American woodcock population status, 2005

              U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
American Woodcock
Population Status, 2005
Suggested citation:
Kelley, J.R., Jr., and R. D. Rau. 2005. American woodcock population status, 2005. 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).
1
AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2005
JAMES R. KELLEY, JR., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, BHW
Federal Building, 1 Federal Dr., Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
REBECCA D. RAU, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, 11510 American Holly Dr., Laurel, MD 20708-4002
Abstract: Singing-ground Survey data indicated that the numbers of displaying American woodcock (Scolopax minor) in
the Eastern and Central Regions in 2005 were unchanged from 2004. There was not a significant trend in woodcock heard
on the Singing-ground Survey in either the Eastern or Central Region during 1995-05. This represents the second
consecutive year since 1992 that the 10-year trend estimate for either region was not a significant decline. There were
long-term (1968-05) declines of 2.0% per year in the Eastern Region and 1.8% per year in the Central Region. The 2004
recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (2.0 immatures per adult female) was 34% higher than the
2003 index (1.5 immatures per adult female), and 19% higher than the long-term regional average. The 2004 recruitment
index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.3 immatures per adult female) was slightly lower than the 2003 index
(1.4 immatures per adult female), and 17% below the long-term regional average. The preliminary 2004 recruitment index
for eastern Canada was 2.8 immatures per adult female. The Harvest Information Program indicated that U.S. woodcock
hunters in the Eastern Region spent 135,400 days afield and harvested 61,500 birds during the 2004-05 season. In the
Central Region, U.S. hunters spent 366,100 days afield and harvested 234,800 woodcock. In Canada, 4,808 successful
woodcock hunters harvested 33,493 birds during the 2004-05 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 early June 2005. 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
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
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.
The cover picture is used with permission of Stephen
Maxson, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
2
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.
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 (2004-05), intermediate-term
(1995-05) and long-term (1968-05) 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 2004-05 analysis,
routes that did not meet this requirement during the
interval of interest were not included in the sample. For
the 2004-05 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 2005 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 1968-2005 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
CENTRAL EASTERN
SURVEY
COVERAGE
BREEDING
RANGE
Fig. 1. Woodcock management regions, breeding range,
and Singing-ground Survey coverage.
3
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
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 gamebird 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 2004 survey
included hunters who either: (1) participated in past
surveys; (2) were a subset of hunters that indicated on
the 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, federal,
and private biologists. Information from wings from the
2004-05 hunting season received through 2 March 2005
was included in analyses. Wings received after 2 March
were processed for inclusion in the permanent database.
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the
harvest provides an index to recruitment of young into
the population. The 2004 recruitment index for each state
with ≥125 submitted wings was calculated as the number
of immatures per adult female. The regional indices for
2004 were weighted by the relative contribution of each
state to the cumulative number of adult female and
immature wings received during 1963-2003.
Daily and seasonal bags of successful hunters that
participated in the Wing-collection Survey in both 2003
and 2004 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.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Trend Estimation.— The number of woodcock heard
displaying during the 2005 Singing-ground Survey in the
Eastern and Central Regions was not significantly
different from 2004 levels (Table 1, Fig. 4). Trends for
individual states and provinces are reported in Table 1.
Trends for 1995-2005 were computed for 347 routes
in the Eastern Region and 394 routes in the Central
Region. Eastern and Central Region populations were
unchanged during this period (Table 1). This represents
the second consecutive year since 1992 that the 10-year
trend estimate for either region was not significantly
declining.
Long-term (1968-2005) trends were estimated for 617
routes in the Eastern Region and 625 routes in the
Central Region. There were long-term declines in the
breeding population throughout most states and
4
provinces in the Eastern and Central Regions (Table 1,
Fig. 5). The long-term trend estimates were -2.0 and
-1.8% per year for the Eastern and Central regions,
respectively.
Annual Breeding Population Indices.—In the Eastern
Region, the 2005 breeding population index of 1.84
singing-males per route was higher than the predicted
value of 1.74 (Table 2, Fig. 2). The Central Region
population index of 2.13 males per route was higher than
the predicted value of 2.08.
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 (Dessecker and
McAuley 2001, Dwyer et al. 1983, Owen et al. 1977,
Straw et al. 1994). 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 1,641 potential woodcock hunters in states
with woodcock seasons were contacted and asked to
participate in the 2004 Wing-collection Survey. Sixty-five
percent (Table 3) cooperated by sending in 10,377
usable woodcock wings (Table 4).
