2019 Population Status

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

American Woodcock
Population Status, 2019

American Woodcock Population Status, 2019
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Branch of Assessment and Decision Support
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708-4002
August 2019

Cover photograph: American woodcock, Richmondville, New York. Photo by Roger Masse.
Suggested citation:
Seamans, M.E., and R.D. Rau. 2019. American woodcock population status, 2019. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available on our web site at:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications.php

AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2019
MARK E. SEAMANS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 755 Parfet St,
Suite 235, Lakewood, CO 80215 ([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: The American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) Singing-ground Survey data for 2019 indicate that the index for
singing males was similar to that of 2018 in the Eastern and Central Management Regions. The Eastern Region had a
significant negative trend over the most recent 10-years (2009–2019; -0.90%/year) while the Central was negative
(˗0.78%/year) but not significant. Both regions had a significant, long-term (1968-19) negative trend; Eastern =
˗1.08%/year; Central -0.89%/year. The 2018 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.71
immatures per adult female) was 27.6% greater than the 2017 index, and 5.6% greater than the long-term regional average,
while the recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.40 immatures per adult female) was 22.8% more
than the 2017 index but was 7.9% less than the long-term regional average. Estimates from the Harvest Information
Program indicated that U.S. woodcock hunters in the Eastern Region spent 99,200 days afield and harvested 49,600
woodcock during the 2018–19 season, while in the Central Region hunters spent 246,000 days afield and harvested
130,600 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 stabilize woodcock populations, while ultimately
returning the population to a level that occurred in the
early 1970s (Kelley et al. 2008). 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 Wingcollection Survey (WCS) provides annual indices of
woodcock recruitment. The Harvest Information
Program (HIP) utilizes a sampling frame of woodcock
hunters to estimate harvest and hunter 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 2019. 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 Survey, 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
degree blocks within each state and province in the

The primary purpose of this report is to facilitate
the prompt distribution of timely information.
Results are preliminary and may change with the
inclusion of additional data.
1

for the years they were actually surveyed. Sauer and
Bortner (1991) reviewed the implementation and
analysis of the Singing-ground Survey in more detail.
Trends in the number of male woodcock heard 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.
With the hierarchical model, the log of the expected
value of the counts was 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 by new observers, and overdispersion. In the
hierarchical model, the parameters of interest were
treated as random and were assumed to follow
distributions that were governed by additional
parameters. The hierarchical model is fit using Bayesian
methods. Markov-chain Monte Carlo methods were
used to iteratively produce sequences of parameter
estimates which were 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 were
estimated from the replicates. Annual indices were
defined as exponentiated strata, underlying trend, and
year effects, which were then weighted by the
proportion of routes where at least 1 woodcock was
observed between 1968 and the present. Trends were
defined as ratios of the indices 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 were expressed as percent change per year,
while indices were 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
(2018–19), 10-year (2009–19) and long-term (1968–
2019) trends were evaluated for each region as well as
for each state or province.
Credible Intervals were used to describe uncertainty
around the estimates when fitting hierarchical models.
If the CI did not overlap 0 for a trend estimate, the trend
was considered significant. We present the median and
95% CIs of 10,000 estimates (i.e., we simulated 20,000
replicates and thinned by 2), which were calculated after
an initial burn-in of 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.

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. To avoid
expending unnecessary resources and funds,
approximately two-thirds of these routes were selected
for survey each year. The remaining routes were carried
as “constant zero” routes. Routes for which no
woodcock were heard for 2 consecutive years enter this
constant zero status and were not surveyed for the next
5 years. If woodcock were heard on a constant zero
route during its next survey, the route reverted to normal
status and was surveyed again each year. Data from
constant zero routes were included in the analysis only
2

migratory game bird hunters. 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 stratified 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 since
1999. Although estimates from 1999–2002 have been
finalized, the estimates from 2003–18 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 2017).

The reported sample sizes are the number of routes
on which trend estimates are based. Each route was to
be surveyed during the peak time of daily singing
activity. For editing purposes, “acceptable” stops were
surveyed between 22 and 58 minutes after sunset (or,
between 15 and 51 minutes after sunset on overcast
evenings). Due to observer error or road conditions,
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. Beginning with data from 1988,
only route observations with at least 9 acceptable stops
were included in the analysis. Route observations prior
to 1988 are used regardless of the number of acceptable
stops. Routes for which data were received after 10 July
2019 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 2018 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 harvested. 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 2018 recruitment index for each
state with ≥ 125 submitted wings was calculated as the
number of immatures per adult female. The regional
indices for 2018 were weighted by the relative
contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963–
2017.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Data for 860 routes were submitted by 10 July 2019
(Table 1). Analysis of the most recent 2 years of data
indicated that the number of woodcock heard singing
during the 2019 Singing-ground Survey remained
unchanged from last year for the Eastern and Central
Management Regions (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 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.
The 10-year trend (2009–2019) showed a
significant decline for the Eastern Management Region
but not the Central Management Region (Table 1, Fig.
2). Many states and provinces in both management
regions have experienced significant long-term (1968–
2019) declines as measured by the Singing-ground
Survey (Table 1, Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimate
was −1.08%/year for the Eastern Management Region,
while it was -0.89%/year for the Central Management
Region (Table 1).
In the Eastern Region, the 2019 index was 2.36
singing males per route, while it was 2.47 in the Central
Management Region (Figure 4, Table 2). Annual
indices (1968–2019) by state, province, and region are
available in Table 2.

