BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 673 7 WOODCOCK RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1967 and 1968 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 123 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WALTER J. HICKEL, SECRETARY Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director WOODCOCK RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1967 and 1968 Compiled by William H. Goudy Supervisor of Game Research Wildlife Resources Division West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Morgantown, West Virginia In cooperation with Migratory Bird Populations Station Division of Wildlife Research Laurel, Maryland Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 123 Washington, D. C. • April 1969 Frontispiece — Courtesy Edelene Wood li CONTENTS ABSTRACT iv WOODCOCK RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, 1967 AND 1968 1 A SUMMARY OF RECENT WOODCOCK SINGING-GROUND AND WING- COLLECTION SURVEYS , by Eldon R. Clark 2 WOODCOCK STUDIES IN THE ACCELERATED PROGRAM FOR MIGRATORY UPLAND GAME BIRD RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT, by Henry M. Reeves 19 LOCAL MOVEMENT OF "RESIDENT" WOODCOCK IN THE CANAAN VALLEY OF WEST VIRGINIA, by Robert C. Kletzly and Joseph C. Rief f enberger 22 STUDIES OF AMERICAN WOODCOCK PARASITE FAUNA, by Annie K. Prestwood, Gary L. Doster, and Frank A. Hayes 24 HOMING BEHAVIOR OF DISPLACED MALE WOODCOCK IN MAINE, by Sanford D. Schemnitz 28 WOODCOCK IDENTIFICATION (A PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH INTER- PRETING RESULTS OF MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS), by James M. Ruckel 31 m ABSTRACT The continental breeding population of woodcock did not change from 1966 to 1967 as measured by the singing-ground survey; however, the 1968 survey showed a population decrease of 6.93 percent. Wood- cock wing-collection surveys indicated slightly lower age ratios in the 1966-67 harvest (-5.63 percent), but in 1967-68 the change was insignificant. The decline in hunter success of the two preceding seasons was halted in the 1967-68 season; the daily bag showed little change, but kill-per-season increased substantially (+17.5 percent). In a number of States, increased woodcock harvests in the 196 7-68 season resulted from earlier opening dates. In the Canaan Valley of West Virginia, immature male woodcock were more mobile and vulner- able to capture and recapture than those in other age and sex classes. Of 85 male woodcock transplanted distances of 1/4 mile to 3 miles in Maine, 11 (13 percent) returned to their original capture sites; 11 others established new singing grounds at the transplant sites. A test of the reliability of hunter replies to mail questionnaire surveys in West Virginia indicated that the actual harvest of woodcock was substantially less than the survey showed. LV WOODCOCK RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, 1967 AND 1968 The place of American woodcock (Philohela minor Gmelin) among our migratory game birds was summed up by Dr. William G. Sheldon in his recently published (1967) The Book of the American Woodcock: "Endowed with fortitude and a certain nobility, the bizarre little American Woodcock excites the wonder of ornithologists and elicits the highest ethics of sportsmen. It is a natural resource of rare quality, offering recreation and pleasure to thousands." Fortunately, Federal and State research has been accelerated in recent years in an attempt to dispel some of the aura of mystery shrouding this migratory game bird. The primary purpose of this report is to present the most recent data on the status of the woodcock population as measured by singing- ground and wing-collection surveys. In addition, it presents infor- mation on some studies carried out by cooperators. Appreciation is extended to individuals associated with the University of Georgia, the University of Maine, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources who have contributed time, material, and information for this publication. Special appreci- ation is expressed to Karl A. Badgley for preparation of the cover drawing and other sketches which are reproduced through the courtesy of the West Virginia Division of Wildlife Resources. - 1 A SUMMARY OF RECENT WOODCOCK SINGING-GROUND AND WING- COLLECTION SURVEYS Eldon R. Clark Research Biologist Section of Migratory Upland Game Bird Studies Migratory Bird Populations Station Laurel, Maryland Because the woodcock is migratory, its management in the United States is primarily a Federal responsibility. This obligation is carried out by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife under terms of international treaties with Canada and Mexico. Sheldon (1967) focused attention on the present state of woodcock research and management. To effectively manage woodcock, the current status and recent trends of the population must be known. Two major surveys, conducted annually throughout most of eastern North America, provide this information: A singing -ground survey, conducted each spring in most States and Provinces where woodcock nest, provides an index to the size of the breeding population; and a wing -collection survey, con- ducted during the hunting season, furnishes data on reproductive success in the previous spring as well as changes in the geographic distribution and size of the harvest. These surveys provide the biological informa- tion necessary to establish optimum woodcock hunting regulations. This report summarizes results of singing-ground surveys conducted in 1967 and 1968 and wing-collection surveys for the 1966-67 and 1967-68 hunting seasons. SINGING-GROUND SURVEY Breeding Population Index--S inging-ground counts have provided annual indexes of the woodcock spring breeding population over much of the breeding range since 1953. This information will be more reliable and valuable as additional States and Provinces complete the random selection of routes. In 1968, the conversion to randomly selected routes proceeded at a rapid pace because of the new accelerated research program for migratory upland game birds in the United States and greater participation by Canadian Provinces. Of the 920 transects checked in 1968, 777 (84 percent) were randomly selected. To provide continuity of the index, both old and new routes were checked in some States chang- ing to random routes. However, this was not done in several States, so - 2 the