Recruitment.— The 2004 recruitment index in the
U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (2.0 immatures per
adult female) was 34% higher than the 2003 index (1.5),
and 19% higher than the long-term (1963-03) regional
average (Table 4, Fig 3). In the Central Region, the 2004
recruitment index (1.3 immatures per adult female) was
slightly lower than the 2003 index (1.4), and 17% below
the long-term regional average. The preliminary 2004
recruitment index for eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec,
New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, combined) was 2.8
immatures per adult female (n = 847 wings; Canadian
Wildlife Service, unpubl. data).
Hunting Success.— There were no changes made to
federal frameworks for woodcock hunting seasons in the
U.S. during 2004-05 (Appendix 1). The 2004 Wing-collection
Survey index of daily hunting success in the
Eastern Region (2.1 woodcock per successful hunt) was
similar to the 2003 index (Table 5). The index of
seasonal hunting success in the Eastern Region decreased
from 10.4 woodcock per successful hunter in 2003 to 9.0
in 2004. In the Central Region, the 2004 daily success
index (2.1 woodcock per successful hunt) was similar to
the 2003 index. Central Region hunters experienced a
slight decrease in the seasonal success index, from 11.9
woodcock per successful hunter in 2003 to 11.4
woodcock per hunter in 2004.
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. 3. Weighted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.),
1963-2004. The dashed line is the 1963-2003 average.
EASTERN REGION
CENTRAL REGION
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
04
Fig. 2. Long-term trends (smooth line) and annual
indices of the number of woodcock heard on the Singing-ground
Survey, 1968-2005.
CENTRAL EASTERN
DECREASE (P<0.10)
DECREASE (NS) INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE
DECREASE (P<0.10) INCREASE (NS)
DECREASE (NS)
Fig. 4. Short-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the
Singing-ground Survey, 2004-2005.
Fig. 5. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the
Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2005.
CENTRAL EASTERN
INCREASE (NS)
5
6
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 woodcock harvest, number of active
hunters, days afield, and seasonal hunting success from
the 2004-05 HIP survey are provided in Table 6. In the
Eastern Region woodcock hunters spent approximately
135,400 days afield and harvested 61,500 birds during
2004-05. Woodcock hunters in the Central Region spent
366,100 days afield and harvested 234,800 birds during
the 2004-05 season. 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, 4,808 successful woodcock hunters
harvested 33,493 birds during the 2004-05 season
(Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished data).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Personnel from the FWS, Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 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 K. Connor (NB DNRE), R. Dibblee (PEI
FWD), L. Fendrick (OH DNR), J. Garris (NJ FW), B.
Harvey (MD DNR), M. Huang (CT DEP), R. Milton (NS
DNR), T. Moruzzi (MA DFW), M. Murphy (NY DEC),
J. Pitman (IN DNR), J. Pollard (ON MNR), E. Robinson
(NH FGD), C. Rosenberry (PA GC), A. Stewart (MI
DNR), B. Tefft (RI DFWS), S. Wilson (WV DNR), R.
Hicks, J. Rodrigue, and M. Schuster (CWS), and S.
Kelly, M. Mills, D. Pence, and T. Penn (FWS), for help
in coordinating the Singing-ground Survey. Special
appreciation is extended to Maplelag Resort in Callaway,
MN for hosting the 2005 wingbee. Individuals that
participated in the wingbee were: D. Dessecker (Ruffed
Grouse Society), F. Kimmel and M. Olinde (LA DWF),
T. Engel, E. Johnson and M. Larson (MN DNR), W.
Palmer (PA GC), D. McAuley (USGS), and R. Joseph, J.
Kelley, K. Lowry, R. Mollnow, R. Rau, P. Stinson, R.
Speer, A. Weik, and L. Wolff (FWS), and T. Petro. We
especially thank all woodcock hunters that sent in wings.
M. Gendron and R. Hicks (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, K.
Richkus, M. Moore, E. Martin, H. Spriggs, and S.
Faust). B.H. Powell (USGS) developed the computer
programs for administering the Wing-collection Survey.
