American woodcock population status, 2003

              U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
American Woodcock
Population Status, 2003
Suggested citation:
Kelley, J.R., Jr. 2003. American woodcock population status, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Laurel, Maryland. 20pp.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available at our home page (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov).
1
AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2003
JAMES R. KELLEY, JR., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, BHW
Federal Building, 1 Federal Dr., Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056
Abstract: Singing-ground and Wing-collection surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the American
woodcock (Scolopax minor). Singing-ground Survey data indicated that the number of displaying woodcock in the Eastern
and Central Regions were unchanged from 2002 (P>0.1), although the point estimates of the trends were positive . Trends
from the Singing-ground Survey during 1993-03 were –1.3 and –1.6% per year for the Eastern and Central regions,
respectively (P<0.05). There were long-term (1968-03) declines (P<0.01) of 2.3% per year in the Eastern Region and
1.8% per year in the Central Region. The 2002 recruitment index for the Eastern Region (1.4 immatures per adult female)
was the same as the 2001 index, but was 18% below the long-term regional average. The 2002 recruitment index for the
Central Region (1.6 immatures per adult female) was 17% higher than the 2001 index (1.3 immatures per adult female),
and was similar to the long-term regional average. The index of daily hunting success in the Eastern Region increased
slightly from 1.8 woodcock per successful hunt in 2001 to 1.9 in 2002, but seasonal hunting success declined from 6.9
woodcock per successful hunter in 2001 to 6.6 in 2002. In the Central Region, the daily success index was 2.1 woodcock
per successful hunt in 2001 and 2002; but seasonal hunting success increased from 10.0 woodcock per successful hunter in
2001 to 11.0 in 2002.
The American woodcock is a popular game bird
throughout eastern North America. The management
objective of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is
to increase populations of woodcock to levels consistent
with the demands of consumptive and non-consumptive
users (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Reliable
annual population estimates, harvest estimates and
information on recruitment and distribution are essential
for comprehensive woodcock management.
Unfortunately, this information is difficult and often
impractical to obtain. Woodcock are difficult to find and
count because of their cryptic coloration, small size, and
preference for areas with dense vegetation. Up until the
recent advent of the Harvest Information Program, a
sampling frame for woodcock hunters had been lacking.
Because of these difficulties, the Wing-collection Survey
and the Singing-ground Survey were developed to
provide indices of recruitment, hunting success and
changes in abundance.
This report summarizes the results of these surveys
and presents an assessment of the population status of
woodcock as of June 2003. The report is intended to
assist managers in regulating the sport harvest of
woodcock and to draw attention to areas where
management actions are needed.
METHODS
Woodcock Management Units
Woodcock are managed on the basis of 2 regions or
populations, Eastern and Central, as recommended by
Owen et al. (1977) (Fig. 1). Coon et al. (1977) reviewed
the concept of management units for woodcock and
recommended the current configuration over several
alternatives. This configuration was biologically
justified because analysis of band recovery data indicated
that there was little crossover between the regions
(Krohn et al. 1974, Martin et al. 1969). Furthermore, the
regional boundaries conform to the boundary between
the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. The results of the
Wing-collection and Singing-ground surveys are
reported by state or province, and region.
Singing-ground Survey
The Singing-ground Survey was developed to exploit
the conspicuous courtship display of the male woodcock.
Early studies demonstrated that counts of singing males
provide indices to woodcock populations and could be
used to monitor annual changes (Mendall and Aldous
1943, Goudy 1960, Duke 1966, and Whitcomb 1974).
Before 1968, counts were conducted on non-randomly-located
routes. Beginning in 1968, routes were relocated
along lightly-traveled secondary roads in the center of
randomly-chosen 10-minute blocks within each state and
province in the central and northern portions of the
woodcock’s breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collected prior
to 1968 are not included in this report.
The primary purpose of this report is to facilitate the
prompt distribution of timely information. Results
are preliminary and may change with the inclusion of
additional data.
Cover picture of incubating hen woodcock courtesy of
Stephen Maxson, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
2
Each route was 3.6 miles (5.4 km) long and consisted
of 10 listening points. The routes were surveyed shortly
after sunset by an observer who drove to each of the 10
stops and recorded the number of woodcock heard
peenting (the vocalization by displaying male woodcock
on the ground). Acceptable dates for conducting the
survey were assigned by latitude to coincide with peaks
in courtship behavior of local woodcock. In most states,
the peak of courtship activity (including local woodcock
and woodcock still migrating) occurred earlier in the
spring and local reproduction may have already been
underway when the survey was conducted. However, it
was necessary to conduct the survey during the
designated survey dates in order to avoid counting
migrating woodcock. Because adverse weather
conditions may affect courtship behavior and/or the
ability of observers to hear woodcock, surveys were only
conducted when wind, precipitation, and temperature
conditions were acceptable.
The survey consists of about 1,500 routes. In order to
avoid expending unnecessary manpower and funds,
approximately one half of these routes are surveyed each
year. The remaining routes are carried as “constant
zeros.” Routes for which no woodcock are heard for 2
consecutive years enter this constant zero status and are
not run for the next 5 years. If woodcock are heard on a
constant zero route when it is next run, the route reverts
to normal status and is run again each year. Data from
constant zero routes are included in the analysis only for
the years they were actually surveyed. Sauer and
Bortner (1991) reviewed the implementation and
analysis of the Singing-ground Survey in more detail.
Trend Estimation.—Trends were estimated for each
route by solving a set of estimating equations (Link and
Sauer 1994). Observer data were used as covariables to
adjust for differences in observers’ ability to hear
woodcock. To estimate state and regional trends, a
weighted average from individual routes was calculated
for each area of interest as described by Geissler (1984).
Regional estimates were weighted by state and provincial
land areas. Variances associated with the state,
provincial, and regional slope estimates were estimated
using a bootstrap procedure (Efron 1982). Trend
estimates were expressed as percent change per year and
trend significance was assessed using normal-based
confidence intervals. Short-term (2002-03), intermediate-term
(1993-03) and long-term (1968-03) trends were
evaluated.
The reported sample sizes are the number of routes on
which trend estimates are based. These numbers may be
less than the actual number of routes surveyed for several
reasons. The estimating equations approach requires at
least 2 non-zero counts by the same observer for a route
to be used. With the exception of the 2002-03 analysis,
routes that did not meet this requirement during the
interval of interest were not included in the sample size.
For the 2002-03 analysis, a constant of 0.1 was added to
counts of low-abundance routes to allow their use in the
analysis. Each route should be surveyed during the peak
time of singing activity. For editing purposes,
“acceptable” times were between 22 and 58 minutes after
sunset (or, between 15 and 51 minutes after sunset on
overcast evenings). Due to observer error, some stops on
some routes were surveyed before or after the peak times
of singing activity. Earlier analysis revealed that routes
with 8 or fewer acceptable stops tended to be biased low.
Therefore, only route observations with at least 9
acceptable stops were included in the analysis. Routes
for which data were received after 30 May 2003 were not
included in this analysis but will be included in future
trend estimates. Data for 2002 and 2003 were not
received from Prince Edward Island. Therefore, short-term
trends could not be estimated for the province;
however, intermediate and long-term trends were
estimated for 1993-2001 and 1968-2001, respectively.
Annual indices.—Annual indices were calculated for
the 2 regions and each state and province by finding the
deviation between the observed count on each route and
that predicted by the 1968-2003 regional or
state/provincial trend estimate. These residuals were
averaged by year and added to the fitted trend to produce
annual indices of abundance for each region, state and
province. Yearly variation in woodcock abundance was
superimposed on the long-term fitted trends (see Sauer
and Geissler 1990). Thus, the indices calculated with this
method portray year-to-year variation around the
predicted trend line, which can be useful for exploratory
data analysis (e.g., observing periods of departure from
the long-term trend). However, the indices should be
viewed in a descriptive context. They are not used to
CENTRAL EASTERN
SURVEY
COVERAGE
BREEDING
RANGE
Fig. 1. Woodcock management regions, breeding range,
and Singing-ground Survey coverage.
3
assess statistical significance and a change in the indices
over a subset of years does not necessarily represent a
significant change. Observed patterns must be verified
using trend estimation methods to examine the period of
interest (Sauer and Geissler 1990, Link and Sauer 1994).
Wing-collection Survey
The Wing-collection Survey was incorporated into a
national webless migratory game bird wing-collection
survey in 1997. Only data on woodcock will be
presented in this report. As with the old survey, the
primary objective of the Wing-collection Survey is to
provide data on the reproductive success of woodcock.
The survey also produces information on the chronology
and distribution of the harvest and data on hunting
success. The survey is administered as a cooperative
effort between woodcock hunters, the FWS and state
wildlife agencies. Participants in the 2002 survey
included hunters who either: (1) participated in the 2001
survey; or (2) indicated on the 2001-02 Annual
Questionnaire Survey of U. S. Waterfowl Hunters or
Harvest Information Program Survey that they hunted
woodcock. Wing-collection Survey participants were
provided with prepaid mailing envelopes and asked to
submit one wing from each woodcock they bagged.
Hunters were asked to record the date of the hunt, and
the state and county where the bird was shot. Hunters
were not asked to submit envelopes for unsuccessful
hunts. The age and sex of the birds were determined by
examining plumage characteristics (Martin 1964, Sepik
1994) during the annual Woodcock Wingbee, a
cooperative work session. Wings from the 2002-03
hunting season were accepted through 25 April 2003.
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the
harvest provided an index to recruitment of young into
the population. The 2002 recruitment indices were
compared to long-term (1963-2001) averages. Annual
indices were calculated as the average number of
immatures per adult female in eac h state, weighted by
the relative contribution of each state to the total number
of wings received during 1963-2001 (to maintain
comparability between years).
Daily and seasonal bags of hunters who participated
in the Wing-collection Survey in both 2001 and 2002
were used as indices of hunter success. These indices
were weighted to compensate for changes in the
proportion of the estimated woodcock harvest attributed
to each state and adjusted to a base-year value (1969) for
comparison with previous years (Clark 1970, 1972,
1973). Only data on successful hunts from prior years
were used so that they would be comparable to data from
the new survey. A successful hunt was defined as any
envelope returned with complete information in which
>1 woodcock wing was received.
