U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Mourning Dove (Zenaida 

macroura) Harvest and 

Population Parameters 

Derived from a National 

Banding Study

Biological Technical Publication

BTP-R3010-2008

Larry Ditto©

U.S Fish & Wildlife Service

Mourning Dove (Zenaida 

macroura) Harvest and 

Population Parameters 

Derived from a National 

Banding Study

Biological Technical Publication

BTP-R3010-2008

David L. Otis1

John H. Schulz2

David P. Scott3

1 U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

Iowa State University, Ames, IA 2 Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 3 Ohio Division of Wildlife, Columbus, OH

Cover image: Mourning Dove

Photo credit: Larry Ditto ©
ii Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Author contact information:

David L. Otis

U.S. Geological Survey

Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

342 Science II

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011

Phone: (515) 294-7639

E-mail: dotis@iastate.edu

 

John H. Schulz

Resource Science Center

Missouri Department of Conservation

1110 South College Avenue

Columbia, Missouri 65201

Phone: (573) 882-9909

E-mail: John.H.Schulz@mdc.mo.gov

David P. Scott

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Division of Wildlife

2045 Morse Road, Building G

Columbus, OH 43229

Phone: (614) 265-6338

E-mail: Dave.Scott@dnr.state.oh.us

For additional copies or information, contact:

David L. Otis

U.S. Geological Survey

Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

342 Science II

Iowa State University

Ames, IA 50011

Phone: (515) 294-7639

E-mail: dotis@iastate.edu

Recommended citation:

Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, and D. P. Scott. 2008. 

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) harvest and 

population parameters derived from a national 

banding study. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical 

Publication FWS/BTP-R3010-2008, Washington, 

D.C.

Series Senior Technical Editor:

Stephanie L. Jones

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator

P.O. Box 25486

Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 80225-0486
Table of Contents iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

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

Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Field Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Banding Scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Field Design and Banding Quotas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Data Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Banding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Parameter Estimations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Reporting Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Harvest Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Survival Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Harvest Distribution and Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Derivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Banding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
iv Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Reporting Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Harvest Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Survival Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Harvest Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Harvest Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Study Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Reporting Rate Comparison with Previous Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Harvest Rate Comparison with Previous Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Survival Rate Comparison with Previous Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Management Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Literature Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix A. Number banded by State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix B. Total number of recoveries in 2003-2005 in banding States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix C. Participating state banding coordinators and staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 v

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of participating States, with Management Unit boundaries ( ) and subregion (EMU: 

Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit).. . . . . . . 1 

Figure 2. Numbers of Mourning Doves banded in each State and management unit (EMU: Eastern 

Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit), 2003 - 2005 . . . . .9

Figure 3. Mourning Dove reporting rates by subregions; CV is indicated by white portion of bar. . . . . . . . . . .10

Figure 4. Average 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest rates by subregion and 

management unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western 

Management Unit). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 5. Adult and juvenile Mourning Dove survival rates by subregion for 2003 - 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 6. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU States), 1967 – 1974 (CMU States), 1964 – 

1974 (WMU States)) and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates 

(+ 1 SE) by State (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: 

Western Management Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Figure 7. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1974 (WMU)) 

and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates (+ 1 SE) by management 

unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management 

Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 8. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU subregions), 1967 – 1974 (CMU subregions), 

1964 – 1975 (WMU subregions)) and 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates ( + 1 SE) 

by subregion (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western 

Management Unit). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 9. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1975 (WMU)) and 

2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates (+ 1 SE), by management unit (EMU: Eastern 

Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

List of Figures
vi Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

List of Tables

Table 1. Mourning Dove reporting rate (R) estimates for each State and subregion within each 

management unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2a. Mourning Dove adult harvest rates (H) for 2003 – 2005 in each State and subregion by 

management unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2b. Mourning Dove juvenile harvest rates (H) for 2003 – 2005 in each State and subregion by 

management unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 3. Mourning Dove survival rates (S) for each State and subregion by management unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 4. Age-specific and pooled (All) percent distribution of Mourning Dove harvest for each 

banding State, 2003 – 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 5. Percent derivation by State and in Mexico of Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest, 

2003 – 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Executive Summary vii

Executive Summary

The Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura; dove) is 

the most harvested migratory game bird in North 

America and a ubiquitous species that is valued and 

easily recognized by the general public. Informed 

harvest management of this important recreational 

resource requires knowledge of harvest attributes 

and population vital rates, several of which are 

estimable from banding and from hunter-harvested 

birds. We conducted a national-scale banding 

program in 2003 – 2005 to generate such data for 

estimation of band reporting rates, harvest rates, 

distribution and derivation of harvest, and annual 

survival rates. The study required training of a 

new cadre of biologists in field techniques and 

establishment of data collection and management 

protocols, as well as providing an opportunity to 

evaluate logistics and costs associated with the 

large-scale study design.

During 2003 – 2005, biologists in 29 participating 

states banded nearly 100,000 birds, and hunters 

have reported almost 5,000 bands to date from 

harvested doves. In 2004 and 2005, a proportion 

of the trapped and released doves received an 

extra reward band which allowed estimation of the 

probability that a hunter reported a band from a 

harvested dove to the United States Geological 

Survey Bird Banding Laboratory. This reporting 

rate varied considerably among geographic regions 

(range: 0.40 – 0.85). Weighted average adult harvest 

rates for the Eastern Management Unit ( x = 0.074 

± SE = 0.002) and Central Management Unit ( x = 0.062 ± SE = 0.004) were similar. Adult harvest 

rates were greatest in the Western Management 

Unit ( x = 0.091 ± SE = 0.003), but this estimate 

was influenced by the single large estimate from 

California in 2005. Juvenile harvest rates were 

greatest in the Eastern Management Unit ( x = 0.095 ± SE = 0.002) and similar in the Central 

Management Unit ( x = 0.071 ± SE = 0.003) and 

Western Management Unit ( x = 0.064 ± SE = 

0.003). With the exception of only a few states in the 

northern U.S., at least 80% of the harvest of banded 

adults and juveniles occurred in the state of banding. 

Similarly, with only a few exceptions, nearly all 

recoveries in each state were derived from banded 

cohorts in the same state.

Average adult subregion survival rates ( S = 0.350, 

range = 0.261 - 0.732) were generally greater than 

corresponding subregion juvenile survival rates ( S

= 0.370, range = 0.153 - 0.385).

Comparison to results from reporting rate studies 

conducted more than 30 years ago suggests a large 

average increase in reporting rate, probably due to 

the availability of the Bird Banding Laboratory tollfree telephone number for reporting bands. The last 

national-scale dove banding study was conducted 

more than 30 years ago, and a comparison of harvest 

rates suggests current harvest rate estimates for 

both age classes in Eastern Management Unit and 

Western Management Unit states are generally 

less than previous estimates, while estimates are 

greater or about the same in Central Management 

Unit states. Survival rates from the earlier study 

were significantly greater for both age classes in 

the Eastern Management Unit and the Central 

Management Unit (P ≤ 0.10), but no differences were 

found in the Western Management Unit. We did not 

find any important changes in harvest distribution or 

derivation patterns within the management units.

This study provided the foundation for an 

operational long-term banding program that is 

critical to the implementation of the National 

Mourning Dove Strategic Harvest Management 

Plan (Anonymous 2005), which describes the 

conceptual framework for an improved, informed 

system of harvest management for doves.
viii Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Acknowledgments

We thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Webless Migratory Game Bird Research Program, 

a consortium of state wildlife agencies, and Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department for funding. We are 

indebted to the hundreds of people who did the hard 

work of banding birds and the state coordinators 

who organized these efforts in their respective 

states (see Appendix C). We thank Pam Garretson 

for assistance with training and technical support 

of Band Manager software, and David Dolton for 

administrative and technical support of this project. 

Billy Dukes and Bill Harvey provided valuable 

comments on a first draft of the manuscript, and 

Jim Dubovsky, Steve Hayslette, Nova Silvy and one 

anonymous reviewer provided excellent subsequent 

peer review. We thank Carol Petticord, the Wildlife 

Management Institute, Graham Smith, and the 

U.S Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center for assistance in budget management. The 

U.S Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory 

provided essential staff support for logistics of the 

reward banding effort and assistance with data 

management. We thank the many students at Iowa 

State University who spent days in the basement 

creating data forms and stringing bands, with 

special thanks to Josh Obrecht for managing student 

help and generating maps and graphics. We thank 

Jenny Loda for additional assistance with graphics. 

The Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit is supported by a cooperative agreement 

between the U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa State 

University, the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources, and the Wildlife Management Institute.
 1

Introduction

Introduction

Figure 1. Map of participating States, with Management Unit boundaries ( ) and subregion 

(EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit).

The Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura; dove) is 

currently classified as a migratory game bird in 38 

of the lower 48 states. It is the most widespread, 

abundant, and harvested migratory game bird in 

North America, and its popularity as a game species 

is confirmed by the fact that > 1.1 million hunters 

participate in dove hunting each year (Dolton 

and Rau 2006). Annual hunting regulations are 

established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), after consideration of input from technical 

committees and flyway councils that represent each 

of the 3 dove management units (MUs): Eastern 

(EMU), Central (CMU) and Western (WMU) 

(Fig. 1). 

Informed harvest management strategies for 

migratory game birds depend upon knowledge of 

population dynamics and how the harvest process 

affects these dynamics. This knowledge depends, in 

turn, on reliable estimates of critical demographic 

vital rates, harvest parameters and population 

status at appropriate temporal and spatial scales. 

Historically, large-scale monitoring and survey 

programs for doves have been very limited. The 

primary monitoring effort has been the CallCount Survey (CCS), which is an annual roadside 

survey coordinated since 1966 by the FWS to index 

breeding population trends nationwide. The Harvest 

Information Program (HIP) is an annual FWS mail 

survey of hunters that was fully implemented in 2002 

(Ver Steeg and Elden 2002) and produces estimates 

of national dove harvest and hunter effort. The last 

national banding study was conducted by federal 

and state agencies for several years beginning in the 

mid-1960s. Although a national-scale experimental 

wing collection survey to estimate harvest age ratios 

was begun in 2005 (Otis and Miller, pers. comm.), a 

large-scale annual recruitment survey has not yet 

been established.

WMU

CMU

EMU North-Coastal

California

North-West

Arizona

Mid-North

Mid-South South

Gulf Coast

East-South

Mid-Atlantic

South Atlantic

East-North

Mid-Central
2 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

In 1999, new initiatives were begun within the 

dove management community based on a desire 

for improved, science-based harvest strategies for 

dove populations. In 2003, these efforts culminated 

in the approval of the Mourning Dove National 

Strategic Harvest Management Plan (National 

Plan; Anonymous 2005) by the flyway councils and 

the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies.

Knowledge of population harvest rate is essential 

for informed management of exploited species 

(Sadler 1993). For migratory birds, band-recovery 

studies are used to estimate recovery rates, i.e., the 

proportion of a banded cohort that is shot, retrieved, 

and reported to the U.S. Geological Survey Bird 

Banding Laboratory (BBL). Recovery rates are 

often used as an index to harvest rate, but these 

indices are lower than true harvest rates because 

not all recovered bands are reported to the BBL. 

Harvest rate estimates are obtained by adjusting 

recovery rates by the reporting rate, i.e., the 

probability that a hunter reports the band number 

from a harvested banded bird. Reporting rates can 

be estimated by use of reward bands, which are 

similar to standard metal bands placed on birds, 

but inscribed with a dollar value that will be paid to 

the individual who reports the band. By comparing 

recovery rates of birds banded with standard bands 

only to those banded with both standard and reward 

bands, we can derive reporting rate estimates, 

assuming that the reward amount is sufficient to 

insure that a hunter will report the band number 

(Nichols and Tomlinson 1993, Nichols et al. 1995). 

Previous reward-band studies for Mourning Doves 

were conducted on a limited geographic scale by 

Tomlinson (1968), Reeves (1979), and Scott et al. 

(2004), but a national-scale effort has never been 

conducted. Recent changes in the band-reporting 

mechanism from a mail to toll-free telephone system, 

as well as potential changes in hunter behavior, also 

motivated the need for this study.

This banding study was a cooperative effort between 

state wildlife agencies and the FWS Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, and was initiated 

as the first tangible effort to implement a dove 

harvest strategy envisioned in the National Plan 

(Anonymous 2005). We conducted the study in 29 

states (Fig. 1) during 2003 – 2005. Funds from the 

FWS Webless Migratory Game Bird Research 

Program were used to pay band rewards and to 

cover administrative, coordination, and reporting 

requirements. Cooperating state wildlife agencies, 

supplemented in some states by assistance from 

FWS personnel and private citizens, conducted the 

banding program. Agency participation was strictly 

voluntary. 
 3

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to estimate 

reporting rate and age-specific harvest rates in a 

representative set of states in each of the 3 dove 

management units. These units (Fig. 1) were 

delineated by Kiel (1959) based on examination of 

band recovery data. Secondary objectives were 

to use the band-recovery data to describe the 

spatial distribution and derivation of harvest and to 

estimate annual age-specific survival rates (Brownie 

et al. 1985). In addition, we intended to use the 

experience gained in training of field personnel, 

establishment of data collection and management 

protocols, and assessment of required costs, to help 

guide the design and implementation of a future 

operational nationwide banding program.

