American Woodcock 2011 Population Status

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

American Woodcock
Population Status 2011

Suggested report citation:
Cooper, T.R., and K. Parker. 2011. American woodcock population status, 2011. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 17 pp.

All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html

The cover photo is by Brett Pikula.

AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2011
THOMAS R. COOPER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5600
American Blvd. West, Suite 950, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458
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
Abstract: Singing-ground Survey data for 2011 indicate that indices for singing American woodcock (Scolopax minor)
males in the Eastern and Central Management Regions are not significantly different from 2010. There was no
significant 10-year trend for woodcock heard in the Eastern or Central Management Regions during 2001-11. This
marks the eighth consecutive year that the 10-year trend estimate was not significant in the Eastern Region, while the
10-year trend in the Central Management Region returns to non-significance after being negative last year. Both
regions have a long-term (1968-11) declining trend of -1.0% per year. The 2010 recruitment index for the U.S. portion
of the Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 1.2% greater than the 2009 index and 10.2% below the
long-term regional index, while the recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.6 immatures per
adult female) was 30.2% higher than the 2009 index and was 2.1% lower than the long-term regional index. Estimates
from the Harvest Information Program indicated that U.S. woodcock hunters in the Eastern Region spent 146,700 days
afield and harvested 99,800 woodcock during the 2010-11 season, while in the Central Region, hunters spent 392,400
days afield and harvested 233,100 woodcock.
INTRODUCTION

METHODS

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 2011. 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. Historical woodcock
hunting regulations are summarized in Appendix A.

Woodcock Management Regions
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. Although state and province level results are
included in this report, analyses are designed to support
management decisions made at the management region
scale.
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
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

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.

2

the impplementation aand analysis off the Singing-gground
Surveyy in more detaiil.
Trrends were estiimated using a hierarchical m
model.
Sauer et al. (2008) describe a hierarchical log-linear
m SGS
model for estimationn of population change from
data. In practice, thhe hierarchicall modeling appproach
provid es trend andd annual indeex values thaat are
generaally comparablee to the estimaates provided by the
previouusly used rouute regression approach (seee Link
and Saauer 1994 forr more inform
mation on the route
regresssion approachh).
The hhierarchical m
model,
howevver, has a moree rigorous andd realistic theooretical
basis tthan the weighhtings used in the route regrression
approaach, and the indices and trends are ddirectly
compaarable as trendds are calculateed directly froom the
indicess.
W
With the hieraarchical modeel, the log oof the
expectted value of thhe counts is m
modeled as a linear
combinnation of strrata-specific inntercepts andd year
effectss, a random efffect for each unnique combinattion of
fect on the rouute for
route aand observer, a start-up effe
first yeear counts of nnew observers,, and overdispeersion.
In the hhierarchical m
model, the param
meters of interest are
treatedd as random
m and are aassumed to follow
distribuutions that are governed by addditional
parameeters. The hierarchical m
model is fit using
Bayesiian methods.
Markov-chhain Monte Carlo
methodds are used too iteratively prroduce sequennces of
parameeter estimates which can be used to descriibe the
distribuution of the pparameters off interest. Affter an
initial “burn-in” periiod, means, m
medians, and crredible
meters
(or Baayesian confideence) intervalss for the param
can bee estimated froom the replicattes. Annual iindices
are de fined as exponentiated yearr effects, and trends
are deffined as ratios of the year efffects at the staart and
end off the interval oof interest, takeen to the approopriate
power to estimate a yearly changee (Sauer et al. 2008).
Trend estimates are expressed as percent changge per
while indices are expressedd as the numbber of
year, w
singingg males per route.
Annnual indices were
calculaated for the 2 regions annd each statee and
provincce, while shorrt-term (2010--11), 10-year ((200111) annd long-term (1968-2011) treends were evaaluated
for eacch region as weell as for each sstate or province.
Crredible Intervvals (CI) are used to deescribe
uncertaainty aroundd the estimaates when fitting
hierarcchical models uusing Bayesiann methods. If the CI
does nnot overlap 0 for a trend esstimate, the trrend is
consid ered significannt. We presentt the median annd 95th
percenntile credible inntervals of 100,000 estimatess (i.e.,
we sim
mulated 10,0000 replicates and thinned bby 2),
which were calculateed after an inittial 20,000 iterrations
Refer to Sauerr et al.
to alloow the series too converge. R
2008) and Link annd Sauer (20002) for a deetailed
descripption of the staatistical modell and fitting prrocess.