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). The HIP sampling frame consists of all
3

Fig. 2. Ten-year trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 2009–2019, as determined by
the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include zero in the 95% credible interval, while a non-significant
(NS) trend does include zero.

Fig. 3. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 1968–2019, 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.

4

Fig. 5. Weighted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.), 1963–
2018. The red dashed line is the 1963–2017 average.

Fig. 4. Annual indices of the number of woodcock heard
during the Singing-ground Survey, 1968–2019 as estimated
using hierarchical modeling. The red dashed lines represent
the 95% credible interval for the estimate.

year (62,700 birds). Woodcock hunters in the Central
Region spent an estimated 246,000 days afield (Figure
6) and harvested 130,600 birds (Figure 7) during the
2018–19 hunting season. In the Central Region, harvest
in 2018–19 was 36.8% less than the long-term (1999–
2017) average (206,700 birds/year) and 7.3% less than
last year (140,900 birds).
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 estimates have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
Data from Canada indicate that the annual number
of successful hunters and annual harvest have been
similar since 2009 (Appendix B). The most recent data
available indicate that an estimated 3,286 successful
hunters harvested 19,296 woodcock during the 2018
season in Canada (Gendron and Smith 2017; Appendix
B).

Wing-collection Survey
A total of 986 woodcock hunters (Table 3) from
states with a woodcock season sent in a total of 8,590
usable woodcock wings for the 2018 Wing-collection
Survey (Table 4).
The 2018 recruitment index in the U.S. portion of
the Eastern Region (1.71 immatures per adult female)
was 27.6% more than the 2017 index of 1.34, and 5.6%
more than the long-term (1963–17) regional average of
1.62 (Table 4, Fig 5). In the Central Region, the 2018
recruitment index (1.40 immatures per adult female)
was 22.8% more than the 2017 index of 1.14 but was
7.9% less than the long-term regional average of 1.52
(Table 4, Fig 5). Percent change for all comparisons
was calculated using unrounded recruitment indices.
Harvest Information Program
Estimates of woodcock harvest, number of active
hunters, days afield, and seasonal hunting success from
the 2018–19 HIP survey are provided in Table 5. In the
Eastern Management Region, woodcock hunters spent
an estimated 99,200 days afield (Figure 6) and harvested
49,600 birds (Figure 7) during the 2018–19 hunting
season. In the Eastern Region, harvest in 2018–19 was
37.3% less than the long-term (1999–2017) average
(79,042 birds/year) and 20.9% less than last

5

Fig. 6. Harvest Information Program Survey estimates of days
spent afield by U.S. woodcock hunters, 1999–2018. The
dashed line represents the 1999–2017 average and error bars
represent the 95% confidence interval of the point estimate.

Fig. 7. Harvest Information Program Survey estimates of U.S.
woodcock harvest, 1999–2018. The dashed line represents the
1999–2017 average and the error bars represent the 95%
confidence interval of the point estimate.

Acknowledgements
Personnel from the FWS, CWS, U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 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),
J. Foth (DE), R. Smith (IL), M. Broadway (IN), H.
Walbridge (MD), D. Scarpitti (MA), J. Trowbridge
(MI), K. Connor (NB), J. Carloni (NH), J. Garris (NJ),
G. Somogie (NY), A. Marsters (NS), L. Fendrick (OH),
M. Weaver (PA), G. Gregory (PEI), T. Steeves (RI), D.
Sausville (VT), T. Engelmeyer (VA), M. Peters (WV),
K. Jones (BSC), A. Hicks, J. B. Pollard, J. Rodrigue, C.
Roy, and M. Schuster (CWS), and M. Mills and K.
VanBeek (USFWS) for providing state, provincial and
regional Singing-ground Survey coordination this year.
We especially thank all observers who conducted
Singing-ground Survey routes.
Special appreciation is extended to Vicky Brown,
Tate Schrauben, Al Stewart and Jacob Trowbridge (MI
DNR) for coordinating local logistics and hosting the
2019 wingbee, which was held in Roscommon,
Michigan. Other individuals who participated in the
wingbee were: M. Pratt (KY), J. Duguay (LA), B.
Barlow, P. Brickel, N. DeVries, C. Eckloff, K. Fisher,
C. Norton and D. Rabe (MI), K. Baughman, C. Boucher
and M. Carroll (MSU), L. Shartell (MN), L. Fendrick

