American woodcock population status, 2004

              U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
American Woodcock
Population Status, 2004
Suggested citation:
Kelley, J.R., Jr. 2004. American woodcock population status, 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 15pp.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available at our home page (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov). AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2004
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 numbers of displaying woodcock in the Eastern and Central Regions in 2004 were unchanged from 2003 (P>0.1). There was not a significant trend in woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey in either the Eastern or Central Region during 1995-04. This represents the first time since 1992 that the 10-year trend estimate for either region was not a significant decline. There were long-term (1968-04) declines of 2.1% per year in the Eastern Region and 1.8% per year in the Central Region. The 2003 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was slightly higher than the 2002 index (1.4 immatures per adult female), but was 12% below the long-term regional average. The 2003 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.4 immatures per adult female) was 19% below the 2002 index (1.7 immatures per adult female), and 16% below the long-term regional average. The preliminary 2003 recruitment index for eastern Canada (Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia combined) was 3.0 immatures per adult female, which was 18% higher than the 2002 index. The Harvest Information Program indicated that U.S. woodcock hunters in the Eastern Region spent 152,300 days afield and harvested 89,200 birds during the 2003-04 season. In the Central Region, U.S. hunters spent 369,900 days afield and harvested 213,500 woodcock. In Canada, 4,388 successful woodcock hunters harvested 34,654 birds during the 2003-04 season.
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 2004. 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.
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 by Pamela Denmon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
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 boundary between the 2 regions conforms to the boundary between the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. The results of the Wing-collection and Singing-ground surveys, as well as the Harvest Information Program, 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
1
C
ENTRAL EASTERN SURVEY COVERAGE BREEDING RANGE
Fig. 1. Woodcock management regions, breeding range, and Singing-ground Survey coverage.
woodcock’s breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collected prior to 1968 are not included in this report.
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 (2003-04), intermediate-term (1995-04) and long-term (1968-04) 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 2003-04 analysis, routes that did not meet this requirement during the interval of interest were not included in the sample size. For the 2003-04 analysis, a constant of 0.1 was added to counts of low-abundance routes to allow their use in the analysis. Each route was to 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 1 June 2004 were not included in this analysis but will be included in future trend estimates.
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 1968-2004 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 assess statistical significance and a change in the indices over a subset of years does not necessarily represent a
2
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).
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 (Mail Questionnaire 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 providing 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.
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 2003 survey included hunters who either: (1) participated in the 2002 survey; (2) indicated on the 2002-03 Harvest Information Program Survey that they hunted woodcock, or (3) contacted the FWS to volunteer to be included in the survey. 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 conducted by state and federal biologists. Wings from the 2003-04 hunting season were accepted through 23 April 2004.
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the harvest provides an index to recruitment of young into the population. The 2003 recruitment index for each state with ≥125 submitted wings was calculated as the number of immatures per adult female. The regional indices for 2003 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2002.
Daily and seasonal bags of successful hunters that participated in the Wing-collection Survey in both 2002 and 2003 were used as indices of hunter success. A successful hunt was defined as any envelope returned with complete information in which >1 woodcock wing was received. Indices were calculated only for those states represented by >10 hunters that participated in the Wing-collection Survey both years. Regional indices of daily and seasonal bag were weighted to adjust for each included state's proportion of the total estimated annual woodcock harvest for those states, as determined by the Harvest Information Program. This year's weighting procedure represents a departure from procedures used in past status reports. Previously, the Mail Questionnaire Survey was used to estimate harvest of woodcock by purchasers of federal duck stamps in each state. Because duck stamp purchasers did not include all potential woodcock hunters, duck stamp sales in each state was divided into the total number of hunting license holders in that state. State weighting factors were developed by adjusting the estimated harvest of woodcock per duck stamp purchasers by the number of license holders per duck stamp purchaser in that state. Hunter success information was also adjusted to a base-year value (1969) for comparison with previous years (Clark 1970, 1973). The Mail Questionnaire Survey was discontinued after 2001, and historical (1964-2001) estimates of woodcock harvest and duck stamp buyers that hunted woodcock were presented in last year's status report (Kelley 2003). Conversion to the Harvest Information Program has provided more reliable estimates of woodcock hunters and harvest. However, due to the loss of comparable weighting factors used during 1969-2001, we have discontinued the base-year approach of adjusting hunter success data.
3
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
1.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Trend Estimation.— The number of woodcock heard displaying during the 2004 Singing-ground Survey in the Eastern and Central Regions was not significantly different (P>0.1) from the 2003 levels (Table 1, Fig. 4). Trends for individual states and provinces are reported in Table 1.
Trends for 1995-2004 were computed for 339 routes in the Eastern Region and 397 routes in the Central Region. Eastern and Central Region populations were unchanged (P>0.10) during this period (Table 1). This represents the first time since 1992 that the 10-year trend estimate for either region was not significantly declining.
