BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 720 6 /7, 'OODCOCK STATUS REPORT 1973 W-r UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 178 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife WOODCOCK STATUS REPORT, 1973 Eldon R. Clark Office of Migratory Bird Management Laurel, Maryland Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 178 Washington, D.C. . 1974 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 85 cents Stock Number 2410-00385 CONTENTS Abstract iv Introduction 1 Singing-Ground Survey Procedures 3 Results 5 Wing-Collection Survey 5 Procedures 5 Results 6 Comparison of Sample Source 6 Weighting Factors 6 Productivity Index 7 Hunter Success Index 7 Regional Analysis of Wing-Collection Data Sex and Age Ratios 9 Chronology of Harvest 10 Summary of Research Activities 11 Acknowledgments 11 References 15 Appendix 17 in ABSTRACT Evidence exists that the harvest of the American woodcock (Philohela minor) by waterfowl hunters has increased by about 10% each year since 1964. The continental harvest in 1972 was estimated to exceed 1.5 million woodcock. The 1973 singing-ground survey showed breeding population index declines of 6.3% in the Atlantic Region, 2.8% in the Central Region, and 4.3% rangewide. These indices are based on 804 comparable routes — 5% fewer than the record 848 routes in 1971. Wing-collection survey data for the 1972-73 season showed an increase in the productivity index of 7.6%. This change follows extreme fluctuations of +25% in 1970-71 and -27% in 1971-72 which represented the highest and lowest points respectively in the history of the index. Trends in hunter success have continued downward, declining 4.1% in 1972-73 from the previous year. Harvest chronology data suggest that some States could benefit from earlier or later seasons than those selected in recent years. Woodcock banding has increased steadily. Limited band recoveries to date suggest little interchange between breeding populations of the Atlantic and Central Regions . IV INTRODUCTION During the past decade, the American woodcock has become a popular game bird with increasing numbers of hunters over a wider portion of its range. The species still rates well below waterfowl in terms of harvest, but the ratio of woodcock to waterfowl harvested has narrowed to 1:3, or less, in several northern States. Thus, the species has advanced from a "specialty" game bird highly regarded by a few hunters to a broader based recreational resource actively pursued by many sportsmen Since there is no suitable sampling frame with which to conduct a ran- domized woodcock harvest survey in the United States, the magnitude of the harvest has been estimated from data derived from State surveys and from the Bureau's waterfowl hunter questionnaire survey (Clark 1972). The resulting estimate of 1.4 million woodcock harvested during the 1971-72 season (the latest full year of mail survey data) represents an increase of approximately 60% in a 6-year period. This is a crude estimate at best; however, it pro- vides some insight into the utilization of the resource. Although over one-half of the harvest occurs in the northern zone (comprising the North-Central and North Atlantic reference areas, Fig. 1), mid- and southern-zone harvests are increasing rapidly (Table 1) . In Canada, all migratory game bird hunters are required to obtain Federal permits. Thus, in recent years woodcock harvests there have been measured more precisely than those in the United States. The Canadian sur- veys (Benson 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971; Cooch et al. 1972, 1973) show the following harvests: 1967 - 90,000 1970 - 98,000a 1968 - 100,000 1971 - 108,000 1969 - 116,000 1972 - 122,000 aSeason curtailed because of high levels of DDT metabolites in a preseason sample of woodcock. Sampling procedures in Canada were changed in 1972. Harvest figures were lower by the new method but they were believed to be more accurate than the earlier procedures. A combination of U.S. and Canadian harvest figures suggests that the continental woodcock harvest in 1972 exceeded 1.5 million birds and is increas- ing. Relatively little woodcock research has been accomplished, and much needs to be learned of the species' potential for meeting further recreational demands . T3 U o T3 Q) J3 14-1 o ■a •H (J 111 o +j cd u < . AS §r S en 3 o o o o O o u d) O c n 0) M-l i 60 •H Pn Two annual surveys presently provide the basis for establishing woodcock hunting regulations in the United States: (1) A singing-ground survey, which provides an index of the postmigration breeding population, and (2) a wing- collection survey, which provides data on relative reproductive success of the species during the previous breeding season, and changes in size and distribu- tion of the harvest by participating hunters. Collection and analysis of data have steadily improved in both surveys. Although imperfect, these two basic surveys produce the best information currently available for managing woodcock. This report presents data from the 1973 singing-ground survey, the 1972-73 wing-collection survey, and addi- tional information accumulated since publication of the Woodcock Status Report, 1972 (Clark 1973). SINGING-GROUND SURVEY Procedures The singing -ground survey, which involves counts of singing males heard along predetermined routes (Table 2) is interpreted as an index to the size of the breeding population. Between 1964 and 1970, the survey has gradually changed from routes selectively located in woodcock habitat of average or better quality (management routes) to randomly located routes covering all levels of habitat quality (Clark 1970) . Since 1970, the breeding population index has been based entirely upon these random routes, which provide better statistical reliability. The 1973 index was based upon data derived from 804 routes comparable with those run the previous year. This number of routes is 5% less than the high of 848 in 1971. In computing the index, data from each State were weighted according to the State's proportion of the total land area (inland water area excluded) in the region or in the range of the species (Table 3) . Routes on which no singing males were heard at any of the 10 stops for 2 consecutive years under comparable circumstances are placed in the "Constant 0" group. They are included in the number of comparable routes but are not field- checked annually. At 5-year intervals they are rechecked to determine if wood- cock are present. Because the group of routes paired with comparable routes the preceding year to determine percentage change is not necessarily the same group paired with comparable routes the subsequent year, it is illogical to graphically depict numbers of singing birds heard per route. Conversion to random routes, which usually averaged fewer birds than management routes, precludes portraying the annual average number of birds per route. Number of woodcock heard per comparable route was calculated (Clark 1973) and plotted (Fig. 2) . en on CM on on sa^noj; uiopuej racui Ajajos pa^ndinoo 3sjxi xapuj - o ON ON vO ON 00 u vo ct) ON tV vo ON vO vO ON H vO ON rH xapux ux pasn 3 sax j sarjncu mopux^a - sl- ON ro O CO CnI o LO ^ CO VO ON H aB3A asBq 03 paxfddB sx aSueqo