Results of the 2007-2008 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 2,363 potential Illinois waterfowl hunters returned usable questionnaires for the 2008-2009 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey (53% response rate). Of these returns, 1,935 (82%) were from respondents who purchased an Illinois Migratory Waterfowl Stamp for the 2008-2009 seasons. These stamp purchasers included 1,633 (84%) individuals who hunted waterfowl in Illinois in 2008-2009. Based on waterfowl hunting licenses and stamps sold, we estimated 59,379 Illinois waterfowl hunters spent an estimated 1,175,243 days hunting during the 2008-2009 season, and harvested an estimated 660,306 waterfowl. There were an estimated 14,652 September teal hunters; they spent 52,365 days hunting, and they harvested 19,981 teal. During the regular duck season 50,683 hunters spent 600,574 days hunting and harvested an estimated 247,895 mallards, 43,051 wood ducks, and 156,849 other ducks, for a total of 447,795 ducks. During the regular goose season, an estimated 44,404 hunters spent 461,868 days hunting and harvested 142,806 Canada geese and 17,956 other geese. The harvest of all geese during the regular goose season in 2008-2009 was estimated at 160,762 birds, compared to a total goose harvest of 152,787 in 2007-2008 Fifty percent of hunters in the North Zone felt that the September Goose season was too short; 46% of Central Zone hunters felt the season was too short and 46% and 53% of hunters in the Central and South Zones, respectively, felt that the length of the season was about right. The daily bag limit in regular goose season was found to be too low by 70% of hunters in the North Zone and 54% of hunters in the Central Zone. Sixty-one percent of hunters in the South Zone felt the daily bag limit in the regular goose seasons was about right. A majority (70%) of teal hunters were satisfied with the dates (6-21 September) for the early teal season in 2008. Many duck hunters use public waterfowl hunting areas in Illinois that allocate access to blinds and hunting areas via drawings for daily, season-long, or multi-season permits. When queried as to their support for a system where a portion of all available daily permits are issued \n3by drawing ahead of time, 79% of duck hunters in the North Zone, 64% in the Central Zone, and 62% in the South Zone supported issuing at least 25% of permits ahead of time. A majority of hunters (80%), statewide, expressed a preference for on-site duck blind drawings to determine blind access. A majority of duck hunters (89%) also support to retaining the requirement for applicants to possess a valid FOID card. Duck hunters who expressed an opinion were split when asked about the requirement for applications to include the names of all hunting partners at the time the application is submitted; statewide, 50% of hunters expressed support and 50% expressed opposition to the requirement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".