Long-term (1968-2004) trends were estimated for 614 routes in the Eastern Region and 618 routes in the Central Region. There were long-term declines (P<0.10) in the breeding population throughout most states and provinces in the Eastern and Central Regions (Table 1, Fig. 5). The long-term trend estimates were -2.1 and -1.8% per year (P<0.01) for the Eastern and Central regions, respectively.
Annual Breeding Population Indices.—In the Eastern Region, the 2004 breeding population index of 1.84 singing-males per route was higher than the predicted value of 1.70 (Table 2, Fig. 2). The Central Region population index of 2.22 males per route was higher than the predicted value of 2.11.
The major causes of long-term 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 2,062 potential woodcock hunters in states with woodcock seasons were contacted and asked to participate in the 2003 Wing-collection Survey. Fifty-three percent (Table 3) cooperated by sending in 11,180 usable woodcock wings (Table 4).
Recruitment.—The 2003 recruitment index in the
U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was slightly higher than the 2002 index (1.4), but was 12% below the long-term (1963-02) regional average of 1.7 immatures per adult female (Table 4, Fig 3). In the Central Region the 2003 recruitment index (1.4 immatures per adult female) was 19% below the 2002 index (1.6), and 16% below the long-term regional average.
2.2 2.2
1.0 1.0
EASTERN REGION CENTRAL REGION
REGIONCENTRAL 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 0168 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 0168 0168 0168 0168 0168 0168 0168 04 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 YEAR YEAR YEAR
YEAR YEAR
Fig. 2. Long-term trends (smooth line) and annual Fig. 3. Weighted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.), indices of the number of woodcock heard on the Singing-1963-2003. The dashed line is the 1963-2002 average. ground Survey, 1968-2004.
4 2.0 2.0
NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE NUMBER OF SINGING MALES PER ROUTE
ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ADJUSTED YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.4 1.4
EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION EASTERN REGION
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
2.2 2.2
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION CENTRAL REGION
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZEINCREASE (P<0.10)DECREASE (P<0.10) CENTRAL EASTERN INCREASE (NS)DECREASE (NS)
Fig. 4. Short-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 2003-2004.
CENTRAL EASTERN
DECREASE (P<0.10) INCREASE (NS) INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE
DECREASE (NS)
Fig. 5. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2004.
5
The preliminary 2003 recruitment index for eastern Canada (Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia combined) was 3.0 immatures per adult female (n = 767 wings; Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished data).
Hunting Success.— There were no changes made to federal frameworks for woodcock hunting seasons in the
U.S. during 2003-04 (Appendix 1). The 2003 Wing-collection Survey index of daily hunting success in the Eastern Region (2.1 woodcock per successful hunt) was similar to the 2002 index (Table 5). The index of seasonal hunting success in the Eastern Region increased from 8.9 woodcock per successful hunter in 2002 to 9.7 in 2003. In the Central Region, the 2003 daily success index (2.1 woodcock per successful hunt) was slightly lower than the 2002 index. Central Region hunters experienced an increase in the seasonal success index from 11.4 woodcock per successful hunter in 2002 to
11.8 woodcock per hunter in 2003.
It should be noted that the Wing-collection Survey is intended primarily to provide information on woodcock recruitment. Information on hunter success derived from the Wing-collection Survey should be interpreted cautiously because of the non-random sampling procedure by which survey participants were selected, and the fact that data from unsuccessful hunts is not included. By including data only from woodcock hunters that were successful in 2 consecutive years, the sample is biased towards more successful hunters. More reliable information on hunter success is provided by the Harvest Information Program.
Harvest Information Program
Estimates of active woodcock hunters, days afield, and woodcock harvest from the 2002-03 and 2003-04 HIP surveys are provided in Table 6. In the Eastern Region woodcock hunters spent approximately 152,300 days afield and harvested 89,200 birds during 2003-04. This represents a daily hunter success rate of 0.6 birds/day. Woodcock hunters in the Central Region spent 369,900 days afield and harvested 213,500 birds during the 2003-04 season, which represents a daily hunter success rate of 0.6 birds/day. Although HIP provides statewide estimates of woodcock hunter numbers (Table 6), it is not possible to develop regional estimates, due to the occurrence of some hunters being registered for HIP in more than one state. Therefore, regional estimates of seasonal hunting success rates cannot be determined on a per hunter basis.
