The State of
Waterfowl Hunting 2026

61.1% have hunted waterfowl for at least 21 seasons. Hunters age 55 or older account for 44.9% of the sample. These findings carry the perspective of people with many seasons behind them.

Among the 398 people who answered the optional gender question, 384 selected male and 14 selected female. 3 skipped it. Small groups should be read descriptively; this sample cannot stand in for every kind of waterfowl hunter.

California alone accounts for 35.4% of respondents. The full state and province distribution below makes the geographic tilt visible before the report compares seasons, access and spending.

Each person named one primary state or province. The questionnaire split four western states into east and west to assign flyways; this state chart combines those answers. Small counts describe participation in this survey, not the size of a state’s hunting population.

Of 393 answers, 344 selected an income range and 49 preferred not to say. 8 skipped the question. The distribution shows every answer, including the choice to keep income private.

The survey reached hunters across income bands. Household income is separate from what someone spent on waterfowl hunting, and this distribution cannot establish affordability for any individual.

56.8% agreed that they had adequate access to quality hunting areas. For bird numbers, 43.8% disagreed that they saw good numbers, compared with 31.0% who agreed. Access to a place and the birds seen there are distinct parts of the season.

Crowding drew almost evenly split answers: 33.2% disagreed, 33.8% were neutral and 33.0% agreed. Neutral answers are a substantial part of the picture. These are separate question totals, not a cross-tab of individual hunters.

56.2% agreed that regulations were reasonable. On cost, 40.6% agreed it was becoming a barrier, while 33.0% were neutral. These answers describe the sample’s views on two different questions.

Cost pressure is visible even though it is not universal. The spending chapter shows the ranges behind the season’s bills; the survey does not establish what any particular price increase would do to participation.

187 of 399 respondents agreed they had a good season. 304 of 397 would recommend waterfowl hunting to a friend. Those are 47% and 77% on answered-question bases.

The gap compares two measures across the sample. It does not show that every dissatisfied hunter recommended the sport, or establish why anyone did so. It shows that views of one season and willingness to share the sport are different things.

Fewer birds were selected by 56.6%, crowding by 46.6%, and finding quality public areas by 39.9%. Respondents could choose up to three challenges.

The remaining answers matter too: access costs, equipment costs, limited time, travel, physical limitations, partners, regulations and mentorship. These selections can overlap within the same hunter.

The most common license, stamp and permit range was $101–$200, selected by 32.4% of respondents. For ammunition, $251–$500 was the largest category at 31.2%.

The full distributions show the spread behind the averages. Each range describes reported season spending, rather than the price of a particular license or box of shells.

Decoy spending was spread across several bands: 19.0% selected $1–$100 and 19.5% selected $101–$250. Calls were different: 31.2% reported $0, while 6.2% selected $300+.

A zero-spend season does not show whether a hunter already owned the gear. N/A is shown separately wherever the survey offered it as a separate choice.

Clothing and wader spending was nearly even in the $101–$250 and $251–$500 bands: 20.9% and 21.2%. The answers extend from no reported spend to the top range.

Blind, boat and layout spending has a different shape. 115 respondents selected $0 and 129 selected N/A. Keep those responses distinct; neither tells us what equipment someone already owns.

46.4% selected the two highest travel-spending ranges, $501–$1,000 or $1,000+. Gas, lodging and food make the trip to hunt part of the season budget.

Dog spending includes food, veterinary care and training. 131 respondents selected N/A and 79 selected the separate $0 / N/A option. Those choices are preserved as asked; they are not recoded as proof that someone has no retriever.

137 respondents selected a positive club or lease spending range; 86 selected a positive guide or outfitter range. Each is a share of all 401 respondents, rounded to 34% and 21%.

The distributions retain the separate N/A and $0 / N/A choices. They show how spending is concentrated among those who reported paying, without treating every private-access hunter as a paying customer.

139 respondents, or 34.7%, selected a typical one-way drive of 61–100 or 100+ miles. The most common single range was 31–60 miles, at 29.4%.

Distance adds context to access and season costs. This question measures the usual one-way trip, not total season mileage, travel time or the reason a hunter chose a particular place.

54.6% hunted a public WMA, refuge or wildlife area at some point last season. 24.9% named a public WMA or refuge as their primary ground. The first measure describes every kind of place used; the second identifies one main type.