number of comparable routes increased only slightly, although the total number of routes nearly doubled. The number of comparable routes available for analysis will increase sharply next year. The 1967 survey showed virtually no change in the continental popu- lation; a slight decrease in the Western Region was offset by a small increase in the Eastern Region when the data were weighted on a continent- wide basis (table 1). The 1968 survey showed a decline in woodcock heard per comparable route in most of the major production areas (table 2). The decline in the Eastern Region was more pronounced than that in the Western Region (8.4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively). The continental change of -6.9 percent was greater than in the 2 previous years but was compar- able to that of 1965. Comparison of woodcock breeding population indexes over the past 12 years suggests a relatively stable population (fig. 1). WING-COLLECTION SURVEY Productivity Index--The ratio of immatures to adult females in the fall bag provides a measure of reproductive success during the preceding breeding season. Woodcock can be aged and sexed by wing (plumage) char- acteristics. An annual wing-collection survey, initiated in 1959, makes it possible to evaluate changes in annual productivity. Hunter response has been good, with nearly 115,000 wings contributed during the past nine hunting seasons. Collections by hunters in the past 3 years are recorded in table 3. Each year there has been considerable variation in immature-adult female ratios among different harvest areas (States or Provinces). Tables 4 and 5 show changes evident in the 1966-6 7 and 1967-68 har- vests. Annual variations, as well as harvest area variations, are apparent in data from other years (Martin, 1963, 1964; Goudy and Martin, 1966; Goudy, 196 7). Much of this variation has been caused by the inter- action of factors such as differences in dates of hunting seasons, restrictions of hunting seasons due to fire hazards, differential migra- tion by age or sex groups, and varying weather conditions. Nevertheless, the overall age ratio of the total North American kill has not varied greatly since the survey was initiated (Goudy, 1967). The weighted age ratio in the 1966-67 harvest was 5.63 percent lower than that in the harvest by the same hunters in 1965-66 (table 6). However, in comparing age ratios of woodcock taken by the same hunters in 1966-67 and in 1967- 68, the change was insignificant (table 7). / o o o T3 o o c o •r4 o en > l-l D CO CO T3 c c O 3 —I O ■P l-i co b0 ^-t l 3 too a- c o -^ ex w> c bO -H d co TJ >> a) .o a) £> 0) ■P C CO •^ O \ CO T3 C .-4 CU l-i co 4-> co l-i a) >> i 0) > 0) (J 3 ■i-l fa ft \ \ ^ 00 on on on m on ON CO ON CN ON ON O >£) ON ON in ON oo in on ON (SJB3A uaawgaq BxqBJBdraoo) agnoy aad paeaH ^ooapoofl go jaqmnN a§EjaAy k - It should be noted that comparisons in tables 6 through 9 are for data from hunters who submitted wings in both years to which a partic- ular table relates. Additions and deletions change the hunter list each year; consequently, the 1966-67 data which are compared with the preceding year (table 6) are not identical to the 1966-67 data which are compared with the subsequent year (table 7) . Although changes in past seasons' age ratios do not appear to be significant, further study is needed for better understanding of this very important measure of woodcock production. Hunter Success Index — An appraisal of trends in the woodcock harvest has been attempted by comparing, in 2 consecutive years, the average number of wings returned by hunters participating in the wing-collection survey both years (tables 8 and 9). Despite variations in woodcock shooting success among States each year, there has been little overall change in average daily bag since 1963 (Goudy, 1967). The declining trend in both daily kill (average number of wings per envelope) and seasonal kill (average number of total wings submitted per year per cooperator) of woodcock, evident in the 2 preceding years, was reversed in the 1967-68 season. The increase in daily kill was insignificant (2.5 percent), but the increase in seasonal kill was substantial (17.5 percent). Furthermore, the latter may be compounded by the increase in the number of woodcock hunters which is indicated by various State surveys and provides further evidence of rapidly expanding utilization of the woodcock resource. Weighting Factors — Until recently, weighted age ratios and hunting success indexes were based on wing collections from five States having both a substantial harvest and a statistically adequate sample of wings. Wing collections in several other States have now increased sufficiently to warrant their inclusion in the weighted averages. This greater cover- age will reduce regional bias associated with weather, time of migration, differential migration by sex-age groups, and variations in State hunting season dates. Weighting of wing-collection survey data in recent status reports has been based on the estimated woodcock harvest by Federal migratory bird hunting stamp purchasers in selected States as reported by partic- ipants in the Bureau's mail questionnaire survey of waterfowl hunters. However, results have been distorted by differences in the relative importance of waterfowl and upland game hunting among States. To minimize this distortion, the ratio of licensed hunters to "duck stamp" sales was calculated for each of the 13 States with substantial woodcock harvests and signif- icant contributions to the wing survey. These ratios were tabulated, and a mean was obtained. The ratio for each State, expressed as a percentage 5 - of the mean, was applied to the estimated harvest of woodcock by water- fowl hunters in that State for the years covered by this report. The resulting adjusted "State kill indexes" were used in weighting data from each of the 13 States to determine overall age ratios and hunting success indexes. Although this weighting procedure is crude, it is more accurate than that previously used. Satisfactory weighting factors will not be obtained until adequate kill figures are available for all important woodcock harvest States. Effects of Earlier Seasons on Harvests — Woodcock regulations for the 1967-68 season allowed States to choose a hunting season of 65 consecutive days, in contrast to the 50-day season offered in 1966-67. With the longer season, most States selected earlier opening dates, leaving closing dates approximately the same as in the past. Illinois was an exception, with the closing date advanced from December 30 to December 4. To determine how much, if any, additional harvest was associated with earlier seasons, the number of woodcock wings submitted during the early portion was compared with the total for the full season in the 10 States involved (table 10). Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Louisiana appear to have benefited most by additional harvest, but a number of other States with smaller sample sizes also showed substan- tial percentage increases in harvests attributable to earlier seasons. SUMMARY The 1967 Woodcock Singing-ground Survey showed virtually no change from 1966 in the continental breeding population. The 1968 survey indicated an 8.36 percent decrease from 1967 in the Eastern Region, a 4.46 percent decrease in the Western Region, and a 6.93 percent decrease in the total continental population. Altogether, 262 comparable routes were used in the analysis of the 1968 survey. Additional randomly selected routes in a number of States and Provinces were established, and it is expected that the number of comparable routes available for analysis in future years will double. A woodcock wing-collection survey, producing over 12,000 wings annually from birds shot throughout eastern United States and Canada, provides a measure of reproductive success during the preceding breeding season by measuring the ratio of immature birds to adults. The sample also provides information on daily and seasonal hunting success by hunters who participate in 2 consecutive years. Use of weighting factors permits combining data to give more reliable indications of trends. 6 - The 1966-67 wing sample showed a slightly lower age ratio than that of 1965-66, but in 1967-68 the change was insignificant. The decline in hunter success during the two preceding seasons was halted in the 1967-68 season; the sample from comparable hunters showed a slight increase (2.5 percent) in kill -per -day and a 17.5 percent increase in kill-per-season. The wing-collection survey further indicated that a number of States, notably Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Louisiana, enjoyed increased woodcock harvests in 1967-68 as the result of earlier opening dates made possible by longer seasons. > . - Figure 2. — Longer hunting seasons in 1967-68 provided additional recreational opportunity and increased the woodcock harvest in many States that selected an earlier opening date (photo courtesy West Virginia Division of Wildlife Resources by William H. Goudy) . 7 - LITERATURE CITED Goudy, W. H. 1967. Woodcock research and management, 1966. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 101, 40 p. , and F. W. Martin. 1966. Woodcock status report, 1965. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 92, 43 p. Martin, F. W. 1963. Woodcock status report, 1963. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 76, 43 p. 1964. Woodcock status report, 1964. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 88, 43 p. Sheldon, W. G. 1967. The book of the American woodcock. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 227 p. Table 1. --Indexes of woodcock breeding populations as indicated by singing-ground surveys in 1966 and 1967 , Total number Number Woodcock heard Weighted of routes of per comparable percent change in conduc 1966 ted 1967 comparable routes route woodcock heard per State or Province 1966 1967 comparable route EASTERN REGION (East of All egheny Mtns.) Connecticut Delaware- 12 12 11 3.36 2.73 4 3 3 2.33 3.33 Maine 43 40 36 8.36 9.44 Marylandl' 26 15 11 1.27 1.82 Massachusetts 8 4 4 7.00 7.25 New Brunswick 9 7 5 9.60 11.40 New Hampshire 13 12 5 4.40 3.20 New Jersey 5 5 4 6.25 4.75 New York 29 24 13 5.85 5.77 Nova Scotia 30 17 10 7.50 7.30 Pennsylvania^-' 23 66 0 -- -- Prince Edward Island 3 3 0 -- — Vermont 5 3 3 17.33 13.67 REGIONAL TOTALS & WEIGHTED AVGS.l/ 210 211 105 6.19 6.28 + 1.5 WESTERN REGION (West of All egheny Mtns.) Illinois 5 4 3 1.67 1.33 Indiana 14 8 7 8.00 7.14 Iowa 13 13 8 2.25 2.25 Michigan^' 135 130 92 4.36 4.38 Minnesota 14 11 7 3.29 4.86 Ohio 8 12 3 6.33 5.00 Ontario 0 4 0 — West Virginia!.' 51 45 37 0.95 0.86 Wisconsin 16 16 5 4.00 4.80 REGIONAL TOTALS & WEIGHTED AVGS.2/ 256 243 162 4.03 3.89 - 3.5 NORTH AMERICAN TOTALS & WEIGHTED AVGS.3/ 466 454 267 5.23 5.23 0.0 1/ Randomly selected routes conducted during both 1966 and 1967. 2/ In the process of changing to randomly selected routes in 1967. 3/ Weighted indexes were obtained by multiplying woodcock heard per comparable route with a factor based on land area represented by at least 10 routes or where one comparable route represented not more than 2,100 square miles. 9 - Table 2. --Indexes of woodcock breeding populations as indicated by singing-ground surveys in 1967 and 1968 State or Province Total number Number of routes of conducted comparable routes 1967 1968 Woodcock heard per comparable route 1967 1968 Weighted percent change in woodcock heard per comparable route EASTERN REGION (East of Allegheny Mtns.) Connecticut 12 12 10 2.50 3.10 DelawareA' Maine- 3 3 1 1.00 0.00 40 89 19 11.37 9.89 Maryland—' 15 23 7 1.14 1.57 Massachusetts 4 8 3 6.67 5.67 New Brunswick 7 10 4 13.25 11.00 New Hampshire New Jersey—' New York^-' 12 12 9 6.44 7.22 5 18 0 -- -- 24 94 0 -- -- North Carolina 2/ 0 59 0 -- -- Nova Scotia—' 17 24 0 -- -- Pennsylvania^' 66 73 54 1.43 1.28 Prince Edward Island 3 3 1 2.00 1.00 Vermont 3 5 3 13.33 8.33 REGIONAL TOTALS & WEIGHTED AVGS.l/ 211 433 111 4.76 4.37 8.36 WESTERN REGION (West of the Allegheny Mtns.) Illinois Indiana -2.' Iowa Michigan- Minnesota Ohio Ontario—' West Virginia ,1/ 1/ Wisconsin-2.' 4 4 8 64 13 12 30 133 11 17 12 11 4 88 45 54 16 104 1 2 8 87 6 7 0 34 6 2.00 9.50 2.13 4.53 4.66 5.43 0.53 4.50 2.00 6.50 1.25 4.25 6.50 5.00 0.76 3.83 REGIONAL TOTALS & WEIGHTED AVGS.l' 243 487 151 3.31 3.16 - 4.46 CONTINENTAL TOTALS & WEIGHTED AVGS.-2' 454 920 262 4.11 3.82 - 6.93 1/ Randomly selected routes conducted during both 1967 and 1968. 2/ In the process of changing to randomly selected routes in 1968. 3/ Weighted indexes were obtained by multiplying woodcock heard per comparable route with a factor based on land area represented by at least 10 routes or where one comparable route represented not more than 2,100 square miles. - 10 00 so c u o S 4-> CO u P- o o u 4-1 o • u 60 0) > a CO 60 o 60 < LW o r-l fl) X> e D 2 CO sO I rx 0-|sO O rx sO I \0 vD sO sO o| i lO O M 01 X> B D Z 6£ sO a sO so vD I m 01 X e 3 Z 00 o CM CM CM LO CM CO CM CM CM CM CM S N I — CO i— I i—4 i— I 00 sO CM Os O r~ co r— m O on CM t-H i-l CO sO i— I 00 LO i— I CM CM CM CM CM CO 00 CM CO 00 LO mvooos CO U CO CO CO 2 S oo co -H 01 •i-i o. ex •r-i CO LO g S 01 S-l •1-1 XI rO CO 01 Cl. CO B * CO a o u CO o 4-4 O U -r-l O X! z o CO 01 C T3 c o oi xj 04 2 r-4 r—l CM OS co r-i r- cO ■H c •1-1 00 c S-l -r-l CO 4-1 -r-l C 0 O -r-l •H > DO c o 00 4-1 O rl 10 01 •r-l 01 -r-l > 3 !2 as CM CO LO O CO IX -J OS LO CI co LO CM co as CO rx oo LO lo oo o as H O H 11 " !■• CD CD CX, r-i CO w g 0) CD (-1 >4-| 3 4-J 4-) CO i—l E 3 6 -a M CO T5 a r— 1 co p> cfl (X) ■r-l -u C a 0 •H c H 9 CD en CD •r-l U o bO CD 4-1 CO O > CD •r-l S-i 4-1 > CO CO o -^ 4-1 u co ft cw O I I I I I I I I I I OS CM ON 00 in cm in cn 00 CN o 1 1 1 NO 1 ON vD 00 III- 1 • • • CO i—l CM .—I CO i— I r— I i— I in <)• oo O CN CI r-l H CO CO <]■ CM HCMNOOONOSOscncMOlHCNOvOCNi-ICOonoONiOLO-J ONI — r-N 00 On CM ■— II — i— I CO O CN CO CON CM ■— I ■— I st CN| ON ON r- IvDONNtO^DOOi-IOONOONOOCOvOIN^CMCMOr-ILOOO 00 cm co cn i— i on lo r-i oo m on ■— I r-l CM I— I 1-1 l—l l—l co CO CO g co CO C ,0. CO CO J«S u CJ CO CD £ C CO C -i o ai < < u Q CO co CO O •t-l 60 C !-l U -r-l O O r-l r-l CD r-l P4 O M CO o 3 C QJ CD CD X) 3 c x; CO o ■—I co >, CO u co CO co a a a, ex, bO co •H CD o c a a a a u •r-i CO C 3 i-i CD CO a 4-1 o o CO CO > o z a CO > l—l cn C C XI C CO CO (3 ^ S-^ o 1-1 CO r-l CJ CD J2 13 4-J O 3 O co M c CO S-l ■r-l •H •r-l cn C > C •r-l o bO 4-1 u u cn cn ■r-l ■V •r-4 > E3 3 CO CD bO 3 ■r-l O O 4-) CO >N rQ 13 CD 4-1 c CD 00 CD U D, CD >-i cn co CD 1-4 CO CO XI X) CD 4-1 ■a •1-t CD C r=> - 12 - p o 3 ID O P t-i ■X a) a) a, h CD en E Q) 0) P iw 3 -P P 03 (— i 6 3 S ID l-l CO TJ CD ri B > cd bO .m P 3 CD O -P CJ H 5 0) p c 5 o a) 3 bo A! cd 2 P c s o 3 ^ 3 3 co 0) a) p •H 3 0) (J p i— i o m cfl CJ3 g e cm a) CO e 4-> p CD CO O O 0) 3 > a) -p f-i P > Cd U O X! -P P co Ph oj o M I • CO I I C» K H CO J N ID in lO CO M N t I ct- r- co J- in M M io N CN >0 vo co n l l o i on in m i-i J- in h/ CN 0\ in N 4 1^ rH co co in oi ^ i—l 00 i—l i—l ■— i \o '■o co co in n 4 CN t-l O CN cN\ocoo\voNinoiHinflioooincoo\H scOHioiooNiocooimnrNinvomin i— l CO CO 1/1 lO CN N iO CO ,-H CN ,-H OO^O^HOOCSI O CN CN CM i-H VO i— I in cm cm o CM CT> CO O «3CN lO rl40 m co o o O r^ o ■— i vo r-iomoocMOi— i o VD ^ CM cNi^cooomoor^ rHCOOOOOi-lCOr-IOi-lOCM co m o m CM 4 K H N H 4 H m cm ct vo co co O CO N (N N -* l-l CO rv co 00 CT> 4m44 CM CM in 40\tnNO\CNio44r\4rnin ^H ho n m h n h in cn cn o\ OA H CN ,-H r-H ,— | in Q\ CN N vo vO 00 i-H CO CN lO 4 lO 1^ CN 4 CO CM 00 yo 00 in i— i co vooH^ocrJ-r^r^ooocTN r-^coi— iOi-HCMcoinr^ CM CM in i— I i-H CM tN cnn en in cn in co co i— i co en io o i-H i-H CM o o in o o o o CO O vD O O CN LOJ-inHOfncNj- r-H CM i— I r-vi— ii-HONOOOcNOOOmooco ko rv o r— i o i—i co ooi— ivooocorHooi— loocooomocncMOcoi-HcnoooH^ON CM CO * N (3\ CN CJ\ H^c^OmCNi— IH^cNOCNi— li— I yD h in en cn a i— i h en h; i^ m cn !-H m i-H O CO -H/ CM CM i-H CN J" 0\ CO OCOCMyDCMmCMCNCOOCMONON 00 i-H H/ i-H CM CN i-H -3" in i-H co OcoinoiomcBNHCOio en en \o id h o o> o i— i i— i (N H J r-H CO o «3 io 4 m o in i— i i-H co in r^ p 3 CJ cd CTj p e co o cd 3 CD .o co c cd M a i— i u o a) p cd cO TD cO P ^ o ai CO cO -P •P O bO 3 P -P O h a> > 3 cd ^ cd 3 cj -P cd 3 •P P T3 3 3 QJ M be! CO CO p ■p a) co 3 .3 3 P cd O U bO co rH Cd .p a) >, coi C P co U 3 cd cd -p -p £ £ £ £ a, co P co 3 P O CO CO co co £ £ O • P cn 3 3 P m CD CD CO p CD d) cd 3 •p i-H Cd o p cd u .3 P P O S3 cd rd C C cd > 3 3 O p a) co cd a) l-l o CO >> o co co a) a) .3 a) 3 .a tj p 3 3 CD O 3 3 a) 3 .3 O CD ft Oo! CO P cd p -p 3 3 O -P g bO P p a) -p > > 3 ■ p bO P ■ • P > CO 3 O p o co co cn o CM H O H - 13 - u 4-1 XI 0) > •r-l •V x> CO !-l OJ 60 CO xt oj 4-1 CO a •r-l x> s •r-l CO CO >> 4-1 •H P> ■r-l 4-1 CJ 3 X) O i-l a o o o T3 O O 4-1 o co CD * CD X) 3 S-l cu ex , CO 01 i-l 3 4-J 10 i I vD I a in XI vO CO On .3 cc 3 ■H 4J ctj CI •I-l u O r-l O J 00 O r- CO I oo I I I'll I vO VD I • • vO 00 00 vf CO 1^ r~ in I vO • I I "I I r- r^ r-ICN OOr-l r-1 c£> CO O CN 3 CO S-l o o 4-1 00 CO CN U O 0) . p. as oo cooovooom Or-i r^O oo U 4J CO CO CO CJ XI -rl X 0) t-< 61 CO 3 U U 3 3 O O O co •rl CO O 3 3 co •rl -r( r-l X) 3 C_> U fn O M M a 3 4-1 C 11 co 01 co x) 3 3 X! cfl CJ i—l cfl >> CO U co CO co a a $ co 3 -u co O 60 co oj u •r-t x. CO fX 0 CO W z * 0) -M CO C CO X) •H 3 CO 3 •rl o I-l co co * o H H U 3 XI 4-1 3 O 01 O ft 3 O CO cu CD CO CO 0) CO 3 co 3 X 0) CU 0) H H > * * 4-1 3 o 3 * •H * 60 3 U -rl •rl CO > 3 O 4-1 CJ co co CD 3 Q W H o o •1-1 M-l •rl O OJ ft • CO CO u u CO -rl OJ OJ >>x 4J CN Po 0) j3 .3 4-1 XI 3 <" •r-l "rl r—l CO ft 60 -H 3 4-1 •H r-l 3 3 e O m co r-l O •l-l 4-1 4-1 CO CO CO i-l OJ r-l CD 60 4-1 CO CO OJ >> 4J X co 4-1 XI CO 0) 4J 14-1 3 O OJ co co 0) 4-> U CJ ft 3 OJ XI U O rl •— v 3- co 0) OJ ■"-> JS CO 4-1 4J CO 14-1 >-/ O co 6 . CO 3 ^~N CD CO in i-l CO CD CD X! 60 4J 4-1 CO CO Cu 0) 0) > i-l OJ i-i co 01 cfl Cfl .3 CO v-x O rl •!-( CD O 4-1 i-i 14-1 Cfl o i-l 4-1 So u i—l CD CO c 60 y-i O CO 60 XI XI c 01 0) •H 4J 4J 4J 3 XI J3 3, 60 M g -rl •r-l 5 01 CD U S 3 ■?« * * 14 XI a; ?> •■-I s 01 > u a CO d o •H CO U 00 a) 3 r-4 T-l r-l 3 O o 1 60 w c U-l T-l 3 X. 01 00 C so •i-l E sO ai a> 4-1 r-l cu XI XI c CO CO o 4-1 vO CO S-l SO vO 01 On 60 .-I CO 0) >.x; rO 4-1 XI c 0) -r-l 4J CO 60 O C •■-I -i-l -d 4J C co •i-l a, •r-i co o CO t4 4-1 >> S-l 4J CO T-1 a. 4-i CJ s X) o u ex ex o co S-< O J-J CO u 1^ M-l •r-l sO 0 01 Os o i— 1 Su 01 01 !-l rO r-- B CO so 3 M z c so •H so 3 OS i— i X^v CO S-l u-i o o H 4J r-l CJ c •i-l co o £> U-l •r-l 4J r 60 Su ^-1 c 0 CO -H a 4-1 4-1 o ox m 4-1 60 p-i = T-l 01 3 s^r* U-l 4J O co 0) CO > 01 S-l S-l CO < XI CM 1 1 CO 1 1 11*11 00 u-i 00 en so I O en On i 1 CO o f^ » r-~ i • • • ■— I CM r-l en r- CM LA O- O O I-- <1" N r-l in CM CO MN r~ cm U0 s D rO O ^— ' CO -r-l CO 4-1 CO CO o •a c cu cfl CO C c ^ c HMO U < U as oo en o o SO 00 U0 O .-I CO r~- o oo <)■ 00 s C $ * * * Cfl C 4-1 cfl O 60 co •r-l 0) £ £ a a 01 S-i •r-l -C CO (X s Cfl 3 0) ■z >s# 01 * CO ^ S-i s- CU c >-> > cfl c o u CO o o T-l o * Cfl •l-l c CO > 1—1 >> CO C C 01 Ph CO C O u co U * 4-J C o 60 cfl S-i • T-l •!-! c > •I-l 60 4-1 S-l CO •i-l CU • > 3 i t r-l SO Os 3 * a o -, 01 rC CM 4-> (U >s X! rQ 4-J ID c Ol ■r-l T-l 1— 1 CO o. 00 •1-1 C 4-1 •r-l 1— 1 3 3 B o m CO r-l o •H 4J 4-1 CO Cfl CO S-i 0) r-l 01 60 4-J CO CO 0) >l 4J rQ CO 4-1 X! 00 0) 4-1 M-l C o CU CO co 01 4-1 S-l o P. 3 01 XI rJ O S-i r^N CU CO 0) 0) 1-1 rfi CO 4-1 4-1 OT U-l ^ O CO e • CO 3 /-N CU 10 LO !-i CO 0) CU .43 00 4-J 4-1 CO CO Cu o> 01 > S-i 0) S-i CO 01 CO CO -C CO o •^-s S-i •I-l CO O 4-1 S-l M-l cfl 0 S-l 4-J >> o i-l 0) CO C 60 U-l 0 CO 00 13 XI c 01 CU •H 4-) 4-1 4-J 3 r3 rC Cu 60 00 c T-l ■r-l 0 01 OJ U -2 3 * * - 15 - I— 1 CO u ■rl 4-1 C 01 -a •ri E 0 CO SJ >s M-J 0) ;> X) )-i cu 3 > CO •l-l 01 C o O 11 •r-l u 4-1 CJ CO CD M r— 1 c r-l ■r-l O 3 CJ C4-I t>0 o C •r-l (-1 3 0) XI r~- C s£> 3 i C so SO 01 as -C r-l u -a >s a -Q CO -a sO 01 so 4J l CO m o sO •H On X r-l c ■l-l 01 _c CO 4-J ct) c ca •r-l 10 01 toO u C u •r-l 3 4-1 CO CO a. 60 •H c CJ •r-l •r-l ■U 4-1 C S-l 3 CO X! ex ^ CO CJ u 0 o o 4-1 XI CO O rJ 0 0) 3 a. o m o o CJ CO 0) X 0) 13 C l-l 1 1 00 0) -O rr! H u ch O 0 4-1 CO u u 01 01 01 S-i 00 oi co & r4 oi ca 0) w too) o c v 6 3 XI 2 -H r-l CO 4J S-l c oi ai a o o a 01 o c 01 CO 4-1 "0 4-1 O "r-l CO 01 1-4 I CN CM CM o\ -3" co CO CM CO H CM CO CM stNfOScMOr^cDst'cnPSvOCMCO PIOrlkOHiOCMirnO CO PI PI o so * co S-i CO CO co 00 CO 01 u •l-l -C co &. & CO rC 3 01 z >s-X 0) " en S-i CU I-} CO a ■r-l ■a -* CO s-i o o >* — 4-1 3 r4 oi o Z z CO •l-l c CO > r—l >s co c (2 0) PM c * •r-l -X 00 C S-l •--< ■r-l CO > c o 4J CJ CO CO 01 -r-l 2 3 * CO co o CO as 00 Q w H rC o n * Z -X 4-l CO •H S-i u CO 01 a> p. >s CO CM u 1-1 0) 01 jr J= 4-J 4-J u >■. o rD H-l TD CO QJ S-i ■r-l o ^H 4-1 o. cfl ■r-l S-i 4-1 a; —1 ft 3 o p. 0 o CO fll i— i OX) CO CO CJ S-i ■H 01 4-1 > c en CU XI 0) •r-l 4-1 O 4-J CO o CO 0) to i— I 4-1 u 4-1 3 ca XI O >s !-4 43 a- XI CU 01 J3 4-1 4-1 c 1 S-i o i— 1 CU CO c > IH o CO SO XI XI c CU 01 >H 4-1 4J 4-1 3 X! X & 00 5h p •■-I •i-i Q 0) cu a 3 * 3 * * 16 - c 01 X •r4 u x 01 > •i-i 01 o 01 u .^ s-l U-4 O O 4-1 CO i-i u 01 01 -O p. e o 3 O C U 0) u 00 CU co CO O- >, u 01 a) w > > M u < c 3 •r-1 CO 3 o CO 01 00 ^ C ■"-! ■i-l O 3 o U-4 00 o c vD oi as JZ •-> ■u X >. C X> CO T3 r» 01 vD 4-1 I CO so u so Oi oioo S-l ^H 01 01 B C 3 Oi C Sj 01 01 oo a CO S-4 CO 0) oc > c XI c CO CO co co 0) CJ N 0\ vO o CN CM • I CNI 00 00 aoo CM CMOS *£> r-i o in oo m CM OS N ^1 N in en NOOhOCOOOlNO\~}s c X) 3 CO 4-J u CO to ■rl CO .si CO * C -C en o % ~ •H 0 e o •H * CO CJ C 0) 3 ■i-J. DO c m 3 CO 0) CO CS c CO U S-i ■H •H 4-1 •i-4 c >, CO M c r— 1 0 O —4 XI c 3 ■H S-i CO U 0 01 1—1 CU — 4 c 0) O CO cfl CO < u a fn U l-l 1-1 M .-J S s s * $ co C 4-1 CO O 00 CO •1-4 0) si c CJ C •■-4 -H •i-4 CO ca CU >-l ■iH j3 co a. E CO ? >s* o cfl C •r-l i — l o u CO u * •i-l c co > CO 01 c xj c o CO C o M CO u •jc CO 4-1 t4 c c O -H E 00 U U 0) -r4 > > c * •H * 00 c U T-l •i-4 CO > c O 4-1 CJ co co 01 t4 3 2 00 nC IN 00 ■sj- o> CO m oo o 00 CM |N Q W H rr o M CjJ 3 Q * Z * H <3 CO •l-l M o CO CU 01 ex Pn CO CM S-l ■i-4 01 0) XI JZ 4-1 4J S-l >> o Xi 14-1 XI co 01 U •l-l o 1—1 4-1 D, Cfl •r4 l-l 4-1 OI , — I ex 3 0 E o CJ co 01 1—1 oo co CO CJ S-l •l-l 01 4-1 > c CO 01 X CU y-i O co CO CJ 3 X O N, S-l -o a. x 0) cu x. a 01 co 0) S-l ex 'V u CO 01 4J CO u u~> u o X 01 u 3 a g o o 14-1 0 • /^N E m 3 CO 0) 00 CU CO Xi ex 4-1 CU 01 Ol S-l CO cfl •*-* co co CU S-l 00 o CO 4-1 S-i u 01 CO ?> 14-4 cfl oo c •1-1 X 01 j= x: oo oo •r-l T-l 0) 0) 3 3 17 cfl Q) bO C ■i-1 +J CJ a) CD ca en CD 4-1 rd * 4-> c CO o co d cfl •r-l 0) co to M 00 O o ■M 1 CO r-. S-i VO CD as CX i — i o o CD o x 4-> e o to u c U-l •r-l S-l TJ ~ 0) TJ > ■r-4 CO a) Tj o O a) •r-l S-i S-I 0) CO CX bo c bn •r-l c 5 •r-l 4-1 .— i c CO 3 +J x! o -P i<; o C4-I o o o "3 a) o bO o ca & 4-1 d a) o u CD ex TJ d cO u CD ja B -• i i 4-1 S-l C cfl CD 0) O l-i g o) o (X, S-i cfl C d •r-l O CO 4-1 >>T-I CO TJ D T3 i Cfl Xl cfl E-i "3 c 0) i— 1 o > i—l CO •r-l a cO 0) fe CD u CO 0) S-i CO d° TJ O •r-l r— 1 •r4 5 Cfl S-l C 4-1 S-l cfl CO 00 CN 00 J- co CN CN as CN so CN CN CN o CN o O Os cf co 00 On CN co O J- i-H o 00 as o vO o o r-l O r— 1 I—l CO r— l r-l CO , — 1 CO bO d • • • • TJ t-I • • • 9 4-> 4-1 • 4J • 4-1 4-1 CJ CX CX -P CX CJ cx 4-> C CD 0 CJ > 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 l 1 CO r-l S-l CO cfl 00 r-l o LTl LO CN t—\ CM 00 so cd a) CN CO CN r-l CN CN i-H 4-1 cfl S-i • • • • • P O • • 4-1 • 4-1 4-1 • 4-1 • 4-1 CM > 4-1 a > CX CX 4-1 CX > CX o CJ CD O CD CD CJ CD o CD ■z o CO z CO CO o CO 2 CO bO S-i o CD CJ o c •r-l Cfl d cfl •r-l TJ c cO c cfl •r-l co •r-l 3 O rJ d3 C r-l Cfl bO CD •r4 d XI o CJ N •r-l S Cfl 4-> O co CD d d S-i 3 O co co •r-l 2 xl O cfl d •r4 r-l o u cfl 3 O co co d o CJ CO •r-l 5 d CD CD Xl TJ cfl -d CO cfl O in d cfl _d 4-1 S-i CD si 4-1 cfl S-i bO c •r4 4-4 d 3 x; CM o co >> cfl TJ m so 4-1 CJ CD r— 1 o CO CO cfl CD CD ■P co cfl XJ bo CO c •r-l "3 4-1 0) d 4-1 a 4-1 X •r-l £ J- S-l SO CD 1 CX CO SO CO as d r— 1 o •r4 CD -U x! cfl 4-1 r— 1 3 a) to o CD c S-i •r4 CO i — i CO 4-1 S-i U CD CD TJ H-| CD 14-1 U- CD * - 1! WOODCOCK STUDIES IN THE ACCELERATED PROGRAM FOR MIGRATORY UPLAND GAME BIRD RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT Henry M. Reeves Chief Section of Migratory Upland Game Bird Studies Migratory Bird Populations Station Laurel, Maryland Over the years, research on shore and upland migratory game birds— a group including woodcock, snipe, doves, pigeons, and rails— has not been commensurate with the recreation they afford. These species have been neglected in comparison with waterfowl. Only recently have efforts to obtain increased appropriations for essential research on this group met with success. In 1965, a special meeting of wildlife biologists and administra- tors interested in this problem was held in conjunction with the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in Washington, D.C. There it was agreed that detailed outlines of research needs should be prepared for the more important of these "neglected" species. Several authorities were asked to prepare outlines for review at the 1966 "North American" in Pittsburgh. The American Woodcock Research and Management Program, a comprehensive summary of woodcock research to date, plus future research needs, was completed by a 10-member commit- tee. After being reviewed at the Conference, a nationwide program was developed for presentation to Congress. The International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, and Wildlife Management Institute were especially active in formulating the program and securing financial support for it. To guide and coordinate this accelerated program, the International Association appointed a National Program Planning Committee for Shore and Upland Migratory Game Birds. Members of this committee represent the Eastern, Central, and Western Dove Management Units, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Izaak Walton League, Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wilderness Society. Money for the accelerated program is included in the Bureau's annual budget. Unlike other Federal Aid programs for wildlife, it requires no State matching money, but it is essential that these research and/or management activities augment, not replace, those underway at the inception of the program. Also, all projects are dependent on annual availability of Federal funds. - 19 For fiscal year 1968, appropriations were allocated for 27 shore and upland migratory game bird projects in 20 States. Among these were 12 woodcock research and management projects in eight States totaling $84,800. Project and location Responsible organization Amount Singing -ground survey route randomization: Indiana State Maine State Minnesota State New York State North Carolina State Wisconsin State $ 4,200 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 ,$26,200 Preseason banding operations : Maine New York Pennsylvania West Virginia Wisconsin State State State State State 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 Subtotal $26,250 Population-habitat relationship studies: Maine Bureau 25,000 Administration and coordination of State projects: Migratory Bird Populations Station Bureau 7,350 TOTAL $84, 800 - 20 Continuation and expansion of the accelerated program for shore and migratory upland game birds will provide the means by which needed information will lead to more intelligent management of woodcock. 21 LOCAL MOVEMENT OF "RESIDENT" WOODCOCK IN THE CANAAN VALLEY OF WEST VIRGINIA Robert C. Kletzly and Joseph C. Rief f enberger Research Biologists Wildlife Resources Division Department of Natural Resources Elkins, West Virginia Recapture of woodcock resident in an area provides information on their mobility, home range, habitat requirements, dispersal, and vulnerability to capture techniques. This article reports on general mobility and vulnerability to capture of woodcock handled during the "summer" of 1967 in the Canaan Valley of West Virginia. It excludes birds captured on singing grounds. From April 15 through September 20, 1967, 288 different wood- cock were captured in ground traps, with mist nets, or by nightlighting techniques. Of these, 95 individuals (33 percent) were also recaptured one or more times for a total of 126 handlings after their original capture. Differential age and sex vulnerability to capture and recapture is indicated in the following table. Number Number of of times Percent of Age and sex individuals recaptured 12 3 4 Total recaptures individuals category Captured Recaptured recaptured Adult Male 53 11 9 2 0 0 13 20.8 Adult Female 57 15 14 1 0 0 16 26.3 Immature Male 120 56 38 16 1 1 77 46.7 Immature Female 58 13 9 2 11 20 22.4 TOTALS 288 95 70 21 2 2 126 33.0 NOTE: This study was conducted by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and is a contribution of Pittman-Robertson Project W-37-R. -22- If we assume that woodcock sex ratios are equal at hatching and that natural mortality is about the same for both sexes during their first summer, then we must conclude from the above data that immature male woodcock are more vulnerable than immature females to both cap- ture and recapture. Further, the recapture rate for immature males is double that for all other age and sex groups combined. Woodcock mobility, as indicated by distances between each of the 126 recaptures, is presented below: Age and sex Less than 1/2 to 2 2 to 3-1/2 3-1/2 to 5 5 to 6-1/2 category 1/2 mile miles miles miles miles Adult Male 7 5 1 0 0 Adult Female 14 1 1 0 0 Immature Male 48 20 5 3 1 Immature Female 16 4 0 0 0 TOTALS 85 30 7 3 1 Immature males were by far the most mobile woodcock. Once capable of flight, they began to appear throughout the study area. Immature females and adults of both sexes exhibited some local movement but con- siderably less than immature males. In contrast, T. K. Prawdzik and G. A. Ammann (personal communication, 1968, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing) reported a significant "local" movement of an adult female in northern Michigan. This woodcock was banded, with her brood of four chicks, on May 11, 1966. She was recaptured 65 days later 40 miles southeast of where she had nested and apparently had reared a brood. However, E. R. Clark (personal communication, 1968, Migratory Bird Populations Station, Laurel, Maryland) did not find any summer movement between his two "resident" woodcock populations in Maine which were only about 20 miles apart. We wish to emphasize, how- ever, that the majority of the Canaan Valley birds (even immature males) were repeatedly taken at, or close to, the point of their original capture. Banding activities are expanding throughout much of West Virginia with emphasis on woodcock populations encompassing the Canaan Valley. This could provide important information about immigration and emigra- tion, thereby establishing a more positive definition of "local" or "resident" woodcock populations. 23 STUDIES OF AMERICAN WOODCOCK PARASITE FAUNA Annie K. Prestwood, Gary L. Doster, and Frank A. Hayes Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study School of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens, Georgia The parasite fauna of the American woodcock is essentially unknown. Samuel R. Pursglove (personal communication, 1967, West Virginia Univer- sity, Morgantown) , in a review of the literature, found reports of only two protozoans and nine helminths from this species. To obtain additional information on the parasite fauna of woodcock, a limited number of birds were collected during October 1967. Five woodcock from the Pigeon River area of Michigan and 10 from the Canaan Valley in West Virginia were examined for ectoparasites and endopara- sites. One trematode, one cestode, and two species of nematodes were found in this small sample. One, and possibly both, of the nematodes may represent new species. A resume' of these parasitologic findings follows . CLASS TREMATODA Pseudapatemon aldousi Mcintosh, 1940 The strigeid fluke was found in the small intestines of woodcock from both Michigan and West Virginia. One bird from Michigan harbored 184 of these trematodes. This fluke originally was collected from woodcock in New Brunswick, Canada, and in Maine by C. M. Aldous (1938), who sent the parasites to Allen Mcintosh of the U.S. National Helminth- ological Museum at Beltsville, Maryland, for identification. Mcintosh (1940) described Pseudapatemon aldousi as a new species and named it in honor of Aldous. Dubois and Rausch (1950) recorded this trematode in woodcock from Wisconsin. This report constitutes two new State records for its occurrence. NOTE: This study was sponsored through funds made available by the Congress of the United States and administered through the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the Department of the Interior, Contract No. 14-16-0008-676. 24 Miracidia of strigeid flukes develop after the capsules are laid and penetrate lymnaeid snails, in which two generations of sporocysts occur. Cercariae which develop from the sporocysts penetrate aquatic animals such as fish, snails, leeches, tadpoles, frogs, salamanders, and snakes where they metamorphose into metacercariae (with or without excystment). The specific life cycle of P. aldousi is unknown. CLASS CESTODA Family Dilipididae Small numbers of dilepidid tapeworms also were found in the small intestines of woodcock from both Michigan and West Virginia. These small "microscopic" cestodes had lost many rostellar hooks on which positive generic identification depends. These tapeworms generally conformed to the description of Anomotaenia of which two species, A. stentorea and A. variabilis, have been reported from woodcock (Leidy, 1855; Fuhrmann, 1908; Ransom, 1909; Skrjabin, 1914; Rankin, 1946). Life history data are not available for members of the genus Anomotaenia. However, other genera in the family are known to utilize a variety of intermediate hosts such as fleas, lice, beetles, flies, and earthworms . CLASS NEMATODA Tetrameres sp. Although this spirurid nematode was found in the glandular stomachs of woodcock from both States, birds from West Virginia harbored greater numbers than did those from Michigan. Tetrameres sp. was reported from woodcock in Michigan by Blankenship (1957) and in captive birds at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, by Locke et al. (1965). This parasite apparently represents a new species that is closely related to T. coloradensis Schmidt, 1962, which was described from the common snipe, Capella gallinago delicata (Schmidt, 1962). A variety of intermediate hosts are utilized by Tetrameres , including cockroaches, grasshoppers, and water fleas (Daphnia pulex and Gammarus pulex). The life history of this species is unknown. 25 Unidentified Species Specimen of a minute nematode (1-2 mm. long) were found in a woodcock from West Virginia. This parasite had characteristics indi- cating that it might belong to the Order Seuratoidea. Specimens were forwarded to Dr. Roy C. Anderson, Professor of Parasitology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, an authority on this group. A final identification is not yet available. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This pilot study revealed two species of nematodes (both probably new), one trematode, and one cestode in only 15 woodcock from two areas. It is recommended that significant collections of adult and immature woodcock be examined for ectoparasites and endoparasites from samples representative of (a) primary breeding areas, (b) major migratory routes, and (c) important wintering grounds. Description of new species of parasites, with associated geographic distribution and life history data, will provide useful epidemiological information. Life history studies of various helminths could also con- tribute additional insight on woodcock food habits and may serve as important biological "tags." Finally, pathogenicity of woodcock hel- minths should be evaluated and "normal" parasite levels ascertained. - 26 LITERATURE CITED Aldous, C. M. 1938. Woodcock management studies in Maine in 1937. Trans. 3d North American Wildlife Conference, Baltimore, Feb. 14-17, p. 884. Blankenship, L. H. 1957. Investigations of the American woodcock in Michigan. Michigan Department of Conservation, Report 2123, 217 p. Dubois, G.j and R. L. Rausch. 1950. Three contributions to the study of North American Strigeides (Trematoda) . Society Neuchateloise de Sciences Naturelles Bulletin, vol. 73, p. 35. Fuhrmann, 0. 1908. Die cestoden der Vogel. Zoologische Jahrbucker, Jena supplement. Abteilung fur systematik, okologie und geographie der tiere , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 232. Leidy, J. 1855. Notices of some tapeworms. Proc. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadephia, 1854-1855, vol. 7, no. 12, p. 443-444. Locke, L. N. , W. H. Stickel, and Shirley A. Geis. 1965. Some diseases and parasites of captive woodcock. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 156-161. MclnLosh, A. 1940. Pseudapatemon aldousi n. sp. (Trematoda: Strigeidae) from the American woodcock, Philohela minor. Proc. Helmintho- logical Society, Washington, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 14-16. Rankin, J. S . , Jr. 1946. Helminth parasites of birds and mammals in western Massachusetts. American Midland Naturalist, vol. 35, no. 3, p. 756-768. Ransom, B. H. 1909. The taenoid cestodes of North American birds. U.S. National Museum, Bulletin 69, p. 113. Schmidt, G. D. 1962. Tetrameres coloradensis sp. n. A nematode parasite of the common snipe Capella gallinago delicata. Journal Parasitology, vol. 48, p. 850-851. Skrjabin, K. I. 1914. Vogelcestoden aus Russische Turkestan. Zoologische Jahrbucker, Jena supplement. Abteilung fur systematik, okologie und geographie der tiere, vol. 37, no. 5, p. 430. - 27 - HOMING BEHAVIOR OF DISPLACED MALE WOODCOCK IN MAINE Sanford D. Schemnitz Associate Professor of Wildlife Management Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit University of Maine Orono, Maine During the springs of 1965 through 1967, studies of the home range attachment of "singing" male woodcock were undertaken in central Maine. The initial studies were conducted by Allen Holmes. Nine wood- cock were captured with mist nets on eight singing grounds, 1/4 to 1 acre in size, near Orono (fig. 3). An additional seven woodcock were banded at the University Forest near Old Town. In this pilot study, woodcock were transplanted a distance of 1/4 to 1 mile. One adult male, banded