Special scientific report--wildlife

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 06317 707 3

/SI

DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST
IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

intendent ot i

MAY 4 1972
DEPOSITORY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 151

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ROGERS C. B. MORTON, SECRETARY
Nathaniel P. Reed, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Spencer H. Smith, Director (Acting)

DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST
IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

By

Aelred D. Geis

Migratory Bird Populations Station
Division of Wildlife Research
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Laurel, Maryland 20810

and

F. Graham Cooch

Canadian Wildlife Service
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 151
Washington, D. C. • February 1972

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402- Price 25 cents

Stock Number 2410-0313

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iv

DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST IN CANADA AND THE UNITED

STATES 1

REFERENCES !+

TABLES

1 Average distribution of the duck harvest between
Canada and the United States during the 1967-69
hunting seasons based on mail questionnaire and

wing collection data 5

2 Average distribution of the duck harvest by species
in Canada and the United States, 1967-69, expressed

as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]. . 6

MALLARD, BLACK DUCK, GADWALL 6

AMERICAN WIDGEON, GREEN-WINGED TEAL, BLUE-
WINGED TEAL 7

SHOVELER, PINTAIL, WOOD DUCK 8

REDHEAD-, CANVASBACK, GREATER SCAUP 9

LESSER SCAUP, RING-NECKED DUCK, COMMON GOLDENEYE . 10

BUFFLEHEAD, RUDDY DUCK 11

111

ABSTRACT

Marked differences are noted in the distribution of harvest of
various duck species between and within Canada and the United States,
on the basis of data obtained from mail questionnaire and wing
collection surveys.

IV

DISTRIBUTION OF THE DUCK HARVEST IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

When managing waterfowl populations it is frequently important to
know where the harvest of various species of ducks is likely to occur.
This is true both within and between Canada and the United States where
most of the North American waterfowl harvest is taken. Although data
on the size and distribution of the duck kill have been available for a
number of years in the United States, it was not until 1967 that national
surveys were initiated to measure the kill in Canada. Data from three
hunting seasons in Canada are now available. The purpose of this report
is to present the distribution of the kill by species in the United
States and Canada for the years I96T-69 based on mail questionnaire
and wing collection survey data. Since there is some variation from
year to year in the distribution of harvest among States and Provinces,
data for the 3-year period were averaged. Unless there are major
changes in hunting regulations, it seems likely that the distribution of
the duck harvest during the next few years will be generally similar to
the average distribution described in this paper.

Although the data-gathering methods employed in Canada and in the
United States are similar, there are some differences. In the United
States, mailing addresses were obtained and questionnaires sent to
individuals who purchased duck stamps during the current year, while in
Canada questionnaires were sent to individuals whose names and addresses
were obtained when they purchased hunting permits during the previous
year. In the United States, the kill reported by hunters is adjusted
downward about 20 percent in recognition of a reporting bias (Atwood,
1956). No such adjustment is made in Canadian data. In Canada, however,
it is estimated that the kill by natives is much greater than in the
United States, and this kill is not included in either the Canadian or
the United States estimates. Also, none of the harvest in the Yukon and
Northwest Territories of Canada is measured. In addition, there are
some differences in the questionnaires used in the two countries. For
these reasons, it is likely that kill estimates are more comparable on
a within-country than a between-country basis. Nevertheless, it is
believed that the similarities and compensating differences in the two
methods permit a reasonable approximation of the distribution of the
duck kill by species between the United States and Canada. Information
concerning the distribution of the duck kill by species between Canada
and the United States is presented in table 1, together with the esti-
mated annual harvest for both countries combined. The distribution of
the kill within Canada and within the United States is presented in
table 2. Although an estimated average kill by species in each State
and Province is not presented in this report, it is possible to calculate
it from data in the two tables.

Table 1 indicates striking differences among species in the pro-
portion of the total kill occurring in Canada. The proportion for
black ducks (h2.rJ%) and common goldeneyes (kQ.k%) was much higher while
the proportion for pintails (l^.3%) and shovelers (15.5$) was lower

than the average for all species (23.2%). It is interesting to note
that for the 3 years the second most important species in the combined
Canadian-United States harvest was the green-winged teal.

Table 2 shows the distribution of the harvest by species within
Canada and within the United States. The mallard harvest was more
widely distributed throughout both countries than that of any other
species. The black duck kill was strongly concentrated in eastern
Canada and the Atlantic Flyway. It is apparent that the proportion
of the total black duck kill in the United States occurring in the
Mississippi Flyway has declined in recent years. It was estimated that
during the period 195^ through 1962 (Geis, Smith, and Rogers, 1971 )
38.8 percent of the United States black duck kill was taken in the
Mississippi Flyway, but table 2 shows only 26.2 percent for the period
1967 to 1969.

The gadwall harvest was heavily concentrated in Alberta and in the
Central Flyway. The American widgeon harvest was unique in that the
average kill in British Columbia was greater than in any other Canadian
Province, while over half of the kill in the United States was concen-
trated in the Pacific Flyway. The green-winged teal harvest tended to
be widely scattered. In Canada, however, the largest harvests were in
British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec; in the United' States they were
in California, Louisiana, and Texas. The blue-winged teal harvest in
Canada is interesting in that it occurred chiefly outside the known
important production areas. Seventy-two percent of the Canadian kill
occurred in Ontario and Quebec, suggesting an eastward movement from
the principal production areas in the Prairie Provinces. Major blue-
winged (and cinnamon) teal harvest areas in the United States were
Minnesota (28% of the U.S. kill), followed by California (l6%) and
Wisconsin (11%).

The shoveler harvest was taken in the west in both Canada and the
United States. Major harvest areas were Alberta in Canada and Cali-
fornia in the United States, each with about ko percent of the respective
national total. The Pacific Flyway averaged 59 percent of the total U.S.
shoveler harvest. The pintail harvest was concentrated in the west even
more than that of the shoveler. Alberta and British Columbia accounted
for 51 percent of the Canadian harvest, while the Pacific Flyway took 71
percent of the U. S. harvest. Over half of the entire U. S. pintail kill
occurred in California. Texas and Louisiana were the only significant
harvest areas outside the Pacific Flyway.

