Population Status Report

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mourning Dove,
White-winged Dove, and
Band-tailed Pigeon
Population Status, 2008

Cover photograph: Mourning Dove on Tree Limb by Larry Ditto

Suggested citations:
Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. 2008. Mourning dove population status, 2008. Pages 1-21 in
Mourning dove, white-winged dove, and band-tailed pigeon population status, 2008. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. USA.
Rabe, M. J. 2008. White-winged dove status in Arizona, 2008. Pages 23-32 in Mourning dove, whitewinged dove, and band-tailed pigeon population status, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel,
Maryland. USA.
Sanders, T.A. 2008. Band-tailed pigeon population status, 2008. Pages 33-43 in Mourning dove, whitewinged dove, and band-tailed pigeon population status, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel,
Maryland. USA.

All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available on our home page at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html

MOURNING DOVE POPULATION STATUS, 2008
DAVID D. DOLTON, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, PO Box 25486 DFC,
Denver, CO 80225-0486
KERI PARKER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, 11510 American Holly Dr., Laurel, MD 20708-4002
REBECCA D. RAU, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, 11510 American Holly Dr., Laurel, MD 20708-4002

Abstract: This report includes Mourning Dove Call-count Survey information gathered over the last 43 years within
the conterminous United States. Between 2007 and 2008, the average number of doves heard per route decreased
significantly in the Eastern and Central Management Units, but did not change significantly in the Western Unit. Over
the most recent 10 years, no significant trend was indicated for doves heard in either the Eastern or Western
Management Units while the Central Unit showed a significant decline. Over the 43-year period, all 3 units exhibited
significant declines. In contrast, for doves seen over the 10-year period, no significant trends were found for any of
the three Management Units. Over 43 years, no trend was found for doves seen in the Eastern and Central Units while
a significant decline was indicated for the Western Unit.
The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is a migratory
bird, thus, authority and responsibility for its
management is vested in the Secretary of the Interior.
This responsibility is conferred by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 which, as amended, implements
migratory bird treaties between the United States and
other countries. Mourning doves are included in the
treaties with Great Britain (for Canada) and Mexico
(U.S. Department of the Interior 1988). These treaties
recognize sport hunting as a legitimate use of a
renewable migratory bird resource. The annual harvest
is estimated to be between 5 and 10% of the population
(Otis et al. 2008a). As one of the most abundant species
in both urban and rural areas of North America, it is
familiar to millions of people. Maintenance of mourning
dove populations in a healthy, productive state is a
primary management goal. To this end, management of
doves in the United States includes assessment of
population status, regulation of harvest, and habitat
management. Call-count surveys are conducted annually
in the 48 conterminous states by state, federal, local, and
tribal biologists to monitor mourning dove populations.
The resulting information on status and trends is used by
wildlife administrators in setting annual hunting
regulations. A history of dove hunting regulations is
provided in Appendix A.

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE
Mourning doves breed from the southern portions of
Canada throughout the United States into Mexico,
Bermuda, the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, and
scattered locations in Central America (Fig. 1). While
mourning doves winter throughout much of the breeding
range, the majority winter in the southern United States,
Mexico, and south through Central America to western
Panama (Aldrich 1993, Mirarchi and Baskett 1994).
The mourning dove is one of the most widely distributed
and abundant birds in North America (Peterjohn et al.
1994, Fig. 1). The fall population for the United States
was recently estimated to be about 350 million (Otis et
al. 2008b).

POPULATION MONITORING
Call-count Survey
The Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS) was
developed to provide an annual index to population size
(Dolton 1993). This survey is based on work by
McClure (1939) in Iowa. In the United States, the
survey currently includes more than 1,000 randomly
selected routes, stratified by physiographic region
(Fenneman 1931, Dolton 1993).

The primary purpose of this report is to facilitate the
prompt distribution of timely information. Results are
preliminary and may change with the inclusion of
additional data.

1

principal breeding, migration, and U.S. wintering areas
for each population. As suggested by Kiel (1959), these
3 areas were established as separate management units in
1960 (Kiel 1961). Since that time, management
decisions have been made within the boundaries of the
Eastern (EMU), Central (CMU), and Western (WMU)
Management Units (Fig. 2).
The EMU was further divided into 2 groups of states for
analyses. States permitting dove hunting were combined
into one group and those prohibiting dove hunting into
another. Wisconsin became a hunting state for the first
time in 2003 while Minnesota became a hunting state in
2004. Additionally, some states were grouped to
increase sample sizes. Maryland and Delaware were
combined; Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island were
combined to form a New England group. Due to its
small size, Rhode Island, which is a hunting state, was
included in this nonhunting group of states for analysis.

Breeding Bird Survey
The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is
completed in June and is based on routes that are 24.5
miles long. Each route consists of 50 stops or point
count locations at 0.5-mile intervals. At each stop, a 3minute count is conducted whereby every bird seen
within a 0.25-mile (400 m) radius or heard is recorded.
Surveys start one-half hour before local sunrise and take
about 5 hours to complete. Data for birds heard and seen
at stops are combined for BBS analyses while those data
are analyzed separately for the CCS.

Figure 1. Breeding and wintering ranges of the mourning
dove (adapted from Mirarchi and Baskett 1994).

Call-count survey routes are located on secondary roads
and have 20 listening stations spaced at 1-mile intervals.
At each stop, the number of individual doves heard
calling, the number of doves seen, and the level of
disturbance (noise) that impairs the observer's ability to
hear doves are recorded. Observers also record the
number of doves seen while driving between stops.
Counts begin one-half hour before sunrise and take
about 2 hours to complete. Routes are run once between
20 May and 5 June. Surveys are not conducted when
wind velocities exceed 12 miles per hour or when it is
raining.

There has been considerable discussion about utilizing
the BBS as a measure of mourning dove abundance.
Consequently, we are including 1966-2007 BBS trend
information in this report to allow comparisons to those
from CCS results over the same time period (Dolton et
al. 2007) for consistency in intervals of years. Sauer et
al. (1994) discussed the differences in the methodology
of the 2 surveys. BBS data are not available in time for
use in regulations development during the year of the
survey. Research is currently underway to evaluate the
causes of differences in estimated trends between the
CCS and BBS results.

The total number of doves heard on each route is used to
determine trends in populations and is used to develop
an index to population size during the breeding season.
Indices for doves seen are also presented in this report,
but only as supplemental information for comparison
with indices of doves heard. Even though both the
numbers of doves heard and seen are counted during the
survey, they are recorded and analyzed separately.
Within the United States, there are 3 zones that contain
mourning dove populations that are largely independent
of each other (Kiel 1959). These zones encompass the

2

Figure 2. Mourning dove management units with 2007 hunting and nonhunting states.

Harvest Survey

METHODS

Wildlife professionals have long recognized that reliable
harvest estimates are needed to monitor the impact of
hunting. In past years, state harvest surveys were used to
obtain rough estimates of mourning dove harvest and
hunter activity in the United States. However, the results
from state surveys were not directly comparable because
of a lack of consistent survey methodology among states
and limitations in geographic coverage.

Estimation of Population Trends
A population trend is defined as an interval-specific rate
of change. For two years, the change is the ratio of the
dove population in an area in one year to the population
in the preceding year. For more than 2 years of data, the
trend is expressed as an average annual rate of change.
A trend was first estimated for each route by numerically
solving a set of estimating equations (Link and Sauer
1994). Observer data were used as covariates to adjust
for differences in observers’ ability to hear or see doves.
The reported sample sizes are the number of routes on
which a given trend estimate is based. This number may
be less than the actual number of routes surveyed for
several reasons. The estimating equations approach
requires at least 2 non-zero counts by at least one
observer for a route to be used. Routes that did not meet
this requirement during the interval of interest were not
included in the sample size. State and management unit
trends were obtained by calculating a mean of all route
trends weighted by land area, within-route variance in
counts, and relative abundance (mean numbers of doves
counted on each route). Variances of state and
management unit trends were estimated by bootstrapping
route trends (Geissler and Sauer 1990).

To remedy the limitations associated with using the
results of state surveys, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) and state wildlife agencies initiated the
national, cooperative State-Federal Harvest Information
Program (HIP). The HIP was established in 1992 and
became fully operational on a national scale 1999. This
Program is designed to enable the Service to conduct
nationwide surveys that provide reliable annual estimates
of the harvest of mourning doves and other migratory
game bird species on state, management unit, and
national levels. Under HIP, states provide the Service
with the names and addresses of all licensed migratory
bird hunters each year, and the Service conducts surveys
to estimate the harvest and hunter activity (number of
hunters, days hunted, and average bag/hunter) in each
state. All states except Hawaii are participating in the
program.

For the CCS, the annual change, or trend, for each area
in doves heard over the most recent 2- and 10-year
intervals and for the entire 43-year period were estimated
(Table 1). Additionally, trends in doves seen were

3

estimated over the 10- and 43-year periods as
supplemental information for comparison (Table 2).
For purposes of this report, statistical significance was
defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison
where P<0.10 was used because of the low power of the
test. Significance levels may be unreliable for states
with less than 10 routes.
For the BBS, trends were calculated for the 10-year
period (1998-2007) and over 42 years (1966-2007) and
are presented in Table 3.

Estimation of Annual Indices
Annual indices show population fluctuations about fitted
trends (Sauer and Geissler 1990). The estimated indices
were determined for state and management units by
finding the deviation between observed counts on a route
and those predicted from the area trend estimate. These
residuals were averaged by year for all routes in the area
of interest. To adjust for variation in sampling intensity,
residuals were weighted by the land area of the
physiographic regions within each state. These weighted
average residuals were then added to the fitted trend for
the area to produce the annual index of abundance. This
method of determining indices superimposes yearly
variation in counts on the long-term fitted trend. These
indices should provide an accurate representation of the
fitted trend for regions that are adequately sampled by
survey routes. Since the indices are adjusted for
observer differences and trend, the index for an area may
be quite different from the actual count. In order to
estimate the percent change from 2007 to 2008, a shortterm trend was calculated. The percent change estimated
from this short-term trend analysis is the best estimator
of annual change. Attempts to estimate short-term trends
from the breeding population indices (which were
derived from residuals of the long-term trends) will yield
less precise results.
The
annual index value
incorporates data from a large number of routes that are
not comparable between the two years 2007 and 2008,
i.e., routes not run by the same observers. Therefore,
the index is much more variable than the trend estimate.

Figure 3. Mean number of mourning doves heard per
route by state in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU),
2007-2008.

estimated relative abundance shown in Figures 3, 7, and
11 illustrate the average actual numbers of doves heard
per route in 2007 and 2008.

CALL-COUNT SURVEY RESULTS
Eastern Management Unit
The Eastern Management Unit (EMU) includes 27 states
comprising 30% of the land area of the contiguous
United States. Dove hunting is permitted in 19 states,
representing 80% of the land area of the unit (Fig. 2).
2007-2008 Population Distribution.—North Carolina
had the highest count in the EMU with an average of 43
actual doves heard per route over the 2 years (Fig. 3).
Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the New
England states had <10 per route. Indiana had an
average of 20 doves heard per route, and all other states
had mean counts in the range of 10-20 doves heard per
route.
2007 to 2008 Population Changes.—The average
number of doves heard per route in the EMU decreased
significantly (-8.5%) (Table 1). The average number
heard also decreased significantly between years in the
combined hunting states (-10.1%), but did not change
significantly in the combined nonhunting states (0.4%).

In a separate analysis, the mean number of doves heard
calling per route in 2008 was calculated for each state or
groups of states. In contrast to the estimated annual
indices presented in Table 4 (which illustrate population
changes over time based on the regression line), the

4

on the long-term estimate of 15.8 (Fig. 4, Table 4). In
the hunting states, the index of 16.6 is essentially the
same as the predicted estimate of 16.4 and, in the
nonhunting states, the index of 14.7 is above the
predicted estimate of 13.7.
The number of doves heard increased significantly in
Georgia while they decreased significantly in Florida,
Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and in New England (Table
1). No significant changes were detected for the other
states.
Population Trends: 10 and 43-year.—Over the most
recent 10 years, there was no significant trend indicated
in either the combined nonhunting states or the EMU as
a whole (Table 1). A significant decline was detected in
the combined hunting states. For the 43-year period, a
significant declining trend was found in both the
combined hunting states and the unit while no trend was
indicated for the combined nonhunting states. Annual
indices both for doves heard and seen are shown in
Figure 4. In contrast to doves heard, an analysis of
doves seen over 10 years indicated no significant trend
for either group of states or the unit (Table 2). Over 43
years, a significant increase was detected for the
combined nonhunting states; no trend was shown for the
combined hunting states or the unit.

Figure 4. Population indices and trends of breeding
mourning doves in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU),
combined EMU hunting states (HUNT), and combined
non-hunting states (NONHUNT), 1966-2008. Heavy solid
line = doves heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light
and heavy dashed lines = predicted trends.

Figure 5. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per
route by state in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU),
1999–2008.

The 2008 population index of 16.3 doves heard per route
for the EMU is slightly above the predicted count based

State population trends for doves heard are shown in
Figure 5 (10-year interval), Figure 6 (43-year interval),

5

and Table 1. Over 10 years, an increase was found for
New York while Florida, Tennessee, and New England
showed declines.
Between 1966 and 2008, no
significant increases were noted while a downward trend
was noted in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina,
and Tennessee.

Figure 8. Population indices and trends of breeding
mourning doves in the Central Management Unit (CMU),
1966-2008. Heavy solid line = doves heard; light solid
line = doves seen. Light and heavy dashed lines =
predicted trends.

Central Management Unit
The Central Management Unit (CMU) consists of 14
states, containing 46% of the land area of the contiguous
United States. It has the highest population index of the
3 units. Within the CMU, dove hunting is permitted in
13 states (Fig. 2).

Figure 6. Trends in the number of mourning doves heard
per route by state in the Eastern Management Unit
(EMU), 1966-2008.

2007-2008 Population Distribution.—North Dakota and
South Dakota had the highest actual average number of
doves heard per route over the 2 years (34 and 38,
respectively) (Fig. 7). Historically, these states often
have the highest average counts in the Nation (Table 4).
Montana and Wyoming were the only states with less
than 10 doves per route. The remaining states had
intermediate values (Fig. 7).
2007 to 2008 Population Changes.—The average
number of doves heard per route in the CMU decreased
significantly between the 2 years (-8.5%) (Table 1). The
2008 index for the unit of 18.9 doves heard per route is
less than the predicted long-term trend estimate of 20.6
(Fig. 8, Table 4). The population increased significantly
in Colorado and North Dakota while it decreased
significantly in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. No significant changes
were found in any of the other states (Table 1).

Figure 7. Mean number of mourning doves heard per
route by state in the Central Management Unit (CMU),
2007–2008.

6

Figure 9. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per
route by state in the Central Management Unit (CMU),
1999-2008.

Figure 10. Trends in mourning doves heard per route by
state in the Central Management Unit (CMU), 1966-2008.

