BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06317 760 2 WOODCOCK STATUS REPORT, 1976 ^ff? %■. .5:- --i-/ ■..-,- "^ '*?W/'-- MTTfilHI Ifc v^n UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 209 Use of trade names does not imply U.S. Government endorsement of commercial products. WOODCOCK STATUS REPORT, 1976 By Joseph W. Artmann UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 209 Washington, D.C. • 1977 ''^o^n.ovv^^' Woodcock Status Report, 1976 by Joseph W. Artmann' U.S. Fish and WildHfe Service Office of Migratory Bird Management Patuxent Wildhfe Research Center Laurel, Maryland 20811 Abstract Wing-collection and singing-ground surveys of woodcock (Philohela minor), which are conducted rangewide in the United States annually, were compared to identify changes in harvest, age ratios in the harvest, hunting activity, and breeding population indices between 1974-75 and 1975-76. During 1975-76 the productivity index decreased 13% rangewide, 10% in the Atlantic Region, and 16% in the Central Region. Rangewide, the daily hunting success index decreased 3%, whereas the seasonal hunting success index decreased 1%. Daily hunting success indices decreased 3% in each region, whereas the seasonal hunting success index increased 6% in the Central Region and decreased 6?o in the Atlantic Region. The breeding index increased 3% rangewide, decreased 2% in the Atlantic Region, and increased 6% in the Central Region. During the past decade American woodcock {Philohela minor) have become an increasingly popular game bird over most of their U.S. range (Fig. 1). State and Federal surveys show that the number of woodcock hunters is increasing. Thus, woodcock have advanced from a "speciality" game bird, sought by a few ardent hunters, to a broader-based recreational resource pursued by many sportsmen. Owen (1976) estimated that woodcock provide between 2.5 and 3.0 million man-days of hunting in the United States annually. No suitable sampling framework is available to determine total annual woodcock harvest by all U.S. woodcock hunters. Presently, woodcock harvest estimates are made by adjusting hunter responses from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's waterfowl hunter questionnaire. Clark (1972) asserted that harvest estimates determined from the Service's waterfowl hunterquestionnaire were less than 50% of estimates determined from State surveys. Therefore, he believed that doubling the woodcock harvest of waterfowl hunters would provide a conservative estimate of U.S. woodcock harvest. If Clark's assertion is correct, an average of 1.5 million Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal As- sistance, P.O. Box 25486, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. woodcock were harvested during the 1974-75 and 1975-76 hunting seasons. This figure represents a 79% increase from the average of the 1964-65 and 1965-66 seasons (Table 1). In Canada, all migratory game bird hunters are required to obtain Federal permits. Thus, in recent years their sampling methods have allowed woodcock harvest to be measured more accurately than in the United States. In 1975, 131,000 woodcock were harvested in Canada (Dobell 1976). Combining Canadian and U.S. harvest estimates indicates that the continental woodcock harvest exceeded 1.6 million birds during the 1975-76 hunting season. Presently, two surveys, the wing-collection survey and the singing-ground survey, provide the best information available for establishing annual woodcock hunting regulations in the United States. The Service's woodcock wing-collection survey provides estimates of reproductive success during the previous breeding season, hunter success, and changes in size and distribution of the harvest. The cooperative U.S. and Canadian singing-ground survey provides an index to the size of the breeding population on principal breeding areas. This report presents data from the 1975-76 wing-collection survey, the 1976 singing-ground survey, and additional information accumulated since publication of the 1975 status report (Artmann 1977). CENTRAL lORTHERN ATLANTIC Approx. U.S. Breeding Range Fig. 1. The breeding range of the American