As would be expected, wood ducks were harvested mostly in eastern
North America. Practically the entire Canadian kill was taken in
Ontario and Quebec (95-8%), while within the United States, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York were major harvest areas. In Canada
the redhead was harvested mostly in Manitoba and Ontario; the leading
harvest areas in the United States were Minnesota, Texas, and Michigan.
The canvasback harvest in Canada was well distributed among the three

Prairie Provinces and Ontario. In the United States, it was widely
distributed; California (13-9$), Maryland (lO.W, and Texas (8.U$)
were the chief harvest areas. The kill of greater scaup in Canada
was concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, while within the United States
it occurred chiefly in New York (23.0$), California (l8.5$), and
Michigan (lU.5$). Except for the black duck, the greater scaup is the
only species with a larger harvest in the Atlantic than in other fly-
ways .

The kill of lesser scaup was more concentrated in the central
portions of Canada and the United States. Manitoba and Ontario were
the major Canadian harvest areas, while Minnesota hunters took more
than twice as many lesser scaup as hunters in any other State. The
ringneck harvest in Canada was mostly in Ontario (63.3$), while in the
United States Minnesota was the most important harvest area with one-
third of the total; Florida had 15-3 percent. The kill of common
goldeneyes in Canada occurred largely in Ontario (k6.3%) and Quebec
(2J.k%). In the United States, the goldeneye harvest was widely dis-
tributed although the greatest kills occurred in Minnesota (13-9%),
New York (9-8$), Wisconsin (8.7 $) , Washington (8.6%), and Michigan
(8.1$). In Canada, Ontario was the chief harvest area for bufflehead
(6l.5$). This species was taken in relatively small numbers throughout
the United States with the greatest harvest in Minnesota (13.6$) and
Michigan (ll.9$)- The ruddy duck harvest in all areas was small; the
greatest harvest in Canada was in Ontario, while within the United
States the largest harvest (30.6$) was in California.

Data for the ruddy duck emphasize the importance of having infor-
mation on the distribution of the harvest as well as the more commonly
available data on species composition of the kill in each State.
Although California is the most important harvest area for the ruddy
duck in the United States (with a kill over three times that in any
other State) the ruddy duck makes up less than 1 percent of the
California duck harvest.

REFERENCES

Atwood, Earl L.

1956. Validity of mail survey data on bagged waterfowl. Journal
of Wildlife Management, vol. 20, no. 1. p. l-l6.

Geis, Aelred D. , Robert I. Smith, and John P. Rogers.

1971- Black duck distribution, harvest characteristics, and
survival. U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Special Scientific Report —Wildlife No. 139- 2^1 p.

Table 1. — Average distribution of the duck harvest between Canada and
the United States during the 1967-69 hunting seasons based
on mail questionnaire and wing collection data

Average

Percent

of harvest in-

harvest*

Species

Canada

United States

Total

1967-69

Mallard

27.1

72.9

100.0

It, 766

Black duck

1+2.7

57-3

100.0

675

Gadwall

18.1+

81.6

100.0

662

American widgeon

l8.lt

81.6

100.0

1,080

-Green-winged teal

l8.it

81.6

100.0

1,578

Blue-winged teal

30.0

70.0

100.0

681

Shoveler

15.5

8^.5

100.0

U90

Pintail

lit. 3

85-7

100.0

1.VT9

Wood duck

15.1

8U.9

100.0

835

Redhead

23.it

76.6

100.0

220

Canvasback

19.0

81.0

100.0

130

Greater scaup

32.3

67.7

100.0

156

Lesser scaup

22.1

77-9

100.0

^75

Ring-necked duck

22.3

77-7

100.0

h63

Common goldeneye

it8.lt

51.6

100.0

175

Bufflehead

28.9

71.1

100.0

170

Ruddy duck

8.6

91.it

100.0

60

All ducks

23.2

76.8

100.0

lit,3it0

License buyers

(potential hunters

) 16.8

83.2

100.0

2,306**

* in thousands.

** average license sale in thousands, U. S. and Canada combined.

Table 2. — Average distribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United
States, 1967-69, expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]

MALLARD

BLACK

DUCK

GADWALL

Average

Range

Average

Ran

ge

Average

Range

CANADA:

British Columbia

11.5

8. 1-13. U

0

1.0

0.8- 1.3

Alberta

29.5

26.7-31.2

0

50.1

It7.6-51.lt

Saskatchewan

22.1

18.6-2U.3

0.1

0 -

0.1

26.6-35.8

Manitoba

13.8

9.6-17.5

0.3

T -

0.5

lit. 7

9-3-18.5

Ontario

19-9

17-1-22-5

It It. 6

39-9-

51.8

2.3

1.6- 2.8

Quebec

3.0

2.2- l*.l

29.5

25.8-

31.8

O.lt

0.3- 0.5

Nova Scotia

0.1

T - 0.1

8.7

7.8-

9.7

0

P. E. I.

T

T - T

1.9

1.6-

2.5

0

New Brunswick

.