Harvest Information Program
The Harvest Information Program (HIP) was
cooperatively developed by the FWS and state wildlife
agencies to provide reliable annual estimates of hunter
activity and harvest for all migratory game birds (Elden
et al. 2002). In the past, the annual FWS migratory bird
harvest survey was based on a sampling frame that
consisted solely of hunters who purchased a federal duck
stamp. However, people that hunt only non-waterfowl
species such as woodcock and doves are not required to
purchase a duck stamp, and therefore were not included
in that sampling frame. The HIP sampling frame
consists of all migratory game bird hunters, thus it will
provide more reliable estimates of woodcock hunter
numbers and harvest than we have had in the past.
Under this program, state wildlife agencies collect the
name, address, and some additional information from
each migratory bird hunter in their state, and send that
information to the FWS. The FWS then selects random
samples of those hunters and asks them to voluntarily
provide detailed information about their hunting activity.
For example, hunters selected for the woodcock harvest
survey are asked to complete a daily diary about their
woodcock hunting and harvest during the current year’s
hunting season. Their responses are then used to develop
nationwide woodcock harvest estimates. These estimates
should be considered preliminary as refinements are still
being made in the sampling frame and estimation
techniques.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Trend Estimation.— The number of woodcock
displaying during the 2003 Singing-ground Survey in the
Eastern and Central Regions were not significantly
different (P>0.1) from the 2002 levels, however the
point estimate of the trends were positive (Table 1, Fig.
2). Trends for all states and provinces are reported in
Table 1, but results based on fewer than 10 routes should
be considered unreliable.
Trends for the 1993-03 period were computed for 341
routes in the Eastern Region and 404 routes in the
Central Region. Eastern and Central region breeding
populations declined (P<0.05) 1.3 and 1.6% per year,
respectively, during this period (Table 1).
Long-term (1968-03) trends were estimated for 609
routes in the Eastern Region and 614 routes in the
Central Region. There were long-term declines (P<0.10)
in the breeding population throughout most states and
CENTRAL EASTERN
DECREASE (P<0.10) INCREASE (P<0.10) INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE
DECREASE (NS)
DECREASE (P<0.10)
INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE
INCREASE (NS)
DECREASE (NS)
Fig. 2. Short-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the
Singing-ground Survey, 2002-2003.
Fig. 3. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the
Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2003.
CENTRAL EASTERN
INCREASE (NS)
4
5
provinces in the Eastern and Central Regions (Table 1,
Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimates were -2.3 and
-1.8% per year (P<0.01) for the Eastern and Central
regions, respectively.
Annual Breeding Population Indices.—In the Eastern
Region, the 2003 breeding population index of 1.78
singing-males per route was higher than the predicted
value of 1.66 (Table 2, Fig. 4). The Central Region
population index of 2.16 males per route was higher than
the predicted value of 2.13.
The major causes of these declines are thought to
be degradation and loss of suitable habitat on both the
breeding and wintering grounds, resulting from forest
succession and various human uses (Dwyer et al. 1983,
Owen et al. 1977, Straw et al. 1994). If current trends in
land use practices persist, continued long-term
population declines are likely. In an effort to halt such
declines, the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies has created a Woodcock Task Force
to develop a woodcock conservation plan.
Wing-collection Survey
A total of 6,803 potential woodcock hunters in states
with woodcock seasons were contacted and asked to
participate in the 2002 Wing-collection Survey. Eighteen
percent (Table 3) cooperated by sending in 9,002
woodcock wings (Table 4).
Recruitment.—The 2002 recruitment index in the
Eastern Region (1.4 immatures per adult female) was the
same as the 2001 index, but was 18% below the long-term
(1963-01) regional average of 1.7 immatures per
adult female (Table 4, Fig 5). In the Central Region the
2002 recruitment index (1.6 immatures per adult female)
was 17% higher than the 2001 index (1.3), and was
similar to the long-term regional average. The
preliminary 2002 recruitment index for eastern Canada
(Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia combined)
was 2.5 immatures per adult female (Canadian Wildlife
Service, unpublished data).
Hunting Success.— The only change in Federal
frameworks for woodcock hunting seasons in the U.S.
during 2002-03 was moving the framework opening date
in the Eastern Region from October 6 to October 1
(Appendix 1). The 2002 index of daily hunting success
in the Eastern Region (1.9 woodcock per successful
hunt) was slightly higher than the 2001 index of 1.8
(Table 5). The index of seasonal hunting success in the
Eastern Region declined from 6.9 woodcock per
successful hunter in 2001 to 6.6 in 2002. In the Central
Region, the 2002 daily success index (2.1 woodcock per
successful hunt) was similar to the 2001 index. Central
Region hunters experienced an increase in the seasonal
success index from 10.0 woodcock per successful hunter
in 2001 to 11.0 woodcock per hunter in 2002. Base-year
adjusted indices of daily and seasonal hunting success
were below long-term averages in both regions (Figs. 6
and 7).
NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE
YEAR
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
EASTERN REGION
CENTRAL REGION
Fig. 4. Long-term trends (smooth line) and annual
indices of the number of woodcock heard on the Singing-ground
Survey, 1968-2003.
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02
EASTERN REGION
CENTRAL REGION
YEAR ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE
Fig. 5. Adjusted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.),
1963-2002. The dashed line is the 1963-2001 average.
6
Indices to seasonal hunting success indicate that the
annual woodcock harvest has been declining among
participants in the survey for over a decade. This is
consistent with the results of the Annual Questionnaire
Survey of U.S. Waterfowl Hunters (Martin 1979, and
FWS unpublished data), which indicates that the
woodcock harvest and the number of woodcock hunters
have generally declined since the early 1980s (Fig. 8).
These results should be interpreted cautiously
because of the limitations of both of these surveys. A
comprehensive critique of these limitations is beyond the
scope of this report; interested readers should see Owen
et al. (1977), Martin (1979), and Straw et al. (1994).
Briefly, historic indices based on the Wing-collection
Survey are potentially biased because of the non-random
sampling procedure by which survey participants were
selected. Because the Annual Questionnaire Survey of
U. S. Waterfowl Hunters does not provide information
on the woodcock harvest by non-waterfowl hunters, it
does not provide an estimate of total harvest or the total
number of hunters. Nevertheless, results from this
survey should at least approximate trends in harvest and
hunter participation. The 2001-02 estimates are the last
ones generated from the Annual Questionnaire Survey,
which has been replaced by HIP. Estimates of harvest
and hunter numbers from the Annual Questionnaire
Survey for 1964-2001 are presented in Tables 6 and 7 for
historical purposes.
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01
EASTERN REGION
CENTRAL REGION
ADJUSTED AVERAGE DAILY BAG
YEAR
Fig. 6. Base-year adjusted indices of daily hunting
success in the U.S., 1965-2002. The base year is 1969;
the dashed line is the 1965-2001 average.
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01
EASTERN REGION
CENTRAL REGION
ADJUSTED AVERAGE DAILY BAG
YEAR
Fig. 7. Base-year adjusted indices of seasonal hunting
success in the U.S., 1965-2002. The base year is 1969;
the dashed line is the 1965-2001 average.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
YEAR
HARVEST (THOUSANDS)
HUNTERS (THOUSANDS)
HUNTERS
HARVEST
HUNTERS
HARVEST
EASTERN REGION
CENTRAL REGION
Fig. 8. U. S. harvest of American woodcock by duck stamp
purchasers, and hunter numbers, 1964-2001 (Martin 1979,
and FWS unpublished data, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, Laurel, Maryland).
7
Harvest Information Program
Estimates of active woodcock hunters, days afield,
and woodcock harvest from the 2001-02 and 2002-03
HIP surveys are provided in Table 8. In the Eastern
Region woodcock hunters spent approximately 161,200
days afield and harvested 84,800 birds during 2002-03.
Woodcock hunters in the Central Region spent 476,800
days afield and harvested 235,100 birds during the 2002-
03 season. Although HIP provides statewide estimates
of woodcock hunter numbers (Table 8), it is not possible
to develop regional estimates, due to the occurrence of
some hunters visiting more than one state to hunt.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Rebecca Rau (FWS) mailed and processed Singing-ground
Survey forms, corresponded with cooperators,
keypunched portions of data, participated in the wingbee,
and continued development of the new web site that
allowed cooperators to submit survey data electronically.
T. Nguyen and H. Bellary (FWS) played vital roles in
web site and database development. Personnel from the
FWS, Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U. S.
Geological Survey, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS),
and many state and provincial agencies, and other
individuals assisted in collecting the Singing-ground
Survey data and processing wings at the Woodcock
Wingbee. Special thanks to M. Bateman (CWS), G.
Haas (FWS) and S. Kelly (FWS) for help in coordinating
the Singing-ground Survey. Special appreciation is
extended to A. Stewart, V. Tuovila and the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources for hosting the 2003
wingbee. Individuals that participated in the wingbee
were: D. Dessecker and A. Bump (Ruffed Grouse
Society); F. Kimmel and M. Olinde (Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries); D. McAuley
(BRD); W. Palmer (Pennsylvania Game Commission);
A. Stewart and V. Tuovila (Michigan DNR); R.
Stonebraker (Indiana DNR); E. Oppelt and J. Bruggink
(Northern Michigan U.), M. Neal (U. of Michigan-Flint)
and T. Edwards, C. Horton, J. Kelley, R. Rau, P. Stinson,
R. Speer, K. Sturm and L. Wolff (FWS). Thanks to the
1,198 woodcock hunters that sent in wings. M. Bateman
(CWS) provided preliminary estimates of woodcock
recruitment for eastern Canada. The Harvest Surveys
Section of the Division of Migratory Bird Management
(FWS) mailed Wing-collection Survey materials,
organized wing submissions, assisted with data
management, and provided Harvest Information Program
estimates of woodcock harvest (special thanks to P.
Padding, M. Moore, E. Martin, and J. Bezek-Balcombe).
E. Martin also provided the entire dataset on woodcock
harvest and hunter numbers from the Annual
Questionnaire Survey. B. H. Powell (BRD) developed
the computer programs for administering the Wing-collection
Survey. J. Sauer (BRD) developed computer
programs for calculating trends and indices from
Singing-ground Survey data. W. Kendall (BRD)
performed the trend analyses and assisted with
interpretation. R. Rau, W. Kendall, P. Padding, J. Sauer,
and M. Otto reviewed a draft of parts or all of this report
and provided helpful comments. Portions of this report
were copied in whole or in part from previous woodcock
status reports.
