Appendix A to Supporting Statement B

Appendix A.
VERIFYING HIP DATA TRANSFERS FOR ALL METHODS OF HIP REGISTRATION
Report to the Flyway Technical Sections/Study Committees, March 18, 2010
Khristi Wilkins and Ken Richkus, Branch of Harvest Surveys, DMBM
Summary
The Harvest Information Program (HIP) was created to estimate the sport harvest of migratory
birds in the U.S. Hunters must register for HIP in each State in which he or she hunts.
Currently, hunters can register for HIP by a variety of methods that differ among States. These
HIP registrations are compiled by States and sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
twice each month during the hunting season. Timely receipt of complete HIP registration data is
one of the main requirements for the HIP to provide accurate estimates of migratory bird harvest
in each state. To verify that the USFWS is receiving and processing the HIP data properly, we
attempted to track hunters who registered via every method of HIP registration in every state.
Out of the possible 131 methods of HIP registration available in 49 states, 80 methods from 29
states were checked. Most test HIP registrants' name and address information was sent to the
USFWS, although in many cases we had to request missing data from state licensing agency or
contractors. All HIP registrations from 20 states were received. Serious problems are suspected
in 4 states: Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, and West Virginia. We are trying to work with these
states individually to correct the problems and have made significant progress in Nevada and
New Jersey. Most data were also being sent in a timely manner. We were able to verify that
data from one method of HIP registration were not being sent to the USFWS, and this problem
now has been fixed. We identified one case where we were improperly omitting HIP
registrations based on the date of the HIP registration. We will work with this state to correct
this problem. Finally, we identified several states that have incomplete sample frames for other
reasons and are trying to work with these states to correct these problems. We think it is very
important to check the remaining methods of HIP registration to verify that we are receiving and
handling data properly. Based on results of this study, we suggest that the following changes to
the HIP program: (1) allow HIP name and address data to be sent year-round; (2) improve the
USFWS ftp site; (3) perform systematic checks of HIP registrations; (4) develop better contacts
in each state so we are kept apprised of changes in license year, HIP registration methods, and
data contractors; and (5) consider including a code in the raw HIP name and address data sent by
the states that identifies the method of HIP registration. We request the following actions from
the Flyway Technical Sections/Study Committee members: (1) designate one person in each
state as a point of contact with the USFWS for annual information on changes in license year,
HIP registration methods, and data contractors (this may be the existing HIP coordinator), (2)
encourage participation by states that were not shown to have successfully transferred all forms
of HIP registrations, and (3) consider participation in a follow-up study to track HIP registrations
by license type (e.g., out-of-state, lifetime, non-resident, landowner).
Introduction
The Harvest Information Program (HIP) is a cooperative program between state natural resource
agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that was developed to improve
estimates of harvest and hunting activity by migratory bird hunters in the U.S. The HIP provides
the USFWS with the sampling frame for the Migratory Bird Harvest Survey (MBHS), which is
used to estimate harvest of ducks, geese, brant, sea ducks, mourning doves, white-winged doves,

band-tailed pigeons, American woodcock, snipe, coots, rails, gallinules, and sandhill cranes1. By
federal regulation (50 CFR 20.20)2, licensed hunters of migratory birds must register for the HIP
in each state in which he or she hunts each year. States are required to send those names to the
USFWS’s Branch of Harvest Surveys (BHS) within 30 days of hunter registration. We request
that states send HIP name and address data twice each month shortly before and during the
hunting season (approximately August-February). When the HIP registration data are received
by the BHS, we select a sample of hunters and send them an MBHS survey form. It is important
that we send survey forms out as soon as possible (usually within 7 days of receipt of names) so
that hunters can keep accurate and complete detailed records of their hunting activity throughout
the season. From completed survey forms, we calculate the average harvest-per-hunter. The
statewide total harvest of migratory birds is estimated as the harvest-per-hunter times the total
number of HIP registrations for each state and species-group (i.e., expansion factors). Timely
receipt of complete HIP registration data is one of the main requirements for the MBHS to
provide accurate estimates of migratory bird harvest in each state.
Many states hire contractors to help them meet their federal HIP obligation. Systems to register
migratory bird hunters for HIP vary by state, and include: (1) electronic registration with license
vendor when purchasing a hunting license; (2) registration over the phone by calling a toll-free
number; (3) registration online; (4) filling out a paper permit when purchasing a hunting license;
and (5) registering by mail. Data from all methods of HIP registration are compiled and sent to
the BHS in an electronic file that is in a standard format. Individual states allow hunters to
register for HIP using 1-6 methods, depending on the state. At our request, HIP registration data
are generally sent twice per month from August-February. HIP registrations made earlier than
the standard registration period are usually held back until August. The HIP relies on a complete
sample frame (list of hunters) from each state so that: (1) all migratory bird hunters have a
chance to be sampled for the survey (minimizing bias that can be introduced by nonrepresentative samples); and (2) estimates of harvest per hunter are expanded by the correct
number of hunters in each state. Since HIP was fully implemented in 1999, we have received an
average of 3.9 million names of migratory bird hunters each year (Table 1). Based on historical
information from federal Duck Stamp sales, state harvest surveys, and previous numbers of HIP
registrations, we suspect that we should be receiving more HIP registrations from some states.
This is problematic for harvest estimates at the state and management unit levels (e.g., Flyway,
Woodcock Management Region, Dove Management Unit). If certain states consistently provide
poor sample frame data and a large proportion of the harvest of a particular species occurs there,
then management unit harvest estimates can be biased and imprecise.
To improve and maintain the quality of the HIP sampling frame, BHS staff have always
performed non-systematic checks in particular states, to track receipt of individual HIP
registrations. We have never tried to do this for every state and every method of HIP
registration. Recently, we discovered that one state was unintentionally not sending us HIP
registrations that were made online. Due to the complex nature of state licensing and HIPregistration systems, we suspect that this is not an isolated incident. Therefore, to identify major
gaps in data transmission and handling, we attempted to track the names of individual hunters
1

