U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

American Woodcock 

Population Status, 2001

 
Suggested citation: 

Kelley, J.R., Jr. 2001. American woodcock population status, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Laurel, Maryland. 15pp.

2 
AMERICAN WOODCOCK POPULATION STATUS, 2001

JAMES R. KELLEY, JR., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, BHW 

Federal Building, 1 Federal Dr., Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056

Abstract: Singing-ground and Wing-collection surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the 

American woodcock (Scolopax minor). Singing-ground Survey data indicated that the number of displaying 

woodcock in the Eastern Region was unchanged (P>0.1) from 2000 levels, although the point estimate of the trend 

was negative. In the Central Region, there was a 12.9% decrease in the number of woodcock heard displaying 

(P<0.01) compared to 2000 levels. Trends from the Singing-ground Survey during 1991-01 were negative (-2.6 and 

–2.5% per year for the Eastern and Central regions, respectively; P<0.01). There were long-term (1968-01) 

declines (P<0.01) of 2.5% per year in the Eastern Region and 1.6% per year in the Central Region. The 2000 

recruitment index for the Eastern Region (1.4 immatures per adult female) was 27% higher than the 1999 index, but 

was 18% below the long-term regional average. The 2000 recruitment index for the Central Region (1.2 immatures 

per adult female) was unchanged from the 1999 index, but was 29% below the long-term regional average. The 

index of daily hunting success in the Eastern Region decreased from 2.1 woodcock per successful hunt in 1999 to 

2.0 woodcock per successful hunt in 2000, and seasonal hunting success decreased 10%, from 9.3 to 8.4 woodcock 

per successful hunter in 1999 and 2000, respectively. In the Central Region, the daily success index decreased 5% 

from 2.1 woodcock per successful hunt in 1999 to 2.0 in 2000; and seasonal hunting success decreased 2% from

10.6 to 10.4 woodcock per successful hunter. 

The American woodcock is a popular game bird 

throughout eastern North America that provides an 

estimated 3.4 million days of recreational hunting 

annually (U. S. Department of Interior 1988). The 

management objective of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) is to increase populations of woodcock to 

levels consistent with the demands of consumptive and 

non-consumptive users (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1990). 

Reliable annual population estimates, harvest 

estimates and information on recruitment and 

distribution are essential for comprehensive woodcock 

management. Unfortunately, this information is difficult 

and often impractical to obtain. Woodcock are difficult 

to find and count because of their cryptic coloration, 

small size, and preference for areas with dense 

vegetation. Also, although a sampling frame for 

woodcock hunters is currently being developed as part of 

the Harvest Information Program, no comprehensive 

sampling frame for woodcock hunters is currently 

available. Because of these difficulties, the Wingcollection Survey and the Singing-ground Survey were 

developed to provide indices of recruitment, hunting 

success and changes in abundance. 

This report summarizes the results of these surveys 

and presents an assessment of the population status of 

woodcock as of June 2001. The report is intended to 

assist managers in regulating the sport harvest of 

woodcock and to draw attention to areas where 

management actions are needed. 

METHODS 

Woodcock Management Units

Woodcock are managed on the basis of 2 regions or 

populations, Eastern and Central, as recommended by 

Owen et al. (1977) (Fig. 1). Coon et al. (1977) reviewed 

the concept of management units for woodcock and 

recommended the current configuration over several 

alternatives. This configuration was biologically 

justified because analysis of band recovery data 

indicated that there was little crossover between the 

regions (Krohn et al. 1974, Martin et al. 1969). 

Furthermore, the regional boundaries conform to the 

boundary between the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways. 

The results of the Wing-collection and Singing-ground 

surveys are reported by state or province, and region. The primary purpose of this report is to facilitate the 

prompt distribution of timely information. Results 

are preliminary and may change with the inclusion of 

additional data. 

Cover art used with permission of David Maass, Wild 

Wings, Inc. and the Ruffed Grouse Society.

3 
4 

Singing-ground Survey 

The Singing-ground Survey was developed to exploit

the conspicuous courtship display of the male woodcock. 

Early studies demonstrated that counts of singing males 

provide indices to woodcock populations and could be 

used to monitor annual changes (Mendall and Aldous 

1943, Goudy 1960, Duke 1966, and Whitcomb 1974). 

Before 1968, counts were conducted on non-randomlylocated routes. Beginning in 1968, routes were relocated 

along lightly traveled secondary roads in the center of 

randomly chosen 10-minute blocks within each state and 

province in the central and northern portions of the 

woodcock’s breeding range (Fig. 1). Data collected 

prior to 1968 are not included in this report.

Each route was 3.6 miles (5.4 km) long and consisted 

of 10 listening points. The routes were surveyed shortly

after sunset by an observer who drove to each of the 10 

stops and recorded the number of woodcock heard 

peenting (the vocalization by displaying male woodcock 

on the ground). Acceptable dates for conducting the 

survey were assigned by latitude to coincide with peaks 

in courtship behavior of local woodcock. In most states, 

the peak of courtship activity (including local woodcock 

and woodcock still migrating) occurred earlier in the 

spring and local reproduction may have already been 

underway when the survey was conducted. However, it

was necessary to conduct the survey during the 

designated survey dates in order to avoid counting 

migrating woodcock. Because adverse weather 

conditions may affect courtship behavior or the ability of

observers to hear woodcock, surveys were only

conducted when wind, precipitation, and temperature 

conditions were acceptable. 

CENTRAL EASTERN

SURVEY

COVERAGE

BREEDING 

RANGE

Fig. 1. Woodcock management regions, breeding range, 

and Singing-ground Survey coverage. 

The survey consists of about 1,500 routes. In order to

avoid expending unnecessary manpower and funds, 

approximately one half of these routes are surveyed each 

year. The remaining routes are carried as “constant 

zeros.” Routes for which no woodcock are heard for 2 

consecutive years enter this constant zero status and are 

not run for the next 5 years. If woodcock are heard on a 

constant zero route when it is next run, the route reverts 

to normal status and is run again each year. Data from

constant zero routes are included in the analysis only for 

the years they were actually surveyed. Sauer and 

Bortner (1991) reviewed the implementation and 

analysis of the Singing-ground Survey in more detail.

