Mourning Dove National Strategic 

Harvest Management Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan 3

INTRODUCTION 

This document provides a longrange vision for improving mourning 

dove management through the 

development of predictive harvest 

strategies. The purposes of this 

plan are to: (1) promote the concept 

of coordinated management of 

mourning doves to insure uniformity 

of regulatory action and equitable 

conservation across the species 

range in the 3 Mourning Dove 

Management Units; (2) acknowledge 

the need to recognize demographic 

differences among management 

units; and, (3) acknowledge that 

the current harvest management 

system, and the knowledge base 

supporting it, needs improvement. 

Future recommendations will be 

made regarding management 

unit-specific harvest strategies 

and initiation of new, long-term 

monitoring efforts. 

Management has consisted of annual 

population trend surveys and the 

establishment of annual hunting 

regulations. Additionally, some 

states conducted either annual or 

periodic harvest surveys. These 

survey and harvest data, however, 

did not give managers the ability to 

either correlate or predict the impact 

of regulation changes on harvest 

or population levels. For example, 

hunting opportunity was restricted 

in the Western Management Unit 

(WMU) beginning in 1987 due to 

long-term dove population declines. 

The dove population in the WMU 

appears to have stabilized, but 

it is unlikely that hunting was 

solely responsible for the decline 

that prompted these restrictions. 

Unfortunately, available data were 

insufficient to allow managers to 

relate demographic parameters to 

harvest or hunting regulations. 

Managers have increasingly 

become concerned about the status 

of mourning dove populations 

given their economic and social 

importance, and apparent population 

declines. Management concerns 

include: (1) limited data upon which 

to make harvest management 

decisions; (2) population survey 

results indicating declines; and, (3) 

uncertainty regarding the cause of 

population declines. Some managers 

believe that hunting opportunity 

should be commensurate with 

population status while others 

opportunity is unnecessary when 

harvest is not known to be the 

causative factor of a decline. 

The inability to correlate mourning 

dove hunting regulations with their 

impact on demographic parameters 

has not been considered a problem 

heretofore because mourning doves 

are widely distributed, abundant, 

and adaptable to a variety of 

habitats. Additionally, trends in 

population indices in past years were 

relatively stable and the estimated 

total harvest was declining. In 

recent years, declines in the longterm population index have become 

apparent in all 3 management 

units. In the WMU, the decline was 

generally considered the result of 

long-term habitat changes (Reeves 

et al. 1993). However, it is difficult 

to pinpoint exact causes of declines. 

A combination of factors involving 

both reproduction and survival is 

likely responsible. Since mourning 

doves are habitat generalists, it is 

difficult to target and develop habitat 

management programs. Thus, the 

future of dove management depends 

primarily upon harvest management 

and our understanding of how 

harvest affects dove populations. 

Consequently, this plan deals with 

harvest management rather than 

habitat issues. 

Increasingly, there has been broadscale support for improving the way 

dove harvest is addressed. Harvest 

management plans have been 

prepared in both the WMU and the 

Central Management Unit (CMU), 

but neither plan provided a clear 

decision-making process regarding 

hunting regulations. In 1998, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) notified the dove technical 

committees in the CMU and the 

Eastern Management Unit (EMU) 

that if downward population trends 

continued, harvest framework 

reductions would be implemented. 

Furthermore, they asked that 

harvest management strategies be 

developed that included decision 

criteria that explicitly state when 

regulatory changes will be made 

and what the changes would be, 

and an estimate of the effect of 

the regulatory options. In 1999, a 

workshop was held in the CMU to 

attempt to improve upon the harvest 

management decision-making 

process. In 2000, a Joint Flyway 

recommendation was approved 

to support establishing a working 

group composed of representatives 

from the FWS and the flyway 

councils, i.e., their technical 

committees, to develop acceptable 

guidelines for management unit 

plans, i.e., harvest management 

objectives and strategies. Similar 

recommendations have been made 

by the Central Flyway Council and 

the Migratory Shore and Upland 

Game Bird Working Group of the 

International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies. 