Currently, HIP registrations are used to sample sandhill crane hunters in Alaska and provide expansion factors in
Alaska, Colorado, and South Dakota.
2
Regulation created in 1993 (58 FR 15098), as amended in 1994 (59 FR 53336), 1996 (61 FR 46352), 1997 (62 FR
45708), and 1998 (63 FR 46401).

who had registered for HIP from all states to make sure their data were received and properly
processed by the BHS.
Methods
To verify all methods of data transfer in all 49 states, a minimum of 131 HIP registrations needed
to be checked (Table 1). In February and March 2009, we sent a written study proposal to
members of the 4 Flyway Technical Sections or Study Committee. We asked a biologist in each
state to ask at least one person to register for HIP via each way possible in that state, and submit
the names and other identifying information to BHS. All 4 Flyways supported the proposal,
formally or informally. Biologists provided us the requested information from study HIP
registrants from June 2009 to January 2010 and we recorded that information in an Excel
database.
The study database was compared with the national HIP database. The entire set of HIP name
and address records received from 1 August 2009 to 20 February 2010 was used as the national
database. These data records are in a standard format and sent as text files. This database
included those records identified by BHS as erroneous HIP registrations. In states which have a
HIP year that corresponds to a hunting year, BHS has a policy of assuming that all HIP
registrations received after migratory bird seasons are closed but before the next HIP year are
erroneous HIP registrations.
Study HIP registrations were matched electronically with the national HIP database using SAS
software. We used several different matching criteria of decreasing specificity: (1) HIP
registration state, date of birth, short (1st 3 letters) first name, and last name; (2) HIP registration
state, date of birth, Soundex3 short first name, Soundex last name; (3) HIP registration state, date
of birth, Soundex last name, Soundex address; (4) HIP registration state, date of birth, Soundex
address; (5) HIP registration state, Soundex last name, Soundex short first name, Soundex city.
Because the inexact matching techniques can allow incorrect matches to be identified, all
matches were verified with the original complete HIP registration record and study registration
information. Study registrations not found by computer matching were searched for manually,
by examining the individual records in the state sample frame database. We searched for 2 HIP
registrations from Wyoming manually, because they were paper permits that were mailed to
BHS. When data could not be found, we contacted the person in that state agency who is
responsible for coordinating HIP. HIP coordinators and contractors worked with us to help track
down the missing HIP registrations.
Results
Biologists from 31 states submitted 126 HIP registrations, 119 of which are in the current HIP
year and can be checked at this time (data from Connecticut and Idaho cannot be checked until
next year’s HIP registrations are sent in August; Table 2). The distribution of samples allowed
us to check 80 of the 131 methods (approx. 60%). The national HIP database contained
approximately 3.0 million records from the 31 states participating in the study. An initial search
located 94 of the study HIP registrations in the national sample frame data sent to BHS. An
additional 5 records were found after missing data were requested from states or contractors.
Thus, a total of 99 of the records were found in the national sample frame (Table 2). All HIP
3

The Soundex algorithm converts words to letters and numbers, so that similar sounding words (e.g, Thom and Tom
= T5) can be matched. We used the Soundex algorithm as implemented in SAS v 9.1.3.