LITERATURE CITED
Clark, E. R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. U. S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 133.
35pp.
_____. 1972. Woodcock status report, 1971. U. S. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 153. 47pp.
_____. 1973. Woodcock status report, 1972. U. S. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 169. 50pp.
Coon, R. A., T. J. Dwyer, and J. W. Artmann. 1977.
Identification of harvest units for the American
woodcock. Proc. American Woodcock Symp.
6:147-153.
Duke, G. E. 1966. Reliability of censuses of singing
male woodcock. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:697-707.
Dwyer, T. J., D. G. McAuley, and E. L. Derleth. 1983.
Woodcock singing-ground counts and habitat
changes in the northeastern United States. J. Wildl.
Manage. 47:772-779.
Efron, B. 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other
resampling plans. Society for Industrial Applied
Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. 92pp.
Elden, R.C., W.V. Bevill, P.I. Padding, J.E. Frampton,
and D.L. Shroufe. 2002. Pages 7-16 in J.M. Ver
Steeg and R.C. Elden, compilers. Harvest
Information Program: Evaluation and
recommendations. Int. Assoc. of Fish and Wildl.
Agencies, Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird
Working Group, Ad Hoc Committee on HIP,
Washington, D. C. 100pp.
Geissler, P. H. 1984. Estimation of animal population
trends and annual indices from a survey of call
counts or other indicators. Proceedings American
Statistical Assoc., Section on Survey Research
Methods, 472-477.
8
Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock spring
population indexes in southern Michigan. M. S.
Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 44pp.
Krohn, W. B., F. W. Martin, and K. P. Burnham. 1974.
Band recovery distribution and survival estimates of
Maine woodcock. 8pp. In Proc. Fifth American
Woodcock Workshop, Athens, GA.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating equations
estimates of trends. Bird Populations 2:23-32.
Martin, E. M. 1979. Hunting and harvest trends for
migratory game birds other than waterfowl: 1964-
76. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.
Wildl. 218. 37pp.
Martin, F. W. 1964. Woodcock age and sex
determination from wings. J. Wildl. Manage.
28:287-293.
_____, S. O. Williams III, J. D. Newsom, and L. L.
Glasgow. 1969. Analysis of records of Louisiana-banded
woodcock. Proc. 3rd Annu. Conf.
Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 23:85-
96.
Mendall, H. L., and C. M. Aldous. 1943. The ecology
and management of the American woodcock. Maine
Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit. Univ. Maine, Orono.
201pp.
Owen, R. B., Jr., J. M. Anderson, J. W. Artmann, E. R.
Clark, T. G. Dilworth, L. E. Gregg, F. W. Martin, J.
D. Newsom, and S. R. Pursglove, Jr. 1977.
American woodcock (Philohela minor = Scolopax
minor of Edwards 1974), Pages 149-186 in G. C.
Sanderson, ed. Management of migratory shore and
upland game birds in North America. Int. Assoc. of
Fish and Wildl. Agencies, Washington, D. C.
Sauer, J. R., and J. B. Bortner. 1991. Population trends
from the American Woodcock Singing-ground
Survey, 1970-88. J. Wildl. Mange. 55:300-312.
_____, and P. H. Geissler. 1990. Estimation of annual
indices from roadside surveys. Pages 58-62 in J. R.
Sauer and S. Droege, eds. Survey designs and
statistical methods for the estimation of avian
population trends. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol.
Rep. 90(1). 166pp.
Sepik, G. F. 1994. A woodcock in the hand. Ruffed
Grouse Society, Coraopolis, PA. 12pp.
Straw, J. A., D. G. Krementz, M. W. Olinde, and G. F.
Sepik. 1994. American woodcock. Pages 97-114
in T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun, eds. Migratory
Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North
America. Int. Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies,
Washington, D. C.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American
woodcock management plan. U. S. Fish and Wildl.
Serv., Washington, D. C. 11pp.
Whitcomb, D. A. 1974. Characteristics of an insular
woodcock population. Mich. Dept. Nat Resour.,
Wildl. Div. Rep. 2720. 78pp.
9
Table 1. Trends (% change per yeara and 90% confidence interval) in the number of American woodcock heard in the Singing-ground
Survey as determined by the estimating equations technique (Link and Sauer 1994), 1968-2003.
State, 2002-2003 1993-2003 1968-2003
Province No. of
nc % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI
CT 4 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 17.7 0.0 35.5 9 -10.0 ** d -16.5 -3.5
DE 2 0 2 -10.0 * -19.9 -0.1 2 4.2 -11.3 19.7
ME 44 29 23.1 * 1.0 45.1 53 -0.6 -2.0 0.8 64 -2.3 *** -3.1 -1.4
MD 6 2 -26.7 -110.8 57.4 6 -15.3 -43.0 12.5 21 -10.8 *** -17.2 -4.4
MA 7 6 -7.1 -43.8 29.6 9 5.2 ** 1.0 9.5 20 -4.1 ** -7.4 -0.7
NB 32 25 -2.1 -17.3 13.2 51 0.9 -1.5 3.3 62 -0.7 -1.9 0.5
NH 13 12 34.0 -8.6 76.7 13 0.7 -3.5 4.9 18 0.5 -2.2 3.3
NJ 7 2 28.7 -1.8 59.2 5 -4.1 -13.6 5.5 17 -10.1 *** -13.5 -6.8
NY 59 38 12.0 -14.7 38.6 70 -2.9 ** -4.9 -0.9 105 -2.8 *** -3.8 -1.8
NS 30 19 1.9 -23.9 27.7 38 1.1 -1.9 4.0 56 -0.3 -1.6 0.9
PA 34 13 -12.8 -41.9 16.3 26 -1.6 -7.2 4.1 56 -4.7 *** -6.9 -2.5
PEI 0 0 7 -2.8f -7.2 1.6 12 -1.4g -2.9 0.1
QUE 26 0 13 -2.9 ** -5.1 -0.7 54 -1.8 -4.9 1.2
RI 1 0 2 -15.7 *** -23.1 -8.2
VT 17 10 29.6 -11.2 70.3 18 0.7 -2.3 3.6 21 -1.5 -3.2 0.1
VA 26 4 17.0 -145.5 179.4 12 -10.7 * -20.2 -1.2 47 -10.7 *** -13.9 -7.4
WV 27 8 27.7 -58.1 113.6 14 -5.7 ** -9.8 -1.6 43 -2.7 *** -4.3 -1.0
Eastern 335 173 6.4 -4.9 17.7 341 -1.3 ** -2.4 -0.3 609 -2.3 *** -2.8 -1.8
IL 14 0 4 13.0 -17.2 43.2 23 23.4 -10.2 57.1
IN 17 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 -12.4 -28.3 3.6 38 -6.1 * -11.5 -0.7
MBe 18 9 31.7 -3.8 67.3 20 -4.0 * -7.8 -0.2 20 -3.5 ** -6.2 -0.9
MI 89 43 11.3 -6.1 28.6 109 -1.2 -2.6 0.1 143 -1.7 *** -2.5 -0.8
MN 72 46 5.5 -13.3 24.3 79 -0.4 -2.2 1.4 99 -1.1 ** -2.0 -0.3
OH 30 9 -9.9 -62.5 42.7 27 -10.6 ** -18.7 -2.6 55 -6.3 *** -10.0 -2.7
ON 34 0 87 -3.2 -7.9 1.5 136 -1.6 *** -2.3 -0.9
WI 69 41 7.9 -12.1 27.8 71 -1.7 -3.7 0.3 100 -1.9 *** -2.7 -1.0
Central 343 151 8.7 -1.7 19.2 404 -1.6 *** -2.5 -0.7 614 -1.8 *** -2.2 -1.3
Continent 635 324 7.7 * 0.7 14.8 745 -1.5 *** -2.2 -0.8 1223 -1.9 *** -2.3 -1.6
a Mean of weighted route trends within each state, province or region. To estimate the total percent change over
several years, use: (100((% change/100)+1)y)-100 where y is the number of years. Note: extrapolating the estimated
trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 30 years) may exaggerate the total change over the period.
b Total number of routes surveyed in 2003 for which data were received by 30 May.
c Number of comparable routes (2002 versus 2003) with at least 2 non-zero counts.
d Indicates slope is significantly different from zero: * P<0.10, ** P<0.05. *** P <0.01; significance levels are
approximate for states where n<10.
e Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1990.
f Data were not received from PEI for the 2002 and 2003 surveys. Trend estimate is for the period 1993-2001.
g Data were not received from PEI for the 2002 and 2003 surveys. Trend estimate is for the period 1968-2001.
