CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Wildlife Research   
Wildlife Research
Journal Banner
  Ecology, Management and Conservation in Natural and Modified Habitats
 
blank image Search
 
blank image blank image
blank image
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
Content
Online Early
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Notice to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with us
blank image
facebook twitter youtube

 

Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 39(4)

Assessment of bias in US waterfowl harvest estimates

Paul I. Padding A C and J. Andrew Royle B

A US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708, USA.
B US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, MD 20708, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: paul_padding@fws.gov

Wildlife Research 39(4) 336-342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR11105
Submitted: 21 June 2011  Accepted: 16 March 2012   Published: 3 May 2012


 
PDF (313 KB) $25
 Export Citation
 Print
  
Abstract

Context: North American waterfowl managers have long suspected that waterfowl harvest estimates derived from national harvest surveys in the USA are biased high. Survey bias can be evaluated by comparing survey results with like estimates from independent sources.

Aims: We used band-recovery data to assess the magnitude of apparent bias in duck and goose harvest estimates, using mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) as representatives of ducks and geese, respectively.

Methods: We compared the number of reported mallard and Canada goose band recoveries, adjusted for band reporting rates, with the estimated harvests of banded mallards and Canada geese from the national harvest surveys. We used the results of those comparisons to develop correction factors that can be applied to annual duck and goose harvest estimates of the national harvest survey.

Key results: National harvest survey estimates of banded mallards harvested annually averaged 1.37 times greater than those calculated from band-recovery data, whereas Canada goose harvest estimates averaged 1.50 or 1.63 times greater than comparable band-recovery estimates, depending on the harvest survey methodology used.

Conclusions: Duck harvest estimates produced by the national harvest survey from 1971 to 2010 should be reduced by a factor of 0.73 (95% CI = 0.71–0.75) to correct for apparent bias. Survey-specific correction factors of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.65–0.69) and 0.61 (95% CI = 0.59–0.64) should be applied to the goose harvest estimates for 1971–2001 (duck stamp-based survey) and 1999–2010 (HIP-based survey), respectively.

Implications: Although this apparent bias likely has not influenced waterfowl harvest management policy in the USA, it does have negative impacts on some applications of harvest estimates, such as indirect estimation of population size. For those types of analyses, we recommend applying the appropriate correction factor to harvest estimates.

Additional keywords: correction factors, ducks, geese, reporting rates.


References

Alisauskas, R. T., Rockwell, R. F., Dufour, K. W., Cooch, E. G., Zimmerman, G., Drake, K. L., Leafloor, J. O., Moser, T. J., and Reed, E. T. (2011). Harvest, survival, and abundance of midcontinent lesser snow geese relative to population reduction efforts. Wildlife Monographs 179, 1–42.

Anderson, D. R., and Burnham, K. P. (1976). ‘Population Ecology of the Mallard. VI: the Effect of Exploitation on Survival. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 128.’ (United States Department of the Interior: Washington, DC.)

Atwood, E. L. (1956). Validity of mail survey data on bagged waterfowl. The Journal of Wildlife Management 20, 1–16.
CrossRef |

Barker, R. J. (1991). Nonresponse bias in New Zealand waterfowl harvest surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 55, 126–131.
CrossRef |

Blumenfeld, D. (2001). ‘Operations Research Calculations Handbook.’ (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.)

Boomer, G. S., and Johnson, F. A. (2007). A proposed assessment and decision-making framework to inform scaup harvest management. US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrative Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.

Casella, G., and Berger, R. L. (1990). ‘Statistical Inference.’ 1st edn. (Cole Advanced Books: Pacific Grove, CA.)

Couling, L. M., Sen, A. R., and Martin, E. M. (1982). Reliability of kill and activity estimates in the US waterfowl hunter survey. Special scientific report – Wildlife No. 240. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). ‘Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method.’ 2nd edn. (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Elden, R. C., Bevill, W. V., Padding, P. I., Frampton, J. E., and Shroufe, D. L. (2002). A history of the development of the Harvest Information Program. In ‘Harvest Information Program: Evaluation and Recommendations’. (Eds J. M. VerSteeg and R. C. Elden.) pp. 7–14. (International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Washington, DC.)