Population Trends: 10 and 43-year.—A significant
decline in doves heard was indicated for the CMU over
both the 10-year and 43-year periods (Table 1). In
contrast, trends in doves seen were not significant for
either time period (Table 2).
State trends in doves heard over 10 years are illustrated
in Fig. 9 and Table 1. Iowa and New Mexico showed an
increase while Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas had a
decline during this time. Figure 10 portrays trends over
43 years. New Mexico showed a significant increase in
doves heard while a significant downward trend was
found in Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming
(Table 1).

Western Management Unit
Figure 11. Mean number of mourning doves heard per
route by state in the Western Management Unit (WMU),
2007-2008.

Seven states comprise the Western Management Unit
(WMU) and represent 24% of the land area of the
contiguous United States. All states within the WMU
permit mourning dove hunting (Fig. 2).

2007 to 2008 Population Changes.—The average
number of doves heard per route did not change
significantly between years (-0.1%; Table 1). The 2008
population index of 8.2 doves heard per route is
essentially the same as the predicted count of 8.3 based
on the long-term trend estimate (Fig. 12, Table 4). No
state had a significant increase in doves heard between

2007-2008 Population Distribution.—Arizona averaged
15 actual doves heard per route (Table 1, Fig. 11).
California and Idaho averaged 11 and 10 doves heard per
route, respectively. The other states in the WMU
averaged < 10 birds per route.

7

Figure 12. Population indices and trends of breeding
mourning doves in the Western Management Unit
(WMU), 1966-2008. Heavy solid line = doves heard; light
solid line = doves seen. Light and heavy dashed lines =
predicted trends.

Figure 13. Trends in number of mourning doves heard
per route by state in the Western Management Unit
(WMU), 1999-2008.

years. The number of doves heard per route decreased
significantly in Idaho and Washington (Table 1). No
significant differences were found in other states.
Population Trends: 10 and 43-year.—WMU-wide, no
significant trend in numbers of doves heard was
indicated over the most recent 10 years although a
significant decline was apparent over 43 years (Table 1).
Analyses of doves seen gave the same pattern of results
(Table 2).
Trends by state are illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14, and
Table 1. Oregon showed a significant increase over 10
years while California showed a decline. Between 1966
and 2008, California, Nevada, and Utah showed
significant declines. There were no significant trends in
the other states.
Figure 14. Trends in number of mourning doves heard
per route by state in the Western Management Unit
(WMU), 1966-2008.

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY RESULTS
In general, trends indicated by the BBS tend to indicate
fewer declines. The major differences occur in the
EMU. This is likely due to the larger sample size of
BBS survey routes and greater consistency of coverage
by BBS routes in the unit (Sauer et al. 1994), although
additional analyses are needed to clarify some
differences in results between surveys within states.
Comparisons below are from Table 3 and CCS results
for doves heard (Table 1) in Dolton et al. (2007).

Eastern Management Unit
For the 10-year period, 1998-07, the BBS showed a
significant increase in doves heard and seen in the EMU
while the CCS indicated no trend in doves heard. Over
42 years, 1966-07, the BBS showed a significant
increase while the CCS showed a significant decrease.

8

Rabe (AZ GFD), E. Robinson (NH FGD), R. Rothwell
(WY GFD), D. Scarpitti (MA DFW), G. Sheridan (WY
GFD), J. Schulz (MO DC), A. Stewart (MI DNR), N.
Stricker (OH DNR), B. Swift (NY DEC), M. Szymanski
(ND GFD), B. Tefft (RI DEM), B. Veverka (IN DFW),
T. White (TN WRA), S. Wilson (WV DNR), and B.
Bortner, H. Browers, A. Daisey, D. Davis, J. Dubovsky,
C. Dwyer, T. Edwards, K. Frizzell, R. Ford, D. Haukos,
D. James, S. Kelly, M. Mills, B. Strader, D. Viker, J.
West, R. Wilson (USFWS). K. Magruder (USFWS)
provided invaluable assistance with data entry and
management. R. Maruthalingam (USFWS) assisted in
maintaining the website for the Call-count Survey. J. R.
Sauer (BRD) analyzed the data and provided statistical
support. K. Richkus, H. Spriggs, S. Williams, and K.
Wilkins (USFWS) provided the HIP data and
explanation. K. Fleming, P. Garrettson, M. Koneff, and
F. Rivera (USFWS) reviewed a draft of this report.
Portions of this report were copied in whole or in part
from previous dove status reports.

Central Management Unit
Over 10 years, there was a significant increase in doves
heard and seen in the CMU according to BBS results. In
contrast, results of doves heard via CCS indicated a
significant decrease. For the 42-year period, declines
were found by both surveys.

Western Management Unit
There was no significant trend in doves heard and seen
in the WMU indicated by the BBS over the 10 and 42year time periods. Similarly, no trend was indicated
over 10 years with the CCS, but a significant decline was
present over 42 years.

HARVEST SURVEY ESTIMATES
Preliminary results for doves from the HIP survey for the
2006-07 and 2007-08 hunting seasons are presented in
Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The total estimated harvest
for the 2007-08 season by management unit and for the
U.S. are as follows: Eastern: 8,908,400 ± 7%; Central:
9,180,200 ± 9%; Western: 2,461,500 ± 7%; and, U.S.:
20,550,000 ± 5%.

LITERATURE CITED
Aldrich, J.W. 1993. Classification and distribution.
Pages 47-54 in T.S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R.E.
Tomlinson, and R.E. Mirarchi, Editors. Ecology
and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dolton, D.D. 1993. The call-count survey: historic
development and current procedures. Pages 233-252
in T.S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R.E. Tomlinson, and
R.E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of
the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Dolton, D.D., R.D. Rau, and K. Parker. 2007 Mourning
dove breeding population status, 2007 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
Fenneman, N.M. 1931. Physiography of western United
States. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York. 534 pp.
Geissler, P.H. and J.R. Sauer. 1990. Topics in route
regression analysis. Pages 54-57 in J.R. Sauer and
S. Droege, editors. Survey designs and statistical
methods for the estimation of avian population
trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Report 90(1).
Kiel, W.H. 1959. Mourning dove management units, a
progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Special Scientific Report--Wildlife 42.
Kiel, W.H. 1961. The mourning dove program for the
future. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference 26:418-435.

Additional information about HIP, survey methodology,
and results can be found in annual reports located at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/HuntingStati
stics/HuntingStatistics.htm

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Personnel from state wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cooperated to collect the
data presented in this report. Special thanks to state and
regional Call-count Survey Coordinators including: T.
Aldrich (UT DWR), R. Applegate (TN WRA), J. Austin
(VT FWD), S. Baker (MS DWFP), T. Bogenschutz (IA
DNR), R. Boyd (PA PGC), J. Cole (IL DWPD), B.
Crose (OH DNR), M. DiBona (DE DNREC), J. Dickson
(CT DEP), B. Dukes (SC DNR), L. Fendrick (OH DNR),
K. Fothergill (CA DFG), V. Frawley (MI DNR), M.
Frisbie (TX PWD), J. Fuller (NC WRC), J. Garris (NJ
FW), E. Gorman (CO DW), H. Hands (KS DWP), J.
Hansen (MT FWP), B. Harvey (MD DNR), T. Hemker
(ID DFG), K. Hodges (FL FWC), C. Huxoll (SD DGFP),
D. Kraege (WA DFW), J. Lusk (NE GPC), D. McGowan
(GA WRD), M. McInroy (IA DNR), T. Mitchusson (NM
DGF), C. Mortimore (NV DW), M. Olinde (LA DWF),
M. O’Meilia (OK DWC), J. Powers (AL DCNR), M.

9

Link, W.A. and J.R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating equations
estimates of trends. Bird Populations 2:23-32.
McClure, H.E. 1939. Cooing activity and censusing of
the mourning dove.
Journal of Wildlife
Management 3:323-328.
Mirarchi, R.E. and T.S. Baskett. 1994. Mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura). In A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors, The birds of North America, No. 117. The
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The
American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, and D. P. Scott. 2008a.
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) harvest and
population parameters derived from a national
banding study. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical
Publication FWS/BTP-R3010-2008, Washington,
D.C., USA/
Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, D. A. Miller, R. Mirarchi, and
T. Baskett. 2008b. Mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura). In The Birds of North America, No.
117. (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.). Philadelphia:
The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington,
D.C., USA.

Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Sauer and W.A. Link. 1994. The
1992 and 1993 summary of the North American
breeding bird survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61.
Sauer, J.R. and P.H. Geissler. 1990. Annual indices
from route regression analyses. Pages 58-62 in J.R.
Sauer and S. Droege, eds. Survey designs and
statistical methods for the estimation of avian
population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Report. 90(1).
Sauer, J.R., D.D. Dolton, and S. Droege.
1994.Mourning dove population trend estimates
from Call-count and North American Breeding Bird
Surveys.
Journal of Wildlife Management.
58(3):506-515.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1988. Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement:
Issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport
hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C., USA.

10

a

Table 1. Trends (% change per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves heard
along Call-count Survey routes, 1966-2008.
2007-2008b
N

%

10 year (1999-2008)

Changec

90% CI

N

%

Changec

43 year (1966-2008)

90% CI

N

% Changec

90% CI

EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Subunit
Nonhunt
MI

26
13
12
20
13
14
18
16
17
20
33
10
15
16
23
17
10

3.0
-3.0
-21.6
37.5
-26.1
-7.4
-14.6
-10.2
-11.7
1.3
-9.5
-8.9
-6.1
3.2
-18.2
-20.4
4.7

293

-10.1

-12.7
-29.5
-43.7
8.2
-35.6
-16.5
-34.5
-35.0
-41.5
-11.7
-20.5
-29.8
-23.3
-14.6
-40.9
-35.8
-24.1

18.8
23.5
0.6
66.7
-16.6
1.6
5.4
14.6
18.1
14.2
1.5
11.9
11.0
20.9
4.4
-5.0
33.4

31
15
24
23
20
15
20
19
22
21
36
19
21
25
33
22
11

-1.5
1.7
-4.7
0.3
-0.6
0.5
-0.7
-0.4
-2.3
0.8
0.4
1.4
-3.1
-4.0
-0.6
1.3
2.9

***

-15.2

-5.0

377

-0.9

-11.5

23.7

19

2.9

**

-34.2
-48.3

-3.2
87.2

42
11

*
**
***

*

***

*

-3.7
-1.4
-8.1
-3.0
-3.6
-4.0
-2.2
-3.4
-4.8
-1.2
-1.8
-1.5
-6.3
-6.2
-3.9
-0.7
-0.1

0.8
4.9
-1.2
3.5
2.4
5.0
0.7
2.7
0.3
2.8
2.7
4.3
0.1
-1.8
2.7
3.3
5.8

45
20
29
31
22
18
26
23
31
24
57
19
27
35
33
23
12

-0.8
-0.9
-0.7
-1.0
0.2
-1.2
-0.5
1.1
-1.8
0.2
-1.1
1.0
-1.2
-1.7
-1.6
0.9
1.6

**

-1.6

-0.1

475

-0.6

-1.3

7.1

23

1.1

-2.9
-1.9

**

-5.6
-5.3

-0.2
1.5

76
20

0.9
-2.2

***

***

*

*
***

12

6.1

24
11

-18.7
19.4

10

-0.3

-27.4

26.8

17

2.8

0.8

4.8

22

57

0.4

-12.3

13.1

89

1.5

-1.3

4.3

141

Unit

350

-8.5

-13.3

-3.7

466

-0.5

-1.3

0.4

616

-0.4

CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY

13
9
13
16
8
14
10
15
20
25
14
17
104
11

-6.8
18.0
-11.5
-16.6
-6.9
-27.4
2.9
-16.7
-34.6
23.7
-34.1
20.7
-14.7
26.9

-29.2
-0.3
-27.3
-31.2
-33.0
-35.3
-12.9
-33.5
-41.9
-0.8
-51.7
-7.9
-23.2
-23.5

15.7
36.3
4.3
-2.0
19.1
-19.5
18.8
0.1
-27.3
48.2
-16.5
49.4
-6.1
77.4

19
16
17
28
13
20
19
24
28
27
16
21
140
18

0.3
-2.7
3.5
0.0
-1.2
0.4
-1.4
-3.3
4.9
-3.0
-1.5
1.9
-5.6
-4.4

***
*

-2.8
-6.4
0.7
-3.0
-7.4
-1.4
-8.5
-4.9
0.3
-4.3
-5.6
-2.4
-7.0
-9.6

3.4
1.0
6.2
3.0
5.0
2.3
5.8
-1.6
9.4
-1.6
2.5
6.2
-4.2
0.8

21
21
19
36
13
28
29
28
31
30
25
30
213
25

-0.8
-0.7
0.2
0.0
-1.9
-1.8
-1.7
-1.1
1.4
-0.7
0.5
-0.5
-1.1
-2.4

Unit

289

-8.5

-14.0

-3.0

406

-3.2

***

-4.0

-2.3

549

WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR e
UT
WA
Unit

30
43
11
7
6
11
13
121

22.1
-2.4
-13.9
-19.2
10.3
-19.3
-26.6
-0.1

-20.3
-12.1
-25.7
-71.5
-64.3
-71.6
-53.9
-17.0

64.5
7.4
-2.2
33.1
84.9
32.9
0.7
16.7

53
61
22
20
19
16
23
214

1.2
-3.3
3.7
-1.5
6.2
0.8
1.8
-0.7

-2.2
-5.1
-4.8
-8.2
0.2
-6.0
-2.6
-2.5

4.5
-1.5
12.2
5.2
12.2
7.5
6.2
1.1

71
84
28
33
25
20
28
289

N.England d
NJ
NY
Subunit

***

*
**
***
*
***
*
***
***
***

**

*

**

***
**
***

***

**

*

**
**
*
*
***
**
***

***

-1.6
-2.5
-1.6
-1.8
-1.2
-2.4
-1.7
-0.2
-3.7
-0.7
-1.8
-0.7
-2.2
-2.9
-3.6
-0.5
-0.5

0.0
0.7
0.3
-0.2
1.6
-0.1
0.8
2.4
0.0
1.2
-0.3
2.6
-0.2
-0.5
0.4
2.4
3.6

-1.0

-0.2

-0.7

2.9

*

0.0
-5.1

1.8
0.8

2.3

*

-0.4

4.9

1.1

*

0.0

2.3

**

-0.8

0

***
**

-2.0
-1.7
-0.7
-0.9
-3.7
-3.7
-3.6
-1.9
0.2
-1.9
-3.3
-2.0
-1.9
-4.7

0.5
0.3
1.2
0.9
-0.2
0.1
0.2
-0.3
2.6
0.5
4.2
1.0
-0.3
-0.1

-0.8

***

-1.2

-0.4

-0.8
-2.5
-0.7
-3.3
-1.5
-3.9
-2.0
-1.8

*
***

-1.6
-3.6
-2.0
-5.4
-3.1
-6.7
-4.2
-2.4

0.0
-1.3
0.6
-1.3
0.1
-1.0
0.2
-1.2

**
*
*
***
**

***
*
***
*
***

a Mean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year where % is the
annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 43 years) may exaggerate the total change over the period.
b As stated in the Estimation of Annual Indices on page 3 of this report, the 2-year trend is the best estimate of the change between 2007 and 2008. This is because only
data from comparable routes (those run by the same observer in both years) are used in the analysis. This change will differ from the change calculated from 2007 to 2008
using the annual indices because the index values are less precise, as they incorporate data from routes not surveyed in both years. The 2-year trend is useful in evaluating
short-term change; however, the long-term trend is more relevant to management decision-making.
c *P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10 was used because
of the low power of the test.
d New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.
e Due to small sample sizes within OR strata, a pooled estimate amongst strata is provided for Oregon for the 2-year trend.

