| Abstract: | Ring-recovery methodology has been widely used to estimate survival rates in multi-year ringing studies of wildlife and fish populations (Youngs & Robson, 1975; Brownie et al. , 1985). The Brownie et al. (1985) methodology is often used but its formulation does not account for the fact that rings may be returned in two ways. Sometimes hunters are solicited by a wildlife management officer or scientist and asked if they shot any ringed birds. Alternatively, a hunter may voluntarily report the ring to the Bird Banding Laboratory (US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD, USA) as is requested on the ring. Because the Brownie et al. (1985) models only consider reported rings, Conroy (1985) and Conroy et al. (1989) generalized their models to permit solicited rings. Pollock et al. (1991) considered a very similar model for fish tagging models which might be combined with angler surveys. Pollock et al. (1994) showed how to apply their generalized formulation, with some modification to allow for crippling losses, to wildlife ringing studies. Provided an estimate of ring reporting rate is available, separation of hunting and natural mortality estimates is possible which provides important management information. Here we review this material and then discuss possible methods of estimating reporting rate which include: (1) reward ring studies; (2) use of planted rings; (3) hunter surveys; and (4) pre- and post-hunting season ringings. We compare and contrast the four methods in terms of their model assumptions and practicality. We also discuss the estimation of crippling loss using pre- and post-season ringing in combination with a reward ringing study to estimate reporting rate. |