In 2001, a National Mourning 

Dove Planning Committee was 

formed and met to begin the 

process of developing a plan of 

action that would lead to guidelines 

the management unit technical 

committees could use to prepare 

management plans for their 

respective management units. Todd 

Sanders (CO) represented the 

WMU; Jay Roberson (TX) and John 

H. Schulz (MO) represented the 

CMU; Tommy Hines (FL) and David 

Scott (OH) represented the EMU; 

David Otis represented USGS; and, 

David Dolton represented the FWS. 

Mike Rabe (AZ) joined the group in 

2002 as a second representative from 

the WMU. 

believe that a restriction on hunting 
4 Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan

George Andrejko / Arizona Game & Fish Department

The Planning Committee 

concluded that the current harvest 

management decision-making 

process could not be improved with 

existing information. Consequently, 

the group decided to prepare this 

simple vision document that would 

provide a long-range strategy for 

improving mourning dove harvest 

management. This Plan is expected 

to provide a common philosophy 

and framework that will result in (1) 

development of predictive harvest 

strategies that may be incorporated 

into unit-specific management plans, 

and (2) recommendations regarding 

initiation of new, long-term 

monitoring efforts. 

This Plan focuses on concepts rather 

than specific details, and represents 

an initial step towards improving 

the decision-making process in 

establishing mourning dove harvest 

regulations. The document outline 

consists of 4 questions: 

 1. Where are we currently with 

our mourning dove management? 

(Where are we?) 

2. Where do we envision the 

future of mourning dove harvest 

management? (Where do we want to 

be?) 

3. How will we get to this desired 

future condition? (How will we get 

there?) 

4. How will we know if we met our 

goal? (Did we make it?) 
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan

5

Where Are We?

“. . . Federal and State hunting 

regulations have been based upon 

the best information available . . . 

[but the] information on which to 

base management [decisions] has 

been far from complete. Although 

much was known about the dove’s 

life history, there has been [a] need 

for information on populations 

and production, migration, and 

local movements, on the influence 

of changing land use and weather, 

and on the effects of hunting” 

(Southeastern Association of Game 

and Fish Commissioners 1957:1). 

Since the time of this statement, 

a large body of research has been 

conducted on mourning doves 

(Baskett et al. 1993) and much has 

been learned (Tomlinson et al. 1994, 

Mirarchi and Baskett 1994). Despite 

the extensive and voluminous nature 

of information gathered, the basic 

question of how harvest affects 

survival and reproductive rates 

remains unanswered. 

Many causative factors have con-

tributed to our inability to address 

basic questions related to mourning 

dove harvest management. Mourn-

ing doves are ubiquitous habitat 

generalists that use almost every 

major ecological habitat type (Al-

drich and Duvall 1958). Mourning 

doves are also relatively numerous 

and visible compared to other avian 

species (Robbins et al. 1986, Tom-

linson and Dolton 1987), and this 

relative abundance has minimized 

concerns about possible effects of 

over-harvest. Historically, few data 

existed to provide the rationale for 

changing mourning dove hunting 

season frameworks; e.g., Mourn-

ing Dove Call-count Survey (CCS) 

population trends, individual state 

harvest estimates [prior to full im-

plementation of the Harvest Infor-

mation Program (HIP)], and expert 

Jim Matthews 

Jim Rathert / Missouri Department of Conservation

Current State of Management
6 Mourning Dove Strategic Harvest Management Plan

biological opinion. Thus, mourning 

dove hunting season frameworks 

have remained relatively stable 

(Table 1) and administrators and 

biologists have not changed those 

frameworks on an annual or regular 

basis. 

Population Status and Harvest 

Surveys 

Despite the fact that mourning 

doves are among the 10 most ubiquitous and numerous bird species 

in the continental U.S. (Robbins et 

al. 1986), population indices have 

been declining since 1966 when 

the nationwide CCS was initiated. 

The CCS revealed declines in all 3 

management units during the periods 1966-2002 (EMU, -0.4%/year 

[-13.4% total], P < 0.05; CMU, 

-0.6%/year [-19.5% total], P < 0.01; 

and, WMU, -2.2%/year [-55.1% total], P < 0.01) (Dolton and Holmes 

2002). During the 10-year period, 

1993-2002, populations in the EMU 

showed no significant trend (-0.7%/

year [-6.1% total], P > 0.10) while 

the CMU and WMU population 

indices showed continued declines 

(CMU, -1.1%/year [-9.5% total], 

P < 0.05; WMU, -1.8%/year [-

15.1% total], P < 0.01). In contrast, 

analyses of the North American 

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) during 

1966-2002 suggest an increase for 

the EMU (0.5%/year [19.7% total], 

P < 0.05), and declining trends 

for the CMU and WMU (CMU, 

-0.6%/year [-19.5% total], P < 0.05; 

WMU, -1.2%/year [-35.2% total], 

P < 0.05) (Dolton and Rau 2003). 

