Band reporting probabilities for mallards recovered in the United States and Canada

Abstract

Reliable estimates of annual harvest rates are required for the implementation of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) adaptive harvest management decision frameworks. Because not all standard bands recovered during the hunting season are reported, band reporting probabilities are needed to estimate mallard harvest rates. Information from birds recovered with bands that notify finders of a reward (i.e., reward bands) can be used to estimate band reporting rates. We analyzed reward banding data for 3 stocks of mallards to estimate reporting probabilities that can be used to estimate harvest rates for birds recovered with toll‐free or web‐address bands. Specifically, we explored spatial variability in reporting probabilities, and assessed whether reporting probabilities varied among years. Our analysis indicated that reporting probabilities varied among the 4 Flyways, eastern Canada, and western Canada and Alaska. We had difficulty interpreting temporal fluctuations and found little evidence for any meaningful trends in reporting rates between 2002 and 2010. We recommend that reporting probabilities of 0.67 in the Atlantic Flyway, 0.81 in the Mississippi Flyway, 0.70 in the Central Flyway, 0.76 in the Pacific Flyway, 0.50 in eastern Canada, and 0.57 in western Canada and Alaska be used to estimate harvest probabilities for birds recovered in these regions. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) survival, recovery, and harvest rates derived from 55 years of banding in Prairie Canada, 1960–2014

“…When we calculated harvest rates by adjusting direct recovery rates by band reporting rates, we found an increase in harvest rates in the latter half of the study, similar to recovery rates, but the change in harvest rates was not as pronounced as the change in recovery rates. Therefore, we conclude that the increase in recovery rates in the latter half of the study was a function of an increase in harvest rates, but the increase was exaggerated by the known increase in band reporting rate (Boomer et al 2013;R. T. Alisauskas, unpublished data).…”

“…The number of pintails recovered was then adjusted by band reporting rates for ducks that varied both spatially by migratory flyway and temporally (Boomer et al 2013;R. T. Alisauskas, unpublished data).…”

Variations in band reporting rate and implications for kill rate in Greater Snow Geese

“…Reward band studies are typically used to estimate reporting rate (Nichols et al 1991, 1995, Royle and Garrettson 2005, Zimmerman et al 2009a, Boomer et al 2013. This method allows the estimation of harvest probability (h) separately from reporting (λ) probability (Henny and Burnham 1976), based on the assumption that a reward value is high enough to obtain a reporting rate approximating 1.0 (Conroy and Williams 1981, Nichols et al 1991, Royle and Garrettson 2005.…”

“…Previous studies have examined reporting probabilities in duck and goose populations across North America (Nichols et al 1991, 1995, Royle and Garrettson 2005, Zimmerman et al 2009a, Boomer et al 2013. Zimmerman et al (2009a) examined the reporting probability in 12 populations of 4 goose species (Canada Geese Branta canadensis, Cackling Geese B. hutchinsii, Snow Geese Chen caerulescens, and Ross's Geese C. rossii) after introduction in the mid-1990s of the toll-free phone number to report banded birds that are shot.…”

“…This goose population is unique in two ways, namely that harvest is equal or higher in Canada than in the U.S. (Calvert and Gauthier 2005), unlike most other waterfowl populations, and Canadian hunting occurs almost exclusively in Québec, the predominantly French-speaking province of Canada. Anecdotal observations (G. Gauthier, personal observation) suggested that cultural or linguistic differences could lead to differences in reporting rates between Québec and the U.S. (see also Zimmerman et al 2009a, Boomer et al 2013). Our analysis was based on a three-year reward band study conducted in Greater Snow Geese from 2003 to 2005, a subset of the large-scale study analyzed by Zimmerman et al (2009a).…”