In Canada, 4,388 successful woodcock hunters harvested 34,654 birds during the 2003-04 season (Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished data).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Rebecca Rau (FWS) mailed and processed Singing-ground Survey forms, corresponded with cooperators, keypunched portions of data, and continued development of the 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 Tara Wildlife in Vicksburg, MS for hosting the 2004 wingbee. Individuals that participated in the wingbee were: D. Dessecker (Ruffed Grouse Society); F. Kimmel and M. Olinde (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries); D. Krementz and
D. McAuley (BRD); L. Fendrick (Ohio DNR); W. Palmer (Pennsylvania Game Commission); V. Frawley (Michigan DNR); and T. Edwards, J. Kelley, P. Stinson,
R. Speer, B. Strader, M. Williams, and L. Wolff (FWS). We especially thank all woodcock hunters that sent in wings. M. Bateman (CWS) provided preliminary estimates of woodcock recruitment, hunter numbers, and harvest 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, H. Spriggs, and S. Faust). 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 and J. Sauer (BRD) performed the trend analyses and assisted with interpretation. C. Quasney assisted with entry of Singing-ground Survey data. W. Kendall, M. Koneff, P. Padding, R. Rau, and J. Sauer 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.
6
LITERATURE CITED
Clark, E. R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 133. 35pp.
_____. 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.
Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock spring population indexes in southern Michigan. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 44pp.
Kelley, J.R., Jr. 2003. American woodcock population status, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Laurel, MD. 20pp.
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, 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-
3rd
banded woodcock. Proc. 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.
7
Table 1. Trends (% change per yeara) in the number of American woodcock heard in the Singing-ground Survey during 1968-2004, as determined by the estimating equations technique (Link and Sauer 1994).
State, 2003-2004 1995-2004 1968-2004 Province or Region
CT 4 2 15.3 -98.3 129.0 4 -9.5 DE 1 0 2-9.0 * ME 43 26 -4.9 -17.5 7.7 50 -0.4 MD 5 3 0.2 -33.0 33.5 6 -6.0 MA 7 6 44.3 -29.1 117.7 9 4.2 NB 41 25 -14.1 -33.1 4.9 51 2.6** NH 14 10 6.6 -33.3 46.4 13 1.8 NJ 6 3 -95.8*** -97.9 -93.7 5 -7.8 NY 57 41 10.6 -3.1 24.4 71 -0.5 NS 28 16 16.9 -14.2 47.9 37 3.0* PA 30 13 1.2 -36.1 38.5 25 0.0 PEI 7 0 7-5.5 QUE 16 5 59.9 -36.2 156.1 14 -0.6 RI 3 0 0 VT 15 14 3.4 -33.0 39.8 17 1.0 VA 21 6 4.1 -39.8 48.0 12 -10.5 ** WV 23 12 -58.0*** -89.1 -26.9 16 -9.4 *** Eastern 321 184 1.4 -6.9 9.8 339 0.4
-37.3 18.2 9 -10.2 ** d -17.0 -3.4 -17.3 -0.7 2 3.4 -11.7 18.5 -2.1 1.3 65 -2.2 *** -3.0 -1.4 -35.5 23.5 21 -10.4 ** -17.9 -2.9 -0.7 9.1 20 -3.7 * -7.4 -0.1 0.6 4.7 62 -0.5 -1.7 0.7 -2.0 5.6 18 1.3 -1.4 3.9 -21.0 5.5 17 -10.4 *** -14.2 -6.6 -2.5 1.5 105 -2.7 *** -3.8 -1.7
0.3 5.6 56 -0.2 -1.7 1.2 -5.4 5.4 56 -4.2 *** -6.5 -1.9 -13.4 2.4 12 -1.7 -3.3 0.0 -3.5 2.3 56 -1.3 -4.3 1.6 2 -16.5 *** -24.1 -8.8 -1.8 3.8 21 -1.1 -2.8 0.5 -18.2 -2.8 48 -11.0 *** -14.9 -7.7 -13.9 -5.0 44 -2.5 *** -4.1 -1.0 -0.5 1.3 614 -2.1 *** -2.6 -1.6
IL 17 4 -11.9** -20.6 -3.2 6 14.2 IN 10 0 6-3.9 MBe 15 9 -6.0 -35.7 23.8 21 -3.7 MI 89 55 -4.2 -16.7 8.3 109 -1.0 MN 72 54 1.2 -13.8 16.2 76 0.1 OH 21 12 133.6* 21.1 246.1 25 -5.1* ON 40 9 15.9 -14.1 45.8 81 1.5 WI 65 46 15.2 -0.1 30.5 73 -0.2
Central 329 190 4.8 -3.2 12.9 397 -0.3
-15.2 43.7 24 25.1 -19.2 69.5 -15.7 7.8 38 -7.0 ** -12.6 -1.4 -7.6 0.2 21 -3.5 ** -6.2 -0.9 -2.5 0.4 144 -1.7 *** -2.5 -0.9 -1.4 1.5 100 -1.1 ** -2.0 -0.2 -9.4 -0.6 55 -6.4 *** -9.7 -3.0 -1.0 3.9 136 -1.8 *** -2.5 -1.0 -2.1 1.7 100 -1.9 *** -2.7 -1.1 -1.2 0.5 618 -1.8 *** -2.2 -1.4
Continent 650 374 3.6 -2.5 9.7 736 -0.1 -0.7 0.6 1232 -1.9 *** -2.2 -1.6
No. of routesb nc % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI
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 2004 for which data were received by 1 June.