A short-term (1992-2002) increase 

was detected for the EMU (0.8%/

year [7.4% total]; P < 0.05) while 

no trend was indicated for the CMU 

(0.4%/year [3.7% total]; P > 0.10) 

or the WMU (0.6%;year [5.5% 

total], P > 0.10). 

Controversy exists about the relative merits of the CCS and BBS to 

index mourning dove population 

size (Sauer et al. 1994). The CCS 

protocol is designed specifically 

for doves, but the number of routes 

is generally much smaller than for 

the BBS, which leads to concerns 

about the ability of the CCS to 

detect trends. A reliable calibration 

algorithm does not exist for converting either CCS or BBS indices 

to estimates of mourning dove 

abundance or density. Furthermore, 

CCS indices may not be correlated 

with abundance or density, but 

rather represent an index to unmated males in the breeding season 

(Baskett 1993). Habitat changes 

along survey routes may also confound interpretation of observed 

CCS trends because such changes 

can lead to decreased detectability 

of individuals (Miller et al., unpublished data). Thus, we have longterm trend data, but interpretation of 

the indices derived from these data 

are the subject of continuing debate. 

Work is underway to determine if 

CCS and BBS data can be combined to strengthen the data set. 

One of the purposes of this plan, 

however, is to move the dove harvest management debate away from 

proximate issues dealing with CCS 

and BBS issues, and instead focus 

upon ultimate issues of building 

reliable knowledge about relationships between changes in mourning dove harvest and population 

demographics. Recent professional 

debate has focused attention on the 

inability of surveys like the CCS or 

BBS to actually have any meaningful value in making management 

decisions (Anderson 2001, Anderson 2003, Engeman 2003). The 

first set of problems involves issues 

related to convenience sampling 

along roadsides; e.g., a lack of 

valid inference to the population 

of interest, and no basis for assessing the precision or accuracy of 

population parameters estimated 

(Anderson 2001). Secondly, index 

values should not be assumed to be 

a representation of population size 

or density. The index values can 

be affected by variables related to 

the observer, variables associated 

with environmental effects on the 

number of animals detected, and 

biological and behavioral aspects of 

the animal’s detectability (Anderson 

2001). Thus, if these factors are not 

accounted for, index values will 

Jim Matthews
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan 7

not accurately represent population status and trend. Recognizing 

that mourning doves are a vitally 

important continental resource to 

hunters and nonhunters, it is critical 

that future harvest management 

decisions be based upon meaningful 

and reliable information compared 

to the status quo of index values 

and/or a combination of uncertain 

harvest estimates. 

With the complete implementation 

of HIP in 1998, annual estimates 

of harvest and hunting effort are 

now available for all states. This 

program was established with the 

primary goal of providing a means 

to conduct uniform, national harvest 

surveys annually for all migratory 

game bird species (Ver Steeg and 

Elden 2002). HIP was designed 

to give reliable estimates of total 

harvest, hunter numbers, and days 

hunted for the first time, irrespective of statewide differences in 

licensing structure. According 

to Ver Steeg and Elden (2002), 

“Although HIP hunter activity and 

harvest estimates for doves, woodcock, and other migratory game 

bird species are not identical to 

similar estimates derived from state 

surveys, the differences seem to 

be mainly due to differences in the 

sample frames, survey instruments 

and procedures, and analytical 

assumptions used. In most cases, 

state survey and HIP estimates of 

the harvest per active hunter for 

those species agree closely. While 

HIP is currently providing standard 

state, regional, and national hunter 

activity and harvest estimates as 

intended, there is still much room 

for improvement.” 

Reproduction 

Published studies on the breeding 

ecology of mourning doves date 

back at least 80 years, and several 

summaries of these results have 

been compiled (Hanson and Kossack 1963, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1977, Sayre and Silvy 

1993). This collection of smallscale, relatively short-term studies serves to establish bounds on 

parameters such as length of the 

nesting season, young fledged per 

breeding pair, and nest density. 