10
1985
1.38
0.60
3.81
1.33
1.99
3.98
2.65
1.95
3.59
2.16
1.48
2.88
3.52
0.64
2.10
0.87
0.89
2.46
0.39
0.67
--
4.89
3.66
1.47
5.02
3.03
2.98
2.53
1984
1.61
0.59
3.75
1.32
2.54
3.67
2.50
2.73
2.84
2.15
1.90
3.95
2.88
1.92
2.66
1.72
0.94
2.56
0.22
0.82
--
4.68
3.06
1.70
4.88
3.28
2.78
2.59
1983
2.44
1.63
3.75
1.68
1.44
4.54
2.81
2.31
3.53
2.25
1.80
3.46
3.67
2.18
2.62
1.20
1.14
2.70
0.19
0.84
--
4.25
3.44
1.83
4.64
3.00
2.87
2.65
1982
3.18
--
2.92
2.52
1.93
4.33
2.40
1.99
3.06
1.80
1.59
2.18
2.96
3.19
1.79
1.55
1.10
2.44
0.13
0.80
--
4.87
3.78
1.46
4.49
2.99
2.66
2.71
1981
2.57
--
4.24
2.56
2.26
4.16
4.09
1.96
3.78
2.02
1.96
2.05
3.08
0.78
2.38
1.65
1.25
2.74
0.15
1.09
--
4.61
4.19
2.03
5.92
3.05
3.17
2.78
1980
1.89
--
3.87
3.00
2.20
4.12
3.91
2.55
4.16
2.18
1.98
2.72
3.96
1.35
2.67
1.68
0.91
2.77
0.10
1.05
--
5.51
4.57
1.78
6.38
3.58
3.23
2.84
1979
2.16
0.41
4.40
2.43
3.06
4.61
3.22
4.12
3.61
2.29
2.17
3.67
3.62
1.35
3.00
1.98
1.10
2.91
0.08
1.43
--
5.60
4.11
1.80
6.24
4.19
3.43
2.91
1978
2.18
0.48
4.03
3.08
2.80
4.15
3.14
2.41
3.20
2.82
1.91
2.96
3.57
0.78
3.11
1.81
0.76
2.63
0.07
1.15
--
5.69
4.17
2.33
6.49
4.29
3.48
2.98
1977
3.60
0.51
4.37
2.90
2.40
5.80
3.12
4.16
4.04
2.44
2.40
3.70
2.92
--
4.07
2.38
1.09
3.02
0.07
1.28
--
5.38
4.16
2.93
6.00
4.07
3.50
3.05
1976
3.08
0.38
4.84
3.06
3.09
4.66
3.79
3.77
3.93
2.42
2.42
4.19
2.64
2.35
3.40
2.49
1.08
2.90
0.05
1.32
--
5.88
4.20
2.57
5.51
3.75
3.42
3.12
1975
5.63
1.20
5.46
4.51
2.33
6.35
3.06
6.23
3.98
2.74
2.50
4.99
3.82
2.35
3.75
3.00
1.24
3.37
0.06
1.34
--
6.39
4.17
2.37
5.74
3.91
3.60
3.19
1974
5.31
0.72
5.11
4.26
3.99
5.60
3.61
8.36
4.76
3.20
2.23
3.27
3.82
3.03
3.22
3.53
1.08
3.42
0.03
1.39
--
6.35
4.80
3.16
6.53
4.03
3.66
3.27
1973
5.48
0.77
5.15
6.04
4.94
5.05
2.63
8.41
4.52
2.56
3.09
2.46
3.22
4.06
3.28
2.41
1.12
3.24
0.03
1.89
--
5.47
4.13
2.46
6.09
3.94
3.52
3.34
1972
7.49
0.46
4.81
5.45
3.67
5.69
3.38
5.98
4.49
2.64
2.86
3.07
4.26
4.06
3.71
3.35
1.40
3.49
0.03
1.85
--
5.33
3.63
2.97
6.82
3.87
3.60
3.42
1971
6.14
0.40
5.11
6.51
4.99
5.46
2.68
10.09
4.79
2.76
3.22
5.26
4.51
5.32
3.29
3.85
1.15
3.63
0.02
1.53
--
5.63
4.27
3.55
6.15
4.05
3.66
3.50
1970
7.92
0.55
5.63
7.00
4.26
5.57
3.31
8.13
4.25
2.23
3.71
2.84
--
2.82
4.30
4.83
1.19
3.72
0.02
1.98
--
5.83
3.98
3.50
6.47
4.57
3.80
3.58
1969
7.94
0.48
5.36
7.89
3.63
5.25
2.87
6.50
5.54
2.62
3.38
3.81
--
2.83
2.53
4.66
1.66
3.80
--
2.08
--
6.12
4.64
--
6.81
4.22
3.90
3.67
Year
1968
--b
0.62
5.19
8.94
--
--
--
7.52
5.03
3.61
3.67
--
--
--
--
--
1.48
3.92
--
2.40
--
6.26
--
--
6.22
4.28
3.91
3.76
Table 2. Breeding population indices for American woodcock from the Sing-ground Survey, 1968-2003. These indices are based on the 1968-2003 trend and should be used
for exploratory data analysis only; observed patterns should be verified using trend estimation methods (Sauer and Geissler 1990).
State, Province
or Region
Eastern Region
CTa
DEa
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEIa
QUEa
RIa
VT
VA
WV
Region
Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region
Continent
a Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size.
b Insufficient data.
11
2003
0.30
0.72
2.67
0.19
1.46
4.75
3.97
0.33
1.98
2.16
0.77
--
2.54
0.02
2.08
0.16
0.62
1.78
6.96
0.29
1.93
3.53
2.95
0.47
4.18
2.32
2.16
1.66
2002
0.31
0.72
2.46
0.29
1.32
3.91
3.63
0.38
1.80
2.06
0.80
0.87
2.58
0.05
1.83
0.18
0.51
1.66
4.46
0.26
1.45
3.42
2.72
0.49
5.94
2.19
2.04
1.70
2001
0.33
0.67
2.58
0.63
1.28
4.89
3.41
0.58
2.02
2.56
0.76
3.05
2.29
--
2.22
0.19
0.61
1.81
6.30
0.46
2.36
3.35
3.55
0.54
3.88
2.34
2.37
1.74
2000
0.89
0.93
2.99
0.35
1.38
4.54
3.22
0.59
1.97
2.75
0.61
2.84
2.43
--
3.47
0.23
0.74
1.84
3.81
0.40
1.88
3.61
3.45
0.63
4.66
2.55
2.29
1.78
1999
1.32
0.42
3.06
0.34
2.05
4.96
4.69
0.84
2.19
2.32
0.92
2.42
2.95
--
2.57
0.26
0.65
2.02
2.75
0.47
1.73
3.46
3.18
0.56
3.96
2.78
2.31
1.83
1998
0.62
1.42
2.41
0.24
1.35
3.99
3.81
0.67
2.24
2.32
1.17
2.86
2.35
--
2.56
0.25
0.62
1.86
--
0.73
1.80
4.30
3.22
0.72
3.99
2.30
2.44
1.87
1997
0.65
0.72
2.56
0.51
1.47
4.80
4.14
0.20
2.17
1.99
1.06
2.66
2.29
0.08
2.29
0.34
0.72
1.89
1.69
0.35
1.47
3.61
2.60
0.61
4.00
2.36
1.87
1.91
1996
0.74
0.72
2.31
0.44
1.37
3.93
3.76
0.97
2.19
2.61
0.99
3.06
1.19
--
1.75
0.25
0.65
1.66
3.78
0.45
2.49
3.70
2.97
0.84
3.47
2.52
2.33
1.96
1995
0.81
--
3.02
0.31
1.05
4.34
4.76
0.81
2.35
2.54
1.21
2.69
3.28
--
2.32
0.29
1.04
2.17
1.21
0.53
2.77
3.86
3.29
0.80
4.75
2.40
2.43
2.00
1994
0.64
--
2.84
0.52
1.44
5.14
2.42
0.34
2.26
2.07
0.65
2.31
2.75
--
2.06
0.38
0.60
1.80
1.33
0.51
2.47
3.58
3.03
0.79
3.80
2.38
2.31
2.05
1993
0.51
--
3.22
0.58
1.28
5.34
2.85
0.80
2.26
2.74
1.31
2.27
3.54
--
2.04
0.49
0.69
2.16
1.27
0.59
3.43
3.95
3.47
0.95
4.38
2.55
2.63
2.10
1992
0.62
0.24
2.98
0.30
1.51
3.97
2.29
0.85
2.79
2.50
1.23
2.40
2.98
--
1.93
0.43
0.78
2.07
1.06
0.55
2.61
3.93
3.26
0.92
4.85
2.59
2.51
2.15
1991
0.90
0.39
3.58
0.72
1.83
4.19
3.94
1.03
3.27
2.28
1.68
2.45
3.54
0.20
2.95
0.55
0.78
2.43
0.79
0.71
--
5.50
3.84
1.04
5.05
3.25
2.98
2.20
1990
0.85
0.72
2.85
0.87
1.52
4.38
2.87
1.08
3.03
1.85
1.52
3.29
2.89
--
3.01
0.57
0.85
2.21
0.52
0.69
--
4.68
4.11
1.32
5.08
3.21
2.84
2.25
1989
0.98
--
4.15
1.10
1.67
5.53
3.31
1.59
2.53
2.69
1.15
4.02
3.73
0.96
3.15
0.58
0.80
2.37
0.60
0.62
--
4.79
3.57
1.01
5.39
3.29
2.82
2.30
1988
2.33
--
4.06
0.97
2.12
4.26
3.19
1.67
3.27
2.47
1.60
4.23
2.51
0.96
3.39
0.66
0.79
2.39
0.49
0.61
--
5.02
4.13
1.48
5.10
3.55
2.98
2.36
1987
0.92
--
4.31
0.92
2.12
3.97
3.23
2.22
2.81
2.27
1.61
2.64
3.53
--
2.86
0.93
0.99
2.53
0.48
0.65
--
4.59
3.69
1.24
5.17
3.55
2.98
2.41
Year
1986
2.00
--b
3.94
1.17
2.04
3.33
4.51
1.90
3.06
2.53
1.70
3.78
3.39
0.64
2.66
0.90
0.86
2.50
0.32
0.90
--
4.96
3.86
1.14
4.94
3.56
2.97
2.47
Table 2. Continued.
State, Province
or Region
Eastern Region
CTa
DEa
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEIa
QUEa
RIa
VT
VA
WV
Region
Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region
Continent
a Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size.
b Insufficient data.
12
Table 3. Distribution of U.S. hunters contacted and hunters that submitted woodcock wings in the 2002-03
Wing-collection Survey.
State of No. of hunters No. of hunters that Percent that
residence contacted submitted wings submitted wings
AL 32 0 0
AR 29 0 0
CT 207 21 10
DE 24 1 4
FL 98 0 0
GA 77 6 8
IL 161 4 2
IN 138 29 21
IA 73 6 8
KS 16 0 0
KY 32 2 6
LA 194 20 10
ME 403 119 30
MD 84 10 12
MA 421 70 17
MI 777 242 31
MN 535 75 14
MS 23 0 0
MO 145 13 9
NE 39 0 0
NH 224 77 34
NJ 180 37 21
NY 459 94 20
NC 104 5 5
ND 7 0 0
OH 190 20 11
OK 37 0 0
PA 495 61 12
RI 49 5 10
SC 78 10 13
TN 72 3 4
TX 71 3 4
VT 179 68 38
VA 167 18 11
WV 42 16 38
WI 941 163 17
Total 6,803 1,198 18
13
Table 4. Numbers of woodcock wings received from hunters, and indices of recruitment in the U.S. Recruitment
indices for individual states were calculated as the ratio of immatures per adult female. The regional indices for
2002 were calculated as the average of the state values, adjusted for comparability with the 1963-2001 average.