Trend Estimation.—Trends were estimated for each 

route by solving a set of estimating equations (Link and 

Sauer 1994). Observer data were used as covariables to

adjust for differences in observers’ ability to hear 

woodcock. To estimate state and regional trends, a 

weighted average from individual routes was calculated 

for each area of interest as described by Geissler (1984). 

Regional estimates were weighted by state and 

provincial land areas. Variances associated with the 

state, provincial, and regional slope estimates were 

estimated using a bootstrap procedure (Efron 1982). 

Trend estimates were expressed as percent change per 

year and trend significance was assessed using normalbased confidence intervals. Short-term (2000-01), 

intermediate-term (1991-01) and long-term (1968-01) 

trends were evaluated. 

The reported sample sizes are the number of routes 

on which trend estimates are based. These numbers may

be less than the actual number of routes surveyed for 

several reasons. The estimating equations approach 

requires at least 2 non-zero counts by the same observer 

for a route to be used. With the exception of the 2000-01 

analysis, routes that did not meet this requirement during 

the interval of interest were not included in the sample 

size. For the 2000-01 analysis, a constant of 0.1 was 

added to counts of low-abundance routes to allow their 

use in the analysis. Each route should be surveyed 

during the peak time of singing activity. For editing 

purposes, “acceptable” times were between 22 and 58 

minutes after sunset (or, between 15 and 51 minutes after 

sunset on overcast evenings). Due to observer error, 

some stops on some routes were surveyed before or after 

the peak times of singing activity. Earlier analysis 

revealed that routes with 8 or fewer acceptable stops 

tended to be biased low. Therefore, only route 

observations with at least 9 acceptable stops were 

included in the analysis. Routes for which data were 

received after 30 May 2001 were not included in this 

analysis but will be included in future trend estimates. 
Annual indices.—Annual indices were calculated for 

the 2 regions and each state and province by finding the 

deviation between the observed count on each route and 

that predicted by the 1968-01 regional or state/provincial

trend estimate. These residuals were averaged by year 

and added to the fitted trend to produce annual indices of 

abundance for each region, state and province. Yearly 

variation in woodcock abundance was superimposed on 

the long-term fitted trends (see Sauer and Geissler 1990). 

Thus, the indices calculated with this method portray

year-to-year variation around the predicted trend line, 

which can be useful for exploratory data analysis (e.g., 

observing periods of departure from the long-term

trend). However, the indices should be viewed in a 

descriptive context. They are not used to assess 

statistical significance and a change in the indices over a 

subset of years does not necessarily represent a 

significant change. Observed patterns must be verified 

using trend estimation methods to examine the period of 

interest (Sauer and Geissler 1990, Link and Sauer 1994). 

Wing-collection Survey 

The Wing-collection Survey was incorporated into a 

national webless migratory game bird wing-collection 

survey in 1997. Only data on woodcock will be 

presented in this report. As with the old survey, the 

primary objective of the Wing-collection Survey is to

provide data on the reproductive success of woodcock. 

The survey also produces information on the chronology

and distribution of the harvest and data on hunting 

success. The survey is administered as a cooperative 

effort between woodcock hunters, the FWS and state 

wildlife agencies. Participants in the 2000 survey

included hunters who either: (1) participated in the 1999 

survey; or (2) indicated on the 1999-00 Annual

Questionnaire Survey of U. S. Waterfowl Hunters or 

Harvest Information Program Survey that they hunted 

woodcock. Wing-collection Survey participants were 

provided with prepaid mailing envelopes and asked to

submit one wing from each woodcock they bagged. 

Hunters were asked to record the date of the hunt, and 

the state and county where the bird was shot. Hunters 

were not asked to submit envelopes for unsuccessful

hunts. The age and sex of the birds were determined by

examining plumage characteristics (Martin 1964, Sepik 

1994) during the annual Woodcock Wingbee, a 

cooperative work session. Wings were accepted through 

23 April 2001. 

The ratio of immature birds per adult female in the 

harvest provided an index to recruitment of young into

the population. The 2000 recruitment indices were 

compared to long-term (1963-99) averages. Annual

indices were calculated as the average number of 

immatures per adult female in each state, weighted by 

the relative contribution of each state to the total number 

of wings received during 1963-99 (to maintain 

comparability between years). 

Daily and seasonal bags of hunters who participated 

in the Wing-collection Survey in both 1999 and 2000 

were used as indices of hunter success. These indices 

were weighted to compensate for changes in the 

proportion of the estimated woodcock harvest attributed 

to each state and adjusted to a base-year value (1969) for 

comparison with previous years (Clark 1970, 1972, 

1973). Only data on successful hunts from prior years 

were used so that they would be comparable to data

from the new survey. A successful hunt was defined as 

any envelope returned with complete information in

which >1 woodcock wing was received. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Singing-ground Survey 

Trend Estimation.— The number of woodcock 

displaying during the 2001 Singing-ground Survey in the 

Eastern Region was not significantly different (P>0.1) 

from the 2000 level, although the point estimate of the 

trend was negative (Table 1, Fig. 2). The number of 

woodcock displaying in the Central Region decreased 

(P<0.05) 12.9% from 2000 levels. Trends for all states 

and provinces are reported in Table 1, but results based 

on fewer than 10 routes should be considered unreliable. 

Trends for the 1991-01 period were computed for 

345 routes in the Eastern Region and 421 routes in the 

Central Region. Eastern and Central region breeding 

populations declined (P<0.01) 2.6 and 2.5% per year, 

respectively, during this period (Table 1). 

Long-term (1968-01) trends were estimated for 604 

routes in the Eastern Region and 605 routes in the 

Central Region. There were long-term declines (P<0.10) 

in the breeding population throughout most states and 

provinces in the Eastern and Central Regions (Table 1, 

Fig. 3). The long-term trend estimates were -2.5 and 

-1.6% per year (P<0.01) for the Eastern and Central

regions, respectively. 