T. Nguyen and H. Bellary (FWS) played vital roles in
development of the website for the Singing-ground
Survey. J. Sauer (USGS) developed computer programs
for calculating trends and indices from Singing-ground
Survey data. W. Kendall and J. Sauer (USGS)
performed the trend analyses and assisted with
interpretation. C. Quasney assisted with data entry of
survey data. W. Kendall, M. Koneff, P. Padding, 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.
LITERATURE CITED
Clark, E. R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. U. S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 133.
35pp.
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.
Dessecker, D.R, and D.G. McAuley. 2001. Importance
of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and
American woodcock. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:456-465.
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.
7
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.
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-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.
8
Table 1. Trends (% change per yeara) in the number of American woodcock heard in the Singing-ground Survey during 1968-2005,
as determined by the estimating equations technique (Link and Sauer 1994).
State, 2004-2005 1995-2005 1968-2005
Province,
or Region
Number
of
routesb
nc % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI
CT 4 0 4 -13.9 -41.9 14.1 9 -9.8 ** d -17.0 -2.7
DE 1 0 2 -12.8 *** -15.9 -9.7 2 2.5 -8.6 13.5
ME 43 34 -1.2 -17.4 15.0 50 0.2 -1.3 1.8 66 -2.0 *** -2.9 -1.2
MD 11 2 -93.5 *** -96.2 -90.8 6 -35.0 -82.4 12.3 21 -9.9 ** -17.3 -2.5
MA 9 3 -17.4 -97.1 62.3 9 1.7 -5.0 8.5 20 -4.4 * -8.2 -0.6
NB 38 20 8.9 -15.4 33.3 51 3.6*** 1.4 5.8 63 -0.5 -1.7 0.6
NH 15 13 -0.6 -34.0 32.9 13 0.7 -2.3 3.7 18 1.1 -1.1 3.3
NJ 8 0 5 -14.3*** -23.2 -5.3 17 -8.8 *** -10.4 -7.1
NY 61 39 -8.8 -21.9 4.3 69 -0.2 -2.2 1.8 105 -2.5 *** -3.5 -1.5
NS 32 16 3.8 -13.3 20.9 41 2.0 -1.4 5.4 58 0.0 -1.5 1.5
PA 27 10 41.1 -76.1 158.2 26 0.6 -4.0 5.2 56 -3.9 *** -6.0 -1.7
PEI 10 3 225.4 -606.51057.3 7 -6.1 -14.9 2.8 12 -1.7 -3.4 0.0
QUE 22 5 32.5 -18.3 83.3 16 5.8* 0.1 11.6 56 -1.3 -4.5 1.8
RI 1 0 0 2 -16.2 *** -23.7 -8.8
VT 12 11 12.7 -17.3 42.7 17 1.0 -1.8 3.8 21 -0.9 -2.5 0.6
VA 11 6 -46.6 -96.6 3.3 12 -11.3 ** -19.0 -3.5 47 -11.2 *** -15.1 -7.2
WV 27 13 17.2 -47.1 81.5 19 -11.2 *** -18.3 -4.2 44 -2.6 *** -4.2 -1.0
Eastern 332 177 0.7 -9.9 11.3 347 0.9 -0.1 1.8 617 -2.0 *** -2.5 -1.5
IL 5 0 5 10.9 -21.0 42.9 25 25.5 -8.4 59.5
IN 12 3 -51.4*** -72.0 -30.8 7 -3.7 -19.6 12.2 39 -6.6 ** -12.0 -1.1
MBe 12 4 34.5 -11.6 80.5 22 -0.9 -5.6 3.7 22 -2.2 -5.0 0.6
MI 93 62 0.3 -13.2 13.9 110 -0.6 -2.2 1.0 146 -1.7 *** -2.5 -0.8
MN 77 55 12.8 -2.2 27.8 77 0.4 -1.4 2.3 101 -1.0 ** -1.9 -0.2
OH 25 11 -36.7* -71.1 -2.2 24 -3.1 -7.9 1.7 56 -6.2 *** -9.1 -3.3
ON 43 20 10.3 -18.4 39.1 75 2.6 -0.2 5.4 136 -2.0 *** -2.7 -1.2
WI 69 49 18.4 -2.6 39.4 74 -0.3 -2.1 1.6 100 -1.9 *** -2.7 -1.2
Central 336 205 5.2 -2.5 13.0 394 0.1 -0.9 1.0 625 -1.8 *** -2.3 -1.3
Continent 668 382 3.8 -2.7 10.4 741 0.3 -0.4 1.0 1242 -1.9 *** -2.2 -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 2005 for which data were received by 1 June.
c Number of comparable routes (2004 versus 2005) 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/provinces where n<10.
e Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1990.