Objectives

Mike O’Meilia
4 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Methods

Field Methods

We trapped doves in 29 states (Fig. 1) between 1 

July and 15 August using standard modified Kniffin 

funnel traps (Reeves et al. 1968) and a variety of 

small grain baits. We classified banded birds as After 

Hatching Year (adult), Hatching Year (juvenile) 

or Unknown (Mirarchi 1993, Schulz et al. 1995). 

Gender cannot reliably be assigned to juveniles 

and therefore all were classified as unknown; adult 

birds were classified as male, female, or unknown 

(Mirarchi 1993, Schulz et al. 1995). The band type 

(standard) was a FWS metal butt-end band inscribed 

with the BBL address and a toll-free phone number, 

either of which could be used to report the band to 

the BBL. 

Banding Scheme

2003. No reward bands were deployed in 2003 

based on the rationale that the first year of banding 

provided the opportunity for participating states 

to establish banding locations, train personnel in 

trapping techniques and age and gender assignment, 

standardize data collection and management 

protocols, and evaluate field costs. We conducted 

workshops for state banding coordinators in each 

management unit to discuss and finalize these 

details, and most state coordinators subsequently 

conducted similar workshops within their own state.

Due to concern about the detectability of standard 

bands on harvested birds, 50% of birds banded in 

2003 received an unnumbered gold-colored band 

in addition to a standard band. The concern arose 

from two considerations: 1) no large-scale dove 

banding program had been conducted for 30 years; 

thus dove hunters are not conditioned to look for 

bands on harvested birds, and 2) the small band size 

and aluminum color of a standard band could result 

in failure to see the band. Comparison of recovery 

rates of the two marked cohorts provided a check on 

the assumption that detectability of bands did not 

confound estimates of reporting rate.

2004. Reward bands were deployed in all 29 

participating states in 2004. We placed only a 

standard band on all adult birds. In addition to a 

standard band, we placed a reward band on the 

opposite leg of every third juvenile bird. We placed 

reward bands only on juvenile birds because of 

their greater vulnerability to harvest (Dunks et al. 

1982), which would result in larger sample sizes for 

estimation of reporting rates. The reward amount 

was $100, which was considered sufficient to satisfy 

the critical assumption that a hunter would report a 

reward band with near certainty (Nichols et al. 1995, 

Royle and Garrettson, unpubl. data). We assumed 

that reporting rates would not vary among age or 

gender cohorts, because these characteristics cannot 

be reliably identified for birds in flight, nor do we 

believe hunters preferentially value one cohort over 

another.

 

2005. The initial study design specified that only 

standard bands would be used in 2005. However, we 

did supplemental reward banding in several states 

(ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AZ) based on a desire 

to improve statistical precision of reporting rate 

estimates derived from the 2004 data. California 

joined the study in 2005 and also deployed reward 

bands.

Field Design and Banding Quotas

The National Plan (Anonymous 2005) suggested 

continuation of the practice of setting harvest 

regulations by MU, and this was considered the 

highest level of aggregation for the results. Due 

to uncertainty about the potential costs to the 

participating states for training and fieldwork, we 

assigned banding quotas to subregions (1 or more 

states) within each MU (Fig. 1). Our EMU subregion 

boundaries had been used in prior analyses of dove 

banding studies (Hayne and Geissler 1977, Otis 

2002, 2003). We used the longitudinal boundaries 

defined by Dunks et al. (1982) and Tomlinson et 

al. (1988) and, in consultation with expert federal 

and state dove biologists, we added an additional 

mid-latitudinal boundary to define CMU and WMU 

subregions boundaries (Fig. 1). Groups of states 

within subregions cooperated to achieve banding 

quota objectives. We allocated the state quotas 

within the subregion in proportion to their area and 

average 1997 – 2001 CCS population index. In multistate subregions with only a single state participant 

(e.g., EMU – North-West, CMU – East-North; 

Fig. 1), we arbitrarily assigned the state 50% of the 

subregion quota.

Given the objective of 1) a standard error of 5% for 

the reporting rate in each subregion, 2) an expected 

reporting rate of 30%, and 3) an expected average 

harvest rate of 10%, standard statistical calculations 

suggested the best ratio of reward bands to standard 

bands was approximately 1:2, with subregion quotas 
Methods 5

of 1,000 birds of each age-class in 2003 and 2005, and 

1,000 adult, 700 juvenile (reward + standard) and 

1,400 juvenile (standard only) birds in 2004. States 

that conducted supplemental reward banding in 2005 

used 2004 quotas. With the exception of juvenile 

birds in reward banding states and years, all states 

were free to band in excess of their assigned quotas. 

We used a 3-step process to choose banding 

locations. We stratified the subregion into 1-degree 

latitude by 1-degree longitude blocks. These blocks 

averaged about 100 km x 100 km. Each subregion 

had at least 30 degree blocks, and the design 

objective was to band in a representative sample 

of 20 blocks. If not all states in a subregion were 

participating, then the number of banding degree 

blocks was reduced accordingly. Each state biologist 

was free to choose these blocks based on their 

knowledge of dove populations, hunting pressure 

and available resources. Within each of these blocks, 

biologists also were responsible for choosing specific 

banding sites.

Data Analysis 

Data Sources

Banding. — Numbers of birds banded in each age 

and sex cohort for each state and year were derived 

from electronic spreadsheets provided to us by state 

banding coordinators. We used a standard template 

developed by the FWS for data entry, processing, 

and interface with BBL Band Manager software. 

Recoveries. –– We used recovery data from the 2003-

2005 hunting seasons provided by the BBL in May 

2006. We used recoveries only from birds banded 

by study participants. We used only recoveries 

from birds shot and retrieved by hunters, which 

comprised > 95% of the total recoveries of all types.

Parameter Estimations

Reporting Rates. –– For each state, we combined 

all birds banded during the study and calculated 

the percentage of recoveries that occurred in that 

state. If this percentage was ≥ 80%, we estimated 

a reporting rate for the state using only these 

recoveries. This 80% recovery criterion was met in 

all states except OK and TX. Reporting rates could 

not be calculated for IA, since it is a non-hunting 

state, nor for WI and IN because they did not deploy 

reward bands. We used Program SURVIV (White 

1983) to estimate reporting rates and standard 

errors for the “> 80%” states. The reporting rate 

was assumed to be constant across years and 

age-classes. The estimation models also included 

age-specific annual survival rates (assumed constant 

across years) and harvest rates (age- and yearspecific); these estimates are discussed below. Also, 

models contained an additional parameter to adjust 

for a different reporting rate for 2003 birds equipped 

with the extra blank gold band. Direct (banded 

birds recovered in the first hunting season following 

banding) and indirect (banded birds recovered in 

subsequent hunting seasons) recoveries were used 

in the models. In a few states, some year/age cohorts 

were eliminated from models because of small 

sample sizes.

For states that did not meet the 80% criterion, we 

estimated reporting rates by adapting the Program 

SURVIV models used by Nichols et al. (1995). For 

OK, we used recoveries from birds banded in AR, 

KS and OK; for TX we used recoveries from birds 

banded in IA, KS, OK, SD and TX. Because CA 

banded only in 2005, we estimated reporting rate 

using standard formulas (Nichols and Tomlinson 

1993).

We estimated subregion reporting rates by 

calculating a weighted average of estimates from 

states within the subregion. Similarly, we estimated 

the management unit rate by calculating a weighted 

average over all states within the unit. State weights 

were proportional to the average state HIP harvest 

estimates from 2003 - 2005.

Harvest Rates. –– If at least 80% of the recoveries of 

both age-classes occurred in the state of banding, we 

used recoveries from all states of harvest in the same 

models described previously for reporting rate to 

estimate annual age-specific harvest rates. Similarly, 

harvest rates for OK and TX were estimated using 

the custom Program SURVIV models used for 

estimation of reporting rate. Harvest distributions 

for birds banded in WV, ND, SD, NE, KS and ID 

involved several states; therefore we estimated 

harvest rates by using state-specific direct recovery 

rates of standard bands and reporting rates for each 

state of harvest. We assigned the ID reporting rate 

to UT, OR and NM in the calculation of ID harvest 

rates. We assigned the OH reporting rate to IN 

and WI in the calculation of their harvest rates. We 

assigned a reporting rate of 0.25 to Mexico, which 

was used in the calculation of ND, SD, NE and KS 

harvest rates. We calculated weighted estimates 

for subregions and the management unit with 

state weights proportional to the product of the 

area of dove habitat in the state and its average 

1996 – 2005 CCS index. The area of dove habitat 

for each state was taken from Kiel (1959). Because 

doves are habitat generalists and their breeding 

range includes the entire lower 48 states, the only 

appreciable difference between Kiel’s dove habitat 

area and the total state area occurs in states with 

substantial mountain or woodland areas. In our 

study, these states were NC, PA, WV, WI, ID and 

WA.

Survival Rates. –– Age-specific average annual 

survival rates were estimated for each state using 

Program SURVIV (White 1983) models with all 

harvest recoveries from cohorts banded in that 

state. Estimates could not be calculated for CA and 

WI because of only 1 year of banding data, and the 

estimate for IN is based on only 2 years of banding. 

We calculated estimates for subregions and the 

management unit as described for harvest rates. 
6 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Harvest Distribution and Derivation

Distribution. We estimated state harvest 

distribution, i.e., the set of percentages of the 

harvest recoveries from banded cohorts in a given 

state that occurred in each state of harvest (Munro 

and Kimball 1982), for each age-class and for all ageclasses combined. Numbers of recoveries in each 

state were adjusted by the state reporting rate. Data 

were pooled over all years.

Derivation. We estimated the derivation of harvest 

for each state, i.e., the percentage of each state’s 

harvest derived from all source banding states, by 

following a method described by Geis (1972) and 

Dunks et al. (1982). Data were pooled over all years. 

The estimates weighted each recovery from a source 

state by the relative population abundance that it 

represented. We calculated the source state weight 

(W) as

W = (state dove habitat area)*(median CCS index, 1996 – 2005) 

Number of birds banded in the source state

Weights were calculated separately for each ageclass because the number of birds banded was 

different in each age-class.

George Andrejko
Data Analysis 7

Banding

Nearly 100,000 doves were banded in the three 

MUs (EMU: 55% of total, CMU: 35% of total, 

WMU: 10% of total) during the three-year study 

(Fig. 2). Forty-two percent were adults, 56% were 

juveniles, and 2% were unknown age class. In the 

adult age class, 62% of banded doves were identified 

as males, 28% as females, and 10% as unknown 

gender. Approximately 8,000 birds were released 

with reward bands. State-, year-, and age-specific 

banding summaries are presented in Appendix A.

Recoveries

Nearly 5,000 recoveries were reported by hunters 

during the 2003 – 2005 hunting seasons. Direct 

recoveries comprised 80% of the total recoveries 

and approximately 60% of the direct recoveries were 

of juvenile birds. Approximately 60% of the 2003 

recoveries had the additional blank gold band. Stateand age-specific recovery summaries are presented 

in Appendix B.

Reporting Rates

Subregion reporting rates ranged from about 0.40 

in AZ and the Mid-South to 0.85 in the Mid-North, 

and with an average = 0.55 (Fig. 3). Individual 

subregion estimates were moderately precise (CV

= 19%). Average subregion estimates within each 

management unit were 0.53 (EMU), 0.57 (CMU) and 

0.57 (WMU). Reporting rates for individual states 

(Table 1) were not as precise (CV = 28%) and ranged 

from about 0.30 (GA, OK, TX, WV) to 1.00 (ND, SD, 

ID).

Harvest Rates

Average state harvest rates varied by 10 to 18 

percentage points among states within each of the 

three MUs (Tables 2a, 2b). There was relatively less 

annual variation within a state than spatial variation 

among states. Annual state harvest rate estimates 

were not precise (CV = 36%).

Average subregion harvest rates were slightly lower 

for adults ( x = 0.069; range = 0.010 – 0.204) than 

juveniles ( x = 0.079; range = 0.021 – 0.147; Fig. 4). 

There was generally small variation among years 

within subregions. Annual subregion estimates were 

moderately precise (CV = 24%). Weighted average 

MU adult harvest rates were greatest in the WMU 

( x = 0.091 ± SE = 0.003), but this estimate was 

inflated by the single large estimate of 0.204 for CA 

in 2005. Adult harvest rates for the EMU ( x = 0.074 

± SE = 0.002) and CMU ( x = 0.062 ± SE = 0.004) 

were similar. Juvenile harvest rates were greatest in 

the EMU ( x = 0.095 ± SE = 0.002) and similar in 

the CMU ( x = 0.071 ± SE = 0.003) and WMU 

( x = 0.064 ± SE = 0.003).

Survival Rates

Individual state adult survival rates averaged about 

15 percentage points greater than juvenile survival 

rates in the EMU and CMU, but were nearly equal 

in the WMU (Table 3). There was considerable 

variation between state age-specific survival rate 

estimates but these state estimates were very 

imprecise (adult CV = 32%; juvenile CV = 42%), 

and should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Subregion adult survival rates ranged from 0.261 

in the EMU South to 0.732 in the CMU East-North 

(IA; Table 3; Fig. 5). Subregion juvenile survival 

rates ranged from 0.153 in the EMU Gulf Coast 

to 0.385 in the WMU North-Coastal. Subregion 

estimates were more precise than state estimates 

(adult CV = 22%; juvenile CV = 29%).

