BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3M99 06317 688,5. BURNING DOVE STATUS REPORT I4i 1970 Boston Public Library. Superintendent of Documents SEP 1 5 1971 DEPOSITORY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 141 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife MOURNING DOVE STATUS REPORT, 1970 Corrrpiled by James L. Ruos Migratory Bird Populations Station Division of Wildlife Research Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 141 Washington, D.C. May 1971 CONTENTS Abstract iv i Introduction 1 Procedure The Cal 1 -Count Survey 2 Quality checks of field data 2 Randomization of call-count routes 3 Physiographic stratification of call-count routes 3 Breeding Density Index 6 Determination of short-term population changes, 1969 to 1970 ... 8 Determination of long-term population trends by State, 1960 to 1970 8 Determination of long-term trends by physiographic region, 1965 to 1970 8 Computer analysis of dove call-count data 9 Statistical evaluation of data 9 Determination of population distribution 9 Findings Status of the United States dove population 1970 population distribution 10 1969 to 1970 population changes 10 1960 to 1970 long-term population trends 10 Status of the Eastern Management Unit population 1970 population distribution 15 1969 to 1970 population changes 15 1960 to 1970 long-term population trends 15 Status of the Central Management Unit population 1970 population distribution 22 1969 to 1970 population changes 22 1960 to 1970 long-term population trends 22 Status of the Western Management Unit population 1970 population distribution 23 1969 to 1970 population changes 23 1960 to 1970 population trends • 23 Statistical significance of data 1969 to 1970 population changes 23 1960 to 1970 long-term population trends 24 Acknowledgement s 2k References 25 Tables 27 in ABSTRACT Mourning dove population indexes increased by k percent from 1969 to 1970 in the Eastern Management Unit, but declined 2 percent in the Central Management Unit and 11 percent in the Western Management Unit. The changes were not statistically significant. The 1970 indexes were below the 10-year means, 1960-69, by 3 percent in the Eastern Unit, 15 percent in the Central, and 27 percent in the Western. Regression analyses of the call-count data for 1960-70 indicate a statistically significant downward trend in dove breeding populations in all manage- ment units; mean rates of decline were 1 percent a year in the Eastern Unit, 3 percent a year in the Central, and 4 percent a year in the Western. Changes in the population indexes are described by State and physiographic region. The 1970 indexes were generally lower than in 1969 in the northern and western areas of the country, and generally higher in sections of the Rocky Mountains, the middle States, and the eastern seaboard. Regression analyses of 11 years' data, 1960 to 1970, indicate a statistically significant downward trend in population in much of the area represented by the northern Great Plains and Pacific border and southern border States. Trends are significantly upward in several scattered mid-latitude States. IV INTRODUCTION Management of mourning doves in the United States is essentially the regulation of hunting to achieve proper harvest. The Call-Count Survey, conducted annually since 1953 by Federal, State, and independent observers on more than 800 prescribed routes, provides population data on which wildlife administrators rely in setting annual regulations. This report describes the methods employed to obtain and analyze those data and presents the status of the 1970 mourning dove breeding popu- lation. Two versions of the dove status report, one preliminary and one final, are prepared annually. In 1970 the preliminary version was mailed to members of the Dove Regulations Committee a week before the regulations meeting in June at Washington, D.C. This timely distribution was made possible by the promptness of cooperators who sent their data directly to the Migratory Bird Populations Station immediately after completion of their surveys. The present report is the final version and contains additional survey data received too late for use in the preliminary version. As is customary, it will be distributed to all cooperators and will be available to interested organizations and individuals. Basic data gathering and analyzing procedures used in this report were the same as those used in 1969 (Ruos, 1970). PROCEDURE The Call -Count Survey Field studies have demonstrated the feasibility of the Call-Count Survey as a method for detecting annual changes in mourning dove breeding populations (Foote and Peters, 1952). Since 1953, these surveys have been conducted throughout the United States over a system of more than 800 established routes. Each call-count route has twenty, 3-minute listening stations spaced at 1-mile intervals, usually on lightly trav- eled secondary roads. Each route is checked once between May 20 and June 10. Intensive studies in the eastern United States (Foote and Peters, 1952) indicated that dove calling is relatively stable during this period. Call-count surveys are not made when wind velocities exceed 12 miles per hour or when it is raining. Records are kept of all doves seen or heard calling along the routes. The numbers heard calling during the 3-minute listening periods are totaled for each route to provide the data for determining the popu- lation index. The numbers of calls per dove and of doves seen are not currently used in the index calculation, but they are recorded. A detailed analysis of these and other pertinent data from past call counts is currently under study by the Migratory Bird Populations Station. Studies by Frankel and Baskett (1961) and Jackson and Baskett (1964) have shown that unmated males call at a greater rate than mated males. This suggests that the reliability of the annual call-count census is reduced by the variability in the ratio of mated to unmated males. How- ever, Wight (1964) observed that variations in the ratio of mated to unmated males, where the adult sex ratio approached equality, did not significantly alter the reliability of the dove call count for measuring annual trends of breeding mourning doves. Irby (1964) also found no evidence on his study area in Arizona that the numbers of unmated males materially affected call-count results. Quality checks of field data Survey reports were examined to determine circumstances affecting the accuracy with which the routes were run and the data recorded. Records for routes run under unacceptable conditions were not analyzed. Reports on routes completed under the prescribed conditions but con- taining discrepancies or errors, or lacking data, were examined to ascertain whether parts were acceptable. If so, they were used in analyses for which they were applicable. Where there was a change in observers on a route from one year to the next, the data were examined to determine whether an unexpected population change was apparent. When such differences exceeded those of the prescribed limits, they were attributed to differences in observers, and the data were not used in the current analyses. Randomization of call-count routes The original call-count routes (established between 1951 and 1956, and hereafter designated "management routes") were, in many instances, selected in areas of high-density dove populations and were not repre- sentative of populations over entire States or management units. Randomly located routes were first employed in seven southeastern States in 1957 (Foote, Peters, and Finkner, 1958). A study of the random and management route data from these States confirmed earlier assumptions that a revision of the nationwide call-count survey routes should be undertaken if representative dove population indexes were to be obtained. This recommendation prompted the gradual selection and establishment of 912 randomly located call-count routes. In 1970, for the first time, random routes were established in all 48 conterminous States. Both types of routes were run during the year of transition from management to random routes. This procedure permitted a direct com- parison of data (Foote, Peters, and Finkner, 1958). Physiographic stratification of call-count routes Biologists recognize the limitation of sampling wildlife popula- tions by political units. Census data collected and analyzed by ecological divisions represent better statistical design and could be expected to provide more precise information with the same effort. An ecological sampling design for the collection of dove popula- tion data, using physiographic regions as the basis for stratification, was suggested by Foote, Peters, and Finkner (1958). The 79 regions designated in this report (fig. 1) are based essentially on a map entitled "Physical Divisions of the United States" prepared by Fenneman (1931). The boundaries of these divisions were modified in several instances after examination of field data and more recent ecological studies. o •3 o T3 60 C •H • gco ai 3 -a o o E o M-l CO O 4J (0 1-1 •rl 4J 0) 0] >^ r-1 U CO O C 4-1 CO m c •H 01 60 T3 CO ai a n 3 ai 41 U W a o •H 00 m ci co N CM (N (N HNP14W>ONO NMCMWtNNNN 13 (2 Q C o u CO " U U -t-J +- cO i— i jj a) a) u cfl f-. .-i C 03 > 4) .-• c » O h ci q) j< c d ,- 3 >, a u l. CD i-i crj C crj o 3 D3fl< wXh U to -a ffl c j3 4-> >» CO B n-l m c r - • i-l -r4 C SPOZC5P to O CO CO i-> c ai c — -* -H U O <0 > o to CO C a E pi ■H co (0 c (0 CO *-j •rA ■P B c c 0] c a> O ■l-l 3 U p a ■r4 03 0 c £ c c a z 3 •r4 0 -f4 C s > •o > 3 0 0t o c +J o ID •g u fD o Q 5: i 0) CO a. 0t u XI y « £ CO B 4 ■ cr co •a u co l-l 03 a cfl ru 01 ■^J O CO u o in U > •a X *j at 0] u t- c a at c 3 CO c U c ■z. 5 CO § £ 0) at a) CO u a) x: £ 14 u M u t> +j ■D jj 14 •■-I X w CJ 03 u T3 3 OJ u_i 0) nj •1-1 a o 0 -f* '-^ r GO (U ■ ?: S CO CO U C E E bO *J bO ■<-i a) -^ 3 W E I- 03 CC 03 O 03 CO ca 4-> 4-* U O OJ — ' X! E 4-> E H u c bO 3 » P Vi U socooajcoaio o z. o ;e -i-i --4 t-< D a o (x o "^ •a Q >H 0 tn o 00 o s C rH V n C u C c to 3 > w ^H H-l fl) (0 c c 0 . J2 s r-l B U - • '- ■■> .J 3 3 rJ (0 0) .^1 ■ CO « - ', Jtf O « H B C 01 3 iH -• E ■ U W 4-> JJ 0) 0- On • & L, tj -j. —• o a a, u o c x o k> box in l 4-i u — ' t/i >-i0 4J E M 3 » H Q O 4J E at v -* -^ . - c at b U --4 > c > V) 0 ■r4 0 P L > t- to Dti o o- B at b 0 4-» CO CU CO •p4 at Q c B ca y ■-J a) CO -^ c a B cO a E CO > •h CO 0 *J E •-4 *J tJ I E 4-> P o p u •—I — i a >t (8 ■-4 C o §£ 1 « CO a. ctj at u 0) 4-> > S L-i u •o c 01 T3 tn 4-» c B CX ift. QJ 01 o >. 4J C to 1 B 3 b fi n T3 at co CO 3 T3 3 > CO 1 B ^ d U a. 4-1 CO ■si c > c u ^S ■-i S U ^-" cu x: (1) U ■ -J o CO (0 0 at to bo 4-> '•-4 ; PM CO CO a) pd CO o aj "O to > (0 •■-I 03 ■u 03 ■P 4-) CQ o PW 0} ■ ■a rr bO C cO CO B c as B C u c (A U Pi C 0 4-) C x: 3 L. CO c x: ■i-l 0 o o co ki ■-I 4J ■-4 CO CJ £ a) c at at CC C3 iJ y » 0 M U CO J= -^ CO A ■H rH J- ■^1 o CO 01 T3 •rl L. a. o tn tt a 5 3 «j e ■o -y ■x (X o CC a> lt] U CO CO O St 3 0 T3 u a) N 3 O ? ••-4 0 4-> O O CJ CO r z HtNflj m * n CO 1*1 Cl (O CI C CO O o O O O O O h cn m vo f-cs ci tn o 00 00 00 00 C7> C7* CT> O O O O O O OO O O i-« P- co Pi E O E 0i **4 4-» t-i *j Pi ■-4 Pj -4 w a co i a 4J 4-> h E n -4 y u y OJ 0) > at at at a > E o to CO CO c o u h •ci co U. 0! Pi >. TJ TJ > > cu xs E B E o 4-> CO at c at to eg CO at u c B >. u 3 .E O CO > +J 4J CO a 3 co -a 03 r-t *J ■r4 0) 0 ? o u (J T3 CD X > c •< y 4J CO u SiS a. L> at 0) co cO Pi at CJ a P J IX CO co as TD at TJ to 0) TJ z z at C a E E E CO