U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2011–1312

Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology 

of Long-Billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

Preliminary Investigations of the Winter 

Ecology of Long-Billed Curlews in Coastal 

Texas

By Marc C. Woodin, Mary Kay Skoruppa, Jeremy W. Edwardson, and 

Jane E. Austin

Open-File Report 2011–1312

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Woodin, M.C., Skoruppa, M.K., Edwardson, J.W., and Austin, J.E., 2012, Preliminary investigations of the winter 

ecology of Long-billed Curlews in coastal Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1312, 17p.
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................v

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

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

Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................3

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

Roost Site Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................4

Public Outreach.....................................................................................................................................4

Capture Techniques..............................................................................................................................5

Noose Ropes.................................................................................................................................5

Bow Net.........................................................................................................................................5

Cast Net.........................................................................................................................................6

Coda Netgun.................................................................................................................................6

Super Talon Netgun.....................................................................................................................6

Whoosh Net..................................................................................................................................7

Decoys and Bait...........................................................................................................................7

Banding and Marking Birds ................................................................................................................7

Body Measurements............................................................................................................................8

Movements and Migration Chronology ............................................................................................8

Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................................9

Roost Site Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................9

Public Outreach...................................................................................................................................10

Capture and Banding .........................................................................................................................10

Capture Techniques...................................................................................................................10

Banding and Marking Birds .....................................................................................................13

Body Measurements.................................................................................................................13

Movements and Migration Chronology ..........................................................................................13

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Studies .......................................................................14

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................15

Figures

1. Map showing locations of Long-billed Curlew roost sites monitored in southern 

Texas during the winter of 2010–11 ...........................................................................................2

2. Photograph showing Padre Island National Seashore beach..............................................3

3. Photograph showing urban grassland......................................................................................3

4. Photograph showing farmland ...................................................................................................3

5. Photograph showing coastal salt marsh ..................................................................................4

6. Photograph showing East Lake, a naturally occurring saline lake, in Willacy 

County, Texas.................................................................................................................................4

7. Photograph showing noose rope...............................................................................................5

8. Photograph showing bow net.....................................................................................................5

9. Photograph showing cast net.....................................................................................................6

10. Photograph showing Coda Netgun............................................................................................6

11. Photograph showing Super Talon Netgun ...............................................................................7
iv

12. Photograph showing whoosh net..............................................................................................7

13. Photograph showing method for measuring the curvature of Long-billed Curlew 

culmens ..........................................................................................................................................8

14. Photograph showing release of Long-billed Curlew from a holding box ............................8

15. Photograph showing band types and colors placed on Long-billed Curlews..................13

Tables

1. Locations, habitat types, and use by Long-billed Curlews of roost sites monitored in 

southern Texas during the winter of 2010–11 ..........................................................................9

2. Numbers of locations and reports of Long-billed Curlew sightings by habitat type in 

response to public outreach methods ....................................................................................10

3. Dates, locations, and techniques used in capture of Long-billed Curlews in southern 

Texas, 2010–11.............................................................................................................................11

4. Measures of body mass and structural size of Long-billed Curlews captured and 

banded in southern Texas, 2010–11.........................................................................................13

Conversion Factors and Abbreviations

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square centimeter (cm2) 0.001076 square foot (ft2)

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

square centimeter (cm2) 0.1550 square inch (ft2) 

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2) 

Volume

milliliter (ml) 0.33814 fluid ounce (fl oz)

cubic meter (m3) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

Mass and Density

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

g/m2 (gram per square meter) 0.0002 pound per square foot (lb/ft2)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: 

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: 

°C=(°F-32)/1.8
v

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey. The 

authors are grateful to Bill Howe (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2) and Stephanie Jones 

and Suzanne Fellows (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6), who were instrumental in the 

planning and development of the study. The authors also are thankful to the staff at the Lower 

Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Padre Island National Seashore, Naval Air StationCorpus Christi of the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries 

Program, Inc., for access to properties and logistical support for this project. 

The authors are indebted to Dr. Roger Pigott (DVM), who graciously gave his time to consult with 

us on care and handling of large-bodied birds and advised us on remedial measures in case we 

encountered muscle myopathy in captured curlews. This research benefitted from many volunteers who helped in the field. They include Clint Jeske, Chad Stinson, Beau Hardegree, Clare 

Lee, Nancy Mitton, Wade Stablein, Chris Perez, Shaunette Gillespie, Cody Lynch, Loren Gallo, 

Tommy Skoruppa, Joni Edwardson, Jon Thomas Skoruppa, and Roy Wessels. 

We thank the many private landowners who graciously allowed us access to their properties, 

and are especially grateful to the residents of Rancho Allegre in Bluntzer, Texas, and the Southside Community Church in Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Assistance with field equipment and techniques was provided by Caesar Kleberg Wildlife 

Research Institute. Additional scientific expertise and technical advice were provided by 

David Blankinship, Tom Langschied, Brent Ortego, David Haley, David Newstead, Gene Blacklock, Sonia Najera, Martin Hagne, Brad Strobel, and Jonathan Moczygemba. The authors are 

indebted to Suzanne Fellows and Marsha Sovada for reviewing earlier versions of this report. 

Abstract

Since the early 1900s, the distribution of the Long-billed 

Curlew (Numenius americanus) has contracted dramatically in 

the eastern one-half of its historic range. The species has been 

designated as a “Bird of Conservation Concern” and focal 

species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a species of 

concern by several states, and a “Highly Imperiled” species in 

the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The uncertain outlook 

for this species has contributed to a plethora of research on 

Long-billed Curlews, most of which have focused on breeding 

and nesting ecology of the species. Gaps remain in information about factors affecting population dynamics on the winter 

grounds and the linkages between Long-billed Curlew populations on the breeding range, migration routes, and winter 

range. To begin filling those gaps, a pilot study was done to 

evaluate (1) curlew use of nocturnal roost sites, (2) use of 

public outreach to locate curlews and contribute to preliminary 

assessment of foraging habitat use, (3) six different methods to 

capture curlews, and (4) movements by curlews on wintering 

areas. The study area includes the lower Texas coast, which 

harbors the eastern-most dense populations of Long-billed 

Curlews in North America. 

Use of historical winter roost sites was not observed; 

however, there was documented limited use (up to 150 curlews) of several new roost sites, some of which were used on 

an intermittent or erratic basis. Reports elicited from the public 

indicated Long-billed Curlews wintering in coastal Texas often 

forage in open, grass-covered lots of partially developed residential areas, golf courses, and public parks within urban and 

suburban zones. Curlews were reported to use these sites in 

developed areas as far as 100 kilometers inland. Other reports 

indicated Long-billed Curlews foraging in farm fields, shallow 

coastal marsh, and on the beaches of Gulf of Mexico barrier 

islands.

The effectiveness of six techniques for capture of Longbilled Curlews was evaluated in the study. Seven curlews were 

captured and banded with four of six methods attempted. At 

least one curlew each was captured with (1) noose ropes, 

(2) baited bow net, (3) Coda Netgun, and (4) whoosh net; 

no curlews were caught with a cast net or Super Talon 

netgun. The Coda Netgun proved to be the most effective 

methodology examined. Captured birds (7) were weighed, 

measured, and banded. Body masses (mean = 518 grams) were 

low compared to data previously published on body mass of 

Long-billed Curlews. There were 22 observations recorded 

of banded curlews. Resightings confirmed that birds were 

not harmed during capture. All of the 22 resightings occurred 

within two kilometers of the banding locations, suggesting that 

birds remained near their chosen foraging areas. 

Results from this 1-year pilot study yielded an intriguing combination of findings that warrant further investigation. 

Observations include reduced numbers of roosting birds along 

the Texas coast during dry conditions, highly dynamic use of 

nocturnal roost sites, use of widely divergent habitat types for 

foraging, low body mass of most captured birds, and apparent 

fidelity to general feeding areas. Future investigations of this 

eastern winter population of curlews would benefit from larger 

sample sizes and monitoring of individual birds. 

Introduction

The breeding distribution of Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus), the largest shorebird species in North America, once extended across the grasslands of the United States, 

but its distribution has contracted dramatically in the eastern 

one-half of its historic range. The change is attributed primarily to excessive harvest in the late 1800s and early 1900s by 

market hunters and loss of grasslands in their breeding range 

(Dugger and Dugger, 2002). The wetlands and grasslands of 

the Texas coastal plain now harbor the largest, eastern-most 

populations of wintering Long-billed Curlews in North America (Dugger and Dugger, 2002). The species has been identified as a “Bird of Conservation Concern” and focal species by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2008), a species of concern by several states, 

and a “Highly Imperiled” species in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Canada has a variety of designations as well, 

including “Species of Special Concern” and “Blue Listed.” 

