Effect of the Point System on Redistributing Hunting Pressure on Mallards

Abstract

Effectiveness of the point system was investigated by contrasting first-year recovery rates of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) during the pre-point system period (1960-69) and during a point system period (1972-84). Three components were examined to investigate effectiveness of the point system: decreasing recovery rates of females, increasing recovery rates of males, and increasing the difference between male and female recovery rates. We concluded that little change in recovery rates of male and female mallards took place since initiation of the point system. Lacking a controlled experiment, it was not possible to attribute the small changes we did find to point system regulations, or to discern whether the reduction in female recovery rates was the result of the point system. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 52(1):89-94 The point system was suggested as a method for regulating the harvest of waterfowl (A. S. Hawkins and C. E. Addy, unpubl. rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C., 1971). Low point values were assigned to species or sex classes for which additional hunting pressure was desirable (e.g., drake northern pintails [Anas acuta] were assigned 10-20 points each) and high point values were assigned to those for which less hunting pressure was desired (e.g., canvasback [Aythya valisineria] were valued at 100 points). The daily bag limit was reached when a hunter bagged a bird causing the total point value of birds in possession to equal or exceed 100 points. The objectives of the point system were to afford waterfowl managers the ability to redistribute harvest among species or sexes within a species and to provide more flexible harvest regulations to increase hunting opportunities (Geis This content downloaded from 157.55.39.35 on Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:18:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 90 EFFECT OF POINT SYSTEM ON MALLARDS * Rexstad and Anderson J. Wildl. Manage. 52(1):1988 and Crissey 1973). The reduction in the harvest of females theoretically allowed females to contribute to the reproductive pool the following spring. Thus, a strong premise underlying the point system is that hunting mortality is additive (Nichols et al. 1984). Interest in the point system was low initially but increased rapidly as the potential advantages of the system were realized. Controversy followed, which centered on regulation enforcement. Enforcement was difficult because a hunter could initially shoot a 100-point bird but continue to hunt low-point birds (Geis and Crissey 1973). For example, 2 35-point birds and a 20point bird might subsequently be taken, and hunters could claim they shot the 100-point bird last. This procedure, known as reordering, also could apply to individuals within a hunting party. A second problem was the potential for waste of high-point birds either discarded in the marsh or deliberately not retrieved so the hunter could continue to shoot lower-point birds and thus extend the hunting opportunity. Prior to the initiation of the point system there was little incentive for hunters to leave birds in the marsh. Most states changed from a conventional bag limit to the point system by the 1971-72 hunting season in the Central Flyway and by the 197475 season in the Mississippi Flyway. Canadian provinces, the Pacific Flyway states, and many states in the Atlantic Flyway never adopted the point system. Only North Dakota in the Central and Minnesota in the Mississippi flyways retained conventional bag limits and some states (e.g., Oh.) have returned to the conventional bag limits. Initial evaluations of the point system were conducted in Colorado (Hopper et al. 1975) and Michigan (Mikula et al. 1972). Most studies were directed at hunter attitudes and acceptance (Nelson and Low 1977) and hunter performance in the field (C. F. Kimball et al., unpubl. rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C., 1971; Bishop 1973). Our objective was to determine if the point system was effective in redistributing hunting pressure toward male mallards (ranging in value from 20 to 35 points) and away from female mallards (ranging in value from 70 to 90 points). We are grateful to the Pacific Flyway Council for providing funds to conduct this analysis. We acknowledge the assistance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Banding Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland and the duck hunters who reported their recovered bands. We thank T. W. Aldrich for facilitation and logistical support, and W. F. Andelt, J. C. Bartonek, K. E. Gamble, D. H. Johnson, C. F. Kimball, H. W. Miller, J. D. Nichols, and J. T. Ratti for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.