together with a stamped, addressed, return envelope enclosed (121). This first 

 questionnaire was followed up in two weeks by 55 second requests, then later 

 twenty-four received third requests, plus some twenty-five telephone calls and 

 personal contacts. Of the 20% contacted (121 hunters), we were able to receive 

 102 questionnaires back, or 84.3% return. 



In addition, a field survey was carried out by Conservation Officers checking 

 hunters and their bag. The results are compared with those of the mail hunter 

 survey in Table No. 1 . 



Results of the survey are tabled as follows: 



1. Result of Mail Survey and in Comparison with Field Survey. 



2. Httnter SocGC5s for those hunters hunting over three days. 



3. Hunters and their Success during the Different Days of the Season. 



4. Number of Days of Hunting by Hunters. 



Table No. I 



RESULTS OF MAIL SURVEY IN COMPARISON WITH FIELD SURVEY 



Mail 

 Survey 



Field 

 Survey 



Number of licences sold 595 595 



Number of questionnaires forwarded 121 (or app. 20%) 



Number of hunters reporting 102 (84.3) 421 



Number of questionnaires received uncompleted 7 



Number of hunters reporting not hunting 10 



Number of hunters reporting hunting 85 



Number of pheasants harvested 147 206 



Man-days hunted 188 



Average number of days per hunter 2.2 



Hunter success (bird per hunter season) 1.7 1.08 



Hunter success (bird per hunter day) .73 .49 



Man-days to kill a pheasant 1.28 



Man-hours hunted 1462 



Man-hours to kill a pheasant 7.1 



Banded birds in total harvest (28) 19% 16% 



Total No. of licencees not hunting 10.5% 62.6 



Estimated harvest for the township 



10 147 



595 - (— X 595) = 63 X = 920 



95 85 



Length of average hunting day virhen checked 3.5 hrs. 



Table No. 2 



HUNTER SUCCESS PER DAY 



80 



