American Woodcock Population Status, 2008

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

American Woodcock
Population Status, 2008

In Memory Of:
Dr. George Andrew (Andy) Ammann, Sr. was born in Philadelphia and grew up in rural New Jersey
where he developed a love of nature, especially birds. He received B.A. and M.S. degrees in zoology from the
University of Iowa in 1933 and a Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in 1938, researching the life history of the
Yellow-headed Blackbird. After two years with the Fish and Wildlife Service and two with the U.S. Army, he was
hired as a game biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1944. His responsibilities included
all species of grouse (Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed grouse, Spruce Grouse, and Prairie Chicken) as well as woodcock
and snipe. Years ago, new biologists in Michigan were encouraged to own a dog. This was exactly what Andy
wanted to hear. Andy loved his dogs and was well known and respected for the breeding and training of bird dogs.
“Woodcock seemed to be a neglected species,” he said “I saw the potential of the resource and how it wasn’t being
looked at seriously.” He wanted to change that. Andy discovered that pointing dogs could be used to help gather
basic information about woodcock. He wrote, A Guide to Capturing and Banding American Woodcock Using
Pointing Dogs, published by the Ruffed Grouse Society, which describes the methods and techniques of capturing
and banding woodcock. Over 35,000 woodcock have been banded in Michigan using this technique. He was the
author of numerous research articles and books. Andy retired in 1974 from the Michigan DNR, and remained active
in game bird investigations and hunting, especially banding woodcock until about 2000. He made a friend out of
everyone, and never met a stranger. Andy died May 22, 2008 at age 98. He is missed by family and friends.
~ By John Urbain, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Retired ~

Andy doing what he loved, watching his dogs and banding woodcock!

Suggested report citation:
Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. 2008. American woodcock population status, 2008. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 15 pp.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports.html

The cover photo is used with permission of Chris Bennett

AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2008
THOMAS R. COOPER., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, BHW
Federal Building, 1 Federal Dr., Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
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: Singing-ground Survey data for 2008 indicated that the numbers of displaying American woodcock (Scolopax
minor) in the Central Region declined 9.2 % from 2007; however, the Eastern Region was unchanged. There was no
significant 10-year trend for woodcock heard in the Eastern Region during 1998-2008, while there was a significant
decline in the Central Region. This represents the fifth consecutive year that the 10-year trend estimate did not indicate
a significant decline in the Eastern Region, while it marks the first time since 2003 that the Central Region has had a
declining 10-year trend. There were long-term (1968-08) declines of -1.2 % per year in the Eastern Region and -1.1 %
per year in the Central Region. The 2007 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.6 immatures
per adult female) was 4.2 % greater than the 2006 index and 3.6 % lower than the long-term regional index. The 2007
recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 9.7 % lower than the
2006 index and was 7.6 % lower than the long-term regional index. The Harvest Information Program indicated that
U.S. woodcock hunters in the Eastern Region spent 144,979 days afield and harvested 75,882 woodcock during the
2007-08 season, while in the Central Region, hunters spent 358,480 days afield and harvested nearly 214,162
woodcock.
The American woodcock is a popular game bird
throughout eastern North America. The management
objective of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
is to increase populations of woodcock to levels
consistent with the demands of consumptive and nonconsumptive users (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1990). Reliable annual population estimates, harvest
estimates, and information on recruitment and
distribution are essential for comprehensive woodcock
management. Unfortunately, this information is
difficult and often impractical to obtain. Woodcock are
difficult to find and count because of their cryptic
coloration, small size, and preference for areas with
dense vegetation. The Singing-ground Survey (SGS)
was developed to provide indices to changes in
abundance.
The Wing-collection Survey (WCS)
provides annual indices of woodcock recruitment. The
Harvest Information Program (HIP) utilizes a sampling
frame of woodcock hunters to estimate harvest and
days spent afield.
This report summarizes the results of these surveys
and presents an assessment of the population status of
woodcock as of early June 2008. The report is intended
to assist managers in regulating the sport harvest of
woodcock and to draw attention to areas where
management actions are needed.
A history of
woodcock hunting regulations is summarized in
Appendix A.

METHODS
Woodcock Management Units
Woodcock are managed on the basis of two
regions or populations, Eastern and Central, as
recommended by Owen et al. (1977; Fig. 1). Coon et
al. (1977) reviewed the concept of management units
for woodcock and recommended the current
configuration over several alternatives.
This
configuration was biologically justified because
analysis of band recovery data indicated that there was
little crossover between the regions (Krohn et al. 1974,
Martin et al. 1969). Furthermore, the boundary
between the two regions conforms to the boundary
between the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. The
results of the Wing-collection and Singing-ground
surveys, as well as the Harvest Information Program,
are reported by state or province, and management
region.

Singing-ground Survey
The Singing-ground Survey was developed to exploit
the conspicuous courtship display of the male
woodcock. Early studies demonstrated that counts of
singing males provide indices to woodcock populations

