# Top Ten Duck Harvest Totals By State



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

By Total Duck Harvest

1. California - 1,327,200
2. Texas - 1,255,400
3. Arkansas - 1,080,400
4. Louisiana - 877,800
5. Minnesota - 531,500
6. North Dakota - 519,400
7. Missouri - 465,400
8. Washington - 396,200
9. Illinois - 380,400
10. Wisconsin - 375,100

Per Hunter

1. California - 28.3
2. Oregon - 19.1
3. Louisiana - 18.2
4. Oklahoma - 17.8
5. Arizona - 17.3
6. Washington - 17.0
7. Arkansas - 16.7
8. Mississippi - 16.7
9. Missouri - 16.2
10. Utah - 15.9

These are for 2005-2006 and were in the new DU magazine issue. Just thought I'd pass it along.


----------



## Ridge Nelson (Jan 19, 2006)

Is the per hunter statistic for the whole season or by week or what?
Interesting nontheless(sp?)
Thanks , Ridge


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I wonder if these numbers are generated by each individual state's survey or by HIP # registration? If bought your 1st liscence in your home state and registered your HIP info there that doesn't really tell the whole story. People giving total season harvest numbers without thought to what state they were harvested in. That would skew the data. I guess I'm just questioning how the data was obtained, or what data was used. Call it nothing more than curiousity.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Those are interesting statistics, makes me wonder why more pp arent traveling to California to hunt :lol:


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

redlegg93 said:


> Is the per hunter statistic for the whole season or by week or what?
> Interesting nontheless(sp?)
> Thanks , Ridge


Those statistics are for the entire season


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

Horsager,

First, HIP is not used as a survey directly. Not at all. All HIP is used for is to stratify the entire universe of waterfowlers so the FWS can send X numbers of surveys to folks that shot 0-10 ducks a season, Y surveys to those who shot 11-30, and so on. Using HIP is an attempt to avoid sendingv surveys only to high-kill or to low-kill waterfowlers; they want as representavie a group as they can get to do the survey, which IS used to make harvest estimates.

Second, if you hunt in more than one state, each States hip suvey should reflect ONLY those birds you harvested IN THAT STATE. If you shoot 100 in ND and 20 in MN your ND HIP should show 100 and your MN HIP should show 20.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I don't really hunt ducks, can't remeber the last time I shot one. I'm really more interrested in what data did they use for the stats and where did the data come from?


----------



## Ridge Nelson (Jan 19, 2006)

The entire season thing dosent seem accurate, or maybe they do... what are other peoples thoughts about the entire season count?


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

The magazine said the numbers were from the USFWS.

They seem fairly reasonable to me. What part of it makes you think they aren't accurate? Obviously they don't survey every hunter but they probably are fairly correct in their estimations. An average of 28 ducks per hunter for a whole state is pretty amazing, I hunted my rear end off this year and I know I didn't shoot 28 ducks this year (although I'm pretty selective.)


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Without going further into how the information was gatehered and processed, from the surface those numbers look accurate if not high. You have to consider that there are a large number of hunters who buy a license and only go hunting once or twice.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

redlegg93 said:


> The entire season thing dosent seem accurate, or maybe they do... what are other peoples thoughts about the entire season count?


Thats what i was thinking to. I would have to think that Nd would be up in the Average # of ducks taken per season, per hunter catagory. Maybe not


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The interesting fact about the per hunter kill is that all top 10 states are where ducks winter.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Sure speaks volumes about pressure and available quality opportunites too. When ND ranks #6 in total harvest, and roughly half of its duck hunters travel here for the sole purpose of hunting (thus probably more serious than the average R bear of any state), that it can't crack the top 10 in harvest/hunter is telling and shameful.


----------



## the hillbilly (Oct 30, 2006)

Well I'm on the DU committee but I am not a biologist by any means. However I do know one very well that is the regional director for DU here in Louisiana. The calculation process here is figured annually by the ratio of duck stamps/licenses purchased and then an average taken by surveys of harvested ducks in each region. The counts are accurate according to him. I will get further info from him and pass it on because this is a good question that I am also interested in learning more information on.
chad


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

It is strange....that only 5 out of the top 10 in harvest is in the average per hunter.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> It is strange....


Why? The states that pack folks into every nook and cranny are going to kill ducks thus producing high gross kill numbers. Making the first list without making the second is nothing to brag about, and actualy reflects negatively. Doing well in one of those states means that you must be exceptionally good, exceptionally lucky or have the ability and willingness to tie up the very best. Making both lists is okay and indicates good opportunites (albeit with a price tag in many cases). Making the second list but not the first is probably the best of all worlds.

Stats like these cut through all of the anechdotal crap and show that ND is not the duck hunting mecca is used to be or that some currently market it to be.

If someone gets their hands on complete versions of both lists, please post them up.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dan, 
The numbers are only telling if you factor in the number of days afield. If the average hunter in California is afield 28 days compared to the hunter in Oregon who only hunts an average of 6 days per season there is a big difference in average daily harvest. Average daily harvest per hunter by state is the only true apples to apples comparison.


----------



## WingedShooter7 (Oct 28, 2005)

california of all sates ? lol

California may be that but we still got are share of ducks & geese here in SD & ND!


----------



## Nolte (Oct 6, 2004)

I think GG has it right, some of those wintering areas where the total kill per year is high, will have water and birds for the entire season.

It also may be a factor that in some of these areas, that the prime spots are locked up by leases. I don't know what the water situation is like in all areas, but I'm guessing that in states like Cali and AZ, there aren't a lot of other water options for the birds to use. So you either own it and pound them, or watch through the binocs to see all the birds. The average hunter won't ever get a crack at a lot of those spots. I've heard it's like that in Arkansas too, but that is all just heresay and speculation.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Jed,

Of course you are correct that List II would be more helpful if the measuring period was expressed as a function of bag/day rather than bag/season. In fact, we'd really get down to brass tacks if it were expressed as a funtion of hours hunted, since a "day" hunting may last 15 minutes one day and 12 hours another.