on May 3, 1965, and moved 3/4 mile to another singing ground, was recaptured 10 days later, 25 feet from the site of the initial capture. When a male was removed from a singing ground one evening, it was often replaced by another male the next evening. On one singing ground, where four woodcock were trapped and moved, each was quickly replaced by a new male. In 1966, homing studies were expanded and involved interchange of woodcock between the Orono and Old Town study areas, a distance of approximately 3 miles. Field work was conducted by Wildlife Graduate Assistant Ronald Klataske and involved the transplanting of 36 male woodcock between April 7 and June 6. Of this group, seven were re- captured in the vicinity of original points of capture. Four of these were taken on the exact sites of initial capture; the other three were recaptured on adjacent singing grounds within 1/4 mile. Five other woodcock were recaptured at their transplant site. Apparently all five had established new singing grounds since they were performing courtship activities when recaptured. As in 1965, there was an influx of males to vacated singing grounds. An average of 4.2 males (range 1 to 10) utilized each of 12 different singing-ground sites. In 1967, the pattern of transplanting was similar to 1966. Undergraduate wildlife student Lee Perry captured and displaced 33 male woodcock. Of the nine recaptured, six remained where trans- planted and three returned to their original singing grounds where they were retaken 6, 9, and 14 days later. Six additional males, banded and transplanted in previous years, were also recaptured in 1967. All had returned to their original capture sites. 28 - c o •r-l bO 4-1 C 01 •r-l c C •r-l QJ B a, cC o X CD CD CD +j co o bO • t-H c y*-N a •r-l QJ 4J C u •r-| • a) CO a) 0} s c c •r-l ca Ct-I cfl ij O S +j >> •• CO +J o -p •r-l c 0) CO 0 c iJ u 0) o ■p > to •r-l s-l •r-l c co £ r=> a) c 13 >1 0) m t! r-H a) c (-1 ■p 3 3 u 0 14-1 3 u 0 bO bO c o bO •r-l o C "D 4-> ■r-l l-H o bo 0 si c rC Ch •r-l K^ CO a) J oj r— 1 rJ CD O •r-l G, 1 i i a) u 3 bO fa 29 - Numerous graduate and undergraduate wildlife management students at the University of Maine provided essential field assistance. Unfor- tunately, this study was terminated in June 1968 due to an encroaching housing development on the study area. Final results and conclusions will be published in 1969. 30 WOODCOCK IDENTIFICATION (A PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH INTERPRETING RESULTS OF MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS) James M. Ruckel P-R Coordinator and Administrative Assistant Wildlife Resources Division Department of Natural Resources Charleston, West Virginia Mail questionnaire surveys provide natural resource adminis- trators, research biologists, and wildlife managers with information important in formulating conservation policies, establishing effec- tive regulations, and determining management practices. Realizing the value of this information, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources conducted a pilot mail questionnaire survey in 1963. Its primary purpose was to obtain information on deer harvest, hunting pressure, and hunter attitudes. The last of six questions was: "Which of the following did you hunt last season (1962)?" A list of eight game birds and mammals followed, one of which was "woodcock." The remainder of this paper deals with interpretation of results obtained from West Virginia residents who responded positively to "hunted woodcock in 1962." The sample included all 197,462 resident hunting and fishing license buyers — stratified by two different types of licenses. Post card questionnaires were mailed to 7,328 (3.7 percent) of the license buyers, of which 875 (11.9 percent) were undeliverable. Of the 6,453 hunters contacted, 4,183 (64.8 percent) responded after three contacts. This amounted to a 2.1 percent sample of the license buyers . Following normal statistical procedures, sample data were expanded to determine the total number of woodcock hunters. These calculations suggested that over 20,000 Mountain State residents hunted woodcock in 1962; however, it was suspected that this figure was much too large. To test the reliability of the original data, 100 individuals who indi- cated that they hunted woodcock were interviewed. NOTE: This study was conducted by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and is a contribution of Pittman- Robertson Project W-25-R. - 31 The following procedure was used to make this test: (1) A systematic sample (with a random start) of 100 individuals who answered "yes" to "hunted wood- cock" during the 1962 season was selected for interview. (2) These hunters were shown a series of six game bird pictures, including one of a woodcock. (3) Those who could identify a woodcock were asked a series of six other questions concerning their woodcock hunting experiences. (4) These data were used to calculate a corrected figure for the total number of West Virginia woodcock hunters and their kill in 1962. Eighty-three of the original 100 hunters selected were located, and all were willing to cooperate in the interview. Twenty-four (29 percent) of the 83 could identify the picture of a woodcock. Thirty- four (41 percent) of these individuals said they hunted woodcock during the 1962 season. Thus, these data suggest the number of res- ident woodcock hunters should have been less than 2,500 rather than the original estimate of more than 20,000. Through these interviews, it was found that many Mountain State residents identified the word "woodcock" in the questionnaire with their local term for the pileated woodpecker (wood hen). Others thought "woodcock" and "woodchuck" (ground hog) were synonymous. Using the mean number of woodcock killed by sample hunters (who cor- rectly identified the picture), it was estimated that the total kill by resident license buyers in 1962 was between 9,000 and 13,000. It is interesting to note these same data also suggest that Mountain State natives intentionally harvest about 3,000 pileated woodpeckers annually! - 32 ~ 4U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 O - 366-470 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Ter- ritorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of natural resources. The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to a better United States now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240