However, lack of standardized 

field sampling methodology and 

the short time frames preclude 

direct use of these data to construct 

general models of productivity 

on large, management unit scales. 

The most comprehensive study of 

breeding was conducted in 1979-80, 

for the primary purpose of estimating effects of September hunting 

on nesting success (Geissler et al. 

1987). The study involved 106 sites 

in 27 states, and provided the basis 

for comparing nesting chronology 

and productivity among large-scale 

geographical units. Most recently, 

Miller et al. (2001) estimated 

productivity and associated parameters of nesting ecology in several 

habitat types in California. Otis 

(2003) developed a simple model 

of estimated productivity (defined 

as recruitment into the fall population) per breeding pair on a regional 

scale. The model is used to define 

upper and lower bounds for potential productivity, but its utility for 

predicting productivity in a given 

year is untested. 

Estimates of Fall recruitment 

in terms of number of juveniles 

(Hatching Year or HY) per adult 

(After Hatching Year or AHY) in 

the pre-hunting season population, can be derived from age ratios 

observed in the harvest, corrected 

for differential harvest vulnerability 

of age classes (Nichols and Tomlinson 1993). Harvest age ratios 

usually are estimated by using wing 

collection surveys, e.g., waterfowl 

species and woodcock. A few data 

sets containing age-ratio data for 

mourning doves are available, but 

no long-term program has been 

instituted. Wing surveys were done 

in conjunction with the banding 

studies in the EMU from 1966-71 

(Hayne 1975, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data), and 

Haas (1978) and McGowan and 

Otis (1998) reported harvest age 

ratios from 1968-75 and 1992-95, 

respectively, in South Carolina. 

While these data are helpful in providing some insight into the range 

of pre-hunting season age ratios, 

they do not provide a comprehensive basis for building general 

predictive models. 

Annual Survival and Harvest 

Mortality 

Banding studies dating back to the 

1950s have been used to generate 

annual survival estimates (Newsom 

et al. 1957, Tomlinson et al. 1960). 

Survival estimates on a management unit scale were derived from 

the intensive banding studies carried out in each management unit in 

the 1960s and 1970s (Dunks et al. 

1982, Tomlinson et al. 1988, Martin 

and Sauer 1993); these same data 

have been used to derive updated 

estimates using more contemporary 

analysis techniques (Otis and White 

2002, Otis 2002). However, aside 

from a few small scale banding 

studies in South Carolina (McGowan and Otis 1998), Ohio (Scott 

et al., 2004) and Missouri (Schulz et 

al. 1996), and a fall telemetry study 

in South Carolina (Berdeen, 2004), 

no new annual or seasonal mortality estimates have been generated 

for dove populations during the past 

3 decades. In most years, ≤1,000 

doves are banded in the entire U.S., 

and recovery rates are negligible 

(K. A. Wilkins, FWS, personal 

communication). Thus, derivation 

of contemporary annual mortality 

rates based on band recovery data is 

not feasible. 

The relationship between hunting 
8 Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan

and non-hunting mortality in the 

annual cycle of mourning dove 

populations has not received much 

attention. A notable exception was 

a study of the effects of increased 

bag limits in the EMU during the 

years 1966-72. This study could 

detect no change in annual mortality rates in years when the bag limit 

was raised from 12 to 18 (Hayne 

1975). However, a recent re-analysis of this study concluded that the 

increase in bag limit did not result 

in a significant increase in harvest 

rate, and therefore no inferences 

about the effect of harvest on annual survival could logically be 

made (Otis and White 2002). Currently, there are no models for relating harvest regulation parameters to 

realized harvest rates. 

Estimates of harvest rate have been 

derived from estimates of band 

recovery rate and independent 

estimates of band reporting rate

(Tomlinson 1968, Reeves 1979, 

Otis 2002, Scott et al. 2004). These 

derived harvest rate estimates have 

generally ranged between 5-15%, 

which has not been considered 

detrimental to long-term population 

status. Thus, the implicit conclusion in the literature to date has 

been that hunting mortality is less 

than any reasonable, postulated 

threshold for additive hunting 

mortality. However, no rigorous 

tests of the competing hypotheses 

of additive and compensatory 

mortality have been conducted. A 

recent 3-year banding study in Ohio 

(1996-98) yielded separate harvest 

rate estimates for urban and rural 

mourning doves (0.010 and 0.046, 

respectively), and a band reporting 

rate estimate of 20.9% (Scott et al. 