registrations were received from 20 out of 29 states, and 13 of the missing registrations came
from 3 states: New Jersey, Nevada, and West Virginia. Although we located 99/116=85% of the
records, this does not mean that we are receiving 85% of the HIP sample frame, because: (1)
each state’s sample frame size differs, and (2) we don’t know how many hunters register for HIP
via each method in each state, and (3) incomplete HIP registration records cannot be located.
Some or all of these missing records would likely have been requested by BHS in February
2010. However, having the known HIP registration information made it much easier for
licensing agency or contractor personnel to track down the missing sources of data and to
identify and fix patterns of mistakes.
Of the 99 records that were found in the HIP sample frame database, 97 had been classified
properly by BHS. Two from South Carolina had been incorrectly classified by BHS as being
erroneous HIP registrations because the HIP registrations had been issued after the hunting
seasons had closed. HIP registrations were generally sent in a timely fashion from the states to
the FWS (Table 3). Causes for missing HIP sample frame data included: contractor or state
licensing agency did not send data for HIP registrations that were made from March-July
(Colorado, Delaware, Utah), state was unknowingly not including HIP registrations of a
particular license type (Nevada, suspected in Wyoming), unknown contractor error (New Jersey),
or undetermined (Georgia). The most serious problems were in Georgia and New Jersey (none
of the study HIP registrations were received), and in Nevada and West Virginia (most of the HIP
registrations were not received). We think that Nevada Department of Wildlife has corrected the
problem in Nevada. We are working closely with the licensing division of New Jersey Division
of Fish and Wildlife to resolve the problem in this state, and are attempting to work with Georgia
Department of Natural Resources and West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
This study shows that the following states…
…are sending data from all methods of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
HIP registration with no problems
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah
…may not be sending all data
Nevada (missing early internet registrations),
West Virginia (only received data for 1 out of 4
registration methods), Wyoming (missing HIP
registration by paper registration at a civic
agency)
…need to test additional method
Indiana (POS-electronic HIP registration),
Rhode Island (POS-paper HIP registration),
South Carolina (online HIP registration)
…may have problems unrelated to
Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, West
method of HIP registration.
Virginia, Wyoming
…cannot be checked until next year
Connecticut, Idaho
…did not participate
Alabama, California4, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New
4

Participation from California and New Mexico will require special preparation because these states exclusively
send BHS paper permits.

Hampshire, New Mexico4, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin
Discussion
Patterns of missing data. – All data from 20 out of 29 states were received by BHS. Only 1
instance of missing data was known to be caused by the method of HIP registration: the missing
internet registrations in Nevada. This was caused by a bug in the code that has been fixed by
NVDOW. We would like to repeat this study in Nevada next year to make sure the code is now
functioning as expected. In addition, the missing civic paper license in Wyoming may be due to
the HIP registration method, but we cannot be sure until we receive all of the paper licenses for
this HIP year from Wyoming.
Most errors were caused by data not being sent to the USFWS because of a state license structure
that differed from the migratory bird hunting season. License years in individual states include
(but are not limited to): 1 January-31 December, 1 March-28 February, 1 April-31 March, 1
May-30 June, 1 July-30 June, 1 August-30 July, 1 September-31 August, and 1 October-30
September. Six states do not have established license years, and hunting licenses are valid for
365 days from the date of purchase. This is further complicated by different starting dates for
license sales in some states. To make it easier for hunters and administration of HIP, some states
have defined a HIP year that is different from their license year but is concurrent with the
migratory bird hunting season. In these cases, their HIP registrations are valid from SeptemberMarch, regardless of license structure. Because we cannot know to which HIP year a hunter was
assigned to by a particular state, we felt it should be the state’s responsibility to send us data for
the proper HIP year at the proper time of year. In the case of states with a calendar year license
(1 January - 31 December), this means holding back HIP registrations made 1 January – 31 July,
and sending them to us in August with the first data file. In states where licenses go on sale in
the spring, we asked that states hold the sales from spring and summer and send them in the fall.
However, each year BHS has spent considerable staff time tracking down missing data files.
In cases when several names were sent by the same method, but not all hunters were found, it is
suspected the missing data are caused either by delay in transmission of paper permits (Arizona
and Wyoming), special handling of a particular license type (lifetime license in Wyoming), or
other unknown problem unrelated to method of HIP registration (Delaware, Georgia, New
Jersey, West Virginia).
Erroneous HIP registrations. – Two HIP registrations from South Carolina were incorrectly
classified by BHS as erroneous HIP registrations. These were HIP registrations dated 22 May
2009 and 27 May 2009 and received in a data file dated 1 June 2009. In states which have a HIP
year that corresponds to a hunting year, BHS has a policy of assuming that all HIP registrations
received after migratory bird seasons are closed but before the next HIP year are erroneous HIP
registrations (e.g., ≈10,000 records from 14 states in 2008-09). Based on this study, we can see
that this policy was incorrect for South Carolina. However, South Carolina has changed their
HIP registration process to not allow hunters to register for HIP after the waterfowl seasons have
closed (B. Kyzer, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, personal communication).
This should prevent this problem in South Carolina. We need to review our handling of HIP
registrations that occur outside of the hunting season and check with individual states when HIP
registrations are sent at seemingly inappropriate times of the year.

