analyses of dabbling duck densities and no differences in mean weekly dabbling duck densities among wetlands open to hunting regardless of weekly or cumulative hunting encounters frequency. Distribution of the few white-fronted geese still using the RWB for staging did not seem to be affected by hunting disturbance. Given these results, a LGCO season with more allotted hunting time (i.e., open seven days a week) with the current network of closed wetlands remaining in place, will likely have minimal additional impacts on the distribution of non-target waterfowl species using the region for spring staging. An increase in days open to hunting may also increase hunter participation and ultimately aid in the reduction of mid-continent light goose populations. If allotted hunting time during the LGCO is increased, the closure of more public wetlands in the RWB may be warranted, which may help alleviate the potential impacts of crowding and the underutilization of food resources for non-target species in the region. We suggest continually monitoring potential effects of any regulation changes during the LGCO on waterfowl using the RWB during spring migration.
37.87 0.32 kj/bird/hr) (F 1, 1252 = 6.24, P = 0.013) (Figure 3.7). HEE was also greater in early season for both mallards ( = 40.31 0.29 kj/bird/hr) and pintails ( = 34.91 0.24 kj/bird/hr), compared to late season (mallard = 35.97 0.33 kj/bird/hr and pintail = 31.85 0.30 kj/bird/hr) (both F ≥ 70.58, P < 0.001). HEE was greater for both male mallards ( = 40.86 0.32 kj/bird/hr) and pintails ( = 35.97 0.28 kj/bird/hr), compared to females (mallard = 36.15 0.29 kj/bird/hr and pintail = 31.51 0.23 kj/bird/hr) (both F ≥ 92.87, P < 0.001) (Figure 3.7). Hunt day did not have an effect on mallard (F 1, 1252 = 1.74, P = 0.189), or pintail (F 1, 1306 = 1.65, P = 0.199) HEE (Figure 3.7). DISCUSSION Hunting disturbance possibly reduced foraging time for dabbling ducks in early season 2011 on wetlands open to hunting, which is further supported by our results of no difference in overall behaviors among hunting categories in late season of the same year, when hunting encounters drastically declined on study wetlands. Our late season behavior results also indicate potential differences in habitat among study sites were not likely responsible for observed differences in dabbling duck behaviors between hunting categories in early season 2011. In 2012 dabbling ducks spent more time foraging in both early and late seasons in wetlands open to hunting, indicating potential differences in habitat quality may have influenced our results for dabbling duck behavior this year. Migration chronology occurred over a shorter time frame in 2012 and with individual birds spending less time in the RWB area, it is possible hunting disturbance may not have affected dabbling duck behavior this year.
Table 4.5. Mean ( SE) response scores of participant (n = 338, indicated they hunted during the Light Goose Conservation Order in 2012) and non-participant (n = 450) Nebraska migratory bird hunters for survey items pertaining to the future control of light goose populations. Mean scores based on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = “completely disagree” and 5 = “completely agree.” Survey Item Participant Non-Participant 2 P-value1 The population control of light geese is an important wildlife management and conservation issue. 4.7 0.03 4.6 0.04 5.93 0.015 The liberalization of hunting regulations during the LGCO, such as unplugged shotguns, electronic calls, and extended shooting hours increases my harvest of light geese. 4.3 0.05 3.8 0.06 37.60 < 0.001* Processing light geese that have been directly harvested by wildlife officials for human consumption or other uses is important to me. 3.2 0.08 3.4 0.06 6.21 0.013 Since being enacted in 1999, the LGCO has been effective at controlling light goose populations. 3.2 0.07 3.1 0.06 2.12 0.145 Further liberalization of regulations, such as live decoys or baiting would increase my participation during the LGCO. 3.1 0.08 3.0 0.07 0.39 0.530 I would support wildlife officials using alternative methods other than spring hunting to control light goose populations. 2.7 0.08 3.3 0.07 31.75 < 0.001* I would support legalizing the commercial trade of harvested light geese. 2.7 0.08 2.8 0.08 2.37 0.123 I am capable of harvesting more light geese during the LGCO, but limit my take due to the taste of light goose meat. 2.1 0.07 2.8 0.08 53.50 < 0.001* 1*denotes differences between groups at (α < 0.05) with a Bonferroni adjustment for 13 individual