2004). Contemporary estimates or 

indices of regional-scale harvest 

rates are not available due to the 

general lack of contemporary estimates of band recovery rates and 

reporting rates. 

Population Models 

Informed harvest management 

of game species should rely on 

population models that represent 

hypotheses about the relationships 

between survival, reproduction, 

and harvest rates. When estimates 

of the parameters in these models 

are provided, predictions about 

population status can be made and 

compared to independent population indices, if available. Investigators who analyzed and reported on 

the last generation of large-scale 

banding studies used simple life 

history equations to conclude that 

production in all management units 

was sufficient to offset mortality 

and, therefore, maintain the current 

population (Dunks et al. 1982, Tomlinson et al. 1988, Martin and Sauer 

1993); dove harvest management 

has relied on this inference since 

that era. Despite the long-standing 

importance of mourning doves as a 

game bird, no formal harvest regulation process involving even the 

most elementary models has been 

developed. 

A set of population models, each 

based on a different assumption 

about the relationship between 

annual survival and harvest rates, 

is being developed (Otis, unpublished report). However, parameter 

estimates in these models are based 

almost completely on data that are 

at least 20 years old. Thus, the accuracy and utility of these models 

for predicting contemporary population status is unknown. 

Roy Tomlinson
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan 9

WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE? 

Specifically needed are harvest 

management strategies developed 

for each management unit that include decision criteria that explicitly state when regulatory changes 

will be made, what the changes 

will be, and the estimated effect of 

regulatory options. Management 

unit technical committees may then 

incorporate these specific strategies into their own management 

plan. Although these strategies 

will be developed with a common 

framework, each management unit 

technical committee would have the 

flexibility to adopt their own specific implementation and evaluation 

criteria, knowing that population 

status and extrinsic environmental conditions may not be similar 

among the 3 management units during any given time frame. 

Population Models 

The process of development and 

continued evaluation of harvest 

management strategies should be 

grounded in quantitative population 

models that synthesize knowledge 

of current life history parameters 

and how they are affected by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Use of 

such models has a long history in 

the management of game species. 

The collection of research publications, symposia, and technical 

workshops conducted on population 

models is voluminous (Shenk and 

Franklin 2001). 

The most basic expression of 

annual change in population size is: 

Nt+1 = Nt { SA + SJ * P }, where 

Nt = population size in year t, 

Nt+1= population size the next year, 

SA = annual survival rate of adult, 

1. A set of models that relate annual 

age-specific survival rate to harvest 

rate. Models will differ depending 

on what is assumed about the 

relationship between hunting and 

non-hunting mortality during the 

annual life cycle. 

2. A model that relates realized 

harvest rate to harvest regulation 

parameters such as bag limit and 

season length. 

3. A model that relates breeding 

population density and 

environmental conditions to annual 

productivity. 

4. A reliable and interpretable 

population index or density estimate 

derived from CCS and/or BBS data. 

SJ= annual survival rate of 

juveniles, 

P = number of female recruits into 

the fall population per breeding 

female (Fig. 1). 

The importance of this basic 

population model is that it provides 

a framework for tracking population 

change as a function of changes in 

basic life history parameters. This 

becomes useful in a management 

context when these parameters can 

in turn be modeled as functions of 

extrinsic factors such as amount of 

available breeding habitat or hunting 

pressure. Such factors and the 

mechanisms responsible for their 

change can in turn be modeled as 

functions of additional parameters, 

and this modeling can continue down 

through several increasingly detailed 

strata. 

The development of a mourning dove 

population model will require several 

components: 

Goal and Objective

The overall goal is to: 

Develop and continuously 

improve an objective framework for making informed 

harvest management decisions based on demographic 

models that predict effects of 

harvest management 

actions and environmental 

conditions on population 

abundance. 

The objective is to: 

Promulgate harvest regulations that will maximize the 

expected harvest rate while 

maintaining the desired population abundance.

Adaptive Resource Management 

Our knowledge of the ecology 

of the mourning dove and its 

population status will always 

be incomplete. Therefore, we 

can only strive to make the best 

management decisions possible 

given the knowledge at hand. 

