Mourning dove (zenaida macroura) harvest and population parameters derived from a national banding study Biological Technical Publication BTP-R3010-2008

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura) Harvest and
Population Parameters
Derived from a National
Banding Study
Biological Technical Publication
BTP-R3010-2008
Larry Ditto©U.S Fish & Wildlife Service
Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura) Harvest and
Population Parameters
Derived from a National
Banding Study
Biological Technical Publication
BTP-R3010-2008
David L. Otis1
John H. Schulz2
David P. Scott3
1 U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
2 Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO
3 Ohio Division of Wildlife, Columbus, OH
Cover image: Mourning Dove
Photo credit: Larry Ditto ©ii Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Author contact information:
David L. Otis
U.S. Geological Survey
Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
342 Science II
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: (515) 294-7639
E-mail: dotis@iastate.edu
John H. Schulz
Resource Science Center
Missouri Department of Conservation
1110 South College Avenue
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Phone: (573) 882-9909
E-mail: John.H.Schulz@mdc.mo.gov
David P. Scott
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife
2045 Morse Road, Building G
Columbus, OH 43229
Phone: (614) 265-6338
E-mail: Dave.Scott@dnr.state.oh.us
For additional copies or information, contact:
David L. Otis
U.S. Geological Survey
Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
342 Science II
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: (515) 294-7639
E-mail: dotis@iastate.edu
Recommended citation:
Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, and D. P. Scott. 2008.
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) harvest and
population parameters derived from a national
banding study. U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical
Publication FWS/BTP-R3010-2008, Washington,
D.C.
Series Senior Technical Editor:
Stephanie L. Jones
Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225-0486T iii able of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Banding Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Field Design and Banding Quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Banding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Parameter Estimations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Reporting Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Harvest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Survival Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Harvest Distribution and Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Derivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Banding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
iv Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Reporting Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Harvest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Survival Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Harvest Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Harvest Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Reporting Rate Comparison with Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Harvest Rate Comparison with Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Survival Rate Comparison with Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Management Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Number banded by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix B. Total number of recoveries in 2003-2005 in banding States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix C. Participating state banding coordinators and staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of participating States, with Management Unit boundaries ( ) and subregion (EMU:
Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit). . . . . . . .1
Figure 2. Numbers of Mourning Doves banded in each State and management unit (EMU: Eastern
Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit), 2003 - 2005 . . . . .9
Figure 3. Mourning Dove reporting rates by subregions; CV is indicated by white portion of bar. . . . . . . . . . .10
Figure 4. Average 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest rates by subregion and
management unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western
Management Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Figure 5. Adult and juvenile Mourning Dove survival rates by subregion for 2003 - 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Figure 6. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU States), 1967 – 1974 (CMU States), 1964 –
1974 (WMU States)) and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates
(+ 1 SE) by State (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU:
Western Management Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Figure 7. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1974 (WMU))
and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates (+ 1 SE) by management
unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management
Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Figure 8. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU subregions), 1967 – 1974 (CMU subregions),
1964 – 1975 (WMU subregions)) and 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates ( + 1 SE)
by subregion (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western
Management Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Figure 9. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1975 (WMU)) and
2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates (+ 1 SE), by management unit (EMU: Eastern
Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
List of Figuresvi Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
List of Tables
Table 1. Mourning Dove reporting rate (R) estimates for each State and subregion within each
management unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Table 2a. Mourning Dove adult harvest rates (H) for 2003 – 2005 in each State and subregion by
management unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Table 2b. Mourning Dove juvenile harvest rates (H) for 2003 – 2005 in each State and subregion by
management unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Table 3. Mourning Dove survival rates (S) for each State and subregion by management unit . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Table 4. Age-specific and pooled (All) percent distribution of Mourning Dove harvest for each
banding State, 2003 – 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Table 5. Percent derivation by State and in Mexico of Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest,
2003 – 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Executive Summar vii y
Executive Summary
The Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura; dove) is
the most harvested migratory game bird in North
America and a ubiquitous species that is valued and
easily recognized by the general public. Informed
harvest management of this important recreational
resource requires knowledge of harvest attributes
and population vital rates, several of which are
estimable from banding and from hunter-harvested
birds. We conducted a national-scale banding
program in 2003 – 2005 to generate such data for
estimation of band reporting rates, harvest rates,
distribution and derivation of harvest, and annual
survival rates. The study required training of a
new cadre of biologists in field techniques and
establishment of data collection and management
protocols, as well as providing an opportunity to
evaluate logistics and costs associated with the
large-scale study design.
During 2003 – 2005, biologists in 29 participating
states banded nearly 100,000 birds, and hunters
have reported almost 5,000 bands to date from
harvested doves. In 2004 and 2005, a proportion
of the trapped and released doves received an
extra reward band which allowed estimation of the
probability that a hunter reported a band from a
harvested dove to the United States Geological
Survey Bird Banding Laboratory. This reporting
rate varied considerably among geographic regions
(range: 0.40 – 0.85). Weighted average adult harvest
rates for the Eastern Management Unit ( x = 0.074
± SE = 0.002) and Central Management Unit ( x =
0.062 ± SE = 0.004) were similar. Adult harvest
rates were greatest in the Western Management
Unit ( x = 0.091 ± SE = 0.003), but this estimate
was influenced by the single large estimate from
California in 2005. Juvenile harvest rates were
greatest in the Eastern Management Unit ( x =
0.095 ± SE = 0.002) and similar in the Central
Management Unit ( x = 0.071 ± SE = 0.003) and
Western Management Unit ( x = 0.064 ± SE =
0.003). With the exception of only a few states in the
northern U.S., at least 80% of the harvest of banded
adults and juveniles occurred in the state of banding.
Similarly, with only a few exceptions, nearly all
recoveries in each state were derived from banded
cohorts in the same state.
Average adult subregion survival rates ( S = 0.350,
range = 0.261 - 0.732) were generally greater than
corresponding subregion juvenile survival rates ( S
= 0.370, range = 0.153 - 0.385).
Comparison to results from reporting rate studies
conducted more than 30 years ago suggests a large
average increase in reporting rate, probably due to
the availability of the Bird Banding Laboratory toll-
free telephone number for reporting bands. The last
national-scale dove banding study was conducted
more than 30 years ago, and a comparison of harvest
rates suggests current harvest rate estimates for
both age classes in Eastern Management Unit and
Western Management Unit states are generally
less than previous estimates, while estimates are
greater or about the same in Central Management
Unit states. Survival rates from the earlier study
were significantly greater for both age classes in
the Eastern Management Unit and the Central
Management Unit (P ≤ 0.10), but no differences were
found in the Western Management Unit. We did not
find any important changes in harvest distribution or
derivation patterns within the management units.
This study provided the foundation for an
operational long-term banding program that is
critical to the implementation of the National
Mourning Dove Strategic Harvest Management
Plan (Anonymous 2005), which describes the
conceptual framework for an improved, informed
system of harvest management for doves.viii Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Acknowledgments
We thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Webless Migratory Game Bird Research Program,
a consortium of state wildlife agencies, and Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department for funding. We are
indebted to the hundreds of people who did the hard
work of banding birds and the state coordinators
who organized these efforts in their respective
states (see Appendix C). We thank Pam Garretson
for assistance with training and technical support
of Band Manager software, and David Dolton for
administrative and technical support of this project.
Billy Dukes and Bill Harvey provided valuable
comments on a first draft of the manuscript, and
Jim Dubovsky, Steve Hayslette, Nova Silvy and one
anonymous reviewer provided excellent subsequent
peer review. We thank Carol Petticord, the Wildlife
Management Institute, Graham Smith, and the
U.S Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center for assistance in budget management. The
U.S Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory
provided essential staff support for logistics of the
reward banding effort and assistance with data
management. We thank the many students at Iowa
State University who spent days in the basement
creating data forms and stringing bands, with
special thanks to Josh Obrecht for managing student
help and generating maps and graphics. We thank
Jenny Loda for additional assistance with graphics.
The Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit is supported by a cooperative agreement
between the U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa State
University, the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, and the Wildlife Management Institute.1
Introduction
Introduction
Figure 1. Map of participating States, with Management Unit boundaries ( ) and subregion
(EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit).
The Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura; dove) is
currently classified as a migratory game bird in 38
of the lower 48 states. It is the most widespread,
abundant, and harvested migratory game bird in
North America, and its popularity as a game species
is confirmed by the fact that > 1.1 million hunters
participate in dove hunting each year (Dolton
and Rau 2006). Annual hunting regulations are
established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), after consideration of input from technical
committees and flyway councils that represent each
of the 3 dove management units (MUs): Eastern
(EMU), Central (CMU) and Western (WMU)
(Fig. 1).
Informed harvest management strategies for
migratory game birds depend upon knowledge of
population dynamics and how the harvest process
affects these dynamics. This knowledge depends, in
turn, on reliable estimates of critical demographic
vital rates, harvest parameters and population
status at appropriate temporal and spatial scales.
Historically, large-scale monitoring and survey
programs for doves have been very limited. The
primary monitoring effort has been the Call-
Count Survey (CCS), which is an annual roadside
survey coordinated since 1966 by the FWS to index
breeding population trends nationwide. The Harvest
Information Program (HIP) is an annual FWS mail
survey of hunters that was fully implemented in 2002
(Ver Steeg and Elden 2002) and produces estimates
of national dove harvest and hunter effort. The last
national banding study was conducted by federal
and state agencies for several years beginning in the
mid-1960s. Although a national-scale experimental
wing collection survey to estimate harvest age ratios
was begun in 2005 (Otis and Miller, pers. comm.), a
large-scale annual recruitment survey has not yet
been established.
WMU
CMU
EMU North-Coastal
California
North-West
Arizona
Mid-North
Mid-South South
Gulf Coast
East-South
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
East-North
Mid-Central
2 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
In 1999, new initiatives were begun within the
dove management community based on a desire
for improved, science-based harvest strategies for
dove populations. In 2003, these efforts culminated
in the approval of the Mourning Dove National
Strategic Harvest Management Plan (National
Plan; Anonymous 2005) by the flyway councils and
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
Knowledge of population harvest rate is essential
for informed management of exploited species
(Sadler 1993). For migratory birds, band-recovery
studies are used to estimate recovery rates, i.e., the
proportion of a banded cohort that is shot, retrieved,
and reported to the U.S. Geological Survey Bird
Banding Laboratory (BBL). Recovery rates are
often used as an index to harvest rate, but these
indices are lower than true harvest rates because
not all recovered bands are reported to the BBL.
Harvest rate estimates are obtained by adjusting
recovery rates by the reporting rate, i.e., the
probability that a hunter reports the band number
from a harvested banded bird. Reporting rates can
be estimated by use of reward bands, which are
similar to standard metal bands placed on birds,
but inscribed with a dollar value that will be paid to
the individual who reports the band. By comparing
recovery rates of birds banded with standard bands
only to those banded with both standard and reward
bands, we can derive reporting rate estimates,
assuming that the reward amount is sufficient to
insure that a hunter will report the band number
(Nichols and Tomlinson 1993, Nichols et al. 1995).
Previous reward-band studies for Mourning Doves
were conducted on a limited geographic scale by
Tomlinson (1968), Reeves (1979), and Scott et al.
(2004), but a national-scale effort has never been
conducted. Recent changes in the band-reporting
mechanism from a mail to toll-free telephone system,
as well as potential changes in hunter behavior, also
motivated the need for this study.
This banding study was a cooperative effort between
state wildlife agencies and the FWS Division of
Migratory Bird Management, and was initiated
as the first tangible effort to implement a dove
harvest strategy envisioned in the National Plan
(Anonymous 2005). We conducted the study in 29
states (Fig. 1) during 2003 – 2005. Funds from the
FWS Webless Migratory Game Bird Research
Program were used to pay band rewards and to
cover administrative, coordination, and reporting
requirements. Cooperating state wildlife agencies,
supplemented in some states by assistance from
FWS personnel and private citizens, conducted the
banding program. Agency participation was strictly
voluntary. 3
Objectives
The primary objective of this study was to estimate
reporting rate and age-specific harvest rates in a
representative set of states in each of the 3 dove
management units. These units (Fig. 1) were
delineated by Kiel (1959) based on examination of
band recovery data. Secondary objectives were
to use the band-recovery data to describe the
spatial distribution and derivation of harvest and to
estimate annual age-specific survival rates (Brownie
et al. 1985). In addition, we intended to use the
experience gained in training of field personnel,
establishment of data collection and management
protocols, and assessment of required costs, to help
guide the design and implementation of a future
operational nationwide banding program.