Fig. 1. Woodcock managem
ment regions, brreeding range, an
nd
Singing-ground Survey coveerage.

degree blo
ocks within eaach state and province in th
he
central an
nd northern portions
p
of the
t
woodcock
k’s
breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collecteed prior to 196
68
are not included in this reeport.
nd
Each route was 3..6 miles (5.4 km) long an
ng points. The
T
routes weere
consisted of 10 listenin
s
after sun
nset by an observer who drov
ve
surveyed shortly
to each off the 10 stopss and recorded
d the number of
woodcock heard peen
nting (the vocalization
v
by
b
nd). Acceptab
ble
displaying male woodcocck on the groun
he survey weere assigned by
b
dates for conducting th
latitude to coincide with peaks in courttship behavior of
dcock. In mosst states, the peak of courtsh
hip
local wood
activity (in
ncluding local woodcock and
d woodcock sttill
migrating) occurred earrlier in the sp
pring and loccal
on may have already been underway when
reproductio
the survey was conducteed. However, it was necessaary
to conductt the survey during the deesignated survey
dates in orrder to minim
mize the countiing of migratin
ng
woodcock.. Because adv
verse weather conditions maay
affect courrtship behaviorr and/or the abiility of observeers
to hear wo
oodcock, surveeys were only conducted when
wind, preccipitation, and
d temperature conditions weere
within presscribed limits.
The su
urvey consists of about 1,500
0 routes. In ord
der
to avoid expending
e
unnecessary resou
urces and fund
ds,
approximaately one half of these routtes are surveyed
each yearr. The remaaining routes are carried as
“constant zero”
z
routes. Routes
R
for whiich no woodcock
are heard for 2 consecu
utive years entter this constaant
n
5 years. If
zero statuss and are not run for the next
woodcock are heard on a constant zero
o route when it is
t route reverrts to normal status
s
and is ru
un
next run, the
again each
h year. Data from constant zero routes are
a
included in
n the analysis only for the years they weere
actually su
urveyed. Sauerr and Bortner (1991) reviewed

3

Fig. 2. Short-term trends in
n the number of American
A
woodccock heard on thhe Singing-grounnd Survey, 20100-2011, as determ
mined
by the hieraarchical modeling
g method. A sig
gnificant trend (S
S) does not incluude zero in the 95% credible inteerval, while a noonsignificant (NS)
(
trend does include zero. Note, no state or province
p
had a siignificant short--term trend this yyear.

Fig. 3. Lon
ng-term trends in
n the number of American
A
woodccock heard on thhe Singing-grounnd Survey, 19688-2011, as determ
mined
by the hieraarchical modeling
g method. A sig
gnificant trend (S
S) does not incluude zero in the 95% credible inteerval, while a noonsignificant (NS)
(
trend does include zero. Note, no state or province
p
had a siignificant long-tterm increase.

4

The reported sample sizes are the number of routes
on which trend estimates are based, which includes any
route on which woodcock were ever encountered.
Each route was to be surveyed during the peak time of
daily 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 8 June 2011 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
2010 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 gender of birds were determined by
examining plumage characteristics (Martin 1964, Sepik
1994) during the annual woodcock wingbee conducted
by state, federal, and private biologists.
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the
harvest provides an index to recruitment of young into
the population. The 2010 recruitment index for each
state with ≥ 125 submitted wings was calculated as the
number of immatures per adult female. The regional
indices for 2010 were weighted by the relative
contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during
1963-2009.

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 2003-10 should be
considered preliminary as refinements are still being
made in the sampling frame and estimation techniques.
Canadian hunter and harvest estimates, which were
obtained through the Canadian National Harvest
Survey Program, are presented in Appendix B
(Gendron and Collins 2009).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Data for 792 routes were submitted by 8 June 2011
(Table 1). Due to adverse weather (cool temperatures
and precipitation) this spring, a 5-day survey extension
was granted for routes in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Vermont, Minnesota, and all Canadian
provinces except Ontario. Short-term, 10-year, and
long-term (1968-2011) trends were estimated using
data from 722 routes in the Eastern Region and 712
routes in the Central Region. Short-term analysis
indicated that the number of woodcock heard
displaying during the 2011 Singing-ground Survey was
not significantly different from last year for both
Management Regions (Table 1, Fig. 2). Trends for
individual states and provinces are reported in Table 1.
Consistency in route coverage over time is a critical
component of precision in estimation of population
change. Low precision of 2-year change estimates
reflect the low numbers of routes surveyed by the same
observer in both years. Ensuring that observers
participate for several years on the same route would
greatly enhance the quality of the results.

5

The 10-year tren
nds (2001-2011) were not
n
1
significant for either Management Reegion (Table 1).
on
This markss the eighth strraight year thee Eastern Regio
trend has remained
r
stablle. The 10-yeear trend for th
he
Central Region
R
returneed to non-sig
gnificance aftter
indicating a significant decline last yearr.
m (1968-2011)
There are significcant long-term
n the breeding
g population th
hroughout man
ny
declines in
states and provinces
p
in th
he Eastern and Central Regions
(Table 1, Fig. 3). Th
he long-term trend estimatees,
o the nearest percent, were th
he same (-1.0%
%/
rounded to
year) for both managemeent regions.
gion, the 2011 index was 2.7
2
In thee Eastern Reg
singing-maales per route,, which was the
t same as th
he
2010 index
x of 2.7 (Fig. 4).
4 In the Cen
ntral Region, th
he
2011 index
x was 2.8 singiing-males per route,
r
which was
w
slightly hiigher than thee 2010 index of 2.7 singin
ngmales per route (Fig. 4).. Annual indices (1968-2011)
by state, prrovince, or region are availab
ble in Table 2.

(Table 4, Fig 5). IIn the Centrall Region, the 2010
ment index (1..6 immatures pper adult female) was
recruitm
30.2% greater than thhe 2009 indexx (1.2) and wass 2.1%
lower than the longg-term regionaal average (Taable 4,
Fig 5)). Percent chhange for alll comparisonss was
calculaated using unroounded recruitm
ment indices.