Number of comparable routes (2003 versus 2004) 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.
8
c
-- -- -- -- --
--
--
-- -- --
-- -- --
--
--
-- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
9
Table 2. Breeding population indices for American woodcock from the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2004. These indices are based on the 1968-2004 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
Year
or Region
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Eastern Region
CTa
-­b
7.87
7.85
6.08
7.42
5.42
5.25
5.57
3.05
3.56
2.15
2.14
1.87
2.53
3.14
2.41
1.59
1.35
1.97
0.91
DEa
0.70
0.54
0.63
0.45
0.51
0.85
0.80
1.28
0.41
0.54
0.51
0.43
1.74
0.60
0.60
ME
5.18
5.34
5.61
5.09
4.80
5.15
5.11
5.46
4.85
4.41
4.07
4.44
3.91
4.30
2.96
3.79
3.80
3.85
3.99
4.36
MD
9.92
8.76
7.79
7.24
6.07
6.73
4.77
5.06
3.43
3.27
3.47
2.74
3.39
2.89
2.85
1.90
1.50
1.52
1.33
1.05
MA
--
3.56
4.18
4.90
3.60
4.87
3.93
2.31
3.06
2.40
2.80
3.06
2.20
2.28
1.94
1.45
2.57
2.01
2.06
2.14
NB
--
4.99
5.31
5.24
5.46
4.86
5.39
6.12
4.50
5.61
4.01
4.47
4.01
4.06
4.21
4.41
3.60
3.88
3.27
3.89
NH
2.61
3.01
2.45
3.11
2.44
3.37
2.87
3.58
2.99
3.00
3.08
3.76
3.94
2.33
2.73
2.43
2.58
4.42
3.21
NJ
7.66
6.62
8.26 10.26
6.06
8.52
8.45
6.29
3.78
4.17
2.41
4.12
2.55
1.96
1.98
2.31
2.73
1.94
1.89
2.22
NY
5.01
5.53
4.24
4.79
4.49
4.53
4.77
3.99
3.94
4.06
3.22
3.64
4.20
3.82
3.10
3.57
2.88
3.64
3.10
2.85
NS
3.54
2.58
2.19
2.71
2.60
2.52
3.16
2.71
2.40
2.43
2.82
2.28
2.18
2.02
1.81
2.25
2.16
2.17
2.54
2.27
PA
3.43
3.19
3.51
3.05
2.71
2.97
2.15
2.41
2.34
2.32
1.85
2.12
1.94
1.93
1.59
1.80
1.91
1.51
1.73
1.65
PEIa
4.03
2.97
5.48
3.18
2.54
3.37
5.15
4.30
3.80
3.04
3.77
2.79
2.09
2.21
3.51
4.02
2.91
3.83
2.68
QUEa
4.38
4.14
3.16
3.76
3.78
2.62
2.91
3.56
3.61
3.98
3.12
3.01
3.75
2.98
3.66
3.51
3.68
RIa
3.31
3.30
6.21
4.70
4.70
3.50
2.71
2.71
0.90
1.57
1.57
0.90
3.69
2.56
2.21
0.74
0.74
VT
2.40
4.08
3.15
3.55
3.15
3.10
3.64
3.31
3.96
3.05
2.94
2.65
2.36
1.78
2.61
2.68
2.11
2.69
2.92
VA
5.87
6.09
4.85
4.20
3.01
4.40
3.74
3.08
2.92
2.21
2.43
2.05
1.99
1.87
1.42
2.05
1.03
1.07
1.10
WV
1.63
1.83
1.31
1.27
1.55
1.24
1.20
1.38
1.20
1.22
0.85
1.23
1.01
1.39
1.23
1.28
1.06
1.00
0.96
1.11
Region
3.86
3.75
3.67
3.59
3.45
3.21
3.40
3.35
2.89
3.01
2.63
2.90
2.77
2.75
2.45
2.72
2.58
2.48
2.52
2.56
Central Region
IL
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.20
0.35
0.29
0.44
IN
2.83
2.44
2.31
1.78
2.13
2.17
1.57
1.49
1.46
1.40
1.25
1.55
1.12
1.15
0.84
0.89
0.86
0.71
0.92
0.67
MB
-­MI
6.35
6.20
5.90
5.70
5.40
5.54
6.43
6.46
5.94
5.44
5.75
5.65
5.57
4.66
4.92
4.29
4.72
4.94
5.00
4.64
MN
--
4.65
3.99
4.28
3.64
4.15
4.82
4.18
4.21
4.18
4.19
4.13
4.59
4.21
3.80
3.46
3.08
3.69
3.88
3.72
OH
3.60
3.65
3.06
2.53
3.25
2.45
2.65
3.02
2.40
1.86
1.83
2.09
1.50
1.89
1.75
1.51
1.18
1.28
ON
6.47
7.07
6.72
6.37
7.05
6.28
6.72
5.90
5.65
6.14
6.64
6.36
6.48
6.02
4.55
4.71
4.93
5.08
4.98
5.21
WI
4.38
4.32
4.67
4.14
3.94
4.01
4.11
3.98
3.81
4.14
4.35
4.26
3.63
3.09
3.02
3.03
3.31
3.05
3.59
3.59
Region
3.95
3.94
3.85
3.69
3.64
3.55
3.70
3.63
3.45
3.53
3.51
3.46
3.27
3.21
2.68
2.90
2.81
3.01
2.99
3.01
Continent
3.88
3.83
3.73
3.63
3.53
3.37
3.54
3.48
3.15
3.26
3.03
3.17
3.01
2.97
2.56
2.81
2.70
2.74
2.75
2.78
a
Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size. b Insufficient data. -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- --
Table 2. Continued.