T - 0.1

7.9

6.0-

8.9

0

Newfoundland

T

T - T

6.9

5.1*-

8. It

0

r: :al

100.0

99-9

100.0

PACIFIC FLYWAY:
Alaska

0.5

0.3- 0.6

0

0.1

0.1- 0.2

Washington

7-5

5.9- 9-7

0

1.5

1.3- 1.7

Oregon

It. 2

3-8- U. 7

0

1.8

l.U- 2.6

Idaho

5-9

5.5- 6.6

0

1.7

1.5- 2.1

Montana

2.5

2.1- 2.9

0

1.1

0.5- 2-0

Wyoming

0.2

0.2- 0.2

0

0

California

8.8

7.6-10.1

0

9.6

5.8-12.3

Nevada

0.9

0.7- 1.2

0

1.6

1.3- 2.1

Utah

2.U

1.9- 3.2

0

5.7

3.2- 8.0

Colorado

0.5

O.lt- 0.5

0

0.1

0.1- 0.1

Arizona

0.2

0.2- 0.3

0

0.6

O.lt- 0.8

New Mexico

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0

0.1

T - 0.2

TOTAL

33.7

0

23.9

CENTRAL FLYWAY:
Montana

0.6

0.5- 0.7

0

0.3

0.2- 0.5

North Dakota

3.7

3.2- !*.l

0.1

T -

0.1

8.5

6. 5-10. It

South Dakota

3.1

2.6- 3.5

T

0 -

0.1

5.9

It. 3- 8.6

Wyoming

0.5

0.3- 0.8

0

0.5

0.3- 0.7

Nebraska

3.3

2.9- 3.6

T

0 -

T

2.7

2.2- 3. U

Colorado

2.0

1.8- 2.2

0

1.1*

1.2- 1.8

Kansas

2.5

2.3- 2.9

T

T -

0.1

3.8

3.0- lt.1*

New Mexico

0.2

0.2- 0.2

T

0 -

T

1.0

0.5- l-1*

Oklahoma

l.U

1.2- 1.7

T

0 -

T

3.3

1.8- 1*.5

Texas

2.9

1.9- 3.8

0.3

0.1-

0.6

13.0

8.3-20.8

TOTAL

20.2

0.U

lt0.lt

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY:
Minnesota

6.8

5-9- 8.2

1.0

0.9-

1.0

3.5

3.2- 3.8

Wi scons in

3.8

3.2- k.2

3.1

2.6-

3. It

1.3

1.0- 1.1*

Michigan

2.3

2.2- 2.5

5. It

3.1*-

7.3

0.3

0.2- O.lt

Iowa

2.5

1.6- 3. l»

O.lt

0.2-

0.6

1.6

0.9- 2. It

Illinois

k.l

3.2- 5-1*

3.0

l.lt-

5.2

1.1*

0.7- 2.U

Indiana

0.5

0.5- 0.5

1.5

1.2-

1.6

0.2

0.1- 0.2

Ohio

0.9

0.7- 1.0

3.0

2.7-

3.2

0.2

0.1- 0.3

Missouri

2.8

2.1- 3.1

0.2

0.1-

0.3

0.9

0.8- 1.1

Kentucky

0.3

0.3- 0.1*

1.3

0.8-

1.8

0.2

0.2- 0.2

Arkansas

5. i<

U. 7- 6.0

0.5

0.3-

0.7

2.9

1.2- lt.lt

Tennessee

1.5

l.U- 1.5

3.9

2.6-

5. It

1.0

0.6- 1.2

Louisiana

5.1

It. 2- 6.6

1.1

0.5-

1-7

16.2

lit. 5-18.1

Mississippi

l.U

1.0- 1.9

1.0

0.7-

1.2

0.9

0.7- 1-0

Alabama

0.1)

0-it- O.lt

0.8

0.3-

1.0

1.0

0.7- 1.3

TOTAL

37.8

26.2

31.6

ATLANTIC FLYWAY:
Maine

0.1

T - 0.1

9-3

8.1-

10.2

T

T - T

Vermont

0.1

T - 0.1

1.7

1.5-

2.0

T

0 - T

Hew Hampshire

0.1

T - 0.1

2.2

2.0-

2.5

T

0 - T

Massachusetts

0.3

0.2- O.lt

9.1

7.9-

9.9

0

Connecticut

0.2

0.2- 0.3

3.3

2.3-

lt.1

T

T - T

Rhode Island

T

T - 0.1

1.7

1.5-

2.1

T

T - T

New York

2.1

1.3- 2.8

10.9

9.8-

11.6

0.2

0.1- 0.3

Pennsylvania

1.5

1.2- 1.8

3.6

3.1-

It. 3

0.1

0.1- 0.1

West Virginia

T

T - T

0.2

0.1-

0.3

T

T - T

Hew Jersey

0.6

0.5- 0.9

10.7

10.1-

ll.lt

0.1

0.1- 0.1

Delaware

0.I4

0.2- 0.5

2.7

2.U-

3.3

0.1

T - 0.1

Maryland

0.8

0.5- 1.0

5.2

3.8-

i.6

0.5

O.lt- 0.6

Virginia

o.<5

0.5- 0.8

lt.3-

7.5

0.7

0.2- 1.1

Horth Carolina

o.l*

0.3- O.lt

3.3

3.0-

3.8

0.6

O.lt- 0.9

South Carolina

0.7

0.5- 0.9

2.8

2.1.-

3.1

1.2

1.0- 1.1*

Georgia

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.7

0.6-

0.8

0.2

0.1- 0.3

Florida

0.1

0.1- 0.1

O.lt

0.3-

...

O.lt

0.3- 0.5

TOTAL

8.2

73.3

lt.1

U. S. TOTAL

99.9 1

99.9

100.0

Table 2. — Average distribut
States, 1967-69,
(continued)

ion of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United
expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]

AMERICAN WIDGEON

GREEN-WINGED TEAL

BLUE-WINGED TEAL

Average

Range

Average

Range

Average

Range

CANADA:

British Columbia

31.it

21. Ma. 8

19-1

17.3-20.8

0.9

0.3- 1.5

Alberta

26.6

22.0-33.6

5.5- 6.8

7.8

0.7-15.8

Saskatchewan

17.9

15.3-21.3

It. 5

2.8- 5.8

U.O

0.2- 7-3

Manitoba

10.6

9.U-11.7

8.2

1*. 9-11.0

7.1*

0.2-15.6

Ontario

10.1

7.6-12.2

25.1

23.1-26.6

1*0. U

33.!*-53.3

Quebec

3.0

1.8- U.O

19.3

1 U. 6-26. 3

31.U

20.5-38.7

Nova Scotia

0

5-1

l*.l- 6.2

0.7

0.6- 0.9

P. E. I.

0.1

T - 0.2

3.1*

3.3- 3.5 '

2.7

2.3- 3.2

New Brunswick

0.3

0.2- 0.U

U.O

2.1- 5-1*

U.5

2.6- 6.3

Newfoundland

0.1

0 - 0.1

5-1

U.7- 5.7 ;

o.l*

0.1- 0.6

TOTAL

|Q.]

