BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 679 4 OURNING DOVE STATUS REPORT 1969 ton Publk . intendent of Documents 1 7 1970 DEPOSITORY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 1 32 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WALTER J. HICKEL, SECRETARY Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director MOURNING DOVE STATUS REPORT, 1969 Compiled by James L. Ruos Migratory Bird Populations Station Division of Wildlife Research Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 132 Washington, D.C. April 19 70 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents CONTENTS Abstract iv Introduc tion 1 Procedure The Call-Count Survey 2 Quality checks of field data 2 Randomization of call-count routes 3 Physiographic stratification of call-count routes 3 Breeding Density Index 4 Determination of short-term population changes, 1968 to 1969 ... 8 Determination of long-term population trends, 1959 to 1969 8 Computer analysis of dove call-count data 9 Statistical evaluation of data, 1959 to 1969 9 Determination of population distribution, 1968 and 1969 9 Findings Status of the United States dove population 1968 to 1969 populations . . . 12 Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969 15 Status of the Eastern Management Unit population 1968 to 1969 populations 19 Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969 19 Status of the Central Management Unit population 1968 and 1969 populations 21 Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969 21 Status of the Western Management Unit population 1968 to 1969 populations 22 Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969 22 Statistical significance of data 1968 to 1969 22 Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969 23 References 24 Append ix 26 in ABSTRACT U.S. mourning dove population indexes declined from 1968 to 1969 by 2 percent in the Eastern Management Unit and 8 percent in the Central Management Unit, but remained unchanged in the Western Manage- ment Unit. The changes were not statistically significant. The 1969 indexes were the lowest in the 11-year period 1959-69 and were below the 10-year means, 1959-69, by 8 percent in the Eastern Unit, 15 per- cent in the Central, and 21 percent in the Western. For the three units combined, the 1969 index was 5 percent below that for 1968 and 15 percent below the 10-year mean. Regression analyses of the call- count data for 1959-69 indicate a statistically significant downward trend in the dove breeding populations in all management units; mean rates of decline were 1 percent a year in the Eastern Unit, 3 percent a year in the Central, 4 percent a year in the Western, and 3 percent a year for the U.S. dove population as a whole. The distribution of dove density is described by physiographic regions within management units. In 1969, the most extensive area of high dove density was in the eastern Great Plains and the Central Lowlands. Other important breeding areas were in the Upper Coastal Plain of the south Atlantic States, the Sonoran Desert of Arizona and California, and parts of the Colorado and Columbia Plateaus. Between 1968 and 1969, the greatest rate of population change occurred in these high-density regions. IV INTRODUCTION Management of mourning doves in the United States is essentially the regulation of hunting to achieve proper harvest. The Call-Count Survey, conducted annually since 1953 by Federal, State, and inde- pendent observers on more than 800 prescribed routes, provides popu- lation data on which wildlife administrators rely in setting annual regulations. This report describes the methods employed to obtain and analyze those data and presents the status of the 1969 mourning dove breeding population. Two versions of the dove status report, one preliminary and one final, are prepared annually. In 1969 the preliminary version was mailed to members of the Dove Regulations Committee a week before the regulations meeting in June at Washington, D.C. This timely distri- bution was made possible by the promptness of cooperators who sent their data directly to the Migratory Bird Populations Station imme- diately after completion of their surveys. The present report is the final version and contains additional survey data received too late for use in the preliminary version. As is customary, it will be distributed to all cooperators and will be available to interested organizations and individuals. Basic data gathering and analyzing procedures used in this report were the same as those used in 1968 (Ruos and MacDonald, 1970) . PROCEDURE The Call-Count Survey Field studies have demonstrated the feasibility of the Call- Count Survey as a method for detecting annual changes in mourning dove breeding populations (Foote and Peters, 1952) . Since 1953, these surveys have been conducted throughout the United States over a system of more than 800 established routes. Each call-count route has twenty 3-minute listening stations spaced at 1-mile intervals, usually on lightly traveled secondary roads. Each route is checked once between May 20 and June 10. Inten- sive studies in the eastern United States (Foote and Peters, 1952) indicated that dove calling is relatively stable during this period. Call-count surveys are not made when wind velocities exceed 12 miles per hour or when it is raining. Records are kept of all doves seen or heard calling along the routes. The numbers heard calling during the 3-minute listening peri- ods are totaled for each route to provide the data for determining the population index. The numbers of calls per dove and of doves seen are not currently used in the index calculation, but they are recorded. A detailed analysis of these and other pertinent data from past call counts is currently under study by the Migratory Bird Populations Station. Studies by Frankel and Baskett (1961) and Jackson and Baskett (1964) have shown that unmated males call at a greater rate than mated males. This suggests that the reliability of the annual call-count census is reduced by the variability in the ratio of mated to unmated