American Woodcock Population Status Report

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

American Woodcock
Population Status, 2025

American Woodcock Population Status, 2025

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Branch of Assessment and Decision Support
12100 Beech Forest Road
Laurel, MD 20708
September 2025

Cover photograph: American woodcock, Michigan. Photo by Al Stewart.
Suggested citation:
Seamans, M.E., and R.D. Rau. 2025. American woodcock population status, 2025. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Laurel, Maryland.
This report contains annual estimates of migratory bird abundance, harvest, and hunter participation
and activity. Due to the large volume of data, the number of years, and geographic areas involved, data
tables may be large and complex. Readers that may need help reading and interpreting the data, or that
may need data presented in an alternative format to facilitate reading and interpretation, should contact
the author at [email protected].
All American Woodcock status reports are available on our web site at:
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/american-woodcock-population-status-reports

AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2025
MARK E. SEAMANS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Branch of
Assessment and Decision Support, Lakewood, CO ([email protected]).
REBECCA D. RAU, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Branch of
Monitoring and Data Management, Laurel, MD ([email protected]).
Abstract: The American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) Singing-ground Survey data for 2025 indicated that the index for
singing males was similar to last year’s estimate in both the Eastern and Central Management Regions. Over the most
recent 10 years (2015–2025), the Central Management Region had a significant negative trend whereas the Eastern
Management Region had a non-significant trend. Both regions had a significant, long-term (1968–2025) negative trend:
Eastern = ˗0.74%/year; Central = -0.52%/year. The 2024 recruitment index in the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region
(1.14 immatures per adult female) was 25.7% less than the 2023 index and 29.5% lower than the long-term regional
average, while the recruitment index in the Central Region (1.23 immatures per adult female) was 4.2% greater than the
2023 index, and 17.7% less than the long-term regional average. Estimates from the Harvest Information Program
indicated that U.S. woodcock hunters in the Eastern Region spent 223,100 days afield and harvested 56,900 woodcock
during the 2024–25 season, while in the Central Region hunters spent 395,700 days afield and harvested 154,200
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
(USFWS) 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. 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 Partscollection Survey (PCS) provides annual indices of
woodcock recruitment. The Harvest Information
Program (HIP) utilizes a sampling frame of woodcock
hunters to estimate annual 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 2025. 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.
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.

METHODS
Woodcock Management Regions
Woodcock are managed based on 2 regions or
populations, Eastern and Central (Fig. 1), as
recommended by Owen et al. (1977). Coon et al.
(1977) reviewed the concept of management regions
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 PCS and SGS, as well from HIP, 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 SGS was developed to exploit the
conspicuous courtship display of the male woodcock.
Early studies demonstrated that counts of singing
males provide indices to woodcock population
abundance and could be used to monitor annual
changes (Mendall and Aldous 1943, Goudy 1960,
Duke 1966, Whitcomb 1974). Before 1968, counts
were conducted on nonrandomly located routes.
Beginning in 1968, routes were relocated along lightly
traveled secondary roads in the center of randomly
1

constant zero routes were included in the analysis only
for the years they were surveyed. Sauer and Bortner
(1991) reviewed the implementation and analysis of the
SGS in more detail.
Trends in the number of male woodcock heard were
estimated using a hierarchical model. Sauer et al. (2008)
described a hierarchical log-linear model for estimation
of population change from SGS data. Sauer et al. (2021)
compared the Sauer et al. (2008) model with a model
with additional forms for year effects and the
distribution of overdispersion effects and concluded that
population change is best modeled as the difference in
expected counts between successive years (their ‘D’
model). We used this new D model for inference in this
report. The 2 model forms are similar except in how year
effects are modeled. The old approach (denoted as the
‘S’ in Sauer et al. 2021) modeled year effects as random
effects in the context of a slope parameter to estimate
population change, whereas the D model describes
population change as the difference in expected counts
between successive years. The D model provides
population trend and annual index values that are
generally comparable to the estimates provided by the
previous model, except that the D model provides
slightly fewer extreme estimates of trend.
For 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. 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 (i.e.,
Bayesian confidence) intervals (CI) for the parameters
were estimated from the replicates. Annual indices for
a stratum (state or province) are a function of year
effects, defined as exponentiated random strata and year
effects. Population 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. 2021). 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 (2024-2025),
10-year (2015-2025) and long-term (1968–2025) trends
were evaluated for each region as well as for each state
and province.
Due to SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., coronavirus) related
restrictions in Canada and the U.S., only a portion of the

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

chosen 10-minute degree blocks within each state and
province in the central and northern portions of the
woodcock’s breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collected
prior to 1968 are not included in this report.
Each route was 3.6 miles (5.4 km) long and
consisted of 10 listening points. The routes were
surveyed shortly after sunset by an observer who drove
to each of the 10 stops and recorded the number of
woodcock heard peenting (the vocalization by
displaying male woodcock on the ground). Acceptable
dates for conducting the survey were assigned by
latitude to coincide with peaks in courtship behavior of
local woodcock. In most states 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 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
2

state with ≥125 submitted wings was calculated as the
number of immatures per adult female. The regional
indices for 2024 were weighted by the relative
contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963–
2023.

