BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 767 7 WOODCOCK STATUS REPORT, 1975 %! % UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 201 Use of trade names does not imply U.S. Government endorsement of commercial products. WOODCOCK STATUS REPORT, 1975 by Joseph W. Artmann UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 201 Washington, D.C. • 1977 ■'^mvo'^'" Contents Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Wing-Collection Survey 2 Procedures 2 Results 4 Productivity index 5 Hunting success index 5 Chronology of harvest 16 Singing-Ground Survey 16 Procedures 16 Results 18 Late Winter Woodcock Hunting Curtailed 23 Banding Activities 23 Fifth American Woodcock Workshop 28 Acknowledgments 28 References 28 Appendices I. List of Papers Presented at the 5th American Woodcock Workshop 29 n. Summarization of the 5th American Woodcock Workshop 31 Woodcock Status Report, 1975 by Joseph W. Artmann Office of Migratory Bird Management Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, Maryland 20811 Abstract Hunting and harvest of American woodcock (Philohela minor) appear to be increasing. Wing-collection data indicated that the rangewide productivity index declined slightly during the 1974-75 season. In the Atlantic Region, the index increased 5%, while in the Central Region it declined 13%. Overall, daily hunting success remained constant, while seasonal hunting success declined slightly. The 1975 singing-ground survey indicated a slight decline rangewide in the number of male woodcock. In the Atlantic Region the breeding index declined about 5%, while in the Central Region it increased nearly 1%. Information is also presented on woodcock reproduction in the South and termination dates for 1975 woodcock hunting seasons, banding activities, and the Fifth Woodcock Workshop. Introduction During the past decade, the American woodcock (Philohela minor) has become an increasingly popular game bird over most of its range (Fig. 1). State and Federal surveys show that more hunters are now taking advantage of the recreational opportunity afforded by the woodcock. Woodcock harvests still rank well below waterfowl in terms of overall numbers, but in several northern States where woodcock harvest data are available, the ratio of woodcock to ducks harvested has narrowed to 1:2, or less (Table 1). Thus, woodcock have advanced from a "specialty" game bird sought by a few ardent hunters to a broader based recreational resource pursued by many sportsmen. Owen (1976) estimated that wood- cock provide between 2.5 and 3.0 million man-days of hunting recreation in the United States annually. In the United States there is no suitable rangewide sampling framework to determine woodcock har- vests. Until such time when an adequate sampling framework becomes available, the only index to the magnitude of the harvest is derived from hunters' responses to the Service's waterfowl hunter question- naire and to State harvest surveys. Clark (1972) found that the harvests indicated by the waterfowl hunter questionnaire were less than 50% of those indicated by State estimates. Hence, he felt that doubling the waterfowl hunter woodcock harvest would provide a conservative estimate to the rangewide harvest. Currently available data indicate that about 1.4 million woodcock were harvested during the 1973-74 hunting seasons. This represents about a 70% increase from the average of the 1964-65 seasons (Table 2). Data from the few States which have had woodcock harvest surveys during this same time period show even larger percentage increases in their woodcock harvests (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 in the United States. In 1974, 113,000 woodcock were harvested in Canada (J. Dobell, personal communication). Combining the Canadian and U.S. harvest estimates indicated the continental woodcock harvest exceeded 1.5 million birds during the 1974-75 hunting season. Relatively little research on woodcock has been accomplished and much remains to be learned about the biology of the species and its potential for meeting further recreational demands. Presently, two surveys provide the basis for establishing annual woodcock hunting regulations in the United States: (1) the wing-collection survey provides data on relative reproductive success during the previous breeding season, hunting success, changes in size and distribu- tion of the harvest by participating hunters; and (2) the singing-ground survey provides an index to the postmigrational population across the principal breeding range. Although imperfect, these two surveys produce the best information currently available for establishing annual hunting CENTRAL REGION ATLANTIC REGION Approx. U.S. Breeding Range Fig. 1. Reference areas of U.S. woodcock surveys. regulations. This report presents data from the 1974-75 wing-collection survey, the 1975 singing- ground survey, and additional information ac- cumulated since publication of the 1974 status report (Artmann 1975). Wing-Collection Survey Procedures Procedures for collecting, processing, and analyz- ing survey data have been described by Clark (1970, 1973). Survey participants are assembled in a nonrandom manner from a variety of sources, including those who: (1) participated in the survey the previous year; (2) indicated on the Service's waterfowl hunter questionnaire or State harvest surveys that they hunted woodcock; and (3) re- quested to be included in the survey. Clark (1972) discussed biases associated with assembling a survey sample from these sources, but speculated that major changes in productivity and hunting success could be detected. For many of the analyses, only data from persons who have participated in the survey for two Table 1. Comparison of percentage change in woodcock and duck harvests in Maine, Michigan, and Wisconsin from 1964-65 hunting seasons to 1973-74 seasons. Hunting season Hunting season 1964-65 1965-66 Average 1973-74 1974-75 Average % Change Maine Woodcock harvest^ Per woodcock hunter Duck harvest^ Per hunter 43,800 46,700 45,250 132,043 124,271 128,157 +183.2 4.21 4.46 4.32 4.43 4.76 4.58 67,900 58,800 63,350 85,563 105,030 95,297 +50.4 4.96 4.50 4.73 4.96 5.78 5.37 Michigan Woodcock harvest^ Per woodcock hunter Duck harvest" Per hunter 176,100 152,260 164,180 251,990 283,130 267,560 +63.0 2.35 2.07 2.21 2.37 2.71 2.54 256,600 261,000 261,800 350,858 394,190 372,524 +42.3 3.12 3.47 3.30 3.26 3.87 3.57 Wisconsin Woodcock harvest^ Per hunter'^ Duck harvest" Per hunter 108,200 60,600 84,400 0.29 0.16 0.23 141,200 218,800 0.31 0.45 180,000 +113.3 0.38 527,200 616,400 571,800 507,516 634,601 571,059 4.85 5.67 5.26 4.02 4.66 4.34 -0.1 Data from State harvest surveys. Data from Federal waterfowl harvest surveys. ^ Woodcock hunters not separated out in survey; small game and sportsman's license sales combined to approximate potential woodcock hunters. Table 2. Woodcock harvest data from Waterfowl Hunter Questionnaire Survey. Reference area Waterfowl hunters in woodcock hunting States Number* % Increase^ Waterfowl hunters who hunted woodcock Woodcock harvest by waterfowl hunters Number^ % Increase b Number^ % Increaseb North Central Mid-Central South Central Region total 368,170 302,660 341,510 1,012,340 18.9 51.2 38.0 33.7 68,050 18,900 17,800 104,750 63.2 103.2 32.3 62.5 220,050 51,550 88,600 360,200 58.8 89.5 30.2 54.1 North Atlantic Mid-Atlantic South Atlantic Region total 180,500 174,930 86,420 441,850 69.6 50.7 22.7 50.8 55,150 33,750 8,150 97,050 81.7 107.7 79.1 89.7 202,600 107,650 33,150 343,400 71.2 142.2 94.4 90.9 Northern Zone Mid-Zone Southern Zone 548,670 477,590 427,930 31.8 51.0 34.6 123,200 52,650 25,950 71.0 106.1 44.2 422,650 159,200 121,750 