Objectives
Mike O’Meilia
4 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Methods
Field Methods
We trapped doves in 29 states (Fig. 1) between 1
July and 15 August using standard modified Kniffin
funnel traps (Reeves et al. 1968) and a variety of
small grain baits. We classified banded birds as After
Hatching Year (adult), Hatching Year (juvenile)
or Unknown (Mirarchi 1993, Schulz et al. 1995).
Gender cannot reliably be assigned to juveniles
and therefore all were classified as unknown; adult
birds were classified as male, female, or unknown
(Mirarchi 1993, Schulz et al. 1995). The band type
(standard) was a FWS metal butt-end band inscribed
with the BBL address and a toll-free phone number,
either of which could be used to report the band to
the BBL.
Banding Scheme
2003. No reward bands were deployed in 2003
based on the rationale that the first year of banding
provided the opportunity for participating states
to establish banding locations, train personnel in
trapping techniques and age and gender assignment,
standardize data collection and management
protocols, and evaluate field costs. We conducted
workshops for state banding coordinators in each
management unit to discuss and finalize these
details, and most state coordinators subsequently
conducted similar workshops within their own state.
Due to concern about the detectability of standard
bands on harvested birds, 50% of birds banded in
2003 received an unnumbered gold-colored band
in addition to a standard band. The concern arose
from two considerations: 1) no large-scale dove
banding program had been conducted for 30 years;
thus dove hunters are not conditioned to look for
bands on harvested birds, and 2) the small band size
and aluminum color of a standard band could result
in failure to see the band. Comparison of recovery
rates of the two marked cohorts provided a check on
the assumption that detectability of bands did not
confound estimates of reporting rate.
2004. Reward bands were deployed in all 29
participating states in 2004. We placed only a
standard band on all adult birds. In addition to a
standard band, we placed a reward band on the
opposite leg of every third juvenile bird. We placed
reward bands only on juvenile birds because of
their greater vulnerability to harvest (Dunks et al.
1982), which would result in larger sample sizes for
estimation of reporting rates. The reward amount
was $100, which was considered sufficient to satisfy
the critical assumption that a hunter would report a
reward band with near certainty (Nichols et al. 1995,
Royle and Garrettson, unpubl. data). We assumed
that reporting rates would not vary among age or
gender cohorts, because these characteristics cannot
be reliably identified for birds in flight, nor do we
believe hunters preferentially value one cohort over
another.
2005. The initial study design specified that only
standard bands would be used in 2005. However, we
did supplemental reward banding in several states
(ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AZ) based on a desire
to improve statistical precision of reporting rate
estimates derived from the 2004 data. California
joined the study in 2005 and also deployed reward
bands.
Field Design and Banding Quotas
The National Plan (Anonymous 2005) suggested
continuation of the practice of setting harvest
regulations by MU, and this was considered the
highest level of aggregation for the results. Due
to uncertainty about the potential costs to the
participating states for training and fieldwork, we
assigned banding quotas to subregions (1 or more
states) within each MU (Fig. 1). Our EMU subregion
boundaries had been used in prior analyses of dove
banding studies (Hayne and Geissler 1977, Otis
2002, 2003). We used the longitudinal boundaries
defined by Dunks et al. (1982) and Tomlinson et
al. (1988) and, in consultation with expert federal
and state dove biologists, we added an additional
mid-latitudinal boundary to define CMU and WMU
subregions boundaries (Fig. 1). Groups of states
within subregions cooperated to achieve banding
quota objectives. We allocated the state quotas
within the subregion in proportion to their area and
average 1997 – 2001 CCS population index. In multi-
state subregions with only a single state participant
(e.g., EMU – North-West, CMU – East-North;
Fig. 1), we arbitrarily assigned the state 50% of the
subregion quota.
Given the objective of 1) a standard error of 5% for
the reporting rate in each subregion, 2) an expected
reporting rate of 30%, and 3) an expected average
harvest rate of 10%, standard statistical calculations
suggested the best ratio of reward bands to standard
bands was approximately 1:2, with subregion quotas Methods 5
of 1,000 birds of each age-class in 2003 and 2005, and
1,000 adult, 700 juvenile (reward + standard) and
1,400 juvenile (standard only) birds in 2004. States
that conducted supplemental reward banding in 2005
used 2004 quotas. With the exception of juvenile
birds in reward banding states and years, all states
were free to band in excess of their assigned quotas.
We used a 3-step process to choose banding
locations. We stratified the subregion into 1-degree
latitude by 1-degree longitude blocks. These blocks
averaged about 100 km x 100 km. Each subregion
had at least 30 degree blocks, and the design
objective was to band in a representative sample
of 20 blocks. If not all states in a subregion were
participating, then the number of banding degree
blocks was reduced accordingly. Each state biologist
was free to choose these blocks based on their
knowledge of dove populations, hunting pressure
and available resources. Within each of these blocks,
biologists also were responsible for choosing specific
banding sites.
Data Analysis
Data Sources
Banding. — Numbers of birds banded in each age
and sex cohort for each state and year were derived
from electronic spreadsheets provided to us by state
banding coordinators. We used a standard template
developed by the FWS for data entry, processing,
and interface with BBL Band Manager software.
Recoveries. –– We used recovery data from the 2003-
2005 hunting seasons provided by the BBL in May
2006. We used recoveries only from birds banded
by study participants. We used only recoveries
from birds shot and retrieved by hunters, which
comprised > 95% of the total recoveries of all types.
Parameter Estimations
Reporting Rates. –– For each state, we combined
all birds banded during the study and calculated
the percentage of recoveries that occurred in that
state. If this percentage was ≥ 80%, we estimated
a reporting rate for the state using only these
recoveries. This 80% recovery criterion was met in
all states except OK and TX. Reporting rates could
not be calculated for IA, since it is a non-hunting
state, nor for WI and IN because they did not deploy
reward bands. We used Program SURVIV (White
1983) to estimate reporting rates and standard
errors for the “> 80%” states. The reporting rate
was assumed to be constant across years and
age-classes. The estimation models also included
age-specific annual survival rates (assumed constant
across years) and harvest rates (age- and year-
specific); these estimates are discussed below. Also,
models contained an additional parameter to adjust
for a different reporting rate for 2003 birds equipped
with the extra blank gold band. Direct (banded
birds recovered in the first hunting season following
banding) and indirect (banded birds recovered in
subsequent hunting seasons) recoveries were used
in the models. In a few states, some year/age cohorts
were eliminated from models because of small
sample sizes.
For states that did not meet the 80% criterion, we
estimated reporting rates by adapting the Program
SURVIV models used by Nichols et al. (1995). For
OK, we used recoveries from birds banded in AR,
KS and OK; for TX we used recoveries from birds
banded in IA, KS, OK, SD and TX. Because CA
banded only in 2005, we estimated reporting rate
using standard formulas (Nichols and Tomlinson
1993).
We estimated subregion reporting rates by
calculating a weighted average of estimates from
states within the subregion. Similarly, we estimated
the management unit rate by calculating a weighted
average over all states within the unit. State weights
were proportional to the average state HIP harvest
estimates from 2003 - 2005.
Harvest Rates. –– If at least 80% of the recoveries of
both age-classes occurred in the state of banding, we
used recoveries from all states of harvest in the same
models described previously for reporting rate to
estimate annual age-specific harvest rates. Similarly,
harvest rates for OK and TX were estimated using
the custom Program SURVIV models used for
estimation of reporting rate. Harvest distributions
for birds banded in WV, ND, SD, NE, KS and ID
involved several states; therefore we estimated
harvest rates by using state-specific direct recovery
rates of standard bands and reporting rates for each
state of harvest. We assigned the ID reporting rate
to UT, OR and NM in the calculation of ID harvest
rates. We assigned the OH reporting rate to IN
and WI in the calculation of their harvest rates. We
assigned a reporting rate of 0.25 to Mexico, which
was used in the calculation of ND, SD, NE and KS
harvest rates. We calculated weighted estimates
for subregions and the management unit with
state weights proportional to the product of the
area of dove habitat in the state and its average
1996 – 2005 CCS index. The area of dove habitat
for each state was taken from Kiel (1959). Because
doves are habitat generalists and their breeding
range includes the entire lower 48 states, the only
appreciable difference between Kiel’s dove habitat
area and the total state area occurs in states with
substantial mountain or woodland areas. In our
study, these states were NC, PA, WV, WI, ID and
WA.
Survival Rates. –– Age-specific average annual
survival rates were estimated for each state using
Program SURVIV (White 1983) models with all
harvest recoveries from cohorts banded in that
state. Estimates could not be calculated for CA and
WI because of only 1 year of banding data, and the
estimate for IN is based on only 2 years of banding.
We calculated estimates for subregions and the
management unit as described for harvest rates. 6 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Harvest Distribution and Derivation
Distribution. We estimated state harvest
distribution, i.e., the set of percentages of the
harvest recoveries from banded cohorts in a given
state that occurred in each state of harvest (Munro
and Kimball 1982), for each age-class and for all age-classes
combined. Numbers of recoveries in each
state were adjusted by the state reporting rate. Data
were pooled over all years.
Derivation. We estimated the derivation of harvest
for each state, i.e., the percentage of each state’s
harvest derived from all source banding states, by
following a method described by Geis (1972) and
Dunks et al. (1982). Data were pooled over all years.
The estimates weighted each recovery from a source
state by the relative population abundance that it
represented. We calculated the source state weight
(W) as
W = (state dove habitat area)*(median CCS index, 1996 – 2005) Number of birds banded in the source state
Weights were calculated separately for each age-
class because the number of birds banded was
different in each age-class.
George Andrejko
Data Analysis 7
Banding
Nearly 100,000 doves were banded in the three
MUs (EMU: 55% of total, CMU: 35% of total,
WMU: 10% of total) during the three-year study
(Fig. 2). Forty-two percent were adults, 56% were
juveniles, and 2% were unknown age class. In the
adult age class, 62% of banded doves were identified
as males, 28% as females, and 10% as unknown
gender. Approximately 8,000 birds were released
with reward bands. State-, year-, and age-specific
banding summaries are presented in Appendix A.
Recoveries
Nearly 5,000 recoveries were reported by hunters
during the 2003 – 2005 hunting seasons. Direct
recoveries comprised 80% of the total recoveries
and approximately 60% of the direct recoveries were
of juvenile birds. Approximately 60% of the 2003
recoveries had the additional blank gold band. State-
and age-specific recovery summaries are presented
in Appendix B.
Reporting Rates
Subregion reporting rates ranged from about 0.40
in AZ and the Mid-South to 0.85 in the Mid-North,
and with an average = 0.55 (Fig. 3). Individual
subregion estimates were moderately precise (CV
= 19%). Average subregion estimates within each
management unit were 0.53 (EMU), 0.57 (CMU) and
0.57 (WMU). Reporting rates for individual states
(Table 1) were not as precise (CV = 28%) and ranged
from about 0.30 (GA, OK, TX, WV) to 1.00 (ND, SD,
ID).
Harvest Rates
Average state harvest rates varied by 10 to 18
percentage points among states within each of the
three MUs (Tables 2a, 2b). There was relatively less
annual variation within a state than spatial variation
among states. Annual state harvest rate estimates
were not precise (CV = 36%).
Average subregion harvest rates were slightly lower
for adults ( x = 0.069; range = 0.010 – 0.204) than
juveniles ( x = 0.079; range = 0.021 – 0.147; Fig. 4).
There was generally small variation among years
within subregions. Annual subregion estimates were
moderately precise (CV = 24%). Weighted average
MU adult harvest rates were greatest in the WMU
( x = 0.091 ± SE = 0.003), but this estimate was
inflated by the single large estimate of 0.204 for CA
in 2005. Adult harvest rates for the EMU ( x = 0.074
± SE = 0.002) and CMU ( x = 0.062 ± SE = 0.004)
were similar. Juvenile harvest rates were greatest in
the EMU ( x = 0.095 ± SE = 0.002) and similar in
the CMU ( x = 0.071 ± SE = 0.003) and WMU
( x = 0.064 ± SE = 0.003).
Survival Rates
Individual state adult survival rates averaged about
15 percentage points greater than juvenile survival
rates in the EMU and CMU, but were nearly equal
in the WMU (Table 3). There was considerable
variation between state age-specific survival rate
estimates but these state estimates were very
imprecise (adult CV = 32%; juvenile CV = 42%),
and should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Subregion adult survival rates ranged from 0.261
in the EMU South to 0.732 in the CMU East-North
(IA; Table 3; Fig. 5). Subregion juvenile survival
rates ranged from 0.153 in the EMU Gulf Coast
to 0.385 in the WMU North-Coastal. Subregion
estimates were more precise than state estimates
(adult CV = 22%; juvenile CV = 29%).