Annual Breeding Population Indices.—In the Eastern 

Region, the 2001 breeding population index of 1.70 

singing-males per route was higher than the predicted 

value of 1.66 (Table 2, Fig. 4). The Central Region 

population index of 2.22 males per route was slightly

lower than the predicted value of 2.24. 

5 
CENTRAL EASTERN

Fig. 6. Long-term trends in number of American woodcock heard on the

Singing-ground Survey; 1968-93.

Singing-ground Survey; 1992-93.

DECREASE (P<0.10) 

INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE

INCREASE (P<0.10)

DECREASE (NS) INCREASE (NS)

DECREASE (P<0.10) 

INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE

INCREASE (P<0.10)

DECREASE (NS) INCREASE (NS)

Fig. 2. Short-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the

Singing-ground Survey, 2000-2001.

Fig. 3. Long-term trends in the number of American woodcock heard on the

Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2001.

CENTRAL EASTERN

4
The major causes of these declines are thought to

be degradation and loss of suitable habitat on both the 

breeding and wintering grounds, resulting from forest 

succession and various human uses (Dwyer et al. 1983, 

Owen et al. 1977, Straw et al. 1994). If current trends in

land use practices persist, continued long-term

population declines are likely.

 YEAR

EASTERN REGION

AD

CENTRAL REGION

JUST

E

D YOUNG 

P

ER ADULT F

E

M

ALE

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99

Fig. 5. Adjusted annual indices of recruitment, 1963-

2000. The dashed line is the 1963-99 average. 

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

NUMB

E

R OF SINGI

NG MALES P

ER ROUT

E

YEAR

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

1 .0

1 .5

2 .0

2 .5

3 .0

3 .5

4 .0

4 .5

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

NUMB

E

R OF SINGI

NG MALES P

ER ROUT

E

YEAR

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

1 .0

1 .5

2 .0

2 .5

3 .0

3 .5

4 .0

4 .5

Fig. 4. Long-term trends (smooth line) and annual 

indices of the number of woodcock heard on the 

Singing-ground Survey, 1968-2001. 

Wing-collection Survey

A total of 5,525 potential woodcock hunters in states 

with woodcock seasons were contacted and asked to

participate in the 2000 Wing-collection Survey. Twenty

percent (Table 3) cooperated by sending in 9,627 

woodcock wings (Table 4). 

Recruitment.—The 2000 recruitment index in the 

Eastern Region (1.4 immatures per adult female) was 

27% higher than the 1999 index, but was 18% below the 

long term (1963-99) regional average (Table 4, Fig 5). In 

the Central Region the 2000 recruitment index (1.2 

immatures per adult female) was similar to the 1999 

index, but was 29% below the long-term regional

average of 1.7 immatures per adult female. 

 

Hunting Success.— There were no changes in 

Federal frameworks for woodcock hunting seasons 

during 2000-01 (Appendix 1). The 2000 index of daily

hunting success in the Eastern Region (2.0 woodcock per 

successful hunt) was 5% lower than during the 1999 

season (2.1 woodcock per successful hunt) (Table 5). 

The index of seasonal hunting success in the Eastern 

Region decreased 10%, from 9.3 to 8.4 woodcock per 

successful hunter. In the Central Region, the 2000 daily

success index (2.0 woodcock per successful hunt) was 

5% lower than the 1999 index (2.1 woodcock per 

successful hunt). Central Region hunters experienced a 

2% decrease in the seasonal success index from 10.6 

woodcock per successful hunter in 1999 to 10.4 

woodcock per hunter in 2000. Base-year adjusted indices 

of daily and seasonal hunting success were below longterm averages in both regions (Figs. 6 and 7). 

Indices to seasonal hunting success indicate that the 

annual woodcock harvest has been declining among 

participants in the survey for over a decade. This is 

consistent with the results of the Annual Questionnaire 

Survey of U.S. Waterfowl Hunters (Martin 1979, and 

FWS unpublished data, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Laurel, Maryland), which indicates that

the woodcock harvest and the number of woodcock 

hunters have generally declined since the early 1980s 

(Fig. 8). 

7 
8 

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

ADJUS

T

E

D AVERAG

E DAIL

Y B

A

G

YEAR

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

ADJUS

T

E

D AVERAG

E DAIL

Y B

A

G

YEAR

Fig. 6. Base-year adjusted indices of daily hunting 

success, 1965-00. The base year is 1969; the dashed line 

is the 1965-99 average. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

YEAR

HARVEST (

THOUSANDS)

HUNTE

RS (

T

H

OUSANDS)

HUNTERS

HARVEST

HUNTERS

HARVEST

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

YEAR

HARVEST (

THOUSANDS)

HUNTE

RS (

T

H

OUSANDS)

HUNTERS

HARVEST

HUNTERS

HARVEST

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

Fig. 8. U. S. harvest of American woodcock by duck 

stamp purchasers, and hunter numbers, 1964-99 (Martin 

1979, and FWS unpublished data, Division of Migratory

Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland).

These results should be interpreted cautiously

because of the limitations of both of these surveys. A 

comprehensive critique of these limitations is beyond the 

scope of this report; interested readers should see Owen 

et al. (1977), Martin (1979), and Straw et al. (1994). 

Briefly, indices based on the Wing-collection Survey are 

potentially biased because of the non-random sampling 

procedure by which survey participants were selected. 

Because the Annual Questionnaire Survey of U. S. 

Waterfowl Hunters does not provide information on the 

woodcock harvest by non-waterfowl hunters, it does not

provide an estimate of total harvest or the total number 

of hunters. Nevertheless, results from this survey should 

at least approximate trends in harvest and hunter 

participation. The Harvest Information Program

currently being implemented by the FWS and state 

wildlife agencies is, in part, designed to address the 

problems with these, and other migratory bird surveys. 