100.1

' 100.0

PACIFIC FLYWAY:
Alaska

1.0

0.8- l.lt

0.8

0.5- 1.0

0.1

T - 0.2

Washington

12.2

8.0-17.3

lt.9

U.l- 5.6

0.6

0 - l.U

Oregon

6.8-10.8

3.6

3.1- it. 5

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

Idaho

2.8

2.2- 3.8

1.3

0.9- 1.6

0.2

0.1- 0.1*

Montana

1.2

0.9- 1.8

0.5

0.3- 0.8

0.1*

0.2- 0.6

Wyoming

0.1

T - 0.1

T

0 - T

T

0 - 0.1

California

22.6-30.1

2U.0

22.6-2l*.Q

16.0

10.6-21.0

Nevada

0.7

0.6- 0.9

1.5

1.2- 2.1

0.8

0.U- 1.0

Utah

2.1*

2.1- 2.8

It. 3

2.5- 6.1*

2.5

1.0- U.2

Colorado

0.1

T - 0.1

0.1

0 - 0.1

0.1

0 - 0.2

Arizona

.

0.5- 0.6

1.0

0.9- 1.1

0.7

0.1*- 0.9

New Mexico

T

T - 0.1

T

0 - T

T

0 - 0.1

TOTAL

.

1*2.0

21.7

CENTRAL FLYWAY:
Montana

0.2

0.1- 0.2

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0.2

0.1- 0.3

North Dakota

2.0

1.9- 2.1

1.1

0.9- 1.3

U.2

2-9- 5-1

South Dakota

1.6

l.U- 1.9

1.1*

l.lt- l.lt

3.0

2.6- 3.3

Wyoming

0.3

0.1- O.lt

0.1

0.1- 0.1

1

0 - 0.1

Nebraska

1.5

1.3- 1.6

2. It

2.3- 2.5

2.8

1.3- U.5

Colorado

0.7

0.7- 0.8

0.6

0.1*- 0.8

0.1

0.1- 0.2

Kansas

1.6

1.2- 2.2

3.2

2.1- l*.6

1.1

0.2- 1.8

New Mexico

0.3

0.2- 0.U

0.2

0.2- 0.3

T

0 - 0.1

Oklahoma

1.1

0.5- 1.8

l.lt

0.5- 2.1*

0.8

T - 2.0

Texas

.

3.1-10.2

9-7

7.6-13.5

2.6

2.1- 3.3

TOTAL

15.1*

20.2

1U.8

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY:
Minnesota

5.8

5.7- 6.0

6.9

6.0- 8.1

28.0

2U.5-30.6

Wisconsin

3.2

2.6- 3.8

3.0

2.7- 3. It

11.0

6.6-17.0

Michigan

0.8

0.6- 1.2

1.5

1.3- 1.7

2.8

2.U- 3.U

Iowa

1.1

0.8- l.i*

1.9

l.lt- 2.3

1.8

0.6- 3.1

Illinois

1.2

0.9- 1-5

1.1

1.0- 1.2

0.5

0.3- 0.9

Indiana

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.1

T - 0.1

Ohio

0.1*

0.2- 0.8

0.7

0.7- 0.8

0.8

0.3- 1.1

Missouri

0.9

0.5- 1.2

0.9

0.8- 1.0

0.3

0.1- 0.5

Kentucky

0.1

0 - 0.1

T

T - T

T

0 - T

Arkansas

0.6

0.1*- 0.9

0.8

0.1*- 1.3

0.1

0 - 0.1

Tennessee

0.7

0.5- 1.2

0.2

0.1- 0.1*

0

Louisiana

6.8

5.0- 8.2

10.3

9.2-11.9

8.7

6.9-11.1

Mississippi

0.5

O.lt- 0.6

0.6

0.1*- 0.7

0.1

0.1- 0.2

Alabama

0.5

0.1*- 0.6

o.l*

0.3- 0.5

0.1

T - 0.1

TOTAL

22.8

28.5

51*. 3

ATLANTIC FLYWAY:
Maine

T

T - T

0.8

0.1*- 1.0

0.9

0.U- 1.3

Vermont

T

0 - T

0.2

0.1- 0.2

0.2

0.1- 0.3

New Hampshire

T

0 - T

0.1

T - 0.2

0.2

0.1- 0.3

Massachusetts

0.1

T - 0.1

0.3

0.2- 0.5

0.1

T - 0.2

Connecticut

T

T - 0.1

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.1

T - 0.1

Rhode Island

T

T - 0.1

T

T - 0.1

T

0 - T

New York

0.7

0.1- 0.2

1.3

0.8- 1.9

2.1.

l.U- 3.8

Pennsylvania

0.2

0.1- 0.2

O.lt

O.lt- 0.5

0.7

0.6- 0.7

West Virginia

T

0 - T

T

T - T

T

0 - T

New Jersey

0.1*

0.3- 0.1*

0.9

0.6- 1.1

0.2

T - 0.6

Delaware

T

T - 0.1

0.8

0.7- 0.8

0.1

T - 0.1

Maryland

0.8

0.U- 1.0

o.l*

0.2- 0.5

T

T - 0.1

Virginia

0.9

O.lt- 1.6

0.5

0.2- 0.8

0.1

T - 0.1

North Carolina

1.3

0.6- 1.7

0.6

0.6- 0.7

0.1

0 - 0.1

South Carolina

0.5

0.1*- 0.7

0.9

0.5- 1.2

0.2

0.1- o.u

Georgia

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0.2

0.1- 0.3

T

T - T

Florida

1.0

0.8- l.lt

1.5

1.0- 1.7

U.O

3.1- U.7

TOTAL

6.0

9.1

9-3

U. S. TOTAL

t 00.'

100 . 1

Table 2« — Average dist
States, 1967.
(continued)

ribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United
69, expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]

SHOVELER

PINTAIL

WOOD

DUCK

Average

Range

Average

Range

Average

Range

CANADA:

British Columbia

11-5

5.7-22.0

21.0

lit. 9-28. 6

1.8

1.1- 2.9

Alberta

1*0.1

3l*-5-1t3.0

30.1*

26.1*-3lt.O

0.1

0 - 0.3

Saskatchewan

20.7

15.1-25.8

13.0

8.U-20.1*

0

Manitoba

20.2

18.7-23.0

13.3

12.6-ll*.2

0.5

0 - 0.9

Ontario

2.6

1.9- 3.9

9-8

7-3-11.5

82.5

79.8-85.0

Quebec

I*. 7

It. 2- 5.3

. .

