U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mourning Dove

Population Status, 2004
Suggested citation: 

Dolton, D.D., and R.D. Rau. 2004. Mourning dove population status, 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, 

Maryland, USA. 

All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available at our home page (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov). 
MOURNING DOVE POPULATION STATUS, 2004

DAVID D. DOLTON, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, PO Box 25486 DFC, 

Denver, CO 80225-0486 

REBECCA D. RAU, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, 11500 American Holly Dr., Laurel, MD 20708-4016 

Abstract: This report includes Mourning Dove Call-count Survey information gathered over the last 39 years within 

the conterminous United States. Trends were calculated for the most recent 2- and 10-year intervals and for the entire 

39-year period. Between 2003 and 2004, the average number of doves heard per route decreased significantly in the 

Eastern and Central Management Units. No change was detected in the Western Unit. Over the most recent 10 years, 

no significant trend was indicated for doves heard in any management unit. Over the 39-year period, all 3 units 

exhibited significant declines. In contrast, for doves seen over the 10-year period, a significant increase was found in 

the Eastern Unit while no trends were found in the Central and Western Units. Over 39 years, no trend was found for 

doves seen in the Eastern and Central Units while a decline was indicated for the Western Unit. 

The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is a migratory 

bird, thus, authority and responsibility for its 

management is vested in the Secretary of the Interior. 

This responsibility is conferred by the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918 which, as amended, implements 

migratory bird treaties between the United States and 

other countries. Mourning doves are included in the 

treaties with Great Britain (for Canada) and Mexico. 

These treaties recognize sport hunting as a legitimate use 

of a renewable migratory bird resource. In recent years, 

less than 6% of the fall population of mourning doves 

was estimated to have been harvested annually. As one 

of the most abundant species in both urban and rural 

areas of North America, it is familiar to millions of 

people. Maintenance of mourning dove populations in a 

healthy, productive state is a primary management goal. 

To this end, management of doves includes assessment 

of population status, regulation of harvest, and habitat 

management. Call-count surveys are conducted annually 

in the 48 conterminous states by state and federal 

biologists to monitor mourning dove populations. The 

resulting information on status and trends is used by 

wildlife administrators in setting annual hunting 

regulations. 

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. 

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 

Mourning doves breed from the southern portions of 

Canada throughout the United States into Mexico, 

Bermuda, the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, and 

scattered locations in Central America (Fig. 1). 

Although some mourning doves winter throughout most 

of the breeding range, except for central Canada and the 

north-central U.S., the majority migrate south, wintering 

in the southern United States and south throughout most 

of Mexico and Central America to western Panama 

(Aldrich 1993, Mirarchi and Baskett 1994). 

The mourning dove is one of the most widely distributed 

and abundant birds in North America (Peterjohn et al. 

1994, Fig. 1). Although not known precisely, the fall 

population for the United States was estimated to be 

about 475 million in the 1970’s (Dunks et al. 1982, 

Tomlinson et al. 1988). We believe that the mourning 

dove population has declined to a present population size 

of slightly more than 400 million in the United States. 

POPULATION MONITORING 

The Mourning Dove Call-count Survey was developed 

to provide an annual index to population size (Dolton 

1993). This survey is based on work by McClure (1939) 

in Iowa. Field studies demonstrated the feasibility of the 

survey as a method for detecting annual changes in 

mourning dove breeding populations (Foote and Peters 

1952). In the United States, the survey currently 

includes more than 1,000 randomly selected routes, 
Fig. 1. Breeding and wintering ranges of the mourning dove 

(adapted from Mirarchi and Baskett 1994). 

stratified by physiographic region. The total number of 

doves heard on each route is used to determine trends in 

populations and provides the basis for determining an 

index to population size during the breeding season. 

Indices for doves seen are also presented in this report, 

but only as supplemental information for comparison 

with indices of doves heard. Even though both the 

numbers of doves heard and seen are counted during the 

survey, they are recorded separately. 

Within the United States, there are 3 zones that contain 

mourning dove populations that are largely independent 

of each other (Kiel 1959). These zones encompass the 

principal breeding, migration, and U.S. wintering areas 

for each population. As suggested by Kiel (1959), these 

3 areas were established as separate management units in 

1960 (Kiel 1961). Since that time, management 

decisions have been made within the boundaries of the 

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

Management Units (Fig. 2). 