Fig. 5. Weighted annual indices of recrruitment (U.S.), 19632010. T
The dashed line is the 1963-2009 average.

Harveest Information Program
Esstimates of wooodcock harvest, number of active
hunterss, days afield, and seasonal hhunting success from
the 20110-11 HIP survvey are provideed in Table 5. In the
Easternn Managementt Region, wooodcock hunterss spent
approxximately 146,7700 days afieeld (Figure 66) and
harvestted 99,800 birrds (Figure 7) during the 20010-11
huntingg season. Haarvest in 20100 was 13.6% ggreater
than thhe long-term (1999-2010) average and 57.7%
greaterr than last year in thee Eastern R
Region.
Woodccock hunters inn the Central R
Region spent 3992,400
days aafield (Figure 6) and harveested 233,100 birds
(Figuree 7) during thee 2010-11 huntting season. H
Harvest
in 201 0 was 2.2% ggreater than thhe long-term ((19992010) average and 333.1% greater than last year in the
Although HIP provides stattewide
Centraal Region. A
estimattes of woodccock hunter nnumbers, it iis not
possiblle to developp regional esttimates due tto the
occurreence of some hhunters being rregistered for H
HIP in
more tthan one state.. Therefore, rregional estimaates of
seasonnal hunting success rates cannnot be determinned on
a per hhunter basis. A
All HIP estimaates from 19999-2002
are finaal, while thosee from 2003-20010 are prelimiinary.

Fig. 4. An
nnual indices off the number off woodcock heaard
during the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2
2011 as estimatted
g. The dashed lines
l
represent the
t
using hierarrchical modeling
95th percenttile credible interrval.

Wing-colleection Survey
odcock hunterss (Table 3) fro
om
A totaal of 1,354 woo
states with
h woodcock seasons sent in a total of 14,02
27
usable woo
odcock wings for the 2010 Wing-collectio
on
Survey (Taable 4).
The 2010 recruitmen
nt index in thee U.S. portion of
n Region (1.5 immatures peer adult femalle)
the Eastern
was 1.2% greater than th
he 2009 index (1.5),
(
and 10.2
2%
n the long-term
m (1963-09) regional
r
averag
ge
lower than

6

Data from Canada show a long--term decline in
n
of succcessful woodcock hunters an
nd
both the number
harvest (A
Appendix B). The
T most recen
nt data availab
ble
from 2009
9 indicate thaat ≈2,400 succcessful hunteers
harvested ≈ 17,000 wood
dcock (Append
dix B).

Acknoowledgements
Personnnel from the FWS, Canadiian Wildlife S
Service
(CWS)), U. S. Geologgical Survey (U
USGS), Bird S
Studies
Canadaa (BSC), and m
many state andd provincial aggencies
and othher individualss assisted withh collecting Sinnginggroundd Survey dataa and processsing wings aat the
woodccock wingbee. Special thankss to K. Connorr (NB),
H), R. Dibbleee (PE),
B. Creenshaw (VT), B. Crose (OH
M. DiiBona (DE), T
T. Engelmeyerr (VA), V. Frrawley
MD), J. Hayden (ON),
(MI), JJ. Garris (NJ), B. Harvey (M
M. Huuang (CT), R. M
Marshalla (IL),, G. Parsons (N
NS), E.
Scarpitti (MA),, A. Stewart (M
MI), N.
Robinsson (NH), D. S
Strickeer (OH), T. Sutter (NY), B. Tefft (R
RI), B.
Veverkka (IN), M. W
Weaver (PA), S
S. Wilson (WV
V), D.
Badzinnski and E. V
Van Stam (BSC
C), M. Gendroon, A.
Hicks, J. Hughes, A
A. MacFarlanee, J. B. Pollaard, E.
Reed, J. Rodrigue, and M. Schusster (CWS), aand C.
FWS), for prooviding
Dwyerr, S. Kelly, annd M. Mills (F
state, pprovincial, andd regional Sinnging-ground S
Survey
coordinnation. Speciaal appreciationn is extended to Ian
Gregg and Lisa Willliams (PA) foor coordinatingg local
logisticcs and hostingg the 2011 wiingbee held att Bald
Eagle State Park, PA.
Otheer individualss that
particippated in the w
wingbee were: N
N. Thomas, J. Dunn
and J. Stempka (PA
A), K. Daly (U
U of MN), A. Weik
(Ruffedd Grouse Socciety), D. Sulliins (SFASU), Sutter
(NY), M. Olinde ((LA-retired), J Dugay (LA
A), E.
Stewart
Johnsoon, (MN-retireed), V. Frawlley and A. S
(MI), E
E. Harper (KY
Y), D. McAuleey and D. Kreementz
(USGS
S), B. Allen, W
W. Brininger, R
R. Brown, T. C
Cooper,
T. Edw
wards, L. Mills, C. Mitchell, K. Parker, R
R. Rau,
and K
K. Sturm (USF
FWS). We eespecially thaank all
woodccock hunters thhat sent in wiings. The Brannch of
Harvesst Surveys withhin the Divisioon of Migratorry Bird
Managgement (USFW
WS) mailed Winng-collection S
Survey
materiaals, organizedd wing submisssions, assistedd with
data m
management, aand provided H
Harvest Inform
mation
Prograam estimates ((special thankss to H. Spriggs, K.
Wilkinns, and B. R
Raftovich).
R. Maruthallingam
(USFW
WS) assisted in maintaininng the websitte and
develooping data m
management appplications foor the
K. M
Magruder (US
SFWS)
Singingg-ground Surrvey.
provid ed invaluable assistance witth data managgement
USFWS) develooped and mainntained
and enntry. R. Rau (U
website, provided guidancee and
the ddata entry w
Survey
historiccal perspectivee regarding Sinnging-ground S
implem
mentation, andd provided assistance withh data
screeniing and maanagement.
J. Sauer (U
USGS)
develooped computerr programs foor calculating trends
Singing-groundd Survey datta and
and inndices from S
conduccted this yeear’s analysess.
R. Rauu, G.
Zimmeerman, J. Kelleey, K. Richkuss, K. Wilkins, and J.
Sauer rreviewed a draaft of parts or all of this repoort and
provid ed helpful com
mments.