Within the next several years, the Harvest Information

Program will provide estimates of the total woodcock 

harvest, more comprehensive information on hunter 

effort and success, and larger samples of wings where 

needed. 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

YEAR

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

ADJUS

T

E

D AVERA

G

E S

EAS

O

NAL B

A

G

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

YEAR

EASTERN REGION

CENTRAL REGION

ADJUS

T

E

D AVERA

G

E S

EAS

O

NAL B

A

G

Fig. 7. Base-year adjusted indices of seasonal hunting 

success, 1965-00. The base year is 1969; the dashed line 

is the 1965-99 average. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Rebecca Holmes (FWS) mailed and processed 

Singing-ground Survey forms, corresponded with

cooperators, and developed a new Internet web site that

allowed cooperators to submit survey data electronically. 

She deserves special recognition for keypunching the 

majority of this year’s survey data during the transition

to a new database management system. T. Nguyen 

assisted in web site and database development.

Personnel from the FWS, Biological Resources Division 

(BRD) of the U. S. Geological Survey, Canadian 

Wildlife Service (CWS), and many state and provincial

agencies, and other individuals assisted in collecting the 

Singing-ground Survey data and processing wings at the 

Woodcock Wingbee. Special thanks to M. Bateman 

(CWS), G. Haas (FWS) and S. Kelly (FWS) for help in 

coordinating the Singing Ground-Survey. Special

appreciation is extended to W. Palmer and the 

Pennsylvania Game and Fish Commission for hosting 

the 2001 wingbee. Individuals who participated in the 

wingbee were: D. Dessecker (Ruffed Grouse Society); L. 

Fendrick (Ohio Division of Wildlife); Nancy

Higginbotham (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries); E. Johnson (Minnesota DNR); D. McAuley

(BRD); I. Gregg, G. Kelly, W. Palmer and L. Rose 

(Pennsylvania Game Commission); J. Randolph 

(Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries); A. 

Stewart and W. Scullon (Michigan DNR); R.

Stonebraker (Indiana DNR); and R. Cliche, P. Denmon, 

R. Holmes, J. Kelley, R. Speer, P. Stinson, and L. Wolff 

(FWS). Thanks to the 1,088 woodcock hunters who sent

in wings. The Harvest Surveys Section of the Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, FWS, mailed Wingcollection Survey materials, organized wing 

submissions, and assisted with data management (special

thanks to P. I. Padding, E. M. Martin, and E. Hill). B. H. 

Powell (BRD) developed the computer programs for 

administering the Wing-collection Survey and assisted 

with data management. J. R. Sauer (BRD) developed 

computer programs for calculating trends and indices 

from Singing-ground Survey data. W. L. Kendall

(BRD) performed the analyses and assisted with 

interpretation. J. P. Bladen and K. Wilkins (FWS) and

E. M. Mills (BRD) assisted in organizing and

keypunching Singing-ground Survey data. R. Holmes, 

W. L. Kendall, P. I. Padding, J. R. Sauer, and G. W.

Smith reviewed a draft of parts or all of this report and 

provided helpful comments. Portions of this report were 

copied in whole or in part from previous status reports. 

LITERATURE CITED

Clark, E. R. 1970. Woodcock status report, 1969. U. S. 

Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 133. 

35pp. 

_____. 1972. Woodcock status report, 1971. U. S. Fish 

and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 153. 

47pp. 

_____. 1973. Woodcock status report, 1972. U. S. Fish 

and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.—Wildl. 169. 

50pp. 

Coon, R. A., T. J. Dwyer, and J. W. Artmann. 1977. 

Identification of harvest units for the American

woodcock. Proc. American Woodcock Symp. 

6:147-153. 

Duke, G. E. 1966. Reliability of censuses of singing 

male woodcock. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:697-707. 

Dwyer, T. J., D. G. McAuley, and E. L. Derleth. 1983. 

Woodcock singing-ground counts and habitat

changes in the northeastern United States. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 47:772-779. 

Efron, B. 1982. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other 

resampling plans. Society for Industrial Applied 

Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. 92pp. 

Geissler, P. H. 1984. Estimation of animal population 

trends and annual indices from a survey of call

counts or other indicators. Proceedings American 

Statistical Assoc., Section on Survey Research 

Methods, 472-477. 

Goudy, W. H. 1960. Factors affecting woodcock spring 

population indexes in southern Michigan. M. S. 

Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 44pp. 

Krohn, W. B., F. W. Martin, and K. P. Burnham. 1974. 

Band recovery distribution and survival estimates of 

Maine woodcock. 8pp. In Proc. Fifth American 

Woodcock Workshop, Athens, GA. 

Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating 

equations estimates of trends. Bird Populations 

2:23-32. 

Martin, E. M. 1979. Hunting and harvest trends for 

migratory game birds other than waterfowl: 1964-

9 
76. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. 

Wildl. 218. 37pp. 

Martin, F. W. 1964. Woodcock age and sex 

determination from wings. J. Wildl. Manage. 

28:287-293. 

_____, S. O. Williams III, J. D. Newsom, and L. L. 

Glasgow. 1969. Analysis of records of Louisianabanded woodcock. Proc. 3rd Annu. Conf. 

Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 23:85-

96. 

Mendall, H. L., and C. M. Aldous. 1943. The ecology

and management of the American woodcock. 

Maine Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit. Univ. Maine, Orono. 

201pp. 

Owen, R. B., Jr., J. M. Anderson, J. W. Artmann, E. R.

Clark, T. G. Dilworth, L. E. Gregg, F. W. Martin, J. 

D. Newsom, and S. R. Pursglove, Jr. 1977. 

American woodcock (Philohela minor = Scolopax 

minor of Edwards 1974), Pages 149-186 in G. C. 

Sanderson, ed. Management of migratory shore and 

upland game birds in North America. Int. Assoc. of 

Fish and Wildl. Agencies, Washington, D. C.

Sauer, J. R., and J. B. Bortner. 1991. Population trends 

from the American Woodcock Singing-ground 

Survey, 1970-88. J. Wildl. Mange. 55:300-312. 

_____, and P. H. Geissler. 1990. Estimation of annual

indices from roadside surveys. Pages 58-62 in J. R. 

Sauer and S. Droege, eds. Survey designs and 

statistical methods for the estimation of avian 

population trends. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. 

Rep. 90(1). 166pp. 

Sepik, G. F. 1994. A woodcock in the hand. Ruffed 

Grouse Soc., Coraopolis, PA. 12pp. 