Recruitment indices were not calculated for states where the sample of wings was <125.
State or Wings received
Region of Total Adult females Immatures Recruitment index
harvest 1963-01 2002 1963-01 2002 1963-01 2002 1963-01 2002
Eastern Region
CT 13,149 89 2,909 19 8,066 57 2.8
DE 418 3 54 0 294 2 5.4
FL 660 0 150 0 410 0 2.7
GA 2,927 29 901 10 1,270 7 1.4
ME 73,296 969 21,567 301 36,667 486 1.7 1.6
MD 3,843 42 958 16 2,150 19 2.2
MA 19,253 428 5,820 142 9,550 182 1.6 1.3
NH 27,456 702 8,876 227 12,697 333 1.4 1.5
NJ 24,357 222 5,660 60 14,331 105 2.5 1.8
NY 51,328 748 16,975 251 23,890 317 1.4 1.3
NC 3,007 65 890 30 1,489 30 1.7
PA 27,589 351 8,705 109 12,777 146 1.5 1.3
RI 2,246 13 420 2 1,519 8 3.6
SC 2,312 105 712 25 1,102 44 1.5
VT 20,311 457 6,513 173 9,494 197 1.5 1.1
VA 3,948 121 942 53 2,274 44 2.4
WV 5,156 76 1,572 22 2,611 32 1.7
Region 281,256 4,420 83,624 1,440 140,591 1,872 1.7 1.4
Central Region
AL 910 0 243 0 425 0 1.7
AR 515 0 165 0 207 0 1.3
IL 1,289 18 293 4 727 13 2.5
IN 6,819 138 1,717 37 3,802 61 2.2 1.6
IA 922 36 311 12 407 16 1.3
KS 44 0 9 0 22 0 a
KY 1,010 23 238 6 524 15 2.2
LA 28,894 318 6,479 64 18,711 211 2.9 3.3
MI 100,620 2,239 32,536 677 50,320 1122 1.5 1.7
MN 28,604 538 9,708 224 12,840 183 1.3 0.8
MS 1,719 0 488 0 875 0 1.8
MO 2,703 84 668 22 1,360 45 2.0
NE 13 0 5 0 6 0 a
OH 13,648 118 4,137 34 6,476 59 1.6 1.8
OK 170 2 38 0 89 2 2.3
TN 1,008 10 250 2 517 4 2.1
TX 986 1 261 1 501 0 1.9
WI 62,678 1,057 20,444 353 30,429 492 1.5 1.4
Region 252,552 4,582 77,990 1,436 128,238 2,478 1.6 1.6
14
Table 5. State and regional indices of daily and seasonal woodcock hunting success in the U.S. during 2001 and 2002.
State and regional indices were calculated for states represented by >10 hunters that participated in the Wing-collection
Survey both years. Regional indices were weighted as described by Clark (1970).
State of
No. of
successful
No. of
successful hunts
Woodcock
bagged
Woodcock per
successful hunt
Woodcock per
season
harvest hunters 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002
Eastern Region
CT 8 26 21 49 45
DE 1 2 1 4 3
GA 4 5 11 6 26
ME 84 391 363 875 795 2.2 2.2 10.4 9.5
MD 6 12 6 25 12
MA 33 132 152 247 275 1.9 1.8 7.5 8.3
NH 46 266 249 576 512 2.2 2.1 12.5 11.1
NJ 16 63 60 132 135 2.1 2.3 8.3 8.4
NY 60 278 290 507 559 1.8 1.9 8.5 9.3
NC 4 30 28 68 61
PA 39 143 129 319 272 2.2 2.1 8.2 7.0
RI 4 7 7 10 12
SC 9 27 43 60 99
VT 40 170 171 309 331 1.8 1.9 7.7 8.3
VA 7 45 45 104 86 2.2 2.2 12.6 10.1
WV 6 14 13 22 26
Region 367 1,611 1,589 3,313 3,249 1.8 1.9 6.9 6.6
Central Region
IA 6 21 20 33 35
IL 3 6 9 10 15
IN 14 47 50 94 93 2.0 1.9 6.7 6.6
KY 2 15 12 31 23
LA 13 83 107 220 306 2.7 2.9 16.9 23.5
MI 186 1,076 955 2,224 1,932 2.1 2.0 12.0 10.4
MN 64 311 239 634 490 2.0 2.1 9.9 7.7
MO 5 22 27 50 60
OH 12 78 51 168 112 2.2 2.2 14.0 9.3
TN 2 14 5 25 7
TX 1 4 1 6 1
WI 120 545 406 1,111 840 2.0 2.1 9.3 7.0
Region 428 2,222 1,882 4,606 3,914 2.1 2.1 10.0 11.0
15 1982
10,981
1,637
419
4,355
4,437
18,376
7,788
12,951
6,856
15,450
33,513
8,959
33,329
1,283
4,459
6,042
2,770
2,874
176,479
2,874
4,802
12,707
7,131
4,015
952
3,864
112,186
60,222
39,761
8,926
4,076
862
246
12,273
904
98
4,739
5,893
43,688
330,219
1981
12,245
1,714
193
4,155
5,440
25,390
10,743
21,688
12,099
13,901
56,536
13,228
39,689
1,261
7,298
7,777
5,854
1,494
240,705
2,425
5,445
13,108
7,006
3,339
831
3,892
211,441
56,733
32,205
9,777
6,291
1,559
90
13,216
1,316
58
4,448
5,172
64,617
442,969
1980
15,217
2,929
184
5,251
6,691
30,132
8,329
20,109
12,780
27,108
46,196
6,973
23,740
1,186
7,503
6,185
4,691
3,230
228,433
5,132
6,389
11,346
10,965
6,904
785
2,883
327,751
71,999
52,627
21,742
8,516
1,055
326
14,931
1,265
161
2,822
16,900
77,072
641,571
1979
13,488
3,210
343
3,956
5,977
33,452
5,267
20,114
15,268
23,559
71,113
7,252
35,807
2,708
6,199
6,234
7,696
2,563
264,205
4,788
7,647
13,800
9,309
5,460
510
3,695
146,576
72,738
48,432
11,904
6,540
378
0
12,153
908
55
6,282
10,392
75,913
437,480
1978
15,905
4,349
399
5,667
6,747
36,279
11,261
23,949
19,860
30,933
48,286
9,897
37,391
2,213
8,926
8,567
6,628
3,418
280,675
4,514
6,081
19,533
8,396
8,662
935
4,963
214,793
98,260
53,865
11,042
12,929
1,203
292
12,112
1,384
0
9,375
6,689
96,926
571,954
1977
17,792
2,535
1,084
6,596
9,911
32,347
7,839
21,185
12,936
24,700
66,796
9,186
33,409
1,216
7,716
6,367
5,043
4,706
271,364
7,975
20,586
14,347
6,384
5,587
2,419
1,874
130,271
122,600
44,676
10,540
9,438
536
0
14,575
2,894
46
3,668
15,916
114,422
528,754
1976
20,134
4,165
191
8,881
8,623
35,440
9,883
28,492
16,399
37,937
59,342
8,936
43,550
2,624
7,288
16,443
9,421
3,868
321,617
5,796
8,162
10,481
10,583
5,025
1,115
4,260
121,740
128,568
18,019
17,651
8,733
540
150
14,891
2,779
135
4,082
12,207
125,453
500,370
1975
16,181
4,593
450
4,909
6,714
40,846
7,568
33,971
16,109
31,377
72,259
8,899
37,573
2,078
8,010
11,117
10,162
2,273
315,089
6,909
9,475
11,302
15,372
2,619
892
3,126
59,758
157,417
35,806
10,925
6,545
394
352
13,955
4,648
135
4,648
10,471
105,416
460,165
1974
13,547
3,772
500
5,402
10,999
48,123
8,530
31,648
16,754
42,308
83,600
14,617
45,170
3,457
9,363
9,234
5,392
2,345
354,761
3,532
6,811
11,480
12,163
4,584
2,297
2,330
67,492
114,106
25,290
11,082
6,145
520
378
16,906
2,117
0
5,724
5,516
101,895
400,368
1973
18,729
4,759
135
6,012
5,997
34,765
8,475
37,623
13,752
42,975
82,810
8,186
43,090
2,472
5,660
8,723
5,911
1,892
331,966
3,035
8,451
8,531
6,993
3,416
2,019
1,727
47,436
119,723
20,682
12,775
6,376
477
325
13,274
2,233
124
3,544
6,817
58,405
326,363
1972
12,953
2,057
975
5,439
8,186
35,762
4,382
34,958
12,098
23,906
77,935
9,970
49,599
2,238
9,280
7,061
4,461
4,305
305,565
6,721
8,139
10,509
8,797
2,945
1,131
790
134,592
95,512
26,589
12,997
2,880
489
825
10,511
1,696
82
4,257
5,428
82,265
417,155
1971
14,619
4,109
1,232
4,192
6,208
33,923
8,334
25,363
12,556
39,662
80,334
9,254
57,311
4,049
7,783
10,384
4,470
1,715
325,498
3,985
4,755
9,684
12,159
756
735
1,389
73,272
106,387
20,745
8,409
3,482
299
395
18,031
1,610
0
2,926
5,678
65,915
340,612
1970
23,430
3,626
360
6,868
5,579
33,171
9,781
32,197
9,520
28,030
74,873
9,181
54,754
2,585
9,050
11,459
4,120
1,454
320,038
5,424
3,723
7,589
6,293
1,085
1,073
788
95,777
77,671
20,721
9,534
4,294
1,333
74
13,136
836
93
1,727
4,353
90,768
346,292
1969
18,815
3,043
629
4,568
3,645
25,805
10,082
32,221
13,099
28,207
83,081
6,995
42,136
3,092
8,716
5,173
6,967
467
296,741
7,432
2,619
9,705
6,210
861
885
2,382
105,955
54,402
14,182
8,820
3,919
192
0
19,445
1,977
84
2,626
6,234
44,894
292,824
1968
15,772
3,798
330
5,799
6,226
38,617
9,127
29,330
15,483
24,622
76,528
9,612
30,917
2,086
8,741
4,553
4,342
1,213
287,076
4,114
3,193
2,083
3,884
483
629
692
75,271
42,244
7,948
6,337
1,529
33
348
15,345
535
32
2,602
2,804
27,794
197,900
1967
12,238
1,767
553
3,999
4,672
27,726
7,011
20,532
8,212
20,791
75,869
8,308
39,811
1,758
4,622
9,133
3,988
926
251,916
5,182
6,354
4,109
5,048
1,668
278
702
62,869
73,928
16,591
6,982
3,245
515
0
10,190
2,866
341
1,564
2,329
40,282
245,043
1966
13,137
2,210
747
3,453
2,594
25,350
3,103
25,056
9,490
14,094
49,459
9,042
18,236
1,584
3,000
7,178
3,260
413
191,406
5,458
2,684
4,133
4,145
222
268
667
53,842
68,661
9,952
4,556
2,392
56
441
9,776
386
90
1,097
4,972
36,190
209,988
1965
16,261
1,879
240
3,501
2,341
24,158
3,318
28,156
11,259
13,437
44,261
5,219
29,119
1,453
2,707
3,421
2,317
584
193,361
1,626
3,683
3,124
2,921
433
271
427
31,855
62,910
4,929
3,095
2,634
104
152
13,011
57
0
856
1,968
48,905
182,961
1964
11,928
1,804
91
2,126
2,893
26,115
3,025
19,696
6,488
11,108
38,625
6,790
19,340
541
8,552
4,233
2,648
186
166,189
2,224
3,952
4,015
4,761
1,563
547
737
71,744
90,662
10,795
7,390
2,646
253
44
16,905
327
100
488
8,115
58,934
286,202
Table 6. State and regional estimates of the number of American woodcock bagged (retrieved kill) by duck stamp buyers in the U.S., 1964-2001. Data from Martin (1979) and unpublished FWS administrative reports. Information was not available to reassign hunters from the District of Columbia to state of harvest.