Harvest Distribution

A high percentage of the total number of recoveries 

from a state’s adult ( x = 87%) and juvenile (

x = 80%) banded cohorts occurred in the state of 

banding (Table 4). Exceptions were the northern 

states of ND, NE and SD and ID, for which the 

percentage was 20 – 40 points less than average for 

adults. For juveniles in these states and in KS, the 

percentage was 25 – 65 points less than average. 

Adults banded in AZ, IA, ID, ND and TX, and 

juveniles banded in AR, CA, ID, KS, ND, NE, SD, 

TX and WA were recovered in Mexico (Table 4). 

Juveniles from the non-hunting state of IA were 

recovered from 13 different states and Mexico. 

Harvest Derivation

Nearly all recoveries in each state were derived from 

banded cohorts in the same state. Harvest derivation 

calculations indicate that an average of 94% of the 

adult harvest was derived from a state’s breeding 

Results
8 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

population, and this percentage was at least 75% for 

all states (Table 5). For juveniles, the average was 

92%, and only LA and TX fell slightly below 75%.

Caution is necessary in the interpretation of these 

results, because of the bias caused by non-banding 

states. Clearly, there can be no contribution of a nonbanding state in the derivation calculations for any 

other state, and thus the estimates are conditional 

upon the set of banding states. Also, we included 

derivation results for some non-banding states and 

Mexico, but in this case the contributions of banding 

states are obviously inflated because of the lack of 

banding in the state of harvest.

Misty Sumner
Results 9

Figure 2. Numbers of Mourning Doves banded in each State and management unit (EMU: Eastern 

Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit), 2003 - 2005.

Total Number Banded

EMU

State

IN OH WI SC NC VA WV PA MD FL MS LA GA AL KY TN

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

N = 54,028

State

MO AR IA ND SD NE KS OK TX

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

N = 32,302

Total Number Banded

CMU

State

WA ID CA AZ

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

N = 10,576

Total Number Banded

WMU
10 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

0.86

0.5

0.81

0.4

0.34

0.48

0.47

0.68 0.52

0.45

0.63

0.48

WMU

CMU

EMU

X = 0.55

CV = 0.19

Figure 3. Mourning Dove reporting rates by subregions; CV is indicated by white portion of bar.
 11

Figure 4. Average 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest rates by subregion and 

management unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western 

Management Unit).

WMU

CMU

EMU

0.14 0.2

0.04 0.03

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.03

0.08 0.08

0.15 0.09

0.02 0.01

0.07 0.08

0.06 0.04 

0.09 0.05 0.08 0.07

0.13 0.08 

Management Unit Average 0.11 0.09 

EMU 0.10 0.07

CMU 0.07 0.06

WMU 0.06 0.09

Juvenile Adult

Figure 5. Adult and juvenile Mourning Dove survival rates by subregion for 2003 -2005.

WMU

CMU

EMU 0.39 0.37

0.33 0.43

0.37 0.37

0.26 0.37

0.18 0.32

0.33 0.73

0.16 0.33

0.23 0.41

0.22 0.39 0.33 0.4

0.31 0.26 

0.15 0.26 

Juvenile 

Adult

Results
12 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

State

FL GA KY LA MS NC PA SC

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200

0.225

0.250

0.275

0.300

1970 era Adult 

2003-2005 Adult

1970 era Juvenile

2003-2005 Juvenile

State

AR IA KS MO NE SD TX CA ID WA

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200

0.225

0.250

1970 era Adult 

2003-2005 Adult

1970 era Juvenile

2003-2005 Juvenile

Figure 6. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU States), 1967 – 1974 (CMU States), 1964 – 

1974 (WMU States)) and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates 

(+ 1 SE) by State (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: 

Western Management Unit).
 13

Management Unit

EMU CMU WMU

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200

1970 era Adult 

2003-2005 Adult

1970 era Juvenile

2003-2005 Juvenile

Figure 7. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1974 (WMU)) 

and 2003 – 2005 of average age-specific Mourning Dove harvest rate estimates (+ 1 SE) by management 

unit (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management 

Unit).

Figure 8. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU subregions), 1967 – 1974 (CMU subregions), 

1964 – 1975 (WMU subregions)) and 2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates ( + 1 SE) 

by subregion (EMU: Eastern Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western 

Management Unit).

Results

Management Unit

EMU CMU WMU

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

1970 era Adult 

2003-2005 Adult

1970 era Juvenile

2003-2005 Juvenile
14 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Figure 9. Comparison between 1970 era (1966 – 1971 (EMU), 1967 – 1974 (CMU), 1964 – 1975 (WMU)) and 

2003 – 2005 Mourning Dove age-specific survival rates (+ 1 SE), by management unit (EMU: Eastern 

Management Unit, CMU: Central Management Unit, WMU: Western Management Unit).

Subregion

MD,PA,WV NC,SC,VA AL,GA FL,LA,MS KY,TN IN,OH

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

1970 era Adult 

2003-2005 Adult

1970 era Juvenile

2003-2005 Juvenile

Subregion

IA AR,MO ND,SD,NE KS,OK,TX ID,WA AZ

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1970 era Adult 

2003-2005 Adult

1970 era Juvenile

2003-2005 Juvenile
 15

Table 1. Mourning Dove reporting rate (R) estimates for each State and subregion within each management 

unit.

Management Unit Subregion State R SE CV

Eastern Mid-Atlantic Maryland 0.587 0.283 0.482

Pennsylvania 0.431 0.142 0.329

West Virginia 0.245 0.176 0.718

Subregion 0.402 0.104 0.259

South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.751 0.159 0.212

South Carolina 0.635 0.178 0.280

Virginia 0.678 0.301 0.444

Subregion 0.704 0.114 0.161

South Alabama 0.598 0.159 0.266

Georgia 0.311 0.072 0.232

Subregion 0.441 0.082 0.186

Gulf Coast Florida 0.538 0.170 0.316

Louisiana 0.491 0.127 0.259

Mississippi 0.441 0.108 0.245

Subregion 0.446 0.071 0.160

Mid-Central Kentucky 0.770 0.190 0.247

Tennessee 0.514 0.124 0.241

Subregion 0.658 0.120 0.182

North-West Ohio 0.449 0.117 0.261

Central East-South Arkansas 0.415 0.089 0.214

Missouri 0.624 0.138 0.221

Subregion 0.545 0.092 0.169

Mid-North North Dakota 1.000 --- ---

Nebraska 1.000 --- ---

South Dakota 0.517 0.230 0.445

Subregion 0.848 0.072 0.085

Mid-South Kansas 0.560 0.180 0.321

Oklahoma 0.309 0.131 0.424

Texas 0.316 0.070 0.222

Subregion 0.414 0.082 0.198

Western North-Coastal Idaho 1.000 --- ---

Washington 0.524 0.143 0.273

Subregion 0.772 0.068 0.089

Arizona 0.397 0.126 0.317

California 0.499 0.119 0.238

Results
16 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Table 2a. Mourning Dove adult harvest rates (H) for 2003 - 2005 in each State and subregion by management unit.

Management

Unit Subregion State

2003 2004 2005 Total

H SE H SE H SE Mean SE

Eastern Mid-Atlantic Maryland 0.065 0.036 0.085 0.043 0.085 0.040 0.078 0.023

Pennsylvania 0.059 0.023 0.02 0.009 0.028 0.012 0.036 0.009

West Virginia 0.033 0.015 0.047 0.036 0.027 0.023 0.036 0.015

Subregion 0.052 0.014 0.040 0.014 0.038 0.012 0.044 0.008

South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.042 0.013 0.056 0.015 0.058 0.015 0.052 0.008

South Carolina 0.075 0.024 0.072 0.024 0.041 0.013 0.063 0.012

Virginia 0.033 0.022 0.044 0.024 0.029 0.016 0.035 0.012

Subregion 0.049 0.010 0.058 0.011 0.048 0.009 0.052 0.006

South Alabama 0.083 0.029 0.06 0.021 0.050 0.018 0.064 0.013

Georgia 0.063 0.02 0.104 0.030 0.130 0.033 0.099 0.016

Subregion 0.072 0.017 0.084 0.019 0.094 0.020 0.083 0.011

Gulf Coast Florida 0.06 0.026 0.048 0.02 0.073 0.028 0.060 0.014

Louisiana 0.117 0.041 0.075 0.031 0.045 0.018 0.079 0.018

Mississippi 0.146 0.044 0.125 0.039 --- --- 0.136 0.024

Subregion 0.103 0.021 0.081 0.018 --- --- 0.092 0.014

Mid-Central Kentucky 0.072 0.022 0.042 0.013 0.023 0.008 0.046 0.009

Tennessee 0.101 0.031 0.075 0.022 0.095 0.028 0.090 0.016

Subregion 0.085 0.018 0.056 0.012 0.054 0.013 0.065 0.009

North-West Ohio 0.059 0.019 0.063 0.019 0.056 0.017 0.059 0.011

Indiana --- --- 0.122 0.037 0.097 0.031 0.110 0.016

Wisconsin --- --- --- --- 0.074 0.031 0.074 0.031

Subregion --- --- --- --- 0.076 0.016 0.076 0.016

Central East-North Iowa 0.009 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.013 0.005 0.010 0.002

East-South Arkansas 0.101 0.033 0.104 0.027 0.098 0.027 0.101 0.017

Missouri 0.111 0.031 0.061 0.018 0.078 0.020 0.083 0.014

Subregion 0.107 0.029 0.079 0.026 0.087 0.032 0.091 0.017

Mid-North North Dakota 0.032 0.008 0.017 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.018 0.003

Nebraska 0.027 0.007 0.031 0.007 0.055 0.014 0.038 0.006

South Dakota 0.037 0.013 0.042 0.011 0.012 0.008 0.030 0.006

Subregion 0.032 0.005 0.029 0.004 0.023 0.005 0.028 0.003

Mid-South Kansas 0.049 0.014 0.042 0.013 0.043 0.015 0.045 0.008

Oklahoma 0.410 0.146 0.062 0.033 0.054 0.031 0.175 0.051

Texas 0.118 0.043 0.104 0.032 0.053 0.013 0.092 0.018

Subregion 0.128 0.028 0.075 0.017 0.049 0.009 0.084 0.011

Western North-Coastal Idaho 0.038 0.012 0.017 0.006 0.017 0.006 0.024 0.005

Washington 0.05 0.023 0.039 0.016 0.037 0.015 0.042 0.011

Subregion 0.043 0.012 0.027 0.008 0.026 0.007 0.032 0.005

Arizona 0.025 0.012 0.033 0.013 0.033 0.009 0.030 0.007

California --- --- --- --- 0.204 0.042 0.204 0.042
Results 17

Management

Unit Subregion State

2003 2004 2005 Total

H SE H SE H SE Mean SE

Eastern Mid-Atlantic Maryland 0.131 0.068 0.075 0.025 0.114 0.055 0.107 0.030

Pennsylvania 0.064 0.024 0.053 0.012 0.06 0.021 0.059 0.011

West Virginia 0.032 0.020 0.049 0.029 0.049 0.027 0.043 0.015

Subregion 0.066 0.019 0.056 0.012 0.067 0.017 0.063 0.009

South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.064 0.02 0.122 0.02 0.068 0.017 0.085 0.011

South Carolina 0.13 0.041 0.126 0.025 0.093 0.028 0.116 0.019

Virginia 0.056 0.033 0.081 0.028 0.018 0.011 0.052 0.015

Subregion 0.081 0.017 0.115 0.014 0.065 0.012 0.087 0.008

South Alabama 0.142 0.045 0.095 0.019 0.073 0.024 0.103 0.018

Georgia 0.105 0.031 0.164 0.024 0.192 0.05 0.154 0.021

Subregion 0.122 0.027 0.133 0.016 0.138 0.029 0.131 0.014

Gulf Coast Florida 0.061 0.026 0.103 0.022 0.022 0.011 0.062 0.012

Louisiana 0.098 0.03 0.144 0.026 0.105 0.029 0.116 0.016

Mississippi 0.169 0.051 0.122 0.022 --- --- 0.146 0.023

Subregion 0.108 0.023 0.112 0.012 --- --- 0.110 0.013

Mid-Central Kentucky 0.059 0.018 0.068 0.013 0.037 0.012 0.055 0.008

Tennessee 0.134 0.04 0.133 0.023 0.094 0.027 0.120 0.018

Subregion 0.092 0.020 0.096 0.012 0.062 0.014 0.083 0.009

North-West Ohio 0.058 0.019 0.051 0.009 0.068 0.021 0.059 0.010

Indiana --- --- 0.116 0.039 0.094 0.031 0.105 0.020

Wisconsin --- --- --- --- 0.035 0.018 0.035 0.018

Subregion --- --- --- --- 0.067 0.014 0.067 0.014

Central East-North Iowa 0.038 0.007 0.007 0.003 0.024 0.005 0.023 0.003

East-South Arkansas 0.16 0.042 0.195 0.028 0.146 0.036 0.167 0.021

Missouri 0.119 0.034 0.106 0.018 0.172 0.043 0.132 0.019

Subregion 0.137 0.026 0.144 0.016 0.161 0.029 0.147 0.014

Mid-North North Dakota 0.045 0.013 0.018 0.007 0.025 0.010 0.029 0.006

Nebraska 0.032 0.011 0.047 0.011 0.072 0.021 0.050 0.009

South Dakota 0.037 0.011 0.019 0.011 0.042 0.014 0.033 0.007

Subregion 0.038 0.007 0.028 0.006 0.046 0.009 0.037 0.004

Mid-South Kansas 0.081 0.018 0.04 0.012 0.036 0.009 0.052 0.008

Oklahoma 0.343 0.133 0.066 0.033 0.120 0.038 0.176 0.047

Texas 0.118 0.044 0.061 0.013 0.069 0.018 0.083 0.016

Subregion 0.132 0.028 0.044 0.009 0.062 0.011 0.079 0.010

Western North-Coastal Idaho 0.010 0.007 0.042 0.014 0.010 0.006 0.021 0.006

Washington 0.09 0.029 0.071 0.014 0.06 0.018 0.074 0.012

Subregion 0.046 0.014 0.055 0.010 0.032 0.009 0.044 0.006

Arizona 0.02 0.01 0.025 0.008 0.019 0.008 0.021 0.005

California --- --- --- --- 0.135 0.036 0.135 0.036

Table 2b. Mourning Dove juvenile harvest rates (H) for 2003 - 2005 in each State and subregion by management unit.
18 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Management 