woodcock divided into U.S. survey reference areas. Wing-Collection Survey Procedures Procedures for collecting, processing, and ana- lyzing wing-collection survey data have been described by Clark (1970, 1973). Survey participants were selected in a nonrandom manner from the following sources: (1) survey participants from the previous year; (2) woodcock hunters who responded to the Service's waterfowl hunter questionnaire or State harvest surveys; and (3) those who requested to be included in the survey.'' Clark (1972) discussed biases associated with selecting a survey sample from these sources; however, he asserted that major changes in productivity and hunting success could be determined from such a sample. For many analyses, only data from comparable hunters (hunters who have participated in the survey for* two con- secutive years) have been used. Some data also have been weighted to reflect differences in the number of participants and size of the harvest in various States (Clark 1970). WTng totals vary between tables in this report because incomplete information necessi- tated exclusion of some wings from various tabulations. Table 1. Comparison of changes in numbers of waterfowl hunters, number hunting woodcock, and their woodcock harvest. Data from the Waterfowl Hunter Questionnaire. Waterfowl hunters in Waterfowl hunters Woodcock harvest by Reference area woodcock hunting States Numbera % increase^ who hunted woodcock waterfowl h [inters Number" % increase'' Number" % increase'' North Central 396,100 29.5 79,600 91.8 26,980 91.9 Mid-Central 302,900 89.9 19,800 120.0 57,400 10.5.0 South Central 349,700 42.0 19,200 48.8 94,600 34.6 Region total 1,048,700 47.6 118,600 87.1 421,800 76.6 North Atlantic 173,700 66.2 54,500 78.1 202,000 67.9 Mid-Atlantic 181,400 58.7 34,300 105.6 98,600 114.3 South Atlantic 86,800 23.5 8,300 84.4 33,800 85.7 Region total 441,900 52.9 97,100 89.3 334,400 81.2 Northern Zone 569,800 38.9 1.34,100 86.0 471,800 80.8 Mid-Zone 484,300 76.9 54,100 114.7 1.56,000 110.8 Southern Zone 436,500 37.9 27,500 58.0 128,400 45.1 U.S. total in - woodcock range 1,490,600 49.0 215,700 88.1 756,200 78.6 ■' Average of the two latest hunting seasons for which data are available (final 1974-75 and preliminary 197.5-76). ''Increase from the average of 1964-65 and 196.5-66 hunting seasons. Results During the 1975-76 wing-collection survey, 9,130 woodcock hunters were contacted. Twenty-three percent responded and furnished data from one or more hunts. Wings were submitted from 21,440 woodcock. Hunter response rates have been consis- tently higher in northern States than in southern States (Table 2). To compensate for this difference and to improve the distribution of the wing sample, more hunters in mid-latitude and southern States have been contacted in recent years (Table 3). A State-by-State comparison of the number of coop- erators, envelopes, and wings received during the 1974-75 hunting seasons is shown in Table 4. Productivity Index attempt to reduce some of this variation, only data from comparable hunters have been used in computing the weighted age ratios. The 1975-76 rangewide productivity index de- creased 13% from the 1974-75 index and 8% from the 11-year average (Table 6, Fig. 2). Generally, age ratios were lower across the northern tier of States (Fig. 3). Separating the 1975-76 rangewide age ratio data into Regional components suggested that produc- tivity decreased 10% in the Atlantic Region and 16% in the Central Region. Comparing Regional data from 1965 to 1975 revealed no significant trends in productivity. In both Regions the 1975-76 produc- tivity index was below the long-term average; 2% in the Atlantic Region and 13% in the Central Region (Fig. 4). The ratio of immatures per adult female in the wing survey is used as an index to reproductive success during the preceding breeding season. Considerable variation in age ratios occurred among harvest areas (Table 5) and between hunting seasons for the same harvest areas (Table 6). In addition to sampling variance, variation may be caused by differences in hunting season dates, weather conditions, hunting restrictions, and possibly