But, even in the form presented, some pretty strong inferences can be drawn. That states like MN, WI, IL and (even now - sigh) ND show on List I and not List II is indicative of over-use. We are becoming like them...


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Dan Bueide said:


> But, even in the form presented, some pretty strong inferences can be drawn. That states like MN, WI, IL and (even now - sigh) ND show on List I and not List II is indicative of over-use. We are becoming like them...


You shouldn't tell the whole story with half the information. As stated earlier, knowing the average days afield will give you a true feel for how succesful hunters are.

Also, a state such as MN has a lower bag limit which takes out the peaks of the really good days. You are comparing a state with a maximum daily harvest (per hunter) of 4 against a state that has a limit of 7 (Oregon, California). Thereby, on bad days a hunter in each state may take 1 bird apiece. Then, on a good day the hunter in MN is capped at 4 while the hunter in CA is capped at 7. An average of these two hunts would show the MN hunter taking an average of 2.5 birds per day while the CA hunter takes 4.

Without considering all the factors that affect the data one cannot draw accurate conclusions from them. To surmise that ND is over used based on not being in the top of harvest per day ratios is inaccurate. I am not arguing whether or not the State is being over used for two reasons.

First, the assessment of whether a state is over used is highly subjective. There is no way to quantitatively measure this. It is purely a qualitative perception of the state of hunting in ND that will vary from person to person.

Second, it doesn't accomplish anything due to the previous reason.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Prove me wrong...

Sometimes more data changes conclusions. Often times, at least as to general/broad conclusions, more and more-detailed data merely adds reliability to conclusions or slightly shifts place-holders.

"Overuse" is in part subjective, but can be measured by objective elements as well, for sure relativity. For example, that ND licenses 125% more waterfowlers than Alberta, Sask and Manitoba, combined, provides a useful relative measure of use. ND licenses 175% more watefowlers than SD. No, I don't have the hunter days or some other sub-set of data, but that relative data alone form other states/provinces that at a very basic level are "like" ND, is indicative of and supports the subjective experiences of many.

As I said, prove me wrong. The numbers at the head of this thread are DU's 30 second sound bite of a pile of USFWS data. Go get it, and let's look at it on a daily bag/hunter/day, %of dialy limit/hunter/day or some other basis. Let's consider all of the other factors and see if I've jumped the gun or whether the extra data merly adds some clarity.


----------



## the hillbilly (Oct 30, 2006)

Ok after talking to the biologist yesterday here in LA the calculations come from counts taken afield from hunters in the field in each region and then divided by the number of duck stamps sold. He said that it is an estimate but very very close to what the averages display in the DU magazine. :beer:


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

Dan Bueide said:


> Prove me wrong...


Read my above post. I can't. Something that is opinion based cannot be proven right or wrong. It is what is it is, an opinion. In your opinion (and others' opinions) ND may be over used. You are entitled to that.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

You should be able to get the report here:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/repor ... istics.htm

They haven't used duck stamps for this for several years - the FWS relies on HIP. They could validate HIP against duckstamp sales, but my guess it the numbers for ducks stamps will have crappy reliability (consider how many places sell them??)

I agree it is sad that ND has high total harvest, but low opportunity for resident hunters. One additional factor is the length of the season - california gets like 90 days, while ND never gets the full number of days set due to freeze up. If I remember the parameters correctly, number of days affects the total bag a lot more than the daily limit does.

The interpretation is that ND gets flooded with folks and hammered. Then it quickly dies off - that's why the season average is low compared to everywhere else. Its a flash in the pan, not a long sizzle.

M.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

OK - I had to look

Comparing ND (p. 23) and California (p.26):

ND - 36,300 hunters spent 186,700 days afield to bag 519,400 birds for an average of 2.78 birds per day, for an average of 5 days, for an average of 14.3 birds per year.

Cal - 47,000 hunters spent 486,700 days afield to bag 1,327,200 birds for an average of 2.72 birds per day, for an average of 10 days, for an average of 28.3 birds per year.

I'd like to know what california gets for NR waterfowlers?

M.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MRN said:


> OK - I had to look
> 
> Comparing ND (p. 23) and California (p.26):
> 
> ...


ND only has 36,000 waterfowl hunters huh? doesn't that sound low?

Don't forget that California has the largest population in the U.S. and *is 3rd largest in land mass with 156, 000 sq miles of land*. You could fit 2 1/2 ND's inside of CA...

Just to make it an apples to apples comparison... ND is fitting almost as many hunters into an area 1/3 the size of California, and make all of them hunt in a matter of 4 weeks...

Hmmm... pressure anyone?

Ryan


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan......

To look at land mass......you have to take into consideration of the Cities in CA and ND. Size of Bismark, fargo, GF's, etc. compared to LA, Sacamento, Malibu, etc. Because you can't hunt inside of city limits.

So can you fit 2 1/2 ND's into CA.....land available to hunt.

I don't know the answer. But that is one thing you have to consider.

Chuck


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> Ryan......
> 
> To look at land mass......you have to take into consideration of the Cities in CA and ND. Size of Bismark, fargo, GF's, etc. compared to LA, Sacamento, Malibu, etc. Because you can't hunt inside of city limits.
> 
> ...


Sure that's fair... just remember the same goes for ND..noone really hunts in the far east or west...generally speaking the hunting occurs up the middle of the state.

But like I said..look at the numbers... then realize they come in a 4 week span, and aren't spread out across a long drawn out season of several months.

Ryan


----------