Wrong HIP year. – BHS did not classify any HIP registrations into the wrong HIP year.
However, we have created an artificial classification system to handle hunters from the states
that use a 365-day license and no special HIP year. To sample hunters in these states, BHS has a
policy of creating artificial cut-off dates for sampling purposes (28 February or 31 March). This
should not be a problem for hunters who purchase licenses every year at around the same time,
because each year the hunter will be classified into a different HIP year by BHS. While this may
cause some hunters to be classified into the incorrect HIP year, we have not been able to develop
a better alternative under the 365-day licensing system. The impact of this problem is small on
the management-unit scale, but may be larger on the state-level.
Possibility of not finding record in sample frame database. – Some electronic HIP records are
received without name and address information. Others have information in the wrong fields
(e.g., first and last name in first name field, first and last name reversed) or with typographical
errors (correct date of birth = 05/14/1978, but date of birth in data file = 05/14/1987). These
records could not have been matched to the study names and thus would appear as not having
been received by BHS for this study. We have no way of estimating how often this could have
happened. We think that the incidence of not finding names is low in this study because most
states with missing HIP registrations had small sample frames and they were not states with high
proportion of incomplete records. It is important to note that even hunters with incomplete or
incorrect identifying information are counted in the final expansion factors. As long as the
missing name and address information are random (e.g., not more prevalent for more successful
hunters), this should not cause any bias in harvest estimates.
Incorrect address in database. – Two point-of-sale HIP registrations from Kentucky contained
old mailing addresses. The HIP data supplied from Kentucky contained previous addresses that
appeared to have been carried over from a previous HIP registration, and is likely a function of
the HIP registration system employed in that state. This has been seen in other states in the past
as well. This is something that must be addressed at the state level. While incorrect mailing
addresses do not influence expansion factors, out-of-date mailing addresses decreases efficiency
of the survey and precision of estimates. Furthermore, if certain types of hunters tend to move
more often (e.g., younger hunters) this can introduce a source of bias into the survey estimates.
Manipulation of expansion factor. – When generating preliminary and final estimates, BHS has
a policy of estimating the proper expansion factor if we suspect that the number of HIP
registrations received is not correct. This can happen if the complete sample frame was not
received and imparts a negative bias in harvest estimates. Adjusting the expansion factor is
especially important for preliminary estimates for states that use paper permits (e.g., Alaska,
Arizona, California, New Mexico, Wyoming) because there can be a time lag between permit
issuance and transmission of information to BHS. We hope that the correct expansion factor is
known by the time final estimates are calculated. However, in some cases, we suspect that we
never receive the complete sampling frame or expansion factors from states (Table 1). In these
cases, we make our best guess at the final expansion factor based on prior history and discussion
with licensing personnel and biologists. Using estimated expansion factors helps address the
bias imparted by an incomplete sampling frame and expansion factor, but does not address
the bias that can be imparted by an unrepresentative sample. Our biggest concerns are with
the following states:

1) Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee inconsistent number of HIP registrations received over time.
2) Illinois, Louisiana, and South Carolina - recent increases in number of HIP
registrations (possible sample frame inflation in recent years or underestimation of
expansion factor in early years). This often happens when states change contractors,
license structure, or HIP registration methods.
3) West Virginia – only 1 out of 5 HIP registrations found in database. Also, data files
sent this year include data from 2007 and 2008.
Application of results in developing a national HIP sampling frame. – In this study, 98 out of 99
HIP registrations were matched electronically using rudimentary data matching techniques. One
record with incomplete information was matched manually by looking through the state's entire
electronic database. The results of this study suggest that it should be possible for BHS to
develop a single national sampling frame for HIP from the 49 separate electronic sampling
frames. This would require agreement on an acceptable level of error (erroneous matches and
missed matches). A national HIP sampling frame would have the following benefits: (1) allow
us to estimate the total number of hunters at the management unit level with estimates of
variance, (2) remove positive bias in harvest estimates currently imparted by hunters incorrectly
reporting out-of-state hunting on their HIP survey forms, (3) increase efficiency of HIP
sampling, and (4) allow large-scale human dimensions studies of hunter retention and
recruitment. However, this switch would require a significant amount of time and computer
programming, both to develop the consolidation programs and for the development of new
analytical methods to address out-of-state hunting. Furthermore, a national sampling frame will
not be feasible until all states start providing electronic data5.
Conclusions
We found that most HIP name and address data are being sent by states and are being properly
processed by BHS for the states that participated in this study. Thirty-one states participated in
this study and 60% of the possible data transmission methods were checked. Twenty states had
all methods tested and verified. It would be useful to track HIP registrations for the other
methods and states as well. We would like to work with all states for which complete HIP data
were not received by BHS. Because results from this study suggest that license type may be a
more important cause of data omission than method of HIP registration, it would be useful to
review HIP transmissions by license type. This will be a more complex study, because the types
of licenses vary so much among states. We would like to work with state biologists who are
interested in pursuing this line of inquiry.
When HIP was implemented in 1999, staff of BHS and Branch of Information Technology (BIT)
assumed that transfer of HIP name and address data would become smoother and more
standardized as time went on. After 10 years of HIP, we have learned that this will not be the
case because: (1) each state has to fold the HIP registration process into its existing license
structure which may not lend itself to registering migratory bird hunters in a standard fashion,
and (2) changes in data contractors and personnel can cause both predictable and unpredictable
errors. Improving individual state harvest estimates requires close communication between state
5