Fig. 6. Harv
vest Information
n Program Surveey estimates of
days spent afield
a
by U.S. wo
oodcock hunterss, 1999-2010. Th
he
dashed line represents the 1999-2010 averag
ge and error barss
he point estimate.
represent the 95% C.I. of th

urvey estimates of
Fig. 7. Haarvest Informatiion Program Su
U.S. wood
dcock harvest, 1999-2010.
The dashed liine
represents th
he 1999-2010 av
verage and errorr bars represent the
t
95% C.I. off the point estimaate.

7

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.

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.

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.

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

Gendron, M.H., and B.T. Collins. 2009. National
Harvest Survey web site Version 1.2. Migratory Bird
Populations Division, National Wildlife Research
Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.
.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

1994. Estimating
Bird Populations

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.

8

Table 1. Short-term (2010-11), 10-year (2001-2011), and long-term (1968-2011) 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

CT
DEe
ME
MD
MA
NB
NH
NJ
NY
NS
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VT
VA
WV
Eastern
IL
IN
MBf
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Central
Continent

Number
of
routesb

2010-2011

2001-2011

% change

11
3
70
25
21
69
18
19
115
63
77
13
60
3
23
75
57
722

7.47
----4.93
-5.50
-1.98
1.58
-9.22
14.97
-5.48
-4.79
-10.30
2.57
3.19
-10.00
-3.35
2.18
0.92
-0.24

-24.61
--------12.98
-32.10
-28.08
-15.93
-34.91
-25.41
-19.01
-22.54
-32.33
-24.85
-21.35
-62.82
-32.45
-29.06
-17.85
-9.77

108.99
-------28.00
17.52
32.25
22.95
15.50
130.83
9.64
12.77
10.19
51.38
45.84
122.85
36.81
65.21
35.89
11.95

-0.97 -5.14
------ ------0.40 -1.57
-4.12 -8.07
-1.60 -4.46
0.28 -1.96
-0.09 -3.21
-5.81 -10.44
0.13 -1.53
-0.79 -2.81
-1.08 -3.48
-0.73 -4.43
-0.15 -2.87
-9.97 -18.10
-0.51 -4.16
-4.33 -7.74
-2.12 -4.18
-0.18 -1.22

7.57
-----2.69
-1.78
1.84
2.57
2.72
-0.34
2.18
1.11
1.56
3.71
3.17
-2.10
3.25
0.59
0.90
1.02

-2.15
0.40
-1.01
-3.48
-1.68
-0.67
0.14
-5.56
-1.01
-0.85
-1.19
-0.75
-0.45
-9.61
-0.42
-5.15
-2.45
-0.88

-4.18
-4.75
-1.52
-5.12
-2.75
-1.52
-0.79
-6.87
-1.45
-1.46
-1.98
-2.45
-1.53
-12.89
-1.41
-6.33
-3.16
-1.24

0.22
6.99
-0.48
-2.30
-0.78
0.06
1.05
-4.05
-0.51
-0.34
-0.43
0.75
0.43
-7.20
0.67
-4.14
-1.61
-0.55

67
415

45
60
28
149
120
72
149
117
712

-15.27
-16.21
17.82
12.10
-1.99
-1.11
6.55
8.52
4.87

-60.01
-54.49
-12.63
-1.71
-16.29
-23.03
-9.99
-8.91
-3.18

72.89
36.23
73.60
28.31
14.33
27.13
26.17
29.90
13.36

-1.62 -9.49
-5.26 -11.01
1.23 -1.94
0.39 -1.16
0.82 -0.88
-0.83 -3.28
-1.19 -3.12
0.67 -1.22
-0.14 -1.05

6.11
-0.54
5.28
1.99
2.61
2.43
0.77
2.77
0.79

1.27
-4.40
-0.18
-0.77
0.35
-1.57
-1.08
-0.38
-0.76

-1.10
-5.76
-1.42
-1.18
-0.25
-2.29
-1.55
-0.90
-0.99

3.76
-3.21
1.29
-0.35
1.00
-0.86
-0.59
0.16
-0.53

792

1434

2.28

-3.99

9.68

0.59

-0.82

-1.04

-0.61

n
5

0
50
9
9
49
15
11
71
36
33
9
21
2
22
12
23
377
32
13
11
103
73
29
87

d

1968-2011

c

95% CI

% change

-0.16

d

95% CI

-0.84

a

% change

95% CId

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 2011 for which data was received by 8 June, 2011.

c

Number of routes with at least one year of non-zero data between 1968 and 2011.

d

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

e

Short-term and 10-year trends not estimated since all routes were in CZ status during 2011.

f

Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1992.