Permission, clubs, leases, owned ground and guided hunts all appear in the results. Hunters could name several places across a season, so the all-locations percentages should not be added into a count of unique hunters.

33.4% selected 31–50 or 50+ days afield. This is the high-frequency part of the sample that anchors the spending-concentration story. At the other end, the distribution includes people who held a license but never got out.

58.1% typically hunt with one partner or in a group of three or four. Another 16.2% usually hunt solo. The separate “varies” answer matters: a hunter’s company can change through the season.

121 respondents said they hunt more than five years ago, compared with 120 who said less. 151 said about the same, and 9 were not hunting waterfowl five years ago.

That overall balance does not erase differences within the sample. The adjacent model examines what distinguishes people reporting less hunting. These are retrospective self-reports, not observed transitions or forecasts of who will quit.

Family introduced 55.9% of respondents, while friends or mentors introduced 28.2%. Together, those two paths account for 84.0%.

Self-taught adults, people coming from other hunting, formal programs and media also appear in the full distribution. Small formal-program and media counts describe this sample, not the effectiveness of recruitment efforts.

Across the full sample, 54.9% included mallards among their top targets. Pintails were selected by 29.4%, while 28.7% chose “whatever flies.” Hunters could select up to three answers.

The choices include both individual species and grouped categories. The result describes what respondents pursued, rather than their harvest mix or the abundance of those birds.

For ducks, 26–50 was the most common harvest range, selected by 21.9%. 6.7% reported zero ducks. For geese, the most common range was 1–5 at 27.7%, and 21.9% reported zero.

A zero goose harvest does not establish that someone tried and failed to take geese. Targets, harvest and days afield are separate questions. These totals do not measure skill, success per outing or birds taken per shot.

87.0% primarily use a semi-automatic, compared with 9.7% using a pump. Over/unders and side-by-sides are smaller parts of this sample. The question asked for one primary action.

50.4% own a retriever and 15.0% hunt over someone else’s dog. Another 17.7% do not hunt with a retriever but would like to. Interest in doing so is not a commitment to buy or train a dog.

Marsh or wade-in hunting was selected by 45.9% of respondents, followed by pit blinds at 31.9% and permanent blinds at 28.7%. The full list includes banks, fields, boats and timber.

This was a select-all question. The answers describe the methods used by this sample, not mutually exclusive hunter types or a count of hunts in each setup.

Benelli was selected by 34.9% and Beretta by 25.2%. Browning, Winchester and Remington follow among the most reported brands. The full list includes every offered answer.

Hunters could name several brands used last season. These are use shares within the sample, not sales, ownership of every gun in a collection, or evidence of loyalty.

Sitka was selected by 43.1% and Drake by 29.2%. 156 of 401 respondents, or 38.9%, selected the mix-of-brands option.

That mix answer can coexist with named brands in the same response. It describes reported apparel use, not a quantified pool of customers ready to switch, and it is not a market-share estimate.

Steel leads at 68.6%. Another 17.7% selected a situational mix, while bismuth and tungsten account for 10.7% and 3.0%.

This question asked for primary shell type. It does not measure shells fired, performance, lethality or a preference at a given price.

There were 200 nonblank answers. One literal test entry was excluded, leaving 199 substantive answers: 176 named a brand or retailer, 15 gave no specific recommendation, and eight gave general advice. Every brand percentage uses the same 199-answer base.

Sitka was mentioned in 47 answers, or 23.6%. The answer box showed a Sitka example, so this is not an unaided brand-awareness ranking. Answers could name several brands, and no-brand answers remain in the denominator.

Facebook groups and YouTube were selected by 59.1% and 58.9%. Print was used by 42.4%, and hunting apps 33.9%. The complete list includes people who do not consume hunting content.

The age comparison shows why a single overall ranking can miss the way different hunters get information. These are reported-use answers, not advertising reach, attention, conversion or effectiveness.

Ducks Unlimited was selected by 58.9%, Delta Waterfowl by 34.2%, and a state waterfowl organization by 29.4%. 27.2% selected no current membership.

Hunters could select several organizations. The state-organization choice includes California Waterfowl as an example, and should not be read as California Waterfowl membership alone.