11

a

Table 2. Trends (% change per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves seen
along Call-count Survey routes, 1966-2008.
10 year (1999-2008)
N

43 year (1966-2008)

% Changeb

90% CI

N

% Changeb

90% CI

EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
-6.8
-3.2
-7.4
-5.3
0.9
-7.8
-5.7
-3.1
-2.9
0.2
-5.3
-10.3
-6.0
-4.3
-6.3
0.9
-9.2

-0.2
1.3
4.1
6.7
5.0
7.3
1.3
2.2
2.5
5.8
0.8
-0.1
3.5
1.8
7.4
9.1
-0.1

45
20
29
31
22
18
24
23
31
24
57
19
27
35
33
23
12

-1.4
0.5
3.3
0.5
-0.7
-1.6
1.3
2.1
-1.2
-0.1
0.6
0.8
1.2
-0.8
0.0
3.1
3.2

-0.7

-1.8

0.4

473

0.1

19
40
11
17

1.2
-1.4
2.0
-2.1

-1.5
-5.4
-4.7
-8.9

4.0
2.5
8.6
4.7

23
73
20
22

2.2
1.7
-0.6
2.9

***
*

Subunit
Unit

87
463

0.5
-0.5

-1.6
-1.6

2.7
0.5

138
611

2.1
0.3

CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY

19
16
17
28
13
20
21
24
27
27
16
21
140
15

0.7
-4.0
3.6
2.3
-2.5
0.5
4.1
-0.6
10.9
-4.7
1.2
0.9
-1.3
-2.5

-3.0
-9.6
-0.7
-0.2
-7.5
-2.2
-6.1
-3.7
7.5
-7.0
-2.4
-4.1
-3.3
-9.1

4.5
1.6
7.8
4.7
2.6
3.3
14.3
2.6
14.4
-2.5
4.9
5.8
0.6
4.1

21
20
19
36
14
28
29
28
31
30
25
30
213
23

-1.1
-0.5
0.5
-0.3
-1.1
-2.9
1.6
-0.6
0.9
-0.3
0.4
-1.0
0.7
-3.2

Unit

404

-0.5

-1.9

0.8

547

0.0

50
57
21
19
19
15
23

-5.0
-3.4
9.3
3.9
-3.9
-8.1
0.4

**
***
**

-8.9
-5.5
1.7
-8.4
-13.8
-17.8
-5.9

-1.0
-1.3
16.9
16.2
5.9
1.7
6.6

72
83
28
33
23
20
25

-3.9
-2.4
-2.2
-1.5
-4.5
-5.4
0.9

***
***

204

-2.2

*

-4.7

0.3

284

-2.9

***

AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Subunit
Nonhunt
MI
c

N.England
NJ
NY

WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit

31
15
25
23
20
15
20
18
22
21
36
19
21
25
33
21
11

-3.5
-1.0
-1.6
0.7
3.0
-0.3
-2.2
-0.4
-0.2
3.0
-2.3
-5.2
-1.3
-1.3
0.5
5.0
-4.7

376

**

***

**
**

**
**

*
*

***
***

a

**

-2.6
-0.8
1.9
-1.0
-2.6
-5.1
-0.4
1.2
-3.4
-1.3
-1.0
-1.1
0.0
-2.0
-2.7
1.9
1.4

-0.2
1.8
4.6
1.9
1.1
1.8
2.9
3.0
1.1
1.1
2.2
2.7
2.4
0.4
2.7
4.4
5.0

-0.6

0.8

0.7
-0.3
-2.8
-0.4

3.6
3.6
1.6
6.2

***

1.0
-0.3

3.2
1.0

**

-2.1
-2.1
-1.0
-1.2
-3.2
-4.9
-0.2
-2.4
-2.1
-1.4
-0.9
-2.5
-0.1
-6.7

-0.1
1.2
2.1
0.6
1.0
-0.9
3.4
1.1
4.0
0.9
1.7
0.6
1.4
0.3

-0.5

0.6

-6.0
-3.6
-5.3
-5.0
-7.4
-9.9
-1.9

-1.8
-1.3
0.9
2.0
-1.6
-0.9
3.6

-3.9

-1.9

***

***

**

***
***

*

***
*

*
*

***
**

Mean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year
where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 43 years) may exaggerate the total change
over the period.
b *P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10 was
used because of the low power of the test.
c New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

12

Table 3. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves
heard and seen along Breeding Bird Survey routes, 1966-2007.
42 year (1966-07)

10 year (1998-07)
N
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL

% Changeb

N

90% CI

% Changeb

92
67
74
69
101

-1.6
-1.4
-2.1
-1.7
6.3

**
***
**
*
***

-2.7
-2.3
-3.8
-3.2
4.8

-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.1
7.8

102
79
87
82
102

-1.4
0.2
1.4
-1.6
1.3

56
39
52
25
74
59
100
31
41
48
93
48

3.0
1.0
2.7
0.4
2.1
0.8
-0.5
3.0
-0.1
-0.6
3.5
1.8

***

1.9
-0.3
1.1
-1.8
0.8
-0.3
-1.4
0.0
-1.8
-1.8
2.7
-0.1

4.2
2.4
4.3
2.5
3.4
1.9
0.4
6.1
1.6
0.6
4.2
3.7

61
55
72
35
87
78
122
39
47
55
96
56

0.3
0.4
2.4
-1.7
0.3
0.7
1.7
-0.1
-0.7
-0.7
1.7
5.0

1069

1.4

***

0.9

1.8

1255

0.3

60
127
26
94

2.2
-2.3
-1.0
-0.7

***
***

1.2
-3.3
-3.5
-1.8

3.1
-1.2
1.5
0.4

84
155
37
118

0.8
2.5
0.2
2.5

**
***

307
1376

-0.2
1.1

-0.8
0.7

0.4
1.5

394
1649

1.7
0.5

CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY

31
120
33
61
60
52
45
45
62
42
53
42
179
73

1.9
2.8
4.7
3.6
0.3
1.7
-0.6
3.5
3.3
-0.8
1.1
0.6
-0.6
2.0

*
**
***
**

*

0.1
0.5
2.0
1.0
-2.3
0.0
-2.7
0.8
0.4
-3.5
-0.5
-1.6
-1.8
0.1

3.6
5.1
7.5
6.3
2.9
3.3
1.6
6.2
6.1
1.9
2.7
2.9
0.6
4.0

35
133
39
62
71
66
53
49
74
47
60
51
209
107

1.1
1.1
-0.3
0.2
-1.0
-1.4
-0.8
-0.3
0.5
0.4
-1.2
0.4
-1.3
0.7

Unit

898

1.5

***

0.8

2.2

1056

-0.4

WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA

56
162
40
25
76
86
58

1.0
1.9
4.3
0.4
0.7
3.9
1.5

-3.1
0.7
1.3
-2.4
-2.2
0.6
-0.7

5.2
3.2
7.4
3.2
3.6
7.3
3.7

78
225
43
37
101
94
66

0.4
-1.0
-0.2
1.7
-2.0
-1.6
0.4

Unit

503

1.7

0.2

3.2

644

-0.6

IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Subunit
Nonhunt
MI
N.Englandc
NJ
NY
Subunit
Unit

***
***

***

***

*
**
*

**
**

*
*

aMean of route trends weighted by land area and population density.

***

90%CI

-2.0
-0.3
0.7
-2.4
0.6

-0.8
0.7
2.1
-0.7
2.0

-0.2
-0.3
1.2
-2.6
-0.5
0.2
1.1
-0.9
-1.4
-1.3
1.0
4.2

0.8
1.1
3.6
-0.9
1.0
1.3
2.3
0.8
0.1
-0.2
2.3
5.8

0.0

0.5

***

0.2
1.9
-0.9
2.1

1.4
3.2
1.4
2.8

***
***

1.3
0.2

2.1
0.7

-0.2
0.1
-1.3
-0.6
-1.8
-2.2
-1.6
-1.0
-0.8
-0.3
-1.8
-0.3
-1.8
-1.0

2.4
2.1
0.7
0.9
-0.1
-0.6
0.0
0.4
1.9
1.1
-0.6
1.2
-0.8
2.4

-0.6

-0.1

-2.6
-1.8
-1.1
0.1
-3.2
-2.3
-0.5

3.5
-0.2
0.8
3.3
-0.8
-0.8
1.4

-1.4

0.1

***
***
***

***
***
**
***

**
***
***

*

*
***
*

***
***
**

*
*
***
***

The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year
where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 42 years) may exaggerate the total
change over the period.
b*P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where
P<0.10 was used because of the low power of the test.
cNew England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

13

Table 4. Breeding population indicesa based on mourning doves heard along Call-count routes, 19662008.
Management

Year
1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

Subunit

26.7
14.8
13.8
29.9
22.0
36.4
24.2
10.2
40.0
33.4
24.7
8.7
33.8
33.8
24.3
10.0
6.5
22.5

23.8
18.3
13.1
28.0
18.9
33.5
22.0
10.4
34.4
27.0
23.3
9.3
36.9
24.6
20.5
12.9
5.5
21.1

21.5
12.8
11.2
24.0
22.5
33.0
21.4
9.7
29.1
28.6
21.0
8.6
37.5
25.3
23.2
12.9
5.6
20.2

21.8
13.7
11.8
25.7
19.5
32.0
22.4
11.3
26.8
41.0
23.9
8.2
36.2
24.9
20.6
9.9
6.0
20.2

22.0
16.9
15.0
32.5
22.5
31.0
26.9
7.0
29.7
47.3
23.7
5.4
34.0
33.8
26.2
10.8
5.6
21.0

18.1
14.6
12.5
25.6
20.5
41.9
24.1
10.2
30.2
27.6
24.5
6.2
29.8
23.9
21.3
15.6
5.1
20.1

25.9
15.9
12.8
24.4
21.1
36.8
20.3
11.2
33.7
22.4
25.6
8.7
26.4
30.1
12.7
16.3
6.7
20.7

22.6
15.8
13.0
26.8
20.7
32.9
24.1
8.8
30.2
42.6
20.3
5.7
30.1
22.9
15.0
10.9
3.9
19.1

17.1
17.0
15.2
27.7
17.5
31.5
27.9
10.3
24.2
24.4
24.7
8.4
28.1
24.3
20.6
11.5
4.2
19.4

21.8
12.2
15.6
30.1
24.2
33.2
19.7
10.7
25.6
13.8
37.8
5.8
27.8
23.2
23.0
14.6
2.4
19.6

Nonhunt
MI
N. Englandb
NJ
NY

12.5
6.5
20.8
5.9

13.7
7.0
17.8
6.0

8.9
6.3
22.0
5.7

9.2
5.4
20.2
5.6

7.4
6.3
27.3
7.0

14.7
6.6
25.6
8.2

15.6
7.3
26.9
6.5

12.7
8.5
23.8
6.7

10.8
5.3
23.2
7.0

12.2
5.0
16.6
12.6

9.0
19.9

9.4
19.0

7.6
17.7

7.4
17.6

7.5
18.2

10.6
18.5

10.7
19.0

10.1
17.5

8.5
17.3

10.5
18.0

22.0
23.3
31.6
47.2
33.0
37.0
28.0
47.8
12.9
43.7
17.9
52.5
30.0
19.6
31.1

22.9
22.9
28.5
48.6
26.4
35.0
26.0
41.9
9.5
41.6
22.1
32.9
24.8
20.5
28.0

22.0
21.0
30.9
50.4
28.3
44.1
20.4
53.3
13.3
56.9
26.1
45.0
24.2
10.9
28.8

21.2
28.6
27.8
51.1
20.9
26.8
22.6
52.1
10.2
47.2
26.4
38.3
21.7
17.8
27.4

22.9
28.6
20.2
47.1
16.5
37.0
18.1
50.3
10.1
41.7
19.9
45.7
23.6
17.2
26.5

23.0
20.8
24.8
47.9
23.7
31.1
25.7
47.6
9.5
42.6
15.6
40.4
22.4
9.8
25.9

21.5
26.5
33.3
53.6
27.3
42.3
20.5
45.6
11.0
44.1
25.8
40.2
29.8
13.6
29.5

24.2
16.4
31.4
47.6
20.6
31.9
14.7
43.6
7.9
48.0
24.3
42.4
23.5
13.6
24.6

22.3
26.2
25.1
47.3
28.7
27.3
17.2
45.2
9.8
46.0
25.7
50.8
24.5
19.5
27.5

21.5
19.2
23.3
45.3
31.2
32.3
23.4
42.5
12.2
33.3
23.3
43.0
22.0
17.3
26.9

28.0
29.0
12.4
9.6
14.4
24.8
11.9
19.0

28.3
27.4
12.7
9.0
9.6
37.9
17.5
19.2

25.3
25.3
12.0
21.3
11.4
19.1
16.3
19.9

30.1
25.0
13.0
15.3
10.4
18.0
13.1
18.9

30.2
24.3
12.1
11.0
7.9
21.0
13.3
17.4

20.4
18.2
9.9
6.7
7.0
29.3
15.7
14.5

23.0
22.2
9.5
9.1
6.8
17.0
11.2
14.6

27.8
21.3
12.1
6.4
6.8
14.7
10.3
14.3

24.2
23.0
10.6
8.6
12.1
16.7
13.0
16.2

26.6
19.4
7.4
5.7
9.3
17.9
14.2
14.1

unit/state
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV

Subunit
Unit
CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Unit
WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit
a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 43-year period.
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

b

14

Table 4. Continued.
Management

Year
1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Subunit

21.0
15.1
14.4
23.7
23.7
33.6
24.6
10.8
26.0
16.8
27.5
5.9
27.4
22.9
22.3
14.7
6.0
19.8

23.1
13.8
15.8
24.7
25.3
37.6
23.1
8.9
26.8
45.4
26.3
4.8
23.3
25.1
29.7
19.4
5.7
21.3

25.3
14.8
12.3
27.1
19.4
20.4
24.7
10.4
30.2
24.3
13.9
5.9
30.8
30.9
22.0
7.8
6.5
18.4

24.3
14.4
13.3
23.7
16.9
21.7
16.9
8.9
25.8
28.8
13.6
6.5
26.1
21.2
19.4
11.5
7.3
17.5

24.3
13.7
10.6
24.0
17.3
27.5
16.5
12.4
24.5
27.9
16.2
7.8
32.8
23.0
18.9
14.9
8.4
18.8

23.2
13.2
9.4
26.6
19.4
31.8
28.0
10.6
24.5
27.5
19.7
9.3
31.9
19.4
16.4
20.1
6.8
19.7