Unit

Subregion State Adult Juvenile

S SE CV S SE CV

Eastern Mid-Atlantic Maryland 0.445 0.119 0.267 0.219 0.094 0.429

Pennsylvania 0.372 0.118 0.317 0.229 0.098 0.428

West Virginia 0.465 0.287 0.617 0.243 0.172 0.708

Subregion 0.407 0.110 0.271 0.232 0.078 0.336

South-Atlantic North Carolina 0.291 0.060 0.206 0.187 0.059 0.316

South Carolina 0.388 0.086 0.222 0.271 0.089 0.328

Virginia 0.690 0.229 0.332 0.244 0.137 0.561

Subregion 0.392 0.059 0.151 0.219 0.048 0.218

South Alabama 0.234 0.080 0.342 0.354 0.116 0.328

Georgia 0.284 0.059 0.208 0.261 0.065 0.249

Subregion 0.261 0.049 0.188 0.305 0.064 0.212

Gulf Coast Florida 0.332 0.100 0.301 0.066 0.041 0.621

Louisiana 0.268 0.104 0.388 0.274 0.095 0.347

Mississippi 0.199 0.062 0.312 0.131 0.050 0.382

Subregion 0.263 0.051 0.193 0.153 0.037 0.240

Mid-Central Kentucky 0.508 0.110 0.217 0.440 0.119 0.270

Tennessee 0.265 0.063 0.238 0.184 0.059 0.321

Subregion 0.401 0.068 0.169 0.328 0.072 0.219

North-West Ohio 0.400 0.080 0.200 0.145 0.046 0.317

Indiana 0.264 0.099 0.375 0.180 0.108 0.600

Subregion 0.328 0.064 0.196 0.163 0.061 0.373

Central East-North Iowa 0.732 0.251 0.343 0.333 0.165 0.495

East-South Arkansas 0.264 0.077 0.292 0.202 0.062 0.307

Missouri 0.369 0.072 0.195 0.154 0.049 0.318

Subregion 0.324 0.053 0.163 0.175 0.039 0.221

Mid-North North Dakota 0.452 0.192 0.425 0.425 0.240 0.565

Nebraska 0.474 0.107 0.226 0.111 0.059 0.532

South Dakota 0.348 0.123 0.353 0.444 0.169 0.381

Subregion 0.427 0.087 0.204 0.329 0.104 0.316

Mid-South Kansas 0.495 0.105 0.212 0.407 0.121 0.297

Oklahoma 0.563 0.322 0.572 0.475 0.229 0.482

Texas 0.370 0.114 0.308 0.209 0.079 0.378

Subregion 0.371 0.069 0.185 0.259 0.061 0.234

Western North-Coastal Idaho 0.262 0.126 0.481 0.192 0.126 0.656

Washington 0.495 0.164 0.331 0.624 0.217 0.348

Subregion 0.366 0.101 0.276 0.385 0.119 0.310

Arizona 0.374 0.113 0.302 0.264 0.101 0.383

Table 3. Mourning Dove survival rates (S) for each State and subregion by management unit.
Results 19

Banding state Recovery State or Mexico Adult Juvenile Unknown All

Alabama Alabama 96.0 100.0 100.0 98.8

Georgia 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Arkansas Arkansas 88.2 88.1 100.0 88.4

Florida 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

Louisiana 3.1 0.9 0.0 1.5

Mississippi 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.9

Mexico 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.8

Oklahoma 4.9 4.1 0.0 4.2

Texas 2.4 4.3 0.0 3.7

Arizona Arizona 82.8 100.0 0.0 89.0

California 6.9 0.0 0.0 4.4

Mexico 10.3 0.0 0.0 6.6

California California 100.0 92.6 100.0 96.7

Mexico 0.0 7.4 0.0 3.3

Florida Alabama 2.4 1.1 100.0 1.5

Florida 95.1 97.3 0.0 96.5

Kansas 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0

Missouri 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.9

Georgia Alabama 0.7 2.8 100.0 1.9

Georgia 99.3 96.9 0.0 97.9

South Carolina 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2

Iowa Alabama 0.0 5.7 0.0 4.1

Arkansas 7.4 0.0 0.0 1.9

Florida 5.7 2.0 0.0 2.9

Georgia 9.8 3.4 0.0 5.0

Illinois 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.1

Kansas 5.5 3.0 0.0 3.5

Louisiana 6.2 16.3 0.0 13.3

Maryland 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.3

Minnesota 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.5

Missouri 4.9 6.2 0.0 5.7

Mississippi 12.2 4.9 0.0 3.5

Mexico 0.0 7.5 0.0 8.5

Nebraska 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.8

Oklahoma 0.0 6.9 0.0 5.0

Texas 48.3 32.6 100.0 38.3

Unknown 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.5

Idaho Arizona 7.7 6.9 --- 7.3

California 6.2 16.4 --- 11.6

Idaho 61.5 16.4 --- 37.7

Mexico 12.3 32.9 --- 23.2

New Mexico 0.0 5.5 --- 2.9

Oregon 12.3 11.0 --- 11.6

Utah 0.0 11.0 --- 5.8

Indiana Alabama 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Arkansas 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.9

Georgia 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Illinois 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8

Indiana 90.9 91.1 100.0 91.1

Kentucky 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5

Louisiana 0.0 4.4 0.0 1.6

Ohio 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.8

Texas 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.4

Table 4. Age-specific and pooled (All) percent distribution of Mourning Dove harvest for each banding State, 

2003 - 2005.
20 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Kansas Arkansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5

Kansas 81.4 39.8 100.0 61.6

Louisiana 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.0

Missouri 3.1 4.9 0.0 3.9

Mexico 0.0 16.2 0.0 7.8

Oklahoma 3.2 9.6 0.0 6.2

Texas 12.4 26.6 0.0 19.0

Kentucky Alabama 1.7 0.0 --- 0.7

Florida 0.0 1.3 --- 0.8

Illinois 0.0 2.8 --- 1.6

Indiana 0.0 1.5 --- 0.9

Kentucky 89.2 93.7 --- 91.9

Mississippi 2.3 0.0 --- 0.9

Oklahoma 3.3 0.0 --- 1.3

South Carolina 1.6 0.0 --- 0.6

Tennessee 2.0 0.0 --- 0.8

West Virginia 0.0 0.7 --- 0.4

Louisiana Alabama 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3

Georgia 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6

Kentucky 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3

Louisiana 100.0 95.5 100.0 96.1

Mississippi 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.3

Ohio 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4

South Carolina 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3

Texas 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6

Maryland Delaware 0.0 7.2 0.0 4.1

Georgia 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.2

Maryland 90.1 85.9 42.3 86.5

North Carolina 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.9

Pennsylvania 7.7 0.0 57.7 4.7

South Carolina 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7

Virginia 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.0

Missouri Alabama 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3

Arkansas 1.2 2.3 0.0 1.7

Florida 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Illinois 0.0 1.9 3.9 1.4

Kansas 0.0 1.68 0.0 1.0

Kentucky 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.7

Louisiana 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4

Missouri 92.4 89.0 90.0 90.0

Mississippi 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2

South Carolina 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2

Tennessee 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.7

Texas 4.8 0.2 6.1 3.4

Mississippi Alabama 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.7

Georgia 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Louisiana 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5

Missouri 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Mississippi 95.0 95.8 100.0 95.5

Tennessee 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.0

North Carolina Georgia 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.0

North Carolina 100.0 97.4 100.0 98.5

South Carolina 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5

Banding state Recovery State or Mexico Adult Juvenile Unknown All
Results 21

North Dakota Georgia 0.0 9.3 --- 4.3

Mexico 39.7 40.5 --- 40.1

North Dakota 42.2 26.1 --- 34.7

New Mexico 0.0 5.8 --- 2.7

Texas 18.2 18.3 --- 18.2

Nebraska Kansas 0.0 5.8 --- 2.5

Mexico 1.6 28.9 --- 13.5

Nebraska 66.8 33.0 --- 52.1

Oklahoma 5.1 0.0 --- 2.9

Tennessee 3.1 0.0 --- 1.7

Texas 20.1 32.3 --- 25.4

Unknown 3.2 0.0 --- 1.8

Ohio Alabama 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3

Florida 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3

Georgia 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.7

Louisiana 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3

Mississippi 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6

Ohio 96.7 93.3 100.0 94.9

Pennsylvania 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5

South Carolina 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4

Tennessee 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0

Oklahoma Kansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8

Oklahoma 83.1 83.3 100.0 84.7

Texas 16.9 15.7 0.0 14.6

Pennsylvania Alabama 0.0 1.6 --- 1.1

Delaware 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.6

Maryland 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.1

North Carolina 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8

Ohio 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.8

Pennsylvania 96.3 86.8 100.0 90.0

South Carolina 1.6 2.2 0.0 2.0

Tennessee 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6

Texas 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0

South Carolina Georgia 19.2 13.1 14.0 15.4

Kentucky 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

North Carolina 1.0 1.3 0.0 1.0

South Carolina 78.8 85.6 86.0 83.3

South Dakota Kansas 1.5 6.5 --- 3.8

Mississippi 0.0 3.9 --- 1.8

Mexico 5.8 15.4 --- 10.2

Nebraska 0.0 1.7 --- 0.8

Oklahoma 1.5 0.0 --- 0.8

South Dakota 56.3 56.6 --- 56.4

Tennessee 2.8 0.0 --- 1.5

Texas 32.2 12.5 --- 23.2

Unknown 0.0 3.4 --- 1.6

Tennessee Alabama 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Arkansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6

Florida 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4

Louisiana 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5

Missouri 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4

Mississippi 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.3

Tennessee 99.0 94.3 100.0 96.4

Banding state Recovery State or Mexico Adult Juvenile Unknown All
22 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Texas Alabama 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.6

Mexico 2.8 8.5 100.0 7.0

South Dakota 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7

Texas 97.2 88.9 0.0 91.8

Virginia Virginia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Washington Arizona 0.0 0.5 --- 0.4

California 0.0 8.0 --- 7.0

Mexico 0.0 4.5 --- 3.9

Nevada 6.5 1.0 --- 1.7

Oregon 0.0 1.0 --- 0.9

Washington 93.5 85.0 --- 86.1

Wisconsin Mississippi 12.7 0.0 --- 7.6

Texas 0.0 26.2 --- 10.6

Wisconsin 87.3 73.8 --- 81.9

West Virginia Alabama 0.0 5.4 --- 3.9

Georgia 28.3 0.0 --- 7.6

Louisiana 0.0 4.9 --- 3.6

Maryland 0.0 1.6 --- 1.2

Ohio 0.0 8.6 --- 6.3

Pennsylvania 0.0 7.5 --- 5.5

West Virginia 71.7 72.0 --- 72.0

Banding state Recovery State or Mexico Adult Juvenile Unknown All
Results 23

Table 5. Percent derivation by State and in Mexico of Mourning Dove adult and juvenile harvest, 2003 - 2005.