Uncertainties abound about curlew population affiliations 

among winter, migration and breeding areas, and factors limiting curlew populations (Dugger and Dugger, 2002). Studies 

of reproductive ecology, nest success, courtship and breeding 

Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Longbilled Curlews in Coastal Texas

By Marc C. Woodin, Mary Kay Skoruppa, Jeremy W. Edwardson, and Jane E. Austin
2 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

behavior, and foraging ecology of Long-billed Curlews have 

been completed in various locations in the western United 

States (for example, Redmond and Jenni, 1986; Pampush and 

Anthony 1993; Clarke, 2006). Additionally, a range-wide estimate of the continental breeding population was made in 2008 

(Jones and others, 2008). For curlews breeding in the Great 

Basin and wintering in California (not shown), their migratory 

pathways, foraging ecology, social organization, and winter 

habitats also have been studied (Leeman and others, 2001; 

Danufsky and Colwell, 2003; Patton and Dalton, 2004).

In contrast, the winter and migration ecology of Longbilled Curlews in the central portion of the United States is 

almost unknown, aside from a study of birds wintering in 

arid, inland grasslands of Nuevo León, México (not shown; 

Olalla-Kerstupp, 2010). There is little information about the 

winter ecology, migration pathways, and breeding ground 

affiliations of curlews wintering in coastal Texas, which is 

considered one of the main wintering areas for Long-billed 

Curlews in North America (Dugger and Dugger, 2002). Even 

basic information is lacking, such as numbers, locations of and 

numbers of roost sites, local movements, habitat use, migration routes, staging areas, and location of the birds’ breeding 

grounds. Such data are needed by migratory bird biologists 

and land managers to make informed management decisions 

and for targeting conservation areas critical to the winter and 

migration needs of Long-billed Curlews. 

Objectives for this 1-year pilot study of wintering 

Long-billed Curlews were to (1) describe locations and 

99°

28°

27°

26°

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, 1:2,000,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14 

98° 97° 96°

0 25 50 75 100 MILES

0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

6

EXPLANATION

Location of Long-billed Curlews 

 roost sites and identification

 number used in table 1 

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge

Laguna Atascosa 

National Wildlife Refuge

Corpus Christi

Figure 1. Locations of Long-billed Curlew roost sites monitored in southern Texas during the winter of 2010–11.
Study Area 3

characteristics of roost sites and their use by Long-billed 

Curlews on the lower Texas coast, concentrating on the 

area between Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and Laguna 

Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge; (2) use public outreach 

to locate curlews and contribute to preliminary assessment of 

foraging habitat use; (3) evaluate techniques to capture Longbilled Curlews on the wintering grounds, and (4) begin to 

describe local movement patterns and migration chronology.

Study Area

The study area was located in two Texas ecoregions. 

Study sites in Refugio, Nueces, and Kleberg counties were in 

the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ecoregion (not shown), 

which extends from Orange County to the Mexico border. 

Inland study sites in Willacy and Hidalgo counties were in the 

South Texas Plains ecoregion (not shown; Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department, 2005; modified from Gould and others, 

1960) (fig. 1). These semiarid study site supports subtropical 

representatives of native grasses such as Schizachyrium, 

Chloris, Eragrostis, and Paspalum spp.; however, many 

grasslands are now dominated by exotic grasses such as 

buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris), Johnsongrass (Sorghum 

halepense), Kleberg bluestem (Dichanthium annulatum), and 

kleingrass (Panicum coloratum). Typical woody vegetation 

of the region includes honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), 

live oak (Quercus virginiana), and Texas prickly pear 

(Opuntia engelmannii). 

Long-billed Curlew research was conducted in a variety 

of habitats in southern Texas, including barrier island beach, 

urban and suburban mowed grassland, farmland, salt marsh, 

and inland saline lakes (figs. 2–6). Beach habitat (fore beach/

surf and back beach with associated coppice dunes) on Padre 

Island was characterized by washed up mats of brown algae 

(Sargassum), beach debris, and sparse vegetation, including 

morning glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae and Ipomoea imperati) 

and coastal panicgrass (Panicum amarulum). Coastal marshes 

affected by tides were characterized by plants such as 

saltwort (Batis maritima), glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii), 

bushy seaoxeye (Borrichia frutescens), and black mangrove 

(Avicennia germinans), a recent invader. Long-billed 

Curlews also occurred in open residential neighborhoods, 

undeveloped commercial property lots, city parks, golf 

courses, and other mowed areas, many of which received 

regular human use. These urban and suburban areas were 

often small (less than 1 hectare, ha) areas with few or no 

trees, and ranged from sparsely vegetated mixes of forbs and 

grasses to monotypic stands of exotic grasses. Grass height 

Figure 2. Padre Island National Seashore beach. rarely exceeded 15 centimeters (cm). Farmland consisted of 

Figure 3. Urban grassland.

Figure 4. Farmland.
4 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

idle, plowed fields (some containing stubble, but most were 

unvegetated), and narrow strips of mowed grass. Inland salt 

lakes were large (200–300 ha), naturally occurring, shallow, 

hypersaline lakes surrounded by grassland and Tamaulipan 

thornscrub vegetation, a subtropical, semiarid vegetation type 

(Crosswhite, 1980). These saline lakes are free of any aquatic 

vegetation and at times host large numbers of Brine Shrimp 

(Artemia spp.), attractive to many waterbirds.

Grantham (2011) reported that the cool season 

(November–February) for Corpus Christi, Texas in 2010–11 

was colder and drier than average. These conditions may 

have altered foraging and roosting habitats for Long-billed 

Curlews in southern Texas. Southern Texas had 2.24 cm less 

rainfall during the cool season compared to historical averages 

(1950–2011). Rainfall in November and December 2010 was 

1.85 cm and 2.46 cm below average, respectively, and average 

rainfall in February 2011 was 4.04 cm below historical rainfall 

measurements. January 2011, however, was an exceptionally 

wet month with 10.19 cm of rainfall, 6.12 cm more than the 

historical average (Grantham, 2011). In addition to the high 

rainfall, January 2011 experienced strong storms, including 

the first tornado recorded in Nueces County for the month of 

January (Buchanan, 2011). 

Corpus Christi also experienced a colder cool season than 

historical averages. Twelve freezes occurred during the 2010–

11 cool season in Corpus Christi, compared to the historical 

average of 5.4 freezes. In addition, temperatures less than or 

equal to 4°C were recorded 35 times throughout the season, 

compared to the historical average of 23.5 times throughout 

the season. One cold stretch occurred February 3–5, 2011, 

yielding record lows, with the coldest 3-day period since 1989 

(Gittinger and Buchanan, 2011). 

Methods

Roost Site Monitoring 

Traditional winter roost sites were located by soliciting 

information from biologists and ornithologists in the region 

who have knowledge of national wildlife refuges, private 

ranches, and conservation preserves within the study area. 

Traditional roost sites were visited periodically (approximately 

once/month) at dusk to verify use and assess abundance of 

curlews at each site. Volunteers visited smaller historical roost 

sites and provided information on numbers of curlews roosting 

there. New roost sites were sought by following flight lines of 

curlew flocks as they flew toward nocturnal roosts in the early 

evening. 

Public Outreach 

More than 91percent of Texas is in private ownership 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000) and not readily 

accessible for scientific studies. Because of this, an outreach 

program enlisted help from the public to locate Long-billed 

Curlews and their roost sites. The outreach program provided 

information to the public through newspaper articles in the 

Corpus Christi Caller-Times (Sikes, 2011), a flier, postings on 

TexBirds [a listserve dedicated to bird reports in Texas (http://

moonmountaingroup.com/texbirds/)], and a local birding club 

newsletter (Coastal Bend Audubon Society, 2010). An email 

account for citizens to communicate with the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) project personnel was provided through the 

outreach outlets. An interview with a Corpus Christi television 

station (KIII-TV, an ABC affiliate) for a Saturday morning 

birding show also was used to request assistance from the 

community and to provide information about Long-billed 

Curlew conservation. 

Information provided on Long-billed Curlew sightings 

was recorded and kept in a reference file. When possible, the 

Figure 5. Coastal salt marsh.

Figure 6. East Lake, a naturally occurring saline 

lake, in Willacy County, Texas.
Methods 5

following information was collected from the person reporting 

a sighting: (1) approximate number of Long-billed Curlews; 

(2) exact location; (3) date and time of day; (4) habitat type; 

(5) general behavior of birds; and (6) name and phone number 

of person making the report (optional). Most new locations 

were visited to confirm curlew sightings, record habitat 

information, and to evaluate the locations as potential trapping 

sites. 