rjuaoaad jBnuuB ueqw arjncu Bjqezvdmoo aad >jooopooAi jo aaquinu bSvjlbay Results Number of woodcock heard per comparable route declined in 1973 by 6.32% in the Atlantic Region, 2.79% in the Central Region, and 4.32% rangewide. The following is a summary of the annual changes during the past 9 years, based on data weighted regionally and rangewide: Percentage change from previous year Year Atlantic Region Central Region Rangewide 1965 -0.4 -11.1 -6.5 1966 +2.4 -0.5 +1.7 1967 +1.5 -3.5 0 1968 -8.4 -4.5 -6.9 1969 +4.2 +12.1 +8.8 1970 0 +3.1 +2.1 1971 -9.8 -7.3 -8.4 1972 +1.6 +3.7 +2.7 1973 -6.3 -2.8 -4.3 Since 1963, annual changes among regions generally have been compensatory (Fig. 2). WING-COLLECTION SURVEY The primary objective of the woodcock wing-collection survey is to deter- mine reproductive success as reflected by the age and sex composition of the harvest. The survey also produces information on changes in geographic and chronologic distribution, size of the harvest, and daily and seasonal hunter success. Response to the wing-collection survey has been generally good since its inception in 1959. Annual wing submissions have ranged from 8,786 the first year to 19,165 for the 1971-72 season, and have averaged nearly 15,000 annually. Procedures Procedures for collecting, processing, and analyzing survey data were the same as for the 1968-69 season (Clark 1970) . Other pertinent information may be found in Clark (1973). Distribution of hunter contacts by States is shown in Table 4. To improve the distribution of the wing sample, more hunters in midlatitude and southern States have been contacted in recent years (Table 5) . Adequate samples are now available from most northern States. 538-155 O - 74 Hunters who cooperated in previous years submitted the most wings and were the sole source of comparable data. Lists of hunters' names and addresses obtained from State harvest surveys probably produce the least biased samples within each State; however, procedural variations between States introduce additional biases. More importantly, many States either have no harvest survey or do not inquire about woodcock harvests in their questionnaires. Names added annually at the request of survey participants or their friends are few. The list of woodcock hunters from the Bureau's waterfowl mail survey is the largest source of names, but the number of wings submitted per contact is very low. A significant bias in this source is the large State-to-State variation in the ratio of waterfowl hunters to total hunters. For example, both Louisiana and Pennsylvania are important woodcock harvest States. However, only 1 Pennsylvania hunter in 20 purchases a duck stamp; in Louisiana, one-third of all hunters purchase duck stamps. Obviously, precise analysis of a survey sample originating from such varied sources is impossible. Nonetheless, major changes in woodcock productivity and harvest rates probably can be detected from these various survey sources. Results A total of 8,265 hunters was contacted in the 1972-73 woodcock survey, 4% fewer than the high of 8,593 in 1971-72. Number of wings received declined slightly from 19,165 in 1971-72 to 18,978 in 1972-73. Wing totals vary between different tables in this report because incomplete information necessitated the exclusion of a few wings from some tabulations. A listing by States of the number of cooperators, envelopes returned, and wings received for the past two hunting seasons is shown in Table 6. Numbers of envelopes are shown because each represents 1 day's hunt by one hunter and consequently is the daily bag. Comparison of Sample Source Response rate and wings contributed per hunter in the three principal categories are shown in Table 7. Response rate and number of wings submitted were generally higher for hunteres who had been in the survey for more than 1 year. Weighting Factors Because the number of wings received from each State may not be propor- tional to the woodcock harvest in that State, it was necessary to weight data used in computing overall productivity and harvest index trends. Because we lack a uniform sampling frame for woodcock hunters, no com- pletely satisfactory weighting method has been devised. Current procedures are based upon a combination of data from the Bureau's waterfowl mail survey, duck stamp sales, and State license sales (Clark 1970). Derivation of weight- ing factors for computing productivity and harvest indices for the 1972-73 season is shown in Table 8. Productivity Index In this report, reproductive success is used as a measure of annual pro- ductivity. Woodcock can be aged and sexed by wing plumage characters (Martin 1964). The ratio of immatures per adult female in the harvest, as determined from the wing-collection survey, provides a measure of reproductive success during the preceding breeding season (Table 9) . Considerable variation occurs in immature-adult female ratios between different harvest areas (States or Provinces) and between different years for the same harvest areas. These variations are probably caused by differences in hunting season dates, weather conditions, hunting season restrictions imposed by emergency situations (such as fire hazard), and possibly differential migration coupled with differential vulnerability to hunting between sex and/or age groups. However, before the 1970-71 season, annual change in age ratios was small when rangewide data were weighted and combined (Fig. 3). Greatest fluctuations to date consisted of a 25% increase in 1970-71 (Clark 1973) followed by a 26.9% decline in 1971-72 (Table 10). The index showed an increase of 7.6% in 1972-73. Cause of these unusual fluctuations in age ratio has not been determined. Adverse weather shortly after hatching may be a factor. Examination of clima- tological data for May (when most woodcock hatch) in States having the greatest density of breeding woodcock shows that average temperatures were above normal in 1970 and below normal in 1971 (U.S. Dept . of Commerce 1970 and 1971). A review of 1972 data suggests that although climatological conditions may influence woodcock productivity, the correlation probably would be much clearer if it were more localized in both time and location. Temperatures in May 1972 were above normal in all climatological regions of the woodcock's principal breeding range except in northern Maine and southern coastal New England (Table 11), yet woodcock productivity increased only moderately (8.2%). Closer examination of the data (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1972) revealed that tempera- tures were somewhat below normal the first 3 weeks of May in the North Atlantic Region and the first half of May in the North Central Region. Record high temperatures later in the month more than compensated for earlier low tempera- tures. This raises the possibility that productivity in early broods may have been low, but greater success in later broods resulted in an overall increase in productivity from the low of the previous year. Although data from only 3 years do not establish positive correlation between spring temperatures and woodcock productivity, they suggest that temperatures and other weather factors merit closer study. Variation in the productivity index due to differences in hunters sampled has been eliminated by using only data from hunters participating in the survey both years in computing the change in the weighted index. Hunter Success Index Trends in the daily and seasonal woodcock harvest have been appraised by determining annual percentage change in the number of wings submitted by hunters who participated in the survey for 2 consecutive years (Table 12) . Average daily harvests have changed little from year to year. xapux jatniruj jad :js3AiBq "[BUOSB3S p33q§T3M CO CM i-l O CM CO 3 • s ^ ro S o i-~ nj r^ I CM 6 O r~- O M5 s-i a\ m in CM 13 I I 01 3 M <-\ •H <0 a cu !