Mourning dove population status, 2006

              U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mourning Dove
Population Status, 2006
Cover photograph: Mourning Dove by Jim Matthews
Suggested citation:
Dolton, D.D. and R.D. Rau. 2006. Mourning dove population status, 2006. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
Available on the web at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html
MOURNING DOVE POPULATION STATUS, 2006
DAVID D. DOLTON, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, PO Box 25486 DFC,
Denver, CO 80225-0486
REBECCA D. RAU, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, 11510 American Holly Dr., Laurel, MD 20708-4002
Abstract: This report includes Mourning Dove Call-count Survey information gathered over the last 41 years within the
conterminous United States. Between 2005 and 2006, the average number of doves heard per route did not change
significantly in the Eastern Management Unit, decreased significantly in the Central Unit, and increased significantly in
the Western Unit. Over the most recent 10 years, no significant trend was indicated for doves heard in either the
Eastern or Western Management Units while the Central Unit showed a significant decline. Over the 41-year period,
all 3 units exhibited significant declines. In contrast, for doves seen over the 10-year period, a significant increase was
found in the Eastern Unit while no trends were found in the Central and Western Units. Over 41 years, no trend was
found for doves seen in the Eastern and Central Units while a significant decline was indicated for the Western Unit.
The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is a migratory
bird, thus, authority and responsibility for its
management is vested in the Secretary of the Interior.
This responsibility is conferred by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 which, as amended, implements
migratory bird treaties between the United States and
other countries. Mourning doves are included in the
treaties with Great Britain (for Canada) and Mexico.
These treaties recognize sport hunting as a legitimate use
of a renewable migratory bird resource. In recent years,
less than 6% of the fall population of mourning doves
was estimated to have been harvested annually. As one
of the most abundant species in both urban and rural
areas of North America, it is familiar to millions of
people. Maintenance of mourning dove populations in a
healthy, productive state is a primary management goal.
To this end, management of doves includes assessment of
population status, regulation of harvest, and habitat
management. Call-count surveys are conducted annually
in the 48 conterminous states by state, federal, local, and
tribal biologists to monitor mourning dove populations.
The resulting information on status and trends is used by
wildlife administrators in setting annual hunting
regulations.
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE
Mourning doves breed from the southern portions of
Canada throughout the United States into Mexico,
Bermuda, the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, and
scattered locations in Central America (Fig. 1). While
mourning doves winter throughout much of the breeding
range, the majority winter in the southern United States,
Mexico, and south through Central America to western
Panama (Aldrich 1993, Mirarchi and Baskett 1994).
The mourning dove is one of the most widely distributed
and abundant birds in North America (Peterjohn et al.
1994, Fig. 1). Although not known precisely, the fall
population for the United States was estimated to be
about 475 million in the 1970’s (Dunks et al. 1982,
Tomlinson et al. 1988).
POPULATION MONITORING
The Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS) was
developed to provide an annual index to population size
(Dolton 1993). This survey is based on work by
McClure (1939) in Iowa. Field studies demonstrated the
feasibility of the survey as a method for detecting annual
changes in mourning dove breeding populations (Foote
and Peters 1952). In the United States, the survey
currently includes more than 1,000 randomly selected
routes, stratified by physiographic region. The total
number of doves heard on each route is used to determine
trends in populations and is used to develop an index to
population size during the breeding season.
The primary purpose of this report is to facilitate the
prompt distribution of timely information. Results are
preliminary and may change with the inclusion of
additional data.
2
Fig. 1. Breeding and wintering ranges of the mourning dove
(adapted from Mirarchi and Baskett 1994).
Indices for doves seen are also presented in this report,
but only as supplemental information for comparison
with indices of doves heard. Even though both the
numbers of doves heard and seen are counted during the
survey, they are recorded separately.
Within the United States, there are 3 zones that contain
mourning dove populations that are largely independent
of each other (Kiel 1959). These zones encompass the
principal breeding, migration, and U.S. wintering areas
for each population. As suggested by Kiel (1959), these
3 areas were established as separate management units in
1960 (Kiel 1961). Since that time, management
decisions have been made within the boundaries of the
Eastern (EMU), Central (CMU), and Western (WMU)
Management Units (Fig. 2).
The EMU was further divided into 2 groups of states for
analyses. States permitting dove hunting were combined
into one group and those prohibiting dove hunting into
another. Wisconsin became a hunting state for the first
time in 2003 while Minnesota became a hunting state in
2004. Additionally, some states were grouped to increase
sample sizes. Maryland and Delaware were combined;
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island were combined to form a
New England group. Due to its small size, Rhode Island,
which is a hunting state, was included in this nonhunting
group of states for analysis.
METHODS
The Call-count Survey
Each call-count route is usually located on secondary
roads and has 20 listening stations spaced at 1-mile
intervals. At each stop, the number of doves heard
calling, the number seen, and the level of disturbance
(noise) that impairs the observer's ability to hear doves
are recorded. The number of doves seen while driving
between stops is also noted.
Counts begin one-half hour before sunrise and continue
for about 2 hours. Routes are run once between 20 May
and 5 June. Intensive studies in the eastern United States
(Foote and Peters 1952) indicated that dove calling is
relatively stable during this period. Surveys are not
conducted when wind velocities exceed 12 miles per hour
or when it is raining.
Estimation of Population Trends
A population trend is defined as an interval-specific rate
of change. For two years, the change is the ratio of the
dove population in an area in one year to the population
in the preceding year. For more than 2 years of data, the
trend is expressed as an average annual rate of change. A
trend was first estimated for each route by numerically
solving a set of estimating equations (Link and Sauer
1994). Observer data were used as covariables to adjust
for differences in observers’ ability to hear or see doves.
The reported sample sizes are the number of routes on
which a given trend estimate is based. This number may
be less than the actual number of routes surveyed for
several reasons. The estimating equations approach
requires at least 2 non-zero counts by at least one
observer for a route to be used. Routes that did not meet
this requirement during the interval of interest were not
included in the sample size. State and management unit
trends were obtained by calculating a mean of all route
trends weighted by land area, within-route variance in
counts, and density (mean numbers of doves counted on
each route). Variances of state and management unit
trends were estimated by bootstrapping route trends
(Geissler and Sauer 1990).
3
Fig. 2. Mourning dove management units with 2005 hunting and nonhunting states.
The annual change, or trend, for each area in doves heard
over the most recent 2- and 10-year intervals and for the
entire 41-year period were estimated. Additionally,
trends in doves seen were estimated over the 10- and 41-
year periods as supplemental information for comparison.
For purposes of this report, statistical significance was
defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison
where P<0.10 was used because of the low power of the
test. Significance levels are approximate for states with
less than 10 routes.
Estimation of Annual Indices
Annual indices show population fluctuations about fitted
trends (Sauer and Geissler 1990). The estimated indices
were determined for state and management units by
finding the deviation between observed counts on a route
and those predicted from the area trend estimate. These
residuals were averaged by year for all routes in the area
of interest. To adjust for variation in sampling intensity,
residuals were weighted by the land area of the
physiographic regions within each state. These weighted
average residuals were then added to the fitted trend for
the area to produce the annual index of abundance. This
method of determining indices superimposes yearly
variation in counts on the long-term fitted trend. These
indices should provide an accurate representation of the
fitted trend for regions that are adequately sampled by
survey routes. Since the indices are adjusted for observer
differences and trend, the index for an area may be quite
different from the actual count. In order to estimate the
percent change from 2005 to 2006, a short-term trend
was calculated. The percent change estimated from this
short-term trend analysis is the best estimator of annual
change. Attempts to estimate short-term trends from the
breeding population indices (which were derived from
residuals of the long-term trends) will yield less precise
results. The annual index value incorporates data from
a large number of routes that are not comparable
between the two years 2005 and 2006, i.e., routes not
run by the same observers. Therefore, the index is much
more variable than the trend estimate.
In a separate analysis, the mean number of doves heard
calling per route in 2006 was calculated for each state or
groups of states. In contrast to the estimated annual
indices presented in Table 3 (which illustrate population
changes over time based on the regression line), the
estimated densities shown in Figs. 3, 7, and 11 illustrate
the average actual numbers of doves heard per route in
2005 and 2006.
RESULTS
Eastern Management Unit
The Eastern Management Unit includes 27 states
comprising 30% of the land area of the contiguous
4
Fig. 3. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by
state in the Eastern Management Unit, 2005-2006.
United States. Dove hunting is permitted in 19 states,
representing 80% of the land area of the unit (Fig. 2).