a combination of differ- ential migration and hunting vulnerability. In an Hunting Success Index Based on rangewide data from comparable hunters, the daily hunting success index (average number of wings per envelope) decreased 3% between the 1974-75 and 1975-76 hunting season, whereas the seasonal hunting success index (average number of wings per cooperator) remained essentially constant (-1%; Table 7). Rangewide, daily hunting success ^ 6b 67 68 69 70 71 72 Hunting Season Fig. 2. Rangewide weighted age ratio indices (adjusted to base year 1969-70) determined from annual woodcock wing collections. Only data from cooperators who par- ticipated in the survey for 2 consecutive years were used. ]QQ > lOZ Increase ^^1 ' lOZ change lOZ decrease Fig. 3. Percentage change in weighted age ratios as deter- mined from wing-collection data from cooperators who particpated in both the 1974-75 and 1975-76 surveys. Table 2. Distribution of contacts and response rates from the 1975-76 woodcock wing-collection survey (including code 4 contacts added during the hunting season). Percentage State of Contact codea Total No. of of contacts residence contacted cooperators responding 1 2 4 8 9 Alabama 13 62 6 2 83 15 6 Arkansas 5 46 51 7 14 Connecticut 125 254 11 32 422 99 23 Delaware 6 35 1 3 45 3 7 District of Columbia 1 0 1 0 0 Florida 8 75 1 84 7 8 Georgia 19 83 3 13 35 153 27 18 Illinois 25 137 4 166 32 19 Indiana 31 109 2 142 37 26 Iowa 7 87 1 95 17 18 Kansas 3 45 48 2 4 Kentucky 7 32 1 2 42 7 17 Louisiana 32 214 3 201 450 49 11 Maine 244 213 6 1 2 466 215 46 Maryland 25 0 2 231 258 24 9 Massachusetts 145 157 8 54 364 106 29 Michigan 153 0 13 54 796 1,016 255 25 Minnesota 64 175 1 1 241 68 28 Mississippi 15 1 1 774 791 12 2 Missouri 14 51 1 9 89 164 25 15 New Hampshire 63 176 3 11 253 89 35 New Jersey 160 111 19 29 118 437 140 32 New York 169 123 24 22 14 352 171 49 North Carolina 25 108 2 2 73 210 23 11 Ohio 47 235 3 18 6 309 76 25 Oklahoma 1 18 19 1 5 Pennsylvania 169 230 6 2 407 131 32 Rhode Island 37 66 1 4 108 27 25 South Carolina 19 81 10 110 23 21 Tennessee 4 39 490 533 49 9 Texas 5 46 51 7 14 Vermont 62 1 442 505 80 16 Virginia 21 80 5 4 44 154 38 25 West Virginia 13 32 1 46 21 46 Wisconsin 185 284 17 66 2 554 251 45 Total 1,922 3,406 144 229 3,429 9,130 2,134 23 ^Code 1 - Previous year's Code 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 hunters who submitted wings. Code 2 - Waterfowl mail survey hunters who reported hunting woodcock. Code 4 • Requested participation or referred by a fellow hunter. Code 8 - Previous year's Code 9 hunters who submitted wings. Code 9 - From a list provided by a State. indices from 1 965-75 showed a significant downward trend (r = -0.59), whereas seasonal hunting success for the same period does not have a significant trend (Fig. 5). However, seasonal data from 1967-75 indicated a downward trend. The reason for these declines is not known, but it probably is because of the expansion in the number of hunter contacts in mid-latitude and southern areas in recent years (Table 3). These hunters are generally less successful and their success varies widely between years, depending on the influence of weather on migration patterns. Regional separation of 1975-76 daily hunting success data indicated lower (about 3%) indices in both Regions (Fig. 6). These indices were about 5% below the 1965-75 average and have significant downward trends. Although the 1975-76 seasonal hunting success index in the Atlantic Region decreased approximately 6%, it increased ap- proximately 6% in the Central Region (Fig. 6). No statistically significant trends were indicated in either Region. However, since 1967 the Atlantic Region's seasonal hunting index has decreased; the 1975-76 index was 12% below the 1965-75 average. In contrast, the Central Region's index has increased since 1970 and the 1975-76 index was 7% above the previous 7-year average. Another measure of hunting success was the size and distribution of daily bag information submitted by hunters. During the 1975-76 season, the per- centage of hunts with daily bags larger than the 1971-75 season average was higher (Table 8). The north-central harvest