Harvest Distribution
A high percentage of the total number of recoveries
from a state’s adult ( x = 87%) and juvenile (
x = 80%) banded cohorts occurred in the state of
banding (Table 4). Exceptions were the northern
states of ND, NE and SD and ID, for which the
percentage was 20 – 40 points less than average for
adults. For juveniles in these states and in KS, the
percentage was 25 – 65 points less than average.
Adults banded in AZ, IA, ID, ND and TX, and
juveniles banded in AR, CA, ID, KS, ND, NE, SD,
TX and WA were recovered in Mexico (Table 4).
Juveniles from the non-hunting state of IA were
recovered from 13 different states and Mexico.
Harvest Derivation
Nearly all recoveries in each state were derived from
banded cohorts in the same state. Harvest derivation
calculations indicate that an average of 94% of the
adult harvest was derived from a state’s breeding
Results8 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
population, and this percentage was at least 75% for
all states (Table 5). For juveniles, the average was
92%, and only LA and TX fell slightly below 75%.
Caution is necessary in the interpretation of these
results, because of the bias caused by non-banding
states. Clearly, there can be no contribution of a non-
banding state in the derivation calculations for any
other state, and thus the estimates are conditional
upon the set of banding states. Also, we included
derivation results for some non-banding states and
Mexico, but in this case the contributions of banding
states are obviously inflated because of the lack of
banding in the state of harvest.
Misty Sumner
Results 9
Figure 2. Numbers of Mourning Doves banded in each State and management unit (EMU: Eastern
Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit), 2003 - 2005.
Total Number Banded
EMU
State
IN OHWISCNC VA WV PA MD FLMSLAGAALKYTN
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
N = 54,028
State
MO ARIANDSDNEKSOKTX
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
N = 32,302
Total Number Banded
CMU
State
WA ID CAAZ
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
N = 10,576
Total Number Banded
WMU
10 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
0.86
0.5
0.81
0.4
0.34
0.48
0.47
0.52 0.68
0.45
0.63
0.48
WMU
CMU
EMU
X = 0.55
CV = 0.19
Figure 3. Mourning Dove reporting rates by subregions; CV is indicated by white portion of bar.
11
Figure 4. Average 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest rates by subregion and
management unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western
Management Unit).
WMU
CMU
EMU
0.14 0.2
0.04 0.03
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.03
0.08 0.08
0.15 0.09
0.02 0.01
0.07 0.08
0.06 0.04
0.09 0.05
0.08 0.07
0.13 0.08
0.11 0.09 Management Unit Average
EMU 0.10 0.07
CMU 0.07 0.06
WMU 0.06 0.09
Juvenile Adult
Figure 5. Adult and juvenile Mourning Dove survival rates by subregion for 2003 -2005.
WMU
CMU
0.39 0.37 EMU
0.33 0.43
0.37 0.37
0.26 0.37
0.18 0.32
0.33 0.73
0.16 0.33
0.23 0.41
0.22 0.39
0.33 0.4
0.31 0.26
0.15 0.26
Juvenile
Adult
Results
12 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
State
FL GAKYLAMSNCPASC
0.000
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.150
0.175
0.200
0.225
0.250
0.275
0.300
1970 era Adult
2003-2005 Adult
1970 era Juvenile
2003-2005 Juvenile
State
AR IAKSMONESDTXCAIDWA
0.000
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.150
0.175
0.200
0.225
0.250
1970 era Adult
2003-2005 Adult
1970 era Juvenile
2003-2005 Juvenile
Figure 6. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU States), 1967 – 1974 (CMU States), 1964 –
1974 (WMU States)) and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates
(+ 1 SE) by State (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU:
Western Management Unit).13
Management Unit
EMU CMU WMU
0.000
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.150
0.175
0.200
1970 era Adult
2003-2005 Adult
1970 era Juvenile
2003-2005 Juvenile
Figure 7. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1974 (WMU))
and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates (+ 1 SE) by management
unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management
Unit).
Figure 8. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU subregions), 1967 – 1974 (CMU subregions),
1964 – 1975 (WMU subregions)) and 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates ( + 1 SE)
by subregion (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western
Management Unit).
Results
Management Unit
EMU CMU WMU
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
1970 era Adult
2003-2005 Adult
1970 era Juvenile
2003-2005 Juvenile
14 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Figure 9. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1975 (WMU)) and
2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates (+ 1 SE), by management unit (EMU: Eastern
Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit).
Subregion
MD,PA,WVNC,SC,VAAL,GAFL,LA,MSKY,TNIN,OH
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
1970 era Adult
2003-2005 Adult
1970 era Juvenile
2003-2005 Juvenile
Subregion
IA AR,MO ND,SD,NE KS,OK,TX ID,WAAZ
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1970 era Adult
2003-2005 Adult
1970 era Juvenile
2003-2005 Juvenile
15
Table 1. Mourning Dove reporting rate (R) estimates for each State and subregion within each management
unit.
Management Unit Subregion State R SECV
Eastern Mid-Atlantic Maryland 0.587 0.2830.482
Pennsylvania 0.431 0.1420.329
West Virginia 0.245 0.1760.718
Subregion 0.402 0.1040.259
South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.751 0.1590.212
South Carolina 0.635 0.1780.280
Virginia 0.678 0.3010.444
Subregion 0.704 0.1140.161
South Alabama 0.598 0.1590.266
Georgia 0.311 0.0720.232
Subregion 0.441 0.0820.186
Gulf Coast Florida 0.538 0.1700.316
Louisiana 0.491 0.1270.259
Mississippi 0.441 0.1080.245
Subregion 0.446 0.0710.160
Mid-Central Kentucky 0.770 0.1900.247
Tennessee 0.514 0.1240.241
Subregion 0.658 0.1200.182
North-West Ohio 0.449 0.1170.261
Central East-South Arkansas 0.415 0.0890.214
Missouri 0.624 0.1380.221
Subregion 0.545 0.0920.169
Mid-North North Dakota 1.000 ------
Nebraska 1.000 ------
South Dakota 0.517 0.2300.445
Subregion 0.848 0.0720.085
Mid-South Kansas 0.560 0.1800.321
Oklahoma 0.309 0.1310.424
Texas 0.316 0.0700.222
Subregion 0.414 0.0820.198
Western North-Coastal Idaho 1.000 ------
Washington 0.524 0.1430.273
Subregion 0.772 0.0680.089
Arizona 0.397 0.1260.317
California 0.499 0.1190.238
Results
16 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Table 2a. Mourning Dove adult harvest rates (H) for 2003 - 2005 in each State and subregion by management unit.
Management
Unit Subregion State
2003 20042005Total
H SE H SE H SE Mean SE
EasternMid-AtlanticMaryland0.0650.0360.0850.0430.0850.0400.0780.023
Pennsylvania0.0590.0230.020.0090.0280.0120.0360.009
West Virginia 0.033 0.0150.0470.0360.0270.0230.0360.015
Subregion 0.0520.0140.0400.0140.0380.0120.0440.008
South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.042 0.0130.0560.0150.0580.0150.0520.008
South Carolina 0.075 0.0240.0720.0240.0410.0130.0630.012
Virginia0.0330.0220.0440.0240.0290.0160.0350.012
Subregion 0.0490.0100.0580.0110.0480.0090.0520.006
South Alabama 0.0830.0290.060.0210.0500.0180.0640.013
Georgia 0.0630.020.1040.0300.1300.0330.0990.016
Subregion 0.0720.0170.0840.0190.0940.0200.0830.011
Gulf Coast Florida 0.060.0260.0480.020.0730.0280.0600.014
Louisiana 0.1170.0410.0750.031 0.045 0.0180.0790.018
Mississippi 0.1460.0440.1250.039------0.1360.024
Subregion 0.1030.0210.0810.018------0.0920.014
Mid-Central Kentucky0.0720.0220.0420.0130.0230.0080.0460.009
Tennessee0.1010.0310.0750.0220.0950.0280.0900.016
Subregion 0.0850.0180.0560.0120.0540.0130.0650.009
North-WestOhio 0.059 0.0190.0630.0190.0560.0170.0590.011
Indiana ------0.1220.0370.0970.0310.1100.016
Wisconsin------------0.0740.0310.0740.031
Subregion ------------0.0760.0160.0760.016
Central East-NorthIowa 0.009 0.0030.0070.0030.0130.0050.0100.002
East-South Arkansas0.1010.0330.1040.0270.0980.0270.1010.017
Missouri 0.1110.0310.0610.0180.0780.0200.0830.014
Subregion 0.1070.0290.0790.0260.0870.0320.0910.017
Mid-North North Dakota 0.032 0.0080.0170.0050.0050.003 0.018 0.003
Nebraska 0.0270.0070.0310.0070.0550.0140.0380.006
South Dakota 0.037 0.0130.0420.0110.0120.0080.0300.006
Subregion 0.0320.0050.0290.0040.0230.0050.0280.003
Mid-South Kansas0.0490.0140.0420.0130.0430.0150.0450.008
Oklahoma 0.4100.1460.0620.0330.0540.0310.1750.051
Texas0.1180.0430.1040.0320.0530.0130.0920.018
Subregion 0.1280.0280.0750.0170.0490.0090.0840.011
WesternNorth-CoastalIdaho0.0380.0120.0170.0060.0170.0060.0240.005
Washington0.050.0230.0390.0160.0370.0150.0420.011
Subregion 0.0430.0120.0270.0080.0260.0070.0320.005
Arizona 0.0250.0120.0330.0130.0330.0090.0300.007
California------------0.2040.0420.2040.042Results 17
Management
Unit Subregion State
2003 20042005Total
H SEHSEHSEMeanSE
EasternMid-AtlanticMaryland0.1310.0680.0750.0250.1140.0550.1070.030
Pennsylvania0.0640.0240.0530.0120.060.0210.0590.011
West Virginia 0.032 0.0200.0490.0290.0490.0270.0430.015
Subregion 0.0660.0190.0560.0120.0670.0170.0630.009
South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.064 0.020.1220.020.0680.0170.0850.011
South Carolina 0.13 0.0410.1260.0250.0930.0280.1160.019
Virginia0.0560.0330.0810.0280.0180.0110.0520.015
Subregion 0.0810.0170.1150.0140.0650.0120.0870.008
South Alabama0.1420.0450.0950.0190.0730.0240.1030.018
Georgia 0.1050.0310.1640.0240.1920.050.1540.021
Subregion 0.1220.0270.1330.0160.1380.0290.1310.014
Gulf Coast Florida 0.0610.0260.1030.0220.0220.0110.0620.012
Louisiana 0.0980.030.1440.026 0.105 0.0290.1160.016
Mississippi 0.1690.0510.1220.022------0.1460.023
Subregion 0.1080.0230.1120.012------0.1100.013
Mid-Central Kentucky0.0590.0180.0680.0130.0370.0120.0550.008
Tennessee0.1340.040.1330.0230.0940.0270.1200.018
Subregion 0.0920.0200.0960.0120.0620.0140.0830.009
North-WestOhio 0.058 0.0190.0510.0090.0680.0210.0590.010
Indiana ------0.1160.0390.0940.0310.1050.020
Wisconsin------------0.0350.0180.0350.018
Subregion ------------0.0670.0140.0670.014
Central East-NorthIowa 0.038 0.0070.0070.0030.0240.0050.0230.003
East-South Arkansas0.160.0420.1950.0280.1460.0360.1670.021
Missouri 0.1190.0340.1060.0180.1720.0430.1320.019
Subregion 0.1370.0260.1440.0160.1610.0290.1470.014
Mid-North North Dakota 0.045 0.0130.0180.0070.0250.010 0.029 0.006
Nebraska 0.0320.0110.0470.0110.0720.0210.0500.009
South Dakota 0.037 0.0110.0190.0110.0420.0140.0330.007
Subregion 0.0380.0070.0280.0060.0460.0090.0370.004
Mid-South Kansas0.0810.0180.040.0120.0360.0090.0520.008
Oklahoma 0.3430.1330.0660.0330.1200.0380.1760.047