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

CENTRAL

“constant zero” routes. Routes for which no woodcock
are heard for 2 consecutive years enter this constant
zero status and are not run for the next 5 years. If
woodcock are heard on a constant zero route when it is
next run, the route reverts to normal status and is run
again each year. Data from constant zero routes are
included in the analysis only for the years they were
actually surveyed. Sauer and Bortner (1991) reviewed
the implementation and analysis of the Singing-ground
Survey in more detail.
For the first time, trends were estimated using only
hierarchical log-linear modeling methods. Sauer et al.
(2008) describe a hierarchical log-linear model for
estimation of population change from SGS data. In
practice, the hierarchical modeling approach provides
trend and annual index values that are generally
comparable to the estimates provided by the previously
used route regression approach (see Link and Sauer
1994 for more information on the route regression
approach). The hierarchical model, however, has a
more rigorous and realistic theoretical basis than the
weightings used in the route regression approach, and
the indices and trends are directly comparable as the
same data are used to calculate each.
With the hierarchical model, the log of the
expected value of the counts is modeled as a linear
combination of strata-specific intercepts and trends, a
random effect for each unique combination of route
and observer, a year effect, a start-up effect on the
route for first year counts of new observers, and
overdispersion. Most of these factors are treated as
random effects, in that the regional estimates are
assumed to follow a distribution. The hierarchical
model is fit using Markov-chain Monte Carlo methods,
an iterative process in which sequences of parameter
estimates over time converge to a series which follows
the distribution of the parameters of interest. Once the
convergence occurs, means, medians, and credible (or
Bayesian confidence) intervals for the parameters can
be estimated from the replicates. Annual indices are
defined as exponentiated year and trend effects, and
trends are defined as ratios of the year effects at the
start and end of the interval of interest, taken to the
appropriate power to estimate a yearly change. Trend
estimates are expressed as percent change per year,
while indices are expressed as the number of singing
males per route. Annual indices were calculated for
the 2 regions and each state and province, while shortterm (2007-08), 10-year (1998-08) and long-term
(1968-08) trends were evaluated for each region as
well as for each state or province.
Credible Intervals (CI) are used to describe
uncertainty around the estimates when fitting
hierarchical models using Bayesian methods. If the CI
does not overlap 0 for a trend estimate, the trend is
called significant. We present the median and 95th

EASTERN

SURVEY
COVERAGE
BREEDING
RANGE

Fig. 1. Woodcock management regions, breeding range,
and Singing-ground Survey coverage.

and could be used to monitor annual changes (Mendall
and Aldous 1943, Goudy 1960, Duke 1966, and
Whitcomb 1974). Before 1968, counts were conducted
on non-randomly-located routes. Beginning in 1968,
routes were relocated along lightly-traveled secondary
roads in the center of randomly-chosen 10-minute
degree blocks within each state and province in the
central and northern portions of the woodcock’s
breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collected prior to 1968
are not included in this report.
Each route was 3.6 miles (5.4 km) long and
consisted of 10 listening points. The routes were
surveyed shortly after sunset by an observer who drove
to each of the 10 stops and recorded the number of
woodcock heard peenting (the vocalization by
displaying male woodcock on the ground). Acceptable
dates for conducting the survey were assigned by
latitude to coincide with peaks in courtship behavior of
local woodcock. In most states, the peak of courtship
activity (including local woodcock and woodcock still
migrating) occurred earlier in the spring and local
reproduction may have already been underway when
the survey was conducted. However, it was necessary
to conduct the survey during the designated survey
dates in order to minimize the counting of migrating
woodcock. Because adverse weather conditions may
affect courtship behavior and/or the ability of observers
to hear woodcock, surveys were only conducted when
wind, precipitation, and temperature conditions were
within prescribed limits.
The survey consists of about 1,500 routes. In order
to avoid expending unnecessary manpower and funds,
approximately one half of these routes are surveyed
each year. The remaining routes are carried as

2

Fig. 2. Short-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 2007-2008, as
determined by the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include 0 in the 95% credible
interval, while a non-significant (NS) trend does include 0.

Fig. 3. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2008, as
determined by the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include 0 in the 95% credible
interval, while a non-significant (NS) trend does include 0.

3

considered preliminary as refinements are still being
made in the sampling frame and estimation techniques.

percentile credible intervals of 10,000 estimates (i.e.,
we simulated 80,000 replicates and thinned by 8),
which were calculated after an initial 720,000 iterations
to allow the series' to converge. Refer to Sauer et al.
(2008) and Link and Sauer (2002) for a detailed
description of the statistical model and fitting process.
The reported sample sizes are the number of routes
on which trend estimates are based, which includes any
route with > 2 years of data. Each route was to be
surveyed during the peak time of singing activity. For
editing purposes, “acceptable” times were between 22
and 58 minutes after sunset (or, between 15 and 51
minutes after sunset on overcast evenings). Due to
observer error, some stops on some routes were
surveyed before or after the peak times of singing
activity. Earlier analysis revealed that routes with 8 or
fewer acceptable stops tended to be biased low.
Therefore, only route observations with at least 9
acceptable stops were included in the analysis. Routes
for which data were received after 28 May 2008 were
not included in this analysis but will be included in
future trend estimates.

Wing-collection Survey
The primary objective of the Wing-collection
Survey is to provide data on the reproductive success
of woodcock. The survey is administered as a
cooperative effort between woodcock hunters, the FWS
and state wildlife agencies. Participants in the 2007
survey included hunters who either: (1) participated in
past surveys; (2) were a subset of hunters that indicated
on the Harvest Information Program Survey that they
hunted woodcock, or (3) contacted the FWS to
volunteer to be included in the survey. Wing-collection
Survey participants were provided with prepaid
mailing envelopes and asked to submit one wing from
each woodcock they bagged. Hunters were asked to
record the date of the hunt and the state and county
where the bird was shot. Hunters were not asked to
submit envelopes for unsuccessful hunts. The age and
sex of the birds were determined by examining
plumage characteristics (Martin 1964, Sepik 1994)
during the annual woodcock wingbee conducted by
state, federal, and private biologists. Information from
wings from the 2007-08 hunting season received
through 1 March 2008 was included in analyses.
Wings received after 1 March were processed for
inclusion in the permanent database.
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the
harvest provides an index to recruitment of young into
the population. The 2007 recruitment index for each
state with ≥125 submitted wings was calculated as the
number of immatures per adult female. The regional
indices for 2007 were weighted by the relative
contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during
1963-2006.