The EMU was further divided into 2 groups of states for 

analyses. States permitting dove hunting were combined 

into one group and those prohibiting dove hunting into 

another. Wisconsin became a hunting state for the first 

time in 2003. Additionally, some states were grouped to 

increase sample sizes. Maryland and Delaware were 

combined; Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island were 

combined to form a New England group. Due to its 

small size, Rhode Island, which is a hunting state, was 

included in this nonhunting group of states for analysis. 

METHODS 

The Call-count Survey 

Each call-count route is usually located on secondary 

roads and has 20 listening stations spaced at 1-mile 

intervals. At each stop, the number of doves heard 

calling, the number seen, and the level of disturbance 

(noise) that impairs the observer's ability to hear doves 

are recorded. The number of doves seen while driving 

between stops is also noted. 

Counts begin one-half hour before sunrise and continue 

for about 2 hours. Routes are run once between 20 May 

and 5 June. Intensive studies in the eastern United States 

(Foote and Peters 1952) indicated that dove calling is 

relatively stable during this period. Surveys are not 

made when wind velocities exceed 12 miles per hour or 

when it is raining. 

Estimation of Population Trends 

A population trend is defined as the ratio of the dove 

population in an area in one year to the population in the 

preceding year. For more than 2 years of data, the trend 

is expressed as an average annual rate of change. A 

trend was first estimated for each route by numerically 

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 or see doves. 

The reported sample sizes are the number of routes on 

which a given trend estimate is based. This number 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 at least one 

observer for a route to be used. For analysis of 10 and 

39 year trends, routes that did not meet this requirement 

during the interval were not included in the sample size; 

for 2003-2004 change estimation, 0.1 was added to 

counts to ensure maximum use of information. State and 

management unit trends were obtained by calculating a 

mean of all route trends weighted by land area, withinroute variance in counts, and density (mean numbers of 

2 
Fig. 2. Mourning dove management units with 2003 hunting and nonhunting states. 

doves counted on each route). Variances of state and 

management unit trends were estimated by using route 

statistical procedure known as bootstrapping (Geissler 

and Sauer 1990). 

The annual change, or trend, for each area in doves heard 

over the most recent 2- and 10-year intervals and for the 

entire 39-year period were estimated. Additionally, 

trends in doves seen were estimated over the 10- and 39­

year periods as supplemental information for 

comparison. 

For purposes of this report, statistical significance was 

defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison 

where P<0.10 was used because of the low power of the 

test. Significance levels are approximate for states with 

less than 10 routes. 

Estimation of Annual Indices 

Annual indices show population fluctuations about fitted 

trends (Sauer and Geissler 1990). The estimated indices 

were determined for an area (state or management unit) 

by finding the deviation between observed counts on a 

route and those predicted on the route from the area 

trend estimate. These residuals were averaged by year 

for all routes in the area of interest. To adjust for 

variation in sampling intensity, residuals were weighted 

by the land area of the physiographic regions within each 

state. 

These weighted average residuals were then added to the 

fitted trend for the area to produce the annual index of 

abundance. This method of determining indices 

superimposes yearly variation in counts on the long-term 

fitted trend. These indices should provide an accurate 

representation of the fitted trend for regions that are 

adequately sampled by survey routes. Additionally, only 

data from within an area are incorporated into the area's 

index. Since the indices are adjusted for observer 

differences and trend, the index for an area may be quite 

different from the actual count. In order to estimate the 

percent change from 2003 to 2004, a short-term trend (2 

years) was calculated. The percent change estimated 

from this short-term trend analysis is the best estimator 

of annual change. Attempts to estimate short-term trends 

from the breeding population indices (which were 

derived from residuals of the long-term trends) will yield 

less precise results. The annual index value incorporates 

data from a large number of routes that are not 

comparable between the two years 2003 and 2004, i.e., 

routes not run by the same observers. Therefore, the 

index is much more variable than the trend estimate. 

In a separate analysis, the mean number of doves heard 

calling per route in 2004 was calculated for each state or 

groups of states. In contrast to the estimated annual 

indices presented in Table 3 (which illustrate population 

changes over time based on the regression line), the 

3 
Fig. 3. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by 

state in the Eastern Management Unit, 2003-2004. 

estimated densities shown in Figs. 3, 7, and 11 illustrate 

the average actual numbers of doves counted in 2003 

and 2004. 

RESULTS 

Eastern Management Unit 

The Eastern Management Unit includes 27 states 

comprising 30% of the land area of the United States. 

Dove hunting is permitted in 19 states, representing 80% 

of the land area of the unit (Fig. 2). 