Concurrently, we want to increase 

our knowledge of dove ecology, 

and thereby improve our ability to 

make good management decisions, 

by learning from the outcomes of 

previous management decisions. 

These concepts of iterative learning 

and feedback, acknowledgment 

of imperfect information, and a 

formal decision making process 

are important concepts in the 

adaptive resource management 

(ARM) paradigm (Walters 1986). 

Although it is unrealistic to envision 

a formal adaptive process of dove 

harvest management similar to that 

currently used for waterfowl, we 

should investigate the feasibility of 

using several basic tenets of ARM as 

a framework to guide planning and 

implementation of a process that will 

develop and change during the next 

several years. 
10 Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan

Development of an informed 

harvest management strategy for 

mourning doves requires a longterm coordinated commitment to 

demographic data collection and 

assessment, quantitative population 

models, and adaptive resource 

management. However, this Plan 

does not obligate state or federal 

agencies to make any specific 

commitment since it will depend on 

the feasibility of rectifying needs 

identified given the availability of 

funding and personnel. Experience 

has demonstrated that interactions 

among changing landscapes, 

abiotic factors, human population 

demographics, and the adaptive 

responses of game species to these 

changing dynamics dictate that 

management cannot be static or 

short-term. 

Large-scale and long-term 

monitoring programs will 

be required to generate the 

demographic data necessary to drive 

the proposed harvest management 

system. The intensity and 

frequency of these efforts is difficult 

to project at present because of the 

lack of contemporary information 

on dove population status and 

dynamics. Initial efforts toward 

development of the proposed 

harvest management system will be 

greater than long-term maintenance 

of the program. 

Many of the details of implementing the newly envisioned program 

will require a planned approach 

where complex questions and issues 

are broken down into smaller and 

smaller tasks. For example, the 

population model will likely require 

a detailed step-down research plan 

HOW DO WE GET THERE?

to help describe and isolate the 

pieces of information needed, and 

describe how the new information 

will build upon previously gained 

information. 

In addition to data and research 

needs, there should be commensurate development of a new paradigm for cooperation among state 

and federal agencies to implement 

and maintain a rigorous harvest 

management strategy for doves. 

The process will require more formal and rigorous evaluation of population status, effects of proposed 

harvest strategies, and ongoing 

data requirements. Thus, increased 

resources from all the stakeholders will be required to achieve the 

described management goals. 

Following is a tentative schedule of 

implementation: 

July 2003 — Initiation of a 

national pilot reward-band study. 

[Coordinated by David Otis(USGSBRD); rewards are to be paid by the 

FWS]

December 2004 — Development 

and finalization of 1st generation 

population models. [David Otis and 

technical committees]

July 2005-2006 — Preparation 

and adoption of regional harvest 

management plans with specific 

harvest-management strategies. 

[Technical committees; input from 

the FWS]

July 2005-2006 — Development and 

adoption of appropriate demographic 

models andestablishment of data 

collection programs to support needs 

of regional harvest management 

plans. [Technical committees, flyway 

councils, FWS] 

2007 or later — Initiation and 

evaluation of appropriate regulation 

changes based on approved regional 

harvest management plans. 

[Technical committees, flyway 

councils, FWS]

Jim Rathert / Missouri Department of Conservation
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan 11

DID WE MAKE IT? 

The goal and objective of this plan 

will be fulfilled when (1) harvest 

management strategies are developed and management plans prepared for each of the 3 management 

units that include decision criteria 

that explicitly state when regulatory changes will be made, what the 

changes will be, and the estimated 

effect of regulatory options, and (2) 

harvest management strategies, decision criteria, regulatory changes, 

and estimated effects are based on 

an understanding of current harvest 

and demographic parameters and 

their relationships. 

George Andrejko / Arizona Game & Fish Department

Jim Matthews
LITERATURE CITED 

Aldrich, J. W., and A. J. Duvall. 1958. Distribution and migration of races of the mourning dove. Condor 60:108-128. 

Anderson, D. R. 2001. The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1294–

1297. 

______, 2003. Response to Engeman: index values rarely constitute reliable information. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

31:288–291. 

Baskett, T. S., M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. 1993. Ecology and management of the 

mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

______. 1993. Biological evaluation of the call-count survey. Pages 253-268 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. 