males. However, Wight (1964) observed that variations in the ratio of mated to unmated males, where the adult sex ratio approached equality, did not significantly alter the reliability of the dove call count for measuring annual trends of breeding mourning doves. Irby (1964) also found no evidence on his study area in Arizona that the numbers of unmated males materially affected call-count results. Quality checks of field data Survey reports were examined to determine circumstances affecting the accuracy with which the routes were run and the data recorded. Records for routes run under unacceptable conditions were not analyzed. Reports on routes completed under the prescribed conditions but con- taining discrepancies or errors, or lacking data, were examined to ascertain whether parts were acceptable. If so, they were used in analyses for which they were applicable. Where there was a change in observers on a route from one year to the next, the data were examined to determine whether an unexpected population change was apparent. When such differences exceeded those of the prescribed limits, they were attributed to differences in observers, and the data were not used in the current analysis. Randomization of call-count routes The original call-count routes (established between 1951 and 1956, and hereafter designated "management routes") were in many instances selected in areas of high-density dove populations and were not representative of populations over entire States or manage- ment units. Randomly located routes were first employed in seven southeastern States in 1957 (Foote, Peters, and Finkner, 1958) . A comparative study of the random and management route data from these States con- firmed earlier assumptions that a revision of the nationwide call-count survey routes should be undertaken if representative dove population indexes were to be obtained. This recommendation prompted the gradual selection and establishment of the 868 randomly located call-count routes now employed in 44 States. Selection of random routes in the remaining four States of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont (now represented by a total of 11 management routes) was com- pleted prior to the 1969 survey. All States, except Maine, have pro- vided random data for 1 or more years. In 1970, data from Maine also are expected to come from random routes. Both types of routes were run during the year of transition from management to random routes. This procedure permitted a direct com- parison of data (Foote, Peters, and Finkner, 1958). Since 1967, randomized data have been obtained for 44 States for 2 or more years. Physiographic stratification of call-count routes Biologists recognize the limitation of sampling wildlife popula- tions by political units. Census data collected and analyzed by eco- logical divisions represent better statistical design and could be expected to provide more precise information with the same effort. An ecological sampling design for the collection of dove popula- tion data, using physiographic regions as the basis for stratification, was suggested by Foote, Peters, and Finkner (1958) . The 78 regions designated in this report (fig. 1) are based essentially on a map entitled "Physical Divisions of the United States" prepared by Fenneman (1931) . The boundaries of these divisions were modified in several instances after examination of field data and more recent ecological studies Breeding Density Index The Breeding Density Index (BDI) is an indicator of the number of doves per unit of area and is derived from the average number of call- ing doves per route. To obtain as accurate an average as possible for derivation of this index, the call-count data from each stratum in each State are weighted according to the land areas they represent. Before 1966, the BDI for each State represented the average number of birds heard calling per route within that State, thus weighting all routes equally. The State averages were then weighted in proportion to the estimated area of dove habitat in each State of a management unit (fig. 2) to provide a Breeding Population Index for each unit (U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1957) . Beginning with the 1966 survey analysis, weighting factors based on physiographic regions were used for calculating BDI values in States which had been "randomized" for 2 or more years. The average number of doves heard calling per route in each region within a State was weighted by the percentage of the total land area in the State occupied by that region. Calculation of management unit BDl's since 1965 has involved two similar procedures as a result of a computer program change. In 1966 and 1967, indexes were determined for each management unit by weight- ing each State's BDI by the percentage of the total land area occupied by that State in the management unit. When a region within a State was not represented by a BDI, that region assumed the mean of the other regions weighted by land area in that State. In 1968 and 1969, management unit BDl's were derived directly from State physiographic region BDl's. When a region within a State was not represented by a BDI, that region assumed the weighted management unit mean. Minor differences between these procedures are evident only when physio- graphic regions within States are not represented by comparable routes. ON I ON c O ■H •u CO H 3 p. O Q. > O oo c 3 T3 o o 6 o <4-l o en cfl C U O 0) to 3 CO c o •H 00 N Pw I n 3 00 0) 00 crj CX CD CD CO ' tN to j in ,-. cn c*-> j- in \£> hm m j i/i 'OOOO r-i r-. r- r-< r-l r-. CN CM CM CM CM I CM CM CM CM W CN tN (N CM (N fN M CN (N (N i-t CM CO J" (*) M MM CM N fN N • CN r-l J- LA \0 r-» O J- ^t J- J J- J- in I CN CM CM CM CM CM CN 00 OS > ■H C ■ r-l > o > Q o 3 o Li co AJ L. to Oh at a c Cl, 3 at • M at CO CO CO c (0 CO a> 3 0 C 3 CO a. c 04 O cfl CO a) 4-> •m q) c 4-1 at <0 a l. 4J +J o a. tfl +J QJ at U CO c CO > at r-i 0J Oh CO 3 CO cu a c 2 at OS CD cfl S >> o u 4J ctj a) a) tj o c £ a) at M c CO » O s 3 >» CO L. Li O c c m 3 to - « >, 4-> .