The Problem:

As long as hunters have, and continue to use a shotgun to hunt waterfowl crippling will remain an inherent component of the annual fall harvest. It has been estimated that between 20% and 40% of ducks and geese struck by shotgun pellets in North America are never retrieved. In waterfowl hunting it is accepted that crippling losses are higher than in any other class of game hunting, and may even approach or exceed the retrieved kill. Depending on the actual rate of loss due to crippling this could increase the annual harvest by as much as 50%, as crippled waterfowl rarely recover, crippling losses substantially increase actual waterfowl mortality due to hunting by several million birds. 
Crippling is not exclusive to the introduction of non-toxic shot in Canada. There is no shot type available on the commercial market, including lead, that can eliminate crippling. What exists now is an attitude that non-toxic shot is inferior to lead shot, and that steel shot has caused an increase in the number of birds that perish each year due to crippling. Based on harvest study documents from the United States and Canada, as well as the results of several lead versus steel comparison tests, the rate at which waterfowl are crippled is no higher now than when lead shot was still legal. The rate of crippling in North America has virtually gone unchanged over the last forty years regardless of the type of shotgun and shot shell ammunition used in the field. For the most part, the combination of shotgun and ammunition is a forty-yard venture. Beyond forty yards ballistics start to fall apart, and the ability of most sportsman to hit the target rapidly degenerates. It is the combination of these two variables that cause crippling, not the type of shot being used. Ultimately the hunter's personal attitude governs the number of dead and crippled waterfowl left in the field, the primary responsibility for the wastage of waterfowl rests with the hunter. 

History: 

In 1956 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service completed its first survey in an attempt to estimate actual crippling losses. From the study the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that 15,152,200 ducks and 906,635 geese were harvested for a total of 16,058,835 birds harvested. The total includes both retrieved and unretrieved ducks and geese. The number of birds calculated as the unretrieved harvest portion of the survey was estimated at 3,070,964 ducks and geese, or approximately 30% of all ducks and 36% of all geese struck were left unretrieved in the marshes and fields in which the hunts took place. Because of lacking comparative information, in the past, Canadian crippling losses have been calculated using a conservative estimate of 25%, or one in every four birds struck is unretrieved. In Canada an estimated 0.5 to 1.0 million ducks are unretrieved each year, combined with an additional 140,000 unretrieved geese. When combined, the estimated North American total for unretrieved ducks and geese is 3.0 to 3.5 million ducks and an estimated 400,000 geese. In 1969 an attempt was made to determine the crippling loss rate of waterfowl in western Canada. This attempt was deemed inconclusive resulting in an estimate of 41.2% which was deemed unreasonably high. 

During the 1980's the Canadian Wildlife Service initiated a second more thorough study of crippling losses in western Canada. The second study was more labour intensive and the end results proved to be much more accurate. The study area included the prairie-parklands of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba which provides key breeding habitat for a significant portion of the continental waterfowl population. It was determined that prairie Canada hunters were not selective and fired at 90% of all ducks and 100% of all geese within killing range. During the study it was determined that the number of waterfowl crippled by hunters was high, averaging 39% for ducks and 32% for geese. Crippling loss is an important waterfowl mortality factor. The degree of loss is influenced by hunting methods, habitat types, and the abilities and behaviours of individual hunters. In summary it becomes apparent that the crippling rate in both the United States and Canada are virtually the same. More birds are crippled each year in the United States than in Canada solely based on the numbers of hunters participating in the annual fall harvest, not because hunters in one country are better shooters. 

Behaviors Causing Crippling Losses:

The Cooperative North American Shot gunning Education Program (CONSEP) suggests through research that there are fifteen separate behaviours that contribute to wing shooting related waterfowl crippling. Of the fifteen suggestions CONSEP recognizes the first four as being the most important, and that crippling losses could be greatly reduced if hunters made changes according to these four suggestions. 

1. Shooting Skills: The leading cause of crippling in waterfowl is poor shooting skills. 
2. Poor distance estimation skills.
3. Using the wrong choke and load for distances common to the hunt. 
4. Failing to properly pattern test loads and choke choices. 
5. Shooting beyond one's personal maximum shooting skill distance. 
6. Shooting beyond the maximum distance of one's technology choices. 
7. Shooting into large flocks. 
8. Shooting at the front birds in a flock. 
9. Take shots where the bird is traveling straight away from the shooter. The gizzard acts similar to a Kevlar vest and limits pellet penetration beyond thirty yards. 
10. Dropping birds in heavy cover, retrieval is difficult. 
11. Failing to carry swatter loads. When hunting water a hunter should have swatter loads to immediately dispatch crippled birds falling on water. 
12. More than two hunters shooting simultaneously. 
13. Poor retrieving strategies. 
14. Not using a trained dog when waterfowl hunting. 
15. Failing to consider struck but unretrieved birds as part of the daily limit. Continuing to shoot at birds until "limiting out," thus actually impacting more birds than a legal daily limit. 