State, Province Year
or Region
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Eastern Region
CTa
2.30
0.96
0.83
0.88
0.60
0.49
0.61
0.79
0.72
0.63
0.61
1.30
0.88 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.27
DEa
-­b
0.65
0.36
0.22
0.66
0.66
1.29
0.38
0.85 0.59 0.65 0.65 0.65
ME
4.11
4.21
2.89
3.63
3.01
3.26
2.88
3.05
2.34
2.59
2.44
3.10
3.11 2.64 2.48 2.71 2.62
MD
1.10
1.25
1.00
0.80
0.34
0.67
0.61
0.36
0.51
0.58
0.27
0.39
0.42 0.71 0.33 0.22 0.21
MA
2.15
1.69
1.55
1.87
1.55
1.32
1.50
1.12
1.41
1.51
1.38
2.15
1.47 1.30 1.33 1.42 1.65
NB
4.19
5.44
4.30
4.12
3.90
5.23
5.05
4.26
3.88
4.74
3.96
4.91
4.47 4.83 3.89 4.83 4.84
NH
3.18
3.29
2.88
3.76
2.36
2.99
2.48
5.02
3.95
4.13
4.01
5.04
3.42 3.59 3.86 4.22 5.53
NJ
1.65
1.58
1.07
1.01
0.83
0.78
0.34
0.79
0.95
0.20
0.65
0.82
0.60 0.58 0.37 0.40 0.19
NY
3.32
2.57
3.08
3.33
2.84
2.30
2.30
2.39
2.24
2.21
2.28
2.24
2.00 2.08 1.86 1.91 2.10
NS
2.47
2.69
1.85
2.30
2.52
2.76
2.08
2.57
2.64
2.00
2.35
2.34
2.78 2.60 2.10 2.24 2.30
PA
1.63
1.18
1.57
1.75
1.29
1.39
0.69
1.30
1.05
1.14
1.23
1.00
0.66 0.83 0.88 0.92 0.81
PEIa
4.33
4.10
3.34
2.48
2.40
2.26
2.30
2.81
3.19
2.63
3.04
2.39
2.98 2.90 0.86 1.37 2.06
QUEa
2.43
3.93
3.07
3.87
3.20
3.81
2.94
3.54
1.29
2.49
2.56
3.23
2.65 2.45 2.87 2.70 3.50
RIa
1.11
1.11
0.21
0.08
0.06 0.02 0.02
VT
3.46
3.23
3.09
3.03
1.98
2.12
2.13
2.40
1.82
2.39
2.65
2.69
3.59 2.35 1.98 2.24 2.18
VA
0.76
0.67
0.67
0.64
0.46
0.57
0.42
0.32
0.27
0.37
0.28
0.29
0.25 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17
WV
0.88
0.91
0.96
0.88
0.87
0.79
0.68
1.18
0.74
0.83
0.69
0.75
0.87 0.71 0.62 0.76 0.56
Region
2.39
2.41
2.25
2.47
2.11
2.20
1.83
2.21
1.70
1.93
1.90
2.08
1.89 1.86 1.72 1.84 1.84
Central Region
IL
0.46
0.56
0.50
0.76
1.05
1.26
1.35
1.22
4.09
1.83
0.00
2.84
4.15 6.89 5.03 8.36 9.82
IN
0.62
0.62
0.68
0.70
0.53
0.59
0.50
0.53
0.44
0.33
0.66
0.45
0.38 0.42 0.24 0.26 0.26
MB
--
2.65
3.50
2.54
2.81
2.53
1.49
1.85
1.77
1.92 2.46 1.51 1.97 1.56
MI
5.07
4.83
4.71
5.53
3.96
3.97
3.61
3.88
3.72
3.63
4.32
3.48
3.64 3.38 3.49 3.53 3.33
MN
4.15
3.59
4.14
3.87
3.28
3.50
3.05
3.31
3.00
2.63
3.23
3.22
3.49 3.60 2.73 2.97 3.01
OH
1.52
1.04
1.36
1.08
0.91
0.96
0.81
0.82
0.85
0.62
0.71
0.57
0.64 0.55 0.49 0.46 0.68
ON
5.13
5.42
5.10
5.06
4.87
4.37
3.75
4.72
3.43
3.98
3.96
3.86
4.57 3.76 5.83 3.65 4.05
WI
3.59
3.32
3.23
3.28
2.62
2.57
2.40
2.41
2.52
2.36
2.29
2.77
2.54 2.32 2.17 2.25 2.33
Region
3.00
2.85
2.87
3.00
2.53
2.65
2.32
2.44
2.29
1.84
2.44
2.32
2.30 2.37 2.05 2.11 2.22
Continent
2.69
2.63
2.55
2.74
2.32
2.43
2.08
2.34
1.99
1.89
2.17
2.21
2.10 2.12 1.89 1.99 2.04
10
a
Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size. b Insufficient data. Table 3. Distribution of U.S. hunters contacted and number of hunters that submitted woodcock wings in the 2002 and 2003 Wing-collection Surveys.
