2014 Population Status

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

American Woodcock
Population Status, 2014

Suggested report citation:
Cooper, T.R., and R.D. Rau. 2014. American woodcock population status, 2014. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 16 pp.

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

Front cover photo credit: Vanessa Adams, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Picture of an American
Woodcock wintering at Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area in East Texas.

AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2014
THOMAS R. COOPER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5600
American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 ([email protected]).
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 ([email protected]).
Abstract: American Woodcock Singing-ground Survey data for 2014 indicate that the index for singing American
woodcock (Scolopax minor) males in the Eastern Management Region was not significantly different from 2013; while
there was a significant decline of 7.3% in the Central Management Region. There was a significant declining 10-year
trend for woodcock heard in both Management Regions during 2004-14. This marks first time in 10 years that there has
been a declining 10-year trend in the Eastern Management Region and the first time in 3 years there has been a
declining 10-year trend in the Central Management Region. Both regions have a significant, long-term (1968-14)
declining trend (-1.0%/year for the Eastern Management Region and -0.9%/year for the Central Management Region).
The 2013 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.60 immatures per adult female) was 3.2% less
than the 2012 index and 2.3% less than the long-term regional index, while the recruitment index for the U.S. portion of
the Central Region (1.54 immatures per adult female) was 7.2% less than the 2012 index and was 1.4% less than the
long-term regional index. Estimates from the Harvest Information Program indicated that U.S. woodcock hunters in the
Eastern Region spent 136,700 days afield and harvested 62,500 woodcock during the 2013-14 season, while in the
Central Region, hunters spent 306,100 days afield and harvested 180,600 woodcock.
INTRODUCTION
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 2014. 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.

METHODS
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.

1

actually surveyed. Sauer and Bortner (1991) reviewed
the implementation and analysis of the Singing-ground
Survey in more detail.
Trends were estimated using a hierarchical model.
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 trends are calculated directly from the
indices.
With the hierarchical model, the log of the
expected value of the counts is modeled as a linear
combination of strata-specific intercepts and year
effects, a random effect for each unique combination of
route and observer, a start-up effect on the route for
first year counts of new observers, and overdispersion.
In the hierarchical model, the parameters of interest are
treated as random and are assumed to follow
distributions that are governed by additional
parameters. The hierarchical model is fit using
Bayesian methods.
Markov-chain Monte Carlo
methods are used to iteratively produce sequences of
parameter estimates which can be used to describe the
distribution of the parameters of interest. After an
initial “burn-in” period, means, medians, and credible
(or Bayesian confidence) intervals (CI) for the
parameters can be estimated from the replicates.
Annual indices are defined as exponentiated year
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 (Sauer et al. 2008). 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 short-term (2013-14),
10-year (2004-14) and long-term (1968-2014) trends
were evaluated for each region as well as for each state
or province.
Credible Intervals 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 considered significant.
We present the median and 95% CIs of 10,000 estimates
(i.e., we simulated 10,000 replicates and thinned by 2),
which were calculated after an initial 20,000 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.

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

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 and provinces, 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 resources and funds,
approximately one-half of these routes are surveyed
each year. The remaining routes are carried as
“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

2

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 2003-13 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 Smith 2013).

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 3 June 2014 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
2013 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 for 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 as well as 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 2013 recruitment index for each
state with ≥ 125 submitted wings was calculated as the
number of immatures per adult female. The regional
indices for 2013 were weighted by the relative
contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during
1963-2012.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Data for 786 routes were submitted by 3 June 2014
(Table 1). Short-term, 10-year, and long-term (19682014) trends were estimated using data from 781 routes
in the Eastern Region and 729 routes in the Central
Region. Short-term analysis indicated that the number
of woodcock heard singing during the 2014 Singingground Survey was not significantly different from last
year for the Eastern Management Region, while it was
7.3 % lower for the Central Management Region
(Table 1). 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 2year 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.
The 10-year trend (2004-2014) showed a
significant decline for both Management Regions
(Table 1, Fig. 2). This marks the first time in ten years
that the trend in the Eastern Region has shown a
decline and the first time in three years that the trend
has shown a decline in the Central Region.

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

3

Fig. 2. Ten-year trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 2004-2014, as determined by
the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include zero in the 95% credible interval, while a nonsignificant (NS) trend does include zero. Note, no state or province has a significant increasing trend.

Fig. 3. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2014, as determined
by the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include zero in the 95% credible interval, while a nonsignificant (NS) trend does include zero. Note, no state or province has a significant or non-significant long-term increase.