c T3 4-» 4» at c a •o a) to E at E a •H A x: a> 3 a y 3 at bOJ3 . X) T> M fl 4-> >» c «a CO B x: (0 13 03 3 o o a. ftt 3 2 H T. • u a. ^ u 3 CO z co «j a 41 a > CO < *?. r h * Breeding Density Index The Breeding Density Index (BDI) is an indicator of the number of doves per unit of area and is derived from the average number of calling doves per route. To obtain as accurate an average as possible for deri- vation of this index, the call -count data from each stratum in each State are weighted according to the land areas they represent. Before 1966, the BDI for each State represented the average number of birds heard calling per route within that State, thus weighting all routes equally. The State averages were then weighted in proportion to the estimated area of dove habitat in each State of a management unit (fig. 2) to provide a Breeding Population Index for each unit (U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1957). Beginning with the 1966 survey, weighting factors based on physio- graphic regions were used for calculating BDI values in States which had been "randomized" for 2 or more years. The average number of doves heard calling per route in each region within a State was weighted by the percentage of the total land area in the State occupied by that region. Calculation of management unit BDI ' s since 1965 has involved two similar procedures as a result of a computer program change. In 1966 and 1967, indexes were determined for each management unit by weighting each State's BDI by the percentage of the total land area occupied by that State in the management unit. When a region within a State was not represented by a BDI, that region assumed the mean of the other regions weighted by land area in that State. In 1968 and 1969, manage- ment unit BDI ' s were derived directly from State physiographic region BDI's. When a region within a State was not represented by a BDI, that region assumed the weighted management unit mean. Minor differences between these procedures are evident only when physiographic regions within States are not represented by comparable routes. Random routes in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont were established after initiation of a special study in 1966 to deter- mine the effects of hunting regulations on dove populations in the Eastern Management Unit. In order to preserve the experimental design of the special study, call-count data from these States have not been included in the Eastern Management Unit means. In addition, no data were received from Delaware in 1969. Consequently, the 1969 and 1970 management unit means were derived from comparable routes run in 43 States. co ■p •H c 3 ■P C i a) bO co c CO a bO C • r-i c u £ I I 0) U bO Determination of short-term population changes, 1969 to 1970 Changes in the size of mourning dove breeding populations between 1969 and 1970 are indicated by data from 679 comparable routes run in both years. Weighted average BDI values for each year are presented by States and management units. Differences in these BDI values, expressed as percent change, determined the magnitude of changes in the breeding population. Determination of long-term population trends by State, 1960 to 1970 Short-term (year-to-year) population changes are based, as indi- cated, on data from comparable routes only. Since the composition of these comparable routes changes with each 2-year comparison, a Base- Year (BY) has been chosen for each State. Long-term trends are shown by applying the percent change in the BDI from year to year to this index. Before 1967, the BY was generally the first year that the State's call-count routes were randomized. In order to provide a more uniform basis for evaluation of long-term trends, 1967 has been selected as the BY for all States. The index for this Base Year was obtained by taking the mean of comparable routes run in both 1966 and 1967 (Ruos and MacDonald , 1968). This BY value is thought to provide a meaningful re- finement over the previous method. Not only are two "random-route" years averaged to reduce the influence of a possible atypical year, but the choice of a uniform BY for all States reduces possible bias in overweighting a State by the selection of a BY in a peak year. As in the past, the BDI value for each State for each year is adjusted to the BY value and weighted to provide management unit values. This weighting is based upon differences in land area among States. The land area values and the adjusted BDI values for States and manage- ment units are presented. Determination of long-term trends by physiographic region, 1965 to 1970 Dove BDI ' s have been determined for each physiographic region since 1965. The 6-year trend has been obtained by adjusting these values to a base year similar to the procedures described in the preceding section, "Determination of long-term population trends by State, 1960 to 1970." 