64.5 122.2 43.1 U.S. total in woodcock range 1,454,190 38.5 201,800 74.6 703,600 70.2 * Average of two latest seasons for which data are available (1973-74 and 1974-75). " Increase from average of 1964-65 and 1965-66 seasons. or more years have been used. Some of the data have also been weighted to compensate for differences in the number of participants and harvests in various States (Clark 1970). Wing totals may vary among different tables because incomplete information necessitated the exclusion of a few wings from some tabulations. A linear regression model was used to determine long-term trends. Results For the 1974-75 survey, 7,344 potential survey participants were contacted. Thirty-one percent responded and furnished data from one or more hunts, represented by 21,754 wings. Hunter response rates were generally higher in northern States than in southern States (Table 3). To compensate for this Table 3. Distribution of contacts and response rate in 1974-75 woodcock wing-collection survey (including Code 4 contacts added during season). State of Packets mailed b> Total No. of Percentage residence contact code^ contacted cooperators of contacts 1 2 4 8 9 responding Ala. 13 67 3 37 120 19 16 Ark. 4 31 35 5 14 Conn. 130 230 3 363 129 36 Del. 8 39 1 48 6 13 D.C. 2 10 12 1 8 Fla. 9 45 1 1 56 8 14 Ga. 20 56 14 138 228 33 14 111. 26 119 1 19 165 30 18 Ind. 18 115 4 137 34 25 Iowa 9 57 66 8 12 Kans. 1 38 39 3 8 Ky. 5 31 1 11 48 8 17 La. 46 197 16 259 33 13 Maine 167 277 27 71 542 254 47 Md. 20 131 8 1 160 29 18 Mass. 166 196 362 148 41 Mich. 138 100 4 58 453 753 216 29 Minn. 68 100 1 1 170 66 39 Miss. 20 93 1 114 16 14 Mo. 9 66 4 99 178 25 14 N.H. 56 146 6 12 220 69 31 N.J. 173 149 1 40 122 485 197 41 N.Y. 202 150 2 61 415 205 49 N.C. 30 91 73 194 28 14 Ohio 71 1 4 164 240 69 29 Okla. 2 22 24 1 4 Pa. 156 349 2 507 176 35 R.I. 34 51 1 11 97 40 41 S.C. 20 53 1 4 1 79 22 28 Tenn. 7 38 7 52 4 8 Texas 8 8 5 63 Vt. 64 85 6 155 64 41 Va. 36 2 6 312 356 26 7 W. Va. 17 21 3 41 13 32 Wis. 216 1 51 348 616 258 42 Total 1,971 3,154 49 327 1,843 7,344 2,248 31 Code 1 - Previous year's Code 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 hunters who submitted wings. Code 2 - Waterfowl mail survey hunters who reported hunting woodcock. Code 4 - Requested participation or proposed by fellow hunter. Code 8 - Previous year's Code 9 hunters who submitted wings. Code 9 - From list provided by State, primarily from State kill survey. difference and to improve the distribution of the wing sample, more hunters in mid-latitude and southern States have been contacted in recent years (Table 4). A State-by-State comparison of the number of cooperators, envelopes, and wings received during the 1973-74 and 1974-75 hunting seasons is shown in Table 5. Productivity Index The ratio of immatures per adult female in the wing survey is believed to provide an index to reproductive success during the preceding breeding season. Considerable variation in age ratios occurs among different harvest areas (Table 6) and between hunting seasons for the same harvest areas (Table 7). In addition to sampling variance, some of the variation may be caused by differences in hunting season dates, weather conditions, hunting restric- tions, and possibly a combination of differential migration and hunting vulnerability. Variation has been reduced by computing the weighted age ratios with data only from hunters who participated in the survey for two consecutive years. The 1974-75 rangewide productivity index declined 2% when compared to 1973-74 (Table 7). Generally, age ratios appeared to have been lower across the northern tier of States (Fig. 2). Comparing rangewide data from 1965 to the present does not show any significant long-term trend in productivity (Fig. 3). Since 1971, the rangewide productivity index has recovered to the point where the 1975 index is 5% above the 10-year average value. Separating the 1974-75 weighted rangewide age ratio data into the regional components indicated that productivity increased 8% in the Atlantic Region and decreased 13% in the Central Region. Comparing regional data from 1965 to 1974 revealed no signifi- cant long-term productivity trends but the 1974-75 indices were above their 10-year averages in both regions (Fig. 4). Hunting Success Index Based on data from comparable hunters, daily hunting success (average number of wings per envelope) remained constant, while seasonal hunting success (average number of wings per cooperator) decreased about 5% (Table 8). Rangewide daily and seasonal hunting success for the past 10 years indicated no significant long-term trends (Fig. 5). The regional hunting success data indicated that hunters generally were more successful during the 1974-75 season in the Central Region than in the Atlantic Region (Fig. 6). Data from 1965 to 1974 revealed no significant long-term trends for either daily or seasonal hunting success in the Atlantic Region, or for seasonal hunting success in the Central Region (Fig. 7). A significant downward trend was noted in daily hunting success in the Central Region (P<0.01). However, in this Region, daily hunting success has increased during the last three hunting seasons but still remains below the 10-year mean. Another measure of hunting success is the distribu- tion of the daily bag size. Overall, the percentage of hunts with larger daily bags was higher during the 1974-75 season than the average for the 1970-75 seasons (Table 9). The Central Region and the north- central harvest area in particular had the greatest percentage increase in bag size of five. Table 4. Changes in regional distribution of hunter contacts, 1968-69 to 1974-75. 7-year Reference area 1968-69 1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 percent change North Central 1,894 1,757 1,061 1,539 -19 Mid-Central 542 721 795 925 +71 South Central 286 454 939 560 +96 Region total 2,722 2,932 2,795 3,024 +11 North Atlantic 2,836 2,304 2,982 2,154 -24 Mid-Atlantic 1,424 1,764 1,872 1,609 +13 South Atlantic 264 447 616 557 +111 Region total 4,524 4,515 5,470 4,320 -5 Northern Zone 4,730 4,061 4,043 3,693 -22 Mid-Zone 1,966 2,485 2,667 2,534 +29 Southern Zone 550 901 1,555 1,117 +103 U.S. total 7,246 7,447 8,265 7,344 +1 Table 5. Comparison of woodcock wing-collection data from the 1973-74 and 1974-75 hunting seasons (includes envelopes submitted from hunts where no birds bagged). Average Average State of Number of Number of Number of no. of wings no. of wings residence cooperators 73-74 74-75 envelopes wings per 73-74 envelope 74-75 per coo 73-74 perator 73-74 74-75 73-74 74-75 74-75 Ala. 16 19 49 55 76 62 1.6 1.1 5 3 Ark. 4 5 22 24 34 46 1.5 1.9 9 9 Conn. 133 129 479 479 872 778 1.8 1.6 7 6 Del. 10 6 24 19 21 13 0.9 0.5 2 2 Fla. 11 8 26 18 40 29 1.5 1.6 4 4 Ga. 34 33 101 104 234 216 2.3 2.1 7 7 111. 27 30 59 74 108 119 1.8 1.6 4 4 Ind. 22 34 80 130 100 171 1.3 1.3 5 5 Iowa 9 8 23 28 39 31 1.7 1.6 4 4 Kans. 1 3 1 4 0 1 0.0 0.3 0 0 Ky. 6 8 16 23 27 31 1.7 1.3 5 4 La. 62 33 216 187 445 386 2.1 2.1 7 12 Maine 239 252 1,465 1,635 3,799 3,787 2.6 2.3 16 15 Md. 29 29 126 170 291 400 2.3 2.4 10 14 Mass. 168 147 887 736 1,774 1,425 2.0 1.9 11 10 Mich. 197 216 993 1,006 2,260 2,214 2.3 2.2 11 10 Minn. 70 66 366 332 914 870 2.5 2.6 13 13 Miss. 21 16 83 68 126 110 1.5 1.6 6 7 Mo. 13 25 20 49 31 70 1.6 1.4 2 3 N.H. 71 68 345 390 583 624 1.7 1.6 8 9 N.J. 217 196 1,066 899 2,126 1,580 2.0 1.8 10 8 N.Y. 206 203 1,063 1,124 2,217 2,289 2.1 2.0 11 11 N.C. 31 28 89 75 144 140 1.6 1.9 5 5 Ohio 73 69 275 289 559 573 2.0 2.0 8 8 Okla. 2 1 2 4 2 3 1.0 0.8 1 3 Pa. 158 175 565 555 1,109 867 2.0 1.6 7 5 R.I. 45 40 223 173 441 363 2.0 2.1 10 9 S.C. 25 22 73 81 141 142 1.9 1.8 6 6 Tenn. 14 4 26 6 38 5 1.5 0.8 3 1 Texas 8 5 25 12 59 15 2.4 1.3 7 3 Vt. 71 64 492 486 1,010 943 2.1 1.9 14 15 Va. 42 26 126 63 202 97 1.6 1.5 5 4 W. Va. 20 13 102 64 236 132 2.3 2.1 12 10 Wis. 271 257 1,232 1,202 2,611 2,634 2.1 2.2 10 10 Other — — 160 242 443 589 — — — — Total 2,326 2,238 10,900 10,806 23,112 21,755 2.1^ 2.0'* 9.7^ 9.7^* Unweighted mean excludes information from the special study areas, and unknown contact codes. Table 6. Woodcock productivity by harvest area as indicated by the 1974-75 wing-collection survey. Age and sex categories Unknown age Total wings received Area of Adult Immature Immatures per harvest Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown adult femaleb Ala. 21 19 _ 15 13 68 Ark. 14 16 — 15 7 1 — 53 — Conn. 98 172 2 209 180 2 — 663 2.27 Del. 1 2 — 4 3 — — 10 — Fla. 6 8 — 4 11 — — 29 — Ga. 74 96 — 39 40 — — 249 0.82 111. 