4

Many states and/or provinces in both management
regions have experienced significant long-term (19682014) declines as measured by the Singing-ground
Survey (Table 1, Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimate,
rounded to the nearest hundredth of a percent, was
-1.01 %/year for the Eastern Management Region,
while it was -0.90%/year for the Central Management
Region (Table 1).
In the Eastern Region, the 2014 index was 2.54
singing males per route, while it was 2.57 in the
Central Management Region (Figure 4, Table 2).
Annual indices (1968-2014) by state, province, or
region are available in Table 2.

(Table 4, Fig 5). Percent change for all comparisons
was calculated using unrounded recruitment indices.

Fig. 5. Weighted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.), 19632013. The dashed line is the 1963-2012 average.

Harvest Information Program
Estimates of woodcock harvest, number of active
hunters, days afield, and seasonal hunting success from
the 2013-14 HIP survey are provided in Table 5. In the
Eastern Management Region, woodcock hunters spent
an estimated 136,700 days afield (Figure 6) and
harvested 62,500 birds (Figure 7) during the 2013-14
hunting season. Harvest in 2013-14 was 26.9% less
than the long-term (1999-2013) average (85,447
birds/year) and 27.7% less than last year (86,400 birds)
in the Eastern Region. Woodcock hunters in the
Central Region spent an estimated 306,100 days afield
(Figure 6) and harvested 180,600 birds (Figure 7)
during the 2013-14 hunting season. Harvest in 201314 was 18.9% less than the long-term (1999-2013)
average (222,747 birds/year) and 6.5% less than last
year (193,100 birds) in the Central Region.
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. All HIP estimates from 1999-2002 are final,
while those from 2003-2013 are preliminary. All
estimates have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

Fig. 4. Annual indices of the number of woodcock heard
during the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2014 as estimated
using hierarchical modeling. The dashed lines represent the
95% credible interval of the estimate.

Wing-collection Survey
A total of 1,146 woodcock hunters (Table 3) from
states with a woodcock season sent in a total of 13,363
usable woodcock wings for the 2013 Wing-collection
Survey (Table 4).
The 2013 recruitment index in the U.S. portion of
the Eastern Region (1.60 immatures per adult female)
was 3.2% less than the 2012 index of 1.65, and 2.3%
less than the long-term (1963-12) regional average of
1.63 (Table 4, Fig 5). In the Central Region, the 2013
recruitment index (1.54 immatures per adult female)
was 7.2% less than the 2012 index of 1.66 and was
1.4% less than the long-term regional average of 1.56

5

Fig. 7. Harvest Information Program Survey estimates of
U.S. woodcock harvest, 1999-2013. The dashed line
represents the 1999-2013 average and the error bars represent
the 95% confidence interval of the point estimate.

Fig. 6. Harvest Information Program Survey estimates of
days spent afield by U.S. woodcock hunters, 1999-2013. The
dashed line represents the 1999-2013 average and error bars
represent the 95% confidence interval of the point estimate.

Data from Canada show a long-term decline in
both the number of successful woodcock hunters and
harvest (Appendix B). The most recent data available
indicate that 2,718 successful hunters harvested 20,341
woodcock during the 2012 season in Canada (Gendron
and Smith 2013; Appendix B).
Wildlife Department for coordinating local logistics
and hosting the 2014 wingbee, which was held at
Caddo Lake State Park in Texas. Other individuals
who participated in the wingbee were: M Poteet, S.
Willis, B. Adams, R. Randle, R. Mize, L. Speight, J.
Laing, V. Adams, and A. Terry (TX); C. Baranski
(NC); M. Olinde and J. Duguay (LA); L. Fendrick and
M. Wiley (OH); E. Johnson and G. Hoch (MN); A.
Stewart (MI; Andy Weik (Ruffed Grouse Society), D.
McAuley (USGS); B. Allen, T. Edwards, K. Daly, W.
Brininger, B. Rau, K. Sturm, R. Brown, and T. Cooper
(USFWS). We especially thank all the woodcock
hunters who sent in wings for the survey.
The Branch of Harvest Surveys within the
Division of Migratory Bird Management (USFWS)
mailed Wing-collection Survey materials, organized
wing submissions, assisted with data management, and
provided Harvest Information Program estimates
(special thanks to B.Raftovich, B. West,H. Spriggs, K.
Wilkins, and T. Ceaser). R. Maruthalingam (USFWS)
assisted in maintaining the website and the
development of management applications for the