E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Berdeen, J.B. 2004. Harvest dynamics of mourning doves in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Dissertation. 

Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. USA.

Dolton, D. D. and R. D. Holmes. 2002. Mourning dove breeding population status, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 

______, and R. D. Rau. 2003. Mourning dove breeding population status, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 

______, Dunks, J. H., R. E. Tomlinson, H. M. Reeves, D. D. Dolton, C. E. Braun, and T. P. Zapata. 1982. 

Migration, harvest, and population dynamics of mourning doves banded in the Central Management Unit, 

1967-77. Special Scientific Report–Wildlife 249, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

 

Engeman, R. M. 2003. More on the need to get the basics right: population indices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:286–

287. 

Geissler, P. H., D. D. Dolton, R. Field, R. A. Coon, H. F. Percival, D. W. Hayne, L. D. Soileau, R. R. George, J. H. 

Dunks, and S. D. Bunnell. 1987. Mourning dove nesting: seasonal patterns and effects of September hunting. 

Resource Publication 168, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA 

Haas, G. H. 1978. Mourning dove harvest characteristics, survival, and population trend in North and South 

Carolina. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32:280-290. 

Hanson, H. C. and C. W. Kossack. 1963. The mourning dove in Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, 

Carbondale, Illinois, USA. 

Hayne, D. W. 1975. Experimental increase of mourning dove bag limit in the Eastern Management Unit, 1965-72. 

Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commission. Technical Bulletin 2. 

McGowan, D. R. and D. L. Otis. 1998. Population demographics of two local South Carolina mourning dove 

populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1443-1451. 

Martin, F. W. and J. R. Sauer. 1993. Population characteristics and trends in the Eastern Management Unit. Pages 

281-304 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the 

mourning dove. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Miller, M. R., Stemler, C. L., and D. S. Blankenship. 2001. Mourning dove productivity in California during 1992-95: 

was it sufficient to balance mortality? Journal of Wildlife Management 65:300-311. 

Mirarchi, R. E., and T. S. Baskett. 1994. Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). The birds of North America, 

number 117. The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA, and The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Newsom, J. D., D. M. Russell, F. A. Winston, L. E. Foote, and H. S. Peters. 1957. A summary of mourning dove 

investigations-1948-1956. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 22:360-379. 

 

Nichols, J. D. and R. E. Tomlinson. 1993. Analyses of banding data. Pages 269-281 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, 

R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, 
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan 13

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Otis, D. L. and G. C. White. 2002. Re-analysis of a banding study to test effects of an experimental increase in bag 

limits of mourning doves. Pages 479-495 in Morgan, B. J. T. and Thomson, D. L., eds. Statistical analysis of data 

from marked bird populations. Journal of Applied Statistics 29. 

______. 2002. Survival models for harvest management of mourning dove populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 66:1052-1063. 

______. 2003. A framework for reproductive models of mourning dove populations. Journal of the Iowa Academy of 

Science 110:13-16.

Reeves, H. M. 1979. Estimates of reporting rates for mourning dove bands. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:36-

42. 

______. 1993. Mourning dove hunting regulations. Pages 429-448 in T. S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, 

and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrack, and P. H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years, 1965-1979. 

Resource Publication 157, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA 

Sauer, J. R., D. D. Dolton, and S. Droege. 1994. Mourning dove population trend estimates from call-count and 

North American breeding bird surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 506515. 

Sayre, M. W. and N. J. Silvy. 1993. Nesting and production. Pages 81-105 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E. 

Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvanis, USA. 

Schulz, J. H., R. D. Drobney, S. L. Sheriff, and W. J. Fuemmeler. 1996. Adult mourning dove survival during spring/

summer in north-central Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: 148-154. 

Scott, D. P., J. B. Berdeen, D. L. Otis, and R. L. Fendrick. 2004. Population parameters of urban and rural 

mourning doves in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:694-700

Shenk, T. M., and A. B. Franklin, editors. 2001. Modeling in natural resource management: development, 

interpretation, and application. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 1957. Mourning dove investigations: 1948-1956. 

Technical Bulletin 1, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 

Tomlinson, R. E., H. M. Wight, and T. S. Baskett. 1960. Migrational homing, local movement, and mortality of 

mourning doves in Missouri. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 

25:253-267. 