Harvest Information Program
The Harvest Information Program (HIP) was
cooperatively developed by the FWS and state wildlife
agencies to provide reliable annual estimates of hunter
activity and harvest for all migratory game birds (Elden
et al. 2002). In the past, the annual FWS migratory
bird harvest survey (Mail Questionnaire Survey) was
based on a sampling frame that consisted solely of
hunters who purchased a federal duck stamp. However,
people that hunt only non-waterfowl species such as
woodcock and doves were not required to purchase a
duck stamp, and therefore were not included in that
sampling frame. The HIP sampling frame consists of
all migratory game bird hunters, thus providing more
reliable estimates of woodcock hunter numbers and
harvest than we have had in the past. Under this
program, state wildlife agencies collect the name,
address, and additional information from each
migratory bird hunter in their state, and send that
information to the FWS. The FWS then selects
random samples of those hunters and asks them to
voluntarily provide detailed information about their
hunting activity. For example, hunters selected for the
woodcock harvest survey are asked to complete a daily
diary about their woodcock hunting and harvest during
the current year’s hunting season. Their responses are
then used to develop nationwide woodcock harvest
estimates. HIP survey estimates of woodcock harvest
have been available for woodcock since 1999.
Although estimates from 1999-2002 have been
finalized, the estimates from 2003-07 should be

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Data for 733 routes were submitted by 28 May
2008 (Table 1). Short-term, 10-year, and long-term
trends were estimated using data from 638 routes in the
Eastern Region and 637 routes in the Central Region.
Short-term analysis indicated that the number of
woodcock heard displaying during the 2008 Singingground Survey in the Central Region declined 9.2%
from 2007 levels; however, the Eastern Region was
unchanged (Table 1, Fig. 2). Trends for individual
states and provinces are reported in Table 1.
The 10-year trend (1998-2008) remained
unchanged for the Eastern Region, while there was a

4

decline of -1.5% per year for the Central Region (Table
1). This marks the fifth straight year the Eastern trend
has remained stable, while the first time since 2003 that
the Central Region has shown a significant decline in
the 10-year trend.
There were significant long-term declines in the
breeding population throughout most states and
provinces in the Eastern and Central Regions (Table 1,
Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimates were -1.2 and
-1.1% per year for the Eastern and Central regions,
respectively.
In the Eastern Region, the 2008 breeding
population index using hierarchical methods was 2.5
singing-males per route, which was the same as the
2007 index (Fig. 4). In the Central Region, the 2008
breeding population index was 2.6 singing-males per
route, which was lower than the 2007 index of 2.8
singing-males per route (Fig. 4). For annual indices
(1968-2008) by state, province, or region see Table 2.

was 4.2% higher than the 2006 index (1.5), and 3.6 %
lower than the long-term (1963-06) regional average
(Table 4, Fig 5). In the Central Region, the 2007
recruitment index (1.5 immatures per adult female) was
9.7 % lower than the 2006 index (1.6) and was 7.6 %
lower than the long-term regional average (Table 4, Fig
5). Percent change for all comparisons was calculated
using un-rounded estimates.

Fig. 5. Weighted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.),
1963-2007. The dashed line is the 1963-2006 average.

Harvest Information Program
Estimates of woodcock harvest, number of active
hunters, days afield, and seasonal hunting success from
the 2007-08 HIP survey are provided in Table 8. In the
Eastern
Region,
woodcock
hunters
spent
approximately 144,979 days afield and harvested
75,882 birds during the 2007-08 hunting season (Table
5). Woodcock hunters in the Central Region spent
358,480 days afield and harvested 214,162 birds during
the 2007-08 hunting season (Table 5). Although HIP
provides statewide estimates of woodcock hunter
numbers, it is not possible to develop regional
estimates, due to the occurrence of some hunters being
registered for HIP in more than one state. Therefore,
regional estimates of seasonal hunting success rates
cannot be determined on a per hunter basis. Harvest
and days afield estimates for 2007 were below the
1999-2007 mean for both management regions (Fig. 6
and 7). All days afield and harvest estimates from
2003-2007 are preliminary.

Fig. 4. Annual indices of the number of woodcock
heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2008 as
estimated using hierarchical modeling.

Wing-collection Survey
A total of 1,562 woodcock hunters (Table 3) from
states with woodcock seasons sent in a total of 12,803
usable woodcock wings for the 2007 Wing-collection
Survey (Table 4).
The 2007 recruitment index in the U.S. portion of
the Eastern Region (1.6 immatures per adult female)

5

Acknowledgements
Personnel from the FWS, Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), many state
and provincial agencies and other individuals assisted
in collecting the Singing-ground Survey data and
processing wings at the woodcock wingbee. Special
thanks to J. Austin (VT FWD), R. Boyd (PA GC), K.
Connor (NB DNRE), B. Crose (OH DNR), R. Dibblee
(PEI WD), M. DiBona (DE DNREC), L. Fendrick (OH
DNR), V. Frawley (MI DNR), J. Garris (NJ FW), B.
Harvey (MD NR), J. Hayden (ON MNR), M. Huang
(CT DEP), J. Hughes (ON MNR), R. Marshalla (IL
DNR), R. Milton (NS DNR), M. Murphy (NY DEC),
E. Robinson (NH FGD), D. Scarpitti (MA DFW), A.
Stewart (MI DNR), B. Tefft (RI DFWS), B. Veverka
(IN DNR), S. Wilson (WV DNR), M. Gendron, A.
MacFarlane, J. B. Pollard, E. Reed, J. Rodrigue, and
M. Schuster (CWS), and C. Dwyer, S. Kelly, M. Mills,
and D. Schwab (FWS), for help in coordinating the
Singing-ground Survey. K. Magruder (FWS) provided
invaluable assistance with data management and entry.
Special appreciation is extended to R. Applegate (TN
WRA) and T. Edwards (USFWS) for coordinating
local logistics and hosting the 2008 wingbee held at
Henry Horton State Park in Tennessee. Individuals
that participated in the wingbee were: R. Stonebraker
(IN DNR), E. Harper (KY DFWR), F. Kimmel and M.
Olinde (LA DWF), E. Johnson (MN DNR), A. Stewart
and V. Frawley (MI DNR), T. Sutter (NY DEC), L.
Fendrick (OH DNR), R. Applegate (TN WRA), D.
McAuley (USGS), and T. Cooper, P. Denmon, T.
Edwards, C. Ferrell, J. Kelley, L. Landowski, R. Rau,
L. Stevenson, and A. Weik (USFWS). We especially
thank all woodcock hunters that sent in wings. The
Branch of Harvest Surveys within the Division of
Migratory Bird Management (USFWS) mailed Wingcollection Survey materials, organized wing
submissions, assisted with data management, and
provided Harvest Information Program estimates of
woodcock harvest (special thanks to K. Richkus, H.
Spriggs, and S. Williams, K. Wilkins).
R.
Maruthalingam (USFWS) assisted in maintaining the
website for the Singing-ground Survey. J. Sauer
(USGS) developed computer programs for calculating
trends and indices from Singing-ground Survey data
and conducted this year’s analyses. M. Koneff, G.
Zimmerman, J. Kelley, K. Richkus, K. Wilkins, and J.
Sauer reviewed a draft of parts or all of this report and
provided helpful comments. Portions of this report
were copied in whole or in part from previous
woodcock status reports.

