Population and Harvest Trends of 

Big Game and Small Game Species

Curtis H. Flather, Michael S. Knowles, and Stephen J. Brady

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

A Technical Document Supporting 

the USDA Forest Service Interim Update of the 2000 RPA Assessment

A Technical Document Supporting 

the USDA Forest Service Interim Update of the 2000 RPA Assessment

Population and Harvest Trends of

Big Game and Small Game Species
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Flather, Curtis H.; Knowles, Michael S.; Brady, Stephen J. 2009. Population and harvest 

trends of big game and small game species: A technical document supporting the 

USDA Forest Service Interim Update of the 2000 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-219. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

Abstract

This technical document supports the Forest Service’s requirement to assess the status 

of renewable natural resources as mandated by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA). It updates past reports on national and regional 

trends in population and harvest estimates for species classified as big game and small 

game. The trends reported here were derived from State Wildlife Agency biologists and 

supplemented with data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey for those bird 

species that are commonly sought by upland game hunters. Big game populations and 

harvests have generally increased over the 1975-2000 period. Small game populations 

and harvests, particularly those associated with grassland and agricultural systems, 

show strong patterns of decline. However, population and harvest trends for both 

groups need to be interpreted with caution because: (1) not all state agencies reported 

both population and harvest statistics for all species that are commonly sought by 

recreational hunters, and (2) there were cases of inconsistent reporting at the species 

level within RPA reporting regions that necessitated aggregating across species. The 

trends documented here are consistent with trends documented in past RPA reports 

completed in 1989 and 1999, although those data were also qualified by the same 

interpretational caveats that apply to the current report. Trends observed generally 

among big game species were encouraging, but the continual decline in small game 

populations and harvest remains an important wildlife resource management issue. 

Until population and harvest monitoring is improved among institutions that share the 

stewardship responsibility for recreationally important wildlife, national and regional 

trends will have to be interpreted carefully. 

Keywords: big game, Breeding Bird Survey, harvest trends, population trends, 

recreational harvest, recreationally important wildlife, small game, State Wildlife 

Agencies, wildlife assessment

Photo Credits: Photos of mule deer and Gambel quail by Lane Eskew. Jackrabbit photo courtesy of Region 2.
i

Authors

Curtis H. Flather Research Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Michael S. Knowles Information Systems Analyst, Anadarko Industries, 

LLC, Fort Collins, CO.

Stephen J. Brady Wildlife Team Leader, Central National Technology 

Support Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Resource Use Sciences staff in support of the 

Forest Service’s national assessment reporting requirements mandated by 

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. This report 

benefited from constructive reviews received from Stephen C. Torbit, 

Senior Scientist at the National Wildlife Federation and Kent Cavender‐Bares, 

Senior Research Associate at The Heinz Center. We also wish to thank 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) State Biologists who 

coordinated the data compilation and the State Wildlife Agencies who 

cooperated with NRCS requests for population and harvest statistics. 
 ii

Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

Methods................................................................................................................... 1

Results ..................................................................................................................... 3

Big game population and harvest from State Agency Data .................... 3

Small game population and harvest from State Agency Data.............. 27

Supplemental population trends from the North American

Breeding Bird Survey ................................................................................... 28

Discussion............................................................................................................. 28

References............................................................................................................. 31

Appendix: Data compilation instructions sent to State Agency 

biologists used in updating state-wide big game and small game 

population and harvest statistics...................................................................... 33
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 1

Introduction ____________

The American public derives substantial recreational 

value from the nation’s wildlife resources. In the most 

recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Census Bureau 2006), 

12.5 million hunters spent 220 million days outdoors 

and had direct expenditures totaling more than 

$22 billion in 2001. Big game and small game hunting 

were the two most popular forms of hunting, with 

10.7 million and 4.8 million participants, respectively. 

Over the 1996-2006 period, the number of big game 

hunters has remained statistically unchanged, while 

the number of small game hunters has declined 

substantially (–31 percent) (U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Census Bureau 2006:33). 

A number of factors could be affecting participation 

rates in hunting activities (see Cordell and others 2004; 

Flather and others 1999), including demographics 

(e.g., an aging population), socioeconomics (e.g., number 

of persons living a rural lifestyle), access restrictions 

(e.g., the availability of places to hunt), and wildlife 

population status.

This report updates recent trends in the population 

and harvests of big game and small game species 

that have been compiled to meet the Forest Service’s 

requirements to assess natural resources as mandated 

by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA). Not only will these 

trends potentially offer some insights into the noted 

participation trends in the hunting of these species, 

but such data are also fundamental to documenting 

resource status as specified in the RPA legislation. 

Furthermore, big game and small game include species 

that occur in a diverse set of habitats and therefore 

collectively provide a representative picture of 

harvested species that inhabit forest, grassland, and 

agricultural systems across the nation.