Table 2. Breeding population indices for American woodcock from the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2005. These indices are based on the 1968-2005 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 6.95 6.96 5.43 6.72 4.99 4.92 5.25 2.87 3.38 2.05 2.07 1.81 2.44 3.12 2.40 1.66 1.44 2.07 0.98
DEa 0.62 0.48 0.56 0.40 0.47 0.78 0.73 1.20 0.38 0.51 0.48 0.41 -- -- -- 1.64 0.59 0.59 -- --
ME 5.04 5.20 5.46 4.96 4.68 5.04 5.01 5.37 4.70 4.25 3.93 4.33 3.79 4.17 2.87 3.68 3.69 3.75 3.89 4.26
MD 8.67 7.69 6.85 6.41 5.40 5.98 4.36 4.64 3.15 3.03 3.24 2.57 3.19 2.72 2.70 1.81 1.45 1.47 1.29 1.03
MA -- 4.10 4.81 5.62 4.12 5.52 4.45 2.56 3.38 2.59 3.00 3.29 2.36 2.39 2.04 1.51 2.65 2.08 2.09 2.14
NB -- 5.02 5.34 5.27 5.49 4.89 5.42 6.15 4.52 5.64 4.03 4.49 4.02 4.08 4.21 4.41 3.61 3.88 3.28 3.90
NH -- 2.63 3.03 2.47 3.13 2.45 3.38 2.88 3.59 2.99 3.00 3.08 3.76 3.93 2.33 2.73 2.43 2.58 4.41 3.19
NJ 5.98 5.22 6.60 8.17 4.97 7.02 7.05 5.29 3.40 3.75 2.18 3.74 2.30 1.80 1.87 2.14 2.53 1.86 1.84 2.13
NY 5.04 5.57 4.29 4.85 4.55 4.61 4.85 4.08 4.04 4.17 3.31 3.75 4.33 3.94 3.21 3.71 3.00 3.80 3.24 2.98
NS 3.41 2.50 2.12 2.64 2.52 2.46 3.09 2.65 2.36 2.39 2.79 2.25 2.16 1.99 1.79 2.23 2.15 2.17 2.52 2.27
PA 3.24 3.04 3.35 2.91 2.60 2.87 2.08 2.34 2.27 2.26 1.80 2.08 1.90 1.91 1.59 1.81 1.92 1.52 1.69 1.67
PEIa -- 4.11 3.03 5.58 3.24 2.58 3.43 5.23 4.36 3.85 3.08 3.82 2.83 2.12 2.24 3.55 4.07 2.94 3.87 2.70
QUEa -- -- -- 4.40 4.16 3.17 3.77 3.80 2.63 2.92 3.58 3.63 4.00 3.13 3.07 3.82 3.00 3.68 3.51 3.70
RIa -- 3.60 3.60 6.76 5.12 5.12 3.81 2.95 2.95 -- 0.98 1.71 1.71 0.98 4.02 2.79 2.41 0.80 0.80 --
VT -- 2.34 3.98 3.09 3.48 3.09 3.05 3.59 3.26 3.91 3.02 2.92 2.64 2.36 1.78 2.61 2.69 2.12 2.70 2.95
VA -- 5.53 5.73 4.57 3.96 2.84 4.15 3.53 2.91 2.74 2.09 2.30 1.94 1.88 1.78 1.35 1.95 0.98 1.02 1.05
WV 1.50 1.68 1.20 1.17 1.42 1.14 1.10 1.26 1.10 1.12 0.77 1.12 0.93 1.27 1.13 1.17 0.96 0.91 0.88 1.01
Region 3.80 3.70 3.62 3.55 3.41 3.19 3.37 3.33 2.87 3.00 2.62 2.90 2.77 2.75 2.46 2.73 2.60 2.50 2.52 2.58
Central Region
IL -- -- 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.32 0.27 0.40
IN 2.75 2.39 2.27 1.75 2.10 2.15 1.56 1.49 1.46 1.41 1.26 1.57 1.14 1.18 0.86 0.91 0.88 0.73 0.95 0.69
MB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MI 6.38 6.24 5.94 5.73 5.43 5.57 6.47 6.50 5.98 5.48 5.79 5.69 5.61 4.69 4.96 4.32 4.76 4.98 5.04 4.68
MN -- 4.76 4.08 4.39 3.73 4.25 4.95 4.30 4.33 4.29 4.31 4.25 4.72 4.34 3.92 3.57 3.18 3.81 4.01 3.83