23.6
13.9
11.0
28.6
23.6
22.6
24.0
13.3
30.9
23.1
18.7
8.9
32.9
26.0
18.1
11.3
6.5
19.7

23.6
9.8
12.8
25.6
24.3
19.5
13.4
12.2
25.9
27.3
19.9
8.8
31.3
20.1
18.0
13.2
6.2
18.6

19.8
11.3
8.7
20.8
19.7
21.2
21.5
11.7
19.1
30.7
18.6
8.0
28.4
17.2
17.6
10.4
5.4
16.7

25.2
12.4
11.1
26.6
16.9
18.7
22.4
10.5
25.2
21.4
17.4
8.9
28.5
22.1
16.6
10.8
6.7
17.7

Nonhunt
MI
N. Englandb
NJ
NY

12.4
4.7
20.9
7.4

10.7
8.7
22.9
7.5

12.4
7.3
18.1
9.1

7.3
6.0
19.3
6.1

13.5
7.5
18.0
11.1

15.5
9.1
14.6
9.3

11.3
7.4
17.0
10.1

10.1
7.9
20.2
9.4

10.9
6.7
12.7
9.4

12.1
7.4
12.8
8.5

8.9
17.7

9.7
19.0

10.3
17.0

7.1
15.3

11.2
17.5

11.9
18.4

10.2
17.9

9.8
17.0

9.4
15.4

9.8
16.2

26.1
27.2
28.7
49.8
27.0
28.8
17.0
47.9
12.1
53.4
24.6
46.1
21.4
16.1
27.6

21.2
25.2
22.3
47.3
31.1
33.4
20.8
48.4
10.8
44.0
31.9
40.5
20.4
10.2
26.3

15.0
27.9
25.1
37.1
29.9
21.4
20.0
39.7
11.0
46.4
24.5
43.8
21.2
16.7
25.8

12.2
23.2
21.4
54.1
30.4
20.4
20.0
42.4
7.5
43.2
24.1
42.9
26.1
13.2
25.3

20.2
26.9
28.9
59.1
32.7
32.1
18.3
53.9
12.3
48.8
25.1
43.1
24.8
11.8
28.4

22.1
30.4
32.0
56.5
28.9
27.2
17.1
51.1
12.2
48.9
25.0
38.8
22.3
13.1
27.6

25.7
29.5
23.1
53.8
25.4
23.9
21.9
49.8
9.6
45.7
26.2
46.3
21.4
16.9
27.5

19.3
16.3
16.4
60.7
22.1
23.2
17.7
45.3
13.1
43.6
26.8
40.0
19.8
11.5
24.3

13.7
20.4
24.1
48.0
18.7
22.3
13.4
43.1
14.2
33.9
20.3
44.6
19.3
10.5
22.7

13.6
24.3
26.6
62.3
20.3
21.3
18.5
44.4
12.3
44.2
19.8
41.9
19.9
12.3
24.7

27.5
23.2
13.7
9.3
9.7
20.4
13.7
17.7

24.7
17.8
16.7
9.6
11.0
24.0
14.9
17.6

24.8
16.0
9.4
5.6
5.9
10.6
9.7
11.9

24.3
12.4
9.1
8.4
6.2
12.9
13.6
12.6

21.8
21.0
9.9
12.2
9.3
15.5
9.4
15.7

24.6
17.4
10.9
8.9
8.0
20.6
11.3
15.3

28.1
21.6
11.3
5.1
7.8
11.0
10.5
14.0

21.9
13.3
9.1
4.6
6.0
12.4
8.9
11.1

27.0
18.5
10.7
4.5
7.7
13.8
7.8
13.1

21.8
13.1
10.0
5.8
8.4
9.1
9.8
11.8

unit/state
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV

Subunit
Unit
CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Unit
WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit
a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 43-year period.
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

b

15

Table 4. Continued.
Management
unit/state

Year
1987

1988

1989

Subunit

22.8
14.9
13.0
23.8
23.4
24.8
20.1
9.6
24.8
30.0
17.0
9.4
24.4
16.7
13.5
11.6
6.3
17.9

20.3
13.1
11.7
24.8
22.8
25.0
24.7
13.6
22.0
29.2
18.6
10.7
35.3
20.5
14.5
7.7
6.6
18.3

22.3
12.2
13.9
25.0
25.9
30.1
19.8
10.1
26.0
27.0
21.2
7.2
27.9
20.1
15.8
18.2
7.6
19.5

19.1
17.2
12.4
25.3
25.3
25.5
27.1
15.7
24.4
31.7
20.0
9.2
26.8
18.1
15.4
18.2
8.1
20.1

Nonhunt
MI
N. Englandb
NJ
NY

15.5
7.9
15.1
7.2

12.7
7.5
13.8
9.7

15.3
7.0
13.4
7.8

10.5
16.5

10.4
16.8

14.7
23.3
24.1
42.8
18.5
22.1
19.3
37.0
14.8
40.1
22.4
38.9
21.2
15.2
24.9

25.9
15.1
7.1
3.8
6.9
12.6
11.7
11.6

EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV

Subunit
Unit
CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Unit
WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit

1986

1990

1995

1996

21.4
13.8
10.3
21.9
25.1
31.1
21.2
12.7
20.4
25.0
19.1
10.8
24.0
20.2
13.7
15.9
9.6
18.6

22.5
12.5
12.0
26.2
25.8
25.2
20.7
14.5
18.7
27.3
17.4
10.4
19.2
18.5
14.8
13.5
9.9
18.6

17.3
11.7
11.2
22.0
20.3
21.6
17.5
11.9
17.2
27.7
14.1
10.1
23.9
16.2
11.9
12.3
4.9
16.1

13.0
9.8
16.0
10.1

12.4
8.9
13.9
10.3

13.9
11.1
10.4
11.6

14.3
7.7
13.5
11.0

12.0
17.9

11.6
17.1

11.1
17.2

12.5
17.5

11.3
15.2

15.0
18.2
24.4
59.3
19.2
21.9
14.1
41.0
15.6
47.0
22.4
48.0
23.8
10.2
24.7

18.1
13.9
32.3
57.9
22.3
23.2
14.7
38.5
10.2
49.9
25.5
38.6
21.7
10.7
23.6

16.7
13.3
24.0
39.2
16.1
22.5
11.0
40.5
11.5
43.1
22.0
34.8
19.8
7.9
20.6

19.9
23.7
25.1
52.5
19.9
27.2
10.0
37.6
14.4
37.2
28.8
37.8
21.8
10.6
23.9

18.4
19.9
26.5
62.8
20.0
23.8
12.9
41.4
13.0
39.0
21.8
38.8
16.3
7.9
22.3

18.7
14.8
34.6
33.0
18.8
23.3
13.1
34.4
11.4
40.6
23.2
39.9
13.9
9.4
20.5

23.7
11.2
10.4
4.9
4.5
9.2
10.7
10.6

25.4
12.2
9.4
4.1
7.3
11.7
9.4
11.4

26.5
14.6
8.7
3.5
6.0
9.8
8.2
10.9

23.5
12.1
8.5
3.1
7.1
10.2
8.4
10.5

22.0
11.5
7.9
5.3
6.0
6.6
9.4
10.3

13.0
12.1
7.6
4.8
5.6
7.5
6.2
9.2

1991

1992

17.9
8.4
11.3
26.1
24.8
27.8
22.6
11.1
20.4
28.9
18.4
9.3
29.1
15.9
13.1
14.5
10.7
18.3

16.5
12.9
12.2
21.7
25.1
28.1
21.5
11.3
17.1
24.5
19.6
9.4
23.4
19.2
13.9
13.1
9.2
17.7

19.1
16.6
12.4
30.6
25.9
24.8
17.1
14.9
22.2
23.9
20.3
10.4
23.0
18.7
12.3
20.0
7.4
19.2

20.8
11.2
10.9
18.9
22.5
26.2
21.9
11.6
24.3
24.8
17.2
11.5
26.9
16.4
13.9
19.5
8.7
18.3

19.4
7.3
16.4
12.1

14.8
8.1
12.7
10.7

12.0
8.9
15.5
13.4

14.1
9.4
10.0
11.5

10.3
17.6

13.1
18.9

11.5
17.1

11.8
16.7

13.8
24.9
23.1
46.5
23.6
24.9
18.6
36.5
17.9
45.6
24.9
34.1
20.9
12.3
25.6

15.2
27.1
31.2
54.0
24.0
25.0
15.3
36.4
13.5
42.8
21.9
40.5
21.3
7.6
24.5

21.4
30.4
28.6
48.6
19.0
24.7
19.7
40.4
15.1
44.2
16.8
43.6
16.3
9.5
24.4

16.6
27.4
32.6
42.5
15.6
20.1
20.9
40.2
16.7
42.6
22.1
45.3
17.2
9.6
24.3

17.4
11.6
7.4
4.4
6.3
11.0
9.3
10.1

19.5
15.5
10.1
6.1
7.8
11.3
9.4
12.4

24.3
11.4
10.0
5.2
6.4
11.8
8.1
11.3

18.6
11.5
11.1
3.7
7.2
10.1
8.5
10.4

a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 43-year period.
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

b

16

1993

1994

Table 4. Continued.
Management

Year
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Subunit

16.3
9.8
10.3
18.9
20.8
21.4
16.3
12.0
16.6
30.6
14.0
9.4
22.9
17.2
15.1
12.7
10.3
16.2

18.2
13.5
12.7
18.1
20.8
21.6
21.0
13.5
17.1
30.0
16.4
10.9
25.8
16.2
14.1
10.2
8.6
17.0

17.5
9.6
13.2
18.4
19.2
22.5
21.6
14.2
20.7
30.7
17.1
9.2
24.5
16.6
14.4
19.8
10.0
18.0

18.7
9.2
12.8
16.2
25.0
24.5
22.7
17.0
18.0
36.5
18.2
11.6
23.8
18.6
15.6
17.4
9.5
18.8

17.7
9.2
9.1
22.5
21.0
21.7
19.0
18.2
17.1
40.5
14.9
10.5
23.8
14.5
12.0
16.9
6.5
17.1

20.7
7.8
10.0
12.3
22.3
19.5
22.0
14.4
14.0
34.3
17.0
10.4
22.1
15.6
14.1
14.3
9.3
16.3

15.9
12.5
10.6
19.6
24.7
19.4
20.6
16.8
15.9
33.1
16.5
9.4
23.1
15.2
10.7
19.5
5.6
16.9

18.1
12.9
10.2
18.5
20.3
21.5
17.7
13.7
12.2
28.6
15.3
9.7
22.4
14.1
12.1
20.6
10.3
16.4

18.1
11.9
11.2
20.2
23.3
24.7
17.2
16.5
13.7
27.2
15.0
9.7
20.8
13.8
13.4
21.0
9.3
17.1

18.5
11.5
11.8
18.8
25.8
19.3
18.9
11.7
15.3
32.6
15.3
11.7
19.2
13.7
12.7
18.0
11.0
16.9

17.8
14.5
9.9
16.4
25.9
23.1
23.9
18.5
17.3
30.8
17.6
11.2
23.7
12.5
14.2
20.1
12.4
18.0

19.0
10.1
10.8
21.6
17.6
20.3
20.5
13.1
14.7
34.0
14.2
10.8
21.0
14.3
13.5
15.6
12.2
16.6

Nonhunt
MI
N. Englandb
NJ
NY

13.9
7.7
7.1
11.8

16.0
8.4
11.7
10.3

16.1
9.7
9.7
13.8

17.9
10.3
12.3
15.7

15.6
8.5
6.5
13.2

15.3
11.4
10.5
13.0

16.7
9.0
8.8
13.6

13.4
8.9
8.9
13.1

16.9
7.7
8.0
15.3

16.9
8.7
9.7
16.0

16.7
9.4
8.8
17.1

24.2
8.1
11.9
13.2

11.1
15.3

11.8
16.0

13.3
17.1

14.9
18.1

12.3
16.2

13.6
15.9

13.1
16.2

11.9
15.5

12.8
16.2

13.6
16.2

14.1
17.2

14.7
16.3

18.6
20.2
28.1
59.1
19.9
23.0
12.0
31.6
15.5
35.9
22.3
34.0
20.8
9.1
23.1

19.5
21.2
31.0
55.0
18.6
20.7
14.3
40.2
13.1
32.7
32.3
36.3
21.2
10.0
24.0

17.6
23.0
26.8
68.0
16.7
19.1
13.2
36.6
15.4
44.2
29.2
38.2
20.8
7.6
23.8

17.2
23.1
24.0
51.1
17.2
19.8
15.1
36.7
17.5
43.5
24.9
41.0
18.1
10.9
23.8

16.8
14.8
23.4
31.3
13.9
16.8
10.8
31.1
18.2
34.7
25.8
36.6
18.6
6.7
19.9

12.8
18.1
24.7
44.5
19.1
18.8
13.1
29.3
12.3
29.1
24.6
38.7
18.4
9.0
20.9

17.5
17.0
32.2
52.6
10.0
20.7
12.7
39.7
17.9
43.7
32.1
37.7
19.0
7.1
22.2

14.4
22.8
30.6
44.1
10.9
17.7
12.8
32.6
14.9
27.8
34.1
36.8
15.5
7.5
20.4

14.7
16.6
28.8
55.8
13.0
17.7
11.6
34.0
16.2
47.4
32.1
33.6
19.0
6.0
21.3

15.5
26.5
35.3
59.2
11.8
22.6
12.1
31.9
16.4
37.3
25.6
39.3
15.0
6.6
21.4

16.3
19.1
34.6
50.2
16.8
18.6
11.7
30.7
19.9
30.3
29.2
36.7
13.9
6.6
20.7

19.0
14.7
30.6
43.4
11.5
15.1
11.8
29.9
15.7
40.0
19.8
37.9
12.9
7.6
18.9

19.8
10.6
10.9
4.4
5.7
9.3
7.7
10.4

22.8
11.1
6.3
3.8
4.3
5.3
5.3
8.6

24.8
11.4
8.8
4.7
4.4
8.5
7.2
10.2

25.5
10.6
8.4
3.7
7.4
12.9
8.2
11.1

19.2
9.8
7.0
3.3
5.0
5.7
7.8
8.6

19.1
12.6
11.0
3.6
6.4
8.1
8.1
10.6

16.9
11.6
7.9
3.5
6.7
6.5
8.6
9.6

20.1
12.2
10.0
3.5
5.9
7.6
7.0
10.2

23.3
8.8
8.0
2.7
5.2
5.0
8.7
8.6

23.9
8.2
10.7
6.6
5.6
8.5
8.2
10.8

16.6
8.4
12.1
2.3
8.4
5.1
7.3
8.8

17.9
8.3
7.9
2.6
6.7
5.1
6.0
8.2

unit/state
EASTERN UNIT
Hunt
AL
DE/MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV

Subunit
Unit
CENTRAL UNIT
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Unit
WESTERN UNIT
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit

1997

a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year.
Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 43-year period.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