~~- 1-1 >H CD ■u cu rH CU CO 1 x) cd o CO ^ r-* cd CO - u CO cu o CU +J 1 o s •H 3 o J= B CO o n) u o cu •u - 00 CO &. 0 \o o 1 00 4J )-l r^ 3 CO ^ vO •H cu ■U £2 c 3 cd cd r-> pa Xi "3 1 iH >-, vO cd cu vO § I CO CO v£> CU 1 co 3 o m T3 -H ^o c3 O CU O H m •H iH 1 ■U O cd o -3- H 1 vO 00 CU 3 00 -H CO £ -* 1 •3 ^ CU O CO v o vO eigh oodc CO ts & v£> i 1 CM i vO CO ti •H ajHuiaj 3"[npB aad sajn^Brauip txaput otjei age pa^qgxa^ Seasonal harvest has shown slightly greater annual percentage changes than daily harvest. Apparent upward trends through 1970-71 (Fig. 3) are mis- leading because the substantial increases in 1964-65 and 1967-68 probably resulted from greater hunting opportunity. Hunting was curtailed by hazard- ous fire conditions over much of the Northeast in 1963. Return to normal in 1964 resulted in a much higher seasonal harvest per hunter. Increased har- vest in 1967-68 may be attributed to an increase in season length from 50 to 65 days. When sharp increases in 1964-65 and 1967-68 are discounted, the trend in hunter success is almost steadily downward. The cause of the decline cannot readily be explained. Hunter success index declined 4.1% in 1972-73. Daily hunter success was examined for the past five seasons; however, little variation between seasons was evident. Greater variations 'were evident in regional summaries of the data (Table 13) . However, annual variations were small when samples totaled over 1,000 hunts. Hunter success, along with other factors, needs further study before hunt- ing pressure can be equated with woodcock population trends. A correlation may be revealed by information obtained through a uniform sampling frame such as the proposed Federal migratory upland game bird hunting permit and from accumulating banding data. Regional Analysis of Wing-Collection Data Sex and Age Ratios An investigation of factors affecting productivity and hunter success was initiated in 1970. Since differential migration by sex and age groups in con- junction with the timing of hunting seasons would materially influence the productivity index, the first step was an analysis of regional sex and age ratios by time periods. A study of recent band recovery data suggests that less intermingling of woodcock between the Central and Atlantic Regions occurred than was formerly supposed; therefore, data from the two regions were analyzed separately. Within each region, three subunits were established (Fig. 1). Criteria used in selecting subunits were as follows: 1. Northern subunit — States having relatively high-density woodcock breeding populations and harvests consisting of a high proportion of locally reared birds. 2. Middle subunit — States having moderate- to low-density breeding populations and harvests consisting primarily of migrant woodcock. 3. Southern subunit--States having very low breeding popula- tion densities and harvests consisting almost entirely of wintering and migrant woodcock. Naturally, there Is overlapping of characteristics between these subunits, because State boundaries, though useful, do not accurately delineate the criteria described. Woodcock harvest, as represented by the wing collection, was divided into 10-day segments for regional comparisons. These segments were then grouped into three major periods so that approximately 50% of the wings were in the middle period and 25% each in the first and third periods. If seasonal trends in sex or age ratios occur, this broad separation between early and late season should make them more apparent. Weather influences the timing of migration and subsequently the availability of woodcock for harvest. In view of the great year-to-year variation in weather, results are not yet conclusive. However, we believe that accumulated data may eventually reveal enlightening trends. Data for the 1968-69 through 1972-73 seasons are summarized for the Central Region in Table 14 and for the Atlantic Region in Table 15. Extension of the season framework through February (15 February in 1971) shifted the median harvest period to a later time period in southern subunits in 1971, 1972, and 1973. Chronology of Harvest Distribution of the harvest as shown by 10-day wing-collection periods provides some insight into timing of the fall migration. Inasmuch as substan- tial numbers of woodcock are produced in Canada, harvest in the northern States probably includes some migrants. It is possible, however, to encompass the period of greatest abundance of woodcock for a particular State within a season length of 65 days. In a few States, the hunting season is set primarily with native game species in mind; therefore, the period of greatest abundance for migratory species such as the woodcock may be missed in many, if not most, years. A north-to-south distribution of the 1972-73 and the latest 5-year average harvests is shown for the Central (Table 16) and Atlantic (Table 17) Regions. Larger samples are needed for some States, but the data indicate the chronology of fall migration. The data only approximate the migration chronology, since no adjustment was made in either table for periods encompassing less than 10 days of hunting. Such periods may occur at the beginning or end of the hunting season. Heavier hunting pressure on the opening day or first weekend may partially compensate for a shortened period. However, the typical concentration of hunting effort and harvest in the beginning of the season probably is not as great for wood- cock as for some other game birds. Wing-collection survey data were summarized by 7-day periods as well as by 10-day periods. Distribution of the harvest by 7-day periods beginning with the opening date in each State provides better information on the chronology of harvests in individual States (Tables 18 and 19) . The shorter period makes regional pooling of data more difficult because it magnifies problems of State- to-State variation in opening dates. In contrast, it eliminates the variation in hunting opportunity associated with 10-day periods, where the first period may contain from 1 to 10 days and some may include two weekends . Effect of weekend hunting varies materially if Sunday hunting is permitted. 10 The woodcock hunting season in some northern States may be curtailed by weather or conflicts with the deer hunting season when use of bird dogs may not be permitted. However, hunters in most of those States still enjoy good woodcock hunting. The data in Tables 18 and 19 suggest that some States could benefit from earlier or later seasons than those selected in recent years . Although results may be biased by inadequate sample sizes in some States, unduly high percent- ages of the total season's harvest in the first 2 weeks suggest that an earlier season might be desirable. In contrast, the concentration of the harvest towards the end of the season suggests the need for a later season. States having small samples in the survey may profit by examining data from other States in their same general latitude. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES Federally funded woodcock projects in progress during the fiscal year ending 30 June 1973 are listed in Table 20. Banding is a particularly pressing need, especially on breeding grounds. Much greater banding effort at the northern edges of main breeding areas in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces is essential for adequate understanding of the origins of wintering and migrant populations as well as the timing of migrations. Population origin and migration data are needed to evaluate the influence of weather on reproduc- tion and other factors of vital importance to woodcock management. Expansion of banding effort in the 12-year period, 1961-72, is reflected in Table 21. The increase, particularly evident in preseason banding, is graphically shown in Fig. 4. Comparisons of recovery locations of woodcock banded in the Atlantic Region with those banded in the Central Region (Table 22 and Figs. 5 and 6) add to existing evidence that principal woodcock migration routes have north-south orientation. Interspersion on the wintering grounds of birds reared in the Atlantic and Central Regions is suggested by recoveries of winter-banded birds in the northern parts of both regions. However, 85% of the recoveries from winter-banded woodcock were reported from the region in which they were banded. Most interregional recoveries were from birds banded near regional borders, illustrating the minor problem caused by use of State and Province boundaries to delineate regions. The lack of substantial interchange between breeding grounds suggests strong fidelity to natal areas and fairly distinct Atlantic and Central breeding populations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most data in this report would not be available without the cooperation of the Canadian Wildlife Service; Provincial and State conservation departments; Bureau personnel of Regions 3, 4, and 5; and the many individuals who assisted in the surveys. 11 o o in mirnnmrwi] bO 2 bO •H 2 TJ •H Pi =8 H •H 03 ■P 08 Pf -P o3 H •H a H H fH a; -P oi Pn o >>M*WW< ■ 1' 1'f III **» nwww o CM I o o o o o o o <£, CM O 2 o 2 ^H ID o 2 o 2 o2 o2 o2 < 5 u2 < CD o2 < CD o2 papireq aaquirm 12 ooooo " Numbers of recoveries shown by figures in degree blocks \ ©V® © Fig. 5. — Recoveries of woodcock banded on Central Region breeding grounds north of 40th parallel (excluding birds recovered in degree block of banding or in contiguous degree block but including all years and all "How Obtained" codes) . 13 538-155 O - 74 - 3 r "i i y ' i " r i i \ i_n \ \ \ ' L— ^— ' — 1 — 1 — ooo i«4**f •••ife \\ rT YX\ 1_ll \ i 1 _lLI TTffl jTmTI 1 1 i i 1 'J4-J tSffi 1 L^*°^" )l\y7 ^tr~-^S ^— ■ t\ ■_]__% lL I __I_ — ^/ \ j _J_\l V \ \ ) \ / l . ■ 1 ' s ~\T~ 1 ^ 1 — v r STT? — r~ 1_j j u4/— / 1 1 1 i/|z jj V £ / ■ rri i r i iilLlO \ • YlTlM^ r7 JUite^ - s^- SKJ^$CT ^ i — \ — r \ 9 © G © o o o o 0 3FH ,©< © 3 l b 6 vn A ? ^#*" © o. Numbers of recoveries shown by figures in degree blocks o Fig. 6. — Recoveries of woodcock banded on Atlantic Region breeding grounds north of 40th parallel and in West Virginia (excluding birds recovered in degree block of banding or in contiguous degree block but including all years and all "How Obtained" codes). 14 Special appreciation is extended to the University of Massachusetts Press for permission to reproduce the late Mr. A. Lassell Ripley's etching "Early Woodcock" which again appears on this report's cover. Also, special thanks are extended to the biologists who worked at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Md., processing nearly 19,000 woodcock wings and coding the data for computer analysis. These cooperators and their affiliations were as follows: John V. Dob ell Gary Donovan Allan C. Glasscock Larry Gregg William B. Krohn Tim Linkkila Fant W. Martin Bob McKee Josh Sandt Bert Schuber Joseph C. Shugars W. Hassel Taylor Stephen J. Toth, Jr. Joseph Ware, Jr. Canadian Wildlife Service Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Orono, Maine, Field Station Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Migratory Bird and Habitat Research Laboratory Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Shellf isheries Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge REFERENCES Benson, Denis A. 1968. Waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in Canada during the 1967-68 hunting season. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Notes No. 5, 10 June 1968. 39 pp. 1969. Waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in Canada during the 1968-69 hunting season. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Notes No. 10, July 1969. 44 pp. 1970. Report on sales of the Canada migratory game bird hunting permit and waterfowl harvest and hunter activity, 1969-70. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Notes No. 16, July 1970. 34 pp. 1971. Report on sales of the Canada migratory game bird hunting permit and waterfowl harvest and hunter activity, 1970-71. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Notes No. 22, August 1971. 29 pp. 15 Clark, Eldon R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 133. 35 pp. 1972. Woodcock status report, 1971. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 153. 47 pp. 1973. Woodcock status report, 1972. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 169. 50 pp. Cooch, F. G. , G. W. Kaiser, and L. Wright 1972. Report on sales of the Canada migratory game bird hunting permit, migratory game bird harvest and hunter activity, 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service, Progress Notes No. 28, July 1972. 25 pp. 1973. Report on 1972 sales of the Canada migratory game bird hunting permit, migratory game bird harvest and hunter activity. Canadian Wild- life Service, Progress Notes No. 34, July 1973. 11 pp. Martin, Fant W. 1964. Woodcock sex and age determination from wings. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 287-293. U.S. Department of Commerce 1970. Climatological Data. Wisconsin, May 1970, Vol. 75, No. 5, p. 65-79. Minnesota, May 1970, Vol. 76, No. 5, p. 65-80. New York, May 1970, Vol. 82, No. 5, p. 73-90. New England, May 1970, Vol. 82, No. 5, p. 99-122. Michigan, May 1970, Vol. 85, No. 5, p. 65-79. 1971. Climatological Data. Wisconsin, May 1971, Vol. 76, No. 5, p. 65-79. Minnesota, May 1971, Vol. 77, No. 5, p. 65-79. New York, May 1971, Vol. 83, No. 5, p. 81-96. New England, May 1971, Vol. 83, No. 5, p. 101-122 Michigan, May 1971, Vol. 86, No. 5, p. 65-79. 1972. Climatological Data. Wisconsin, May 1972, Vol. 77, No. 5, p. 65-78. Minnesota, May 1972, Vol. 78, No. 5, p. 65-79. New York, May 1972, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 75-90. New England, May 1972, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 97-119, Michigan, May 1972, Vol. 87, No. 5, 65-78. 