9

10

6.61
3.32
9.13
3.46
3.88

6.73

8.21
3.43
3.91

3.96

Continent

3.99

1.28

2.42
2.92
1.61
1.62
4.10

2.67
0.59
5.52
1.83
3.17
8.50
3.33
4.76
4.21
3.63
2.03
4.42

1969

1.83

1.61
4.00

5.06
4.09
3.93
2.14

0.70
5.60
1.83

1968

IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

Central Region

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

State, Province,
or Region
Eastern Region

4.05

6.66
3.30
1.85
9.58
3.96
4.02

0.41
1.22

2.82
0.76
6.10
1.71
3.23
8.24
3.56
4.85
3.71
3.27
2.19
4.45
6.55
2.22
3.60
1.61
1.49
4.07

1970

3.91

6.25
3.66
1.73
8.77
3.70
3.83

0.60
0.97

2.49
0.51
5.53
1.68
3.26
7.62
3.19
5.89
4.03
3.66
2.12
4.94
6.53
2.51
3.21
1.37
1.44
3.99

1971

3.91

6.31
3.40
1.72
9.54
3.69
3.96

0.55
1.39

2.67
0.66
5.47
1.61
2.94
7.42
3.65
4.46
3.87
3.45
2.06
4.13
6.38
2.03
3.69
1.27
1.51
3.87

1972

3.89

6.55
3.83
1.57
9.27
3.86
3.99

0.46
1.25

2.45
0.85
5.66
1.56
3.24
6.91
3.10
5.25
3.93
3.60
2.07
4.12
6.08
1.86
3.16
1.10
1.42
3.78

1973

4.07

7.26
4.41
1.71
9.32
3.94
4.22

0.55
1.11

2.49
0.77
5.89
1.50
3.06
7.45
3.55
4.85
3.98
3.68
1.84
4.31
6.42
1.56
3.61
1.33
1.37
3.92

1974

3.97

7.27
3.94
1.52
8.87
4.00
4.08

0.64
0.94

2.51
1.74
6.10
1.46
2.68
7.98
3.37
4.08
3.58
3.54
1.87
5.06
6.24
1.36
3.93
1.18
1.37
3.86

1975

3.74

6.95
4.00
1.70
9.01
3.65
4.00

0.46
0.99

2.01
0.40
5.67
1.34
2.66
6.07
3.35
3.18
3.60
3.46
1.88
4.45
5.53
1.24
4.04
1.13
1.30
3.50

1976

Year

3.78

6.48
4.11
1.65
9.21
4.04
4.02

0.55
0.91

2.06
0.61
4.80
1.33
2.69
7.32
3.41
3.15
3.58
3.44
1.85
4.27
5.80
1.11
4.19
1.08
1.24
3.55

1977

3.76

6.93
4.30
1.49
9.48
4.15
4.18

0.67
0.91

1.73
0.42
4.63
1.29
2.61
5.62
3.34
2.60
3.24
3.58
1.79
4.11
6.30
0.92
3.08
0.93
1.11
3.34

1978

3.84

6.84
3.93
1.41
9.71
4.31
4.15

0.48
1.10

1.85
0.50
5.10
1.24
2.73
6.02
3.27
3.03
3.52
3.29
1.87
4.21
6.59
0.88
3.26
0.90
1.20
3.52

1979

3.64

6.49
4.52
1.43
9.01
3.51
3.91

0.40
0.87

1.83
0.70
4.38
1.24
2.45
4.98
3.60
2.37
3.80
3.28
1.69
3.62
6.77
0.79
3.08
0.78
1.14
3.37

1980

3.46

5.79
4.02
1.53
8.13
3.00
3.57

0.60
0.99

1.82
0.69
5.05
1.19
2.60
5.70
3.50
2.19
3.61
3.12
1.67
3.48
6.14
0.69
2.70
0.84
1.21
3.35

1981

3.22

6.06
3.91
1.34
6.90
3.16
3.36

0.41
0.69

2.03
0.70
3.90
1.13
2.37
5.33
3.07
2.05
3.31
3.03
1.63
3.57
5.85
0.71
1.98
0.83
1.13
3.07

1982

3.25

5.16
3.58
1.40
6.82
3.05
3.25

1.00
0.75

1.82
1.21
4.33
1.05
2.24
5.36
3.17
2.19
3.53
3.18
1.66
3.94
6.36
0.59
2.73
0.75
1.10
3.25

1983

Table 2. Breeding population indices (singing-males per route) for American woodcock from the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2011. These indices are based
on 1968-2011 trends that were estimated using hierarchical modeling techniques. Blanks indicate no data were available for that year.