Recovery State/Mexico Banding state Adult Juvenile

Alabama Alabama 85.2 83.6

Florida 1.5 0.6

Georgia 2.2 5.0

Iowa 0.0 2.6

Indiana 3.2 0.0

Kentucky 1.3 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.3

Missouri 0.0 0.9

Mississippi 5.3 2.0

Ohio 0.0 0.3

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.3

Tennessee 1.4 0.0

Texas 0.0 4.3

West Virginia 0.0 0.2

Arkansas Arkansas 91.2 91.0

Iowa 2.0 0.0

Indiana 3.9 0.0

Kansas 0.0 5.1

Missouri 2.8 3.3

Tennessee 0.0 0.6

Arizona Arizona 98.9 98.2

Idaho 1.1 1.4

Washington 0.0 0.4

California Arizona 1.4 0.0

California 98.4 98.3

Idaho 0.2 1.0

Washington 0.0 0.7

Delaware Maryland 0.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 100.0 0.0

Florida Arkansas 3.2 0.0

Florida 93.8 94.3

Iowa 3.0 1.9

Kentucky 0.0 1.4

Ohio 0.0 0.8

Tennessee 0.0 1.6

Georgia Alabama 1.0 0.0

Georgia 87.1 90.0

Iowa 0.9 0.5

Indiana 1.7 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.2

Maryland 0.0 0.1

Mississippi 1.4 0.0

North Carolina 0.0 0.8

North Dakota 0.0 2.8

Ohio 0.0 0.5

South Carolina 7.5 5.0

West Virginia 0.4 0.0

Idaho Idaho 100.0 100.0

Illinois Iowa 0.0 20.9

Indiana 0.0 19.9

Kentucky 0.0 15.8

Missouri 0.0 43.4

North Carolina 100.0 0.0
24 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Indiana Indiana 99.6 98.9

Kentucky 0.0 1.1

Ohio 0.4 0.0

Kansas Florida 0.3 0.0

Iowa 0.3 1.0

Kansas 98.4 84.6

Missouri 0.0 2.1

Nebraska 0.0 5.1

Oklahoma 0.0 2.2

South Dakota 1.0 4.9

Kentucky Indiana 3.4 0.0

Kentucky 92.2 96.3

Louisiana 0.0 0.5

Missouri 2.5 3.2

South Carolina 1.9 0.0

Louisiana Arkansas 12.8 1.7

Iowa 6.2 7.4

Indiana 0.0 3.1

Kansas 0.0 5.3

Louisiana 81.1 73.3

Missouri 0.0 1.1

Mississippi 0.0 1.3

Ohio 0.0 0.4

Tennessee 0.0 0.7

Texas 0.0 5.3

West Virginia 0.0 0.4

Maryland Iowa 0.0 7.7

Maryland 100.0 87.5

Pennsylvania 0.0 3.0

West Virginia 0.0 1.8

Minnesota Iowa --- 100.0

Missouri Florida 0.0 0.3

Iowa 0.7 1.6

Kansas 8.5 7.7

Missouri 89.8 90.0

Mississippi 1.0 0.0

Tennessee 0.0 0.3

Mississippi Arkansas 0.0 1.2

Iowa 0.0 1.1

Kentucky 0.7 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.7

Missouri 0.0 0.8

Mississippi 95.0 93.0

Ohio 0.4 0.0

South Dakota 0.0 1.8

Tennessee 0.0 1.4

Wisconsin 4.0 0.0

Recovery State/Mexico Banding state Adult Juvenile
Results 25

Mexico Arkansas 0.0 0.8

Arizona 16.4 0.0

California 0.0 7.2

Iowa 2.2 3.2

Idaho 2.0 2.1

Kansas 0.0 20.8

North Dakota 46.4 21.0

Nebraska 11.3 20.5

South Dakota 7.2 7.9

Texas 14.4 15.7

Washington 0.0 0.7

North Carolina Maryland 0.2 0.0

North Carolina 99.1 98.8

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.2

South Carolina 0.7 1.0

North Dakota North Dakota 100.0 100.0

Nebraska Nebraska 100.0 96.4

South Dakota 0.0 3.6

New Mexico Idaho --- 14.5

North Dakota --- 85.5

Nevada Washington 100.0 100.0

Ohio Indiana 0.0 4.2

Louisiana 0.0 0.9

Ohio 100.0 91.7

Pennsylvania 0.0 1.7

West Virginia 0.0 1.5

Oklahoma Arkansas 1.6 1.6

Iowa 0.0 0.4

Kansas 10.0 12.2

Kentucky 1.2 0.0

Nebraska 7.9 0.0

Oklahoma 74.3 85.8

South Dakota 5.0 0.0

Oregon Idaho 100.0 86.0

Washington 0.0 14.0

Pennsylvania Maryland 6.2 0.0

Ohio 0.0 4.7

Pennsylvania 93.8 92.8

West Virginia 0.0 2.5

South Carolina Georgia 0.0 1.0

Kentucky 1.1 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.3

Maryland 0.0 0.2

Missouri 0.0 1.1

North Carolina 0.0 1.1

Ohio 0.6 0.0

Pennsylvania 0.3 0.5

South Carolina 98.1 95.8

South Dakota South Dakota 100.0 90.9

Texas 0.0 9.1

Recovery State/Mexico Banding state Adult Juvenile
26 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Tennessee Kentucky 0.9 0.0

Missouri 1.7 1.3

Mississippi 0.0 2.8

Nebraska 6.4 0.0

Ohio 0.5 0.4

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.2

South Dakota 4.1 0.0

Tennessee 86.4 95.3

Texas Arkansas 0.2 1.1

Iowa 0.9 1.8

Indiana 0.8 0.0

Kansas 5.7 10.3

Louisiana 0.0 0.1

Missouri 0.9 0.5

North Dakota 3.5 1.9

Nebraska 4.5 6.3

Oklahoma 1.9 8.5

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0

South Dakota 5.0 1.7

Texas 76.4 67.0

Wisconsin 0.0 0.8

Utah Idaho 100.0

Virginia Maryland 0.0 0.7

Virginia 100.0 99.3

Washington Washington 100.0 100.0

Wisconsin Wisconsin 100.0 100.0

West Virginia Kentucky 0.0 18.8

West Virginia 100.0 81.2

 

Recovery State/Mexico Banding state Adult Juvenile
Discussion 27

Discussion

Study Design

Unbiased estimates of population parameters in 

any sample survey require that the sample be 

representative of the entire population. In formally 

designed sample surveys, this assumption is 

achieved by a random selection of sample units 

using a strict sampling protocol. For banding 

studies, we obviously cannot select a random 

sample of individual birds, but rather we rely on 

the assumption that our trapping design produces 

a representative sample from the population of 

interest. In this study, as in most banding studies, 

we employed spatial and temporal dispersion of 

trapping sites at larger scales and the practical 

field experience and local knowledge of agency 

biologists to achieve this objective. During the 

project, doves were banded in more than 330 

degree blocks nationwide, most often with several 

individual trap sites within a degree block; thus, we 

believe estimates presented herein are reasonably 

unbiased. Specifically, we have little concern about 

the reporting rate estimates, because the basic 

sampling unit for these estimates is actually the 

hunter (we are measuring the hunter’s reporting 

behavior) and not an individual dove, and there is 

no reason to believe that our sample of hunters was 

not representative. However, we do acknowledge 

the potential of significant bias in state harvest 

rate estimates if the preponderance of banding 

site locations was in close proximity to locations of 

concentrated harvest effort, or conversely, in or near 

suburban areas with limited harvest opportunity. 

We surmise this phenomenon is responsible for the 

exceptionally high harvest rates in a few states in 

a few specific years. There is a practical tradeoff 

between the estimation of reporting rate, in which 

sample size effectively increases as harvest effort 

increases, versus estimation of harvest rate, 

which depends on a sample of banded birds that is 

collectively representative of harvest effort in the 

entire state population of interest. Similar comments 

are relevant to estimation of survival rates, although 

the potential magnitude of bias is less clear because 

of uncertainty about the relationship between annual 

survival rates and harvest rates. Suffice it to say that 

the design of a long-term banding program spawned 

from this study should recognize the importance of 

achieving a set of banding site locations that result in 

a representative sample of the population, within the 

practical constraints of available human and fiscal 

resources. Consistency in banding locations over 

time also will help to increase statistical sensitivity 

to temporal changes in parameters. 

We did not achieve the expected precision of SE 

= 0.05 for subregion reporting rate estimates ( x

= 0.10) for several reasons. Banding quotas were 

not achieved in some subregions. More importantly 

for all subregions, the a priori estimates of a 0.30 

reporting rate (too small) and a 0.10 harvest rate 

(slightly too large) that were used in sample size 

calculations led to an underestimation of sample size 

required to achieve the precision goal.

Reporting Rate Comparison with 

Previous Studies 

Tomlinson (1968) conducted the first dove reward 

banding study in 10 states in 1965 –1966. He 

estimated an unweighted reporting rate of 0.32 

(no variance estimate was provided) for the 

10-state region, which is considerably less than the 

corresponding estimate of 0.55 in the present study. 

Reeves (1979) reported estimates of 0.31 (EMU) and 

0.38 (CMU) derived from a second study during 1970 

– 1972. These estimates are again considerably less 

than our average MU estimates of 0.53 (EMU) and 

0.59 (CMU). We attribute most of this large increase 

to the replacement of an inscribed BBL mailing 

address on the band with a toll-free BBL telephone 

number. Annual harvest regulation publications in 

participating states encouraged dove hunters to look 

for bands, but, given the extended absence of a dove 

banding program, the current generation of dove 

hunters would not be expected to have evolved a 

culture of searching for and reporting bands. When 

Ohio conducted a reward banding study from 1996 – 

1998 in coordination with the establishment of a dove 

hunting season in 1995, their estimated reporting 

rate was 0.211 (Scott et al. 2004). Their bands also 

did not have the toll-free number inscribed, but we 

surmise that inexperience in both hunting doves and 

reporting bands also played a role in the very low 

reporting rate. The estimated Ohio reporting rate in 

the current study was more than double the Scott et 

al. (2004) estimate, logically due to both the toll-free 

number and a more experienced hunting public.

Harvest Rate Comparison with Previous 

Studies

Average age-specific state harvest rate estimates 

derived from the large banding effort in the late 

1960s and early 1970s (hereafter generically 

referred to as the 1970 study) have been reported 

by Dunks et al. (1982) for the CMU, Tomlinson et al. 
28 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

(1988) for the WMU and Martin and Sauer (1993) 

for the EMU. Although estimation methods and 

assumptions were not precisely the same as those 

used in the current analyses, general patterns in 

comparisons can be informative. Current subregion 

harvest rate estimates for both age classes in 

EMU and WMU states were generally less than 

previous estimates, while contemporary estimates 

were greater or about the same as previous values 

in CMU states (Figs. 6a, 6b). At the MU scale, 

comparisons suggest an overall increase in harvest 

rates in the CMU, and decreases in the EMU and 

WMU (except CA) compared to the 1970 banding 

study (Fig. 7).

 

Survival Rate Comparison with Previous 

Studies 

Survival rate comparisons with those from the 1970 

study were not reliable at the state scale because 

of the poor precision of those estimates in the 

current study. However, precision is improved at the 

subregion scale, and a comparison of 2003 – 2005 

age-specific estimates with those reported by Otis 

(2003) in his reanalysis of the 1970 banding study 

suggests different patterns among the management 

units. For the majority of age-specific comparisons 

in the EMU, the 1970 survival rates were greater 

( x difference = 0.08; Fig. 8), and simple z-test 

comparisons were significant (P < 0.10) for 1⁄2 of the 

age-specific comparisons. In the CMU, 1970 survival 

rates in hunting subregions were consistently 

greater ( x difference = 0.15), and 5 of 6 age-specific 

comparisons were significant (P < 0.10; Fig 8b). In 

the non-hunting state of IA, no differences were 

detected. There were no significant differences 

between the two time periods in the relatively few 

comparisons in the WMU (Fig. 8b). These trends 

also were reflected at the MU scale (Fig. 9). Survival 

rates were significantly greater in 1970 for both 

age classes in the EMU and the CMU (P ≤ 0.10), 

and no differences were detected in the WMU. The 

EMU comparison was potentially confounded by the 

inclusion of the relatively large survival rates in the 

non-hunting New England states in the 1970 study, 

but the influence of these states at the MU scale 

was relatively small because of their relatively small 

dove abundance index. Both the CMU and WMU 

comparisons may be confounded by the missing 

survival rates from hunting states that did not 

participate in the 2003 – 2005 study, but the direction 

of potential bias is unknown. 

Despite the several potential confounding factors 

inherent in comparison of current harvest 

distribution patterns with the 1970 banding study 

(heterogeneous reporting rates, different banding 

states, and different hunting states), the patterns 

are remarkably similar. The distribution of harvest 

in the vast majority of states is dominated by 

harvest in the state of banding. Exceptions were 

noted earlier in ID, ND, NE and SD. Dunks et 

al. (1982) reported the same general results for 

CMU states, including the exception for SD, which 

accounted for about 56% of the harvest of its banded 

doves. During the years of their study, ND and NE 

were non-hunting states and thus a comparison 

to current results is not possible. Tomlinson et al. 

(1988) also reported the same patterns in the WMU, 

including the exception for ID, which accounted 

for about 35% of the harvest of its banded doves. 

As in the current study, Martin and Sauer (1993) 

reported no exceptions to the dominant contribution 

of in-state harvest in the EMU.

Qualitative comparisons of state harvest derivations 

between 1970 and 2003 – 2005 suggest that 

significant changes in the sources of doves harvested 

in a state have occurred in only a few dove hunting 

states. Although our results suggest that in the 

current study LA and TX derived relatively less of 

their harvest from their own breeding doves than 

other states, this in-state contribution was much 

larger than that reported for the 1970 study (LA 

= 45%; TX = 55%). Some of this difference can 

be explained by the fact that several states that 

contributed significantly to TX and LA harvest 

either did not hunt doves during the 1970 study 

(MI, MN, ND, NE, OH, WI) or were not banding 

participants in 2003 – 2005 (IL, MN). The most 

extreme difference is in FL, which derived only 30% 

of its harvest from its own breeding doves in the 

1970 study. Much of this difference can be ascribed 

to the same factors as above, but the large difference 

suggests additional unknown factors may have 

caused an increase in the importance of the local 

breeding population to the FL harvest.

