and immatures (sexes combined) may be 
necessary at most stations to evaluate the 
affects of special regulations on popula¬ 
tions of blue-winged teal. 
Although recovery data from the band¬ 
ing of flying birds provide the best meas¬ 
ure of kill rates, we do have an impres¬ 
sive volume of recovery data from the 
banding of locals in many areas. For 
example, it is now evident that kill rates 
for blue-winged teal banded as locals 
were higher during the early and mid- 
1950 T s than they have been since more 
restrictive regulations were enacted in 
the 1960 T s. Thus, in future years, data 
from the banding of locals will be impor¬ 
tant in analyzing the results of special 
seasons for blue-winged teal. 
HARVEST DATA 
COMPARISON OF HUNTERS’ REPORTS AND SPY-BLIND OBSERVATIONS 
DURING 1961-62, 1962-63, AND 1963-64 HUNTING SEASONS 
Data supplied by Samuel M. Carney and Glen Smart, Division of Wildlife Research, 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
Objectives 
This work was undertaken as a part of 
our studies to evaluate and improve the 
accuracy of mail surveys. The primary 
objective was to check the accuracy with 
which hunters participating in the duck 
wing collection survey report the time of 
day that they shoot each duck. Additional 
objectives were to determine the extent to 
which wings mailed by hunters are repre¬ 
sentative of the total bag, to estimate the 
proportion of their crippling loss hunters 
report in the mail questionnaire survey, 
and to learn whether the distribution of 
shots fired throughout the day reflects the 
distribution of the kill. 
Procedure 
During the 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963- 
64 hunting seasons, field cooperators ob¬ 
served the actions of hunters from con¬ 
cealment and recorded them on special 
forms. The hunters were contacted in the 
field either immediately before or after 
the hunt. Those contacted before the hunt 
(5%) were given a supply of serially num¬ 
bered envelopes equal to the number of 
hunters in the party or blind multiplied by 
the daily bag limit; those contacted after 
the hunt (95%) were interviewed and given 
a quantity of envelopes equal to the num¬ 
ber of birds in their possession. Hunters 
who disclosed that they had already re¬ 
ceived envelopes as part of the national 
duck wing collection survey were not 
given envelopes and were not included in 
this study. All "spy-blind” reports (439) 
and the respective duck wing envelopes 
were compared and analysed at the 
Migratory Bird Populations Station, 
Laurel, Md. Because findings from the 
3 years appeared to be similar, the data 
were combined. 
Results 
During the 3 years of the study the 
hourly distribution of the observed kill 
of 889 birds could be compared with that 
reported by hunters. Hunter reports for 
these 889 birds were matched as nearly 
as possible with spy-blind observations 
for the same number of birds. Because 
hunters did not send wings from all birds 
they were observed to bag, it was nec¬ 
essary to omit some observed times. 
This comparison between field observa¬ 
tions and hunters’ reports showed con¬ 
siderable agreement (table D-l). To 
check on the possibility that a bias was 
introduced by omitting observations, the 
data obtained in 1961 were reexamined 
using all field observations. The re¬ 
sults were so similar to the comparison 
made in 1961 that it was apparent the 
observed kills that were omitted had, in 
26 