and M. Wiley (OH), D. McAuley (USGS), R. Brown, K.
Daly, T. Edwards, D. Fronczak, R. Rau, M. Seamans, L.
Stevenson, and K. Sturm (USFWS).
We especially thank all the woodcock hunters who
sent in wings for the survey.
The Branch of Monitoring and Data Management
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 T. Bethea, S.
Catino, T. Ceaser II, S. Chandler, S. Finucane, K.
Fleming, L. Heckstall, P. Mathias, and R. Raftovich).
IRTM (USFWS) assisted in general maintenance for the
Singing-ground Survey data entry website. To
streamline data processing steps, N. Zimpfer (USFWS)
developed SQL queries in Program R. 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. P. Devers and P.
Padding reviewed earlier drafts of this report and
provided helpful comments.

6

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 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 hierarchical 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.
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. 2017. National
Harvest Survey web site. Bird Populations
Monitoring, National Wildlife Research Centre,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.
https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/harvestsurvey/
Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock
spring population indexes in southern Michigan.
M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, E.
Lansing, MI.
Kelley, J. R., S. Williamson and T. R. Cooper. 2008.
American Woodcock conservation plan:
A summary of and recommendations for
woodcock conservation in North America.
Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Publications.
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.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 2002. A hierarchical
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, Maine. 201 pp.
7

Table 1. Short-term (2018–19), 10-year (2009–2019), and long-term (1968–2019) trends (% change per yeara) in the
number of American woodcock heard during the Singing-ground Survey. Trends were estimated using a hierarchical
log-linear modeling technique (Sauer et al. 2008).
2018-2019

2009-2019

1968-2019

State,
Province,
or Region

Number
of routesb

lower

upper

% change

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

6
1
50
4
11
50
13
4
79
40
30
8
28
1
17
13
24
379

11
3
74
26
22
73
18
19
117
63
83
13
114
3
24
75
57
795

-5.93
-3.45
13.37
-3.65
-1.60
27.57
-4.61
-12.32
4.41
5.14
-1.79
-3.01
-1.91
-12.54
-15.24
1.25
-0.36
5.69

-44.18
-87.77
-5.81
-27.00
-21.78
3.60
-31.71
-54.48
-10.05
-14.21
-23.92
-34.56
-17.85
-70.68
-40.98
-33.19
-18.69
-1.73

36.08
618.10
38.47
27.47
30.10
57.80
32.03
56.12
22.27
31.20
26.27
38.62
13.26
144.67
16.03
77.02
28.24
13.49

-2.52
-4.36
-0.87
-3.96
-2.89
0.17
-3.08
-8.49
-0.83
0.23
-1.64
-1.56
-1.07
-12.31
-1.94
-4.04
-2.19
-0.90

IL
IN
MBe
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Central

27
15
19
114
87
35
87
97
481

47
62
30
158
124
73
166
128
758

-1.65
-13.99
5.33
12.23
-6.43
6.44
-3.32
11.76
3.43

-67.59
-52.05
-21.14
-1.26
-20.03
-14.14
-17.62
-5.08
-3.70

203.75
36.86
43.99
27.79
9.72
39.11
12.65
31.76
11.14

-1.51
-3.96
0.65
-0.67
0.43
-1.65
-2.24
0.21
-0.78

-11.05
-9.08
-2.56
-2.03
-1.22
-4.21
-4.17
-1.61
-1.62

9.26
1.16
4.18
0.69
2.15
0.84
-0.37
2.08
0.02

-1.09
-4.10
0.18
-1.01
0.49
-1.45
-1.32
-0.26
-0.89

-3.69
-5.34
-1.35
-1.36
-0.06
-2.16
-1.77
-0.72
-1.12

1.66
-3.02
1.65
-0.67
1.07
-0.74
-0.88
0.20
-0.68

Continent

860

1,553

4.52

-0.76

10.07

-0.85

-1.43

-0.29

-0.99

-1.16

-0.82

95% CId
nc % change

95% CId

a

lower

upper

-6.50 2.20
-23.13 16.32
-2.77 1.15
-7.07 -1.14
-5.78 -0.68
-1.99 2.46
-6.89 -0.09
-14.83 -3.74
-2.43 0.81
-1.85 2.72
-4.50 0.72
-5.31 2.04
-3.05 0.47
-22.87 -2.26
-5.65 1.51
-7.66 2.16
-4.51 0.22
-1.69 -0.15