16 APPENDIX 17 Xl M2 cu M a o o 13 O O IS g iw M CD 4J CO 3 5-5 TO U cu 3 3 co o u o cu a -Q cu c3 n u cu ,c 4J CO O CS X 6-S CO H 0) w cu C 4-1 •H CO 4-1 cn in u cu u u CU Ml C c 4-1 d 3 ?S O H o a) o B<5 CO U CD -i 13 O i-H -d- ON CM 00 ON 00 m NO CM no cm o m 3 9 o £ o CO o NO On m oo o -d- ON m on oo oo -d- oo -d- no cn o\ no cn ON nO CM 00 .H NO r^ «tf NO C^. a\ CO 00 H ON o «t «l •V #1 CM *> M ■H vO cn ON m <• cn rH rH cm m m CM cn oo •V n m O P~ -d- m o NO «* in ts c o o SI M e (U a u a) o CU XI N X! 4-1 1 4J u T) 3 o g O cn NO CM o ON NO NO oo NO ON -d- H CM CM O NO o CM cn o NO CM |-~ 1 <-< r^ ON rH XI s CO • •-N iH T3 1^ O 1 •H O i-l r~. cu ON Ph H N«/ j-i CO CU CU iH >N ■8 1 NO H v-^ •H CO > a CO o CU 8 U QJ n) W CO NO 4J NO CO 1 T3 in NO -6 ON iH •H X 13 5 § ri o m >+-4 NO s i -d- NO o ON S3 H CU 14-1 CO o 4-1 CU CO 60 CU CO 4J U CO CU rH > CO O 3 s o u M-l IH O CU CU 60 8 CO CU H H cu o > C < CO 18 Table 2. — Woodcock breeding population indices as indicated by singing-ground surveys in 19 72 and 1973 (random routes only) . Woodcock heard per c^ r> j Numb State or Province er of 19 72 routes conducted 1973 Comparable routes a comparable i route 1972 1973 ATLANTIC REGION Connecticut 9 9 11 2.45 2.18 Delaware 2 1 3 0.33 0.67 Maine 53 50 47 4.38 4.47 Maryland 11 15 14 1.14 0.93 Massachusetts 17 16 18 1.94 2.72 New Brunswick 56 58 43 6.02 5.56 New Hampshire 15 14 13 4.92 3.77 New Jersey 13 12 18 1.94 2.61 New York 71 57 64 2.55 2.41 Nova Scotia 43 41 34 1.91 2.09 Pennsylvania 43 40 59 1.15 0.76 Prince Edward Island 9 9 9 2.56 2.56 Quebec 20 26 12 3.58 3.00 Rhode Island 2 2 4 1.25 1.25 Vermont 21 20 20 2.95 2.35 Virginia 41 31 67 0.61 0.37 West Virginia 21 20 47 0.98 0.79 REGIONAL TOTAL & WEIGHTED AVERAGEb 447 421 483 2.69 2.52 REGIONAL INDEX CHANGE -6.32% CENTRAL REGION Illinois 20 17 24 0.17 0.17 Indiana 25 22 55 0.56 0.49 Michigan 117 119 100 3.50 3.99 Minnesota 47 43 54 1.48 1.72 Ohio 57 45 69 1.39 1.07 Ontario 65 49 39 7.72 6.67 Wisconsin 68 68 86 1.67 1.76 REGIONAL TOTAL & WEIGHTED AVERAGEb 399 363 427 2.87 2.79 REGIONAL INDEX CHANGE -2 .79% RANGEWIDE TOTAL & WEIGHTED AVERAGE15 846 784 910 2.78 2.66 RANGEWIDE INDEX CHANGE -4.32% a Includes routes carried as constant zero routes. b Weighted averages are sums of products of woodcock heard per comparable route, and the corresponding State or Province percentage of the total land area sampled. States or Provinces excluded where one comparable route represents more than 2,000 square miles or where the 2-year average is less than 0.5 birds per route. 19 Table 3. — Computation of woodcock singing-ground survey weighting factors Land Area Comparable Sq.Mi. per Weight ir ig Factor Survey Areaa (Sq. Mi.) Routes Comp . Rt . Regional Rangewide ATLANTIC REGION Connecticut 4,870 11 443 .0195 .0091 Delaware 1,982 3 661 .0079 .0037 Maine 30,933 47 658 .1238 .0579 Maryland 9,891 14 706 .0396 .0185 Massachusetts 7,833 18 435 .0313 .0147 New Brunswick 27,835 43 64 7 .1114 .0521 New Hampshire 9,033 13 695 .0362 .0169 New Jersey 7,532 18 418 .0302 .0141 New York 47,869 64 748 .1916 .0896 Nova Scotia 20,402 34 600 .0817 .0382 Pennsylvania 45,025 59 763 .1802 .0843 Prince Edward Island 2,184 9 243 .0087 .0041 Rhode Island 1,049 4 262 .0042 .0020 Vermont 9,274 20 464 .0371 .0174 West Virginia 24,084 47 512 .0964 .0451 REGIONAL TOTAL 249,796 404 618 .9999 CENTRAL REGION Indiana 36,189 55 658 .1273 .0678 Michigan 56,818 100 568 .1999 .1064 Minnesotac 46,503 54 861 .1636 .0871 Ohio 41,018 69 594 .1443 .0768 Ontario0 49,220 36 1,367 .1732 .0922 Wisconsin 54,464 86 633 .1916 .1020 REGIONAL TOTAL 284,212 400 711 1.0000 RANGEWIDE TOTAL 534,008 804 664 .9999 a Excluding States and Provinces where each comparable route represents more than 2,000 square miles or where fewer than 0.5 birds are heard per route. Land area only (inland water excluded) as listed in 1970 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide - Rand-McNally & Co. c Excluding sections of Minnesota and Ontario outside of survey area. 20 Table 4. — Distribution of contacts and wings received per contact in 19 72-73 woodcock wing-collection survey. State of residence Packets mailed by Total contact codea Packets hunters 2 4 7 8 9 returned contacted 71 1 -- — 42 2 32 1 — 400 13 2 — 21 2 76 2 — — 333 6 3 4 __ __ 67 — — 1- 26 1 80 4 1 10 115 3 130 12—1 1 96 10 — — — 2 11 — — — — 22 — — 22 2 — — 175 8 — — 259 4 66 22 8 73 384 5 157 5 -- 17 -- 2 354 17 2 — 124 13 55 24 — 53 — 1 120 6—30 5 2 87 6 — 3 93 4 38 8 — — — 1 157 7—1 — 1 235 26 6 — 135 3 254 45 4 32 87 4 94 5 — 4 17 3 234 15 — — — 4 28 — — 1 311 15 — — — — 60 — 7 14 127 5 89 7 — 9 21 1 33 x __ __ 49 2 — 5 13 93 3 — 15 — 1 85 2 — 6 — 1 29 *17 — 8 135 33 2 2 233 6 3,948 323 32 285 2,035 77 8,265 Total wings received' Wings per contact Ala. 14 Ark. 4 Conn. 98 Del. 12 D.C. — Fla. 8 Ga. 28 111. 18 Ind. 24 Iowa 3 Kans. — Ky. — La. 35 Maine 159 Md. 31 Mass . 129 Mich. 170 Minn. 42 Miss . 9 Mo. 10 N.H. 53 N.J. 174 N.Y. 124 N.C. 25 Ohio 80 Okla. 3 Pa. 152 R.I. 18 S.C. 14 Tenn. 31 Tex. 8 Vt. 40 Va. 25 W. Va. 18 Wis. 160 126 59 .47 37 20 .54 532 731 1.37 417 20 .05 7 0 .00 101 49 .49 235 147 .63 162 150 .93 128 176 1.38 14 3 .21 22 0 .00 24 11 .46 473 714 1.51 707 3,177 4.49 208 214 1.03 613 1,697 2.77 301 1,790 5.95 201 657 3.27 194 176 .91 55 45 .82 217 409 1.88 573 1,280 2.23 542 1,790 3.30 142 197 1.39 325 560 1.72 32 4 .12 478 1,035 2.17 221 336 1.52 138 141 1.02 65 17 .26 77 34 .44 150 626 4.17 117 104 .89 72 187 2.60 559 2,199 3.93 TOTAL 1,719 18,755 2.27 aCode Code Code Code Code 8 Code 9 - Previous year's Code 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 hunters who submitted wings, - Waterfowl mail survey hunters who reported hunting woodcock. - Requested participation or proposed by fellow hunter. - Appeared on both Code 1 and Code 9 lists. - Previous year's Code 9 hunters who submitted wings. - From list provided by State, primarily from State kill survey. ''Excluding wings from Special Study areas. 21 Table 5. — Changes in regional distribution of hunter contacts, 1968-69 to 1972-73. 5-Year REFERENCE AREA 1968-69 1969-70 19 70-71 19 71-72 1972-73 Percent Change North Central 1,894 1,850 1,757 1,661 1,061 -44 Mid-Central 542 791 721 793 795 447 South Central 286 254 454 899 939 +228 REGION TOTAL 2,722 2,895 2,932 3,353 2,795 +3 North Atlantic 2,836 3,105 2,304 2,888 2,982 +5 Mid- Atlantic 1,424 1,470 1,764 1,741 1,872 +31 South Atlantic 264 330 447 611 616 +133 REGION TOTAL 4,524 4,905 4,515 5,240 5,470 +21 Northern Zone 4,730 4,955 4,061 4,549 4,043 -15 Mid-Zone 1,966 2,261 2,485 2,534 2,667 +36 Southern Zone 550 584 901 1,510 1,555 +183 U.S. TOTAL 7,246 7,800 7,447 8,593 8,265 +14 22 CO 60 a u •h o s % O QJ ft • O o o C O • u W) cu > ftj < cn co 60 r» c 01 I ■H ft. IN & 0 H r^ 4-4. 11 CN o > a i • 11 H 0 h» c u a) H • p< r-. Ml 1 > O < r-~ ^4-1 1 o EN 01 r^ u w CJ e g ■s CN 3 r^ B 1 14-4 IB o 0) & H 0 0) H X) 01 e > a c z CU CO CD H o 4J d H 0) oJcni sd-coinrHr^vto>^-Ji^ l i— lovflm r l o on -d- in i— I on r- |No\cMrNO\inNNn>or-.oo I H H H i-l rH H Nd-cooNrHoNOOrHcNOrHvoi^voco^r-crrNinOrHeNrH^-oco^-^ocNLncooNcoco HHHHHHtNNHHNNNrNNNHNNNNNNNNNHHHNHNN CNr-~.rHrHrH00CNOO I CSr--(Minclin(nHCM^OO-r^nNnJvDvOinn I HrHNCMHHNNN I (NCMCNCMNNHNMNCMHNHNCMHHNNHCMN oor-iHDor-~o~*Ln^o *r~-d"OONONON'X) Mci-^HcocMocoaiN H i— i c*» i— l on on -* HrNvtiO-ctrvco -a- oo cn -* ON ON r^ NO oo N H CM -* H cNinci-d'rooooNCN r-ICSMNCM\OrvO\ r- -d- cn vo ■-! in coooNOOOOON<-m cfl CO cfl J* C rH CO • <-i t3 :s • ■ •H . CO O a tn • HI I-) >< U -H rH • M CJ a X • • 4-1 CD iH U O CU rH CO H c 0 >. CO CO TO CO -H •H s o • • • XI M CO • • 0) CU 4J CO • co H < < C_> Q Cu O H H H « rJ a a a a § E z; z sa z o o Ph OS CO H H > > 3 N • 0> co xl ■H 4-1 S o o C3A m H o o o 23 Table 7.