About 180,000 HIP registrations are submitted on paper. These are from Alabama (approx. 10% of sample frame),
California (100%), New Mexico (100%), and Wyoming (approx. 73%). BHS enters the complete permit
information only for those hunters who are selected to participate in the HIP survey.

licensing agencies or their contractors and BHS. While this has worked well in many states, it
has been difficult to establish in others. The assistance of a state biologist can improve the
quality of the information received by apprising BHS of changes in license structure and HIP
registration methods, emphasizing the importance of these data to the licensing personnel or data
contractors, or knowing the right person to contact should a problem arise. We hope that one of
the important consequences of this study will be the engagement of the state biologists in the
work of maintaining and improving the HIP system.
The quality of the harvest estimates for each state is directly related to the quality of the sample
frame data received by BHS. Because HIP could not be implemented under a federal permit, the
states have the responsibility of ensuring that data from the proper HIP year are sent to BHS at
the appropriate time. As HIP has developed over time, this standard structure has been harder to
maintain. Results of this study indicate that BHS should consider several changes to the handling
of HIP data to minimize errors of omission and misclassification. Errors of omission occur when
sample frame data are not sent to BHS. This usually happens with states that have license years
that do not correspond to migratory bird hunting seasons. Errors of omission also occur when
states add or change methods of HIP registration or switch data contractors. Errors of omission
and misclassification of hunters as non-migratory bird hunters are serious errors that can cause
bias in the harvest estimates. Misclassification of license year of individual hunters should not
bias the estimates as long as the misclassification is random. Because these types of changes are
apparently a permanent characteristic of the HIP registration system, BHS needs to develop
standard quality control methods to periodically review HIP registration methods in each state.
This should include ensuring we know: (1) the license structure of each state; (2) the HIP year
for each state (if this differs from the license year); (3) when licenses/HIP registrations start
being available each year; (4) all the methods of HIP registration available in that state; and (5)
when states change licensing or HIP registration contractors. This information needs to be
provided to us in a systematic manner by the appropriate state contact each year.
The Flyways should be interested in improving harvest estimates – especially those states that
affect the quality of the estimates at the management unit level (e.g., Georgia for mourning dove
harvest, Maine for sea duck and woodcock harvest, Kentucky and Tennessee for duck harvest).
Harvest estimates, using both MBHS and Parts Collection Survey data, are sometimes the most
important information we have for a species or species-group (e.g., band-tailed pigeons, snipe,
coot, rail, gallinule, buffleheads, merganser species, goldeneye species). Harvest estimates are
used in many management plans (e.g, mourning doves, woodcock, scaup, canvasbacks, pintails,
sandhill cranes, many Canada goose populations). For these reasons, the cooperative HIP
program is very important to both state and federal migratory bird managers. Continued
cooperation between state and federal personnel as well as systematic review by federal
personnel will be required to maintain the quality of this program.
Next Steps for Branch of Harvest Surveys
1) BHS should allow states to send HIP data year-round (instead of restricting all states to
send data from August-February).
2) If HIP data are sent year-round, BHS must implement computer checks of all HIP data to
assign hunters to the proper year based on date of HIP registration. For this method to
work, states must make sure that the date of HIP registration in the electronic file is the
date the hunter registered for HIP, not the date the registration was transcribed, received,

3)
4)

5)