Capture Techniques 

The objective of this research component was to evaluate 

effectiveness of different techniques for capturing Long-billed 

Curlews on their winter grounds with minimal likelihood of 

injury. Multiple capture techniques were used to determine 

their effectiveness, including (1) modified noose carpets, 

(2) remote-controlled bow nets, (3) hand-thrown cast net, 

(4) Coda Netgun, (5) Super Talon netgun, and (6) Hawkseye 

whoosh net. Use of curlew decoys and bait (earthworms and 

giant mealworms) also were evaluated for their ability to 

increase capture efficiency. Trapping was not attempted at 

nocturnal roost sites to avoid disturbance to large numbers of 

communally roosting curlews, and to minimize risk of injury 

to densely clustered birds. 

Noose Ropes

Mehl and others (2003) successfully used leg-hold noosemats to capture wintering shorebirds, and Olalla-Kerstupp 

(2010) captured wintering Long-billed Curlews in Mexico 

with similar noose carpets. In this study, “noose ropes” were 

modified noose carpets constructed by attaching monofilament 

[5.4–kilogram (kg) test, low visibility green] nooses with a 

circumference of 8–18 cm along camouflage-colored nylon 

ropes 2–3.5 meter (m) long (fig. 7). The nooses were spaced 

about 4 cm apart along the ropes. Lead fishing weights 

[454 grams (g)] were attached at each end of the rope. Noose 

ropes were placed in fields on the projected path of foraging curlews and birds were then herded (Hicklin and others, 

1989) toward the location of the noose ropes to increase the 

chance of a bird walking over the nooses. A successful capture 

required that a bird’s toe or foot catch a noose and then close 

tightly around the bird’s toe or foot as the bird moved forward. 

The weights at the end of the rope prevented the bird from flying away until the bird could be secured safely in hand.

Early in the field season, the noose rope design was 

improved by gluing 5-cm sections of clear plastic drinking 

straws at the base stem of the nooses to keep the nooses standing erect, thereby increasing the likelihood of a curlew becoming ensnared in the noose. The straws were painted a sandy 

color to camouflage their appearance. To decrease the visibility of the noose ropes, grass clippings or sand were scattered 

over and alongside the rope. Also, with experience gained with 

time, noose ropes were used only on cloudy or overcast days 

to reduce the sun’s reflection from the monofilament.

Bow Net

The bow net (Northwoods Limited, Rainier, Washington) 

is a 152-cm diameter nylon net mounted on a circular, folding 

aluminum frame. The bow net was staked to the ground in 

an open position (forming a half circle) and sprung closed by 

a battery-operated remote trigger (fig. 8). In order to capture 

a bird with the bow net, the bird must walk into the target 

area of the opened bow net. A dummy bow net (permanently 

secured in the open position) was placed for 2 days at each 

Figure 7. Noose rope. Figure 8. Bow net.
6 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

foraging site for the curlews to become habituated to its 

presence. Earthworms or giant mealworms were placed in the 

target area of the dummy bow net when Long-billed Curlews 

were foraging nearby, to lure the birds into to the bow net. 

When curlews began to associate the bow net with plentiful 

prey, the dummy bow net was replaced with a baited, remotecontrolled bow net for capture. 

Cast Net

The cast net was a hand-held circular net (2.4-m 

diameter) with numerous small weights attached to the 

perimeter (fig. 9). Cast nets are used by fishermen to catch 

small baitfish and are available commercially at most sporting 

goods stores. The net is flung over the bait, and a long cord 

attached to the wrist allows the fisherman to close and retrieve 

the net along with its contents. Cast nets were evaluated 

because of the ability to get close (within 3 m) to foraging 

curlews in urban environments. Long-billed Curlews were 

approached by a single person carrying the cast net, who 

advanced slowly and indirectly toward a foraging or resting 

Long-billed Curlew. When the curlew was within reach (about 

4 m away), the net was cast quickly toward the bird. 

Coda Netgun

The Coda Netgun (Coda Enterprises, Inc., Mesa, 

Arizona) has been used successfully to capture shorebirds 

(Mittelhauser and others, 2006), wading birds (Herring 

and others, 2008), and other types of birds, including 

waterfowl (Mechlin and Shaiffer, 1980). The netgun uses 

blank rifle cartridges (light load, .308 caliber) to propel a 

square 4 m × 4 m nylon net (tensile strength 18–36 kg; mesh 

size 7 cm × 7 cm) and four stainless steel weights (227 g each, 

one at each corner) over the bird(s) (fig. 10). 

The netgun technique can be successful, yet there is a 

chance of injury or mortality to birds that are struck by a net 

weight. Mittelhauser and others (2006) reported that of 

216 Purple Sandpipers (Calidris maritima) captured with 

the netgun, seven (3 percent) were killed and six (3 percent) 

were injured. However, in that study, researchers shot the 

net at large flocks of sandpipers in flight, which endangers 

birds located near the trajectory of the net’s weighted corners. 

Padded weights (approximately 185 g each) are available 

as an option for reducing the risk of injury and mortality; 

however, the velocity of the nets and the effective distance for 

capture are reduced. In this study, Long-billed Curlews tended 

to forage widely in small, loose groups, which reduced the 

chance of injury from a netgun. Furthermore, individual birds 

frequently separated from other birds in the flock, and those 

birds were targeted when they were within the optimal range 

of the Netgun. Optimal conditions for firing the Netgun were 

when a bird was 5–15 m away (Herring and others, 2008) and 

within 

0–10 m above the ground. These conditions minimize injury 

from hitting the ground or from net tumbling. The Netgun was 

shot in a variety of ways, including pursuing the target while 

on foot, hiding behind objects, from an elevated platform, 

inside a slow-moving vehicle, and from a sitting position 

in the bed of a slow-moving pickup truck. In stationary 

situations, an assistant would herd the curlews toward the 

shooter’s location to bring the bird within range of the Netgun. 

Super Talon Netgun

The Super Talon Netgun (hereafter referred to as Talon) 

(Advanced Weapons Technology, Inc., La Quinta, California) 

is a hand-held netgun that uses compressed CO2 cartridges 

Figure 9. Cast net.

Figure 10. Coda Netgun.
Methods 7

to launch a circular net. The net was 4.8 m in diameter and 

launched at a speed of about 5 meters per second. The Talon 

was used on foot or from a vehicle, in the same manner as the 

Coda Netgun (fig. 11). 

Whoosh Net

The whoosh net (Hawkseye Nets, Virginia Beach, 

Virginia) is a 7.6 m × 4.8 m net with a mesh size of 6 cm × 

6 cm (fig. 12). The whoosh net was propelled by bungee cords 

that were released under tension by an observer holding a long 

trigger line. The release activated the net, which was quickly 

launched from the ground outward at a 45° angle along two 

2.5-m guide poles, then dropped to cover the ground and 

capture the bird. The whoosh net was placed in fields within 

a curlew’s projected path during foraging. The technique of 

driving, or herding, the curlews toward the target area of the 

whoosh net greatly increased the chances of a bird entering the 

target zone. Leafy tree trimmings were arranged along each 

side of the whoosh net to form a barrier, or drift fence, so that 

curlews would be more likely to enter the target area of the 

whoosh net. This technique worked best with three people: 

two people to gently drive the birds toward the net (and 

prevent them from walking around the net and drift fences) 

and a third person to pull the trigger line when one or more 

birds entered the target area. 

Decoys and Bait

Curlew decoys (Knutson’s Recreational Sales, Inc., 

Brooklyn, Michigan) were used in combination with noose 

ropes, bow nets, and the whoosh net to evaluate their ability 

to attract or provide confidence for Long-billed Curlews 

near a trap. One or more decoys were placed near the trap; 

any reactions to the decoys by Long-billed Curlews were 

noted. Earthworms and giant mealworms also were used 

in combination with noose ropes and bow nets to attract 

curlews to a trap. In the case of bow nets, bait was placed 

in the target area of a dummy bow net to habituate curlews’ 

entrance to the small target area. Once a curlew began using 

the bait in the target area, a working bow net was set up in 

place of the dummy bow net. To avoid attracting other species 

of birds [such as meadowlarks (Sturnella spp.) and Killdeer 

(Charadrius vociferous)] that quickly devoured the bait before 

the curlews detected it, careful and sometimes fortuitous 

timing was required. 

Banding and Marking Birds

Captured Long-billed Curlews were placed immediately 

in a cloth bag modified with a slit just large enough for 

the bill to protrude. This bag allowed the bird to be more 

relaxed, thereby easing its processing for handlers. Birds 

were then moved to the interior of a vehicle to insure against 

an inadvertent escape. Information recorded for each capture 

included date and time, county, trap type, vegetation type, 

weather, GPS location, and capture region. Two types of 

bands, USGS numeric aluminum bands (size 5 or 6) and two 

colored Darvic bands, were applied on the tibiotarsus (above 

the left “knee”) (Gratto-Trevor, 2004). Band combinations 

were color-coded to differentiate between the two study 

regions. Birds to be captured in the northern region (Refugio, 

Nueces, and Kleberg counties) were designated with a 

sequence of orange over green over metal band, and birds 

to be captured in the southern region (Kenedy to Cameron 

Figure 11. Super Talon Netgun.