11

5.91
3.81
1.30
7.67
3.24
3.52

5.79
3.46
1.41
6.86
3.32
3.32

3.20

Continent

3.35

0.84
0.65

1.71
0.63
4.48
0.99
2.36
5.11
3.27
2.01
3.47
3.15
1.62
3.90
6.30
0.47
2.44
0.58
1.01
3.18

1985

0.57
0.70

1.69
0.56
4.36
1.03
2.38
4.87
3.13
2.15
3.13
3.05
1.69
3.96
5.86
0.54
2.66
0.93
1.05
3.08

1984

IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

Central Region

Region

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

State,
Province, or
Region
Eastern Region

Table 2. Continued

3.42

6.15
3.98
1.27
7.87
3.69
3.67

0.75
0.76

1.78
0.72
4.78
0.94
2.29
4.27
4.04
1.81
3.21
3.21
1.67
4.10
6.48
0.42
2.65
0.62
1.00
3.17

1986

3.43

5.77
3.96
1.25
7.76
3.74
3.67

1.23
0.72

1.58
0.73
5.05
0.91
2.27
4.72
3.53
1.99
3.14
2.95
1.61
3.56
6.50
0.39
3.10
0.60
0.97
3.19

1987

3.41

6.10
4.36
1.33
7.78
3.51
3.63

0.54
0.62

1.82
0.75
4.63
0.88
2.24
5.45
3.50
1.58
3.34
3.11
1.57
3.95
6.19
0.35
3.35
0.54
0.93
3.18

1988

3.39

5.87
3.66
1.17
7.83
3.56
3.53

0.77
0.57

1.46
0.74
4.79
0.86
2.12
6.49
3.47
1.51
2.98
3.08
1.53
4.08
6.48
0.31
3.26
0.49
0.92
3.25

1989

3.28

5.90
4.33
1.41
7.36
3.38
3.53

0.52
0.73

1.47
1.17
3.81
0.83
2.09
5.50
3.32
1.43
3.32
2.92
1.63
3.68
5.89
0.28
3.04
0.51
0.92
3.03

1990

3.38

6.44
4.15
1.29
7.46
3.42
3.65

0.84
0.68

1.49
0.52
4.29
0.79
2.09
5.11
3.60
1.36
3.34
3.07
1.77
3.63
6.10
0.25
3.15
0.46
0.86
3.10

1991

Year

3.01

0.62
0.60
5.42
5.10
3.57
1.27
6.96
2.76
3.12

1.39
0.58
3.75
0.74
1.97
4.93
3.36
1.19
3.10
3.06
1.51
3.60
5.94
0.23
2.28
0.47
0.85
2.90

1992

3.08

0.75
0.52
5.59
5.18
3.60
1.19
6.66
2.90
3.12

1.26
0.77
4.00
0.74
1.92
5.93
3.38
1.07
3.03
3.08
1.57
3.46
6.12
0.21
2.60
0.44
0.82
3.03

1993

2.82

0.63
0.50
5.75
4.60
3.28
1.18
5.70
2.57
2.76

1.33
0.77
3.71
0.71
1.92
6.04
3.43
0.95
2.71
2.86
1.38
3.29
5.80
0.18
2.47
0.40
0.80
2.87

1994

2.92

0.54
0.47
5.92
5.07
3.43
1.15
6.26
2.66
2.94

1.40
0.77
3.79
0.68
1.91
5.65
3.81
1.06
2.81
2.96
1.53
3.45
5.87
0.17
2.47
0.36
0.83
2.91

1995

2.70

0.71
0.44
5.12
4.84
3.27
1.16
5.11
2.61
2.73

1.40
0.86
3.22
0.67
1.86
4.91
3.75
1.00
2.68
2.98
1.48
3.71
5.33
0.15
2.37
0.34
0.77
2.68

1996

2.73

0.61
0.42
3.65
4.68
2.93
1.02
5.76
2.48
2.69

1.26
0.87
3.45
0.64
1.90
5.53
3.72
0.83
2.72
2.85
1.44
3.60
5.53
0.13
2.51
0.36
0.76
2.77

1997

2.90

0.75
0.51
4.43
5.49
3.33
1.15
6.03
2.64
3.00

1.23
1.43
3.42
0.60
1.83
5.46
3.70
0.87
2.74
2.89
1.56
3.45
5.63
0.12
2.77
0.31
0.72
2.79

1998

2.89

0.79
0.44
4.45
4.63
3.41
0.99
5.54
2.96
2.83

1.31
0.69
3.73
0.59
2.05
6.28
3.99
0.89
2.80
3.09
1.46
3.26
5.82
0.11
3.18
0.31
0.72
2.94

1999

12

1.17
1.03
3.87
0.58
1.88
5.80
3.53
0.79
2.64
3.05
1.22
3.45
5.58
0.10
3.28
0.29
0.70
2.81

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

0.69
0.39
4.64
4.90
3.85
1.03
6.52
2.81
3.03

2.92

IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

Continent

Central Region

2000

State, Province,
or Region
Eastern Region

Table 2. Continued

2.79

0.82
0.44
4.74
4.60
3.55
1.03
5.74
2.71
2.84

1.10
0.69
3.43
0.58
1.77
6.19
3.61
0.74
2.58
2.92
1.40
3.33
5.44
0.09
2.57
0.25
0.67
2.75

