Assessment of bias in US waterfowl harvest estimates
Paul I. Padding A C and J. Andrew Royle BA 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 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR11105
Submitted: 21 June 2011 Accepted: 16 March 2012 Published: 3 May 2012
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.
| Validity of mail survey data on bagged waterfowl.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barker, R. J. (1991). Nonresponse bias in New Zealand waterfowl harvest surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 55, 126–131.
| Nonresponse bias in New Zealand waterfowl harvest surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Estimation of confidence intervals for federal waterfowl harvest surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 646–675.
| Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Groves, R. M., and Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 72, 167–189.
| The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Experiments in producing nonresponse bias.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| A reward band study of mallards to estimate band reporting rates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Proportion of recovered duck bands that are reported.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Proportion of recovered goose and brant bands that are reported.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Band reporting rates for mallards with reward bands of different dollar values.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Geographic variation in band reporting rates for mallards based on reward banding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| The effect of reward band value on mid-continent mallard band reporting rates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Causes and effects of biases on waterfowl harvest estimates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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.
| Factors influencing reporting and harvest probabilities in North American geese.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