Methods _______________

As is the case with many, if not most, wildlife 

species we lack standardized, statistically designed 

inventories to support broad-scale evaluations of 

status and trend in populations and harvests of big 

game and small game species. Even the Big Game 

Inventory formally conducted by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service was developed largely by assembling 

data obtained from cooperating State Wildlife Agencies. 

The trends reported here also represent a compilation 

of data that were obtained from State Agencies. The 

population and harvest (legal) data for big and 

small game reported in the 2000 Assessment (see 

Flather and others 1999) were coordinated through 

the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. For this update, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), through their State 

Biologists, coordinated the compilation of population 

and harvest statistics from State Agency biologists for 

commonly harvested species within each state.

An electronic form that documented population 

and harvest trends for selected species from 1975 

through 2000 (in 5-year intervals) was provided to each 

State Bologist along with data compilation instructions 

(see Appendix). State Biologists requested assistance 

from State Wildlife Agency contacts to provide updated 

data for 1995 and 2000 and to confirm historical entries 

(1975-1990) acquired in previous RPA assessment 

efforts. Forms were returned electronically and 

entered into the RPA Wildlife database.1

 Trend data 

are summarized at both the national and RPA regional 

(fig. 1) scales.

Big game was defined as primarily large mammal 

species taken for sport or subsistence. Because of 

historical convention, wild turkey was also classified 

as a big game species. Small game species were defined 

as small-bodied resident game birds and mammals 

that are commonly associated with upland forest, 

grassland, and agricultural habitats. Small game 

species include both native and desired non-native 

species that were purposefully introduced over broad 

areas of the United States. Because of reporting 

differences among states, it was not always possible 

to attribute data to the species level. In those cases, 

we report trends for groups of species that were 

taxonomically or ecologically similar. The species 

comprising these groups are defined in table 1.

1

 Data are available upon request from Curtis Flather (U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, cflather@fs.fed.us).
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Table 1—Definition of species groups for reporting of population and harvest trends.

Group Name Species

Deer Species of the genus Odocoileus

Cottontail Species of the genus Sylvilagus

Hare Species of the genus Lepus

Squirrel Species of the genus Sciurus and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)

Forest grouse Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), spruce grouse (Falcipennis canadensis), 

and blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus)

Prairie grouse Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), lesser prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus 

phasianellus), and sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Western quail Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae), scaled quail (Callipepla 

squamata), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), California quail 

(Callipepla californica), and mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus)

Figure 1. Forest Service RPA Assessment regions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 3

The absence of data on species or species groups 

results from variation in the geographic distribution of 

species and because of inventory gaps in State Agency 

databases. Interpretation of trends requires that a 

consistent set of states provide data for all years for 

the time period of interest. In an attempt to maximize 

the number of states contributing to the trends, we 

first identified those states that provided population 

or harvest estimates for each 5-year interval from 

1975 to 2000. We then identified those states with data 

reporting gaps over that trend interval. If the data gap 

was bracketed by state data estimates (i.e., the state 

provided estimates for the 5-year interval prior to and 

after the data-gap year), we calculated a simple linear 

interpolation to fill that gap. Although this procedure 

assumes a linear trend in population or harvest 

estimates across the gap year, we felt that maximizing 

the number of states that contributed information was 

important to ensure that trends were representative 

and not disproportionately influenced by data from 

one or a few states. Even after implementing this 

procedure, there were cases where some species or 

species groups had very few states that contributed 

data over the full 25-year period. Trends based on 

few states should be interpreted with caution. Trends 

over the 25-year period were assessed by examining 

the sum across all reporting states at 5-year intervals. 

Because the trend of sums can be disproportionately 

influenced by a single state, we also display the 

mean trend across all reporting states by estimating 

a smoothing interpolating spline (Schoenberg 1964; 

Pollock 1994) through the 5-year interval means using 

GrapherTM (Golden Software, Inc. 2000).

Given that data quality can vary from state to state 

making regional inferences uncertain, we supplemented 

the State Agency data with other inventory sources — 

namely the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). 

The BBS was established in 1966 to provide spatially 

extensive data on the population status of breeding 

bird species across the continental United States and 

southern Canada (Sauer and others 2007). The survey 

is run along more than 4,000 active roadside routes, of 

which about 3,000 are surveyed each year. Routes occur 

along secondary roads, are nearly 40 km in length, and 

are surveyed during the peak nesting season (primarily 

in June). During each survey, all birds seen or heard 

during a 3-minute period are counted at 50 stops placed 

at 0.8 km intervals along the route. These data were 

used to estimate population trend (estimated as the 

average annual percentage change) over two time periods: 

a long term period that matched the data obtained 

from State Agencies (1975-2000) and a short term 

period reflective of recent trends (2000-2005). We used the 

route-regression methodology (Geissler and Noon 1981; 

Geissler and Sauer 1990), which accounts for differing 

abilities among observers to detect birds (Sauer and 

others 1994) and a start-up bias caused by lower counts 

the first year an observer surveys a route (Erskine 1978). 

