North American Waterfowl Management Plan Survey Regional Profile—Southeast Region

Scientific Investigations Report 2024-5102
Species Management Research Program
Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
By:  and 

Links

Executive Summary

Gaining a better understanding of the human dimensions of waterfowl management to inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a valuable but challenging goal for the future success of waterfowl management. Increasing engagement with key stakeholder groups will lead to more support and effective waterfowl management. Social systems are complex because individual values and preferences may vary across geographic and cultural dimensions, so it is valuable to describe those differences rather than only looking at national-scale trends. Therefore, using broad engagement strategies that do not consider the differences among regional groups may do more harm than good.

This study analyzed a subset of responses from waterfowl hunters (hereafter respondents) in the Southeast region of the United States from a national-scale survey (Patton, 2018). This study compared how respondents’ opinions differed among two subsections of the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways—the Atlantic subflyway and Mississippi subflyway—and responses from the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi. Investigating these differences provides waterfowl managers decision-making support and a better understanding of how perceptions may differ among respondents in the Southeast region and the Nation. Responses from each group are presented for each for each survey topic, and statistical tests of homogeneity are included to inform how the differences may be considered when managing for waterfowl and waterfowl hunting.

Respondents from the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways did not differ substantially except in their perceptions and preferences of waterfowl harvest and harvest regulations. Respondents from the Mississippi subflyway consistently reported a higher average harvest of ducks and geese, emphasized the importance of higher harvest for their satisfaction with waterfowl hunting, and typically placed a greater emphasis on regulatory decisions that facilitated increased harvest opportunity than respondents from the Atlantic subflyway. This emphasis was especially true when preferring species-specific limits more than simpler aggregate limits. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway were in direct opposition to respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and preferred the opportunity for increased harvest that species-specific bag limits provide.

Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway placed greater emphasis on harvest and larger bag limits compared with respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway often aligned with the national survey respondents’ perceptions of harvest that placed a lower emphasis on the number of ducks or geese harvested in comparison to Mississippi subflyway respondents. The Atlantic and Mississippi subflyway respondents reported hunting ducks and geese to a much lower degree than the national survey respondents, who favored only hunting ducks or hunting neither ducks nor geese. Similarly, respondents in the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways reported that overcrowding, high hunting pressure, and interference from other respondents limited their participation to a higher degree than respondents from the national survey.

The trip-specific preferences for waterfowl hunting in the Southeast region were calculated using latent class analysis and three groups were determined based on individual estimates of attribute importance: generalist, seclusionist, and harvest oriented. The generalist group did not place a high degree of importance on any one attribute and was most likely to choose to not participate given suboptimal conditions. The seclusionist group placed a high degree of importance on lower levels of competition from other groups and felt their well-being was most affected by higher levels of competition. The harvest-oriented group placed a higher degree of importance on harvesting more than three birds and felt their well-being was most negatively affected if they only expected to harvest a single bird. These groups existed uniformly between the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways, had a slightly higher membership of each group in rural areas, and an overall higher membership in the seclusionist group.

Subsetting national survey data to profile regional differences provides key information to waterfowl managers seeking to make tailored decisions in their region or flyway. This investigation provides an important resource for informed management decisions in the Southeast region and will assist waterfowl managers by supporting engagement and communication with respondents in the Southeastern United States.

Suggested Citation

Cole, N., and Fulton, D., 2025, North American Waterfowl Management Plan survey regional profile—Southeast region: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5102, 38 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245102.

ISSN: 2328-0328 (online)

Table of Contents

  • Acknowledgments
  • Executive Summary
  • Introduction
  • Background
  • Survey Methods and Analysis
  • Regional Findings
  • Conclusions
  • References Cited
  • Appendix 1. State-Level Information
Publication type Report
Publication Subtype USGS Numbered Series
Title North American Waterfowl Management Plan survey regional profile—Southeast region
Series title Scientific Investigations Report
Series number 2024-5102
DOI 10.3133/sir20245102
Publication Date March 03, 2025
Year Published 2025
Language English
Publisher U.S. Geological Survey
Publisher location Reston VA
Contributing office(s) Fort Collins Science Center
Description vii, 38 p.
Online Only (Y/N) Y
Google Analytic Metrics Metrics page
Additional publication details