State or Region
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
ME
MD
MA
NH
NJ
NY
NC
PA
RI
SC
VT
VA
WV
Eastern Region
AL
AR
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
ND
OH
OK
SD
TN
TX
WI
Central Region
16
2001
3,748
392
121
4,924
1,990
14,087
1,973
5,511
3,792
4,623
5,593
4,226
11,866
187
4,626
3,446
3,280
923
75,311
124
231
3,256
4,974
948
442
3,008
7,026
35,290
16,044
955
3,646
823
238
6,280
1,318
117
1,341
2,727
14,253
103,041
2000
1,996
275
164
1,007
2,211
18,680
2,041
0
3,717
2,478
5,272
1,868
11,008
404
3,455
4,549
3,605
130
62,859
1,620
663
3,486
1,440
1,718
838
449
32,409
48,231
22,638
1,624
2,392
2,247
0
5,239
811
257
1,529
764
19,459
147,814
1999
5,306
0
214
787
1,503
15,028
2,099
5,818
2,668
4,286
8,886
4,403
8,020
619
5,061
3,711
10,025
2,221
80,654
80
4,053
3,071
2,520
895
3,303
979
23,066
61,992
23,456
326
1,684
0
0
6,273
1,264
0
4,293
2,576
22,709
162,540
1998
2,180
595
145
329
2,491
19,647
1,849
4,200
3,793
8,841
12,421
3,093
9,183
719
3,521
787
2,522
158
76,475
1,815
2,004
4,594
5,831
2,909
317
2,044
12,904
67,411
24,988
886
3,718
771
432
7,953
1,738
340
1,839
6,038
30,443
178,975
1997
2,718
477
216
975
898
15,479
2,034
5,233
3,037
4,131
10,735
2,962
9,550
203
2,521
2,688
3,234
0
67,091
1,117
1,299
4,152
3,022
2,478
792
412
12,645
45,417
29,865
5,627
2,483
2,185
0
6,487
585
21
9,116
6,002
30,714
164,419
1996
5,496
508
406
535
3,764
12,322
1,797
7,309
5,235
2,081
11,877
3,305
11,087
965
6,369
8,165
18,262
63
99,546
796
2,304
2,736
4,708
1,236
597
3,081
24,931
54,086
42,001
1,265
2,161
712
842
6,675
355
63
1,648
2,715
30,819
183,731
1995
6,209
641
137
187
1,989
18,227
3,253
12,216
5,023
4,338
11,955
2,803
7,918
538
5,244
4,274
2,943
389
88,282
599
274
5,023
4,978
1,864
883
1,708
67,428
70,329
31,409
2,708
2,043
162
255
4,721
630
41
2,813
2,985
28,706
229,559
1994
7,260
739
114
6,363
2,348
21,599
2,715
7,773
4,437
5,827
12,701
4,669
10,784
1,463
3,863
3,755
2,317
522
99,254
150
1,621
6,846
4,064
1,306
121
1,262
40,285
62,462
27,183
1,212
993
656
85
6,324
251
0
2,497
5,757
36,820
199,895
1993
4,630
317
149
1,422
2,843
14,551
3,198
8,378
4,158
7,882
10,199
2,789
13,476
481
3,032
2,384
1,898
35
81,822
356
248
5,849
2,914
1,172
225
1,265
44,096
54,058
20,260
889
1,962
153
569
7,950
524
0
1,009
2,109
32,076
177,684
1992
4,163
2,322
303
307
971
23,779
4,095
13,279
5,915
2,301
16,287
4,084
13,705
888
1,919
3,099
5,987
125
103,530
1,228
10,166
11,471
3,011
2,251
61
2,678
29,494
60,230
27,929
1,531
3,578
828
55
9,786
2,898
84
1,146
1,775
38,255
208,455
1991
5,174
1,281
120
741
2,513
20,550
3,506
13,751
6,616
7,821
12,371
4,750
11,719
2,061
1,759
4,411
4,343
650
104,259
651
1,780
9,804
2,431
1,972
612
1,932
37,289
66,833
35,917
994
3,349
303
701
8,518
716
1,521
1,763
3,775
36,968
217,829
1990
6,890
1,358
128
1,906
2,758
13,489
1,910
11,109
5,014
7,542
15,384
3,880
18,089
1,270
2,287
6,004
5,148
379
104,544
812
1,470
8,031
2,927
2,467
421
2,523
39,735
61,878
36,136
3,401
3,550
1,072
150
8,464
1,078
0
4,865
3,940
44,019
226,939
1989
5,884
3,230
0
2,405
2,863
16,093
6,574
13,083
5,808
10,900
20,041
5,159
15,220
491
4,518
5,098
4,684
854
122,904
1,886
1,220
8,935
6,685
5,457
616
3,343
66,615
50,856
45,396
2,065
6,279
1,124
156
15,165
2,268
219
3,996
5,434
42,965
270,680
1988
7,059
912
365
1,106
3,657
13,760
5,821
10,871
7,201
9,704
18,414
3,502
11,569
1,455
3,487
9,539
6,491
751
115,664
1,984
654
3,031
4,428
1,269
174
985
43,689
52,266
45,579
1,927
3,453
701
580
4,244
1,046
0
1,596
8,216
46,452
222,274
1987
7,374
1,694
370
4,270
2,203
27,404
9,887
15,793
6,567
10,885
27,073
5,373
21,354
2,530
6,569
7,198
6,256
409
163,209
3,298
5,682
7,672
8,194
3,897
2,108
1,287
123,958
70,062
71,966
2,891
7,818
481
0
5,866
1,097
580
3,506
9,498
61,375
391,236
1986
4,838
901
45
2,195
3,851
22,652
3,647
14,752
7,800
7,175
20,208
7,058
20,326
639
5,095
5,883
3,002
1,664
131,730
1,942
3,188
6,898
5,882
3,656
1,681
2,848
110,850
68,752
34,505
3,370
5,917
1,125
0
8,888
1,321
769
3,269
11,479
59,843
336,183
1985
6,319
849
65
2,608
2,988
17,314
7,221
17,139
7,420
8,804
17,945
7,299
16,214
1,988
2,094
4,439
7,112
578
128,394
2,108
6,636
7,285
4,921
3,888
1,260
1,991
78,532
56,885
28,678
6,388
4,087
364
754
8,719
2,043
0
3,235
7,922
42,360
268,056
1984
8,989
2,771
250
3,414
6,927
21,023
11,800
12,131
7,912
15,962
27,605
5,725
23,927
843
5,211
6,172
6,891
1,650
169,204
2,849
2,473
7,266
5,566
2,447
916
3,983
106,912
64,823
26,304
6,423
6,329
1,035
474
7,381
1,346
0
2,115
9,209
64,972
322,823
1983
9,378
1,210
0
5,661
5,231
19,155
6,812
11,937
4,701
11,391
27,789
5,859
27,340
1,915
7,137
4,651
2,783
3,293
156,244
2,408
2,584
8,047
4,865
2,731
1,164
3,412
196,201
55,615
35,346
4,839
4,133
3,257
264
12,941
1,408
275
2,479
8,510
44,112
394,591
Table 6. continued
State or Region
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
ME
MD
MA
NH
NJ
NY
NC
PA
RI
SC
VT
VA
WV
Eastern Region
AL
AR
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
ND
OH
OK
SD
TN
TX
WI
Central Region
17
1982
3,749
778
76
828
1,509
5,058
2,037
6,169
2,967
3,993
13,536
2,676
14,972
578
1,770
2,152
1,434
564
64,846
798
1,720
3,711
2,102
1,463
512
872
19,233
14,406
11,791
1,424
1,839
435
227
4,490
338
87
1,239
1,824
16,851
85,362
1981
5,574
903
96
1,295
1,731
5,881
3,259
6,544
3,823
4,997
16,894
3,011
13,374
516
2,021
2,322
1,507
464
74,571
761
1,598
3,883
2,165
1,742
184
932
21,651
14,650
11,164
2,100
2,509
387
57
4,513
392
81
1,461
1,591
18,544
90,365
1980
5,173
905
73
1,366
2,091
5,920
2,117
5,609
3,526
4,983
15,150
2,470
13,522
397
2,569
2,197
1,447
513
70,030
1,067
1,976
4,340
2,485
2,443
419
706
27,508
17,000
17,098
2,544
2,780
325
137
4,770
444
73
1,176
3,068
22,111
112,470
1979
4,836
913
100
1,104
1,927
5,745
2,752
6,409
4,244
6,209
18,405
1,716
16,136
772
1,633
2,060
2,017
551
77,527
1,244
2,356
4,437
2,682
2,089
469
1,182
19,529
19,878
14,355
2,168
2,200
278
28
4,469
504
47
2,252
2,612
21,245
104,024
1978
5,614
1,439
199
1,382
1,746
6,910
3,115
6,026
4,448
8,227
17,330
2,815
19,591
763
2,603
2,460
1,986
501
87,155
1,406
1,642
6,729
2,794
4,110
510
1,750
24,041
20,271
16,925
2,683
3,288
564
182
3,678
776
31
2,378
2,556
20,489
116,803
1977
6,209
1,370
321
1,413
1,933
6,205
2,584
7,086
4,379
7,188
19,628
2,373
16,814
629
2,201
1,791
1,609
492
84,225
1,703
3,035
3,912
2,152
3,011
1,470
904
17,795
23,151
14,155
2,579
3,041
357
0
4,971
856
46
1,313
3,730
27,274
115,455
1976
5,987
1,675
93
2,042
1,428
6,397
3,675
7,824
4,761
8,337
17,345
2,857
18,700
990
1,987
2,782
2,132
457
89,469
1,459
2,666
4,108
2,717
2,619
796
1,249
16,463
30,685
7,857
2,864
2,387
270
150
5,623
898
67
1,274
3,176
35,332
122,660
1975
5,908
1,608
237
1,166
1,584
7,812
2,899
8,813
4,380
7,433
22,889
2,526
18,420
801
2,148
2,437
2,135
387
93,583
1,648
2,838
3,521
4,182
1,554
841
1,221
10,570
36,622
14,683
2,762
2,299
219
70
6,011
1,457
135
1,665
2,891
31,368
126,557
1974
5,390
1,423
204
1,753
2,084
7,306
3,084
9,521
4,253
8,459
25,384
3,007
20,221
1,075
2,628
2,376
1,721
425
100,314
1,191
2,348
4,544
3,666
2,138
1,364
775
10,063
33,455
10,233
2,120
1,837
271
168
6,052
628
37
1,751
1,976
30,420
115,037
1973
5,731
1,761
143
1,317
1,488
6,327
2,827
9,304
3,152
8,696
26,991
2,298
16,494
936
1,705
2,512