Texas 0.118 0.0440.0610.0130.0690.0180.0830.016
Subregion 0.1320.0280.0440.0090.0620.0110.0790.010
WesternNorth-CoastalIdaho 0.010 0.0070.0420.0140.0100.0060.0210.006
Washington0.090.0290.0710.0140.060.0180.0740.012
Subregion 0.0460.0140.0550.0100.0320.0090.0440.006
Arizona 0.020.010.0250.0080.0190.0080.0210.005
California------------0.1350.0360.1350.036
Table 2b. Mourning Dove juvenile harvest rates (H) for 2003 - 2005 in each State and subregion by management unit.18 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Management
Unit
Subregion State Adult Juvenile
S SECVSSECV
EasternMid-AtlanticMaryland0.4450.1190.2670.2190.0940.429
Pennsylvania0.3720.1180.3170.2290.0980.428
West Virginia 0.465 0.2870.6170.2430.1720.708
Subregion 0.4070.1100.2710.2320.0780.336
South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.291 0.0600.2060.1870.0590.316
South Carolina 0.388 0.0860.2220.2710.0890.328
Virginia 0.690 0.2290.3320.2440.1370.561
Subregion 0.3920.0590.1510.2190.0480.218
South Alabama 0.234 0.0800.3420.3540.1160.328
Georgia 0.284 0.0590.2080.2610.0650.249
Subregion 0.2610.0490.1880.3050.0640.212
Gulf Coast Florida 0.332 0.1000.3010.0660.0410.621
Louisiana 0.2680.1040.3880.2740.0950.347
Mississippi 0.1990.0620.3120.1310.0500.382
Subregion 0.2630.0510.1930.1530.0370.240
Mid-Central Kentucky0.5080.1100.2170.4400.1190.270
Tennessee0.2650.0630.2380.1840.0590.321
Subregion 0.4010.0680.1690.3280.0720.219
North-WestOhio 0.400 0.0800.2000.1450.0460.317
Indiana 0.264 0.0990.3750.1800.1080.600
Subregion 0.3280.0640.1960.1630.0610.373
Central East-NorthIowa 0.732 0.2510.3430.3330.1650.495
East-South Arkansas0.2640.0770.2920.2020.0620.307
Missouri 0.369 0.0720.1950.1540.0490.318
Subregion 0.3240.0530.1630.1750.0390.221
Mid-North North Dakota 0.452 0.1920.4250.4250.2400.565
Nebraska 0.4740.1070.2260.1110.0590.532
South Dakota 0.348 0.1230.3530.4440.1690.381
Subregion 0.4270.0870.2040.3290.1040.316
Mid-South Kansas 0.495 0.1050.2120.4070.1210.297
Oklahoma 0.5630.3220.5720.4750.2290.482
Texas 0.370 0.1140.3080.2090.0790.378
Subregion 0.3710.0690.1850.2590.0610.234
WesternNorth-CoastalIdaho 0.262 0.1260.4810.1920.1260.656
Washington0.4950.1640.3310.6240.2170.348
Subregion 0.3660.1010.2760.3850.1190.310
Arizona 0.374 0.113 0.3020.2640.1010.383
Table 3. Mourning Dove survival rates (S) for each State and subregion by management unit.Results 19
Banding state Recovery State or Mexico AdultJuvenileUnknownAll
Alabama Alabama 96.0 100.0100.098.8
Georgia 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
Arkansas Arkansas 88.2 88.1 100.088.4
Florida 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
Louisiana 3.1 0.9 0.0 1.5
Mississippi 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.9
Mexico 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.8
Oklahoma 4.9 4.1 0.0 4.2
Texas 2.4 4.3 0.0 3.7
Arizona Arizona 82.8 100.0 0.0 89.0
California 6.9 0.0 0.0 4.4
Mexico 10.3 0.0 0.0 6.6
California California 100.0 92.6 100.096.7
Mexico 0.0 7.4 0.0 3.3
Florida Alabama 2.4 1.1 100.01.5
Florida 95.1 97.3 0.0 96.5
Kansas 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0
Missouri 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.9
Georgia Alabama 0.7 2.8 100.01.9
Georgia 99.3 96.9 0.0 97.9
South Carolina 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2
Iowa Alabama 0.0 5.7 0.0 4.1
Arkansas 7.4 0.0 0.0 1.9
Florida 5.7 2.0 0.0 2.9
Georgia 9.8 3.4 0.0 5.0
Illinois 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.1
Kansas 5.5 3.0 0.0 3.5
Louisiana 6.2 16.3 0.0 13.3
Maryland 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.3
Minnesota 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.5
Missouri 4.9 6.2 0.0 5.7
Mississippi 12.2 4.9 0.0 3.5
Mexico 0.0 7.5 0.0 8.5
Nebraska 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.8
Oklahoma 0.0 6.9 0.0 5.0
Texas 48.3 32.6 100.038.3
Unknown 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.5
Idaho Arizona 7.7 6.9 --- 7.3
California 6.2 16.4 --- 11.6
Idaho 61.5 16.4 --- 37.7
Mexico 12.3 32.9 --- 23.2
New Mexico 0.0 5.5 --- 2.9
Oregon 12.3 11.0 --- 11.6
Utah 0.0 11.0 --- 5.8
Indiana Alabama 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Arkansas 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.9
Georgia 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
Illinois 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8
Indiana 90.9 91.1 100.091.1
Kentucky 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5
Louisiana 0.0 4.4 0.0 1.6
Ohio 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.8
Texas 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.4
Table 4. Age-specific and pooled (All) percent distribution of Mourning Dove harvest for each banding State,
2003 - 2005.
20 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Kansas Arkansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5
Kansas 81.4 39.8 100.061.6
Louisiana 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.0
Missouri 3.1 4.9 0.0 3.9
Mexico 0.0 16.2 0.0 7.8
Oklahoma 3.2 9.6 0.0 6.2
Texas 12.4 26.6 0.0 19.0
Kentucky Alabama 1.7 0.0 --- 0.7
Florida 0.0 1.3 --- 0.8
Illinois 0.0 2.8 --- 1.6
Indiana 0.0 1.5 --- 0.9
Kentucky 89.2 93.7 --- 91.9
Mississippi 2.3 0.0 --- 0.9
Oklahoma 3.3 0.0 --- 1.3
South Carolina 1.6 0.0 --- 0.6
Tennessee 2.0 0.0 --- 0.8
West Virginia 0.0 0.7 --- 0.4
Louisiana Alabama 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3
Georgia 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6
Kentucky 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Louisiana 100.0 95.5 100.096.1
Mississippi 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.3
Ohio 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4
South Carolina 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3
Texas 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6
Maryland Delaware 0.0 7.2 0.0 4.1
Georgia 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.2
Maryland 90.1 85.9 42.3 86.5
North Carolina 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.9
Pennsylvania 7.7 0.0 57.7 4.7
South Carolina 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7
Virginia 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.0
Missouri Alabama 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Arkansas 1.2 2.3 0.0 1.7
Florida 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Illinois 0.0 1.9 3.9 1.4
Kansas 0.0 1.68 0.0 1.0
Kentucky 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.7
Louisiana 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4
Missouri 92.4 89.0 90.0 90.0
Mississippi 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2
South Carolina 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2
Tennessee 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.7
Texas 4.8 0.2 6.1 3.4
Mississippi Alabama 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.7
Georgia 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
Louisiana 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5
Missouri 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Mississippi 95.0 95.8 100.095.5
Tennessee 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.0
North Carolina Georgia 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.0
North Carolina 100.0 97.4 100.098.5
South Carolina 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5
Banding state Recovery State or Mexico AdultJuvenileUnknownAllResults 21
North Dakota Georgia 0.0 9.3 --- 4.3
Mexico 39.7 40.5 --- 40.1
North Dakota 42.2 26.1 --- 34.7
New Mexico 0.0 5.8 --- 2.7
Texas 18.2 18.3 --- 18.2
Nebraska Kansas 0.0 5.8 --- 2.5
Mexico 1.6 28.9 --- 13.5
Nebraska 66.8 33.0 --- 52.1
Oklahoma 5.1 0.0 --- 2.9
Tennessee 3.1 0.0 --- 1.7
Texas 20.1 32.3 --- 25.4
Unknown 3.2 0.0 --- 1.8
Ohio Alabama 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Florida 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Georgia 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.7
Louisiana 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3
Mississippi 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6
Ohio 96.7 93.3 100.094.9
Pennsylvania 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5
South Carolina 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4
Tennessee 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0
Oklahoma Kansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8
Oklahoma 83.1 83.3 100.084.7
Texas 16.9 15.7 0.0 14.6
PennsylvaniaAlabama 0.0 1.6 --- 1.1
Delaware 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.6
Maryland 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.1
North Carolina 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8
Ohio 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.8
Pennsylvania 96.3 86.8 100.090.0
South Carolina 1.6 2.2 0.0 2.0
Tennessee 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6
Texas 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0
South Carolina Georgia 19.2 13.1 14.0 15.4
Kentucky 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
North Carolina 1.0 1.3 0.0 1.0
South Carolina 78.8 85.6 86.0 83.3
South Dakota Kansas 1.5 6.5 --- 3.8
Mississippi 0.0 3.9 --- 1.8
Mexico 5.8 15.4 --- 10.2
Nebraska 0.0 1.7 --- 0.8
Oklahoma 1.5 0.0 --- 0.8
South Dakota 56.3 56.6 --- 56.4
Tennessee 2.8 0.0 --- 1.5
Texas 32.2 12.5 --- 23.2
Unknown 0.0 3.4 --- 1.6
Tennessee Alabama 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Arkansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6
Florida 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4
Louisiana 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5
Missouri 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4
Mississippi 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.3
Tennessee 99.0 94.3 100.096.4
Banding state Recovery State or Mexico AdultJuvenileUnknownAll22 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Texas Alabama 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.6
Mexico 2.8 8.5 100.07.0
South Dakota 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7
Texas 97.2 88.9 0.0 91.8
Virginia Virginia 100.0 100.0100.0100.0
WashingtonArizona 0.0 0.5 --- 0.4
California 0.0 8.0 --- 7.0
Mexico 0.0 4.5 --- 3.9
Nevada 6.5 1.0 --- 1.7
Oregon 0.0 1.0 --- 0.9
Washington 93.5 85.0 --- 86.1
Wisconsin Mississippi 12.7 0.0 --- 7.6
Texas 0.0 26.2 --- 10.6
Wisconsin 87.3 73.8 --- 81.9
West Virginia Alabama 0.0 5.4 --- 3.9
Georgia 28.3 0.0 --- 7.6
Louisiana 0.0 4.9 --- 3.6
Maryland 0.0 1.6 --- 1.2
Ohio 0.0 8.6 --- 6.3
Pennsylvania 0.0 7.5 --- 5.5
West Virginia 71.7 72.0 --- 72.0
Banding state Recovery State or Mexico AdultJuvenileUnknownAllResults 23
Table 5. Percent derivation by State and in Mexico of Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest, 2003 - 2005.
Recovery State/Mexico Banding state AdultJuvenile
Alabama Alabama 85.2 83.6
Florida 1.5 0.6
Georgia 2.2 5.0
Iowa 0.0 2.6
Indiana 3.2 0.0
Kentucky 1.3 0.0
Louisiana 0.0 0.3
Missouri 0.0 0.9
Mississippi 5.3 2.0
Ohio 0.0 0.3
Pennsylvania 0.0 0.3
Tennessee 1.4 0.0
Texas 0.0 4.3
West Virginia 0.0 0.2
Arkansas Arkansas 91.2 91.0
Iowa 2.0 0.0
Indiana 3.9 0.0
Kansas 0.0 5.1
Missouri 2.8 3.3
Tennessee 0.0 0.6
Arizona Arizona 98.9 98.2
Idaho 1.1 1.4
Washington 0.0 0.4
California Arizona 1.4 0.0
California 98.4 98.3
Idaho 0.2 1.0
Washington 0.0 0.7
Delaware Maryland 0.0 100.0
Pennsylvania 100.0 0.0
Florida Arkansas 3.2 0.0
Florida 93.8 94.3
Iowa 3.0 1.9
Kentucky 0.0 1.4
Ohio 0.0 0.8
Tennessee 0.0 1.6
Georgia Alabama 1.0 0.0
Georgia 87.1 90.0
Iowa 0.9 0.5
Indiana 1.7 0.0
Louisiana 0.0 0.2
Maryland 0.0 0.1
Mississippi 1.4 0.0
North Carolina 0.0 0.8
North Dakota 0.0 2.8
Ohio 0.0 0.5
South Carolina 7.5 5.0
West Virginia 0.4 0.0
Idaho Idaho 100.0 100.0
Illinois Iowa 0.0 20.9
Indiana 0.0 19.9
Kentucky 0.0 15.8
Missouri 0.0 43.4
North Carolina 100.0 0.0
24 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Indiana Indiana 99.6 98.9
Kentucky 0.0 1.1
Ohio 0.4 0.0
Kansas Florida 0.3 0.0
Iowa 0.3 1.0
Kansas 98.4 84.6
Missouri 0.0 2.1
Nebraska 0.0 5.1
Oklahoma 0.0 2.2
South Dakota 1.0 4.9
Kentucky Indiana 3.4 0.0
Kentucky 92.2 96.3
Louisiana 0.0 0.5
Missouri 2.5 3.2
South Carolina 1.9 0.0
Louisiana Arkansas 12.8 1.7
Iowa 6.2 7.4
Indiana 0.0 3.1
Kansas 0.0 5.3
Louisiana 81.1 73.3
Missouri 0.0 1.1
Mississippi 0.0 1.3
Ohio 0.0 0.4
Tennessee 0.0 0.7
Texas 0.0 5.3
West Virginia 0.0 0.4
Maryland Iowa 0.0 7.7
Maryland 100.0 87.5
Pennsylvania 0.0 3.0
West Virginia 0.0 1.8
Minnesota Iowa --- 100.0
Missouri Florida 0.0 0.3
Iowa 0.7 1.6
Kansas 8.5 7.7
Missouri 89.8 90.0
Mississippi 1.0 0.0
Tennessee 0.0 0.3
Mississippi Arkansas 0.0 1.2
Iowa 0.0 1.1
Kentucky 0.7 0.0
Louisiana 0.0 0.7
Missouri 0.0 0.8
Mississippi 95.0 93.0
Ohio 0.4 0.0
South Dakota 0.0 1.8
Tennessee 0.0 1.4
Wisconsin 4.0 0.0
Recovery State/Mexico Banding state AdultJuvenileResults 25
Mexico Arkansas 0.0 0.8
Arizona 16.4 0.0
California 0.0 7.2
Iowa 2.2 3.2
Idaho 2.0 2.1
Kansas 0.0 20.8
North Dakota 46.4 21.0
Nebraska 11.3 20.5
South Dakota 7.2 7.9
Texas 14.4 15.7
Washington 0.0 0.7
North Carolina Maryland 0.2 0.0
North Carolina 99.1 98.8
Pennsylvania 0.0 0.2
South Carolina 0.7 1.0
North Dakota North Dakota 100.0 100.0
Nebraska Nebraska 100.0 96.4
South Dakota 0.0 3.6
New Mexico Idaho --- 14.5
North Dakota --- 85.5
Nevada Washington 100.0 100.0
Ohio Indiana 0.0 4.2
Louisiana 0.0 0.9
Ohio 100.0 91.7
Pennsylvania 0.0 1.7
West Virginia 0.0 1.5
Oklahoma Arkansas 1.6 1.6
Iowa 0.0 0.4
Kansas 10.0 12.2
Kentucky 1.2 0.0
Nebraska 7.9 0.0
Oklahoma 74.3 85.8
South Dakota 5.0 0.0
Oregon Idaho 100.0 86.0
Washington 0.0 14.0
Pennsylvania Maryland 6.2 0.0
Ohio 0.0 4.7
Pennsylvania 93.8 92.8
West Virginia 0.0 2.5
South Carolina Georgia 0.0 1.0
Kentucky 1.1 0.0
Louisiana 0.0 0.3
Maryland 0.0 0.2
Missouri 0.0 1.1
North Carolina 0.0 1.1
Ohio 0.6 0.0
Pennsylvania 0.3 0.5
South Carolina 98.1 95.8
South Dakota South Dakota 100.0 90.9
Texas 0.0 9.1
Recovery State/Mexico Banding state AdultJuvenile26 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Tennessee Kentucky 0.9 0.0
Missouri 1.7 1.3
Mississippi 0.0 2.8
Nebraska 6.4 0.0
Ohio 0.5 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0 0.2
South Dakota 4.1 0.0
Tennessee 86.4 95.3
Texas Arkansas 0.2 1.1
Iowa 0.9 1.8
Indiana 0.8 0.0
Kansas 5.7 10.3
Louisiana 0.0 0.1
Missouri 0.9 0.5
North Dakota 3.5 1.9
Nebraska 4.5 6.3
Oklahoma 1.9 8.5
Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0
South Dakota 5.0 1.7
Texas 76.4 67.0
Wisconsin 0.0 0.8
Utah Idaho 100.0
Virginia Maryland 0.0 0.7
Virginia 100.0 99.3
Washington Washington 100.0 100.0
Wisconsin Wisconsin 100.0 100.0
West Virginia Kentucky 0.0 18.8
West Virginia 100.0 81.2
Recovery State/Mexico Banding state AdultJuvenileDiscussion 27
Discussion
Study Design
Unbiased estimates of population parameters in
any sample survey require that the sample be
representative of the entire population. In formally
designed sample surveys, this assumption is
achieved by a random selection of sample units
using a strict sampling protocol. For banding
studies, we obviously cannot select a random
sample of individual birds, but rather we rely on
the assumption that our trapping design produces
a representative sample from the population of
interest. In this study, as in most banding studies,
we employed spatial and temporal dispersion of
trapping sites at larger scales and the practical
field experience and local knowledge of agency
biologists to achieve this objective. During the
project, doves were banded in more than 330
degree blocks nationwide, most often with several
individual trap sites within a degree block; thus, we
believe estimates presented herein are reasonably
unbiased. Specifically, we have little concern about
the reporting rate estimates, because the basic
sampling unit for these estimates is actually the
hunter (we are measuring the hunter’s reporting
behavior) and not an individual dove, and there is
no reason to believe that our sample of hunters was
not representative. However, we do acknowledge
the potential of significant bias in state harvest
rate estimates if the preponderance of banding
site locations was in close proximity to locations of
concentrated harvest effort, or conversely, in or near
suburban areas with limited harvest opportunity.
We surmise this phenomenon is responsible for the
exceptionally high harvest rates in a few states in
a few specific years. There is a practical tradeoff
between the estimation of reporting rate, in which
sample size effectively increases as harvest effort
increases, versus estimation of harvest rate,
which depends on a sample of banded birds that is
collectively representative of harvest effort in the
entire state population of interest. Similar comments
are relevant to estimation of survival rates, although
the potential magnitude of bias is less clear because
of uncertainty about the relationship between annual
survival rates and harvest rates. Suffice it to say that
the design of a long-term banding program spawned
from this study should recognize the importance of
achieving a set of banding site locations that result in
a representative sample of the population, within the
practical constraints of available human and fiscal
resources. Consistency in banding locations over
time also will help to increase statistical sensitivity
to temporal changes in parameters.
We did not achieve the expected precision of SE
= 0.05 for subregion reporting rate estimates ( x
= 0.10) for several reasons. Banding quotas were
not achieved in some subregions. More importantly
for all subregions, the a priori estimates of a 0.30
reporting rate (too small) and a 0.10 harvest rate
(slightly too large) that were used in sample size
calculations led to an underestimation of sample size
required to achieve the precision goal.
Reporting Rate Comparison with
Previous Studies
Tomlinson (1968) conducted the first dove reward
banding study in 10 states in 1965 –1966. He
estimated an unweighted reporting rate of 0.32
(no variance estimate was provided) for the
10-state region, which is considerably less than the
corresponding estimate of 0.55 in the present study.
Reeves (1979) reported estimates of 0.31 (EMU) and
0.38 (CMU) derived from a second study during 1970
– 1972. These estimates are again considerably less
than our average MU estimates of 0.53 (EMU) and
0.59 (CMU). We attribute most of this large increase
to the replacement of an inscribed BBL mailing
address on the band with a toll-free BBL telephone
number. Annual harvest regulation publications in
participating states encouraged dove hunters to look
for bands, but, given the extended absence of a dove
banding program, the current generation of dove
hunters would not be expected to have evolved a
culture of searching for and reporting bands. When
Ohio conducted a reward banding study from 1996 –
1998 in coordination with the establishment of a dove
hunting season in 1995, their estimated reporting
rate was 0.211 (Scott et al. 2004). Their bands also
did not have the toll-free number inscribed, but we
surmise that inexperience in both hunting doves and
reporting bands also played a role in the very low
reporting rate. The estimated Ohio reporting rate in
the current study was more than double the Scott et
al. (2004) estimate, logically due to both the toll-free
number and a more experienced hunting public.
Harvest Rate Comparison with Previous
Studies
Average age-specific state harvest rate estimates
derived from the large banding effort in the late
1960s and early 1970s (hereafter generically
referred to as the 1970 study) have been reported
by Dunks et al. (1982) for the CMU, Tomlinson et al. 28 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
(1988) for the WMU and Martin and Sauer (1993)
for the EMU. Although estimation methods and
assumptions were not precisely the same as those
used in the current analyses, general patterns in
comparisons can be informative. Current subregion
harvest rate estimates for both age classes in
EMU and WMU states were generally less than
previous estimates, while contemporary estimates
were greater or about the same as previous values
in CMU states (Figs. 6a, 6b). At the MU scale,
comparisons suggest an overall increase in harvest
rates in the CMU, and decreases in the EMU and
WMU (except CA) compared to the 1970 banding
study (Fig. 7).
Survival Rate Comparison with Previous
Studies
Survival rate comparisons with those from the 1970
study were not reliable at the state scale because
of the poor precision of those estimates in the
current study. However, precision is improved at the
subregion scale, and a comparison of 2003 – 2005
age-specific estimates with those reported by Otis
(2003) in his reanalysis of the 1970 banding study
suggests different patterns among the management
units. For the majority of age-specific comparisons
in the EMU, the 1970 survival rates were greater
( x difference = 0.08; Fig. 8), and simple z-test
comparisons were significant (P < 0.10) for ½ of the
age-specific comparisons. In the CMU, 1970 survival
rates in hunting subregions were consistently
greater ( x difference = 0.15), and 5 of 6 age-specific
comparisons were significant (P < 0.10; Fig 8b). In
the non-hunting state of IA, no differences were
detected. There were no significant differences
between the two time periods in the relatively few
comparisons in the WMU (Fig. 8b). These trends
also were reflected at the MU scale (Fig. 9). Survival
rates were significantly greater in 1970 for both
age classes in the EMU and the CMU (P ≤ 0.10),
and no differences were detected in the WMU. The
EMU comparison was potentially confounded by the
inclusion of the relatively large survival rates in the
non-hunting New England states in the 1970 study,
but the influence of these states at the MU scale
was relatively small because of their relatively small
dove abundance index. Both the CMU and WMU
comparisons may be confounded by the missing
survival rates from hunting states that did not
participate in the 2003 – 2005 study, but the direction
of potential bias is unknown.
Despite the several potential confounding factors
inherent in comparison of current harvest
distribution patterns with the 1970 banding study
(heterogeneous reporting rates, different banding
states, and different hunting states), the patterns
are remarkably similar. The distribution of harvest
in the vast majority of states is dominated by
harvest in the state of banding. Exceptions were
noted earlier in ID, ND, NE and SD. Dunks et
al. (1982) reported the same general results for
CMU states, including the exception for SD, which
accounted for about 56% of the harvest of its banded
doves. During the years of their study, ND and NE
were non-hunting states and thus a comparison
to current results is not possible. Tomlinson et al.
(1988) also reported the same patterns in the WMU,
including the exception for ID, which accounted
for about 35% of the harvest of its banded doves.
As in the current study, Martin and Sauer (1993)
reported no exceptions to the dominant contribution
of in-state harvest in the EMU.
Qualitative comparisons of state harvest derivations
between 1970 and 2003 – 2005 suggest that
significant changes in the sources of doves harvested
in a state have occurred in only a few dove hunting
states. Although our results suggest that in the
current study LA and TX derived relatively less of
their harvest from their own breeding doves than
other states, this in-state contribution was much
larger than that reported for the 1970 study (LA
= 45%; TX = 55%). Some of this difference can
be explained by the fact that several states that
contributed significantly to TX and LA harvest
either did not hunt doves during the 1970 study
(MI, MN, ND, NE, OH, WI) or were not banding
participants in 2003 – 2005 (IL, MN). The most
extreme difference is in FL, which derived only 30%
of its harvest from its own breeding doves in the
1970 study. Much of this difference can be ascribed
to the same factors as above, but the large difference
suggests additional unknown factors may have
caused an increase in the importance of the local
breeding population to the FL harvest.
Management Implications
An operational nationwide banding program is
critical to the implementation of an informed harvest
management strategy as envisioned in the National
Plan (Anonymous 2005). This study provided
the initial foundation for such a program by 1)
establishing field and data management protocols,
2) producing initial updated estimates of reporting,
harvest, and survival rates, 3) training a new
generation of biologists in dove trapping and field
techniques, and 4) demonstrating a commitment
by the dove management community to improved
harvest management. Estimates of band reporting
rates at various scales can be used to adjust future
band recovery rates to obtain harvest rates, which
are critical to any system of harvest management.
The parameter estimates and their associated
statistical precision presented herein provide a
reliable empirical basis for statistical evaluation of
alternative banding quotas and geographical scale of
inference for an operational banding program with
specific management and statistical objectives.