Straw, J. A., D. G. Krementz, M. W. Olinde, and G. F. 

Sepik. 1994. American woodcock. Pages 97-114 

in T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun, eds. Migratory 

Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North 

America. Int. Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies, 

Washington, D. C.

U. S. Department of Interior. 1988. 1985 National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation. U. S. Govt. Printing Office, 

Washington, D. C. 167pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American 

woodcock management plan. U. S. Fish and Wildl.

Serv., Washington, D. C. 11pp. 

Whitcomb, D. A. 1974. Characteristics of an insular 

woodcock population. Mich. Dept. Nat Resour., 

Wildl. Div. Rep. 2720. 78pp. 

10 
Table 1. Trends (% change per yeara

) in the number of American woodcock heard in the Singing-ground Survey as determined 

by the estimating equations technique (Link and Sauer 1994), 1968-2001.

State, 2000-2001 1991-2001 1968-2001

Province 

or Region

No. of 

routesb nc % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI n % change 90% CI 

CT 6 3 7.5 ***d 6.8 8.1 9 -9.1 ** -15.0 -3.3

DE 2 2 25.2 -0.3 50.7 2 5.1 -8.9 19.2 

ME 49 28 -5.0 -17.2 7.12 52 -1.1 -3.1 0.8 63 -2.2 *** -3.2 -1.3 

MD 3 2 20.8 * 0.5 41.1 7 45.4 -4.6 95.4 21 -11.3 ** -18.6 -4.1 

MA 7 4 -10.6 -119.9 98.7 13 6.7 ** 2.0 11.5 20 -4.4 * -8.1 -0.7 

NB 39 23 17.9 -5.4 41.2 53 0.0 -2.44 2.4 62 -1.0 -2.2 0.1 

NH 14 9 39.4 -12.4 91.1 12 1.6 -2.2 5.3 18 0.3 -2.6 3.2 

NJ 10 4 4.1 -82.2 90.3 6 -20.8 ** -37.3 -4.3 17 -11.3 *** -15.0 -7.7 

NY 65 33 -7.6 -26.0 10.9 69 -4.9 *** -7.3 -2.4 104 -3.1 *** -4.3 -1.9 

NS 31 17 -17.8 * -34.0 -1.5 35 1.7 -1.6 5.0 55 -0.4 -1.8 0.9 

PA 35 9 15.7 -35.6 67.0 26 -4.7 * -9.3 -0.1 56 -5.5 *** -7.8 -3.2 

PEI 5 2 -32.6 -65.3 0.1 7 1.9 -4.4 8.1 12 -0.9 -2.4 0.7 

QUE 13 2 -15.2 -35.1 4.7 13 -3.9 *** -5.8 -2.0 54 -0.1 -1.4 1.3 

RI 1 2 -17.0 *** -24.8 -9.3 

VT 15 8 -50.1 *** -70.4 -29.9 18 1.4 -2.1 4.8 21 -1.7 * -3.3 -0.1 

VA 31 5 -60.1 *** -97.5 -22.8 12 -6.2 -17.6 5.2 45 -10.3 *** -14.0 -6.6 

WV 21 8 -36.9 * -70.0 -3.7 17 -5.4 -12.2 1.4 43 -2.5 ** -4.6 -0.5 

Eastern 347 155 -5.9 -14.5 2.8 345 -2.6 *** -3.8 -1.4 604 -2.5 *** -3.0 -1.9 

IL 13 6 7.6 -2.9 18.1 23 26.1 -19.0 71.2 

IN 23 8 -8.0 -18.4 2.3 38 -6.2 * -12.0 -0.5 

MBe 21 10 -26.3 ** -44.2 -8.4 18 -3.6 -7.7 0.5 18 -3.7 -8.1 0.7 

MI 86 49 -16.5 -38.9 5.9 114 -2.9 *** -4.6 -1.2 141 -1.5 *** -2.1 -0.8 

MN 75 42 -14.0 ** -24.4 -3.6 77 -2.0 ** -3.6 -0.4 97 -1.1 ** -2.0 -0.2 

OH 31 10 -24.3 -58.6 10.0 29 -6.5 -14.5 1.5 54 -6.4 *** -10.4 -2.4 

ON 46 12 2.8 -25.8 31.3 97 -3.1 ** -5.3 -1.0 135 -1.4 *** -2.2 -0.7 

WI 69 34 -7.0 -22.0 8.0 72 -1.5 * -3.0 -0.1 99 -1.7 *** -2.6 -0.9 

Central 364 159 -12.9 ** -22.7 -3.2 421 -2.5 *** -3.3 -1.6 605 -1.6 *** -1.9 -1.2

Continent 711 314 -11.2 ** -18.4 -4.0 766 -2.4 *** -3.1 -1.8 1209 -1.9 -2.2 -1.5

a

 Mean of weighted route trends within each state, province or region. To estimate the total percent change over several years, 

 use: (100((% change/100)+1)y

)-100 where y is the number of years. Note: extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change 

 per year) over time (e.g., 30 years) may exaggerate the total change over the period. 

b

 Total number of routes surveyed in 2001 for which data were received by 31 May. 

c

 Number of comparable routes with at least 2 non-zero counts. 

d Indicates slope is significantly different from zero: * P<0.10, ** P<0.05. *** P <0.01; significance levels are 

 approximate for states where n<10. 

e

 Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground Survey in 1990. 

