Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA CENTRAL FLYWAY HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA BOOK 2020 compiled by: James A. Dubovsky CENTRAL FLYWAY REPRESENTATIVE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT 134 Union Blvd., Suite 540 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 275-2386 Suggested Citation: Dubovsky, J. A., compiler. 2020. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood CO. CENTRAL FLYWAY 1948-2020 73 YEARS OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION Important Note to Users: From 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, waterfowl hunter participation, and waterfowl hunter success in the United States were derived from a combination of several sources: 1) sales of migratory bird conservation stamps (Duck Stamps), 2) a Mail Questionnaire Survey of individuals who purchased ducks stamps for hunting purposes, and 3) the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey (PCS). This survey, which was based on duck stamp sales was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Beginning in 1999, new survey methods were implemented that obtained estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunter participation, and hunter success from: 1) States' lists of migratory bird hunters identified through the Harvest Information Program (HIP), 2) a questionnaire (HIP Survey) sent to a sample of those hunters, and 3) the Waterfowl PCS. The basic difference is that during 1961 - 2001 waterfowl hunter activity and harvest estimates were derived from a Mail Questionnaire Survey (MQS) of duck stamp purchasers, whereas from 1999 to the present those estimates were derived from HIP surveys of people identified as migratory bird hunters by the States. Both survey systems relied on the Waterfowl PCS for species composition data. During 1989-2002, migratory game bird harvest and population survey information in the Central Flyway was presented in annually updated Data Books. Because of the recently implemented changes in survey design, historical harvest estimates will not be directly comparable to current estimates. Therefore, previous harvest survey information derived from the MQS are considered as final and compiled in the Central Flyway Waterfowl Hunting and Harvest Survey Information, 1961-2001. For 1999 and subsequent years, waterfowl hunting and harvest estimates that are derived from HIP, along with the usual population survey information, will be compiled in annual updates of the Central Flyway Harvest and Population Survey Data Book. In the future, the annual Data Book will be expanded to also present annual hunter activity and harvest estimates for other migratory game bird species that are now derived from HIP surveys. The 2019 estimates of migratory bird harvest and hunter activity for Canada were not available at the time of this printing. Canada is undertaking a revision of their harvest estimation methods, which should be completed sometime in 2021. Instead of footnoting all the tables to indicate that the estimates were not available, the lines for 2019 estimates for Canada have simply been left blank, and will be filled in for the 2021 Central Flyway Databook. This will result in less effort (e.g., adding and then deleting footnotes) in this publication and subsequent updates. TABLE OF CONTENTS U.S. DUCK STAMP AND CANADIAN PERMIT SALES: Migratory Game Bird Permit Sales in Canada .......................................................... 2 Federal Sandhill Crane Permits Issued in the Central Flyway and Minnesota ......... 3 Tundra Swan Hunting Permits .................................................................................. 4 WATERFOWL AND CRANE HUNTER ACTIVITY AND SUCCESS: Active Duck Hunters, Total Duck Hunter Days, Average Duck Hunter Days, and Average Seasonal Duck Bag Per Hunter .................................................... 6 Active Goose Hunters, Total Goose Hunter Days, Average Goose Hunter Days, and Average Seasonal Goose Bag Per Hunter .................................................. 7 Active Mid-continent Sandhill Crane Hunters............................................................ 8 Active Tundra Swan Hunters .................................................................................... 9 Average Seasonal Tundra Swan Bag Per Active Swan Hunter ............................. 10 DUCK HARVESTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Mallard, Gadwall, and American Wigeon ................................................................ 12 Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, and Wood Duck ............................................ 13 American Black Duck, Mottled Duck, and Mexican Duck X Mallard ....................... 14 Black-bellied Whistling Duck and Fulvous Tree Duck ............................................. 15 Blue-winged Teal (Special, Regular, All Seasons) ................................................. 16 Green-winged Teal (Special, Regular, All Seasons) .............................................. 17 Redhead, Canvasback and Ring-necked Duck ..................................................... 18 Greater Scaup, Lesser Scaup, and Combined ....................................................... 19 Common Goldeneye, Ruddy Duck, and Hooded Merganser .................................. 20 Total Ducks ............................................................................................................ 21 AGE RATIOS IN THE U.S. HARVEST: Mallard All, Female, and Male Age Ratios .............................................................. 23 Northern Pintail, Gadwall, American Wigeon, Wood Duck, Redhead, Greater and Lesser Scaup Age Ratios .............................................................. 