Fig. 6. Estimated days afield hunting woodcock as
estimated by the HIP survey, 1999-2007. Dashed line
represents the 1999-2007 mean and error bars represent
the 95% CI of the point estimate.

Fig. 7. Estimated woodcock harvest as estimated by
the HIP survey, 1999-2007. Dashed line represents the
1999-2007 mean and error bars represent the 95% CI
of the point estimate.

6

Literature Cited
Coon, R. A., T. J. Dwyer, and J. W. Artmann. 1977.
Identification of harvest units for the American
woodcock. Proceedings of the American Woodcock
Symposium. 6:147-153.

Mendall, H. L., and C. M. Aldous. 1943. The ecology
and management of the American woodcock. Maine
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of
Maine, Orono.

Duke, G. E. 1966. Reliability of censuses of singing
male woodcock. Journal of Wildlife Management
30:697-707.

Owen, R. B., Jr., J. M. Anderson, J. W. Artmann, E. R.
Clark, T. G. Dilworth, L. E. Gregg, F. W. Martin, J.
D. Newsom, and S. R. Pursglove, Jr. 1977.
American woodcock (Philohela minor = Scolopax
minor of Edwards 1974), Pages 149-186 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.

Elden, R.C., W.V. Bevill, P.I. Padding, J.E. Frampton,
and D.L. Shroufe. 2002. Pages 7-16 in J.M. Ver
Steeg and R.C. Elden, compilers.
Harvest
Information
Program:
Evaluation
and
recommendations. International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, Migratory Shore and Upland
Game Bird Working Group, Ad Hoc Committee on
HIP, Washington, D. C.

Sauer, J. R., and J. B. Bortner. 1991. Population
trends from the American Woodcock Singing-ground
Survey, 1970-88. Journal of Wildlife Management
55:300-312.

Geissler, P. H. 1984. Estimation of animal population
trends and annual indices from a survey of call
counts or other indicators. Proceedings American
Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research
Methods, 472-477.

Sauer, J. R., and P. H. Geissler. 1990. Estimation of
annual indices from roadside surveys. Pages 58-62
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).

Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock
spring population indexes in southern Michigan. M.
S. Thesis. Michigan State University, E. Lansing,
MI.

Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, W. L. Kendall, J.R. Kelley,
and D. K. Niven. 2008. A hierarchial model for
estimating change in American woodcock
populations. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72
(1):204-214.

Krohn, W. B., F. W. Martin, and K. P. Burnham.
1974. Band recovery distribution and survival
estimates of Maine woodcock. 8pp. In Proceedings
of the Fifth American Woodcock Workshop, Athens,
GA.

Sepik, G. F. 1994. A woodcock in the hand. Ruffed
Grouse Society, Coraopolis, PA.

Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 2002. A hierarchial
model of population change with application to
Cerulan Warblers. Ecology 83:2832-2840.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer.
equations estimates of trends.
2:23-32.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American
woodcock management plan.
U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C.

1994. Estimating
Bird Populations

Whitcomb, D. A. 1974. Characteristics of an insular
woodcock population. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report 2720.

Martin, F. W. 1964. Woodcock age and sex
determination from wings. Journal of Wildlife
Management 28:287-293.
Martin, F. W., S. O. Williams III, J. D. Newsom, and
L. L. Glasgow. 1969. Analysis of records of
Louisiana-banded woodcock. Proceedings of the 3rd
Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association
of Game and Fish Commissioners 23:85-96.

7

Table 1. Short-term (2007-08), 10-year (1998-2008), and long-term (1968-2008) trends (% change per yeara) in the
number of American woodcock heard during the Singing-ground Survey as determined by using the hierarchical
log-linear modeling technique (Sauer et al. 2008).
State,
Province,
or Region