2005-2006 Population Distribution.—North Carolina
had the highest count in the Unit with an average of 39
actual doves heard per route over the 2 years (Fig. 3).
Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, the North
Atlantic states, New Jersey, and New York averaged <10
per route. All other states had mean counts in the range
of 10-20 doves heard per route.
2005 to 2006 Population Changes.—The average
number of doves heard per route in this Unit did not
change significantly (2.4%) (Table 1). The index also
did not change significantly between years in the
combined hunting states (0.0%), but increased
significantly in the combined nonhunting states (18.3%).
The 2006 population index of 16.3 doves heard per route
for the Unit is slightly above the predicted count based on
the long-term estimate of 15.7 (Fig. 4, Table 3). In the
hunting states, the index of 17.0 is also above the
predicted estimate of 16.4 and, in the nonhunting states,
the index of 13.3 is above the predicted estimate of 12.7.
The number of doves heard increased significantly in
North Carolina while it decreased significantly in
Indiana, Louisiana, and South Carolina (Table 1). No
significant changes were detected for the other states.
Fig. 4. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning
doves in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU), combined
EMU hunting states (HUNT), and combined nonhunting states
(NONHUNT), 1966-2006. Heavy solid line = doves heard;
light solid line = doves seen. Light and heavy dashed lines =
predicted trends.
Population Trends: 10 and 41-year.—Over the most
recent 10 years, there was no significant trend in either of
the 2 groups of combined states or the Unit as a whole
(Table 1). For the 41-year period, a declining trend was
found in both the combined hunting states and the Unit
while no trend was indicated for the combined
nonhunting states. Annual indices both for doves heard
5
Fig. 5. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per route
by state in the Eastern Management Unit, 1997-2006.
and seen are shown in Fig. 4. In contrast to doves heard,
an analysis of doves seen over 10 years indicated a
significant increasing trend for both combinations of
states and the Unit (Table 2). Over 41 years, a significant
increase was detected for the combined nonhunting
states; no trend was shown for the combined hunting
states or the Unit (Table 2).
State population trends for doves heard are shown in Fig.
5 (10-year interval) and Fig. 6 (41-year interval) and
Table 1. Over 10 years, an increase was found for
Wisconsin while Florida and Mississippi showed
declines. Between 1966 and 2006, an increase was noted
in New England while a downward trend was noted in
Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
Central Management Unit
The Central Management Unit consists of 14 states,
containing 46% of the land area of the contiguous United
States. It has the highest population index of the 3 Units.
Within the Unit, dove hunting is permitted in 13 states
(Fig. 2).
2005-2006 Population.—North Dakota and Kansas had
the highest actual average number of doves heard per
route over the 2 years (38 and 32, respectively) (Fig. 7).
Historically, these states often have the highest average
counts in the Nation (Table 3). Missouri, Montana, and
Fig. 6. Trends in the number of mourning doves heard per
route by state in the Eastern Management Unit, 1966-2006.
Fig. 7. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by
state in the Central Management Unit, 2005-2006.
Wyoming were the only states with less than 10 doves
per route. The remaining states had intermediate values
(Fig. 7).
2005 to 2006 Population Changes.—The average
number of doves heard per route in the Unit decreased
significantly between the 2 years (-10.9%) (Table 1).
The 2006 index for the Unit of 21.1 doves heard per
route is similar to the predicted long-term trend estimate
6
Fig. 8. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning
doves in the Central Management Unit, 1966-2006. Heavy
solid line = doves heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light
and heavy dashed lines = predicted trends.
of 21.6 (Fig. 8, Table 3). The population decreased
significantly in North Dakota and Texas; no significant
increases were found in any of the other states (Table 1).
Population Trends: 10 and 41-year.—A significant
decline in doves heard was indicated for the Unit over
both the short and long-term periods (Table 1). In
contrast, trends in doves seen were not significant for
either time period (Table 2).
State trends in doves heard over 10 years are illustrated in
Fig. 9 and Table 1. Iowa showed an increase while
Texas had a decline during this time. Fig. 10 portrays
trends over 41 years. No significant increase was found
in doves heard for any state, but a significant downward
trend was found in Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska
(Table 1).
Western Management Unit
Seven states comprise the Western Management Unit and
represent 24% of the land area of the contiguous United
States. All states within the unit permit mourning dove
hunting (Fig. 2).
2005-2006 Population Distribution.—Arizona,
California, and Washington averaged 19, 10, and 11
actual doves heard per route, respectively (Fig. 11). The
other states in the Unit averaged < 10 birds per route.
Fig. 9. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per route
by state in the Central Management Unit, 1997-2006.
Fig. 10. Trends in mourning doves heard per route by state in
the Central Management Unit, 1966-2006.
2005 to 2006 Population Changes.—The average
number of doves heard per route increased significantly
between years (24.1%; Table 1). The 2006 population
index of 10.5 doves heard per route is above the
predicted count of 8.5 based on the long-term trend
estimate (Fig. 12, Table 3). The number of doves heard
per route increased significantly in Nevada and Utah, and
decreased significantly in Washington (Table 1). No
significant differences were found in other states.
7
Fig. 11. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by
state in the Western Management Unit, 2005-2006.
Population Trends: 10 and 41-year.—Unit-wide, no
significant trend in numbers of doves heard was indicated
over the most recent 10 years although a significant
decline was apparent over 41 years (Table 1). Analyses
of doves seen gave the same pattern of results (Table 2).
Trends by state are illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14, and
Table 1. Oregon showed a significant increase over 10
years while no state showed a decline. All states in the
Unit except Idaho and Washington have a significant
decline between 1966 and 2006.
Breeding Bird Survey Results
There has been considerable discussion about utilizing
the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) as a
measure of mourning dove abundance. Consequently,
we are including 1966-05 BBS trend information in this
report to allow comparisons to those from CCS results
over the same time period (Dolton and Rau 2005) for
consistency in intervals of years. Sauer et al. (1994)
discussed the differences in the methodology of the 2
surveys. The BBS is based on 24.5 mile routes that are
surveyed in June. Each route consists of 50 stops or
point count locations at 0.5 mile intervals. Data for
doves heard and seen at stops are combined for BBS
analyses while those data are analyzed separately for the
CCS. BBS data are not available in time for use in
regulations development during the year of the survey.
Trends calculated from BBS data for the 10-year period
Fig. 12. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning
doves in the Western Management Unit, 1966-2006. Heavy
solid line = doves heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light
and heavy dashed lines = predicted trends.
Fig. 13. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per route
by state in the Western Management Unit, 1997-2006.
(1996-2005) and over 40 years (1966-2005) are
presented in Table 4.
In general, trends indicated by the BBS tend to indicate
fewer declines. The major differences occur in the
Eastern Unit. This is likely due to the larger sample size
of BBS survey routes and greater consistency of coverage
by BBS routes in the Unit (Sauer et al. 1994), although
additional analyses are needed to clarify some differences
in results between surveys within states.
8
Fig. 14. Trends in number of doves heard per route by state in
the Western Management Unit, 1966-2006.
For the 10-year period, 1996-05, in the EMU as a whole,
there was no trend indicated with the CCS while the BBS
showed a significant increase. For the combined hunting
states in the Unit, the CCS indicated no trend in doves
heard compared to a significant increase with the BBS.
In the nonhunting states, the CCS showed no trend while
the BBS again showed a significant increase. In the
CMU, the CCS showed a significant decline while the
BBS showed no trend. In the WMU, both surveys
showed no significant trend.
Over 40 years in the Eastern Unit, the CCS analyses
indicated a significant decline. In contrast, the BBS
showed a significant increase. For the combined hunting
states of the EMU, the CCS showed a significant decline
compared with no trend with the BBS. In the nonhunting
states of the EMU, both surveys indicated significant
increasing trends. In the CMU, both the CCS and BBS
indicated a significant decline. In the Western
Management Unit, significant declines were also
indicated by both surveys.
HARVEST ESTIMATES
State Surveys
In past years, a compilation of non-uniform, periodic
state harvest surveys have been used to obtain rough
estimates of the number of mourning doves killed and the
number of dove hunters. Although those data are no
longer used, a summary provided by Sadler (1993) is
reviewed here for historical purposes. In general,
mourning dove harvest in the EMU was relatively
constant from 1966-87, with between 27.5 and 28.5
million birds taken. A survey conducted in 1989
indicated that harvest had dropped to about 26.4 million
birds shot by an estimated 1.3 million hunters. In the
CMU, although hunting pressure and harvest varied
widely among states, dove harvest in the Unit generally
increased between 1966-87 to an annual average of about
13.5 million birds. In 1989, almost 11 million doves
were taken by about 747,000 hunters. Dove harvest in
the WMU has declined significantly over the years
following a decline in the breeding population. In the
early 1970's, about 7.3 million doves were taken by an
estimated 450,000 hunters. By 1989, the harvest had
dropped to about 4 million birds shot by approximately
285,000 hunters.