24 Blue-winged Teal and Green-winged Teal Age Ratios .......................................... 25 SEX RATIOS IN THE U.S. HARVEST: Mallard Adult and Immature Sex Ratios.................................................................. 27 DUCK HARVESTS IN CANADA: Mallard .................................................................................................................... 29 Northern Pintail ....................................................................................................... 30 Total Ducks ............................................................................................................ 31 DUCK HARVESTS IN NORTH AMERICA: Mallard .................................................................................................................... 33 GOOSE HARVESTS IN THE U.S. AND CANADA: Snow/Blue Geese, Ross’s Geese and All Light Geese .......................................... 35 White-fronted Geese, Canada Geese-Regular and All Season ............................. 36 Total Geese ............................................................................................................. 37 CFAN, Large and Unknown Canada Geese in the Central Flyway ........................ 38 GOOSE AGE RATIOS IN THE U.S. HARVEST: Canada Goose, White-fronted Goose, Snow Goose and Ross’s Goose Age Ratios ............................................................................................. 40 i WEBLESS HARVEST AND HUNTER ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES: CMU Mourning Dove Harvest, Active Hunters, Total Days Afield, and Average Seasonal Dove Bag Per Hunter ........................................................................ 42 CMU White-winged Dove Harvest, Active Hunters, Total Days Afield, and Average Seasonal Dove Bag Per Hunter ........................................................................ 43 Four Corners (Interior) Population Band-tailed Pigeon Harvest, Active Hunters, Total Days Afield, and Average Seasonal Pigeon Bag Per Hunter .................. 44 CMR American Woodcock Harvest, Active Hunters, Total Days Afield, and Average Seasonal Woodcock Bag Per Hunter ................................................. 45 WATERFOWL POPULATION SURVEY INFORMATION: Central Flyway Mid-winter Goose Survey, 2020 ..................................................... 47 White-fronted Goose Population Status, Objectives and Regulatory Thresholds . 48 Canada Goose Population Status, Objectives and Regulatory Thresholds ........... 49 Light Goose Population Status, Objectives and Regulatory Thresholds ............... 50 Central Flyway Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey - 2020 ............................................. 51 Central Flyway Mid-winter Waterfowl Surveys - 2020-2029 ................................... 52 Central Flyway Mid-winter Waterfowl Surveys - 2010-19 ....................................... 53 Central Flyway Mid-winter Waterfowl Surveys - 2000-09 ....................................... 54 Central Flyway Mid-winter Waterfowl Surveys - 1990-99 ....................................... 55 Central Flyway Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey Comparisons - 1948-2020............... 56 Breeding Population Estimates for 10 Duck Species .............................................. 57 TUNDRA SWAN POPULATION SURVEYS AND HARVESTS: Mid-winter Survey for the Eastern Population ........................................................ 59 Harvest Estimates for the Eastern and Western Populations ................................. 60 SANDHILL CRANE POPULATION SURVEYS AND HARVESTS: Spring Surveys for the Mid-continent Population .................................................... 62 Harvest Estimates for the Mid-continent Population - U.S. .................................... 63 Harvest Estimates for the Mid-continent Population - N.A. ................................... .64 Population Surveys for RMP Cranes ...................................................................... 65 Harvest Estimates
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 8 Migration Studies
    Chapter 8 Migration Studies 100 Migration Studies Overview Theme he Pacific Flyway is a route taken by migratory birds during flights between breeding grounds in the north and wintering grounds in the south. Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge plays an important role in migration by providing birds with a protected resting area during their arduous journey. Migration makes it possible for birds to benefit the most from favorable weather conditions; they breed and feed in the north during the summer and rest and feed in the warmer south during the winter. This pattern is called return migration — the most common type of migration by birds. Through a variety of activities, students will learn about the factors and hazards of bird migration on the Pacific Flyway. Background The migration of birds usually refers to their regular flights between summer and winter homes. Some birds migrate thousands of miles, while others may travel less than a hundred miles. This seasonal movement has long been a mystery to humans. Aristotle, the naturalist and philosopher of ancient Greece, noticed that cranes, pelicans, geese, swans, doves, and many other birds moved to warmer places for the winter. Like others of times past, he proposed theories that were widely accepted for hundreds of years. One of his theories was that many birds spent the winter sleeping in hollow trees, caves, or beneath the mud in marshes. 101 Through natural selection, migration evolved as an advantageous behavior. Birds migrate north to nest and breed because the competition for food and space is substantially lower there. In addition, during the summer months the food supply is considerably better in many northern climates (e.g., Arctic regions).