Number
of
routesb

2007-2008

1998-2008

4
1
48
7
10
51
15

% change
-1.4
-1.9
4.2
-3.9
4.6
-4.7
2.4

5
70
40
34

18
111
60
58

-9.4
-3.2
-1.7
4.7

-46.8
-16.0
-18.7
-14.3

47.4
10.9
17.9
39.4

-6.8
-1.6
-0.9
-1.4

-11.6
-3.1
-2.8
-3.8

-1.4
-0.1
1.1
1.2

-6.4
-1.6
-1.1
-1.3

-8.0
-2.0
-1.9
-2.1

-4.6
-1.1
-0.4
-0.5

9
7
0

12
56
2

-11.4
3.7
--

-46.4
-23.7
--

21.9
51.5
--

-2.6
0.1
--

-7.1
-3.3
--

0.9
3.7
--

-1.8
-0.2
-12.6

-3.3
-1.5
-17.7

-0.6
1.2
-6.4

12
35
16

22
48
45

-8.7
-1.7
-3.0

-39.1
-31.5
-23.3

34.4
53.4
23.8

-2.9
-4.5
-2.6

-6.9
-7.9
-4.8

0.9
0.2
0.3

-1.1
-5.1
-2.7

-2.3
-6.2
-3.6

0.2
-3.5
-1.6

364

638

0.7

-10.4

16.6

-0.7

-2.0

0.7

-1.2

-1.6

-0.8

IL
IN
MBf
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Central

21
14
12
114

25
40
23
148

0.6
0.4
-5.5
-5.7

-55.8
-41.5
-34.3
-17.1

128.3
81.8
32.1
7.3

-0.7
-5.4
-2.7
-2.8

-10.4
-11.6
-6.0
-4.3

9.1
-0.4
1.2
-1.4

1.2
-4.3
-3.3
-1.3

-1.6
-5.9
-5.6
-1.7

4.1
-2.8
-1.0
-0.9

70
31
35

102
57
139

-6.1
0.8
-13.1

-21.0
-20.7
-29.4

10.4
34.3
5.4

-0.3
-2.9
-1.2

-2.1
-5.9
-3.2

1.5
-0.6
1.0

-0.2
-2.3
-0.8

-0.8
-3.3
-1.4

0.5
-1.5
-0.2

72
369

103
637

-14.2
-9.2

-28.9
-17.2

2.9
-0.3

-0.1
-1.5

-2.1
-2.5

2.0
-0.5

-0.7
-1.1

-1.3
-1.4

-0.2
-0.9

Continent

733

1275

-4.4

-11.5

4.3

-1.1

-1.9

-0.2

-1.1

-1.4

-0.8

CT
DE
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEI
QUE
RIe
VT
VA
WV
Eastern

95% CId
-32.2
67.0
-86.1
576.5
-14.7
28.3
-24.8
24.3
-19.0
61.3
-22.8
17.8
-22.5
40.0

1968-2008

nc
9
2
67
21
20
69
18

% change
-3.6
-6.4
-0.1
-3.9
-1.9
-0.5
-1.4

95% CId
-7.4
2.7
-25.8
6.3
-2.2
2.3
-6.3
-0.4
-4.4
2.5
-2.8
1.9
-5.1
1.5

% change
-3.9
-1.2
-1.3
-4.0
-2.4
-1.3
-0.6

a

95% CId
-5.9
-1.7
-7.3
4.4
-1.9
-0.7
-5.4
-2.3
-3.3
-1.3
-2.2
-0.4
-1.7
0.6

Median of route trends estimated used hierarchical modeling. To estimate the total percent change over several
years, use: (100((% change/100)+1)y)-100, where y is the number of years. Note: extrapolating the estimated trend
statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 30 years) may exaggerate the total change over the period.

b

Total number of routes surveyed in 2008 for which data was received by 28 May.

c

Number of routes that could be used for trend analysis, routes with < 2 years of data were not used.

d

95% credible interval, if the interval overlaps zero, the trend is considered non-significant.

e

Short-term and 10-year trends not estimated.

f

Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1990.

8

9

0.55
1.87
16.00
6.65
3.92
1.92
7.90
3.47
3.89

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

3.94

3.32
0.83
5.63
1.97
3.48
6.46
3.63
5.69
4.01
3.85
2.14
5.09
6.21
3.84
3.69
1.70
1.60
3.98

Eastern Region
CT
DE
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VT
VA
WV
Region

Continent

1968

State, Province,
or Region

3.97

0.56
1.29
15.34
6.52
3.37
1.88
8.79
3.50
3.86

3.19
0.69
5.53
1.95
3.42
8.58
3.63
5.35
4.08
3.56
2.03
4.87
6.19
2.96
3.07
1.60
1.60
4.07

1969

4.02

0.47
1.23
14.70
6.56
3.34
1.93
9.29
4.00
4.00

3.25
0.86
6.11
1.81
3.49
8.27
3.86
5.38
3.68
3.21
2.18
4.81
6.17
2.66
3.85
1.60
1.48
4.05

1970

3.89

0.65
0.97
14.12
6.17
3.65
1.80
8.54
3.73
3.81

2.90
0.60
5.54
1.77
3.48
7.68
3.46
6.37
3.90
3.57
2.11
5.33
6.23
2.87
3.38
1.37
1.43
3.96

1971

3.89

0.62
1.41
13.64
6.21
3.41
1.78
9.34
3.73
3.94

3.02
0.76
5.46
1.68
3.11
7.42
3.90
4.84
3.76
3.37
2.04
4.40
6.10
2.30
3.89
1.27
1.49
3.84

1972

3.85

0.52
1.26
13.01
6.42
3.77
1.64
9.06
3.89
3.96

2.75
0.92
5.64
1.62
3.42
6.96
3.31
5.59
3.78
3.49
2.04
4.35
5.78
2.04
3.31
1.11
1.40
3.74

1973

4.02

0.61
1.12
12.60
7.11
4.28
1.76
9.08
3.95
4.17

2.73
0.83
5.85
1.55
3.22
7.50
3.75
5.13
3.79
3.57
1.82
4.53
6.18
1.66
3.78
1.32
1.35
3.87

1974

3.93

0.70
0.94
11.95
7.09
3.86
1.57
8.65
4.02
4.03

2.70
1.72
6.08
1.50
2.75
7.99
3.55
4.32
3.48
3.43
1.84
5.35
6.06
1.41
4.15
1.17
1.34
3.82

3.69

0.51
0.99
11.57
6.76
3.91
1.72
8.83
3.66
3.94

2.24
0.45
5.63
1.38
2.71
6.06
3.52
3.36
3.48
3.34
1.85
4.62
5.30
1.26
4.28
1.13
1.28
3.45