Number of hunters
Number of hunters that
State of
contacteda
submitted wingsb
Percent that submitted wings
residence
2002
2003
2002
2003
2002
2003
AL AR CT DE FL GA IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO NE NH NJ NY NC ND OH OK PA RI SC TN TX VT VA WV WI Total
5 3 66 6 14 7 46 59 14 1 4 28 120 14 149 288 144 4 39 13 89 64 148 15 1 55 4 131 16 14 9 10 71 57 19 231 1,958 7 3 51 2 14 11 27 57 13 3 13 40
130 20 172 371 127
1 34 9
107 80 168 15
0 54 0
114 15 21 8 6 66 57 28 218 2,062 0 1 31 0 0 5 14 38 6 0 1 14 73 7 94 183 76 0 12 0 49 28 81 7 0 25 0 64 7 10 4 0 37 20 13 142 1,042 0 2 28 0 0 5 14 36 8 0 3 15 63 8 97 215 80 1 23 0 51 35 90 7 0 33 0 61 6 8 5 0 30 18 14 127 1,083
0 33 47 0 0 71 30 64 43 0 25 50 61 50 63 64 53 0 31 0 55 44 55 47 0 45 0 49 44 71 44 0 52 35 68 61 53
0
67
55
0
0
45
52
63
62
0
23 38 48 40 56 58 63 100 68 0 48 44 54 47
61
54 40 38 63 0 45 32 50 58 53
a Number of hunters that were sent new envelopes and asked to participate in the survey year indicated. The definition of
"number of hunters contacted" differs from previous status reports. Numbers in this table refer only to hunters that were sent wing envelopes in the respective survey year. Previous status reports defined "number of hunters contacted" as any woodcock hunter that had ever been contacted to participate in the survey.
b Number of hunters that submitted envelopes in current year. This number may include a small number of hunters that we sent envelopes to in prior years and who subsequently submitted wings from birds shot in current survey year.
11
Table 4. Number of woodcock wings received from hunters, and indices of recruitment in the U.S. Recruitment indices for individual states with ≥125 submitted wings were calculated as the ratio of immatures per adult female. The regional indices for 2003 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2002.
State or Region ofharvest
Total 1963-02
2003
Wings received Adult females 1963-02
2003
Immatures 1963-02
2003
Recruitment 1963-02
index 2003
Eastern Region
CT
13,238
48
2,928
5
8,123
38
2.8
DE
421
14
54
5
296
8
5.5
FL
660
0
150
0
410
0
2.7
GA
2,956
23
911
1
1,277
17
1.4
ME
74,265
921
21,868
304
37,153
457
1.7
1.5
MD
3,885
49
974
12
2,169
29
2.2
MA
19,681
554
5,962
223
9,732
217
1.6
1.0
NH
28,158
636
9,103
208
13,030
296
1.4
1.4
NJ
24,579
287
5,720
55
14,436
209
2.5
3.8
NY
52,076
1,030
17,226
419
24,207
380
1.4
0.9
NC
3,072
92
920
20
1,519
50
1.7
PA
27,940
502
8,814
177
12,923
198
1.5
1.1
RI
2,259
16
422
4
1,527
7
3.6
SC
2,417
67
737
14
1,146
35
1.6
VT
20,768
556
6,686
208
9,691
217
1.4
1.0
VA
4,069
156
995
50
2,318
74
2.3
1.5
WV
5,232
91
1,594
31
2,643
43
1.7
Region
285,676
5,042
85,064
1,736