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Management of Mute Swans
    MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL POLICY MANAGEMENT OF MUTE SWANS Introduction This document briefly describes the history, status, selected biology, management concerns, and recommendations for the management of mute swans (Cygnus olor), a non-native, invasive species that has become established in several locations in the Mississippi Flyway (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin). Although the populations are relatively low in most Flyway states, establishing and implementing a Flyway policy is important because the birds have high reproductive potential and have negative impacts on native species and damage aquatic habitats. In recent years, the numbers have continued to increase. The policy recommendations below represent the consensus of wildlife agencies in the Mississippi Flyway with respect to management of this species. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for the cooperative management of mute swans by natural-resource agencies in the Flyway. Background Introduction and Populations - Mute swans are native to Eurasia. Although once severely reduced in numbers by market-hunting and war within their natural range, they have been domesticated for centuries and are now widely distributed throughout Europe. The Eurasian population is estimated at 1 million. Mute swans were introduced into North America during the late 1800s as decorative waterfowl and have now established feral populations in all four Flyways due to escaped and released birds. Nelson (1997) estimated a population of 18,000 mute swans in North America, with most being in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2000, Nelson estimated a total of 6,800 mute swans in the Mississippi Flyway, with feral populations occurring in 9 of 17 states or provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Mid-Coast Initiative Area
    Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Texas Mid-Coast Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2002 Photo and Illustration Credits Cover and page i: Northern pintails, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iii: (top) pintails, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey; (bottom), gadwall, R.J. Long, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iv: U.S. Geological Survey. Page 8: mallard pair, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 10: scaup pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 11: mottled duck pair, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 12: lesser snow geese, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 13: hydrologic structure, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; breakwater structures, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; earthen terraces, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 14: erosion control vegetation, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; oil-drilling access canal plug, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; marsh burning, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 15: flooded agriculture field, U.S. Geological Survey; beneficial use of dredge material, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; American wigeon pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 20: American wigeon pair, R. Stewart, Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 22: northern shovelers and blue-winged teal, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 23: male ring-necked duck, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 25: blue-winged teal males, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bird's EYE View on Flyways
    A BIRD’S EYE VIEW ON FLywayS A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals IMPRINT Published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) A BIRD’S EYE VIEW ON FLywayS A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals UNEP / CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 68 pages. Produced by UNEP/CMS Text based on a report by Joost Brouwer in colaboration with Gerard Boere Coordinator Francisco Rilla, CMS Secretariat, E-mail: [email protected] Editing & Proof Reading Hanah Al-Samaraie, Robert Vagg Editing Assistant Stéphanie de Pury Publishing Manager Hanah Al-Samaraie, Email: [email protected] Design Karina Waedt © 2009 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) / Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. DISCLAIMER The contents of this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of UNEP or contributory organizations.The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contrib- utory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area in its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Waterfowl Population Status Survey
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 August 19, 2019 In the United States the process of establishing hunting regulations for waterfowl is conducted annually. This process involves a number of scheduled meetings in which information regarding the status of waterfowl is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. This report includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative eforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. In addition to providing current information on the status of populations, this report is intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for the 2020–2021 hunting season. i Acknowledgments Waterfowl Population and Habitat Information: The information contained in this report is the result of the eforts of numerous individuals and organizations. Principal contributors include the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife conservation agencies, provincial conservation agencies from Canada, and Direcci´on General de Conservaci´on Ecol´ogica de los Recursos Naturales, Mexico. In addition, several conservation organizations, other state and federal agencies, universities, and private individuals provided information or cooperated in survey activities. Appendix A.1 provides a list of individuals responsible for the collection and compilation of data for the “Status of Ducks” section of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River & Trempealeau River Refuges
