Duck hunter activity, success, and satisfaction on public hunting areas

Abstract

Because hunting disturbance can influence local distribution of ducks and their availability to hunters, managers often limit access to hunting areas to improve hunting success and satisfaction. Few studies have quantified the effectiveness of public area access restrictions on duck hunter activity, harvest, or hunters' satisfaction with their hunting experience. We used a cross‐over design over 6 consecutive hunting seasons (2008–2009 through 2013–2014) on State Wildlife Areas (SWAs) in northeastern Colorado, USA, to compare the effects of restricted hunting access regulations and regulations without these restrictions on duck hunter activity, harvest success, harvest levels, and satisfaction. We also considered effects of SWA types, duck abundance, temperature, precipitation, use of equipment by duck hunting parties, and, for hunter satisfaction, hunting success, hunting parties' satisfaction with ducks seen, habitat conditions, crowding from other hunters, and SWA regulations. The number of days when duck hunters had access to restricted properties was about half that on unrestricted properties, and unrestricted properties were used by about twice as many duck hunting parties, but the mean number of hunting parties per available hunting day and mean party size were similar under the 2 types of regulations. Most (56%) duck hunting parties did not bag any ducks; hunting success (harvest of ≥1 duck by a hunting party) was best explained by a model that included a regulation type × hunting season interaction, a SWA type × month interaction, hunter density the previous day, an index of hunter investment (number of decoys used and whether dogs and calls were used), and temperature. Successful hunting parties harvested 1.92 ± 1.60 (SD) ducks/hunter/day (range = 0.1–7.0); the best model predicting the number of ducks harvested per hunter in successful parties included a regulation type × hunting season interaction, a SWA type × month interaction, hunter density the previous day, an index of hunter investment, temperature, and precipitation. Overall satisfaction of duck hunting parties with a day's hunt averaged 3.62 ± 1.20 based on a rank scale of 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), and was best explained by a model that included hunting party success; hunter investment; temperature; and satisfaction with duck numbers, habitat conditions, hunting regulations, and crowding. While greatly reducing days available for hunting, access restrictions were associated with improved chances of hunting parties successfully harvesting ≥1 duck in 5 of 6 hunting seasons, and substantially greater numbers of ducks harvested by hunters in successful parties in 1 of 6 hunting seasons. Restrictions did not have a strong direct effect on hunting parties' satisfaction with a day's hunt. Uncontrolled factors, including weather and use of equipment by hunters, had important influences on hunter success, harvest, and satisfaction. Managers should carefully assess hunting activity, hunter expectations and desires, and hunting...

Influence of sanctuary disturbance, weather, and landscape characteristics on waterfowl harvest opportunity in western Tennessee

“…Colder temperatures may cause waterfowl to move to other areas to meet greater daily energy requirements (McKinney and McWilliams 2005) or to find available habitat as wetlands freeze or are covered in snow (Boos et al 2007, Notaro et al 2016, Masto et al 2022) further exposing them to hunters. Likewise, precipitation alters access to food resources and may encourage waterfowl to explore and seek out newly inundated resources (McEvoy et al 2015, Highway 2022) and increase individual exposure to hunters (Gammonley and Runge 2022); however, we did not find an effect of precipitation on harvest opportunity in our study. Rather, we found that increases in barometric pressure from the previous day, indicative of clear windy weather, was positively associated with harvest opportunity.…”

“…Additionally, others have correlated waterfowl abundance with harvest (Trost 1987, Raveling and Heitmeyer 1989, Stafford et al 2010; however, local waterfowl abundance, indexed by bi-weekly counts, did not influence harvest opportunity in our study. Similarly, monthly indices of duck abundance did not influence hunter success or satisfaction in a recent study (Gammonley and Runge 2022). Perhaps monthly or even bi-weekly waterfowl abundance estimates are too coarse in scale to adequately explain variation in harvest opportunity.…”

“…Colder than normal conditions increased harvest opportunity in our study. Stafford et al (2010) similarly reported decreases in mean low temperatures with increased harvest in Illinois, USA, and Gammonley and Runge (2022) documented the same relationship using daily mean temperature in Colorado, USA. Colder temperatures may cause waterfowl to move to other areas to meet greater daily energy requirements (McKinney and McWilliams 2005) or to find available habitat as wetlands freeze or are covered in snow (Boos et al 2007, Notaro et al 2016, Masto et al 2022) further exposing them to hunters.…”

“…Researchers suggest waterfowl are most susceptible to harvest at the onset of the waterfowl hunting season, particularly within the first 2 weeks (Fleskes et al 2007, Dooley et al 2010 b , Davis et al 2011, Palumbo et al 2022). We hypothesize this initial spike in daily harvest opportunity was due to waterfowl naïveté to hunting pressure within the study area (Dooley et al 2010 b ), although higher hunter densities on opening weekend may have played a role (Gammonley and Runge 2022). McDuie et al (2021) demonstrated dabbling ducks (Anatini) doubled the time they spent flying during opening weekend in California, USA; presumably, increased movement between patches makes waterfowl more susceptible to hunters.…”

“…In particular, increased movement during diurnal times may make individuals more susceptible to harvest. For instance, mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) made more diurnal flights when temperature decreased (Highway 2022), and Gammonley and Runge (2022) reported the number of waterfowl harvested increased as temperatures dropped. Cloud cover may also influence hunter success by affecting hunters' or animals' ability to hide or see, whereas dropping barometric pressure and precipitation, indicative of impending storms and frontal shifts, further alter animal behaviors, which may modify their susceptibility to harvest (Wellendorf et al 2012, Leorna et al 2020, Highway 2022).…”