2001

2.69

0.70
0.34
3.86
4.69
3.02
0.98
5.88
2.36
2.71

1.03
0.79
3.20
0.53
1.78
5.88
3.62
0.64
2.53
2.79
1.37
2.90
5.48
0.08
2.33
0.24
0.65
2.68

2002

2.77

1.23
0.32
4.53
4.87
3.09
0.94
5.28
2.51
2.76

1.04
0.80
3.47
0.51
1.75
6.43
3.93
0.67
2.62
2.78
1.38
2.97
5.45
0.07
2.52
0.25
0.66
2.77

2003

2.87

1.38
0.37
4.19
4.92
3.16
1.17
5.73
2.56
2.92

1.02
0.81
3.52
0.50
1.83
6.42
3.97
0.55
2.77
2.89
1.39
3.00
5.58
0.06
2.57
0.23
0.61
2.82

2.90

0.66
0.37
5.08
4.79
3.49
1.07
5.98
2.87
2.90

1.03
0.80
3.62
0.47
1.68
7.00
3.94
0.52
2.59
2.85
1.41
3.17
5.88
0.06
2.77
0.21
0.59
2.90

2005

Year

2004

2.78

1.01
0.30
4.27
4.47
3.36
1.04
5.73
2.66
2.80

0.97
0.73
3.54
0.47
1.68
6.29
3.76
0.51
2.64
2.71
1.30
3.32
5.56
0.05
2.82
0.20
0.58
2.76

2006

2.70

0.71
0.29
4.57
4.40
3.38
0.86
6.06
3.04
2.83

0.98
0.74
3.26
0.45
1.56
5.56
3.26
0.52
2.47
2.71
1.27
3.20
5.25
0.05
2.34
0.19
0.58
2.57

2007

2.54

0.69
0.29
4.30
4.10
3.07
0.88
5.17
2.58
2.53

0.99
0.71
3.31
0.44
1.66
5.36
3.39
0.45
2.37
2.63
1.37
2.89
5.26
0.04
2.15
0.19
0.57
2.55

2008

2.56

0.64
0.28
4.61
4.13
3.36
1.00
4.94
2.62
2.55

0.94
0.86
3.24
0.42
1.65
4.92
3.96
0.50
2.57
2.58
1.34
3.19
5.36
0.04
2.39
0.16
0.56
2.57

2009

2.69

0.82
0.30
4.54
4.26
3.94
0.96
4.79
2.67
2.67

0.92
0.87
3.41
0.40
1.54
6.26
3.95
0.35
2.77
2.85
1.41
3.00
5.19
0.03
2.53
0.16
0.53
2.71

2010

2.75

0.70
0.25
5.39
4.78
3.86
0.95
5.10
2.90
2.80

1.05
0.87
3.58
0.38
1.51
6.36
3.56
0.41
2.62
2.70
1.26
3.15
5.40
0.03
2.44
0.16
0.54
2.71

2011

Table 3. The number of U.S. hunters by state that submitted woodcock wings for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 Wingcollection Surveys.
State of
residence
AL
AR
CT
DE
FL
GA
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
NH
NJ
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
PA
RI
SC
TN
TX
VT
VA
WV
WI
Total

Number of Hunters who
submitted woodcock wingsa
2009-10 Season
1
1
26
0
1
5
3
15
7
0
0
16
184
12
51
309
92
1
16
0
72
19
132
8
0
13
0
62
2
11
3
1
51
9
17
228
1,368

a

2010-11 Season

2
2
26
2
0
3
2
18
5
0
1
21
158
12
47
304
93
1
16
0
78
19
142
6
0
15
0
59
2
9
3
3
67
10
18
210
1,354

Number of hunters that submitted envelopes in current year. This number may include a small number of hunters that were
sent envelopes in prior years and who subsequently submitted wings from birds shot in current survey year. In addition, some hunters h
in more than one state

13

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 2010 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2009.
State or

Wings received

Region of
Total
harvest
1963-09
Eastern Region
CT
14,046
DE
458
FL
678
GA
3,141
ME
82,202
MD
4,239
MA
22,807
NH
32,807
NJ
26,120
NY
59,255
NC
3,515
PA
31,171
RI
2,440
SC
3,036
VT
25,308
VA
4,995
WV
5,979
Region
322,197

210
8
0
21
1,546
84
382
830
216
1,334
120
422
4
155
690
72
124
6,218

3,103
64
153
969
24,284
1,057
7,018
10,653
6,034
19,919
1,074
9,895
467
932
8,247
1,276
1,802
96,947

44
0
0
12
488
27
147
290
50
489
47
134
0
46
283
23
38
2,118

8,635
320
422
1,354
41,088
2,370
11,163
15,156
15,448
27,074
1,723
14,355
1,619
1,396
11,665
2,742
3,004
159,534

126
6
0
7
744
47
151
359
133
511
47
202
4
75
262
35
63
2,772

2.8
5.0
2.8
1.4
1.7
2.2
1.6
1.4
2.6
1.4
1.6
1.5
3.5
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.7
1.7