Figure 12. Whoosh net.
8 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

counties) were designated with a sequence of orange over 

orange over metal band. 

Body Measurements

Long-billed Curlews were weighed to the nearest 5 g 

with a Pesola spring scale (1,000 g x 10 g). Digital calipers 

were used to measure total tarsus length to the nearest 

0.1 millimeter (mm). Straight-edge rulers were used to 

measure flattened wing length, exposed culmen length, culmen 

length (nostril-to-tip), and tail length to the nearest 1 mm. 

Measurement techniques described in the North American 

Bander’s Manual (Gratto-Trevor, 2004) and described in detail 

by Baldwin and others (1931) were applied unless otherwise 

indicated. The wing length was taken from the right wing at 

the bend of the wing to the tip of the longest primary feather, 

while the wing was held flattened on top of a ruler. Exposed 

culmen length was measured from the point where feathers 

of the forehead ended to the tip of the bill. Nostril-to-tip 

culmen length was measured from the posterior end of the 

nostril opening to the tip of the bill (modified from the North 

American Bander’s Manual). Photographs also were taken 

of the bird’s culmen against a grid (graph paper mounted on 

cardboard) to measure the culmen curvature of Long-billed 

Curlews, and for possible use in differentiating between 

banded individuals (fig. 13). Tail length was measured from 

the tip of the pubis to the trailing edge of the longest tail 

feather. Tarsus length was measured from the base of the toes 

to the midpoint of the ankle joint.

After weighing and measuring captured curlews, each 

bird was examined for ectoparasites by searching areas of 

approximately 2 cm2 in the crown, upper leg, underwing, 

and vent regions. Ectoparasites often were concealed on the 

dark feather bases, so careful examination was required. 

Ectoparasites observed within these areas were collected, 

as were any ectoparasites that transferred to the researchers’ 

hands. Collected ectoparasites were stored in 70-percent 

ethanol for later identification. 

To ensure that banded birds were unharmed and did not 

suffer from capture myopathy (an often fatal condition caused 

by over-extension of muscles because of stress from capture 

and improper restraint) (Purchase and Minton, 1982; GrattoTrevor, 2004), Long-billed Curlews were placed in a holding 

box (73 cm × 66 cm × 35 cm) and observed for at least 15 min 

before being released in the vicinity of the capture. A supply 

of Diazepam was available for treatment of muscle myopathy 

(Piersma and others, 1991), but it was unnecessary for any of 

the birds that were captured. When the bird was standing and 

moving about in the box, the door was opened to allow the 

bird to walk out freely and fly away (fig. 14).

Movements and Migration Chronology 

Public and private lands were searched for Long-billed 

Curlews periodically by biologists, ranch managers, and 

birders throughout the community. Information on sightings 

of marked curlews also was solicited in the local media. GPS 

coordinate locations and behaviors of marked birds were 

recorded, as well as habitat type. All sightings were then 

placed in a resighting log for later reference.

Figure 13. Method for measuring the curvature 

of Long-billed Curlew culmens.

Figure 14. Release of Long-billed Curlew from a holding box.
Results and Discussion 9

Results and Discussion

Roost Site Monitoring

Periodic monitoring of several nocturnal roost sites 

traditionally used by Long-billed Curlews indicated that 

these roosts seldom were used by birds during the winter of 

2010–11 (table 1). Two traditional roost sites were visited at 

the saline lakes in Willacy and Hidalgo counties during the 

winter of 2010–11 (November 16, December 8, and January 

25), but minimal curlew use was observed during the visits. 

Two birds were detected at East Lake on the evening of 

December 8, but no other Long-billed Curlews were observed. 

These results contrasted markedly from past tallies available 

from November–March at La Sal del Rey and East Lake. The 

average count of roosting Long-billed Curlews at La Sal del 

Rey during the 2002–03 winter was 1,703 (range= 1,316–

2,014; n= 8 surveys), and the mean 2003–04 winter count was 

571 (range= 170–1,055; n= 10 surveys). Likewise, the 2003–

04 winter roost count on East Lake averaged 938 (range= 

381–1,325; n= 8 surveys) Long-billed Curlews (B. Winton, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Rio Grande Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge, unpub. data). Clearly, the counts 

of Long-billed Curlews dropped precipitously in 2010–11 at 

these two sites that traditionally were used by relatively large 

numbers of curlews.

The sharp decline in curlew numbers was not matched 

by a decline in Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) numbers 

roosting at the salt lakes. Unlike Long-billed Curlews, 

Sandhill Cranes generally continued to roost in relatively large 

numbers at La Sal del Rey (550 in November 2010 and 577 

in December 2010) and East Lake (230 in November, 262 in 

December, and 807 in January) during the winter of 2010–11, 

with the exception of January at La Sal del Rey, when no 

roosting cranes were observed. 

During past winters, another traditional roost site 

that occurred along the upper reaches of Petronila Creek 

in Kleberg County was known to host hundreds of Longbilled Curlews (T. Langschied, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife 

Research Institute, oral commun., 2011). However, during 

the 2010–11 winter, no roosting birds were observed during 

two visits in early evening (December 1 and February 11). 

A third traditional roost site in the area at Aransas National 

Wildlife Refuge, in Aransas County, likewise demonstrated 

no use by Long-billed Curlews during the 2010–11 winter 

(B. Strobel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, oral commun., 

2011). A coastal roost site in Brazoria County near Freeport, 

Texas (north of the study area; not shown) was known to have 

held about 100 roosting Long-billed Curlews during previous 

winters (B. Ortego, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, oral 

commun., 2011) but usually harbored less than 30 birds during 

the 2010–11 winter (D. Haley, Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, oral commun., 2011). This pattern of little to no 

use by curlews of traditional roost sites along the Texas coast 

suggests that either the numbers of curlews along the coast 

were down sharply in the winter of 2010–11 or that they had 

altered their use of nocturnal roost sites.

Several other roost sites were discovered, but even these 

were used by relatively modest numbers of birds (table 1). 

Flights of curlews (125 birds) were observed on the evening 

of January 6, 2011, as they descended toward a roost site 

along Los Olmos Creek, a western tributary of Baffin Bay (not 

shown) that serves as the boundary for Kleberg and Kenedy 

counties. The area was made up of shallow (less than or equal 

to 10 cm) water and mudflats. As many as 150 Long-billed 

Curlews roosted intermittently during January and February 

in a plowed field near Bluntzer in western Nueces County, and 

40–50 birds were observed attempting to roost in shallow (less 

than or equal to 10 cm) water along the western shoreline of 

Oso Bay in Corpus Christi (Nueces County) in early March. 

The Oso Bay birds may have been migrants, as they startled 

easily and flushed for unknown reasons, relocating along the 

far western shoreline of Oso Bay.

An original objective for this part of the project was to 

collect data describing physical characteristics of roost sites. 

This objective proved impractical. Traditional roost sites at 

known locations had minimal usage by Long-billed Curlews 

during the winter of 2010–11, and the few new roost sites 

located had either access issues or only intermittent use by 

curlews. 

Table 1. Locations, habitat types, and use by Long-billed Curlews of roost sites monitored in southern Texas during the winter of 

2010–11.

Identification 

number used in 

figure 1

Area name County

Latitude

(degrees, minutes, seconds)

Longitude

(degrees, minutes, seconds)Habitat type

Approximate number of Long-billed 

Curlews detected

1 Bluntzer Nueces 27°52’21”N 97°46’43”W Plowed field 150

2 Oso Bay Nueces 27°41’52”N 97°18’10”W Estuarine shoreline 50

3 Los Olmos Creek Kleberg 27°16’28”N 97°44’33”W Estuarine mudflat 125

4 Goose Lake Aransas 28°16’00”N 96°56’07”W Brackish wetland 0

5 Petronila Creek Kleberg 27°32’21”N 97°32’27”W Freshwater drainage basin 0

6 East Lake Willacy 26°31’28”N 97°52’12”W Hypersaline lake 0

7 La Sal del Rey Hidalgo 26°31’50”N 98°03’15”W Hypersaline lake 0
10 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

This short study demonstrated that the use of nocturnal 

roost sites by Long-billed Curlews in winter is far more 

dynamic than has been assumed previously. Nonuse of 

traditional roost sites through the winter, intermittent 

occupancy of a roost site in a tilled agricultural field, and 

movement of curlew flocks among alternative roost sites 

within the same evening all point to a pattern of complex 

movements among multiple roost sites by curlews that cannot 

be understood easily. Greater insights into movements and 

roost site use could be gained by following curlews marked 

with satellite transmitters.