17

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, and total bag from
Harvest Information Program surveys for the 2006-07 season.
Management Unit

Hunters

Days hunted

Birds bagged

EASTERN
AL
DE
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MD
MS
NC
OH
PA
RI
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Unit

56,300
2,400
15,900
38,600
40,500
13,200
20,700
22,700
9,300
23,000
40,400
14,300
31,600
100
36,200
37,800
20,400
11,200
1,100
435,700²

±17 % ¹
±19 %
±19 %
±14 %
±10 %
±18 %
±19 %
±19 %
±19 %
±15 %
±14 %
±19 %
±18 %
±108 %
±13 %
±17 %
±12 %
±26 %
±21 %

141,800
7,000
53,600
120,200
129,200
40,200
64,000
65,800
29,500
60,100
125,500
70,000
113,700
600
118,500
101,000
52,500
40,100
2,700
1,336,000

±17 %
±24 %
±21 %
±20 %
±15 %
±22 %
±28 %
±24 %
±25 %
±18 %
±16 %
±26 %
±21 %
±155 %
±15 %
±24 %
±12 %
±29 %
±24 %
±5 %

1,015,300
39,400
298,800
851,500
948,700
190,500
491,300
373,700
162,700
492,800
861,500
284,400
372,200
500
696,200
656,100
304,200
100,900
14,600
8,155,400

±20 %
±20 %
±24 %
±22 %
±13 %
±23 %
±24 %
±23 %
±28 %
±21 %
±19 %
±20 %
±23 %
±123 %
±13 %
±26 %
±14 %
±38 %
±24 %
±6 %

CENTRAL
AR
CO
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Unit

31,300
19,800
35,400
8,000
44,700
1,800
15,000
7,100
4,000
36,100
6,400
258,900
2,300
470,800²

±16 %
±11 %
±8 %
±33 %
±7 %
±36 %
±12 %
±20 %
±23 %
±9 %
±16 %
±10 %
±29 %

77,500
45,700
116,400
24,200
129,800
3,900
43,000
33,900
10,800
108,300
19,600
986,200
6,500
1,605,900

±18 %
±13 %
±11 %
±39 %
±12 %
±38 %
±12 %
±28 %
±24 %
±17 %
±17 %
±14 %
±36 %
±9 %

621,500
270,300
711,800
50,000
709,500
14,800
249,700
226,900
56,400
704,400
103,300
5,138,700
29,500
8,887,000

±20 %
±19 %
±12 %
±46 %
±15 %
±33 %
±12 %
±33 %
±25 %
±24 %
±18 %
±14 %
±37 %
±9 %

WESTERN
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit

37,300
63,300
10,100
4,100
7,700
11,900
10,500
144,900²

±9 %
±8 %
±16 %
±21 %
±24 %
±11 %
±12 %

130,100
215,900
26,900
9,400
21,600
28,900
26,000
458,800

±21 %
±18 %
±22 %
±25 %
±32 %
±16 %
±12 %
±10 %

750,700
1,020,400
98,100
38,900
84,300
77,600
132,900
2,202,900

±14 %
±12 %
±22 %
±27 %
±37 %
±20 %
±14 %
±8 %

U.S.
1,051,400²
3,400,700
±5 %
19,245,300
±5 %
This represents the 95% confidence interval expressed as percent of the point estimate.
2
This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one state.
1

18

Table 6. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, and total bag from
Harvest Information Program surveys for the 2007-08 season.
Management Unit

Hunters

Days hunted

Birds bagged

EASTERN
AL
DE
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MD
MS
NC
OH
PA
RI
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Unit

48,500
2,600
21,600
37,900
41,400
15,000
10,600
24,600
11,800
30,100
50,900
17,500
37,500
300
43,400
33,000
26,500
13,600
1,800
468,600²

±8 % ¹
±20 %
±18 %
±16 %
±10 %
±26 %
±38 %
±23 %
±20 %
±12 %
±16 %
±21 %
±17 %
±66 %
±12 %
±19 %
±11 %
±24 %
±16 %

127,500
8,100
66,000
145,600
137,200
46,000
34,100
63,700
36,600
82,000
144,800
60,600
159,000
1,100
139,400
85,500
78,600
61,600
4,300
1,481,700

±12 %
±20 %
±24 %
±26 %
±15 %
±23 %
±48 %
±25 %
±24 %
±18 %
±22 %
±33 %
±20 %
±71 %
±16 %
±24 %
±18 %
±29 %
±29 %
±6 %

829,300
50,900
372,600
1,107,500
912,300
258,400
278,100
412,900
212,900
612,000
854,000
307,700
509,100
2,000
865,900
682,700
418,100
202,000
20,200
8,908,400

±11 %
±22 %
±24 %
±32 %
±16 %
±17 %
±41 %
±29 %
±26 %
±21 %
±24 %
±35 %
±27 %
±55 %
±18 %
±32 %
±21 %
±38 %
±32 %
±7 %

CENTRAL
AR
CO
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Unit

37,000
21,800
36,300
7,700
42,600
1,700
17,000
8,600
3,200
24,600
6,000
275,200
4,000
485,700²

±16 %
±11 %
±8 %
±35 %
±8 %
±31 %
±12 %
±18 %
±27 %
±14 %
±20 %
±10 %
±20 %

115,900
57,800
119,100
27,600
124,400
4,000
55,300
40,100
9,900
73,100
18,200
1,149,600
8,800
1,803,900

±23 %
±14 %
±11 %
±49 %
±13 %
±34 %
±16 %
±33 %
±26 %
±19 %
±25 %
±13 %
±24 %
±9 %

791,700
315,000
725,100
67,400
603,300
20,900
319,600
198,700
48,700
480,000
104,000
5,463,300
42,600
9,180,200

±24 %
±14 %
±13 %
±52 %
±15 %
±43 %
±18 %
±25 %
±27 %
±24 %
±30 %
±14 %
±27 %
±9 %

WESTERN
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
Unit

39,500
63,800
22,800
2,800
6,800
14,200
7,400
157,300²

±8 %
±6 %
±21 %
±26 %
±49 %
±12 %
±18 %

125,500
201,100
68,500
9,600
27,600
36,400
18,500
487,300

±10 %
±10 %
±36 %
±42 %
±60 %
±24 %
±21 %
±8 %

792,800
1,162,100
192,300
38,500
96,900
90,000
88,900
2,461,500

±11 %
±11 %
±35 %
±43 %
±55 %
±20 %
±19 %
±7 %

U.S.
1,140,600²
3,772,900
±5 %
20,550,000
±5 %
This represents the 95% confidence interval expressed as percent of the point estimate.
2
This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one state.
1

19

20

Sep 1 - Dec 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Oct 15
Sep 1 - Dec 24
Sep 1 - Jan 20
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 15
Sep 1 - Jan 15
Sep 1 - Jan 15
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 15

Year(s)

1918
1919-22
1923-28
1929
1930
1931
1932-33
1934
1935
1936
1937b
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947-48c
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954d
1955
1956e
1957
1958-59

107
108
108
106
108
106
106
106
107
77
77
78
78
77
62
30
30
58
60
61
60
30
30
30
30
30
40
45
55
60
65

Eastern Management Unit
Maximum
season
length
Outside datesa
25
25
25
25
25
25
18
18
20
20
15
15
15
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
8
8
10
10

Daily bag
limit
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 31
Sep 1 - Dec 31
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Jan 15
Sep 1 - Jan 16
Sep 1 - Jan 16
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Oct 27
Sep 1 - Oct 27
Sep 1 - Dec 19
Sep 1 - Jan 20
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Jan 31
Sep 1 - Dec 3
Sep 1 - Nov 14
Sep 1 - Dec 3
Sep 1- Dec 24
Sep 1 - Nov 6
Sep 1 - Nov 9
Sep 1 - Nov 9
Sep 1 - Nov 28
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 15

106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
76
76
76
77
76
42
42
42
57
60
60
60
45
45
42
42
42
40
45
55
60
65

25
25
25
25
25
25
18
18
20
20
15
15
15
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Central Management Unit
Maximum
season
Daily bag
length
limit
Outside dates
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Dec 15
Sep 1 - Jan 05
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Nov 15
Sep 1 - Oct 12
Sep 1 - Oct 12
Sep 1 - Oct 12
Sep 1 - Oct 25
Sep 1 - Oct 30
Sep 1 - Oct 30
Sep 1 - Oct 30
Sep 1 - Oct 15
Sep 1 - Oct 15
Sep 1 - Oct 15
Sep 1 - Oct 12
Sep 1 - Oct 12
Sep 1 - Oct 31
Sep 1 - Dec 31
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 10
Sep 1 - Jan 15

106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
107
76
76
76
76
76
42
42
42
55
60
60
60
45
45
45
42
42
40
45
50
50
50

25
25
25
25
25
25
18
18
20
20
15
15
15
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Western Management Unit
Maximum
season
Daily bag
length
limit
Outside dates

Appendix A. History of federal framework dates, season length, and daily bag limits for hunting mourning doves in the United
States.

21

70 days - bag of 12 or
45 days - bag of 15
70 days - bag of 12 or
60 days - bag of 15
70 days - bag of 12 or
60 days - bag of 15

Daily bag
limit
12
12
10
12
12
18h
12
12
12

Central Management Unit
Maximum
season
Daily bag
length
limit
Outside dates
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
15
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
12
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
12
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
12
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
60
10
Sep 1 - Jan 25
60
10
Sep 1 - Jan 25 60 days - bag of 12 or
45 days - bag of 15
Sep 1 - Jan 25 70 days - bag of 12 or
45 days - bag of 15
Sep 1 - Jan 25 70 days - bag of 12 or
60 days - bag of 15
Sep 1 - Jan 25 70 days - bag of 12 or
60 days - bag of 15
Sep 1 - Jan 15 70 days - bag of 12 or
45 days - bag of 15
Sep 1 - Jan 15 70 days - bag of 12 or
60 days - bag of 15
Sep 1 - Jan 15 30-45 daysj - bag of 10

Western Management Unit
Maximum
season
Daily bag
length
limit
Outside dates
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
12
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50
10
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50 - 70 10 (AZ -12)
Sep 1 - Jan 15
50 - 70 10 (AZ -12)

In 1954-55, states permitting dove hunting were listed separately. Only bag and possession limits, and season dates were specified.

From 1956-1959, states permitting dove hunting were listed seperately. Framework opening and closing dates for seasons (but no
maximum days for season length) were specified for the first time along with bag and possession limits.
f
In 1960, states were grouped by management unit for the first time. Maximum season length was specified for the first time.
g
Half days.
h
More liberal limits allowed in conjunction with an Eastern Management Unit hunting regulations experiment.
I
Beginning in 2002, the limits included white-winged doves in all states in the Central Management Unit. Beginning in 2006, the limits
included white-winged doves in all states in the Eastern Management Unit.
j
Depending on state and season timing.

e

d

From 1918-47, seasons for doves and other "webless" species were selected independently and the "outside dates" were the earliest
opening and latest closing dates chosen. Dates were inclusive. There were different season lengths in various states with some choosing
many fewer days than others. Only bag and possession limits, and season dates were specified.
b
Beginning in 1937, the bag and possession limits included white-winged doves in selected states.
c
From 1948-53, states permitting dove hunting were listed by waterfowl flyway. Only bag and possession limits, and season dates were
specified.

a

Sep 1 - Jan 15

Sep 1 - Jan 15

1983-86

1987-07i

Sep 1 - Jan 15

1982

Year(s)
1960-61f
1962
1963
1964-67
1968
1969-70
1971-79
1980
1981

Eastern Management Unit
Maximum
season
length
Outside dates
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70g
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70
Sep 1 - Jan 15
70

Appendix A. Continued.

White-winged Doves
Traditionally, the Service has requested that Arizona and Texas provide information about white-winged
dove status in their respective states since those states conduct their own surveys with no federal
involvement. In past years, we have taken those reports and summarized them orally for discussions
pertaining to the regulations-setting process. In order to provide more comprehensive information this
year, we are including a formal report from Arizona. In the future, we expect to include a report from
Texas and possibly other areas as well. Texas is transitioning to a new survey methodology that includes
urban areas statewide and data have not been analyzed fully. Also, due to a loss of personnel, they were
unable to provide a formal report this year.

22

WHITE-WINGED DOVE STATUS IN ARIZONA, 2008
MICHAEL J. RABE, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000

Abstract: The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has monitored white-winged dove populations by
means of a call-count survey to provide an annual index to population size. It runs concurrently with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mourning Dove Call-count Survey. The index peaked at 52.3 mean number doves
heard per route in 1968, but fell precipitously in the late 1970s. The index has stabilized to around 25 doves per
route in the last few years; in 2008, the mean number of doves heard per route was 26.9. AGFD also monitors
harvest. Harvest during the 15-day season (September 1-15) peaked in the late 1960’s at ~740,000 birds (1968
AGFD estimate) and has since stabilized at around 100,000 birds; the 2006 Harvest Information Program (HIP)
estimate was 127,600 birds. In 2007, Arizona redesigned their dove harvest survey questionnaire to sample only
from hunters registered under HIP. In the future, AGFD and HIP harvest estimates should be more comparable
than they have been in the past.
ramosissima) had higher nest success. Brown (1977)
referred to these nesting concentrations as colonial
populations, as opposed to the non-colonial
populations in upland desert regions.

BACKGROUND
The white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica) is one of 14
species of Columbidae occurring in North and Middle
America north of Mexico (Aldrich 1993). Twelve
subspecies of white-winged doves have been described
for North, Central and South America, and the West
Indies (Saunders 1968). Of these, four are known to
reside and breed in the United States (Western, Z. a.
mearnsi; Eastern, Z. a. asiatica; Big Bend, Z. a.
grandis; and Mexican Highland, Z. a. monticola).
Only the Western and Eastern races represent
populations of significant size in the U.S.
In Arizona, only the Western subspecies is known to
occur (Fig. 1). Distribution of the white-winged dove
in Arizona is mostly restricted to lower desert areas
although there are infrequent reports of birds
summering as far north as Flagstaff, (2,100 m
elevation). The highest populations occur in the
lowland Sonoran desert areas. Large numbers of birds
can be found in the urban complexes of Phoenix and
Tucson. There are small populations in Casa Grande
and Tucson that apparently do not migrate.

Figure. 1. The principal breeding, wintering, and
resident area of migratory white-winged dove
populations in North America, from George et al.
(1994). Since George et al. (1994), white-winged
doves have expanded their range into north-central
New Mexico and southern Colorado. These new
range expansions most likely are Mexican highland
birds.
The Eastern Population has expanded
northward throughout most of the central United
States.

White-winged doves nest at relatively low densities
throughout the Sonoran, Mohave, and Chihuahua
deserts of southern and western Arizona, southern
California, and southern New Mexico. However, in
riparian woodlands near agricultural areas, populations
have historically been present in high densities. Butler
(1977) found that birds that nested in high densities in
mesquite (Prosopis sp) or salt cedar (Tamarix

23

breeding varies among years. The peak breeding times
for these desert doves occur from May-June to JulyAugust (Cunningham et al., 1977). Breeding in urban
areas also occurs in two peaks but may be somewhat
offset in timing compared to the desert birds. By early
September, most of the adult birds have already begun
the migration south. The young leave the state soon
after. In most years much of the harvest consists of
juvenile birds.