For details concerning the design and implementation 

of the BBS see Bystrak (1981) and Droege (1990).

Results ________________

We received replies to our data request, through 

the NRCS State Biologists, from all 50 states. Every 

state provided some harvest data over the 25-year 

trend period. A total of 40 states provided population 

estimates for some species or species groups. We sent 

a follow-up inquiry to the 10 states that did not 

initially provide populations estimates to confirm 

that population data were unavailable for the species 

of interest. Three states replied and explicitly indicated 

that their Agency no longer reported population 

statistics for the commonly harvested species covered 

in this report. The remaining 7 states did not respond 

to our follow-up request and we assumed that 

population data were also unavailable for those states.

Big Game Population and Harvest From 

State Agency Data

The number of states reporting population data 

for big game species or species groups varied from 

a low of 9 (elk) to a high of 31 (deer). Nationally, big 

game populations have shown substantial increases 

since the mid-1970s that are surprisingly consistent 

among species (fig. 2). Over the 25-year trend 

period, wild turkey has undergone the greatest 

relative increases (+730 percent). However, even the 

pronghorn, which showed the lowest relative gain, 

has increased considerably in the 11 states that have 

reported population estimates from 1975 to 2000. 

Deer populations (including both white-tailed and 

mule deer) have undergone the greatest absolute 

increase, adding more than 14 million individuals 

within 31 reporting states over the 25-year period.
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 2. Population trends in selected species and species groups of big game for the nation and RPA regions from 1975-

2000 (5-year increment). Trend lines are smoothed interpolating splines through the mean across reporting states. Inset 

graphic is the trend of the sum across reporting states and only appears when more than one state provided estimates. 

Number of states providing data is given by “n =”. Note changes in the y-axis when comparing among regions.

Black bear 

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 5

Figure 2. (Continued).

Deer 

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 2. (Continued).

Wild turkey

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 7

Figure 2. (Continued).

Elk

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 2. (Continued).

Pronghorn

National North

No Data

South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 9

Figure 3. Harvest trends in selected species and species groups of big game for the nation and RPA regions from 1975-2000 (5-year 

increment). Trend lines are smoothed interpolating splines through the mean across reporting states. Inset graphic is the trend of 

the sum across reporting states and only appears when more than one state provided estimates. Number of states providing data 

is given by “n =”. Note changes in the y-axis when comparing among regions. 

Black bear 

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 3. (Continued).

Deer 

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 11

Figure 3. (Continued).

Wild turkey

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 3. (Continued).

Elk

National North South

No Data

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 13

Figure 3. (Continued).

Pronghorn

National North

No Data

South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 4. Population trends in selected species and species groups of small game for the nation and RPA regions from 1975-2000 

(5-year increment). Trend lines are smoothed interpolating splines through the mean across reporting states. Inset graphic is 

the trend of the sum across reporting states and only appears when more than one state provided estimates. Number of states 

providing data is given by “n =”. Note changes in the y-axis when comparing among regions.

Forest grouse

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data No Data
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 15

Figure 4. (Continued).

Northern bobwhite

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data No Data
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 4. (Continued).

Cottontail

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data No Data
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 17

Figure 4. (Continued).

Squirrel

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data No Data
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 4. (Continued).

Ring-necked pheasant

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data

No Data
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 19

Figure 5. Harvest trends in selected species and species groups of small game for the nation and RPA regions from 1975-2000 

(5-year increment). Trend lines are smoothed interpolating splines through the mean across reporting states. Inset graphic is 

the trend of the sum across reporting states and only appears when more than one state provided estimates. Number of states 

providing data is given by “n =”. Note changes in the y-axis when comparing among regions.

Cottontail

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 5. (Continued)

Squirrel

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 21

Figure 5. (Continued)

Ring-necked pheasant

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 5. (Continued)

Hare

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 23

Figure 5. (Continued)

Forest grouse

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 5. (Continued)

Northern bobwhite

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 25

Figure 5. (Continued)

Prairie grouse

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Figure 5. (Continued)

Western quail

National North South

Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

No Data No Data

No Data
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 27

Big game population trends within RPA regions are, 

for the most part, qualitatively consistent with the 

patterns observed nationally (fig. 2). Exceptions to this 

observation include pronghorn in the South (which 

has shown steady declines since 1985 within two 

reporting states) and big game species in the Pacific 

Coast region generally (where populations have either 

remained relatively stable [elk, black bear] or have 

shown evidence of recent declines [deer, pronghorn]). 

The trends for deer in the Rocky Mountain region 

also deviate from the national pattern, with numbers 

remaining relatively stable near 1.25 million animals 

since 1985. In the case of deer, the noted deviation 

between regional and national trends in the case of 

the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions reflects 

the trend tied to mule deer and a much reduced 

contribution from white-tailed deer whose population 

and harvest estimates dominate the national statistics. 