1,837
318
93,837
1,161
1,817
2,989
3,392
1,485
880
704
9,338
30,922
7,671
2,365
2,062
236
185
4,791
743
31
1,473
1,892
19,765
93,902
1972
5,006
1,138
195
1,265
1,872
5,503
2,013
9,187
3,388
6,925
24,284
2,337
17,662
729
2,136
1,731
1,733
688
87,792
1,585
2,693
4,205
3,227
1,374
638
429
16,039
28,312
8,621
2,486
1,414
163
214
4,524
716
41
1,416
2,016
24,667
104,780
1971
5,366
1,553
347
1,467
2,220
6,166
3,047
8,622
3,935
9,969
29,474
2,458
24,076
1,064
2,395
2,211
1,650
389
106,409
1,032
2,102
3,406
3,850
426
626
491
13,943
29,190
8,577
1,959
1,514
92
263
6,046
860
45
1,353
2,066
21,696
99,537
1970
7,286
1,403
180
2,961
1,558
5,798
3,252
10,148
2,973
7,728
25,789
2,748
22,030
794
2,480
1,859
1,611
482
101,080
1,449
1,117
2,483
2,784
452
1,893
354
17,636
29,894
9,360
2,195
2,053
172
37
5,268
611
46
624
1,753
27,885
108,066
1969
6,161
1,648
228
1,565
1,116
5,511
2,982
8,707
3,478
7,367
26,656
2,033
17,406
704
2,124
1,606
1,499
252
91,043
1,701
954
3,283
2,404
176
459
259
15,014
22,586
5,365
1,894
1,718
168
41
5,620
572
84
1,119
2,215
18,146
83,778
1968
4,450
1,163
157
1,576
1,429
5,522
2,551
7,884
2,613
5,815
21,977
2,138
12,069
483
2,449
1,578
1,187
314
75,355
1,571
912
1,347
1,444
170
463
293
9,733
17,711
3,756
848
762
33
194
3,561
376
32
571
875
12,182
56,834
1967
3,874
707
166
1,241
1,295
4,002
2,122
6,123
2,275
5,229
20,688
1,843
13,588
420
1,203
1,374
1,472
304
67,926
1,272
1,563
1,797
1,582
380
347
260
10,943
22,323
5,739
1,722
1,150
81
0
3,662
478
137
866
1,407
13,845
69,554
1966
3,388
829
197
1,331
820
4,115
1,462
6,787
2,128
4,525
16,712
2,169
7,688
492
1,165
1,608
843
197
56,450
1,424
639
1,454
1,387
121
245
351
11,112
20,480
2,932
1,337
934
56
110
2,958
192
45
676
1,578
11,730
59,761
1965
3,554
754
183
1,191
771
3,564
1,484
7,414
2,187
4,120
15,320
1,313
10,467
429
1,124
876
993
206
55,950
760
934
1,410
1,185
204
153
221
7,395
20,886
2,571
811
1,181
95
165
3,403
81
26
418
897
13,548
56,344
1964
3,129
706
91
758
812
2,980
1,407
5,548
1,594
3,462
12,699
1,735
7,317
382
1,398
1,017
1,086
93
46,214
828
1,394
1,328
1,480
570
364
224
10,327
23,631
4,536
1,422
1,255
207
88
5,357
265
33
298
1,799
18,257
73,663
Table 7. State and regional estimates of the number of duck stamp buyers that hunted American woodcock in the U.S., 1964-2001. Data from Martin (1979) and unpublished FWS administrative reports. Information was not available to reassign hunters from the District of Columbia to state of harvest.
State or Region
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
ME
MD
MA
NH
NJ
NY
NC
PA
RI
SC
VT
VA
WV
Eastern Region
AL
AR
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
ND
OH
OK
SD
TN
TX
WI
Central Region
18
2001
1,353
245
53
352
1,045
3,168
1,382
1,510
1,083
1,046
3,493
1,209
5,277
187
1,292
920
719
212
24,546
400
135
1,655
1,353
772
97
891
2,130
12,961
6,923
917
1,304
396
160
3,221
325
95
903
1,720
7,322
43,680
2000
738
69
63
436
1,025
3,243
1,020
755
1,184
927
3,222
1,114
5,447
124
1,318
853
893
87
22,519
355
1,033
1,418
1,180
1,172
341
181
5,956
15,158
10,936
848
1,243
447
86
2,413
154
103
1,020
1,020
7,397
52,461
1999
1,305
0
50
346
586
3,791
855
2,033
956
1,282
4,193
1,529
5,885
221
1,477
941
1,564
119
27,131
323
1,637
1,417
1,304
721
930
839
5,617
17,539
8,197
177
998
196
111
2,503
520
0
1,145
734
8,670
53,578
1998
849
345
63
313
1,318
3,357
650
1,917
1,343
1,154
4,528
1,302
5,800
120
1,118
576
1,433
69
26,255
430
939
1,433
977
1,188
463
589
3,015
17,174
11,504
436
1,329
259
116
3,137
400
133
898
1,062
11,971
57,453
1997
1,470
286
74
598
758
2,903
607
1,772
1,031
1,269
4,439
1,192
5,753
174
1,045
950
1,305
142
25,767
374
542
1,846
1,010
1,244
275
311
2,816
16,789
11,455
639
1,408
400
75
3,600
250
76
1,016
1,453
11,389
56,968
1996
1,571
290
62
340
1,135
3,446
891
2,883
1,710
1,024
4,728
1,397
4,886
292
1,214
1,388
1,477
189
28,923
284
584
1,324
1,209
923
162
882
5,917
16,988
12,200
228
882
395
173
2,865
236
57
729
860
11,117
58,015
1995
1,929
401
48
189
837
3,009
1,161
2,992
1,511
1,298
4,837
1,017
5,670
269
950
1,300
1,004
158
28,581
331
241
1,831
1,207
1,060
273
909
5,654
18,503
11,745
574
774
185
225
2,617
378
85
899
318
11,115
58,924
1994
2,021
370
52
429
883
3,618
1,159
3,414
1,788
1,970
5,896
1,482
5,723
366
1,077
1,144
1,126
74
32,563
202
557
2,161
1,216
733
157
722
5,831
16,407
11,585
250
669
349
69
2,604
343
0
1,048
1,272
10,907
57,082
1993
1,916
226
60
463
1,217
3,718
1,125
3,617
1,652
2,378
5,122
1,172
6,464
262
1,153
840
944
71
32,397
250
113
2,118
1,424
489
160
569
7,988
16,547
7,933
330
1,051
282
269
3,080
405
0
536
969
11,060
55,573
1992
2,717
676
78
142
463
3,622
1,438
3,820
1,888
1,246
6,045
1,284
7,974
345
784
1,257
1,123
125
35,027
488
621
3,084
1,308
1,313
95
613
4,666
14,780
10,350
457
1,452
216
216
3,974
558
62
812
712
12,331
58,108
1991
3,016
620
45
549
838
4,016
1,494
4,195
1,666
1,793
6,244
1,855
7,701
420
951
1,485
1,427
104
38,464
337
914
3,575
1,125
1,292
140
704
5,981
16,445
11,735
417
962
177
201
3,075
333
129
717
1,288
12,787
62,334
1990
3,278
530
56
644
1,105
3,068
1,260
4,656
2,402
2,575
6,644
1,634
8,039
415
1,062
1,439
1,773
158
40,740
334
579
2,976
1,048
1,268
184
922
6,187
15,990
12,023
486
1,326
297
75
3,069
489
46
1,343
1,336
13,880
63,858
1989
2,958
392
33
551
1,036
3,043
1,365
4,816
2,029
2,672
7,901
1,752
7,550
404
1,457
1,299
1,540
197
40,995
730
573
2,913
1,499
1,506
338
910
8,478
14,296
14,212
676
1,796
260
262
4,189
620
125
837
1,519
14,353
70,092
1988
2,867
779
64
484
1,041
3,185
2,121
4,200
2,178
2,482
7,201
1,319
7,187
448
1,348
1,838
3,047
115
41,905
565
531
1,636
1,092
845
248
504
8,030
12,022
13,945
702
1,318
353
249
2,889
342
0
905
1,432
13,033
60,641
1987
3,687
731
74
1,075
1,311
4,195
2,842
5,117
2,433
2,743
9,716
1,809
10,055
567
1,912
1,977
2,317
203
52,764
605
1,638
3,078
1,722
1,957
812
746
14,792
14,563
14,076
828
2,252
507
41
3,350
502
137
1,276
2,264
17,084
82,230
1986
3,089
556
39
869
1,313
4,421
2,589
4,196
2,495
2,242
9,633
1,871
10,886
381
1,361
1,838
1,500
361
49,641
523
1,325
2,496
1,711
1,412
995
935
13,467
14,214
14,104
1,227
2,072
509
107
3,348
480
173
1,124
2,011
16,391
78,624
1985
3,390
438
49
658
1,312
4,196
3,147
4,733
2,380
3,274
9,418
1,885
9,546
478
1,266
1,629
2,168
213
50,182
731
1,404
2,533
1,349
1,622
600
698
13,907
13,888
10,524
1,116
2,141
374
177
3,879
668
27
1,010
1,502
14,874
73,024
1984
4,168
901
123
841
1,898
4,604
2,877
4,696
2,196
3,755
10,289
2,068
12,531
500
1,463
1,977
2,043
365
57,295
900
1,146
2,757
1,840
1,177
421
1,095
15,706
15,620
11,325
1,652
2,385
407
264
3,591
563
57
1,079
2,352
16,222
80,559
1983
4,385
691
0
1,057
1,901
4,459
2,512
4,129
2,460
4,411
10,515
2,066
12,816
619
2,054
1,828
1,011
543
57,459
675
1,094
2,938
1,529
1,546
415
858
20,526
12,642
10,414
1,394
1,565
737
175
4,188
647
132
765
1,931
15,052
79,223
Table 7. continued
State or Region
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
ME
MD
MA
NH
NJ
NY
NC
PA
RI
SC
VT
VA
WV
Eastern Region
AL
AR
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
ND
OH
OK
SD
TN
TX
WI
Central Region
19
Table 8. Preliminary state and regional estimates of woodcock hunter numbers, days afield, and harvest from the 2001-02
and 2002-03 Harvest Information Program survey.