Public Outreach

The willingness of the public in this region to participate 

in wildlife research proved to be valuable to the Long-billed 

Curlew project. Outreach efforts resulted in 90 separate reports 

of Long-billed Curlews from the community (table 2). Most 

reports were made by email or telephone, in approximately 

equal proportions. There were 67 people (including four 

anonymous callers who were counted as four different people) 

that contacted the USGS to report curlews. Verification was 

made for 65 percent of the reports; other sites near Premont 

(not shown) and Laguna Madre (between the mainland and 

Padre Island; not shown) could not be verified because sites 

were inaccessible or in areas far from Corpus Christi. Of the 

58 different locations reported with Long-billed Curlews, 31 

(53 percent) were curlew locations previously unknown to 

project personnel. 

Limited research has been conducted on inland habitat 

use by Long-billed Curlews in southern Texas, although 

Olalla-Kerstupp (2010) quantified curlew use of inland 

habitats in northeastern Mexico. Most of Long-billed Curlew 

sightings from the public and colleagues occurred in the 

area within and surrounding Corpus Christi; however, a few 

sightings were reported as far south as the Rio Grande Valley 

(not shown; Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties), as 

far inland as Jim Wells County, and as far north as Calhoun 

County (table 2; fig. 1). Among the observed vegetation 

types used by curlews, the proportion of used habitats was 

skewed strongly toward urban grasslands. Of 58 different 

locations reported, 48 (83 percent) were urban grasslands 

(residential yards or empty mowed lots adjacent to businesses) 

(table 2). This apparent pattern of habitat use is most 

likely biased toward more urban areas where densities of 

potential observers are greater. In comparison, Brush (1995) 

documented that Long-billed Curlews in the Laguna Madre of 

Texas (not shown) used shallow mudflats exclusively, but he 

also noted that curlews moved between the coastal flats and 

unknown inland destinations. The habitats most frequently 

used by foraging curlews in the Chihuahuan Desert (not 

shown) in northeastern Mexico were agricultural lands, fallow 

fields, and prairie dog colonies (Olalla-Kerstupp, 2010).

By far, the most productive method of soliciting 

information from the public was the use of the major local 

newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Two articles 

produced numerous phone calls from the community. The 

first article, titled “Look – don’t touch – and help count the 

curlews” appeared January 6, 2011, in the Outdoors section 

of the newspaper (Sikes, 2011). The second article, appearing 

February 7, 2011, was the weekly column titled “Bird 

watch” in which the columnist requested her readers to send 

information on Long-billed Curlews to the USGS. 

The use of TexBirds, a popular online list serve for 

birding enthusiasts in Texas, was successful in collecting 

reports by email for Long-billed Curlews inside and outside 

of the Corpus Christi area. It is unknown how many reports 

were direct results from the bulletin board flier, birding club 

newsletter, or the television interview. 

The public outreach objective of this project was 

successful beyond expectations. However, the generous 

response by the public was not unprecedented. A similar 

outreach program in the Corpus Christi area in 2001 resulted 

in an increase of Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) 

sightings by 68 percent from the previous winter (Woodin and 

others, 2007). Corpus Christi has held the title of the “Birdiest 

City in America” since 2003 (Coastal Bend Audubon Society, 

2010), and southern Texas attracts many nature enthusiasts, 

especially during the winter, when its mild climate attracts 

visitors from the northern U.S. and Canada. Using this large 

group of “birders” in southern Texas yielded a greater return 

on a relatively small investment of effort. 

Capture and Banding

Capture Techniques

Previous efforts to capture Long-billed Curlews on 

their winter grounds were limited to a single study (OlallaKerstupp, 2010). Seven Long-billed Curlews were captured 

during the winter of 2010–11 (table 3). Four of the six capture 

techniques evaluated were successful in capturing at least one 

curlew each: Coda Netgun (4), noose ropes (1), bow net (1), 

and whoosh net (1). Of the four successful capture techniques, 

Table 2. Numbers of locations and reports of Long-billed 

Curlew sightings by habitat type in response to public

outreach methods.

Habitat type

Number of 

locations 

reported

Number of 

reports

Urban or suburban grasslands 48 74

Beach 1 4

Coastal marsh 2 3

Agricultural 3 5

Estuary open water 3 3

Estuary tidal mudflats 1 1

Total 58 90
Results and Discussion 11

the Coda Netgun had the highest rate of capture per unit of 

effort (0.31; 4 curlew captures per 13 days of trapping effort). 

The bow net and whoosh net had capture rates of 0.17 

(1 capture per 6 days of effort) and 0.14 (1 capture per 7 days 

of effort), respectively. Of the four successful techniques, the 

noose ropes were the least efficient with a capture rate of 0.07 

(1 capture per 15 days of effort), although noose ropes in this 

study were undergoing continual modification. No curlews 

were captured with a cast net (1 day of effort) or the Talon 

(3 days of effort).

There were four curlews captured with the Coda Netgun, 

all from a vehicle serving as a blind. In one case, the vehicle 

was stationary, and the curlew walked within range of the 

Netgun without herding. For the other three captures, the 

vehicle was driven slowly alongside the curlews within range 

of the Netgun (as much as ~30 m). The driver stopped the 

vehicle after the Netgun was fired. With the approach of a 

vehicle, the curlews would move slowly away from the road, 

but in some cases, one or more remained within range of 

the Netgun. Although many attempts were made at herding 

curlews toward a shooter in a parked vehicle, the curlews 

usually avoided the vehicle, and such efforts were never 

successful in capturing a bird. 

An important aspect to successfully capturing a bird 

with the Coda Netgun is the loading of the net into the basket 

to ensure that the net opens fully each time it is fired. After 

trying many different methods of folding, only one method 

allowed the net to open fully every time. This method required 

three people. Two people held the net fully outstretched 

horizontally, with one weight in each hand, while a third 

person held the basket of the Netgun under the outstretched 

net and began feeding the net into the basket, starting with the 

center of the net, then gathering the sides and feeding evenly 

into the basket. The two net holders would walk slowly toward 

the basket as the net went in, until only the four corners and 

weights were outside the basket. The weights were then 

inserted into the proper barrels, taking care not to twist or 

cross the cords attached to the weights.

Use of noose ropes resulted in one capture of a Longbilled Curlew. A second curlew was ensnared briefly by a 

noose rope, but the monofilament detached from the rope, 

freeing the bird from the rope and weights. This bird was 

observed a few minutes later unharmed and foraging normally 

with the flock with the monofilament noose still attached to its 

leg.

Although curlews can be captured with noose ropes 

or mats, as demonstrated by Olalla-Kerstupp (2010) and 

this study, we did not achieve the exceptional success with 

noose mats that Mehl and others (2003) reported for capture 

of small-bodied shorebirds [for example, Snowy Plovers 

(Charadrius alexandrinus)]. Despite attempts to camouflage 

and conceal the rope and monofilament, most curlews walked 

around or flew over the ropes when encountering the ropes in 

their path. When a curlew did walk over a noose rope, its toes 

rarely caught a noose, or the noose did not close quickly or 

efficiently enough to capture the bird. However, effectiveness 

was increased by (1) using straws to hold monofilament 

nooses more erect, (2) limiting their deployment to completely 

overcast days, and (3) limiting deployment to fields with 

sufficient thatch and grass to conceal noose rope outlines. 

Olalla-Kerstupp (2010) captured five wintering Long-billed 

Curlews using noose mats in Mexico. Olalla-Kerstupp’s 

success rate may have been higher for several reasons. Limited 

water sources in northeastern Mexico likely resulted in greater 

concentrations of curlews, as well as more concentrated 

capture efforts, than was possible in southern Texas. If noose 

ropes or carpets are considered for future capture efforts, it 

is important to understand that they were time-consuming to 

construct, difficult to transport, susceptible to malfunctions, 

and their efficacy will vary with substrate conditions. 

Bow nets traditionally are used with live vertebrate bait 

for capturing raptors (Bryan, 1988; Proudfoot and Jacobs, 

2001; Barclay, 2008). There was one successful curlew 

capture by baiting the bow net with giant mealworms. This 

capture required approximately 3 weeks of preparation before 

the capture to induce the curlews to come to the trap. Two 

challenges had to be overcome to capture a curlew with the 

bow net. The first challenge was to time placement of bait with 

the movements of the foraging curlews to ensure the curlews 

would discover the bait before other bird species discovered 

the bait. Herding curlews in the direction of the bow net was 

sometimes helpful in this effort. The second challenge was 

Table 3. Dates, locations, and techniques used in capture of Long-billed Curlews in 

southern Texas, 2010–11.