Acknowledgements
Personnel from the FWS, CWS, U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS), Bird Studies Canada (BSC), and many
state and provincial agencies and other individuals
assisted with collecting Singing-ground Survey data
and processing wings at the woodcock wingbee.
Special thanks to M. Huang (CT), M. DiBona (DE), R.
Smith (IL), B. Veverka
(IN), B. Harvey, H.
Walbridge (MD), D. Scarpitti (MA), L. Sargent, A.
Stewart (MI), K. Connor (NB), K. Bordeau, M.
Ellingwood (NH), J. Garris (NJ), T. Sutter (NY), G.
Parsons (NS), B. Crose, L. Fendrick, and N. Stricker
(OH), J. Hayden (ON), M. Weaver (PA), B. Potter
(PEI), B. Tefft (RI), D. Sausville (VT), T. Engelmeyer
(VA), S. Wilson (WV), B. Stewart, K. Jones (BSC),
M. Gendron, A. Hicks, J. B. Pollard, E. Reed, J.
Rodrigue, and M. Schuster, C. Sharp (CWS), and C.
Dwyer, S. Kelly, and M. Mills (FWS), for providing
state, provincial, regional Singing-ground Survey
coordination.
Special appreciation is extended to Shaun
Oldenburger and Mike Frisbie from Texas Parks and

6

Singing-ground Survey and wingbee. To streamline
data processing steps, N. Zimpher (USFWS) assisted in
the development of SQL queries in Program R. K.
Magruder (USFWS) provided invaluable assistance
with data management and entry. J. Sauer (USGS)
developed computer programs for calculating trends
and indices from Singing-ground Survey data and
conducted this year’s analyses for the survey. G.
Zimmerman, J. Kelley, K. Richkus, K. Wilkins, B.
Raftovich, and J. Sauer reviewed a draft of parts or all
of this report and provided helpful comments.

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. 1994. Estimating
equations estimates of trends. Bird Populations
2:23-32.
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.
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.
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 149186 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.
Sauer, J. R., and J. B. Bortner. 1991. Population
trends from the American Woodcock Singingground 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.
Sepik, G. F. 1994. A woodcock in the hand. Ruffed
Grouse Society, Coraopolis, PA.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American
woodcock management plan. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C.
Whitcomb, D. A. 1974. Characteristics of an insular
woodcock population. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report
2720.

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.
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.
Gendron, M.H.., and A.C. Smith. 2013. National
Harvest Survey web site Migratory Bird
Populations Division, National Wildlife
Research Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Ottawa, Ontario. http://www.ec.gc.ca/reommbs/enp-nhs/index.cfm?do=def&lang=e
Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock
spring population indexes in southern Michigan.
M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, E.
Lansing, MI.
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.

7

Table 1. Short-term (2013-14), 10-year (2004-2014), and long-term (1968-2014) 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).
2013-2014
State,
Province,
or Region

