Download:
pdf |
pdfU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mourning Dove
Population Status, 2011
Mourning Dove Population Status, 2011
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Population and Habitat Assessment Branch
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708-4002
July 2011
Cover photograph: Mourning Dove by George Andrejko ©
Suggested citation:
Seamans, M. E., K. Parker, and T. A. Sanders. 2011. Mourning dove population status, 2011. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available on our web site at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/newspublicationsreports.html
MOURNING DOVE POPULATION STATUS, 2011
MARK E. SEAMANS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708-4002
KERI PARKER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708-4002
TODD A. SANDERS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 911 NE 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232-4181
Abstract: This report summarizes information on abundance and harvest of mourning doves collected annually in
the United States. For abundance, we report primarily on trends in the number of doves heard per route from the
Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS), but also include trends in doves seen per route from the CCS and birds
heard and seen per route from the all-bird Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). Harvest and hunter participation are
estimated from the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP). The CCS-heard data provided evidence
that abundance of doves decreased in all three dove management units (Eastern [EMU], Central [CMU], and
Western [WMU]) during the long term (1966–2011); within the EMU, however, there is evidence that abundance
decreased in hunt states but increased in nonhunt states. In the recent 10 years there was no evidence for a change
in mourning dove abundance in the EMU, but there was evidence of a decline in the CMU and WMU. There was
evidence for a decline in the CMU over the most recent two years, but no evidence of change in the EMU or
WMU. Over the long term, trends based on CCS-heard and CCS-seen data were consistent in the WMU, but
inconsistent in the EMU and CMU; based on CCS-seen data there is evidence that abundance increased in the
EMU but remained unchanged in the CMU. BBS data provided evidence that the abundance of mourning doves
over the long-term increased in the EMU and decreased in the CMU and WMU. Thus, over the long term, the
three data sets provided consistent results only in the WMU. Current (2010) HIP estimates for mourning dove
total harvest, active hunters, and total days afield in the U.S. were 17,230,400 ± 451,176 (estimate ± SE) birds,
959,900 hunters, and 3,024,200 ± 73,896 days afield. Harvest and hunter participation at the unit level were:
EMU, 7,473,500 ± 256,534 birds, 403,200 hunters, and 1,167,100 ± 39,176 days afield; CMU, 7,194,900 ±
351,947 birds, 406,100 hunters, and 1,362,300 ± 58,690 days afield; and WMU, 2,562,000 ± 117,828 birds,
150,600 hunters, and 494,800 ± 21,941 days afield.
The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is one of the
most abundant bird species in urban and rural areas of
North America, and is familiar to millions of people.
Authority and responsibility for management of this
species in the United States is vested in the Secretary
of the Interior. This responsibility is conferred by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 which, as
amended, implements migratory bird treaties between
the United States and other countries. Mourning doves
are included in the treaties with Great Britain (for
Canada) and Mexico (U.S. Department of the Interior
1988). These treaties recognize sport hunting as a
legitimate use of a renewable migratory bird resource.
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.
The annual dove harvest is estimated to be between 5
and 10% of the population (Otis et al. 2008a).
Maintenance of dove populations in a healthy,
productive state is a primary management goal.
Management activities include population assessment,
harvest regulation, and habitat management. Each
year, counts of mourning doves heard and seen are
conducted by state, federal, tribal, and other biologists
in the 48 conterminous states to monitor mourning
dove populations. The resulting information is used
by wildlife administrators in setting annual hunting
regulations. A history of dove hunting regulations is
provided in Appendix A.
specifiically for moourning dovess (Dolton 19993). This
surveyy is based on work by MccClure (1939)) in Iowa.
In thee United Stattes, the survvey currentlyy includes
more tthan 1,000 ranndomly selectted routes, strratified by
Bird C
Conservation Regions (Doolton 1993, Saauer et al.
2010).
CCS rroutes are loccated on secoondary roads and have
20 listtening stationns spaced at 1-mile interrvals. At
each sstop, the nuumber of inndividual dovves heard
callingg, the numbeer of doves sseen, and thee level of
disturbbance (noise)) that impairss the observerr’s ability
to hearr doves are reecorded. Observers also rrecord the
numbeer of doves seeen while drivving between stops.
Countss begin one--half hour beefore sunrise and take
about 2 hours to complete. Routes are run once
betweeen 20 May and 5 Junne. Surveyss are not
conduccted when w
wind velocities exceed 12 miles per
hour oor when it is raaining or snow
wing.
The nuumber of dovves heard andd seen duringg the CCS
are reecorded and analyzed seeparately. The total
numbeer of doves heard on each route iss used to
determ
mine annual indices of aabundance dduring the
breedinng season. Subsequentlyy, trends in aabundance
over tiime are determ
mined from thhese annual inndices. A
similarr assessment is completedd based on doves seen
and ressults are also presented in this report, bbut only as
suppleemental inform
mation for coomparison wiith indices
and treends of dovess heard.
F
Figure 1. Breeding
B
and wintering ranges of the
m
mourning dov
ve (adapted from Mirarch
hi and Baskett
1
1994).
D
DISTRIBU
UTION AN
ND ABUN
NDANCE
T
The mournin
ng dove is one of thee most wideely
ddistributed an
nd abundantt birds in North
N
Ameriica
((Peterjohn et al. 1994, Fig. 1). The falll population for
f
tthe United Sttates was recently estimatted to be abo
out
3350 million (O
Otis et al. 200
08b). Mourniing doves breeed
ffrom southern
n Canada thrroughout thee United Stattes
into Mexico, Bermuda, the Bahamaas and Greatter
A
Antilles, and in scattered locations in Central
C
Ameriica
((Fig. 1). Wh
hile mournin
ng doves win
nter througho
out
m
much of the breeding
b
rang
ge, the majoritty winter in the
t
ssouthern United States, Mexico,
M
and south through
C
Central Amerrica to westeern Panama (Aldrich 199
93,
M
Mirarchi and Baskett
B
1994).
Withinn the United States, theree are three zzones that
containn mourning dove populaations that arre largely
indepeendent of eacch other (Kieel 1959). Thhese zones
encom
mpass the prinncipal breedinng, migration,, and U.S.
winterring areas for each populaation. As sugggested by
Kiel ((1959), thesee three areass were estabblished as
separat
ate managemeent units in 19960 (Kiel 19661). Since
that tiime, manageement decisioons have beeen made
withinn the boundarries of the Eaastern (EMU
U), Central
(CMU
U), and Westerrn (WMU) M
Management U
Units (Fig.
2). Thhe EMU was further dividded into two groups of
states for analysess. States perrmitting dove hunting
were combined innto one grooup (hunt) aand those
prohibbiting dove hunting intoo another ((nonhunt).
Wisconnsin became a hunt statee for the firsst time in
2003 w
while Minnesota became a hunt statee in 2004.
Additi onally, somee states weree grouped too increase
Maryland and Delawaare were
samplee sizes.
combinned; Vermoont, New Hampshire, Maine,
P
POPULAT
TION MO
ONITORIN
NG
C
Call-countt Survey
T
The Mournin
ng Dove Call-count Surv
vey (CCS) was
w
ddeveloped to provide an annual index
x of abundan
nce
2
Figure 2. Mourning do
ove managem
ment units with
h 2010 hunt a
and nonhunt sstates.
M
Massachusettss, Connecticu
ut, and Rhod
de Island weere
ccombined to form a New England group. Due to its
ssmall size, Rhode
R
Island, which is a hunt
h
state, was
w
included in th
his nonhunt grroup of states for analysis.
Harvvest Surveey
Wildli fe professioonals have llong recognnized that
reliabl e harvest esttimates are nneeded to moonitor the
impactt of hunting. In the past, the USFWS estimated
harvesst of mouurning dovees from thhe Mail
Questiionnaire Surrvey (Martinn and Carney 1977,
Martinn 1979). H
However, the sampling frrame was
primarrily waterfow
wl hunters beccause it incluuded only
those ppeople who bbought Duck Stamps. Thee estimate
of harvvest from thiis survey wass not the totaal estimate
of dovve harvest buut rather the total estimatee of dove
harvesst by hunterrs who purcchased Duckk Stamps.
Thereffore, it undeerestimated tootal dove haarvest and
dove hhunter activiity. Some sstates conduccted dove
harvesst surveys, buut the usefulness of these ssurveys in
estimaating dove haarvest at largger scales waas limited
becausse of partial geographic coverage, thhe lack of
consisttent survey methodologyy, and an innability to
compaare survey ressults among sttates.
B
Breeding Bird
B
Survey
T
The North Am
merican Breeeding Bird Su
urvey (BBS) is
ccompleted in June and is based
b
on routes that are 24
4.5
m
miles long. Each
E
route co
onsists of 50
0 stops or poiint
ccount location
ns at 0.5-milee intervals. At
A each stop,, a
33-minute coun
nt is conductted whereby every
e
bird seeen
w
within a 0.25--mile (400 m)) radius or heard is recordeed.
S
Surveys start one-half hou
ur before loccal sunrise an
nd
ttake about 5 hours
h
to com
mplete. Data for birds heaard
aand seen at stops are co
ombined for BBS analysses
((doves heard and seen are analyzed sep
parately for the
t
C
CCS).
T
There has beeen considerab
ble discussion
n about utilizing
tthe BBS as a measure of mourning do
ove abundancce.
C
Consequently
y, we are inclu
uding 1966–2
2010 BBS trend
information in
n this reportt. Currently available BB
BS
ddata is one yeear behind CC
CS data. Sau
uer et al. (199
94)
ddiscussed the differences in the metho
odology of the
t
ttwo surveys. Current yearr BBS data arre not availab
ble
in time for usse in regulatio
ons developm
ment during the
t
ssame year. Research is currrently underw
way to evaluaate
tthe causes off differences in
i estimated trends betweeen
tthe CCS and BBS
B results (ee.g., Sauer et al. 2010).
To rem
medy the lim
mitations assoociated with the Mail
Questiionnaire Survvey and usinng the resultss of state
surveyys, the U.S. F
Fish and Willdlife Servicee initiated
the M
Migratory Birrd Harvest Information Program
(HIP). The progrram was established in 1992 and
becam
me fully operaational on a nnational scalee in 1999.
HIP iss designed to enable the U
U.S. Fish andd Wildlife
Servic e to conductt nationwide surveys thaat provide
reliabl e annual estiimates of thee harvest of mourning
doves and other miigratory gamee bird speciess on state,
3
number of doves heard, seen, or both heard and seen
(BBS) per route.
management unit, and national levels. Under HIP,
states provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with
the names and addresses of all licensed migratory bird
hunters each year and then surveys are conducted to
estimate harvest and hunter participation (total harvest,
number of active hunters, total days afield, and
seasonal harvest per hunter) in each state. All states
except Hawaii are participating in the program.
Annual indices were calculated at the state, region
(group of states), and dove management unit level.
Short- (recent 2-year period), intermediate- (recent 10year period) and long-term (all years with data) trends
were evaluated for each area. We present the median
and 95th percentile credible intervals for estimates.
The extent to which trend credible intervals exclude
zero can be interpreted as the strength of evidence for
an increasing or decreasing trend. Thus, there is
evidence of a positive trend if the CI > 0 and there is
evidence of negative trend if the CI < 0. If the CI
contains 0, then there is inconclusive evidence about
trend in abundance. The reported sample sizes are the
number of routes or sites on which trend estimates are
based, which includes any route on which mourning
doves were ever encountered in the region. For the
CCS-heard data, we estimated the trend, or average
annual change, in dove abundance for each area over
the last 2 and 10 years and for all 46 years since
survey implementation in 1966 (Table 1). Also we
estimated the trend in dove abundance for each area
from CCS-seen data over the same time periods, and
present these as supplemental information for
comparison with CCS-heard results (Table 2).
METHODS
Estimation of Trends in Abundance
CCS and BBS trends were estimated using a log-linear
hierarchical model and Bayesian analytical framework
(Sauer et al. 2008, Sauer et al. 2010). Prior to 2010
trends were estimated using a route regression
approach (Link and Sauer 1994). Both methods
provide trend and annual index values that are
generally comparable.
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 unlike the former assessment.
With the hierarchical model, the log of the expected
value of the counts is modeled as a linear combination
of strata-specific intercepts and trends, a random effect
for each unique combination of route and observer, a
year effect, a start-up effect on the route for first year
counts of new observers, and over-dispersion. Most of
the parameters of interest are treated as random effects
and some parameters are hierarchical in that they are
assumed to follow distributions that are governed by
additional parameters. The 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. Once the
sequences converge, medians and credible intervals
(CI, Bayesian confidence intervals) for the parameters
are determined from the subsequent replicates.
Annual indices are defined as exponentiated year and
trend effects, and trends are defined as ratios of the
year effects at the start and end of the interval of
interest, taken to the appropriate power to estimate a
yearly change (Sauer et al. 2008). Trend estimates are
expressed as the average percent change per year over
a given time period, while indices are expressed as the
For the BBS, trends were calculated over the recent 10
years and for all 45 years since survey implementation
in 1966. Current year BBS data are not available at
the time of publication of this report and consequently
these data are one year behind the CCS data. BBS
results are presented in Table 3.