Date County

Latitude

(degrees, minutes, 

seconds)

Longitude

(degrees, minutes, 

seconds)

Trap type

December 30, 2010 Nueces 27°40'03"N 97°21'48"W Noose rope.

January 3, 2011 Nueces 27°52'49"N 97°46'38"W Baited bow net.

January 29, 2011 Nueces 27°52'42"N 97°46'35"W Coda Netgun.

February 18, 2011 Refugio 28°23'18"N 96°50'19"W Coda Netgun.

February 23, 2011 Kleberg 27°27'01"N 97°17'10"W Coda Netgun.

February 23, 2011 Kleberg 27°27'17"N 97°17'03"W Coda Netgun.

March 2, 2011 Nueces 27°40'06"N 97°21'50"W Whoosh net.
12 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

to repeat this enough times (at least twice) for the birds to 

associate food with the bow net. 

About an hour before capturing the Long-billed Curlew 

with the bow net, one curlew was observed defending the 

bow net from conspecifics. Killdeer also were observed 

defending bait at the bow nets against conspecifics. Once 

the armed bow net was put in place, a curlew was captured 

quickly (within 10–15 minutes). However, later attempts to 

repeat the capture technique failed, probably because a period 

of 2 weeks elapsed before attempting to retrain the birds to 

come to the bow net again. A few more near captures of other 

Long-billed Curlews did occur, but the birds were too near 

the edge of the capture area and at risk of injury from the 

descending frame upon the release of the bow net. If a trapper 

is able to spend several days consecutively at a single location, 

this technique can work, but it requires a large investment 

of time and a substantial supply of bait (along with proper 

storing and feeding of the bait). Giant mealworms were more 

advantageous than earthworms because of their lower cost and 

convenient feeding and storage requirements. It is unknown if 

Long-billed Curlews had a preference between the two types 

of bait. 

Shorebirds and other bird species have been successfully 

caught using whoosh nets (for example, Kenward and others, 

2004; Cresswell and others, 2007). One curlew was captured 

using the whoosh net. Several attempts to capture curlews 

with this technique failed for one of two reasons: the curlews 

feeding in the area relocated to another area before the whoosh 

net assembly was completed (set-up time is about 30 minutes), 

or the curlews could not be herded into the target area of the 

net. The successful capture of a curlew using the whoosh net 

occurred after the net had been set up in a field regularly used 

by curlews. Drift fence material (made of tree clippings) also 

was put in place ahead of time. When the curlews arrived 

to forage, only 5–10 minutes of preparation were needed. 

Leaving the net and poles in place for several days at a time 

requires landowner permission and puts the equipment at risk 

of theft or vandalism; however, the curlews will habituate to 

the presence of the net, and the trappers can respond quickly 

to the arrival of Long-billed Curlews. 

The Talon was tested multiple times in urban 

environments and on the beach. It was fired from a slowmoving vehicle, approaching the curlew on foot, and once 

from a blind (from behind a mound of earth). This netgun was 

better suited to urban work because it was smaller and quieter 

than the Coda Netgun, however, it failed to capture a curlew. 

In general, the Talon was determined to be under-powered, 

and it performed poorly in windy conditions (such as on the 

beach). However, with modifications such as adding heavier 

weights and increasing propulsion, this technique might be 

effective for capturing Long-billed Curlews. Even without 

these modifications, the Talon may still be successful at close 

range (approximately 3–5 m or less), in little or no wind, 

and with wintering Long-billed Curlews that have become 

habituated to humans and vehicles in urban and suburban 

environments. No publications were identified that reported 

use of this tool for wildlife, although the company notes its 

use for a variety of species.

Many flocks of wintering Long-billed Curlews were 

habituated to human presence and tolerated close approaches 

by humans. This was especially true in city parks or empty 

neighborhood lots where walkers, joggers, or home gardeners 

shared the space with wintering Long-billed Curlews. This 

prompted the testing of a cast net as a capture technique. Cast 

nets have been used successfully in capturing scavenging sea 

birds over chum (Gibson and Sefton, 1959; Bugoni and others, 

2008). However, the speed of the net’s approach in the air was 

much too slow to catch a Long-billed Curlew. Despite several 

close approaches and accurate throws, the curlew always 

flew away before the cast net could reach it. Even birds that 

appeared to be resting were wary enough to escape this trap 

easily. 

Although hunters of the 19th and early 20th centuries 

considered Long-billed Curlews to be wary, curlews were 

easily drawn into shooting range with decoys (Wickersham, 

1902; Forbush, 1916; Oring, 2006). Decoys were tested in 

combination with noose ropes, bow nets, and the whoosh net. 

Results varied, but in general, the birds initially were attracted 

to the decoys and would land 10–15 m from them. However, 

after spending a few seconds in the company of a decoy, the 

curlews became alarmed and left. Since the objective of the 

decoys in the capture evaluation was not only to attract the 

curlews to a site, but also to give them confidence around the 

traps, the decoys proved to be of little use.

The potential for injury to birds exists with all capture 

endeavors. Injury can result from net weights striking the bird, 

feather entanglement in nets, and excessive stress to the bird 

during field processing. Of the seven Long-billed Curlews 

captured during this project, using four different capture 

techniques, none were injured. No individual appeared to 

suffer from capture myopathy, and all were released by way 

of a “soft” release from the holding box. After their release, 

six of the seven were sighted foraging normally with other 

curlews. The banded curlew that was not resighted was the 

last captured of the season, and close to the time curlews were 

departing the region. In addition, no curlews were injured 

during any of the failed capture attempts. 

Some additional capture methods that previously have 

been used to capture shore birds were considered but not used 

in this study; these included mist nets, walk-in traps, drop 

nets, and rocket nets. Previous studies had proven mist nets 

were not successful in capturing curlews and other shorebirds 

during the day because the birds see the nets and successfully 

avoid them (Gabbard and others, 2001; K.C. Jensen, South 

Dakota State University, oral commun., 2010). Mist nets have 

proven more successful at night with roosting shorebirds 

(Gabbard and others, 2001; Gratto-Trevor, 2004), but capturing Long-billed Curlews at night was precluded in order to 

avoid disturbance and minimize the potential for injury to 

large numbers of curlews. Walk-in traps and drop nets were 

not used because of the reluctance of Long-billed Curlews 

to walk inside or under structures (M. Colwell, Humboldt 
Results and Discussion 13

State University, oral commun., 2010; authors’ observations). 

Finally, although rocket nets were available, aggregations 

of sufficient numbers of curlews were not present, except in 

urban areas where firing rocket nets was impractical.

Banding and Marking Birds

Seven Long-billed Curlews were captured in the 

northern counties and fitted with size 5 bands (fig. 15). The 

northernmost capture was in Refugio County, and the two 

southernmost captures were in Kleberg County. All others 

were caught in Nueces County. No curlews were captured in 

Kenedy or Cameron counties to the south.

Body Measurements

Available data on body mass of Long-billed Curlews 

are generally dated and restricted mostly to breeding birds or 

young [see appendix in Dugger and Dugger (2002)]. The 

mean body mass for Long-billed Curlews (table 4) captured 

was 518 g (n = 7). This was notably smaller than mean masses 

for breeding curlews reported by Johnsgard (1981), with 

averages of 640 g (range = 445–792 g) for males and 757 g 

(range = 630–951 g) for females. Although average mass was 

less than other studies (see Dugger and Dugger 2002), 

structural size of the curlews seemed to be similar. Wing 

measurements collected for this study averaged 273 mm 

(range= 262–279 mm), which was similar to Grinnell’s (1921) 

collections of 270 mm (range= 248–291 mm), although it 

is important to note that measurement techniques could be 

slightly different. Uncertainties in ability to accurately age and 

sex the captured curlews in this study prevented assignment to 

age or sex categories.

Ectoparasites, such as feather lice (Columbicola spp.), 

were found on three of the seven individuals. The largest 

number of parasites collected from an individual was eight, 

which were collected from the smallest and last-captured 

individual. Lice have been reported previously on Long-billed 

Curlews in winter (Wilson, 1937; Butler and Pfaffenberger, 

1981).

Movements and Migration Chronology

Resightings of banded Long-billed Curlews were 

obtained 22 times. Although many of the resightings could not 

be linked to specific individuals, generalizations of movements 

can be made. All resightings were in the same area of a 

capture, often within a flock displaying “normal” behavior. 

These resightings started the same day of initial capture, were 

within 2 km of capture site, and occurred 1 hour to 53 days 

after release of a marked bird in that area. This suggests that 

capturing and banding of individuals within a flock was not 

necessarily enough of a disturbance to make them leave the 

area. 