OH -- -- 3.73 3.79 3.17 2.63 3.37 2.54 2.74 3.13 2.48 1.93 1.90 2.16 1.55 1.96 1.80 1.55 1.21 1.31
ON 6.65 7.25 6.85 6.52 7.22 6.39 6.81 5.97 5.70 6.19 6.68 6.38 6.48 6.00 4.52 4.68 4.90 5.03 4.95 5.16
WI 4.44 4.37 4.73 4.19 3.99 4.06 4.16 4.03 3.86 4.18 4.40 4.31 3.67 3.12 3.05 3.06 3.34 3.08 3.63 3.63
Region 4.01 4.00 3.90 3.75 3.69 3.60 3.75 3.67 3.50 3.58 3.55 3.50 3.30 3.24 2.71 2.93 2.83 3.04 3.02 3.04
Continent 3.93 3.88 3.78 3.67 3.57 3.41 3.58 3.52 3.19 3.29 3.06 3.20 3.04 3.00 2.59 2.84 2.72 2.76 2.77 2.81
a Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size.
b Insufficient data.
9
Table 2. Continued.
a Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size.
b Insufficient data.
State, Province Year
or Region 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Eastern Region
CTa 2.45 1.04 0.92 0.98 0.67 0.55 0.69 0.90 0.82 0.72 0.68 1.48 0.97 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.33 0.28
DEa -- -- 0.75 0.38 0.23 -- -- -- 0.81 0.81 1.48 0.43 0.97 0.43 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
ME 4.04 4.13 2.84 3.60 2.94 3.24 2.86 3.04 2.32 2.56 2.41 3.08 3.08 2.57 2.46 2.67 2.57 2.74
MD 1.08 1.23 0.99 0.82 0.34 0.63 0.63 0.38 0.53 0.61 0.28 0.38 0.45 0.77 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.19
MA 2.15 1.68 1.54 1.85 1.53 1.28 1.45 1.10 1.35 1.44 1.33 2.08 1.39 1.23 1.22 1.31 1.54 0.90
NB 4.20 5.45 4.31 4.12 3.90 5.23 5.05 4.27 3.87 4.73 3.91 4.87 4.46 4.77 3.84 4.77 4.72 4.51
NH 3.17 3.30 2.90 3.82 2.34 2.95 2.43 4.95 3.84 4.13 3.91 4.89 3.32 3.50 3.73 4.08 5.25 4.22
NJ 1.63 1.59 1.09 1.07 0.85 0.78 0.37 0.89 1.05 0.21 0.80 0.79 0.70 0.66 0.44 0.51 0.25 0.36
NY 3.48 2.71 3.24 3.51 3.00 2.41 2.43 2.55 2.38 2.36 2.43 2.38 2.16 2.24 2.02 2.11 2.32 2.00
NS 2.48 2.70 1.90 2.32 2.55 2.79 2.11 2.60 2.69 2.07 2.45 2.47 2.88 2.64 2.10 2.29 2.41 2.33
PA 1.66 1.21 1.62 1.81 1.34 1.39 0.73 1.39 1.12 1.21 1.32 1.06 0.70 0.91 0.95 0.94 0.90 0.98
PEIa 4.38 4.15 3.38 2.50 2.40 2.25 2.29 2.79 3.17 2.61 3.03 2.37 2.94 2.84 0.85 1.35 1.54 2.71
QUEa 2.44 3.95 3.09 3.89 3.22 3.83 2.93 3.56 1.29 2.50 2.64 3.25 2.58 2.31 2.50 2.54 2.73 3.65
RIa 1.21 1.21 -- 0.23 -- -- -- -- -- 0.08 -- -- -- -- 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02
VT 3.49 3.28 3.13 3.07 2.01 2.17 2.17 2.44 1.85 2.45 2.71 2.73 3.61 2.37 1.97 2.25 2.19 2.63
VA 0.73 0.62 0.63 0.61 0.45 0.54 0.41 0.31 0.26 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.14
WV 0.81 0.82 0.87 0.80 0.79 0.71 0.62 1.08 0.67 0.75 0.64 0.69 0.80 0.65 0.56 0.71 0.54 0.52
Region 2.42 2.44 2.29 2.52 2.15 2.23 1.87 2.28 1.75 1.98 1.96 2.12 1.93 1.88 1.72 1.88 1.86 1.84
Central Region
IL 0.41 0.51 0.45 0.68 0.92 1.11 1.18 1.07 3.48 1.56 -- 2.46 3.54 5.84 4.25 7.03 8.93 8.48
IN 0.64 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.55 0.60 0.53 0.56 0.46 0.36 0.70 0.48 0.41 0.44 0.25 0.27 0.32 0.28
MB -- -- -- -- 3.10 4.09 3.01 3.36 3.02 1.77 2.24 2.09 2.32 3.02 1.82 2.42 1.84 2.62
MI 5.11 4.86 4.75 5.56 3.99 4.01 3.64 3.91 3.75 3.65 4.35 3.49 3.69 3.42 3.54 3.56 3.42 3.50
MN 4.29 3.71 4.29 4.01 3.39 3.62 3.16 3.43 3.11 2.72 3.33 3.33 3.63 3.74 2.81 3.04 3.10 3.32
OH 1.57 1.07 1.40 1.11 0.93 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.87 0.63 0.70 0.53 0.65 0.56 0.50 0.47 0.67 0.57
ON 5.06 5.36 5.02 4.98 4.79 4.28 3.73 4.59 3.34 3.85 3.83 3.60 4.47 3.61 5.62 3.34 3.59 3.62
WI 3.63 3.36 3.26 3.32 2.65 2.59 2.41 2.43 2.54 2.38 2.31 2.80 2.55 2.31 2.15 2.24 2.21 2.43
Region 3.03 2.87 2.89 3.03 2.54 2.66 2.34 2.45 2.30 1.85 2.44 2.30 2.31 2.37 2.05 2.09 2.22 2.13
Continent 2.71 2.65 2.57 2.77 2.34 2.44 2.10 2.36 2.01 1.91 2.18 2.21 2.11 2.11 1.87 1.98 2.03 1.97
10
11
Table 3. Distribution of U.S. hunters contacted and number of hunters that submitted woodcock wings in the 2003
and 2004 Wing-collection Surveys.
Number of hunters
contacteda
Number of hunters that
submitted wingsb
Percent that submitted wings
State of
residence 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004
AL 7 5 0 1 0 20
AR 3 4 2 1 67 25
CT 51 58 28 33 55 57
DE 2 3 0 0 0 0
FL 14 7 0 1 0 14
GA 11 8 5 6 45 75
IL 27 24 14 16 52 67
IN 57 53 36 31 63 58
IA 13 13 8 6 62 46
KS 3 0 0 0 0 0
KY 13 6 3 4 23 67
LA 40 21 15 14 38 67
ME 130 84 63 60 48 71
MD 20 11 8 8 40 73
MA 172 144 97 92 56 64
MI 371 333 215 237 58 71
MN 127 108 80 80 63 74
MS 1 5 1 1 100 20
MO 34 28 23 19 68 68
NE 9 3 0 0 0 0
NH 107 58 51 45 48 78
NJ 80 71 35 33 44 46
NY 168 123 90 82 54 67
NC 15 11 7 5 47 45
ND 0 1 0 0 0 0
OH 54 48 33 32 61 67
OK 0 3 0 0 0 0
PA 114 88 61 56 54 64
RI 15 9 6 6 40 67
SC 21 27 8 8 38 30
TN 8 6 5 4 63 67
TX 6 2 0 0 0 0
VT 66 52 30 35 45 67
VA 57 35 18 17 32 49
WV 28 21 14 15 50 71
WI 218 168 127 119 58 71
Total 2,062 1,641 1,083 1,067 53 65
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 status reports published prior to 2004. Numbers in this table refer only to
hunters that were sent wing envelopes in the respective survey year. Status reports prior to 2004 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.
12
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 2004 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2003.