13 14 — 22 24 1 — 74 — Ind. 16 23 — 33 23 2 — 97 — Iowa 3 13 — 4 6 — — 26 — Kans. — — — 1 — — — 1 — Ky. 10 2 1 8 10 — — 31 — La. 28 81 1 146 147 — — 403 3.62 Maine 1,096 1,543 12 1,030 969 6 18 4,674 1.30 Md. 65 90 — 94 53 1 3 306 1.64 Mass. 178 243 3 163 143 6 6 742 1.28 Mich. 518 714 14 665 582 9 12 2,514 1.76 Minn. 154 228 3 225 193 — 2 805 1.83 Miss. 17 48 — 25 20 — — 110 0.94 Mo. 14 13 — 7 10 — — 44 — N.B. 36 48 2 51 42 3 1 183 2.00 N.H. 218 313 6 228 217 5 2 989 1.44 N.J. 223 288 3 423 328 5 11 1,281 2.63 N.Y. 543 778 12 604 537 8 7 2,489 1.48 N.C. 24 22 — 46 41 — — 133 3.95 Ohio 105 127 5 95 86 — 1 419 1.43 Okla. — — — 1 2 — — 3 — Pa. 187 221 5 309 255 4 11 992 2.57 Quebec 2 6 — 4 4 — — 16 — R.I. 26 37 — 53 31 1 — 148 2.30 S.C. 24 42 — 43 39 — 2 150 1.95 Tenn. 2 1 — — — — — 3 — Texas 2 2 — 4 5 — — 13 — Vt. 193 265 3 248 231 8 2 950 1.84 Va. 18 19 — 21 19 2 4 83 — W. Va. 33 42 — 33 32 — — 140 1.55 Wis. 514 785 6 797 749 4 2 2,857 1.97 Total 4,476 6,321 78 5,669 5,052 68 84 21,748 1.71 Excluding wings from special study areas. Unweighted data from harvest areas represented by at least 100 wings. Table 7. Indices of woodcock productivity as indicated by age ratios determined from wings received from cooperators who participated in both 1973-74 and 1974-75 surveys. Proportion of Area of total kill harvest (weighting factor) Number of wings received Adult females Immatures Immatures per adult female^ 1973-74 1974-75 1973-74 1974-75 1973-74 1974-75 1973-74 1974-75 Ala. Ark. Conn.° Del. Fla. Ga. 111. Ind. Iowa Ky. La.b Maine^ Md.b Mass.b Mich.b Minn.b Miss. Mo. N.B.^ N.H.*' N.J.b N.Y.b N.C. Ohiob Pa.b Quebec R.I. S.C. Tenn. Texas Vt.b Va. W. Va. Wis.b 0.0217 .0438 .0667 .0963 .0088 .0350 .1928 .0162 .0256 .0397 .1214 .0410 .1804 .0323 .0776 63 19 614 7 21 192 19 24 10 13 321 3,747 178 895 2,117 626 89 18 166 689 1,245 2,196 65 295 831 18 139 59 7 15 903 131 153 2,228 38 41 541 2 14 175 26 32 17 15 348 3,834 235 638 1,992 711 70 11 159 687 1,054 2,047 76 338 715 12 59 57 2 13 826 73 115 2,476 125 54 77 1,214 54 252 486 141 28 32 185 315 622 80 252 39 245 40 26 671 132 68 69 1,237 75 215 573 201 34 42 224 238 635 99 156 20 233 18 35 664 24 11 369 5 18 83 11 12 6 7 199 1,761 94 491 1,275 392 44 10 99 342 680 1,115 40 162 397 10 81 27 2 7 445 70 99 1,139 14 18 329 1 7 57 14 19 7 7 252 1,666 103 265 980 367 23 2 81 313 623 952 49 142 412 6 27 25 9 419 37 53 1,351 2.95 1.54 2.58 1.45 1.74 1.95 2.62 2.78 1.57 3.09 1.85 2.16 1.79 2.03 1.58 2.08 1.82 1.75 3.81 1.70 2.49 0.84 3.65 1.35 1.37 1.23 1.71 1.83 0.68 1.93 1.40 2.62 1.50 1.43 2.64 1.35 1.80 2.06 1.51 2.03 Total and weighted age ratio b 18,113 17,449 5,028 5,063 9,527 8,630 1.99 1.95 Change in weighted age ratio -2.01% Computed only for harvest areas (states) represented by at least 150 wings in the 2 years. Weighted age ratios for the sum of the products of state age ratios x their weighting factors. r nJH) Increase tttttl Decrease Fig. 2. Changes in the weighted age ratios as determined from wing-collection data for cooperators who participated in both the 1973-74 and 1974-75 surveys. 10 X = 1.81 Hunting Season Fig. 3. Weighted age ratio indices for rangewide woodcock wing-collection survey data from comparable hunters (Base Year — 1969-70). 11 REGION Atlantic Central 2. 3. cd S 14-1 3 -a R) 01 . ,60 . 55 , 50 ■ .1+5 - itO . 35 ■ ,30 . REGION Atlantic Central DAILY HUNTING SUCCESS V' \ y V^ \ \ ♦ /sv X = 2.55 r = -.75 X = 2.43 V ,25 +_ 65 66 67 I 68 69 70 Hunting Season ' I 71 72 —I — 71+ Fig. 7. Weighted daily and seasonal hunting success indices for regional woodcock wing- collection survey data from comparable hunters (Base Year— 1969-70). 16 Table 9. Distribution of daily bag sizes in woodcock wing collection by harvest areas 1974-75 and 1970-71 through 1974-75 seasons. Bag size Total successful Harvest area Year 1 2 3 4 5 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % hunts No. Central 1974-75 821 34.6 510 21.5 331 13.9 224 9.4 487 20.5 2,373 1970-75 804 40.9 443 22.4 307 15.6 151 7.5 277 13.4 1,982 Mid-Central 1974-75 151 47.6 63 19.9 39 12.3 19 6.0 45 14.2 317 1970-75 146 52.1 60 21.3 37 12.8 14 4.8 26 8.7 283 So. Central 1974-75 150 47.2 79 24.8 41 12.9 21 6.6 27 8.5 318 1970-75 157 50.5 69 22.0 44 13.7 16 4.8 29 8.8 315 Central 1974-75 1,122 37.3 652 21.7 411 13.7 264 8.8 559 18.6 3,008 Total 1970-75 1,107 43.2 572 22.3 388 15.1 181 6.9 332 12.4 2,580 No. Atlantic 1974-75 1,669 38.3 947 21.7 602 13.8 443 10.2 698 16.0 4,359 1970-75 1,495 39.8 893 23.8 601 16.1 318 8.1 471 12.0 3,778 Mid-Atlantic 1974-75 608 46.5 286 21.9 179 13.7 89 6.8 146 11.2 1,308 1970-75 609 46.5 309 23.5 176 13.5 92 6.6 135 9.7 1,321 So. Atlantic 1974-75 144 52.2 55 19.9 29 10.5 26 9.4 22 8.0 276 1970-75 147 57.7 53 20.5 28 10.9 14 5.2 14 5.5 256 Atlantic 1974-75 2,421 40.7 1,288 21.7 810 13.6 558 9.4 866 14.6 5,943 Total 1970-75 2,251 42.3 1,255 23.6 805 15.1 424 7.6 620 11.2 5,355 U.S. Total 1974-75 3,543 39.6 1,940 21.7 1,221 13.6 822 9.2 1,425 15.9 8,951 1970-75 3,358 42.6 1,827 23.2 1,193 15.1 605 7.4 952 11.6 7,935 Chronology of Harvest Data from States where there are large wing- collection samples can provide some idea of migrational chronology. The data are summarized by 7-day periods, beginning with the opening hunting season date in each State from 1971-72 to 1974-75 (Tables 10 and 11). There is some variation among years even though the opening date is essentially the same, reflecting the influence of weather conditions on migration, leaf fall, and hunter activity. However, a large proportion of the harvest occurring con- sistently at the beginning or end of the hunting season indicates that the hunting season could be adjusted either earlier or later to maximize the hunting opportunity. Personnel from States with small wing samples can look at data from other States in the same general latitude to approximate when the peak of migration normally occurs in their area. Singing-Ground Survey Procedures The singing-ground survey, which involves counts of displaying male woodcock heard during the spring along predetermined routes, is interpreted as an index to the size of the postmigrational breeding population. Before 1964, survey routes were estab- lished in areas known to support woodcock popula- tions. From 1964 to 1970, the survey was gradually shifted to routes randomly located throughout the major breeding range. Since 1970, the breeding population index has been based solely on random routes which provide better statistical reliability. In computing the index, data from each State were weighted according to its proportion of the total land area (inland water area excluded) within the range of the species (Clark 1970). 