In one instance, a banded Long-billed Curlew, which 

was the only one banded at that time, was sighted three times 

within a week with a small flock at the same location where it 

had been banded. Then, after the arrival of a strong cold front, 

no banded curlews were recorded in those foraging locations 

for the remainder of the wintering season, although unmarked 

curlews were observed foraging in the general area.

The last sighting of a banded curlew was reported on 

March 25, 2011, on Padre Island National Seashore beach. 

The migration chronology is similar to that of curlews in 

Figure 15. Band types and colors placed on Long-billed Curlews.

Table 4. Measures of body mass and structural size of Long-billed Curlews captured and banded in southern Texas, 2010–11.

Band number Date Body mass

(in grams)

Tail length

(in millimeters)

Culmen

(exposed, in 

millimeters)

Culmen

(nostril-tip, in 

millimeters)

Tarsus length

 (in millimeters)

Wing length

(flat, in millimeters)

1095-49076 December 30, 2010 495 115 124 108 78.0 262

1095-49072 January 3, 2011 510 125 125 108 75.8 284

1095-49075 January 29, 2011 525 97 120 104 79.8 265

1095-49080 February 18, 2011 470 102 120 102 86.7 279

1095-49073 February 23, 2011 670 101 170 138 94.1 276

1095-49074 February 23, 2011 515 114 122 105 84.4 278

1095-49078 March 2, 2011 440 109 110 92 77.0 264

Mean 518 109 127 108 82.3 273
14 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

northeastern Mexico, where Olalla-Kerstupp (2010) reported 

that two birds with transmitters departed the winter range on 

March 19 and March 24, 2010.

All resightings of banded curlews were reported in the 

same vegetation types as original capture sites. This includes 

the two individuals that were captured in the wrack line of the 

beach, as well as the five captured in groomed lots in urban 

settings. 

Conclusions and Recommendations for 

Future Studies

This 1-year field study revealed that roost site locations 

and their use by Long-billed Curlews can be more fluid 

temporally than had been understood previously. Use of winter 

roost sites by Long-billed Curlews and bird movements among 

roost sites and foraging areas needs further investigation. 

Ideally, monitoring curlews for the full winter and subsequent 

spring migration phases would provide insight to regional 

habitat needs; information which would ultimately contribute 

to management decisions. Because of the large landscape 

scale presented by the coastal plains of Texas, Long-billed 

Curlews could potentially move along the Texas coast and into 

northeastern Mexico, where large numbers also are known to 

exist. Further study of Long-billed Curlew winter movements, 

roost site use, and migration chronology may be accomplished 

most effectively by data acquisition from curlews equipped 

with satellite transmitters.

The public outreach exercise yielded gratifying public 

response. Many residents of coastal Texas were genuinely 

eager to participate in the monitoring and conservation of 

curlews. Most curlew observations reported by the public were 

birds in urban areas. This pattern remained consistent even for 

small towns in rural areas, where citizens reported Long-billed 

Curlews in undeveloped residential lots, schoolyards, and golf 

courses. Clearly, a substantial portion of the winter population 

of Long-billed Curlews in coastal Texas is occupying urban 

areas. The use of urban habitats, altered habitats in rural areas 

(farm fields and hay pastures), and largely unaltered coastal 

marshes merits further investigation. 

Long-billed Curlews were captured without injury with a 

variety of techniques. The Coda Netgun was most efficient in 

capturing birds in urban settings and on the beach, although it 

had some limitations. Application of other capture techniques 

was made relatively inefficient by the neophobic responses of 

Long-billed Curlews to the introduction of novel items to their 

foraging areas. This neophobic reaction to noose ropes, nets, 

and traps of all types meant that these capture techniques had 

to be accompanied by patience and a trial-and-error approach. 

The ability to choose from a mix of techniques to match 

circumstances presented by curlews foraging in a variety of 

habitats is paramount for maximizing capture success. Despite 

the apparent weakness of some techniques in this study, those 

techniques may warrant further investigation and refinement 

for application in particular circumstances.

The body masses of the seven curlews captured were 

lower than those reported in previous studies (Dugger and 

Dugger, 2002). In fact, they were near the minimum body 

mass reported in the literature. Because the variation in body 

mass in winter is linked to fat content of the individual birds 

(for example, Rappole, 1995; Moon and Haukos, 2009), 

curlews measured in this study likely were extremely lean. 

Wintering shorebirds are often lighter than breeding and 

migratory birds and, in the absence of age and sex information 

on the individuals, further speculation about relative mass is 

precluded. Further research is warranted to obtain adequate 

sample sizes to evaluate variation in body mass among years 

and across wintering areas (for example, coastal Texas, 

northern Mexico, and western populations) and to compare 

between ages and sexes.

Adequate information about movements and migration 

chronology of wintering Long-billed Curlews is not available, 

and thus, are not well understood (Fellows and Jones, 2009; 

Dugger and Dugger, 2002). Two birds from Mexico that 

were equipped with satellite transmitters moved northward 

on spring migration through western Texas and eastern New 

Mexico (Olalla-Kerstupp, 2010), with one of these birds 

migrating as far north as Canada. In some cases, curlews do 

not depart winter grounds. Oberholser (1974) and Rappole 

and Blacklock (1994) noted that Long-billed Curlews 

regularly spend the summer along the Texas coast, and one 

of four wintering curlews with attached transmitters did not 

depart Mexico (Olalla-Kerstupp, 2010). Long-billed Curlews 

that remain in coastal Texas and northeastern Mexico in 

the summer rarely breed in the region (Oberholser, 1974), 

although intensive searching for young has been conducted 

(G. Perrigo, Texas A&M – Kingsville, oral commun., 2011).

Reduced numbers of curlews were evident during the 

study, possibly because of dry conditions, which also may 

have altered bird use of roost sites. Traditional roost sites 

essentially were unused by curlews for the winter, but small 

numbers of curlews did intermittently use other roosts. In 

addition, at least some curlews regularly used mowed lots, 

golf courses, and public parks within urban and suburban 

zones, a phenomenon widely recognized locally but mentioned 

rarely in published literature (Fellows and Jones, 2009). 

Curlews foraged in a variety of habitats, including grassy 

urban environments, agriculture areas, beaches along the Gulf 

of Mexico, and salt marshes affected by tides. It is unknown 

how use of these divergent habitat types is related to the 

regular occurrence of nonbreeding summer residents on the 

winter range; nor is it known where spring migrants settle 

for breeding. This seemingly confusing array of facts could 

become especially important in light of future regional climate 

projections of increased temperature and increased moisture 

deficiencies (Norwine and Kuruvilla, 2007) in southern Texas. 

Wetland and grassland habitats are important for curlews for 

secure roosting and foraging habitats (Dugger and Dugger, 

2002; Mathis and others 2006; this study), and their breeding 
References Cited 15

distribution has been documented to be related to temperature 

and precipitation (Price, 1995). Hence, potential changes in 

climate and habitat quality may affect winter survival and 

body condition of Long-billed Curlews. This pilot study 

exposed some interesting questions that require further 

investigation, so migratory bird and land managers have 

more information for decisions about the conservation of this 

species. 

References Cited

Baldwin, S.P., Oberholser, H.C., and Worley, L.G., 1931, Measurements of birds: Scientific Publications of the Cleveland 

Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, v. 2, 165 p. 

Barclay, J.H., 2008, A technique for nighttime trapping of Burrowing Owls with a bow net: Journal of Raptor Research, 

v. 42, p. 142–148.

Brush, T., 1995, Habitat use by wintering shorebirds along the 

lower Laguna Madre of South Texas: Texas Journal of Science, v. 47, p. 179–190.

Bryan, J.R., 1988, Radio controlled bow-net for American 

Kestrels: North American Bird Bander, v. 13, p. 30–32.

Buchanan, M., 2011, Historic January tornado in south 

Texas—January 9th, 2011 squall line: Corpus Christi, Tex., 

South Texas Weather Journal, Spring 2011, p. 8–9.

Bugoni, L., Neves, T.S., Peppes, F.V., and Furness R.W., 2008, 

An effective method for trapping scavenging seabirds at 

sea: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 79, p. 308–313.

Butler, W.F., and Pfaffenberger, G.S., 1981, Notes on parasites 

of the Long-billed Curlew, (Numenius americanus), from 

eastern New Mexico: Journal of Wildlife Diseases, v. 17, 

p. 537–538. 

Clarke, J. 2006, Reproductive ecology of long-billed curlews 

breeding in grazed landscapes of western South Dakota: 

Brookings, S. Dak., South Dakota State University, M.S. 

thesis, 94 p.

Coastal Bend Audubon Society, 2010, South Texas birding 

on TV: The Brown Pelican, The Newsletter of the Coastal 

Band Audubon Society, September/October 2010, 8 p.

