National Duck Hunter Survey - National Flyway Council, Wildlife Management Institute, DJ Case & Associates

National Duck Hunter Survey 2005 - National Flyway Council, Wildlife Management Institute, D.J. Case & Associates

Errata

The currently posted National Duck Hunter Survey 2005 reports do not contain any known errors. However, earlier versions contained the minor errors listed here:

Date	Change
6/26/06	pg. 160 National Report: Right hand column that reads, "Base Sample Size Near...400," the number in the 20/80% column (53.9) was corrected to “3.9” Same correction appears in pg. 43: Central Report; pg. 35: Arkansas Report; pg. 34: Iowa Report; pg. 34: Maryland Report; pg. 34: Tennessee Report; p. 34: Wisconsin Report
5/11/06	pg. 19: Iowa Report Table 20: Means and ranks were re-calculated; substantive effect is that Iowa duck hunters accorded “avid/experienced duck hunters” high trust to represent interests of duck hunters like them (previously reported as “medium trust”), and accorded “duck hunting guides” “medium trust” (previously reported as “low trust”).
5/11/06	pg. 2: First bulleted item: Text corrected.
5/11/06	p. 25: Table 30: The response “don’t know” (coded “6”) was removed for re-calculation and ranking of means; table was corrected, and narrative modified. Substantive effect of the error was to understate the degree to which duck hunters at USA and Flyway levels characterized 7 factors as problems.
5/11/06	p. 24: Table 28: Means for Atlantic Flyway were re-calculated and corrected, with the only substantive change that “when ducks arrive in area” (previously characterized as “somewhat worse” in Atlantic Flyway) was re-characterized as “neither better nor worse.”
3/17/06	p.12, at very bottom of page, "10,877" was corrected to "10,887."
2/13/06	p. 63: Q28a-Q28l: USA tabulations were re-run for these items, and the response categories “none” and “don’t know” reported in the substituted table.
2/13/06	p. 38: Table 53: The response “none” (coded “4”) was included in re-calculation of means (“…how much trust…high (1), medium (2), low (3), and none (4). Result was that means for “commercial duck clubs” and “outdoor writers/TV personalities” leaned toward “low trust” (versus previous reporting of “medium trust”).
2/13/06	p. 2, paragraph 6: Two groups previously reported as “medium trust” groups were re-classified and reported as “low trust” groups based on re-calculation of means (above).