17 Table 10. Distribution of 1971-72 through 1974-75 wing collections by 7 -day periods"'— Atlantic region. (T = less than 1%) Percentage of harvest State Year Opening Sample Percentage of harvest in singl e period in combined pe riods date size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1&2 3-6 7-10 Conn. 1971-72 10-16 581 15 16 15 20 19 11 3 T 1 T 31 65 4 1972-73 10-21 610 29 26 26 11 6 3 T — — — 55 44 T 1973-74 10-20 759 19 16 24 17 12 7 2 1 — — 35 61 3 1974-75 10-19 661 25 21 27 13 11 3 T T — — 46 54 T Del. 1971-72 11-19 56 27 25 5 7 2 2 12 11 9 — 52 16 32 1972-73 9-30 13 — — 8 23 — 15 15 31 8 — — 46 54 1973-74 10-17 14 — 7 50 — 14 21 7 — — — 7 86 7 1974-75 10-21 10 10 — — — 80 — 10 — — — 10 90 — Fla. 1971-72 11-20 18 — 11 6 6 28 17 11 — 17 6 11 56 33 1972-73 11-11 47 — 11 26 23 — 6 23 9 2 — 11 55 34 1973-74 11-10 37 — 11 3 5 11 14 24 16 5 8 14 54 31 1974-75 12-21 17 71 12 12 — — — 6 — — — 83 12 6 Ga. 1971-72 11-20 135 12 2 32 10 13 4 13 3 7 2 14 60 26 1972-73 11-20 143 13 10 11 4 7 22 11 5 12 4 23 45 32 1973-74 11-20 224 12 15 20 11 7 12 5 13 3 T 27 50 23 1974-75 11-20 249 15 15 22 9 11 2 11 10 3 3 30 44 27 Maine 1971-72 9-24 3,750 3 16 28 22 20 8 2 T — — 19 79 2 1972-73 9-25 3,715 2 19 26 30 15 7 1 T — — 20 79 1 1973-74 9-24 4,423 2 13 25 24 23 8 2 2 T T 15 81 4 1974-75 9-23 4,664 10 10 21 22 24 11 1 T T T 20 78 2 Md. 1971-72 10-5 210 2 1 4 9 7 19 30 20 7 1 3 39 58 1972-73 10-5 115 9 2 18 8 20 12 19 7 3 3 10 58 31 1973-74 10-5 213 7 7 10 10 15 9 17 12 9 2 13 46 40 1974-75 10-5 308 3 4 12 16 18 11 13 14 7 3 7 57 37 Mass. 1971-72 10-10 709 32 21 21 14 8 4 1 — — — 52 47 1 1972-73 10-10 898 42 28 13 11 5 1 T — — — 70 30 — 1973-74 10-10 1,100 35 23 12 13 9 5 2 T — — 58 39 2 1974-75 10-10 731 37 20 20 16 4 2 T T — — 57 42 T N.H. 1971-72 10-1 850 21 18 26 18 13 4 — T — — 38 62 T 1972-73 10-1 879 26 28 24 14 7 2 — — — — 53 47 — 1973-74 10-1 938 27 19 22 21 8 2 T — — — 46 53 T 1974-75 10-1 985 31 19 21 21 6 T T — T — 50 49 T N.J. 1971-72 10-2 1,799 4 8 5 7 21 21 18 10 6 1 12 54 34 1972-73 10-14 897 12 16 16 15 12 12 7 2 5 2 28 56 16 1973-74 10-13 1,591 7 10 13 19 19 16 9 5 T T 17 66 15 1974-75 10-12 1,269 8 18 20 18 12 9 5 4 2 3 26 59 15 N.Y. 1971-72 9-20 1,939 4 7 10 14 15 21 22 5 1 — 11 61 28 1972-73 9-20 1,966 3 8 17 21 15 13 14 8 1 T 11 66 23 1973-74 9-20 2,601 5 8. 16 14 24 16 12 3 2 T 13 70 17 1974-75 9-20 2,480 4 9 19 17 25 15 6 4 1 T 13 76 11 N.C. 1971-72 12-11 133 8 20 4 9 8 11 5 7 20 8 28 33 39 1972-73 12-9 185 17 16 22 10 3 8 3 8 6 3 33 42 25 1973-74 12-8 126 10 16 16 6 12 5 19 7 4 2 27 39 33 1974-75 12-6 128 15 6 15 17 3 7 5 8 8 17 21 42 38 Continued 18 Table 10. Distribution of 1971-72 through 1974-75 wing collections by 7 -day periods^ — Atlantic region. (T = less than 1%) — Continued. Percentage of harvest Qtafo Year Opening date Sample size Percentage of harvest in singL B period in con- ibined periods OLdtc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1&2 3-6 7-10 Pa. 1971-72 10-16 1,137 27 18 26 17 8 4 T 45 55 T 1972-73 10-14 1,051 40 25 13 13 7 1 T T — — 65 34 T 1973-74 10-13 1,161 32 20 20 20 5 2 T — — — 51 48 T 1974-75 10-12 987 17 31 18 21 8 4 T — — — 48 51 T R.I. 1971-72 10-23 81 40 15 21 6 4 10 4 — 1 — 54 41 5 1972-73 10-21 113 36 20 25 11 3 1 2 3 — — 57 39 4 1973-74 10-20 167 24 18 28 16 9 5 T T — — 42 57 T 1974-75 10-19 132 40 16 15 20 6 — — — 2 T 56 41 3 S.C. 1971-72 12-24 109 9 5 7 8 9 5 15 17 20 3 15 30 55 1972-73 12-26 127 11 17 16 5 7 6 4 17 17 1 28 33 39 1973-74 12-26 151 25 15 5 7 8 14 8 8 8 3 40 33 27 1974-75 12-20 134 14 10 10 12 7 6 9 17 8 7 24 35 41 Vt. 1971-72 9-25 888 13 10 11 24 26 11 4 T — — 23 73 4 1972-73 9-30 675 22 22 27 18 9 3 T — — — 44 56 T 1973-74 9-29 1,042 16 17 27 23 12 5 T — — — 33 67 T 1974-75 9-28 945 18 23 17 22 13 5 2 T — — 4"1 57 2 Va. 1971-72 11-15 84 39 8 23 11 1 2 2 2 6 5 48 37 16 1972-73 11-13 89 20 17 3 4 1 2 13 18 16 5 37 11 52 1973-74 10-15 162 2 3 2 10 25 19 10 12 11 2 6 56 36 1974-75 11-1 83 33 13 11 14 4 17 7 1 — — 46 46 8 W. Va. 1971-72 10-16 243 21 11 26 19 13 8 2 — — — 32 66 2 1972-73 10-14 208 10 20 16 38 12 4 — — — — 30 70 — 1973-74 10-13 251 14 11 22 24 14 6 5 6 — — 25 66 9 1974-75 10-12 138 17 21 22 14 21 5 — — — — 38 62 — ^ First period begins on season opening date. Routes on which no woodcock have been heard for two consecutive years under comparable cir- cumstances are placed in the "Constant 0" group. They continue to be included in the comparable route calculations but are scheduled to be field-checked only at 5-year intervals. Because the group of routes paired with comparable routes the preceding year may not necessarily be the same group paired with comparable routes the subsequent year, it is illogical to depict numbers of singing birds heard per route. Similarly, conversion to random routes, which averaged fewer birds than management routes, also precludes portraying the average number of birds per route. In order to compare the results, the data were adjusted by the percentage change in number of birds heard between years with 1970 as base year (Clark 1973). Results In 1975, the number of woodcock heard along 901 comparable routes decreased 1.5% rangewide (Table 12). Separating the data into regional components revealed that the Atlantic Region breeding popula- tion index (BPI) decreased 4.6%, while the Central Region's increased 0.8% (Fig. 8). The decrease in the Atlantic Region's BPI continued the general decline apparent since 1967, with the 1975 index being about 1 4% below the 1 2-year average (Fig. 9). The regression model indicated an annual rate of decline of 2% per year (P<0.01). In contrast, the Central Region's BPI declined before 1969 and since then has fluctuated around the mean. The 1975 index was about 13% above the 12-year average, but the overall increase was not statistically significant. 19 Table 11. Distribution of 1971-72 through 1974-75 wing collections by 7-day periods^— Central region. (T = less than 1%) State Year Opening date Sample size Percentage of harvest in single period Percentage of harvest in combined periods 8 10 1&2 3-6 7-10 Ala. Ark. ni. Ind. Iowa Ky. La. Mich. Minn. Miss. 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 12-24 12-26 12-26 12-26 12-1 12-1 12-1 12-1 10-15 10-15 10-15 10-15 9-25 9-23 9-22 9-28 10-21 9-22 9-21 11-18 11-16 10-15 10-15 11-25 12-9 12-8 12-7 9-15 9-15 9-15 9-15 9-4 9-2 9-1 9-7 12-18 12-18 12-15 12-14 42 49 74 65 21 28 34 53 28 37 24 74 52 98 45 97 2 13 26 0 10 27 31 307 730 448 402 2,385 1,994 2,568 2,505 707 542 765 802 37 195 133 109 12 14 10 12 5 5 10 10 19 5 26 31 43 18 12 10 12 12 8 10 14 2 — 31 43 27 8 1 26 24 8 3 8 12 7 3 9 61 30 9 14 9 6 8 14 20 12 6 2 23 37 40 10 5 29 24 19 5 5 — — 5 14 76 10 — 4 4 11 7 4 18 25 29 — 4 25 71 6 9 18 24 3 9 12 12 9 — 15 53 32 11 4 6 6 11 — 4 13 26 18 15 23 61 4 7 11 — 54 4 21 — — — 11 68 21 27 24 3 30 11 3 3 — — — 51 46 3 46 25 4 8 17 — — — — — 71 29 0 23 8 12 27 28 1 — — — — 31 68 — — 8 14 10 21 8 10 12 19 — 8 52 40 9 6 7 1 7 26 20 23 — — 15 41 44 20 4 4 13 29 7 17 4 4 — 24 53 23 19 3 20 15 8 8 26 1 — — 22 51 27 CLOSED SEASON 100 — — — — — — — — — 100 — — 23 — — — 15 8 54 — — — 23 23 54 12 12 — — 50 23 - — 4 — 24 73 4 60 30 10 — — — — — — — 90 10 — — — — — — 15 52 33 — — — 15 85 — — — — — 65 16 19 — — — 65 35 6 8 13 11 19 6 15 8 12 2 14 48 38 15 16 21 10 6 13 9 5 2 3 31 50 19 10 10 12 20 13 12 10 8 5 T 20 56 23 22 17 16 10 9 11 4 4 3 3 39 46 14 15 10 12 17 14 16 11 4 1 — 25 59 16 17 9 17 17 18 10 7 4 2 — 26 61 13 14 13 15 16 14 15 8 4 IT 26 61 13 21 14 13 19 17 12 3 IT— 35 61 4 6 4 12 5 12 17 18 19 6 T 10 46 44 8 8 8 5 10 21 23 13 4 1 16 44 40 5 7 9 9 13 17 9 6 1 T 11 49 40 9 5 11 13 15 28 16 4 T T 14 67 20 46 8 5 3 3 11 3 8 5 8 54 22 24 34 19 6 4 3 3 7 14 7 4 53 15 32 13 13 11 5 6 6 12 8 23 4 26 28 47 22 20 15 10 4 9 3 6 8 3 42 38 20 Continued 20 Table 11. Distribution of 1971-72 through 1974-75 wing collections by 7- day periods"'— Central region. (T = less