SGS (n=329 routes) was conducted in 2020. Indices for
states and provinces with little or no data for 2020 were
estimated with the hierarchical model using strataspecific intercepts and year effects that were calculated
from the limited 2020 data and the long-term dataset.
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 samples (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 Link and Sauer (2002) and Sauer
et al. (2008, 2021) for a detailed description of the
statistical model and fitting process.
The reported sample sizes are the number of routes
on which trend estimates are based. 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 13 June
2025 were not included in this analysis but will be
included in future trend estimates.

Harvest Information Program
The HIP was cooperatively developed by the
USFWS 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 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 USFWS. The USFWS 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. The HIP survey estimates
of woodcock harvest have been available since 1999.
Although estimates from 1999–2002 have been
finalized, the estimates from 2003–2024 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 2025).

Parts-collection Survey
The primary objective of the PCS is to provide data
on the reproductive success of woodcock. The survey is
administered as a cooperative effort between woodcock
hunters, the USFWS, and state wildlife agencies.
Participants in the 2024 (i.e., covers the September 2024
to January 2025 hunting season) survey included hunters
who either: (1) participated in past surveys; (2) were a
subset of hunters who indicated on the HIP Survey that
they hunted woodcock; or (3) contacted the USFWS to
volunteer for the survey.
Parts-collection Survey participants were provided
with prepaid mailing envelopes and asked to submit 1
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).
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the
harvest provides an index to recruitment of young into
the population. The 2024 recruitment index for each

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Data for 827 routes were submitted by 13 June 2025
(Table 1). Compared to last year, the number of
woodcock heard in 2025 did not change in the Eastern
or 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 2-year change estimates
reflects 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 (2015–2025) indicated a
significant negative trend in the Central Management
Region, and no trend in the Eastern Management Region
(Table 1, Fig. 2). Many states and provinces in both
management regions have experienced significant longterm (1968–2025) declines as measured by the SGS
(Table 1, Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimate was
3

Fig. 2. Ten-year trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 2015–2025, 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, 1968–2025, 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. 4. Annual indices of the number of American woodcock
heard during the Singing-ground Survey, 1968–2025 as
estimated using hierarchical modeling. The red dashed lines
represent the 95% credible interval for the estimate.

Fig. 5. American woodcock annual indices of recruitment
(U.S.), 1963–2024. The red dashed line is the 1963–2023
average.

−0.74%/year in the Eastern Management Region
and -0.52%/year in the Central Management Region
(Table 1).
In the Eastern Region, the 2025 index was 2.81
singing males per route, while it was 2.63 in the Central
Management Region (Figure 4, Table 2). Annual
indices (1968–2025) by state, province, and region are
available in Table 2.

spent an estimated 223,100 days afield (Figure 6) and
harvested 56,900 birds (Figure 7) during the 2024–2025
hunting season. In the Eastern Region, harvest in 2024–
2025 was 23.3% less than the long-term (1999–2023)
average (74,200 birds/year) and 27.6% less than last
year (78,700 birds). Woodcock hunters in the Central
Region spent an estimated 395.700 days afield (Figure
6) and harvested 154,200 birds (Figure 7) during the
2024–25 hunting season. In the Central Region, harvest
in 2024–25 was 18.5% less than the long-term (1999–
2023) average (189,300 birds/year) and was 3.9% less
than last year (160,500 birds).
Although HIP provides statewide estimates of
woodcock hunter numbers, it is not possible to develop
regional estimates due to 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 2,973 successful hunters harvested
19,868 woodcock during the 2023 season in Canada
(Gendron and Smith 2025; Appendix B).

Parts-collection Survey
A total of 767 woodcock hunters (Table 3) from
states with a woodcock season sent in a total of 6,120
usable woodcock wings for the 2024 PCS (Table 4).
The 2024 recruitment index in the U.S. portion of
the Eastern Region (1.14 immatures per adult female)
was 25.7% less than the 2023 index of 1.53, and 29.5%
less than the long-term (1963–2023) regional average of
1.61 (Table 4, Fig 5). In the Central Region, the 2024
recruitment index (1.23 immatures per adult female)
was 4.2% greater than the 2023 index of 1.18 and was
17.7% less than the long-term regional average of 1.50
(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 2024–2025 HIP survey are provided in Table 5. In
the Eastern Management Region, woodcock hunters

5

Fig. 6. Harvest Information Program Survey estimates of days
spent afield by U.S. woodcock hunters, 1999–2024. The
dashed line represents the 1999–2023 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, 1999–2024. The dashed line represents the
1999–2023 average and the error bars represent the 95%
confidence interval of the point estimate.

Acknowledgements
Personnel from the USFWS, CWS, U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Birds
Canada, many state and provincial agencies, and other
individuals assisted with collecting SGS data. Special
thanks to M. Huang (CT), C. Tienmann (DE), D.
McClain (IL), N. Alonso-Leach (IN), H. Walbridge
(MD), D. Scarpitti (MA), D. Avers (MI), K. Connor
(NB), J. Carloni (NH), M. Lisi (NJ), J. Zulch (NY), L.
Millett (NS), L. Fendrick (OH), D. Adams (PA), M.
Ginn (PEI), L. Bonczek (RI), A. Bouton (VT), D. Garst
(VA), M. Peters (WV), K. Jones (Birds Canada), T.
Barney, B. Audet, A. Hicks, M. Tetreault, and M.
Schuster (CWS), and M. Mills and K. VanBeek
(USFWS) for providing state, province, and regional
SGS coordination this year. We especially thank all 640
observers who conducted SGS routes. K. Horner, C.
Jardine, and K. Jones (Birds Canada), and M Tetreault
(CWS) assisted with NatureCounts SGS data entry
website and app development, training, maintenance,
and/or troubleshooting. Support for both the
development of the NatureCounts data entry website,
the mobile app, and for the related training was provided
by Environment Canada and Climate Change. A special
thanks to database architect, J. A. Coupe (USFWS
contractor), who has been instrumental in database
development and streamlining coordination and data
processing efforts. J. Sauer (retired USGS) developed
computer programs for calculating trends and indices

