‘Season lengths vary among States. Consequently it is impossible 
to set up periods that are exactly comparable. For most States in 
any particular flyway, the first four periods of the season, as used 
here, are of uniform length; and when the variation in total season 
length makes some inequality necessary, the later periods are of 
differing lengths. California is tabulated separately because the 
periods used there differed from those used in other States of the 
Pacific Flyway. Flyway period lengths are averages of State values. 
Several minor parts of the 1960-61 survey are known to be 
unreliable; these are designated on the tables. Through a clerical 
mistake, which was not detected until too late for correction, distribu- 
tion of the eastern and western forms of the questionnaire was somewhat 
mixed. Judging from a sample of the responses, the eastern form went 
to over 99 percent of hunters questioned in the Pacific Flyway, and to 
about 77 percent in the Central Flyway, while the western form went to 
about 61 percent in the Mississippi Flyway and to about 15 percent in 
the Atlantic Flyway; the right form went to the others. In most charac- 
teristics the two questionnaire forms are identical, therefore for most 
purposes this mistake probably had no effect. However, the eastern forn, 
received by most western hunters, did not list the cinnamon teal; 
probably the major decrease recorded for this species in the Pacific 
Flyway reflects this fact. Similarly, the western form, received by 
so many hunters in the Mississippi Flyway, did not list the black duck, 
and a markedly decreased kill is recorded for this species. Other 
differences in the two forms are that the western lists the cackling 
goose and the black brant, while the eastern lists instead the Hutchins's 
goose and the American brant. The forms are further distinguishable only 
by the words "eastern" or "western" and the card number, in small print. 
The accuracy of figures in this report is affected both by report- 
ing bias (misreporting and differential nonreporting) and by sarpling 
error. Reporting biases tend to exaggerate the estimates of hunting 
activity and kill; corrections have been carried out by the methods 
that have been employed for several yearsL/, The species composition 
1/these errors and methods for making the corrections are partially 
described in the following publications. A mimeographed description 
of methods also is available. 
Atwood, E. L. Yalidity of mail survey data on bagged waterfowl. 
Journal of Wildlife Management, 20(1): 1-16. January 1956 
Atwood, E. L. A procedure for removing the effect of response bias 
errors from waterfowl questionnaire responses, Biometrics, 
14(1): 132. March 1958 