It is also worth noting that regional trends deviating 

from the national pattern are often based on few 

reporting states indicating that the trends within that 

region may not reflect the trends across the entire 

species’ geographic range.

The number of states contributing harvest data for 

big game species is more complete than population 

statistics. A total of 45 states contributed deer 

harvest data while 13 states contributed elk harvest 

numbers (fig. 3). National harvest trends over the 

1975-2000 period have tended to mirror population 

trends. As with population statistics, wild turkey 

has undergone the greatest relative increase 

(+375 percent) among 40 states, while deer have 

undergone the greatest absolute increase (+4.9 

million individuals) among 45 states. The only 

species where national harvest trends deviate 

from the national population trends is pronghorn. 

Pronghorn harvests have declined by 15 percent 

since 1975 and by 40 percent since peak harvests 

during the mid-1980s and early-1990s.

Regional harvest trends (fig. 3) also tend to mirror 

regional population trends. Wild turkey harvests 

have shown substantial increases in all four regions; 

deer and elk harvests have increased in all regions 

except the Pacific Coast; and black bear harvests have 

increased in all regions except the Rocky Mountains. 

Deviations in harvest trends relative to population 

trends were notable for pronghorn and black bear 

in the Rocky Mountain region where harvests have 

declined (only slightly for black bear) for both species 

despite population increases.

Small Game Population and Harvest From 

State Agency Data

Many fewer states provided estimates of small 

game populations (fig. 4). A total of 5 states provided 

population estimates of northern bobwhite for the 

1975-2000 period, while for hare, western quail, and 

prairie grouse, no state provided a sufficient set of 

population estimates to support an analysis of trends 

over the entire 25-year period. Consequently, the 

results for small game population trends have a high 

level of uncertainty associated with them.

Populations of northern bobwhite, the species with 

the greatest number of reporting states, have shown 

a monotonic decline in numbers since the mid-1970s 

(fig. 4). Populations within the 5 reporting states 

have declined by more than 85 percent. The only 

other species group with evidence of declines since 

1975 is the forest grouse (–3 percent). Squirrels 

show essentially no change from 1975 to 2000. 

However, since the mid-1980s squirrel populations 

have declined by 1/3. Ring-necked pheasants, at 

least within two reporting states, have undergone 

substantial population increases since the mid-1970s 

(+190 percent). Cottontails show stability over the 

long term but there was recent evidence for declines 

following a population increase in 1990.

Small game harvest statistics are more completely 

reported with more than 15 states providing estimates 

for ring-necked pheasant, prairie and forest grouse, 

northern bobwhite, squirrel, and cottontail. Harvest 

trends (fig. 5) for small game diverge dramatically 

from the population trends reported earlier. All species 

and species groups show declining trends in small 

game harvests. The greatest declines occurred among 

hare (–86 percent), northern bobwhite (–75 percent), 

and cottontail (–69 percent). Regional trends in harvest 

are qualitatively consistent with the national trends 

with one exception — ring-necked pheasant harvests 

in the South have undergone monotonic increases 

since 1975 while all other regions show declines or 

stable harvests.
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Supplemental Population Trends From the 

North American Breeding Bird Survey

A total of 13 species defined as small upland game 

birds, and 1 big game bird species (wild turkey), are 

monitored by the BBS (table 2). Trends based on 

annual data from 1975 to 2000 appear to support the 

trends observed with the State Agency data. Wild 

turkey abundance has increase at an average annual 

rate of about 13.6 percent and is the only game bird 

within the suite of species we considered that shows 

evidence of statistically significant increase (P < 0.001) 

over this 25-year period. Other species with a positive 

trend include ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and 

California quail; however, variation in their relative 

abundances is high enough such that these trends 

cannot be considered different from a population 

exhibiting stable abundances over this period. Species 

with at least marginally significantly (P < 0.1) declining 

trends include gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, blue 

grouse, and northern bobwhite. As was observed in the 

State Agency data, the BBS confirms that the northern 

bobwhite has undergone substantial population declines 

with an average annual decline of 3.6 percent.

More recent trends (2000-2005) in upland game 

birds do deviate from the long-term trends in relative 

abundance. In particular, there is a tendency for the 

relative abundances to show a more prevalent pattern 

of qualitative increases as indicated by the sign on the 

trend coefficient (table 2). Eight species that showed 

negative trends in the long term were estimated 

to have positive trends since 2000; and six of those 

species (ring-necked pheasant, chukar, blue grouse, 

mountain quail, scaled quail, and Gambel’s quail) had 

statistically significant (P < 0.05) positive trends. Only 

the wild turkey showed strong patterns of increase in 

both time periods with recent annual gains estimated 

at >9 percent per year. The greater prairie-chicken 

continued its long-term decline with an annual loss 

estimated at more than 9.5 percent since 2000.