from SGS data and conducted this year’s analyses for
the survey with help from J. Hostetler (USGS).
Special appreciation is extended to T. Cooper and
B. Peterson (USFWS) as well as Sherburne Refuge Staff
for coordinating local logistics and hosting the 2025
wingbee, which was held at the Sherburne National
Wildlife Refuge in Zimmerman, MN. Other individuals
who participated in the wingbee were: R. Temple (LA),
M. Olinde (retired LA), B. Barlow and T. Riley (MI), N.
Huck and L. Shartell (MN), T. Petro (retired MN), L.
Fendrick (OH), R. Tyl (PA), O. Fitzsimmons (TX), D.
Andersen (U. of MN), S. Nelson (RGS), L. Stevenson
(retired USFWS), and W. Brininger, B. Bowser, S.
Chandler, K. Daly, M. Martin, A. McDermott, J.
Paulson, R. Rau, K. Spaeth and K. VanBeek (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 PCS materials, organized wing
submissions, assisted with data management and
provided HIP estimates (special thanks to S. Catino, T.
Ceaser II, S. Chandler, S. Finucane, K. Fleming, L.
Heckstall, R. Raftovich, and A. Walters). P. Devers, and
D. Scott reviewed earlier drafts of this report and
provided helpful comments.

6

Literature Cited
Coon, R. A., T. J. Dwyer, and J. W. Artmann. 1977.
Identification of harvest units for the American
woodcock.
Proceedings of the American
Woodcock Symposium. 6:147-153.
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. 2025. National
Harvest Survey web site. Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment and Climate Change
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Available at
https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/harvestsurvey/P002/A001/?lang=e
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
Cerulean Warblers. Ecology 83:2832-2840.
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.
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.
Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, M. E. Seamans, and R. D. Rau.
2021. American woodcock singing-ground
survey: comparison of four models for trend in
population size. Journal of Fish and Wildlife
Management 12:83–97.
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.

7

Table 1. Short-term (2024–2025), 10-year (2015–2025), and long-term (1968–2025) trends (% change per yeara) in
the number of American woodcock heard during the Singing-ground Survey. Trends and 95% credible intervals (CI)
were estimated using a hierarchical log-linear modeling technique (Sauer et al. 2021).
State,
Province,
or Region