In summary, it appears that the dove harvest throughout
the United States is on the decrease. However, the
mourning dove remains an extremely important game
bird, as more doves are harvested than all other migratory
game birds combined. A 1991 survey indicated that
doves provided about 9.5 million days of hunting
recreation for 1.9 million people (U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1993). A survey
conducted in 1996 estimated that doves were hunted
about 8.1 million days by 1.6 million people (U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1997).
Harvest Information Program (HIP)
Wildlife professionals have long recognized that reliable
harvest estimates are needed to monitor the impact of
hunting. To remedy problems associated with state
surveys, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state
wildlife agencies initiated the national, cooperative
Harvest Information Program in 1992. This program is
designed to enable the Service to conduct nationwide
surveys that provide reliable annual estimates of the
harvest of mourning doves and other migratory game bird
species. Under the Harvest Information Program, states
provide the Service with the names and addresses of all
licensed migratory bird hunters each year, and the
Service conducts surveys to estimate the harvest in each
9
state. All states except Hawaii are participating in the
program.
Preliminary results of the mourning dove harvest survey
for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 hunting seasons are
presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The total
estimated harvest for the 2005-06 season by management
unit and for the U.S. are as follows: Eastern: 9,793,000 ±
6%; Central: 9,891,400 ± 9%; Western: 2,465,500 ± 7%;
and, U.S.: 22,149,900 ± 5%. It is important to note that
these estimates do not necessarily indicate that the
harvest has declined from past years when harvest
estimates were compiled from state surveys. And, they
cannot be compared directly with the earlier estimates
since they are based on a different sampling scheme. The
reliability of these estimates depends primarily upon the
quality of the sample frame provided by each
participating state. If a state's sample frame does not
include all migratory bird hunters in that state, the survey
results underestimate hunter activity and harvest for the
state.
The Division of Migratory Bird Management’s Branch of
Harvest Surveys is continuing to work with states to
improve the accuracy and precision of the harvest
estimates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Personnel of state wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) cooperated in collecting the
data presented in this report. Special thanks to J. Powers
(AL), M. Rabe (AZ), T. Edwards (AR), K. Fothergill
(CA), E. Gorman (CO), J. Dickson (CT), D. Pence
(USFWS), K. Hodges (FL), D. McGowan (GA), T.
Hemker (ID), J. Cole (IL), W. A. Phelps (IN), T.
Bogenschutz (IA), H. Hands (KS), R. Ford (USFWS), M.
Mills (USFWS), B. Harvey (MD), T. Moruzzi (MA), A.
Stewart (MI), S. Kelly (USFWS), B. Strader (USFWS),
J. Schulz (MO), J. Hansen (MT), S. Taylor (NE), C.
Mortimore (NV), E. Robinson (NH), J. Garris (NJ), T.
Mitchusson (NM), B. Swift (NY), J. Fuller (NC), M.
Szymanski (ND), S. Hull (OH), M. O’Meilia (OK), H.
Browers (USFWS), T. Mumma (PA), B. Tefft (RI), B.
Dukes (SC), C. Huxoll (SD), R. Applegate (TN), J.
Roberson (TX), T. Aldrich (UT), J. Austin (VT), A.
Daisey (USFWS), D. Kraege (WA), S. Wilson (WV),
and R. Rothwell (WY). J. Alachan and T. Pushparaj
(USFWS) provided invaluable assistance with data entry.
J. R. Sauer (BRD) analyzed the data and provided
statistical support. P. Padding and K. Richkus (USFWS)
provided the HIP data and explanation. J. Kelley and J.
Alachan (USFWS) reviewed a draft of this report.
LITERATURE CITED
Aldrich, J.W. 1993. Classification and distribution.
Pages 47-54 in T.S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R.E.
Tomlinson, and R.E. Mirarchi, eds., Ecology and
management of the mourning dove. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dolton, D.D. 1993. The call-count survey: historic
development and current procedures. Pages 233-252
in T.S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R.E. Tomlinson, and
R.E. Mirarchi, eds., Ecology and management of the
mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Dolton, D.D. and R. D. Rau. 2005 Mourning dove
breeding population status, 2005 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
Dunks, J.H., R.E. Tomlinson, H.M. Reeves, D.D.
Dolton, C.E. Braun and T.P. Zapatka. 1982.
Mourning dove banding analysis, Central
Management Unit, 1967-77. Special Scientific
Report--Wildl. No. 249. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
Foote, L.E. and H.S. Peters. 1952. Pages 1-2 in
Investigations of methods of appraising the
abundance of mourning doves. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report--Wildlife
17.
Geissler, P.H. and J.R. Sauer. 1990. Topics in route
regression analysis. Pages 54-57 in J.R. Sauer and S.
Droege, eds. Survey designs and statistical methods
for the estimation of avian population trends. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(1).
Kiel, W.H. 1959. Mourning dove management units, a
progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Special Scientific Report--Wildlife 42.
Kiel, W.H. 1961. The mourning dove program for the
future. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference 26:418-435.
Link, W.A. and J.R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating equations
10
estimates of trends. Bird Populations 2:23-32.
McClure, H.E. 1939. Cooing activity and censusing of
the mourning dove. Journal of Wildlife Management
3:323-328.
Mirarchi, R.E. and T.S. Baskett. 1994. Mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.,
The birds of North America, No. 117. The Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Sauer and W.A. Link. 1994. The
1992 and 1993 summary of the North American
breeding bird survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61.
Sadler, K.C. 1993. Mourning dove harvest. Pages 449-
458 in T.S.Baskett, M.W. Sayer, R.E. Tomlinson and
R.E. Mirarchi, eds., Ecology and management of the
mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Sauer, J.R. and P.H. Geissler. 1990. Annual indices
from route regression analyses. Pages 58-62 in J.R.
Sauer and S. Droege, eds. Survey designs and
statistical methods for the estimation of avian
population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Report. 90(1).
Sauer, J.R., D.D. Dolton, and S. Droege.
1994.Mourning dove population trend estimates from
Call-count and North American Breeding Bird
Surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management.
58(3):506-515.
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;
1964-1977. Fish and Wildlife Technical. Report 13,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1993. 1991 National survey of
fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1997. 1996 National survey of
fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
11
Table 1. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves heard along
call-count survey routes, 1966-2006.