Active woodcock hunters Days afield Harvest
2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03
Eastern region
CT 1,800 ± 41% 1,600 ± 37% 7,500 ± 46% 9,200 ± 67% 3,600 ± 62% 4,500 ± 39%
DE 400 ± 116% 500 ± 102% 5,200 ± 168% 900 ± 83% 200 ± 72% 500 ± 139%
FL 2,400 ± 133% 1,000 ± 184% 14,600 ± 159% 2,000 ± 187% 9,500 ± 194% 100 ± 138%
GA 3,600 ± 179% 2,600 ± 180% 40,500 ± 192% 5,600 ± 170% 11,000 ± 178% 600 ± 130%
ME 11,900 ± 40% 5,000 ± 54% 64,900 ± 51% 18,500 ± 46% 48,100 ± 56% 18,600 ± 71%
MD 700 ± 140% 600 ± 151% 1,500 ± 73% 1,100 ± 91% 1,700 ± 127% 600 ± 82%
MA 1,200 ± 33% 1,100 ± 34% 5,700 ± 36% 6,000 ± 36% 2,500 ± 36% 3,500 ± 31%
NH 2,000 ± 40% 1,500 ± 35% 9,900 ± 39% 7,500 ± 22% 6,700 ± 35% 5,600 ± 20%
NJ 600 ± 66% 1,000 ± 69% 2,300 ± 23% 5,100 ± 86% 2,200 ± 30% 2,900 ± 57%
NY 5,300 ± 37% 5,600 ± 36% 25,400 ± 41% 31,100 ± 47% 8,800 ± 55% 17,100 ± 62%
NC 4,900 ± 154% 900 ± 67% 25,700 ± 147% 8,800 ± 104% 12,300 ± 126% 1,900 ± 132%
PA 13,400 ± 45% 9,600 ± 44% 53,100 ± 52% 40,900 ± 57% 20,100 ± 52% 10,100 ± 40%
RI 300 ± 88% 200 ± 82% 900 ± 101% 800 ± 73% 300 ± 63% 600 ± 83%
SC 3,900 ± 92% 2,300 ± 129% 10,200 ± 107% 4,900 ± 122% 5,400 ± 171% 3,900 ± 163%
VT 900 ± 39% 1,200 ± 45% 4,700 ± 36% 6,900 ± 55% 3,100 ± 28% 2,000 ± 31%
VA 1,100 ± 128% 2,500 ± 86% 3,800 ± 108% 11,500 ± 96% 1,400 ± 30% 11,900 ± 176%
WV 500 ± 82% 100 ± 21% 1,800 ± 100% 500 ± 30% 1,600 ± 73% 700 ± 42%
Region na a na 277,800 ± 36% 161,200 ± 22% 138,100 ± 32% 84,800 ± 33%
Central region
AL 2,800 ± 109% 3,400 ± 93% 11,400 ± 146% 16,800 ± 95% 6,600 ± 191% 10,100 ± 109%
AR 3,800 ± 131% 2,000 ± 172% 17,200 ± 166% 3,200 ± 113% 3,100 ± 132% 700 ± 112%
IA 2,500 ± 78% 1,500 ± 103% 14,800 ± 113% 7,300 ± 134% 10,300 ± 128% 3,500 ± 130%
IL 4,500 ± 81% 3,000 ± 90% 18,400 ± 82% 6,700 ± 86% 19,500 ± 112% 9,000 ± 111%
IN 1,800 ± 106% 1,700 ± 113% 6,800 ± 118% 24,300 ± 172% 2,800 ± 96% 7,000 ± 160%
KS 2,400 ± 110% 2,900 ± 96% 25,300 ± 113% 4,400 ± 111% 14,200 ± 138% 2,900 ± 137%
KY 1,900 ± 174% 2,000 ± 126% 9,700 ± 171% 14,600 ± 150% 7,800 ± 171% 6,800 ± 141%
LA 3,100 ± 139% 3,300 ± 148% 27,500 ± 155% 23,800 ± 166% 5,400 ± 59% 21,500 ± 138%
MI 19,500 ± 23% 25,400 ± 18% 96,500 ± 24% 157,100 ± 37% 73,700 ± 33% 78,900 ± 26%
MS 1,900 ± 133% 2,800 ± 187% 9,400 ± 154% 5,900 ± 179% 10,600 ± 129% 600 ± 64%
MN 14,400 ± 49% 8,200 ± 66% 55,600 ± 47% 48,100 ± 94% 46,400 ± 71% 8,600 ± 31%
MO 2,600 ± 101% 3,200 ± 125% 4,300 ± 89% 5,500 ± 115% 4,400 ± 114% 700 ± 40%
NE < 50 ± 248% < 50 ± 155% 100 ± 73% 200 ± 72% 100 ± 99% 200 ± 74%
OH 3,100 ± 135% 5,200 ± 108% 9,200 ± 93% 23,400 ± 137% 6,600 ± 87% 3,400 ± 43%
OK < 50 ± 155% 2,500 ± 135% 200 ± 82% 6,300 ± 136% 100 ± 96% 2,600 ± 184%
TN 200 ± 177% 4,200 ± 187% 700 ± 195% 4,800 ± 165% 700 ± 195% 8,000 ± 196%
TX 10,400 ± 192% 28,700 ± 112% 12,800 ± 161% 67,000 ± 114% 5,300 ± 196% 38,300 ± 196%
WI 14,800 ± 32% 17,100 ± 31% 68,700 ± 34% 57,500 ± 26% 33,700 ± 38% 32,000 ± 33%
Region na na 388,600 ± 22% 476,800 ± 27% 251,400 ± 24% 235,100 ± 38%
a Regional estimates of hunter numbers cannot be obtained due to the occurrence of individual hunters being registered in
the Harvest Information Program in more than one state.
20
Appendix 1. History of framework dates, season lengths, and daily bag limits for hunting American woodcock in the U.S.
portion of the Eastern and Central Regions, 1918-2002.
Eastern Region Central Region
Season Daily bag Season Daily bag
Year (s) Outside dates length limit Year (s) Outside dates length limit
1918-26 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 6 1918-26 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 6
1927 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 4 1927 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 4
1928-39 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 30 4 1928-39 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 30 4
1940-47 Oct. 1 - Jan. 6 15 4 1940-47 Oct. 1 - Jan. 6 15 4
1948-52 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 30 4 1948-52 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 30 4
1953 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4 1953 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4
1954 Oct. 1 - Jan. 10 40 4 1954 Oct. 1 - Jan. 10 40 4
1955-57 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4 1955-57 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4
1958-60 Oct. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4 1958-60 Oct. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4
1961-62 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4 1961-62 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4
1963-64 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 50 5 1963-64 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 50 5
1965-66 Sep. 1 - Jan. 30 50 5 1965-66 Sep. 1 - Jan. 30 50 5
1967-69 Sep. 1 - Jan. 31 65 5 1967-69 Sep. 1 - Jan. 31 65 5
1970-71 Sep. 1 - Feb. 15 65 5 1970-71 Sep. 1 - Feb. 15 65 5
1972-81 Sep. 1 - Feb. 28 65 5 1972-90 Sep. 1 - Feb. 28 65 5
1982 Oct. 5 - Feb. 28 65 5 1991-96 Sep. 1 - Jan. 31 65 5
1983-84 Oct. 1 - Feb. 28 65 5 1997 *Sep. 20 - Jan. 31 45 3
1985-96 Oct. 1 - Jan. 31 45 3 1998 *Sep. 19 - Jan. 31 45 3
1997-01 Oct. 6 - Jan. 31 30 3 1999 *Sep. 25 - Jan. 31 45 3
2002 Oct. 1 - Jan. 31 30 3 2000 *Sep. 23 - Jan. 31 45 3
2001 *Sep. 22 - Jan. 31 45 3
2002 *Sep. 21 - Jan. 31 45 3
* Saturday nearest September 22.