9.0-12.1*

13.3

9.6-16.6

Nova Scotia

T

0 - 0.1

0.3

0.2- 0.3

0.2

0 - 0.3

P. E. I.

0

o.l*

0.2- 0.5

0

New Brunswick

0

0.7

0.6- 0.8

1.6

1.2- 1.9

Newfoundland

0

0.1.

0.1- 0.8

0

TOTAL

99.8

100.1

100.0

PACIFIC FLYWAY:

Alaska

1.0

0.2- 2.1

1.2

0.5- 2.3

0

,

Washington

3.9

. - ,".

lt.1

3.2- 5.7

0.3- 0.6

Oregon

2.7

2.2- 3.6

It- 5

3.1*- 5-7

.

1.5- 2.1

Idaho

0.5

O.I4- 0.8

0.9

O.lt- 1.2

O.lt

0.1- 0.9

Montana

1.2

O.lt- 2.3

0.5

0.2- 0.9

.

0 - 0.2

Wyoming

T

0 - T

0

0-0

T

0 - T

California

1*0.6

38.9-1*1.9

52. 1*

U7.U-56.3

2.7

1.8- It. 2

Nevada

2.2- 3.3

1.6

1.2- 1.9

0.1

0 - 0.1

Utah

5-1

U. 5- 5.8

Si*

3-9- 7.0

0.1

0.1- 0.1

Colorado

0

0

T

0 - T

Arizona

l.l.

1.3- 1.5

0.7

0.6- 0.7

T

T _ T

New Mexico

0

0

0

TOTAL

59-3

71.3

5.9

CENTRAL FLYWAY:
Montana

0.2

0.1- 0.1*

0.1

T - 0.2

T

0 - T

North Dakota

3.3

2.3- 1*.0

1.7

1.5- 2.1

0.1

0.1- 0.1

South Dakota

1-5

1.5- 2.5

0.7

0.5- 0.9

0.1

0.1- 0.2

Wyomi ng

0.1

T - 0.2

'■

T - 0.1

0

Nebraska

I.I4

1.0- 2.0

0.5

0.5- 0.6

0.3

0.3- 0.1*

Colorado

0.1*

0.2- 0.7

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

0

Kansas

2.2

1.3- 2.8

0.9

0.8- 1.0

0.6

0.5- 0.9

Mew Mexico

0.1*

0.2- 0.5

0.1

0.1- 0.1

T

0 - T

Jklahoma

1.0

0.2- 2.0

0.3

0.2- 0.6

0.9

0.2- 1.5

Texas

9.2

7-1-12.1

7.1*

7.0- 8.0

It. 3

2.6- 6.6

TOTAL

19.7

12.0

6.3

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY:
Minnesota

2.9

2.2- 3.1*

1.7

1.3- 2.2

12.9

12.1-lit.i*

Wisconsin

0.9

0.1*- 1.2

0.9

0.9- 1-1

8.8

7.l*-10.6

Michigan

0.2

0.2- 0.3

0.6

0.5- 0.7

3.7

3.1*- 1*.0

Iowa

0.8

0.1*- 1.3

o.l*

0.3- 0.6

2.7

2.5- 2-9

Illinois

0.7

0.1*- 1.1

0.6"

0.1*- 0.7

3.1*

3.1- l*.l

Indiana

0.1

0 - 0.2

0.1

0.1- 0.1

1.5

0.9- 2.2

Ohio

0.1

0.1- 0.2

0.2

0.1- 0.1*

l*.l

3.2- 5.1*

Missouri

0.7

0.5- 0.9

0.5

0.3- 0.7

2.1

1.5- 2.8

Kentucky

0

T

0 - T

0.1

T - 0.1

Arkansas

0.6

O.lt- 1.0

0.3

0.1- 0.6

2.0

1.2- 2.8

Tennessee

0.1

T - 0.3

0.2

0.1- 0.2

0.9

0.5- 1.5

Louisiana

10. h

9.2-11.1*

8.3

6.2- 9-7

13.0

10.3-16.3

Mississippi

0.5

0.1- 0.9

0.1

0.1- 0.1

3.3

2.1*- 1..0

Alabama

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.2

0.2- 0.3

1.2

0.9- 1-1*

TOTAL

18.2

11*. 1

59-7

ATLANTIC FLYWAY:
Maine

T

0 - T

T

T - 0.1

0.7

0.6- 1.0 '

Vermont

T

0 - T

T

T - T

0.6

0.1*- 0.7

Hew Hampshire

0

T

0 - T

0.5

0.5- 0.6

Massachusetts

T

0 - T

T

0 - T

0.8

0.5- 1.2

Connecticut

0

T

T - T

0.1*

0.3- 0.1*

Rhode Island

T

0 - T

T

0 - T

T

T - T

New York

0.1

T - 0.2

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

6.2

5.9- 6.5

Pennsylvania

0.1

T - 0.1

T

T - T

3.1

2.1*- 3.7

West Virginia

T

0 - T

T

0 - T

0.3

0.2- 0.3

Hew Jersey

.

0.1- 0.3

0.2

0.1- 0.3

1.0

0.7- 1.5

Delaware

0.1

T - 0.3

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0.1

T - 0.2

Maryland

T

0 - 0.1

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

Virginia

0.3

0.1- 0.6

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

1.1

0.6- 1.1*

North Carolina

0.5

0.2- 0.8

0.5

0.3- 0.7

2.5

1.6- 2.9

South Carolina

0.1*

0.3- 0.6

0.1

0.1- 0.2

1*.9

lt.1- 6. it

Georgia

0.1

T - 0.1

T

T - T

2.6

2.1*- 2.8

Florida

0.8

0.3- 1.2

0.5

0.1.- 0.8

3.0

2.2- l*.l

TOTAL

2.6

2.2

28.0

U. S. TOTAL

99-6

99.9

Table 2. — Average distribut
States, 1967-69
(continued)

ion of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United
expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]

BEDHEAD

CANVASBACK

GREATER SCAUP

Average

Range

Average

Range

Average

Range

CANADA:

British Columbia

1.2

0.9- 1-7

U.3

2.0- 7.1

2.8

1.3- 3.8

Alberta

15-2

11.1.-17.8

25-1

19-1.-30.9

0

Saskatchewan

.'

