Central Flyway Duck Hunter Survey 2009 Results

In early 2009, a two-page machine-scannable survey was mailed to each of 11,508 Central Flyway (CF) duck hunters accessed through the Harvest Information Program (HIP); 5,683 responded (51%). The CF wanted to understand duck hunters preferences for regulatory frameworks—“hunter’s choice” and “season within season”—that governed harvest in the CF over the last three years. Several items in the 2009 survey were identical to questions asked of CF duck hunters in 2005. Key findings:

• 2009 survey respondents and non-respondents were compared on the basis of

gender, age, and reported duck harvest. Respondents reported being slightly

more successful harvesting ducks in 2007 than non-respondents, and

respondents tended to over-represent older duck hunters, compared to the

age distribution of the total sample.

• Regulatory options supported by large majorities of CF duck hunters in both 2005

and 2009 included:

• Closed seasons on ducks with lower population levels so that the overall

season can be long for ducks that are more abundant,

• Shorter seasons for ducks with lower population levels within a longer

season for abundant ducks (“season within season”), and

• A longer season for all ducks with daily bag limit restrictions for ducks with lower population levels (“hunter’s choice”).
• Roundly rejected by CF duck hunters in both 2005 and 2009 was a shorter

season for all ducks to meet the needs of ducks with lower population levels.

• Hunters who experienced “hunter’s choice,” and those who hunted under the

“season within season” regulatory structure, agreed that the “hunter’s choice”

regulation:

• Helps limit harvest of some duck species,
• Is easy to understand, and
• Simplifies regulations and bag limit changes.
• There was no evidence that hunters who duck hunted under “season within

season” found the regulation onerous, though in general, hunters preferred “hunter’s choice” over “season within season” when given their choice.

MAJOR IMPLICATION

CF waterfowl managers have significant latitude in regulatory packages they might consider, based on hunter openness to “hunter’s choice” and “season within season.” Indeed, as arguably should be the case, duck populations—and their responses to the various regulatory options—can appropriately assume the position of central variable in the regulatory decision-making process.

Introduction

In 2005, Central Flyway (CF) duck hunters were surveyed as part of the National Duck Hunter Survey (National Flyway Council and Wildlife Management Institute, 2005; “NDHS05”). In early 2009, the CF Council re-surveyed duck hunters in the ten-state

CF as part of a sustained and systematic conversation with this important conservation constituency.

Specific objectives were to assess:

• Hunters’ preferences for regulatory options first studied in NDHS05, with special emphasis on comparing satisfactions of hunters who experienced “hunter’s choice,” and those experiencing “season with a season”; and

• Background variables providing insights to hunters’ satisfactions.

Large majorities of duck hunters in 2005 and 2009 supported three of the four regulatory options, only opposing “a shorter season for all ducks to meet the needs of ducks with lower population levels (such as canvasbacks and pintails).”

Majority of duck hunters in all states supported three of the four regulatory alternatives posed, which are:

• Closed season on some ducks, but longer overall season.
• Shorter seasons on lower-population ducks within a longer season.
• A longer season, with daily bag limit restrictions for lower-population ducks.

The majority of duck hunters did not support the one that would shorten the overall duck season in the interest of lower-population ducks.

For the three regulatory options supported, sampling tolerances often overlapped across states, making it difficult to identify which of the three options might be most preferred— though it did appear as if both the “season-within-season” and “hunter’s choice” regulatory options were slightly more favored than closed seasons on lower-population ducks.

In both 2005 and 2009, hunters were asked to pick their most preferred regulatory

Option. Duck hunters were asked, “Which option do you prefer:”

• I prefer a longer season for all ducks, with a reduced bag limit for duck species

needing bag limit restrictions (“hunter’s choice”).

• I prefer a longer season for all ducks, with shorter seasons for duck species

needing bag limit restriction (“season within a season”).

• I prefer some option other than “hunters’ choice” or “season within a season.”
• I don’t know.

A plurality (47%) of CF duck hunters preferred “hunter's choice” in 2005, as did a majority (62%) in 2009. When examining hunter preferences by state, “hunter’s choice” was preferred by a majority in all states except NM, where a plurality (44%) favored “hunter’s choice.” It should be noted, however, that in those states that actually experienced season within season—Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma—between 25% and 40% of duck hunters expressed preference for season within season over hunter’s choice—higher proportions than any states in which “hunter’s choice” was the operative regulation.

What Hunters Think About “Hunter’s Choice” and “Season within Season”

All respondents were presented a list of possible advantages and disadvantages of “hunter’s choice” and “season within season,” and were asked to express their perceptions of both “hc” and “ss” regardless of the regulation under which they actually hunted.  More immediately interpretable than frequency distributions, however, is “mean score analysis” of each item, that permits assignment of an “easy English” word anchor to the answers. For example, when asked about the advantages and disadvantages of “season within season,” hunters who actually hunted under “ss,” as well as those who hunted under “hc,” agreed that “ss” “helps limit harvest on some species”. Duck hunters who actually hunted under the “ss” regulation, and those who hunted under “hc” were “neutral” on all other possible advantages/ disadvantages of “season within season”—again, affirming that that regulation is not perceived as burdensome to CF duck hunters.

Table 3. “What is your perception of ‘Season within a season’ (partially closed season, or season-date limit for pintails and

canvasbacks)? Thanks for your opinions even if you didn’t hunt under the regulation.” Mean scores and associated word anchors,

where 1 = “Strongly agree,” 2 = “Agree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 = “Disagree,” 5 = “Strongly disagree” (“Don’t know” eliminated for

purposes of this analysis). Means ranked in order from “agree” to “disagree” on basis of hunters who experienced “season within

season.”

In similar manner, all respondents were presented a list of possible advantages and disadvantages of “hunter's choice,” and asked to express their perceptions of “hc,” regardless of whether they actually hunted under the regulation.

Table 4. “What is your perception of  'Hunter’s Choice Bag Limit' (longer season for all ducks, with daily bag limit restrictions with lower population levels such as pintails and canvasbacks)? Thanks for your opinions even if you didn’t hunt under the regulation.” Mean scores and associated word anchors, where 1 = “Strongly agree,” 2 = “Agree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 = “Disagree,” 5 = Strongly disagree” (“Don't know” eliminated for purposes of this analysis). Means ranked in order from “agree” to “disagree” on basis of hunters who experienced “hunter’s choice.”

Again, duck hunters’ perceptions of “hunter’s choice” were similar, regardless of whether they actually hunted under “hc” or the alternative “ss.” Both groups agreed that “hunter’s choice,”

• Helps limit harvest of some duck species,
• Is easy to understand, and
• Simplifies regulations and bag limit changes.

In addition, duck hunters who experienced “hc” also agreed that “hunter’s choice” was a better alternative than partially closed seasons for pintails and canvasbacks,” while hunters who experienced “ss” were “neutral” on this item. Both groups disagreed that “hc” “reduces my overall daily bag limit of ducks too much.”

Major Implications

•  CF waterfowl managers have significant latitude in regulatory packages they might consider, based on hunter openness to “hunter’s choice” and “season within season.” Indeed, as should be the case, duck populations—and their responses to the various regulatory options—can appropriately assume the position of central variable in the regulatory decision-making process.

• There was no evidence that hunters who duck hunted under “season within season” found the regulation burdensome, though in general, hunters preferred “hunter’s choice” over “season within season” when given their choice.