2005-2006 10 year (1997-2006) 41 year (1966-2006)
N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90% CI
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 27 -1.2 -19.9 17.5 31 -0.7 -1.9 0.4 44 -0.7 -1.5 0.1
DE/MD 12 1.8 -27.7 31.2 14 1.7 -1.0 4.4 19 -1.4 -3.0 0.1
FL 16 11.0 -16.6 38.6 24 -4.3 *** -6.5 -2.1 29 -0.6 -1.6 0.4
GA 17 -3.7 -29.3 21.9 24 -1.7 -4.0 0.5 31 -1.1 *** -1.7 -0.5
IL 15 4.4 -9.0 17.7 20 1.0 -1.4 3.3 22 0.3 -0.9 1.4
IN 11 -23.2 *** -33.0 -13.5 15 1.9 -0.4 4.2 18 -1.4 ** -2.3 -0.4
KY 14 -20.2 -41.4 1.0 20 -0.5 -2.2 1.1 26 -0.7 -1.9 0.5
LA 17 -15.6 * -27.9 -3.3 19 0.4 -2.5 3.3 23 1.2 * 0.1 2.3
MS 18 10.7 -15.3 36.7 22 -3.9 ** -6.5 -1.2 31 -2.0 ** -3.6 -0.4
NC 21 27.1 *** 13.1 41.0 21 1.2 -0.2 2.6 24 0.1 -0.8 0.9
OH 36 9.7 -9.4 28.8 37 0.4 -1.3 2.0 57 -1.1 *** -1.7 -0.5
PA 14 43.6 2.4 84.7 18 -0.1 -3.1 2.9 18 0.9 -0.6 2.4
SC 16 -15.3 * -27.6 -3.0 21 -2.5 -5.0 0.1 27 -1.2 ** -2.1 -0.4
TN 17 -11.7 -25.1 1.6 25 -1.6 -4.1 0.8 34 -1.7 ** -2.8 -0.7
VA 20 -8.6 -28.2 10.9 33 -1.3 -3.3 0.6 33 -1.9 * -3.7 -0.2
WI 18 -13.9 -31.0 3.2 23 5.9 *** 4.3 7.5 23 0.9 -0.4 2.2
WV 9 52.5 -15.1 120.1 11 1.1 -1.7 3.9 12 1.5 -0.3 3.3
Subunit 298 0.0 -5.3 5.4 378 -0.4 -1.1 0.2 471 -0.6 *** -1.0 -0.3
Nonhunt
MI 10 23.1 -1.7 47.9 20 3.7 -0.2 7.5 23 0.7 -0.8 2.2
N.Englandc 26 -1.1 -19.1 17.0 42 0.0 -2.2 2.2 76 1.1 ** 0.3 1.8
NJ 10 20.0 -48.7 88.7 11 -2.9 -5.9 0.1 20 -2.2 -4.8 0.4
NY 9 34.3 4.6 63.9 19 3.9 -1.1 8.9 22 1.9 -0.2 4.0
Subunit 55 18.3 * 2.8 33.7 92 2.5 * 0.1 4.8 141 0.8 -0.1 1.8
Unit 353 2.4 -2.7 7.5 470 0.0 -0.7 0.6 612 -0.5 ** -0.8 -0.2
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 13 8.7 -10.1 27.5 20 -1.7 -5.5 2.0 21 -1.0 -2.2 0.3
CO 11 26.6 -5.1 58.3 16 -5.9 -12.4 0.6 21 -1.0 ** -1.7 -0.3
IA 13 24.6 -6.0 55.3 17 2.1 ** 0.5 3.7 19 0.2 -0.6 1.0
KS 18 -5.5 -14.2 3.1 29 0.4 -1.9 2.8 35 0.1 -0.6 0.8
MN 8 1.3 -5.3 8.0 12 -5.2 -10.2 -0.3 13 -1.8 * -3.3 -0.3
MO 10 -1.6 -30.1 27.0 20 -1.8 -4.3 0.7 28 -1.9 ** -3.4 -0.5
MT 13 10.7 -16.8 38.2 17 -0.6 -4.8 3.7 29 -1.8 * -3.4 -0.2
NE 19 -6.5 -18.8 5.8 24 -2.0 * -3.7 -0.2 28 -1.0 ** -1.7 -0.4
NM 18 2.3 -13.2 17.7 28 2.0 -4.6 8.7 31 0.9 -0.2 2.0
ND 22 -26.5 *** -40.3 -12.6 27 -0.8 -2.4 0.8 30 -0.4 -1.7 0.8
OK 16 -10.2 -29.6 9.2 16 1.5 -0.6 3.6 25 0.7 -2.7 4.0
SD 15 10.7 -20.7 42.1 21 -1.7 -5.7 2.2 30 -0.6 -2.1 0.9
TX 112 -17.8 *** -26.4 -9.2 142 -3.7 *** -4.9 -2.6 210 -0.7 * -1.3 0.0
WY 9 11.9 -20.7 44.5 17 -8.1 * -15.4 -0.9 23 -2.5 * -4.6 -0.4
Unit 297 -10.9 *** -16.1 -5.8 406 -2.3 *** -3.1 -1.6 543 -0.6 *** -1.0 -0.3
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 30 -6.5 -27.6 14.5 55 1.5 -1.0 4.0 71 -0.9 ** -1.6 -0.3
CA 47 -6.9 -17.3 3.6 60 -1.9 * -3.5 -0.3 84 -2.4 *** -3.4 -1.5
ID 12 89.1 -11.5 189.7 23 4.2 -0.1 8.6 28 -1.5 -3.5 0.5
NV 16 217.9 * 41.2 394.7 22 4.9 -1.5 11.4 33 -3.5 *** -5.3 -1.7
OR 9 12.8 0.8 24.9 19 3.7 ** 1.6 5.8 25 -1.8 ** -3.2 -0.5
UT 11 55.9 * 7.9 103.8 16 1.6 -0.1 3.3 20 -3.9 ** -6.3 -1.4
WA 19 -11.9 ** -20.2 -3.6 23 4.6 -0.8 9.9 28 -2.3 * -4.5 -0.1
Unit 144 24.1 ** 7.9 40.3 218 1.0 -0.3 2.3 289 -1.9 *** -2.4 -1.4
a Mean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year
where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 41 years) may exaggerate the total change
over the period.
b *P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10 was
used because of the low power of the test.
c New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
12
Table 2. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves seen along
call-count survey routes, 1966-2006.
10 year (1997-2006) 41 year (1966-2006)
N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90% CI
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 31 -1.2 -4.8 2.4 44 -1.2 * -2.2 -0.1
DE/MD 15 2.2 *** 1.3 3.2 20 0.6 -0.8 2.0
FL 25 0.5 -2.5 3.5 29 3.7 *** 2.4 4.9
GA 24 -1.1 -5.4 3.2 31 0.4 -0.8 1.6
IL 20 5.8 *** 3.0 8.6 22 -0.5 -2.4 1.3
IN 15 5.1 * 0.6 9.5 18 -1.9 -4.8 1.0
KY 20 0.4 -1.8 2.5 24 1.0 -0.3 2.3
LA 18 3.7 ** 1.5 6.0 23 2.3 *** 1.4 3.2
MS 21 -2.2 -5.9 1.5 31 -1.4 -3.3 0.4
NC 21 4.4 *** 2.0 6.8 24 -0.1 -1.1 0.9
OH 37 0.1 -2.2 2.3 57 0.9 -0.6 2.3
PA 18 -3.5 -7.1 0.1 18 0.9 -0.8 2.6
SC 21 0.6 -3.7 4.8 27 1.2 * 0.2 2.1
TN 25 0.3 -2.2 2.8 34 -0.7 -1.8 0.4
VA 33 1.7 -2.0 5.4 33 -1.1 -3.4 1.1
WI 22 6.0 *** 2.7 9.4 23 3.0 *** 2.0 4.0
WV 11 -1.6 -6.7 3.5 12 3.5 *** 2.1 4.8
Subunit 377 1.4 ** 0.4 2.4 470 0.2 -0.5 0.9
Nonhunt
MI 20 3.8 ** 1.3 6.2 23 2.0 ** 0.9 3.2
N.Englandc 41 2.9 -1.8 7.6 73 1.8 * 0.3 3.3
NJ 11 1.0 -2.1 4.1 20 -1.0 -2.7 0.7
NY 18 0.8 -4.9 6.5 22 3.0 * 0.4 5.6
Subunit 90 3.1 ** 1.1 5.0 138 2.0 *** 1.1 2.9
Unit 467 1.6 *** 0.6 2.5 608 0.4 -0.3 1.0
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 20 2.9 -0.8 6.6 21 -1.1 ** -1.9 -0.3
CO 16 -3.3 -8.7 2.1 20 -0.4 -1.7 1.0
IA 17 5.5 *** 2.6 8.3 19 0.2 -0.9 1.3
KS 29 2.6 -1.2 6.5 35 -0.3 -1.0 0.4
MN 12 -7.6 * -13.6 -1.6 14 -1.1 -2.7 0.5
MO 20 0.6 -2.3 3.5 28 -3.1 *** -4.8 -1.4
MT 20 4.1 -2.2 10.4 28 1.2 -0.3 2.6
NE 24 -0.9 -3.2 1.5 28 -0.6 -2.0 0.7
NM 27 4.3 * 0.9 7.8 31 0.1 -2.8 2.9
ND 27 -2.9 ** -4.7 -1.1 30 0.0 -1.2 1.2
OK 16 3.1 ** 0.9 5.3 25 0.4 -0.8 1.5
SD 21 -0.4 -4.4 3.6 30 -0.4 -2.5 1.7
TX 141 -0.9 -2.5 0.6 210 0.8 ** 0.2 1.5
WY 14 -12.8 ** -20.4 -5.2 21 -3.5 * -6.6 -0.5
Unit 404 -0.2 -1.3 0.8 540 0.1 -0.3 0.6
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 54 -1.3 -5.3 2.8 72 -4.0 *** -5.9 -2.2
CA 56 -1.2 -3.3 0.8 83 -2.4 *** -3.4 -1.3
ID 22 4.3 -4.8 13.5 28 -2.7 -5.7 0.2
NV 20 1.0 -4.8 6.7 33 -2.1 -4.9 0.7
OR 18 -3.4 -9.8 2.9 23 -4.5 ** -7.1 -1.8
UT 15 -7.4 * -13.3 -1.5 20 -5.4 ** -9.1 -1.7
WA 23 3.4 -2.1 8.9 25 0.8 -1.6 3.2
Unit 208 -0.6 -2.4 1.2 284 -3.0 *** -3.9 -2.2
a Mean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year
where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 41 years) may exaggerate the total change
over the period.
b *P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10 was
used because of the low power of the test.
c New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
13
Table 3. Breeding population indicesa based on mourning doves heard along Call-count routes, 1966-2006.
Management year
unit/state 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 26.4 23.5 21.2 21.5 21.8 17.9 25.6 22.4 17.0 21.6
DE/MD 16.3 20.0 14.0 14.9 18.4 15.8 17.1 16.9 18.0 12.9
FL 13.4 12.7 10.8 11.5 14.6 12.2 12.5 12.6 14.8 15.2
GA 30.5 28.6 24.5 26.2 33.1 26.1 24.8 27.2 28.1 30.5
IL 22.8 19.7 23.4 20.3 23.4 21.4 22.0 21.5 18.2 25.2
IN 36.8 33.9 33.3 32.3 31.3 42.2 37.0 33.1 31.6 33.3
KY 25.2 22.7 22.1 23.2 27.8 24.9 20.9 24.8 28.7 20.1
LA 10.2 10.4 9.7 11.3 7.0 10.2 11.2 8.8 10.3 10.7
MS 42.3 36.3 30.8 28.2 31.2 31.7 35.3 31.6 25.2 26.5
NC 35.0 28.4 30.0 42.8 49.4 28.8 23.3 44.4 25.4 14.3
OH 24.8 23.3 21.1 24.0 23.8 24.6 25.6 20.4 24.8 37.9
PA 9.2 9.8 9.1 8.7 5.7 6.6 9.2 6.0 8.9 6.1
SC 33.8 36.9 37.4 36.1 33.9 29.7 26.4 30.0 28.0 27.7
TN 32.7 23.8 24.5 24.2 32.7 23.1 29.2 22.2 23.6 22.5
VA 25.5 21.3 24.2 21.4 27.3 22.0 13.2 15.5 21.3 23.8
WI 10.0 12.9 12.9 9.9 10.8 15.6 16.3 10.9 11.5 14.6
WV 6.5 5.4 5.6 6.0 5.5 5.0 6.6 3.9 4.1 2.4
Subunit 22.8 21.4 20.5 20.5 21.3 20.4 21.0 19.3 19.7 19.8
Nonhunt
MI 13.4 14.6 9.5 9.8 7.8 15.6 16.5 13.2 11.3 12.7
N.Englandb 6.4 6.8 6.2 5.3 6.2 6.5 7.2 8.4 5.3 5.0
NJ 20.7 17.7 22.0 20.2 27.2 25.5 26.8 23.7 23.0 16.5
NY 6.5 6.5 6.2 5.8 7.5 8.8 7.0 7.2 7.5 13.4
Subunit 9.4 9.8 8.0 7.6 7.9 11.0 11.1 10.5 8.8 10.8
Unit 20.4 19.4 18.1 18.0 18.6 18.9 19.4 17.8 17.6 18.3
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 22.7 23.6 22.7 21.7 23.5 23.5 22.0 24.8 22.8 21.9
CO 24.5 24.0 21.9 29.8 29.8 21.6 27.4 16.9 26.9 19.7
IA 32.3 29.0 31.5 28.3 20.5 25.2 33.8 31.8 25.4 23.6
KS 45.8 47.2 49.0 49.6 45.8 46.6 52.1 46.4 46.1 44.3
MN 32.1 25.6 27.5 20.3 16.1 23.2 26.7 20.1 27.9 30.5
MO 38.3 36.1 45.4 27.5 38.0 32.0 43.4 32.6 27.9 32.9
MT 28.5 26.3 20.7 22.9 18.3 26.0 20.7 14.9 17.3 23.6
NE 47.0 41.2 52.5 51.3 49.6 47.0 45.0 43.1 44.6 42.0
NM 14.0 10.3 14.5 11.1 10.9 10.2 11.8 8.5 10.3 12.9
ND 41.9 40.1 54.7 45.4 40.2 41.2 42.6 46.7 44.9 32.6
OK 17.9 22.1 26.1 25.2 19.9 15.6 25.8 24.4 25.8 23.4
SD 52.8 33.1 45.3 38.5 45.9 40.4 40.2 42.4 50.8 42.9
TX 27.7 22.9 22.6 20.4 21.6 20.9 27.9 22.2 23.5 21.2
WY 19.0 19.9 10.5 17.2 16.6 9.5 13.1 13.1 18.8 16.7
Unit 30.1 27.1 27.9 26.6 25.6 25.2 28.7 24.0 26.9 26.3
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 28.6 28.8 25.7 30.7 30.8 20.8 23.4 28.3 24.5 26.9
CA 28.6 27.0 24.9 24.6 24.1 18.0 21.9 21.0 22.8 19.2
ID 14.2 14.4 13.5 14.5 13.5 11.0 10.5 13.2 11.4 8.0
NV 10.2 9.6 22.8 16.3 11.7 7.1 9.6 6.8 9.1 6.0
OR 15.3 10.2 12.0 11.0 8.4 7.4 7.2 7.2 12.7 9.6
UT 24.0 36.7 18.5 17.5 20.3 28.4 16.5 14.2 16.2 17.3
WA 12.5 18.4 17.2 13.7 13.9 16.4 11.7 10.7 13.4 14.5
Unit
19.2 19.4 20.1 19.1 17.6 14.6 14.7 14.4 16.4 14.2
aAnnual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 41-year period.
b New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
14
Table 3. Continued.
Management year
unit/state 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 20.8 22.9 25.1 24.1 24.1 23.0 23.5 23.5 19.7 25.1
DE/MD 15.8 14.5 15.3 14.8 14.1 13.5 14.2 10.0 11.4 12.5
FL 14.0 15.4 12.0 13.0 10.4 9.1 10.7 12.4 8.5 10.9
GA 24.0 24.9 27.3 23.8 24.1 26.7 28.7 25.6 20.9 26.7
IL 24.8 26.5 20.3 17.7 18.0 20.3 24.7 25.5 20.6 17.7
IN 33.6 37.6 20.4 21.6 27.4 31.7 22.5 19.4 21.1 18.5
KY 25.1 23.5 25.1 17.2 16.7 28.3 24.2 13.4 21.6 22.4
LA 10.8 8.9 10.4 8.9 12.4 10.6 13.3 12.3 11.7 10.5
MS 27.0 27.7 31.2 26.6 25.2 25.2 31.8 26.7 19.6 25.9
NC 17.5 46.7 24.9 29.6 28.7 28.2 23.7 28.0 31.4 21.8
OH 27.5 26.4 13.9 13.6 16.2 19.7 18.7 20.0 18.7 17.4
PA 6.2 5.1 6.2 6.9 8.3 9.8 9.4 9.3 8.5 9.4
SC 27.3 23.2 30.6 26.0 32.6 31.7 32.7 31.1 28.2 28.3
TN 22.2 24.3 30.1 20.6 22.3 18.8 25.3 19.6 16.7 21.5
VA 22.8 30.4 22.5 19.9 19.3 16.7 18.4 18.3 17.8 16.7
WI 14.7 19.4 7.9 11.5 15.0 20.3 11.4 13.4 10.5 10.9
WV 6.0 5.7 6.5 7.2 8.4 6.7 6.4 6.1 5.4 6.6
Subunit 20.0 21.5 18.5 17.7 19.0 19.8 19.8 18.8 16.8 17.8
Nonhunt
MI 12.9 11.0 12.6 7.4 13.7 15.7 11.4 10.2 10.9 12.0
N.Englandb 4.7 8.7 7.3 6.1 7.5 9.1 7.5 7.9 6.8 7.5
NJ 20.7 22.7 18.0 19.2 17.9 14.5 16.8 20.1 12.6 12.7
NY 7.9 7.9 9.6 6.5 11.6 9.8 10.5 9.8 9.7 8.8
Subunit 9.1 9.9 10.5 7.2 11.4 12.1 10.3 9.9 9.4 9.9
Unit 17.9 19.3 17.2 15.5 17.8 18.6 18.1 17.2 15.5 16.4
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 26.6 21.6 15.3 12.4 20.5 22.4 26.0 19.5 13.9 13.7
CO 27.9 25.7 28.4 23.4 27.0 30.4 29.5 16.2 20.3 24.1
IA 29.1 22.6 25.4 21.7 29.3 32.4 23.3 16.6 24.5 27.0
KS 48.7 46.2 36.3 53.1 57.8 55.3 52.7 59.5 47.2 61.1
MN 26.4 30.4 29.3 29.8 32.1 28.1 24.7 21.6 18.4 20.0
MO 29.2 33.9 21.7 20.7 32.4 27.4 24.1 23.4 22.3 21.3
MT 17.1 20.9 20.1 20.1 18.3 17.2 21.9 17.6 13.3 18.4
NE 47.3 47.8 39.3 42.0 53.5 50.8 49.5 45.1 42.9 44.1
NM 12.6 11.3 11.4 7.7 12.6 12.5 9.8 13.2 14.3 12.3
ND 52.4 43.2 45.8 42.7 48.3 48.5 45.4 43.3 33.9 44.2
OK 24.6 32.0 24.7 24.2 25.3 25.2 26.4 27.0 20.5 20.1
SD 46.1 40.4 43.6 42.7 42.8 38.6 45.9 39.7 44.2 41.5
TX 20.7 19.8 20.5 25.4 24.2 21.9 21.1 19.6 19.2 19.8
WY 15.5 9.8 16.0 12.6 11.3 12.4 16.1 11.0 10.0 11.7
Unit 27.1 25.9 25.4 25.0 28.1 27.2 27.2 24.1 22.5 24.6
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 27.8 25.0 25.1 24.5 22.0 24.8 28.3 22.1 27.1 21.9
CA 23.0 17.7 15.9 12.3 20.9 17.3 21.4 13.2 18.4 13.0
ID 14.7 18.0 10.0 9.7 10.4 11.5 11.9 9.4 11.0 10.2
NV 9.8 10.0 5.9 8.7 12.7 9.3 5.2 4.7 4.7 6.0
OR 10.0 11.4 6.1 6.3 9.5 8.1 8.0 6.1 7.7 8.5
UT 19.8 23.2 10.2 12.6 15.1 20.0 11.0 12.0 13.5 8.9
WA 14.0 15.2 9.8 13.8 9.4 11.3 10.5 8.9 7.8 9.8
Unit
17.8 17.7 11.9 12.7 15.7 15.3 14.0 11.1 13.1 11.8
aAnnual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 41-year period.
b New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
15
Table 3. Continued.
Management year
unit/state 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 22.8 20.3 22.4 19.1 17.9 16.8 19.1 20.8 21.5 22.6
DE/MD 15.0 13.1 12.1 16.9 8.2 12.6 16.1 10.8 13.3 11.9
FL 12.7 11.4 13.7 12.2 11.0 11.9 12.1 10.7 10.1 11.7
GA 23.9 24.9 25.1 25.4 26.1 21.7 30.5 18.8 21.8 26.0
IL 24.5 23.9 27.2 26.6 26.1 26.4 27.3 23.7 26.5 27.2
IN 24.6 24.8 29.9 25.3 27.6 27.8 24.6 25.9 30.8 25.0
KY 20.1 24.7 19.7 26.8 22.3 21.3 16.9 21.6 20.9 20.4
LA 9.6 13.6 10.1 15.7 11.1 11.4 15.2 11.6 12.7 14.5
MS 25.4 22.6 26.7 24.9 20.9 17.3 22.5 24.5 20.6 18.8
NC 30.6 29.7 27.3 32.1 29.2 24.7 24.1 25.0 25.2 27.5
OH 17.0 18.6 21.2 19.9 18.3 19.6 20.4 17.3 19.2 17.5
PA 10.0 11.3 7.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.0 12.2 11.5 11.0
SC 24.1 35.0 27.7 26.5 28.7 23.1 22.7 26.6 23.7 19.0
TN 16.2 20.0 19.6 17.7 15.5 18.7 18.2 16.0 19.7 18.1
VA 13.6 14.3 15.6 15.1 12.9 13.6 12.0 13.5 13.3 14.3
WI 11.8 7.7 18.3 18.4 14.7 13.2 20.2 19.4 16.0 13.7
WV 6.2 6.5 7.6 8.1 10.7 9.2 7.4 8.7 9.5 9.9
Subunit 18.0 18.4 19.6 20.2 18.4 17.7 19.3 18.4 18.7 18.7
Nonhunt
MI 15.4 12.6 15.2 19.1 14.5 11.8 13.7 12.7 12.1 13.5
N.Englandb 8.0 7.6 7.1 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.5 10.1 9.0 11.3
NJ 14.9 13.6 13.2 16.2 12.6 15.4 9.9 15.9 13.8 10.4
NY 7.4 9.9 8.0 12.4 10.9 13.6 11.6 10.3 10.5 11.7
Subunit 10.6 10.4 10.2 13.0 11.4 11.7 11.8 11.5 10.9 12.2
Unit 16.7 16.9 17.8 19.0 17.2 16.7 18.0 17.2 17.2 17.5
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 14.9 13.9 15.3 21.5 16.7 15.1 18.2 16.7 19.9 18.4
CO 23.1 24.6 26.6 29.9 27.0 17.9 13.5 13.0 23.1 19.3
IA 24.5 23.4 31.7 28.8 32.9 24.4 32.4 24.1 25.2 26.7
KS 42.1 45.7 53.0 47.9 41.8 58.4 56.9 38.5 51.7 61.8
MN 18.2 23.3 23.7 18.8 15.5 19.1 22.2 16.0 19.8 19.7
MO 22.2 24.9 25.1 24.7 20.0 21.9 23.0 22.2 26.9 23.4
MT 19.2 18.5 15.2 19.4 21.2 13.9 14.8 10.8 10.1 12.7
NE 36.8 36.3 36.3 40.3 40.0 40.9 38.4 40.4 37.5 41.0
NM 14.7 17.8 13.3 14.9 16.3 15.1 9.9 11.1 13.9 12.6
ND 40.3 46.0 43.3 44.8 43.3 47.7 51.0 44.3 38.2 40.0
OK 22.7 25.4 22.3 17.1 22.4 22.8 25.9 22.3 29.2 22.1
SD 38.5 33.7 40.0 43.1 44.7 47.1 38.0 34.2 37.2 38.1
TX 21.2 21.0 21.5 16.5 17.4 24.2 22.2 20.2 22.3 16.8
WY 14.5 11.7 7.2 9.0 9.1 9.7 10.2 7.5 10.0 7.4
Unit 24.8 25.5 24.5 24.4 24.4 24.8 23.8 20.7 24.1 22.5
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 26.0 17.5 19.6 24.3 18.6 23.7 25.4 26.3 23.3 21.8
CA 15.1 11.5 15.4 11.4 11.4 11.1 12.1 14.6 11.9 11.6
ID 7.3 7.5 10.0 10.0 11.0 10.2 9.4 8.4 8.3 7.6
NV 3.9 4.6 6.3 5.4 3.8 5.0 4.2 3.5 3.2 5.4
OR 6.9 6.3 7.8 6.5 7.3 4.6 7.2 6.0 7.1 5.9
UT 12.3 10.7 11.0 11.5 9.8 8.9 11.3 9.5 9.9 6.4
WA 11.6 9.2 9.2 7.9 8.2 10.4 9.2 7.9 8.1 9.0
Unit
11.6 10.1 12.4 11.3 10.4 10.6 11.3 10.9 10.4 10.3
aAnnual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 41-year period.
b New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
16
Table 3. Continued.
Management year
unit/state 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 17.6 16.4 18.3 17.6 18.8 17.9 20.9 16.1 18.3 18.4 18.6
DE/MD 11.2 9.3 12.9 9.2 8.8 8.8 7.4 11.7 12.0 11.2 10.3
FL 10.9 10.1 12.4 12.9 12.5 9.0 9.7 10.3 10.1 10.8 11.6
GA 21.9 18.9 18.1 18.3 16.2 22.4 12.3 19.5 17.8 19.5 18.2
IL 21.5 21.8 22.0 20.3 26.4 22.2 23.5 25.5 20.9 24.3 25.6
IN 21.4 21.2 21.3 22.2 24.0 21.1 19.0 19.0 21.1 24.3 19.2
KY 17.4 16.2 21.3 21.8 22.4 18.9 22.0 20.7 17.7 17.2 18.1
LA 11.9 12.0 13.6 14.2 17.2 18.4 14.5 16.8 13.8 16.6 12.0
MS 17.6 16.8 17.3 21.0 18.3 17.5 14.1 16.0 12.5 14.3 15.8
NC 28.0 30.7 30.1 30.8 36.6 40.7 34.5 33.3 28.9 27.8 33.7
OH 14.1 14.0 16.5 17.2 18.2 15.0 17.1 16.5 15.4 15.2 15.6
PA 10.8 10.0 11.7 9.8 12.1 11.0 10.9 9.9 10.2 10.2 12.7
SC 23.7 22.7 25.6 24.3 23.5 23.7 22.2 23.2 22.5 21.1 19.4
TN 15.7 16.7 15.8 16.2 18.0 14.1 14.9 14.6 13.5 13.3 13.2
VA 11.5 14.5 13.6 14.0 15.1 11.8 13.8 10.9 11.9 13.2 12.9
WI 12.3 12.8 10.3 19.7 17.5 17.0 14.4 20.0 20.5 20.7 17.3
WV 4.9 10.3 8.6 10.0 9.6 6.5 9.4 5.6 10.4 9.3 11.3
Subunit 16.1 16.3 17.1 18.1 18.8 17.2 16.4 17.0 16.4 17.2 17.0
Nonhunt
MI 13.9 13.4 15.4 15.3 17.6 14.9 14.8 16.1 13.2 16.5 17.5
N.Englandb 7.8 7.8 8.5 9.9 10.5 8.7 11.7 9.3 9.2 7.6 8.7
NJ 13.4 7.1 11.7 9.6 12.6 6.7 10.8 9.0 9.2 8.3 9.6
NY 11.0 11.8 10.3 13.7 15.7 13.1 12.9 13.6 13.0 13.5 15.0
Subunit 11.1 10.8 11.6 13.0 14.7 12.0 13.2 12.9 11.7 12.0 13.3
Unit 15.3 15.3 16.1 17.2 18.2 16.3 15.9 16.3 15.6 16.2 16.3
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 18.7 18.8 19.5 17.5 17.1 16.9 13.0 18.1 15.0 15.1 16.2
CO 14.5 19.6 20.5 22.4 22.3 14.3 17.5 16.6 20.0 14.6 20.1
IA 34.5 28.2 31.1 27.3 24.3 23.7 24.6 32.9 31.8 30.1 36.6
KS 32.7 58.4 54.4 66.9 50.5 31.1 44.3 52.1 43.5 54.9 58.6
MN 18.6 19.7 18.4 16.5 17.0 13.8 19.5 10.1 11.3 15.3 11.4
MO 23.0 22.6 20.4 18.8 19.4 16.6 18.1 20.4 16.9 16.9 19.3
MT 12.9 11.8 14.3 13.3 14.8 10.6 12.8 12.4 12.8 11.6 11.9
NE 34.2 31.5 40.0 36.5 36.5 30.8 29.0 39.4 32.4 33.9 30.7
NM 10.9 14.6 12.3 14.4 16.4 17.0 11.4 16.4 13.9 15.6 15.2
ND 41.7 36.9 33.7 45.9 44.8 35.7 30.1 44.8 28.4 48.8 37.0
OK 23.5 22.6 32.7 29.6 25.0 25.9 24.7 32.3 34.3 32.3 25.8
SD 39.1 33.3 35.5 37.4 40.3 35.9 38.3 37.0 36.2 32.7 39.6
TX 14.4 21.5 21.9 21.5 18.9 19.3 18.9 19.5 15.9 19.1 15.1
WY 8.9 8.6 9.4 7.1 10.1 6.2 8.4 6.8 7.5 5.5 6.3
Unit 20.7 23.3 24.3 24.1 24.1 20.2 21.2 22.6 20.8 21.7 21.1
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 12.9 19.7 22.6 24.6 25.4 18.9 18.8 16.7 19.8 22.7 21.0
CA 12.0 10.5 11.0 11.4 10.5 9.8 12.5 11.5 12.2 8.7 8.1
ID 7.3 10.5 6.0 8.4 7.8 6.5 10.2 7.4 9.3 7.2 9.8
NV 5.0 4.5 3.9 4.8 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.5 6.1
OR 5.5 5.6 4.3 4.4 7.2 4.9 6.2 6.5 5.8 5.3 6.0
UT 7.2 8.9 5.1 8.1 12.6 5.5 7.8 6.3 7.4 4.9 8.4
WA 6.0 7.4 5.1 7.0 7.9 7.5 7.7 8.3 6.8 7.7 7.2
Unit
9.1 10.3 8.5 10.1 11.0 8.4 10.3 9.4 10.0 8.4 10.5
aAnnual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 41-year period.
b New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
17
Table 4. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves heard and
seen along Breeding Bird Survey routes, 1966-2005.
10 year (1996-05) 40 year (1966-05)
N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90%CI
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL 93 -1.6 * -2.7 -0.5 100 -1.4 ** -2.1 -0.8
DE/MD 66 -0.4 -1.2 0.5 78 0.3 -0.3 0.8
FL 73 -0.4 -2.5 1.8 86 2.0 ** 1.3 2.8
GA 55 -0.1 -1.7 1.5 67 -1.4 * -2.3 -0.5
IL 98 4.9 ** 3.5 6.4 99 1.2 ** 0.4 1.9
IN 55 3.2 ** 1.8 4.6 59 0.2 -0.3 0.7
KY 34 3.5 * 1.2 5.8 48 0.5 -0.2 1.3
LA 51 4.2 ** 2.1 6.3 69 2.4 ** 1.1 3.7
MS 24 -2.7 * -4.5 -0.8 34 -1.7 ** -2.6 -0.8
NC 69 0.2 -1.4 1.7 82 0.0 -0.8 0.8
OH 60 3.2 ** 2.1 4.3 78 0.7 * 0.2 1.3
PA 99 0.5 -0.4 1.4 121 1.7 ** 1.1 2.3
SC 31 3.8 ** 1.9 5.7 38 0.0 -0.9 0.8
TN 42 1.6 -0.1 3.3 47 -0.6 -1.4 0.2
VA 48 -1.1 -2.2 0.0 55 -0.7 * -1.2 -0.1
WV 91 3.8 ** 3.0 4.7 94 1.4 ** 0.7 2.1
WI 47 3.3 ** 1.8 4.8 56 5.2 ** 4.2 6.1
Subunit 1036 1.6 ** 1.1 2.1 1211 0.2 -0.1 0.5
Nonhunt
MI 59 2.4 ** 1.2 3.5 82 0.6 0.0 1.1
N.Englandc 126 -0.1 -0.9 0.8 155 2.9 ** 2.2 3.6
NJ 26 0.0 -2.6 2.6 37 0.4 -0.8 1.5
NY 89 1.3 0.2 2.5 116 2.6 ** 2.2 3.0
Subunit 300 1.1 ** 0.5 1.7 390 1.7 ** 1.3 2.2
Unit 1336 1.5 ** 1.1 1.9 1601 0.4 ** 0.2 0.7
CENTRAL UNIT
AR 32 2.5 * 0.8 4.1 35 0.8 -0.4 2.1
CO 121 0.6 -1.3 2.5 131 1.0 0.0 2.1
IA 33 4.0 * 1.1 6.9 38 -0.5 -1.4 0.5
KS 60 2.3 0.2 4.4 61 0.1 -0.7 0.9
MN 57 1.6 -0.2 3.5 68 -1.1 -2.1 -0.2
MO 53 0.4 -1.2 2.0 64 -1.7 ** -2.5 -1.0
MT 44 -1.6 -3.7 0.6 53 -1.1 * -2.0 -0.3
NE 44 0.3 -2.1 2.7 48 -0.7 * -1.3 -0.1
NM 64 4.5 0.2 8.7 74 0.4 -1.3 2.1
ND 42 0.6 -1.7 3.0 46 0.7 0.1 1.3
OK 54 1.6 0.2 3.0 60 -1.4 ** -2.0 -0.8
SD 42 -1.5 -3.5 0.4 51 0.4 -0.4 1.1
TX 178 -1.0 -2.1 0.1 205 -1.4 ** -1.8 -0.9
WY 72 0.6 -1.7 2.9 104 0.3 -1.2 1.9
Unit 896 0.6 0.0 1.2 1038 -0.5 ** -0.7 -0.2
WESTERN UNIT
AZ 49 0.7 -0.7 2.2 74 -0.9 -2.5 0.8
CA 164 -0.3 -1.5 0.9 218 -1.1 * -1.9 -0.4
ID 39 2.4 0.1 4.7 43 -0.8 -1.7 0.2
NV 23 0.0 -4.5 4.6 34 1.8 0.3 3.3
OR 80 -1.1 -4.8 2.7 97 -2.4 ** -3.4 -1.4
UT 85 -2.0 -5.1 1.2 93 -2.3 ** -3.3 -1.3
WA 59 1.1 -1.0 3.1 66 0.2 -1.1 1.5
Unit 499 0.2 -0.6 1.0 625 -1.1 ** -1.7 -0.6
aMean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year
where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 40 years) may exaggerate the total change
over the period.