„ — w (OddlCCJaWQ CO i-3 to CO 0) CO CQ CJ co TJ CQ C x. 4J ^ co c CO O 4-1 *r4 Li I Li CO -M u o fO 01 ; cj Q to cj co co s: C C C CO c co bO co x. > P 0) 2 0) o c c c u 4-1 bO •r-4 o X) tj (4 tO 3 CO c d a s (0 0) c6 P4 to OS tO O td CO 03 u "3 u tO 4-1 u o as ■<-4 c CO to CO CO TJ Ll J= c c H u d ■-4 u CO u to CO 0) bo 3 CO p to l, CO Li CJ CO cj > -a 3 £ CO o CO tO OJ o 4-> 0> cfl 0) u 0 2 O s ■-j —4 (U c c o c ■;■'. o M CJ c c 01 •i-4 3 CO u u cc H cj X! u u bo a 0) at 0) CO c 4-1 o o c CO 0) £ JS Li u CL 0 CO CM L-l < u ID 4-3 tj 4J k at & bo B ■r4 CJ CO u tj 3 0) U-l bo 0) cfl CO u u z o 3 u tO CO o 0) CM til z 2 CO CO o P4 c o i±J CJ cj rJ 3 ■M ■r4 4J Li > CO U (0 04 o o- O a CO d 0) Li Li a) a) U o 4-1 to 04 CO CL u CO to d CO M 01 CO d d d c d d d d o d to CJ i—l .-j at CO -4 o CO o 0 o CO a) bo 3 •r-l d a c tfl CJ d a) 3 > to CO o 4J > m o 4-i d ■-4 4J CO « 4-1 0 4J 01 d U ••-4 > £ CO c C --4 CO C 0) u u U a 04 01 3 3 d a o a) d CO 3 > 4-t 3 > 4-1 0) d c 04 0) at 4-1 > CO (0 CO o 3 Li 0) >> to O 0 §£ CO 01 CO <4-l 0 at 0) s CO CO 04 'ra tfl a tu > X u p CO TJ ■r-4 U to ■M 4-1 Li "T c 0) TD o-j c d 04 £ >. 0- E CO C at a) u ■r-l CO 04 to cO tt a) ai 0 >% 4-> d CO 1 c 3 n &c CO 04 CD CO ju M a CO H d X CO CO TJ ■r-l 0) <0 <7 3 •a 3 > co o J aj c o > X d CJ -^ >. CJ Q c 0) 3 d ■ ^4 -r: to c H o CJ r-l 04 x; ai CJ S M O CO J«! 0 CO ►3 ~D o o •r4 CO at cd cc 0 0) to bO 4-1 CL CO CO a OS to CJ OS C 4-» ■J c c CO 4-1 CL, tO Li U 5C T3 CO > CO co cm CO 4-1 4-1 03 o 04 Li CO b£ Li Li d 04 u CO 3 3 CL CO CO T3 x bo d CO to • r4 C c OS d 0 c > at at 0 a) 01 04 Li O O M d Li d CO Li 04 c o 4-1 c x: 3 L> bO Li u ■ r4 x: -C CO 4J CJ CO bC CO w V XI 0 o 0 CO Li 4-1 a CJ £ ai d Ot 0) o Ll &c X to Li (0 cn (0 n tO 4-> C CO m cd bo to 4-1 cj 3 O M u CO X. M (0 x: ---i r-l x; 01 ■M. 0) (0 4-1 CO a) (0 to a. ■r4 ••-I c a 0) t: Li a o CJ U 3 4-1 E -a -w Li BC lj z d K 3 3 H a o a. CJ X s cc X 04 CJ OS O4 bl Li tO CO CQ ca < o >> 3 O TJ Li O) d 0) Li 01 N 3 J>1 O >v ■ r-t O +f M o O -M o O CJ co 3 s z i— cm cn j- in o rv ro ro n to m r m o o o o o o o H (N m iO O i-1"! O txtaococo choe^o OOOO OOOrH 04 to Oi d : to i o ' u 4-> cfl o) O : cj 4-t co cj i a) co J CO co d CM i o to •-' , *a cj -m -3 at -0 0 I ?N L. M I Cfl QJ Ll M i xt a. o co co I p Cti W co to 3 ■M CD O X 3 -J (0 OJ CJ CJ —J u ot d 4-> >^ d to -m u QJ -r4 > CD —• > c o to r-4 O M M tfl D 0) 04 >» Li C C >. L. coraudd0400a>o d ot -d c d o o tfl O d CO ■ ■M at 4-i -D ■ CO 01 3 JC cfl bO 0) QJ d c d d ; . > w u] c— -< bO > CL O L. 01 CO M O O TJ 0) ■r-i c e S •- 1 x; x; o TJ TJ OS M 4-1 c; 3 ft] o -n a) x > 3 aj —i CO tfl CO rr; at at r fl d r. a) fll c u C CO 0> CO Ctl nl CO at u 43 at & a c -i tfl ^5 3 at d T3 rJ TJ -r4 -M I], O O r-l Q) ■ 0) 04 0- 3ZCOr-i{-.: Cfl r-l 4J ■-4 a) o •r4 > < CJ 4-1 CO L, 3 3 4-1 0 CL at CJ CL 0> at CJ Li TJ CO at >g z Z 0) CL d d CO d TJ CO CO tO cfl d d c M • M cfl Cfl Li u CJ (J x; M Xl M rM ft) at CO CJ 3 M 3 0) box: -c; d ■0 rO CO CO 01 XJ d 4J 4-> 0 c x; 4-1 C s til Li 3 CJ O CO o tfl tfl p 0 0 d u CJ Q-SCJ^CJ 3VZC0H- to 4-1 ■i-l c p +-> c e a) ■od nj c a B a > o c •r-l C (-1 P o £ i i 0) u •r4 Only four States (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) did not provide randomized data in both 1968 and 1969. Management route data from these States were not weighted and were not included in the management unit averages. Consequently, comparable data for 1968 and 1969 BDI values are given for only 44 States. Determination of short-term population changes, 1968 to 1969 Changes in the size of mourning dove breeding populations between 1968 and 1969 are indicated by data from 606 comparable routes run in both years. The average appropriately weighted BDI values for each year are presented for each State and management unit (appendix table Al) . Differences in these BDI values, expressed as percent change, determined the magnitude of changes in the breeding population. Determination of long-term population trends, 1959 to 1969 Short-term (year-to-year) population changes are based, as indi- dated, on data from comparable routes only. Since the composition of these comparable routes changes with each 2-year comparison, a Base Year Index (BYI) has been chosen for each State. Long-term trends have been shown by applying the percent change from year to year to this index. Before 1967, the BYI was generally the first year that the State's call-count routes were randomized. This method of selec- tion had an advantage over the selection of a single year for all States. In order to provide a more uniform basis for evaluation of long- term trends, the BYI for all States has been selected as the mean of the comparable 1966 and 1967 routes, as presented in the Mourning Dove Status Report, 1967 (Ruos and MacDonald, 1968) . This BYI is thought to provide a meaningful refinement over the previous method. Not only are two "random-route" years averaged to reduce the influence of a possible atypical year, but the choice of a uniform BYI period for all States reduces possible bias in overweighting a State by the selection of a BYI in a peak year. As in the past, the BYI value for each State for each year is weighted to provide management unit values. This weighting is based upon differences in land area among States. The land area values and the BDI values for States and management units by year are presented in appendix table A2. Computer analysis of dove call-count data Through the efforts of the North Carolina Institute of Statistics, University of North Carolina, and with the support of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, an improved computer pro- gram was made available for the analysis of the 1968 and 1969 call- count data. This program provides properly weighted State and manage- ment unit averages. It yields the mean difference, the standard error of the mean difference, and the level of significance of the change for each State and management unit. This program also provides a summary of data by physiographic region irrespective of State boundaries, thus allowing analysis of population distribution by physiographic region. Statistical