Filion, F. L. (1980). Human surveys in wildlife management. In ‘Wildlife Techniques Manual’. 4th edn. (Ed. S. D. Schemnitz.) pp. 441–453. (The Wildlife Society: Washington, DC.)

Geissler, P. H. (1990). Estimation of confidence intervals for federal waterfowl harvest surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54, 201–205.
CrossRef |

Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 646–675.
CrossRef |

Groves, R. M., and Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 72, 167–189.
CrossRef |

Groves, R. M., Couper, M. P., Presser, S., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R., Acosta, G. P., and Nelson, L. (2006). Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 720–736.
CrossRef |

Henny, C. J., and Burnham, K. P. (1976). A reward band study of mallards to estimate band reporting rates. The Journal of Wildlife Management 40, 1–14.
CrossRef |

Lessler, J. T., and Kalsbeek, W. D. (1992). ‘Nonsampling Error in Surveys.’ (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Lincoln, F. C. (1930). Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of band returns. Circular 118. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Martin, E. M., and Carney, S. M. (1977). ‘Population Ecology of the Mallard. IV: a Review of Duck Hunting Regulations, Activity, and Success, with Special Reference to the Mallard. US Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 130.’ (United States Department of the Interior: Washington, DC.)

Martin, E. M., and Padding, P. I. (2001). Preliminary estimates of waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States during the 2000 hunting season. US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrative Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.

Martin, E. M., and Padding, P. I. (2003). Final estimates of waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States during the 2000–01 and 2001–02 hunting seasons. US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrative Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.

Martinson, R. K. (1966). Proportion of recovered duck bands that are reported. The Journal of Wildlife Management 30, 264–268.
CrossRef |

Martinson, R. K., and McCann, J. A. (1966). Proportion of recovered goose and brant bands that are reported. The Journal of Wildlife Management 30, 856–858.
CrossRef |

Moore, M. T., Richkus, K. D., Padding, P. I., Martin, E. M., Williams, S. S., and Spriggs, H. L. (2007). Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2001 and 2002 hunting seasons: final report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Nichols, J. D., Blohm, R. J., Reynolds, R. E., Trost, R. E., Hines, J. E., and Bladen, J. P. (1991). Band reporting rates for mallards with reward bands of different dollar values. The Journal of Wildlife Management 55, 119–126.
CrossRef |

Nichols, J. D., Reynolds, R. E., Blohm, R. J., Trost, R. E., Hines, J. E., and Bladen, J. P. (1995). Geographic variation in band reporting rates for mallards based on reward banding. The Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 697–708.
CrossRef |

Padding, P. I., Moore, M. T., Richkus, K. D., Martin, E. M., Williams, S. S., and Spriggs, H. L. (2006). Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 1999 and 2000 hunting seasons: final report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Raftovich, R. V., Wilkins, K. A., Richkus, K. D., Williams, S. S., and Spriggs, H. L. (2010). ‘Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest during the 2008 and 2009 Hunting Seasons.’ (US Fish and Wildlife Service: Laurel, MD.)

Royle, J. A., and Garrettson, P. R. (2005). The effect of reward band value on mid-continent mallard band reporting rates. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69, 800–804.
CrossRef |

Trost, R. E. (1987). Mallard survival and harvest rates: a reexamination of relationships. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52, 264–284.

Voelzer, J. F., Lauxen, E. Q., Rhoades, S. L., and Norman, K. D. (1982). Waterfowl status report 1979. Special scientific report – Wildlife No. 246. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., and Conroy, M. J. (2002). ‘Analysis and Management of Animal Populations: Modeling, Estimation, and Decision Making.’ (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)

Wright, V. L. (1978). Causes and effects of biases on waterfowl harvest estimates. The Journal of Wildlife Management 42, 251–262.
CrossRef |

Zimmerman, G. S., Moser, T. J., Kendall, W. L., Doherty, P. F., White, G. C., and Caswell, D. F. (2009). Factors influencing reporting and harvest probabilities in North American geese. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73, 710–719.
CrossRef |


   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 
    
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2014