We present estimated annual indices of mourning dove
abundance during 1966–2011 for management units
and states based on CCS-heard data (Table 4) and
CCS-seen data (Table 5). From these data, trend
(point estimate) in dove abundance can be calculated
for any time interval within this time period based on
the ratio of the index values in the first and last year of
the interval of interest. For graphical presentation we
considered a trend estimate of zero (e.g., 10-year trend
for Indiana; Table 1) as increasing (e.g., see Indiana in
Fig. 4).
4
F
Figure 3. Mourning dove
e abundance in the Easte
ern
M
Management Unit based on
o the mean of the 2 CC
CSh
heard index values from the last 2 years
s (2010–2011).
Figure
e 4. Trend in mourning dove abundancce by state
in the Eastern Mana
agement Unitt over the lastt 10 years
(2002–
–2011) based on CCS-h
heard data. Credible
interva
als (CI, 95%) that exclude zero provide
e evidence
for an increasing orr decreasing ttrend.
C
CALL-CO
OUNT SUR
RVEY RE
ESULTS
changeed in the EM
MU or in EM
MU hunt andd nonhunt
states during the reecent 2 year interval (Tabble 1). At
the staate-level, theree was no eviddence of channge in any
EMU states, but thhe precision oof trend estim
mates was
not greeat during thee short 2-yearr time period ((Table 1).
E
Eastern Managemen
M
nt Unit
T
The EMU inccludes 27 staates comprisiing 30% of the
t
land area off the contigu
uous United States. Do
ove
hhunting is perrmitted in 19 states, representing 80% of
tthe land area of
o the unit (Fiig. 2).
Abunddance Trends: 10 and 46 year.— Acccording to
CCS-hheard data, thhere was no evidence of change in
dove aabundance in the EMU, thee EMU nonhuunt states,
or the EMU hunt sstates over thhe last 10 yeaars (Table
1). T
The only EM
MU states that had evideence of a
changee in dove abbundance durring the 10-yyear time
periodd were Louissiana, New Y
York and Neew Jersey
(Tablee 1, Fig. 4). The trend was negativee in New
Jersey and positive in Louisiana and New York.
A
Abundance In
ndices: 2 yea
ar.— Based on
o the mean of
tthe 2 CCS-heeard index vaalues from th
he last 2 yeaars,
N
North Carolin
na had the highest
h
annuaal count in the
t
E
EMU with a mean of 41
1 doves per route (Fig. 3).
3
A
Alabama, Geo
orgia, Illinoiss, Indiana, Kentucky,
K
Ohio,
S
South Carolin
na, and Wiscconsin all had
d 20–30 dovees.
T
The rest of th
he EMU states had 10–20 doves, with the
t
eexception of West
W Virginiaa, which had < 10 doves per
p
rroute.
A
Abundance Trends:
T
2 yea
ar.— Based on CCS-heaard
ddata, there waas no evidencee that dove ab
bundance
5
(Tablee 1, Fig. 5). At the sstate-level, tthere was
evidennce that dovves in Louissiana, Michiggan, New
York, and West V
Virginia all inncreased in aabundance
while doves inn Delawaree-Maryland, Indiana,
Mississsippi, New JJersey, Tenneessee, and Viirginia all
decreaased in abundance during tthe 46-year tim
me period
(Tablee 1, Fig. 6). T
There was noo evidence of a trend in
dove aabundance in any of the othher EMU stattes.
Trendss in dove abuundance from
m CCS-heard and CCSseen ddata were som
mewhat different in both the EMU
and EM
MU hunt staates during thhe last 10 yeaars; CCSheard iindicated no cchange in abuundance wherreas CCSseen inndicated an inncrease in abuundance. Treends from
CCS-hheard and CC
CS-seen data were opposiite during
the lasst 46 years ffor both the EMU and E
EMU hunt
states (Tables 1 annd 2, Fig. 5). Results from
m the two
data seets were simiilar for EMU
U nonhunt stattes during
both thhe 10- and 466-year periods (Tables 1 aand 2, Fig.
5).
F
Figure 5. Mourning
M
dov
ve abundanc
ce indices and
p
predicted trends in the Eastern Man
nagement Unit
(EMU), EMU hunt states,, and EMU nonhunt stattes
b
based on CC
CS data, 196
66–2011. Trend
T
lines are
a
e
exponentiated
d predicted values frrom fitting a
rregression lin
ne through the log trans
sformed annu
ual
in
ndices.
Figure
e 6. Trend in mourning dove abundancce by state
in the Eastern Mana
agement Unitt over the lastt 46 years
(1966–
–2011) based on CCS-h
heard data. Credible
interva
als (CI, 95%) that exclude zero provide
e evidence
for an increasing orr decreasing ttrend.
C
Considering a 46-year timee period, therre was eviden
nce
tthat dove abu
undance decrreased in thee EMU and in
E
EMU hunt staates, but increeased in EMU
U nonhunt stattes
6
C
Central Managemen
M
nt Unit
T
The CMU con
nsists of 14 states, contain
ning 46% of the
t
land area of the
t contiguou
us United Staates. It has the
t
hhighest popullation index of
o the 3 Uniits. Within the
t
C
CMU, dove hunting
h
is perrmitted in 13 states (Fig. 2).
2
IIowa plans to allow hunting starting in 2011.
2
A
Abundance Indices:
I
2 year.—
y
Kansas, Nebrask
ka,
N
North Dakotaa, and South Dakota had the
t most dov
ves
in the CMU based on thee mean of the 2 CCS-heaard
index values from
f
the last 2 years; valu
ues ranged fro
om
440.4–49.9 dov
ves per route (Fig. 7). Oth
her states in the
t
C
CMU were between
b
12.2
2 and 26.1 doves,
d
with the
t
eexception of Wyoming,
W
wh
hich was the only
o
state in the
t
C
CMU with lesss than 10 (6.9
9) doves per route.
r
Figure
e 8. Mourn
ning dove ab
bundance ind
dices and
predictted trends iin the Centrral Managem
ment Unit
based on CCS da
ata, 1966–20
011. Trend lines are
expone
entiated pre
edicted valu
ues from fitting a
regres sion line thrrough the log transforme
ed annual
indicess.
A
Abundance Trends:
T
2 yea
ar.— Based on CCS-heaard
ddata there was evidence th
hat dove abun
ndance declin
ned
in the CMU over
o
the last 2 years (Tablle 1). Declin
nes
w
were suggestted in New
w Mexico, Oklahoma,
O
an
nd
T
Texas, while no change was
w evident in other stattes
((Table 1).
Figure
e 9. Trend in mourning dove abundancce by state
in the Central Mana
agement Unitt over the lastt 10 years
–2011) based on CCS-h
heard data. Credible
(2002–
interva
als (CI, 95%) that exclude zero provide
e evidence
for an increasing orr decreasing ttrend.
F
Figure 7. Mourning
M
dove
e abundance in the Central
M
Management Unit based on
o the mean of the 2 CC
CSh
heard index values from the last 2 years
s (2010–2011).
7
F
Figure 10. Trend
T
in mourning dove abundance by
sstate in the Central
C
Manag
gement Unit over
o
the last 46
4
yyears (1966–2011) based on CCS-heard datta.
C
Credible interrvals (CI, 95%
%) that exclud
de zero provide
e
evidence for an
a increasing or decreasing
g trend.
Figure
e 11. Mourning dove abun
ndance in the
e Western
Manag
gement Unit b
based on the
e mean of the 2 CCSheard index values from the last 2 years (2010–2011).
Abunddance Indicess: 2 year.— B
Based on thee mean of
the 2 CCS-heard inndex values from the last 2 years,
Arizonna had the higghest numberr of doves peer route in
the W
WMU at 17.3 (Fig. 11). All other staates in the
WMU had less thaan 10, and vaalues ranged ffrom 4.5–
9.7 dovves per route..
A
Abundance Trends:
T
10 an
nd 46 year.—
— According to
C
CCS-heard daata in the CM
MU, there waas evidence th
hat
ddove abundan
nce declined over the lastt 10 years, and
tthe last 46 yeears (Table 1,, Fig. 8). The only states in
o a change in the 10 yeear
tthe CMU witth evidence of
pperiod were Oklahoma and Texass where do
ove
aabundance deecreased (Tab
ble 1, Fig. 9)). Considering
tthe 46-year CCS-heard
C
datta, there was no evidence of
aan incease in abundance
a
in
n any state (Taable 1, Fig. 10
0).
S
Seven statees, Minneso
ota, Missou
uri, Montan
na,
N
Nebraska, Oklahoma,
O
Texas, and Wyoming
W
had
h
eevidence for a decrease in
n dove abundance over the
t
446-year period (Table 1, Fig.
F 10). At the
t level of the
t
C
CMU CCS-ssen data indicated no
n change in
aabundance ov
ver the last 10 or 46 years (Table
(
2).
Abunddance Trends:: 2 year.— T
There was noo evidence
of a chhange in dovee abundance iin the WMU,, and only
data fr
from Arizonaa indicated a change in aabundance
(declinne) during thee last 2 yearss based on C
CCS-heard
data (T
Table 1). Thhe precision of trend estiimates for
last 2 yyears was nott great for anyy state (Table 1).
Abunddance Trends:: 10 and 46 yyear.— Basedd on CCSheard data, there w
was evidence that the abunndance of
doves declined iin the WM
MU and in Arizona,
Califorrnia, and Oreegon over the last 10 yearss (Table 1,
Fig. 112). Over tthe last 46 yyears, there was also
evidennce that dove abundance ddecreased in tthe WMU
(Tablee 1, Fig. 13). During this time period there was
evidennce of a decliine in dove aabundance inn Arizona,
Califorrnia, Idaho, O
Oregon, and U
Utah (Fig. 14)).
W
Western Manageme
M
ent Unit
T
The WMU co
onsists of 7 states and rep
presents 24% of
tthe land areaa of the conttiguous Uniteed States. All
A
sstates within the
t WMU perrmit mournin
ng dove hunting
((Fig. 2).
8
F
Figure 12. Trend
T
in mourning dove abundance by
sstate in the Western
W
Management Unit over
o
the last 10
yyears (2002–2011) based on CCS-heard datta.
C
Credible interrvals (CI, 95%
%) that exclud
de zero provide
e
evidence for an
a increasing or decreasing
g trend.
Figure
e 14. Trend
d in mourning
g dove abun
ndance by
state in
n the Western
n Management Unit over tthe last 46
years (1966–2011
1) based o
on CCS-hea
ard data.
Credib
ble intervals (CI, 95%) tha
at exclude zerro provide
eviden
nce for an incrreasing or decreasing tren
nd.
At the WMU level,, CCS trend rresults for dooves heard
and dooves seen perr route were similar durinng 46 year
periodd but not the 10 year periiod; 10-year CCS-seen
indicatted no changee in abundancce (Tables 1 aand 2).
BRE
EEDING B
BIRD SUR
RVEY RES
SULTS
Here w
we comparee 1966–2010 BBS (Tablle 3) and
1966–22011 CCS (T
Table 1, dovees heard; andd Table 2,
doves seen) results presented inn this report. The time
periodd for these com
mparisons aree off by 1 yeaar, but this
shouldd be relativelly inconsequuential over llong time
periodds (≥ 10 yearss), especially for time periiods of 45
or 46 yyears where bboth intervals begin in 1966.
Easteern Manaagement Unit
F
Figure 13. Abundance ind
dices and pred
dicted trends of
b
breeding mou
urning doves in
i the Westerrn Manageme
ent
U
Unit, 1966–2
2011.
Trend
d lines are exponentiated
p
predicted valu
ues from fittin
ng a regression line through
the log transfo
ormed annuall indices.
The B
BBS provideed evidence that dove aabundance
increassed in the EM
MU and EMU
U hunt states dduring the
last 100 and 45 yearrs of availablee data (Table 3). Also,
there was evidencce that abunndance in tthe EMU
nonhunnt states incrreased over tthe 45 years but there
9
was no evidence of change over the recent 10 years.
Considering the last 10 years of available data, the
BBS generally provided similar results to CCS-seen
results but not to the CCS-heard results (Tables 1–3).
However, over the last 45–46 years, BBS results were
most consistent with CCS-seen results (Tables 2 and
3). BBS results were opposite CCS-heard in the EMU
and EMU hunt states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
State wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) cooperated to collect the data
presented in this report. Special thanks to state agency
Call-count Survey (CCS) coordination personnel
including: R. Applegate (TN), S. Baker (MS), T.
Bidrowski (KS), T. Bogenschutz (IA), B. Crose (OH),
M. DiBona (DE), J. Dickson (CT), J. Dolling (UT), J.
Duguay (LA), B. Dukes (SC), K. Fothergill (CA), V.
Frawley (MI), M. Frisbie (TX), J. Fuller (NC), J.
Garris (NJ), E. Gorman (CO), B. Hale (NM), J.
Hansen (MT), B. Harvey (MD), K. Hodges (FL), C.
Huxoll (SD), J. Knetter (ID), D. Kraege (WA), B.
Lanka (WY), J. Lusk (NE), R. Marshalla (IL), D.
McGowan (GA), M. McInroy (IA), J. Osborn (WY), J.
Powers (AL ), M. Rabe (AZ), J. Richardson (OK), E.
Robinson (NH), D. Scarpitti (MA), J. Schulz (MO), A.
Stewart (MI), N. Stricker (OH), B. Swift (NY), M.
Szymanski (ND), B. Tefft (RI), B. Veverka (IN), M.
Weaver (PA), T. White (TN), S. Wilson (WV), and R.
Woolstenhulme (NV). CCS state and regional
coordination personnel from USFWS include A.
Araya, B. Bortner, A. Daisey, C. Dwyer, T. Edwards,
K. Frizzell, J. Haskins, D. James, S. Kelly, M. Mills,
C. Nicolai, C. Smith, M. Strassburger, J. Weller, J.
West, and R. Wilson. D. Dolton (USFWS-Retired)
provided guidance and historical perspective regarding
CCS implementation and data review. K. Magruder
(USFWS) provided assistance with CCS data entry
and management and participated in the CCS data
review process. R. Maruthalingam (USFWS) assisted
with maintaining the website and developing data
management applications for the CCS. R. Rau
(USFWS) developed and maintained the CCS data
entry website, provided historical perspective
regarding CCS implementation, and participated in the
CCS data review process. J. Sauer (USGS) analyzed
the data and provided statistical support. K. Wilkins,
B. Raftovich, and H. Spriggs (USFWS) provided HIP
data and explanation. B. Raftovich, F. Rivera, R. Rau,
K. Richkus, J. Sauer, and K. Wilkins (USFWS)
reviewed a draft of this report. Finally, we recognize J.
Sauer’s commitment to the annual assessment of
abundance
data,
report
contributions,
and
extraordinary work hours during report preparation.
This report would not be possible without the
significant contributions of all involved.
Central Management Unit
In the CMU, the BBS provided evidence that doves
decreased in abundance over the last 45 years, but
provided no evidence that abundance changed over the
last 10 years (Table 3). Over the short term, BBS
results were consistent with CCS-seen, but over the
long term, BBS results were most consistent with the
CCS-heard (Tables 1–3).
Western Management Unit
The BBS provided evidence that dove abundance
decreased in the WMU during both the last 45 and 10
year intervals (Table 3). For the 45-year time period,
BBS results are consistent with both the CCS-heard
and CCS-seen results (Tables 1–3). For the 10-year
time period, BBS results were inconsistent with CCSseen results, but agreed with the CCS-heard results
indicating a decline in dove abundance.
HARVEST SURVEY ESTIMATES
Preliminary results of mourning dove harvest and
hunter participation from HIP for the 2009 and 2010
hunting seasons are presented in Tables 6 and 7,
respectively. Current (2010) HIP estimates indicate
that in the U.S. about 17 million birds were harvested
by about 1 million hunters that spent about 3 million
days afield. The EMU and CMU total dove harvest
represented 43% and 42% of the national harvest of
doves while the WMU represented 15% (Table 7).
Considering the precision of estimates, mourning dove
harvest and hunter participation appeared similar
during the 2009 and 2010 seasons (Tables 6 and 7).
Additional
information
about
HIP,
survey
methodology, and results can be found in annual
reports located at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/newreportspublica
tions/hip/hip.htm.
10
Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, and D. P. Scott. 2008a.
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) harvest and
population parameters derived from a national
banding study. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical
Publication FWS/BTP-R3010-2008, Washington,
D.C., USA.
Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, D. A. Miller, R. Mirarchi,
and T. Baskett. 2008b. Mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura). In The Birds of North America, No.
117.
(A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.).
Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences;
Washington, D.C., USA.
Peterjohn, B. G., J. R. Sauer and W. A. Link. 1994.
The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North
American breeding bird survey. Bird Populations
2:46–61.
Sauer, J. R., D. D. Dolton, and S. Droege. 1994.
Mourning dove population trend estimates from
Call-count and North American Breeding Bird
Surveys.
Journal of Wildlife Management.
58(3):506–515.
Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, W. L. Kendall, and D. D.
Dolton. 2010. Comparative Analysis of mourning
dove population change in North America.
Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5):1059-1069.
Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, W. L. Kendall, J. R. Kelly,
and D. K. Niven. 2008. A hierarchical model for
estimating change in American woodcock
populations. Journal of Wildlife Management.
58(1):204–214.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1988. Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement:
Issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport
hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C., USA.
LITERATURE CITED
Aldrich, J. W. 1993. Classification and distribution.
Pages 47-54 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E.
Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, Editors. Ecology
and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dolton, D. D. 1993. The call-count survey: historic
development and current procedures. Pages 233–
252 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E.
Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology
and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kiel, W. H. 1959. Mourning dove management units,
a progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Special Scientific Report—Wildlife 42.
Kiel, W. H. 1961. The mourning dove program for
the future. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference
26:418–435.
Link, W. A. and J. R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating
equations estimates of trends. Bird Populations
2:23–32.
Martin E. M. 1979. Hunting and harvest trends for
migratory game birds other than waterfowl: 1964–
76. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report No.
218, Washington, D.C., USA.
Martin, E. M., and S. M. Carney. 1977. Population
ecology of the mallard, IV. A review of duck
hunting regulations, activity, and success, with
special reference to the mallard. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Resource Publication 130, Washington, D.C.,
USA.
McClure, H.E. 1939. Cooing activity and censusing of
the mourning dove.
Journal of Wildlife
Management 3:323–328.
Mirarchi, R. E. and T. S. Baskett. 1994. Mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura). In A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors, The birds of North America, No. 117.
The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia
and The American Ornithologists’ Union,
Washington, D.C., USA.
11
Table 1. Estimated trenda (percent change per year and lower and upper 95% credible intervals) in mourning
dove abundance based on Call-count Survey heard data for management units and states during 46-year (1966–
2011), 10-year (2002–2011), and 2-year (2010–2011) periods.
Management Unit
State
N
46 year
Trend
Lower
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
618
503
47
21
33
33
24
18
27
25
32
25
57
20
27
23
33
23
12
115
23
76
17
22
-0.3
-0.4
0.2
-1.1
0.4
-0.8
-0.9
-1.1
-0.2
1.7
-1.6
0.3
-0.4
0.0
-0.5
-1.8
-2.0
0.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
-2.6
2.1
-0.7
-0.8
-0.4
-2.0
-0.3
-1.5
-2.0
-1.7
-0.8
1.0
-2.2
-0.2
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-2.5
-4.6
-0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
-0.2
-3.5
1.4
-0.1
-0.2
0.7
-0.1
1.1
0.0
0.1
-0.5
0.5
2.5
-0.9
0.8
0.2
0.9
0.1
-1.1
-1.1
1.3
2.4
1.6
1.7
2.0
-1.6
2.9
469
399
31
16
27
24
21
15
19
21
24
22
37
20
21
15
33
22
11
70
20
42
10
18
0.2
0.1
0.3
-0.1
1.2
0.9
-0.6
0.0
-0.3
2.0
-1.3
0.4
0.6
-1.8
-0.5
-1.2
-1.5
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.3
-2.6
2.3
-0.3
-0.4
-1.0
-2.3
-0.8
-1.3
-2.8
-1.7
-1.8
0.2
-2.8
-0.8
-1.3
-5.2
-1.9
-2.9
-3.2
-2.1
-0.7
-0.5
-1.0
-2.1
-4.4
0.1
0.7
0.6
1.8
2.3
3.4
3.7
1.6
2.2
1.1
3.7
0.2
1.6
2.5
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.2
3.5
3.6
2.3
2.5
2.0
-0.6
3.9
425
363
28
14
24
22
20
15
18
19
23
21
37
17
20
13
26
17
10
62
19
37
10
15
-2.0
-2.1
1.9
-3.4
10.7
-0.4
-5.6
0.1
-3.9
0.6
-3.5
1.8
-3.3
-19.6
-1.1
-1.3
-4.1
-13.8
0.1
-0.2
1.9
0.2
-2.4
0.0
-5.6
-6.0
-8.1
-20.5
-6.6
-17.2
-23.1
-14.4
-15.8
-11.7
-15.3
-7.1
-17.9
-40.5
-12.8
-15.5
-17.3
-32.8
-18.1
-9.5
-11.2
-12.9
-18.1
-14.9
1.7
1.9
14.6
16.1
33.6
20.1
13.2
17.1
6.6
13.1
8.3
14.0
13.0
3.1
10.7
15.3
9.9
9.4
16.8
9.0
17.8
14.7
13.6
12.8
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
554
21
21
19
36
14
28
32
29
31
32
25
29
209
28
-0.8
-0.6
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-1.4
-2.4
-1.1
-0.9
-0.7
0.4
-1.6
-0.5
-1.2
-1.6
-1.0
-1.4
-0.9
-0.7
-0.8
-2.2
-3.1
-2.2
-1.4
-1.5
-0.4
-2.5
-1.2
-1.6
-2.4
-0.6
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.2
-0.6
-1.7
-0.1
-0.4
0.1
1.1
-0.7
0.2
-0.8
-0.8
414
18
16
17
28
13
20
24
25
28
28
16
22
138
21
-1.2
0.0
1.8
0.6
0.3
-1.6
-1.6
-1.9
-0.6
-0.8
-1.8
-4.0
-0.6
-4.3
-1.3
-1.8
-1.7
-1.3
-1.5
-1.6
-3.7
-3.4
-5.8
-1.6
-3.7
-4.3
-7.2
-2.1
-5.4
-3.6
-0.6
2.0
5.2
2.8
2.0
0.3
0.7
2.0
0.6
2.1
1.0
-1.1
0.7
-3.1
0.8
370
15
13
16
25
9
19
17
22
25
26
16
21
130
16
-5.9
2.2
22.4
-4.1
5.3
-2.7
-4.9
-8.6
-1.6
-22.1
-19.1
-28.7
0.1
-16.7
-1.4
-10.6
-11.1
-4.9
-21.0
-9.0
-17.8
-21.3
-36.6
-10.3
-39.7
-34.1
-46.7
-10.1
-24.7
-18.6
-0.7
20.5
61.5
13.8
21.9
12.8
12.1
31.3
7.4
-0.7
0.3
-7.0
11.6
-7.9
16.2
Upper
10 year
Trend Lower
N
Upper
N
2 year
Trend Lower
Upper
Western
286
-1.5
-1.8
-1.2
205
-2.3
-3.4
-1.1
155
-9.9
-18.7
0.6
AZ
72
-1.2
-1.8
-0.7
54
-3.3
-5.4
-1.0
38
-28.5
-40.6
-13.9
CA
89
-2.1
-2.6
-1.6
62
-2.7
-4.4
-0.8
45
-2.0
-17.4
15.8
ID
29
-1.6
-2.5
-0.8
23
-2.6
-5.5
0.2
19
-13.7
-34.2
13.8
NV
38
0.4
-1.0
1.7
22
1.2
-4.2
7.5
17
40.0
-13.6
144.2
OR
26
-2.0
-3.0
-1.1
22
-3.7
-7.3
-0.7
16
-8.4
-31.8
21.3
UT
20
-1.5
-2.5
-0.5
16
-1.0
-4.1
2.9
15
0.3
-21.7
40.2
WA
12
-0.6
-2.2
1.0
6
-0.3
-4.2
3.5
5
1.4
-26.3
45.0
a
Trend estimated from annual indices derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods. There is evidence of a
positive trend if the CI > 0 and there is evidence of negative trend if the CI < 0. If the CI contains 0, then there is inconclusive evidence about
trend in abundance.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
12
Table 2. Estimated trenda (percent change per year and lower and upper 95% credible intervals) in mourning
dove abundance based on Call-count Survey seen data for management units and states during 46-year (1966–
2011), 10-year (2002–2011), and 2-year (2010–2011) periods.
Management Unit
State
N
46 year
Trend
Lower
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
617
502
47
21
33
33
24
18
26
25
32
25
57
20
27
23
33
23
12
115
23
76
17
22
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.8
3.2
-0.7
0.2
-1.3
0.9
2.2
-1.4
0.4
1.2
1.9
0.8
0.1
-0.1
2.6
2.7
2.0
2.4
1.5
-0.6
3.9
0.3
0.2
-0.7
-0.4
2.3
-1.5
-1.3
-2.1
-0.1
1.0
-2.3
-0.4
0.4
0.6
0.0
-0.7
-1.3
1.6
1.1
0.6
1.6
-0.6
-2.0
2.7
0.8
0.7
1.1
2.1
4.1
0.1
1.5
-0.4
1.8
3.2
-0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.6
0.9
0.9
3.7
4.1
2.8
3.3
2.6
0.8
5.1
468
398
31
16
27
24
21
15
19
20
24
22
37
20
21
15
33
22
11
70
20
42
10
18
1.0
0.9
0.0
2.1
3.9
-0.3
0.1
-0.8
1.1
1.9
-1.0
0.6
0.5
1.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
2.4
2.3
1.7
2.5
1.8
-0.7
2.2
0.4
0.3
-2.1
-1.1
0.7
-2.3
-3.0
-3.3
-1.3
-0.7
-3.2
-0.9
-1.9
-0.7
-1.2
-1.3
-2.2
-1.2
-2.8
-0.6
0.1
-0.8
-3.2
-2.1
1.6
1.5
1.9
5.9
7.1
1.5
3.1
2.0
3.5
4.1
1.2
2.1
3.0
3.8
2.5
2.3
2.7
6.0
6.8
3.7
4.7
3.8
1.8
5.6
418
361
28
13
23
22
20
15
18
18
23
21
37
17
20
13
27
18
9
57
19
32
10
15
-1.1
-0.9
-3.3
-4.1
16.6
3.3
-6.1
-0.4
-0.7
1.8
-0.6
0.4
-10.9
-0.4
-1.0
-0.2
5.2
-13.3
-1.3
-2.6
4.8
-3.0
-0.8
-1.6
-5.7
-5.9
-17.4
-28.8
-9.2
-11.2
-28.9
-20.4
-19.9
-14.5
-17.3
-11.3
-27.6
-18.5
-16.4
-14.6
-10.3
-38.1
-34.6
-20.4
-12.4
-22.1
-18.2
-31.6
4.0
4.3
10.1
26.6
53.6
22.1
20.5
23.8
20.4
19.4
17.8
12.1
9.7
17.0
14.5
15.2
25.6
15.1
44.1
13.7
28.4
12.7
19.9
28.2
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
553
21
21
19
36
14
28
32
29
31
32
25
29
209
27
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
0.8
-0.2
-1.5
-1.8
0.2
-0.1
-0.3
0.1
-0.4
-0.2
0.3
-3.7
-0.5
-1.5
-1.3
0.0
-0.8
-2.7
-2.6
-1.0
-0.7
-1.3
-0.8
-1.4
-0.9
-0.2
-5.3
0.0
0.7
0.7
1.6
0.6
-0.3
-1.1
1.4
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.8
-2.4
414
18
16
17
28
13
20
24
25
28
28
16
22
138
21
-0.4
0.0
0.1
1.5
0.5
-0.8
-1.8
-0.4
0.3
1.2
-1.1
-0.6
-0.6
-1.2
-5.1
-1.0
-2.2
-2.3
-0.6
-1.0
-3.4
-3.5
-3.7
-1.3
-2.4
-4.1
-3.5
-2.7
-2.5
-9.9
0.3
2.2
3.2
4.3
2.1
3.2
0.1
2.7
2.0
4.9
1.6
1.7
1.2
0.1
-1.0
371
15
14
16
25
10
20
16
23
24
26
16
21
131
14
-3.5
-1.3
8.3
3.4
-0.8
-3.3
-1.9
2.8
-2.2
-0.3
-9.1
-6.4
0.1
-9.2
-4.5
-8.7
-19.0
-10.9
-13.4
-14.2
-27.3
-15.0
-19.9
-16.1
-26.0
-29.2
-29.8
-14.2
-18.7
-34.3
1.6
16.7
40.2
31.7
11.8
24.0
13.7
35.7
10.3
34.5
16.3
11.5
16.0
1.3
35.1
Upper
10 year
Trend Lower
N
Upper
N
Trend
2 year
Lower
Upper
Western
282
-1.4
-1.9
-0.9
203
-0.9
-2.8
1.3
144
-0.9
-15.8
21.3
AZ
72
-1.1
-1.9
-0.2
52
0.5
-2.9
4.1
35
-45.3
-58.8
-27.2
CA
88
-2.3
-3.0
-1.6
61
-3.1
-5.3
-0.9
45
8.9
-11.0
35.0
ID
29
-0.4
-1.5
0.7
22
0.6
-3.2
4.5
18
-13.8
-37.1
15.7
NV
37
1.1
-1.2
3.2
24
2.2
-6.9
13.2
18
76.8
-25.1
340.2
OR
26
-2.4
-3.6
-1.3
22
-2.2
-6.1
1.8
13
-11.9
-39.9
22.6
UT
20
-1.2
-2.7
0.5
16
-1.3
-7.1
4.8
12
124.3
30.1
292.2
WA
10
0.7
-2.3
3.6
6
6.4
-2.3
16.6
3
14.0
-46.7
151.1
a
Trend estimated from annual indices derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods. There is evidence of a
positive trend if the CI > 0 and there is evidence of negative trend if the CI < 0. If the CI contains 0, then there is inconclusive evidence about
trend in abundance.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
13
Table 3. Estimated trenda (percent change per year and lower and upper 95% credible intervals) in mourning
dove abundance based on Breeding Bird Survey heard and seen data for management units and states during
45-year (1966–2010) and 10-year (2001–2010) periods.
Management Unit
State
N
Trend
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
1,718
1,316
105
81
93
86
102
63
60
88
51
92
78
127
47
31
57
97
58
402
87
160
34
121
0.6
0.5
-0.8
0.3
2.5
-0.6
0.7
0.1
0.9
2.4
-0.4
0.4
1.3
1.5
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
1.8
3.9
1.5
1.3
2.2
0.5
1.6
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
1,118
46
142
39
64
76
66
56
49
81
47
62
58
216
116
-0.7
-0.1
-0.3
0.2
-0.1
-0.9
-1.7
-0.9
-0.2
-0.8
0.1
-1.5
-0.1
-1.1
-1.0
45 year
Lower
10 year
Lower
Upper
N
Trend
Upper
0.5
0.3
-1.2
0.0
1.9
-1.0
0.1
-0.4
0.4
1.7
-1.1
0.0
0.9
1.0
-0.6
-0.8
-0.5
1.3
3.1
1.2
0.8
1.8
-0.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
-0.4
0.5
3.2
-0.2
1.2
0.5
1.3
3.0
0.3
0.8
1.8
1.9
0.4
0.3
0.3
2.2
4.6
1.8
1.7
2.7
1.3
2.0
1,451
1,125
93
69
77
75
101
57
44
65
43
79
59
102
40
27
49
94
51
326
69
132
24
101
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.4
-0.4
0.9
1.0
0.6
2.3
0.1
0.7
1.0
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0.4
2.5
-1.4
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
-1.4
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-0.4
-0.4
-1.1
0.7
-1.4
-0.2
-0.6
-0.9
-1.7
-1.7
-0.6
1.1
-3.8
-0.7
-1.5
-1.4
-1.0
-1.0
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.9
0.8
2.2
2.6
2.0
3.9
1.8
1.7
2.6
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.5
4.0
1.0
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.8
1.9
-0.8
-0.8
-0.9
-0.4
-0.7
-1.4
-2.2
-1.5
-0.8
-1.6
-0.5
-2.0
-0.7
-1.4
-1.7
-0.5
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.5
-0.4
-1.2
-0.3
0.3
-0.1
0.7
-1.0
0.5
-0.7
-0.2
984
41
132
33
62
66
53
53
46
64
45
54
52
193
90
0.0
-0.9
-0.8
0.4
1.2
0.0
-1.1
-0.9
0.2
-1.1
0.6
-0.9
0.1
-0.3
0.7
-0.5
-3.1
-2.4
-1.2
-0.4
-1.4
-2.3
-2.8
-1.1
-2.9
-1.2
-2.3
-1.7
-1.3
-0.9
0.4
1.3
0.7
2.1
3.0
1.8
0.2
0.9
1.6
0.8
2.3
0.9
2.1
0.7
2.4
Western
648
-1.3
-1.7
-0.9
519
-1.4
-2.5
-0.3
AZ
82
-1.0
-1.8
-0.2
63
-0.9
-2.9
1.1
CA
241
-0.9
-1.5
-0.4
180
-0.7
-2.3
1.1
ID
46
-1.9
-2.9
-0.9
40
-3.6
-6.4
-0.7
NV
42
-2.0
-3.1
-0.8
31
-3.7
-7.7
0.6
OR
112
-1.2
-2.2
-0.3
89
3.3
0.4
6.2
UT
100
-2.1
-3.1
-1.3
92
-3.9
-5.8
-1.9
WA
25
0.0
-1.5
1.4
24
2.1
-1.2
5.8
a
Trend estimated from annual indices derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods. There is evidence of a
positive trend if the CI > 0 and there is evidence of negative trend if the CI < 0. If the CI contains 0, then there is inconclusive evidence about
trend in abundance.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
14
Table 4. Estimated annual abundance indicesa of mourning doves based on Call-count Survey heard data for
management units and states, 1966–2011.
Management Unit
State
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
22.8
25.0
24.6
23.3
10.7
30.8
35.1
43.9
28.2
5.8
39.9
36.3
25.6
9.6
34.9
35.8
33.9
15.0
3.9
7.9
11.5
6.4
34.3
6.1
22.4
24.6
24.7
23.5
10.8
31.1
33.0
42.5
27.5
5.8
37.9
35.5
24.1
10.2
35.0
33.7
31.6
18.1
3.9
7.8
11.7
6.4
32.8
6.2
21.9
24.1
23.6
20.2
10.4
29.3
34.7
42.1
27.4
5.6
36.7
35.7
23.8
9.6
34.8
33.1
31.2
16.9
3.9
7.8
11.0
6.5
32.7
6.3
21.8
23.9
24.1
20.4
10.4
31.0
32.4
41.2
27.6
5.9
36.6
35.6
24.7
9.4
34.8
32.3
29.6
15.1
4.0
7.8
11.5
6.5
31.6
6.4
22.1
24.3
24.1
21.2
11.7
33.0
32.9
40.3
27.9
5.8
35.8
35.8
28.8
8.2
34.3
33.5
30.1
14.3
4.1
7.8
11.5
6.2
31.3
6.6
21.6
23.7
23.3
21.4
10.4
29.3
31.4
42.8
27.8
6.0
35.7
35.6
26.6
8.4
33.8
30.2
28.6
16.3
4.1
7.9
12.2
6.4
30.4
6.6
21.6
23.6
24.5
20.6
11.3
28.7
31.3
41.7
27.5
6.0
35.9
35.3
26.2
8.8
33.0
33.0
25.7
17.2
4.2
8.0
12.2
6.7
29.8
6.7
21.3
23.3
24.2
20.7
11.5
30.4
30.1
41.0
27.4
6.0
34.7
36.3
22.5
8.0
33.3
30.0
26.3
17.2
4.2
8.0
11.9
6.7
28.9
6.9
20.8
22.7
23.1
21.6
11.3
29.9
28.4
39.8
28.2
6.2
32.1
35.3
23.7
8.4
32.7
29.0
27.1
15.1
4.2
8.0
12.0
6.6
28.0
7.0
21.5
23.5
24.6
19.1
12.4
31.1
31.5
39.0
27.2
6.4
32.7
35.0
30.8
8.2
32.5
27.8
26.9
16.4
4.3
8.1
12.2
6.7
26.9
7.5
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
31.2
20.5
28.1
25.1
59.4
28.1
44.5
20.1
63.7
14.7
30.6
37.1
53.5
26.6
14.5
30.8
20.3
30.8
25.4
59.9
27.8
42.4
20.7
62.7
11.2
32.7
43.7
50.4
24.1
14.2
31.1
20.2
27.8
25.0
59.5
27.5
43.4
17.6
63.3
14.8
38.4
45.1
51.9
24.9
13.1
29.7
20.1
28.7
23.8
59.0
26.2
37.0
19.6
62.5
12.9
32.1
41.3
50.8
22.6
13.4
29.3
19.8
29.6
21.5
59.1
25.3
38.6
17.3
61.7
12.7
30.8
38.6
51.2
23.6
13.1
28.9
19.9
26.2
23.3
57.8
26.1
37.5
19.0
60.9
12.1
31.9
37.0
50.2
23.0
12.6
30.3
19.9
28.8
24.9
59.0
25.8
40.6
17.8
59.9
14.2
32.7
36.8
50.1
27.6
12.5
28.7
19.7
26.3
24.9
57.9
24.7
36.2
14.3
59.2
12.9
36.6
35.6
50.6
24.4
12.3
28.8
19.5
27.2
22.3
56.7
24.8
32.5
15.6
58.9
12.3
36.5
38.0
51.8
25.0
12.5
28.3
19.3
24.6
23.1
54.7
24.9
33.8
18.0
58.0
15.0
33.7
37.9
50.8
22.2
12.1
Western
17.5
17.7
17.1
17.5
15.5
14.3
13.7
14.3
14.9
13.7
AZ
25.5
26.5
23.8
26.6
21.4
16.7
16.3
24.0
22.1
21.3
CA
25.7
25.3
23.1
24.8
23.5
22.3
22.1
21.5
22.8
19.7
ID
16.2
16.1
14.9
15.5
14.7
13.0
12.8
12.6
12.7
12.2
NV
4.5
4.5
12.3
8.8
7.0
4.2
5.5
3.0
5.2
3.7
OR
12.5
10.9
10.9
11.2
9.0
8.5
8.4
9.2
9.9
9.3
UT
18.3
21.0
15.1
15.6
14.2
19.7
14.9
12.9
13.7
14.3
WA
6.1
6.1
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.3
5.5
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
15
Table 4. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
21.1
23.1
24.4
19.6
11.6
27.1
31.5
40.0
26.8
6.5
32.7
35.2
28.0
8.0
32.2
28.2
25.7
18.1
4.4
8.1
12.4
6.7
26.5
7.4
21.4
23.4
24.9
21.0
12.5
27.5
31.6
39.9
27.4
6.4
32.3
37.1
27.3
8.0
32.1
28.4
27.1
18.3
4.5
8.2
12.4
7.0
26.0
7.5
20.1
21.9
25.4
19.6
11.4
28.0
28.0
33.3
27.3
6.8
33.0
35.9
16.4
8.1
32.5
28.4
24.9
14.8
4.7
8.3
12.6
7.1
25.0
7.7
19.6
21.3
25.6
19.6
10.9
26.8
26.5
33.0
26.8
6.6
31.5
36.2
17.2
8.4
31.9
25.8
23.8
13.7
4.7
8.1
12.3
6.9
24.6
7.7
20.4
22.2
25.6
20.2
10.5
28.1
26.7
35.4
26.1
7.2
31.3
36.7
18.5
8.7
32.9
26.0
23.0
20.3
4.8
8.5
13.1
7.3
23.8
8.0
20.6
22.5
25.8
20.1
10.7
28.6
28.2
36.2
27.0
7.3
30.5
36.1
19.0
9.4
32.6
25.1
22.4
21.6
4.8
8.6
13.3
7.4
22.6
8.2
20.2
22.0
25.9
20.1
11.6
28.5
28.3
34.5
27.2
7.3
31.6
36.6
19.8
9.4
33.0
25.7
21.6
13.6
4.9
8.7
13.1
7.5
22.4
8.4
20.0
21.7
26.4
17.9
11.5
27.6
28.9
31.5
26.8
7.4
30.2
36.3
20.2
9.1
32.2
24.1
21.6
15.0
4.9
8.7
13.1
7.3
22.6
8.7
19.4
21.0
24.7
18.2
10.0
27.0
26.0
32.0
26.9
7.5
27.8
36.8
20.9
9.0
31.3
23.4
21.0
14.0
5.1
8.7
13.4
7.6
20.5
8.7
19.6
21.2
26.4
19.2
10.9
27.4
25.8
30.6
27.0
7.3
29.1
36.8
19.8
9.4
31.2
23.9
20.6
13.9
5.2
8.8
13.5
7.7
20.3
8.9
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
28.9
19.6
26.6
24.1
56.9
24.4
32.8
14.6
58.3
13.9
46.9
38.5
50.4
22.9
11.7
28.8
18.7
27.5
23.7
55.5
24.6
32.9
17.7
57.7
13.5
41.0
48.0
49.5
20.9
11.1
28.6
18.2
31.1
24.7
53.5
24.0
30.3
16.6
56.5
13.7
44.2
40.0
50.0
21.7
11.1
28.0
17.7
28.1
22.2
57.1
23.8
28.6
16.0
55.7
10.3
41.5
32.0
49.6
25.0
10.9
29.2
18.4
30.8
25.2
58.0
23.7
31.5
15.9
56.9
12.8
46.4
33.3
49.5
25.4
10.6
28.5
18.5
30.1
25.8
58.2
23.4
28.9
16.1
56.3
13.4
46.5
31.1
48.5
23.4
10.7
28.3
18.7
30.1
23.2
56.8
22.7
27.9
18.0
54.9
10.5
46.1
37.4
49.7
22.4
10.6
27.7
17.8
23.3
21.3
57.2
22.3
27.8
20.2
54.3
13.6
44.2
37.1
48.9
21.0
10.2
26.0
17.2
26.4
22.9
54.2
21.1
26.2
15.2
53.8
14.9
34.7
29.3
49.0
19.8
9.9
26.8
16.9
26.8
24.0
57.3
21.0
24.5
15.8
53.5
13.9
43.9
29.6
48.2
21.2
9.9
Western
15.5
14.7
12.7
13.3
14.9
14.0
13.7
12.3
12.7
11.9
AZ
24.3
19.6
22.7
26.3
22.7
23.1
23.6
23.5
23.1
22.8
CA
22.2
20.2
18.9
16.7
20.2
18.7
20.5
15.8
17.1
15.0
ID
13.3
15.7
10.9
11.0
12.0
11.9
11.9
10.8
11.5
11.0
NV
7.0
7.7
3.9
4.9
11.5
6.0
4.3
3.7
2.5
3.6
OR
9.0
9.4
6.9
6.8
8.5
8.1
8.0
6.6
7.5
7.5
UT
15.2
15.0
10.1
12.3
12.0
14.9
10.6
11.9
13.6
10.0
WA
5.3
5.3
4.9
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.7
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
16
Table 4. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
19.8
21.4
25.5
20.9
11.4
26.3
27.7
32.5
26.5
7.5
28.9
36.8
20.4
9.3
30.4
22.4
19.8
15.6
5.2
9.0
14.1
7.9
20.4
9.0
19.8
21.4
24.9
17.6
11.0
26.3
28.6
32.0
27.0
8.0
27.6
37.6
21.3
9.9
32.1
23.1
19.8
14.1
5.3
8.8
14.1
7.5
19.6
9.3
20.2
21.9
25.8
17.6
11.7
25.7
29.2
33.9
26.9
7.9
28.4
37.3
23.3
8.8
30.8
22.6
19.0
18.5
5.5
9.1
14.8
7.9
19.1
9.4
20.2
21.8
24.2
18.7
11.7
25.2
28.6
31.7
28.0
8.4
27.9
37.7
23.3
9.3
31.0
21.8
18.9
19.1
5.6
9.4
15.3
8.2
18.8
9.8
20.0
21.6
24.3
16.6
12.6
26.2
29.2
31.8
26.8
8.1
26.6
36.9
23.4
9.7
31.2
21.5
17.7
17.9
5.8
9.5
14.9
8.3
18.1
9.8
19.9
21.4
24.2
18.4
11.8
24.9
28.3
31.8
26.7
8.6
25.1
37.1
24.3
10.0
30.2
21.6
17.7
18.1
5.9
9.7
14.6
8.4
17.9
10.3
20.2
21.8
24.8
18.9
12.4
27.8
28.5
31.0
26.3
8.9
26.4
37.2
24.2
10.2
30.0
20.4
17.1
19.5
5.8
9.8
14.7
8.6
16.9
10.4
19.8
21.2
25.3
16.3
11.2
24.5
27.1
30.8
26.8
8.7
26.6
37.8
21.8
10.8
29.6
20.4
17.1
18.1
5.9
10.0
15.0
8.9
17.1
10.5
19.8
21.3
25.5
17.0
11.0
23.9
27.6
31.9
26.7
9.0
25.5
38.0
24.6
9.9
29.9
21.1
16.9
16.5
6.0
9.9
15.0
8.6
16.5
10.8
19.9
21.3
26.1
17.6
11.8
25.5
29.1
29.9
26.5
9.3
25.1
38.3
22.6
10.6
28.8
19.8
17.1
15.9
6.1
10.3
15.3
9.1
16.0
11.2
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
26.8
17.3
24.0
24.4
51.1
21.0
25.2
17.4
51.9
14.2
45.6
28.8
47.4
22.7
10.0
27.3
17.3
30.1
22.6
52.9
21.2
24.2
16.5
51.2
16.6
50.9
30.2
46.3
21.6
9.6
27.5
17.1
28.5
24.6
55.2
21.1
25.3
17.4
51.5
13.6
47.8
31.4
47.3
22.7
9.1
26.4
17.9
27.9
25.1
52.8
20.3
24.9
17.2
50.7
12.7
51.2
25.5
47.8
19.6
9.1
26.8
17.3
27.9
25.5
51.8
19.7
23.8
18.0
50.6
15.1
48.3
31.5
47.8
20.1
9.0
27.1
16.9
25.4
22.9
56.0
20.0
22.7
14.2
50.2
12.8
52.9
29.4
47.5
25.0
8.9
26.7
17.3
25.6
26.6
54.4
19.4
23.1
14.2
50.0
10.8
51.8
30.9
46.7
23.8
8.9
25.3
17.2
23.9
24.3
48.9
18.7
21.8
12.0
49.3
11.5
47.2
27.8
45.9
23.3
8.5
26.2
17.2
28.8
24.7
52.4
19.0
22.9
12.1
48.6
12.4
42.6
31.4
45.8
24.7
8.6
25.3
17.0
27.7
24.0
55.6
18.7
21.7
12.3
49.1
12.5
42.4
29.8
45.8
20.5
8.3
Western
11.6
10.1
11.3
11.2
10.7
11.0
11.6
11.9
11.2
11.0
AZ
21.1
16.4
16.5
18.7
16.3
20.6
24.0
26.2
21.3
21.9
CA
15.5
13.4
15.0
14.0
14.9
13.3
13.8
14.2
13.7
12.8
ID
9.5
10.0
11.3
10.5
11.7
11.3
9.8
9.7
10.1
9.3
NV
2.7
2.8
5.2
4.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
2.8
2.9
4.7
OR
7.2
6.7
7.2
6.6
7.7
6.3
6.2
6.4
7.0
6.4
UT
12.1
11.0
12.0
12.6
10.8
10.6
11.4
10.9
11.9
9.3
WA
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
5.0
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.9
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
17
Table 4. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
18.9
20.3
24.5
16.0
11.3
22.9
25.6
29.1
26.1
9.3
24.1
38.8
19.0
10.6
29.3
19.2
15.9
15.0
5.9
10.0
15.3
8.7
15.7
11.2
18.7
20.0
24.4
14.9
11.7
22.1
25.0
28.5
26.1
9.5
23.5
38.2
19.7
9.8
29.0
19.1
16.4
14.2
6.3
10.2
15.4
8.8
14.9
11.5
19.0
20.3
24.9
16.1
12.3
21.5
24.9
28.1
26.4
10.0
23.4
38.5
21.6
10.3
29.3
18.7
16.2
14.0
6.4
10.4
16.0
9.0
14.9
11.7
19.4
20.7
24.7
14.9
12.9
22.1
24.4
28.2
26.9
10.2
23.9
38.9
21.6
9.9
29.7
18.6
16.3
18.1
6.5
10.8
16.5
9.4
14.1
12.4
19.4
20.7
25.2
14.6
11.8
20.5
26.6
27.8
26.8
10.6
23.3
39.1
21.0
11.0
29.0
18.3
16.1
17.4
6.6
11.1
16.7
9.6
14.1
12.8
19.3
20.5
24.9
14.7
10.7
23.3
24.7
27.7
26.5
11.0
22.6
39.5
19.7
10.7
28.7
17.2
15.4
18.4
6.7
11.0
16.2
9.4
13.4
12.9
19.3
20.4
25.7
14.3
11.5
19.8
25.2
26.3
26.7
10.8
21.8
40.1
20.8
11.2
28.9
17.0
15.3
17.8
6.8
11.9
17.6
10.5
13.3
13.4
19.3
20.4
24.6
15.0
11.0
21.6
26.1
26.6
26.8
11.3
22.2
39.1
21.0
10.1
28.2
17.0
14.1
18.9
6.6
11.7
17.0
10.1
12.8
13.6
19.0
20.1
24.9
15.4
11.6
20.6
24.5
26.5
26.1
11.2
20.6
39.2
19.9
10.2
28.1
16.6
14.1
19.2
7.0
11.6
16.8
10.0
12.5
13.7
19.5
20.6
25.2
14.9
10.9
21.8
26.5
27.5
26.2
11.6
20.9
39.2
20.0
10.4
27.7
15.9
14.4
21.2
7.0
11.8
17.8
10.0
12.3
14.3
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
23.8
16.9
21.7
27.9
47.5
18.3
20.7
13.0
48.1
10.5
44.0
26.6
45.7
18.4
8.3
25.8
17.1
28.8
25.5
55.4
18.5
20.4
13.6
46.5
14.1
39.8
27.3
45.2
23.3
8.2
25.5
16.8
24.9
25.5
53.1
17.8
19.3
14.9
47.7
12.3
38.0
32.7
44.9
23.4
8.3
26.8
16.9
31.3
24.7
56.8
17.4
18.5
16.4
47.1
13.8
46.7
32.1
45.0
23.2
8.0
25.4
16.3
26.1
25.2
51.7
17.3
18.5
16.2
46.4
12.9
47.0
28.0
45.6
21.4
7.9
24.0
16.3
22.6
24.0
48.3
16.7
17.2
11.9
45.4
13.9
40.8
27.6
44.9
22.0
7.6
24.3
15.7
23.8
24.1
50.1
17.1
16.9
14.1
44.8
11.5
42.4
26.1
44.9
22.2
7.7
25.3
16.4
23.0
27.2
52.4
16.2
17.7
14.1
45.8
13.0
48.1
30.8
44.5
23.1
7.4
23.9
15.9
23.6
26.2
50.2
16.4
16.7
14.4
45.0
11.8
36.5
32.2
44.6
20.0
7.5
24.9
16.1
22.4
25.9
53.9
15.9
16.5
12.9
44.6
13.3
49.2
31.3
43.4
22.2
7.2
Western
9.8
10.5
10.7
10.9
10.8
9.6
10.6
9.8
10.8
9.8
AZ
13.8
18.8
22.9
21.5
20.4
18.7
19.5
17.5
19.4
20.7
CA
13.6
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.6
11.1
12.3
11.7
13.2
10.9
ID
8.9
10.0
8.4
9.3
9.0
8.4
9.8
8.7
9.9
8.2
NV
4.4
3.5
3.8
4.2
4.0
3.4
4.7
4.0
4.7
3.5
OR
6.5
6.4
5.6
5.8
6.6
6.2
6.9
6.8
6.5
5.9
UT
10.5
11.0
8.7
10.4
11.6
8.7
10.0
9.2
9.9
8.6
WA
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.8
5.4
4.8
5.4
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
18
Table 4. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
19.6
20.7
25.2
14.6
11.3
20.9
27.3
25.9
26.3
11.3
21.0
40.4
20.8
12.0
27.1
16.1
14.1
19.4
7.4
12.3
18.3
10.4
12.0
14.9
19.9
21.0
25.2
15.1
11.6
19.1
27.6
26.8
27.2
12.3
21.6
40.5
21.9
12.0
27.8
15.9
14.6
20.5
7.5
12.6
18.2
10.7
11.4
15.3
19.2
20.3
25.8
14.9
11.5
21.1
23.5
26.0
26.6
11.8
20.8
40.8
19.5
10.8
27.4
15.6
13.9
17.1
7.7
12.4
18.7
10.2
11.4
15.5
19.6
20.6
25.6
15.7
10.8
23.1
25.2
26.6
27.3
12.6
20.6
40.9
20.5
11.7
27.5
15.9
14.0
16.4
7.8
12.7
18.0
10.5
11.3
15.7
20.0
21.1
25.9
14.7
11.6
21.5
25.4
26.3
27.1
12.7
20.1
40.7
22.6
11.8
28.1
15.5
13.9
21.9
7.8
13.0
18.6
10.8
10.8
16.4
19.6
20.6
26.5
14.1
12.8
21.4
23.9
26.4
25.9
12.8
19.3
41.5
21.8
9.4
27.7
15.3
13.4
18.9
7.8
13.0
19.0
10.8
10.5
16.3
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
24.2
16.1
24.5
28.2
53.2
15.8
16.5
13.8
43.4
14.0
42.8
28.3
44.4
18.9
7.6
23.6
16.3
25.9
27.7
51.9
15.8
16.2
12.8
43.8
15.7
37.2
28.0
44.0
17.6
7.2
22.7
16.1
25.0
27.3
49.6
15.5
14.6
13.3
42.7
12.0
43.5
23.5
44.6
15.6
7.5
23.9
15.5
25.9
26.6
52.3
15.3
14.7
14.4
43.3
14.3
40.4
26.8
43.7
19.0
7.1
23.1
15.3
22.7
26.7
48.6
15.2
15.5
13.1
43.3
13.8
44.7
25.2
42.3
18.0
7.0
21.7
15.8
27.9
25.5
51.3
14.8
14.7
12.0
42.5
10.7
36.0
17.9
42.4
15.0
6.9
2012
2013
2014
2015
Western
11.2
9.6
9.2
9.3
9.6
8.6
AZ
21.5
16.7
17.0
16.6
20.2
14.5
CA
10.3
10.2
10.3
10.1
9.9
9.7
ID
11.0
10.0
9.1
8.2
8.9
7.7
NV
8.1
4.4
3.7
4.9
3.8
5.3
OR
6.1
7.1
6.1
6.2
5.3
4.9
UT
10.7
8.9
8.3
9.2
9.0
9.1
WA
4.7
5.0
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
19
Table 5. Estimated annual abundance indicesa of mourning doves based on Call-count Survey seen data for
management units and states, 1966–2011.
Management Unit
State
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
16.8
18.6
19.8
13.2
6.1
20.5
21.1
46.0
21.0
7.4
40.7
32.1
19.0
9.0
20.2
27.0
15.9
4.9
2.7
4.6
6.7
4.2
23.1
2.5
16.6
18.4
20.0
15.2
5.6
20.0
24.8
45.0
20.1
7.1
37.0
32.0
19.8
8.9
20.5
26.7
15.1
4.6
2.5
4.6
6.6
4.1
23.5
2.5
16.4
18.2
19.3
13.2
6.3
19.4
22.6
44.3
20.6
6.8
37.5
31.8
19.9
9.0
20.1
26.4
15.1
4.9
2.4
4.7
6.9
4.1
23.0
2.7
16.6
18.4
19.7
14.3
6.4
19.4
22.7
45.8
20.3
7.3
36.8
31.5
22.8
9.3
20.6
26.2
14.7
4.7
2.3
4.8
6.7
4.2
22.8
3.0
16.4
18.2
19.4
16.1
5.3
19.3
20.4
45.1
20.5
7.0
34.8
32.3
23.7
9.3
19.9
26.3
15.3
5.6
2.5
5.0
7.1
4.3
22.1
3.3
16.2
17.9
19.1
14.4
5.5
18.9
20.9
41.9
18.9
7.3
34.4
32.5
23.8
9.5
21.2
26.7
14.4
5.2
2.8
4.9
7.3
4.2
22.2
3.3
17.1
18.9
21.3
15.7
7.4
18.9
22.0
42.3
21.2
7.4
38.1
32.1
25.1
9.7
21.0
26.6
15.1
7.0
2.6
4.9
7.6
4.3
22.3
3.2
16.3
18.0
20.6
15.5
7.5
18.5
20.6
41.3
19.8
7.5
32.5
32.0
24.3
10.0
20.4
25.7
14.7
5.5
2.4
5.1
7.5
4.3
22.0
3.5
16.4
18.1
18.9
15.5
6.8
18.1
20.2
44.2
20.7
7.6
32.0
32.3
23.9
10.3
21.2
25.9
14.9
6.2
2.6
4.9
7.8
4.3
21.4
3.2
16.6
18.3
19.4
14.6
8.2
18.3
21.2
41.2
20.3
7.9
32.6
31.9
25.6
10.5
21.8
25.6
14.4
6.5
2.9
5.3
8.4
4.5
21.3
4.0
40.1
21.9
33.3
18.7
106.7
19.1
49.2
11.1
91.8
14.1
20.7
88.2
51.9
40.9
24.5
39.7
22.8
35.1
19.3
107.7
18.4
48.7
13.6
91.6
12.8
22.2
94.6
50.5
37.6
17.9
39.4
22.2
29.9
18.9
103.6
18.1
46.9
12.7
93.2
12.8
22.8
95.0
51.6
41.3
16.0
39.0
21.9
31.1
18.4
105.7
17.5
46.4
12.4
93.8
12.5
22.9
91.3
51.8
39.5
15.6
39.0
21.5
28.4
18.2
105.1
17.1
45.0
13.4
91.7
12.9
21.9
91.7
52.8
42.1
13.7
37.7
21.3
29.8
18.8
103.2
17.4
44.5
13.1
91.6
11.4
23.4
88.6
51.5
35.8
15.8
39.5
21.9
28.4
19.8
105.1
17.9
45.3
13.0
92.1
17.6
24.8
86.5
52.7
42.0
13.8
38.2
21.8
28.6
18.8
102.9
15.9
42.8
12.7
91.6
10.8
27.5
85.0
51.7
40.5
16.5
39.0
21.3
33.8
19.2
101.4
16.3
41.1
13.4
91.7
18.5
24.0
87.3
53.1
40.2
13.6
38.5
21.1
25.1
18.9
102.5
15.8
40.7
12.0
93.4
15.1
25.5
88.2
51.5
40.7
19.8
Western
17.2
19.1
22.0
18.1
17.8
17.7
14.9
15.0
19.6
16.1
AZ
12.0
14.9
25.8
18.0
20.1
12.6
10.6
23.6
17.0
17.2
CA
38.0
37.8
38.4
37.6
33.7
34.7
32.4
29.3
36.8
33.9
ID
17.3
26.9
16.3
13.0
10.9
16.0
14.7
10.3
15.9
12.4
NV
4.8
6.5
18.4
9.6
8.9
8.4
5.2
4.1
11.5
4.2
OR
11.5
11.3
11.3
10.1
9.7
9.6
10.0
8.7
9.4
8.9
UT
11.1
12.4
13.9
12.1
17.1
20.5
9.9
6.5
21.8
12.3
WA
2.0
1.2
2.2
1.2
1.8
1.0
2.3
1.2
0.9
1.5
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
20
Table 5. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
17.1
18.9
20.0
15.9
9.2
17.7
23.4
41.7
22.1
7.7
31.2
33.0
28.9
10.6
21.9
25.9
15.0
6.8
2.8
5.1
8.3
4.5
21.6
3.6
16.7
18.4
19.8
16.0
7.7
18.0
22.6
38.2
21.2
8.6
32.6
32.7
24.4
10.2
21.4
26.5
15.2
6.7
2.9
5.2
8.5
4.6
21.2
3.8
15.8
17.3
19.8
15.7
8.3
17.8
20.4
30.2
20.7
8.7
32.5
33.3
15.6
10.4
22.1
26.0
14.9
5.4
3.0
5.4
8.5
4.6
21.3
4.1
15.8
17.4
20.8
14.4
8.7
17.7
18.3
31.0
20.6
8.9
32.0
33.4
15.8
10.9
22.3
25.9
14.3
7.2
3.6
5.4
8.4
4.7
21.0
4.2
16.0
17.6
20.4
16.5
8.5
17.2
19.0
33.1
20.1
9.1
32.0
33.1
16.5
11.4
22.5
25.7
14.7
7.3
3.3
5.6
9.1
4.8
20.5
4.5
16.9
18.6
19.8
16.9
10.4
17.6
20.9
36.8
22.8
9.2
30.5
33.6
21.4
11.3
22.7
25.9
13.9
9.3
4.2
5.7
9.8
4.6
20.9
5.0
16.5
18.2
20.6
13.9
9.0
16.6
19.4
33.0
23.5
9.7
32.0
33.0
22.2
11.7
23.4
25.9
14.0
7.4
4.1
5.8
9.1
4.8
20.9
5.0
16.5
18.1
20.7
15.1
8.9
16.3
19.2
33.2
22.7
9.9
32.8
32.7
20.8
12.0
22.4
25.0
14.2
8.1
3.8
5.7
9.4
4.7
20.3
5.0
16.2
17.8
19.9
17.6
10.6
16.7
16.6
33.1
22.0
10.1
29.0
33.9
20.0
11.8
22.9
25.5
13.6
7.8
4.4
5.6
9.5
4.8
19.9
4.6
16.7
18.4
20.7
17.1
11.5
16.9
19.8
32.0
24.3
9.5
28.1
33.6
22.7
12.6
23.0
25.5
13.4
7.3
4.5
6.1
10.3
5.2
19.0
5.4
39.1
21.9
36.1
19.2
101.2
16.8
38.9
12.0
96.4
13.9
30.4
86.9
53.7
39.2
15.0
38.5
20.8
31.2
20.0
101.2
17.6
39.6
13.2
94.8
11.8
31.7
80.9
54.1
38.6
18.2
37.4
20.4
30.5
19.8
98.7
15.7
38.7
11.6
94.6
9.3
30.3
96.2
53.0
36.9
10.9
38.4
20.5
25.7
19.4
99.6
16.0
37.1
12.0
93.2
10.9
30.5
89.2
52.5
44.2
12.8
38.7
20.9
31.0
20.6
102.0
15.8
36.9
12.3
93.5
13.4
30.4
91.6
51.6
41.4
12.7
39.6
20.8
30.3
20.1
99.2
15.9
38.0
13.6
93.3
13.0
29.0
84.8
52.5
48.8
11.2
39.0
20.6
30.3
20.3
98.8
14.4
36.1
12.7
93.7
12.6
26.8
88.9
52.1
46.9
11.1
36.8
21.0
26.0
19.5
98.8
14.8
36.0
11.3
89.0
11.4
24.9
88.3
52.0
41.6
9.1
37.0
19.4
27.6
20.2
97.6
14.2
33.9
11.9
89.6
18.6
23.5
81.8
52.3
41.6
8.3
35.5
19.3
25.9
20.3
96.6
13.7
31.7
12.6
89.6
12.9
23.9
79.9
51.7
38.5
7.7
Western
18.6
17.4
13.5
16.6
19.0
15.4
14.5
13.1
14.0
12.1
AZ
15.5
13.0
20.8
33.4
20.4
11.6
18.0
20.2
12.3
14.0
CA
31.2
32.0
23.9
25.9
27.4
28.3
29.3
23.3
24.7
23.3
ID
16.2
15.4
11.7
11.5
12.7
15.7
14.3
12.2
14.4
10.9
NV
17.0
13.6
4.4
7.0
29.2
8.0
3.8
4.8
7.2
5.0
OR
9.2
10.2
7.0
7.1
7.8
9.1
8.1
6.6
6.9
6.6
UT
17.8
14.2
8.7
8.9
11.4
16.6
6.6
7.3
16.0
8.7
WA
2.5
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
2.0
1.0
2.6
1.1
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
21
Table 5. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
17.0
18.7
21.5
18.0
10.8
16.1
20.1
32.3
22.1
10.7
28.8
34.5
25.0
13.0
22.8
25.2
13.1
8.9
4.0
6.3
10.9
5.1
19.7
6.0
17.3
18.9
19.4
15.7
11.0
16.1
21.6
34.8
24.0
10.1
27.1
34.1
26.4
13.0
23.3
25.9
13.4
10.0
4.2
6.3
11.2
5.1
18.6
6.2
17.8
19.5
19.8
18.5
11.6
16.6
21.5
33.2
24.8
11.5
30.1
34.2
29.0
13.7
24.1
25.7
13.3
9.9
4.1
6.2
11.3
5.2
18.3
5.9
17.9
19.6
19.9
18.5
12.9
16.3
21.9
33.5
25.3
11.0
27.6
34.0
30.1
13.5
23.8
25.8
12.7
10.3
5.7
7.3
11.4
5.5
18.9
8.0
18.1
19.8
19.8
16.7
14.5
15.9
23.5
33.3
23.8
11.6
28.9
34.2
26.5
13.8
24.3
25.9
14.2
11.1
4.3
6.8
12.2
5.6
18.4
6.9
18.1
19.7
19.8
19.1
13.0
15.7
23.1
31.1
26.4
12.1
26.1
34.8
28.8
14.2
24.4
25.9
13.7
10.9
5.8
7.5
12.1
5.8
19.6
8.1
18.0
19.7
20.4
18.1
14.0
15.4
22.1
29.8
25.0
12.0
28.9
34.9
28.8
14.0
24.4
25.9
13.3
10.3
5.3
7.4
12.1
5.7
19.3
8.0
18.1
19.7
20.7
16.9
14.2
14.8
21.7
29.8
25.2
12.3
28.2
35.3
27.8
15.0
23.7
26.3
13.7
10.9
6.2
7.2
12.4
6.0
18.7
7.2
18.2
19.8
20.9
17.3
15.2
15.3
21.6
29.5
24.6
12.9
27.2
35.7
29.9
15.2
24.7
26.4
12.4
9.7
6.4
7.5
12.7
6.0
18.8
7.8
18.5
20.1
20.9
17.1
16.0
15.6
22.5
28.9
25.4
13.6
26.4
35.0
29.6
15.4
24.5
26.5
13.7
10.4
6.4
7.9
12.9
6.2
18.8
8.5
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
36.8
19.9
30.0
20.1
96.5
13.2
32.7
11.5
87.4
13.9
24.7
83.6
49.0
43.4
9.0
36.7
19.8
27.9
20.3
96.3
13.4
32.8
11.6
89.2
10.8
25.4
80.4
50.8
44.4
10.1
36.4
19.1
29.2
20.7
97.8
13.2
32.6
13.8
89.4
11.5
26.1
82.2
50.5
40.0
8.3
36.0
20.0
27.4
21.5
97.5
13.1
32.0
12.5
85.1
12.4
27.4
80.0
51.5
40.8
7.8
35.7
19.9
28.7
21.2
94.7
12.5
31.3
12.8
86.8
11.5
28.1
82.0
51.5
39.0
8.6
40.6
19.1
28.7
21.1
98.0
13.0
31.1
11.2
90.2
13.3
28.2
84.5
51.2
61.1
9.3
38.9
19.7
26.8
21.4
97.2
12.0
30.1
11.3
89.0
10.1
31.3
84.7
51.3
55.1
8.0
36.7
19.6
28.5
20.9
94.4
11.5
28.3
11.0
85.3
10.9
27.8
81.1
49.8
48.4
6.6
36.7
19.6
28.1
21.3
97.2
11.0
27.9
11.4
86.3
11.2
24.5
82.6
49.6
47.6
7.1
35.9
19.6
27.3
21.5
97.6
11.1
28.1
11.5
85.8
10.2
22.0
82.8
48.3
45.5
6.3
Western
10.8
10.7
10.9
11.1
11.2
10.1
10.4
11.1
11.3
10.4
AZ
9.7
6.5
8.0
7.7
7.6
11.2
12.5
17.0
10.8
13.7
CA
20.3
20.9
20.3
19.7
21.4
18.3
19.8
17.3
19.7
15.3
ID
11.5
14.7
15.7
13.1
15.3
12.3
12.0
10.8
14.6
12.6
NV
4.3
5.2
5.0
5.0
4.7
2.7
3.2
5.0
7.2
9.2
OR
7.1
7.1
5.9
6.5
6.7
5.6
5.7
4.9
5.6
5.1
UT
8.9
7.5
8.7
13.5
9.2
7.9
6.0
7.6
7.6
4.3
WA
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.5
4.8
2.1
1.6
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
22
Table 5. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
18.0
19.6
19.6
18.0
14.7
15.0
21.6
30.3
25.9
12.8
24.5
35.5
26.1
15.9
24.7
26.3
13.5
10.6
5.9
7.7
13.3
6.2
18.6
8.2
17.8
19.4
20.1
16.0
18.0
15.0
19.7
27.3
24.7
13.7
24.6
35.0
24.5
16.3
24.6
26.6
13.5
9.6
5.8
7.6
13.4
6.1
18.4
8.1
19.0
20.6
20.3
17.8
16.2
14.9
22.5
29.8
26.0
14.1
24.6
35.0
33.0
16.9
25.2
26.8
13.7
12.4
6.1
8.7
15.0
6.4
18.1
10.5
19.6
21.1
20.9
18.9
18.7
14.7
20.4
29.9
27.6
15.8
24.7
35.8
32.8
18.2
26.9
26.6
14.0
12.0
7.0
9.8
15.3
7.0
18.6
12.2
19.7
21.2
21.2
17.5
17.6
14.9
23.8
29.3
28.2
15.8
23.2
36.1
32.9
17.4
26.2
27.1
13.5
12.5
7.7
9.2
16.3
6.9
17.2
11.1
19.6
21.1
20.3
17.4
20.1
14.8
21.3
28.0
28.4
15.5
23.2
36.0
32.8
17.8
26.0
27.1
13.4
11.7
8.1
9.8
16.2
7.0
17.5
12.5
19.9
21.4
21.6
15.9
18.2
15.0
23.1
27.7
28.5
17.1
23.4
36.4
31.5
18.4
26.8
26.7
14.6
13.1
7.5
9.8
16.4
7.3
18.2
12.1
20.5
22.2
21.8
17.3
21.8
14.1
24.6
29.0
28.1
17.1
23.5
37.0
36.8
18.5
25.5
27.0
13.3
14.6
6.6
9.7
17.0
7.2
17.8
12.0
20.7
22.4
21.1
19.4
21.5
14.5
26.5
29.6
29.8
17.5
21.3
37.5
34.9
19.0
26.6
27.4
14.1
14.3
8.5
9.8
17.0
7.4
17.6
11.8
20.3
21.9
21.1
19.3
19.5
14.4
25.1
28.7
27.4
17.7
21.8
37.2
29.3
18.6
26.7
27.2
14.2
15.7
8.2
10.2
18.4
7.6
17.5
12.6
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
34.6
18.8
27.5
21.9
93.9
10.7
26.9
11.4
85.3
11.2
25.4
77.3
47.9
41.1
5.8
37.3
19.3
27.3
21.2
97.6
11.3
26.1
13.2
83.1
13.2
24.2
78.7
49.1
51.2
8.0
38.1
19.1
28.2
22.7
97.7
11.8
26.3
11.6
87.0
11.6
29.2
82.9
51.2
51.8
7.6
38.5
19.3
29.2
22.0
98.9
10.7
25.3
12.3
86.9
12.0
31.8
83.2
52.6
52.7
6.0
37.1
19.0
29.7
23.4
97.0
11.2
24.7
11.1
88.3
11.8
27.9
82.3
51.1
47.6
7.0
36.1
19.2
26.5
22.9
94.1
10.5
24.7
10.5
85.9
10.5
24.9
78.6
50.7
48.9
6.1
37.2
18.6
28.6
23.5
95.7
10.0
24.5
12.4
85.0
11.0
24.5
76.9
50.9
52.1
7.0
37.2
19.2
28.7
23.8
97.7
9.8
24.1
11.9
85.7
12.2
24.1
80.2
50.1
50.9
5.5
37.5
19.3
27.2
24.7
98.7
10.4
24.2
11.4
88.1
11.1
26.7
80.9
49.4
52.1
5.0
38.7
18.8
26.4
24.7
100.8
9.4
22.8
11.2
88.3
13.9
24.9
85.9
49.5
56.7
5.1
Western
11.2
10.1
10.0
11.7
10.5
8.6
9.7
8.6
9.9
8.6
AZ
7.2
8.0
15.6
13.6
11.4
10.2
7.0
11.3
10.3
11.0
CA
20.2
17.8
16.8
18.0
17.4
15.7
17.3
14.8
16.2
14.7
ID
15.8
13.1
10.2
12.9
14.8
11.6
13.5
11.1
15.9
12.4
NV
9.7
7.5
4.2
8.9
6.3
3.4
6.6
3.4
5.2
3.7
OR
5.6
5.9
5.2
6.4
5.4
4.4
4.6
4.2
5.0
4.6
UT
5.8
5.4
4.5
8.0
5.9
3.3
7.3
4.3
4.9
2.6
WA
1.5
3.3
2.2
1.4
1.6
2.0
1.6
2.1
2.2
3.0
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
23
Table 5. Continued.
Management Unit
State
Eastern
Hunt states
AL
DE-MD
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MS
NC
OH
PA
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
Nonhunt states
MI
b
N. England
NJ
NY
Central
AR
CO
IA
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
20.6
22.1
20.7
17.4
19.0
14.2
28.0
26.7
29.3
17.7
21.8
37.0
31.3
19.3
27.4
27.2
14.2
16.3
6.1
11.1
18.3
8.2
17.5
14.0
21.1
22.6
21.0
20.6
20.0
14.4
25.1
26.1
29.6
18.8
22.9
37.2
33.3
19.7
27.4
26.9
15.1
17.4
8.8
10.7
20.0
8.1
17.9
13.3
21.1
22.7
20.9
19.8
23.2
14.7
22.8
26.6
30.0
18.8
23.1
37.4
33.7
20.4
27.1
28.0
15.6
15.5
9.2
10.9
18.4
8.0
17.8
13.8
21.3
22.8
22.5
18.8
23.6
14.6
22.7
24.0
31.2
19.5
22.8
37.9
33.8
20.4
28.6
28.2
14.6
15.0
9.2
11.4
19.4
8.5
17.7
14.3
21.9
23.4
22.3
20.1
21.9
14.1
24.8
26.0
31.9
19.8
21.6
38.2
37.1
21.8
28.9
28.1
14.2
18.8
9.4
11.8
19.3
8.8
17.3
15.0
21.7
23.2
21.5
19.2
25.6
14.6
23.3
25.8
31.4
20.0
21.4
38.3
33.0
21.6
28.5
28.0
15.0
16.2
9.2
11.4
20.3
8.5
17.1
14.5
37.8
19.3
28.2
25.4
100.3
10.0
23.3
14.4
86.6
12.8
26.3
83.3
49.1
50.0
6.0
38.9
19.1
29.6
26.1
99.4
9.7
22.6
12.5
88.2
17.8
25.5
82.4
49.3
54.6
4.9
37.2
18.7
27.6
26.0
98.1
9.2
22.3
13.4
89.1
12.2
23.7
75.5
48.6
51.2
6.0
37.7
18.7
28.6
26.3
100.7
9.2
21.9
12.6
89.7
13.4
25.0
77.4
49.8
51.2
5.0
37.2
18.8
26.4
26.0
101.0
9.7
21.3
11.6
89.4
12.3
24.2
78.4
48.1
51.4
4.6
35.9
18.5
28.9
27.1
99.9
9.4
20.9
11.9
87.2
12.3
22.1
72.3
48.0
46.6
4.3
2012
2013
2014
2015
Western
10.0
9.8
9.4
9.6
9.0
8.9
AZ
11.3
7.3
8.8
9.7
13.3
7.3
CA
13.4
16.2
12.4
14.1
11.9
13.0
ID
18.8
17.4
17.7
16.4
16.5
14.2
NV
6.3
6.1
9.2
5.4
4.5
8.0
OR
5.7
5.2
4.6
5.0
4.3
3.8
UT
4.4
4.7
3.3
6.5
2.9
6.5
WA
2.4
3.7
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.8
a
Annual indices are estimated from exponentiated year effects derived from a log-linear hierarchical model fit using Bayesian methods;
95% credible intervals for the annual indices are available upon request.
b
New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT; RI is a hunt state but was included in this group for purposes of analysis.
24
Table 6. Preliminary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI, expressed as the interval half width in percent)
of mourning dove harvest and hunter activity for management units and states during the 2009 hunting seasona.
Management Unit
Total harvest
Active hunters
State
Estimate
CI
Estimate
CI
Eastern
AL
DE
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MD
MS
NC
OH
PA
RI
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
7,639,200
1,113,500
36,300
292,500
857,200
659,600
243,200
451,300
482,700
174,900
361,500
581,100
295,800
188,000
<50
885,700
619,800
305,500
74,900
15,600
7
13
36
21
22
27
17
34
51
38
19
21
27
30
191
21
22
12
36
27
437,600
61,800
1,800
18,100
48,500
28,400
13,200
21,400
25,000
9,100
19,800
40,300
16,700
18,100
100
42,600
41,100
20,900
9,500
1,300
†
9
20
19
18
13
16
33
24
21
13
18
19
23
96
13
16
13
28
24
Central
AR
CO
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
7,474,600
353,500
242,400
572,600
61,500
294,700
12,700
277,600
170,200
40,000
378,400
105,400
4,945,100
20,600
12
21
17
16
67
26
32
17
26
31
17
24
18
31
393,400
22,400
20,300
29,400
6,800
21,500
2,500
16,000
7,800
2,800
18,600
6,500
236,600
2,300
Western
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
2,241,000
784,400
1,069,700
143,300
41,500
38,600
122,800
40,700
8
12
13
38
31
25
26
50
143,400
37,200
67,200
10,600
4,600
4,300
15,200
4,200
Hunter days afield
b
Harvest per hunter
Estimate
CI
1,245,700
152,200
5,700
53,900
119,000
102,900
40,300
62,800
77,700
26,900
47,400
99,800
75,500
71,000
100
125,900
90,800
57,500
33,700
2,700
6
12
28
19
19
23
15
34
32
27
18
25
27
38
104
19
19
24
32
29
†
18.0
19.7
16.1
17.7
23.2
18.4
21.1
19.3
19.2
18.3
14.4
17.7
10.4
0.3
20.8
15.1
14.6
7.9
11.9
†
16
42
28
28
30
23
48
56
43
23
28
33
37
214
25
27
17
46
36
†
19
13
10
36
16
32
12
16
28
12
19
10
27
1,312,700
53,800
45,400
97,000
24,100
58,700
6,400
51,800
35,700
10,800
55,500
21,700
846,200
5,800
8
26
18
14
64
21
46
15
26
50
15
23
12
31
†
15.8
11.9
19.5
9.1
13.7
5.1
17.4
21.9
14.3
20.4
16.2
20.9
8.8
†
28
22
19
77
30
45
21
30
42
21
31
21
41
†
8
8
28
18
25
17
36
429,000
130,600
197,400
27,200
11,600
16,400
34,600
11,100
7
11
12
30
31
32
19
40
†
21.1
15.9
13.5
9.0
9.0
8.1
9.7
†
14
15
48
36
35
31
61
c
Estimate
CI
United States
17,354,800
6
974,400
†
2,987,400
4
†
†
a
Hunter number estimates at the Management Unit and national levels may be biased high, because the HIP sample frames are state
specific; therefore hunters are counted more than once if they hunt in >1 state. Variance is inestimable.
b
Seasonal harvest per hunter.
c
† = no estimate available.
25
Table 7. Preliminary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI, expressed as the interval half width in percent)
of mourning dove harvest and hunter activity for management units and states during the 2010 hunting seasona.
Management Unit
State
Active hunters
Total harvest
Estimate
CI
Estimate
b
Hunter days afield
CI
Estimate
Harvest per hunter
CI
Estimate
CI
Eastern
AL
DE
FL
GA
IL
IN
KY
LA
MD
MS
NC
OH
PA
RI
SC
TN
VA
WI
WV
7,473,500
1,022,900
42,300
321,200
1,053,900
464,400
185,700
357,100
303,000
113,900
514,300
686,900
221,500
226,500
7,800
998,700
530,600
299,000
99,400
24,500
7
17
34
38
19
22
25
26
54
35
22
24
37
31
118
21
23
14
76
30
403,200
48,600
2,200
12,800
47,100
28,900
10,000
20,100
18,000
7,600
22,400
44,300
12,700
19,900
400
43,100
31,500
23,200
9,100
1,400
†
9
21
29
13
14
21
35
28
22
12
18
20
22
99
15
18
12
29
23
c
1,167,100
127,100
6,400
48,200
148,600
89,300
29,600
43,400
46,300
20,800
57,400
111,700
45,900
69,600
1,400
138,300
83,400
55,300
39,800
4,600
7
14
28
38
19
21
19
25
39
28
17
31
28
25
98
22
27
15
43
48
†
21.00
18.90
25.20
22.40
16.10
18.50
17.70
16.80
15.10
23.00
15.50
17.50
11.40
20.90
23.20
16.80
12.90
10.90
17.60
†
19
40
47
23
26
33
44
61
41
25
30
42
38
154
25
29
19
81
38
Central
AR
CO
KS
MN
MO
MT
NE
NM
ND
OK
SD
TX
WY
7,194,900
446,400
172,000
511,200
98,900
426,000
17,400
276,400
128,000
54,200
268,700
64,300
4,699,300
32,100
10
28
18
15
58
20
36
19
29
38
28
23
14
36
406,100
23,900
15,900
28,200
10,000
29,300
1,600
15,800
5,900
3,800
19,500
5,000
244,600
2,700
†
20
14
10
42
10
35
14
20
28
14
21
10
26
1,362,300
63,300
38,400
93,900
55,300
75,200
4,700
49,700
21,000
11,800
51,300
14,200
876,500
7,100
8
28
19
13
115
14
44
21
20
37
22
26
10
32
†
18.70
10.80
18.10
9.90
14.50
10.70
17.50
21.90
14.10
13.80
12.90
19.20
12.00
†
34
22
18
72
23
50
24
35
48
31
31
17
45
Western
AZ
CA
ID
NV
OR
UT
WA
2,562,000
941,800
1,244,900
90,600
60,300
43,700
102,800
77,900
9
15
14
39
27
97
25
31
150,600
40,500
70,400
10,100
4,500
3,600
14,300
7,200
†
6
8
28
19
35
23
25
494,800
145,300
249,200
25,500
12,700
11,600
31,500
18,900
9
13
14
33
26
46
28
42
†
23.30
17.70
9.00
13.30
12.00
7.20
10.80
†
16
16
48
33
103
34
40
United States
17,230,400
5
959,900
†
3,024,200
5
†
†
a
Hunter number estimates at the Management Unit and national levels may be biased high, because the HIP sample frames are state
specific; therefore hunters are counted more than once if they hunt in >1 state. Variance is inestimable.
b
Seasonal harvest per hunter.
c
† = no estimate available.
26
Appendix A. Federal framework dates, season length, and daily bag limit for mourning dove hunting in the
United States by management unit, 1918–2010.
Management Unit
Central
Western
a
Year
Dates
Days
Bag
Dates
Days
Bag
Dates
Days
Bag
1918
Sep 1–Dec 31
107
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
1919–22
Sep 1–Jan 31
108
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
1923-28
Sep 1–Jan 31
108
25
Sep 1–Dec 31
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
1929
Sep 1–Jan 31
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 31
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
1930
Sep 1–Jan 31
108
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
1931
Sep 1–Jan 31
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
25
1932–33
Sep 1–Jan 31
106
18
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
18
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
18
1934
Sep 1–Jan 31
106
18
Sep 1–Jan 15
106
18
Sep 1–Dec 15
106
18
1935
Sep 1–Jan 31
107
20
Sep 1–Jan 16
106
20
Sep 1–Jan 05
107
20
1936
Sep 1–Jan 31
77
20
Sep 1–Jan 16
76
20
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
20
b
Sep 1–Jan 31
77
15
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
15
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
15
1937
1938
Sep 1–Jan 31
78
15
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
15
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
15
1939
Sep 1–Jan 31
78
15
Sep 1–Jan 31
77
15
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
15
1940
Sep 1–Jan 31
77
12
Sep 1–Jan 31
76
12
Sep 1–Nov 15
76
12
1941
Sep 1–Jan 31
62
12
Sep 1–Oct 27
42
12
Sep 1–Oct 12
42
12
1942
Sep 1–Oct 15
30
10
Sep 1–Oct 27
42
10
Sep 1–Oct 12
42
10
1943
Sep 1–Dec 24
30
10
Sep 1–Dec 19
42
10
Sep 1–Oct 12
42
10
1944
Sep 1–Jan 20
58
10
Sep 1–Jan 20
57
10
Sep 1–Oct 25
55
10
1945
Sep 1–Jan 31
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 31
60
10
Sep 1–Oct 30
60
10
1946
Sep 1–Jan 31
61
10
Sep 1–Jan 31
60
10
Sep 1–Oct 30
60
10
c
Sep 1–Jan 31
60
10
Sep 1–Dec 3
60
10
Sep 1–Oct 30
60
10
1947–48
1949
Sep 1–Jan 15
30
10
Sep 1–Nov 14
45
10
Sep 1–Oct 15
45
10
1950
Sep 1–Jan 15
30
10
Sep 1–Dec 3
45
10
Sep 1–Oct 15
45
10
1951
Sep 1–Jan 15
30
8
Sep 1- Dec 24
42
10
Sep 1–Oct 15
45
10
1952
Sep 1–Jan 10
30
8
Sep 1–Nov 6
42
10
Sep 1–Oct 12
42
10
1953
Sep 1–Jan 10
30
8
Sep 1–Nov 9
42
10
Sep 1–Oct 12
42
10
d
Sep 1–Jan 10
40
8
Sep 1–Nov 9
40
10
Sep 1–Oct 31
40
10
1954
1955
Sep 1–Jan 10
45
8
Sep 1–Nov 28
45
10
Sep 1–Dec 31
45
10
e
Sep 1–Jan 10
55
8
Sep 1–Jan 10
55
10
Sep 1–Jan 10
50
10
1956
1957
Sep 1–Jan 10
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 10
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 10
50
10
1958–59
Sep 1–Jan 15
65
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
65
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
f
g
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
1960–61
g
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
1962
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
g
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
1963
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
g
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
12
1964–67
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
g
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
1968
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
g
h
18
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
1969–70
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
g
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
50
10
1971–79
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
i
j
k
60
10
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
10
1980
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
i
l
l
j
k
45
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
10
1981
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
12
Sep 1–Jan 15
m
m
i
m
m
m
m
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
45
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
45
15
1982
Sep 1–Jan 15
45
m
m
i
m
m
m
m
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
15
1983–86
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
n
m
m
i
m
m
o
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
10
1987–07
i
m
m
o
60
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
10
2008
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
i
o
10
70
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
2009
Sep 1–Jan 15
70
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
i
o
70
15
Sep 1–Jan 15
60
10
2010
Sep 1-Jan 15
70
15
Sep 1-Jan 15
a
From 1918–1947, seasons for doves and other “webless” species were selected independently and the dates were the earliest opening
and latest closing dates chosen. Dates were inclusive. There were different season lengths in various states with some choosing many fewer
days than others. Only bag and possession limits, and season dates were specified.
b
Beginning in 1937, the bag and possession limits included white-winged doves in selected states.
c
From 1948–1953, states permitting dove hunting were listed by waterfowl flyway. Only bag and possession limits, and season dates
were specified.
d
In 1954–1955, states permitting dove hunting were listed separately. Only bag and possession limits, and season dates were specified.
e
From 1956–1959, states permitting dove hunting were listed separately. Framework opening and closing dates for seasons (but no
maximum days for season length) were specified for the first time along with bag and possession limits.
f
In 1960, states were grouped by management unit for the first time. Maximum season length was specified for the first time.
g
Half days.
Eastern
27
Appendix A. Continued.
h
More liberal limits allowed in conjunction with an Eastern Management Unit hunting regulations experiment.
The framework extended to January 25 in Texas.
50–70 days depending on state and season timing.
k
Arizona was allowed 12.
l
States had the option of a 60-day season and daily bag limit of 12.
m
States had the option of a 70-day season and daily bag limit of 12.
n
Beginning in 2002, the limits included white-winged doves in all states in the Central Management Unit. Beginning in 2006, the limits
included white-winged doves in all states in the Eastern Management Unit.
o
30–60 days depending on state (30 in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington; 60 in Arizona and California).
i
j
28
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Population and Habitat Assessment Branch
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, Maryland, 20708-4016
http://www.fws.gov
July 2011
For State Transfer Relay Service: TTY/Voice: 711
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Microsoft Word - Modo Population Status 2011 v2.docx |
| Author | mseamans |
| File Modified | 2011-07-06 |
| File Created | 2011-07-01 |