Cottam and Trefethen (1968) speculated that whitewinged doves may have been relatively uncommon in
Arizona prior to the advent of agriculture because of
the near absence of white-winged dove remains at
prehistoric ruins in Arizona and because early
European explorers failed to mention the species in
their journals.
Although many of the early
explorations in Arizona were conducted during cool
winter months after white-winged doves had
presumably migrated south, some expeditions
occurred during the nesting season; surely the dove’s
presence would have been documented had the
populations along the Gila River approached even
current densities.
Cottam and Trefethen (1968)
present arguments that the Imperial Valley population
represents a relatively recent range expansion,
probably since 1901, as the result of flooding of the
Salton Sink and subsequent development of
agriculture. In contrast, Brown (1989:239) maintains
that white-winged doves were common in Arizona
from the beginning of settlement.

IMPORTANCE
White-winged doves are important pollinators of
saguaro cactus in Arizona. Haughey (1986) noted that
white-winged doves visited saguaro blooms more
often than any other bird species. For desert-dwelling
doves, 60% or more of the diet is saguaro (Haughey
1986, Wolf and Martinez del Rio 2000). Haughey
(1986) suggested that the breeding cycle of these birds
is timed to coincide with the saguaro bloom. Fleming
et al. (1996) identified white-winged doves as the
major vertebrate pollinator of saguaro.

Haughey (1986) studied desert nesting white-winged
doves and their relationships to saguaro cactus
(Carnegiea gigantea) in the Saguaro National
Monument in southern Arizona, where they are totally
dependent on native food sources. Saguaros were used
extensively for both nectar and fruit in Arizona. The
similarity in the nesting range of white-winged doves
and that of the saguaro has been cited by several
authors as noted by Haughey (1986). Those areas
where white-wings occur and saguaro do not, i.e.,
southeastern California, southwestern New Mexico,
southeastern Arizona and southern Nevada, may
represent recent range extensions in response to
agriculture.

White-winged doves are also popular with nonhunting interests. People in many areas provide
feeding stations and water in backyards to attract them
for observation. Bird watchers and photographers also
avidly pursue white-winged doves for observation and
the satisfaction of adding them to their life-lists.

POPULATION MONITORING
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has
conducted a spring auditory survey, similar to the
Mourning Dove Call-count Survey, since 1962 (Table
1). Arizona collects data from 25-30 routes (the
number varies with logistic circumstances that may
prevent running some routes in some years).
Typically,
AGFD
runs
19-22
routes
in
Sonoran/Mohave desert habitat, 3 routes in chaparral
habitat, and 4-5 routes in Chihuahua desert habitat.
The index is calculated as a simple weighted mean of
the counts from the single year. For example, in 2007,
26 routes were run: 19 in Sonoran Desert, 3 in
chaparral, and 4 in Chihuahua desert habitat. The
Sonoran routes were weighted 0.731 (19/26), chaparral
0.115 (3/26) and the Chihuahua desert route mean was
weighed as 0.154 (4/26) of the total yearly mean. The
numbers of routes in each habitat are representative of
the total area of white-winged dove habitat in the state.

In recent times, white-winged dove densities have
been greatest in areas near agriculture because of the
abundance of food available there. Response of whitewinged doves to agricultural activities are well
documented and are likely partially responsible for
recent large changes in abundance in the southwestern
U.S. Rapid declines in white-winged dove populations
following either loss of food crops or nesting habitat
have been noted in Arizona (Cunningham et al. 1977,
Rea 1983) and Mexico (Tomlinson 1993).
White-winged doves typically migrate into Arizona
beginning in March. Breeding usually occurs in two
peaks in the summer, although the timing of their

24

winged doves examined at the two check stations
varies from year to year, and numbered in the
thousands in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
number of dove hunters and doves monitored has since
declined due to loss of hunters and changes in the bag
limit. In a typical year, 250-500 doves are sampled to
estimate the percent of young in the harvest. Since
1968 to the 2007 season, mean percent young was 63.3
(SE = 1.85, n = 40) (Table 1).

There is no attempt to monitor the population of urban
doves.
The index peaked at 52.3 mean doves heard per route
in 1968 and decreased significantly during the next
four years to less than 40 doves per route. Indices
remained fairly stable from 1985-2000. Call-counts
have declined since then (Table 1, Fig. 2). Most of the
recent white-winged dove decline in Arizona is likely
due to loss of large nesting colonies in the 1960’s and
1970’s due to habitat destruction, shifts in agricultural
trends, and possible over harvest. Clearing of the large
mesquite forests in river bottoms for flood control and
fuel wood removed the most productive nest areas.
Large breeding colonies in the past were attracted to
and maintained by grain fields that now grow
vegetables and cotton. The more dispersed, solitary
nesting white-winged populations have been less
affected by these changes and have remained relatively
stable in Arizona.

HARVEST
Hunting season dates and bag limits in Arizona have
changed significantly during the past 60 years (Table
2; see Cottam and Trefethen 1968:320 for Arizona
regulations prior to 1956), becoming much more
restrictive since 1970. Arizona has conducted random
mail surveys of general license holders to obtain
harvest statistics specific to white-winged doves
(Table 2, and Fig. 2). These surveys are sent to
general license holders at the end of the season. From
1982 to 2001, the mean number of white-winged
hunters per year sampled from this survey was 430.
Results of the surveys are then multiplied by the
estimated proportion of license holders that hunted
doves each year.

Two check stations are run on opening day (September
1) for the dove season in Arizona. One check station
is at Milligan Road, near Picacho, Arizona. The other
check station is at Robbin’s Butte, a state wildlife area
managed by Arizona Game and Fish located west of
Buckeye, Arizona. Both areas were chosen because
they were popular with dove hunters and both have
been monitored since 1968. The number of white-

In 2007, Arizona redefined the sampling frame for
white-winged doves. Instead of surveying a random

55

800000
D o v e s h e a rd p e r ro u te
H a rve s t

700000

45

600000

40

500000

35

400000

30

300000

25

200000

20

100000

15
1960

HARVEST

Mean Doves Heard per Route

50

0
1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Y E A R

Figure 2. Arizona white-winged dove mean doves heard per route, 1975-2008, and estimated harvest, 19752007. Harvest estimates from 2002-2007 are Harvest Information Program estimates; prior to 2002, estimates
are from Arizona Game and Fish Department’s small game questionnaire.

25

sample of state hunting license holders, the 2007
survey sampled hunters who held migratory bird
stamps only. This means that the Arizona and the
Harvest Information Program Survey (HIP) are now
using the same sampling frame, although the two
questionnaire programs make no effort to survey the
same hunters. In 2007, Arizona sampled 647 whitewinged dove hunters. This new Arizona questionnaire
is more likely to provide similar results as the HIP
survey. In the past, Arizona estimates differed from
HIP estimates, sometimes by a substantial amount.
(Table 3).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank AGFD Wildlife Managers who conducted
surveys and collected data used in this report. Also, I
am grateful to D.D. Dolton (USFWS) for helping to
edit and format this report while R. D. Rau, K. Parker,
and M.D. Koneff reviewed a draft and provided
helpful comments.

LITERATURE CITED
Aldrich, J.W. 1993. Classification and distribution.
Pages 47-54 in T.S. Baskett, T. S., Sayre, M.W.
Tomlinson, R.E. and R.E. Mirarchi, editors.
Ecology and management of the mourning dove.
Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington,
D.C., USA.
Brown, D.E. 1977. White-winged dove (Zenaida
asiatica). Pages 217-274 in G. C. Sanderson,
editor. Management of migratory shore and upland
game birds in North America. International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Brown, D. E. 1989. Arizona game birds. The
University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona,
USA.
Butler, W. I. 1977. A white-winged dove nesting study
in three riparian communities on the lower
Colorado River. M. S. Thesis, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Cottam C. and J.B. Trefethen. 1968. Whitewings:
The Life History, Status, and Management of the
White-winged Dove. D. van Nostrand Company
Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Cunningham, S.C., Engel-Wilson, R. W., Smith, P.
M., and W. B. Ballard. 1977. Food habitat and
nesting characteristics of sympatric mourning
doves in Buckeye-Arlington Valley, Arizona.
Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical
Report 26, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Fleming, T. E., M. D. Tuttle, and M. A. Horner. 1996.
Pollination biology and the relative importance of
nocturnal and diurnal pollinators in three species
of Sonoran desert columnar cacti. Southwestern
Naturalist 41: 257-269.
George, R. R. 1993. White-winged dove banding
analysis. Final Report. Federal Aid Project W128-R, Job 6.
Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Austin Texas, USA.

White-winged dove populations in high-density
nesting areas have been subjected to high hunting
pressure, particularly during the 1960s when the bag
limit in Arizona was 25 birds per day (Table 2).
White-winged doves appear more vulnerable to over
harvest than mourning doves (George 1993). A
combination of high dove harvest in Arizona during
the 1960s (Fig. 2), destruction of river-bottom nesting
habitat, and a shift in agricultural crops (substantial
shifts from cereal grains to cotton and other non-food
crops) (Cunningham et al. 1977) was associated with
declining harvests. In response, bag limits were
reduced from 25 per day to 10 per day in 1970.
Continued harvest declines prompted further reduction
in bag limits (6 per day) in 1980 where they remain
today. In 1988, season length was reduced from 3
weeks to 2 weeks and half day shooting was
implemented in 1989 (Table 1).
The white-winged dove harvest in Arizona peaked in
1968 (740,000) and dropped to a plateau of about
400,000 for 7 or 8 years in the mid-1970s (Table 1).
However, it has continued to decline. Although the
specific levels of harvest estimates are likely
inaccurate, the downward trend is real. The declining
harvest trend can be partially attributed to hunting
restrictions, but there clearly are far fewer whitewinged doves in Arizona now than there were in the
1950s and 1960s. Recent discrepancies between the
call-counts and harvest trends appears to be a function
of the disproportionate weight given by the call-count
survey to desert nesting populations that have not
experienced as much habitat loss, changes in food
availability, and high hunting pressure colonial nesting
doves have. Arizona white-winged dove harvest
appears to have stabilized since 1/2 day shooting hours
were implemented in 1989 (Tables 1 and 2).

26

United States. North American Fauna No. 65.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash., D.C., USA.
Tomlinson, R. E. 1993. White-winged dove nesting
areas in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Trip report. Office
of Migratory Bird Management, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
USA.
Wolf, B. O. and Carlos Martinez del Rio. 2000. Use
of saguaro fruit by white-winged doves: isotopic
evidence of a tight ecological association.
Oecologia 124:536-543.

George, R. R., R. E. Tomlinson, R. W. Engle-Wilson,
G. L. Waggerman, A. G. Spratt. 1994. Whitewinged dove. Pages 29-50 in T. C. Tacha and C.
E. Braun, editors. Migratory Shore and Upland
Game Bird Management in North America.
International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, Washington, D. C., USA.
Haughey, R.A. 1986. Diet of desert nesting western
white-winged doves. M.S. Thesis, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Rea, A. M. 1983. Once a river. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Saunders, G.B. 1968. Seven new white-winged doves
from Mexico, Central America, and southwestern

27

Table 1. Mean number of white-winged doves heard per route,
harvest from Arizona’s harvest questionnaire, and percent
young estimated in hunter bags from two check stations since
1962.
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

Mean doves
heard per route
33.1
40.2
35.9
43.2
48.4
51.5
52.3
41.1
33.9
31.3
35.4
36.5
31.0
29.0
30.9
32.7
35.6
30.8
34.9
32.9
29.3
32.9
31.1
37.7
34.1
29.9
26.7
30.7
28.0
30.6
30.8
32.6
26.9
31.2
31.1
31.0
35.0

Harvest
448,398
385,249
412,542
549,045
578,166
703,157
740,079
664,053
407,921
390,016
355,633
484,095
425,127
502,225
455,692
274,998
327,555
288,516
75,611
182,535
134,981
137,284
177,957
194,508
192,734
112,838
99,955
74,944
100,163
107,455
94,551
107,393
138,080
106,925
140,974
119,446
165,190

Percent young in
bag

57
69
58
54
79
67
75
58
66
74
65
43
51
65
61
83
82
41
69
78
78
73
71
46
63
51
44
51
63
56
41

28

Table 1. Continued.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Mean doves
heard per route
26.2
30.9
28.5
24.6
20.3
20.3
25.2
25.0
24.7
26.9

Harvest
135,226
123,259
102,941
186,532
147,711
86,355
139,984
236,126
84,142
NA

Percent young in
bag
68
70
45
61
55
69
82
60
61
NA

29

Table 2. White-winged dove season dates, lengths, and bag possession limits
since 1956 to present.
Year
1956
1957
1958
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980 3
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

Season Dates1

Season Length

Bag/possession Limits2

9/1-10/4 & 12/8-23
9/1-29 & 12/7-27
9/1-28 & 12/13-1/3
9/1-25 & 12/10-1/3
9/1-24 & 12/9-1/3
9/1-24 & 12/8-1/2
9/1-25 & 12/7-31
9/1-27 & 12/12-1/3
9/1 - 9/26
9/1 - 9/26
9/1 - 9/24
9/1/24 & 12/11-1/5
9/1-28 & 12/21-1/11
9/1-20 & 12/12-1/10
9/1-12
9/1-12
9/1-23
9/1-22
9/1-21
9/1-20
9/1-25
9/1-24
9/1-23
9/1-28
9/1-27
9/1-26
9/1-26
9/1-23
9/1-22
9/1-21
9/1-13
9/1-11
9/1/-10
9/1-10
9/1-10
9/1-10
9/1-12
9/1-11

34 & 16
29 & 21
27 & 23
25 &25
24 & 26
24 & 26
25 & 25
27 & 23
26
25
24
24 & 26
28 & 22
20 & 30
12
12
23
22
21
20
25
24
23
28
27
26
25
23
23
22
21
13
10
10
10
10
12
11

12/15
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
25/25
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
(5/10 North.6/12 South)
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12

30

Table 2. Continued.
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Season Dates1
9/1-10
9/1-10
9/1-14
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15
9/1-15

Season Length
10
10
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

1

Bag/possession Limits
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12
6/12

2

Federal white-winged dove frameworks have been set to coincide with those of mourning doves.
The frameworks have allowed a white-winged dove season only during the first segment of a split
mourning dove season from 1971 to present. From 1983–1986, all WMU states were permitted a
mourning dove framework option (including white-wings in CA, AZ, and NV) of 60 days (45 in
1982) and 15/30 aggregate bag/possession.
2
Between 1957 and 1979, mourning and white-winged doves had separate limits; since 1980,
aggregate bag limits permitting either 10 or 12 doves, no more than 5 or 6 could be white-wings, have
been in effect.
3
Arizona was divided into a special white-winged dove zone and the remainder of the state in 1979.
Hunting was permitted from noon to sunset during the first 3 days of the season in the special zone.
In 1980, the state was divided into North and South zones, that latter having shooting hours of sunrise
to noon. Since then season and bag limits have applied statewide.