11 
1984 

1.48 0.88 3.76 1.28 2.46 3.58 2.54 2.70 2.85 2.22 1.83 3.85 2.86 1.90 2.62 1.70 1.03 2.51 0.27 0.77 

-- 

4.50 3.11 1.70 4.90 3.22 2.73 2.62 

1983 2.14 2.03 3.76 1.64 1.39 4.44 2.85 2.35 3.54 2.30 1.73 3.38 3.51 2.27 2.59 1.18 1.25 2.65 0.23 0.79 

-- 

4.08 3.49 1.85 4.66 2.95 2.82 2.73 

1982 2.78 

-- 

2.92 2.49 1.88 4.25 2.44 1.98 3.09 1.84 1.54 2.13 2.81 3.16 1.77 1.52 1.20 2.39 0.15 0.75 

-- 

4.67 3.84 1.46 4.49 2.92 2.60 2.49 

1981 2.17 

-- 

4.25 2.54 2.20 4.07 4.16 2.03 3.81 2.07 1.93 1.99 2.86 0.78 2.36 1.61 1.35 2.69 0.18 1.03 

-- 

4.42 4.25 2.03 5.92 2.99 3.10 2.88 

1980 1.61 

-- 

3.88 2.98 2.16 4.04 3.99 2.70 4.21 2.24 1.97 2.62 3.64 1.34 2.65 1.62 0.98 2.73 0.11 0.99 

-- 

5.28 4.63 1.78 6.37 3.49 3.15 2.92 

1979 1.84 0.51 4.40 2.42 3.01 4.54 3.28 4.34 3.66 2.37 2.15 3.52 3.30 1.34 2.99 1.91 1.19 2.86 0.10 1.36 

-- 

5.35 4.17 1.81 6.22 4.06 3.33 3.07 

1978 1.82 0.60 4.03 3.10 2.75 4.10 3.21 2.53 3.25 2.90 1.91 2.85 3.22 0.78 3.11 1.74 0.81 2.59 0.08 1.09 

-- 

5.43 4.23 2.33 6.46 4.16 3.37 2.94 

1977 3.00 0.62 4.38 2.93 2.37 5.73 3.16 4.32 4.12 2.51 2.41 3.57 2.61 

-- 

4.07 2.30 1.18 2.98 0.08 1.21 

-- 

5.13 4.22 2.93 5.96 3.98 3.39 3.16 

1976 2.55 0.46 4.85 3.12 3.08 4.63 3.90 3.92 4.02 2.52 2.44 4.04 2.34 2.33 3.41 2.38 1.17 2.87 0.06 1.25 

-- 

5.59 4.26 2.57 5.47 3.66 3.31 3.06 

1975 4.66 1.44 5.46 4.60 2.33 6.30 3.15 6.91 4.09 2.86 2.52 4.76 3.36 2.33 3.76 2.85 1.34 3.34 0.08 1.27 

-- 

6.06 4.24 2.37 5.69 3.81 3.48 3.38 

1974 4.36 0.77 5.11 4.37 4.00 5.57 3.72 9.35 4.90 3.34 2.26 3.13 3.32 3.01 3.24 3.34 1.16 3.40 0.03 1.32 

-- 

6.02 4.86 3.16 6.46 3.93 3.52 3.42 

1973 4.42 0.84 5.15 6.37 4.96 5.03 2.73 9.51 4.66 2.67 3.13 2.33 2.71 4.03 3.32 2.28 1.21 3.22 0.04 1.80 

-- 

5.17 4.18 2.46 6.01 3.84 3.38 3.26 

1972 5.94 0.50 4.83 5.74 3.69 5.69 3.51 6.78 4.64 2.76 2.93 2.91 3.51 4.03 3.75 3.16 1.51 3.47 0.03 1.76 

-- 

5.03 3.68 2.97 6.73 3.76 3.46 3.41 

1971 4.80 0.40 5.13 

 6.90 

5.04 5.47 2.80 

11.59 

4.97 2.88 3.32 4.91 3.80 5.44 3.33 3.62 1.24 3.62 0.03 1.46 

-- 

5.30 4.32 3.54 6.06 3.94 3.50 3.51 

1970 6.14 0.55 5.65 

 7.48 

4.31 5.62 3.46 9.31 4.41 2.33 3.83 2.64 

-- 

2.92 4.38 4.53 1.28 3.71 0.02 1.88 

-- 

5.49 4.04 3.49 6.37 4.44 3.64 3.61 

1969 6.13 0.47 5.38 

8.44 

3.68 5.33 2.99 7.53 5.77 2.74 3.49 3.46 

-- 

2.90 2.58 4.37 1.80 3.80 

-- 

1.98 

-- 

5.75 4.71 

-- 

6.70 4.10 3.72 3.71 

Year 

1968  --

b

0.59 5.21 

9.62 

-- -- -- 

8.81 5.24 3.78 3.83 

-- -- -- -- -- 

1.59 3.93 

-- 

2.29 

-- 

5.87 

-- -- 

6.11 4.15 3.73 3.76 

Table 2. Breeding population indices for American woodcock from the Sing-ground Survey, 1968-2001. These indices are based on the 1968-2001 trend andshould be used for exploratory data analysis only; observed patterns should be verified using trend estimation methods (Sauer and Geissler 1990). 

State, Province or Region Eastern Region CTa

DEa

ME MDMANB NH NJ NY NS PA PEIa

QUEa

RIa

VT VA WVRegion Central Region IL IN MB MIMNOH ON WIRegion Continent 

a Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size. b Insufficient data. 

12 
2001 

0.351.63 2.59 0.55 1.39 4.60 3.33 0.40 1.96 2.70 0.65 2.92 2.62 -- 2.14 0.20 0.64 1.70 5.29 0.37 1.92 3.33 3.40 0.53 4.06 2.27 2.22 1.99 

2000 0.871.97 3.01 0.27 1.27 4.21 3.16 0.45 1.89 2.82 0.53 2.81 2.82 

-- 

3.08 0.24 0.77 1.73 4.640.37 1.78 3.51 3.46 0.61 4.77 2.54 2.29 2.03 

1999 1.330.88 3.09 0.30 1.91 4.76 4.50 0.56 2.15 2.38 0.82 2.41 3.42 

-- 

2.31 0.27 0.70 1.93 3.41 0.43 1.59 3.38 3.18 0.55 4.05 2.79 2.31 2.15 

1998 0.623.00 2.45 0.24 1.28 3.71 3.78 0.56 2.18 2.37 1.01 2.85 2.74 

-- 

2.43 0.27 0.65 1.78 

-- 

0.67 1.66 4.16 3.21 0.70 4.07 2.28 2.42 2.11 

1997 0.661.54 2.60 0.45 1.39 4.55 4.08 0.18 2.12 2.06 0.94 2.62 2.61 0.05 2.21 0.37 0.80 1.82 2.12 0.33 1.33 3.51 2.61 0.65 4.08 2.35 1.95 1.91 