Cresswell, W., Lind, J., Quinn, J.L., Minderman, J., and 

Whitfield, D.P., 2007, Ringing or colour-banding does not 

increase predation mortality in redshanks Tringa tetanus, 

Journal of Avian Biology, v. 38, p. 309–316.

Crosswhite, F.S., 1980, Dry country plants of the south Texas 

plains: Desert Plants, v. 2, p. 141–179.

Danufsky, T., and Colwell, M.A., 2003, Winter shorebird 

communities and tidal flat characteristics at Humboldt Bay, 

California: Condor, v. 105, p. 114–129.

Dugger, B.D., and Dugger, K.M., 2002, Long-billed Curlew 

(Numenius americanus) in Poole, A., ed., The Birds of 

North America, no. 628: Ithaca, N.Y., The Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, 27 p. 

Fellows, S.D., and Jones, S.L., 2009, Status assessment 

and conservation action plan for the Long-Billed Curlew 

(Numenius americanus): U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication, 

FWS/BTP–06012–2009, Washington, D.C., 102 p.

Forbush, E.H., 1916, A history of the game-birds, wild-fowl, 

and shore birds of Massachusetts and adjacent states 

(2d ed): Boston, Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, 

636 p.

Gabbard, C., Sprandel, G., and Cobb, D., 2001, Home range 

analyses of shorebirds wintering along the Gulf of Mexico, 

Florida, USA: Wader Study Group Bulletin, v. 96, p. 79–85.

Gibson, J.D., and Sefton, A.R., 1959, First report of the New 

South Wales Albatross Study Group: Emu, v. 59, p. 73–82.

Gittinger, M., and Buchanan, M., 2011, Historic ice storm— 

NWS Corpus Christi, Tex.: South Texas Weather Journal, 

Spring 2011, p. 1–2.

Gould, F.W., Hoffman, G.O., and Rechenthin, C.A., 1960, 

Vegetational areas of Texas: College Station, Tex., Texas 

A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Leaflet No. 492.

Grantham, M., 2011, A review of the 2010–2011 cool season—Corpus Christi, Tex.: South Texas Weather Journal, 

Spring 2011, p. 4.

Gratto-Trevor, C.L., 2004, The North American Banders 

Manual for banding shorebirds (Charadriiformes, suborder 

Charadrii): Point Reyes Station, Calif., The North American 

Banding Council, 45 p.

Grinnell, J., 1921, Concerning the status of the supposed two 

races of the Long-billed Curlew: Condor, v. 23, p. 21–27.

Herring, G., Gawlik, D.E., and Beerens, J.M., 2008, Evaluating two new methods for capturing large wetland birds: 

Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 79, p. 102–110.

Hicklin, P.W., Hounsell, R.G., and Finney, G.H., 1989, Fundy 

pull trap—a new method of capturing shorebirds: Journal of 

Field Ornithology, v. 60, p. 94–101.

Johnsgard, P.A., 1981, Plovers, sandpipers, and snipes of the 

world: Lincoln, Neb., University of Nebraska Press, 493 p.
16 Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-billed Curlews in Coastal Texas

Jones, S.L., Nations, C.S., Fellows, S.D., and McDonald, L.L., 

2008, Breeding abundance and distribution of Long-billed 

Curlews (Numenius americanus) in North America: Waterbirds, v. 31, p. 1–14. 

Kenward, B., Rutz, C., Weir, A.A.S., Chappell, J., and Kacelnik, A., 2004, Morphology and sexual dimorphism of the 

New Caledonian Crow Corvus moneduloides, with notes on 

its behaviour and ecology: Ibis, v. 146, p. 652–660.

Leeman, L.W., Colwell, M.A., Leeman, T.S., and Mathis, 

R.L., 2001, Diets, energy intake, and kleptoparasitism of 

nonbreeding Long-billed Curlews in a northern California 

estuary: Wilson Bulletin, v. 113, p. 196–203.

Mathis, R.L., Colwell, M.A., Leeman, L.W., and Leeman, 

T.S., 2006, Long-billed Curlew distributions in intertidal 

habitats: scale-dependent patterns: Western Birds, v. 37, 

p. 156–168.

Mechlin, L.M., and Shaiffer, C.W., 1980, Net-firing gun for 

capturing breeding waterfowl: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 44, p. 895–896.

Mehl, K.R., Drake, K.L., Page, G.W., Sanzenbacher, P.M., 

Haig, S.M., and Thompson, J.E., 2003, Capture of breeding 

and wintering shorebirds with leg-hold noose-mats: Journal 

of Field Ornithology, v. 74, p. 401–405.

Mittelhauser, G.H., Tudor, L., and Connery, B., 2006, Distribution and ecology of purple sandpipers wintering in the 

Acadia National Park region, Maine 2001–2004: Boston, 

Mass., National Park Service, Technical Report NPS/NER/

NRTR–2006/048, 73 p.

Moon, J.A., and Haukos, D.A., 2009, Factors affecting body 

condition of Northern Pintails wintering in the Playa Lakes 

Region: Waterbirds, v. 32, p. 87–95. 

Norwine, J., and Kuruvilla, J. (eds.), 2007, The changing climate of south Texas 1900–2100—Problems and prospects, 

impacts and implications: Texas A&M–Kingsville, 158 p. 

Oberholser, H.C., 1974, Bird life of Texas, v. 2: Austin, University of Texas Press.

Olalla-Kerstupp, A., 2010, Local and migratory movements, 

habitat use and threats of the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) in the Chihuahuan Desert, Mexico: San 

Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, Universidad Autónoma 

de Nuevo León, Ph.D. dissertation, 44 p.

Oring, L., 2006, Long-billed Curlew Symposium: Wader 

Study Group Bulletin, v. 109, 30 p.

Pampush, G.J. and Anthony, R.G., 1993, Nest success, habitat 

utilization and nest-site selection of Long-billed Curlews in 

the Columbia Basin, Oregon: Condor, v. 95, p. 957–967.

Paton, P.W.C., and Dalton, J., 1994, Breeding ecology of 

Long-billed Curlews at Great Salt Lake, Utah: Great Basin 

Naturalist, v. 54, p. 79–85.

Piersma, T., Blomert, A.-M., and Klaassen, M., 1991, Valium 

against leg cramp in waders: Wader Study Group Bulletin, 

v. 63, p. 39–41. 

Price, J.T., 1995, Potential impacts of global climate change 

on the summer distribution of some North American grassland birds: Detroit, Mich., Wayne State University, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 356 p. 

Proudfoot, G.A., and Jacobs, E.A., 2001, Bow net equipped 

with radio alarm: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 29, 

p. 543–545.

Purchase, D., and Minton, C.D.T, 1982, Possible capture 

myopathy in Bar-tailed Godwits (Limosa lapponica) in Australia: Water Study Group Bulletin, v. 34, p. 24–26.

Rappole, J.H., 1995, The ecology of migrant birds a Neotropical perspective: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution 

Press, 269 p.

Rappole, J.H., and Blacklock G.W., 1994, A field guide—

Birds of Texas: College Station, Tex., Texas A&M University Press, 280 p.

Redmond, R.L., and Jenni, D.A., 1986, Population ecology of 

the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) in western 

Idaho: Auk, v. 103, p. 755–767.

Sikes, D., 2011, Help count the curlews: Corpus Christi 

Caller-Times, January 5, 2011, accessed May 31, 2011, at 

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/jan/05/help-count-thecurlews/.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2005, Texas Wildlife 

Action Plan, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Austin, Tex., Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 

1,131 p., accessed September 29, 2009, at http://www.tpwd.

state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_pl_w7000_1187a/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000, Summary report—1997 

national resources inventory (revised December 2000): 

Washington, D.C., Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

and Ames, Iowa, Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, 89 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Birds of Conservation 

Concern 2008: Arlington, Va., United States Department of 

Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 85 p., accessed on July 30, 2009, at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.

Wickersham, C.W., 1902, Sickle-billed Curlew: Auk, v. 19, 

p. 353–356.
References Cited 17

Wilson, F.H., 1937, A new species of Philopterus (Mallophaga) from the Long-billed Curlew: Canadian Entomologist, 

v. 64, p. 264–266.

Woodin, M.C., Skoruppa, M.K., and Hickman, G.C., 2007, 

Winter ecology of the Burrowing Owl (Athene cuniclaria 

hypugaea) in Southern Texas 1999–2004: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5150, 33 p.

Publishing support provided by: 

Rolla Publishing Service Center 

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

8711 37th Street Southeast

Jamestown, North Dakota 58401

(701) 253–5553

Or visit the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Web site at:

http://npwrc.usgs.gov/


Woodin and others—Preliminary Investigations of the Winter Ecology of Long-Billed Curlews in Coastal Texas—Open-File Report 2011–1312