area (Fig. 1) had the greatest percentage increase in the bag size of 5. In contrast, the mid-central harvest area had a slight decrease in larger daily bags and a corresponding increase in smaller bag sizes. Chronology of Harvest States with large wing samples provide indi- cations of harvest and migration chronology. Data were summarized by 7-day periods, beginning with the opening hunting season date in each State from 1972-73 to 1975-76 (Tables 9 and 10). Hunter harvest varies even though the opening date is essentially the same, reflecting the influence of weather on migration, time of leaf fall, and hunter activity. However, when a large proportion of the harvest consistently occurs at the beginning or end of the hunting season, it indicates that hunting season dates could be adjusted accordingly to maximize hunting opportunity. In those States represented by small wing samples, information from other States at the same general latitude can be used to approximate the migration period. Table 3. Distribution of woodcock hunter contacts during the 1968-69, 1970-71, 1972-73, and 1975-76 hunting seasons. Hunting season % change - between 1968-69 Reference area 1968-69 1970-71 1972-73 1975-76 and 1975-76 North Central 1,894 1,757 1,061 1,811 -4 Mid-Central 542 721 795 1,499 +177 South Central 286 454 939 1,445 +405 Region total 2,722 2,932 2,795 4,755 +75 North Atlantic 2,836 2,304 2,982 2,470 -13 Mid-Atlantic 1,424 1,764 1,872 1,348 -5 South Atlantic 264 447 616 557 +111 Region total 4,524 4,515 5,470 4,375 -5 Northern Zone 4,730 4,061 4,043 4,281 -10 Mid-zone 1,966 2,485 2,667 2,847 +45 Southern Zone 550 901 1,555 2,002 +264 U.S. total 7,246 7,447 8,265 9,130 +26 E o 3 C o to e !0 e o 3 a ^ 8 « g ^ 2! 5" °- 2 ^ ~^ d ■5 "« ^1 ^ c 00 o o o 2 o CO 0) h <^ 0 0 -S h CO 0 u OP a 0 a 0 c CJ V ^1 be Q, a u CO 0) tic > c < % o .i. z a 00 3 be z _G Z-2 E 3 Z (4M 0) 0 0. h _o 0 ^ 0 > e C3 3 OJ C M tic CS OQ h bC 0 > c < ■5 ^h lA O C en S: inc^u:)co(MoO"^^coot^(NTro500Tj'aocooot^coTro^cDi>co(Nco^-^oc^ Ct:i05CD0J'<1*t^"rtiN | rt05toiotO'^(Dc<3toroco^co'*o>c^;oso-^toaoooioaotO'-^ooQocoo>m^oJ | ^i-HrtO^CVi.-!^^C>^C>i(NC^^lN(N'-<'HrH.-HNr-iC^O.-;C^i-HO'-5'-i"-INr~00 1-itDrtt-OCO COOOrt CJ mcortto(^^tocO'3'lMC^^ int^oo ^HOototoOTT in —1 ■» IN (N ioc-iN'*ooQOooaio>iNt~05t~incoo5CooO'^'*oj —I — (NCOCO— T)'rtlN'>l"mt— rf(NO5lOt~(Na0 COCOIN'* OO'TtNin •^ (Nf-i0^0 t^-^IN tOtN^lC ' tD CO t^ I i IN -H m I a c a CO _o gj to '3 l- tj ^_ „ O 4J < < O Q to J« to " CO Eos C P T3 c to u; — 3 c -2 be CO .SP 01 to to to to .s s s s to T3 '= s to to to S ^ "m o >» X to « O J3 J cu a) o jti jc ^«:s:jSSSS2SSzzzzoo CL, Pi CO c* ™ ^ " ii 'G c ^^O (N (35 o (N o c o c c 3 -a c to be c M CO n CO '^ .2 o « c « 0) -^ u *^ j= 6 c C s e ■a .5 -M to 'c "^ B 3 « « o. to 'ft E o» 0) v^ 3 >J nj 3 e m ^^ OT ca M o C H s c S 3 o -□ c to be < c o c c D I I § I ISM lo a> in o 00 tc t^ (N CO -^ t~ in CO o) cj r-i c^ ,-i -^ ^ N m in m in C~ CO t~ .-I \^ \ \ c^ to f-H -^ c^ oq o in CO in -^ (N -1 -^ -< r~tDcoo)»rtcoiNr~TroQOco^ot— cgiM r^^c^i ^iOQOt^coco(Mcooo-^tr>c^i^tD cDoicocooOf-i'vcoNcortOinoooo 'c0'^r~r~ t~ i-T oq co" -^ I " 1 I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I Mill Mill O I 00 CO CO CO I Tj- (M TT moT-HiOQOi>i-O;DC7)C0^lOt~-rHC0C^00 int^oiN-*m— lOoo rH ooc^^cg<^^ ooco- -H ^ CO ■^ CO CM CO 2" >-i Tj- UO (M iJ5 iiiii'"iiiii«='iM::iii II I M II II II cDtjjc^'^[^---'r: XMair-ScnSC ?«XSc-2«^.2c>,to^c;z°:So«c-a'£cSs-s, cJ:J:;oE'a%C3'2i;2oCtoco>>>>^-^— 'C'-'3C><*^2r oQDuO=:£^t(:jSSSSS2SZZZZZOOa.a:c«F-H>> .2 'S '5 o lA I I I s I I I S I I to 00 o o I I I iXi CD 00 "X" to CO O I ic CD '-H cr> lO CO --H I t>i .-3 [>i .-H .-H r-J (N Ol O lO Ol I O CO iC O lO O -^ I lO CO Oq CO --H CO r-H .-i ^ CO I 2 I -H eg -H I I a> CO CD t> I I c-a CO in iM CO rH ^ ^ CD lO 00 t^ 00 00 rt rH O I 2 o ■* r~ lO [^ -* M rt (N ^ CO 00 — < (N ce)iocoa5rtC~-cooooococD lO-^ocoiOQOco t>' 00 O O -^ CO eg o 00 o ej ■-' CD (N eg eg CD .— 1 I I I CO r-. ^ CO I CO o eg r- CO lO e^ lo .-1 CO eg ic ic o uo — ■ ej CD CO 05 rt CO i>-ooc^i>aiict>t>-Tj'aicDao t>OTf(Mt-cgcoocsiai (M UOiO'^^O'V-'^rCOLO ''I' ^CDOJ --H.