95% CId
% change

lower

upper

-2.69 -4.57
-4.20 -9.53
-1.22 -1.71
-3.91 -5.27
-2.58 -3.57
-0.99 -1.72
-1.19 -2.18
-6.37 -7.87
-0.78 -1.19
-0.75 -1.44
-1.01 -1.70
-1.40 -2.61
-0.85 -1.55
-12.19 -17.83
-0.99 -1.85
-5.26 -6.31
-2.19 -2.96
-1.08 -1.34

-1.00
0.65
-0.75
-2.53
-1.67
-0.27
-0.25
-4.85
-0.35
-0.13
-0.30
-0.19
-0.18
-6.90
-0.10
-4.17
-1.41
-0.82

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 2019 for which data were received by 10 July, 2019.
c
Number of routes with at least one year of non-zero data between 1968 and 2019.
d
95% credible interval, if the interval overlaps zero, the trend is considered non-significant.
e
Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1992.

8

Table 2. Breeding population indices (singing-males per route) for American woodcock from the Singing-ground Survey, 1968–2019. These indices are based
on 1968–2019 trends that were estimated using hierarchical modeling techniques. Dashes indicate no data were available for that year.
Year

State, Province,
or Region

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

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

----1.05
----1.81
6.40
--------4.68
4.29
4.31
1.97
--------------------1.51
4.11

2.51
0.82
3.31
1.81
6.32
9.12
4.14
4.49
3.85
4.48
1.86
5.37
----1.88
1.40
3.38
1.51
4.19

2.58
1.04
3.31
1.69
6.98
8.85
4.42
4.69
3.34
3.94
2.06
5.36
6.17
1.64
1.40
4.07
1.41
4.16

2.35
0.72
3.30
1.65
6.34
8.05
3.86
5.96
3.92
4.32
1.98
5.98
6.04
2.05
1.20
3.67
1.36
4.06

2.47
0.87
3.04
1.57
6.26
7.98
4.47
4.32
3.67
4.15
1.94
4.93
6.11
1.56
1.11
4.14
1.43
3.99

2.30
1.03
3.20
1.52
6.50
7.44
3.64
5.25
3.88
4.24
1.95
4.92
5.93
1.40
0.95
3.63
1.35
3.93

2.28
0.92
3.05
1.45
6.76
7.93
4.26
4.84
4.03
4.31
1.72
5.15
5.95
1.14
1.17
4.01
1.30
4.01

2.33
1.71
2.72
1.41
7.02
8.50
3.96
4.00
3.83
3.82
1.76
6.12
5.88
0.95
1.02
4.29
1.31
3.96

1.91
0.46
2.66
1.28
6.55
6.52
3.90
2.86
3.70
3.92
1.77
5.30
5.74
0.84
0.97
4.37
1.25
3.68

1.93
0.64
2.64
1.26
5.52
7.86
3.93
2.88
3.70
3.92
1.74
5.05
5.70
0.74
0.94
4.54
1.19
3.69

1.69
0.43
2.56
1.24
5.35
5.97
3.77
2.38
3.95
3.54
1.68
4.84
5.86
0.59
0.81
3.47
1.08
3.42

1.77
0.50
2.62
1.18
5.89
6.49
3.64
2.88
3.53
3.87
1.77
4.97
5.89
0.56
0.79
3.64
1.17
3.57

1.74
0.62
2.39
1.18
5.08
5.32
4.06
2.15
3.50
4.23
1.58
4.16
5.82
0.49
0.68
3.47
1.11
3.38

1.72
0.60
2.47
1.13
5.88
6.17
3.91
1.99
3.30
4.02
1.57
3.97
5.63
0.41
0.74
3.10
1.17
3.44

1.86
0.57
2.27
1.07
4.53
6.82
3.25
1.85
3.17
3.69
1.54
4.05
5.57
0.42
0.73
2.35
1.11
3.25

1.67
0.94
2.13
0.99
5.06
5.69
3.35
1.95
3.40
3.96
1.56
4.57
5.61
0.35
0.62
3.07
1.07
3.27