1996 0.741.54 2.33 0.44 1.30 3.70 3.78 0.66 2.14 2.70 0.95 3.06 1.34 

-- 

1.70 0.30 0.72 1.63 4.73 0.42 2.33 3.59 3.08 0.87 3.54 2.48 2.43 2.03 

1995 0.82

-- 

3.03 0.33 0.96 4.16 4.66 0.69 2.31 2.63 1.16 2.69 3.68 

-- 

2.25 0.31 1.13 2.11 1.50 0.50 2.59 3.76 3.35 0.81 4.84 2.37 2.45 2.31 

1994 0.63

-- 

2.87 0.49 1.34 4.95 2.35 0.31 2.23 2.12 0.63 2.30 3.05 

-- 

1.99 0.41 0.65 1.74 1.60 0.48 2.20 3.49 3.06 0.80 3.87 2.35 2.30 2.03 

1993 0.50

-- 

3.26 0.54 1.22 5.15 2.76 0.70 2.23 2.81 1.26 2.25 3.91 

-- 

1.97 0.51 0.75 2.10 1.57 0.56 3.48 3.84 3.49 0.95 4.47 2.51 2.63 2.38 

1992 0.600.50 3.02 0.28 1.45 3.86 2.25 0.73 2.73 2.60 1.13 2.36 3.30 

-- 

1.88 0.46 0.85 2.01 1.30 0.53 2.36 3.82 3.28 0.94 4.93 2.53 2.49 2.27 

1991 0.890.76 3.60 0.73 1.75 4.02 3.89 0.91 3.23 2.31 1.56 2.40 4.06 0.15 2.88 0.58 0.85 2.36 0.97 0.67 

-- 

5.36 3.89 1.06 5.12 3.17 2.96 2.67 

1990 0.831.52 2.87 0.82 1.46 4.22 2.86 1.01 3.00 1.92 1.41 3.25 3.07 

-- 

2.94 0.58 0.93 2.15 0.63 0.65 

-- 

4.54 4.15 1.40 5.15 3.15 2.82 2.48 

1989 0.93

-- 

4.18 1.04 1.60 5.37 3.32 1.45 2.48 2.79 1.08 3.97 3.90 0.95 3.08 0.59 0.88 2.31 0.73 0.58 

-- 

4.64 3.63 1.02 5.48 3.23 2.79 2.56 

1988 2.20

-- 

4.08 0.92 2.04 4.14 3.23 1.60 3.22 2.57 1.52 4.14 3.11 0.95 3.32 0.66 0.85 2.39 0.60 0.58 

-- 

4.85 4.17 1.49 5.12 3.48 2.93 2.67 

1987 0.88

-- 

4.32 0.86 2.05 3.87 3.25 2.12 2.79 2.36 1.52 2.60 3.58 

-- 

2.80 0.93 1.07 2.46 0.59 0.61 

-- 

4.45 3.73 1.25 5.20 3.48 2.94 2.71 

1986 1.85

-- 

3.95 1.12 1.97 3.27 4.56 1.84 3.05 2.62 1.61 3.72 3.40 0.63 2.62 0.90 0.93 2.44 0.39 0.84 

-- 

4.80 3.89 1.15 4.98 3.50 2.92 2.68 

Year 

1985 1.290.92 3.82 1.29 1.92 3.70 2.69 1.92 3.60 2.21 1.41 2.83 3.53 0.63 2.07 0.88 0.97 2.39 0.47 0.63 

-- 

4.71 3.71 1.47 5.01 2.98 2.92 2.65 

Table 2. Continued. State, Provinceor Region Eastern Region CTa

DEa

ME MDMANB NH NJ NY NS PA PEIa

QUEa

RIa

VT VA WVRegion Central Region IL IN MB MIMNOH ON WIRegion Continent 

a Annual indices are unreliable due to small sample size. b Insufficient data. 

13 
Table 3. Distribution of hunters contacted and hunters who submitted woodcock wings in the 2000-01 

Wing-collection Survey. 

 State of No. of hunters No. of hunters who Percent who 

 residence Contacted submitted wings submitted wings

AL 24 0 0

AR 22 1 5

CT 156 22 14

DE 17 0 0

FL 92 0 0

GA 73 4 5

IL 118 15 13

IN 92 24 26

IA 56 3 5

KS 12 0 0

KY 30 1 3

LA 164 16 10

ME 340 83 24

MD 69 8 12

MA 311 71 23

MI 672 218 32

MN 444 95 21

MS 18 0 0

MO 115 13 11

NE 26 0 0

NH 165 47 28

NJ 119 20 17

NY 375 82 22

NC 92 6 7

ND 6 0 0

OH 159 35 22

OK 33 1 3

PA 72 17

RI 35 5 14

SC 66 8 12

TN 68 7 10

TX 65 1 2

VT 136 35 26

VA 112 19 17

WV 23 8 35

WI 806 168 21

Total 5,525 1,088 20

414

14 
Table 4. Numbers of woodcock wings received from hunters, and indices of recruitment. Recruitment indices for 

individual states were calculated as the ratio of immatures per adult female. The regional indices for 2000 were 

calculated as the average of the state values, adjusted for comparability with the 1963-99 average. Recruitment 

indices were not calculated for states where the sample of wings was <125. 