— (lOCDOJ ''J- c^ t> t:^ 3 Z o ei ■ OOJiOCOr-COO:— "OICMC^OO lOijiooiocoocD c w CO LO an c be o 00 ,-H to t~ CO 00 ■* ej in t35 r~ 00 00 ■* CO CO r~- c- CO CO 05 CO C^J -^ CO ■* CO o o o eg o o o o •— 1 CD CD d> d CD a d) d> CD CD o CD 00 o to tJ a, CO _ to CJ CO j:: OJ C c — - o < < O « -?! 5 -S to .S t» 2 0) ^ 0* Q fc O 0) i — to >. to a ■5 J5 S to -= X a >i . d c ^ 5 t to • 2 to ti •-5 >-■ '^ o -H CD eg ^ °o rt <^ bc 05 .s eg -3 ej J3 in tjc W 'oS S 5 aj fc. >> •? OJ eg XI J3 >i ■" J2 in CO '^ bo "3. c -^ .2 -1^ J "3 0 e CD m ,„ ■^ f—< to 00 0 co" to S — aj *i be to CO >i QJ -° -s in CO to at to T3"2 « ^ -.:& 'Si a> vaniab sland arolina 0) to '.B ^ X, be C ti to .ii 'to ■o.S nsyl del; the to c to 3J 0 j= C 2 3 c X H 0 &. « M 11 >>l^ 1. O rt g 0) 3 CC to -M « n X a; > J2 01 ^ 0 <2 CO >. u cu O) c tic o a .Q, e o a to §■ o o o •a . u n S o 00 o u tie c «3 05 s a c ■a .o I es "3 ■S t« e 11 o, M "in <. c 05 's « be -E-S 2 I I I I 2 I I =? I I I to CO I I ^ (Jl CTi CO TT Oi o 00 cm C-^ ■'I' 00 I I I I O CO CO I i>i d ifi CM O CO iri 00 in -* CD 03 M t-^ 00 I I I I I I cq 00 I IM CO c ^-' 3 j: in 1 — 1 -w QQ eg 05 0) CO -w '-* cd >i jO 01 ki o. 0) o ^ g "oi > 3 c C 01 01 Lm C3 01 }■* w 01 > < be C .A 5 4 «*-l o 0> u a. at o X> B '3 > 3 c Z 01 ub o X "O en L CO OJ ° -s ° 2 CJ ^ 01 M a M 01 cOTrcoooco»nooo-*t>(N<3iiccot^a5^oiooor-(Ni>(Not~coa5(Nr~ CO CO (M O -H (N oi (?g >jcgcoinr-tN-Haoococo— iio lOtN-'i'wcoioo^tnoc^ in --H o ■ ~ CO U3WJmc:3CM^HC0CTJ^^OQ0t^CDt^"^**3'00C0Q0(M^^ '^CMo^^cMin'^coiocDinr^cMOCM^cofMOcocM t— I COCD^HTPOOC^^H TfCDO "^CO (N IN IM C^) O CM -^ 00 r-t .-( in -^ CO -H -H -H C^ CO •>!• t~ ■tr-^incoc^oo^Hcot^cMco**J'oocooot^TrcTiooooooa5^Ha:ico[>i>CTi ^Hin'^co^H^HC^i^cMinino5aocMoai'^t>T)'c^ CO CO c:^ in in in Tf Oi CM CO o CO CM CM ^ TP ■* t> o •— I o CM o o O -H o T— 1 d d d d d d d d d d o d o> n _ " -a S '«= S "o • -.01— c0.2foiai=K'-5>-_„ wli_ 3 3S2cjCmcnS>5i;---c03c <<:oQfcO=:;,5^fc(;jSSSSS22zzzzoa,a;c«E-E--> CO B CO CO CJ CO CO CO 01 a CO C CO J! 01 c c •c o 'Si 'S c L« o 'oi 01 ;^ CO c CO ■3 s c _c a X _e CO J3 -o -M Q. >>^ o c CO a B a CO o « 01 c B '« 3 O CO A -D -C CJ '3 CO to c» i S S t:.2 c '5' >&^ 'S C CO cd ii OJ O "c o be o 00 CJ CO TP ^-1 TP bC B bc en Vh 'S -* CO 01 >> S CD u in J3 o £1 >1 -a -Q 01 -o -M 01 in CO ir~ 0) 3 00 Q. '•«3 m' o o o "3 E o ca £ 01 5 bD CO 5 n h u 01 o 01 > CD" CO j3 a 01 u — 3 ■" T3 CO o B O CO 4j '^ >> be j3 CO -s 1 CO ! -o • S 1 X I be 'oi a E 01 o O J3 ,-C OH? 10 REGION Atlantic Central 3 Id m (U u CO 2.3 2.2 2.1 QJ 2.0 1.9 i.e 1.7 1.6 1. 5 1. h f n /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / /.■■ r \ V/ 7\'7 '"A y— ^ 1.82 1.78 V/ >-/ 65 — r— 66 t 67 TV — I — 69 — r— 70 71 72 — f— 73 TT — r- 75 Hunting Season Fig. 4. Regional weighted age ratios indices (adjusted to base year 1969-70) determined from annual woodcock wing collections. Only data from cooperators who participated in the survey for 2 consecutive years were used. SEASONAL HUNTING SUCCESS 11 X = 10.90 X = 2.48 r = -0.59 Fig. 5, Hunting Season Rangewule weighted daily and seasonal hunting success (adjusted to base year 1969-70) determined from woodcock wing collection. Only data from cooperators who participated in the survey for 2 consecutive years were used. 12 13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 • 10.0 9.5 9.0 ..*•.. • ,• • • • • .f^ • • • v^ '*• SEASONAL HUNTING • • SUCCESS > \ • • • :i \ • • :l \ ..•♦■ : 1 \ . .,'...A ^^..^••' rr : 1 \ y\ /■ ;' / ; 1 \ /•. \ : 1 \ / '• \ •• : 1 .' / :' / A ♦--- V _ '_V .•••'' ' \ r \ 1 \ 1 \ / \ 1 \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \/ V \ >4 REGION '' ■" Atlantic X = 11.64 X = 10.53 2.75 .70 .65 .60 . 55 2.50 .1*5 .hO . 35 . 