Cooperative Research Units
Education, Research And Technical Assistance For Managing Our Natural Resources
Home | Intranet | Digital Measures | Help

Johnson, F. A., and C. T. Moore. 1996. Harvesting multiple stocks of ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:551-559.

Abstract

This study was conducted to help assess whether recent harvest rates of ducks banded before the hunting season in the United States varied among stocks (i.e., species, age-sex cohort, location of banding) and whether regulatory actions have been successful at shifting harvest pressure among stocks in the desired manner. Direct recovery rates during 1976-91 were used to index harvest rates and were influenced to some degree by location of banding, age class, sex, species, and hunting regulations. However, differences in recovery probability among species were consistent (P = 0.787) over 3 periods with different hunting regulations (1976-84, 1985-87, 1988-91), despite regulatory changes designed to affect species differentially. Band-recovery models that excluded the interaction between hunting regulations and sex of ducks were inadequate (P ≤ 0.013), suggesting sex-specific changes in recovery probabilites with changes in regulations. There was little evidence (P ≤ 0.151) that regulatory changes affected recovery rates of ducks from 3 banding reference areas differentially. Harvesting duck stocks in an optimal manner requires an ability to harvest selectively, a good understanding of each stock's dynamics, and knowledge of any interdependence in stock sizes.

 

Current Staff

Federal Staff: 2

Masters Students: 3

Phd Students: 2

Post Docs: 1

University Staff: 2

5 Year Summary

Students graduated: 12

Scientific Publications: 39

Presentations: 171

 

Status

Published
July (3rd Quarter/Summer) 1996

Access

Download File Publisher Website

Unit Authors

South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Cooperators

  1. Clemson University
  2. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
  3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  4. U.S. Geological Survey
  5. Wildlife Management Institute