8.2-17.3

26.5

22.7-30.8

0

Manitoba

32.7

29.3-36.0

23.1*

19 . 2-29 . U

1.8

0.3- 3.2

Ontario

29.5

21*. 1-33.0

.

18.1-23.1.

56.8

50.U-67.0

Quebec

7.7

1*. 1-10. 7

.

0 - 0.9

35-8

25.3-U3.3

Nova Scotia

0

1-3

0.3- 2.6

P. E. I.

0

0

0.2

0.1- 0.2

New Brunswick

0

0

0.5

0.1- 0.9

Newfoundland

0

0

0.8

0 - 1.7

TOTAL

99.9

99.9

100.0

PACIFIC FLYWAY:
Alaska

T

0 - 0.1

0.1

0.1- 0.2

l.U

1.1- 1.6

Washington

1.1)

0.8- 2.5

2.1*

1-2- 3.9

3.0

l.U- 5.9

Oregon

1.0

0.5- 1.7

3.7

2.1- It. 9

2.U

1.5- 3.8

Idaho

1.5

0.3- 2.5

0.2

0 - 0.7

0

Montana

O.U

0.3- 0.7

0.2

0.2- 0.3

0.1

0 - 0.2

Wyoming

T

0 - 0.1

0

0

California

U.9

2.9- 7.9

13.9

9.6-17.2

18.5

10.9-29.1

Nevada

2.7

1.8- 3.8

2.2

1.3- 3.2

0.1

0.1- 0.2

Utah

6.5

U.8- 8.1*

1-7

0.9- 2-8

0.1

0 - 0.2

Colorado

T

0 - 0.2

0

0

Arizona

1.1)

0.8- 1.8

1.0

0.6- l.U

: .

0.1- 0.3

New Mexico

T

0 - 0.1

0.1

0.1- 0.2

T

0 - 0.1

TOTAL

19.8

25-5

.

CENTRAL FLYWAY:

'■ICTlt lit:':

0 - 0.1

0.1

0 - 0.2

0.2

0 - O.U

North Dakota

7.1.

6.9- 8.1.

U.5

3-9- 5.1

0.1

0 - 0.2

South Dakota

5.6

3.3- 9-8

3.U

2. It- It. 5

T

0 - 0.1

Wyoming

0.1

0 - 0.3

T

0 - 0.1

T

0 - 0.1

Nebraska

1.8

1.2- 2.2

0.7

0.1- 1.1*

0.1

0.1- 0.1

Colorado

0.6

0.1.- 0.8

0.2

0 - 0.5

0.1

0 - 0.1

Kansas

6.1.

U.U- T.6

1.3

0.8- 2.2

0.3

0.2- O.U

New Mexico

0.2

0.1- 0.3

0.1*

0.1- 0.8

0

Oklahoma

2.3

0.6- it. 6

1.5

0.5- 2.6

T

0 - 0.1

Texas

.

6.9-18. U

8.1*

U. 7-11. 9

0.3

0 - 0.6

TOTAL

35-5

20.5

1.1

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY:
Minnesota

19.1*

16.6-22.9

6.7

0.7-12.2

3.8

l.U- 5.2

Wisconsin

3.1

2.9- 3.3

6.7

U.3- 8.1*

U.8

3.5- 6.0

Michigan

10.2

6.5-12.7

5.6

3.7- 7-8

1U.5

11.0-18.8

Iowa

1.1*

1.1- 1.5

0.9

0 - 1.8

0.1*

0.2- 0.5

Illinois

1.2

0.8- 1.8

3.3

0.8- 6.3

0.9

0.5- 1.2

Indiana

0.1(

0.3- 0.5

0.3

0 - 0.9

0.2

0.2- 0.3

'hi

0.8

0.6- 0.9

0.9

0.6- I-1*

: . :

1.0- 1.5

Missouri

0.8

0.6- 0.9

.

0.9- 1-0

0.5

0.1- 0.8

Kentucky

0.1

0 - 0.2

0.2

0 - 0.6

.

0 - 0.2

Arkansas

0

0.1

0 - 0.2

0

Tennessee

0.1

0 - 0.2

1.3

0.5- 1.7

0.6

0.2- 1.3

Louisiana

1.3

0 - 3.0

3.0

1.0- U.7

1.3

O.U- 2.U

Mississippi

0.14

0 - 0.6

0.8

0.7- 1.0

0.3

0 - 0.8

Alabama

0.6

0.5- 0.7

1.2

0.1*- 2.0

0.6

0 - 1.3

TOTAL

39.8

32.0

29-3

ATLANTIC FLYWAY:
Maine

0

0

0.2

0.1- 0.2

Vermont

T

0 - T

T

0 - T

0.6

0.3- 1-1

New Hampshire

0

T

0 - T

Massachusetts

T

0 - T

0.1

0.1- 0.2

0.3

0.1- 0.7

Connecticut

0

0.2

T - 0.1*

3.2

l.U- It. 3

Rhode Island

T

0 - T

0.1

T - 0.2

0.6

0.3- 1.1

New York

0.7

0.3- 1.2

1.1*

1.0- 1.6

23.0

19.3-27.7

Pennsylvania

0.3

0.2- 0.3

o.l*

0.2- 0.8

1.1*

0.9- 1.8

West Virginia

T

0 - T

0

T

0 - T

New Jersey

0.1

T - 0.2

0.9

0.7- 1-1

2-9

2.1- 3.5

Delaware

T

0 - 0.1

0.1

T - 0.2

0.2

0 - 0.5

Maryland

1.1.