State or Wings received 

Region of Total Adult females Immatures Recruitment index

harvest 1963-99 2000 1963-99 2000 1963-99 2000 1963-99 2000

Eastern Region

CT 12,981 88 2,875 20 7,962 53 2.8 

DE 411 2 54 0 288 2 5.3 

FL 660 0 150 0 410 0 2.7 

GA 2,913 7 896 2 1,266 0 1.4 

ME 71,236 952 20,958 254 35,665 473 1.7 1.9 

MD 3,775 42 940 13 2,114 18 2.2 

MA 18,709 240 5,622 98 9,317 99 1.7 1.0 

NH 26,115 653 8,466 198 12,053 306 1.4 1.5 

NJ 24,085 122 5,594 24 14,177 63 2.5 

NY 50,051 699 16,519 255 23,325 300 1.4 1.2 

NC 2,869 70 840 21 1,431 33 1.7 

PA 26,804 369 8,417 128 12,499 138 1.5 1.1 

RI 2,223 8 415 2 1,504 6 3.6 

SC 2,173 77 653 32 1,056 25 1.6 

VT 19,316 578 6,157 200 9,081 244 1.5 1.2 

VA 3,674 147 858 48 2,163 50 2.5 1.0 

WV 5,070 55 1,542 18 2,575 23 1.7 

Region 273,065 4,109 80,956 1,313 136,886 1,833 1.7 1.4 

Central Region

AL 910 0 243 0 425 0 1.7 

AR 510 0 163 0 207 0 1.3 

IL 1,246 9 279 5 710 4 2.5 

IN 6,548 151 1,627 54 3,684 58 2.3 1.1 

IA 878 11 296 1 388 7 1.3 

KS 44 0 9 0 22 0 

KY 948 31 225 5 491 18 2.2 

LA 28,244 414 6,318 99 18,353 221 2.9 2.2 

MI 95,576 2,517 30,805 864 48,044 1,100 1.6 1.3 

MN 27,006 812 9,100 310 12,251 287 1.3 0.9 

MS 1,716 0 486 0 875 0 1.8 

MO 2,604 29 639 7 1,312 14 2.1 

NE 10 0 4 0 5 0 

OH 13,216 240 4,007 78 6,287 93 1.6 1.2 

OK 166 2 38 0 85 2 2.2 

TN 960 23 235 9 494 9 2.1 

TX 945 0 239 0 488 0 2.0 

WI 59,943 1,279 19,438 467 29,320 506 1.5 1.1 

Region 241,470 5,518 74,151 1,899 123,441 2,319 1.7 1.2 

15 
Table 5. State and regional indices of daily and seasonal woodcock hunting success in 1999 and 2000. State and 

regional indices were calculated for states represented by >10 hunters who participated in the Wing-collection 

Survey both years. Regional indices were weighted as described by Clark (1970). 

State of 

No. of

successful 

No. of 

successful hunts 

Woodcock

bagged 

Woodcock per

successful hunt

Woodcock per

season 

harvest hunters 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 

Eastern Region

CT 13 22 35 29 49 1.3 1.4 2.2 3.8

DE 1 1 1 1 2

GA 2 6 2 10 6

ME 61 262 245 553 520 2.1 2.1 9.1 8.5

MD 5 14 10 27 21

MA 20 103 76 202 145 2.0 1.9 10.1 7.3

NH 36 209 215 433 448 2.1 2.1 12.0 12.4

NJ 15 68 45 148 90 2.2 2.0 9.9 6.0

NY 61 334 292 645 548 1.9 1.9 10.6 9.0

NC 6 23 33 34 70

PA 46 124 140 259 276 2.1 2.0 5.6 6.0

RI 2 4 4 7 6

SC 4 23 15 50 33

VT 40 176 212 385 469 2.2 2.2 9.6 11.7

VA 10 63 48 151 108 2.4 2.3 15.1 10.8

WV 3 17 20 35 45

Region 325 1,449 1,393 2,969 2,836 2.1 2.0 9.3 8.4

Central Region

IL 4 9 5 15 7

IN 6 24 45 52 103

KY 2 13 16 19 31

LA 15 88 121 220 363 2.5 3.0 14.7 24.2

MI 199 1,006 1,043 2,041 2,025 2.0 1.9 10.3 10.2

MN 73 346 334 693 706 2.0 2.1 9.5 9.7

MO 4 6 7 9 10

OH 13 90 97 219 212 2.4 2.2 16.8 16.3

TN 2 5 13 5 22

WI 134 578 519 1,190 990 2.1 1.9 8.9 7.4

Region 455 2,171 2,204 4,478 4,479 2.1 2.0 10.6 10.4

16 
Appendix 1. History of framework dates, season lengths, and daily bag limits for hunting American woodcock in the Eastern 

and Central Regions, 1918-2000. 

Eastern Region Central Region 

Season Daily 

bag 

Season Daily 

bag 

Year (s) Outside dates length limit Year (s) Outside dates length limit 

1918-26 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 6 1918-26 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 6 

1927 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 4 1927 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 60 4

1928-39 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 30 4 1928-39 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31 30 4 

1940-47 Oct. 1 - Jan. 6 15 4 1940-47 Oct. 1 - Jan. 6 15 4 

1948-52 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 30 4 1948-52 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 30 4 

1953 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4 1953 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4 

1954 Oct. 1 - Jan. 10 40 4 1954 Oct. 1 - Jan. 10 40 4 

1955-57 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4 1955-57 Oct. 1 - Jan. 20 40 4 

1958-60 Oct. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4 1958-60 Oct. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4 

1961-62 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4 1961-62 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 40 4 

1963-64 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 50 5 1963-64 Sep. 1 - Jan. 15 50 5 

1965-66 Sep. 1 - Jan. 30 50 5 1965-66 Sep. 1 - Jan. 30 50 5 

1967-69 Sep. 1 - Jan. 31 65 5 1967-69 Sep. 1 - Jan. 31 65 5 

1970-71 Sep. 1 - Feb. 15 65 5 1970-71 Sep. 1 - Feb. 15 65 5 

1972-81 Sep. 1 - Feb. 28 65 5 1972-90 Sep. 1 - Feb. 28 65 5 

1982 Oct. 5 - Feb. 28 65 5 1991-96 Sep. 1 - Jan. 31 65 5 

1983-84 Oct. 1 - Feb. 28 65 5 1997 *

Sep. 20 - Jan. 31 45 3 

1985-96 Oct. 1 - Jan. 31 45 3 1998 *

Sep. 19 - Jan. 31 45 3 

1997-00 Oct. 6 - Jan. 31 30 3 1999 *

Sep. 25 - Jan. 31 45 3 

2000 *

Sep. 23 - Jan. 31 45 3 

*

 Saturday nearest September 22. 

17