______. 1968. Reward banding to determine reporting rate of recovered mourning dove bands. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 32:6-11. 

______, and D. D. Dolton. 1987. Current status of the mourning dove in the Western Management Unit. Proceedings 

of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67:119-133. 

______, ______,H. M. Reeves, J. D. Nichols, and L. A. McKibben. 1988. Migration, harvest, and population 

characteristics of mourning doves banded in the Western Management Unit, 1964-77. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Technical Report 13, Washington, DC, USA. 

______, ______,R. R. George, and R. E. Mirarchi. 1994. Mourning dove. Pages 5-26 in T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun, 

editors. Migratory shore and upland game bird management in North America. International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C., USA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Proposal for continuation of September hunting of mourning doves. 

Unpublished Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Ver Steeg, J. M. and R. C. Elden, compilers. 2002. 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., USA. 

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishing, New York, USA. 
14 Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan

Misty Sumner
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Management Plan 15

Table 1. Daily bag and possession limits and season length for mourning doves in the United States by management unit, 

1918-2002 (adapted from Reeves 1993)..a

 Eastern Management Unit Central Management Unit Western Management Unit 

Year Bag Poss. Days Bag Poss Days Bag Poss. Days 

1918-31 25 25 b 25 25 b 25 25 b 

1932-34 18 18 b 18 18 b 18 18 b 

1935-36 20 20 b 20 20 b 20 20 b 

1937-39 c 15 15 b 15 15 b 15 15 b 

1940-41 c 12 12 b 12 12 b 12 20 b 

1942-47 c 10 10 b 10 10 b 10 20 b 

1948-54 10 10 b 10 10 b 10 20 b 

1955-56 8 8 b 10 10 b 10 20 b 

1957-59 10 20 b 10 20 b 10 20 b 

1960-61 12 24 70d 15 30 60 10 20 50 

1962 12 24 70d 12 24 60 10 20 50 

1963 10 20 70d 10 20 60 10 20 50 

1964-67 12 24 70d 12 24 60 12 24 50 

1968 12 24 70d 12 24 60 10 20 50 

1969-70 18e 36e 70d 10 20 60 10 20 50 

1971-79 12 24 70d 10 20 60 10 20 50 

1980 12 24 70 10 20 60 10 20 50 

1981 12 24 70 12 24 60 10 20 50 

 or 

 15 30 45 

1982 12 24 70 12 24 70 12 24 70 

 or or or 

 15 30 45 15 30 45 15 30 45 

1983-86 12 24 70 12 24 70 12 24 70 

 or or or 

 15 30 60 15 30 60 15 30 60 

1987-02f 12 24 70 12 24 70 10 20 30 or 45g

 or or 

 15 30 60 15 30 60 

a From 1918-59, results were complied from 4 representative mid-latitude states were selected in the EMU, 4 in the CMU, and 2 in 

the WMU. In all years, a few states sometimes restricted limits further than those permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Aggregate bag and possession limits of mourning doves, white-winged doves, and white-tipped doves often were selected in states 

or portions thereof where and when hunting of these doves was allowed. 

b 1918-34: the federal frameworks for season length approximated the full 3 1/2 months maximum permitted by the Convention 

between the United States and Great Britain for the Protection of Migratory Birds in 1916. 1935: 86 days in eastern states, 106-107 

in western states. 1936-40: about 76 days (61-77). 1941: 42 days. 1942-43: 30 days in eastern states and 42 days in central and 

western states. 1944: 57 days. 1945-48: 60 days in most eastern and some western states. 1949-53: 30 (30-45) days nearly nationwide. 1954: 40 days, then gradually to 45 full days or 65 half days in the Southeast in 1958. 1955: 45 days. 1956-59: 50 days 

in central and western states (summarized from Reeves 1993:438-441). 

c During 1937-47, the limits included white-winged doves on a nationwide basis.

d Half days.

e More liberal limits allowed in conjunction with Eastern Management Unit hunting regulations experiment.

f Beginning in 2002, the limits included white-winged doves in the Central Management Unit.

g Depending on state and season timing.
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/reports.html

September 2005

United States Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Washington, DC

http://www.fws.gov

Cover Photo: George Andrejko / Arizona Game & Fish Department