Year
1975
1976

3.73

0.58
0.92
11.12
6.31
4.00
1.67
9.07
4.07
3.97

2.24
0.65
4.72
1.35
2.71
7.33
3.55
3.31
3.43
3.31
1.82
4.40
5.60
1.09
4.50
1.07
1.21
3.50

1977

3.71

0.72
0.92
10.72
6.71
4.17
1.51
9.35
4.17
4.13

1.93
0.46
4.57
1.31
2.61
5.61
3.45
2.73
3.16
3.43
1.75
4.22
6.15
0.87
3.15
0.93
1.09
3.30

1978

3.78

0.52
1.13
10.24
6.61
3.82
1.43
9.61
4.32
4.10

1.98
0.53
5.02
1.25
2.72
5.98
3.38
3.14
3.34
3.16
1.82
4.30
6.48
0.81
3.35
0.90
1.17
3.46

1979

3.58

0.45
0.88
9.85
6.26
4.35
1.44
8.99
3.51
3.86

1.92
0.70
4.29
1.24
2.41
4.94
3.69
2.45
3.54
3.13
1.64
3.62
6.71
0.70
3.13
0.79
1.11
3.30

1980

3.40

0.65
1.02
9.47
5.58
3.89
1.53
8.11
2.98
3.53

1.87
0.69
4.93
1.18
2.56
5.59
3.58
2.26
3.37
2.98
1.63
3.43
6.04
0.59
2.69
0.85
1.16
3.27

1981

3.16

0.45
0.69
9.07
5.83
3.80
1.33
6.89
3.13
3.31

1.97
0.69
3.78
1.12
2.30
5.30
3.11
2.10
3.13
2.88
1.58
3.49
5.77
0.58
1.89
0.83
1.10
3.00

1982

3.20

1.07
0.76
8.78
4.96
3.49
1.39
6.83
3.02
3.21

1.78
1.13
4.22
1.04
2.14
5.31
3.21
2.21
3.28
3.02
1.61
3.89
6.35
0.48
2.75
0.75
1.06
3.18

1983

Table 2. Breeding population indices (singing-males per route) for American woodcock from the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2008. These indices are based
on the 1968-2008 trend that was estimated using hierarchical modeling techniques.

10

1984

1.65
0.55
4.24
1.02
2.28
4.85
3.14
2.15
2.97
2.88
1.63
3.89
5.82
0.42
2.63
0.92
1.01
3.02

0.62
0.72
8.38
5.57
3.38
1.37
6.88
3.29
3.27

3.14

State, Province,
or Region

Eastern Region
CT
DE
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VT
VA
WV
Region

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

Continent

Table 2. Continued

3.29

0.90
0.66
8.07
5.67
3.69
1.27
7.69
3.20
3.46

1.62
0.60
4.35
0.97
2.24
5.08
3.27
1.99
3.21
2.98
1.55
3.81
6.35
0.35
2.36
0.60
0.97
3.11

1985

3.36

0.80
0.78
7.73
5.89
3.85
1.24
7.90
3.64
3.61

1.64
0.67
4.63
0.91
2.15
4.22
4.02
1.79
2.99
3.03
1.60
4.02
6.58
0.30
2.58
0.63
0.96
3.10

1986

3.37

1.32
0.73
7.46
5.52
3.85
1.21
7.81
3.68
3.63

1.46
0.66
4.90
0.88
2.12
4.69
3.46
1.94
2.92
2.78
1.53
3.39
6.57
0.27
3.05
0.61
0.93
3.12

1987

3.34

0.58
0.64
7.13
5.81
4.20
1.27
7.83
3.46
3.56

1.59
0.66
4.50
0.84
2.07
5.43
3.43
1.53
3.05
2.93
1.50
3.80
6.27
0.23
3.33
0.54
0.90
3.11

1988

3.33

0.82
0.58
6.85
5.59
3.56
1.13
7.90
3.49
3.47

1.32
0.66
4.62
0.82
1.93
6.46
3.36
1.45
2.78
2.90
1.45
3.90
6.64
0.20
3.25
0.50
0.88
3.19

1989

3.20

0.55
0.76
6.60
5.62
4.17
1.32
7.46
3.32
3.46

1.29
0.93
3.66
0.79
1.90
5.46
3.18
1.37
3.00
2.75
1.53
3.49
6.00
0.18
2.97
0.51
0.88
2.94

1990

3.30

0.90
0.71
6.29
6.11
4.01
1.21
7.57
3.36
3.59

1.28
0.45
4.13
0.75
1.89
5.07
3.43
1.27
2.99
2.88
1.65
3.37
6.24
0.15
3.10
0.47
0.82
3.01

2.95

0.65
0.62
5.94
4.86
3.48
1.19
7.06
2.71
3.07

1.18
0.49
3.59
0.70
1.76
4.92
3.17
1.11
2.81
2.86
1.42
3.28
6.08
0.13
2.15
0.48
0.81
2.82

Year
1991
1992

3.02

0.80
0.53
6.28
4.94
3.53
1.12
6.82
2.84
3.08

1.08
0.63
3.84
0.69
1.70
5.92
3.16
0.99
2.75
2.88
1.46
3.14
6.30
0.12
2.48
0.45
0.78
2.96

1993

2.77

0.66
0.52
5.98
4.37
3.23
1.09
5.87
2.51
2.73

1.09
0.63
3.54
0.66
1.69
6.03
3.18
0.88
2.52
2.67
1.29
2.95
5.95
0.10
2.36
0.41
0.76
2.80

1994

2.87

0.58
0.49
6.08
4.80
3.36
1.06
6.45
2.60
2.90

1.12
0.63
3.63
0.63
1.66
5.63
3.52
0.96
2.58
2.76
1.42
3.07
6.06
0.09
2.37
0.36
0.78
2.83