Management Implications 

An operational nationwide banding program is 

critical to the implementation of an informed harvest 

management strategy as envisioned in the National 

Plan (Anonymous 2005). This study provided 

the initial foundation for such a program by 1) 

establishing field and data management protocols, 

2) producing initial updated estimates of reporting, 

harvest, and survival rates, 3) training a new 

generation of biologists in dove trapping and field 

techniques, and 4) demonstrating a commitment 

by the dove management community to improved 

harvest management. Estimates of band reporting 

rates at various scales can be used to adjust future 

band recovery rates to obtain harvest rates, which 

are critical to any system of harvest management. 

The parameter estimates and their associated 

statistical precision presented herein provide a 

reliable empirical basis for statistical evaluation of 

alternative banding quotas and geographical scale of 

inference for an operational banding program with 

specific management and statistical objectives. 

We believe this study provides the foundation for 

a long-term operational banding program that 

will serve several important purposes. Additional 

estimates of regional harvest and survival rates 

derived from banding data are required to construct 

credible population models that incorporate 

relationships between population status, harvest 
 29

rates, harvest regulations, and management 

objectives. These models are integral to informed 

management of exploited species (Nichols et al. 

1995). Second, continuous monitoring of the key 

population and harvest components in such a 

management system supports a long-term strategy 

of providing maximum harvest opportunity while 

insuring population sustainability (Williams et al. 

2002) of the most harvested game bird in North 

America. Finally, we suggest that a long term and 

large scale banding program provides additional 

scientific value in that it generates a time series 

of demographic information that can be mined by 

investigators interested in biological, environmental, 

and ecological questions that are not directly related 

to harvest management. 

Discussion

Jeremy Bennett

Bird traps.
30 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2005. Mourning dove national 

strategic harvest management plan. Department 

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

Washington, D.C. 

Brownie, C., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, and 

D. S. Robson. 1985. Statistical inference from 

band recovery data – a handbook. Resource 

Publication 131. 2nd ed. Department of Interior, 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 

Dolton, D. D., and R. D. Rau. 2006. Mourning dove 

population status, 2006. Department of Interior, 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, 

Dunks, J. H., R. E. Tomlinson, H. M. Reeves, D. 

D. Dolton, C. E. Braun, and T. P. Zapatka. 1982. 

Migration, harvest, and population dynamics 

of mourning doves banded in the Central 

Management Unit, 1967–77. Special Scientific 

Report-Wildlife 249. Department of Interior, 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Geis, A. D. 1972. Use of banding data in migratory 

game bird research and management. U.S. 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special 

Scientific Report – Wildlife No. 154. Washington, 

D.C. 

Hayne, D. W., and P. H. Geissler. 1977. Hunted 

segments of the mourning dove population: 

movement and importance. Southeastern 

Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 

Technical Bulletin 3.

Kiel, W. H., Jr. 1959. Mourning dove management 

units. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, Special Scientific Report –Wildlife No. 

42. Washington, D.C.

 Martin, F. W., and J. R. Sauer. 1993. Population 

characteristics and trend in the Eastern 

Management Unit. Pages 281–305 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.

Mirarchi, R. E. 1993. Sexing, ageing, and 

miscellaneous research techniques. Pages 

399–409 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.

Munro, R. E. and C. F. Kimball. 1982. Population 

ecology of the mallard. VII. Distribution and 

derivation of the harvest. Department of 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource 

Publication 147. Washington, D.C.

Nichols, J. D., and R. E. Tomlinson. 1993. Analyses 

of banding data. Pages 269–280 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.

Nichols, J. D., F. A. Johnson, and B. K. Williams. 

1995. Managing North American waterfowl in the 

face of uncertainty. Annual Review of Ecology 

and Systematics 26:177–199.

Nichols, J. D., R. E. Reynolds, R. J. Blohm, R. 

E. Trost, J. E. Hines, and J. P. Bladen. 1995. 

Geographic variation in band reporting rates for 

mallards based on reward banding. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 59:697–708.

Otis, D. L. 2002. Survival models for harvest 

management of mourning dove populations. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1052–1063.

Otis, D. L. 2003. A framework for reproductive 

models of mourning dove populations. Journal of 

the Iowa Academy of Science 110:13–16.

Reeves, H. M., A. D. Geis, and F. C. Kniffin. 1968. 

Mourning dove capture and banding. Special 

Scientific Report 117. Department of Interior, 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Reeves, H. M. 1979. Estimates of reporting rates 

for mourning dove bands. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 43:36–42.

Sadler, K. C. 1993. Mourning dove harvest. 

Pages 449–459 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.

Scott, D. P., J. B. Berdeen, D. L. Otis, and R. L. 

Fendrick. 2004. Harvest parameters of urban 

and rural mourning doves in Ohio. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 68:698–700. 

Schulz, J. H., S. L. Sheriff, Z. He., C. E. Braun, R. D. 

Drobney, R. E. Tomlinson, D. D. Dolton, and R. A. 

Montgomery. 1995. Accuracy of techniques used 

to assign mourning dove age and gender. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 59:759–765.
Literature Cited 31

Tomlinson, R. E. 1968. Reward banding to 

determine reporting rate of recovered mourning 

dove bands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

32:6–11.

Tomlinson, R. E., D. D. Dolton, 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. Department of 

Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical 

Report 13, Washington, D.C. 

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.

White, G. C. 1983. Numerical estimation of survival 

rates from band-recovery and biotelemetry data. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 47:716–728.

Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 

2002. Analysis of animal populations. Academic 

Press, San Diego, California. 

 
32 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Appendix A. Number banded by State, age (A = adult, J = juvenile, U = unknown), and band type 

(Code: 0 = standard, 1= standard + blank gold, 3 = standard + reward, 4 = standard, paired with reward band).

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005

Alabama A 0 278 390 397

1 277 14 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 288 41 594

1 287 35 0

3 0 212 0

4 0 415 0

U 0 30 3 0

1 29 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Alabama Total 1189 1110 1009

Arkansas A 0 145 347 373

1 145 0 0

3 0 27 0

4 0 66 0

J 0 278 24 654

1 277 0 0

3 0 175 0

4 0 337 0

U 0 25 12 12

1 24 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Arkansas Total 894 988 1039

Arizona A 0 392 641 0

1 391 0 0

3 0 0 296

4 0 3 669

J 0 362 1 0

1 361 0 0

3 0 265 186

4 0 520 299

U 0 3 10 0

1 3 0 0

3 0 11 4

4 0 22 3

Arizona Total 1512 1473 1457

California A 0 0 0 53

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 93

4 0 0 164

J 0 0 0 101

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 89

4 0 0 190

U 0 0 0 14

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 5

4 0 0 21

California Total 0 0 730
Appendix A. 33

Florida A 0 195 387 358

1 195 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 207 0 553

1 206 0 0

3 0 185 0

4 0 363 0

U 0 6 67 41

1 6 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Florida Total 815 1002 952

Georgia A 0 352 486 727

1 352 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 1 0

J 0 329 0 635

1 328 0 0

3 0 217 0

4 0 420 0

U 0 15 26 12

1 14 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Georgia Total 1390 1150 1374

Iowa A 0 500 847 829

1 500 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 480 63 1248

1 479 0 0

3 0 462 0

4 0 932 0

U 0 14 21 2

1 14 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Iowa Total 1987 2325 2079

Idaho A 0 118 465 519

1 118 21 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 102 30 318

1 102 3 0

3 0 112 0

4 0 226 0

U 0 4 0 2

1 3 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Idaho Total 447 857 839

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
34 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Indiana A 0 0 785 691

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 0 384 520

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

U 0 0 17 18

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Indiana Total 0 1186 1229

Kansas A 0 350 834 395

1 350 0 0

3 0 0 157

4 0 0 304

J 0 270 0 228

1 270 0 0

3 0 197 105

4 0 395 224

U 0 4 10 3

1 4 0 0

3 0 0 4

4 0 0 4

Kansas Total 1248 1436 1424

Kentucky A 0 357 586 668

1 356 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 358 8 783

1 358 0 0

3 0 322 0

4 0 650 0

U 0 16 34 14

1 16 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Kentucky Total 1461 1600 1465

Louisiana A 0 122 155 282

1 121 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 479 0 2116

1 479 0 0

3 0 165 0

 4 0 330 0

U 0 39 19 41

1 39 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Louisiana Total 1279 669 2439

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
Appendix A. 35

Maryland A 0 131 195 398

1 130 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 104 0 289

1 103 0 0

3 0 96 0

4 0 190 0

U 0 4 12 45

1 3 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Maryland Total 475 493 732

Missouri A 0 304 637 848

1 304 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 271 0 752

1 271 0 0

3 0 279 0

4 0 556 0

U 0 12 112 101

1 12 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Missouri Total 1174 1584 1701

Mississippi A 0 257 380 323

1 256 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 278 0 352

1 277 0 0

3 0 205 0

4 0 409 0

U 0 2 22 6

1 1 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Mississippi Total 1071 1016 681

North Carolina A 0 392 815 708

1 392 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 250 0 865

1 249 0 0

3 0 240 0

4 0 484 0

U 0 10 69 8

1 9 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

North Carolina Total 1302 1608 1581

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
36 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

North Dakota A 0 237 699 0

1 237 0 0

3 0 0 187

4 0 1 583

J 0 137 1 0

1 137 0 0

3 0 197 58

4 0 396 244

U 0 5 0 0

1 5 0 0

3 0 0 3

4 0 0 0

North Dakota Total 758 1294 1075

Nebraska A 0 304 656 0

1 303 0 0

3 0 0 146

4 0 0 277

J 0 148 2 0

1 147 0 0

3 0 190 84

4 0 382 184

U 0 5 8 0

1 4 0 0

3 0 0 1

4 0 0 0

Nebraska Total 911 1238 692

Ohio A 0 523 1037 997

1 523 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 453 26 996

1 452 0 0

3 0 560 0

4 0 1123 0

U 0 23 12 4

1 22 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Ohio Total 1996 2758 1997

Oklahoma A 0 24 157 59

1 23 0 0

3 0 0 32

4 0 0 61

J 0 174 0 177

1 174 0 0

3 0 95 66

4 0 195 132

U 0 8 31 2

1 7 0 0

3 0 0 2

4 0 0 7

Oklahoma Total 410 478 538

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
Appendix A. 37

Pennsylvania A 0 342 657 574

1 341 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 420 0 1077

1 420 0 0

3 0 304 0

4 0 612 0

U 0 23 77 40

1 23 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Pennsylvania Total 1569 1650 1691

South Carolina A 0 319 368 838

1 318 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 202 0 643

1 202 0 0

3 0 162 0

4 0 333 0

U 0 141 128 194

1 141 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

South Carolina Total 1323 991 1675

South Dakota A 0 413 701 46

1 413 0 45

3 0 0 131

4 0 0 218

J 0 337 0 54

1 337 0 55

3 0 198 86

4 0 397 214

U 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

South Dakota Total 1500 1296 849

Tennessee A 0 238 620 441

1 237 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 222 0 712

1 222 0 0

3 0 199 0

4 0 395 0

U 0 54 170 36

1 54 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Tennessee Total 1027 1384 1189

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
38 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Texas A 0 252 557 0

1 251 0 0

3 0 0 176

4 0 0 345

J 0 226 3 0

1 225 0 0

3 0 281 150

4 0 565 303

U 0 6 22 0

1 6 0 0

3 0 0 3

4 0 0 12

Texas Total 966 1428 989

Virginia A 0 114 262 306

1 113 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 122 0 503

1 122 0 0

3 0 91 0

4 0 176 0

U 0 2 12 10

1 2 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Virginia Total 475 541 819

Washington A 0 126 237 215

1 126 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 329 0 1033

1 328 0 0

3 0 276 0

4 0 558 0

U 0 5 15 8

1 5 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Washington Total 919 1086 1256

Wisconsin A 0 0 0 238

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 0 0 321

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

U 0 0 0 11

1 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

Wisconsin Total 0 0 570

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
Appendix A. 39

West Virginia A 0 98 261 153

1 98 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

J 0 246 0 471

1 245 0 0

3 0 163 0

4 0 332 0

U 0 7 10 5

1 6 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

West Virginia Total 700 766 629

All States Total 28,798 33,408 34,700

State Age Code

 Number banded

2003 2004 2005
40 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

State Age

 Code

0 1 3 4

Alabama A 42 13 0 0

J 59 24 24 26

U 2 1 0 0

Arkansas A 50 12 3 1

J 63 38 38 33

U 2 4 0 0

Arizona A 18 12 8 12

J 5 7 14 9

U 0 0 0 0

California A 3 0 19 20

J 9 0 12 12

U 0 0 1 1

Florida A 37 11 0 0

J 11 12 20 20

U 4 1 0 0

Georgia A 65 30 0 0

J 65 27 43 29

U 3 2 0 0

Iowa A 17 6 0 0

J 22 10 18 6

U 1 2 0 0

Idaho A 21 8 0 0

J 5 5 5 7

U 0 0 0 0

Indiana A 82 0 0 0

J 45 0 0 0

U 1 0 0 0

Kansas A 55 15 3 7

J 11 18 17 18

U 2 0 0 0

Kentucky A 63 34 0 0

J 40 33 23 42

U 2 0 0 0

Louisiana A 19 19 0 0

J 137 57 25 28

U 7 0 0 0

Maryland A 39 11 0 0

J 29 9 9 10

U 2 1 0 0

Missouri A 218 31 0 0

J 233 31 34 44

U 33 1 0 0

Mississippi A 45 47 0 0

J 23 54 29 26

U 2 0 0 0

North Carolina A 93 23 0 0

J 65 13 32 47

Appendix B. Total number of recoveries in 2003-2005 in banding States, age (A = adult, J = juvenile, 

