Mail Mil sui^eyR. — The 1961-62 survey of water- 

 fowl hunters revealed marked nationwide de- 

 creases from the previous season in tlie numbers 

 of active hunters and in the total bags of ducks, 

 geese, and coots. Decreases were generally more 

 pronounced in the Central and Mississippi Fly- 

 ways, where restrictive regulations were imposed 

 as a result of poor duck production on drought- 

 stricken breeding grounds. Based upon the.se sur- 

 veys, 22 percent fewer Americans hunted water- 

 fowl during the 1961-62 season than during the 

 previous year. The estimated total bag of 4,950,- 

 000 ducks was 33 percent below that of 1960-61, 

 while the kills of 637,000 geese and 167,000 coots 

 were, respectively, 15 and 45 percent lower. 



Findings of the Bureau's 1961-62 duck-wing 

 mail-collection survey, conducted for the first time 

 on a nationwide basis, substantiated the fact that 

 summer production had been poor. For example, 



in 1961-62 every State in the Mississippi Flyway 

 had fewer immatures per adult mallard bagged 

 than during the previous season. In the Atlantic 

 and Mississippi Flyways, respectively, mallards 

 averaged 21 and 39 percent fewer immatures per 

 adult. Mallard age ratios in the Central Flyway 

 were among the lowest in tjie country, although 

 the percentage change cannot be computed since 

 this was the first year of the survey in that flyway. 

 Similarly, most other species of ducks showed de- 

 creases in the proportions of immature birds in 

 the bag. 



Several new surveys were begun in 1962: (1) a 

 nationwide goose-tail collection, using tail feathers 

 mailed in by cooperating hunters to age and speci- 

 ate the goose bag, which will complement the duck- 

 wing survey; (2) a hunter-opinion to determine, 

 in years when ducks are scarce, how restrictive 

 hunting regulations can be made before most hunt- 



Biologists assigned to the cooperative study at Back Bay and Currituck Sound strain bottom samples to determine 

 the abundance of tubers and other foods available for waterfowl. (Photo by L. G. Kesterloo, Virginia Commission 

 of Game and Inland Fisheries) 



17 