evaluation of data, 1959 to 1969 The procedures employed on the annual call-count survey were orig- inally designed to detect a 20-percent change in the population index (BDI) within a management unit at the 95-percent level of significance (Foote, 1959). Analysis of the 1968 and 1969 data, however, revealed that observed differences of 7.5, 9.8, and 14.2 percent between years within the three management units would represent statistically sig- nificant changes in population. For the entire country, an observed difference of 6.3 percent in the BDI between 1968 and 1969 would be significant. Although the survey was not designed to detect a statis- tically significant change in the BDI between years within States or physiographic regions, data from these areas were also analyzed for statistical significance. Long-term (1959-69) BYl's for all management units and the com- bined hunting or nonhunting States of these units were examined to determine whether significant trends were present. Data from each unit were analyzed using six regression models. The linear regression model was used in each instance in which there was statistical signif- icance even though a slight curvilinear relation was indicated by several analyses. Determination of population distribution, 1968 and 1969 The density-distribution of doves within a management unit has been determined from a study of average physiographic region BDI values. These data for 1969 have been assigned to one of five density classes, as shown in figure 3. Changes in BDI values greater than 10 percent between 1968 and 1969 within a physiographic region also were deter- mined (fig. 4). In all instances, only those BDI's obtained from com- parable routes in both years were examined. c o •H bfi 0) Ch cd Ui bO O •H to >> xl w C o ■l-l +J cfl r— I p ft o a) > o w c •H c a o S bO C •r-l 0) tt) U tt-l o CO a) •r-l CO d a) a) > •H -P Cfl r-i 0) cu u bO •r-l fa 10 /v T3 a CO 00 vD c 0) 0) 4-1 a) X) C o bO 0) x; CO i-j bO o Xi ex >> X) 0) > o bO 5 •A C Ij 3 o bO d ■i-i T3 0) 0! S-J -Q yj O a) ■r4 +J •r-l W c 0) T3 C • r-l m a) bO C CO X! U a) u 3 bO 11 Further study was made to identify the major high-density dove production areas by physiographic region within management units. High-density areas included those regions with the highest BDl's most nearly totaling 50 percent of the unit's population. This was accom- plished by ranking all BDl's in descending order. These values were then converted to Breeding Population Indexes (BPl's) by multiplying the BDI by its represented land -area value. The sum of the ranked BPl's most nearly representing 50 percent of a unit's population determined those regions included in the high-density areas. The importance of each of 16 regions with the highest BDl's is shown in appendix table A3; the high-density areas are further identified in figures 5 and 6. FINDINGS Current dove populations, as indicated by the call-count survey, are at their lowest levels for the 11-year period, 1959-69. All 1969 management unit population indexes are well below their preceding 10-year means. Further, a statistically significant downward popu- lation trend was found in each management unit; the Central and Western Units showed the greatest rates of decline. From 1968 to 1969, the Central Unit index declined 7.6 percent, while population levels remained relatively stable in the other units. The greatest rate of change occurred in the high-density areas of all management units. Dove populations in the nonhunting States of the Central Unit were found to be declining at the greatest rate of any subunit in the country. Noteworthy is the observation that the Eastern Unit's nonhunting States comprise the only subunit represented by an increasing dove population. Further study of these data is presented by management unit. Status of the United States dove population 1968 to 1969 populations. — Figure 3 shows the relative densities of breeding doves by physiographic region in 1969. High-density areas in the United States are identified in appendix table A3 and figure 5. In 1969, these areas represented 50 percent of the population and 28 percent of the land area. The mean BDI of the high-density areas was 2.6 times that of the low-density mean (34.5 doves heard per route compared with 13.4 doves heard). The most extensive area of high dove density was in the midcontinent, especially in the eastern Great Plains 12 On ct ID ■ a\ o CM CO (— < in 1^. r-l 1 oo lO VD • On on ^J- CO i— I r 1 t— 1 ON vo ON C I-H i 0 a) ■H 4-> ■* +J P 00 r< tfl 0 VO 5* (j ON |— 1 Sj O tJ (1) " 1PULATI0N f total p f total a a, c 0 ■r4 S-i bB cti OJ 0) t-i CO a ■ r-l & o o a) > J3 ft ^ -p -p o cfl K^ c c TJ U DENSn Perce Perce bO c 0 CO •r4 a) CO S >> 13 ft f j CO / CO ON in S-i VO • CO on O 00 d- I— 1 1 77, LTl CM co c o ^ 4-> CO i— 1 P ft o oo o ft vo • ON H VO On bO I— 1 1 in CM CO C ■i-l 'a a) cu c X5 0 a) 3 •H 4-1 a) 4-> P > g cfl 0 0 i— i S-l T3 p CO •z. ft cu tJ >> o O fJ a) 4-> 1— 1 CX CO ft •r4 H CO < 1— 1 i— 1 T3 c iJ nj co h a) P 4-) 4-> co T3 a. o o 0) s 4-1 4-1 x: xi bO <4-l 14-1 CO ■ r-l >H O O a) Pd H > i i-l 4-1 4-1 o i 00 c c ■o • z .o 1 — *7- // H Kl < on on VO ON ct On r-s l — 1 • 1— < ■ 1 _-+ o CM 1 kD o i— « 1 in CO " □' h-s. on ON kO \.o ON VD o i—i 1—1 • I— 1 • 1 O i— 1 ys i o c* \n in n o-> IT ^ <.o i-H »J ^ 1 on r^ j- ct cn J- i D i—i ro in i^. I J -1 J I VO \0 ON r-771 in cn ro I— i 1 □ cm on oo m cn cm i D 00 CN O ■d- i^ ^h n j_l o XJ Si ■P P O •r-l ■P 13 0 3 I— 1 u CC" r 1 P P n* u n it p !e5 ft (1) o) ft CJ r) O r, P. ft '*$ O U ft H r-i. 01 O ft tf H TJ 1-1 TJ < 4-> ■p u hj 4-> 4.1 P J • H ■1-1 0 3 ■ r-t ■P crl U- C C 0) C (-■ $ ft n P ci P p P O ft — IM > H +J +J o >> j i ■p 0 — c c T> H r; c rr- w (1) n) H (1) a) a CJ CJ c (/J CJ CJ r* w h U crt £5 u P. m (j n) (!) a) W 1) CD fi) C5 PM PM ■cn 1-1 ft ft s1 3 H 3 14 and Central Lowlands. Other important breeding population areas were observed in the Upper Coastal Plain of Georgia and the Carolinas, the Sonoran Desert of Arizona and California, the Grand Canyon of Arizona, and part of the Columbia Plateau in