142,600
2,275
1.7
1.5
Central Region
AL
910
0
243
0
425
0
1.7
AR
515
4
165
0
207
4
1.3
IL
1,307
27
297
8
740
16
2.5
IN
6,957
128
1,754
31
3,863
74
2.2
2.4
IA
958
25
323
6
423
12
1.3
KS
44
1
9
0
22
1
KY
1,033
48
244
11
539
31
2.2
LA
29,212
285
6,543
71
18,922
169
2.9
2.4
MI
102,859
3,007
33,213
1131
51,442
1,332
1.5
1.2
MN
29,142
766
9,932
297
13,023
318
1.3
1.1
MS
1,719
0
488
0
875
0
1.8
MO
2,787
189
690
59
1,405
90
2.0
1.5
NE
13
0
5
0
6
0
OH
13,766
205
4,171
66
6,535
104
1.6
1.6
OK
172
0
38
0
91
0
2.4
TN
1,018
13
252
5
521
7
2.1
TX
987
0
262
0
501
0
1.9
WI
63,735
1,440
20,797
547
30,921
644
1.5
1.2
Region
257,134
6,138
79,426
2,232
130,461
2,802
1.6
1.4
12
Table 5. State and regional indices of daily and seasonal woodcock hunting success in the U.S. during 2002 and 2003. State and regional indices were calculated only for states represented by >10 successful hunters that participated in the Wing-collection Survey in both years. Regional indices were weighted by each included state's proportion of total woodcock harvest for those states, as determined by the Harvest Information Program (Table 6). Indices in this table are biased due to the exclusion of unsuccessful hunters and unsuccessful hunts. A more representative estimate of seasonal hunting success is derived from the Harvest Information Program.
No. of No. of State of successful successful hunts harvest hunters 2002 2003 Woodcock
bagged per Woodcock per successful hunt season
2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
Woodcock per successful hunt
Eastern Region
CT 10 2624 DE 112 FL 000 GA 3108 ME 76 319 337 MD 6 1415 MA 47 188 203 NH 56 304 250 NJ 18 7078 NY 66 328 325 NC 4 2833 PA 41 141 168 RI 588 SC 6 3130 VT 39 185 222 VA 10 5662 WV 8 2833 50 38 1.9 1.6 5.0 3.8
33
00
26 18 690 719 2.2 2.1 9.1 9.5
30 32 347 391 1.8 1.9 7.4 8.3 630 500 2.1 2.0 11.3 8.9 156 174 2.2 2.2 8.7 9.7 648 697 2.0 2.1 9.8 10.6
62 83 304 370 2.2 2.2 7.4 9.0
13 14
68 57 373 469 2.0 2.1 9.6 12.0 113 136 2.0 2.2 11.3 13.6 61 72
Region 396 1,737 1,798 3,574 3,773 2.1 2.1 8.9 9.7
Central Region
AL 000 AR 000 IL 297 IN 18 6057 IA 4 1611 KS 000 KY 2 1221 LA 12 9996 MI 185 979 1,073 MN 60 245 299 MS 000 MO 10 3735 NE 00 OH 12 4853 OK 000 TN 258 TX 000 WI 120 428 583 00
00
15 7 108 107 1.8 1.9 6.0 5.9
28 19
00
23 47
282 263 2.8 2.7 23.5 21.9 1,973 2,194 2.0 2.0 10.7 11.9
502 624 2.0 2.1 8.4 10.4
00
84 81 2.3 2.3 8.4 8.1
00 107 121 2.2 2.3 8.9 10.1 00 7 13 00
912 1,194 2.1 2.0 7.6 10.0
Region 427 1,938 2,243 4,041 4,670 2.2 2.1 11.4 11.8
13
Table 6. Preliminary state and regional estimates of woodcock hunter numbers, days afield, and harvest from the 2002-03 and 2003-04 Harvest Information Program surveys.