30 2.25 Central DAILY HUNTING SUCCESS ••• y\ '■ V \ V \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ X = X = 2.54 2.45 65 66 — r- 67 "eT I 69 70 I 71 72 I 73 7k 7? Hunting Season Fig. 6. Regional weighted daily and seasonal hunting success indices (adjusted to base year 1969-70) determined from woodcock wing collection. Only data from cooperators who participated in the survey for 2 consecutive years were used. 13 c 3 S2 in lO 1 rt in ■"t CO 05 05 CD in in 00 CM (N m a CO CM rt c^ 05 00 o ;o rt CM CM CO in CM o in CO CO CM CO oi in 05 05 CO CO W-* f-H in in 00 00 50 05 "^ 05 CM CM i> in O CO CM ^ -1 00 CM O) 05 00 05 t> o ^ CO o 05 t> CO T-l 00 05 o to CM ^ ■^ ^ o Z CM O CO CD CD cr> CM O) 00 CM to CO in CO •^ 00 T CO in CO CO CO '"' ^H CO r- in to o o CD CO CO o CM 05 ^ •'1' r~ CO CM 00 CO -^ 05 in O CD O CO CO CD CO CO 00 t> rt CM oi t-^ 13 C e CO lO o Z O -H ■* CO 05 t- CO w CO -< -^ 05 CD O CO CM CD cr> O 00 CO o O 'T TT 00 CD CO B 00 -* CM iri Ol 00 —i CM 05 O in o r- in CM in in CO CM CO 00 CM ■* iri O '-' ■* iri 1^ d c o be CO CO CM 05 o o 2 2 CO CO CO Tp CD ■* CD CM ° 9 CO CO ■t -^ in o5 TT C- Tj. t> CM CO r~ o CO CO l:~ 00 CM cq o Cj Be c cj o tj t3 o o 2 o Z o o in 05 in -^ in CO 00 •"T T o CO -^ 00 CO ■^ in CO CO ^ CO CM -^r •O' CO o ^ CO CO CO CO CM CM CO CM CM CO CO CO CO o in -^ rt 00 °s a 05 00 CD ■» (35 O CO 05 t~- CO 00 Ol CO CM 05 r-i -^ in 05 00 CO ■» CO CO m -^ on 00 o in CD 05 CO CM 05 00 CM CD rH CD CM CD r~ in 00 CD CM in CO in Tf CO 05 CO CM do a o Z (T> r- ^H in CT5 in r- (^ 00 00 co •— ' m (Tl O CO to o> o m o ^ -"T in ■^ in in r-H rH ■V B T3 3 CO 00 3 cs E-i X c a; O X. -M U o Z CD CO CD CO CO CD lA A t:~ l> 05 05 in r-l 05 05 in A Oi 05 in ^ in ^ 1, .. -- -- t^i> t-t~ 0505 0505 O505 0505 0505 ^ Oi in ^ 05 05 iri r-* 05 05 c 05 o is 3 O CO C O V « c < u o Z G < is < JS 3 O cn c « o -M 14 tn o as a. n T3 c M cS ^ r S Q) 01 c X =8 a E to f_ TO fH "^ •^ ^ -^ (M •^ ZO iO ^ - C- CO I ^ ) o r~ —< 00 CO -< oq ^ oi o o o lO -^ (M t^ IC lO ^H ■»}" ^ -^ CO c^ ^ rt 00 O LO eg (N CO !>) ^ -Tf t~- o in o oq IM -H CO IN -H o i> in CO TT CO J H H I H H f- O 0> IM CO CO CO ^ ■^ ocot>oo oooc^-^ 1— I i-H ^H i> in in in c^ CO Oi r^ ■^ in •«* in CO to o o in Tt in -^ to in in CO to to CT> Oi in to in in 00 t^ to o CO rt CO CO II^H |oo|| -"Tf-iooin i^^i cocgcoco |||| |l|f^ coficom 001 I I coinico cococoCT) 1^^^ cooit^r- llll ll^f^ inf-,coco ^111 OJtoico incoooi f_cof-,rt r-co-*cn if-if-if-i jji^ coin-^rin in-H|i-i tO'^rt^ cgcocO'* t^oot-noi cooi.-iin ^mc^to cococ-ico cotoo^co — iCO'-— < »-il^COi— I .— I .— 1.— I.— I ^Hi— I.— I 7-1 ^ .-HCOCOrt COrtrtrt tDcocgi rtOCOTT toin^in oooco-* cocoor- -^cm^oo tocoo^r CO ^1 ^COCO COCOCOCO f-H»-H.-l^ t-Hr-tCO^ COCOCO^ ^^CMr^ loi I I'-ho cocoinoo csjc^o^ oit^co-^ coinr^t^ tot^^co cqoooo Irnl lll>CO -Hi-ii-it-i rt rt ■TCOCOCO COCOCOCO ^ r-i coTOO) t-t~i-in co-fo-i inco-*to mcoooco 22::i22 2?Si22 Erz^J5!2 rtrt^ -^co-HrH -"jico-^in ^cotoo -H,-iooo gjococo f;2?S£5; S^SfiSS rtcococo c-'^toto rtcoco^ oo^t^c^ oo05CTio_ ooinco_oo CO tP tT CO ^ ^" ^ ^ ^o^o oooo in-^co-^ ^.-■coco cocococo c^cococo oooo f~- '^COCO inmin'^ ^ ^ ^ -^ ^^^co ^^^ r-H rt Oq CO ^H ^H ^H Oi 05 CT) d OOOO oooo O O O Oi oooo co-^into co-^into co-^into co-^into co-^into co-^into co-^into co-^into r^[^r~-r~- t^c^r^t^ t>c^c~-t^ t^c^r^c^ r*t^t^t~- t^r^c^r^ [^t^t^t^ r^t^r^r^ coco-^in coco-Tin coco-^m coco-a-m coco^m coco-rin ojcoj-in £'J2S'I2 [^t^t^t^ f^t^t^t^ [^t~^f^t^ t^t^f^f^ [^t^t— [-^ r^t^c^t^ r^D^c^c^ [^r^i>i~- c^ cor^oco -^co-^tio cO"^ic»o coin*^co cococo"^ mcoioic ^cocoio coc-'wr^ lO^aoco t^iMt^cM ooo-^tcsi i-cc^cq ^^^^ COCMtM^ C£)U:)Tf-^ lO-^lOCD (N-rrCMOD l-C^TTTT rf to CD TO ^ lO -^ r*3 T3 o be c HE-HH wcMf-co Mil ll^l -CTC^I MM —iiM^c-a w -v OOCDCM ^.-.^^ CMCM^^ C^JCMCMCM COCMCMCM CMCMCMrH Ocioci cioOCI) CMCMCM-^ tji o •c 2 'S 16 be -M e a t> o O -H oa TO -^ c-q CO ^ t-- CO to CO 'eg eg in eg i ■* eg to to CO ei - 112 1 Ol CTi CO lO (M CM (N ^ ^ ^ ^ CM 00 CM Tj- Xi I I 00 ^ I ^ ai '^ CO I 2 CO ■» ei eg QOTfcoco t>'^'^co egcom.-i co I I I I> -* O CO to ■* CO in I I I I ^ I I I I I I 2 I I S 2 CM — ' O CM — ^ — I "Xi o:ico-^co coco'^oi ococoo .-.,— ,--1.— « ■^a:ir^io ir^lO-^lO CDCD^OCO ■^■^^D"^ — "^ QO'^c^C'- ocoioo^ OOOCM t^cDO^t-- lOOlCO-— t ■-tCMtxio r-iocoTf oocJi^c^ c£)Or-c^ o^co-^co co[>uooo I ^ O I> lOOCMLO t-^TT'-'C- GOiOa^t~- ^ ^ CM ^ ^ CM ^ OOuOt>CM CMCOtOO OOt-*'^ OcX)C- .-tCMCM .