Central Region
AL
924
AR
530
IL
1,471
IN
8,041
IA
1,210
KS
49
KY
1,147
LA
31,651
MI
124,250
MN
36,082
MS
1,777
MO
3,842
NE
13
ND
3
OH
14,660
OK
172
TN
1,188
TX
1,018
WI
77,886
Region
305,914

30
6
5
182
60
0
5
390
3,125
1,145
10
147
0
0
136
0
26
20
2,522
7,809

251
168
337
2,053
393
9
279
7,088
40,680
12,620
504
1,001
5
3
4,490
38
307
276
25,967
96,469

11
2
1
47
18
0
2
92
1,020
396
1
45
0
0
53
0
7
11
875
2,581

429
218
832
4,425
552
26
596
20,494
61,064
15,785
906
1,890
6
0
6,907
91
609
513
37,035
152,378

9
4
3
107
27
0
2
249
1,461
507
6
69
0
0
49
0
11
8
1,168
3,680

1.7
1.3
2.5
2.2
1.4

2010

Adult females
1963-09
2010

14

Immatures
1963-09
2010

Recruitment index
1963-09
2010

2.1
2.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.9

1.5
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.6

2.9

1.5
1.0
1.2
2.7
1.0
1.5
1.6
0.9

1.5

2.3

2.7
1.4
1.3
1.5

0.9

1.3
1.6

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter success from the 201011 Harvest Information Program (note: all estimates rounded to the nearest 100 for harvest, hunters, and days afield).
Active woodcock
hunters

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

Total

700
900
200
10,300
31,700
2,000
2,600
9,500
3,800
12,000
3,400
12,800
400
1,700
6,200
1,100
500
99,800

+/- 95% CI

a

54
363
195
196
55
160
27
35
45
40
196
45
84
139
45
44
32
16

Season harvest
per hunter

Days afield

Total

+/- 95% CI

Total

+/- 95% CI

Total

+/- 95% CI

700
300
200
3,400
7,100
1,100
900
2,300
1,300
4,000
3,400
9,100
200
5,300
1,300
300
300
nab

31
82
110
196
33
99
27
30
49
42
196
32
100
185
25
23
65

3,200
1,600
400
3,400
40,800
2,100
5,300
14,200
3,700
13,300
3,400
35,600
800
11,100
5,400
1,200
1,100
146,700

39
197
119
196
52
92
32
35
36
41
196
40
94
176
27
29
64
16

0.94
2.37
1.00
3.00
4.47
1.81
2.82
4.13
2.87
2.99
1.00
1.41
2.12
0.32
4.78
3.69
1.56
nab

62
305
223
277
64
188
38
46
66
58
277
56
131
232
51
50
73

Central
AL
600
124
1,200
180
1,500
142
0.50
AR
200
164
100
111
200
128
2.00
IL
900
106
800
171
1,200
123
1.04
IN
3,000
134
1,000
66
3,900
89
2.91
IA
1,700
134
3,200
74
7,400
71
0.52
KS
0
---300
193
700
182
0.00
KY
6,800
166
2,900
111
6,700
113
2.37
LA
33,000
112
9,100
70
28,200
74
3.62
MI
93,200
21
31,100
14
159,200
19
3.00
MN
34,800
39
13,900
32
55,400
33
2.51
MSc
1,400
355
1,000
170
3,000
153
2.59
MO
3,000
159
2,600
91
6,000
94
1.16
NE
100
193
600
178
800
154
0.10
OH
1,700
93
1,800
98
4,300
70
0.94
OK
3,100
166
1,000
138
17,600
174
3.00
TNc
5,100
445
1,600
227
4,900
215
4.34
TXc
2,200
280
10,100
199
25,500
320
0.54
WI
42,300
22
14,600
25
65,700
40
2.90
b
Region
233,100
20
na
392,400
20
nab
b
Total
332,900
11
na
539,100
11
nab
a
All 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.
c
Sample was insufficient for reliable estimation based upon 2010 data, therefore the 1999-2010 average is used.

15

218
198
201
149
153
---199
132
26
50
235
183
262
135
216
190
298
33

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 - 2010.
Eastern Region

a

Central Region

Year (s)
1918-26
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

Outside dates
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
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

Season
length
60
60
30
15
30
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
65
65
65
65
65

Daily bag
limit
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1985-96
1997-01
2002-10

Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
Oct. 6 - Jan. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31

45
30
30

3
3
3

Year (s)
1918-26
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
19972010

Saturday nearest September 22 (September 25th for the 2010 season).

16

Outside dates
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
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. 22a - Jan. 31

Season
length
60
60
30
15
30
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
65
65
65
65
45

Daily bag
limit
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

Appendix B. Estimates for Canadian woodcock harvest and the number of successful woodcock hunters in Canada
(Gendron and Collins 2009). Data from the 2010 hunting season were not available before this report was completed.

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1972

1977

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

2007

Estimated number of successful woodcock hunters in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1972-2009.

200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

2009

Estimated woodcock harvest in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1969-2009.

17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
http://www.fws.gov
June 2011
For State Transfer Relay Service: TTY/Voice: 711