Oregon. The United States BDI declined 4.7 percent from 20.3 doves heard per route in 1968 to 19.3 doves heard per route in 1969 (appendix table Al) . During the same period, the mean high-density population BDI declined 11.6 percent from 39.0 doves to 34.5 doves per route, while the low-density area BDI remained relatively stable, down 0.9 percent from 13.6 doves to 13.4 doves per route. The BDI for the combined hunting States decreased 3.9 percent from 20.1 doves per route in 1968 to 19.3 doves in 1969; whereas the combined nonhunting States declined 6.4 percent from 20.7 to 19.3 doves per route (appen- dix table Al) . Changes in the BDI greater than 10 percent between 1968 and 1969 by physiographic region are shown in figure 4. The most extensive areas of increase were noted in the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Pla- teau, Lower and East Gulf Coastal Plains, and sections of the western Appalachian Plateau and Central Lowlands. Three broad areas of de- crease were observed: the Great Basin and Sonoran Desert, the western Central Lowlands, and the eastern Appalachians and adjacent Piedmont. No important shift was noted in high-density population areas between 1968 and 1969 (appendix table A3 and fig. 5) . In 1969, physiographic regions 035, 139, and 215 replaced regions 138, 216, and 246 as high- density areas. Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969. — The 1969 BYl's for the United States, the combined hunting States, and the combined nonhunting States are the lowest observed for the 11-year period, 1959-1969 (appen- dix table A2) . This is the third successive year of decline in BYl's (Ruos and MacDonald, 1970). The BYl's for these areas in 1969 are also well below the preceding 10-year means: United States, -14.7 percent; hunting States, -13.6 percent; and nonhunting States, -17.1 percent (appendix table A2) . Annual BYl's plotted in figures 7 and 8 reflect the general down- ward trend in BYl's since 1959. Linear regression analyses of these data (appendix table A4) are shown in figure 9. The BYl's declined at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent in the United States, 2.4 percent in the hunting States, and 3.3 percent in the nonhunting States. Thus, this study reveals a significant decline in U.S. populations between 1959 and 1969. 15 no On 01 M u 0) > NO NO ON / — V 00 1 in NO ON u m aj >. i o co CN O co no CM CN CN O CN L/'\/J ON NO ON 00 NO On 3- nO On CO NO ON CN NO On O NO On a^noH Jed Sutxibo paean sbaoq aScaaAv 16 s s 0) a) cd u > oo no I on a! (J >, i O d a) c c o N •r-l (-1 o J- CO O en oo CM I'V (fl a) +j on no ON 4-1 bC d •r-l 4-1 C CO NO ON 3 .d d c 1 — 1 d •s r\ no ON bO d 4-1 d 3 CO NO NO a) -U ON re 4-1 4-1 in •H NO C ON 3 On 1 NO 0) ON si 1 — 4-1 1 On J- o in ON NO ON 0-4 m a) X a) •3 d rH OO .^i NO O- ^_ CM 3 NO a. ON o (X 0) > o x> , 1 NO ca; ON d ■-4 d S-i 3 O £ o NO ON T3 n) a) Ul PQ ON 1 in ON 00 0) Ij 3 CO tn a^noy J3d 3u"i-[jB3 pjeaH ssaoq 3§bj3av 17 on \D on ON 1 ' NO On •-* 1 On in 00 On NO r—i ON *—* n « 4-1 CO TJ r^~ +-> vo £ ON 3 I— f 0 U 1 i — i cd no o vO on o XJ M c in lO On •r-l C ( ■=r co CN co O CO o CM ^ On en 0) 1 ' C •r-l — 1 C CO NO On i — I O ■r-l w en a) U bT CO Li CN Sj NO ON cd a) C •rJ rJ 1 NO On On a) ij D bJ) ■r-t Pu O NO ON atjnoy aad 3ut:xIbD PJB3H sbaoq sSbjbav 18 Status of the Eastern Management Unit population 1968 to 1969 populations. — In this Unit, high-density popula- tions in 1969 are confined principally to the southern part of the Central Lowlands, and much of the Interior Low Plateaus and Atlantic Coastal Plain (fig. 6). These areas comprise 32 percent of the Unit land area and contain 54 percent of the Unit's population. The mean BDI of the high density population areas (30.0 doves per route) was 2 1/2 times as great as for the remaining areas (11.8 doves per route). The Eastern Management Unit BDI declined 1.7 percent from 17.9 doves heard per route in 1968 to 17.6 doves heard per route in 1969 (appendix table Al) . For these same years, the high-density area BDI declined 7.4 percent from 32.4 doves per route to 30.0 doves per route, while the low-density area increased slightly, 0.9 percent, from 11.7 to 11.8 doves per route. The BDI for the combined hunting States decreased 2.5 percent from 18.9 doves per route in 1968 to 18.4 doves per route in 1969. For the combined nonhunting States, the BDI increased 0.4 percent from 15.58 to 15.64 doves heard per route. A southwestward shift in the high-density area occurred between 1968 and 1969, as evidenced by physiographic region 034 replacing regions 031 and 041 in 1969 (fig. 6 and appendix table A3). Long-term trends, 1959 to 1969. — The 1969 BYl's for the entire Eastern Unit and the combined hunting States within it are the lowest for the 11-year period - the third successive year of decline (Ruos and MacDonald, 1970). Population indexes for these areas were 8.1 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively, below their preceding 10-year means. In contrast, the 1969 BYI for the combined nonhunting States was the second highest recorded, 7.1 percent above the preceding 10- year mean (appendix table A2 and fig. 10) . The BYI's for the Eastern Unit, the combined hunting and the combined nonhunting States, are indicated in appendix table A2 and figures 7 and 10. Regression analysis shows that the Eastern Unit population declined significantly between 1959 and 1969; the mean rate of decline was determined to be 1.0 percent per year (fig. 9). During the same period, the combined hunting States index declined significantly at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent. Although no significant trend was found for the nonhunting States, the index increased at an average rate of 0.7 percent per year. 19 to 01 ■p co 4-) CO bO C •r-l 4-1 a 3 -d 5 o z d i-i a) -p 0] CO On co ^0 r— 1 UD d 1 /^ ™ ON f-i ON 00 1— 1 a) in •£> +J ON o\ co H ^H CO 1 W r. on CO in ITl a) 0) r-< on rd 4-1 4-1 cfl v-- 1—1 4-1 U C/3 h o 0] 0-1 bo 0) d i>> CO •r4 1 J- a) +J o _ VO X d 1 — 1 On a) 3 ai r-4 d ■a +J •r4 o CO d O d •r-l 0 T3 "D ro •r-l d C *£> 4-> CO •i-l On CO co r~H i — 1 3 d° 0) 04 •H d 0 4-1 •r-l a, d ^H 3 CN 0) xi rH NO > cfl ON o +J i— I T3 d 0 bo N d •r-l •r4 u d 0 •— 1 l-i ss . NO On 3 O I— 1 E bO C •r4 T3 o a) no a) ■ on i-i I— 1 m rJ 3 bO •r4 o CO 00 CN CN CN CN 3q.no}j J3utes (w eight. ad) 1/ Percent State 1963 1959 change 2/4/ Ala. 25 16.85 20.59 +22.2 Del, 0 Fla. 16 5o82 6.02 + 3.4 Ga. 21 18.12 19.78 + 9.2 111. 