-tCMCOCO COtPO-— ' CltOOCM 'J'CDOCM i-t f-TpTrcDCTiiOLOooior^ooci ^ CM*" cm' cm* ^^^^ iDuouom COCMC300 ^cM^co toioino aioot~-tD loiomuo ,-(^[>^ rH CMCMCMCM OJCMC^J-H ^^^^ (>JC^C^CM 'TT'T'^ aiOiOlO^ O'jiaioi oo^a^a^ --«ooo ,— i,— ii— ti— i aioioifji CO in to CO in to CO in to eg CO in eg 05 CO 05 05 in eg 0^ CO 05 in CO in to in to CO CO in to CO -^ in to CO ■* in to t^ [^ t^ r^ c^ [^ r^ [^ i^ i^ i^ i^ i^ i^ i"~ i^ i^ I— i— i^ egco-^in eico-'i'in ejco-^in egco-^in egco-^in c^t^c^t^ t^r--r^t* r^t^t^t^ t^i>r^r- t^t^oo tji <7i o^ ^ CM CO ■3' in (d 03 CD g en XI 09 IS B (9 CIS c -3 a OS o >1 u o c CO be 17 (D CO > O ^i Vh o "a M.5 CO to J2 r E £ o o o S c CL, - =8 en o 0! ■*-» CO lNr-O'3' 0;OC005 (MTOOlO M-TTtMCO tClOTfLO COCC-^W -^ -^ CO ] CO ■^ IC ^ o in (M CO ;d (N -^ 00 o oj lO CO ■* (N rt(N rf OOCOO ;0(M I I I CO fi CO ■* CO t^cOQOrJ* ICOCJCg inC]!X>r^ CO I CO ^inoto |;ot~co -^oitDco ^ I cj ^ ^ ;o— t^r^ c^t^t^t^ oio^o^o^ o^ctjo^o^ o^o^ctso^ a -a cm a o, o a o T3 O a 0. o JS o a E o o X 18 Singing-Ground Survey Procedures The spring singing-ground survey, which involves counts of displaying males heard along pre- determined routes, is interpreted as an index to the size of an area's resident breeding woodcock population. Before 1964, "management routes" were established in areas known to support woodcock. From 1964 to 1970, the survey was shifted gradually to routes located randomly throughout the major breeding range. Since 1970, the breeding population index has been based solely on "random routes," which provide better statistical reliability. In computing the breeding index, data from States and Provinces were weighted by land area (inland water area excluded) within the range of the species (Clark 1970). Routes where woodcock have not been heard for two consecutive years, under similar circumstances, are placed in the "Constant O" group. They are included in comparable route calculations annually, but are field-checked only at 5-year intervals until woodcock are heard again. Since paired routes may not be the same in consecutive years it is meaningless to present numbers of singing birds heard per route. Similarly, conversion to random routes, which have averaged fewer birds than management routes, also precludes comparing the average number of birds heard per route. In order to compare the results, the data were adjusted by the percentage change in numbers of birds heard between years, with 1 970 as the base year (Clark 1973). Results During 1976, the number of woodcock heard rangewide along 954 comparable routes increased 2.8% (Table 11). Separating the data into Regional components showed that the Atlantic Region breeding population index (BPI) decreased 1.5%, while the Central Region's increased 5.8% (Fig. 7). The decrease in the Atlantic Region's BPI continued the general decrease apparent since 1967; the 1976 index was 14% below the 1964-76 average (Fig. 8). A regression model indicated an annual rate of decrease of 2% per year in the Atlantic Region (P<0.01). In contrast, the Central Region's BPI decreased before 1969, but since then has exhibited a general upward trend (P <0.05); the 1976 index was about 15% above the 1964-76 average. Relative woodcock densities are shown by geo- graphical area in Fig. 9. Highest densities were TTm! > 10% Increase f~^ < 10% change ' 10% decrease Fig. 7. Percentage change in woodcock breeding population indices as indicated by the singing-ground surveys in 1975 and 1976. 19 1 z 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 Atlantic Region Central Region \ ^ ft / / / / / / ^^^ , • r__-^ r = .60 r = .91 Fig. 8, 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Year Regional trends in the woodcock breeding population index as determined by singing-ground surveys. Data adjusted to base year 1970. j°=l <1 bird/rt. ni - 1.99 birds/rt. |!?!^2 - 2.99 bIrds/rt. ^?!33 - 3.99 blrds/rt. 4 - 4.99 blrds/rt. ^■5 - 5.99 blrds/rt. 1126 - 6.99 blrds/rt. Fig. 9. Relative woodcock densities as determined by the 1976 singing-ground survey. 