than 1%)— Continued. Percentage ■ of harvest Qtd+o Year Opening Sample Percentage of harvest in singl( i period in combined pei riods OI>d.lc date size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1&2 3-6 7-10 Mo. 1971-72 10-1 12 8 _ _ _ 8 50 17 _ 17 8 58 33 1972-73 10-1 24 8 — 12 — 29 — 29 21 — — 8 42 50 1973-74 10-1 27 — — — 26 — 19 19 4 33 — 0 44 56 1974-75 10-1 44 2 — 9 7 20 18 39 2 2 — 2 55 43 Ohio 1971-72 9-17 419 13 5 5 14 14 12 18 10 7 2 18 45 36 1972-73 9-15 413 8 8 10 14 18 11 12 14 5 T 15 53 32 1973-74 9-17 376 16 5 6 9 17 14 17 13 2 3 21 45 33 1974-75 9-14 419 3 5 5 6 13 20 21 18 6 4 8 44 49 Okla. 1971-72 1972-73 11-20 11-20 7 4 14 75 28 25 14 — 14 14 14 — — — 43 100 43 14 1973-74 11-20 1 — 100 — — — — — — — — 100 — — 1974-75 11-20 3 — 33 — — 67 — — — — — 33 67 — Tenn. 1971-72 11-6 50 22 26 26 14 4 4 4 — — — 48 48 4 1972-73 11-18 13 54 15 — — — 15 — 8 — 8 69 15 15 1973-74 11-22 35 14 9 6 14 20 3 — — — 34 23 43 34 1974-75 10-12 3 — — — 33 — — 33 — — 33 — 33 67 Tex. 1971-72 11-20 59 — 8 5 10 12 8 7 20 24 5 8 36 56 1972-73 11-18 18 — 11 11 — 11 39 28 — — — 11 61 28 1973-74 11-17 59 — 7 2 8 27 24 19 2 3 8 7 61 32 1974-75 11-16 13 7 — 15 23 8 — 23 — 15 8 7 46 46 Wis. 1971-72 9-11 1,680 5 4 4 12 23 19 19 12 1 1 9 58 33 1972-73 9-16 2,328 8 5 17 17 24 13 10 5 1 T 13 71 16 1973-74 9-15 2,729 9 8 18 18 20 15 9 3 3 1 17 70 13 1974-75 9-14 2,855 10 9 15 20 25 15 5 2 T T 19 75 7 ^ First period begins on season opening date. 21 Table 12. Woodcock breeding population indices as indicated by singing-ground surveys in 1974 and 1975 (random routes only). State or Province Number of routes conducted 1974 1975 Comparable routes^ Woodcock heard per comparable route 1974 1975 Atlantic Region Connecticut 10 Delaware 2 Maine 51 Maryland 16 Massachusetts 15 New Brunswick 59 New Hampshire 16 New Jersey 12 New York 66 Nova Scotia 40 Pennsylvania 40 Prince Edward Island 9 Quebec 31 Rhode Island 2 Vermont 22 Virginia 29 West Virginia 23 Regional total & weighted average^ 443 Regional index change Central Region Illinois 17 Indiana 25 Michigan 94 Minnesota 46 Ohio 46 Ontario 45 Wisconsin 66 Regional total & weighted average" Regional index change Rangewide total & weighted averageb Rangewide index change 339 782 9 9 2.33 2.77 2 1 0.0 0.0 43 41 4.22 4.44 15 18 1.22 0.72 14 15 2.06 1.46 58 42 5.17 5.12 12 12 3.50 2.75 12 13 2.76 1.76 58 71 2.61 2.26 32 34 2.26 2.00 30 62 0.68 0.71 8 10 2.60 3.40 31 10 2.10 1.30 2 4 0.75 0.50 18 9 2.22 2.33 19 76 0.42 0.39 22 54 0.61 0.88 !85 481 2.46 2.34 -4.60% 49 25 0.0 0.04 23 55 0.40 0.25 84 83 4.41 4.43 68 50 2.12 2.12 36 74 1.06 0.79 47 42 6.57 6.62 78 91 2.25 2.51 585 420 3.38 3.41 +0.79% 770 901 2.92 2.88 -1.48% ^ Includes routes carried as constant zero routes. 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 5,180 km- or where the 2-year average is less than 0.5 bird per route. 22 13 C 3 O be C ■& C c -a 3 c T3 O o en o c 2 j= -a " c OJ CQ c2 01 23 3 .-I CO >-l e o o Jj 0) M n o o o •■3 O 3 B 3 A. 00' 3.75- 3.50. 3.25.J 3.00 2. 75 J r. CENTRAL REGION X = 3.16 ■* o 2.501 o 2.25 u ,ATLANTIC REGION 2. 00 ''" ''ig'eA 19&5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Year Fig. 9. Regional trends in woodcock breeding index as determined by singing-ground survey (Base Year— 1970). Late Winter Woodcock Hunting Curtailed Recent studies have suggested that more woodcock may be breeding and nesting earher in southern areas than was previously believed. R. Hamilton and J. Dyer (personal communication) collected woodcock during January and February 1974 in Louisiana and found that the testes of males were enlarged similar to those found in Maine birds during the breeding season. Eggs were also reported in some reproductive tracts during the same period. Similarly, in Alabama, Causey et al. (1974) found 7 nests and 11 broods during February and March 1974, and 4 nests and 12 broods during the same period in 1975. Neither the influence of several relatively mild winters on the onset of breeding nor the extent and magnitude of woodcock reproductive activity elsewhere in the South are known at this time. Research is continuing to determine the timing and magnitude of woodcock breeding activities in southern areas. Most States where hunting seasons have previously extended into late February have curtailed their 1975-76 season somewhat. Banding Activities During 1974, 3,924 woodcock were banded; 1,294 were in the Atlantic Region and 2,593 in the Central Region (Table 13). The number of bandings represents about a 30% decrease from 1973. Most of the decrease occurred in the Atlantic Region, where bandings declined from 2,846 to 1,294. Much of this decline can be attributed to the completion of banding projects funded under the Accelerated Research Program. Analysis of banding and recovery data indicates that two relatively distinct populations of woodcock exist (Table 14). More than 96% of the recoveries for woodcock banded in the Atlantic Region occurred in that Region. Similarly, almost 92% of the recoveries from bandings in the Central Region occurred there. The lack of substantial interchange between regions indicates that management by regional units is biologically sound. 25 Table 13. Yearly and total woodcock bandings by geographical areas. Location 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 10-year summary Total bandings^ Atlantic Region Conn. 1 2 22 23 22 17 1 88 89 Fla. 1 4 1 1 1 8 8 Ga. 1 5 6 8 Maine 301 512 549 732 852 882 1,244 1,589 1,416 852 8,929 10,922 Md. & D.C. 16 13 8 3 4 4 11 14 23 49 145 197 Mass. 3 11 124 4 3 32 165 208 165 58 773 1,860 N.B. 5 261 191 267 191 170 22 1,107 1,666 Newfoundland 1 1 1 N.H. 2 4 5 1 5 5 22 26 N.J. 10 18 7 647 345 556 452 287 290 65 2,677 2,738 N.Y. 9 19 9 14 485 479 762 765 575 124 3,241 3,355 N.C. 3 1 4 7 N.S. 1 7 1 9 52 Pa. 6 10 5 36 38 69 77 56 89 51 437 813 Quebec 1 63 7 20 91 92 R.I. 6 2 7 9 6 4 2 4 40 45 S.C. 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 10 13 Vt. 1 3 1 5 5 Va. 1 3 8 2 1 1 16 19 W. Va. 103 302 435 519 249 291 221 180 85 42 2,427 2,455 Regional total 455 896 1,144 1,975 2,266 2,546 3,231 3,383 2,846 1,294 20,036 24,371 Central Region Ala. 2 2 2 1 1 11 41 83 143 149 111. 3 2 2 4 4 9 2 7 6 39 47 Ind. 8 76 69 17 1 171 178 Iowa 5 3 2 3 2 3 18 24 La. 815 1,230 900 1,076 472 835 338 234 69 49 6,018 19,655 Manitoba 1 1 1 Mich. 355 369 404 868 409 397 473 315 463 501 4,554 4,977 Minn. 3 1 17 79 116 97 94 104 238 147 896 955 Miss. 149 132 98 379 377 Ohio 3 6 1 3 17 18 12 9 9 78 97 Okla. 2 6 4 6 18 19 Ont. 41 14 22 19 26 9 19 20 59 64 293 392 Tenn. 1 1 3 1 1 7 10 Tex. 1 1 1 Wis. 20 28 22 281 186 478 602 1,040 1,719 1,725 6,101 6,180 Regional total 1,253 1,650 1,376 2,333 1,444 2,039 1,671 1,747 2,611 2,593 18,717 33,062 Calif.^ 387 175 37 599 600 Rangewide total 1,708 2,546 2,520 4,308 3,710 4,585 4,902 5,517 5,632 3,924 39,352 58,033 Total bandings on file as of 1 September 1975. Experimental introduction of woodcock into California (data from Kidd & Harper 1974). 26 Table 14. Summary of woodcock band recovery file through 1 September 1975 (excluding previously banded birds retrapped and released in same 10-min block where originally banded). State ! or Province of banding State or Province of recovery Atlantic region Conn. Maine Md. Mass. N.B. N.H. N.J. N.Y. N.S. Pa. Que. R.I. Vt. W. Va. Atlantic Region Conn. 18 25 1 3 5 1 Del. 2 1 2 Fla. 6 1 1 2 Ga. 14 1 1 1 4 2 Maine 454 3 6 4 2 1 Md. 5 6 Mass. 1 21 61 3 3 1 N.B. 14 1 74 1 N.H. 14 3 1 1 1 1 1 N.J. 44 4 9 1 118 8 N.Y. 1 26 1 3 1 6 103 1 1 5 N.C. 20 2 1 9 7 2 3 N.S. 9 Pa. 37 1 5 5 9 12 55 3 1 4 Quebec 1 1 2 3 1 1 R.I. 1 1 S.C. 17 1 2 1 3 1 4 Vt. 1 2 2 Va. 17 6 2 6 4 3 W. Va. 1 1 1 435 Subtotal 20 719 12 94 108 3 167 150 9 61 6 2 1 460 Central Region Ala. 4 1 6 2 Ark. 1 1 111. Ind. 1 Iowa Ky. 1 La. 10 1 3 3 5 Mich. Minn. Miss. 4 1 1 2 1 5 Mo. Ohio 1 1 1 1 Okla. Ont. 1 2 1 1 Tenn. 3 1 1 Tex. 2 Wis. Subtotal 0 28 0 2 3 0 5 14 0 2 0 0 0 15 Alberta Nevada Total 20 747 12 96 111 3 172 164 9 63 6 2 1 475 Experimental release of birds from Louisiana into California. 27 Continued Central region Region total Calif.'* Range total total Ala. Ind. La. Mich. Minn. Miss. Ohio Okla. Ont. Wis. 53 2 1 5 10 23 2 4 470 8 11 90 6 1 90 1 22 1 8 184 3 148 21 1 44 1 1 9 7 132 28 1 9 2 2 29 2 5 3 38 438 3 ,812 0 1 97 7 1 1 13 16 6 3 2 20 1 0 6 1 4 7 1 0 3 1 9 1 1 22 1 185 16 2 1 0 1 1 124 394 2 0 14 17 14 1 45 7 1 1 0 7 1 3 4 12 1 0 5 19 1 1 5 5 1 2 2 1 0 56 2 2 69 1 7 530 430 26 11 3 56 0 5 0 10 2 8 8 0 7 1 9 3 31 478 11 97 91 31 187 24 2 7 172 46 16 30 2 0 2 3 0 3 162 11 2 31 8 38 441 0 112 1,924 1 28 41 9 31 33 4 10 12 10 13 1 4 4 1 12 13 16 222 244 6 529 1 530 3 34 34 10 65 79 2 13 16 13 20 2 4 4 27 32 1 8 13 9 12 14 110 170 170 175 1,197 1 1 1 1,267 1 1 1,881 627 437 27 12 15 175 1,309 3,193 28 Fifth American Woodcock Workshop The Fifth Woodcock Workshop was held at the University of Georgia from 3-5 December 1974. It was jointly sponsored by the University of Georgia, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Canadian Wildlife Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. About 100 delegates representing various State, Provincial, and Federal governments, plus U.S. and Canadian universities and the public were in attend- ance. Twenty-nine papers covering a wide range of topics were delivered (Appendix I). For the first time, papers on the European Wood- cock, Scolopax rusticola, were presented by repre- sentatives from Denmark, England, France, Ireland, and Sweden. Highlights of these and other papers are presented in the Workshop summary (Appendix II). The supply of the Workshop Proceedings has been exhausted, but copies of individual papers can be obtained by contacting the appropriate author, or from the Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Md. 20811 . The next workshop is sheduled for 4-7 October 1977 in Fredrickton, New Brunswick, Canada. Acknowledgments Most data in this report would not be available without the cooperation of the Canadian Wildlife Service; Provincial and State conservation departments; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service per- sonnel of Regions 3, 4, and 5; and the many individuals who assisted in the surveys. Special recognition is extended to Ms. Kit Munson for help in preparing the Report, R. Hines for the cover sketch, and W. Blandin, R. Coon, R. Pospahala, and H. Reeves for reviewing the manuscript. Special thanks are extended to the biologists who helped process nearly 22,000 woodcock wings. These cooperators and their affiliations are as follows: Bob Coe Maryland Dep. of Natural Resources Patrick O. Corr Maine Dep. of Inland Fisheries & Game James M. Cox U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Jim Distanfano Maryland Dep. of Natural Resources Larry Gregg Wisconsin Dep. of Natural Resources Dave John Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Commission Stan McConvey U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Robert McKee Maryland Dep. of Natural Resources Ann R. McLane U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Jim Messerli U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service George F. O'Shea U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Len Schumann U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tim Stamps North Carolina State University John Tautin U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service W. H. Taylor Virginia Comm. of Game & Inland Fisheries Lee Widjeskog New Jersey Div. of Fish, Game, & Shellfisheries Anthony L. Wright Maryland Dep. of Natural Resources References Artmann, J. W. 1975. Woodcock status report, 1974. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl. 189. 39 pp. Causey, K., J. Roboski, and G. Horton. 1974. Nesting activities of American woodcock (Philohela minor Gmelin) in Alabama. In Proc. 5th American Woodcock Workshop, Athens, Ga. Dec. 3-5. 10 pp. mimeo. Clark, E. R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.— Wildl. 133. 35 pp. Clark, E. R. 1972. Woodcock status report, 1971. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.— Wildl. 153. 47 pp. Clark, E. R. 1973. Woodcock status report, 1972. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl. 169. 50 pp. Kidd, J. B., and H. T. Harper. 1974. Introduction of the American woodcock in California. In Proc. 5th American Woodcock Workshop, Athens, Ga. Dec. 3-5. 9 pp. mimeo. Owen.R. B. 1976. American woodcock fP/uTo/ieto mmor/ In Glen C. Sanderson, ed. Management of migratory shore and upland game birds in North America. Int. Assoc. Game, Fish and Conserv. Comm., Washington, D.C. (in press). Appendix I PROCEEDINGS OF 5TH AMERICAN WOODCOCK WORKSHOP 29 American v>oodcock, snipe, rails Current Status of Woodcock Management in Canada Status of the U.S. Woodcock Population — 1974 Draft Plan for Management of Woodcock and Woodcock Hunting in Canada, 1975-1980 A Ten Year Management Plan for the American Woodcock Studies of Singing Male Surveys on High Island, Michigan Woodcock Nesting Habitat in Northern Wisconsin Nesting Activities of the American Woodcock (Philohela minor Gmelin) in Alabama Clapper Rail (Rattus longirostvis) Nesting and Winter Population Survey in Alabama Habitat Selection by Brood Rearing American Woodcock The Behavior of Adult Female Woodcock in Central Pennsylvania Factors Affecting the Distribution of American Woodcock in Central Michigan Woodcock Studies at Trois-Rivieres, Quebec Woodcock Use of Clearcut Aspen Areas Introduction of the American Woodcock in California Studies of Woodcock Crepuscular Behavior Using a Night Vision Sight Onset of Fall Migration of Radio-Marked Woodcock with Notes on a Portion of the Migratory Flight of One Bird J. V. DOBELL J. W. ARTMANN H. J. BOYD R. B. OWEN, JR. D. A. WHITCOMB A. BOURGEOIS L. E. GREGG K. CAUSEY J. ROBOSKI G. HORTON D. C. HOLLIMANN W. P. WENSTROM P. D. CALDWELL J. S. LINDZEY R. L. PATERSON, JR. R. COUTURE J. C. BOURGEOIS J. B. HALE J. B. KIDD H. T. HARPER R. 0. MORGENWECK R. A. COON P. D. CALDWELL G. L. STORM 30 Band Recovery Distribution and Survival Estimates of Maine Woodcock Telemetric Studies of Woodcock in East Central Alabama An Analysis of Feeding Habits of the American Woodcock {,Ph-ilohela minor) in Southern Louisiana A Progress Report on a New Trapping Technique for Woodcock and Common Snipe Observations on Wintering Woodcock in Northeast Georgia Tennessee Woodcock Investigations W. B. KROHN F. W. MARTIN K. P. BURNHAM G. I. HORTON M. K. CAUSEY J. M. DYER R. B. HAMILTON J. R. DAVIS S. R. PURSGLOVE, JR. J. F. GORE European woodcock Notes on European Woodcock European Woodcock: A Review of Research and Management Today Story and Aims of the "Club National Des Becassiers" (C.N.B.) Dynamics of Woodcock Populations in Western Europe and Morocco During the Winter 1973-74 An Analysis of Irish Woodcock Data On The Courtship Flight of the Woodcock (Saolopax rustiaola L.) in Sweden Migration of Scandinavian Woodcock (Saolopax rustiaola) with Special Reference to Denmark W. H. MARSHALL M. SHORTEN L. GUIZARD C. FADAT B. STRONACH D. HARRINGTON N. WILKENS V. MARC STROM I. CLAUSAGER Management: Wise Use or Inhumanity Summarization of the 5th American Woodcock Workshop Summary of State, Provincial, arid Federal Progress Reports J. S. GOTTSCHALK C. E. CARLSON J. W. ARTMANN 31 Appendix II SUMMARIZATION OF THE 5TH AMERICAN WOODCOCK WORKSHOP by C. Edward Carlson Georgia Game & Fish Division Certainly, the unique distinction of the 5th Workshop has been the presence and participation of our European colleagues. We are delighted that you have come all the way from Denmark, England, France, Ireland, and Sweden to share a common interest; and we hon- estly hope you carry home at least as much in terms of useful infor- mation and general enrichment as you brought to us. This sets a great precedent to be matched at our future Workshops; and perhaps within the near term, some of us over here can contribute to a similar session on the European woodcock. I have some vivid recollections of the first Workshop in which it was my privilege to participate. Had I been present at the inter- vening ones, since the Minnesota opener in 1966, it would not have been so easy for Joe Artmann and Sam Pursglove to con me into serving as your program summarizer. The number, scope, and depth of the pap- ers gave me a real jolt. It's just not possible to do them justice in the time available. They are professional in every respect, for the most part comparable to the quality you'd expect at a regional conference or similar affair. Congratulations to the authors are very much in order! Since John Ward and Bill Sheldon have already had to leave, it looks like Andy Ammann, Bill Marshall, and myself are the only ones in the room who were at that initial session. In John Ward's case, I wanted to acknowledge the key role he played in bringing the inter- national aspects of the meeting to fruition. Some of you may not know that John and Bill Marshall were two-thirds of the triumverate that set this whole series of events in motion, and I seize this occasion to memorialize their role in the developments that have ensued. Just as a point of personal interest, I counted the number of American papers with bibliographies.. Bill Sheldon's "The Book of the American Woodcock" was cited in 14 of the 19. That says some- thing to me about the comprehensiveness and timelessness of his monograph. Bill Marshall, not content to know all there is to know about the American woodcock, seems well on the way to becoming an expert 32 on its European counterpart also. I am sure many of us were pictur- ing American woodcock habitats with which we were familiar as he described grazing-leaf litter-woodcock abundance relationships in the European locations. The similarities he found in those wintering areas to West Coast conditions may betoken good things for the trans- plant described in the paper by Kidd and Harper. Another release is to be made by California this winter, and we shall follow the project developments with keen anticipation. Louis Guizard's enthusiasm for the "Club National des Becassiers" was abundantly self-evident. We need to extend the partnership between hunters and scientists in this country also, particularly as it relates to banding returns and support for a national stamp or permit. Professor Fadat's observations in France and Morocco of differen- tial migration among size, sex, and age groups do not agree in all respect with lb Clausager's findings in Denmark; and the two probably already have their heads together laying a strategy to resolve the differences. If so, what better purpose could a workshop serve? Both papers add substantially to our knowledge of the European woodcock. Fadat's conclusion that adult males are more difficult to flush bears directly on the issue of the higher proportion of adult females in the bag of American woodcock about which we heard considerable speculation. Looking at Marcstrom's paper and the Whitcomb-Bourgeois contribu- tion side by side, one is impressed with the differences and similari- ties of the two species of woodcock. Marcstrom found no territoriality among the roding European bird; the Michigan work clearly confirmed the dominance of a single individual in the singing American. Yet, in both instances, there was a surplus of males "waiting in the wings" to take over when the performers were eliminated. The melogram which Marcstrom described should be a useful new tool for identifying individual sing- ing birds. Surely, the Irish hunter strikes a sjmipathetic vein with his American counterpart when he maintains that the small and reddish woodcock is a different race than the large and grey bird. Over here, we have those who are convinced that the large, dark swamp buck is a different species than his smaller, lighter-colored upland relative, or who insist that the larger, wilier woods quail is racially separate from his smaller farmland cousin. Messrs. Stronach and Harrington pur- sued the taxonomic problem by electrophoresis but were unable to demon- strate genetic differences in the several groups studied. They did, however, find it possible to discriminate sex with greater accuracy than previously reported using bill and central tail feather measurements . Judging from Monica Shorten' s review of the research and management status of the European woodcock, I'd be inclined to say we are in remark- ably the same posture on both sides of the Atlantic. We have learned a 33 lot, and there are sizable compelling needs before us. Owing to the number of countries involved, the communications problem in Europe is far greater than ours; but progress has been heartening despite this obstacle. Bob McCabe and his excellent panel have gone a "fur" piece down the road in lifting for us much of the cloak of mysticism shrouding the European woodcock. If our speakers return home with comparable feelings, everyone is a winner . Turning now to the American woodcock, I feel the "numerical" biol- ogists will take heart from the Whitcomb-Bourgeois finding that the sur- plus male population at the singing ground is fairly constant in number and that the singing ground count is a useful indicator of the adult male population in spring. On the other hand, Couture and Bourgeois, in their Quebec work, found that subdominant males decline in numbers as the season progresses and disappear by the end of May. Whether the differences disclosed in the two studies are, in fact, real can only be ascertained by deeper digging. Using radiotelemetry , Coon, Caldwell, and Storm have learned that woodcock depart on their southward migration 5 to 7 hours after sunset and appear to follow river systems. The river orientation finding is real palatable to those of us in the South who have felt this associa- tion in our bones. Gore concludes that Tennessee has been setting its season several weeks too late to capitalize on the bulk of migrating birds. His data no doubt are applicable to other States in the migrational range. Adjustments on behalf of the woodcock enthusiast make good sense; but in light of the rapid upsweep in hunter numbers and kill level, we appear to be far beyond the point of needing to promote interest in woodcock shooting. Also, it is real doubtful whether the transfer of attention would result in any significant reduction in pressure on resident game species, not with continuing increases in nimrod numbers. Krohn, Martin, and Burnham analyzed Maine banding data and con- cluded that 87 percent of the recoveries came from the Northeast, with 59 percent from Maine itself! The Maine summer bandings plus the Louisiana winter bandings show clearly that we have two separate wood- cock populations, and we should think in terms of managing them as such. That this is already a matter of international irritation is obvious in Mr. Boyd's paper. I'Thether the lower survival calculated for immature males was merely a characteristic of that body of data or an actual reflection of differential mortality in the species is moot and a candi- date subject for further study. The new sweep net demonstrated by Jim Davis and his Alabama associates should prove helpful in this regard as well as for other determinations based on captured samples. 