    WEST - 10 UPPER MISSISSIPPI & TREMPEALEAU RIVER WETLAND TYPES John Sullivan Floodplain forest, marsh, shrub carr ECOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE species of sedges grow here, including tussock sedge, woolly sedge, beaked sedge, bottlebrush sedge, lake sedge, meadow This vast riverine Wetland Gem is a multi-state site sedge and nut sedge. Common shrubs on the refuges include comprising more than 246,000 acres of floodplain in • buttonbush, dogwoods, willows and alder. GRANT COUNTY Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa alongside more VERNON/CRAWFORD/ than 260 miles of the Upper Mississippi River. The corridor’s Hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors PIERCE/PEPIN/BUFFALO/ TREMPEALEAU/LA CROSSE/ TREMPEALEAU/LA complex structure of islands, braided channels, oxbows use these refuges as stopovers and migratory corridors. and sloughs includes more than 51,000 acres of floodplain Waterfowl species include trumpeter swan, tundra swan, forest and 48,000 acres of marsh. Wildlife habitat values snow goose, wood duck, American black duck, blue-winged are what this site is best known for. These refuges protect a teal, northern shoveler, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked significant portion of the Mississippi Flyway, which is used duck, greater and lesser scaup, common goldeneye, hooded during migration by 40% of waterfowl in the U.S. Other merganser and ruddy duck. Reptiles and amphibians found wildlife includes about 300 species of birds, 31 species of at the site include map turtle, painted turtle, spiny softshell reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. Humans also flock to turtle, the state threatened Blanding’s turtle, blue-spotted this natural treasure; more than 3.7 million visitors explore salamander, green frog, northern leopard frog, pickerel frog these refuges annually and enjoy recreational offerings like and the state endangered Blanchard’s cricket frog.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative
    Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2002 Photo and Illustration Credits Cover and page i: American wigeon, G.D. Chambers, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iii: (top) pintails, ( bottom) greater scaup, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page iv: U.S. Geological Survey. Page 7: mallard pair, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 8: scaup pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 9: mottled duck pair, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 10: lesser snow geese, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 12: oil-drilling access canal plug, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; breakwater structures, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 13: erosion control vegetation, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; marsh burning, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; hydrologic structure, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; beneficial use of dredge material, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 19: B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 20: American wigeon pair, R. Stewart, Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 22: northern shovelers and blue-winged teal, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 23: male ring-necked duck, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 24: male American wigeon, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 25: blue-winged teal males, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan This is one of six reports that address initiative plans for the entire North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: the Chenier Plain Initiative, the Laguna Madre (Texas) Initiative, the Texas Mid-Coast Initiative, the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative, the Mobile Bay Initiative, and the Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative (southeast Louisiana).
    [Show full text]
  • Sandhill Cranes Converge Crane Migration in the Spring
    TOURIST INFORMATION CENTERS Grand Island/Hall County Convention & Visitors Bureau Central 2424 S Locust St, Ste. C • Grand Island, NE 68801 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday 308.382.4400 • 800.658.3178 visitgrandisland.com Nebraska Hastings/Adams County Convention & Visitors Bureau 219 N Hastings Ave • Hastings, NE 68902 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday WILDLIFE 402.461.2370 • 800.967.2189 visithastingsnebraska.com VIEWING GUIDE Kearney Visitors Bureau 1007 2nd Avenue • Kearney, NE 68847 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Sunday (6 weeks during Crane Season) 308.237.3178 • 800.652.9435 • visitkearney.org US Fish & Wildlife Service Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 73746 V Road • Funk, NE 68940 308.263.3000 fws.gov/refuge/rainwater_basin_wmd WILDLIFE VIEWING INFORMATION CENTERS Crane Trust Nature & Visitor Center I-80 Exit 305 (Alda) 308.382.1820 • cranetrust.org Fort Kearny State Historical Park 1020 V Road • Kearney, NE 68847 308.865.5305 • outdoornebraska.gov/fortkearny Iain Nicolson Audubon Center at Rowe Sanctuary I-80 Exit 285 308.468.5282 • rowe.audubon.org US Fish & Wildlife Service Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 73746 V Road • Funk, NE 68940 308.263.3000 fws.gov/refuge/rainwater_basin_wmd NebraskaFlyway.com 18CNWG_30K THE GREAT MIGRATION THE GREAT MIGRATION NEBRASKA’S PLATTE RIVER CRANE VALLEY TRUST Each spring, something magical happens in the The Crane Trust Nature & Visitor Center welcomes guests to heart of the Great Plains. More than 80 percent of rare, protected lands year round—and to the great sandhill the world’s population of sandhill cranes converge crane migration in the spring.