Discussion _____________

Population and harvest estimates from State Agencies 

are derived from a variety of approaches (Carpenter 

and others 2003, Mason and others 2006, Morellet and 

others 2007). The absence of any inventory design 

consistency among states makes regional inferences on 

population or harvest trends uncertain. Furthermore, for 

many of the species (particularly small game) states no 

longer provide population estimates. Because of these 

uncertainties we have tried to place emphasis on the 

qualitative trends rather than the actual magnitude of 

the estimates from each state. The variation in inventory 

methodologies among States notwithstanding, national 

Table 2—Trends (percent/year) in breeding bird species from 1975-2000 from the North American Breeding Bird Survey 

(http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/tf03.html).

Trend (1975-2000) Trend (2000-2005)

N Trend estimate N Trend estimate

Species (routes) (%/year) P-value (routes) (%/year) P-value

Gray partridge (Perdix perdix) 156 –2.39 0.068 40 –1.65 0.861

Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) 1071 –0.82 0.015 697 2.86 0.002

Chukar (Alectoris chukar) 58 –6.13 0.367 44 10.72 0.004

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 274 1.17 0.318 82 –3.31 0.437

Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 56 –2.59 0.317 28 22.93 0.224

Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) 45 –3.63 0.047 31 24.41 0.001

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) 76 1.24 0.649 43 6.61 0.209

Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) 31 –5.75 0.111 21 –9.80 0.095

Mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) 124 –0.28 0.701 95 8.22 0.032

Scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) 139 –0.23 0.914 89 12.19 0.004

California quail (Callipepla californica) 296 0.62 0.347 207 10.81 <0.001

Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii) 93 –1.14 0.221 64 10.49 <0.001

Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 1439 –3.58 <0.001 975 0.62 0.346

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 705 13.65 <0.001 710 9.02 <0.001
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 29

population trend estimates from the BBS were consistent 

with State Agency derived trends over similar time 

periods. Although the BBS only permitted a comparison 

among avian species, it was reassuring that trends derived 

from a statistically rigorous survey procedure were 

consistent with trends compiled from State data.

Comparisons of the trends reported here with the 

literature among mammalian species also tended 

to offer a consistent assessment of recent trends. 

Peek (1995) concluded that elk now occupy more 

suitable habitat and are more numerous than at 

any time since the turn of the Twentieth Century. 

Similar conclusions have also been reached for 

white-tailed deer where empirical population 

estimates around 2000 suggest that deer numbers 

have grown to unprecedented levels (McCabe and 

McCabe 1997, Côté and others 2004). A comparison 

of our pronghorn population trends with those from 

Yoakum (2004) required a more detailed analysis. 

Yoakum (2004:86) reports a 20 percent decline in 

pronghorn numbers from 1989 to 1999. Over the 

1990-2000 period, our data showed a 3.7 percent 

increase. Reconciling these discrepancies required 

consideration of the set of states contributing to 

Yoakum’s analysis (17 states) and our analysis 

(11 states). Five out of the six states included in 

Yoakum (2004), but not included in our analysis, were 

states with small pronghorn populations that together 

contributed < 5 percent to the total count estimated 

for the United States. Pronghorn counts in those five 

states did little to explain the noted discrepancy. 

The sixth state (Montana) accounted for nearly 

31 percent of the total pronghorn population 

estimate for 1989 reported in Yoakum (2004); and 

numbers in Montana plummeted more than 74 

percent by 1999. If we ignore Montana’s contribution 

to Yoakum’s estimate, then the 1989 to 1999 trend 

indicated by his data was a 2.8 percent increase. 

This increase in pronghorn numbers is now in line 

with our reported population trend of +3.7 percent 

over a similar period of time. This reconciliation 

points to an important caveat when comparing 

across published accounts of big game population 

trends. Namely, that variation in the set of states 

contributing to the total population count can 

greatly affect the overall assessment of population 

trend due to regional variation in factors affecting 

reproduction and survivorship.

Consistency with the literature is not restricted to 

ungulates. Vaughn and Pelton (1995) found that 27 of 

40 states reported increasing black bear populations 

around the mid-1990s. A more recent assessment 

of black bear population status conducted by 

Garshelis and Hristienko (2006) found that out of 

51 U.S. state and Canadian provinces surveyed, 

no agency reported declining trends in black bear 

numbers and half reported at least slight increases 

from 1988-1999. Although the data used in several 

of these examples are derived from the same sources 

we used here, this consistency of pattern, at least 

qualitatively, suggests that the trends we report 

from State Agency data can’t simply be dismissed 

because of the inherent idiosyncrasies embedded in a 

process that involves a compilation from 50 states.