6)
7)

transmitted, etc. Furthermore, BHS needs to know the correct classification dates (see #2
in “Requested Action from Flyway Technical Sections/Study Committee Members”).
Misclassification of hunters as non-migratory bird hunters should be prevented if BHS
knows the license structure and HIP year dates for each state.
Staff of BHS and Branch of Information Technology (BIT) should work with the
USFWS Office of Information Resources and Technology Management to see if the ftp
site can be improved. This website was created in 1999 to allow states to securely and
conveniently send large data files to BHS. However, the security requirements (periodic
inactivation of accounts, mandated password changes, manual resetting of accounts by
BIT staff) make the site inconvenient for clients to use. The Denver location of the ftp
server makes it difficult for BIT to know of or fix problems. In some cases, data
transmission is seriously delayed because of these problems. Advances in servers,
storage capacity, and security may allow the USFWS to improve the efficacy of the site.
Each August, BHS should send an annual request for information to a relevant HIP
contact in each state, asking about changes in license year, contractor, and HIP
registration methods. This request may be incorporated into BIT’s annual “HIP kick-off
letter” each August if the HIP data contact can also provide relevant licensing
information.
To maintain the quality of the HIP data, we need to perform systematic checks to ensure
that we are receiving and properly processing all HIP data. A reasonable schedule is to
check 10 states each year, so that all states are reviewed every 5 years.
Consult with licensing agencies about the possibility of including an additional field in
the HIP data that indicates the method of HIP registration and/or license type. For those
states concerned with the quality of HIP registration information from particular sources
(e.g., Walmart) we could consider including codes specific to this. Ideally, states could
monitor this information themselves, but conversations with biologists have suggested
that many state licensing agencies don’t have the time or interest in doing so.

Requested Action from Flyway Technical Sections/Study Committee Members
1) Strongly encourage participation from all states in each Flyway. States not participating
this first year were: Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin. [NOTE: California and New Mexico not in this list
because of their paper permits]
2) Each state should designate one person (biologist, HIP coordinator, or licensing agency
personnel) as an appropriate point of contact for BHS to learn about changes in license
year, contractor, and HIP registration methods. This person may be the existing HIP
contact in that state.
3) Each state representative will inform BHS of changes in license year, contractor, and HIP
registration methods each August.
4) When problems are suspected or changes have been made to the license year, contractor,
or HIP registration methods, biologists should send in HIP registration information for
individual hunters so that BHS can verify that all data are being received. Known HIP
registrations with state registration numbers are very important for states and
contractors to trace and solve problems.
Acknowledgements

We thank all of the state biologists who collected the HIP registration information for this study.
We also the licensing agency and contractor personnel who are working with us to fix problems,
especially: Barbara Stotts (NJDFW), Paula Lannen (NVDOW), Rajbir Deol (WADFW), Jerome
Espinoza (WYGFD), and Kristy Greene (Cyberdata).

Table 1. Number of HIP registrations received from states, 1999-2008.
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY

1999
9,333
96,378
147,132
40,440
157,775
48,300
7,787
8,937
81,623
148,898
30,285
46,621
69,134
33,880
57,266
45,165
144,610
5,582
50,164
67,220
103,675
107,995
68,070
59,542
16,004
209,076
52,546
47,467
14,453
13,262
19,307
10,423
37,291
111,715
66,862
56,659
119,831
2,222
94,951
49,103
120,542
763,361
32,709
45,841
7,458
47,097
162,420
3,259
12,565

2000
9,789
97,997
172,564
56,157
157,657
46,427
7,342
8,705
10,528
95,691
31,244
49,329
72,306
34,061
58,689
50,751
137,677
5,659
49,231
58,841
105,361
183,692
66,477
61,917
15,890
230,206
41,097
43,477
6,078
11,784
22,001
9,854
35,698
374,492
58,632
56,134
120,621
1,984
87,830
45,961
299,613
810,533
31,643
44,768
6,997
45,207
173,258
3,485
11,697

2001
9,421
94,416
185,607
55,602
179,104
47,621
7,337
8,902
44,714
167,141
40,209
48,344
75,809
36,035
58,567
55,018
133,292
5,856
55,800
57,551
89,320
179,685
68,044
59,693
20,145
239,251
49,641
41,824
5,527
11,288
21,785
9,900
35,902
86,448
50,862
54,491
119,330
2,058
85,985
48,297
223,809
796,667
30,187
45,598
7,328
47,284
163,397
3,632
10,920

2002
8,942
95,075
182,400
58,201
131,869
41,565
7,065
8,960
61,728
151,176
37,326
40,178
75,391
35,358
59,167
54,666
129,660
5,949
37,056
57,551
120,212
183,879
66,868
17,940
38,194
194,608
48,354
39,000
5,638
10,998
20,389
10,384
32,895
99,999
55,331
54,078
121,083
1,493
99,020
46,817
302,765
779,128
21,663
48,451
6,680
45,032
168,579
3,459
10,491

2003
9,086
110,891
170,276
58,068
70,943
43,422
6,841
8,082
80,398
95,728
35,428
47,018
57,294
34,945
58,944
52,943
138,701
6,650
44,824
26,234
152,340
185,822
71,125
58,717
38,399
198,031
54,534
40,708
3,761
10,935
20,054
9,744
33,476
98,785
50,313
52,991
117,709
862
55,882
44,557
138,226
679,148
28,067
43,015
6,028
45,168
171,523
3,579
10,410