31

Table 3. Harvest Information Program and Arizona Game
and Fish Department Harvest questionnaire data from 1999 to
2007. Note the difference between the 2006 estimates and
other years. In 2006, Arizona Game and Fish Department
redesigned the questionnaire. The 2006 questionnaire had a
17% return rate and results are unreliable.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Harvest Information Program estimates
Hunters
Harvest
Hunter Days
24,900
122,100
71,200
19,600
84,500
56,400
21,100
86,500
62,500
22,700
120,400
72,700
23,000
112,300
75,500
24,200
120,300
81,200
21,600
110,100
65,700
18,300
107,400
56,500
23,200
127,600
68,700
Arizona Harvest Questionnaire
26,689
143,129
28,652
128,695
21,180
102,941
35,747
185,654
26,598
147,711
20,962
86,355
29,057
139,984
30,017
236,126
13,852
84,142

89,709
87,868
77,462
107,525
86,120
69,104
98,477
86,255
46,203

32

BAND-TAILED PIGEON POPULATION STATUS, 2008
TODD A. SANDERS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 911 NE 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232

Abstract: This report summarizes information on the abundance and harvest of band-tailed pigeons collected annually
in the western United States and British Columbia. Annual counts of Interior band-tailed pigeons seen and heard per
route have not changed (P = 0.11) since implementation of the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) in 1966; however, they
decreased (P < 0.01) over the last 10 years by a mean of 12.0 ± 2.1% ( x ± SE). Current (2007) estimates of harvest
and hunter participation were 4,800 ± 1,739 birds and 12,800 ± 2,155 hunter days afield. Composition of harvest was
20.5% hatching year birds. For Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons, annual BBS counts of birds seen and heard per
route have decreased (P = 0.06) by a mean of 1.3 ± 0.7% since 1966, but they have not changed (P = 0.66) over the
last 10 years. According to the Pacific Coast Mineral Site Survey, annual counts of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons
seen per mineral site have increased (P = 0.01) since the survey was experimentally implemented in 2001 by a mean
of 7.1 ± 2.9%. Current (2007) estimates of harvest and hunter participation were 12,700 ± 2,073 birds and 13,500 ±
2,066 hunter days afield. Composition of harvest was 17.2% hatching year birds. Current estimates of the age-related
vulnerability to harvest for these populations are unknown.

Maintenance of band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas
fasciata) populations in a healthy, productive state is a
primary management goal. To this end, management of
these birds includes assessment of population status,
regulation of harvest, and habitat management. Surveys
are conducted annually in the western United States and
British Columbia by state, federal, and local biologists to
monitor band-tailed pigeon populations. The resulting
information on status and trends is used by wildlife
administrators in setting annual hunting regulations.

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE
Two subspecies of band-tailed pigeon occur north of
Mexico, each in a disjunct geographic distribution in
western North America: Pacific Coast and U.S. Interior
regions (Fig. 1). The coastal race (P. f. monilis) breeds
from extreme southeastern Alaska and western British
Columbia south into Washington, Oregon, California,
and extreme western Nevada, primarily west of the
Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges, into Baja California;
and winters from central California into northern Baja
California. Some in Mexico and southern California and
the few wintering north of southern California may
represent non-migratory population segments. The
interior race (P. f. fasciata) breeds from northern
Colorado and eastcentral Utah south through Arizona,
New Mexico, extreme western Texas into the Sierra
Madre Occidental of Mexico; and winters from northern
Mexico south to at least Michoacon. Some interchange
occurs between races (Schroeder and Braun 1993).

Band-tailed pigeons are cooperatively managed among
States and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is
detailed in population (Interior and Pacific Coast)
specific management plans (Pacific Flyway Study
Committee and Central Flyway Webless Migratory
Game Bird Technical Committee 2001, Pacific Flyway
Study Committee 1994).
Comprehensive material on the life history of the bandtailed pigeon may be found in Keppie and Braun (2000),
Braun (1994), Jarvis and Passmore (1992), and Neff
(1947).

Little is known about the demographics of band-tailed
pigeon populations because their habits and habitat make
it impractical to locate and observe or trap an adequate
sample of birds. However, in the early 1970s the total
population size was approximated at 2.9–7.1 million
birds in Pacific Coast region and <250,000 birds in the

The primary purpose of this report is to facilitate the
prompt distribution of timely information. Results are
preliminary and may change with the inclusion of
additional data.

33

stands. Nests are loosely constructed twig platforms.
Placement is highly variable ranging 6–120 feet above
ground, but is generally near the bole and in dense
foliage. Adults are presumably monogamous, and most
clutches have one egg, however, some nesting pairs may
complete up to three nesting cycles a year in mild
climates offering long nesting seasons. Both parents
incubate the egg and brood the squab. Nestlings are fed
curdlike crop milk formed from the inside lining of the
crop of both adults.

MONITORING METHODS
The Breeding Bird Survey
The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is an
all bird survey that also provides an annual index to
abundance of both Interior and Pacific Coast populations
of band-tailed pigeons (Sauer et al. 2007). The survey is
based on thousands of routes distributed along secondary
roads across the United States and Canada. Each route is
24.5 miles in length and consists of 50 stops or count
locations at 0.5 mile intervals. At each stop, a 3-minute
count is conducted whereby every bird seen within a
0.25 radius or heard is recorded. Surveys start one-half
hour before local sunrise and take about 5 hours to
complete. Data for birds heard and seen at stops are
combined for BBS analyses.

Figure 1. Distribution of band-tailed pigeons in North
America (after Braun et al. 1975).

Interior region (estimated from harvest reports and band
recovery rates, Braun 1994), which demonstrates the
likely sizes and disparity between the two populations.

Mineral Site Survey

ECOLOGY
Band-tailed pigeons primarily inhabit coniferous forests.
They are highly mobile; individuals potentially traveling
long distances (up to about 32 miles) daily to feed and
drink. Their diet includes buds, flowers, and fruits of
deciduous trees and shrubs, especially oak, madrone,
elder, cherry, cascara, huckleberry, and blackberry, but
varies seasonally and with location. Early migrants are
readily attracted to grain fields and fruit orchards
dispersed below the forested hills where they nest,
particularly before the onset of natural foods, which are
preferred. Adults, especially in summer and particularly
the Pacific Coast region, frequently visit natural springs
and water bodies high in mineral salts where they drink
and peck at the soil between long bouts of roosting in
nearby trees.

The Mineral Site Survey (MSS) was developed to
provide an annual index to abundance of Pacific Coast
band-tailed pigeons. This survey is based on work by
U.S. Geological Survey scientists who examined the
effectiveness of existing survey methods in detecting
long- and short-term population changes.
Past
monitoring efforts for the Pacific Coast population relied
on the BBS, which includes all birds, and other bandtailed pigeon specific surveys in Oregon (visual counts at
mineral sites in August) and Washington (audio counts
along transects in June). There was no specific
monitoring program in California or British Columbia.
Their results suggested that short-term (3- to 5-year)
trends were most reliably estimated using mineral site
surveys adopted from the Oregon protocol (Casazza et al
2005). Additional research illustrated impacts of rainfall
on mineral site surveys (Overton et al. 2005).

Band-tailed pigeons nest primarily in conifers,
occasionally in hardwoods and shrubs, within closedcanopy conifer or mixed hardwood and conifer forest

The MSS was developed and initiated on an

34

experimental basis in 2001 (Casazza et al. 2003), and
became operational in 2004. The survey is a coordinated
effort among State and Provincial wildlife agencies in
California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The MSS
involves a visual count of band-tailed pigeons at select
mineral sites (n = about 60, final site selection to be
determined) throughout the populations range (14 in
California, 28 in Oregon, 14 in Washington, and 4 in
British Columbia) during July from one-half hour before
sunrise to noon. These counts provide an index of
abundance. Unfortunately, a similar survey for Interior
band-tailed pigeons is not possible because use of
mineral sites is primarily limited to the Pacific Coast
region (Sanders and Jarvis 2000).

Parts Collection Survey
The Parts Collection Survey (PCS) is a secondary
component of the national harvest survey, currently HIP,
which began in 1961. PCS is the primary means by
which the composition (species, age, and sex) of the
annual harvest is assessed. The survey randomly selects
a sample of hunters registered with HIP. These persons
are sent envelopes in which to return one wing from each
bird harvested. All wings received annually are
examined at wing bees, one in each of the four flyways,
in which the wings are categorized by species, age, and
sex. Band-tailed pigeons were included in PCS in 1994.

MONITORING RESULTS

Harvest Information Program

The Breeding Bird Survey

In past years, a compilation of non-uniform, periodic
state harvest surveys have been used to obtain rough
estimates of the number of band-tailed pigeon hunters
and birds killed. Thus, the data were of limited use at a
population range level. Those data are no longer
collected by states (with the exception of possibly New
Mexico).

Results of BBS are presented in Tables 1–3. According
to the BBS survey, there is little evidence (P = 0.11) that
annual counts of Interior band-tailed pigeons seen and
heard per route have changed since survey
implementation in 1966 or over the last 5 years (P =
0.83). However, there is evidence that these counts
decreased (P < 0.01) over the last 10 years by a mean of
12.0 ± 2.1% ( x ± SE). For Pacific Coast band-tailed
pigeons, there is evidence that annual counts decreased
(P = 0.06) since 1966 by a mean of 1.3 ± 0.7%, but
increased (P = 0.02) over the last 5 years by a mean of
9.2 ± 3.8%. There is no evidence (P = 0.66) that annual
counts changed over the last 10 years. Caution should
be used in interpreting results, particularly for the
Interior region, because sample sizes (routes) and pigeon
counts per route are low, variances are high, and
coverage of habitat by BBS routes is poor.

Wildlife professionals have long recognized that reliable
harvest surveys are needed to estimate the magnitude of
harvests and monitor the impact of hunting. Since 1952,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
conducted a national harvest survey (Mail Questionnaire
Survey), but it was based on a sampling frame that
included waterfowl hunters and so harvest of nonwaterfowl species could not be estimated reliably. To
remedy this problem and challenges associated with
combining state surveys, the Service and state wildlife
agencies initiated the national, Migratory Bird Harvest
Information Program (HIP) in 1992. This Program was
designed to enable the Service to conduct nationwide
surveys that provide reliable annual estimates of the
harvest of band-tailed pigeons and other migratory game
bird species. Under HIP, states provide the Service with
the names and addresses of all licensed migratory bird
hunters each year, and the Service conducts surveys to
estimate the harvest and hunter effort in each state. All
states except Hawaii have participated in this Program
since 1998. However, estimates of band-tailed pigeon
harvest and hunter participation were not available until
1999.

Mineral Site Survey
Results of MSS are presented in Tables 4–6. According
to the MSS survey, there is evidence (P = 0.01) that
annual counts of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons per
mineral site increased since the survey was
experimentally implemented in 2001 by a mean of 7.1 ±
2.9%. There is no evidence that these counts changed
over the last 5 years (P = 0.74), or over the last 4 years
(P = 0.99) when the survey was formally implemented.
Caution should be used in interpreting P-values because
they are approximate based on Wald’s test. Evaluation
of confidence intervals and whether or not they include 0
may be more reliable. Confidence intervals are based on

35

bootstrap methods and may be asymmetrical.

1.90 ± 0.60 for the Interior population and 0.55 ± 0.24 to
1.54 ± 0.81 with a mean of 1.05 ± 0.10 for the Pacific
Coast population. Possibly young are nearly twice as
likely to be harvested compared to adults in the Interior
population, whereas young and adult birds alike have
nearly equal probability of harvest in the Pacific Coast
population. The difference in age-related vulnerability
between the populations may be related to the use of
mineral sites by the Pacific Coast population and
associated exposure to harvest. It is unknown whether
these mean age-related vulnerability estimates apply to
more recent years. But if they do, then the proportion of
young in the Interior population may be about half of
that estimated from the Parts Collection Survey, whereas
the proportion of young in the Pacific Coast population
may be as estimated from the Parts Collection Survey.

In comparison to results obtained from the BBS during
the same 5-year time period (2003–2007), both surveys
show evidence of stable or increasing counts of Pacific
Coast band-tailed pigeons. MSS indicated annual counts
of birds seen per mineral site did not change (P = 0.74,
mean = 1.3 ± 3.8%) while BBS indicated annual counts
of birds seen and heard per route increased (P = 0.02) by
a mean of 9.2 ± 3.8%. The reason for the discrepancy in
the magnitude of the trend estimate between these two
surveys is unknown.

Harvest Information Program
Results of HIP are presented in Tables 7–9 for Interior
band-tailed pigeons and Tables 10–12 for Pacific Coast
band-tailed pigeons. According to preliminary estimates
from 2007, total harvest and hunter participation for
Interior band-tailed pigeons were 4,800 ± 1,739 birds
and 12,800 ± 2,155 hunter days afield. Total harvest and
hunter participation for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons
were 12,700 ± 2,073 birds and 13,500 ± 2,066 hunter
days afield. The season was closed in Washington from
1991 through 2001.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Personnel of state wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cooperated in collecting
the data presented in this report. Special thanks to J.
Garcia (CA), B. Reishus (OR), D. Kraege (WA), and
Andrea Breault (BC) for their role in coordination of the
MSS and providing data. J. R. Sauer (USGS) analyzed
BBS data and provided statistical support. K. Richkus
(USFWS) provided the HIP and PCS data. M. Koneff
(USFWS), D. Dolton (USFWS), R. Rau (USFWS), and
K. Parker (USFWS) reviewed a draft of this report.

Parts Collection Survey
Results of PCS are presented in Tables 13 and 14. Data
from 2007 show that the composition of the Interior
band-tailed pigeon harvest was comprised of 20.5%
hatching year birds based on a total sample of 44 birds.
Composition of the Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeon
harvest was comprised of 17.2% hatching year birds
based on a total sample of 443 birds. The season was
closed in Washington from 1991 through 2001. Caution
should be used in interpreting state specific estimates
with small sample size. Also, numbers are an index to
recruitment and not adjusted for differential vulnerability
to harvest between age classes. Consequently, the annual
composition of harvest may not be representative of the
population.

LITERATURE CITED
Braun, C. E. 1994. Band-tailed Pigeon. Pages 60–74 in
T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun, editors. Migratory
shore and upland game bird management in North
America. International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C.
Braun, C. E., D. E. Brown, J. C. Pederson, and T. P.
Zapatka. 1975. Results of the Four Corners
cooperative band-tailed pigeon investigation. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication
126.
Casazza, M. L., C. T. Overton, J. L. Yee, D. L.
Orthmeyer, M. R. Miller, and R. A. Schmitz. 2003.
Development of a reliable population index for
Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons: final report. U.S.
Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research
Center, Dixon Field Station, Dixon, CA.
Unpublished report.

There is not adequate data to evaluate current differential
vulnerability rates between young and adult birds
(young:adult). There is however some data for male and
females combined during 1968–1976 for the Interior
population and during 1962–1977 for the Pacific Coast
population. Estimates are variable among years and
range from 0.20 ± 0.20 to 5.62 ± 5.92 with a mean of
Casazza, M. L., J. L. Yee, M. R. Miller, D. L.