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

Number
of routesb
4

2004-2014

95% CI

d

1968-2014

95% CI

d

95% CId

nc % change
11
-0.64

lower
-35.27

upper
65.75

% change
-1.75

lower
-5.74

upper
5.23

% change
-2.73

lower
-4.68

upper
-0.75

1
55
4

3
72
26

-3.23
-5.46
-4.10

-86.05
-20.98
-26.55

553.86
12.69
23.89

-4.02
-1.24
-4.07

-22.10
-3.09
-6.75

13.58
0.66
-1.32

-3.59
-1.23
-4.03

-8.92
-1.76
-5.52

1.61
-0.69
-2.57

11
47
14

22
72
18

-1.60
-4.74
1.60

-23.20
-21.47
-21.95

30.67
15.97
34.46

-3.07
-0.95
-0.55

-6.57
-3.12
-3.53

-0.71
1.19
2.20

-2.55
-0.75
-0.13

-3.58
-1.53
-1.17

-1.51
0.02
0.92

6
73
45
36

19
115
62
80

-9.04
-4.09
-5.53
17.71

-49.64
-16.89
-22.12
-8.49

60.47
10.36
14.32
62.26

-4.53
-1.26
0.23
-0.70

-9.98
-2.79
-1.94
-3.34

2.76
0.28
2.70
2.23

-5.77
-1.09
-0.57
-1.05

-7.44
-1.52
-1.30
-1.83

-4.10
-0.62
0.12
-0.25

10
12
0

13
109
3

5.72
-4.16
-------

-22.80
-23.85
-------

53.69
10.55
------

0.33
-0.91
-12.08

-2.81
-2.90
-22.93

5.61
0.84
-1.39

-0.86
-0.76
-11.93

-2.16
-1.60
-18.25

0.57
0.11
-6.34

19
21
20

24
75
57

-10.84
-7.98
0.52

-35.68
-40.92
-17.44

22.29
37.82
34.42

-2.47
-4.96
-1.95

-5.93
-8.66
-4.07

0.88
-0.74
1.11

-1.08
-5.14
-2.23

-2.06
-6.19
-3.08

-0.10
-4.01
-1.39

378

781

-3.25

-11.06

3.95

-1.01

-1.82

-0.22

-1.01

-1.32

-0.71

12

46

19.68

-66.36

328.50

-14.12

-24.85

-4.19

-1.04

-4.28

2.32

15
18
95

60
30
153

2.89
4.44
-4.36

-38.43
-22.17
-15.81

85.69
43.40
8.59

-3.99
1.09
-0.53

-9.53
-2.18
-1.93

1.26
5.36
0.95

-4.13
-0.31
-0.77

-5.49
-2.23
-1.17

-2.88
1.75
-0.38

IL
IN
MBf
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Central

76
30
82

120
73
157

-7.86
-3.61
-2.55

-22.19
-27.17
-16.80

8.57
26.80
14.45

-0.43
-2.61
-1.43

-2.19
-5.80
-3.22

1.38
0.08
0.42

-0.09
-1.58
-0.90

-0.68
-2.38
-1.38

0.53
-0.78
-0.39

80
408

120
729

-22.21
-7.26

-34.41
-14.02

-7.81
-0.02

-0.64
-1.22

-2.50
-2.08

1.29
-0.36

-0.76
-0.90

-1.27
-1.16

-0.24
-0.65

Continent

786

1,510

-5.35

-10.42

-0.26

-1.12

-1.70

-0.53

-0.95

-1.16

-0.76

a

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 2014 for which data were received by 3 June, 2014.
c
Number of routes with at least one year of non-zero data between 1968 and 2014.
d
95% credible interval, if the interval overlaps zero, the trend is considered non-significant.
e
Short-term trend not estimated since all routes were in CZ status during 2014.
f
Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1992.

8

9

-----1.03
6.16
1.91
---------------4.50
4.31
4.25
1.97
-------------------------1.52
4.05

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

-----1.49
-----7.43
----------7.99
3.47
3.89

3.98

IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

Continent

Central Region

1968

State, Province,
or Region
Eastern Region

4.00

-----1.05
-----7.23
2.96
-----8.93
3.48
3.86

2.61
0.86
6.04
1.89
3.35
8.86
3.81
4.29
4.42
3.74
1.83
5.13
-----1.99
3.35
1.41
1.53
4.13

1969

4.05

0.23
1.03
-----7.33
2.88
1.61
9.43
4.00
3.98

2.72
1.03
6.67
1.77
3.40
8.67
4.01
4.55
3.94
3.19
2.07
5.17
6.25
1.74
4.12
1.39
1.41
4.11

1970

3.91

0.46
0.82
-----6.90
3.24
1.49
8.56
3.77
3.79

2.41
0.74
6.05
1.72
3.38
7.98
3.58
5.87
4.24
3.83
1.98
5.76
6.11
2.14
3.64
1.20
1.37
4.02

1971

3.94

0.41
1.18
-----6.95
3.03
1.51
9.39
3.75
3.93

2.59
0.89
6.04
1.65
3.08
7.89
4.09
4.24
4.07
3.57
1.93
4.75
6.19
1.63
4.12
1.12
1.44
3.95

1972

3.91

0.30
1.06
-----7.17
3.43
1.34
9.06
3.94
3.95

2.37
1.00
6.19
1.58
3.30
7.33
3.47
5.23
4.17
3.78
1.94
4.73
5.99
1.48
3.56
0.96
1.36
3.88

1973

4.09

0.44
0.94
-----8.05
3.95
1.54
9.16
4.01
4.23

2.38
0.90
6.41
1.51
3.13
7.89
3.97
4.82
4.19
3.96
1.67
4.97
6.02
1.20
3.97
1.16
1.31
3.96

1974

3.99

0.34
0.78
-----8.07
3.56
1.29
8.73
4.07
4.06

2.43
1.60
6.67
1.47
2.74
8.41
3.75
3.95
3.79
3.79
1.68
5.93
5.93
1.02
4.25
1.03
1.32
3.91