The trends reported here do indicate that big 

game and small game populations and harvests 

differ in a very fundamental way. Big game 

populations and harvests reported here have, with 

a few exceptions, increased from 1975 to 2000. In 

several cases those increases have been substantial 

(e.g., population and harvests of wild turkey and 

deer). The trends for small game species diverge 

greatly from those reported for big game. The 

consistency of the divergence is not observable with 

the state-derived population data because so few 

states provided population estimates of small game 

species. The deviation is based on the consistent 

declines in small game harvests and the abundance 

trends among game birds derived from the BBS. A 

simple estimate of percentage change in harvests 

from 1975 to 2000 showed that on average (across 

the 9 species groups, unweighted for differences 

in harvest size) small game harvests declined by 

49 percent. Whether these harvest trends reflect 

the population status of these species is debatable. 

Harvests can change for a number of reasons that 

are potentially independent of population levels 

including changes in the accessibility of land for 

hunting, changes in species preferences that hunters 

pursue, or changes in the number of days devoted to 

hunting. However, the trends derived from the BBS 

suggest that the cause of harvest declines among small 

game may have a component that is attributable 

to the populations of these species. Four of the five 

species with at least marginal evidence (P ≤ 0.1) for 

a statistically significant trend during the 1975-2000 
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

period (table 2) were declining. The one species 

with significantly increasing populations — wild 

turkey — was classified as big game in this report.

Within species classified as small game, there also 

appears to be evidence that declines are prominent 

among those species associated with grassland, early 

successional, and farmland habitats. Three of the five 

species with the greatest percent decline in harvests 

(fig. 5) are clearly associated with grassland and 

agricultural habitats (northern bobwhite, cottontail, 

and prairie grouse). This pattern was substantiated 

by BBS-derived trends (table 2), with three out of the 

four small game species having evidence of at least 

marginally significant declines being associated with 

grassland/agricultural systems (gray partridge, ringnecked pheasant, and northern bobwhite).

Our purpose here was to review recent trends in big 

game and small game population and harvest trends. 

The motivation for this review stems ultimately from 

the mandates specified by the RPA. Moreover, because 

formal geographically extensive inventories for these 

species groups are lacking, it is important to update 

these trends periodically from state agency sources, 

even if they are derived from methodologies that vary 

widely, to indicate any important qualitative changes 

that have occurred so that natural resource managers 

and policymakers can consider this information 

during the decision-making process. The trends 

documented in this update show a continuation of 

trends that have been documented over the past two 

major wildlife assessments (Flather and Hoekstra 

1989, Flather and others 1999). Big game population 

and harvest trends have to be considered, in general, a 

favorable resource situation. We don’t mean to imply 

that population increases of game species are free 

of potentially negative consequences to ecosystems, 

local economies, and wildlife management. Habitats 

have limits on their capacity to sustainably support 

individuals and there is evidence that some species 

may be exceeding those limits (Levy 2006). Deer 

abundance has become problematic in many regions of 

the country and it remains an important management 

problem that still requires action (Warren 1997, Côté 

and others 2004). Because big game populations have 

generally shown long-term increases, the capacity 

for habitats and the public’s desire to sustain those 

population levels represents an uncertain, if not an 

emerging unfavorable, resource issue deserving of 

closer scientific and management scrutiny (Levy 2006). 

Small game species, particularly those associated with 

grassland and agricultural systems, show very little 

sign of long-term recovery from the declines noted 

in the 1990 Assessment (Flather and Hoekstra 1989). 

While there is local evidence that small game species 

can respond favorably to geographically extensive 

land use policies that provide suitable habitat (see 

Heard and others 2000), these local benefits have not, 

as yet, translated into observable sustained population 

and harvest benefits at regional and national scales. 

For this reason, the trends in small game population 

and harvest remain an important unresolved 

management issue of concern.

Monitoring that leads to unbiased and precise 

estimates of population size and harvest is 

fundamental to effective management of wildlife 

resources (Williams and others 2002). Estimating 

population and harvest of birds and mammals over 

large geographic areas is a conceptually simple 

idea; however, the inventories upon which those 

estimates are based are logistically difficult and 

expensive to implement (Morellet and others 2007). 

These difficulties notwithstanding, there is a need 

to improve monitoring protocols, data-sharing 

mechanisms, and species designations (that is, 

minimize lumping across species) such that our 

understanding of population fluctuations among 

harvested wildlife can inform management activities 

designed to affect harvest allocation or habitat 

restoration (Mason and others 2006). Failure to 

improve our capability to monitor populations and 

harvests can expose agencies to challenges from 

stakeholder groups that take time and money to 

resolve, and can erode trust among professional and 

citizen groups with an interest in the management 

and use of wildlife resources (see for example 

Freddy and others 2004). Furthermore, focused 

efforts on improving population monitoring should 

also consider comparability across state boundaries. 

