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. We would like to acknowledge the primary direction for study design and implementation provided by the Human Dimensions Working Group of the National Flyway Council, its members, and its executive committee. In addition, extensive technical assistance with study design and study implementation was provided by representatives from all member states of the NFC, the NFC’s Public Engagement Team and its members, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, the AFWA’s North American Bird Conservation Initiative and its members, U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, various team members and committees of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), and D.J. Case and Associates. ii Several key individuals associated with one or more of the organizations above provided significant contributions to and assistance with the design of the study including (in alphabetical order): Barbara Avers, Joe Buchanan, Ashley Dayer, Matt DiBona, Cal DuBrock, Jennie Duberstein, Howie Harshaw, Dale Humburg, Coren Jagnow, Don Kraege, Holly Miller, Mike Peters, Andy Raedeke, Rudy Schuster, Judith Scarl, Dean Smith, Blair Stringham, Mark Vrtiska, and Khristi Wilkins. iii Table of Contents Suggested Citation: ......................................................................................................................ii Report Authors .............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi Section 1. Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1 Study Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 1 Study Design and Methods ...................................................................................................... 2 Section 2. Participation ............................................................................................................. 14 Hunting ................................................................................................................................... 14 Recent Trip Characteristics .................................................................................................... 14 Harvest ................................................................................................................................... 16 Section 3. Satisfaction ............................................................................................................... 24 Satisfaction with duck hunting .............................................................................................. 24 Requirements for a satisfying trip ......................................................................................... 24 perceptions related to crowding and hunting pressure ........................................................ 24 Section 4. Place ......................................................................................................................... 37 Preferences ............................................................................................................................ 37 Ecosystem services ................................................................................................................ 37 Section 5. Discrete Choice Modeling of Waterfowl Hunting Trips ........................................... 49 Section 6. Policy and Regulatory Preferences ........................................................................... 57 Priorities ................................................................................................................................. 57 Perception of Existing Policy .................................................................................................. 57 Flyway‐Specific Regulatory Preferences ................................................................................ 57 Section 7. Avidity ....................................................................................................................... 67 Section 8. Engagement .............................................................................................................. 73 Participation in Non‐Hunting Activities ................................................................................. 73 Community ............................................................................................................................. 73 Trust ....................................................................................................................................... 74 Support ................................................................................................................................... 74 iv Section 9. Respondent Characteristics ...................................................................................... 94 Section 10. Non‐response Survey Summary .......................................................................... 101 References ............................................................................................................................... 123 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 125 Appendix A. Survey Instrument .............................................................................................. 126 Appendix B. Non‐response Survey .......................................................................................... 127 Appendix C. Contact Letters .................................................................................................... 132 Appendix D. Institutional Review Board Determination ......................................................... 138 v List of Tables Table 1.1 Study stratification for sampling ................................................................................... 10 Figure 1.1 Flyway map .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 1.2 Initial sample sizes for states within NSWH study ........................................................ 11 Table 1.3 Unadjusted response rate by state ............................................................................... 12 Table 1.4 Non‐response sample and return rate by state ............................................................ 13 Table 2.1 Age at first waterfowl hunt and general pursuits ......................................................... 17 Table 2.2 Years hunted waterfowl of previous 5 .......................................................................... 18 Table 2.3 Average number of days per year hunting waterfowl .................................................. 18 Table 2.4 Days hunted for waterfowl in 2015 .............................................................................