In biological terms, crippling losses differ from poaching only in perception. Poaching is seen as morally reprehensible and a threat to the resource, so it has always received more attention, whereas deliberate lowering of crippling losses has been essentially ignored. When considered, crippling losses with the complete lack of benefits derived from it is difficult to justify such hunting behaviour on moral grounds. In effect both crippling losses and poaching represent uncontrolled removals of ducks and geese from the population which impedes successful waterfowl management. 
There are neither biological nor ethical reasons to focus management efforts on poaching, and then ignore crippling losses. Until the scope of management is expanded to resolve the issue of crippling and retrieval a major inefficiency will persist in the North American waterfowl management system. 

Crippling, Retrieving, and The Law: 

Failure to retrieve killed and crippled birds is very much a problem in Saskatchewan. During the 1980's it was determined that the failure to retrieve rate in some parts of Saskatchewan was calculated as high as 40%, and the province wide average was estimated at approximately 33%. Through increased public awareness and increased enforcement the present rate has dropped to approximately 25%, or one in four birds struck is not retrieved. 
Under existing legislation the two sections most commonly used to deter crippling and non-retrieval of ducks and geese by hunters are Sections 15(1)(d) and Section 16(1.1)(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations. Section 15(1)(d) reduces the incidence of crippling by restricting hunters from having more than three shells in their gun at any given time while hunting migratory game birds. In most cases once the third shot has been fired the bird or birds being shot at are beyond effective killing range, and additional shots only increase the probability of crippling. The probability of retrieving a lethally struck bird is much high than the probability of retrieving a crippled bird. 
For the purposes of retrieval Section 16(1.1)(a) demands that a hunter who has killed or crippled a migratory game bird during the hunt MUST IMMEDIATELY make every REASONABLE effort to retrieve the bird, and if it is still alive IMMEDIATELY kill it and include it in the daily possession limit. For the purposes of enforcing Section 16 the effort of retrieving crippled birds can be divided into four categories: 

1. Lethally struck. 
2. Slightly crippled (cannot fly). 
3. Gliders (once they land are dead or cannot regain flight). 
4. Birds obviously struck but continue flying until they are out of sight of the hunter.

1: Birds that are lethally struck and can be observed from a short distance can be retrieved with little or no disturbance to the hunt. For these birds it would be deemed reasonable that retrieval would occur sometime during the hunt so that an accurate count for possession purposes can be maintained. The only exception to this would be when hunting over water. All birds that are struck and land on water must be retrieved immediately. Birds left on the water are subject to currents and wind drift and if left unretrieved may not be found. 

2: Birds that are struck lightly and cannot fly are still capable of walking or swimming and can travel a great distance in a short time. These types of cripples do cause a disturbance to the hunt. In this situation the hunter who struck the bird initially meant to kill it, but because the bird is now crippled the hunter must immediately make an effort to retrieve the bird. If the hunter has a dog the disruption can be greatly reduced and the hunt can resume much quicker. If the dog is unable to make the retrieve alone the hunter must assist the dog with the retrieval which in turn can disrupt the hunt. 

3: Birds that have been struck and are observed gliding immediately pose two possibilities to the hunter. The hunter observed the bird being struck, and he observed the bird gliding to the water or ground. To this point the hunter does not know if the bird is dead, or alive and trying to get away. Either way the bird must be retrieved and added to the daily possession limit. The onus is on the hunter to immediately make an effort to retrieve the bird, which will in turn disrupt the hunt. If the hunter has a dog with good marking abilities this disruption can be minimized and the hunt may quickly resume. If the dog is unable to make the retrieve alone the hunter must assist the dog with the retrieval which in turn can disrupt the hunt. 

4: No matter how well a hunter can shoot sooner or later he will encounter an unretrievable bird. The hunter observes the bird being struck and the bird continues to display signs of being struck. Such signs include dropping from the flock formation and following at a lower elevation, or breaking away from the flock and changing direction. Some birds will even turn back in hopes of returning to the roost. Many times the hunter will watch the bird until it disappears from sight and leave it at that. In some cases upon concluding the hunt some hunters have been rewarded by taking a drive in the direction the bird was last seen and they find the bird. The birds most commonly found using this method are white geese which are of great contrast when compared to the fall surroundings, but in most cases these birds are not found and are included as part of the un-retrieved harvest. 

To continue on with their hunt too many hunters pass on the immediate opportunity to retrieve and wait until their hunt is over before they begin the task of retrieving the cripples. This attitude not only makes for a shameful waste of the waterfowl resource, but also contravenes Section 16(1.1)(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations. For more information on reducing crippling and adequate retrieval please contact your local Conservation Officer