Certainly, the authority to manage the species 

reviewed in this document rests largely with the 

states. However, ameliorating many of the pressures 

on these resources stemming from habitat loss and 

degradation, land use intensification, and climate 

change will require multi-jurisdictional (federal 

agencies, state agencies, and non-governmental 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 31

organizations) and regional efforts that would 

benefit from monitoring data that can be aggregated 

easily across broad geographic areas. Realizing 

these monitoring improvements will come at a cost. 

There is a need to supplement monitoring budgets 

and to allocate the monitoring burden among those 

institutions that have a shared responsibility for 

wildlife resource stewardship to ensure that those 

who seek to hunt, observe, or photograph wildlife 

will continue to have the opportunity to enjoy these 

recreationally important species in the future.

References _____________

Bystrak, D. 1981. The North American Breeding Bird 

Survey. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 34-41.

Carpenter, L. H.; Lutz, D.; Weybright, D. 2003. Mule deer data 

types, uses, analyses, and summaries. In: deVos, J. C., Jr.; 

Conover, M. R.; Headrick, N. E., eds. Mule deer conservation: 

issues and management strategies. Logan, UT: Berryman 

Institute Press, Utah State University: 163-175.

Cordell, H. K., principal author. 2004. Outdoor recreation 

for 21st century America: a report to the nation: the 

national survey on recreation and the environment. State 

College, PA: Venture Publishing. 293 p.

Côté, S. D.; Rooney, T. P.; Tremblay, J-P.; Dussault, C.; Waller, 

D. M. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. 

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 

35: 113-147.

Droege, S. 1990. The North American Breeding Bird 

Survey. In: Sauer, J. R.; Droege, S., eds. Survey design 

and statistical methods for estimation of avian population 

trends. Biol. Rep. 90(1). Washington, DC: USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service: 1-4.

Erskine, A. J. 1978. The first ten years of the cooperative 

breeding bird survey in Canada. Canadian Wildlife 

Service Report Series. 42: 1-61.

Flather, C. H.; Brady, S. J.; Knowles, M. S. 1999. Wildlife 

resource trends in the United States: a technical 

document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service 

RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-33. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p.

Flather, C. H.; Hoekstra, T. W. 1989. An analysis of the 

wildlife and fish situation in the United States: 1989-

2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 146 p.

Freddy, D. J.; White, G. C.; Kneeland, M. C.; Kahn, R. H.; 

Unsworth, J. W.; deVergie, W. J.; Graham, V. K.; 

Ellenberger, J. H.; Wagner, C. H. 2004. How many mule 

deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 916-927.

Garshelis, D. L.; Hristienko, H. 2006. State and provincial 

estimates of American black bear numbers versus 

assessments of population trend. Ursus 17: 1-7.

Geissler, P. H.; Noon, B. R. 1981. Estimates of avian 

population trends from the North American Breeding 

Bird Survey. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 42-51.

Geissler, P. H.; Sauer, J. R. 1990. Topics in route-regression 

analysis. In: Sauer, J. R.; Droege, S., eds. Survey design 

and statistical methods for estimation of avian population 

trends. Biol. Rep. 90(1). Washington, DC: USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service: 54-57.

Golden Software, Inc. 2000. GrapherTM User’s Guide. 

Graphing software for scientists and engineers. Golden, 

CO: Golden Software, Inc. 321 p.

Heard, L. P.; Allen, A. W.; Best, L. B.; Brady, S. J.; and 

others. 2000. A comprehensive review of farm bill 

contributions to wildlife conservation, 1985-2000. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Wildlife Habitat Management 

Institute, Technical Report (USDA/NRCS/WHMI-2000). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 208 p.

Levy, S. 2006. A plague of deer. BioScience 56: 718-721.

Mason, R; Carpenter, L. H.; Cox, M.; deVos, J. C.; 

Fairchild, J.; Freddy, D. J.; Heffelfinger, J. R.; Kahn, R. H.; 

McCorquodale, S. M.; Pac, D. F.; Summers, D.; White, G. C.; 

Williams, B. K. 2006. A case for standardized ungulate 

surveys and data management in the western United 

States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 1238-1242.

McCabe, T. R.; McCabe, R. E. 1997. Recounting whitetails 

past. In: McShea, W. J., Underwood, H. B.; Rappole, J. 

H., eds. The science of overabundance: deer ecology and 

population management. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institute Press: 11-26.

Morellet, N.; Gaillard J-M.; Hewison, A. J. M.; Ballon, P.; 

Boscardin, Y.; Duncan, P.; Klein, F.; Maillard, D. 2007. 

Indicators of ecological change: new tools for managing 

populations of large herbivores. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 44: 634-643.

Peek, J. M. 1995. North American elk. In: LaRoe, E. T.; Farris, 

G. S.; Puckett, C. E.; Doran, P. D.; Mac, M. J., eds. Our living 

resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, 

abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and 

ecosystems. Washington, DC: USDI, National Biological 

Service: 115-116.