13 32.50 26.68 -17.9 Ky. 16 26.42 26.37 - 0.2 La. IS 3.79 3.86 ^ 0.8 Md. 8 12.47 11.91 - 4.5 Miss. 18 22.60 24.39 <■ 7.9 N.C. 16 31.70 25.58 -19.3** Pa. 14 10.69 11.55 i- 8.0 R,I. y 2 7.50 7.00 - 6.7 S.C. 16 30.07 30,58 + 2.0 Tenn. 20 18.14 17.42 - 4.0 Va. 8 28.80 22.03 -23.3 W. Va. 5 3.01 3.42 + 13.6 Subtotal 216 18.87 18.40 - 2.49 EASTERN MANAGEMENT O'NIt - NOiNPUNUNG STATES Conn. 2 6.00 1.50 -75.0* Ind. 9 31.79 30.62 - 3„7 Maine ±/ 2 1.00 1.50 + 50.0 Mass. 3 4.91 1.43 -70.9 Mich. 14 6.83 8.81 +29.0 n„h. y 3 4.33 4.00 - 7.6 N.J. 3 23.29 20.30 -12.8 N.Yo 12 8.28 7.12 -14.0 Ohio Vt. 1/ 10 26.88 30o46 + 13.3 2 3.50 2.00 -42 o 9 Wis. 16 12.49 10.82 -13.4 Subtotal 76 15o58 15„64 + 0.39 Eastern Unit Total 292 17.86 17.55 - 1.74 27 Table Al.--Caa.iges in population density indexes for breeding mourning doves, 1963-69— contiiu.-.d CENTRAL MANAGEMENT UNIT - HUNTING STATES Average doves he. ard/rou te Comparable routes (weight ed) 1/ 1959 — Percent State 1968 cha.ige 3/4/ Ark. 8 27.89 31.05 + 11,3 Colo. 9 10.06 14.39 +43.0 Kans. 15 55.81 61.85 + 10.3 Mo. 13 33.74 24.97 -35.5*** N. Mex. 15 19.61 13.52 -31.1 Okla. 9 43.63 35.78 -18.0 Tex. 30 16.26 15.54 - 4.4 Subtota' L 99 25.36 23.59 - 6.98 CENTRAL MANAGEMENT JNT'I - NONHUNTING STATES Iowa 9 35.77 30.17 -15.7 Mini. 8 14.19 7.44 -47.6** Mont. 6 4.34 5.04 + 16.1 Nebr. 17 45.72 45.63 - 0.2 N. Dak. 21 24.82 20.78 -16.3 S. Dak„ 5/ 10 50.20 '45.94 - 8.5 Wyoo 6 2.78 5.18 +122.3 Subtota' L 77 22.97 21.02 - 8.49 Cent cal Unit Total 176 24.34 22.49 - 7.60 WESTERN MIANAGEMENT UNIT - HUN CING ST ATS3 Ariz. 32 34.01 38.50 + 13.2 Calif. 48 11.75 11.3'+ - 3.5 Id a '10 5 9.41 8.91 - 5.3 Nevo 8 11.14 8.56 -23.2 Oreg. 18 15.58 17.65 + 13.3 Utah 10 15.04 10.57 -29.7 Wash. 17 7.96 3.44 + 6.0 Western Unit Total 138 15.51 15.52 + 0.05 28 Table Al. --Changes in population density indexes for brewing mourning doves, 1968-69 — continued United States Comparable routes Average doves haard/route (weighted) _ 1968 1969 Percent change 2./4/ Hunt ing States 453 20o13 1^.34 3.92 Nonhunting States 153 20„67 19.3'4 - 6.43 United States Total 606 20.29 19,34 4.68 1/ Except a.; noted, State and management unit Lndexaa .■tare obtained froa comparable, randomized route data adjusted for variation in the land area of each physiographic region represented. 2/ State indexes obtained from comparable, non-randomized route data not weighted by physiographic region. State data not represented in the respective management unit means. 3/ Probability that the direction of the observed change was due to sampling error: *10 percent - **5 percent - ***1 percent. 4/ Percent change calculated using data carried to 3 decimal places, hence the apparent rounding error. 5/ South Dakota—hunting State in 1967 and 1968. 29 crj on i • 1 +J VO | ' crj 0\ p H s? &S| BS &s s?! •• NO U~l ON o O J- VO l~> d- ON it •3/ 00 r-H r-H CM 1 o o CM o o oo o in VO in ON r—i rA 1 •~> a) •! 00 S rv I on CM o> CM Ct rH J" it o l~^ ON 4t CM CO ml 1 r- CO it co 00 rv rv r-H o it c-< iv col VO 1 3 4-1 1 r-l + 1 1 I— 1 1 rH H^ 1 i + rH 1 r-l 1 + co + + CM 1 r-H 1 ^ rH1 1 1 1 CO + + 00 1 CM CM 1 1 1 in + co i CO 1 1 + 1 1 On l-i l| II : in crj i on ft II r-l 01 II ! v^ u p 1 1 ~ «■ iT -~'h 1 on VO >, § d d N O CO r^. in in it •ir 00 o CO o r*» r^ CM J1 r^ CM it H^ 00 VO CO it CO o IV 0» vol o s On in ON VO r^ ON CO VO CO r-H 00 vo CO o r^. r-~ -H»l CO o rH c;N CM in oo rv o co it vo' On' On rH r-l s i— I rH CM CM rH rH co CM CM CO CM it; 1 1 CO r^ CM CM rH rH 1 rH | — ~. -L 1 1 on on 00 00 m rH rH in 1^- in it oo CM 00 in it 1 ~- Cvl CM in _H- CO o co oo VO o 00 rH 1 ol m VO 0 ' • 0 * 0 • 1 on On o i rv in CM VO r^ VO 00 OO ON 00 m CM -rt- in 00' i— i r~> • -i . 4 r-H it vo m O CM ON rv GO1 i— t rH CM rH CM CM i-l CM r-H CO CM CM r-H ' it r-H CM CO ^ r-H1 4' 00 rH CM vo CM o cm J- m ct r^ o 00 r-H in 00 o ON ' ON t^ o ON r-H if O 00 o in it ! O'1 CO' 4-1 N, 10 e 0 1 • ca co On rv in tv Jr t^ lO N s VO oi ON CO CO co rH in 00" 1 if r-H : 1 -^" ON it O VO IV CO rH rv'' oo' 4-1 rH — H r-l CM CM i— I CM CM CO CN CO f—i ' 1 it CO CM r-H rH " rH ' CO s. 1 ! ! :>N ^ r^ CO to r-l d- o\ ON ON i— 1 r~- J" ON co CM CO VO o 1' vol' m VO o in On O r-H 00 m o m vol o' rQ u >o i a • * 9 ■ • 0 0 • • • • 1 0 ' o 0* IV ON m r^ On 00 o r-» •— t r-H in cl- CM co m ON1 1 it 00 o Hr r-H in o iv in in CO rvi ' O ' co i) r-l i— 1 r-H CM CM CM CM CM T~i CO CM CM rH || II CO — H r-H CM CM M rH ■ rH ' " ! a) erJ CO in oo it r-H O co r^ cm VO it r*. CM it it r-H 00 1 CM ' o\ CM co o co m cm on co o oH ii i rHl| O" T1~< W VO 1 1 o \ c P4 on O on on CO 1-^ in r-^ in CO vo 00 it it o ON ON rH' CM r^ r- 1 »-H CM rv .-f rv vo VO rH ^l! •H r-H Cjl Si CM rH CM CO rH CO CM CO CO CM cm; 1 i co r-H T-* CM CM r-H h" CN 1 11 >> * 1 1 1 4-1 •rJ CO •-•ion m i-h in m in in vo o 00 00 it ON CO it O VO o ' ON CM co r~~ o VO IV r-l r-H O r-H it; ! *.! o m o 00 ro CM rH kO VO ■* r-^ in in o it CM CM ' r-l O o i>» 00 o ir rv ON ^ vo CO '• ON ' c < rH CM i-i r-H CM CO rH rH co CJ co CO OJ CM N! CM rH CM r-H t—i rH 1 H a) r-->! \ 1 , I rO pU r-H J" CM in CO H; to rH r-H ON CM ON r-H l-J O it ON 3- r^ o iv CM CO it o CO o CM CMj 00 bO pi.'^o 0 ■ r <£ :ON r-l J- r-l CM Cf O CO VO in rH r>» 00 it CO ON CO .- 1 CM r- o VO CO VO O rv VO CM in in 1 ON 1 •rJ H'rH CM rH CM CM CO rH rH CO CM CM CM CM CM fN ci r-H on r-H r—* f~* 1 1-1 a' ffi; 1 1 coico CO rH CO 4H; o\ O VO rH in O vo in O CM CM in 00 O on co CM it r-H m CO m o r-i oi VO1 u Wivo £i >'on io in ca it VO r^. vo vo o rH in in CO ON in CO ON CO *o t—t in IV CO ON - rv CM it vo j co 1 niH r— 1 r-l CM CM rH rH co CM CM CM CM r-\ rH1 C! H CM r-H r-H 1-1 rH 0) > o °! 