 0 0 ^' 0 1-H 0 0 ^S S c (X 0 timated duck tamps sold i-HOi-H^i-ioiinitNOJOcocDcococDoiirso to Tj'COUOCMC^JCO^-tOOLOCDCOOiO'-HCOt^O ■* COCO'-HCOtrJOlCOCMCOCOCOCOinCMOC-'^CD to 1-1 Qo' co" eg" "^' oT y-* -^ i>coi>co t- 0) S P< 3 to 1 <" S.S cDmeo'^coOr-'ooi-HOO'^'^'-icDeooO'^ co to c-coc-t-c-QOcoir-cocoir-oococ-t-coir-io c- to t4 (-H ni umber 0 potential adult hunters iX)coTj't-e^mcneoocD»-H»-I>'^CO CO >> =3 :C>r-»-HC0CD00t-CDCOO5(MCSI"»-irrcSl t-' c-"^ ccT irT t-~ 0 CO c--' rr' 1-H CO CO c--' cs] cvi -^ cD i-h CM »-lCSl^ CMlOCMCO ^ ^ CO CM 1 1 Z to CO ^ oii OlO»-«0'-<^^«DC*CDCM^HOO CDOC*lf5 CM t-H Perce soldt n-hun -^OTt*c-mi-ic*ir)CDoococo»-< ' -^ t- Oi -^ •* oi^inoO'-H'-HcoO'-H'-'O'-' OCMON i-i 0 c m ■c^3t-'^ir3i-icMi>oiir^cDOi(M05eo to Total duck stamp; sold CO'-HCDCMCOCTJ'^lOCNli-'.-Ht-LOaiCOaiOCD ITS C0C0CSlOt-0i«-'CCIC-CO(3iTl'00'-'OC«JC0CM t- t-' t-'' cvT io C-" 0^ -^^ co" rr" csT CO CO t-^ c^*^ c*f ■^ co »-i C 1 1 I I > ' I 1 1 1 ' 1 ' t 1 n I I > < ■ ■ 1 < ■ ' ■ ' ' ' ' Q) olum tts-- dire- ina - a — d --- ma - ia -- rt rt ^ Connecticut Delaware -- District of C Florida Georgia Maine Maryland -- Massachuse New HampsI New Jersey New York -- North Carol Pennsylvani PUiode Islam South Carol: Vermont --- Virginia --- West Virgin 0 95 c in tf> a> 1-1 0) X! 1 , -*-» U] .1-1 •5 j= rrt ti ^ u tn *3 rt H ^ >» C J2 to r-H •tH (U 73 bf) C 73 a C! m rt t« m Si ^ D 3 CO T3 c o Q. O to (/I QJ ^ ^ n T) c ■w t;t (U ^ 10 1 V' ^ cd § ^ 0) •FH •4-) +J rt ^ S J3 W ^ U o •—J «*H ^ OJ •M (4 ^ t- »H u Eel i-l n > c " a CO a-'gs CO to Ehick bag limit o rH irj a CQ C^ o CQ g> •^ , , s 5 = 96 TlU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O - 242-070 The Department of the Interior, created in 1849, is a Department of Con- servation, concerned with management, conservation, and development of the Nation s vvater, wildlife, fish, mineral, forest, and park and recreational resources It has major responsibilities also for Indian and Territorial affairs. As America's principal conservation agency, the Department works to assure that nonrenewable resources are developed and used wisely, that park and rec- reational resources are conserved for the future, and that renewable resources make their full contribution to the progress, prosperity, and security of the United States, now and in the future. CONSERVATION PLEDGE I give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully to defend from waste the natural resources of my country-its soil and minerals, forests, waters, and wildlife.