36

Orthmeyer, D. R. Yparraguirre, R. L. Jarvis, and C. T.
Overton. 2005. Evaluation of current population
indices for band-tailed pigeons. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 33(2):606–615.
Jarvis, R. L., and M. F. Passmore. 1992. Ecology of
band-tailed pigeons in Oregon. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biological Report 6.
Keppie, D. M., and C. E. Braun. 2000. Band-tailed
pigeon (Columbia fasciata). In A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America, No. 530. The
Birds of North America, Inc., Philidelphia, PA.
Neff, J. A. 1947. Habits, food, and economic status of
the band-tailed pigeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, North American Fauna Number 58.
Overton, C. T., R. A. Schmitz, and M. L. Casazza.
2005. Post-precipitation bias in band-tailed pigeon
surveys conducted at mineral sites. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 33(3):1047–1054.
Pacific Flyway Study Committee and Central Flyway
Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical

Committee. 2001. Pacific and Central Flyways
management plan for the Four Corners population of
band-tailed pigeons. Pacific Flyway Council, c/o
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Pacific Flyway Study Committee. 1994. Pacific Flyway
management plan for the Pacific coast population of
band-tailed pigeons. Pacific Flyway Council, c/o
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Sanders, T. A., and R. L. Jarvis. 2000. Do band-tailed
pigeons seek a calcium supplement at mineral sites?
Condor 102:855–863.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North
American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and
Analysis 1966–2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1993. Movement
and philopatry of band-tailed pigeons captured in
Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:103–
112.

37

Table 1. Trend estimates (expressed as a mean annual percentage change in abundance over the time period) of
band-tailed pigeons seen and heard along routes from the Breeding Bird Survey, 1966–2007 (42-year trend). No
estimate for Utah was available.

Region
Interior
Arizona
Colorado
New Mexico
Pacific Coast
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington

x

SE

Trend
LCI

-3.2
-0.7
8.7
-9.0
-1.3
-3.4
-0.5
-0.7
-0.5

1.9
7.4
7.0
1.6
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.0
0.9

-7.0
-15.2
-5.0
-12.0
-2.7
-5.8
-3.1
-2.5
-2.3

x birds
UCI

P-value

0.6
13.8
22.4
-6.0
0.1
-1.1
2.1
1.2
1.3

0.11
0.92
0.24
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.72
0.51
0.59

per route
0.6
0.8
0.2
1.1
2.7
2.2
2.7
3.8
3.5

Routes
33
11
12
9
197
28
107
33
29

Table 2. Trend estimates (expressed as a mean annual percentage change in abundance over the time period) of
band-tailed pigeons seen and heard along routes from the Breeding Bird Survey, 1997–2007 (10-year trend). No
estimate for Utah was available.

Region
Interior
Arizona
Colorado
New Mexico
Pacific Coast
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington

x
-12.0
-8.3
-14.4
-12.6
1.6
7.0
9.3
-0.4
-10.2

SE
2.1
4.6
13.1
3.3
3.6
5.6
2.2
3.1
9.1

Trend
LCI

UCI

P-value

-16.0
-17.3
-40.1
-19.1
-5.5
-3.9
5.1
-6.4
-28.0

-7.9
0.7
11.3
-6.1
8.7
18.0
13.6
5.7
7.6

<0.01
0.14
0.33
0.01
0.66
0.23
0.00
0.91
0.27

38

x birds
per route

Routes

0.60
0.71
0.17
1.44
2.26
1.22
2.72
2.92
4.25

21
6
6
8
136
17
71
25
23

Table 3. Trend estimates (expressed as a mean annual percentage change in abundance over the
time period) of band-tailed pigeons seen and heard along routes from the Breeding Bird Survey, 2002–
2007 (5-year trend). No estimate for Utah and Colorado were available.

Region
Interior
Arizona
New Mexico
Pacific Coast
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington

x
-2.6
-29.3
24.7
9.2
18.4
7.9
7.6
9.3

SE
11.5
0.4
11.1
3.8
25.3
4.2
5.7
8.8

x birds

Trend
LCI

UCI

-25.1
-30.1
3.0
1.8
-31.2
-0.3
-3.6
-8.1

19.8
-28.4
46.4
16.5
67.9
16.2
18.8
26.6

P-value

per route

Routes

0.83
0.01
0.09
0.02
0.49
0.07
0.20
0.31

0.44
0.49
1.05
1.85
0.93
2.57
2.07
3.07

11
3
6
97
9
55
18
15

Table 4. Trend estimates of band-tailed pigeons seen at mineral sites from the Mineral Site Survey,
2001–2007 (7-year trend, all data available). Trends are expressed as a mean annual percentage
change in abundance over the time period, with a bootstrapped standard error and 95% lower (LCI)
and upper (UCI) confidence intervals. The P-values are approximate based on Wald’s test.

Region
Pacific Coast
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington

x
7.1
16.1
-1.3
11.6
2.3

SE
2.9
8.2
4.7
4.1
3.5

Trend
LCI

UCI

1.8
4.1
-12.4
5.9
-5.1

13.1
32.2
5.9
22.3
8.5

P-value
0.01
0.05
0.99
0.01
0.42

x birds
per site
175.5
125.3
63.8
241.0
186.2

Sites
60
4
14
28
14

Table 5. Trend estimates of band-tailed pigeons seen at mineral sites from the Mineral Site Survey,
2003–2007 (5-year trend). Trends are expressed as a mean annual percentage change in abundance
over the time period, with a bootstrapped standard error and 95% lower (LCI) and upper (UCI)
confidence intervals. The P-values are approximate based on Wald’s test.

Region
Pacific Coast
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington

x

SE

Trend
LCI

UCI

1.3
27.1
2.1
4.6
-3.7

3.8
18.7
5.3
5.0
4.3

-6.6
1.8
-8.4
-4.3
-12.0

8.2
67.0
12.5
14.9
3.8

39

P-value
0.74
0.15
0.70
0.35
0.99

x birds
per site
143.8
135.9
71.4
166.5
194.0

Sites
56
4
14
24
14

Table 6. Trend estimates of band-tailed pigeons seen at mineral sites from the Mineral Site Survey,
2004–2007 (4-year trend, since official implementation). Trends are expressed as a mean annual
percentage change in abundance over the time period, with a bootstrapped standard error and 95%
lower (LCI) and upper (UCI) confidence intervals. The P-values are approximate based on Wald’s test.

Region
Pacific Coast
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington

x

SE

-2.0
-6.6
2.7
4.6
-8.8

3.3
20.3
5.5
4.9
4.3

x birds

Trend
LCI
-44.2
-8.1
-4.1
-17.3
-8.4

UCI
4.3
32.8
13.4
15.2
-1.0

P-value
0.99
0.99
0.62
0.34
0.99

per site
145.4
156.8
79.1
166.5
190.9

Sites
56
4
14
24
14

Table 7. Harvest estimates (mean and 95% confidence interval ½ width expressed as percent of the
mean) for Interior band-tailed pigeon from the Harvest Information Program, 1999–2007. The most
recent year estimates are preliminary.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Arizona
x
CI
500
154
2,300
110
400
118
1,000
153
1,400
126
1,400
120
2,200
105
500
56
1,000
101

Colorado
x
CI
700
129
1,700
147
600
94
100
117
900
97
500
57
100
113
600
76
900
102

New Mexico
x
CI
0
0
400
122
600
126
600
158
400
65
700
115
300
106
100
109
2,800
113

Utah

x
100
300
300
400
100
200
100
400
200

Total
CI
69
192
169
149
132
136
193
95
195

x
1,300
4,600
2,000
2,100
2,900
2,800
2,700
1,600
4,800

CI
94
78
62
89
70
68
86
42
71

Table 8. Active hunter estimates (mean and 95% confidence interval ½ width expressed as percent of
the mean) for Interior band-tailed pigeon from the Harvest Information Program, 1999–2007. The most
recent year estimates are preliminary.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Arizona
x
CI
700
105
600
79
500
65
400
85
1,500
61
900
56
800
69
600
73
2,100
43

Colorado
x
CI
100
113
400
95
500
61
200
101
400
71
300
29
200
46
900
52
1,400
45

New Mexico
x
CI
100
121
300
67
500
53
300
81
400
67
100
103
100
109
100
172
800
47

a

Totala

Utah

x
<50
<50
200
200
300
50
100
200
300

CI
46
192
97
98
81
92
134
92
86

x

CI

900
1,300
1,800
1,000

4,600

Estimates in total may be biased high because the HIP sample frames are state-specific; therefore, hunters are counted multiple times
if they hunt in more than one state.

40

Table 9. Days afield estimates (mean and 95% confidence interval ½ width expressed as percent of
the mean) for Interior band-tailed pigeon from the Harvest Information Program, 1999–2007. The most
recent year estimates are preliminary.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Arizona
x
CI
2,000
97
1,600
83
1,000
71
1,000
110
3,700
77
2,300
80
1,600
74
1,100
70
5,000
57

Colorado
x
CI
300
122
2,800
107
800
54
400
105
2,100
89
700
35
300
51
1,700
63
3,800
56

New Mexico
x
CI
300
158
900
75
1,800
64
900
109
1,400
75
300
92
400
140
300
163
3,600
62

Utah

x
100
300
700
500
600
100
200
200
400

Total

x

CI
50
192
133
104
136
72
142
87
73

2,700
5,600
4,300
2,800
7,900
3,400
2,500
3,300
12,800

CI
76
60
39
58
47
55
54
43
33

Table 10. Harvest estimates (mean and 95% confidence interval ½ width expressed as percent of the
mean) for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeon from the Harvest Information Program, 1999–2007. The
season was closed in Washington from 1991 through 2001, and estimates are not available until 2002.
The most recent year estimates are preliminary.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

California
CI
19,300
101
12,200
65
8,300
49
4,200
39
8,000
50
14,300
45
11,100
58
12,500
40
9,700
39

x

Oregon

x
3,800
4,100
5,000
4,000
4,900
3,300
1,400
1,500
1,400

Washington
CI

x

CI
42
92
45
36
33
44
34
25
74

1,500
300
1,000
900
1,700

41

78
160
84
97
61

Total

x
23,100
16,300
13,200
8,200
14,400
17,900
13,500
14,900
12,700

CI
85
54
35
27
31
37
48
34
32

Table 11. Active hunter estimates (mean and 95% confidence interval ½ width expressed as percent
of the mean) for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeon from the Harvest Information Program, 1999–2007.
The season was closed in Washington from 1991 through 2001, and estimates are not available until
2002. The most recent year estimates are preliminary.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

California
x
CI
3,900
48
5,600
37
2,600
34
2,500
30
4,600
38
4,700
37
3,900
39
6,000
35
4,900
33

Oregon

x
1,500
1,700
1,700
1,300
1,800
1,500
500
400
700

Washington
x
CI

CI
47
46
31
25
24
36
14
13
113

Totala

x

CI

5,400
7,300
4,200
3,800
1,000
500
700
500
900

23
64
58
61
44

6,500

a

Estimates in total may be biased high because the HIP sample frames are state-specific; therefore, hunters are counted multiple times
if they hunt in more than one state.

Table 12. Days afield estimates (mean and 95% confidence interval ½ width expressed as percent of
the mean) for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeon from the Harvest Information Program, 1999–2007. The
season was closed in Washington from 1991 through 2001, and estimates are not available until 2002.
The most recent year estimates are preliminary.

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

California
CI
9,100
54
10,000
41
7,500
39
4,600
35
11,500
52
9,700
36
8,800
47
13,500
47
10,600
37

x

Oregon

x
3,500
3,800
4,700
3,400
5,100
3,400
1,300
1,200
1,200

Washington
CI

x

CI
33
61
39
28
29
35
21
20
69

1,600
800
1,000
700
1,800

42

58
83
62
68
60

Total

x
12,600
13,800
12,200
7,900
18,300
13,900
11,000
15,400
13,500

CI
40
34
28
23
34
27
38
41
30

Table 13. Age structure of Interior band-tailed pigeons determined from hunter shot birds during
September, 1994 to 2007. Values are percentage of hatch year birds (%), number of hatch year birds
(n), and number of both hatch year and after hatch year birds examined (N).

Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Arizona
%
n
N
24.6 16
65
60.0
6
10
0.0
0
1
33.3
7
21
48.4 15
31
13.0
3
23
41.7 30
72
52.9
9
17
53.9 55 102
0
34.8
8
23
15.4
2
13
11.5
6
52
20.5
9
44

Colorado
%
n
N
66.7
4
6
28.9 52 180
38.5
5
13
31.5 17
54
20.0
2
10
33.3
6
18
11.8
2
17
0
27.3
3
11
0
0
66.7
8
12
20.0
4
20

New Mexico
%
n
N
28.6 14
49
19.0 12
63
34.1 15
44
15.5 13
84
10.0
2
20
24.1
7
29
26.9 18
67
23.5
4
17
50.8 32
63
33.3
1
3
40.0
4
10
0.0
0
3
29.9 20
67

%

Utah
n

54.5

6

16.7

1

0.0
33.3
8.3

0
1
1

N
0
11
0
0
6
0
3
3
12
0
0
0
0

%
28.3
28.8
34.5
23.3
29.9
22.9
31.4
37.8
48.4
33.3
36.4
35.7
21.6
20.5

Total
n
34
76
20
37
20
16
50
14
91
1
12
10
30
4

N
120
264
58
159
67
70
159
37
188
3
33
28
139
44

Table 14. Age structure of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons determined from hunter shot birds during
September through December, 1994 to 2007. Values are percentage of hatch year birds (%), number
of hatch year birds (n), and number of both hatch year and after hatch year birds examined (N). The
season was closed in Washington from 1991 through 2001.

Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

%
44.6
29.6
27.9
31.1
32.0
33.2
32.1
22.9
31.5
34.4
25.2
18.8
18.1
24.8

California
n
N
226
507
74
250
68
244
65
209
81
253
119
358
69
215
33
144
52
165
72
209
33
131
25
133
47
260
34
137

%
22.9
20.1
15.1
17.7
18.4
20.1
17.5
17.0
14.1
21.2
19.6
13.3
19.0
14.3

Oregon
n
131
109
38
64
45
79
58
46
33
49
38
24
48
36

N
571
542
252
361
244
394
332
271
234
231
194
180
253
251

43

Washington
n
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.8
22
180
3.1
17
112
2.6
9
27
0
13.6
6
44
10.9
6
55
%

%
33.1
23.1
21.4
22.6
25.4
26.3
23.2
19.0
18.5
25.0
22.7
15.7
18.1
17.2

Total
n
N
357 1078
183
792
106
496
129
570
126
497
198
752
127
547
79
415
107
579
138
552
80
352
49
313
101
557
76
443

Division of Migratory Bird Management
PO Box 25486
Denver, CO 80225-0486
303-275-2388
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov/
For state transfer relay service
TTY/Voice: 711
June 2008