1 fifi CM o\ >o 4 00 CO lO CM 00 it O CM m o 00 00 O CM in .H- o o CO if 00 CO if O IV M ON ■a O VO 1 • • • 0 a o • o • • • • ' • 2 on 00 m r-l VO VO CO J; in in ON 00 m CO it ^t it CM [ CO C- CO ON r-H co no oo r-H CM CN ■=*■ ! ON b0 r-H r-l r-H r-H CM CM rH rH co t-i CM CO CM •it CM f o.' rH CM CM t-i i-» rH C W •r4 >! i C 4 •it CO CM 00 J" CM co ON o in CM l>» O in '. ^ in co o ON CO VO O CM ON o r-t -vt o P !vo H vi 9 • • 0 • 0 • 0 • t • • 1 r-| P.c^ On it ON it CM 00 t>- --j- CO h- ON in in O 00 i-^ _.! ' t . CO co CO VO if -*- o> rv rv o 00 vo oi o H.rH CO rH rH CO CM rH rH CO rH CN CO CM CM ri\ ' J1 CM r-H CM rH r-H r-t CN B &5! • ' r-H 1 . O o r» it in o r~. h! Z if on r-H IV ION it cm in VO r-H VO vO o i I <■ — i 5 1— 1 r-H CM CM rH rH CO i 1 1 <; 4.1 U CM ON CM CM Ov oo j- in CO r-H rH ON r*» in r—i 00 CO vn •-H on rH ON CM IV f^ in si o m CO CM CO CO o o rH in vo in O ON o O ^t r^- 1 H CM CO CO r-H ON if it O ON rv a) bo 4-1 H i 0 ■ • • • H 0 • 1 • • • 0 • 1 • 3 • t-H •H U 2 co i— i in 1^ m lO H ID o CM ON I ON r*^ VO in p^h • |^ CO CO 1 in p. 1 it o VO 1 VO VO _rH- rO a) crj P CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CM CM r-H CM CM rH i^v I 5 CM co CO CM CO VO -H- CTJ 13 cm " i rH 1 in' 1 H 1 1 ! g H i i ! h ! ^ c5 T' \ CI UJ W crl \ CD ! > s 4-1 cu S- • H Si >> C5 . <; G - 2 M 5J3 crj a. u Bl r-H a) bO \ O CO co a) \. C V a (0 >> C rQ • r4 a > CO 5 a) crj U • •H P a ft co M . tl • H • 1 rn v.' I 2 v«! 2 crj ij a3 crl ■rH ^ cd c CO u rH r-H U 01 ■rH •r4 H ' v. ■P BIN 43 ,T1 6 ^ u J • CO H erf g U rfl •H o CJ -H CfJ C/n >N CO c > ! ^ CJ r* it CJ M 3 a) o c ri o 1 v. 1 o rJ'l a) w 8 JS -rH M a 3 CO rH ■r4 si CO >H o o H .i_l H rO CfJ u U • r4 4-1 t4 >, (0 4J C "-j •p a M 4-1 1 r-l rj •H C CO £2 O r3 a i i rH <| 1! CO U ri O 0 r-H C 0 U w u e o ■P £ u CO "^ 01 C -c ■iH 10 0 ? 3 s •H U oo s! 52 H 4-1 3 r-i CO r-H <9 rH a) o ttf •r4 r\ 0) si o 0) •rl CO PI ' .V o c cfl crj '. 1 a) a) a) si a) ■H p1 col rn ° CO < P Pu o h-i WrlS s z P4 a w FH > S CO 1 w CJ M s S *n z; z z O > S 1 W H 30 •a 0) p c •rl 4-> C o o I I on u >, c a) +j cd ■p oo 0) X a) c a) bO C •r-l ■a ai a) M ,Q Q) > O T3 bO C •r-l c C CD H I I ■a P n i£ pi w Pj O a H iJ iJ !oN rn to u Q o H *~l CO < R on I-1 < l-H On 54 cn M on i — i £ p \, X rH +J i-l i X! O M j-> l-J • - 1 o I— 1 ru cd Z 13 CM cd £ 8 H C" <•■ ^ «M 2! -q a) 2 4-> r_i Cd fe +J W W O n n y, cn O o\ hI vo CM CM CT> CO in l-H 1— 1 CO CO in i — i CO CM o rv CN r^ O co 00 ON o CN H On in on co CO i— i m rH CM rv o CM r-l CO r-l CO o CO CO CO CO in 00 • rv co 00 o CO rH o CM in CO i— i 00 00 CO O- CO 00 CO rH in on co 00 CM ON CM rv t— i 00 1— 1 in r-l I— 1 CN on o CO co CO ON H CO co CO i— l CM 00 CO r-1 rH CO r-* |-H co m CM o CO O CM rv rv CO rv H lO CM o o oo rv |-H On |V ON CO rH r-l on J- CO co 00 rH ON CO |V, CO in oo CM rv CM J" ON CO o H CO r-l co in CM J- on rH cn CO in CM O 00 CN CM 00 CO CO ■i •j ON' • o 9 ■ o • • •1 ON CO in in r-i t—t 00 co rH rH in •d- CM ■* T-^ cm! Ct 00 d- CM in ON ON CO ■ • • • • • o • rv 00 d o CM o CM CM |-H CN in in CO d- CM CO CO CO CM rH r^ o oo O • • 0 0 a • a o 00 ON --t r-~ 00 o •—t oo r-^ rH ■d- ^~ 1—i in CM Csl rv 00 CO o oo o n ON CO rH J- rH ON ■=f o Cj- -*■ rv CM in hs --t o i-H n CO in d- r-» d- l-H ON W a! oq > n < O X v> O •rl .-i crt • cd T) !-i X R H cn cri cn 3 fl) ' e a ^ cd o T, si CO « n CO CO cd eel i x rH C CO ^ l-H X «. ', o d •rl ffl Ai (1) ° < o bd s z o H on On O ^t O ON ON CO • •••••• CO CO CO O ct co r-. CM ct in CO Cn1 s I 1 I I I I + -4 — O in rH CM CO rH CO •3- CO w %\ ro o H tH J" ^0 rH i-H rH VO CM Ct oo o co r^ • • • a in o co r~- O O O Ct- CM CO CM r^ i-H r~ co cm on co O Oc in r^ d- cm on CO rH J- CM CO H sso scco J- co 00 O O 00 CO CO rH i-H J- CM CM rH cm r^ rH in r^. co on co oo iv. oo o in m CO rH rH J" CM Ct rH O CO IV CO Ct rH rH ONOOincncomcN m CMrHrHinCNCOrH CN CO o ON in ■* H CM o w o -4. o m CO O ON ON rv CO CM rH CO CN CO CM m CM l-H rv O CO rv ON o • • 0 0 • ■ • CO CO in 00 o o CM m co rH rH m CM ■d- r~\ CM r— 1 ON ^t ON rH -4. 00 1 ooj • a • o • • • • rv m r> ON o r . o in co t-H rH CO CN co l-H CM CO CO rv CO CO m 00 00 00 ON in 00 CN 00 1— 1 rH CO i— 1 l-H CO CM ct rH CO CO o co CO CM CM o CO • • • ■ • n D • o m 00 On rH O o CM CO rH r-i O CM ■* rH CO co J" CM O O CM o in • o 0 0 0 0 • • 00 in ON 00 o -i- rH CM co l-H ON CN co rH CO in ON rv ON _-t o CO rv ^H o J- CO in CM CO J"' o 0 a • 0 0 • • '■£ _-t .-J* ON in ON CM rH* CO m ON Ct d- d CO onI CO a CI m| i cd cd w •p ■P > o o < cd M M s 4-> cd cd a o o rt M p o ■oL H CO C CO C n CO cd T) X! — 'r4 H m e iN ■U 4-1 r 1 ^> = c St U 3 0 m o -\ o fl) o o >v P HH S 2 Z 00 5 w CM I W CI. p Xl rf bfl p ■•h IP Ct) > CD s u a TJ OJ p P < u l-l a O P c o' • rl CO cd 3 ^1 -J 5*; P o < a! i H J "I CMl CO CM' O CM in CM C5 2 P P W H to! ol cm| •! ■n I S w O H z < i-J en H CD o - in' cm ) N tH <-n rTi H CD < Hh| P c cd -p cd +j C/3 ct •rl CO o -p CO bO 0) d bn •-1 a °3 cd o a a) ■p co 3 p I) c > D -H , O CO rl 3 0) rH ft a C ». -H T3 a) in -P vo O on C I-H fi Tl +J a ■rl cd i5 V) CO o r- 0 r cd a -p on cd ft m a) on C CJ rH « X 9 h -a Ci O ho a' rv !j vo ON O rH i c ft -rl rd p co bO -'-J O S-! •rl O CO Ph i>» a) x; tj ft .-o c U T3 l> CD CD i> ftp!-' XJ ft CD bO Xl'n 5 XI X5 ') rC n u ii cd ft T1 CD XJ n a j- o o to u p c1! n ft 6 g CO o cd T3 5 c cd CN CN m e CM CN 1= -H •p CN o r-l rl . rd y r^ d- CJ ^- C! CM r-i ^Q CH -P a' ts XI CD O co a) n) > o T3 CD CD P bO cd p u o a) P > tp rd a) ~ bO u c cd cd a) x! >, o CD P to c cd a) Xi o u cd CD ft E O CD U X! &H +J ^1 CD N ■ P S o •a P rv C vo cd B on P O rH p "IH fl T3 C CJ 15 Cd P CD XI > VO bO -P vo •P P On Q) 0) H & -a r cp -ICO CD r cd c o xi cd ft CD 3 CD B > v^ n-i Cd -i x! X co CD cd vo T3 X! vo C ON >P C rH CD P aj cd cd > co CD • cd CO ^ x! co cd co a1 xi o CO v-o o P r" 0) rH crj cd XI 0) X H « t» r-' TJ rd d o ■3 CD CJ P cd Xi ft W S cj a' C.I P !