0.9- 1.8

6.8-16.1

5.9

1.1-15.5

Virginia

0.5

0.2- 0.8

U.9

2.9- 6.3

2.1

l.U- 3.2

North Carolina

0.5

0.1.- 0.6

2.1

1.3- 2.5

0.6- 1.3

South Carolina

0.2

0.1- 0.1*

0.5

0.2- 0.8

o.U

0.1- 0.7

Georgia

T

0 - T

T

0 - 0.1

0.1

0 - 0.2

Florida

1.1

0.9- l.U

0.8

0.1*- l.U

1.9

0.8- 3-U

TOTAL

U.8

21.9

1*3.7

U. S. TOTAL

99-9

99-9

99-9

Table 2. — Average distribut
States, 196T-69
(continued

ion of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United
expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]

: SSSEF

SCAUP

RING-NEC

KED DUCK

G0LDENEYE

Average

Range

Average

:•::!:.,-'

Average

Range

CANADA:

British Columbia

3.6

1.2- 5-1

2.2

1.6- 3.3

l*.l*

2.6- 7.8

Alberta

11.3

7.8-13.6

0.8

0.5- 1.2

1.1*

0.3- 2.2

Saskatchewan

l».l

2.3- 5.8

0.9

0.2- 1.6

0.8

0.5- 1.1*

Manitoba

29.0

21*. 1-33- 7

12.2

11.3-13.1

2.7

2.6- 2.9

Ontario

38.1

28. 6-1*1*. 9

63.3

58.9-68.2

1*6.3

1*2.1*-1*9.2

Quebec

12.7

10.8-llt.l

12.3

8.7-ll*.l*

27. !*

21.2-35.7

Nova Scotia

0.3

0 - 1.0

1.1*

0.1*- 2.0

1..3

2.1*- 5.8

P. E. I.

0

'■■■

0.2- 0.1*

0.2

0.1- 0.3

New Brunswick

0.1)

0.1- 0.8

lt.O

3.1*- 1.. 6"

l*.l

3.2- l*-7

Newfoundland

0.1*

0 - 0.7

2.6

1.7- 3.0

8.2

7.6- 8.7

TOTAL

99.9

100.0

99-8

PACIFIC FLYWAY:
Alaska

0.3

0.1- 0.8

T

0 - T

2.7

1.7- 3.2

Washington

1.1.

0.1*- 3.0

0.9

0.1*- 1.1*

8.6

6.3-12.1*

Oregon

1.2

0.8- 1.5

1.0

0.6- lJ*

3.8

2.1- 5.5

Idaho

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0.3

0.1- 0.5

6.0

3.6- 8.1

Montana

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

0.1

0 - 0.2

3-1

1.2- 6.6

Wyoming

0

T

0.2

0.1- 0.3

California

7-6

5.0- 9-9

3.8

3.0- H.8

5.9

3.2- 8.8

Nevada

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0.1

T - 0.1

0.2

0.1- 0.3

Utah

0.3

0.1- 0.6

0.2

0.1- 0.2

2.1*

1.9- 2.7

Colorado

T

T

0 - 0.1

0.1*

0 - 1.1

Arizona

0.3

0.2- 0.5

0 . 6

0.3- 0.7

0.1*

0.1- 0.7

New Mexico

T

T

0.2

0 - 0.5

TOTAL

11.6

7.0

33.9

CENTRAL FLYWAY:
Montana

0.1

T - 0.1

T

0 - T

0.2

0 - 0.1*

North Dakota

2.0

1.3- 2.1*

0.8

0.6- 1.0

0.5

0.3- 0-9

South Dakota

1.2

0.6- 1.6

0.6

0.3- 0.8

0.3

0.2- O.U

Wyoming

T

0 - 0.1

T

0 - 0.1

0.5

0.2- 1.0

Nebraska

0.9

0.1*- 1.5

0.5

0.1*- 0.6

0.8

0.6- 1.0

Colorado

0.2

0.2- 0.2

0.1

T - 0.1

0.7

0.2- 1.1

Kansas

2.7

1.1- 5.8

1.6

1.0- 2.0

0.6

0.1- 1.1

New Mexico

T

T - 0.1

0.1

0.1- 0.1

0.2

T - 0.1*

Oklahoma

1.1*

0.6- 2.2

1.0- 2.6

0.5

0.3- 0.7

Texas

5-3

It. 7- 5-8

5-0

2.1*- 7.1

0.6

0 - 0.7

TOTAL

13.8

10.5

It. 8

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY:
Minnesota

23.8

ll*. 8-35. 9

33.0

2U.9-U0 .2

13.9

8.6-20.9

Wisconsin

9-1

6.0-11.5

9-9

8.9-11.3

8.7

6.1-10.1

Michigan

9-9

9.6-10.1*

i*.l

2.3- 6.0

8.1

3.9-10.7

Iowa

1.3

1.1- 1.5

0.9

0.6- 1.2

0.3

0 - 0.6

Illinois

2.7

1.5- 3.5

1.7

1.0- 3.0

1.7

0.7- 3.1*

Indiana

0.6

0.1*- 1.0

0.5

0.5- 0.5

0.1*

0 - 0.7

Ohio

1.6

1.0- 2.2

0.5

0.3- 0.8

1.3

0.6- 2.0

Missouri

2.9

0.8- 5.2

1.2

0.7- 1-9

0.1*

0.1- 0.6

Kentucky

T

0 - 0.1

0.1

T - 0.3

0.3

0.1- 0.1*

Arkansas

0.1

0 - 0.2

0.7

0.5- 0.9

0

Tennessee

0.2

T - 0.5

0.9

0.3- 1.3

0.9

0.7- 1.1*

Louisiana

5-6

3.2- 9-1*

6.1

5.2- 7.1*

0.2

0 - 0.5

Mississippi

1.6

0.6- 3->*

1.1.

1.2- 1.5

0.2

0 - 0.5

Alabama

o.l*

0.1- 0.7

0.3

0.1- 0.6

0.5

0.3- 0.7

TOTAL

59.9

61.3

36.8

ATLANTIC FLYWAY:
Maine

T

T - 0.1

0.3

0.3- 0.1*

2.3

1.9- 2.5

Vermont

0.1

T - 0.2

0.1

0.1- 0.2

3.1*

3.2- 3.5

New Hampshire

T

0 - T

T

T - 0.1

0.1

T - 0.2

Massachusetts

T

T - 0.1

T

0 - T

0.8

0.6- 0.9

Connecticut

0.1

0.1- 0.2

0

0.7

0.5- 0.8

Rhode Island

0.1

T - 0.2

T

0 - T

0.6

0.2- 0.9

New York

2.5

1.9- 3.0

1.0

0.9- 1.1

9-8

5. 8-11*. 0

Pennsylvania

0.5

0.5- 0.6

0.2

0.2- 0.3

0.7

0.1*- 1.1

West Virginia

T

0 - T

0

0.1

T - 0.3

New Jersey

o.l*

0.2- 0.7

T

T - 0.1

0.8

0.3- l.U

Delaware

0.1

0 - 0.1*

T

0 - 0.1

0.3

0 - 0.7

Maryland

2.1.