20 Table 11. Woodcock breeding population indexes as indicated by singing-ground surveys in 1975 and 1976 (random routes only). State or Province Number of routes censused Comparable routes" 1975 1976 Woodcock heard per comparable route 1975 1976 Atlantic Region Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Brunswick New Hampshire New Jersey New York Nova Scotia Pennsylvania Prince Edward Island Quebec Rhode Island Vermont Virginia West Virginia Regional total & weighted average^ Regional index change 9 2 50 15 15 61 16 13 66 43 37 8 33 2 21 20 24 435 8 2 50 16 16 57 14 14 70 35 46 8 23 3 18 34 52 466 11 3 36 17 13 47 9 9 65 31 61 11 14 4 16 75 39 461 ^.45 1.09 1.67 0.00 4.89 4.42 0.76 0.53 1.69 1.69 5.77 5.17 1.67 2.67 1.89 1.44 1.98 2.41 1.94 2.00 0.88 0.90 4.09 2.54 2.07 1.71 0.50 0.50 2.88 3.19 0.49 0.53 0.62 0.82 2.15 2.11 -1.50' Central Region Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Ontario Wisconsin Regional total & weighted average^ Regional index change Rangewide total & weighted average'' Rangewide index change 52 25 111 80 37 51 79 435 870 58 42 102 75 34 62 84 457 923 59 60 88 79 77 33 97 493 954 0.10 0.07 0.32 0.32 4.30 4.07 2.14 2.94 0.75 1.08 6.00 6.15 2.39 2.34 3.29 3.48 +5.82% 2.69 2.77 +2.78% ''Includes routes carried as constant zero routes. '' Weighted averages are sums of products of woodcock heard per comparable route and the corresponding State or Province percentage of the total land area sampled. States or Provinces excluded where one comparable route represents more than 5.180 km-' (2,000 square miles) or where the number heard per route is less than 0.5. 21 recorded in the northern States and southern portions of the Provinces. Generally, areas south of 42° latitude had fewer than one woodcock heard per route. Acknowledgments Most data in this report would not be available without the cooperation of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Provincial and State conservation depart- ments, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel of Regions 3, 4, and 5, and the many individuals who assisted in the surveys. Special recognition is extended to K. Munson for help in preparing the report, R. Hines for the cover sketch, and T. Dwyer, R. Pospahala, and L. Schroeder for reviewing the manu- script. Special thanks are extended to the biologists who helped process nearly 22,000 woodcock wings. These cooperators and the affiliations are as follows: G. Carowan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. Corr Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game W. Cottrell Maryland Department of Natural Resources K. D'Loughy Maryland Department of Natural Resources B. Dorf Maryland Department of Natural Resources G. Gard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service D. Langowski U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service B. Lamed Maryland Department of Natural Resources T. Mathews Maryland Department of Natural Resources R. McKee C. Mohlis C. Nicholson H. R. Perry, Jr. T. Prickett M. Rubala F. Simms B. Sonderricker S. Stenquist A. Talbott W. H. Taylor S. Yarsa Maryland Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Maine U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission Maryland Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maryland Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hocking Technical College Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries Ohio State University References Artmann, J. W. 1977. Woodcock status report, 1975. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.— Wild). 201. 36 pp. Clark, E. R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl. 133. 3.5 pp. Clark, E. R. 1972. Woodcock status report, 1971. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.— Wildl. 1,53. 47 pp. Clark, E. R. 1973. Woodcock status report, 1972. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.— Wildl. 169. 50 pp. Dobell, J. V. 1976. Preliminary report to Canadian wood- cock singing-ground cooperators. Canadian Wildlife Ser- vice. 15 pp. Multilith. Owen, R. B. 1977. American woodcock (Philohela minor). Pages 149-186 in Glen C. Sanderson, ed. Management of migratory shore and upland game birds in North Amer- ica. Int. Assoc. Game, Fish and Conserv. Comm., Washington, D.C. i> U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-779-683/16 Reg. 8 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE EDITORIAL OFFICE AYLESWORTH HALL, CSU FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80523 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INT 423 NOTE: Mailing lists are computerized. Please return address label with change of address.