We believe this study provides the foundation for
a long-term operational banding program that
will serve several important purposes. Additional
estimates of regional harvest and survival rates
derived from banding data are required to construct
credible population models that incorporate
relationships between population status, harvest 29
rates, harvest regulations, and management
objectives. These models are integral to informed
management of exploited species (Nichols et al.
1995). Second, continuous monitoring of the key
population and harvest components in such a
management system supports a long-term strategy
of providing maximum harvest opportunity while
insuring population sustainability (Williams et al.
2002) of the most harvested game bird in North
America. Finally, we suggest that a long term and
large scale banding program provides additional
scientific value in that it generates a time series
of demographic information that can be mined by
investigators interested in biological, environmental,
and ecological questions that are not directly related
to harvest management.
Discussion
Jeremy Bennett
Bird traps.
30 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Literature Cited
Anonymous. 2005. Mourning dove national
strategic harvest management plan. Department
of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. Brownie, C., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, and
D. S. Robson. 1985. Statistical inference from
band recovery data – a handbook. Resource
Publication 131. 2nd ed. Department of Interior,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
Dolton, D. D., and R. D. Rau. 2006. Mourning dove
population status, 2006. Department of Interior,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland,
Dunks, J. H., R. E. Tomlinson, H. M. Reeves, D.
D. Dolton, C. E. Braun, and T. P. Zapatka. 1982.
Migration, harvest, and population dynamics
of mourning doves banded in the Central
Management Unit, 1967–77. Special Scientific
Report-Wildlife 249. Department of Interior,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Geis, A. D. 1972. Use of banding data in migratory
game bird research and management. U.S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special
Scientific Report – Wildlife No. 154. Washington,
D.C.
Hayne, D. W., and P. H. Geissler. 1977. Hunted
segments of the mourning dove population:
movement and importance. Southeastern
Association of Game and Fish Commissioners
Technical Bulletin 3.
Kiel, W. H., Jr. 1959. Mourning dove management
units. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Special Scientific Report –Wildlife No.
42. Washington, D.C.
Martin, F. W., and J. R. Sauer. 1993. Population
characteristics and trend in the Eastern
Management Unit. Pages 281–305 in T. S.
Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E.
Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of
the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Mirarchi, R. E. 1993. Sexing, ageing, and
miscellaneous research techniques. Pages
399–409 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E.
Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology
and management of the Mourning Dove.
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Munro, R. E. and C. F. Kimball. 1982. Population
ecology of the mallard. VII. Distribution and
derivation of the harvest. Department of
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource
Publication 147. Washington, D.C.
Nichols, J. D., and R. E. Tomlinson. 1993. Analyses
of banding data. Pages 269–280 in T. S. Baskett,
M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi,
editors. Ecology and management of the
mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Nichols, J. D., F. A. Johnson, and B. K. Williams. 1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the
face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 26:177–199.
Nichols, J. D., R. E. Reynolds, R. J. Blohm, R.
E. Trost, J. E. Hines, and J. P. Bladen. 1995.
Geographic variation in band reporting rates for
mallards based on reward banding. Journal of
Wildlife Management 59:697–708.
Otis, D. L. 2002. Survival models for harvest
management of mourning dove populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1052–1063.
Otis, D. L. 2003. A framework for reproductive
models of mourning dove populations. Journal of
the Iowa Academy of Science 110:13–16.
Reeves, H. M., A. D. Geis, and F. C. Kniffin. 1968.
Mourning dove capture and banding. Special
Scientific Report 117. Department of Interior,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Reeves, H. M. 1979. Estimates of reporting rates
for mourning dove bands. Journal of Wildlife
Management 43:36–42.
Sadler, K. C. 1993. Mourning dove harvest.
Pages 449–459 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre,
R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors.
Ecology and management of the mourning dove.
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Scott, D. P., J. B. Berdeen, D. L. Otis, and R. L.
Fendrick. 2004. Harvest parameters of urban
and rural mourning doves in Ohio. Journal of
Wildlife Management 68:698–700.
Schulz, J. H., S. L. Sheriff, Z. He., C. E. Braun, R. D.
Drobney, R. E. Tomlinson, D. D. Dolton, and R. A.
Montgomery. 1995. Accuracy of techniques used
to assign mourning dove age and gender. Journal
of Wildlife Management 59:759–765.Literature Cited 31
Tomlinson, R. E. 1968. Reward banding to
determine reporting rate of recovered mourning
dove bands. Journal of Wildlife Management
32:6–11.
Tomlinson, R. E., D. D. Dolton, H. M. Reeves,
J. D. Nichols, and L. A. McKibben. 1988.
Migration, harvest, and population characteristics
of mourning doves banded in the Western
Management Unit, 1964–77. Department of
Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical
Report 13, Washington, D.C.
Ver Steeg, J. M., and R. C. Elden, compilers. 2002.
Harvest information program: evaluation and
recommendations. International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Migratory Shore
and Upland Game Bird Working Group, Ad Hoc
Committee on HIP, Washington, D.C.
White, G. C. 1983. Numerical estimation of survival
rates from band-recovery and biotelemetry data.
Journal of Wildlife Management 47:716–728.
Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy.
2002. Analysis of animal populations. Academic
Press, San Diego, California.
32 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Appendix A. Number banded by State, age (A = adult, J = juvenile, U = unknown), and band type
(Code: 0 = standard, 1= standard + blank gold, 3 = standard + reward, 4 = standard, paired with reward band).
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
Alabama A 0 278 390 397
1 277 14 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 288 41 594
1 287 35 0
3 0 212 0
4 0 415 0
U 0 30 3 0
1 29 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Alabama Total 1189 1110 1009
Arkansas A 0 145 347 373
1 145 0 0
3 0 27 0
4 0 66 0
J 0 278 24 654
1 277 0 0
3 0 175 0
4 0 337 0
U 0 25 12 12
1 24 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Arkansas Total 894 988 1039
Arizona A 0 392 641 0
1 391 0 0
3 0 0 296
4 0 3 669
J 0 362 1 0
1 361 0 0
3 0 265 186
4 0 520 299
U 0 3 10 0
1 3 0 0
3 0 11 4
4 0 22 3
Arizona Total 1512 1473 1457
California A 0 0 0 53
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 93
4 0 0 164
J 0 0 0 101
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 89
4 0 0 190
U 0 0 0 14
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 5
4 0 0 21
California Total 0 0 730
Appendix A. 33
Florida A 0 195 387 358
1 195 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 207 0 553
1 206 0 0
3 0 185 0
4 0 363 0
U 0 6 67 41
1 6 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Florida Total 815 1002 952
Georgia A 0 352 486 727
1 352 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 1 0
J 0 329 0 635
1 328 0 0
3 0 217 0
4 0 420 0
U 0 15 26 12
1 14 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Georgia Total 1390 1150 1374
Iowa A 0 500 847 829
1 500 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 480 63 1248
1 479 0 0
3 0 462 0
4 0 932 0
U 0 14 21 2
1 14 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Iowa Total 1987 2325 2079
Idaho A 0 118 465 519
1 118 21 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 102 30 318
1 102 3 0
3 0 112 0
4 0 226 0
U 0 4 0 2
1 3 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Idaho Total 447 857 839
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
34 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Indiana A 0 0 785 691
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 0 384 520
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
U 0 0 17 18
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Indiana Total 0 1186 1229
Kansas A 0 350 834 395
1 350 0 0
3 0 0 157
4 0 0 304
J 0 270 0 228
1 270 0 0
3 0 197 105
4 0 395 224
U 0 4 10 3
1 4 0 0
3 0 0 4
4 0 0 4
Kansas Total 1248 1436 1424
Kentucky A 0 357 586 668
1 356 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 358 8 783
1 358 0 0
3 0 322 0
4 0 650 0
U 0 16 34 14
1 16 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Kentucky Total 1461 1600 1465
Louisiana A 0 122 155 282
1 121 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 479 0 2116
1 479 0 0
3 0 165 0
4 0 330 0
U 0 39 19 41
1 39 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Louisiana Total 1279 669 2439
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
Appendix A. 35
Maryland A 0 131 195 398
1 130 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 104 0 289
1 103 0 0
3 0 96 0
4 0 190 0
U 0 4 12 45
1 3 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Maryland Total 475 493 732
Missouri A 0 304 637 848
1 304 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 271 0 752
1 271 0 0
3 0 279 0
4 0 556 0
U 0 12 112 101
1 12 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Missouri Total 1174 1584 1701
Mississippi A 0 257 380 323
1 256 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 278 0 352
1 277 0 0
3 0 205 0
4 0 409 0
U 0 2 22 6
1 1 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Mississippi Total 1071 1016 681
North Carolina A 0 392 815 708
1 392 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 250 0 865
1 249 0 0
3 0 240 0
4 0 484 0
U 0 10 69 8
1 9 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
North Carolina Total 1302 1608 1581
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
36 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
North Dakota A 0 237 699 0
1 237 0 0
3 0 0 187
4 0 1 583
J 0 137 1 0
1 137 0 0
3 0 197 58
4 0 396 244
U 0 5 0 0
1 5 0 0
3 0 0 3
4 0 0 0
North Dakota Total 758 1294 1075
Nebraska A 0 304 656 0
1 303 0 0
3 0 0 146
4 0 0 277
J 0 148 2 0
1 147 0 0
3 0 190 84
4 0 382 184
U 0 5 8 0
1 4 0 0
3 0 0 1
4 0 0 0
Nebraska Total 911 1238 692
Ohio A 0 523 1037 997
1 523 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 453 26 996
1 452 0 0
3 0 560 0
4 0 1123 0
U 0 23 12 4
1 22 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Ohio Total 1996 2758 1997
Oklahoma A 0 24 157 59
1 23 0 0
3 0 0 32
4 0 0 61
J 0 174 0 177
1 174 0 0
3 0 95 66
4 0 195 132
U 0 8 31 2
1 7 0 0
3 0 0 2
4 0 0 7
Oklahoma Total 410 478 538
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
Appendix A. 37
Pennsylvania A 0 342 657 574
1 341 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 420 0 1077
1 420 0 0
3 0 304 0
4 0 612 0
U 0 23 77 40
1 23 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Pennsylvania Total 1569 1650 1691
South Carolina A 0 319 368 838
1 318 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 202 0 643
1 202 0 0
3 0 162 0
4 0 333 0
U 0 141 128 194
1 141 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
South Carolina Total 1323 991 1675
South Dakota A 0 413 701 46
1 413 0 45
3 0 0 131
4 0 0 218
J 0 337 0 54
1 337 0 55
3 0 198 86
4 0 397 214
U 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
South Dakota Total 1500 1296 849
Tennessee A 0 238 620 441
1 237 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 222 0 712
1 222 0 0
3 0 199 0
4 0 395 0
U 0 54 170 36
1 54 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Tennessee Total 1027 1384 1189
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
38 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Texas A 0 252 557 0
1 251 0 0
3 0 0 176
4 0 0 345
J 0 226 3 0
1 225 0 0
3 0 281 150
4 0 565 303
U 0 6 22 0
1 6 0 0
3 0 0 3
4 0 0 12
Texas Total 966 1428 989
Virginia A 0 114 262 306
1 113 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 122 0 503
1 122 0 0
3 0 91 0
4 0 176 0
U 0 2 12 10
1 2 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Virginia Total 475 541 819
Washington A 0 126 237 215
1 126 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 329 0 1033
1 328 0 0
3 0 276 0
4 0 558 0
U 0 5 15 8
1 5 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Washington Total 919 1086 1256
Wisconsin A 0 0 0 238
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 0 0 321
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 11
1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
Wisconsin Total 0 0 570
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
Appendix A . 39
West Virginia A 0 98 261 153
1 98 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
J 0 246 0 471
1 245 0 0
3 0 163 0
4 0 332 0
U 0 7 10 5
1 6 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
West Virginia Total 700 766 629
All States Total 28,798 33,408 34,700
State Age Code
Number banded
2003 2004 2005
40 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
State Age
Code
0 1 3 4
Alabama A 42 13 0 0
J 59 24 24 26
U 2 1 0 0
Arkansas A 50 12 3 1
J 63 38 38 33
U 2 4 0 0
Arizona A 18 12 8 12
J 5 7 14 9
U 0 0 0 0
California A 3 0 19 20
J 9 0 12 12
U 0 0 1 1
Florida A 37 11 0 0
J 11 12 20 20
U 4 1 0 0
Georgia A 65 30 0 0
J 65 27 43 29
U 3 2 0 0
Iowa A 17 6 0 0
J 22 10 18 6
U 1 2 0 0
Idaho A 21 8 0 0
J 5 5 5 7
U 0 0 0 0
Indiana A 82 0 0 0
J 45 0 0 0
U 1 0 0 0
Kansas A 55 15 3 7
J 11 18 17 18
U 2 0 0 0
Kentucky A 63 34 0 0
J 40 33 23 42
U 2 0 0 0
Louisiana A 19 19 0 0
J 137 57 25 28
U 7 0 0 0
Maryland A 39 11 0 0
J 29 9 9 10
U 2 1 0 0
Missouri A 218 31 0 0
J 233 31 34 44
U 33 1 0 0
Mississippi A 45 47 0 0
J 23 54 29 26
U 2 0 0 0
North Carolina A 93 23 0 0
J 65 13 32 47
Appendix B. Total number of recoveries in 2003-2005 in banding States, age (A = adult, J = juvenile,
U = unknown), and band type (Code: 0 = standard, 1= standard + blank gold, 3 = standard + reward,
4 = standard, paired with reward band).
Appendix B. 41
U 5 3 0 0
North Dakota A 22 5 2 1
J 4 4 4 10
U 0 0 0 0
Nebraska A 41 13 6 13
J 3 4 8 19
U 0 0 0 0
Ohio A 76 32 0 0
J 43 19 33 25
U 1 0 0 0
Oklahoma A 7 5 2 1
J 24 27 12 10
U 3 3 0 0
Pennsylvania A 33 19 0 0
J 52 23 18 21
U 5 0 0 0
South Carolina A 63 36 0 0
J 54 33 19 34
U 26 11 0 0
South Dakota A 24 11 4 2
J 11 10 14 8
U 0 0 0 0
Tennessee A 72 27 0 0
J 55 29 30 32
U 10 4 0 0
Texas A 29 18 12 5
J 14 9 28 21
U 0 0 0 1
Virginia A 25 4 0 0
J 10 7 8 11
U 1 0 0 0
Washington A 17 7 0 0
J 57 30 26 26
U 0 0 0 0
Wisconsin A 8 0 0 0
J 5 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 0
West Virginia A 9 0 0 0
J 9 6 8 5
U 0 0 0 0
Total 2,568 1,022 614 647
State Age
Code
0 1 3 4
42 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Acknowledgements of contributions of field and
support staff in cooperating banding states, 2003 -
2005. State wildlife agency coordinators are listed
first.
Alabama
Jeff Makemson; Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources
Brett Abbott, Frank Allen, Steve Bryant, Tony
Burgett, Gene Carver, Thagard Colvin, Chris
Cook, Ben Davis, Ron Eakes, Jud Easterwood,
Joel Glover, Stewart Goldsby, Dr. Barry Grand,
Wendell Hallman, Andy Hughes, Chris Jaworowski,
Wayne Kelly, Randy Liles, Jeff Makemson, Mitchell
Marks, James Masek, Chad Masley, Ray Metzler,
Phil Miller, Chas Moore, Bennett Moseley, Tracy
Nelson, Erica Nix, Adam Pritchett, Kevin Pugh, Jim
Schrenkel, Richard Tharp, Crystal Tindell, Bruce
Todd, Daniel Toole, Myron Wiley
Arizona
Mike Rabe; Arizona Game and Fish Department
Contributing staff of the Arizona Game and Fish
Department
Arkansas
Mike Checkett, Andrew James; Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission
Mark Barbee, Mark Hooks, Roger Milligan,
Rusty Mitchell, Allen Clawson, Roger Theis, Andy
VanHorn, David Luker, Alton Case, Ruth Chapman,
Jason Carbaugh, James Foster, Shaun Merrell,
Paul Provence, Kent Wagner, Rick Darter, John
Gallagher, Terry Gentry, Brian Infield, Kevin Lynch,
Nicole Peterson, Eley Talley, Gregg Mathis, Mickey
Rogers, Griffin Park, Brad Townsend, Cameron
Tatom, Terry Rogers, George Howell, Mike Harris,
Charles Self, Steven Fowler, Mike Morman, Susan
Gregory, Scotty Winningham, Brady Baker, Lee
Kirkpatrick, Jeremy Self, Hilda Jones, Chris Carter,
Matt Mourot, Kenny Vernon, Bobby Conley, Mike
Widner, Johnny Waldrup, Roger Martin, Josh
Fortner, Don Curran, Ritchie Bryant, Wayne Kelley,
Danny Denney, Dustin Davis, Deanne Taylor, Jenna
Roy, Jacob Bokker
California
Tom Blankinship, Pat Lauridson; California
Department of Fish and Game
Contributing staff of the California Department of
Fish and Game
Florida
Kurt Hodges; Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission
Jim Alleman, John Ault, Ashleigh Blackford, Pam
Boody, Joseph Bozzo, Dan Buchanan, Nathan
Bunting, Dan Castillo, Brian Christ, Jean - Marie
Conner, Neal Franklin Eichholz, Jamie Feddersen,
Norberto Fernandez, Don Francis, Derek Fussell,
Kelly Gamble, Cyndi Gates, Wesley Gates, Allan
Hallman, Tina Hannon, Sharon Hester, Tommy
C. Hines, Beth Hodges, Kurt Hodges, Andrew
Jernigan, Russell Johnson, Curt Kleist, Paige
Martin, Daniel McDonald, David McDuffie, Jeff
McGrady, Chuck McKelvy, Mike McMillian, Jennifer
Morse, Tim O’Meara, Melissa Peagler, Annemarie
Prince, Tim Regan, Royce A. Schneider, Paul Schulz,
James Schuette, Billy Sermons, Wynne Sermons,
Roger Shields, Tom Shupe, Donald R. Smith, Phillip
E. Smith, Valerie Sparling, Lee Taylor, Jason
Williams
Georgia
Don McGowan; Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Contributing staff of the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources
Idaho
Tom Hemker; Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Contributing staff of the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game
Indiana
Jim Pitman; Indiana Department of Natural
Resources
Larry Allsop, Steve Backs, Fred Bebout, Mark
Bennett, Jim Bergens, Matthew Bredeweg, Tony
Carroll, John Castrale, Tom Despot, Brad Detamore,
Shauna Dollinger, Brad Feaster, John Gibson, Jason
Gilbert, Josh Griffin, Kent Hanauer, Bill Hardin,
Sterling Hartzog, Donald Hast, Michael Holcomb,
Greg Leer, Mel Lehmer, Nate Levitte, Glenn
McCormick, Scott McCormick, Heidi McDonald,
Randy Millar, Steve Mund, Danny Orr, Dave
Parker, Rick Peercy, Adam Phelps, Jim Pitman,
Bruce Plowman, Mark Pochon, Ron Ronk, Steve
Roth, Michael Schoof, Mike Schoonveld, Phillip
Sewell, Ray Shepard, Dave Spitznagle, Roger
Stonebraker, Rob Sullender, Jeff Thompson, Alger
van Hoey, Jason Wade, Bev Wagner, Jon Weber, Sam
Whiteleather, Dennis Workman, Jim Young
Iowa
Todd Bogenschutz; Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Angie Auel, Jason Auel, Brandon Burrows, Doug
Chafa, Justin Clark, Richard Coy, Jackie Dollinger,
Steve Espeland, Farmer, Jerry, Goodrich, Kevin,
Mike Griffin, Jason Gritsch, Terry Hainfield, Matt
Handy, Greg Hanson, James D. Hanson, Bryan
Hellyer, T. J. Herrick, Pete Hildreth, Ron Howing,
Doug Janke, Nick Jordan, Chuck Kakac, Curt
Kemmerer, Mike Klein, Vickie Klein, Calvin Kunkle,
Appendix C. Participating state banding coordinators and staff.
Appendix C. 43
Dave Kutz, Chris LaRue, Mike Mahn, Corey Meyer,
Ron Munkel, Dean Nelson, Bill Ohde, George
Olson (temp), Jessica Parkhurst, Chad Paup, Ike
Petersen, Scott Peterson, Doug Phillips, Carl Priebe,
Rene Richter, Andy Robbins, Jonathan Ross,
Greg L. Schmitt, Tom Smith, Wayne Souer, Chuck
Steffen, Jeff Telleen, Brett Tevine, Tim Thompson,
Casey Trine, Rick Trine, Chris Vandello, Dave
Vanderpluym, Ed Weiner, David White, Ed White,
Ryan White, Steve Woodruff
Kansas
Helen Hands; Kansas Department of Wildlife and
Parks
Edward Aeschliman, Aaron Austin, Clint Bowman,
Gene Brehm, Philip Buser, Lee Callens, Andy
Friesen, Todd Gatton, Helen Hands, John Hoke,
Jerry Horak, Karl Karrow, Craig Kennedy, Marvin
Kraft, Lucas Kramer, Toby Marlier, Brian Miewes,
Kelly Miller, Tom Norman, Mike Nyhoff, Ricky
Ochoa, Angie Owensby, Rob Penner, Keith Reif,
Brad Rueshhoff, Ron Ruthstrom, Matt Schoshke,
Kathy Sexson, Mark Sexson, Andrea Smith, Dwight
Spencer, Hiram Thoman, Tyler Thomasson, Kirk
Thompson, Manuel Torres, Roxanna Tosterud
Kentucky
Rocky Pritchart, Beth Cuzio; Kentucky Department
of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Herbie Adams, John Akers, Bill Balda, Steve
Beam, Tony Black, Dennis Boggs, Steven Bonney,
Pat Brandon, Earl Brown, Gerald Burnett, Josh
Burton, Scott Buser, Oliver Capps, Leslie Carter,
Brian Clark, Buford Clark, Robert Colvis, Lee
Cope, George Corder, Dan Crank, Elizabeth
Cuzio, Larry Dennis, Dana Dolen, Tom Edwards,
Joyce Fitzgerald, Scott Friedhoff, Chris Garland,
Chris Grasch, Brian Gray, Nathan Gregory, Brian
Grossman, Rusty Hamilton, Mark Harless, Scott
Harp, Mike Henshaw, Wes Hodges, Greg Isen,
Rene Jimenez, Tim Kreher, Joe Lacefield, Jim
Lane, Bill Lisowski, Rebecca Littleton, Bill Lynch,
Dale Lynch, Chris Mason, Wes Mattox, Rick
Mauro, David McChesney, Jason McDowell, Steve
McMillen, Bobby Morse, Mike Morton, Cecil Parish,
Pat Pierce, Jayson Plaxico, Rocky Pritchert, Bill
Ridner, Dave Ross, Marsha Schroder, Phil Sharp,
Jack Sloan, Brian Smith, Clay Smitson, Tim Stoval,
Wayne Tamminga, Kim Tarter, Kevin Tucker, Brian
Wagner, Martin Wheeldon, Charlie Wilkins, Eric
Williams
Louisiana
Mike Olinde; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries
Barrett Arthur, Brannon Arthur, Hugh Arthur,
Chuck Bantel, Leonard Bennett, Charlie Booth,
Edwin Bordelon, Francis Bordelon, Johnathan
Bordelon, David Breithaupt, Cecil Brookin, Tommy
Bruhl, Bill Burns, Don Carpenter, Sammie Cerami,
Perry Corbett, Greg Crawford, Pat Deshotels,
Travis Dufour, Jeffery Dupuy, Robert Marty
Edmunds, Jimmy Ernst, Randy Ewing, Jason Frost,
Duffy Guillory, Scott Halphen, John Hanks, David
Hayden, Mike Hollier, Jarrod Hughes, Barrett
Kiser, Bruce Knight, Gregory Lachney, Glenn Lee,
Ryan Lemoine, Danny Lively, Richard McMullan,
Lowrey Moak, Randy Myers, CR Newland, Ben
Oubre, Jerald Owens, Guy Patout, Donald Phillips,
Mike Pirot, Elbert Rachal, John Robinette, Mark
Roy, Wendell Smith, Shanon Soileau, Justin Sonnier,
Kerney Sonnier, Jimmy Stafford, Jeff Taylor, Jr.,
Errol Theriot, Chad Thomas, Clyde Thompson,
Adam Trevillion, Tony Vidrine, Larry Waldron, Mac
Ware, Johnny Warren, Calvin Waskom, Tom Woods,
Reggie Wycoff
Maryland
Bill Harvey; Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Jose Alachan, Patty Allen, Pete Bendel, Jim Bennett,
James Bowling, Danny Callahan, Ed Cook, Brent
Evans, Brian Eyler, Fritz Faust, Richard Garrett,
Dennis Hammett, Bill Harvey, Dave Heilmeier,
Josh Homyack, Mark Hooper, Tyler Johnson, Carla
Johnson, Barbara Joyce, Ernie Licalzi, Bob Long,
Bill Martin, Ron Norris, Keri Parker, Scott Peters,
Denny Price, Rebecca Rau,Frank Ryan, Greg
Schenck, Hutch Walbridge, Donald Webster
Mississippi
Dave Godwin; Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks
Kevin Brunke, Chris Clark, Scott Edwards, Dave
Godwin, John Gruchy, Rob Heflin Jr., Brad Holder,
Kathy Shelton, Roger Tankesly, Jim Willcutt
Missouri
John Schulz; Missouri Department of Conservation
Barry Allen, Josh Banks, Jamie Barton, Wade
Bealmer, Reggie Bennett, Ted Bond, Jason
Braunecker, Rick Bredesen, Mike Brillhart, Dennis
Browning, Joe Bruno, Deb Burns, Shane Bush,
Rob Chapman, Chris Cole, Kendall Coleman, Terry
Coon, Craig Crisler, Chase Curtis, Kathy DeiSanti,
Bill Dent, Jason Dungan, Ashley Dunkle, Dave
Erickson, Matt Fenoff, Jason Gargus, John George,
Norb Giessman, Nick Girondo, Jeff Goin, Nick
Hartman, Josh Heintz, Bob Henry, Jerod Heubner,
Lee Hughes, Todd Hunt, Mark Hutchings, Tim
James, Dustin Johnson, Mike Jones, Brad Jump,
Ryan Kelly, Ryan Kelly, Steve Kistner, Cesare
Kleeman, Ashleigh Klingman, Drew Larsen,
Tom Leifield, Frank Loncarich, Jim Loveless,
Rick McClellan, Monte McQuillen, Doreen Mengel,
Mitch Miller, Chase Miller, Tony Mong, Shellie
Murril, Debbie Newton, Eric Niemeyer,
Carolyn Polston, Joel Porath, Cole Prenger, Ken
Rampley, Jamie Reynolds, Larry Rieken, Mitch
Roberts, Kristine Ruegge, Christi Ruegge, Tim
Russel, Jimmy Ryder, Mike Schroer, Abby Schultz,
Jeff Scott, Jessica Shaffer, Matt Smith, Rachael
Stark, Jay Steele, Andy Sterling, Preston Stogsdill,
Dave Stroppel, Brad Swank, Jackie Sweeney, Mark 44 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study
Switzer, Andy Tappmeyer, Josh Terhune, Steve
Theiss, Gene Toombs, Dirac Twidwell, Dave Urich,
Rob Vinson, Tyler Warner, Harriet Weger, Brad
Wessel, Beau White, Allyson Wiegman, Darrin Wood
Nebraska
Scott Taylor; Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission
Mick Bresley, Mark Feeney, Russ Hamer, Kirk
Hansen, Travis Kopf, Mike Remund, Warren
Schwanebeck, Brad Seitz, Chad Taylor
North Carolina
Dennis Luszcz, Joe Fuller; North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission
Chip Alexander, Brad Allen, Jason Allen, Chris
Baranski, Don Barker, Daron Barnes, Denton
Baumbarger, Brent Beamer, Brady Beck, Carl
Betsill, Eli Beverly, Joe Blastick, Mike Carraway,
Richard Clark, David Cobb, Josh Copenhaver, Jason
Creegan, Lee Criscoe, Andy Davis, Dale Davis,
Mark Dover, Bill Edwards, Jennifer Edwards, Pat
Farrell, Joe Folta, Vic French, Joe Fuller, Michael
Greene, Brad Gunn, Harlan Hall, Bronson Hannah,
Greg Hochstetler, Brad Howard, Doug Howell,
Tommy Hughes, Adam Johnson, Mark Jones, Steve
Juhan, Jim Keepfer, Tim Keller, Ken Knight, Drew
Larson, Mike Legare, Dennis Luszcz, Jeff Marcus,
Dan Martin, Kimberly McCargo, Scott McLean,
Brandon Minor, Andrew Mynatt, Deanna Noble,
Robbie Norville, Wib Owen, Thomas Padgett,
Adrienne Paoletta, Bill Parsons, Don Riley, Johnny
Riley, Lincoln Sadler, Ron Sanders, Ken Shughart,
Brian Smith, David Stewart, Phil Stone, George
Strader, Benjy Strope, Perry Sumner, Chris Teague,
Michael Tipton, Chris Turner, Tony Wait, Mark
Williams, Matt Williams, Paul Williams, Tony
Woolard, Justin Yale
North Dakota
Stan Kohn, Mike Szymanski; North Dakota Game
and Fish Department
Bismarck NDGF, Devils Lake NDGF, Dickinson
NDGF, Jamestown NDGF, Lonetree WMA,
Riverdale NDGF, Arrowwood NWR, Crosby WMD,
J. Clark Salyer NWR, Long Lake NWR, Lake
Ilo NWR, Tewaukon NWR, Upper Souris NWR,
Audubon NWR, Chase Lake WMD, Lake Alice
NWR, SW BLM - Dickinson
Ohio
Dave Scott, Scott Hull; Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
John Abele, Ron Adams, Brett Beatty, Bruce
Buckingham, Scott Butterworth, Ron Carter, Matt
Conner, Tim Davis, Fred Dierkes, Rick Dorn, Steve
Douglas, Jim Duckworth, Terry Eberling, R. Lyle
Fendrick, Ron Ferenchak, Sean Finke, Bob Ford,
Tyler Frysinger, Kathy Garza-Behr, Beth Geboy,
Rich Geboy, Damon Greer, Joe Hassman, Kevin
Higgins, Doug Hissong, Dan Hollenbaugh, Dave
Honeycutt, Ryan Jackson, Jeff Janosik, Laura
Jenkins, Harry Keeney, Jason Keller, Kelley Kelley,
Bryan Kichta, Dave Kohler, Melissa Lackey, Andy
Landon, Al Lea, Jason Leach, Erik Lewis, Lindsay
Linkhart, Eric Long, John Matthews, Carla
Maxwell, Stephen Menno, Randy Morgan, John
Morton, Julia Murgatroyd, Ross Muszynski, Kristin
Mylecraine, John Neider, Karen Norris, Lou Orosz,
Mike Parker, Scott Phillips, Jessica Piispanen, Jeff
Porter, Nicholas Ray, Mike Reynolds, Dale Riehle,
Dave Risley, Aaron Robinson, George Saksa, Dave
Scott, Chris Smith, Vern Snyder, Dennis Solon,
Nathan Stricker, Andy Thompson, Andrea Tibbels,
Michael White, Gretchen White, Chris Witmer,
Mark Witt, Eli Young, James Young, Mike Zaleski
Oklahoma
Mike O’Meilia; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation
Robert Guinn, Lewis Jennings, Jeff Neal, Mike
O’Meilia, Scott Parry, Jeff Pennington, Thad Potts,
John Ridge, Kelvin Schoonover, Mark Shurden,
Mike White
Pennsylvania
John Dunn; Pennsylvania Game Commission
Elizabeth Ball, Arthur Brunst, Mary Jo Casalena,
James Domire, John Dunn, Susan Ellis, Jack
Gilbert, Jennifer Gillis, Ian Gregg, Dave Griffin,
Bruce Guinter, Robert Hodge, Kevin Jacobs,
Skip Lamoreaux, Tracey Librandi-Mumma, Mike
McMenamin, John Morgan, Keith Mullin, William
Palmer, Amber Rendulic, Matt Roberts, Chris
Rosenberry, Tony Ross, Kyle Russel, Keith Sanford,
John Sites, Jeremy Stempka, Cary Stultz
South Carolina
Billy Dukes; South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources
Keenan Adams, Roy Atkinson, Buddy Baker, Judy
Barnes, Dave Baumann, Jeff Baumann, Daniel
Beach, Greg Boling, Ryan Bowles, Jay Butfiloski,
Jay Cantrell, Will Carlisle, Patty Castine, Ross
Catterton, Mike Caudell, Sam Chappelear, Clemson
University, Damon Gun Club, Edwin Dargan, Billy
Dukes, Ben Duncan, Kell Fitts, Billy Fleming, Ron
Fleming, Joyce Foster, Bernie Good, Jane Griess,
Tom Harkins, Dean Harrigal, John Hoffman,
Chris Holcombe, Nate Holmes, Michael Hook, Bob
Hortman, Laura Housh, Mike Housh, Greg Hudson,
Tim Ivey, Kevin Jarrell, Brian Kaminskas, Jim
Killian, Scott Lanier, Jim Lee, Jeremy Lemacks,
James Ling, Larry Lollis, Joe Lucas, David Lynch,
Bill Mace, Bill Mahan, Erik Martin, Doug Mason,
Kay McCutcheon, Tarri McKinney, Medway
Plantation, Ben Miller, Jamie Mills, Gerald Moore,
Richard Morton, Mulberry Plantation, Jim Mullis,
Mark Parker, Bobby Pearson, Dewey Petty, Jason
Plemmons, Stuart Plowden, Mark Purcell, Jeff
Quick, Ted Rainwater, Walt Rhodes, Charles Ruth,
T. J. Savereno, Mike Scales, Derrell Shipes, Elliott
Shuler, Willie Simmons, Matt Smoak, South Carolina Appendix C. 45
Forestry Commission, Gary Stephens, Sam Stokes,
Jr., Donnie Stone, Tommy Strange, Travis Sumner,
Tom Swayngham, David Tant, Swinton Thomas,
Elizabeth Vaughn, Mike Vaughn, Lisa Walters, Clay
Ware, Steven Welch, Jim Westerhold, Jeff Witt,
Bryan Woodward, Larry Woodward
South Dakota
Paul Mammenga; South Dakota Department of
Game, Fish and Parks
Doug Alvine, Bob Curtis, Curt Dagel, Ron Fowler,
Mark Grovijahn, Corey Huxoll, Tom Kirschenmann,
Tony Leif, Andy Lindbloom, Paul Mammenga, Owen
Mcelroy, Will Morlock, Ron Schauer, Art Smith,
Chad Switzer, Spencer Vaa, George Vandel, Loren
Vande Stroet, Lorene Wasland, Greg Wolbrink
Tennessee
Tim White; Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
George Buttrey, Jack Colwick, Randy Cromer, Ben
Layton, Larry Marcum, Don Orr, Steve Patrick,
Ron Saunders, Robert Smith, Ken Smith, Stacy
Stevenson
Texas
Jay Roberson; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Bill Adams, Ty Bartoskewitz, Jason Brooks, Jose
Cano, Suzanne Contreras, Steven Cortez, Philip
Dickerson, James Edwards, Jason Ford, Randy
Fugate, Jim Gallagher, Lauri Heintz, Joe Herrera,
Sara Herrera, Mike Janis, Rick Knipe, Kevin
Kriegel, Daniel Kunz, Billy Lambert, Wes Littrell,
Duane Lucia, Evan McCoy, Krista McDermid,
Todd Merendino, Chris Mostyn, Charlie Newberry,
Todd Pilcik, Nathan Rains, Calvin Richardson, Jay
Roberson, Chip Ruthven, Jimmy Rutledge, Dale
Schmidt, T. Wayne Schwertner, Raymond Sims,
David Sierra, David Synatzske, Trevor Tanner,
Gary Waggerman, Roy Welch, Brian Wheat, Jay
Whiteside, Dana Wright
Virginia
Gary Costanzo; Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries
Contributing staff of the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries
Washington
Ron Friesz; Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Dana Base, Jeff Bernatowicz, Martin Ellenburg,
Pat Fowler, Ron Friesz, Marc Hallet, Eric Holman,
Don Kraege, Mike Livingston, Tom McCall, Warren
Michaelis, Paul Wik
West Virginia
Steve Wilson; West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources
David Arbogast, Larry Berry, Colin Carpenter,
James Craft, Tom Dotson, Gary Foster, Shawn
Head, William Igo, David McClung, Jeff McCrady,
Patty Morrison, Allan Niederberger, Mike Peters,
Steve Rauch, Eric Richmond, Rich Roger, Gary
Sharp, Kem Shaw, Tammy Shreve, Bob Smith, Lee
Strawn, Gary Strawn, Clarence Williamson, Steve
Wilson
Wisconsin
Kent Van Horn; Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Kimberlee Benton, Brian Buenzow, Robert
Cartegena, ChuckGatling, Brian Glenzinski, Erin
Grossman, Heidi Hayes, Steve Hoffman, Jeremy
Holtz, Jim Holzwart, Marty Johnson, Rich Kahl, Pat
Kaiser, Dale Katsma, Renee Kerska, Charlie Kilian,
Steve Klock, Craig Kopacek, Sayer Larson, Eric
Lobner, Tanya Meives, Dick Nikolai, Allison Oberc,
Al Ramminger, Jerry Reetz, Paul Samerdyke, Missy
Sparrow-Lien, Jim Tomasko, Kent Van Horn, Larry
Vine, Dan Weidert.U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
http://www.fws.gov
February 2008