1969 has been selected as the Base-Year for all regions. In order to reduce the influence of low sampling intensity within regions, the 1969 BYI represents the average of the mean number of doves heard per route in 1968, 1969, and 1970. The land area values and the BDI ' s adjusted to the 1969 BY are presented for each physiographic region within management units. Computer analysis of dove call-count data Through the efforts of the North Carolina Institute of Statistics, University of North Carolina, and with the support of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, an improved computer program was made available for the analysis of the 1968, 1969, and 1970 call- count data. This program provides properly weighted State and manage- ment unit averages. It yields the mean difference, the standard error of the mean difference, and the level of significance of the change for each State and management unit. This program also provides a summary of data by physiographic region irrespective of State boundaries, thus allowing analysis of population distribution by physiographic region. Statistical evaluation of data The Call-Count Survey was designed to detect major year-to-year changes in the breeding population index within each management unit (Foote, 1959). Analysis of the 1969 and 1970 data revealed that observed differences of 8.5, 7.6, and 14.2 percent between these years within the Eastern, Central, and Western Management Units, respectively, would be statistically significant at the 95-percent level. For the entire country, an observed difference of 5.4 percent in the BDI between 1969 and 1970 would be significant. Although the survey was not designed to detect a change in the BDI between years within States or physio- graphic regions, data from these areas were also subjected to statistical analysis. Long-term BDI's, adjusted to a BY for all physiographic regions, States, and management units, were examined to determine whether signif- icant trends were present. Data from each source were analyzed using a linear regression model. Determination of population distribution The density distribution of doves has been determined from a study of BDI values adjusted to a BY for each physiographic region and State. These data for 1970 have been assigned to one of five density classes. Changes in the adjusted BDI's greater than 10 percent between 1969 and 1970 within physiographic region and State also were determined. FINDINGS From 1969 to 1970, the dove breeding population index increased by 4 percent in the Eastern Management Unit because of small increases in the population indexes for the combined hunting States and the combined nonhunting States; but it decreased by 2 percent in the Central Unit because of a small increase for the combined hunting States and a large decrease for the combined nonhunting States; and by 11 percent in the Western Unit where all States are hunting States. The Central and Western Management Unit population indexes are at their lowest levels for the 11-year period, 1960-70. All 1970 manage- ment unit values are below their preceding 10-year means. Further, a statistically significant downward population trend was found in each management unit. Additional study of these data is presented by manage- ment unit. Status of the United States dove population 1970 population distribution.— -The density distribution of mourning dove populations in the United States is presented by State (fig. 3) and by physiographic region (fig. 4). The most extensive area of high dove density was in the middle States, especially in the east-central Great Plains and Central Lowlands. Other important breeding population areas were observed in the Upper Coastal Plain of Georgia and the Carol inas and in the lower Mississippi River plain. A mean of 40 or more doves were heard per route in the States of Indiana, Kansas, and Nebraska. 1969 to 1970 population changes --The United States BDI declined 2.1 percent from 19.1 doves heard per route in 1969 to 18.7 doves heard per route in 1970 (table 1). Changes greater than 10 percent in the BDI are illustrated by State (fig. 5) and by physiographic region (fig. 6). The 1970 indexes were generally lower than in 1969 in the northern and western areas of the country, and generally higher in sections of the Rocky Mountains, mid-States, and eastern seaboard. From 1969 to 1970, no change occurred in the BDI of 19.7 doves heard per route for the combined hunting States; whereas a decline of 8.1 percent from 17.3 to 15.9 doves heard per route occurred in the combined nonhunting States index. 1960 to 1970 long-term population trends. — The 1970 BDI's adjusted to a Base-Year for the United States, the combined hunting States, and the combined nonhunting States are the lowest observed for the 11-year period, 1960-1970 (table 2). This is the fourth successive year with- out an increase in adjusted BDI's. The adjusted BDI's for these areas in 1970 are also well below the preceding 10-year means: United States, -14.2 percent; hunting States, -11.9 percent; and nonhunting States, -19.9 percent. 10 o 0) 4J in S > o •H fi Vj 3 o B t>0 c •H T3 0) 01 U ,0 4J cd <-\ 01 f I 01 M 3 60 •H o g •H 60 . XI 03 0) > o ■a 60 c 60 e 0) 0) M U-l O 0) * •rl rt I i r-l rt o> o o 01 u 3 o i-H CM H rt i o 1 o 1 o 60 ■H 0) • • • J2 o o o r-l CM 0) "•'.\'J iTTfl 0) yy.'ii 1 U > .-.•.•.•] o •.•.•.•i Minn t> 12 c rt p, o i^. o\ l-l -a c cfl a> vO a\ rH C QJ a> > u tu -o 0) u a ■u c/> >» X> CO a) - > o 13 oo C •H C u o s 00 c •H X) ai 0) u X> y-i o w tu •H JJ •H CO ^r to c a QJ j -H XI H O V* >H r^ C _J cfl o> •H SBi U iH CO U X) xl CD 1 n c 60 J n) n) 2 ' 5 vO /— s &-« /■v u w o> 6-« o B*« i (U H O iH O i > H V rH • O C A v— . ' A in X) 4) s_^ N^» J 1 || [[111 x; c 0) 01 ,o c o •H oo 01 U o •H ■a CO M 00 o ■H CO P. CO * o •a 00 (3 ■H c M 3 I •rl -a a> 0) n M-l O CO 0) •H ■U) •H CO C 01 •o a •H CO 0) oo a cfl X! U I I 0) )-l oo ■H fa 14 Adjusted BDI ' s plotted in figures 7 and 8 reflect the general downward trend in population indexes since 1960. Linear regression analyses of these data (table 2) are shown in figure 9. The adjusted BDI ' s declined at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent in the United States, 2.5 percent in the hunting States, and 3.3 percent in the non- hunting States. Thus, this study reveals a significant decline in U.S. populations between 1960 and 1970. Population trends as determined from linear regression analyses are shown by State (table 2, fig. 10) and by physiographic region (table 3, fig. 11). From 1960 to 1970, statistically significant downward trends exist in much of the northern Great Plains and the Pacific border and southern border States. Trends are significantly upward in several scattered mid-latitude States. Status of the Eastern Management Unit population 1970 population distribution .