1975

3.81

0.22
0.81
-----7.70
3.61
1.51
8.89
3.70
3.98

1.92
0.51
6.23
1.35
2.68
6.48
3.72
2.80
3.83
3.61
1.72
5.16
5.87
0.89
4.36
0.97
1.25
3.65

1976

Year

3.82

0.29
0.77
-----7.17
3.69
1.42
9.10
4.12
3.99

1.95
0.67
5.37
1.32
2.68
7.81
3.76
2.81
3.80
3.60
1.69
4.93
5.74
0.79
4.50
0.93
1.19
3.64

1977

3.79

0.47
0.77
-----7.70
4.00
1.29
9.32
4.26
4.19

1.65
0.50
5.11
1.28
2.59
5.92
3.66
2.31
3.48
3.90
1.62
4.74
5.99
0.63
3.38
0.82
1.08
3.39

1978

3.84

0.31
0.93
-----7.53
3.54
1.24
9.69
4.43
4.17

1.75
0.55
5.60
1.22
2.66
6.42
3.58
3.01
3.72
3.34
1.72
4.89
6.01
0.60
3.55
0.80
1.17
3.52

1979

3.62

0.22
0.73
-----7.26
4.01
1.22
9.05
3.58
3.92

1.73
0.66
4.87
1.21
2.40
5.23
3.91
2.11
4.00
3.38
1.50
4.11
5.95
0.53
3.39
0.69
1.12
3.32

1980

3.48

0.43
0.85
-----6.42
3.65
1.35
8.22
3.04
3.59

1.72
0.63
5.58
1.16
2.52
6.13
3.80
1.91
3.83
3.17
1.50
3.86
5.73
0.44
3.00
0.75
1.18
3.37

1981

3.31

0.27
0.58
-----6.85
3.62
1.13
6.97
3.22
3.42

1.92
0.62
4.32
1.09
2.29
6.70
3.32
1.81
3.52
3.00
1.45
4.01
5.68
0.45
2.25
0.74
1.13
3.20

1982

3.24

0.82
0.61
-----5.75
3.17
1.19
6.89
3.09
3.24

1.67
0.92
4.80
1.02
2.15
5.80
3.41
1.82
3.73
3.31
1.48
4.50
5.75
0.37
3.02
0.66
1.07
3.24

1983

Table 2. Breeding population indices (singing-males per route) for American woodcock from the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2014. These indices are based
on 1968-2014 trends that were estimated using hierarchical modeling techniques. Blanks indicate no data were available for that year.

10

0.43
0.60
-----6.45
3.13
1.24
6.90
3.38
3.34

3.24

Continent

1.59
0.50
4.84
0.99
2.26
5.29
3.37
1.99
3.37
3.09
1.55
4.54
5.62
0.33
2.90
0.84
1.04
3.13

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

Eastern Region

State,Province,
or Region

Table 2. Continued

3.36

0.73
0.56
-----6.60
3.42
1.12
7.79
3.32
3.56

1.58
0.51
4.96
0.95
2.21
5.53
3.48
1.85
3.70
3.26
1.49
4.45
5.57
0.27
2.67
0.52
1.00
3.16

1985

3.42

0.62
0.65
-----6.87
3.57
1.09
8.00
3.79
3.72

1.66
0.54
5.28
0.89
2.13
4.68
4.25
1.65
3.44
3.40
1.53
4.71
5.54
0.24
2.87
0.56
0.99
3.12

1986

3.43

1.12
0.61
-----6.43
3.59
1.08
7.96
3.85
3.73

1.44
0.52
5.59
0.86
2.10
5.12
3.69
1.91
3.33
2.98
1.46
4.04
5.58
0.22
3.29
0.54
0.97
3.13

1987

3.43

0.34
0.52
-----6.81
3.93
1.16
7.95
3.59
3.67

1.67
0.51
5.15
0.83
2.05
5.93
3.65
1.40
3.54
3.25
1.41
4.52
5.71
0.18
3.54
0.48
0.94
3.20

1988

3.40

0.55
0.48
-----6.57
3.29
0.98
8.02
3.65
3.56

1.32
0.49
5.31
0.80
1.93
7.06
3.61
1.38
3.19
3.22
1.37
4.73
5.76
0.16
3.43
0.44
0.92
3.24

1989

3.31

0.27
0.62
-----6.61
3.90
1.25
7.57
3.46
3.56

1.34
0.60
4.25
0.77
1.89
6.01
3.42
1.31
3.52
2.99
1.51
4.21
5.49
0.15
3.21
0.46
0.93
3.05

1990

Year

3.39

0.59
0.58
-----7.18
3.77
1.13
7.69
3.49
3.70

1.36
0.34
4.78
0.74
1.87
5.54
3.67
1.22
3.54
3.25
1.68
4.11
5.42
0.13
3.31
0.42
0.87
3.09

1991

3.02

0.36
0.54
5.29
5.70
3.22
1.12
7.14
2.82
3.14

1.25
0.35
4.19
0.69
1.75
5.39
3.42
1.04
3.32
3.24
1.38
4.09
5.37
0.11
2.43
0.43
0.86
2.90

1992

3.10

0.49
0.44
5.42
5.79
3.29
1.03
6.92
2.96
3.16

1.13
0.42
4.48
0.68
1.70
6.46
3.42
0.92
3.24
3.33
1.45
3.92
5.49
0.10
2.73
0.40
0.83
3.04

1993

2.83

0.30
0.43
5.54
5.13
2.99
1.04
5.97
2.59
2.78

1.18
0.41
4.13
0.65
1.69
6.61
3.43
0.78
2.92
2.96
1.20
3.71
5.37
0.09
2.61
0.37
0.82
2.89

1994

2.92

0.23
0.40
5.77
5.65
3.09
0.98
6.52
2.67
2.95

1.26
0.40
4.25
0.62
1.65
6.17
3.78
0.92
3.02
3.11
1.40
3.92
5.15
0.08
2.58
0.32
0.85
2.88

1995

2.71

0.29
0.36
5.00
5.42
3.00
1.02
5.33
2.63
2.73

1.25
0.42
3.57
0.61
1.61
5.36
3.69
0.88
2.87
3.21
1.37
4.23
4.95
0.07
2.49
0.31
0.79
2.69

1996

2.75

0.23
0.36
3.53
5.24
2.73
0.87
6.11
2.52
2.73

1.12
0.40
3.86
0.58
1.61
5.99
3.69
0.69
2.93
3.00
1.28
4.09
5.01
0.06
2.62
0.34
0.78
2.76

1997

2.94

0.30
0.44
4.34
6.18
3.13
1.00
6.33
2.69
3.04

1.08
0.59
3.83
0.54
1.55
5.98
3.64
0.77
2.96
3.08
1.47
3.92
5.26
0.05
2.87
0.28
0.74
2.83

1998

2.90

0.38
0.38
4.29
5.20
3.20
0.85
5.85
3.03
2.86

1.15
0.32
4.16
0.52
1.69
6.80
3.86
0.80
2.99
3.43
1.35
3.67
5.17
0.05
3.27
0.29
0.75
2.95

1999

11

0.29
0.34
4.58
5.51
3.61
0.88
6.76
2.86
3.05

2.92

Continent

1.03
0.43
4.26
0.51
1.54
6.29
3.42
0.71
2.85
3.42
1.07
3.92
4.94
0.04
3.34
0.27
0.73
2.80

2000

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

Eastern Region

State, Province,
or Region

Table 2. Continued

2.82

0.36
0.37
4.62
5.16
3.30
0.87
6.12
2.77
2.86

0.96
0.29
3.84
0.51
1.45
6.71
3.51
0.65
2.78
3.21
1.30
3.73
4.96
0.04
2.63
0.23
0.70
2.77

2001

2.71

0.27
0.29
3.79
5.27
2.81
0.84
6.33
2.38
2.75

0.89
0.31
3.57
0.46
1.44
6.41
3.49
0.54
2.72
2.95
1.28
3.22
4.87
0.03
2.41
0.23
0.68
2.67

2002

2.78

0.63
0.28
4.52
5.45
2.87
0.80
5.66
2.55
2.77

0.89
0.29
3.87
0.45
1.40
6.96
3.75
0.60
2.82
2.92
1.27
3.31
4.92
0.03
2.59
0.23
0.69
2.77

2003

2.86

0.67
0.32
4.15
5.48
2.97
1.04
6.11
2.60
2.90

0.87
0.30
3.95
0.43
1.45
6.97
3.78
0.46
2.97
3.18
1.30
3.32
4.91
0.02
2.63
0.22
0.65
2.81

2.90

0.19
0.32
4.98
5.33
3.28
0.93
6.40
2.91
2.93

0.85
0.29
4.01
0.41
1.32
7.68
3.73
0.41
2.78
3.04
1.34
3.44
5.03
0.02
2.79
0.20
0.62
2.86

2005

Year

2004

2.77

0.43
0.26
4.25
4.99
3.14
0.90
6.18
2.70
2.81

0.81
0.24
3.93
0.41
1.31
6.86
3.55
0.42
2.81
2.88
1.20
3.68
4.77
0.02
2.76
0.19
0.62
2.72

2006

2.71

0.21
0.25
4.46
4.90
3.19
0.71
6.47
3.10
2.85

0.81
0.24
3.61
0.38
1.22
6.20
3.08
0.43
2.65
2.88
1.17
3.57
4.74
0.02
2.37
0.18
0.62
2.57

2007

2.55

0.22
0.25
4.22
4.59
2.90
0.75
5.57
2.65
2.55

0.82
0.23
3.63
0.37
1.27
5.93
3.15
0.36
2.55
2.76
1.31
3.13
4.65
0.01
2.18
0.18
0.61
2.53

2008

2.55

0.18
0.25
4.50
4.59
3.12
0.88
5.31
2.66
2.56

0.78
0.24
3.55
0.35
1.24
5.37
3.60
0.42
2.72
2.73
1.29
3.33
4.74
0.01
2.35
0.15
0.60
2.53

2009

2.67

0.22
0.26
4.59
4.68
3.63
0.85
5.01
2.71
2.61

0.76
0.24
3.75
0.34
1.17
6.96
3.59
0.26
2.87
3.15
1.39
3.16
4.67
0.01
2.44
0.15
0.57
2.72

2010

2.70

0.19
0.22
5.29
5.09
3.59
0.84
5.59
2.99
2.80

0.85
0.23
3.85
0.32
1.13
6.47
3.26
0.34
2.66
2.77
1.20
3.32
4.65
0.01
2.30
0.16
0.58
2.60

2011

2.73

0.12
0.23
4.96
5.16
3.55
0.81
5.59
3.08
2.80

0.83
-----3.78
0.31
1.07
7.15
3.58
0.37
2.73
3.11
1.09
3.67
4.52
0.01
2.51
0.14
0.58
2.65

2012

2.70

0.12
0.21
4.46
5.43
3.09
0.83
5.43
3.13
2.77

0.74
0.20
3.69
0.30
1.06
6.63
3.50
0.32
2.73
3.46
1.03
3.27
4.72
-----2.30
0.14
0.53
2.63

2013

2.56

0.15
0.21
4.66
5.20
2.85
0.80
5.29
2.44
2.57

0.75
0.19
3.49
0.29
1.05
6.33
3.57
0.29
2.61
3.27
1.21
3.49
4.47
-----2.05
0.13
0.54
2.54

2014

Table 3. The number of U.S. hunters by state that submitted woodcock wings for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 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
2012-13 Season
1
1
29
3
0
4
1
11
5
0
2
13
146
10
44
285
89
2
15
0
74
26
119
6
0
9
0
64
2
8
2
0
71
14
11
239
1,306

a

2013-14 Season
2
1
25
2
0
5
1
10
4
1
2
12
120
7
41
253
83
1
10
0
64
17
99
7
1
11
0
55
2
9
5
2
66
9
16
203
1,146

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 hunted in more than one state.

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 2013 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2012.
State or
Region of
Total
harvest
1963-12
Eastern Region
CT
14,752
DE
487
FL
678
GA
3,211
ME
86,366
MD
4,578
MA
24,006
NH
35,250
NJ
26,764
NY
62,673
NC
3,960
PA
32,667
RI
2,456
SC
3,374
VT
27,458
VA
5,425
WV
6,303
Region
340,408
Central Region
AL
967
AR
543
IL
1,495
IN
8,410
IA
1,300
KS
49
KY
1,168
LA
32,640
MI
134,087
MN
40,163
MS
1,860
MO
4,249
NE
13
ND
3
OH
14,979
OK
172
TN
1,298
TX
1,052
WI
86,166
Region
330,614

Wings received
2013

Adult females
1963-12
2013

Immatures
1963-12
2013

Recruitment index
1963-12
2013

198
8
0
30
1,054
112
455
828
200
958
143
376
5
110
696
141
76

3,266
71
153
1,003
25,550
1,138
7,465
11,467
6,166
21,153
1,236
10,325
472
1,046
8,994
1,423
1,906

61
4
0
8
280
22
163
243
60
327
58
119
3
45
242
41
20

9,047
340
422
1,372
43,124
2,579
11,672
16,312
15,846
28,421
1,914
15,081
1,627
1,545
12,561
2,920
3,165

92
3
0
10
560
68
209
417
106
419
54
183
1
40
296
60
41

2.8
4.8
2.8
1.4
1.7
2.3
1.6
1.4
2.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
3.4
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.7

1.5

5,390

102,834

1,696

167,948

2,559

1.63

1.60

31
3
4
67
29
1
7
428
3,358
1,231
65
86
0
1
112
0
12
3
2,535

266
172
346
2,137
420
9
288
7,286
43,990
14,121
515
1,111
5
3
4,598
38
340
293
28,975

12
1
4
19
13
0
1
89
1,076
481
18
26
0
0
36
0
4
2
936

441
226
843
4,650
588
26
602
21,158
65,648
17,382
962
2,083
6
0
7,039
91
665
528
40,671

12
0
0
39
9
0
4
278
1,629
456
18
36
0
1
58
0
4
0
1,116

1.7
1.3
2.4
2.2
1.4

1.5
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.4

1.2

7,973

104,913

2,718

163,609

3,660

1.56

1.54

13

2.1
2.9
1.5
1.2
1.9
1.9

2.0
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.3
0.9
1.5

1.2
1.5

3.1
1.5
0.9

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter success from the 201314 Harvest Information Program (note: all estimates rounded to the nearest 100 for harvest, hunters, and days afield).
Active woodcock
hunters

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

Total

1,200
200
1,000
800
5,800
1,900
2,400
8,000
7,400
11,700
1,400
8,200
300
2,100
4,100
5,700
300
62,500

+/- 95% CI

a

52
103
148
97
43
107
44
29
71
38
95
42
58
177
39
80
58
17

Season harvest
per hunter

Days afield

Total

+/- 95% CI

Total

+/- 95% CI

Total

+/- 95% CI

800
<100
1,800
800
2,200
1,200
900
2,600
2,000
3,900
1,900
6,400
100
3,000
1,400
2,200
200
nab

31
93
184
79
46
96
39
29
37
31
134
37
27
109
34
65
92

3,600
200
3,800
2,500
8,800
2,000
4,800
13,000
11,000
15,300
8,200
29,600
400
13,000
8,600
11,300
600
136,700

33
109
119
89
35
81
34
25
48
29
106
41
40
127
56
112
60
20

1.5
4.3
0.6
1.0
2.6
1.6
2.6
3.0
3.7
3.0
0.7
1.3
4.0
0.7
3.0
2.5
1.6
nab

61
139
236
126
63
143
59
41
80
49
164
56
64
208
51
103
109

Central
AL
1,400
129
1,000
175
1,500
121
1.4
AR
100
195
100
137
300
140
0.5
IL
1,000
142
1,600
128
3,400
119
0.7
IN
1,400
84
700
77
1,600
58
2.0
IA
4,200
80
1,800
85
8,300
118
2.3
KS
0
183
400
192
1,100
193
0.0
KY
2,800
196
1,000
193
1,900
194
3.0
LA
7,400
169
2,500
165
2,500
165
2.9
MI
79,300
28
30,000
19
123,700
24
2.6
MN
18,600
57
10,900
37
74,700
62
1.7
MS
2,600
164
1,200
127
2,600
131
2.2
MO
7,700
176
2,900
91
8,500
117
2.6
NE
0
--600
196
600
196
0.0
OH
8,600
85
3,000
63
8,600
64
2.9
OK
300
129
<100
68
200
121
8.4
TN
1,300
185
1,200
192
1,300
179
1.0
TX
5,500
174
4,900
194
5,200
182
1.1
WI
38,400
24
14,500
27
60,000
31
2.6
b
Region
180,600
20
na
306,100
20
nab
b
Total
243,100
15
na
442,800
15
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.

14

217
238
191
114
117
265
275
236
34
68
207
198
--106
146
267
260
36

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 - 2013.
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
2011-13

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

45
30
30
45

3
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
19972013

Saturday nearest September 22nd, which was September 21st for the 2013 season.

15

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 the number of successful woodcock hunters and woodcock harvest in Canada (Gendron
and Smith 2013). Data from the 2013 hunting season were not available before this report was completed.

Estimated number of successful woodcock hunters in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1972-2012.

Estimated woodcock harvest in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1969-2012.

16

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
http://www.fws.gov
June 2014
For State Transfer Relay Service: TTY/Voice: 711