34 In Quebec, Couture and Bourgeois found a preference by woodcock for second growth hardwood stands for nesting and brood cover. The available tree species were sugar and red maple and gray birch. By contrast, Gregg in Wisconsin found most of the favored stands dominated by aspen and very few by northern hardwoods (beech, birch, and maple). They were together, however, on the importance of type edges. Wenstrom's work in Minnesota did not substantiate this affinity for edges. He goes on to point out the importance of stand structure vis-a-vis species compo- sition. His observation that a wide variety of, rather than a relatively few, cover types provide habitat features attractive to woodcock does much to explain some of the apparent contradictions from region to region noted above. Wenstrom's is a real meaty piece of work. Caldwell and Lindzey, as did Wenstrom, used telemetry to study brood range and habits in Pennsylvania. The differences reported between the two areas must be viewed as a giant stride in delineating and interpret- ing the behavior and preference parameters of the species. Jim Hale's paper describes the value of aspen clearcuts as concen- tration points for feeding and night roosting. He concluded that bull- dozing is a feasible means of extending the life of trapping sites at such locations. Paterson showed how both soil type and a perched water table in an area of Michigan fortuitously contributed to the length of life of openings important to woodcock. Both Hale and Morgenweck alluded to the heavy use by woodcock of the muddy portions of woods roads. By using a night vision sight, Morgenweck ascertained that most of this use was by immature birds engaged in a stylized sequence of activities. Horton and Causey employed telemetry to study behavior patterns and habitat preferences on wintering grounds in eastern Alabama. They describe some limitations in the use of this equipment in pinpointing movement. Together with Roboski, they record a substantial nesting effort in Alabama. The authors define some habitat and harvest man- agement changes that should be made to maximize woodcock production potential. Reynolds' observation that we have no native species of earthworms north of New York and Pennsylvania took a number of us by surprise and his studies on the habitat requirements of earthworms tell us much about why we find woodcock where we do. Dyer and Hamilton, by making volumetric analyses of stomach contents, convincingly demonstrated three daily feeding periods, including one at mid-day. They also gave us a substantial clue as to the source of Mirex residues in Canadian muscle tissue samples! In his free-wheeling style Sam Pursglove has given you a taste of our kind of woodcock hunting and, as you can see from his figures, ours compares right favorable with the Yankee success spectrum. At this point, I wish 35 to voice a concern about the mushrooming interest in woodcock hunting here in the South. As formidable as our converts look — and with the briars, vines, and brush, they are fierce to penetrate and difficult to shoot in (by contrast, a Minnesota alder thicket is a ball park) — they are nonethe- less being hunted with increasing frequency. The critical part is their linear configuration and, specifically, their narrow width. One or two men and a dog can work them over pretty thoroughly and the total acreage available is indeed finite. It is getting smaller as I'll discuss in a moment. So this is meant to be a word of caution about possible overkill. We think we may already have seen an example or two. The status and needs papers by Dobell, Artmann, Boyd, and Owen describe comprehensively where we are at this point in time and what is needed to safeguard this valuable resource. All of us must be concerned about the rapid increase in hunter numbers and kill level. The need for more accurate information on the size of the breeding population, its pro- ductivity, the harvest rate, and annual survival is imperative. Our single greatest immediate want, insofar as USA is concerned, is that long- proposed stamp or permit which will give us the basic sampling frame and the extra funds we have been pleading for these several years. I am absolutely positive that the woodcock hunter is not going to protest this minor added cost which is so important to the future of his sport. This is a shallow gloss treatment of a volume of very good papers, and I must say in reflecting on the first woodcock workshop, we've come a long way despite funding and personnel shortages. What has been lacking in these areas has been supplemented to a great extent by pure zeal and by the employment of technological advances. To someone from the old school of direct observation, your output with the use of radiotelemetry , night vision scopes, sonograms, and other implements has been fantastic in terms of time and manpower savings. Not only that, you are unlocking behavioral secrets which would forever have remained in the great void of the unknown. On this side of the issue, getting the facts and charting the m.anagement course, I view the future with optimism. In the matter of getting the management job done, I have some grave apprehensions. Most of them revolve around safeguarding habitat in suf- ficient quantities to support huntable populations. Migrational and wintering habitats are intimately interlocked with stream courses, the core of which are their floodplains. These areas, unfortunately, are the most sensitive to and bear the deepest wounds of our advancing civilization — some needfully, yes, to accommodate our building human population pressures; but much needlessly, through speculative develop- ment and, more importantly, through pork barrel schemes under the sacred banner of flood control, disaster relief, or regional growth and development. One of the most telling blows the American people could strike for their overall long-term good and obliquely for the woodcock (as well as for choice resident species such as deer and wild turkeys) would be the enactment of some kind of legislation which would declare as national 36 policy that floodplalns in their natural state are critical to the main- tenance of environmental quality, and which would forbid the use of Federal funds in their exploitation or development except where a public need is clearly demonstrated. So if you individually or as a group want to do something of genuine substance for the woodcock over the long haul, you will use every means at your disposal toward ending drainage, channel- ization, impoundment, and other adverse stream modification practices inherent in P.L. 566, RC&D, ASCS flood relief, and public works rivers and harbors projects. It is not an impossible battle as the history of the Alcovy proposal here in Georgia will demonstrate. Of course, you can expect a scar or callus or two in the process. Finally, I should like to ask that you join with me in an apprecia- tive hand to Joe Artmann and Sam Pursglove for an outstanding job of arranging and expediting the program. Theirs was a work of plain faith and labor, because they were without tangible means of support. Thank you! '1' As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibiUty for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. GPO 836 - 679 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE EDITORIAL OFFICE AYLESWORTH HALL. CSU FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80523 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INT423 NOTK: MailiiiK lists iiie computerized. Please return address label with change of address.