    [Show full text]
  • India's National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Habitats Along Central Asian Flyway
    India’s National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds and their Habitats along Central Asian Flyway (2018-2023) CAF National Action Plan 2018 -India Drafting Committee: The Draft India National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds in Central Asian Flyway was prepared by the following committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change: Dr. Soumitra Dasgupta, IG F (WL), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Chairman) Dr. Nita Shah, Bombay Natural History Society (Member) Dr. Ritesh Kumar, Wetlands International South Asia (Member) Dr. Suresh Kumar, Wildlife Institute of India (Member) Mr. C. Sasikumar, Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change The Committee met at Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur on December 12-13, 2017 and at the office of IG F (WL) on March 15, 2018 and April 12, 2018 to review drafts. The final draft National Action Plan was submitted by the Committee on April 14, 2018. Final review of the draft was done in the office of IG (WL) on May 8, 2018. [1] CAF National Action Plan 2018 -India Contents Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 3 Preamble ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Goal and Objectives .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER POOLS 5, 5A, and 6 OVERVIEW Resource Description and General Response Considerations
    UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER POOLS 5, 5a, and 6 OVERVIEW Resource Description and General Response Considerations The Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Geographic Response Plan CD is developed to address the long-standing concerns about spills of oil and hazardous substances onto National Wildlife Refuge System lands along Upper Mississippi River. The Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Overview document provides information on project background, geographic description of Pools 5, 5a, and 6, response considerations and planning tools included in the CD. Background Due to long-standing concerns about spills of oil and hazardous substances affecting National Wildlife Refuge properties and associated sensitive resources on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR), the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota PCA, Minnesota DNR, Wisconsin DNR, US Coast Guard, US Army Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and private sector interests, with the assistance of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, have developed a set of planning and response tools for UMR Pools 5, 5a, and 6. The goal of this effort has been to foster communications, enhance spill contingency planning and preparedness, and to develop site-specific protection strategies that assist responders in prioritizing tactics and recommending strategies and locations to protect the Refuge and the public from releases of oil or other substances. This overview document provides a description of Pools 5, 5a, and 6 and its sensitive resources. It also provides general considerations for response. For more information, see the Site Specific Response Strategies Maps (link) and the Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Incident Action Plan (link) included on the Pools 5, 5a, and 6 Geographic Response Plan CD.
    [Show full text]
  • National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018
    National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018 A cooperative study completed by: Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Minnesota And The Ohio State University for the National Flyway Council National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Mississippi Flyway 2018 Prepared by: Kristina Slagle, Ph.D. Research Associate Alia Dietsch, PhD. Assistant Professor School of Environment and Natural Resources The Ohio State University Technical Assistance provided by: David C. Fulton, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Assistant Unit Leader & Adj. Professor Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota i Suggested Citation: Slagle, Kristina and Alia Dietsch. 2018. National Survey of Waterfowl Hunters: Summary Report Pacific Flyway. Report to the National Flyway Council from the Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Minnesota and The Ohio State University. St. Paul, MN 55108 Report Authors This summary document was produced by Dr. Kristina Slagle and Dr. Alia Dietsch at The Ohio State University. Jason Spaeth, Graduate Research Assistant, Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN had lead responsibility for implementing and collecting data. Technical assistance in study design, implementation, and data analysis was provided by David C. Fulton, U.S. Geological Survey, Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN. Acknowledgements This project was funded by the member states of the National Flyway Council (NFC) and Ducks Unlimited. Leadership and staff at the NFC and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) provided critical support and assistance in contracting between the University of Minnesota and the NFC.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Flyway Council
    Central Flyway Council Alberta Kansas Nebraska North Dakota Oklahoma South Dakota Wyoming Colorado Montana New Mexico Northwest Territories Saskatchewan Texas www.flyways.us/central Recommendation No. 1 Pertaining to: 2017-2018 duck, coot, and merganser hunting regulations. Recommendation: The Central Flyway Council (Council) recommends that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) adopt the following regulations for duck, coot, and merganser hunting in the Central Flyway: The opening framework shall be the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 23, 2017), and the closing framework shall be the last Sunday in January (January 28, 2018). In all states, the season length shall be 74 days. Within the High Plains Mallard Management Unit, an additional 23 days of season shall be available, provided that these days are taken starting no earlier than the Saturday closest to December 10 (December 9, 2017). The daily bag limit shall be 6 ducks, with species and sex restrictions as follows: mallard – 5, no more than 2 of which may be females; wood duck, scaup – 3; redhead, canvasback – 2; pintails – 1. In addition to the daily bag limit of 6 ducks, 2 bonus blue-winged teal will be permitted in the daily bag during the first 16 days of the regular duck season in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. In Texas, the daily bag limit on mottled ducks shall be 1, and harvest of mottled ducks is prohibited during the first 5 days of the season. The possession limit shall be three times the daily bag limit. The season on coots shall run concurrently with the duck season.
    [Show full text]