U = unknown), and band type (Code: 0 = standard, 1= standard + blank gold, 3 = standard + reward, 

4 = standard, paired with reward band).
Appendix B. 41

U 5 3 0 0

North Dakota A 22 5 2 1

J 4 4 4 10

U 0 0 0 0

Nebraska A 41 13 6 13

J 3 4 8 19

U 0 0 0 0

Ohio A 76 32 0 0

J 43 19 33 25

U 1 0 0 0

Oklahoma A 7 5 2 1

J 24 27 12 10

U 3 3 0 0

Pennsylvania A 33 19 0 0

J 52 23 18 21

U 5 0 0 0

South Carolina A 63 36 0 0

J 54 33 19 34

U 26 11 0 0

South Dakota A 24 11 4 2

J 11 10 14 8

U 0 0 0 0

Tennessee A 72 27 0 0

J 55 29 30 32

U 10 4 0 0

Texas A 29 18 12 5

J 14 9 28 21

U 0 0 0 1

Virginia A 25 4 0 0

J 10 7 8 11

U 1 0 0 0

Washington A 17 7 0 0

J 57 30 26 26

U 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin A 8 0 0 0

J 5 0 0 0

U 0 0 0 0

West Virginia A 9 0 0 0

J 9 6 8 5

U 0 0 0 0

Total 2,568 1,022 614 647

State Age

 Code

0 1 3 4
42 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Acknowledgements of contributions of field and 

support staff in cooperating banding states, 2003 - 

2005. State wildlife agency coordinators are listed 

first.

Alabama

Jeff Makemson; Alabama Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources

Brett Abbott, Frank Allen, Steve Bryant, Tony 

Burgett, Gene Carver, Thagard Colvin, Chris 

Cook, Ben Davis, Ron Eakes, Jud Easterwood, 

Joel Glover, Stewart Goldsby, Dr. Barry Grand, 

Wendell Hallman, Andy Hughes, Chris Jaworowski, 

Wayne Kelly, Randy Liles, Jeff Makemson, Mitchell 

Marks, James Masek, Chad Masley, Ray Metzler, 

Phil Miller, Chas Moore, Bennett Moseley, Tracy 

Nelson, Erica Nix, Adam Pritchett, Kevin Pugh, Jim 

Schrenkel, Richard Tharp, Crystal Tindell, Bruce 

Todd, Daniel Toole, Myron Wiley

Arizona

Mike Rabe; Arizona Game and Fish Department

Contributing staff of the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

Arkansas

Mike Checkett, Andrew James; Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission

Mark Barbee, Mark Hooks, Roger Milligan, 

Rusty Mitchell, Allen Clawson, Roger Theis, Andy 

VanHorn, David Luker, Alton Case, Ruth Chapman, 

Jason Carbaugh, James Foster, Shaun Merrell, 

Paul Provence, Kent Wagner, Rick Darter, John 

Gallagher, Terry Gentry, Brian Infield, Kevin Lynch, 

Nicole Peterson, Eley Talley, Gregg Mathis, Mickey 

Rogers, Griffin Park, Brad Townsend, Cameron 

Tatom, Terry Rogers, George Howell, Mike Harris, 

Charles Self, Steven Fowler, Mike Morman, Susan 

Gregory, Scotty Winningham, Brady Baker, Lee 

Kirkpatrick, Jeremy Self, Hilda Jones, Chris Carter, 

Matt Mourot, Kenny Vernon, Bobby Conley, Mike 

Widner, Johnny Waldrup, Roger Martin, Josh 

Fortner, Don Curran, Ritchie Bryant, Wayne Kelley, 

Danny Denney, Dustin Davis, Deanne Taylor, Jenna 

Roy, Jacob Bokker

California

Tom Blankinship, Pat Lauridson; California 

Department of Fish and Game

Contributing staff of the California Department of 

Fish and Game

Florida

Kurt Hodges; Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission

Jim Alleman, John Ault, Ashleigh Blackford, Pam 

Boody, Joseph Bozzo, Dan Buchanan, Nathan 

Bunting, Dan Castillo, Brian Christ, Jean - Marie 

Conner, Neal Franklin Eichholz, Jamie Feddersen, 

Norberto Fernandez, Don Francis, Derek Fussell, 

Kelly Gamble, Cyndi Gates, Wesley Gates, Allan 

Hallman, Tina Hannon, Sharon Hester, Tommy 

C. Hines, Beth Hodges, Kurt Hodges, Andrew 

Jernigan, Russell Johnson, Curt Kleist, Paige 

Martin, Daniel McDonald, David McDuffie, Jeff 

McGrady, Chuck McKelvy, Mike McMillian, Jennifer 

Morse, Tim O’Meara, Melissa Peagler, Annemarie 

Prince, Tim Regan, Royce A. Schneider, Paul Schulz, 

James Schuette, Billy Sermons, Wynne Sermons, 

Roger Shields, Tom Shupe, Donald R. Smith, Phillip 

E. Smith, Valerie Sparling, Lee Taylor, Jason 

Williams 

Georgia

Don McGowan; Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources

Contributing staff of the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources

Idaho

Tom Hemker; Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Contributing staff of the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game 