State or Wings received
Region of Total Adult females Immatures Recruitment index
harvest 1963-03 2004 1963-03 2004 1963-03 2004 1963-03 2004
Eastern Region
CT 13,286 67 2,933 12 8,161 43 2.8
DE 435 3 59 1 304 2 5.2
FL 660 0 150 0 410 0 2.7
GA 2,979 37 912 17 1,294 13 1.4
ME 75,186 872 22,172 266 37,610 415 1.7 1.6
MD 3,934 38 986 8 2,198 23 2.2
MA 20,235 334 6,185 94 9,949 175 1.6 1.9
NH 28,794 643 9,311 171 13,326 321 1.4 1.9
NJ 24,866 190 5,775 23 14,645 131 2.5 5.7
NY 53,106 861 17,645 332 24,587 362 1.4 1.1
NC 3,164 32 940 15 1,569 13 1.7
PA 28,442 428 8,991 114 13,121 215 1.5 1.9
RI 2,275 8 426 2 1,534 5 3.6
SC 2,484 70 751 23 1,181 25 1.6
VT 21,324 620 6,894 198 9,908 294 1.4 1.5
VA 4,225 128 1,045 28 2,392 68 2.3 2.4
WV 5,323 86 1,625 16 2,686 50 1.7
Region 290,718 4,417 86,800 1,320 144,875 2,155 1.7 2.0
Central Region
AL 910 1 243 1 425 0 1.7
AR 519 3 165 0 211 3 1.3
IL 1,334 14 305 4 756 4 2.5
IN 7,085 136 1,785 46 3,937 52 2.2 1.1
IA 983 30 329 13 435 9 1.3
KS 45 0 9 0 23 0
KY 1,081 31 255 11 570 12 2.2
LA 29,497 332 6,614 84 19,091 196 2.9 2.3
MI 105,866 2,905 34,344 992 52,774 1,301 1.5 1.3
MN 29,908 820 10,229 317 13,341 328 1.3 1.0
MS 1,719 2 488 0 875 1 1.8
MO 2,976 160 749 52 1,495 82 2.0 1.6
NE 13 0 5 0 6 0
OH 13,971 160 4,237 63 6,639 66 1.6 1.0
OK 172 0 38 0 91 0 2.4
TN 1,031 11 257 5 528 6 2.1
TX 987 0 262 0 501 0 1.9
WI 65,175 1,355 21,344 503 31,565 577 1.5 1.1
Region 263,272 5,960 81,658 2,091 133,263 2,637 1.6 1.3
13
Table 5. State and regional indices of daily and seasonal woodcock hunting success in the U.S. during 2003 and 2004.
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.
State of
No. of
successful
No. of
successful hunts
Woodcock
bagged per
successful hunt
Woodcock per
successful hunt
Woodcock per
season
harvest hunters 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004
Eastern Region
CT 8 18 20 30 35
DE 1 2 2 3 3
FL 0 0 0 0 0
GA 4 13 14 23 36
ME 80 369 328 775 683 2.1 2.1 9.7 8.5
MD 7 17 19 35 33
MA 44 200 161 391 258 2.0 1.6 8.9 5.9
NH 56 232 259 458 526 2.0 2.0 8.2 9.4
NJ 18 92 78 224 171 2.4 2.2 12.4 9.5
NY 76 414 364 901 712 2.2 2.0 11.9 9.4
NC 4 30 15 71 31
PA 46 184 183 391 393 2.1 2.1 8.5 8.5
RI 1 1 1 1 1
SC 8 34 40 67 65
VT 40 236 228 504 488 2.1 2.1 12.6 12.2
VA 11 67 50 149 104 2.2 2.1 13.5 9.5
WV 9 27 25 51 47
Region 413 1,936 1,787 4,074 3,586 2.1 2.1 10.4 9.0
Central Region
AL 0 0 0 0 0
AR 0 0 0 0 0
IL 3 12 4 19 9
IN 14 52 47 102 93 2.0 2.0 7.3 6.6
IA 3 10 14 18 19
KS 0 0 0 0 0
KY 3 22 13 48 31
LA 13 103 120 280 308 2.7 2.6 21.5 23.7
MI 221 1,268 1,137 2,601 2,286 2.1 2.0 11.8 10.3
MN 66 326 325 673 654 2.1 2.0 10.2 9.9
MS 0 0 0 0 0
MO 15 79 64 173 135 2.2 2.1 11.5 9.0
NE 0 0 0 0 0
OH 17 82 67 182 145 2.2 2.2 10.7 8.5
OK 0 0 0 0 0
TN 2 8 5 13 11
TX 0 0 0 0 0
WI 112 586 572 1,220 1,192 2.1 2.1 10.9 10.6
Region 469 2,548 2,368 5,329 4,883 2.1 2.1 11.9 11.4
14
Table 6. Preliminary state and regional estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter
success from the 2004-05 Harvest Information Program survey.
Harvest
Active woodcock
hunters
Days afield
Seasonal harvest
per hunter
Eastern Region
CT 2,100 ±167% 900 ± 107% 5,000 ±113% 2.3 ±199%
DE 500 ± 99% 400 ± 56% 2,200 ±102% 1.3 ±114%
FL 1,100 ± 62% 1,000 ±111% 3,100 ±112% 1.1 ±127%
GA 1,600 ±109% 2,600 ±103% 7,100 ±110% 0.6 ± 50%
ME 15,600 ± 58% 4,300 ± 39% 27,000 ± 62% 3.6 ± 70%
MD 700 ± 84% 700 ±107% 2,500 ±108% 1.0 ±136%
MA 2,600 ± 31% 1,000 ± 25% 6,600 ± 35% 2.7 ± 40%
NH 4,100 ± 30% 1,500 ± 31% 9,700 ± 39% 2.7 ± 43%
NJ 2,200 ± 54% 1,100 ± 35% 3,400 ± 41% 2.1 ± 64%
NY 9,400 ± 29% 4,400 ± 23% 17,500 ± 23% 2.1 ± 37%
NC 700 ±151% 200 ±112% 700 ±126% 3.7 ±188%
PA 12,500 ± 60% 9,000 ± 29% 37,000 ± 36% 1.4 ± 67%
RI 200 ± 79% 200 ± 73% 1,300 ± 97% 1.0 ±107%
SC 1,300 ± 82% 1,700 ± 95% 2,500 ± 68% 0.8 ±125%
VT 4,000 ± 35% 800 ± 37% 4,200 ± 24% 4.9 ± 50%
VA 2,000 ± 38% 2,000 ± 63% 4,500 ± 58% 1.0 ± 74%
WV 800 ± 26% 400 ± 61% 1,300 ± 49% 2.3 ± 67%
Region 61,500 ± 21% naa 135,400 ± 18% na
Central Region
AL 2,200 ±143% 600 ±167% 1,000 ±112% 3.5 ±220%
AR 2,800 ±114% 3,600 ± 85% 20,100 ±138% 0.8 ±142%
IL 1,900 ± 96% 1,200 ± 74% 3,500 ± 78% 1.6 ±121%
IN 7,900 ±145% 1,100 ±104% 5,300 ±124% 7.1 ±178%
IA 1,700 ±103% 1,800 ± 83% 8,800 ±102% 1.0 ±132%
KS 100 ± 94% <50 ± 65% 200 ± 83% 2.6 ±115%
KY 1,900 ±142% 900 ±154% 1,300 ±110% 2.2 ±210%
LA 20,200 ±124% 3,600 ± 75% 14,100 ± 95% 5.6 ±145%
MI 102,500 �� 21% 31,200 ± 13% 147,000 ± 14% 3.3 ± 25%
MN 38,500 ± 53% 14,500 ± 27% 67,000 ± 33% 2.7 ± 59%
MS 900 ±117% 1,100 ±127% 3,600 ±143% 0.8 ±173%
MO 900 ±113% 2,500 ±183% 3,700 ±130% 0.4 ±215%
NE <50 ±178% <50 ± 86% 100 ±122% 1.8 ±197%
OH 4,600 ±101% 2,600 ± 82% 18,200 ±126% 1.8 ±130%
OK 200 ± 54% 500 ±168% 2,800 ±160% 0.4 ±177%
TN 400 ± 92% 200 ± 71% 1,700 ±106% 1.7 ±116%
TX 800 ±131% 6,200 ±190% 6,600 ±179% 0.1 ±231%
WI 47,300 ± 50% 15,700 ± 30% 61,100 ± 30% 3.0 ± 58%
Region 234,800 ± 20% na 366,100 ± 15% na
U.S. Total 296,300 ± 17% na 501,500 ± 12% na
aRegional estimates of hunter numbers and hunter success cannot be obtained due to the occurrence of individual
hunters being registered in the Harvest Information Program in more than one state.
15
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, 1918-2004.
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
2002-04 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
2003 *Sep. 20 - Jan. 31 45 3
2004 *Sep. 25 - Jan. 31 45 3
* Saturday nearest September 22.