— Comparison of response and rate of wings received for principal contact codes3, 1972-73 season (nonresident hunting excluded) . No. o f Contacts % Responding Wings /Contributor State of Contact Code Contact Code Contact Code Residence lb 2 9b lb 2 9b lb 2 9b Ala. 13 70 42 31 11 10 2 4 5 Ark. 4 32 — 50 9 — 2 1 — Conn. 99 399 23 52 18 43 8 2 9 Del. 12 75 328 25 5 2 1 1 1 D.C. — 3 — — 0 — Fla. 8 67 25 38 12 12 5 1 9 Ga. 29 79 114 31 15 12 5 3 4 111. 18 130 1 17 5 — 3 2 — Ind. 22 96 — 41 10 — 4 5 — Iowa 3 11 — 0 0 — Kans . — 22 — — 0 — — - — Ky. — 22 — — 9 — — 4 — La. 34 175 255 62 10 6 20 8 5 Maine 167 65 389 72 15 16 17 9 7 Md. 31 156 — 35 8 — 7 2 — Mass . 130 348 120 55 21 13 7 3 2 Mich. 169 55 — 64 24 — 14 3 — Minn. 42 118 5 52 12 20 10 2 2 Miss . 9 86 89 56 10 11 6 4 4 Mo. 10 37 — 30 3 — 5 3 — N.H. 52 157 — 63 17 — 8 3 — N.J. 180 235 138 63 12 33 6 2 4 N.Y. 126 254 90 78 15 32 11 3 9 N.C. 24 94 16 67 9 19 8 3 4 Ohio 80 230 — 51 19 — 8 2 — Okla. 3 28 — 33 7 — 1 2 — Pa. 152 311 — 54 14 — 9 3 — R.I. 25 60 129 36 10 9 6 2 3 S.C. 14 88 20 43 15 35 7 2 5 Tenn. 31 33 — 23 6 — 1 2 — Tex. 8 49 13 50 6 23 3 1 1 Vt. 39 93 — 62 13 — 16 2 — Va. 25 84 — 40 5 — 5 3 — W. Va. 18 29 — 61 14 — 10 6 — Wis. 162 131 233 61 10 59 9 2 9 a See Table 4 for identification of codes. Code 1 and 9 data overlap slightly because both include Code 7 data. 24 4J l-i co co vO in CM ON o r*. ON T-t NO 00 r-t 01 X O 00 i-H o CO CM o r-» NO ON sr rH ON ST H 4-1 oo j-i CM NO o CO r~» ■H CM si- CM m O sr 00 S3 4-> CO •H O oi rt 13 Pm o o 1-1 o ■H O O o T-H o CM o o !-l sr CO NO o ON m co m 00 CM o 00 0> X o CM r~ m co NO ON 00 r^- NO sr CM in a) ►J 4-1 4-) i-H 01 ^i -a •H C CM 00 in 00 m o cfl l"« m i-H m o «* o sj- sr CO NO ON CO o cti •H 4-1 I H O NO CM NO r-« m 1-4. NO o 00 sr ON o J CO o CTn ST r~ o ^H iH i-H 00 NO ON o CO ON i-H in CM CM ~d- r^- CM ON in NO CO sr ON sr H i-l •-t rH i-H >N CM sr i-l 00 NO o O ON NO CM ON CO sr ON XI r»« m 00 ON iH ON CM CM m CO o i-H r~ 00 i r^ ST i-H CO CO m o rH i-H u-i NO r^ CO fe in a en rH 1-1 § S-i r^ 00 VO m NO o iH co I-l CO 00 o O 00 •2 u CO 0) on i-H r~ co CM rH CM i-H sr 00 r-t NO r4 NO ■a rH i-H rH CM in o O m ■H NO NO CO rH NO in r~. o <_> M l> i-( 00 CM iH ON O r~. 00 ON CO T-i 00 00 O 3 3 1 co CO ST . sr H st 00 in a, H i-l i-l ^ r^ rH 4-1 H ON NO CM CO St r^ o CM CM 00 sr in sr CO r~ r~ sT 00 ON O t^. 00 o 00 o r^ co CM U u o r^ O I-H ON . 00 CM r^» CM 00 CM o M ON 00 CO ON CM 00 CM 00 o NO ON CM CM CO •H OJ H CO i-H i-l r~ CO CM NO u~i t-4 rH NO ►J T3 H rH M o a a H CM in co ON NO -> r-i •H • • to H CO o u | 1 •H S3 ti z a z € PL| 4-1 > ■rH .J rl I [ — 3 II S3 + U i-j'|i-j'[ < 13 — 1-ZilJ □ ^ o i— .s a. 3f z 3 a UJ z o k: — _/ a < < o s: s: u s u H -- LL Z ar UJ >— i < t- > X o •-< •*■ co s\ pm r>- co •a- in PH -* PM •— I H kJ (\| ,-j ,* PM — J ■— I —I o *o> I cm i pn in I . | . . —I t\J H oco«omr>a"i"-r<^<\jo^0'- i O* (*>, >o — • —< nco h a> o in m ^i oo cr> o •-* <*■ pp> <\l --I I *.MH PO. I I CM r>- (VI JA O f\J J. -. pm PM I MO Hfl ^0 + WK-J-"OOl" 0>—iu-\-*r\iO0">— IO •— > . — i — > p— ini j- r-4 (NJ nT (Nl (XI I I I I I ^- -i » (NJ — I I I -I I I !\j in r— a- no (\i | 0- I I I I I ** I in r- — i *0 —* ro — t po i <^Hccoso,t>-o>o^oo,ciV)ir. «tco r— pm •— i to ■J' •«■ ^ po o r— >J- m cc M H — i -J" — i — IM -f pn-j--o-Homopriinp-CMco -J- ro >f — i c> pa }- f- cc r- cm CJ* <\i >r\ ~* — I INI >J- -o ■* -j- •*■ >o m m PM pm en >}- co —i in (\l(J'(\IHMip10-0-0-Oh-l'l o ino* m ro in ir\ m it o cc PV i-J v0 r- I I I I I s0 O r>- —t I I CO cr\ pPI t-l — I | in ( I I I I I r» *-> — • o >C r— ro po no p— O r» —) r\j ■J- pel cc m o^ «* «0 ■* vO r- -h ia r- rPi h >o if> h 0" m -• O O r\i co co f> «J- PT — 1 PO r-ooofsiom'T^'jor-^j-ppi M ^ pi r PI v0 H PI l\J s0 —4 O p0 n0 C~ P0 m og "> fj> pm ac ■*■ 0^ ip— POCK-fHiIlN po «— • in pn ~* <■ m rn INJ r- T7p-N0^p-jnPvjr>r\j p- a- pm pm -o — < m •!■ — i r-t -J -4- -o t LU f •. • • • •Z»» • ■ • < Z oOXZoo <^;^'_i< UQ j: • •" «oouzoo jauujj-'-"-o t • <-►-*:— 15- .SIICSIS.S.SZZ a- x -5 • • 00 - o — ■ -j • •— ' y i£ x • • 10 • t X 1£. <■ • •L.UJI— < • ■— ZZO OIK Mht- >>3 Jl 26 ac d L U a _i < lo 5: LU IJJ ac u. ID I— < z: a 1— < LU < UJ U, a LU u. > o — u_ X. o LU LU 33 or X 2 O I I 1 I I I 1 I in h j- o in >t r *h < it sc l*^H H H HH <*i m o h» 1*1 >* KC ir r c * 1 1 • 1 9 « • • J — • — • r-vi •— < — < . — < — ' CO nJ" —t •—* •— « ir — 1 1 CV >T LT • • 1 | • • • -* (M *-4 (M .-» I I I I I I I I — 1 -c r- -jo O tj> (M .$■ —1 .—< ro _ 1 _ , _ , 0* C1 rs) •- in tn f- OJ -O OJ CO O • »•••• OJ -H tM —1 (NJ I f> I 00 CO I I LO lA P<*l .J- ^-1 r\i — 1 — ' j^T1— ll■',l*^co*l■r->i-0 0^--ONl->J■ r<'l oj rvjO«l-^}->$-LO>$-ro oj m nJ- (\j co in ■Tl'.T\LO^"r~Xlo..^cC''rIOr"-ojf10Jr'<"l c~ tr\ co lo lo u*> r-i^-ro jj ^ r» m in m ,o — < •& 3* CN P- O ^ CO — 1 IT ^-) I I I I -0 f <» «r >t t*\ s> ro 0 O d f\i ^ >j- — t IN I I CO I CO (N -1 I MIA CM m I I I I I m 0 mM in m 1 1 0" in — < co r- rsi 1 OJ -1- 1 O •* OJ nT CO CO | 1 in ^r c> co >r co V- m 0s —> O — 1 Nl\l IA OJ I p- I 1 m 1 r- o O vT •4- -j- -o co r— t LT\ p-cro -rr~>j-co^-Lr\-j-c>— "ooin— ior^ooiN0>(\i'^o Kl^A(D>)-f:CClAHj;JffmH4 Oh^r-l^^OJ-a •J" O iT\ CC •& — lOO J-HI<1 CC -O —■ C _l o _l < ■? —• LL □ * o Q- _l — O < I- 0. I- X o a o or i- — • 1 1/1 LU LJ ET 00 < X ro^JD^ONO-J-COOOO^fMCO ^\0i-i-H'AMmCeCHiA(\lv0 .4- (n — « — 1 in o in ro C'AC0>OlAHMMO OJ .$• O Oj IA OJ <\j 0s LO O — l *J- P- >f O P- — * r- og *o -^ po. co P— ^ ro co IN O m -o IA IMC1 — « O ro oj O -c 0 fi r- — 4 O r-l O-iO 0 r- 0- pH •O p- v0 ct- >r —1 f\i «r (\i LO O O O r~> O OJ CO o co fl -XL £. _l ^ • _i -y: (_) lu _i • >-(_'— _J t — OiiX • • LO • ll ^< • tXILUK < ei"oocvQ:i^i-t->>j:i 0 0 r IT • • |H r- CO LO • ~* O CO «* M -0 OJ CO '\l •• r-^ -0 X' T — ro Xl m j--. ■i H J3 <3 q on z a LU >- X < I- V- l/l LU — O 00 5; < 3 UJ L0 < LU X 00 LU > < I TC o ct 3 t/j O ot: _l LU c < cj u LL; 'J- w- »— D X 0. O 21 — U LU ^ 27 Table 11. — Temperature variations in principal woodcock breeding areas of the United States, 1970-72 (temperatures in °F) . 1970 1971 1972 (25.0% increase (26.9% decrease (8.2% increase in age ratio) in age ratio) in age ratio) ATLANTIC REGION (25 climatological divisions) Average departure from normal +1.12° Temperature range -1.4° to +3.1° Number divisions above normal 22 Number divisions normal 1 Number divisions below normal 2 CENTRAL REGION (25 climatological divisions) Average departure from normal +0.62° -2.38° +3.16 Temperature range -3.4° to +3.2° -4.4° to -0.2° +1.4° to +5.4° Number divisions above normal 17 0 25 Number divisions normal 0 0 0 Number divisions below normal 8C 25 0 -1.58° + .56° -3.9° to +1. .4° -1, .7° to +2.9° 2a 19 1 2 22 4 aCoastal Maine and New York's St. Lawrence valley. "Northern Maine and northwestern Vermont. c Northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula 28 00 ct o □ Z t- — < n at lu • a O 3 2 O o ■ 3 at > LU < a. oo O LU z a. — o 3 _i • > Z LU > Cv < 00 0t L3 LU Z CO ^ s: -£ 3 tr C LL Q- a: a CC Lb a: > 3 2 3 Q oo X JJ at 3 i— UJ LU CD 0. X ^ a *— ™"s a c. z o ttj )— or I C3 o i— (— • !