Indiana

Jim Pitman; Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources

 Larry Allsop, Steve Backs, Fred Bebout, Mark 

Bennett, Jim Bergens, Matthew Bredeweg, Tony 

Carroll, John Castrale, Tom Despot, Brad Detamore, 

Shauna Dollinger, Brad Feaster, John Gibson, Jason 

Gilbert, Josh Griffin, Kent Hanauer, Bill Hardin, 

Sterling Hartzog, Donald Hast, Michael Holcomb, 

Greg Leer, Mel Lehmer, Nate Levitte, Glenn 

McCormick, Scott McCormick, Heidi McDonald, 

Randy Millar, Steve Mund, Danny Orr, Dave 

Parker, Rick Peercy, Adam Phelps, Jim Pitman, 

Bruce Plowman, Mark Pochon, Ron Ronk, Steve 

Roth, Michael Schoof, Mike Schoonveld, Phillip 

Sewell, Ray Shepard, Dave Spitznagle, Roger 

Stonebraker, Rob Sullender, Jeff Thompson, Alger 

van Hoey, Jason Wade, Bev Wagner, Jon Weber, Sam 

Whiteleather, Dennis Workman, Jim Young

Iowa

Todd Bogenschutz; Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources

Angie Auel, Jason Auel, Brandon Burrows, Doug 

Chafa, Justin Clark, Richard Coy, Jackie Dollinger, 

Steve Espeland, Farmer, Jerry, Goodrich, Kevin, 

Mike Griffin, Jason Gritsch, Terry Hainfield, Matt 

Handy, Greg Hanson, James D. Hanson, Bryan 

Hellyer, T. J. Herrick, Pete Hildreth, Ron Howing, 

Doug Janke, Nick Jordan, Chuck Kakac, Curt 

Kemmerer, Mike Klein, Vickie Klein, Calvin Kunkle, 

Appendix C. Participating state banding coordinators and staff.
Appendix C. 43

Dave Kutz, Chris LaRue, Mike Mahn, Corey Meyer, 

Ron Munkel, Dean Nelson, Bill Ohde, George 

Olson (temp), Jessica Parkhurst, Chad Paup, Ike 

Petersen, Scott Peterson, Doug Phillips, Carl Priebe, 

Rene Richter, Andy Robbins, Jonathan Ross, 

Greg L. Schmitt, Tom Smith, Wayne Souer, Chuck 

Steffen, Jeff Telleen, Brett Tevine, Tim Thompson, 

Casey Trine, Rick Trine, Chris Vandello, Dave 

Vanderpluym, Ed Weiner, David White, Ed White, 

Ryan White, Steve Woodruff

Kansas

Helen Hands; Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks

Edward Aeschliman, Aaron Austin, Clint Bowman, 

Gene Brehm, Philip Buser, Lee Callens, Andy 

Friesen, Todd Gatton, Helen Hands, John Hoke, 

Jerry Horak, Karl Karrow, Craig Kennedy, Marvin 

Kraft, Lucas Kramer, Toby Marlier, Brian Miewes, 

Kelly Miller, Tom Norman, Mike Nyhoff, Ricky 

Ochoa, Angie Owensby, Rob Penner, Keith Reif, 

Brad Rueshhoff, Ron Ruthstrom, Matt Schoshke, 

Kathy Sexson, Mark Sexson, Andrea Smith, Dwight 

Spencer, Hiram Thoman, Tyler Thomasson, Kirk 

Thompson, Manuel Torres, Roxanna Tosterud

Kentucky

Rocky Pritchart, Beth Cuzio; Kentucky Department 

of Fish and Wildlife Resources

Herbie Adams, John Akers, Bill Balda, Steve 

Beam, Tony Black, Dennis Boggs, Steven Bonney, 

Pat Brandon, Earl Brown, Gerald Burnett, Josh 

Burton, Scott Buser, Oliver Capps, Leslie Carter, 

Brian Clark, Buford Clark, Robert Colvis, Lee 

Cope, George Corder, Dan Crank, Elizabeth 

Cuzio, Larry Dennis, Dana Dolen, Tom Edwards, 

Joyce Fitzgerald, Scott Friedhoff, Chris Garland, 

Chris Grasch, Brian Gray, Nathan Gregory, Brian 

Grossman, Rusty Hamilton, Mark Harless, Scott 

Harp, Mike Henshaw, Wes Hodges, Greg Isen, 

Rene Jimenez, Tim Kreher, Joe Lacefield, Jim 

Lane, Bill Lisowski, Rebecca Littleton, Bill Lynch, 

Dale Lynch, Chris Mason, Wes Mattox, Rick 

Mauro, David McChesney, Jason McDowell, Steve 

McMillen, Bobby Morse, Mike Morton, Cecil Parish, 

Pat Pierce, Jayson Plaxico, Rocky Pritchert, Bill 

Ridner, Dave Ross, Marsha Schroder, Phil Sharp, 

Jack Sloan, Brian Smith, Clay Smitson, Tim Stoval, 

Wayne Tamminga, Kim Tarter, Kevin Tucker, Brian 

Wagner, Martin Wheeldon, Charlie Wilkins, Eric 

Williams

Louisiana

Mike Olinde; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries

Barrett Arthur, Brannon Arthur, Hugh Arthur, 

Chuck Bantel, Leonard Bennett, Charlie Booth, 

Edwin Bordelon, Francis Bordelon, Johnathan 

Bordelon, David Breithaupt, Cecil Brookin, Tommy 

Bruhl, Bill Burns, Don Carpenter, Sammie Cerami, 

Perry Corbett, Greg Crawford, Pat Deshotels, 

Travis Dufour, Jeffery Dupuy, Robert Marty 

Edmunds, Jimmy Ernst, Randy Ewing, Jason Frost, 

Duffy Guillory, Scott Halphen, John Hanks, David 

Hayden, Mike Hollier, Jarrod Hughes, Barrett 

Kiser, Bruce Knight, Gregory Lachney, Glenn Lee, 

Ryan Lemoine, Danny Lively, Richard McMullan, 

Lowrey Moak, Randy Myers, CR Newland, Ben 

Oubre, Jerald Owens, Guy Patout, Donald Phillips, 

Mike Pirot, Elbert Rachal, John Robinette, Mark 

Roy, Wendell Smith, Shanon Soileau, Justin Sonnier, 

Kerney Sonnier, Jimmy Stafford, Jeff Taylor, Jr., 

Errol Theriot, Chad Thomas, Clyde Thompson, 

Adam Trevillion, Tony Vidrine, Larry Waldron, Mac 

Ware, Johnny Warren, Calvin Waskom, Tom Woods, 

Reggie Wycoff

Maryland

Bill Harvey; Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources

Jose Alachan, Patty Allen, Pete Bendel, Jim Bennett, 

James Bowling, Danny Callahan, Ed Cook, Brent 

Evans, Brian Eyler, Fritz Faust, Richard Garrett, 

Dennis Hammett, Bill Harvey, Dave Heilmeier, 

Josh Homyack, Mark Hooper, Tyler Johnson, Carla 

Johnson, Barbara Joyce, Ernie Licalzi, Bob Long, 

Bill Martin, Ron Norris, Keri Parker, Scott Peters, 

Denny Price, Rebecca Rau,Frank Ryan, Greg 

Schenck, Hutch Walbridge, Donald Webster

Mississippi 

Dave Godwin; Mississippi Department of Wildlife, 

Fisheries and Parks

Kevin Brunke, Chris Clark, Scott Edwards, Dave 

Godwin, John Gruchy, Rob Heflin Jr., Brad Holder, 

Kathy Shelton, Roger Tankesly, Jim Willcutt

Missouri 

John Schulz; Missouri Department of Conservation

Barry Allen, Josh Banks, Jamie Barton, Wade 

Bealmer, Reggie Bennett, Ted Bond, Jason 

Braunecker, Rick Bredesen, Mike Brillhart, Dennis 

Browning, Joe Bruno, Deb Burns, Shane Bush, 

Rob Chapman, Chris Cole, Kendall Coleman, Terry 

Coon, Craig Crisler, Chase Curtis, Kathy DeiSanti, 

Bill Dent, Jason Dungan, Ashley Dunkle, Dave 

Erickson, Matt Fenoff, Jason Gargus, John George, 

Norb Giessman, Nick Girondo, Jeff Goin, Nick 

Hartman, Josh Heintz, Bob Henry, Jerod Heubner, 

Lee Hughes, Todd Hunt, Mark Hutchings, Tim 

James, Dustin Johnson, Mike Jones, Brad Jump, 

Ryan Kelly, Ryan Kelly, Steve Kistner, Cesare 

Kleeman, Ashleigh Klingman, Drew Larsen, 

Tom Leifield, Frank Loncarich, Jim Loveless, 

Rick McClellan, Monte McQuillen, Doreen Mengel,

Mitch Miller, Chase Miller, Tony Mong, Shellie 

Murril, Debbie Newton, Eric Niemeyer,

Carolyn Polston, Joel Porath, Cole Prenger, Ken 

Rampley, Jamie Reynolds, Larry Rieken, Mitch 

Roberts, Kristine Ruegge, Christi Ruegge, Tim 

Russel, Jimmy Ryder, Mike Schroer, Abby Schultz, 

Jeff Scott, Jessica Shaffer, Matt Smith, Rachael 

Stark, Jay Steele, Andy Sterling, Preston Stogsdill, 

Dave Stroppel, Brad Swank, Jackie Sweeney, Mark 
44 Biological Technical Publication: Mourning Dove Harvest and Population Parameters Derived from a National Banding Study

Switzer, Andy Tappmeyer, Josh Terhune, Steve 

Theiss, Gene Toombs, Dirac Twidwell, Dave Urich, 

Rob Vinson, Tyler Warner, Harriet Weger, Brad 

Wessel, Beau White, Allyson Wiegman, Darrin Wood

Nebraska

Scott Taylor; Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission

Mick Bresley, Mark Feeney, Russ Hamer, Kirk 

Hansen, Travis Kopf, Mike Remund, Warren 

Schwanebeck, Brad Seitz, Chad Taylor 

North Carolina

Dennis Luszcz, Joe Fuller; North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission

Chip Alexander, Brad Allen, Jason Allen, Chris 

Baranski, Don Barker, Daron Barnes, Denton 

Baumbarger, Brent Beamer, Brady Beck, Carl 

Betsill, Eli Beverly, Joe Blastick, Mike Carraway, 

Richard Clark, David Cobb, Josh Copenhaver, Jason 

Creegan, Lee Criscoe, Andy Davis, Dale Davis, 

Mark Dover, Bill Edwards, Jennifer Edwards, Pat 

Farrell, Joe Folta, Vic French, Joe Fuller, Michael 

Greene, Brad Gunn, Harlan Hall, Bronson Hannah, 

Greg Hochstetler, Brad Howard, Doug Howell, 

Tommy Hughes, Adam Johnson, Mark Jones, Steve 

Juhan, Jim Keepfer, Tim Keller, Ken Knight, Drew 

Larson, Mike Legare, Dennis Luszcz, Jeff Marcus, 

Dan Martin, Kimberly McCargo, Scott McLean, 

Brandon Minor, Andrew Mynatt, Deanna Noble, 

Robbie Norville, Wib Owen, Thomas Padgett, 

Adrienne Paoletta, Bill Parsons, Don Riley, Johnny 

Riley, Lincoln Sadler, Ron Sanders, Ken Shughart, 

Brian Smith, David Stewart, Phil Stone, George 

Strader, Benjy Strope, Perry Sumner, Chris Teague, 

Michael Tipton, Chris Turner, Tony Wait, Mark 

Williams, Matt Williams, Paul Williams, Tony 

Woolard, Justin Yale

North Dakota

Stan Kohn, Mike Szymanski; North Dakota Game 

and Fish Department

Bismarck NDGF, Devils Lake NDGF, Dickinson 

NDGF, Jamestown NDGF, Lonetree WMA, 

Riverdale NDGF, Arrowwood NWR, Crosby WMD, 

J. Clark Salyer NWR, Long Lake NWR, Lake 

Ilo NWR, Tewaukon NWR, Upper Souris NWR, 

Audubon NWR, Chase Lake WMD, Lake Alice 

NWR, SW BLM - Dickinson 

Ohio

Dave Scott, Scott Hull; Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources

John Abele, Ron Adams, Brett Beatty, Bruce 

Buckingham, Scott Butterworth, Ron Carter, Matt 

Conner, Tim Davis, Fred Dierkes, Rick Dorn, Steve 

Douglas, Jim Duckworth, Terry Eberling, R. Lyle 

Fendrick, Ron Ferenchak, Sean Finke, Bob Ford, 

Tyler Frysinger, Kathy Garza-Behr, Beth Geboy, 

Rich Geboy, Damon Greer, Joe Hassman, Kevin 

Higgins, Doug Hissong, Dan Hollenbaugh, Dave 

Honeycutt, Ryan Jackson, Jeff Janosik, Laura 

Jenkins, Harry Keeney, Jason Keller, Kelley Kelley, 

Bryan Kichta, Dave Kohler, Melissa Lackey, Andy 

Landon, Al Lea, Jason Leach, Erik Lewis, Lindsay 

Linkhart, Eric Long, John Matthews, Carla 

Maxwell, Stephen Menno, Randy Morgan, John 

Morton, Julia Murgatroyd, Ross Muszynski, Kristin 

Mylecraine, John Neider, Karen Norris, Lou Orosz, 

Mike Parker, Scott Phillips, Jessica Piispanen, Jeff 

Porter, Nicholas Ray, Mike Reynolds, Dale Riehle, 

Dave Risley, Aaron Robinson, George Saksa, Dave 

Scott, Chris Smith, Vern Snyder, Dennis Solon, 

Nathan Stricker, Andy Thompson, Andrea Tibbels, 

Michael White, Gretchen White, Chris Witmer, 

Mark Witt, Eli Young, James Young, Mike Zaleski

Oklahoma

Mike O’Meilia; Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation 

Robert Guinn, Lewis Jennings, Jeff Neal, Mike 

O’Meilia, Scott Parry, Jeff Pennington, Thad Potts, 

John Ridge, Kelvin Schoonover, Mark Shurden, 

Mike White

Pennsylvania

John Dunn; Pennsylvania Game Commission

Elizabeth Ball, Arthur Brunst, Mary Jo Casalena, 

James Domire, John Dunn, Susan Ellis, Jack 

Gilbert, Jennifer Gillis, Ian Gregg, Dave Griffin, 

Bruce Guinter, Robert Hodge, Kevin Jacobs, 

Skip Lamoreaux, Tracey Librandi-Mumma, Mike 

McMenamin, John Morgan, Keith Mullin, William 

Palmer, Amber Rendulic, Matt Roberts, Chris 

Rosenberry, Tony Ross, Kyle Russel, Keith Sanford, 

John Sites, Jeremy Stempka, Cary Stultz 

South Carolina

Billy Dukes; South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources

Keenan Adams, Roy Atkinson, Buddy Baker, Judy 

Barnes, Dave Baumann, Jeff Baumann, Daniel 

Beach, Greg Boling, Ryan Bowles, Jay Butfiloski, 

Jay Cantrell, Will Carlisle, Patty Castine, Ross 

Catterton, Mike Caudell, Sam Chappelear, Clemson 

University, Damon Gun Club, Edwin Dargan, Billy 

Dukes, Ben Duncan, Kell Fitts, Billy Fleming, Ron 

Fleming, Joyce Foster, Bernie Good, Jane Griess, 

Tom Harkins, Dean Harrigal, John Hoffman, 

Chris Holcombe, Nate Holmes, Michael Hook, Bob 

Hortman, Laura Housh, Mike Housh, Greg Hudson, 

Tim Ivey, Kevin Jarrell, Brian Kaminskas, Jim 

Killian, Scott Lanier, Jim Lee, Jeremy Lemacks, 

James Ling, Larry Lollis, Joe Lucas, David Lynch, 

Bill Mace, Bill Mahan, Erik Martin, Doug Mason, 

Kay McCutcheon, Tarri McKinney, Medway 

Plantation, Ben Miller, Jamie Mills, Gerald Moore, 

Richard Morton, Mulberry Plantation, Jim Mullis, 

Mark Parker, Bobby Pearson, Dewey Petty, Jason 

Plemmons, Stuart Plowden, Mark Purcell, Jeff 

Quick, Ted Rainwater, Walt Rhodes, Charles Ruth, 

T. J. Savereno, Mike Scales, Derrell Shipes, Elliott 

Shuler, Willie Simmons, Matt Smoak, South Carolina 
Appendix C. 45

Forestry Commission, Gary Stephens, Sam Stokes, 

Jr., Donnie Stone, Tommy Strange, Travis Sumner, 

Tom Swayngham, David Tant, Swinton Thomas, 

Elizabeth Vaughn, Mike Vaughn, Lisa Walters, Clay 

Ware, Steven Welch, Jim Westerhold, Jeff Witt, 

Bryan Woodward, Larry Woodward

South Dakota 

Paul Mammenga; South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks

Doug Alvine, Bob Curtis, Curt Dagel, Ron Fowler, 

Mark Grovijahn, Corey Huxoll, Tom Kirschenmann, 

Tony Leif, Andy Lindbloom, Paul Mammenga, Owen 

Mcelroy, Will Morlock, Ron Schauer, Art Smith, 

Chad Switzer, Spencer Vaa, George Vandel, Loren 

Vande Stroet, Lorene Wasland, Greg Wolbrink

Tennessee

Tim White; Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

George Buttrey, Jack Colwick, Randy Cromer, Ben 

Layton, Larry Marcum, Don Orr, Steve Patrick, 

Ron Saunders, Robert Smith, Ken Smith, Stacy 

Stevenson

Texas 

Jay Roberson; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Bill Adams, Ty Bartoskewitz, Jason Brooks, Jose 

Cano, Suzanne Contreras, Steven Cortez, Philip 

Dickerson, James Edwards, Jason Ford, Randy 

Fugate, Jim Gallagher, Lauri Heintz, Joe Herrera, 

Sara Herrera, Mike Janis, Rick Knipe, Kevin 

Kriegel, Daniel Kunz, Billy Lambert, Wes Littrell, 

Duane Lucia, Evan McCoy, Krista McDermid, 

Todd Merendino, Chris Mostyn, Charlie Newberry, 

Todd Pilcik, Nathan Rains, Calvin Richardson, Jay 

Roberson, Chip Ruthven, Jimmy Rutledge, Dale 

Schmidt, T. Wayne Schwertner, Raymond Sims, 

David Sierra, David Synatzske, Trevor Tanner, 

Gary Waggerman, Roy Welch, Brian Wheat, Jay 

Whiteside, Dana Wright 

Virginia

Gary Costanzo; Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries

Contributing staff of the Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries

Washington

Ron Friesz; Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife

Dana Base, Jeff Bernatowicz, Martin Ellenburg, 

Pat Fowler, Ron Friesz, Marc Hallet, Eric Holman, 

Don Kraege, Mike Livingston, Tom McCall, Warren 

Michaelis, Paul Wik

West Virginia

Steve Wilson; West Virginia Division of Natural 

Resources

David Arbogast, Larry Berry, Colin Carpenter, 

James Craft, Tom Dotson, Gary Foster, Shawn 

Head, William Igo, David McClung, Jeff McCrady, 

Patty Morrison, Allan Niederberger, Mike Peters, 

Steve Rauch, Eric Richmond, Rich Roger, Gary 

Sharp, Kem Shaw, Tammy Shreve, Bob Smith, Lee 

Strawn, Gary Strawn, Clarence Williamson, Steve 

Wilson

Wisconsin

Kent Van Horn; Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources

Kimberlee Benton, Brian Buenzow, Robert 

Cartegena, ChuckGatling, Brian Glenzinski, Erin 

Grossman, Heidi Hayes, Steve Hoffman, Jeremy 

Holtz, Jim Holzwart, Marty Johnson, Rich Kahl, Pat 

Kaiser, Dale Katsma, Renee Kerska, Charlie Kilian, 

Steve Klock, Craig Kopacek, Sayer Larson, Eric 

Lobner, Tanya Meives, Dick Nikolai, Allison Oberc, 

Al Ramminger, Jerry Reetz, Paul Samerdyke, Missy 

Sparrow-Lien, Jim Tomasko, Kent Van Horn, Larry 

Vine, Dan Weidert.

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1849 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20240

http://www.fws.gov

February 2008