1995

2.64

0.75
0.45
5.19
4.58
3.22
1.05
5.28
2.55
2.69

1.09
0.69
3.07
0.61
1.61
4.91
3.44
0.90
2.47
2.77
1.37
3.29
5.49
0.08
2.24
0.35
0.72
2.59

1996

2.68

0.65
0.43
3.80
4.44
2.91
0.94
6.00
2.43
2.67

0.98
0.68
3.29
0.58
1.64
5.57
3.40
0.74
2.47
2.63
1.32
3.20
5.70
0.07
2.38
0.37
0.72
2.69

1997

2.84

0.80
0.54
4.37
5.20
3.24
1.04
6.27
2.57
2.96

0.94
1.09
3.26
0.55
1.56
5.44
3.37
0.77
2.48
2.66
1.43
3.01
5.85
0.06
2.66
0.31
0.68
2.71

1998

2.84

0.84
0.46
4.35
4.39
3.32
0.91
5.80
2.88
2.80

0.97
0.54
3.55
0.53
1.76
6.32
3.58
0.77
2.49
2.84
1.34
2.82
6.07
0.05
3.04
0.32
0.68
2.86

1999

11

2000

0.87
0.79
3.67
0.52
1.58
5.80
3.15
0.69
2.38
2.79
1.13
2.98
5.82
0.04
3.15
0.30
0.66
2.73

0.73
0.41
4.46
4.59
3.71
0.93
7.02
2.74
3.02

2.88

State, Province,
or Region

Eastern Region
CT
DE
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VT
VA
WV
Region

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

Continent

Table 2. Continued

2.75

0.86
0.45
4.48
4.34
3.46
0.92
6.02
2.64
2.81

0.82
0.53
3.25
0.51
1.47
6.21
3.21
0.63
2.32
2.67
1.29
2.83
5.72
0.04
2.43
0.26
0.63
2.68

2001

2.67

0.74
0.35
3.57
4.43
2.98
0.88
6.37
2.30
2.72

0.76
0.60
3.03
0.47
1.46
5.90
3.20
0.55
2.28
2.57
1.26
2.43
5.74
0.04
2.18
0.25
0.60
2.61

2002

2.73

1.31
0.33
4.06
4.56
3.05
0.84
5.64
2.46
2.75

0.75
0.59
3.30
0.45
1.42
6.47
3.48
0.56
2.33
2.55
1.25
2.47
5.76
0.03
2.38
0.25
0.61
2.70

2003

2.83

1.46
0.40
3.62
4.59
3.13
1.02
6.10
2.49
2.90

0.72
0.58
3.34
0.43
1.50
6.43
3.50
0.46
2.41
2.66
1.26
2.53
5.96
0.02
2.43
0.24
0.57
2.75

Year
2004

2.86

0.69
0.40
4.15
4.48
3.43
0.93
6.34
2.79
2.86

0.72
0.59
3.44
0.41
1.33
6.99
3.45
0.44
2.28
2.62
1.28
2.70
6.35
0.02
2.63
0.22
0.55
2.84

2005

2.74

1.01
0.32
3.45
4.20
3.31
0.90
6.02
2.59
2.77

0.67
0.52
3.38
0.40
1.35
6.30
3.29
0.43
2.29
2.48
1.18
2.77
5.98
0.02
2.69
0.20
0.54
2.70

2006

2.66

0.73
0.30
3.55
4.13
3.35
0.76
6.43
2.97
2.82

0.66
0.51
3.11
0.38
1.23
5.43
2.82
0.42
2.18
2.48
1.17
2.65
5.62
0.02
2.16
0.20
0.54
2.50

2007

2.54

0.74
0.30
3.34
3.90
3.14
0.77
5.59
2.55
2.56

0.66
0.50
3.25
0.37
1.31
5.18
2.91
0.38
2.11
2.44
1.24
2.30
5.86
0.01
1.96
0.20
0.52
2.52

2008

Table 3. The number of U.S. hunters by state that submitted woodcock wings in the 2006 and 2007 Wing-collection
Surveys.

State of
residence

Number of Hunters that
Submitted woodcock wingsa

2006-07 Season
2007-08 Season
AL
1
2
AR
1
1
CT
37
31
DE
0
4
FL
1
0
GA
5
4
IL
22
5
IN
24
26
IA
11
6
KS
1
0
KY
2
3
LA
20
28
ME
79
145
MD
15
11
MA
94
74
MI
201
332
MN
113
140
MS
0
3
MO
20
20
NE
0
0
NH
54
77
NJ
29
21
NY
122
133
NC
5
5
ND
1
1
OH
30
17
OK
0
0
PA
79
84
RI
6
2
SC
11
8
TN
3
4
TX
0
0
VT
47
54
VA
20
20
WV
23
23
WI
178
278
Total
1,255
1,562
a
Number of hunters that submitted envelopes in current year. This number may include a small number of hunters that we
sent envelopes to in prior years and who subsequently submitted wings from birds shot in current survey year.

12

Table 4. Number of woodcock wings received from hunters, and indices of recruitment in the U.S. Recruitment
indices for individual states with ≥125 submitted wings were calculated as the ratio of immatures per adult female.
The regional indices for 2007 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2006.
State or

Wings received

Region of
Total
harvest
1963-06
2007
Eastern Region
CT
13,639
139
DE
445
9
FL
663
0
GA
3,078
25
ME
78,255
1,149
MD
4,062
68
MA
21,697
410
NH
30,914
668
NJ
25,586
154
NY
56,419
956
NC
3,276
52
PA
29,975
462
RI
2,349
27
SC
2,763
54
VT
23,505
515
VA
4,624
162
WV
5,703
130
Region
306,953
4,980
Central Region
AL
914
AR
526
IL
1,406
IN
7,634
IA
1,126
KS
45
KY
1,129
LA
30,736
MI
115,014
MN
33,080
MS
1,725
MO
3,462
NE
13
ND
2
OH
14,372
OK
172
TN
1,071
TX
990
WI
70,688
Region
284,105