b*P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10
was used because of the low power of the test.
cNew England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
Management Unit
EASTERN
AL 43,800 ± 8%1 124,800 ± 28% 724,900 ± 14%
DE 3,000 ± 19% 11,700 ± 40% 54,900 ± 25%
FL 15,500 ± 17% 55,200 ± 27% 255,000 ± 21%
GA 47,300 ± 11% 146,600 ± 17% 963,400 ± 21%
IL 39,400 ± 8% 123,900 ± 11% 890,600 ± 11%
IN 14,100 ± 15% 46,400 ± 14% 291,700 ± 14%
KY 27,500 ± 18% 78,400 ± 25% 593,500 ± 25%
LA 26,700 ± 18% 82,400 ± 28% 388,600 ± 23%
MD 11,100 ± 19% 46,900 ± 46% 176,400 ± 25%
MS 32,400 ± 10% 89,800 ± 16% 627,600 ± 17%
NC 20,600 ± 27% 41,800 ± 28% 215,900 ± 25%
OH 17,000 ± 21% 74,900 ± 28% 325,400 ± 27%
PA 26,000 ± 16% 112,100 ± 39% 296,100 ± 29%
RI 300 ± 54% 900 ± 47% 3,100 ± 60%
SC 32,200 ± 16% 107,100 ± 21% 663,700 ± 19%
TN 35,000 ± 28% 90,400 ± 31% 780,800 ± 38%
VA 22,700 ± 11% 58,000 ± 12% 347,700 ± 16%
WV 1,400 ± 30% 4,600 ± 44% 15,300 ± 37%
WI 17,700 ± 34% 77,500 ± 42% 97,300 ± 41%
Unit 433,700 1,373,300 ± 7% 7,712,000 ± 6%
CENTRAL
AR 37,900 ± 13% 114,000 ± 21% 740,600 ± 19%
CO 19,400 ± 8% 54,800 ± 19% 299,900 ± 16%
KS 35,800 ± 10% 119,300 ± 13% 689,400 ± 13%
MN 13,700 ± 20% 61,100 ± 50% 107,000 ± 42%
MO 41,600 ± 9% 128,800 ± 17% 775,900 ± 30%
MT 2,600 ± 31% 11,300 ± 99% 20,900 ± 44%
NE 19,100 ± 11% 71,400 ± 14% 365,900 ± 15%
NM 9,900 ± 15% 42,000 ± 19% 302,800 ± 23%
ND 4,500 ± 25% 13,000 ± 24% 57,500 ± 32%
OK 27,100 ± 9% 94,000 ± 11% 555,300 ± 14%
SD 10,000 ± 16% 36,700 ± 21% 184,100 ± 26%
TX 287,700 ± 9% 1,089,200 ± 13% 5,664,600 ± 14%
WY 3,200 ± 27% 8,700 ± 34% 43,700 ± 46%
Unit 512,500 1,844,300 ± 8% 9,807,700 ± 8%
WESTERN
AZ 42,500 ± 6% 150,100 ± 12% 978,200 ± 12%
CA 67,900 ± 8% 202,500 ± 12% 1,060,500 ± 10%
ID 11,700 ± 17% 38,800 ± 20% 132,500 ± 21%
NV 3,800 ± 20% 8,800 ± 20% 36,500 ± 26%
OR 6,200 ± 18% 20,900 ± 26% 72,600 ± 30%
UT 12,000 ± 14% 37,600 ± 22% 119,700 ± 20%
WA 6,400 ± 24% 17,500 ± 28% 70,500 ± 20%
Unit 150,500 476,200 ± 7% 2,470,600 ± 7%
U.S. 1,096,700 2 3,693,800 ± 5% 19,990,200 ± 5%
Birds bagged
1This represents the 95% confidence interval expressed as percent of the point estimate.
2This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one state.
Table 5. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, and total bag from Harvest
Information Program surveys for the 2004-05 season.
Hunters Days hunted
18
Management Unit
EASTERN
AL 63,200 ±7%¹ 168,800 ± 13% 1,252,600 ± 16%
DE 3,000 ± 21% 8,700 ± 34% 54,200 ± 39%
FL 19,200 ± 17% 63,000 ± 19% 341,800 ± 24%
GA 39,200 ± 14% 116,500 ± 18% 757,200 ± 20%
IL 37,600 ± 8% 121,300 ± 11% 798,800 ± 14%
IN 18,400 ± 13% 66,600 ± 18% 371,900 ± 25%
KY 29,700 ± 17% 89,400 ± 36% 703,100 ± 41%
LA 23,800 ± 23% 88,400 ± 35% 445,900 ± 26%
MD 10,800 ± 20% 41,900 ± 28% 241,700 ± 35%
MS 24,100 ± 21% 66,400 ± 32% 455,900 ± 32%
NC 46,000 ± 15% 130,400 ± 20% 741,800 ± 20%
OH 19,100 ± 21% 85,700 ± 26% 488,800 ± 39%
PA 40,900 ± 14% 160,000 ± 18% 430,300 ± 19%
RI 300 ± 55% 1,100 ± 66% 900 ± 88%
SC 65,100 ± 6% 222,400 ± 10% 1,447,700 ± 12%
TN 36,900 ± 23% 93,900 ± 31% 633,200 ± 36%
VA 26,500 ± 9% 76,900 ± 15% 424,400 ± 21%
WV 1,800 ± 30% 5,600 ± 54% 22,300 ± 48%
WI 15,600 ± 26% 62,700 ± 31% 180,600 ± 48%
Unit 521,200 1,669,800 ± 5% 9,793,000 ± 6%
CENTRAL
AR 43,400 ± 15% 147,300 ± 24% 861,600 ± 20%
CO 18,400 ± 7% 48,700 ± 9% 263,400 ± 10%
KS 32,400 ± 8% 109,500 ± 12% 680,400 ± 11%
MN 6,000 ± 34% 14,700 ± 43% 48,800 ± 61%
MO 40,200 ± 10% 113,400 ± 16% 641,800 ± 20%
MT 2,000 ± 34% 4,800 ± 38% 17,800 ± 44%
NE 17,800 ± 10% 64,300 ± 14% 371,100 ± 15%
NM 9,300 ± 17% 42,000 ± 20% 250,100 ± 22%
ND 3,100 ± 27% 11,800 ± 38% 55,500 ± 48%
OK 34,500 ± 9% 111,500 ± 16% 828,500 ± 20%
SD 7,100 ± 18% 25,200 ± 26% 127,700 ± 28%
TX 257,200 ± 10% 1,030,000 ± 13% 5,710,700 ± 15%
WY 2,500 ± 27% 6,600 ± 27% 34,100 ± 31%
Unit 473,900 1,729,800 ± 8% 9,891,400 ± 9%
WESTERN
AZ 41,900 ± 8% 137,100 ± 11% 952,600 ± 11%
CA 64,700 ± 7% 183,100 ± 9% 1,013,400 ± 10%
ID 9,200 ± 19% 32,500 ± 25% 122,900 ± 28%
NV 4,100 ± 17% 10,000 ± 19% 47,700 ± 25%
OR 8,600 ± 27% 24,100 ± 40% 85,600 ± 51%
UT 13,400 ± 16% 35,000 ± 24% 137,800 ± 29%
WA 7,900 ± 23% 24,400 ± 32% 105,500 ± 29%
Unit 149,800 446,200 ± 6% 2,465,500 ± 7%
U.S. 1,144,900² 3,845,700 ± 4% 22,149,900 ± 5%
Birds bagged
1This represents the 95% confidence interval expressed as percent of the point estimate.
2This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one state.
Table 6. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, and total bag from Harvest
Information Program surveys for the 2005-06 season.
Hunters Days hunted
19
Division of Migratory Bird Management
PO Box 25486
Denver, CO 80225-0486
303-275-2388
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov/
For state transfer relay service
TTY/Voice: 711
June 2006