The calculated value for the differences of the paired data is 0.96, 
which is insignificant. Given the same variance, it would require at least 
160 pairs of observations to produce a significant value. Analysis of the 
data from the 1961 season gives an even more discouraging estimate in spite 
of the fact that the effort was doubled. 
Two conclusions are possible: 
1. The importance of the difference in reported kill and 
corrected kill is overestimated. 
2. The method of assessing the difference in reported kill 
and corrected kill requires some improvement.. 
We favor the second of these conclusions until there is better evidence 
to support the first. The alternatives are to improve the method as it 
stands, or to devise an entirely different approach to the problem. 
Improvement of the existing method is possible. The first step would 
be to select the areas on which observations are to be made through the use 
of a table. of random numbers. (As applied in this study to date, the daily 
choice of the area within an assigned sector was left up to the observer.) 
Then, if possible, examine each area chosen to see whether it requires more 
than one man to cover it adequately, and assign manpower as needed. 
A new method would be to eliminate the data received from the least~ 
accurate cooperators and simply assign an average based on observations to 
thesé’areas. The ultimate in new methods would be a club licensing system 
and compulsory daily reporting of the kill on each licensed farm or club. 
Determination of Crippling Loss 
Crippling loss was determined as the result of observations conducted 
behind various State blinds and private blinds throughout the hunting season. 
These observations showed: 
Table 4 - COMPARATIVE CRIPPLING LOSS 

Lost as cripples 
Number of Killed and 

Area observations retrieved Number Percent 
State blinds ho 196 ST 22.5 
zone 1 hh 350 100 22.2 
Note: Ten observations were made in zone 2, and 4 in zone 3; but 
insufficient data were obtained to permit projecting a 
crippling loss. After such discussion with all persons 
concerned, it was agreed that a loss of 5 percent could 
conservatively be assigned to zones 2 and 3 and to the State 
area south of the refuge. 
1 
