quoted to nearest tenth.) Hunter density was comparatively light on this Utah public area. In 

 which there were about one-seventh as many hunters per acre as on Illinois public shooting 

 grounds. Baumgartner (1942) reports that on a managed lake In Oklahoma, where hunting was 

 fairly successful and permits were sold at 50 cents a day, the average waterfowl bag was 1.67 

 birds per hunter-day. As previously stated, the average duck bag on Illinois River- public 

 shooting grounds, 1940 through 1942, was 1.47 ducks per hunter-day. We must assume from these 

 various bags over the nation that an average bag of about three birds per hunter-day con- 

 stitutes a successful hunt. 



In order to average a bag of three ducks per hunter per day on the Liverpool Areas, 

 there could be no more hunters on any one day than about 15 per square mile of shooting 

 territory, fig. 15. For areas of comparable environmental quality, this figure might serve as 

 a general guide. Even a limit of five hunters per square mile on the Spring Lake and the 

 Woodford County grounds would not yield a satisfactory bag. On most areas, 50 hunters per 

 square mile Is probably the maximum number that can be provided with fair shooting. 



Selection of Hunters 



If It appears advisable to regulate the number of hunters so that a satisfactory bag 

 Is obtained, then a system that selects the hunters as fairly as possible must be devised. A 

 reservation system would appear to be one of the most satisfactory methods. It might, 

 for example, operate In this way. After a specified date, applications for hunting on a cer- 

 tain day and alternate day of the week might be accepted, the first applicants receiving per- 

 mission to hunt the day or alternate day requested until the dally quota Is reached. Then the 

 remaining requests would be carried over to one of the corresponding days In the following 

 week; this procedure would be repeated as many weeks as necessary. Hunters would be notified 

 by mall In advance of the day on which they could hunt. Limiting applicants to the day 

 selected, or an alternate day of the week, and to a provision that they could not apply for 

 another reservation until the first one had expired, would prevent an Individual from hunting 

 on the area more than once before other Individuals had been given an opportunity to hunt on 

 that particular day of the week selected. This method of making reservations would save 

 hunters from wasting time, money and effort, so often expended In driving long distances to a 

 public shooting ground, only to find It overcrowded, and would greatly reduce the number of 

 of poor, unsatisfactory bags and disgusted hunters. 



Another possible way of selecting hunters would be by lottery from applications 

 received prior to date of hunt, successful hunters being notified by mail in sufficient time 

 to a range their trips. Perheips less satisfactory would be a lottery conducted on the grounds 

 each morning before the shooting hour. Some consideration might be given to distance, so that 

 individuals traveling farthest would have better chances of hunting than local individuals. 



Probably the least satisfactory method of limiting hunters would be by allowing the 

 first Individuals present — until the quota is reached each day ~ permission to hunt. This 

 method would unduly favor near-by residents over those living at a distance. Both of the last 

 two methods would leave hunters outside the quota anxious and prepared to hunt but with no 

 place to go. 



32 