0.1*- 5.9

0.3

0.2- 0.1*

3.1

2.1*- 3.7

Virginia

1.9

1.5- 2.1

0.5

0.3- 0.8

0.9

0.8- 1.2

.North Carolina

1.9

0.9- 3.2

1.3

0.6- 1.7

0.5

0.3- 0.7

.Couth Carolina

0.6

0.2- 0.9

1.0

0.8- 1.2

0.2

0 - 0.5

Georgia

0.3

0 - 0.6

0.9

0.7- 1-2

0.2

0.1- 0.3

Florida

3.6

1.5- !».8

15.3

12. 7-17- '*

0.1

0.1- 0.1

TOTAL

il*.<5

?] .0

2l*.6

U. S. TOTAL

99-9

99.8

1 • . 1

10

Table 2. — Average dist
States, 1967
(continued

ribution of the duck harvest by species in Canada and the United
-69 > expressed as a percentage of the national total [T = trace]

BUFFLEHEAD

RUDDY DUCK

Average

Range

Average

Range

Average

Range

CANADA:

British Columbia

12.5

7.0-15.7

7.3

2. 6-11. It

Alberta

U.3

3.2- 5.2

15-5

0 -U0.1

Saskatchewan

1.8

1.6- 2.2

6.1

0 -lit. 5

Manitoba

5.1*

3.3- 9-6

21.7

lit. 9-26. 9

Ontario

61.5

55.U-65.5

1(7. It

29.7-62.8

Quebec

11.7

7.6-17.2

2.0

0 - 5.9

Nova Scotia

1.9

1.0- 2.5

0

P. E. I.

0

0

New Brunswick

0.8

0.6- 1.0

0

Newfoundland

0

0

TOTAL

99-9

100.0

PACIFIC FLYWAY:
Alaska

1.0

0.3- 1.7

0

Washington

It. 5

3. it- 5.0

2.7

0.6- It. 6

Oregon

3.U

2.2- lt.1

3.8

2.6- 5.0

Idaho

0.2

0 - O.lt

0.1

0 - 0.1*

Montana

0.5

0.3- 0.7

O.lt

0 - 1.3

Wyoming

0

0

California

11. U

6.6-15.3

30.6

17.5-1*1-5

Nevada

O.lt

0.1- 0.6

2.6

1.8- 3.6

Utah

0.8

0.1- l.lt

3.3

1.8- 1*. 9

Colorado

T

0 - T

0

Arizona

1.3

1.2- l.U

3.3

1.6- 1*.2

New Mexico

0.3

0 - 0.7

0.1

0 - 0.1*

TOTAL

23.8

1*6.9

CENTRAL FLYWAY:
Montana

0.1

0 - 0.3

0

North Dakota

1.6

0.7- 2. It

2.3

1.3- 2.8

South Dakota

1.3

0.7- 1.9

3.0

0.9- 5-0

Wyoming

O.lt

0.2- 0.9

0.5

0 - 0.9

Nebraska

0.6

0.1- 0.9

0.3

0 - 0.8

Colorado

0.8

O.lt- 1.1

O.K

0.3- 0.6

Kansas

1.9

0.8- 3.1

1.5

1.0- 1.9

New Mexico

O.lt

0 - 0.7

0.1

0 - 0.3

Oklahoma

O.lt

O.lt- O.lt

O.lt

0 - 0.7

Texas

1.9

l.lt- 2. It

It. 3

0 -12.8

TOTAL

9- It

12.8

MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY:
Minnesota

13.6

10.1-18.1

6.1

5-9- 6.2

Wisconsin

8.3

5.5-10.1

7.8

6.1-10.8

Michigan

11.9

8.1-11*. 9

5.1

2.U-10.2

Iowa

0.7

O.lt- 1.1

0.9

0 - 1.6

Illinois

1.2

1.1- 1.2

O.lt

0.3- 0.5

Indiana

0.3

0 - 0.9

0.6

0 - 1.3

Ohio

1.5

1.0- 2.0

0.9

0.3- 1.9

Missouri

0.5

0.1- 0.7

1.3

0.7- 1.7

Kentucky

.

0 - 0.1

0

Arkansas

0.1

0 - 0.3

0

Tennessee

0

0.9

0 - 2.1

Louisiana

0.2

0 - 0.5

2.5

0 - 5.6

Mississippi

0.9

0.3- 1.7

0.2

0 - 0.6

Alabama

0.6

O.lt- 0.8

0

TOTAL

39-9

26.7

ATLANTIC FLYWAY:
Maine

l.U

1.0- 2.0

0.1

0 - 0.3

Vermont

O.lt

O.lt- 0.5

T

0 - T

New Hampshire

0.3

0.2- O.lt

T

0 - T

Massachusetts

1.5

1.0- 2.2

0.2

0 - 0.1*

Connecticut

0.6

O.lt- 0.8

0.1

0 - 0.1

Rhode Island

0.3

0.2- O.lt

0

New York

6.9

3.7- 9- It

l.h

O.lt- 2.9

Pennsylvania

1.5

0.9- 2.5

0.7- 2. It

West Virginia

T

0 - 0.1

0

New Jersey

3.1

2.7- 3. It

0.5

0 - 0.8

Delaware

0.3

0.1- 0.6

T

0 - 0.1

Maryland

h.k

3.8- 5.1

1.6

0.8- 3.0

Virginia

2.2

1.1- 3.7

1.8

1.1*- 2.0

North Carolina

2.7

2.6- 2.8

3.7

1.5- 5.2

South Carolina

0.5

0.3- 0.7

0.6

0.3- 1.1

Georgia

T

0 - 0.1

T

0 - 0.1

Florida

0.7

O.lt- 1.2

2.5

0.5- i*.o

TOTAL

26.8

13.8

U. S. TOTAL

99-9

1 ': '

11

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O— 460-530

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department
of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife,
mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Ter-
ritorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of
natural resources.

The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing
all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to
a better United States now and in the future.

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

WASHINGTON. D C. 20240

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