_> UJ ■cr s a. LU JJ O t— — < 00 t- UJ I I O I I ^ I I I I o ro -o nj p- r- p» p<*i — < I I «■» CO v0 00 -jr t t i t • CO LO O -O CO I 00 Hd I t . • 0s -O in I mo Mn j t • • • •o f\ o o> in -^ m co oo co I • • t t • • I 0> CO OhfllM r- <\ fM —> ^O'^OJ0<>^0v03r^rMOL0^rnL0-^L>rvj ,_i_if\i^^—i— <-*(\ir\)r\jr\ir\jr\) — ir\jr\i^c\|(\ir\j~*<\l-H-*-*<\j(\l<\jr\ir\i >tcor\jco--j.ncoir,.'\jr^p~-HLriiri-jrO'JLf\«J'^'^o-0-<0NOr-Hxo-*'r~i/> r\jc\jr\jr\jr\ir\j^t^cvjr\j:Njr^r\j.^r\j(Nt»-H-*ror\]--«r\jrvJ a- — i in pr>— icococr'rM-Op'i.-th-— _( ,}■,— i,— imr^rriONi-«.-iOO<,'i.-< p~oorOr- if\i p— in 0*1 -? 0"» -4- p- 3"-Hp— rvgCT>rniT\>Oi— ip- in -i- r". in in <"■ r\j r\i r\J r^ m r<^ r\j nJ>- pa pn r<~i >r — i 0- rsj -o nj — " re in -* r" (m O m^r\i0>O>J"-l-P-'-<'^ f\l P- >Jr P— -4" O N ^1" cm ot\jsOf\j — i >r in r-« rn *$■ r\j C* rf) (\j - 1 ro 0^ r-^o«— *inrrir\j>ororriin ■j- ~< i\i in -^ >o r T P- O —I co r\J r- —i r\i *t m pm rn 7- -J- -J- — < O P- n i-< h o- o r — 1 r- sO n- -> .J3 < > • 00 • TJO < LJ O _J < I- < z X • • >- at — I X LU k- I- X O O I- CO 00 > o Q CD UJ LU I- t- Q < «S LU 0C ■Z ~ JJ LU -J 0- q. a o O h- o O t- o O -J 3 O o z: x x jE •5 00 LU L0 00 (J ot at < lu •3t •- JJ z > 3 < I LU z 3 I LU T\ O 1- --i ^ < 1— in 00 LO < «- LL L LU a J _J 00 1- (— 1— < < o 3 > > Q CD 00 C nr 3 o a. UJ UJ 1— I— UJ -^ -* X jj OJ i— LO cy-l LU LU LL Ot at C CL Q_ ■jj LU s: Ot QJ 3 •yi oO in '^J LU LU > — (— X <1 at _l n LU z LL - ot CD _j !JJ Z z > i— i a ' ~i X a ~\ o L- S. — u a LU < o I LL rt JD 29 Q Z < < I o LU o o o 3 o o u Q O o 3 1/ UJ r~J ♦ >— (y0 _) ro .— < r>- < 1 CD OJ r- LL CO CT •— • sO c-" t i— 00 i/) >o i— ■ o o o o INI r-l ^j- in < an LLI o o z r^ O v0 cm 00 CO >oo r ro T CM in xO ro o> t- 0s — < •— t -* T —I LO m t CO in -i CO f\i ro cm r-i O 1*1 •k ar in in in —> -^ ro CM O o in •jo -4- m co ro sO ^ CM ro co ro t r- -4- o m -"-4 r-4 T o —I r-t O O cm m -o o t m tr o o r>"> ^f- ro ro ro rr\ rO "O rO CO r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- cm ac i i CM CO T O 0^ iT T ,-n ro ."0 m rO rO io ro h- r- r- r-- t~- l>- r- r~- rsj DO (\J cc .•M CC T tT (T CT- I C_i a: LU o z < < z I— < o < I 'J o I— _l 1— < M r- r^ ^M ro r~ rr -< r> o o 30 -< 0> rM C0 —4 ao co r- -o -O r~- Is- r- CO CO co r~ ~t in r- co r- co n0 --< nj T 4- O so o ro ro ^ ro CM r-l (M 0>J -< r^ — i ro o* o ^-4 *-* —i j^ ro cm — i —i CM r-t ro ro r-4 «t -4- ■O O co in ^0 in O CO *-* o in <\j >r\ so T r~ r- cm X fM ro in .4- ro m ro >4 m <4 O ~-> ro -< T ro in CO LO in co X -4- im nj » CT ~t ro O rM T CM .-o ro O-J sO in in rO IT rO X t—t f— 4 m i— i ro nj a r- ni r- r- r- -H O ^-4 »~t -H O o — < ro ro 0> O o — < rO ro rO ro CM O ro ro CM ro OJ CM CM CM ^-< CM CM r\J CM CM CM -M CM CM CM CM (M IN| v0 m. •o r- o o CM CM P- -C 00 —4 m0 *r •— t i— 1 co ro H -4" •JD -0 T -O r- r- p~ r^ -JO CM O ■* •-I O X f- «4 r. IT 4 ■4- -4" >t -4- •4" -4- ^- ro v4" -4" in in •t ~T •4- nT CO CM ■-H r- •-I rv in —> in o in r~ a- -4- CT r^ ~4- CM in cc ro rr, r-l (>n it in ro r- m cm m !■ r- CO -D r-4 r-4 CM -j r-l T in ro m vC -^ r-« OJ r^ ■4- O CO ro r- r~ I i CM » r- jo T (T < 30 11. O UJ SL or 3 — a. < o UJ or: < a: to o a — • UJ a. > z u o c o o o a 2 to O u. o z t- 0 Z to uj ; jj m m C1 z z l»- r- f^- r» r- r- r- f- r» r- r- r~ i>~ r~ » r- r- r- — □ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 »- to r\J CO ■ — » CD r—t CO INI CO .— * 00 .— « 00 r\J CO — 1 00 r- « CO Z < r- -0 *~ >C r- >£> r- -C r- >u r— -0 i»- ~d t— 0 r— no =5 Ul rr- o» C7> C* rn O- .7- 0- a- 0" a a- a- cr c o> a- .T X 10 O' ,-Js CO rn o e> r- -3- r- cc ^n it 30 o re m ur\ r- CO -4- sT NJ O 0* -3- TO Tl CO 'J"\ -1 0 r- a- m LA l"0 O I'- ve in CO o- 1—1 rn ro 1A -T rvl co o n0 INI * 1 — 1 '.J ^H *—* m m r\j f\| — 1 _ o I a o u. ■-> < O !NI UJ o a a 1 m on ■J- • ia c<\ (NJ ■Nl — LI CO CO vf r\i — • 0* J> O cc ~T -3" m r^ T rj m .4- ro j- -r r~ •o co rA rsi 0 -J- in r— cr sr >o a; rr- «0 r- '-) ^n nT -r\ INI u. < < < 2 O z to z s a z 3 rrj o 31 s: < > s. UJOUJ UJ f-J Q. < -J 00 3 LU 3 -J < co lo TJ< -* CM Is- : LO vf O r-J CO J- C ^ —4 cm CM ■o -0 r-t — 4 r-i -si ■* sT co ro CLU. l/i a uj n) O — 4 CO f\l ST nT *o o 0> cm f ~> •o X <0 or. PO LO INI i .1 CO m CJ sT (J* —4 —H t j o ~r oj ~jj — i a. ki t— » — t C\J -r r\J Nl LO r- ^T ~r CO ■T .--< rM CM r- ( r-t 5. - •■ ► < OO OJ cm .O ^0 ^-c — * •-* M OO ■~s> r<^ CO CO CO CO po CO CO -o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Z 2 r>- r- r- r~- r~ l«- r^ c~ r- r^ r- r- r— r>- r- c- r~ P- — a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l l l 1 1 1 1 i 1 i— v) CM CO —I CO —4 CO rsj cc r-~< o> — * CO rM o_ i— t CO — * 00 ^ < l»- •o r*- vo r- vO r^- .o r^ -0 e'- NO r- •O r- so r~- •o 3 JJ C> ON QS LT c* C7* o> o> er c> C7> CT o o 0^ r~ \o H rH CM CM p^ co rHiHiH f"^ r~~ \o a-* ON > > > > > < CO CM <: CO CM * • p^ r^ >* X p^ p^ >-l • p^ P^ s? • p^ P^ ^ O p*. P^ >- 1 oo on ON i o ON ON 1 j ON ON i Q ON ON 1 H ON ON 1 "5 -H ^H ~» H 2 H H -a- ►J m ^H ^H -,-r H ^H H H o t-\ rH co 1 O rH 1 1 rH rl ^-^ rH 1 1 1 1 1 •o CM rH C 1 rH rH cu ■* — ^^ CN CN 4-1 H CM — ^. ■* — CJ rH rl CN CN 01 rl rH rH rl O CJ CO 60 C •H s 0 e > > > > > > T3 CO CN < CO CM < CO CM < CO CM < ro CM < CO CM < ro CM < r^ r- r^- r^ r- r*. r*» !•*. r-* r-* 1^. r-» 1^ r*> cu > 1 CM rl U 1 CM rH U . 1 CM 1 rH u CM 1 rl U l CM 1 rl M 1 IN I rH H CM rH u r^ r- >| • p^ r^. rH 2 r*» r^ >H ■ r^ r^ >1 r*> r^ >H 00 r^ r^ >* P*. r^ t* cu On ON | f, i ON ON 1 [2j ON ON 1 X ON ON 1 • ON ON 1 CO ON ON 1 < ON ON 1 rH rH rH -* C i rl rH I I I I I I I H H H -H <■ r- in I I CN -J" CM H I ro m co I cn m I H CN H cn ON vO CN cn CN LT) ^ CN cn cn cn cn o r-. cn ro CN en rH \D -j- J H rH -H CN <}- rH O H rH rH H rH CN CX)lTlO> Is- m vO rH rH rH H CN H r-« r^» oo cocNin ■<(- m r«- CN h n rH cn cn CNCOCN tn I o CN H H m H CN n N CN rHI m un o cn h r-« cn ^o r~^ cti *4~ ON ON O O CO vO o o CN CN O^ O 00 r-. in CN 00 00 rH 00 o> in ON rH CO ON O O O 00 CN oo Is"* oo \o m r*- O O H H O O rH ^D CN rH rH rH o o rH CN O O r-* r-. I I W CN rH > < > < u ON ON I rH rH ■^~ u >* I H > < I > > > > < cn CM 1 — < CO CM > CO r^ r^ >-i Z r^ r^ rT • r^ r^ >H 1 CO CTn On 1 g ON ON 1 KH cn ON 1 St g ^H rH st o rH rH St PC! H rH > < co CM 1 — < U 1 CM rH u :- • h* r^ >H l <-i ON ON 1 35 rM ^ rH O H o w rH O rH O IN O §£ rH r-i X-\ 1 1 1 •-t 1 cm 1 rH | as ^_^ r-\ ,-i H CN ~~- CM rH rH rH w as -a ^ rH \ rH rH rH PH cu O rH O rH rH t-H CO CO r-< 60 0 •H r*~ s rH o o c H sG 1 4J H rH CM 3 c in CJ rH 0. o -i T3 0 ■H rl CU P. 60 a •H rl 3 TJ 0) +J CJ CU v£) O rH ^ ^ en os r^ ^o CN rH CM co - rH rH "0 oo r < u I o -~~ rH rH CO Csl — ^ CO I ^ r-i rH II 1 rH | 1 co II rH CM rH rH | II -■- ^ CN CN r-i iH O rH CO M iT) I I I en , r- \D lTi co O CN CN CO CN cn co co cn CM !-| CM r-- -vT r^ oo cn vo o rH m cn s o -J- mD OS O Ci] rH rH m uo O rH cn 3 *■ — "--^ — *« — CO ^ o o o o rH W PL, rH rH rH ^i OS r-i cn O > > > CO CS1 < CO CM <£ CO CN <2 CO CM -i r~ r-. >i • c~ r-^ >h -r^p- Ch Cft I J C? Ol I 'ChO\ I UOIOI I UCftW HH Z cn 3 oo > o CO CO CM I I rH CM CM CM CN CM I H oc^O 1 r-~ i • r- r^ i I < as as i ■Cf J HH CU rH Cd cd 36 a o ■H 60 OS CO 4-J c CU cj ttf CO 13 o •H M 4) a. 6" 13 I r-~ >n -Q (0 s o •H . 