Pollock, D. S. G. 1994. Smoothing with cubic splines. Paper 

No. 291. London: University of London, Queen Mary and 

Westfield College, Economics Department. 25 p.

Sauer, J. R.; Hines, J. E.; Fallon, J. 2007. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 

1966-2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Sauer, J. R.; Peterjohn, B. G.; Link, W. A. 1994. Observer 

differences in the North American Breeding Bird Survey. 

Auk 111: 50-62.

Schoenberg, I. J. 1964. Spline functions and the problem 

of graduation. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, USA 52:947-950.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDC Census Bureau. 

2006. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlifeassociated recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 164 p.
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

Vaughan, M. R.; Pelton, M. R. 1995. Black bears in North 

America. In: LaRoe, E. T.; Farris, G. S.; Puckett, C. E.; 

Doran, P. D.; Mac, M. J., eds. Our living resources: 

a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, 

and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. 

Washington, DC: USDI, National Biological Service: 

100-103.

Warren, R. J., editor. 1997. The challenge of deer 

overabundance in the 21st century. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 25: 213-214.

Williams, B. K.; Nichols, J. D.; Conroy, M. J. 2002. Analysis 

and management of animal populations. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. 817 p.

Yoakum, J. D. 2004. Distribution and abundance. In: O’Gara, 

B. W.; Yoakum, J. D., eds. Pronghorn: ecology and 

management. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado: 

75-105.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009 33

Appendix: Data compilation instructions and an example 

data form sent to NRCS State Biologists for use in 

updating state-level big game and small game population 

and harvest statistics from State Wildlife Agencies.

HISTORICAL HARVEST AND POPULATION TRENDS

The purpose of this form is to update historical harvest and population data for commonly

harvested wildlife species in your state. These data were acquired on previous requests to your

agency and we would like you to review the accuracy of those estimates, provide data where there

are historical information gaps, and provide more recent estimates of harvest and population

levels where applicable. A description of the column headings on this form is displayed below.

COLUMN HEADING | DESCRIPTION

-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------

Common Name | A description of the species name. In some cases harvest

| and population information is presented for a group of

| species (e.g., deer, squirrels). In this case harvest and

| population estimates should reflect all species composing

| the group.

|

-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------

|

Species Code | A 9- or 6-character code reflecting the first 3 letters of

| the genus, species, and subspecies (if applicable)

| name. The code "SPP" appears if a species group

| name (e.g., deer, squirrels) is used.

|

-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------

|

1975 Harvest/Population | Statewide harvest/population estimate representative of the

| year indicated. These data were obtained from previous

1980 Harvest/Population | requests to your state agency. Please review the accuracy of

| the estimates shown and provide estimates where there

1985 Harvest/Population | are historical gaps. If data are not available for a

| particular year, then indicated by entering "ND".

1990 Harvest/Population |

|

-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------

|

1995 Harvest/Population | Provide statewide estimates of harvest and population for

| 1995 and 2000. If 2000 estimates are not available

1999/2000 Harvest/Population | then provide 1999. Indicate the year of the data by

| underlining the appropriate year (use the underline option in

| your word processor). If data are not available for a

| particular year, then indicate by entering "ND".

|

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

The attached data file contains population and harvest data for your state. Please review

and update those data and return to NRCS State Conservationist
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-219. 2009

KANSAS

---------------------------------------- Data=Harvest -----------------------------------------

(UNDERLINE ONE)

Species 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000/2001

Species Code Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals

Pronghorn ANTAME 72 152 214 165 ________ ________

Bobwhite COLVIR 2152250 1186000 1121000 2620000 ________ ________

Turkey, Wild MELGAL 128 369 1998 5669 ________ ________

Deer, Mule ODOHEM 1115 1869 2581 4000 ________ ________

Deer, White-tail ODOVIR 4373 8434 23245 41000 ________ ________

Pheasant, Ring-necked PHACOL 564000 972000 645000 742000 ________ ________

Squirrel SCISPP 282000 273000 167000 141000 ________ ________

Cottontail SYLSPP 371000 277000 317000 335000 ________ ________

Prairie-chicken, Greater TYMCUP 16000 51000 54000 55000 ________ ________

Prairie-chicken, Lesser TYMPAL 2300 900 1600 600 ________ ________

--------------------------------------- Data=Population ---------------------------------------

(UNDERLINE ONE)

Species 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000/2001

Species Code Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals

Pronghorn ANTAME 926 1650 2000 1300 ________ ________

Turkey, Wild MELGAL 2767 ________ 70000 ________ ________ ________

Deer, Mule ODOHEM 7640 50000 40000 ________ ________ ________

Deer, White-tail ODOVIR 30560 10000 260000 ________ ________ ________

Pheasant, Ring-necked PHACOL 1540000 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________

Prairie-chicken TYMSPP 175754 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain research station

General Technical Report

RMRS-GTR-219

February 2009