Shortterm
Lower
95% CI

Shortterm
Upper
95% CI

10-year
%
Change

10-year
Lower
95% CI

10-year
Upper
95% CI

Longterm %
Change

LongLongTerm
Term
Lower
Upper
95% CI 95% CI

Routes
2024b

Routes
2025c

nd

ShortTerm %
Change

CT

3

5

11

-0.75

-23.32

27.97

-1.73

-7.08

3.45

-2.00

-3.52

-0.59

DE
ME
MD

1
54
7

1
49
6

3
78
26

-0.41
-1.01
4.21

-30.71
-13.63
-18.81

41.61
13.08
39.43

-1.02
-0.58
-0.74

-13.67
-2.53
-6.72

8.48
1.39
5.44

-1.91
-0.96
-2.88

-7.46
-1.41
-4.26

0.68
-0.51
-1.55

MA
NB
NH

9
56
12

7
56
13

23
76
19

0.19
2.56
-2.38

-19.43
-11.28
-20.10

24.72
17.84
16.44

-2.84
2.15
-1.03

-6.82
0.19
-4.57

1.17
4.23
2.52

-2.34
-0.54
-0.59

-3.28
-1.10
-1.43

-1.39
0.00
0.22

NJ
NY
NS
PA

7
80
47
34

8
79
45
31

19
120
67
86

-7.54
-0.38
4.23
-1.63

-37.74
-11.09
-8.68
-17.30

32.40
11.08
19.62
14.42

-2.73
-2.56
3.13
1.52

-10.35
-4.26
1.00
-1.45

5.12
-0.96
5.44
4.72

-4.43
-0.86
-0.05
-0.42

-5.96
-1.26
-0.61
-1.04

-3.04
-0.47
0.51
0.20

PEI
QUE
RI

9
37
3

6
39
1

13
160
5

2.32
-4.24
1.49

-16.57
-17.46
-31.59

27.27
7.81
55.59

2.31
-1.02
1.81

-1.32
-3.59
-8.17

6.57
1.35
16.94

-0.32
-0.32
-2.57

-1.28
-1.04
-5.46

0.68
0.39
-0.07

VT
VA
WV

15
8
19

16
6
17

24
75
59

-6.75
-1.26
-6.11

-26.53
-27.93
-25.40

16.05
34.12
15.30

0.28
-0.69
-4.92

-3.03
-7.70
-9.18

3.69
7.05
-0.90

-0.61
-4.23
-2.75

-1.43
-5.58
-3.69

0.28
-3.02
-1.88

Eastern

401

385

864

-0.72

-6.06

4.64

-0.05

-0.93

0.83

-0.74

-0.99

-0.50

IL

18

23

51

-4.39

-41.11

55.16

1.09

-7.13

9.88

-0.88

-2.63

1.02

IN
MBe
MI

19
9
101

20
16
103

63
31
161

-7.41
-3.96
-3.44

-33.95
-22.62
-13.26

22.18
16.70
6.80

-2.48
-1.71
-1.71

-8.84
-4.93
-3.02

3.83
1.42
-0.41

-3.61
-0.68
-0.68

-4.85
-2.82
-0.99

-2.53
1.28
-0.37

MN
OH
ON

78
27
82

84
33
83

128
74
181

3.16
-8.14
-4.55

-9.09
-27.57
-16.20

17.05
10.79
7.71

-0.25
-5.24
-1.74

-1.89
-8.32
-3.34

1.41
-2.28
-0.12

1.02
-2.05
-1.03

0.53
-2.74
-1.41

1.52
-1.39
-0.65

WI
Central

82
416

80
442

136
794

0.93
-1.62

-10.63
-7.02

13.47
4.09

0.17
-1.13

-1.50
-1.87

1.87
-0.39

0.00
-0.52

-0.40
-0.71

0.39
-0.33

Continent

817

827

1,658

-1.18

-4.97

2.72

-0.59

-1.16

0.00

-0.64

-0.79

-0.48

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 2024.
c
Total number of routes surveyed in 2025 for which data were received by 13 June 2025.
d
Number of routes with at least 1 year of non-zero data between 1968 and 2025.
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, 1968–2025. These indices are based
on 1968–2025 trends that were estimated using hierarchical modeling techniques. Dashes indicate no data were available for that year.
State, Province, or
Region
Eastern Region
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NB
NH
NJ
NS
NY
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VA
VT
WV
Region

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

---0.81
---1.78
6.84
------4.07
4.81
4.67
2.07
---------------1.60
4.28

3.01
0.80
3.86
1.84
6.88
10.44
3.84
4.10
4.38
4.65
2.05
4.81
---1.53
1.32
3.56
1.60
4.24

3.03
0.81
3.95
1.78
7.30
9.76
3.88
4.83
4.00
4.36
2.14
4.85
---1.59
1.31
3.97
1.49
4.19

2.90
0.80
3.96
1.72
6.93
8.82
3.73
5.85
4.19
4.48
2.11
4.88
5.03
1.78
1.15
4.05
1.45
4.10

2.86
0.81
3.76
1.66
6.85
8.38
3.81
5.43
4.19
4.42
2.05
4.76
5.09
1.67
1.03
4.34
1.50
4.03

2.65
0.82
3.77
1.60
7.08
7.91
3.55
5.90
4.34
4.44
1.97
4.87
5.04
1.51
0.95
4.28
1.42
3.99

2.48
0.81
3.42
1.52
7.37
8.16
3.66
5.42
4.45
4.36
1.79
5.20
5.09
1.30
1.08
4.65
1.34
4.02

2.28
0.80
2.88
1.44
7.48
8.26
3.57
4.33
4.32
4.05
1.73
5.66
5.09
1.12
1.03
5.03
1.29
3.93

1.91
0.71
2.60
1.30
6.90
7.02
3.50
3.17
4.15
3.93
1.70
5.38
5.10
0.97
0.97
5.14
1.18
3.69

1.69
0.66
2.48
1.29
6.01
7.25
3.46
2.76
4.06
3.85
1.65
5.03
5.22
0.85
0.91
4.94
1.06
3.58

1.49
0.63
2.38
1.30
5.67
6.18
3.38
2.42
4.02
3.70
1.59
4.68
5.54
0.74
0.81
4.07
0.96
3.42

1.44
0.62
2.36
1.31
5.75
6.00
3.33
2.44
3.66
3.93
1.55
4.38
5.75
0.68
0.76
3.67
1.03
3.44

1.43
0.63
2.17
1.33
5.35
5.38
3.38
2.05
3.43
4.19
1.44
3.88
5.83
0.63
0.70
3.22
1.06
3.34

1.47
0.64
2.11
1.26
5.47
5.59
3.22
1.85
3.18
4.08
1.37
3.68
5.67
0.59
0.75
2.74
1.14
3.29

1.54
0.65
1.91
1.14
4.81
5.37
2.96
1.76
3.05
3.87
1.34
3.77
5.65
0.58
0.78
2.33
1.11
3.14

1.49
0.66
1.78
0.99
4.95
5.26
2.92
1.84
3.13
3.89
1.34
4.09
5.75
0.55
0.76
2.55
1.05
3.16

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

---1.38
---7.06
------7.43
3.46
3.54

---1.11
---6.99
2.37
---8.17
3.58
3.62

0.24
1.00
---6.98
2.46
1.64
8.60
3.94
3.74

0.28
0.91
---6.72
2.71
1.56
8.48
3.96
3.70

0.29
1.06
---6.87
2.89
1.53
9.03
4.07
3.86

0.28
1.02
---7.34
3.34
1.45
9.12
4.29
4.03

0.30
0.92
---8.16
3.89
1.50
9.21
4.43
4.28

0.28
0.81
---8.35
3.92
1.42
9.05
4.49
4.28

0.25
0.78
---8.05
3.98
1.49
9.22
4.35
4.23

0.28
0.76
---7.69
4.10
1.43
9.54
4.62
4.27

0.34
0.80
---7.97
4.28
1.31
9.87
4.79
4.42

0.32
0.88
---7.92
4.18
1.23
9.96
4.73
4.40

0.32
0.80
---7.44
4.47
1.23
9.31
4.03
4.15

0.41
0.78
---6.73
4.15
1.26
8.16
3.51
3.75

0.45
0.64
---6.68
3.95
1.16
7.09
3.48
3.53

0.76
0.60
---6.01
3.63
1.14
6.85
3.46
3.38

Continent

3.92

3.94

3.97

3.90

3.95

4.01

4.15

4.11

3.96

3.93

3.92

3.92

3.74

3.52

3.33

3.28

9

Table 2. Continued
State, Province, or
Region
Eastern Region
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NB
NH
NJ
NS
NY
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VA
VT
WV
Region

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1.45
0.64
1.83
0.90
5.14
4.93
2.98
1.93
3.13
3.67
1.36
4.32
5.79
0.52
0.83
2.63
0.99
3.14

1.45
0.63
1.84
0.81
5.41
4.91
3.22
1.89
3.22
3.81
1.35
4.47
5.90
0.49
0.60
2.71
0.94
3.18

1.45
0.62
1.80
0.72
5.80
4.56
3.64
1.81
3.26
3.67
1.36
4.59
6.10
0.46
0.57
3.03
0.91
3.21

1.40
0.62
1.75
0.66
6.08
4.81
3.53
1.85
3.08
3.61
1.35
4.45
6.39
0.44
0.53
3.49
0.89
3.29

1.39
0.62
1.68
0.62
5.83
5.45
3.42
1.60
3.14
3.70
1.36
4.60
6.71
0.43
0.47
3.84
0.86
3.37

1.25
0.62
1.57
0.59
5.64
6.10
3.33
1.46
3.13
3.59
1.40
4.63
6.88
0.43
0.44
3.85
0.85
3.41

1.19
0.62
1.50
0.57
4.92
5.66
3.23
1.34
3.10
3.78
1.50
4.37
6.66
0.42
0.44
3.64
0.85
3.30

1.14
0.59
1.44
0.53
4.93
5.33
3.28
1.22
3.25
3.80
1.57
4.16
6.46
0.42
0.43
3.42
0.81
3.24

1.07
0.58
1.36
0.49
4.55
5.33
3.22
1.05
3.35
3.58
1.49
4.00
6.36
0.42
0.44
2.83
0.79
3.13

1.04
0.59
1.32
0.49
4.54
5.96
3.29
0.93
3.42
3.36
1.46
3.84
6.30
0.42
0.41
2.77
0.78
3.13

1.07
0.61
1.33
0.48
4.31
6.19
3.45
0.86
3.31
3.05
1.38
3.75
6.01
0.42
0.37
2.68
0.80
3.02

1.13
0.62
1.35
0.47
4.17
5.90
3.74
0.90
3.38
2.97
1.42
3.88
5.58
0.42
0.33
2.66
0.83
2.92

1.15
0.64
1.40
0.47
3.81
5.49
3.85
0.90
3.43
2.88
1.43
4.03
5.27
0.43
0.33
2.69
0.79
2.80

1.12
0.63
1.49
0.44
3.90
5.84
3.93
0.85
3.41
2.91
1.43
3.98
5.31
0.41
0.32
2.92
0.77
2.86

1.10
0.63
1.59
0.42
4.02
6.08
3.97
0.89
3.55
2.97
1.47
3.82
5.53
0.40
0.29
3.29
0.73
2.95

1.08
0.59
1.77
0.42
4.30
6.62
3.98
0.92
3.84
3.00
1.40
3.60
5.48
0.38
0.28
3.73
0.72
3.03

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.79
0.59
---6.50
3.59
1.14
6.99
3.68
3.52

0.95
0.59
---6.78
3.88
1.07
7.65
3.80
3.74

0.97
0.63
---7.04
4.12
1.02
8.03
4.20
3.94

1.00
0.62
---6.82
4.24
1.03
8.01
4.31
3.94

0.67
0.59
---7.07
4.48
1.07
8.11
4.15
3.95

0.62
0.59
---7.00
4.10
1.05
8.08
4.11
3.86

0.50
0.66
---7.05
4.48
1.18
7.81
3.93
3.86

0.58
0.66
---7.28
4.33
1.16
7.67
3.73
3.83

0.51
0.61
6.37
6.08
3.85
1.13
7.16
3.23
3.39

0.49
0.53
6.39
5.80
3.72
1.05
6.64
3.08
3.21

0.41
0.48
6.18
5.31
3.44
1.01
5.91
2.81
2.91

0.37
0.44
5.85
5.56
3.41
0.96
5.88
2.76
2.92

0.39
0.42
5.02
5.42
3.30
0.93
5.24
2.71
2.78

0.38
0.42
4.14
5.38
3.18
0.85
5.49
2.68
2.78

0.41
0.44
4.15
5.94
3.53
0.87
5.73
2.84
2.99

0.44
0.42
4.18
5.46
3.77
0.80
5.77
3.10
2.98

Continent

3.33

3.46

3.58

3.61

3.66

3.64

3.58

3.54

3.26

3.17

2.97

2.92

2.79

2.82

2.97

3.01

10

Table 2. Continued
State, Province, or
Region
Eastern Region
CT
DE
MA
MD
ME
NB
NH
NJ
NS
NY
PA
PEI
QUE
RI
VA
VT
WV
Region

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

1.01
0.56
1.75
0.45
4.43
6.67
3.76
0.87
3.87
2.94
1.29
3.49
5.29
0.37
0.25
3.77
0.69
2.99

0.94
0.52
1.71
0.46
4.16
6.88
3.75
0.80
3.68
2.89
1.36
3.23
5.22
0.36
0.22
3.32
0.64
2.94

0.90
0.49
1.72
0.44
4.01
6.95
3.77
0.71
3.44
2.91
1.40
2.95
5.15
0.35
0.21
3.05
0.62
2.90

0.89
0.47
1.75
0.43
4.20
7.37
3.93
0.67
3.39
3.08
1.44
2.90
5.20
0.33
0.21
3.09
0.61
2.98

0.88
0.45
1.80
0.43
4.40
7.54
3.94
0.58
3.49
3.26
1.48
2.94
5.24
0.32
0.20
3.18
0.58
3.06

0.89
0.43
1.73
0.43
4.53
7.90
3.76
0.54
3.39
3.21
1.51
3.08
5.27
0.31
0.19
3.30
0.56
3.09

0.90
0.41
1.70
0.44
4.49
7.36
3.44
0.54
3.25
3.22
1.47
3.21
5.05
0.30
0.18
3.22
0.57
2.98

0.94
0.39
1.66
0.43
4.29
6.81
3.10
0.56
3.18
3.13
1.48
3.16
4.91
0.29
0.18
2.90
0.59
2.86

1.00
0.37
1.69
0.42
4.29
6.46
3.09
0.55
3.14
3.12
1.57
3.00
4.85
0.29
0.17
2.70
0.61
2.83

1.04
0.36
1.65
0.40
4.31
6.21
3.33
0.56
3.24
3.35
1.61
3.05
4.88
0.28
0.16
2.73
0.63
2.86

1.10
0.35
1.57
0.39
4.58
7.25
3.41
0.49
3.56
3.56
1.61
3.09
4.86
0.28
0.16
2.79
0.63
3.02

1.20
0.34
1.46
0.37
4.74
7.32
3.31
0.53
3.57
3.51
1.46
3.30
4.84
0.27
0.16
2.72
0.65
3.01

1.24
0.33
1.37
0.36
4.78
7.65
3.43
0.58
3.92
3.59
1.34
3.45
4.81
0.27
0.16
2.76
0.65
3.06

1.21
0.32
1.34
0.36
4.69
7.28
3.41
0.55
4.14
3.61
1.29
3.39
4.91
0.28
0.16
2.62
0.60
3.04

1.20
0.31
1.34
0.36
4.45
6.80
3.33
0.48
3.85
3.57
1.37
3.46
4.79
0.28
0.15
2.45
0.58
2.93

1.16
0.30
1.37
0.37
4.19
6.22
3.06
0.40
3.43
3.70
1.40
3.20
4.68
0.29
0.13
2.45
0.54
2.82

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.46
0.39
4.31
5.51
4.09
0.80
6.27
3.03
3.10

0.50
0.37
4.29
5.33
3.81
0.80
6.02
2.90
2.97

0.55
0.33
4.05
5.42
3.32
0.81
5.93
2.67
2.88

0.69
0.32
4.25
5.59
3.33
0.85
5.72
2.76
2.92

0.67
0.33
4.26
5.65
3.48
1.00
5.94
2.89
3.02

0.44
0.32
4.50
5.49
3.77
0.99
6.23
3.16
3.08

0.38
0.29
4.37
5.16
3.72
0.93
6.19
3.18
2.99

0.27
0.28
4.42
4.99
3.72
0.82
6.14
3.40
2.96

0.21
0.27
4.45
4.74
3.56
0.85
5.54
3.21
2.77

0.17
0.27
4.66
4.75
3.86
0.98
5.17
3.22
2.77

0.15
0.27
4.91
4.98
4.44
1.00
4.98
3.35
2.88

0.13
0.25
5.30
5.43
4.46
1.00
5.32
3.63
3.05

0.11
0.24
5.22
5.73
4.26
0.99
5.43
3.78
3.10

0.10
0.23
4.87
5.92
3.82
0.97
5.21
3.72
3.03

0.11
0.22
4.85
5.78
3.54
0.92
5.05
3.26
2.86

0.13
0.22
5.14
5.68
4.30
0.90
4.89
3.40
2.95

Continent

3.04

2.96

2.89

2.95

3.04

3.09

2.99

2.91

2.80

2.82

2.95

3.03

3.08

3.03

2.90

2.89

11

Table 2. Continued
State,
Province, or
Region
2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Eastern Region

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

1.16
0.29
1.29
0.37
4.33
6.20
2.89
0.38
3.41
3.67
1.43
2.98
4.68
0.29
0.12
2.64
0.53
2.83

1.15
0.28
1.18
0.37
3.84
5.22
2.64
0.35
3.31
3.62
1.43
3.06
4.60
0.29
0.12
2.51
0.53
2.67

1.12
0.28
1.08
0.35
3.60
4.93
2.52
0.33
3.24
3.27
1.44
3.06
4.41
0.30
0.12
2.46
0.50
2.53

1.07
0.27
1.04
0.35
3.78
5.59
2.50
0.32
3.32
3.18
1.44
3.19
4.27
0.31
0.13
2.21
0.49
2.56

1.06
0.27
0.99
0.33
3.82
5.58
2.67
0.34
3.33
3.15
1.46
3.47
4.34
0.33
0.13
2.17
0.47
2.58

1.04
0.27
1.00
0.32
4.01
5.56
2.80
0.34
3.65
3.10
1.49
3.80
4.40
0.33
0.13
2.40
0.43
2.63

1.03
0.27
1.04
0.31
4.00
6.08
2.88
0.37
4.07
3.04
1.54
3.82
4.47
0.35
0.13
2.70
0.40
2.71

0.99
0.26
1.03
0.31
3.76
6.40
2.84
0.36
4.22
2.86
1.61
3.80
4.38
0.35
0.12
2.65
0.36
2.69

0.98
0.26
1.02
0.32
4.00
7.51
2.82
0.33
4.47
2.86
1.66
3.95
4.43
0.34
0.12
2.72
0.35
2.83

0.97
0.26
1.02
0.34
3.95
7.69
2.74
0.31
4.67
2.85
1.63
4.04
4.23
0.35
0.12
2.54
0.33
2.81

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.13
0.22
5.34
5.39
4.98
0.84
4.76
3.44
2.97

0.14
0.21
5.70
5.13
5.09
0.76
4.62
3.58
2.94

0.15
0.21
5.42
4.17
4.54
0.75
4.08
3.13
2.55

0.16
0.20
5.30
4.31
4.25
0.75
3.83
3.19
2.51

0.19
0.19
5.08
4.30
4.14
0.66
3.82
3.21
2.49

0.17
0.18
4.87
4.29
3.87
0.57
3.82
3.14
2.43

0.19
0.18
4.60
4.69
3.84
0.54
3.89
3.21
2.51

0.14
0.18
4.57
4.86
4.07
0.54
4.19
3.36
2.63

0.16
0.18
4.50
4.95
4.07
0.58
4.30
3.43
2.68

0.15
0.17
4.31
4.77
4.19
0.53
4.11
3.46
2.63

Continent

2.90

2.80

2.54

2.54

2.54

2.53

2.61

2.66

2.76

2.72

12

Table 3. The number of U.S. hunters by state who submitted woodcock wings for the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025
Parts-collection Surveys. This number may include a small number of hunters who 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 1 state.

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

2023-2024 Season

2024-2025 Season

1
3
15
7
0
9
0
14
4
1
4
16
81
11
28
274
83
4
13
1
39
17
35
10
0
13
1
30
2
9
1
6
33
24
9
145
943

4
4
12
4
0
11
1
11
5
3
5
21
73
5
21
179
64
5
9
2
40
8
27
16
0
8
1
25
1
16
3
2
34
21
9
117
767

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 2024 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963–2023.
Total
Adult
Adult
State or
Wings
Total
Female
Female Immature Immature Recruitment Recruitment
1963Region of
Wings
Wings
Wings
Wings
Wings
Index
Index
harvest
2023
2024
1963-2023
2024
1963-2023
2024
1963-2023
2024
CT
16,253
65
3,661
17
9,862
37
2.69
---DE
735
11
123
6
491
4
3.99
---FL
678
0
153
0
422
0
2.76
---GA
3,557
72
1,128
29
1,496
29
1.33
---ME
95,601
579
28,372
206
47,608
229
1.68
1.11
MD
5,348
21
1,313
7
3,045
9
2.32
---MA
26,955
218
8,483
83
12,997
86
1.53
1.04
NH
40,762
350
13,264
108
18,866
157
1.42
1.45
NJ
28,553
44
6,606
19
16,895
17
2.56
---NY
68,148
211
23,208
81
30,580
79
1.32
0.98
NC
5,223
203
1,710
75
2,396
83
1.40
1.11
PA
35,511
97
11,305
31
16,357
47
1.45
---RI
2,513
9
488
5
1,662
2
3.41
---SC
4,982
171
1,615
67
2,210
57
1.37
0.85
VT
32,069
312
10,532
105
14,580
125
1.38
1.19
VA
8,022
253
2,156
79
4,273
116
1.98
1.47
WV
6,841
29
2,077
11
3,397
14
1.64
---Eastern
Region
381,751
2,645
116,194
929
187,137
1,091
1.61
1.14
AL
AR
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
MI
MN
MS
MO
NE
ND
OH
OK
TN
TX
WI
Central
Region

1,115
629
1,521
9,245
1,435
56
1,424
34,973
159,011
52,721
2,061
5,120
21
4
15,991
179
1,413
1,361
108,573

26
12
1
44
11
11
24
335
1,174
558
45
80
5
0
57
1
9
9
1,073

327
206
359
2,394
464
11
364
7,915
52,555
19,044
579
1,415
8
3
4,930
40
384
418
37,398

8
3
0
9
6
3
6
98
419
217
13
27
1
0
23
0
3
5
407

491
256
851
5,066
645
27
714
22,506
77,253
22,303
1,042
2,462
10
1
7,502
94
711
633
50,305

10
5
1
26
3
5
10
201
524
196
18
26
3
0
18
1
5
4
439

1.50
1.24
2.37
2.12
1.39
---1.96
2.84
1.47
1.17
1.80
1.74
------1.52
2.35
1.85
1.51
1.35

---------------------2.05
1.25
0.90
------------------------1.08

396,853

3,475

128,814

1,248

192,872

1,495

1.50

1.23

14

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter success from the
2024–2025 Harvest Information Program (note: estimates rounded to the nearest 100 for harvest, hunters, and days
afield).
Active
Woodcock
Hunters
300
0
200
600
600
400
4,200
5,800
5,400
4,700
5,100
9,700
100
700
3,200
600
100
41,600

Active
Woodcock
Hunters
SE
0
0
100
100
0
0
2,100
3,200
4,300
2,800
2,900
4,400
0
0
2,300
0
0
naa

Days
Afield
SE
300
100
300
900
600
300
10,600
11,300
4,300
65,400
13,100
15,800
100
600
2,400
400
100
70,500

Season
Harvest
Per
Hunter
SE
0.81
0.57
0.77
1.10
0.75
0.36
1.18
1.43
0.79
0.10
0.68
0.40
0.50
1.02
1.30
0.66
0.60
nab

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

Harvest
700
0
200
2,600
1,900
400
9,600
12,300
5,400
800
4,700
6,300
100
3,600
5,500
2,500
300
56,900

Harvest
SE
200
0
100
600
400
100
1,000
4,700
600
100
2,100
2,700
0
600
800
400
100
6,100

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

300
1,800
100
300
900
100
1,300
10,200
37,900
51,200
4,100
200
100
1,100
100
800
1,800
42,000
154,200

100
700
0
200
500
0
400
1,900
8,700
15,300
3,000
100
0
200
100
300
400
14,100
22,800

100
200
100
100
2,000
0
200
3,400
18,400
24,300
3,200
2,900
100
2,000
100
3,500
400
14,800
76,000

0
100
0
0
1,800
0
0
2,200
5,300
6,000
3,000
2,800
0
1,600
100
3,300
0
3,600
naa

700
1,500
700
800
2,700
300
1,900
9,300
134,000
119,000
7,300
8,900
600
5,500
200
12,100
1,700
88,400
395,700

300
500
200
400
1,800
100
600
2,400
43,300
34,100
6,000
8,400
200
3,200
200
9,900
300
32,000
65,500

2.22
7.53
0.44
3.8
0.45
1.40
5.95
3.01
2.06
2.10
1.25
0.06
0.71
0.54
1.00
0.21
4.43
2.83
nab

1.27
3.40
0.22
2.95
0.47
1.10
1.86
2.04
0.75
0.81
1.48
0.07
0.46
0.44
1.19
0.20
0.99
1.17
nab

U.S. Total

211,200

23,600

117,600

naa

618,800

96,200

nab

nab

a

Days
Afield
2,000
100
500
5,000
4,600
1,500
24,300
24,100
13,100
70,300
22,100
38,600
400
4,100
7,400
4,100
800
223,100

Season
Harvest
Per
Hunter
2.57
0.50
1.20
4.13
3.40
1.06
2.28
2.13
0.99
0.16
0.93
0.65
0.85
5.43
1.73
4.49
2.36
nab

Hunter 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 1 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 – 2025.
Eastern
Central
Eastern
Daily
Central
Daily
Eastern
Eastern Outside
Central
Central Outside
Season
Bag
Season
Bag
Year(s)
Dates
Length
Limit
Year(s)
Dates
Length
Limit
1918-26
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
60
6
1918-26
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
60
6
1927
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
60
4
1927
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
60
4
1928-39
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
30
4
1928-39
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
30
4
1940-47
Oct. 1 - Jan. 6
15
4
1940-47
Oct. 1 - Jan. 6
15
4
1948-52
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
30
4
1948-52
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
30
4
1953
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
40
4
1953
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
40
4
1954
Oct. 1 - Jan. 10
40
4
1954
Oct. 1 - Jan. 10
40
4
1955-57
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
40
4
1955-57
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
40
4
1958-60
Oct. 1 - Jan. 15
40
4
1958-60
Oct. 1 - Jan. 15
40
4
1961-62
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
40
4
1961-62
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
40
4
1963-64
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
50
5
1963-64
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
50
5
1965-66
Sep. 1 - Jan. 30
50
5
1965-66
Sep. 1 - Jan. 30
50
5
1967-69
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
65
5
1967-69
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
65
5
1970-71
Sep. 1 - Feb. 15
65
5
1970-71
Sep. 1 - Feb. 15
65
5
1972-81
Sep. 1 - Feb. 28
65
5
1972-90
Sep. 1 - Feb. 28
65
5
1982
Oct. 5 - Feb. 28
65
5
1991-96
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
65
5
a
1983-84
Oct. 1 - Feb. 28
65
5
1997-20
Sep. 22 - Jan. 31
45
3
1985-96
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
45
3
2021-25
Sep. 13 - Jan 31
45
3
1997-01
Oct. 6 - Jan. 31
30
3
2002-10
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
30
3
2011-20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
45
3
2021-25
Sep. 13 - Jan 31
45
3
a
Saturday nearest September 22nd.

16

Appendix B. Estimates for the number of successful woodcock hunters and woodcock harvest in Canada (Gendron
and Smith 2025).

Successful Hunters

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

Figure B1. Estimated number of successful woodcock hunters in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals,
1972–2023.

Figure B2. Estimated woodcock harvest in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1969–2023.

17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Branch of Assessment and Decision Support
12100 Beech Forest Road
Laurel, Maryland 20708
http://www.fws.gov
September 2025
For State Transfer Relay Service: TTY/Voice:711