4-1 CJ cu H C ■h «d O J u 00 CO C 0) •H 0) S rH en II r~- 1 H CM r~. on X. 60 D O U .c u o r~- I on vo on rH e o 3 .O •H >H 4-> CO •rl a I I CO a) > u cfl ,C 4-1 C cu Si cd 4-1 a CU CJ u cu p-l a) x) O •H u cu 01 C •H ■i O cj o T3 O •H rl CU p. CU ■H CU a, n I -H en 60 c cu •H 4-1 p CO CU Q Pi o on on co r~. CM CM ~d" CM O r~» ^ CO co ~-r -* v£> H CM CM CM CO in in o h oi o h ci no in o ~* l I I ' cm Hcccfi no o no co vo h •* o <3" CVI ^H r-~ MAM CO CM ~Cf -~T I I I I COCMCOi-H i-li-li-l CM CO o * m \d in m -* -cr o co •» •* i in i-i i-H co o oo in ooio ■ "■> r-~ ON ON ON ON m m o o o o ON oo NO O ON m CO CN| HH rl CM rH CM CM I I I I I I I I i-H rH rH i-H ON ON ON ON 1-HrHrHi-H O rH CM CO r~. r~~ r~- r-~ I I I I On O rH CM no r-~ r~~ r~. On Ol ON On O rH CM CO O r~. r— r~- r~- r» I I I I I ON O H CM ON u < io fs i — r~~ ON ON ON ON O rH CM CO r~- r~- I I CM vO r~ r- r— ON ON ON ON & CO CO CO ifi i-HCMOON on m u CO O) 60 CO 4J a 0) o ri 01 O ■r) U 01 p. T3 0) c •H I o o o •H M 01 P- 6C C •rl CO S •H 4-1 W > M ca 4-1 o 0) oo 4-1 (S 01 CJ r4 01 PM 01 rH 0) ft N TO CO CO oo a oi •H 4-> C CO 01 p a. o u cfl 01 01 4-1 cd 4J CO no no ^r cm i-i no ~3" co in in I co oo sr I cn in in CN NO 00 cn CO CNI CNI H H CN1 ^H ^H i— I I ON O I O -* CN rH I rH m I H H H rH on -j- co on in co -* 00 CO CM rlrlri rl NO ON o m t st o\ co 00 CO •* ID CNCN rH 1H1H rH CN I I OO in m m I CN i o •H M CI) x: 4-1 o rt 13 00 C •H C 0) Cu • o >N rH c a o o 3 ON 01 CN CO 1 NO c CN o CO > c O •H 25 OO 0) T3 43 O •H T3 U O QJ •H CX U 0) >, (X cd xi 4-1 1 CO u M 3 •H o Pn P-. CO -o 38 o e K c -J CM iH CM oo co in I I I I u o I I I— I I I I I H i-l H I HHIOH CM CO t— I CO NO 00 ON NO co r~. o H rH i-l CM H no on m no H H CM CO CO NO NO CO CM i-H CM on r- in on CM CM r-l CM no i— i i— i o m cm oo H cote m vo to 1^ \D H rH rH rH CM I I I I o o o o a\ o> to -a CO 1^ CN O 00 r^ CM vO HH rH CO CM CM I CM I I r-~ co I CM oo no in co r-- cm in I CM r-l cm I o o o TJ TJ TJ ai a) oj to I to to oo oo r^- co o I o o rH rH rH CJ O U "d tj TJ TJ OJ 0) 01 OJ to to to to o o o o rH rH rH rH o c_> o o rHHHE-i s»00or- HHI I H I I I H H I HHNH tOI 00 rH CM CM CM rH rH rH ■* O*o\ CO r» rH CM rH CM rH rH COOOCOCM CO CM CM ON ChrlBS CM CO rH -J o no m co -a- o co in r^. r^ o cm rH O on oo r- ON P-H N rH CM rH NO CO rH CM rH rH CM rH rH NO r- in CM rH rH ^ h* in iD CO r- 00 CO rH ON ^ CM CM CM ON r^ O rH ON ON rH vo r- 00 rH O rH O O O O CM CM t— I CM CM CM CM III I I I I OrHCMCO OrHCMCO O rH CM CO OrHCMCO r^ r~ r~ r^ I I I I On O rH CM no r^ r^ r^ ON ON ON ON r-~ r-~ r-~ r^ I ON NO ON ON ON ON I o I I I I I I II ON O rH CM ON O NOr^.r~-r^ no r*. i — r* OnonOnOn onononon rHrHrHrH rHrHrHrH o o o o o -a- . NO r^ |-» r-* NO r^ I-. r^ ON on on ON ON ON ON ON cr. ON ON CJN ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 01 Q CO rH CO O S -S X 2= r-J 39 10 CU > u cd CU cd 4-1 c a) o Vh a) CO -a o ■H u C_> o CM CO <■ rH CMinorH ~3-r-~mv£> CM 4 rH CO rHincMCM CMOOO-3- mincof^ cm no J ncM-Cfn rHrHrHrHCMCM COCMrH CMrH rH in oi >o VO CO CO lO H OOVCft CM CM rH rH CM rH O O CM CM CM CM I I I I on on on on O rH CM CO r^ r~ r~ r^ I I on o l l H CM on on on on co on co in m o Oi o\ Ov o 53 N n r^ h no in co o co in in vo co O rH rH O rH CO CO NO CTi in -3- CO rH CM CM CM CM I I I I o o o o O rH CM CO r^ r^ r^ r^. I I I I CftO H(N v£j r-^ r^ r*^ o> CT> cr> o> cd Cri rH VD CTi 00 vC O 00 CO -3- ^O CM rH CM CM rH CM CM CM 0 rH CM CO r~ r- r- r^ I I I I 01 O rH CM vO r^. r^ r^- CTl CTi r-~i-~- OrHCMCO OrHCMCO QrHCMCO r*- r^ r^ r-^ I I I I ON O rH CM ^o r^. r^ p^ ON ON ON ON I I I I ON O rH CM ON O \or~-p*-r~- *£>r^r^r^ ONONONON ONONONON rHrHrHrH H H H H iS CO > u o CO T3 O •H Sh CU a j= ■u o rH •« U CU CU W "I T3 CU a, cu CO r*N C CTJ o *o I CO 00 C 00 CO CU Ji o •H rl cu *J 3 CO rH U O ■H X (u W cd -Q 40 u . ■O fi « at 0) CO 3 O , •H •H CO U 3 44 a 3 ON <3\ CT\ C3~i o> o> ON OS 44 •A -H CJ 0) 0) rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH •H 3 U P.IS 13 •3 > g CO X -H C 3 •H CO 0) ft M M 4-1 o *~x CJ CO OJ 4-1 o 44 3 r-l 4-1 14-1 60 fi O o O o O O o o O O o o ^ rH CD O O O o o O u-i m O o o « B o O o- vO m o 3 33 CM rH 6 3 ■H 3 43 en a> •H 13 3 4-1 3 O •H 4-> 3 N 1 43 63 o iH O •H 43 60 3 U O 01 3 O H 3 XI 3 3 co 4-J CO XI 3 3 ft XI 3 ft & X) 3 3 01 H O 43 CO r-l O CO •H CJ rH 144 O ■3 01 3 H X) 3 •r-l r-l g 3 § 3 O 01 CO (j U H XI H o r-l 43 a 01 60 ■H ft O > (0 Ol •3 60 H cd 0) 4-1 3 3 /~N Ph fl •H 3 3 •H CO 3 13 42 o 43 43 43 4-1 01 43 x> 3 60 u 60 60 60 60 H 44 CJ 4-1 c 3 3 3 3 O 3 H 13 CO •rH >, •H •H •H •H ft 44 3 s T3 0) "3 •3 •3 -3 P< CO Ol Ed 4-1 3 H 343 a3 3 3 3 co 3 CO 3 C0 3 3 CO 01 3 •» 4-1 43 3 43 43 0) 43 43 43 43 43 « 60 •H CO 43 >> •H CO 01 44 c 43 •3 60 ■3 -3 13 13 •a 01 XI l-l X) >> •H CO 3 •a 3 3 3 3 3 3 •H 3 3 3 3 4-> 13 4= 3 3 •H 4J 3 4-1 3 3 13 3 •H 4-1 •H s O 3 •a co O CO O O 3 O CO N-^ 3 > XI u O 3 H H (-1 44 u 3 H •H 43 C 60 H 3 3 60 3 60 60 CO 60 4-1 H 01 4J CO 60 43 0 O 3 0 rH CJ •» 60 | ■H 60 •H 60 60 0) 60 4-1 ^^ 01 X) 3 <3 •H x> 0) 60 3 3 3 3 3 3 § 43 3 0) 3 3< 3 ft 3 3 M 0) CO 01 CO « M •H O H O U H 3 H O o u 3 o CO CD H 44 -a 3 O H CO u 43 01 c ft 3 44 •H o 3 H •H •a 6 0) 01 4-J rH 43 CO M H 43 to 4-1 01 •H 3 •H CO C£ > 3 rH ft 13 g 01 co 43 4-1 •H 3 4J rH > s l-l a) 0) 3 m s 3 o o IH •H H CO 3 3 O •H a. •H ft 0 44 3 •H O u 01 4-J co rH 4= 4-> 44 •H 3 •H CH XI 3 -a o 0J 3 01 3 •H 4-1 3 N 4-1 rH s CO CJ CO 3 60 3 •H a a ■H O •H o o •H 3 3 4 r-l •H XI XI 3 s M o 4-1 42 3 M rH •H s X) 0) to 03 3 o s o CJ 60 o >■, > 3 4-1 X) 60 cd 13 3 3 •H >4 ?) O CO 3 M 01 d 3 CO 43 3 4-1 o 3 •H 3 O u « 3 1 O s 3 CO CO IH rH ft 3 O S Ol 0) 01 •H 3 /3 ffl c_> S S ft 3 3 41 o H Pi CM p~ ON ON o p~ on ON vD ON 00 VO ON r- VO on vD vD ON LO vO ON vi- vo ON co ON CM VO ON iHvDvOOnOOOOOOiHlOCOlO pv iH iH LO CM rH vt vO s en pq IE ►-)>-< cj co . w m u • • cti c4**-4J(d>M g2Z22ZZ0<(ii(i!M>>2e) g ONLor^tHi— l •* ui mv i-HCMP~CMOCMCOr-~vD iH iH 00 <• CO ON CO HOtDH ON CM CM ON LO vO VO i-l 00 i-l CO i-l on rv ON CM CO 00 vO cm rv vo on i— l CO » co m CM «4" rH o v£> CO O 03 H H ^ CM O rH CM oo oo r^rHcycocorHcoocMCMco co o r^r^r^rH'*cM-a'CM^D'^>cy\mcM-fl'r-*^a-r" -4" •4 •i-i ctj CM CO CM CM rH H H CO CM in rH CM O CO rH rH 00 CM rH <- rH rH UO rH rH CM m vD -a c rH rH CO rH rH rH mD r- M N C ■H (0 H < rH rH rH C Bl C O -H LT1 *T C\ G t-^ 1^- i— ICMc3\CT>H'T.-M^*03- 0O CM rH rHrH CO -H rH in CO >} H fl CO ^> CM GJ rH rH iH m CO cd 3 to C a] rH CM rH CM O «H r». rH rH CM a\ a- m m m en cr> o ON ^ >- CN CO rH vo r^ co O cm co n H ,_, CO CO CM rH rH rH ,H CM z f-- rH CM o ■z. p— i rH o s —, ^r H CM CN H h n ^ 00 C\ rH iH in CM rH rH rH rH -* ^D Q\ CO CO B .H rH CJ H — H rH CM CM § Z £ < pQ z to (OrlH -tf in CM CO ro CO m 00 DO rH HNfl r» n •* CN cm en CM H < »n rH rH CM r^ rt -J r- r^- 2 "3 H c ■J rH i-H rH rH r-* r- ^ u c HcMuiHinino-jHo\cA'^ m ■— < co i— t in CM CM rH rH rH CJ* COrH COCM CO in •H CM rH rH CMrHrHCMrHrH CM rH o *J 4-t 0 o o t-i . h U W ■ • • C/5 K U J OS Hrl ^ H c o >^co -h-h-h o s: M C cu (U-H (0 CO O .-JC_,QIk02:2:EZZZZZZCUO'c/J>>:s 4J 4-> V4 U-l H (4 O c n cu o < u H 43 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1974 O - 538-155 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. 2024Q POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INT 423