2004
8,240
91,389
176,060
51,036
141,552
41,568
6,729
8,460
100,246
177,388
35,358
48,180
78,285
34,919
46,384
57,645
139,782
6,669
47,476
37,327
149,003
189,069
68,108
113,796
41,066
220,782
52,554
39,247
4,379
10,806
22,442
9,057
34,229
95,970
52,554
53,267
114,709
1,756
108,930
43,201
176,792
862,634
29,190
44,058
7,439
45,335
163,774
4,508
11,758

2005
8,834
105,968
174,979
41,154
138,636
41,576
6,046
8,151
105,304
145,304
45,653
47,408
77,294
31,080
43,874
12,808
130,483
7,023
44,831
26,993
142,316
171,622
66,058
34,437
38,488
185,334
55,570
36,147
5,867
10,382
20,719
8,950
34,942
89,526
43,754
46,286
100,088
1,372
130,935
41,454
152,192
792,846
29,442
43,472
3,235
45,025
156,691
3,628
10,375

2006
8,844
153,094
189,620
37,733
143,361
61,827
5,929
8,028
109,596
162,595
52,999
49,206
122,308
33,592
55,515
19,197
153,541
7,533
46,290
33,209
142,974
182,368
70,975
91,832
41,511
181,995
49,887
35,219
3,246
5,645
17,346
8,940
37,024
94,602
35,220
52,482
98,177
1,723
139,731
31,690
75,424
827,729
31,093
46,919
5,529
21,709
151,343
3,600
9,629

2007
8,772
95,600
137,346
36,743
140,556
63,200
5,567
8,132
110,031
146,677
43,859
20,255
128,180
30,907
56,077
10,112
220,822
6,914
37,919
30,919
146,298
180,250
71,789
37,488
40,659
209,634
51,819
34,825
7,147
4,380
21,841
7,441
37,669
80,186
42,385
42,654
95,950
751
124,982
35,655
72,297
903,688
32,627
47,292
6,444
37,901
150,462
3,933
9,507

2008
8,702
112,042
175,315
27,037
140,943
56,063
6,211
6,282
104,751
142,005
30,234
45,360
118,632
31,327
50,715
5,142
240,187
7,703
47,808
43,066
140,040
172,127
67,563
51,346
31,089
206,651
47,138
23,774
8,637
7,510
17,697
6,965
32,339
79,344
40,963
46,853
97,918
1,399
141,635
41,168
88,104
903,825
24,174
29,466
10,208
37,230
141,123
6,020
8,800

Table 2. Summary of HIP registration tracking study, 20 February 2010. Yellow cell indicates state uses
that method of HIP registration. Number of boxes in yellow cells indicate number of names sent in for
study. Key: □=name not found by BHS; ◘= registration received by BHS but not processed properly;
■=registration received and processed properly by BHS; ■=registration received by BHS after additional
data requested from state or contractor, ■=HIP registration for next year can’t be checked at this time.
State

POS 1 - electronic

Alabama

■
□■■

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas

POS - paper

■

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois

phone

Method of HIP registration
civic on-line
electronic

■

■

■

■
■
■■■

■■■■■■
■■■

■■
■■■

■
■■■

Indiana

mail

■

■

2

2

□■
■

■
□

civic - phone

■
■
■■
□■■
■
□
■
■
■■■

■■

civic - paper

■

Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

■

■

■

■

■
■

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey

□□
3

3

New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

■
■

■
■

■
■■

■
□□□□■

□

□□

3

3

■■■
■
■

■
■

■

3

■■
■■■
■

■

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

■

■■

■■
■

■

■

■
■■
2

Utah

■
■■

2

■■
◘

■◘

4

■
■■
2

Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1

■

□□
□■

Point of sale.
2
Early HIP registrations that contractor forgot to send.
3
Unknown contractor error.
4
HIP registration issued in May, BHS assumed erroneous.

□
■■

□

□

4

Table 3. Comparison of HIP registration date, file date, and processing date.

State
AR
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
CO
CO
DE
DE
DE
FL
FL
FL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY 2
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY 2
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MD
MD
MI
MI
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MS

Date of issue reported by
hunter
7/24/2009
9/4/2009
9/9/2009
.
9/1/2009
9/10/2009
4/1/2009
4/2/2009
8/19/2009
8/27/2009
8/28/2009
9/3/2009
9/17/2009
11/18/2009
2/19/2009
4/3/2009
.
8/10/2009
8/10/2009
8/11/2009
8/11/2009
8/12/2009
8/12/2009
1/9/2009
3/7/2009
4/1/2009
4/8/2009
4/17/2009
4/17/2009
4/20/2009
5/15/2009
8/19/2009
7/8/2009
7/11/2009
7/12/2009
9/1/2009
9/1/2009
9/1/2009
9/4/2009
9/5/2009
9/5/2009
9/6/2009
8/31/2009
9/1/2009
3/2/2009
3/15/2009
7/13/2009
7/14/2009
7/15/2009
7/16/2009
8/7/2009
9/1/2009

Date of issue in electronic
database
7/27/2009
9/4/2009
9/9/2009
8/27/2009
9/1/2009
9/10/2009
4/6/2009
4/2/2009
8/19/2009
8/27/2009
8/28/2009
9/3/2009
9/17/2009
11/18/2009
2/19/2009
4/3/2009
1/21/2009
8/10/2009
8/10/2009
8/11/2009
8/11/2009
8/12/2009
8/12/2009
4/1/2009
3/7/2009
4/1/2009
4/8/2009
4/17/2009
4/17/2009
4/20/2009
4/30/2009
8/19/2009
7/8/2009
7/11/2009
7/12/2009
9/1/2009
9/1/2009
9/1/2009
9/4/2009
9/5/2009
9/5/2009
9/6/2009
9/1/2009
9/3/2009
3/2/2009
3/15/2009
7/13/2009
7/15/2009
7/15/2009
7/16/2009
8/8/2009
8/19/2009

Date data were
processed by BHS 1
9/4/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/4/2009
10/8/2009
10/8/2009
1/22/2010
1/22/2010
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/17/2009
10/8/2009
12/4/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
11/19/2009
11/19/2009
11/19/2009
11/19/2009
11/19/2009
11/19/2009
12/4/2009
11/19/2009
12/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
9/17/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
8/13/2009
9/4/2009
9/4/2009

Table 3, continued.
MS
.
8/25/2009
9/4/2009
NC
5/28/2009
5/28/2009
9/4/2009
NC
5/28/2009
5/28/2009
9/4/2009
NC
6/1/2009
6/5/2009
9/4/2009
NC
7/27/2009
7/27/2009
9/4/2009
NC
8/3/2009
8/3/2009
9/4/2009
NC
10/23/2009
10/23/2009
11/9/2009
ND
4/4/2009
4/2/2009
8/13/2009
ND
4/4/2009
4/2/2009
8/13/2009
ND
4/13/2009
4/13/2009
8/13/2009
NE
8/30/2009
8/30/2009
9/4/2009
NE
.
8/31/2009
9/4/2009
NV
3/24/2009
3/24/2009
7/23/2009
NV
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
7/23/2009
NV
10/15/2009
10/14/2009
11/9/2009
NY
8/11/2009
8/11/2009
9/4/2009
NY
8/11/2009
8/11/2009
9/4/2009
NY
8/24/2009
8/24/2009
9/4/2009
NY
8/24/2009
8/24/2009
9/4/2009
NY
8/31/2009
8/31/2009
9/4/2009
PA
6/19/2009
6/19/2009
10/23/2009
PA
6/25/2009
6/25/2009
10/23/2009
PA
6/30/2009
6/30/2009
10/23/2009
PA
7/7/2009
7/7/2009
10/23/2009
RI
8/27/2009
8/27/2009
9/17/2009
RI
8/27/2009
9/4/2009
11/19/2009
SC
5/22/2009
5/22/2009
8/13/2009
SC
6/17/2009
6/17/2009
7/23/2009
SC
6/17/2009
7/17/2009
7/23/2009
SC
6/21/2009
7/9/2009
7/23/2009
SC
6/29/2009
6/29/2009
7/23/2009
SC
9/4/2009
9/4/2009
9/17/2009
SC
6/15/2009
6/15/2009
7/23/2009
SC
.
5/27/2009
8/13/2009
SD
1/31/2009
1/31/2009
8/13/2009
TX
8/26/2009
8/26/2009
9/4/2009
TX
8/30/2009
8/30/2009
9/4/2009
TX
9/8/2009
9/8/2009
9/17/2009
UT
3/31/2009
3/31/2009
1/22/2010
UT
4/1/2009
4/1/2009
12/4/2010
UT
3/31/2009
3/31/2009
1/22/2010
UT
3/30/2009
3/30/2009
1/22/2010
WV
8/19/2009
1/5/2007 3
7/23/2009
WY
7/5/2009
7/5/2009
8/13/2009
WY
7/17/2009
7/14/2009
8/13/2009
1
All data processed by Branch of Harvest Surveys (BHS) within 3 days of scheduled download day.
2
Old mailing address in HIP database.
3
Not a typographical error. Common occurrence in electronic files from West Virginia.