3
3
17
148
31
1
13
389
3,282
1,134
9
125
0
1
109
0
25
1
2,532
7,823

Adult females
1963-06
2007

Immatures
1963-06
2007

Recruitment index
1963-06
2007

3,014
61
151
948
23,090
1,015
6,667
9,978
5,913
18,904
981
9,476
443
835
7,636
1,163
1,736
92,011

28
2
0
11
390
24
130
274
24
361
25
178
11
25
199
50
30
1,762

8,375
312
412
1,328
39,101
2,267
10,639
14,305
15,120
25,883
1,626
13,841
1,577
1,285
10,862
2,572
2,869
152,374

89
5
0
7
547
33
201
261
101
378
18
192
10
15
207
79
66
2,209

2.8
5.1
2.7
1.4
1.7
2.2
1.6
1.4
2.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
3.6
1.5
1.4
2.2
1.7
1.7

245
166
326
1,939
359
9
270
6,897
37,408
11,350
490
901
5
2
4,386
38
274
262
23,304
88,631

2
2
2
40
9
0
7
79
1,127
470
5
36
0
1
37
0
6
0
909
2,732

426
217
789
4,208
520
23
590
19,894
56,983
14,685
878
1,705
6
0
6,794
91
547
503
33,990
142,849

1
1
11
81
14
1
3
251
1,461
404
2
53
0
0
41
0
13
0
1,133
3,470

1.7
1.3
2.4
2.2
1.4

13

3.2

1.4
1.5
1.0
4.2
1.0
1.1

1.0
1.6
2.2
1.6

2.0

2.2
2.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.9

1.5

1.5
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.6

1.2
1.5

3.2
1.3
0.9

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter success from the 200708 Harvest Information Program.
Active woodcock
hunters

Harvest
Total
1,661
1,644
5,615
7,802
13,695
371
2,071
5,383
1,551
9,753
7,487
11,141
170
1,153
1,991
2,648
1,745
75,882

+/- 95% CIa

Total
790
422
2,920
1,560
5,164
993
949
2,329
831
4,984
2,421
10,599
68
695
680
521
414
nab

+/- 95% CI

76
134
165
196
43
54
38
28
57
31
67
59
193
89
28
117
87
28

AL
AR
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
OH
TN
TX
WI
Region

708
10,541
3,819
1,203
80
9
277
21,726
86,825
34,400
585
858
162
2,598
836
1,509
48,027
214,162

98
116
149
53
56
174
105
90
17
38
75
55
122
68
108
196
31
16

101
2,642
3,111
1,788
1,109
618
837
4,774
28,412
15,295
583
191
509
2,611
139
604
17,258
nab

57
121
73
71
89
137
164
62
13
29
163
30
168
73
95
129
23

U.S. Total

290,045

14

nab

Eastern

CT
DE
FL
GA
ME
MD
MA
NH
NJ
NY
NC
PA
RI
SC
VT
VA
WV
Region

45
75
107
196
36
121
27
25
58
24
90
31
135
141
28
98
53

Season harvest
per hunter

Days afield
Total
3,157
1,706
4,756
6,242
22,581
2,711
5,035
11,483
3,387
23,133
11,161
41,070
136
1,503
2,997
2,429
1,494
144,979

+/- 95% CI

Total
2.1
3.9
1.9
5.0
2.7
0.4
2.2
2.3
1.9
2.0
3.1
1.1
2.5
1.7
2.9
5.1
4.2
nab

+/- 95% CI

44
92
98
196
41
130
34
37
56
27
84
44
152
70
31
86
54
19

718
9,258
7,644
3,342
4,635
3,132
3,419
17,223
138,881
62,810
1,836
889
13,763
9,259
418
2,113
79,139
358,480

72
105
72
58
117
173
127
73
15
36
155
45
186
72
105
144
31
14

7.0
4.0
1.2
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.3
4.6
3.1
2.2
1.0
4.5
0.3
1.0
6.0
2.5
2.8
nab

113
167
166
89
105
221
195
110
21
48
179
62
208
100
144
235
39

503,459

12

nab

88
154
197
277
56
132
47
37
81
39
112
67
236
167
40
153
102

Central

a

95% Confidence Intervals are expressed as a % of the point estimate

b

Regional estimates of hunter numbers and hunter success cannot be obtained due to the occurrence of individual
hunters being registered in the Harvest Information Program in more than one state.

14

Appendix A. History of federal framework dates, season lengths, and daily bag limits for hunting American woodcock in
the U.S. portion of the Eastern and Central Regions, 1918-2007.
Eastern Region

Central Region

Year (s)
1918-26

Outside dates
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31

Season
length
60

Daily bag
limit
6

1927
1928-39
1940-47
1948-52
1953
1954
1955-57
1958-60
1961-62
1963-64
1965-66
1967-69
1970-71
1972-81
1982
1983-84
1985-96
1997-01
2002-07

Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 6
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 10
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 30
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
Sep. 1 - Feb. 15
Sep. 1 - Feb. 28
Oct. 5 - Feb. 28
Oct. 1 - Feb. 28
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
Oct. 6 - Jan. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31

60
30
15
30
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
65
65
65
65
65
45
30
30

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3

* Saturday nearest September 22.

15

Year (s)
1918-26

Outside dates
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31

Season
length
60

Daily bag
limit
6

1927
1928-39
1940-47
1948-52
1953
1954
1955-57
1958-60
1961-62
1963-64
1965-66
1967-69
1970-71
1972-90
1991-96
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 6
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 10
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 30
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
Sep. 1 - Feb. 15
Sep. 1 - Feb. 28
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 20 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 19 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 25 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 23 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 22 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 21 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 20 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 25 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 24 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 23 - Jan. 31
*
Sep. 22 - Jan. 31

60
30
15
30
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
65
65
65
65
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3