Eastern Region CT DE FL GA ME MD MA NH NJ NY NC PA RI SC VT VA WV
Active woodcock hunters Days afield Harvest 2002-03 2003-04 2002-03 2003-04 2002-03 2003-04 1,600 ± 37% 1,400 ± 34% 9,300 ± 67% 6,300 ± 36% 4,600 ± 39% 2,400 ± 43% 400 ± 122% 400 ± 77% 600 ± 82% 1,600 ± 85% 500 ± 139% 400 ± 163% 1,000 ± 184% 800 ± 43% 2,000 ± 187% 2,500 ± 60% 100 ± 138% 900 ± 80% 2,500 ± 179% 400 ± 95% 5,400 ± 168% 1,500 ± 119% 600 ± 130% 1,900 ± 158% 4,400 ± 57% 6,600 ± 47% 15,900 ± 46% 21,400 ± 41% 17,000 ± 77% 31,000 ± 81% 600 ± 150% 1,600 ± 79% 1,100 ± 89% 3,000 ± 84% 600 ± 81% 3,500 ± 107% 1,100 ± 35% 1,200 ± 25% 5,300 ± 36% 6,100 ± 27% 3,000 ± 23% 4,000 ± 34% 1,500 ± 35% 1,900 ± 49% 7,200 ± 23% 5,400 ± 32% 5,400 ± 20% 3,900 ± 48% 900 ± 70% 1,000 ± 44% 5,000 ± 87% 4,000 ± 51% 2,900 ± 57% 4,000 ± 78% 5,600 ± 36% 5,700 ± 29% 30,700 ± 47% 21,400 ± 31% 16,600 ± 64% 14,500 ± 55% 900 ± 67% 900 ± 68% 8,700 ± 105% 4,000 ± 100% 1,900 ± 132% 4,700 ± 135% 9,600 ± 44% 9,500 ± 35% 40,200 ± 58% 48,400 ± 56% 9,000 ± 43% 8,400 ± 35% 200 ± 82% 100 ± 129% 800 ± 73% 700 ± 153% 500 ± 88% 100 ± 167% 2,300 ± 129% 2,100 ± 97% 4,900 ± 122% 14,100 ± 123% 3,900 ± 164% 1,800 ± 72% 1,100 ± 45% 800 ± 36% 6,400 ± 57% 4,100 ± 29% 1,900 ± 31% 2,700 ± 31% 1,900 ± 97% 3,000 ± 58% 7,600 ± 105% 7,200 ± 64% 1,200 ± 40% 4,700 ± 93% 100 ± 23% 200 ± 89% 400 ± 33% 500 ± 70% 400 ± 38% 400 ± 56%
Region
na a na 151,500 ± 23% 152,300 ± 23% 69,900 ± 27% 89,200 ± 32%
Central Region AL AR IL IN IA KS KY LA MI MN MS MO NE OH OK TN TX WI Region
2,700 ± 106% 4,000 ± 62% 13,300 ± 109% 14,300 ± 79% 3,800 ± 177% 4,200 ± 95% 1,900 ± 175% 1,800 ± 124% 2,800 ± 123% 4,600 ± 123% 600 ± 119% 600 ± 118% 3,000 ± 90% 2,400 ± 79% 6,400 ± 88% 12,200 ± 112% 9,000 ± 110% 2,200 ± 90% 1,700 ± 114% 700 ± 97% 24,200 ± 172% 6,000 ± 134% 6,900 ± 161% 1,800 ± 31% 1,100 ± 122% 1,500 ± 71% 6,800 ± 144% 4,200 ± 91% 2,100 ± 174% 900 ± 145% 2,800 ± 96% 100 ± 195% 4,200 ± 111% 600 ± 195% 2,800 ± 137% 200 ± 195% 2,200 ± 124% 1,500 ± 122% 10,300 ± 127% 2,000 ± 91% 3,000 ± 136% 2,600 ± 148% 3,300 ± 147% 1,600 ± 129% 23,400 ± 165% 7,400 ± 136% 21,100 ± 138% 10,400 ± 119% 25,200 ± 18% 35,100 ± 14% 135,400 ± 23% 159,000 ± 18% 78,300 ± 26% 121,500 ± 30% 8,200 ± 66% 14,300 ± 38% 49,300 ± 92% 48,700 ± 43% 9,200 ± 31% 29,900 ± 84% 2,800 ± 186% 2,000 ± 92% 6,200 ± 172% 3,400 ± 93% 1,000 ± 68% 400 ± 53% 3,200 ± 125% 1,700 ± 87% 5,500 ± 114% 8,000 ± 105% 700 ± 40% 2,100 ± 145% < 50 ± 60% 400 ± 184% 100 ± 82% 900 ± 165% 200 ± 83% 100 ± 79% 5,200 ± 108% 3,400 ± 88% 23,200 ± 138% 10,300 ± 86% 3,100 ± 45% 2,500 ± 78% 2,500 ± 135% 1,300 ± 182% 6,300 ± 136% 15,400 ± 191% 2,600 ± 184% 2,800 ± 176% 4,300 ± 183% 100 ± 136% 5,300 ± 151% 1,200 ± 165% 8,500 ± 185% 1,000 ± 144% 18,600 ± 137% 5,900 ± 192% 46,500 ± 140% 6,000 ± 189% 700 ± 195% 0 17,600 ± 30% 16,100 ± 30% 58,900 ± 26% 65,600 ± 33% 33,900 ± 34% 30,300 ± 35% na na 428,200 ± 26% 369,900 ± 16% 187,500 ± 24% 213,500 ± 23%
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.
14 Appendix 1. History of federal framework dates, season lengths, and daily bag limits for hunting American woodcock in the
U.S. portion of the Eastern and Central Regions, 1918-2003.
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
2003
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
30
3
2001
*Sep. 22 - Jan. 31
45
3
2002
*Sep. 21 - Jan. 31
45
3
2003
*Sep. 20 - Jan. 31
45
3
*
Saturday nearest September 22.
15