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

----1.48
----7.40
--------8.08
3.52
3.90

----1.05
----7.31
2.86
----9.05
3.57
3.90

0.25
1.03
----7.36
2.82
1.61
9.58
4.09
4.02

0.47
0.82
----6.89
3.21
1.47
8.75
3.89
3.84

0.42
1.19
----6.96
3.02
1.50
9.55
3.87
3.97

0.31
1.07
----7.24
3.46
1.38
9.24
4.08
4.02

0.44
0.95
----8.17
4.08
1.49
9.31
4.16
4.31

0.35
0.79
----8.20
3.65
1.34
8.86
4.25
4.15

0.22
0.81
----7.79
3.74
1.48
8.99
3.85
4.05

0.30
0.76
----7.24
3.81
1.41
9.25
4.29
4.07

0.46
0.78
----7.86
4.03
1.30
9.61
4.44
4.30

0.31
0.96
----7.73
3.71
1.25
9.76
4.64
4.27

0.24
0.74
----7.35
4.33
1.26
9.11
3.77
4.02

0.43
0.86
----6.52
3.84
1.34
8.29
3.22
3.67

0.27
0.59
----6.94
3.78
1.19
6.95
3.39
3.49

0.79
0.62
----5.77
3.38
1.23
6.93
3.31
3.32

Continent

4.01

4.05

4.09

3.95

3.98

3.97

4.16

4.06

3.86

3.88

3.85

3.92

3.70

3.55

3.37

3.29

9

Table 2. Continued
Year

State, Province,
or Region
Eastern Region

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

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

1.59
0.44
2.23
0.97
5.05
5.32
3.28
2.01
3.23
3.51
1.62
4.57
5.50
0.31
0.83
3.02
1.04
3.17

1.59
0.46
2.18
0.92
5.22
5.55
3.41
1.85
3.39
3.94
1.54
4.50
5.44
0.25
0.51
2.79
1.00
3.21

1.63
0.49
2.09
0.87
5.57
4.69
4.46
1.65
3.49
3.64
1.61
4.75
5.41
0.22
0.55
2.99
0.99
3.17

1.47
0.47
2.07
0.84
5.89
5.13
3.68
1.89
3.11
3.54
1.54
4.03
5.44
0.20
0.53
3.42
0.97
3.18

1.62
0.44
2.01
0.81
5.45
5.95
3.56
1.43
3.36
3.82
1.50
4.52
5.52
0.17
0.47
3.67
0.94
3.26

1.35
0.44
1.91
0.79
5.59
7.12
3.46
1.37
3.33
3.40
1.47
4.70
5.56
0.15
0.43
3.55
0.92
3.28

1.37
0.55
1.86
0.76
4.46
6.06
3.19
1.30
3.11
3.82
1.58
4.17
5.33
0.13
0.45
3.32
0.93
3.10

1.37
0.28
1.84
0.72
5.04
5.62
3.46
1.13
3.35
3.83
1.74
3.97
5.22
0.12
0.41
3.42
0.87
3.13

1.28
0.28
1.74
0.67
4.38
5.49
3.11
1.06
3.37
3.59
1.47
4.02
5.21
0.10
0.43
2.52
0.87
2.95

1.18
0.37
1.69
0.67
4.70
6.54
3.11
0.93
3.41
3.52
1.56
3.84
5.30
0.09
0.39
2.86
0.84
3.08

1.22
0.35
1.67
0.64
4.34
6.68
3.14
0.80
3.10
3.14
1.34
3.63
5.21
0.08
0.36
2.74
0.83
2.93

1.27
0.34
1.64
0.61
4.45
6.15
3.55
0.93
3.25
3.29
1.49
3.83
5.02
0.07
0.31
2.70
0.85
2.93

1.27
0.36
1.59
0.60
3.78
5.40
3.43
0.88
3.30
3.12
1.46
4.16
4.84
0.06
0.30
2.62
0.79
2.75

1.15
0.35
1.59
0.57
4.07
6.04
3.40
0.69
3.09
3.20
1.41
3.99
4.88
0.05
0.32
2.67
0.79
2.82

1.12
0.52
1.53
0.53
4.03
6.04
3.32
0.75
3.17
3.24
1.56
3.80
5.07
0.05
0.27
2.98
0.75
2.87

1.17
0.26
1.63
0.51
4.41
6.89
3.58
0.79
3.49
3.31
1.45
3.54
4.98
0.04
0.28
3.43
0.75
3.00

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.39
0.60
----6.53
3.28
1.25
7.01
3.62
3.43

0.74
0.56
----6.68
3.67
1.16
7.82
3.57
3.66

0.60
0.66
----6.97
3.83
1.15
8.02
4.07
3.82

1.07
0.62
----6.52
3.88
1.13
7.87
4.14
3.82

0.33
0.56
----6.94
4.28
1.19
7.97
3.85
3.79

0.52
0.49
----6.75
3.55
1.04
8.00
3.93
3.68

0.27
0.63
----6.76
4.25
1.26
7.57
3.74
3.68

0.55
0.59
----7.42
4.09
1.15
7.69
3.78
3.82

0.34
0.56
5.57
5.79
3.50
1.14
7.17
3.07
3.24

0.47
0.46
5.60
5.91
3.58
1.08
6.91
3.23
3.26

0.29
0.44
5.85
5.20
3.24
1.07
5.92
2.84
2.86

0.22
0.41
6.14
5.82
3.37
1.03
6.48
2.95
3.06

0.27
0.38
5.36
5.52
3.26
1.05
5.30
2.89
2.82

0.22
0.37
3.88
5.34
2.95
0.93
5.99
2.78
2.80

0.27
0.45
4.71
6.33
3.43
1.04
6.25
2.96
3.14

0.35
0.40
4.63
5.32
3.54
0.92
5.74
3.35
2.96

Continent

3.30

3.43

3.50

3.50

3.52

3.48

3.39

3.48

3.10

3.17

2.90

2.99

2.78

2.81

3.01

2.98

10

Table 2. Continued
State,
Province, or
2000
Region
Eastern Region

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

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

1.07
0.37
1.51
0.51
4.58
6.47
3.01
0.69
3.45
3.15
1.20
3.80
4.81
0.04
0.26
3.48
0.74
2.87

1.02
0.24
1.43
0.51
4.06
6.74
3.12
0.64
3.27
3.08
1.40
3.57
4.81
0.03
0.22
2.79
0.70
2.82

0.94
0.26
1.42
0.46
3.77
6.45
3.07
0.54
3.04
3.02
1.38
3.07
4.73
0.03
0.21
2.54
0.68
2.72

0.95
0.24
1.37
0.45
4.09
7.05
3.40
0.58
3.02
3.16
1.37
3.17
4.76
0.02
0.22
2.74
0.69
2.83

0.92
0.24
1.41
0.43
4.20
7.01
3.41
0.45
3.26
3.38
1.40
3.18
4.74
0.02
0.21
2.79
0.65
2.88

0.89
0.24
1.29
0.41
4.28
7.72
3.36
0.41
3.11
3.13
1.43
3.30
4.82
0.02
0.19
2.96
0.63
2.91

0.84
0.19
1.28
0.41
4.17
6.94
3.09
0.41
2.97
3.22
1.31
3.51
4.61
0.02
0.18
2.94
0.63
2.79

0.85
0.18
1.21
0.38
3.80
6.33
2.53
0.42
2.96
3.01
1.28
3.39
4.57
0.01
0.17
2.56
0.62
2.63

0.85
0.19
1.25
0.37
3.86
6.08
2.59
0.36
2.85
2.90
1.41
2.93
4.50
0.01
0.17
2.37
0.62
2.59

0.82
0.19
1.21
0.35
3.73
5.46
3.12
0.41
2.85
3.14
1.40
3.11
4.56
0.01
0.14
2.51
0.60
2.59

0.80
0.18
1.15
0.34
4.04
7.18
3.11
0.26
3.23
3.37
1.49
2.92
4.51
0.01
0.14
2.61
0.58
2.81

0.86
0.17
1.11
0.32
4.11
6.70
2.70
0.32
2.87
3.11
1.30
3.09
4.46
0.01
0.15
2.47
0.59
2.68

0.85
0.17
1.06
0.32
4.10
7.32
3.06
0.35
3.23
3.22
1.18
3.40
4.37
0.01
0.13
2.66
0.58
2.74

0.77
0.15
1.04
0.30
4.03
6.82
2.96
0.31
3.48
3.22
1.12
3.02
4.53
---0.14
2.46
0.54
2.71

0.78
0.14
1.02
0.29
3.84
6.40
3.08
0.28
3.23
3.04
1.26
3.45
4.35
---0.12
2.21
0.54
2.61

0.72
0.15
1.04
0.28
3.45
5.68
2.64
0.21
2.76
3.27
1.24
2.97
4.31
---0.10
2.21
0.51
2.49

Central Region
IL
0.27
IN
0.35
MB
5.00
MI
5.67
MN
4.03
OH
0.94
ON
6.88
WI
3.15
Region
3.21

0.33
0.39
5.06
5.28
3.67
0.93
6.02
3.07
2.97

0.25
0.30
4.22
5.42
3.10
0.90
6.18
2.63
2.84

0.58
0.29
4.99
5.58
3.17
0.87
5.50
2.83
2.86

0.62
0.34
4.63
5.63
3.28
1.06
5.93
2.89
2.99

0.18
0.34
5.48
5.50
3.63
0.97
6.25
3.23
3.03

0.39
0.28
4.76
5.10
3.50
0.95
6.00
3.00
2.90

0.19
0.27
4.99
5.03
3.55
0.78
6.29
3.45
2.95

0.19
0.26
4.76
4.72
3.20
0.82
5.38
2.97
2.65

0.17
0.26
5.02
4.72
3.50
0.93
5.15
3.01
2.67

0.20
0.28
5.07
4.86
4.09
0.90
4.86
3.07
2.75

0.17
0.23
5.86
5.29
4.06
0.90
5.41
3.36
2.93

0.11
0.24
5.54
5.40
3.94
0.87
5.51
3.47
2.95

0.11
0.22
4.84
5.63
3.47
0.87
5.22
3.49
2.89

0.13
0.22
4.82
5.38
2.99
0.81
5.11
2.77
2.64

0.24
0.20
5.41
5.46
3.89
0.86
4.97
3.16
2.84

Continent

2.89

2.78

2.85

2.94

2.98

2.84

2.79

2.62

2.63

2.78

2.80

2.85

2.80

2.63

2.67

3.04

Year

11

Table 2. Continued
Year

State, Province,
or Region
Eastern Region

2016

2017

2018

2019

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

0.73
0.14
1.00
0.27
3.95
6.17
2.78
0.23
2.98
3.15
1.26
2.60
4.34
0.00
0.10
2.60
0.51
2.59

0.71
0.13
0.94
0.26
3.25
4.88
2.41
0.21
2.83
3.27
1.23
3.02
4.31
---0.10
2.30
0.51
2.40

0.70
0.12
0.91
0.25
3.01
4.36
2.38
0.19
2.77
2.77
1.20
2.73
4.17
0.00
0.09
2.43
0.48
2.24

0.64
0.12
0.90
0.24
3.42
5.55
2.27
0.16
2.92
2.90
1.18
2.64
4.08
0.00
0.09
2.04
0.48
2.36

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.14
0.21
5.23
5.17
4.46
0.80
4.90
3.14
2.84

0.17
0.19
6.23
5.22
4.55
0.72
4.96
3.51
2.92

0.15
0.20
5.10
3.94
3.90
0.73
4.24
2.75
2.39

0.15
0.17
5.38
4.42
3.65
0.79
4.10
3.08
2.47

Continent

2.71

2.66

2.31

2.42
12

Table 3. The number of U.S. hunters by state that submitted woodcock wings for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Wingcollection Surveys.

State of
residence
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total

Number of Hunters who
submitted woodcock wingsa
2017-18 Season
2018-19 Season
1
1
20
1
0
4
3
12
3
0
5
10
93
12
35
233
110
1
14
0
54
13
82
8
0
10
0
51
2
9
3
3
46
20
18
165
1,042

2
2
14
4
0
4
0
12
4
0
6
11
101
9
22
210
100
1
7
0
49
13
73
8
0
10
0
48
6
8
4
2
43
18
14
181
986

a

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 the current survey year.
In addition, some hunters hunted and submitted wings from 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 2018 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of adult female and
immature wings received during 1963–2017.
State or
Region of
Total
harvest
1963-17
2018
Eastern Region
CT
15,609
144
DE
533
10
FL
678
0
GA
3,394
34
ME
91,282
739
MD
5,072
45
MA
25,816
160
NH
38,520
318
NJ
27,688
170
NY
65,857
542
NC
4,547
81
PA
34,395
205
RI
2,480
8
SC
4,160
115
VT
29,928
367
VA
6,534
174
WV
6,648
57
Region
363,141
3,169
Central Region
AL
1,018
AR
566
IL
1,518
IN
8,794
IA
1,392
KS
50
KY
1,286
LA
34,071
MI
147,350
MN
46,331
MS
1,996
MO
4,712
NE
13
ND
4
OH
15,495
OK
174
TN
1,371
TX
1,084
WI
97,869
Region
365,094

10
11
0
90
7
0
33
182
1,900
1,088
2
67
0
0
76
0
9
26
1,920
5,421

Wings received
Adult females
1963-17
2018

Immatures
1963-17
2018

3,499
83
153
1,068
27,025
1,240
8,080
12,550
6,392
22,325
1,462
10,931
480
1,337
9,860
1,717
2,011
110,213

34
2
0
8
207
10
59
86
43
205
30
63
2
39
110
34
16
948

9,498
365
422
1,439
45,529
2,883
12,461
17,809
16,379
29,693
2,150
15,840
1,641
1,854
13,604
3,525
3,319
178,411

90
6
0
14
379
29
66
145
103
229
33
103
6
50
189
122
27
1,591

2.7
4.4
2.8
1.3
1.7
2.3
1.5
1.4
2.6
1.3
1.5
1.4
3.4
1.4
1.4
2.1
1.7
1.62

2.6
---------1.8
---1.1
1.7
2.4
1.1
---1.6
------1.7
3.6
---1.71

284
183
358
2,247
451
9
336
7,664
48,564
16,557
564
1,286
5
3
4,772
38
367
309
33,303
117,300

2
4
0
21
2
0
6
54
640
417
0
16
0
0
22
0
3
13
723
1,923

463
232
851
4,865
621
26
644
21,995
71,719
19,721
1,006
2,267
6
1
7,276
92
698
535
45,664
178,682

6
3
0
46
4
0
17
103
943
428
2
40
0
0
38
0
3
6
923
2,562

1.6
1.3
2.4
2.2
1.4

----------------------

14

Recruitment index
1963-17
2018

---1.9
2.9
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.8

------1.5
2.4
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.52

1.9
1.5
1.0

------------------------1.3
1.40

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter success from the 2018–
19 Harvest Information Program (note: all estimates rounded to the nearest 100 for harvest, hunters, and days afield).
Active woodcock
hunters

Harvest

Season harvest
per hunter

Days afield

Total

SE

Total

SE

Total

SE

Total

SE

Eastern Region
CT
900
DE
100
FL
200
GA
4,100
MA
3,500
MD
1,500
ME
9,700
NC
6,000
NH
5,400
NJ
2,900
NY
5,100
PA
4,000
RI
200
SC
1,200
VA
2,200
VT
2,200
WV
300
Region
49,600

300
0
200
2,500
1,000
1,300
1,400
3,700
1,100
1,100
1,700
1,600
100
500
700
500
100
5,800

600
100
100
4,400
1,400
800
3,800
3,400
2,000
900
3,400
1,500
100
1,900
2,700
900
100
28,300a

200
100
100
2,900
300
700
900
2,800
300
300
1,000
400
100
1,600
1,100
100
0
naa

2,100
500
300
8,000
8,100
900
17,200
13,700
8,500
2,900
17,200
6,300
700
2,800
5,300
4,300
400
99,200

500
300
300
4,800
1,800
700
3,300
11,200
1,200
900
9,000
2,300
300
1,600
2,000
600
100
16,100

1.41
0.57
3.00
0.91
2.47
1.99
2.54
1.76
2.68
3.18
1.50
2.67
1.48
0.65
0.83
2.47
2.69
nab

0.54
0.51
4.21
0.82
0.82
2.45
0.71
1.79
0.73
1.65
0.68
1.26
1.00
0.61
0.43
0.60
0.75
nab

Central Region
AL
200
AR
10,100
IA
0
IL
0
IN
200
KS
100
KY
300
LA
10,600
MI
59,600
MN
22,500
MO
200
MS
400
NE
0
OH
600
OK
100
TN
300
TX
0
WI
25,500
Region
130,600

200
9,400
0
0
100
100
100
6,100
10,400
3,900
100
300
0
400
100
200
0
4,300
16,400

200
2,500
100
<100
100
100
100
5,200
29,300
10,400
100
100
<100
500
<100
200
100
10,800
59,500a

100
2,400
0
<100
<100
0
<100
2,200
3,700
2,100
100
0
0
100
0
100
0
2,100
naa

500
7,700
0
100
200
200
300
11,100
135,800
41,500
200
400
0
800
600
600
0
45,900
246,000

200
7,100
0
100
100
0
100
5,300
31,900
9,700
200
200
0
300
600
300
0
9,300
35,800

1.29
4.09
0.00
0.00
1.75
1.50
3.80
2.03
2.03
2.16
2.00
4.25
0.00
1.25
3.00
1.67
0.00
2.35
nab

0.97
5.47
0.00
0.00
1.40
1.47
2.56
1.45
0.44
0.57
1.88
3.30
0.00
0.85
4.16
1.61
0.00
0.60
nab

Total

17,400

87,800a

naa

345,100

39,300

nab

nab

180,200

aHunter

number estimates at the regional and national levels may be biased high because the HIP sample frames are state specific;
therefore hunters were counted more than once if they hunted in >1 state. Variance was inestimable.
b Regional estimates of hunter success could not be obtained due to the occurrence of individual hunters being registered in the
Harvest Information Program in more than one state.

15

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 – 2018.
Eastern 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
1985-96
1997-01
2002-10
2011-18

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

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

Central Region
Daily bag
limit
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3

a

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
1997-18

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

Saturday nearest September 22nd, which was September 22nd for the 2018–19 season, and is September 21st for the
2019–20 season.

16

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 2017).

Fig. B1. Estimated number of successful woodcock hunters in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals,
1972–2018.

Fig. B2. Estimated woodcock harvest in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1969–2018.

17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Branch of Assessment and Decision Support
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, Maryland 20708-4002
http://www.fws.gov
August 2019
For State Transfer Relay Service: TTY/Voice:711