-,■ cd • a: co +' P i O bf) p d P c CD i-h bD P i d -p ■ CD • P d n d xi O 'P cd •p CD v-. bo d d d CD « P XI cd o ft ft •< rd OJ p XI TJ > p ■ d P d ■a CD CJ p CD bO ft d p> P Xi >. cr! ^t t-; ti CD CD co p a a) cd a' CJ J-l cd CO CJ CD -P bOTJ " d d 3 CJ cd cd !.' cj :D •P o CO rd CD P '- 3 -P p d u p cd x; ft 7> X CD CO CJ TJ TJ d cc g p c O c co CD X CD CD >l co vo ON c cd VO ON CD p cd bo d • p p d 3 XI cd p o cd P 3 o 32 4-1 C ■P •rH a c HO a bo O a cd T3 c o 3 ft o a bO d d cd oo vo C|H O to d cd a i i co ■3 on P \ vq -i H I. ON I O +J rH) ft o ^1 IS- I ' CO ' cd " w "J st O J- o 1—4 in On VO St rv ON ON CO in 00 in on oo 00 o\ st in CO i-H in CM in CO r^ ON ON o t— i CO CO LO in LA VO vo r^ r-~ 00 00 00 00 o> CN r-4 o CO vo CO 0\ VO in i-H in in CM ■* 00 o ONONl-HCMinOOCMOCO IN N CA (S H r— trHcocococo-rtmin vovovovorv OO CM ON VO St r». in oo st i-i on oo CM i-H i— < O CO CO CM CM on in vo vo VD in in in oo CO CM On J- CM .-t CM CM i-H CM St CO i-H VO CO i-l O O i-l O O in t-i CO st o o CO CO CM i-1 o ; on co 3 vo O ON CM ON oo ON vor^vovooooco ooinoocN 1-4 st co vo st st m vo o CO vo vo fs r»» !>* ON O VO On O 00 00 00 ON ' CM| 1 M ' o bO oo a •■-I co I c • p, & '■ o hh; pj 0[ CO •> 00 J rH 9 <: ON' o ON CO CO 4-> CS 13 CD :On i vo H ;ON P CMi— IstCOOvOONOO ON CO 00 CO on cm on i-i m i-l CM CM st st oorHi-f --tvomOi-i stmin n ui io n n c m CM co c vo m co CO O CM CM -"t rH i-4 st CM CO st O i-4 O O oo on r-4 i-H in CM CM st st st st ■-4 O st m CM CO CO r-t CM 1-4 1-1 1 CM CO CO vo CM 1-H VO 1-4 CM 00 in o o o r-4 1—4 O 1-4 1-4 O o o VO i-l CO CM st OO O CM OO O i-4 CO i-4 00 CM CM O m co co CO co r-4 cm r^ O st st st in m st CM st cm co st r-~ ON CM st CM st r^ st ON CM ON O OOOCMOomstCMOcMONr^ Oi ! CM a p ° OH ft o CM VO ON st CO vo in r^ st m .-)■ st co co CM i-l co co on o cm in oo i—i CM CM CM CM O VO CM o on in st st CO CM CM CM CM CM O CO CO O 1-4 vo CM r-4 St CO CM CM CM st CM O CM on cm m CO CM CO r-4 1-4 O ONCMrHi— lONinr^vocM r-> on rv in oo moovocomcccooco oo i-h rv on o r-4rHCMCMCN)rOCOCOstststm &s ! El oo! a.< VO. ul !ON| Ir-i \ CM oo vo M On Q . r-4 pq ,«d st ocMOi-4invor~.cM stcoocost K bO CO c cd CM CO vo cMcMcoin coostmvo i— I r— 4 i-l i—4 i— < CM CM CM CM ostomstmcMO CM lO CM O O ON ON in in in st co m r-N CM in CO i-H vo r-4 CM CM CO O m CM i—l O vo r- CO CM r- rH r-4 r- cm co st m vo n io in CO CO CO CM 00 St CO O r-4 00 ON O OO st in St r-4 00 St CO CO CO CM CM 1-H St r-4 st CM i—4 CM CM CM CM CM rH T-I rH VO St CM cm co st m vo ctt cu u < c o 3 ft o eu !>. 4J •r4 CO d OJ n si M •r4 • ■x V, CO CO ■a £ d -p H c d •r-l 0 ■rl T3 4-1 CO a rr4 4-1 4-1 i — ' d d -H OJ o ft CO a o 0) !; p- 14 CD ft fc» lll (1) r- !h n-; •-I d r— i CO cd rj C o *. t-l •r-4 n-i B M CO CT4 j_' u 1—4 •rJ CO (— u r-> P •rH C" O |. ex T3 * cd 0 CD x U r* j_» 01 hn Oi P H-1 o o d •rH *» 4-1 H CO 00 >> u S-4 d fl •r-4 OJ o ft .rj ft •r4 fjfi 4-> CO a b£) cd CO g C rH o ci •r4 P xl X rH ft 4-> rH o r? rd Ph CO .\) O !* 7-. M o "3 C rC! »* ■i-l CO in cd n-; C a) CO cd ■-4 .c* 00 co cd !h (H g CO CO CQ n) CO > i-H T3 CU o cd n) 13 TJ d T3 0 0 n) i— 1 c —4 .cl a cd W5 CO r< 00 0) d 'Jj g rt P \, \, V. ■""1 ■ cd 8. 13 • cd i-h o ft bO c ■p TJ (!) a) no NO ON (M O bO c cd o) cd H 'jjK (IK' IP Ph O ON NO .On on o in r-J CO ^t .H/ NO CN i-l d- o •3 in i-h ON rf NO On O CN t» « 4 N in no ur> \o ON NO O IN J- On on On >0 .^ CO CO CM LONDON 00 rH CN m CM CO CO CO in NO m oo rv r-. -p. • P P( ■P* s; si bo c8 1 a Li n) \ > M • P ^ pa CM CM CM O 00 •pfcol < PJ J • ' p! ft ' ! o " tplp-i ! o ON 00 m o CN in i-h CM O O co co J- CM CM CM CM CM CM cm m o in ON 00 00 no o NO 00 ON NO oo CM 00 00 1^ CM NO .-H it CM CM ■ ' CO cT 00 m i— 1 •=t i— I r-f •Cr CO o i— < CM --t CO o CM o CO r-l CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CM CM CM CO O O CM NO CO CM co co r^. CM NO r^ O m in in no CM NO •* oo o On co co On On 1 RS 1 cd • 1) p P 0 < u V ' CO On in ON cm d- CO CO -i CO CN CM r-H CM in CO CO cn CO NO in CM| 00 NO H On Q rH PQ bO to I <& -K. P 1| bOj- i cd cd u' c' O co no • ' CU E rl ol : c^ji 'On InO H On R r-i pq CM NO r-l it CO CM CM ON CM CM 00 CO O O NO CO CO CO CM in cm J- O CM CM :+ CN CM CM CM CO NO CM J" J" 4- o in in cm O ON O m m h> o i-H 00 CO co On CM O CM co m CM CM 00 r-l 00 ON CM ro CO J- r-l r-l O in no r- oom^-ocMONOO 0) pc: in o in no CO CO CM CM CO CM CO CO i— i in co co ON lO CM Ol CM CO CM O CM CM e ON 3- N 4 CO CM CO CM r-l CM ON NO CN 00 c" CO CN O J* CO 3- ^ -=t no 0> rv. oo CN ON in cm " r-l O r-l r-l in ON ON 00 O cr no ON ON r-H in 00 O N u c! si 0) 0 ft ft ■p p 0) hn cd CO c rH 0 •r-l 3 si r-i ft p l—t O cd Ph CO O & bO o TD C jd p • P UJ cd T) Cl» 0) id si 0) a) p p (0 CO, cd 1) f-v. rH T3 n cd CU Ti a TJ o cd rJ •p _d cd bO CO n) a) C <3d P CM1 CO| 34 P cO ^v 0) x: ,•!-! O P X •p t-i a) 4-1 ,-H •P -P TJ C J3 C MHO) •P ,0 p to O *J p eu cfl a) bO ■p c e CO 0) X a CJ o\ p vo a) 1— 1 Ov ft cd i— i 3 1 C ctv C m u <; ch cD (—4 j3 c S CO p a) z 2 On +j vo c o\ a) i— 1 o P ~ 0) r*\ ON P-i H in Q Q\ m i— i v^ - en ,. a) (U P P bO a) i— i C j=> CO cO e > .d p U z c 0 •p Cfl CO 0) P On bO VO a) ov pj i— I CTi LTl O t— 1 p •P c 3 p d n p c o s CN CN o ■ • • in rv o r— l 1 + i— 1 1 in a\ a, ft CN J" I I vO vO m i— i o i as in i-i oo i I 00 i-l in vo in i— i I i-H i iH IV Oi rv • • CN o CN c.j O^ 00 J- CO • • CO CN CN CO co CD P CO re P 00 CO P ■p CO c i— < p CO P ,d P c c +J p o C pa Z CD a o\ ON a\ ON Ov o o Ov Ov o\ • • • ' ' CU o. a. a. Cu H CO ^r co IV • • • • • ro 1 co I CN CO 1 1 CN 1 CN J- CN 00 O 00 VO m iv VO • • • • • o 1 o o o 1 1 o CO r-H r-~ in 1—1 IV i—l r-l 00 ct CN 1 CO 1 CN CN 1 1 CN 1 d- VO CO O d- CN co CN 00 o ■ • • • • 00 1 VO 1 in rv i I VO 1 00 o CN CO o o\ 1—1 oo in o • • • • • 1—1 d- oo av o\ CN 1—) VO i—i i—i i-H CN in co J- CN -* o CO o • • • • o o cr rv in ro CN CN CN CN CO CD P cfl p CO Cfl CD P co cfl CD -P P CO CO •P -P CO c 1— H C |— < p i-H CO P CO T3 P Xi cfl p CO 4-> CD C C P o p o P P O o H CO CD H ■ P, C rc z H in CT\ CI cfl a •r-l cp •P. C bO P O z * 35 « U. S. COVrnNMKNT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O - 402-299 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Ter- ritorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of natural resources. The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to a better United States now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WASHINGTON. D. C. 2024Q POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR