BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 678 6 JODCOCK STATUS REPORT 1969 li(i>~tun l^ublic Library Superintendent of Docunaent? G 19/0 cOSITORY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 133 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WALTER J. HICKEL, SECRETARY Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Forks Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director WOODCOCK STATUS REPORT, 1969 Eldon R. Clark Migratory Bird Populations Station Division of Wildlife Research Laurel, Maryland Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 133 Washington, D.G. June 1970 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.G. 20402 - Price 45 cents CWOTENTS Abstract iv Introduction 1 Singing-ground survey Early methods 1 Random sampl ing stud ies 2 Procedures Random route establishment 2 Observer change 3 Audibility interference 3 Weighting factors 5 Results 5 Wing-collection survey 8 Procedures Wing -col lection 8 Wing processing 9 Data analysis 9 Results 11 Comparison of sample source 11 Weighting factors 13 Productivity index 13 Hunter success index 14 Rangewide harvest Ik Research status 19 Acknowledgements 19 References 21 Appendix 23 111 ABSTRACT information on the current status and population trends of the American woodcock is provided by a singing -ground survey conducted over much of the species' breeding range and a wing-collection survey in the eastern United States. The 1969 singing -ground survey, in which 90 percent of the comparable routes were randomly located, indi- cated an increase in the breeding population of 4.22 percent in the Eastern Region, 12.14 percent in the Western Region, and 8.82 percent on a rangewide basis. The 1968-69 wing-collection survey suggested an increase in productivity of 5.36 percent, the first noticeable improvement since 1961-62. Daily harvest per hunter increased slightly in 1968-69 for the second consecutive year, but the seasonal harvest per hunter did not change. Although the sampling frame is inadequate the best available evidence suggests that the harvest of woodcock is increasing because more hunters are participating. The 1968-69 harvest in the United States approximated 1 million birds. The 1968 harvest in Canada was approximately 100,000 birds. There is some evidence that middle-latitude States could realize more recreational benefits from woodcock by adjusting their season to coincide with peaks of woodcock migration. Woodcock research has materially increased the past 2 years, chiefly through the Accelerated Research Program for Migratory Upland Game Birds. IV INTRODUCTION The American woodcock (Philohela minor) has long been a favorite game bird of a group of specialized hunters, and a welcome addition to the bag of other small game hunters. In recent years woodcock hunting has shown substantial gains in number of hunters participating, man-hours of recreation provided, and total harvest. In addition to its role as a sterling game bird, the woodcock provides recreation for a rapidly increasing fraternity of bird watchers. The secretive habits of the species during much of the year make it a prized addition to the birders' lists in spring when the unique court- ship display of the males may be observed by any who have learned to identify it. 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 the terms of international treaties with Canada and Mexico. To effectively manage woodcock for maximum long-term recreational return, the current status and recent trends of the population must be known. Two major surveys conducted in eastern North America each year provide that information: (1) a singing-ground survey, conducted each spring in most of the States and Provinces within the woodcock's primary breeding range, provides an index to the size of the breeding population; and (2) a wing-collection survey, conducted during the hunting season, furnishes an index to reproductive success and changes in distribution and size of the harvest. This report reviews background material not previously assembled in one report, summarizes results of the 1969 singing-ground survey and the 1968-69 wing-collection survey, and discusses survey procedures and data analysis. The discussion of survey and analysis procedures, along with the background review, may be more important than the data on status to the many new workers in this field and to the veteran woodcock biologists who have not been closely associated with recent methods of handling these data. SINGING-GROUND SURVEY Early methods Singing-ground surveys (counts of occupied woodcock singing grounds on sample areas) as a method of determining trends in the woodcock breeding population were initiated by Howard Mendall in Maine in 1937 (Mendall and Aldous, 1943). By 1953 this survey had expanded to include -1- most of the woodcock' s principal breeding range (Aldrich, 1954), and methods were standardized according to the best information available at that time. Basically, the procedure consisted of an observer selecting a road which traversed territory where male woodcock had been observed in their courtship displays, traveling the road during the 30- to 35-minute period at dusk when male woodcock perform, stopping at each field or woods opening suitable for a woodcock singing ground, and counting the woodcock performing there. The minimum distance between stops was 0.4 mile, twice the maximum distance a woodcock can be heard "peenting," to prevent possible overlap in counts. Survey routes censused by this procedure are called management or nonrandom routes in this report. Random sampling studies Recognizing that random samples provide more useful data than non- random samples, pioneer studies in the randomization of singing -ground surveys were conducted in Michigan in 1962 and 1963 (Martin, 1964). A significant finding of these studies was that random samples showed a much higher woodcock breeding population index in the northern part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula than in the southern part. By contrast, the old nonrandom samples showed little difference between the indexes for the two regions. Because the southern region has a much higher propor- tion of open farm land and urban area, it supported fewer woodcock than the Upper Peninsula, where excellent woodcock habitat is abundant. Yet under the old system, the southern routes, selectively located in the few areas of available woodcock habitat, were weighted equally with routes in the north representing many more areas of available habitat. Randomly selected routes offer an efficient and effective alternative to modifications that would minimize the biases in the old method. The old system may still offer advantages on relatively small, intensively managed areas where a much higher proportion of the popu- lation requires sampling. Also, it may be desirable for a short-term index to the breeding population of a larger area. However, for a long-term rangewide index of the woodcock breeding population, the random sample provides the most useful data obtainable within the limits of our funds and personnel. Procedures Random Route Establishment — The Michigan studies prompted efforts to extend the coverage of randomly located routes to as much of the woodcock breeding range as possible. West Virginia next established randomly located routes in 1965; and by 1967 the routes had been estab- lished in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. In 1968 and 1969 con- version to randomly selected routes proceeded rapidly under the new Accelerated Research Program for Migratory Upland Game Birds in the - 2 - United States and with greater participation by Canadian Provinces. Ninety percent of the 1,115 census routes in 1969 were randomly located. Current status of this conversion is indicated in figure 1 and table 1. Limits of the woodcock's breeding range actually are much more irreg- ular than the line on figure 1 indicates, depending upon presence of suitable habitat. Much of the area within that line not presently covered has very low breeding populations which do not warrant surveys. However, production in Quebec is a significant contribution to major harvest areas. Random coverage of southern Quebec and possibly Kentucky is needed. Observer Change — Table 1 shows that comparable data were obtained from only 51 percent of the routes surveyed in 1969. Twenty-four per- cent were not comparable because they were newly established in 1969. Of 799 routes conducted both years, 188 (23 percent) were excluded from the index calculations because of changes in observers. While loss of the data is regrettable, two studies in Michigan showed that the exclusion was necessary (Goudy , 1960; Duke, 1966). More recently, counts in 1967 and 1968 on 33 Michigan routes where observers changed and 87 Michigan routes where observers did not change were subjected to a "t" test. There was a statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level (P<.05) in the 1967 to 1968 change in counts of woodcock heard when observers changed. Therefore, in calculating the breeding population index, we have decided against using results from routes where observers changed unless both old and new observers sur- veyed the routes in the year of change. This provides the continuity necessary for comparable data. Audibility Interference--Another major influence on survey results has been interference in hearing the woodcock's "peent" due to extra- neous noises such as those caused by frogs, traffic, or farm machinery. In previous years, when noise level at a route stop was so great that not all woodcock peenting could be heard, that stop was considered uncomparable and data for it were excluded in the following year's survey. In the index calculation for a given year, this procedure subjected each route to hearing interference adjustments for 2 years, the preceding as well as the current. If the number of comparable stops was reduced below five, the entire route was excluded from the index calculation that year. The audibility factor imposes possible biases at two points in the survey: in the field if the cooperator decides that noise level is too high to record all the birds, and again when the person analyz- ing the data decides whether the noise recorded actually prevented the cooperator from hearing all woodcock peenting at the stop. Sometimes the latter is evident from the notation on the form, but more often it is not. A decision by the compiler is particularly difficult when both audibility interference and one or more peenting woodcock were recorded at a stop. "^ '.1 : J V ( WOODCOCK SINGING GROUND SURVEY RANDOM ROUTES - 1969 - planned for 1970 approximate limit of breeding range Figure 1. — Progress in randomizing woodcock singing -ground survey routes. This year, with a larger sample size (number of routes) and a higher proportion of random routes averaging few birds per route, it was thought that the effects of hearing interference would be largely compensating. The 1968 to 1969 change in numbers of woodcock heard was tabulated twice in each of four States including high and low density breeding areas. In the first tabulation, stops with hearing interference were excluded while in the second those stops were in- cluded. In every State tested, there was no statistically significant difference at the 5 percent level (P>.05) in the 1968 to 1969 change in numbers of woodcock heard. Consequently, hearing interference was ignored in the 1969 singing -ground survey analysis. Any bias thus introduced is probably less than the biases associated with trying to evaluate audibility. A limited number of routes not randomly located were checked in 1968 and 1969 to provide index continuity in States and Provinces converting to randomly located routes. In Maine, the only State where significant numbers of both nonrandom and random routes were checked, results of the two methods provide interesting comparisons (table 1). The number of birds heard per nonrandom route was much higher both years than the number heard on random routes. This was to be expected because nonrandom routes and stops were deliberately established in recognized woodcock habitat. By contrast, individual stops or even entire routes of the random type may be situated in habitat where wood- cock are absent. Of greater significance, the nonrandom routes showed a decrease in woodcock heard per comparable route while random routes showed an increase, with the difference being statistically signifcant at the 5 percent level (P<.05). Thus, data from the two types could not be combined, because they showed opposite trends and only the ran- dom routes were used in computing the Maine breeding population index. Weighting Factors — In arriving at regional^^and rangewide indexes for the old singing -ground surveys, the data were weighted according to the area of uncultivated land in each State or Province represented. This was determined by subtracting the area of cropland as listed in table 811 of the 80th edition of Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1959, from the total land area given in the 1959 edition of the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide (Robbins, 1960). The random route system does not exclude cultivated land or urban areas. Therefore, in using that system, the total land area in each State or Province, as determined from Webster's New World Dictionary, !_/ The woodcock's breeding range is represented by two regions, roughly separated by the Appalachian range. Those Provinces and States touching the Atlantic Seaboard plus Vermont make up the Eastern Region. All other Provinces and States within the breeding range make up the Western Region. 5 - is used for weighting purposes. Exceptions to this are Ontario and Minnesota where low productivity areas outside the woodcock's normal breeding range are excluded (fig. 1) and the sampled area was measured with a dot-grid scale. Randomization has progressed to the stage that 93 percent of the breeding range being sampled is surveyed by randomly selected routes (table 2). Results Weighted data for the 1969 survey showed a small increase (+ 4.22 percent) in woodcock heard per comparable route in the Eastern Region and a substantial increase (+ 12.14 percent) in the Western Region, On a rangewide basis, the change (+ 8.82 percent) was the first signi- ficant increase since 1964. The increase in the Western Region reversed a 4-year downward trend. Following is a summary of the annual changes for the past 5 years: Year Eastern Region Western Region Rangewide 1965 - 0.4% - 11.1% - 6.5% 1966 + 2.4% - 0.5% +1.7% 1967 +1.5% - 3.5% 0.0% 1968 - 8.4% - 4.5% - 6.9% 1969 + 4.2% + 12.1% + 8.8% Figure 2 shows annual percent changes in number of woodcock heard per comparable route, 1957-69, with 1968 used as the base year. Per- centages were used instead of numbers of birds heard because the same routes are not comparable each year. The group of routes paired with comparable routes of the preceding year to determine percent change are not necessarily the same group of routes paired with comparable routes of the subsequent year. Comparison of 1966 to 1967 change with the 1967 to 1968 change illustrates this point: Birds per route I Year 1966 1967 1968 Report Year 1967-68 4.11 3.82 Report Year 1968-69 3.09 3.36 The incongruity is even greater during the period of transition to randomly selected routes where fewer woodcock are heard. / / \ \ CO ON >> \o (U ^ 3 en 00 U3 TD a^ C I— ( 3 O ti M r^ 1 vo bO o C )— < So c •I-l «3 CO VO CT\ 1— 1 ( — 1 CO 3 C C ca in ^o E CT\ O r-H u <4-l ■o ^ a) VO C '-^ ON •H 00 I— ^ E KD U ON QJ i-H 4-> CO (U 1 o "O c^ (J I— 1 tn nj nJ Qj >. ^ CN O 0) - VO O CO C^ a cs r-) •o m o ^ o 2 i-l _ ^ Q) ON 1—1 1— 1 tT3 e bO o c _ ^ ■r-l o bO r-l C •H cn c o\ ■r-l " in o tn I— ^ TD c Qj 00 U in H ~ o\ 1 r-l 1 « CM y I9«5I IP TCOU NEED MORE ENVELOPES CHECK HERE | | BUDGET BOREAU NO. 42-l{:463 APPROVAt CCPIRES HARCH SI. 1*70 Figure 3. — Woodcock wing envelope coded and ready for keypunching -10- Results The number of nondeliverable packets was relatively low. Although the number from Code-9 hunters (those from the State random lists) was higher than the overall average, 1.7 percent as compared to 1.1 percent, this was not a significant problem. One half of the nondeliverables were returned by Post Office personnel because of address problems, i.e., stamped "Unknown," "Insufficient Address," or other notations. The remaining 42, representing only 0.57 percent of the packets mailed, were returned by the addressee because he was unable to hunt or by the Post Office because the addressee had moved. Hunter response to the wing-collection survey has been very good every year since its inception. Wing receipts have varied from 8,786 the first year to 18,448 in the 1968-69 season, with an average of over 13,000 per season. Table 4 provides a listing, by State, of the number of cooperators and the envelopes and wings received during the past three hunting seasons. The number of envelopes is included because each represents one day's hunt by one hunter. Comparison of Sample Source — Table 5 lists response rate and wings contributed by participants in the three principal categories of hunters. Code-4 is not included because the sample is small, and contributions by hunters in this category do not represent the full season because they were added during the season. Data from Code-7 hunters are included with both Code-1 and Code-9 since they are hunters who originally appeared on both lists. Response rate and number of wings per respondent vary markedly between hunters from different sample sources. By definition, Code-1 hunters rate much higher than others in these respects since they responded the previous year and nonrespondents have already been eliminated from their ranks. Also, those who remain on the list year after year tend to be veteran hunters who harvest more birds throughout the season. Response was substantially lower from Code-9 hunters (State Game Kill Survey lists) than from Code-2 hunters (Bureau waterfowl mail survey), except in New Jersey where they were from a list of special woodcock hunting stamp purchasers. The combined weighted averages in table 5 do not include New Jersey data in Code-9 due to the noncompara- bility. Table 6 further illustrates variability in data from hunters belonging to different code categories. Comparison of Code-9 percent of hunter contacts with Code-9 percent of wings submitted shows extreme variability between States. The figures for New Jersey are particularly striking. 11 - Because of the management implications involved, the percentages of the kill occurring during the first week of the season and immature per adult female ratios were calculated by code categories. Although these are sketchy one-season data, they suggest differences between results from different sample sources. Only Maine and Michigan provided enough data for statistical analysis of the proportion of kill occurring during the first week of the season. In those States, kill by Code-9 hunters (State Game Kill Survey lists) was concentrated in the first week of the season much more than kill by other hunters. Comparison of age ratios by sample source was less definitive. Age ratio data were subjected to chi-square tests of homogeneity with the following results: 2 Maine: X = 2.4555 (P<.30>.20) 2 Michigan: X = 2.6227 (P<.30>.20) 2 New Jersey: X = 0.2867 (P<.90>.80) New York: X^ = 1.2344 (P<.70>,50) Wisconsin: X^ = 3.9351 (P<.20>.10) Results further demonstrate noncomparability of the New Jersey list with those of other States. Although the data are inconclusive on this point, there are indications that sample source may bias age ratios of samples in some States. If the two sexes and the two age groups migrate at different times, the source from which the hunter's name was obtained will strongly in- fluence survey data on harvest rates and age ratios. If the proportion of hunters from different sources is materially changed, it will be necessary to include both old and new methods for 1 or more years to provide continuity of indexes. The variability between the kill surveys of various States, as indicated by our State random lists, is evidence of the need for a uniform sampling framework such as that provided in the proposed Federal migratory upland game bird hunting stamp. -1' V H.R. 5510, 91st Congress - a bill "To require a Federal permit for the taking of any migratory game birds other than migratory water- fowl, and for other purposes." _ 12 _ Weighting Factors — Since wings received from each State were not always proportional to the woodcock harvest in that State, it was neces- sary to apply weighting factors to data used in computing overall pro- ductivity and harvest figures to show index trends. Because we lack a uniform nationwide sampling frame for woodcock hunters, a completely satisfactory weighting method has not been devised. The system used in the analysis of the 1967-68 hunting season data (Clark in Goudy, 1969) was applied to the 1963-69 data. Briefly, this is based on State woodcock kill figures obtained from the Bureau's Water- fowl Mail Survey, which samples waterfowl hunters only. However, the sample is biased by variations among States in the proportion of their hunters who hunt waterfowl. For example, there is a v^ide disparity between Louisiana, where nearly one-third of the licensed hunters hunt waterfowl, and Pennsylvania, where the ratio of licensed hunters to stamp purchasers is over 20 to 1. The Bureau's waterfowl Mail Survey figures for woodcock are adjusted accordingly to provide a "kill index" figure for each State. Data are weighted proportionally. As a minor modification in weighting factors derived for this report, the ratio of license holders to stamp purchasers was the mean of the 2 most recent years rather than the figure for the latest year. Likewise, the woodcock kill by duck stamp purchasers was the mean of the 2 most recent years. Derivation of weighting factors for the wing- collection survey is shown in table 7. Admittedly the weighting procedure is crude. One of the greatest sources of error steras from the inclusion of substantial numbers of those who hunt only big game in the State license totals. This inflates weighting factors for States with high deer populations and relatively few waterfowl hunters. But, in most States, results of weighting by the present method are more consonant with State game kill figures and the response in the wing-collection survey than when data are weighted by previous methods. Again the need for a uniform sampling frame is demonstrated. Productivity Index--The age ratio expressed as the number of imma- tures per adult female is considered to be the index to the woodcock's productivity rate as measured by this survey. Rough age ratio figures for States represented by at least 100 wings are shown in table 8. Al- though rates shown in that table are based on larger samples, (all wings in the survey except a few from special areas or lacking essential data), they are less comparable between years than those shown in table 9. In the latter table, only wings from hunters who participated both seasons are used for the index comparison. This eliminates a major source of variability, the difference between hunting habits of hunters in various contact groups. - 13 Changes in productivity are not shown for each State in table 9 because they may be influenced by different times of migration induced by weather, hunting season restrictions, or other local factors. These influences are believed to be somewhat compensating when data for all States are combined. Also, since the comparable hunter list changes from year to year, the weighted age ratio for a particular year as shown in one report may differ from the ratio shown for that year in the preceding report. Consequently, this is used as an index only — the annual percent change is the significant figure. From the beginning of the wing-collection survey in 1959, annual changes in the productivity index have fluctuated between -8.75 percent in 1965 and +7.43 percent in 1961. By applying annual percent changes to the 1967 base year, a curve was developed which shows productivity above the 10-year mean the first 6 years of the period and below the mean the last 4 years (fig. 4). The increase of 5.36 percent in 1968- 69 was the first noticeable improvement since 1961-62. The overall downward trend in the productivity index is in contrast to the upward trend in the breeding population index over the same period. An explana- tion of the divergence is not apparent, but it suggests that further refinement of one or both surveys is needed. Hunter Success Index — The number of woodcock wings contributed, per successful hunting day and per season, by hunters participating in both the current and preceding seasons, has been used as an index of hunter success. A major source of bias has been removed by restricting the comparison to comparable hunters. However, in years when regula- tions change, changes in hunter success must be at least partially related to the regulations rather than to woodcock abundance. This is demonstrated in figure 4 where the sharp increases in hunter success for the seasons of 1964-65 and 1967-68 coincide with increases in sea- son length of 10 and 15 days respectively. Annual changes in daily harvest have been slight since the 1963-64 season, even though the daily bag was raised from four to five birds in that season. The trend in average daily bag was downward from 1963 to 1966 but increased 2.6 percent in 1967-68, and further increased 3.8 percent in 1968-69. The seasonal harvest has shown greater annual fluctuations but the general trend has been upward, largely coincident with liberalized regulations (fig. 4). The change from 1967-68 to 1968-69 was very slight. RANGEWIDE HARVEST The migratory game bird harvest survey in Canada conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service uses migratory game bird hunting permit records - 14 - j3:mnH JBd isaAjBH xbuosbbs parmSTa^ 1 cd 00 3 >£> C ON c .— 1 S en 0 1.1 1 lU ON c i-H •r4 NC •p NO 0) ■a ON W (0 I-H (8 >> VO u p. 0) u VO 4J 3 1 U-1 C n vO jS C ON 1— 1 -i 1 c m i-i •* o a) o On ^ V l-H f-H .s 1 m ti ^o (U c^ js " o to c c o 4J 01 c CD (11 Q) +J •* W u ^o o o bO a. (— t c a •r-l ■3 4-> C u a 0 X o c CO •r4 KO 0^ OT i—l 4J eo (U J£ cs V VO o o< u I-l 1 .s 01 r-l VO •s CT\ 0) 1— 1 l4 Ej" • 0) O ^ >o bO 0^ •rJ f—t b (spuBsnoqi u-t) sXaAang tliM aa^-unH atJBtiS moag ^ssajbh JiooopooM xBnuuy -17- VO I 00 vO 0) tJ n) "D M C ■H c 4) a o c o 0] « N C 0) 3 > x; u 3 in C o 60 o o o •u o o § l-l J3 to H ui 00 3 o 00 > vC CO oo 00 ;fNOcNicJNO r-HP^r^Nj— ICjNd'NOcM<)- ^^H r-H COr— Ir-HI^COCO inCJNO \Or-Hr-H CO COr-Hr-H • C • M C ^ M O 01 ■< O Q O CO • r-H • r-H X> CO — I C O M M 01 • • in C in j: c » . . -.H • in 'J c 0 >> 10 CO T) to ■rH •rH M t«S J s s s s s m • X <-> >< U ■'^ • ■HO • • • • j: lO SSZZZZOCU M O • 10 c > • c X • • in CI) OJ -u lO •fH H H > > 3 3 - 27 CO in o j^ M o cMOOinor-^ icsincNi-^ i lo^t-nno^cNct^ loDcNinoo ir-oio ioocmcmoOi^ . . . .1 .... I I cNr-Jinvo ncNcon i-ninr^cMvOd-CNrvj- inj-j-inin cnir-»i-l i-JvOOOCMI-^lAOi-lr-l fOCMCMCMi-l tNCMLCl CSmiOlTlr-l •p u (U to 73 •M O c u o u •p X o m nj w ■M c c •H o Cs u eg On CO r-H O >0 CT>voci>f-icMiini~^voooinir~inini cor^cN^vo -fH CO 0] •p a) l-H d CJv CM CO CM CTv CO 00 00 00 - CM in in VO i-HvococooOi-HOvr^cor^rHf-H CM m m in CO VO O^ VO VO CN m VO o VO t-H O 00 f-H O 00 tv 00 f-H CM CO f-H CM CM i-H in f-H VO in CO CN VO CO VO CO 00 ov l-H r-* 1^ Cvl VO f-H f-H f-H f-H CO CN d- m d- CJv in f-H t-H CO VO CO VO f-H l-H 1 1 CTvO.CN r-- f-H 00 CN CM 1^ Cvl CO in -H in ■H O CN VO CO CO Cvl CO Ov f-H in o in r^ CO CM 00 l-H 1 ON 1 CM VO CM 00 f-H 1 f-H 1 oo f-H oo CM l-H r-< VO o CO M rH U < < O • • • CO . I-H 73 . I-H CO f-H C Q fa O l-l I-" CO CO S C . . O CO >> CO l-l Ui ilj J 11 . •5^ . CO r; CO x: c tn p • . • • o CO • • Q c • > •iH • to CJ c CO . XI ac 1-1 >l U ■r^ I-H . M u c X • . to T> CO ■r-l •l-l • H o fl) • xi M CO • • • 0) ID P CO • S s 2 s s s S 2 z z 2 z O O PH 0:j w WJ H H > > S 28 - Table 6. — Comparison o£ Code-9* data with those from other codes in five States Maine Michigan New Jersey New York Wisconsin Hunter Contacts State Total** Code 9* Code 9 Percent of Total Wings Submitted State Total** Code 9* Code 9 Percent of Total 877 980 839 898 818 545 634 537 620 530 62.1 64.8 64.0 69.0 64.8 2670 1502 . 2507 1927 998 612 197 1244 412 251 22.9 13.1 49.6 21.4 25.2 First Week of Season Wings*** Code 1* Number Percent of Season Total Code 2* Number Percent of Season Total Code 9* Number Percent of Season Total State Total** Number Percent of Season Total 199 220 46 47 12 12.2 20.1 9.2 3.7 1.8 66 37 13 1 8 20.4 21.9 13.0 1.0 14.0 122 58 144 14 6 18.1 29.4 11.7 3.3 2.4 396 315 239 62 26 15.1 21.6 11.2 3.5 2.6 Immature/Adul t Female Ratio Code 1* Immatures Imm./Ad. Female Code 2* Immatures Imm./Ad. Female Code 9* Immatures Imm. /Ad . Female State Total** Immatures Imm. /Ad . Female 910 552 520 592 300 2.26 1.59 2.32 1.48 1.46 160 87 54 42 33 1.93 1.74 2.57 1.45 2.20 383 86 916 214 106 1.95 1.23 2.43 1.70 1.16 1383 725 1249 841 437 2.12 1.55 2.46 1.52 1.40 * Code 1 - Submitted wings the previous year. Code 2 - Hunters on waterfowl mail survey who reported hunting woodcock. Code 9 - From list provided by State from its kill survey (except New Jersey, where list was from woodcock hunting stamp purchasers). (Note: Code 7- figures are included with both Code-1 and Code-9 results.) ** Excluding Code 4. ***Six days in Maine and New Jersey (Sunday hunting prohibited) ; seven days in Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin. -29- > M 3 to C O o u I 00 c ■H o o a T3 o o 3 bO C •H 4-1 00 •H (U 3 o > Q n) H o P4 rH lU 4J ^ 1 ■'-' x; o CM CM rH in r-l in r^ in rH rH 4J vO 00 r^ ^ 00 t-- OS in r~ SO o CM so r^ rH CO r-l 1^ J3 vD r-- .H ■ o CO rH o\ rH 00 in OS 1 CM CM 00 00 00 r-i eg OS CO CM c^ rH in r-l O. to r- *l •* ^ *. r. ^ •t * M " •* •« " rH B 1-1 vD C-4 SD r^ o CO r~- 00 o r~ O o OS -H •H n) 0) OS rH ^ CM CNI r^ rH CM r-~ rH -a <3- txi 4-1 to .H en to ^ ^ a ^ o r^ in CM o • " M «> •* o O CO " * 8 vD OS 00 CO rH in t^ SO 00 r-~ o CM in o n) (0 OS o rH CM <3S in CM r~- CO in rH 4J (U iH rH rH rH CA) / *> »> •* •V •. r. •* vO OS ■ ^^ >-■ •H • • CO ui o rt n) rt •H •H x: cfl 4J ■H CO CJ r-l S S s 2 Z z 2 o Ph > 3 >. u II 3 CD rJ rJ W c o •H 4-1 CJ 01 rH rH O CJ ao rJ C •H II ;? h c + CM ■H W ►-r ID NS 111 4-1 C 01 CO 01 u p. 01 u w l>s r-l II OJ 4-1 CO cfl rH 3 "-l ■"^ D- <-> 0) W T3 CD T3 C to en 4-1 to cd XI to 0) 4-1 CO c 01 OJ 4-1 M •H ,c H II pq Q O < CJ 30 - u * 0) 0) m e 4J CO I— I i ^ B "O 0] •P c H 3 CO 01 o a) •p CO o XI o l-l IP CJ\ ^ 00 1 1 1 1 CO • 1 1 1 1 CM I-H CI CM CM cs un o >o 00 vn CM CO CM CM 1-1 i-< i-l r-l CM o m oo v£> vo in in 1 CM 1 • • • • 1 • 1 CO CM ^ CO CN f-H CM rH CM 00 1— 1 CM 00 i-H CO o ^ r-H in CM i-t in <— 1 CN rHinoOtnOCMCOCOCOOOCMI^OOrH 00ONCMCOCMJ-COi-'^Dt-^CJNin>OOO\voCMd- CO i-lr-HCOCOVO^t^ J- r-l "-I KO CM O CO O O CM r-( O i-H O O 0\ CM ON O CO CM O 1^ vo r^ jf- o CM •* in 1^ o CM r^OvOOf— tCMO.— iOOOn i--.COCOr-l^f— ).-4 ^o \o v£> o 00 CO in in 00 CM 00 vo in 1—1 ■-< 00 r-( 4t I c ID 4-1 (U 10 ■O 3 „ CO o CO <1> .-I CH => ■:i '-' « .::i s CO CO A! > 0 D, to CO 0) l-l c CO o CO CO l-l u C 4-1 ■r4 •r4 C a- CO J^ CO > CO CO CO O CO (.1 3 S ^ ^ O o 1—1 l-l o bO CO CO 3 tj c3 0) o •r4 >, o .-4 0) •J o cQ BC In >H x: U CO a> 0 c« c .Q 73 P o c CO ca s s s S ti ■r4 4-1 c 0) O 3 •r4 •H •r4 .r4 fl) 0) 5) (1) O S S 2 Z Z Z 2 XI o c o fll 3 O &^ <0 d o 4-1 CJ CO CO - 31 -a 0) > o Q) l-i CO CO >. bO Q) C i-l ^ 3 3 01 e o I-l •P -o a a) 0) c r-H •r^ I— 1 g O O <1) 1 ■M M CO O Ov •r4 V£> 4J I Cd 00 U yo o W) to -o c >> « .n 00 0) I cd lo O CT> •I-l I-l T3 CO ja C8 c •p •r-l bO > c o (d o o tj -r-l ft -P o CJ CD 3 cd u CM 0) O ft 0 CO o U-l ■r^ O (U o U OJ (U P 0£ r^ 00 c ^. ■H O u u x; o t>0 cd •r-l 4-4 0) 3 OJ > cd cd (1) 00 00 00 en O r^ m cNj O o^ in n i 1 vD m u-i " C^J vj- r-l 00 ocMo^cocn^oo CM I— I CM d■co>^^^cM COi— li— I CM 00 CMi— ICTiCMOOr— I i-HCMa\CMi— If^i-H vJOOCOvOCMCOin -d- CO00O^ I-H CO CO r- . C cd ^ cd •!< •ie * en (U -X 01 ->: cd 3 — I XI C 3 -a 3 C -C ^< cd CJ c/i 0) I-H cd C >% en jS M en o inOcpcurHCeuotdtdcd C p cd o 00 en 0) C C •i« * •rH -I-l •H -jc ft S XI >%■!« ft en en QJ •!< ^ •rH tH c ft en jii cd en iH 3 E « IH O en 3 >H ed Q) O M •rH ocQffi»-)t>HXi-!c 01 en 4-1 O en 01 U 3 3 S tj cd C O •k ■!c cd •rH c cd > I-H ;:^ CJ en CD C .ri cd d -o -rH C I-H cd o I-H u 01 cd M (J eu X •U -P O 3 •Jc •!< p C o ed e ■i-iTH-rHaj(i;(UtuOj:^ti>3j:20cueu cd •rH c -x •rH ^C 00 C P -H 01 c o o 01 c > •rH 00 P U 01 ■H 0) > 3 00 c •H p -C 00 •I-l CU 3 o ■H ip •p CJ CU • ft 01 01 u cd u 0) •p >^ CU -C CM p CU >1 •d .n p XJ C CU •H •p I-H 01 ft 00 •P c P •H I-H 3 3 e o in en r-l 0 •P P P 01 cd Cd p Q) r-H CU 00 P CO Cd CU >. p XI CO p XI en 0) p ip c o CU 01 01 CU p u o ft 3 CU •a u 0 P •-V ft 01 CU CU p s: cd p p en ip ^— ^ o 01 B cd 3 CU 01 p CO CU -d p p 01 CU CU > P u cd Cd x; 01 0 p •H o P ip Cd p >s I-H CU C 00 o cd T3 XI • CU CU 01 p p P 3 x; o ft 00 P B ■P o 0 CU cd o 3 ip ■k ■)« ■j! 32 m U <0 ■p C P JS s o h •H U-l CO o >. 0) u 0) c: •O p e CO p c c o a) • H ji 4J 4-> a (U >> 1— < xa T— < 0 •u o 0) 1 4-> t)0 CO c o •rJ •r-l S "O c O^ ■,-1 VO m 00 CO vo CT\ CO f— 1 CO 0) •o o c o CO p CO 00 V£> w 1 c t^ ■1-4 VO +J o\ B I-H p J2 x; 4-1 J^ O O ^ O o c ■o 'r^ 0 o bO g B ■M u-l 4-> 0 CO a cr •rJ 01 CJ X •r4 ai ■P "O (-1 c <0 h- 1 1 1 a- U2 CO Eh o V4 OJ XI B P C 0) tlO CO > ^-1 o I-l (U XI e 3 B (U t>0 CO u > U C3V OJ v£) U I B 00 3 vO XI t-H 01 00 Q. vO 00 vC B 0^ ■)c OJ o. O CT> i-H ^ 00 B vO I— I I-l en 00 0) \D o ^ I-H vO B I O I r^ 00 ' in vo sO I . . I ... I r^ \0 I \0 c^ vO I • • I ... o ^ O in o I ,— I ,-H in I o CO I ... I . . -H O ^ O 0^ c^ m I-H I-H CM CX3 I r^ 00 CM ON CM CM CO OO CTl C^ OS I-H en ^ ^ O CM I ■J3 I CM inrocnONOsvcooLninv3-^H*H I-H o to to u U -iH en en ^ en ON I-H t3N I-H en in in NO m CM I-H CM Csl r- CO 00 CM o 00 OS CM 00 m r^ 0) 4J 4-1 in CM ON to to to .M B I-H • i-H T3 . •H . to o B CO • X 'n >H o •iH ' M o X • • 4J d) I— 1 u o 01 CO I-H B >-■ to to •V CO •H ■iH •H o • . • " x: CO " • 0) 4-1 CO • t/1 IH < < o Q o M 1-H u J s X s S s s X z 2 z z o b CXS CO H > > 3 Q td H 3C O M W 3 Q * ■< c/i W c/3 O <; p2 H u o > o to 00 B XI 00 •H OJ ? • tj to -H M l*H to -iH OJ u >» OJ a CM to 01 ^1 x; •r4 4-) tu XI >J 4J o MH >, to >J -o O OJ U -iH to I-H u a. OJ "iH a, u O —I o 3 o e ^H to to OJ O 00 •f-l to 4-1 U B qj QJ > OJ O 4-1 r—t to to to '^-> 0) O I-H to 4-1 4.1 CO o 3 >N-0 J2 O U •P Q. OJ 4-1 OJ B XI OJ 4-1 to OJ UH IH O a. 0) E >H 3 to to OJ OJ p x: to 4J 4-1 CO to •iH IH O 0) HH 00 CO >N H I-H OJ B > O tfl •O T3 OJ 01 4-J 4J 3 XI a, 00 e -H O 0) o 3 ■)c * 33 - VO I 00 VO o hf) C 0) •H ■P C * a) Q a O c C 'r4 o m V] CO ^ a >^ i-l bi •r^ (11 t« m Q o o o o o o CO o o \ i-H ON o o o o o o o in in ^ •* d- in in u-i in VO VO o VO CJv CO 0) +J c« c u a) j2 ■p u o c (^ p o (0 c o Wl 0) bO c •r-l +J c J2 i! O O O ■O O o 3 CO ex o c >> CO CO f-t j2 o 0) 4-> CO +J M CO CO 0) c g CO (1) W) c (1) •r^ 4-) c CO (U P ft- o c c •r^ o CO CO CO >, 01 CO w P >. 1— < w •r^ CO CO PQ P Wl c (11 •r4 •P c cfl 0) p ft- o c C •r4 o CO CO CO >, 0) CO w O >. I-H •r-l ^ CO « P W) c , 0) CO w p >, f-H bl. •rJ CO CO n P o o o o o o o <3N o o o o o o o r^ •* •* 4)- in in in in in o o O o o I-H o o o CN (N I-H r-< f-H I-H r-i r-l I-H \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O t— 1 O I-H o f— 1 o i-H o I— < o f-H o I-H o I-H o I-H o o o o o o o csi . 00 o VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO o I-H CM CO d- in VO r^ 00 VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO 1-H I-H cy> f-H f-H I-H CJv f-H (Jv 1-4 ON 1-4 CO ■p c i y c 3 o c 01 c o •iH ■p CO 1-4 3 bO 0) oi CO u a) •o 0) Cl4 B O ■a 0) CO CO 0) - zn c ^ O W •^^ u +J CO U >i \. 0) 15 0) c p 0^ 0] (0 0) (J bO o u X! u a •r-l E eg 0) Q) •r-l P bO -p P m o CO ■r4 XI u bO bO CM CM m CO tN CO CN CM in CN m CN in CM lA > >> !>» >^ >. >. >> >> "O TD a +J s* cu n 3 3 4-> 3 -P 3 3 3 3 3 O CO 0) o O ■0) 0 3 1 i bO f— 1 1 ■— 1 1 1 bO 1 bO 1 bO bO bO "O •P bO bO C (U bO 0) bO bO C bO B bO B bfl B S B E ■V CO c C •r-l p C P E B •r4 B •rJ B •r^ B •r^ CO •rJ 3 c ••-1 •r^ •o v-' •rJ ^ •r4 •r^ "O •r-l "O •r4 "O •r-l ■o Ll 4J

p •r-l ■r^ .Q 0) •r^ 0) •rH •r^ rCl •r4 XI •rl Xi •r^ .a Ll D- •r4 bO • H CO CO •r^ CO -r-l CO CO CO CO CO CM &.<: c •9 "O "O -a -o "O ■o ■o 3 ■M CO s a c 3 B 3 S S c E B B E B B XI CO I-H "S •x: 0 0 3 .p O P o o 3 o 3 o 3 O 3 a CO c -o •V o CO Xl CO ■a TI O "O 0 T) O •V O Ll (U Ll CO •a c c u c B C Li B Li E L< E Ll CO Ll bO o. O. c o o. o D< O. B O, C O. E cx E oi (U CO C 0 o •r^ •r-l O 'r^ O O •r-l O ■r^ O •r^ o •rH p Ll ■P •r4 r-H I-H "O > r-l > »— 1 1— 1 "O 1— 1 ■D 1— 1 ■o 1-* TD ■o CO 0 •r-l -o (U > (U x: > XI > > 0) > a) > Q) p CO ■o CO CO 0) •r-l p 0 Ll s •B Ll E • TS bO 3 CO c C 3 bo 5 •r^ 0! o •r^ O Ll B •r4 E Ll -r^ (0 ■P .B s •r-l bO Q) <0 P 5 0) u I-H XI -rJ ^ CO Q) I-H ■P > a) r-l O XI ■a XI IP B P CO 1— * CO O CO ■r4 0) cu f-i CU Ll 0) b •fi bo 3 •r-l CO .B P tp 3 t o CU CO % ^ - "O •o c o c OS (U B CO B lU CO o. o Li •r-l CO •r-l (U O -p CO o c • r^ X! 1— 1 o •rj B E •r-l CO •r-l P CO - •r^ CO Ll •r-l 73 E 0) CO o s Li O f-H p •r4 CO CO ■o CO •r^ 3 CO CO c CO CO O >. E > B •V CO (U bO CO PM 0 CO 0) O X >i x: CO O O E rH tj (U •r^ B B •p B g •P U 3 B P -H ti § 2 T3 •r^ B 9 S u B CO CO El, M r4 > 3 B CO •r-4 3 s -ll 35 1 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O - 402-780 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has basic responsibihties for water, fish, wildUfe, mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Ter- ritorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of natural resources. The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to a better United States now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WASHINGTON. D. C 20240 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR