Geology topics

F. Dale Caswell

Publications and source records attributed to F. Dale Caswell.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2006

Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys varies among dabbling duck species and locations

Spinning-wing decoys are strong attractants to ducks and inc rease kill rates over traditional decoying methods. However, it is unknown whether all duck species are attracted similarly to spinning-wing decoys and whether the effectiveness of these decoys changes with latitude. We examined the effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys for 9 species of dabbling ducks during 545 experimental hunts in California (1999-2000), Minnesota (2002), Manitoba (2001-2002), Nebraska (2000-2002), Missouri (2000-2001), and Arkansas (2001-2003). During each experimental hunt, we systematically alternated between 2 paired decoy treatments every 15-30 min (depending on study site): traditional decoys only and traditional decoys with a spinning-wing decoy. Overall, 70.2% (n=1,925) of dabbling ducks were harvested (shot and retrieved) when spinning-wing decoys were turned on, ranging from 63.6% (n=187) in Missouri to 76.4% (n=356) in Minnesota. Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys increased with latitude of study sites. Proportions of ducks shot when spinning-wing decoys were turned on differed among species, from a low of 50.0% (n=8) for cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera) to a high of 79.0% (n=119) for American wigeon (A. americana). The probability of being shot when spinning-wing decoys were turned on increased with annual survival rates among species; for example, spinning-wing decoys were more effective for American wigeon and mallard (A. platyrhynchos) than they were for cinnamon teal and American green-winged teal (A. crecca). Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys did not differ consistently by age or sex of harvested ducks. Our results indicate that the effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys differs among duck species and changes with latitude; thus, consideration of these effects may be warranted when setting harvest regulations and methods of take.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2003

Vulnerability of nontarget goose species to hunting with electronic snow goose calls

Since 1999, use of electronic calls has been legal for hunting lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens; hereafter snow geese) during special seasons or times of day when other waterfowl species could not be hunted in prairie Canada. Prior to expanding the use of electronic calls for hunting snow geese during fall hunting seasons, effects of these calls on nontarget goose species must be examined. Accordingly, we examined the vulnerability of Canada (Branta canadensis) and white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons) (dark geese) to electronic snow goose calls and 3 goose decoy sets (dark, mixed, and white) during the 1999 fall hunting seasons in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Canada geese were 2.3 times more likely to fly within gun range (P<0.001) and the mean number killed/hour/hunter was 2.5 times greater (P=0.043) during control periods when hunters were silent or used traditional calling methods (i.e., hand-held and voice calls) than when hunters used electronic snow goose calls. Flock response and kill rate for Canada geese declined as proportions of white decoys increased in decoy sets (P<0.001). White-fronted geese were 1.8 times more likely to fly within gun range (P=0.050) and the mean number killed/hour/hunter was 5.0 times greater (P=0.022) during control periods than during periods when electronic snow goose calls were used. Flock response for white-fronted geese also declined as the proportion of white decoys increased in decoy sets (P<0.001). The legalization of electronic snow goose calls during fall hunting seasons in prairie Canada should not result in increased harvest of nontarget dark geese.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS1991

Effects of resighting errors on capture-resight estimates for neck-banded Canada geese

Biologists who study neck-banded Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) have used capture and resighting histories to estimate annual resighting rates, survival rates and the number of marked birds in the population. Resighting errors were associated with 9.4% ( n = 155) of the birds from a sample of Canada Geese neckbanded in the Mississippi flyway, 1974-1987, and constituted 3.0% ( n = 208) of the resightings. Resighting errors significantly reduced estimated resighting rates and significantly increased estimated numbers of marked geese in the sample. Estimates of survival rates were not significantly affected by resighting errors. Recommendations are offered for using neck-band characters that may reduce resighting errors.

Wisconsin↗

USGS1990

Neck-band retention for Canada geese in the Mississippi flyway

We used capture, harvest, and observation histories of Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) banded in the Mississippi flyway, 1974-88, to examine the problem of neck-band retention. Methods for the analysis of survival data were used to estimate rates of neck-band retention and to evaluate factors associated with neck-band loss. Sex, age of bird at banding, rivet use, and neck-band type significantly influenced neck-band retention. For most of the resulting cohorts (e.g., sex, age, rivet, and neck-band type categories), neck-band retention rates decreased through time. We caution against using small samples or data collected during short-term studies to determine retention rates. We suggest that observation data be used in neck-band retention studies to increase the efficiency of estimating retention time.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