any banded ducks he had taken. This was followed by a question asking 
whether he had purchased a duck stamp for waterfowl hunting the previous 
year (1964). A final question asked if he would be interested in 
participating in a similar special teal season next year. Space was 
provided for additional comments by the hunter. 
Questionnaire mailings were timed to reach the hunters at the end 
of the season in each State. Those persons who had not responded after 
3 weeks were sent a follow-up inquiry. Approximately 2 months after the 
closing date of the final season, the questionnaires were processed for 
analysis. 
For the collection and analysis of data in the Bureau's Annual 
Waterfowl Kill Survey, most States have been divided into geographic 
zones along county lines. The same stratification system was applied 
in this analysis so that the distribution of hunting activity and success 
within States could be examined. Analysis of the data revealed that the 
samples were proportionately distributed within States and there was 
little to be gained by within-State weighting. Therefore, the estimated 
means, variances and totals for hunter-days, teal bagged, teal lost, and 
other observed values by geographic zones were combined to produce State 
estimates; State figures were combined into flyway and total estimates. 
For those few questionnaires which were only partly filled out, 
the missing information (days, duck bag, etc.) was treated as zero; 
i^< 2 ., these hunters were assumed to have been inactive or unsuccessful, 
depending on which item was missing. As a result, the estimates are 
slightly lower (less than 1 percent) than they would be had this 
assumption not been made. 
We reasoned that hunters asked to cooperate in questionnaire and 
duck wing surveys would not report ducks they recognized as illegally 
killed (ducks other than teal). Thus, the data received in these 
surveys included those ducks taken which were thought to be teal. The 
number which actually were teal was therefore estimated by applying the 
species composition figures from the wing collection survey to the 
total bag estimates. 
Estimates made from the special teal season mail questionnaire 
are not adjusted for response biases that may have occurred as are the 
estimates made from the regular hunting season questionnaire. However, 
we feel that the potential for response bias (exaggerated reports) in 
reports on such short special hunting seasons is considerably less than 
that on the regular hunting season questionnaire (J. R. Grieb, 
A. D. Geis and R. Buller, Administrative Report No. 79, Progress Report - 
Experimental Hunting Season in the San Luis Valley, Colorado - 1964). 
4 