--Highest dove population densities in the Eastern Management Unit were in the west-central section, espe- cially in the Central Lowlands. Densities were generally low in the Appalachian Highlands, northern uplands, and portions of the lower Atlantic Coastal Plain (fig. 4). States represented by a mean of 30 or more doves heard per route included Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Mississippi, and New Jersey (fig. 3). 1969 to 1970 population changes .--The Eastern Management Unit BDI increased 3.8 percent from 18.3 doves heard per route in 1969 to 19.0 doves heard per route in 1970 (table 1). The 1970 population levels were generally higher than in 1969 along the Atlantic seaboard and in sections of the Central Lowland and lower Mississippi plain. Popula- tion indexes were lower in the northern border States (figs. 5, 6). From 1969 to 1970, the combined hunting States index increased 4.1 percent and the combined nonhunting States index increased 1.9 percent. 1960 to 1970 long-term population trends . The increase in the adjusted unit -wide BDI from 1969 to 1970 followed 3 successive years of annual population decrease (table 2). Population levels increased for the first time in 5 years in the combined hunting States, while the combined nonhunting States index increased for the second succes- sive year. The adjusted unit BDI for 1970 is 3.1 percent below the preceding 10-year mean (fig. 7). The combined hunting States 1970 index is 7.2 percent below this mean. In contrast, the adjusted 1970 BDI for the combined nonhunting States is 8.0 percent above the pre- ceding 10-year mean (fig. 12). 15 o r- OS &mmd* os vO o OS r~ iH OS i-l 1 O vO OS 00 !-H VO ON ■* iH J-i •H S ■U C r- o -3 ao en vO 3 •H B OS M 3 s oo CN 0. •H OS <-4 0) CD u m i i t^ H vO CD OS Li o vO 3 60 •H CN O 00 CN vO CN CN CN CN O CN annOH JL3£ SUTXXBO pJB3H S3A.oa 3§BJ3AV 16 o o> to H I o vD Ox > I o ca u •H T3 3 •H rH s o N ■H H o ad a cO * A *M* rH ao •5 ■U C 3 42 CO vO 3 -H ■u to •a CU r^. ■U vO i-l 0> £ H 3 a) X! 4J vo u vD o Ov m T~\ to a. I .H o CD vo > Ov O H •a #i CO 00 w c a) VO •H iJ CTi C cfl tH U «J 3 to a oo 3 00 -H CN1 C 4J vD ■H 3 a\ •3 3 ^H U .3 a> 13 M O m b t-t vO i 00 o-i 1-1 CD U 3 oo •H fe O >£> CJ\ -a- CM O oo CN CM CM CM CM o CO 17 o * * -d- CM o oo CM CM CM CM CM O CM o H I O ca -a a 3 o o 1 u CD > o •5 c u 3 I O CO 0) (3 •H C o •rl CO CO 0) u 60 CO )-l § •H > & CO c o •H ■U CO rH 3 ex o a 60 c •H •a cu cu rl ■o a > 0 ■a 60 c tH c M 3 o e •— •* m ^^ e y~\ a\ ui •rl CO m • CT> cfl C H co In o o •rl o CM S •H c •rl o M-l 00 ■4-1 oo )-i •H •rl •H C <±A a CO c •rl c>o oo -a -a •H o •rl CU cu CO z CO CU c CO M -H •rl i ■ 1 1 n 1 1 « g £ 1 n Boi CU CU ^1 1 i II) L_J f> *.l > *-> CO O CU c O Q < 19 ■8 cd > a) c a) o •H ■4-1 H-l CO a M I o O •U in SO <3\ o •H 00 o> o •H -a M t>0 •3 (0 >. P. >> O •H 3 a o o. oo c ■H T3 01 01 U ■a O) % 00 e •H a u § n •H W T3 C3 0) u H 01 3) •H D 20 o r-N r l CT« rH 11 *-> 11 OT /i 4-1 1 00 / 1 •rl c 1 c i p 1 -rt 1 4J / i cn 4-1 / C a / => CD / •§ CO 1 / 1 ° 1 CD 60 / 1 ^ 1 4-1 s 0) 01 CO # ' ■-, 1 "1 4-1 4-1 cO 4-1 / 1 cd € i i-1 \ « \ 1 1 s 1 ~l CO 01 CO rl 00 \ i °4 1 4.) oo 4-1 •H V * 1 3 CO u c CD 4J a 3 ! * o CD > cd ■ r*. -3 w /! ' 1 z r"N C CO rH / ' f es CTi co X ! # (J vO C M 1 0) <7\ rl 4-1 r / 1 -<-> .-H CD C i • CO 1 4-1 a) x / > cfl O CO u X ■ ■ 1 x '■ 1 W \D , VD cO CO xs rH w CD r3 X i / 01 4-1 \ CO 4-1 \i j CO 4-1 0) >> rl o CO 1 \ 1 <4H // // 60 1 / o ' rH m CO C •H 1 / / I \ \ CO ; f CD CO CO \ \ (0 C rH CD Ik w if ■H rH 3 4-1 G. CO i O 4-1 1 >* "3 ■ co C4. CO / !■ 4-1 CD 60 > a / '■ J i \ o O -H •3 4-1 / ■■ / • \ •H M a 60 3 r !• / i % O 5-S j> r \ CM a o ,/ \ t U 3 3 i / s 8 /> i •/ CO f 60 C 60 h rH •H C / VO T3 -rl •: ON CD 4-1 t ^ CD C U 3 J i W 43 rt i 1 t 1 CM t i ■ o t— i CD ON rl rH 3 60 •H vr cm O 00 ^O -* CM O OO ^O .95) upward popula- tion trends between 1960 and 1970, while 16 States had downward trends in population (fig. 10). From 1965 to 1970, four of 71 physiographic regions had significant upward population trends, whereas 11 regions had downward trends in population (fig. 11). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report would not be possible without the cooperation of the State conservation departments and the many individuals who consci- entiously assisted in collecting data. Preparation of this report represents a combined effort; special acknowledgement is made to Mrs. Jaynie Peters for electronic data processing assistance, Dr. John P. Rogers for editing, and Mrs. Katheryn Munson and Mrs. Kathy Judy for typing the final manuscript. 24 REFERENCES Fenneman, Nevin M. 1931. Physiography of western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 534 p. 1938. Physiography of eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 714 p. Foote, Leonard E. 1959. A sampling design for mourning dove call counts. A report to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from The Wildlife Management Institute. (Unpublished report.) December. 47 p. + 24 tables + appendix. , and Harold S. Peters. 1952. Introduction, p. 1-3 in Investigations of methods of appraising the abundance of mourning doves. U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 17. , Harold S. Peters, and Alva L. Finkner. 1958. Design tests for mourning dove call-count sampling in seven southeastern States. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 22, No. 4, p. 402-403. Frankel, Arthur I., and Thomas S. Baskett. 1961. The effect of pairing on cooing of penned mourning doves. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 25, No. 4, p. 372-384. Irby, Harold D. 1964. The relationship of calling behavior to mourning dove populations and production in southern Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. 100 p. Jackson, Gary L. , and Thomas S. Baskett. 1964. Perch-cooing and other aspects of breeding behavior of mourning doves. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 28, No. 2, p. 293-307. Ruos, James L. , and Duncan MacDonald . 1968. Mourning dove status report, 1967. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 121. 23 p. , and Duncan MacDonald. 1970. Mourning dove status report, 1968. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 129. 38 p. 25 Ruos, James L. 1970. Mourning dove status report, 1969. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 132. 35 p. (U.S.) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1957. Mourning Dove Newsletter, No. 12. 30 p. Wight, Howard M. 1964. Matedness in the mourning dove and its effect on the nationwide dove-call census. Trans. 29th North American Wild- life and Resources Conference, p. 270-281. 26 TABLES Table 1. — Changes in mourning dove breeding density indexes, 1969-70 State Comparable routes Average doves heard/route (weighted) 1/ 1969 1970 Percent change 2/ EASTERN MANAGEMENT UNIT - HUNTING STATES Ala. 28 Del. 0 Fla. 20 Ga. 21 111. 13 Ky. 11 La. 19 Md. 8 Miss. 19 N.C. 18 Pa. R.I A* 15 2 S.C. 17 Tenn. 20 Va. 8 W. Va. 7 21.3 18.7 7.4 8.5 18.2 22.2 23.4 28.0 37.3 34.5 10.2 10.2 18.1 21.6 25.8 27.2 29.7 30.5 12.4 9.0 13.0 4.5 28.0 23.1 17.4 26.9 22.1 19.6 4.4 5.1 - 12.2 + 14 .9 + 22 .0 + 19 .7 - 7 .5 0 .0 + 19. .3 + 5 .4 + 2 .7 - 27 .4 - 65. 4 - 17 .5 + 54 .6** - 11 .3 + 15 .9 Subtotal 226 19.4 20.2 + 4.1 EASTERN MANAGEMENT UNIT - NONHUNTING STATES Conn. 2 Ind. Maine— 11 3 Mass . 2 Mich. , 17 4 N.J. 3 N.Y. 11 Ohio vt.H 10 3 Wis. 15 1.5 5.5 34.7 35.5 1.0 0.0 1.9 8.1 9.7 8.7 3.0 3.2 20.3 25.4 7.1 5.7 28.3 31.4 0.1 0.4 10.4 9.3 +266.7 + 2.3 -100.0 +326.3 - 10.3 + 6.7 + 25.1 - 19.7 + 11.0 +300.0 - 10.6 Sub to tal 81 16.0 16.3 + 1.9 Eastern Unit Total 307 18.3 19.0 + 3.8 See footnotes at end of table, p. 29. 27 Table 1. — Changes in mourning dove breeding density indexes, 1969-70 — continued State Comparable routes Average doves heard/route (weighted) 1/ 1969 1970 Percent change 2/ CENTRAL MANAGEMENT UNIT - HUNTING STATES Ark. 12 Colo. 9 Kans . 16 Mo. 19 N. Mex. 14 Okla . S. Dak.^' 9 10 Tex. 43 23.6 24.3 13.5 14.1 58.8 54.4 23.9 29.5 15.6 14.7 32.5 29.6 32.7 34.7 17.6 20.1 + 3.0 + 4.4 - 7.5 +23.4** - 5.8 - 8, + 6. +14, Subtotal 132 24.6 25.4 + 3.3 CENTRAL MANAGEMENT UNIT - NONHUNTING STATES Iowa 12 Minn. 10 Mont. 9 Nebr. 21 N. Dak. 20 Wyo. 9 25.8 19.1 8.3 6.8 9.8 7.4 41.4 40.9 22.3 18.9 8.8 7.8 -26.0 -18.1* -24.5 - 1.2 -15.2 -11.4 Sub to tal 81 17.9 15.6 -12.8* Central Unit Total 213 22.1 21.7 - 1.8 See footnotes at end of table, p. 29. 28 Table 1. — Changes in mourning dove breeding density indexes, 1969-70 — continued Average doves heard/route c omparable routes (weighted) 1/ Percent State 1969 1970 change 2/ WESTERN MANAGEMENT UNIT Ariz. 40 31.7 23.0 -27.4* Calif. 49 12.1 11.5 - 5.0 Idaho 11 13.9 18.2 +30.9 Nev. 12 8.2 7.5 - 8.5 Oreg. 18 10.8 7.4 -31.5 Utah 12 10.3 8.5 -17.5 Wash. 17 10.3 11.4 +10.7 Western Unit Total 159 14.3 12.7 -11.2 U.S. Hunt 517 19.7 19.7 ± 0 U.S. Nonhunt 162 17.3 15.9 - 8.1 U.S. Total 679 19.1 18.7 - 2.1 1/ Except as noted, State and management unit indexes were obtained from comparable, randomized route data adjusted for variation in the land area of each physiographic region represented. 2/ Probability that observed change represents actual change: **95 percent; ***99 percent. *90 percent; 3/ Rhode Island and Vermont data from randomized routes, Maine and New Hampshire from management routes. These data not represented in management unit means to preserve comparability for Eastern Manage- ment Unit dove study. 4/ South Dakota included as nonhunting State in previous reports hunting reestablished in South Dakota since 1967-68 season. Dove 29 o SO a 60 T) •h a CO tU u • H 4-1 Cfl wcowo>wwcoCT\tt>waN fil 'see 'ccs'cc a. a, a. cu ex a 11 OVO) o » & El, • CTs CJs. • 0> P. P. Cfl NO^CHO^CONOm O f~- -3" sO O I I OOOOrHOOOOCorHQOCM I III + I+ + + T I I rHOCocO-tft-tcOCOr^cs-ioO ONQOOQOOHQO I + I I I I I I + + I I momoNDN 00 VO iC I a>oovo^i-r^oooor^c\]r~.s3->-iv£> H N N N n H CM tO N IflHOj sO O <%H »(-• OO CO co O0 LO rH rH LO r— LO -* 00 CM 00 LO -3- r^ o CM 1 r-. LO rH CM CM sO CM r^ so rH CO CM 00 rH as oo CO CO CM C*J -3- Csl lo rH CM sO CM O CM rH r^ 0-> LO rH CM OS CM oo O CM CM rH CM rH rH LQ co CM CM CO CM LO lo CO CO Q>iricMr^o >» H ci CM CM LQ stHM >J LO sO Ci • • • iH ^n >* o\ ^n LO OS CS St rH LO iH rH O CO LO rH CM IX O 00 O LO r-rH o^-vtON-d-cMoor^-a-cor^criLo m o oo h iH rHCOCMrHiHCOiH CMCOCMCM OCMrHaiCOOOCOsOOOr^LTIQiOOsOsOrH CMsOO^OOOCTiCTiLOr^CTiCTiMlLOLOOO CM rHiHCMCMrHrHCOrH CMCOCOCM Cs!CTlNMO>00~JinclHHN.OMNir>H cocMoooooOrHLOsOLoosocr>oo-. cfl OH WJ w • CO u •H . 2 S ^1 • H CD . Fl, ft; cO C > c • Q) co . H > JS H O H g rH O d CM csi h. H Tl . S3 S O ^ H O H Uw 30 T3 g •H 4J C o CJ I I o r-» on o vO ON 0) 4-1 x> CO CD c •rH •H s o T3 oo 5 •H c s-l 3 o a co 13 a 0) r4 H cO H C 13 00 c •H 01 C/3 M • H 4-1 ed uh 4J O ^1 W H s PS W P-, o 3 g 4J (-1 XI o 60 4J •H O 01 C3 3 <4H 01 4J m • o o>ino ia w ON CO ON ON ON C» COCO + I + I I I I I ONlOrSrHsjO^ONCO CN CM o CM O rH cn o rH O cn rH cn rH en r» nO CN O CN rH rH C-4 CN rH m no m CM rH rH cn cn o cn in rH O r~ CM rH o cn CN CO o CM rH ON m cjn cn NO rH rH CNI cn m rH r~ rH en o m ON CNJ co O cm nO H o nO nO cn CO cn co CNI NO rH LO co CO cn Nf cn en oo \0 rH rH rH m on cn CO Cn| CN CNI rH 00 u-l CM o cn VO rH -J" rH H rH CO cn ON H nT cn in cn NO rH co rH rH CN NO h» o NT rH rH m m o o CN cn ON cn rH o O CO r^ rH ON NO r-^ NO rH rH CN NO cn CO rH ON cn o NT rH in CO CN r~- CM 00 in • in on -in on co on on to ON a. cu o, o. CM vO o NTJ- i-H r» rH O rH m O Q I I I I I + lO UTOCMO W m en r^. co o m I I I I l + rH CN o CM CM n ON rH oo m rH CO rH CO O vO r-^ CM NO in o vd r-~ o o CM rH < ON ON a o i CM CM en ■s 4-1 (4-1 O 13 C 0) 4-> CO CO 0) 4-> O Ci 4-> o o 14-1 0) 0) w 31 3 T3 60 CI ■H 3 CO !-J • H 4-1 3 HH 4J O w J-i M XI o 60 4J •H O 0) cd tS MH CD 4-1 3 CO • ON • ON ON • • co on co on o\ co co c s ft a. ft 3 3 H m O >C (J> vO M o cm o p o o p I I IT) * <^ N ft no o m CM I NO rH ON CM 0 W H Ov CM IS CM O CM 00 CM CO CM CO CM rH rH rH IS CM CO 00 00 si- 00 CM ON 00 rH NO CO ON CM CM rH rH rH 00 CM CO CM CM vO O CO ON 00 rH 00 CO rH CM CM rH rH rH rH CO O O CO CM 00 CM J » CO CM rH CM rH rH CM -* ON CM NO U"> HOnnOOi-HOnOOO M rH CO CM rH rH m rH is rs rs ^- ts VO is CO CM CM CO 00 nO to ON CO is is is ON UO ON 00 CM rH -Jf rH CM CO CO is o m is no m ~* • U-t o • • N -H X . 00 XI XI •H rH CO > 0) CO CO U cfl TJ 01 U U ct) <: u m z o p s ON in CM ON rH CM ON rH ON ON o CM CM CM O CM CM CM CM -d- CM CM CO CM 00 m CM m ON |s rs CO ON ON o I o Z co JHCi] < H H H Z < O 3> H H W CO co CO I CO is <-i is 00 lH 00 00 00 o CM CM o- o CM CM CM CM O rH CM CM m CM NO CM CM On O m ON ON o I 00 CM I rs oo rH O ON 7-i NO ON o CM CM 00 O CM CM CM CM o CM CM CM m CM is 00 00 60 3 •H "3 U 4-1 o a CJ 3 CJ CJ CD U s CO o ■H U 60 CD CO U Q CD m O K H ON X __ cd 13 3 CU O e 4J 4J a o cd C on . m co ••"< T3 CO ON >, CD Cd rH ij t0 4J a -p CO 4-1 "3 Lt 3 ft O >> O cd no U ON 60 5 c •H X CU 3 X 3 -3 W ft CD a CD CD X a) U CO 3 CO cd X CD CD X . • X 60 O CO 4-» vH -H CD CD > 4-1 M 5 & 3 O h O 14H Cd ft H 4-1 cd cd S m 4J tj o Cd rH cd w 4-> X 13 T3 1-1 co cd cd u tj n "a cd CD -H CD a, n g bo S X u a) CD CO 4-1 4-» 3 o l-l U CD ft -H 60 U 3 cd •H CD •H 0 S | -a M OCX -o cd o CO g td 3 CO u b - M 3 CD is O 4-1 x) NO O X rH CD t-i t3 5 CD 3 B TJ cd 3 3 NO ^ C CD vo rH O CD ON cd 60 ft x '-, O C 3 •H CD CM ■a tj Ti > o r4 CD CD CO CO O co X C cd cd cd cd X l-i X no CD ft no 0 CO C ON n-x ai cd cd > X CD rH O 4J ,0. CD CO CD g CD 5 > O CD c :* •H cd 60 U cfl CO CD CD CO >4H X u u CO co cO cd CD cd co cd pq co ef 60 . c cd oo cO CD cd X no X rS X H ON O <-< H U O cd c CD CD 4-1 CD 4-1 • •< 4-1 >4 C CD 3 CO T3 Cd CD & CD CD rH CD CJ 4-1 O 4-1 cd CO 1-4 CD U CO C cfl Q) X CD 4-1 o PQ ft CO ft co p CJ T3 CD C co OJ CD rH 3 cd 60 X 60 cd -H 2 •H g 4J 3 3 X CO O cd 3 4-1 T3 co U O X C -H c •H CD CD U X -3 4-> 3 o 4J X) CD •H X CJ 60 CO 'H cd CD CD CJ S X 4-1 Cfl >> 4J X >N Cfl rH -3 -3 CD CD CO CO <4H 3 U o & •3 rH CD cfl CD O CO cfl CO CJ 3 CD CJ 60*3 3 3 U -H CD > 4J cfl cfl cfl o CD M 3 "d 4-1 3 r< 3 3 X ft 3 CD co CD -3 T3 3 -H 3 T3 4-1 3 •H CD 3 M ft 3) co| rl 3 3 CD CO 3 X g O 1 3 !-i 3 O -3 3 4-1 CO 3 •n •3 3 3 3 3 X O 3 3 > 3 X 3 O ON NO ON 00 NO ON is NO ON 3 •H 3 4-1 4-1 •H 3 ft 60 3 •H 4J 3 3 o ft 3 U 4J 3 CD O l-i 3 60 ft £ S CO 3 H jS CD " • T3 4-1 ^-v O -H O X 3 on 2 3 o 3 3 cfl U •rH IH •H 3 S 60 3 ■H 13 CO >n 3 <-\ 3 rH -H 3 3 a •H X 4J co •H 4-1 3 co > 3 Tl •O II > 3 g 3 3 U -3 > CD -3 4-1 3 X 3 60 ft 3 4-1 3 60 3 •H CD 3 ■s 2 4J X 3 3 O •H 3 -3 3 3 •3 CO 3 3 CJ T3 3 3 •H tJ 3 3 ^ 3 o 3 3 X -H 4-1 3 2 u c M 3 3 M 3 CO 1 cO IP. m -P o NO CO CTn r-H r*> *• r-H CO z ,X 0) o pa > H n^ 0 CO n CO • w T,r, OJ DS x: 0 I u , a r-H o 03 z pd P NO in CO CO in CO CO 00 CN r-H • rH r-H rH • o CN o CO co • • • o in in rH CM NO in o CN 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 + 1 + c 1 + 1 c + NO 1 rH 1 1 CM 1 c C C 1 1 ' r-H 1 + 1 + + o On NO in CN 00 CO NO l*» CO oo O Ct o On o r^ in On r» O O o r-H r*» in r-l o r-H rv CN J o r-H rH ■d- NO r^ NO r^ rH CO J- o 1^ o CO ON d- o O CO o in r^ r^ CO NO o o CN CO |H CN co r-H r-H r-H CN a) r-H CO i-H r-H CO rH r-H r-H rH St CO 00 LTl LTl I—) It 1^ CO O On -3- fN. r-H 00 o CO o r-H f-~ CN --t O J- o NO oo CN CO CO r-H 00 CN rH 3- on o oo no NO r— i— I r^ ON NO o On o J" ON in o O r-H o in o in in in J" r^ CN •d- CNJ CN i— 1 r-H i-H CO C8 r-H r-l CO CM r-H rH r-H CO CM NO CN ON i— I r^ J" NO m co 1^ S CM d- NO CN o CO J- r^ J- o in CM NO NO oo CO in PI co r^ o\ r^ r- NO o CN in CO NO in CM r-H CO ON ON r-H o CO ■4- 1-^ CN o\ NO CO CN J- r-H CN r-H r-H CN CO ■H ■P r-H r-l r-H r-l rH p 0) p CO r— 1 r-H r-H 1— 1 CO co 00 m oo r-H NO r-H O 00 NO ^o CM in CM CB m o ON ON -3- CO CO J- o CO O CTN r^ o CO NO CO 00 LTl O o ON co r-l r^- J- CO r-H o CM e J- o cl- r-^ O e E rH o CTn r^ O in CO in CM CN •* l-H CN CN r-H r-H i— i CN W r-H CM H ■rH -P r-H J- •rH -P •rH 4-> CO r-H r-H r-H CN CO CO CO CO CO CN CTn ct NO r^ [-H rH CM NO J- CN o in CO r». CO CO • CD r^ r-H CO O NO ^O CTN CM J- o CTN O CN co on CN r-H J" CO in in ON CO NO o On o in rH r^ m CO CN NO CO CO |-H CN CN r-l r-l CN CN O z r-l CM r-H W r-H CM W w C J- CO CN r-H r-H CO CM oo m o Ct CO r-H >-* r-H CO NO o NO O o ■3- J- CM CD* O O CD CD co CN O O rx CN CO 00 o> CO CO NO r^ oo CN On ■d" o in r-^ z r-. • m r-H • z Z • i CO oo r^- o CM co o CN in ^H CN tN r-H r-H r-H r-H r-l CM rH c r-H C C c 4 r-H CM r-H CM CM CO H i-i Z 3 £ o -t o ON CM o ON ■J- in r-H CO o\ CM CTn o CM CM CN 1^ 00 o CM -3- r-H rH O r^. NO On r^ r^ H r-H CO ct r^ r^ in NO r-H CO in CTN o NO CTN ■d- O CO r^ CM CN o rH NO r-v in r^. O J- o CM CN £3 CN LTl VO J- co o in CO CTn CO r-l NO r^ 00 CM r^ r-H CM r^ CTn o O r-H NO m NO CN NO CN NO O I co i— 1 r-H CN >o CM l-H CO CO r-H rH CM CO r-H CM CM 0- rH in 2 s H CO o r-H CN CO J- in NO r^ i-l CN r-l CN rH CN o rH CM in NO r-H CN CO in o r-H CN CO rH CO H/ rH 3 r-H CO CO CO CO CO co CO J- ■=J- m in NO NO 1^ 00 CO oo co CTN CTN CTN CTn o r-H r-H r-H CN CN CM -* o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o O o o o o o O O r—l r-H r-H r-H rH r-H r-l r-H H O H W 33 d M-O ■H C o co a) s S-l ON • H r-l 4-> 1 CIS C4-I in +J o VO CO On i—l /m\ M H CO z >H a> o pq > -1 v^- n :/i p t/i • |z| M Q-l a ^ O g U m m i— < o ctf z pri 3 3 C UJ C 4-> s < c H a) i-l B o cd S-i (l) ^a\racocococ^cotoo\cococ^coOTo\cococncooNCDcac>cooNONra c cccc cc cc eceec c c c c c HioHfiaiPinoHs ■ ^ n» in ^ « N » ts n vo « is to it it in s 4 n vo CN riONHHHHCNHin .OCOOrHVOCOOCN.-lOOOOOCNi-lOcOi-l.-l l+l+l+l I+ + +I++I + + + + +II+III + I oooiONOOinNNO\HO> .vovoj-cNinoisctONini-iONtscOr-iincooNOis CM i-l I + I I I + I + I + I CO ' ■■■•----- .HInin>OlOOONOvOj^(Nf)NC«^O00C» e r-l -|- .d" J-i-l r-l rH H CO CO CO 000(OHOHNHUHO^HOlNNHP)OM,10M,lNt»ct CN it ""^ °°. °) ^ ^ N^»in'«o co'eoHaOHN *o HNNO«incoinNNcoincoo9isiON iOHCNH^nd'^HHNNvONHHHCl r-l r-l r-l r-1 r-1 coMOcfrtHNCMOHOOcoco^^ooooooinincMniMM^NnioinH tNOONDMn^NMn^HHn^ONNJCMNCOHjNnNNd-'OOO'"* CNr-ICNrHCOCOCOd-CNCNJ-CNVOr-l i-l r-l CN CM r-l r-l r-l CN r-1 vOctvomoOCOOOvOCOtsO .NMlOHlOMnnOONjHNHaNOIONCH [!)«•■•■•••••>•■•■*■■"* cois'voino^voocooNOco .joitsioHOOPiNHCojooN^ONj-ON^inn CNHPlHCOin^ctlNtSCNIflH d" CO CN ^ rl oo ih o vo O co i-i co d- on r-i o o is iv. cm rs in vo o o co vo cn ^ r-n is o rH is oo cn CO O* 00* CO CO* lO CO CO is' CN is' O O r"i & ^t 00 * CN in CO* CO* CN Is VD Is in J- Is 00 VO CN CNr-lCOCNCOJ-cfCOr-ICO CNvOrH CNCNCO i-H r-l m CN rH CO J- VO O VO On in O 00 is O O O r-l ^ O O VO CN 4 CN O rH in VO on IS ct o> VO IS VO d" oo* o* is' co* cn vo" vo* is* in* in* in* cn* co' in ■-* in h vo' is' o* co in ^' in on cn m vo lo oo in CNr-ICOrHCO^tCOVOr-IJ- CN m rH rH VO CN CN r-l CN r-l IS rH 00 ,_, r-l r-l rs CN ON J" On in r-l o m OO vo CO CO 00 CO * IS O ON on IS CN CN On CO is in J oo' is" oo^c*ao o o o HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHrtHHHHHNCNllNMCvlrNl 34 G O •l-l bO u xi a cd h bO O 01 a. >» (0 a) x -o > 5 ■P o •l-l CO G a) -a bo c I ■r-l LO T3 NO Q) On CD ' U O -o bo c •M c u 3 o S c •r-l CO ■o c a) u H l I CO cu i-i ■8 G btfu •rl c o CO QJ r~- U O • H l— 1 ■P 1 CTS CM in fl O vO w o> 1— 1 rs ■1 H CO z fc a) o CQ > H v_^ 0 oo P c/l • Ul br CM cd 5 O ^ U . m T— ' 0 CO z Qd 3 <: G UJ c +J z < c M a) rJ c u 51 M 0) 0) S P-i ■p u JS o bO -P •rl O a) nj 13 cm c o •l-l be a) CtJ a\cococococococococ7\cocoo\cocyicoascoa\cucococococoo\ "cccccccc'cc c c c cccccc IX a, cu ex a. cu ex i^coi-i^-i[^t~.j-i-ij-ctminr^j-tncNctmco • co n o cm co in a) OOOOi-iOOrHCNi-iOCNCOOvoOi-iOi-l • O O O CO O r-i CN r-l C + II + + +III+I+IIIIIII 1+ l+l 1^-COOvOCNvOvOi-li-lincOCOONVOOONOOCN • On. i-H O r-H 1^ O CU NnHHHnoMNOi^oonoooco^^ -cno o^4 o i-H r-ICOr-li-lCOCNCOr-l CM C r-l CM i-H + II + + +III+I+IIIIIII I + l+l ^j-cNcoLovovor^i^c)-i-icx)^-o\or^r-icNCNi-i r^ 00 O O r-l i— i NCOOONCOCNCOlOLnCOOOj-ISOiOOcOeOHCN H CN CN rl H rl M H H O O O c© r-. r-l MNH0l(04-(0OJMflNv0Nl0l0l0tNO'rinc0OOnin sMMnN^^o^ieooiooMMnmciifoiciocNNn r-ll-IJ- i-H i-ICMCMr-ICMr-li-lr-l i-H CO w NHCNJ^C»0\0(MNOOinC(IHinNiooociiMNN4,inc>oOi-i OHH040HCNOICN10N400COCNCNCH04COOOCXMJO OOCNr^inONr-IVOOOincMCNCO CO CN r-l r-l r-l l-l r-l in in i-i co 44-N4d-lOCOCNCOOCO CM r-l r-l I— I i— I OOncNcod-inr-iCMcod-invOr-icNcoj-i-icNcocl-i-icNcod-in OWOOOOOrlHHHHHCNMNMC|C)CICli4d'd,4 i-HrlCNCNCNCNCNCMCNCNCMCMCNCMCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCMCNCNCNCN 35 c b0T3 •i-l C in • • On co O CO CD On CO Q) On rH >> in p • • • • Xi P ON • H c c C Cfl trj .,-1 i— i I p CO (4-1 o, a, CO P C CO CO cfl cfl c en P o XI & Q) vo CO 6 - -S •» on CO o On c t-i cfl CJ no bO o /-\ xl on c •P «• H CO C rH .rH bO Z >H a) CO >o a) o pq > O CD p M ^s o •rl CO 00 CD CO Q CO CN • IN bO -P vo p cj CO • . . 0) • co c on xi •p w bt ip i-i o • o P rj ,_| X! S XI O d o c a. e> 5 i i 1 U O C cfl co H • •rH -rH CO In Pi I— 1 o x; c s bO CO Z Oi'H 111 O a 3 Cfl +J CO •P 3 c U P p +J CO c +-> bO cfl o tH >> z < C J- ON . o O 11 h XI M CD • • CD • •rl >» CN Cu |J c u in CO . cj- 03 (H >> >> bo > 0) a) 1 1 1 xi c a cfl r-l X> Is CM & tH >o XI ■o >a c cfl CO XI (0 u p [-4 J,t CO o o cfl o cfl co co xi s CD >" ■a 2 c c \. o ■-< O d- co (h x; Q< 4-> o u C1 in • • iH CO -rl cp •P M 4-> ^ c V ON i-i VO CN O CO 00 c 3 "O £ o co P o co w CO T3 -P n £ ON co O +J ON P 6 C P O CM CO •rH Cfl i° o NO • • • o u o B 4-1 3 On i-l NO CO U 7 D U QJ i-i • Cfl Cd CO bO CO on C a) ■S'B •a X •» ri Xl > P > rH C Cfl Xl co NO • • CO • co u c co •p o w ON CN d" in u >o co co bo p TD e> r-H CN i— i cfl (h a xi -ri o 1 CD 4-1 CO 0) >> p bO rj 0) (J) CO CO •r-l C w C XI XI CO Cfl -rH co •r-l > NO /■N CN CN CO cfl -p P X> • C c < NO irt • • • rH CO C bO CO CO u On a) no in o NO CO O CO CI CO +J 'O P I r-l P CN i— 1 C > P CO -rl -rl -rl O c O O CO CO c bO s & •■-I z •rl X> bO U Xl d p c •p bo c a o •rl c B in CCN ^ Ct CO CO 'rl CO CO -rl XI I") •p NO O • • • (h bOis u p b0 P cfl (j rH CO 0 a) 5 On CJ rH IN NO co CO i-h v-' CO 1— 1 a ti o u ca tj xi p -a •rH CO CJ Cfl > XI c H xi > cj co a o a) rH Pj Cfl Cfl >, J-) .rH H-) p P z to c xl •rl H >L p u - >> co co a. -o b0 (h i-h co +J cfl CO c p i g O Cfl r-l Cfl i— i U c • J- o o 00 •rl a) cfl X) P bO bO p CO Xl O w vo i-H in ■3- CO >H P ID O 'rl G bO -P s • • • >, C CO CO 'rl CO CO a) •r-l CJ w ON CO rH On XI CO C XI P CO CO E i-i a) co <3 i-H in a, co cfl h >, cfl § ■s 13 <4-l s -* CO CO xl bO CO A ■o pq T3 x: a. co cfl H z a) co • +j .,-1 C Cfl 4J CO Cfl bO co CO ••> X •rl B P P O C 0) C cfl S d K O -d- co o 'n 3 is CO "D a) o w H co u >a o on xi c xl •■-I bO £ «NO • P O . N-1\. X \, PB Ds CN CN CN % < rH |CM 1 CO | dl 36 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1971-428-637/1412 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Ter- ritorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of natural resources. The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to a better United States now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR