2017 Population Status

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

American Woodcock
Population Status, 2017

American Woodcock Population Status, 2017
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Population and Habitat Assessment Branch
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708-4002
August 2017

Cover photograph: American woodcock, Pennsylvania. Photo by Jacob Dingel.
Suggested citation:
Seamans, M.E., and R.D. Rau. 2017. American woodcock population status, 2017. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available on our web site at:
http://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications.php

AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2017
MARK E. SEAMANS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 755 Parfet
St, Suite 235, Lakewood, CO 80215 (mark_seamans@fws.gov).
REBECCA D. RAU, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, 11510 American Holly Dr., Laurel, MD 20708-4002 (rebecca_rau@fws.gov).
Abstract: The American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) Singing-ground Survey data for 2017 indicate that the index for
singing males was significantly less than in 2016 in the Eastern Management Region, and not significantly different
from 2016 in the Central Management Region. The Eastern Management Region had a significant, declining 10-year
(2007-2017) trend of -0.89%/year. The 10-year trend in the Central Management Region was not significant. Both
regions have a significant, long-term (1968-17) negative trend (-1.05%/year for the Eastern Management Region and
-0.56%/year for the Central Management Region). The 2016 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern
Region (1.42 immatures per adult female) was 2.9% more than the 2015 index and 12.3% less than the long-term
regional average, while the recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.32 immatures per adult
female) was 10.9% more than the 2015 index and was 14.3% less than the long-term regional average. Estimates from
the Harvest Information Program indicated that U.S. woodcock hunters in the Eastern Region spent 96,100 days afield
and harvested 44,400 woodcock during the 2016-17 season, while in the Central Region hunters spent 300,200 days
afield and harvested 158,000 woodcock.

INTRODUCTION
The American woodcock is a popular game bird
throughout eastern North America. The management
objective of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
is to increase populations of woodcock to levels
consistent with the demands of consumptive and nonconsumptive users (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1990). Reliable annual population estimates, harvest
estimates, and information on recruitment and
distribution are essential for comprehensive woodcock
management. Unfortunately, this information is
difficult and often impractical to obtain. Woodcock are
difficult to find and count because of their cryptic
coloration, small size, and preference for areas with
dense vegetation. The Singing-ground Survey (SGS)
was developed to provide indices to changes in
abundance. The Wing-collection Survey (WCS)
provides annual indices of woodcock recruitment. The
Harvest Information Program (HIP) utilizes a sampling
frame of woodcock hunters to estimate harvest and
days spent afield.
This report summarizes the results of these surveys
and presents an assessment of the population status of
woodcock as of early June 2017. The report is intended
to assist managers in regulating the sport harvest of
woodcock and to draw attention to areas where
management actions are needed. Historical woodcock
hunting regulations are summarized in Appendix A.

METHODS
Woodcock Management Regions
Woodcock are managed on the basis of two
regions or populations, Eastern and Central, as
recommended by Owen et al. (1977; Fig. 1). Coon et
al. (1977) reviewed the concept of management units
for woodcock and recommended the current
configuration over several alternatives.
This
configuration was biologically justified because
analysis of band recovery data indicated that there was
little crossover between the regions (Krohn et al. 1974,
Martin et al. 1969). Furthermore, the boundary
between the two regions conforms to the boundary
between the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. The
results of the Wing-collection and Singing-ground
surveys, as well as the Harvest Information Program,
are reported by state or province, and management
region. Although state and province level results are
included in this report, analyses are designed to support
management decisions made at the management region
scale.
Singing-ground Survey
The Singing-ground Survey was developed to
exploit the conspicuous courtship display of the male
woodcock. Early studies demonstrated that counts of
singing males provide indices to woodcock populations
and could be used to monitor annual changes (Mendall
and Aldous 1943, Goudy 1960, Duke 1966, and
Whitcomb 1974). Before 1968, counts were conducted
on non-randomly-located routes. Beginning in 1968,
routes were relocated along lightly-traveled secondary
roads in the center of randomly-chosen 10-minute

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

status and is surveyed again each year. Data from
constant zero routes are included in the analysis only
for the years they were actually surveyed. Sauer and
Bortner (1991) reviewed the implementation and
analysis of the Singing-ground Survey in more detail.
Trends were estimated using a hierarchical model.
Sauer et al. (2008) describe a hierarchical log-linear
model for estimation of population change from SGS
data. In practice, the hierarchical modeling approach
provides trend and annual index values that are
generally comparable to the estimates provided by the
previously used route regression approach (see Link
and Sauer 1994 for more information on the route
regression approach). The hierarchical model,
however, has a more rigorous and realistic theoretical
basis than the weightings used in the route regression
approach.
With the hierarchical model, the log of the
expected value of the counts is modeled as a linear
combination of strata-specific intercepts and year
effects, a random effect for each unique combination of
route and observer, a start-up effect on the route for
first year counts by new observers, and overdispersion.
In the hierarchical model, the parameters of interest are
treated as random and are assumed to follow
distributions that are governed by additional
parameters. The hierarchical model is fit using
Bayesian methods.
Markov-chain Monte Carlo
methods are used to iteratively produce sequences of
parameter estimates which can be used to describe the
distribution of the parameters of interest. After an
initial “burn-in” period, means, medians, and credible
(or Bayesian confidence) intervals (CI) for the
parameters can be estimated from the replicates.
Annual indices are defined as exponentiated strata,
underlying trend, and year effects, which are then
weighted by the proportion of routes where at least 1
woodcock was observed between 1968 and the present.
Trends are defined as ratios of the indices at the start
and end of the interval of interest, taken to the
appropriate power to estimate a yearly change (Sauer et
al. 2008). Trend estimates are expressed as percent
change per year, while indices are expressed as the
number of singing males per route. Annual indices
were calculated for the 2 regions and each state and
province, while short-term (2016-17), 10-year (200717) and long-term (1968-2017) trends were evaluated
for each region as well as for each state or province.
Credible Intervals are used to describe uncertainty
around the estimates when fitting hierarchical models.
If the CI does not overlap 0 for a trend estimate, the
trend is considered significant. We present the median
and 95% CIs of 10,000 estimates (i.e., we simulated
10,000 replicates and thinned by 2), which were
calculated after an initial 20,000 iterations to allow the

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

degree blocks within each state and province in the
central and northern portions of the woodcock’s
breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collected prior to 1968
are not included in this report.
Each route was 3.6 miles (5.4 km) long and
consisted of 10 listening points. The routes were
surveyed shortly after sunset by an observer who drove
to each of the 10 stops and recorded the number of
woodcock heard peenting (the vocalization by
displaying male woodcock on the ground). Acceptable
dates for conducting the survey were assigned by
latitude to coincide with peaks in courtship behavior of
local woodcock. In most states and provinces, the peak
of courtship activity (including local woodcock and
woodcock still migrating) occurred earlier in the spring
and local reproduction may have already been
underway when the survey was conducted. However,
it was necessary to conduct the survey during the
designated survey dates in order to minimize the
counting of migrating woodcock. Because adverse
weather conditions may affect courtship behavior
and/or the ability of observers to hear woodcock,
surveys were only conducted when wind, precipitation,
and temperature conditions were within prescribed
limits.
The survey consists of about 1,500 routes. To
avoid expending unnecessary resources and funds,
approximately two-thirds of these routes are selected
for survey each year. The remaining routes are carried
as “constant zero” routes. Routes for which no
woodcock are heard for 2 consecutive years enter this
constant zero status and are not run for the next 5
years. If woodcock are heard on a constant zero route
during its next survey, the route reverts to normal
2

agencies to provide reliable annual estimates of hunter
activity and harvest for all migratory game birds (Elden
et al. 2002). In the past, the annual FWS migratory
bird harvest survey (Mail Questionnaire Survey) was
based on a sampling frame that consisted solely of
hunters who purchased a federal duck stamp. However,
people that hunt only non-waterfowl species such as
woodcock and doves were not required to purchase a
duck stamp, and therefore were not included in that
sampling frame. The HIP sampling frame consists of
all migratory game bird hunters, thus providing more
reliable estimates of woodcock hunter numbers and
harvest than we have had in the past. Under this
program, state wildlife agencies collect the name,
address, and additional information from each
migratory bird hunter in their state, and send that
information to the FWS. The FWS then selects
stratified random samples of those hunters and asks
them to voluntarily provide detailed information about
their hunting activity. For example, hunters selected
for the woodcock harvest survey are asked to complete
a daily diary about their woodcock hunting and harvest
during the current year’s hunting season. Their
responses are then used to develop nationwide
woodcock harvest estimates. HIP survey estimates of
woodcock harvest have been available for woodcock
since 1999. Although estimates from 1999-2002 have
been finalized, the estimates from 2003-16 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 2016).

series to converge. Refer to Sauer et al. (2008) and
Link and Sauer (2002) for a detailed description of the
statistical model and fitting process.
The reported sample sizes are the number of routes
on which trend estimates are based, which includes any
route on which woodcock were ever encountered.
Each route was to be surveyed during the peak time of
daily singing activity. For editing purposes,
“acceptable” times were between 22 and 58 minutes
after sunset (or, between 15 and 51 minutes after sunset
on overcast evenings). Due to observer error, some
stops on some routes were surveyed before or after the
peak times of singing activity.
Earlier analysis
revealed that routes with 8 or fewer acceptable stops
tended to be biased low. Therefore, only route
observations with at least 9 acceptable stops were
included in the analysis. Routes for which data were
received after 30 June 2017 were not included in this
analysis but will be included in future trend estimates.
Wing-collection Survey
The primary objective of the Wing-collection
Survey is to provide data on the reproductive success
of woodcock. The survey is administered as a
cooperative effort between woodcock hunters, the
FWS, and state wildlife agencies. Participants in the
2016 survey included hunters who either:
(1)
participated in past surveys; (2) were a subset of
hunters that indicated on the Harvest Information
Program Survey that they hunted woodcock, or (3)
contacted the FWS to volunteer for the survey.
Wing-collection Survey participants were provided
with prepaid mailing envelopes and asked to submit
one wing from each woodcock they bagged. Hunters
were asked to record the date of the hunt as well as the
state and county where the bird was shot. Hunters
were not asked to submit envelopes for unsuccessful
hunts. The age and gender of birds were determined by
examining plumage characteristics (Martin 1964, Sepik
1994) during the annual woodcock wingbee conducted
by state, federal and private biologists.
The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the
harvest provides an index to recruitment of young into
the population. The 2016 recruitment index for each
state with ≥ 125 submitted wings was calculated as the
number of immatures per adult female. The regional
indices for 2016 were weighted by the relative
contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during
1963-2015.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Singing-ground Survey
Data for 814 routes were submitted by 30 June
2017 (Table 1). Short-term analysis indicated that the
number of woodcock heard singing during the 2017
Singing-ground Survey declined from last year for the
Eastern Management Region, and remained stationary
for the Central Management Regions (Table 1). Trends
for individual states and provinces are reported in
Table 1. Consistency in route coverage over time is a
critical component of precision in estimation of
population change. Low precision of 2-year change
estimates reflect the low numbers of routes surveyed
by the same observer in both years. Ensuring that
observers participate for several years on the same
route would greatly enhance the quality of the results.
The 10-year trend (2007-2017) showed a
significant decline for the Eastern Management
Region, while there was no significant trend for the
Central Management Region. (Table 1, Fig. 2).

Harvest Information Program
The Harvest Information Program (HIP) was
cooperatively developed by the FWS and state wildlife
3

Fig. 2. Ten-year trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 2007-2017, as determined by
the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include zero in the 95% credible interval, while a nonsignificant (NS) trend does include zero. Note, Minnesota is the only state or province that had a significant increase.

Fig. 3. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2017, as determined
by the hierarchical modeling method. A significant trend (S) does not include zero in the 95% credible interval, while a nonsignificant (NS) trend does include zero. Note, Minnesota is the only state or province that had a significant long-term increase.

4

Fig. 5. Weighted annual indices of recruitment (U.S.), 19632016. The dashed line is the 1963-2015 average.

Fig. 4. Annual indices of the number of woodcock heard
during the Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2017 as estimated
using hierarchical modeling. The dashed lines represent the
95% credible interval of the estimate.

14.3% less than the long-term regional average of 1.54
(Table 4, Fig 5). Percent change for all comparisons
was calculated using unrounded recruitment indices.

Many states and/or provinces in both management
regions have experienced significant long-term (19682017) declines as measured by the Singing-ground
Survey (Table 1, Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimate,
rounded to the nearest hundredth of a percent, was
-1.05%/year for the Eastern Management Region,
while it was -0.56%/year for the Central Management
Region (Table 1).
In the Eastern Region, the 2017 index was 2.41
singing males per route, while it was 2.92 in the
Central Management Region (Figure 4, Table 2).
Annual indices (1968-2017) by state, province, or
region are available in Table 2.

Harvest Information Program
Estimates of woodcock harvest, number of active
hunters, days afield, and seasonal hunting success from
the 2016-17 HIP survey are provided in Table 5. In the
Eastern Management Region, woodcock hunters spent
an estimated 96,100 days afield (Figure 6) and
harvested 44,400 birds (Figure 7) during the 2016-17
hunting season. Harvest in 2016-17 was 45.9% less
than the long-term (1999-2015) average (82,047
birds/year) and 18.5% less than last year (54,500 birds)
in the Eastern Region. Woodcock hunters in the
Central Region spent an estimated 300,200 days afield
(Figure 6) and harvested 158,000 birds (Figure 7)
during the 2016-17 hunting season. Harvest in 201617 was 26.0% less than the long-term (1999-2015)
average (213,400 birds/year) and 8.4% more than last
year (145,700 birds) in the Central Region.
Although HIP provides statewide estimates of
woodcock hunter numbers, it is not possible to develop
regional estimates due to the occurrence of some
hunters being registered for HIP in more than one state.
Therefore, regional estimates of seasonal hunting
success rates cannot be determined on a per hunter

Wing-collection Survey
A total of 1,110 woodcock hunters (Table 3) from
states with a woodcock season sent in a total of 11,330
usable woodcock wings for the 2016 Wing-collection
Survey (Table 4).
The 2016 recruitment index in the U.S. portion of
the Eastern Region (1.42 immatures per adult female)
was 2.9% more than the 2015 index of 1.38, and 12.3%
less than the long-term (1963-15) regional average of
1.62 (Table 4, Fig 5). In the Central Region, the 2016
recruitment index (1.32 immatures per adult female)
was 10.9% greater than the 2015 index of 1.19 and was

5

Fig. 6. Harvest Information Program Survey estimates of
days spent afield by U.S. woodcock hunters, 1999-2016. The
dashed line represents the 1999-2015 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, 1999-2016. The dashed line
represents the 1999-2015 average and the error bars represent
the 95% confidence interval of the point estimate.

basis. All estimates have been rounded to the nearest
hundred.
Data from Canada show a long-term decline in
both the number of successful woodcock hunters and

harvest (Appendix B). The most recent data available
indicate that an estimated 3,862 successful hunters
harvested 25,173 woodcock during the 2016 season in
Canada (Gendron and Smith 2017; Appendix B).

Acknowledgements
Personnel from the FWS, CWS, U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bird
Studies Canada (BSC), and many state and provincial
agencies and other individuals assisted with collecting
Singing-ground Survey data and processing wings at
the woodcock wingbee. Special thanks to M. Huang
(CT), J. Foth (DE), R. Smith (IL), M. Broadway (IN),
H. Walbridge (MD), D. Scarpitti (MA), L. Sargent
(MI), L. Elson (NB), J. Carloni (NH), J. Garris (NJ), G.
Somogie (NY), G. Parsons (NS), L. Fendrick (OH), M.
Weaver (PA), G. Gregory (PEI), D. Sausville (VT), T.
Engelmeyer (VA), M. Peters (WV), K. Jones (BSC),
M. English, A. Hicks, J. B. Pollard, J. Rodrigue and M.
Schuster (CWS), and C. Dwyer, S. Kelly, and M. Mills
(USFWS) for providing state, provincial and regional
Singing-ground Survey coordination this year. We
especially thank all observers who conducted Singingground Survey routes.
Special appreciation is extended to Kelsey
Sullivan and Brad Allen (ME DIFW) and Ray Brown
(USFWS) for coordinating local logistics and hosting
the 2017 wingbee, which was held in Bangor/Brewer,
Maine. Other individuals who participated in the
wingbee were: K. Sheppard (ABC), J. Duguay and M.

Olinde (LA), A. Leppold, A. Starr, B. Currier, D.
D'Auria and J. Czapiga (ME), R. Latshaw (MD), A.
Stewart and B. Barlow (MI), L. Shartell (MN), L.
Fendrick (OH), A. Weik and H. Shaw (RGS), A. Roth,
B. Allen, E. Blomberg (U of ME, Orono), Z. Pulsifer
(U of ME, Augusta), D. McAuley (USGS), and W.
Brininger, T. Cooper, K. Daly, P. Denmon, M. Mills,
R. Rau, M. Seamans, L. Stevenson and K. Sturm
(USFWS). We want to thank Commissioner Chandler
Woodcock (ME DIFW) for a warm welcome at the
wingbee. We especially thank all the woodcock
hunters who sent in wings for the survey.
The Branch of Harvest Surveys within the
Division of Migratory Bird Management (USFWS)
mailed Wing-collection Survey materials, organized
wing submissions, assisted with data management and
provided Harvest Information Program estimates
(special thanks to T. Bethea, T. Ceaser II, S. Chandler,
S. Finucane, K. Fleming, P. Garrettson, L. Heckstall,
N. Hengst, P. Mathias, P. Padding, R. Raftovich and K.
Wilkins). T. Nguyen (USFWS) assisted in general
maintenance for the Singing-ground Survey data entry
website and wingbee application. To streamline data
processing steps, N. Zimpfer (USFWS) developed SQL
queries in Program R. J. Sauer (USGS) developed
6

computer programs for calculating trends and indices
from Singing-ground Survey data and conducted this
year’s analyses for the survey. G. Zimmerman, P.
Devers, reviewed a draft of parts or all of this report
and provided helpful comments.

Mendall, H. L., and C. M. Aldous. 1943. The ecology
and management of the American woodcock.
Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,
University of Maine, Orono.
Owen, R. B., Jr., J. M. Anderson, J. W. Artmann, E. R.
Clark, T. G. Dilworth, L. E. Gregg, F. W.
Martin, J. D. Newsom, and S. R. Pursglove, Jr.
1977. American woodcock (Philohela minor =
Scolopax minor of Edwards 1974), Pages 149186 in G. C. Sanderson, editor. Management of
migratory shore and upland game birds in North
America. International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D. C.
Sauer, J. R., and J. B. Bortner. 1991. Population
trends from the American Woodcock Singingground Survey, 1970-88. Journal of Wildlife
Management 55:300-312.
Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, W. L. Kendall, J.R. Kelley,
and D. K. Niven. 2008. A hierarchial model for
estimating change in American woodcock
populations. Journal of Wildlife Management,
72 (1):204-214.
Sepik, G. F. 1994. A woodcock in the hand. Ruffed
Grouse Society, Coraopolis, PA.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American
woodcock management plan. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C.
Whitcomb, D. A. 1974. Characteristics of an insular
woodcock population. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division
Report 2720.

Literature Cited
Coon, R. A., T. J. Dwyer, and J. W. Artmann. 1977.
Identification of harvest units for the American
woodcock.
Proceedings of the American
Woodcock Symposium. 6:147-153.
Duke, G. E. 1966. Reliability of censuses of singing
male woodcock.
Journal of Wildlife
Management 30:697-707.
Elden, R.C., W.V. Bevill, P.I. Padding, J.E. Frampton,
and D.L. Shroufe. 2002. Pages 7-16 in J.M.
Ver Steeg and R.C. Elden, compilers. Harvest
Information
Program:
Evaluation
and
recommendations. International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Migratory Shore
and Upland Game Bird Working Group, Ad Hoc
Committee on HIP, Washington, D. C.
Gendron, M.H.., and A.C. Smith. 2017. National
Harvest Survey web site. Bird Monitoring,
National Wildlife Research Centre, Canadian
Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/reom-mbs/enpnhs/index.cfm?do=def&lang=e
Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock
spring population indexes in southern Michigan.
M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, E.
Lansing, MI.
Krohn, W. B., F. W. Martin, and K. P. Burnham.
1974. Band recovery distribution and survival
estimates of Maine woodcock.
8pp. In
Proceedings of the Fifth American Woodcock
Workshop, Athens, GA.
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.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 2002. A hierarchial
model of population change with application to
Cerulan Warblers. Ecology 83:2832-2840.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating
equations estimates of trends. Bird Populations
2:23-32.

7

Table 1. Short-term (2016-17), 10-year (2007-2017), and long-term (1968-2017) trends (% change per yeara) in the
number of American woodcock heard during the Singing-ground Survey as determined by using the hierarchical
log-linear modeling technique (Sauer et al. 2008).
2016-2017
State,
Province,
or Region

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

Number
of routesb

3
1
50
7
9
55
12
9
81
43
27
9
10
0
16
20
25
377

2007-2017

95% CId
nc % change

1968-2017

95% CId

lower

upper

% change

11
3
73
26
22
72
18
19
115
63
82
13
111
3
24
75
57
787

-2.47
-5.97
-16.03
-2.78
-5.01
-21.97
-10.34
-7.24
3.34
-5.09
-2.08
12.33
-0.92
-----10.93
0.65
-0.15
-7.09

-38.61
-89.40
-31.09
-24.68
-29.84
-36.54
-36.71
-48.84
-11.30
-23.03
-23.42
-14.27
-16.07
-----37.34
-34.37
-18.71
-13.80

55.51
567.29
1.05
33.85
18.54
-3.80
17.90
64.38
20.76
14.95
24.78
76.51
16.41
----21.03
66.74
29.87
-0.11

-1.68
-3.20
-1.58
-3.73
-2.45
-2.83
-0.35
-6.48
0.89
-0.39
-0.58
-1.05
-0.48
-12.02
-1.04
-5.53
-2.01
-0.89

-5.57 4.51
-20.47 19.73
-3.54 0.35
-6.37 -0.45
-5.06 0.35
-4.95 -0.71
-3.37 2.86
-12.05 -0.91
-0.78 2.80
-2.51 1.86
-2.91 2.29
-4.44 2.57
-2.10 1.34
-21.77 -1.11
-4.41 2.54
-9.90 -1.16
-4.13 0.71
-1.67 -0.08

21.11
-3.57
22.85
1.30
1.76
-9.84
1.60
15.70
3.64

-58.21
-43.05
-7.70
-10.50
-12.40
-32.61
-11.85
-1.60
-3.50

247.13
62.19
71.45
14.37
19.30
13.74
17.90
36.56
11.37

-1.63
-3.05
2.56
0.30
2.56
-0.54
-2.12
0.37
-0.05

-12.38 10.33
-7.82 2.76
-0.95 6.87
-1.02 1.72
0.82 4.35
-2.96 2.75
-3.88 -0.42
-1.47 2.26
-0.88 0.79

-1.53

-6.46

3.64

-0.44

IL
IN
MBf
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Central

14
11
17
119
74
33
92
77
437

47
62
30
155
122
73
163
122
744

Continent

814

1,531

a

lower

95% CId

-1.01

upper

0.14

% change

lower

upper

-2.49 -4.29
-3.65 -9.09
-1.36 -1.86
-3.78 -5.15
-2.52 -3.50
-1.35 -2.13
-0.77 -1.79
-6.02 -7.52
-0.55 -0.98
-0.90 -1.62
-1.03 -1.74
-1.08 -2.24
-0.59 -1.34
-11.78 -17.70
-0.83 -1.76
-5.51 -6.58
-2.18 -2.98
-1.05 -1.32

-0.61
1.42
-0.86
-2.31
-1.53
-0.58
0.21
-4.52
-0.10
-0.25
-0.32
0.20
0.15
-6.01
0.15
-4.45
-1.36
-0.76

-0.89
-4.06
0.48
-0.70
0.94
-1.65
-0.85
-0.01
-0.56

-3.51
-5.30
-1.13
-1.06
0.37
-2.42
-1.29
-0.49
-0.79

2.07
-2.88
2.21
-0.34
1.56
-0.93
-0.39
0.50
-0.33

-0.80

-0.98

-0.61

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 2017 for which data were received by 30 June, 2017.
c
Number of routes with at least one year of non-zero data between 1968 and 2017.
d
95% credible interval, if the interval overlaps zero, the trend is considered non-significant.
e
Insufficient data to calculate trend.
f
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, 1968-2017. These indices are based
on 1968-2017 trends that were estimated using hierarchical modeling techniques. Dashes indicate no data were available for that year.
Year

State, Province,
or Region

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

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

----1.04
6.23
1.83
------------4.62
4.26
4.25
1.96
--------------------1.49
4.04

2.49
0.85
6.22
1.82
3.35
8.97
3.88
4.42
4.43
3.77
1.86
5.25
----1.99
3.35
1.40
1.51
4.12

2.61
1.03
6.88
1.70
3.38
8.73
4.14
4.65
3.89
3.26
2.04
5.30
----1.72
3.99
1.39
1.40
4.10

2.34
0.72
6.25
1.66
3.36
7.96
3.67
5.94
4.28
3.84
1.97
5.80
5.92
2.11
3.61
1.20
1.35
4.01

2.49
0.88
6.17
1.58
3.06
7.92
4.18
4.28
4.10
3.60
1.92
4.90
6.00
1.63
4.10
1.11
1.42
3.94

2.31
1.03
6.50
1.53
3.26
7.44
3.49
5.25
4.21
3.80
1.94
4.87
5.82
1.47
3.56
0.93
1.34
3.89

2.31
0.92
6.65
1.47
3.10
7.89
4.01
4.82
4.27
3.97
1.72
5.08
5.86
1.19
3.94
1.16
1.29
3.97

2.36
1.77
6.93
1.42
2.75
8.45
3.76
3.96
3.79
3.73
1.73
5.94
5.79
1.02
4.23
1.02
1.30
3.92

1.88
0.48
6.44
1.30
2.70
6.56
3.74
2.84
3.87
3.65
1.76
5.17
5.72
0.89
4.33
0.96
1.25
3.66

1.91
0.66
5.44
1.28
2.69
7.87
3.78
2.85
3.87
3.62
1.73
4.98
5.60
0.80
4.47
0.92
1.18
3.65

1.62
0.48
5.28
1.25
2.61
5.92
3.60
2.36
3.42
3.85
1.67
4.78
5.81
0.64
3.40
0.80
1.07
3.37

1.65
0.53
5.75
1.20
2.67
6.45
3.55
2.86
3.87
3.44
1.74
4.89
5.85
0.60
3.56
0.78
1.16
3.53

1.71
0.66
4.99
1.20
2.42
5.33
3.91
2.13
4.20
3.42
1.58
4.20
5.79
0.54
3.39
0.67
1.10
3.35

1.71
0.63
5.78
1.14
2.52
6.15
3.78
1.99
3.97
3.21
1.58
4.02
5.61
0.44
3.04
0.73
1.17
3.41

1.91
0.61
4.46
1.08
2.32
6.79
3.23
1.84
3.62
3.06
1.53
4.10
5.56
0.46
2.31
0.72
1.10
3.23

1.73
1.00
4.96
1.01
2.17
5.73
3.35
1.95
3.92
3.30
1.55
4.54
5.61
0.39
3.02
0.65
1.06
3.26

----1.48
----7.34
--------7.92
3.45
3.85

----1.08
----7.22
2.81
----8.81
3.50
3.83

0.24
1.03
----7.23
2.76
1.58
9.32
4.05
3.94

0.47
0.84
----6.85
3.12
1.48
8.51
3.86
3.78

0.42
1.19
----6.91
2.96
1.52
9.29
3.81
3.91

0.30
1.07
----7.21
3.38
1.39
8.99
4.04
3.96

0.43
0.96
----8.03
4.01
1.48
9.09
4.10
4.23

0.34
0.80
----8.04
3.58
1.31
8.66
4.19
4.07

0.21
0.82
----7.63
3.67
1.49
8.78
3.78
3.97

0.30
0.76
----7.16
3.75
1.42
9.01
4.24
4.00

0.46
0.78
----7.76
3.98
1.29
9.32
4.41
4.22

0.31
0.94
----7.70
3.66
1.23
9.59
4.58
4.22

0.23
0.74
----7.26
4.23
1.25
8.93
3.70
3.96

0.43
0.84
----6.46
3.80
1.34
8.15
3.14
3.62

0.27
0.60
----6.73
3.74
1.17
6.93
3.35
3.44

0.82
0.62
----5.76
3.29
1.20
6.92
3.22
3.28

3.95

3.98

4.02

3.90

3.93

3.93

4.10

4.00

3.82

3.83

3.80

3.88

3.65

3.51

3.33

3.27

Central Region

IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region
Continent

9

Table 2. Continued
State,Province,
or Region

Year

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1.57
0.48
5.00
0.99
2.28
5.28
3.19
2.04
3.45
3.13
1.61
4.53
5.52
0.34
2.95
0.83
1.02
3.15

1.60
0.50
5.20
0.94
2.23
5.51
3.40
1.86
3.90
3.28
1.54
4.47
5.47
0.28
2.73
0.50
0.99
3.19

1.68
0.53
5.48
0.89
2.15
4.69
4.29
1.66
3.60
3.42
1.59
4.69
5.44
0.25
2.93
0.54
0.98
3.15

1.48
0.51
5.78
0.86
2.12
5.11
3.64
1.91
3.46
2.98
1.53
4.06
5.50
0.23
3.33
0.52
0.96
3.15

1.69
0.49
5.37
0.83
2.07
5.92
3.56
1.45
3.79
3.26
1.49
4.50
5.60
0.20
3.58
0.46
0.93
3.25

1.35
0.48
5.49
0.81
1.95
7.05
3.48
1.38
3.36
3.25
1.45
4.66
5.62
0.17
3.46
0.41
0.91
3.27

1.37
0.62
4.39
0.78
1.92
6.00
3.26
1.30
3.80
3.02
1.55
4.18
5.40
0.16
3.24
0.43
0.92
3.09

1.40
0.32
4.96
0.74
1.89
5.50
3.51
1.23
3.85
3.26
1.69
4.10
5.32
0.13
3.35
0.40
0.86
3.13

1.29
0.33
4.20
0.69
1.79
5.34
3.24
1.07
3.54
3.20
1.46
4.06
5.32
0.12
2.49
0.41
0.86
2.92

1.17
0.41
4.61
0.69
1.73
6.46
3.23
0.96
3.49
3.31
1.53
3.90
5.41
0.11
2.79
0.38
0.83
3.08

1.24
0.40
4.27
0.66
1.72
6.60
3.25
0.82
3.10
2.98
1.35
3.70
5.33
0.09
2.67
0.35
0.82
2.93

1.30
0.39
4.40
0.63
1.69
6.16
3.63
0.95
3.26
3.15
1.46
3.84
5.14
0.08
2.65
0.30
0.84
2.93

1.31
0.41
3.73
0.62
1.64
5.36
3.51
0.91
3.08
3.18
1.43
4.18
4.96
0.07
2.56
0.29
0.78
2.74

1.16
0.40
4.02
0.59
1.64
5.98
3.49
0.71
3.15
3.01
1.39
4.03
5.02
0.06
2.68
0.32
0.78
2.82

1.14
0.62
3.97
0.54
1.58
5.96
3.44
0.78
3.21
3.06
1.52
3.85
5.22
0.06
2.92
0.26
0.74
2.87

1.21
0.30
4.33
0.53
1.70
6.78
3.68
0.81
3.27
3.39
1.42
3.62
5.15
0.05
3.30
0.27
0.74
2.99

IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.38
0.61
----6.43
3.23
1.23
6.95
3.55
3.38

0.74
0.57
----6.65
3.56
1.14
7.77
3.48
3.62

0.61
0.66
----6.93
3.76
1.11
7.94
3.94
3.77

1.11
0.62
----6.48
3.81
1.11
7.87
4.03
3.79

0.34
0.54
----6.88
4.19
1.17
7.88
3.76
3.73

0.53
0.49
----6.69
3.46
1.01
7.97
3.84
3.63

0.27
0.61
----6.71
4.17
1.25
7.54
3.64
3.64

0.56
0.59
----7.33
4.07
1.14
7.64
3.68
3.78

0.34
0.55
5.62
5.76
3.41
1.13
7.16
2.97
3.20

0.48
0.45
5.74
5.90
3.48
1.06
6.92
3.15
3.23

0.29
0.44
5.94
5.21
3.16
1.07
5.99
2.73
2.84

0.22
0.40
6.15
5.77
3.26
1.02
6.51
2.83
3.02

0.28
0.37
5.43
5.54
3.16
1.03
5.39
2.77
2.80

0.22
0.37
3.76
5.35
2.85
0.91
5.99
2.66
2.77

0.27
0.44
4.65
6.31
3.33
1.03
6.35
2.85
3.12

0.35
0.39
4.60
5.35
3.44
0.89
5.87
3.23
2.95

Continent

3.27

3.41

3.46

3.47

3.49

3.45

3.37

3.46

3.06

3.16

2.89

2.98

2.77

2.80

3.00

2.97

Eastern Region

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

10

Table 2. Continued
State,
Province, or
Region

Year

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

1.09
0.44
4.49
0.53
1.57
6.34
3.19
0.71
3.11
3.35
1.19
3.84
4.97
0.04
3.39
0.25
0.73
2.87

1.03
0.29
3.99
0.52
1.48
6.65
3.26
0.67
3.04
3.17
1.37
3.65
4.99
0.04
2.71
0.21
0.69
2.83

0.95
0.31
3.71
0.48
1.47
6.37
3.23
0.55
2.98
2.93
1.35
3.21
4.90
0.04
2.50
0.21
0.67
2.72

0.96
0.28
4.03
0.46
1.43
6.94
3.54
0.60
3.12
2.91
1.34
3.28
4.94
0.03
2.66
0.21
0.68
2.83

0.93
0.29
4.13
0.45
1.47
6.92
3.55
0.47
3.35
3.17
1.36
3.29
4.94
0.03
2.71
0.20
0.64
2.89

0.90
0.28
4.22
0.42
1.35
7.63
3.50
0.42
3.10
3.00
1.39
3.38
5.04
0.02
2.87
0.18
0.63
2.92

0.85
0.23
4.10
0.42
1.34
6.84
3.26
0.43
3.18
2.85
1.27
3.58
4.82
0.02
2.87
0.17
0.62
2.79

0.86
0.23
3.73
0.40
1.26
6.23
2.77
0.43
2.98
2.83
1.24
3.48
4.78
0.02
2.48
0.16
0.62
2.64

0.87
0.23
3.79
0.39
1.30
5.99
2.84
0.37
2.86
2.72
1.37
3.04
4.73
0.02
2.30
0.16
0.61
2.60

0.84
0.23
3.68
0.37
1.26
5.38
3.32
0.42
3.11
2.73
1.36
3.19
4.78
0.01
2.45
0.13
0.60
2.60

0.82
0.23
3.98
0.36
1.21
7.04
3.32
0.27
3.35
3.12
1.44
3.05
4.74
0.01
2.52
0.13
0.57
2.82

0.91
0.22
4.04
0.33
1.16
6.54
2.94
0.33
3.07
2.77
1.27
3.17
4.72
0.01
2.39
0.14
0.58
2.69

0.89
----4.02
0.33
1.10
7.15
3.28
0.37
3.18
3.13
1.16
3.46
4.60
0.01
2.58
0.12
0.57
2.75

0.80
0.19
3.93
0.31
1.08
6.64
3.19
0.32
3.19
3.39
1.10
3.13
4.78
----2.39
0.13
0.53
2.72

0.81
0.18
3.74
0.30
1.07
6.25
3.29
0.29
3.00
3.11
1.22
3.52
4.59
----2.15
0.12
0.54
2.62

0.74
----3.37
0.29
1.09
5.54
2.90
0.22
3.23
2.65
1.19
3.07
4.56
----2.14
0.10
0.50
2.50

Central Region
IL
0.27
IN
0.35
MB
4.96
MI
5.63
MN
3.90
OH
0.92
ON
7.01
WI
3.04
Region
3.18

0.33
0.38
5.02
5.30
3.54
0.91
6.16
2.94
2.95

0.25
0.30
4.09
5.43
2.99
0.88
6.33
2.52
2.82

0.59
0.29
4.92
5.57
3.06
0.84
5.69
2.69
2.85

0.62
0.33
4.53
5.64
3.16
1.06
6.10
2.76
2.98

0.17
0.33
5.46
5.50
3.52
0.96
6.43
3.13
3.02

0.40
0.27
4.64
5.13
3.38
0.94
6.20
2.87
2.89

0.19
0.26
4.92
5.05
3.43
0.76
6.45
3.31
2.94

0.18
0.26
4.67
4.75
3.08
0.79
5.57
2.84
2.64

0.16
0.25
4.95
4.75
3.37
0.91
5.37
2.88
2.66

0.19
0.27
4.98
4.88
3.94
0.89
5.07
2.92
2.73

0.17
0.23
5.84
5.29
3.91
0.87
5.62
3.23
2.92

0.10
0.23
5.49
5.39
3.81
0.84
5.71
3.31
2.93

0.10
0.21
4.69
5.58
3.32
0.85
5.44
3.33
2.86

0.13
0.21
4.76
5.36
2.87
0.80
5.35
2.65
2.64

0.23
0.20
5.40
5.43
3.74
0.86
5.18
2.98
2.82

Continent

2.89

2.77

2.84

2.93

2.97

2.84

2.79

2.62

2.63

2.78

2.80

2.84

2.79

2.63

2.66

Eastern Region

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

3.02

11

Table 2. Continued

State, Province,
or Region

Year

2016

2017

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

0.77
0.18
3.79
0.28
1.05
6.00
3.02
0.24
3.15
2.88
1.21
2.71
4.61
0.01
2.52
0.09
0.51
2.60

0.74
0.17
3.18
0.27
0.98
4.67
2.67
0.22
3.26
2.73
1.18
3.13
4.57
----2.24
0.09
0.51
2.41

Central Region
IL
IN
MB
MI
MN
OH
ON
WI
Region

0.13
0.20
5.15
5.15
4.33
0.81
5.13
2.97
2.82

0.16
0.19
6.38
5.22
4.42
0.72
5.21
3.44
2.92

Continent

2.71

2.67

Eastern Region

12

Table 3. The number of U.S. hunters by state that submitted woodcock wings for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Wingcollection Surveys.

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

Number of Hunters who
submitted woodcock wingsa
2016-17 Season

2015-16 Season
0
1
17
1
0
5
1
15
4
0
1
14
102
14
42
237
95
4
13
0
66
17
98
10
0
15
0
63
2
12
3
1
59
16
11
170
1,109

1
1
20
3
0
2
1
17
4
0
3
14
111
14
39
239
99
3
15
0
62
13
89
9
0
17
0
59
3
11
1
1
51
17
17
174
1,110

a

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

13

Table 4. Number of woodcock wings received from hunters, and indices of recruitment in the U.S. Recruitment
indices for individual states with ≥125 submitted wings were calculated as the ratio of immatures per adult female.
The regional indices for 2016 were weighted by the relative contribution of each state to the cumulative number of
adult female and immature wings received during 1963-2015.
State or
Region of
Total
harvest
1963-15
2016
Eastern Region
CT
15,291
171
DE
520
7
FL
678
0
GA
3,306
51
ME
89,578
936
MD
4,885
119
MA
25,179
434
NH
37,388
691
NJ
27,366
205
NY
64,768
623
NC
4,343
114
PA
33,767
353
RI
2,473
4
SC
3,794
201
VT
29,042
393
VA
6,064
213
WV
6,510
62
Region
354,952
4,577
Central Region
AL
1,014
AR
559
IL
1,510
IN
8,678
IA
1,367
KS
50
KY
1,222
LA
33,674
MI
142,390
MN
43,947
MS
1,970
MO
4,566
NE
13
ND
4
OH
15,325
OK
174
TN
1,361
TX
1,067
WI
93,642
Region
352,533

0
2
3
68
19
0
1
195
2,781
1,232
23
53
0
0
105
0
3
2
2,266
6,753

Wings received
Adult females
1963-15
2016

Immatures
1963-15
2016

3,423
79
153
1,043
26,463
1,199
7,924
12,197
6,327
21,964
1,387
10,688
476
1,200
9,541
1,587
1,959
107,610

41
4
0
12
311
22
87
197
47
185
34
144
3
76
138
67
29
1,397

9,338
352
422
1,420
44,671
2,787
12,254
17,384
16,183
29,311
2,068
15,565
1,633
1,724
13,226
3,241
3,260
174,839

73
8
0
5
497
53
116
242
110
198
53
149
6
77
163
138
26
1,914

2.7
4.5
2.8
1.4
1.7
2.3
1.5
1.4
2.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
3.4
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.7
1.62

1.8
---------1.6
---1.3
1.2
2.3
1.1
---1.0
---1.0
1.2
2.1
---1.42

282
178
353
2,197
445
9
290
7,538
46,939
15,562
551
1,189
5
3
4,702
38
358
296
31,722
112,657

0
3
1
37
5
0
23
58
835
487
11
59
0
0
49
0
6
4
847
2,425

462
228
846
4,776
618
26
608
21,796
69,659
18,789
998
2,194
6
1
7,216
92
690
529
43,795
173,329

0
2
4
65
2
0
12
99
1087
567
7
46
0
0
25
0
5
2
1075
2,998

1.6
1.3
2.4
2.2
1.4
---2.1
2.9
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.8
------1.5
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.54

---------------------1.7
1.3
1.2
------------------------1.3
1.32

14

Recruitment index
1963-15
2016

Table 5. Preliminary estimates of woodcock harvest, hunter numbers, days afield, and hunter success from the 201617 Harvest Information Program (note: all estimates rounded to the nearest 100 for harvest, hunters, and days afield).
Active woodcock
hunters

Harvest

Season harvest
per hunter

Days afield

Total

SE

Total

SE

Total

SE

Total

SE

Eastern Region
CT
900
DE
400
FL
<100
GA
500
ME
6,700
MD
500
MA
2,600
NH
6,600
NJ
3,800
NY
4,800
NC
4,300
PA
3,900
RI
200
SC
1,200
VT
5,300
VA
1,900
WV
700
Region
44,400

300
100
<100
200
1,100
100
500
1,900
1,700
600
2,700
800
100
400
1,600
300
200
4,300

900
200
200
2,000
3,200
500
1,300
2,000
900
3,200
2,600
6,300
100
200
1,800
700
400
naa

100
100
100
1,600
600
400
200
300
200
500
1,700
1,200
<100
<100
200
300
100
naa

5,100
800
400
4,200
10,600
800
7,000
10,300
2,900
13,900
5,600
18,200
300
1,100
10,500
2,600
1,600
96,100

1,000
400
200
3,200
1,400
400
1,200
2,000
700
2,200
2,800
3,200
100
200
2,000
700
500
6,900

0.91
2.67
0.25
0.25
2.10
0.83
1.93
3.27
4.37
1.48
1.67
0.62
2.53
5.59
2.90
2.59
1.93
naa

0.30
2.01
0.27
0.23
0.51
0.65
0.44
1.07
2.24
0.30
1.54
0.17
1.48
1.86
0.95
1.32
0.79
naa

100
1,900
1,400
200
2,500
0
2,000
1,100
8,600
4,700
<100
2,800
600
1,300

1,400
4,100
1,500
300
500
400
1,100
900
24,100
13,500
600
2,200
600
2,600

1,300
2,300
1,000
200
400
400
1,000
700
2,300
2,300
600
1,200
600
900

1,400
13,400
13,200
1,300
1,800
400
1,500
4,600
107,100
46,000
1,300
6,200
600
8,200

1,300
10,800
11,000
500
1,300
400
1,000
3,100
11,600
8,200
1,300
3,800
600
3,700

0.07
0.74
1.07
2.79
5.79
0.00
2.27
1.92
2.70
1.93
0.02
1.52
1.00
1.25

0.09
0.62
1.18
1.62
6.92
0.00
2.77
1.90
0.44
0.48
0.03
1.50
1.41
0.67

0
11,200
4,400
16,300

1,400
11,300
11,700
naa

1,400
7,900
1,700
naa

9,800
28,400
55,100
300,200

9,700
20,100
8,900
32,500

0.00
1.07
3.01
naa

0.00
1.24
0.58
naa

Central Region
AL
100
AR
3,000
IL
1,600
IN
900
IA
2,900
KS
0
KY
2,400
LA
1,800
MI
64,900
MN
25,900
MS
<100
MO
3,400
NE
600
OH
3,200
OKb
TN
0
TX
12,100
WI
35,100
Region
158,000

naa
Total
202,300
16,900
naa
naa
396,300
33,300
a
Regional estimates of hunter numbers and hunter success cannot be obtained due to the occurrence of individual
hunters being registered in the Harvest Information Program in more than one state.
b
No hunters that registered for HIP in Oklahoma said they intended to hunt woodcock in 2016.
15

naa

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 - 2017.
Eastern Region
Year (s)
1918-26
1927
1928-39
1940-47
1948-52
1953
1954
1955-57
1958-60
1961-62
1963-64
1965-66
1967-69
1970-71
1972-81
1982
1983-84
1985-96
1997-01
2002-10
2011-17

a

Outside dates
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 6
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 10
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 30
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
Sep. 1 - Feb. 15
Sep. 1 - Feb. 28
Oct. 5 - Feb. 28
Oct. 1 - Feb. 28
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
Oct. 6 - Jan. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 31

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

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

Year (s)
1918-26
1927
1928-39
1940-47
1948-52
1953
1954
1955-57
1958-60
1961-62
1963-64
1965-66
1967-69
1970-71
1972-90
1991-96
1997-17

Outside dates
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Dec. 31
Oct. 1 - Jan. 6
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 10
Oct. 1 - Jan. 20
Oct. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 15
Sep. 1 - Jan. 30
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
Sep. 1 - Feb. 15
Sep. 1 - Feb. 28
Sep. 1 - Jan. 31
Sep. 22a - Jan. 31

Saturday nearest September 22nd, which was September 24th for the 2016-17 season.

16

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

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

Appendix B. Estimates for the number of successful woodcock hunters and woodcock harvest in Canada (Gendron
and Smith 2017).

Estimated number of successful woodcock hunters in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1972-2016.

Estimated woodcock harvest in Canada and associated 95% confidence intervals, 1969-2016.

17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Population and Habitat Assessment Branch
11510 American Holly Drive
Laurel, Maryland 20708-4002
http://www.fws.gov
August 2017
For State Transfer Relay Service: TTY/Voice:711