2003-2004 Population Distribution.—North Carolina 

had the highest count in the Unit with an average of 34 

actual doves heard per route over the 2 years (Fig. 3). 

Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, 

the North Atlantic states, and New Jersey averaged < 10 

per route. All other states had mean counts in the range 

of 10-20 doves heard per route. 

2003 to 2004 Population Changes.—The average 

number of doves heard per route in this Unit decreased 

7.3% (Table 1). The index also decreased significantly 

between years in the combined hunting states (-6.4%) 

and in the combined nonhunting states (-12.1%). 

The 2004 population index of 15.6 doves heard per route 

for the Unit is essentially the same as the predicted count 

based on the long-term estimate of 15.7 (Fig. 4, Table 3). 

In the hunting states, the index of 16.6 is essentially the 

Fig. 4. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning 

doves in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU), combined 

EMU hunting states (HUNT), and combined EMU nonhunting 

states (NONHUNT), 1966-2004. Heavy solid line = doves 

heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light and heavy dashed 

lines = predicted trends. 

same as the predicted estimate of 16.5 while, in the 

nonhunting states, the index of 11.4 is slightly below the 

predicted estimate of 12.0. 

The doves heard index increased significantly in 

4 
Fig. 5. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per 

route by state in the Eastern Management Unit, 1995-2004. 

Delaware/Maryland and West Virginia while it 

decreased in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and 

Mississippi (Table 1). No significant changes were 

detected for the other states. 

Population Trends: 10 and 39-year.—Analyses indicated 

significant declines over the most recent 10 and 39-year 

periods for the combined hunting states (Table 1). In the 

combined nonhunting states, no trend was found over 

either time period. For the Unit, no significant trend was 

found over 10 years, but a significant decline was 

indicated for the long-term period. Annual indices both 

for doves heard and seen are shown in Fig. 4. In contrast 

to doves heard, an analysis of doves seen indicated a 

significant increasing trend for the Unit and the 2 groups 

of states over 10 years (Table 2). Over 39 years, a 

significant increase was detected for the combined 

nonhunting states; no trend was shown for the combined 

hunting states or the Unit (Table 2). 

State population trends for doves heard are shown in Fig. 

5 (10-year interval) and Fig. 6 (39-year interval) and 

Table 1. Over 10 years, increases were found for North 

Carolina, Wisconsin, and New York while Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey showed declines. 

Between 1966 and 2004, an increase was noted in New 

England while a downward trend was noted in Georgia, 

Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

Fig. 6. Trends in the number of mourning doves heard per 

route by state in the Eastern Management Unit, 1966-2004. 

Central Management Unit 

The Central Management Unit consists of 14 states, 

containing 46% of the land area in the U.S. It has the 

highest population index of the 3 units. Within the unit, 

dove hunting is permitted in 12 states (Fig. 2). 

2003-2004 Population.—Kansas, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota had the highest actual average 

number of doves heard per route over the 2 years (35, 

32, 34, and 36, respectively) (Fig. 7). Historically, North 

Dakota and Kansas often have the highest average 

counts in the Nation (Table 3). Montana, New Mexico, 

and Wyoming were the only states with less than 10 

doves per route. The remaining states had intermediate 

values. 

2003 to 2004 Population Changes.—The average 

number of doves heard per route in the Unit decreased 

significantly between the 2 years (-13.2%; Table 1). The 

2004 index for the Unit of 20.9 doves heard per route is 

slightly below the predicted long-term trend estimate of 

21.9 (Fig. 8, Table 3). 

The population decreased significantly in Arkansas, 

Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, and Texas (Table 1). 

Population Trends: 10 and 39-year.—No significant 

trend in doves heard was indicated for the Unit over the 

short term, but a decline was indicated over the long 

term (Table 1). In contrast, trends in doves seen were 

not significant for either time period (Table 2). 

5 
Fig. 7. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by 

state in the Central Management Unit, 2003-2004. 

State trends in doves heard over 10 years are illustrated 

in Fig. 9 and Table 1. Oklahoma showed an increase 

while Minnesota and Missouri had declines during this 

time. Fig. 10 portrays trends over 39 years. No 

significant upward trend was found in doves heard for 

any state, but a significant downward trend was found in 

Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wyoming (Table 1). 

Western Management Unit 

Seven states comprise the Western Management Unit 

and represent 24% of the land area in the United States. 

All states within the unit permit mourning dove hunting 

(Fig. 2). 

2003-2004 Population Distribution.—Arizona and 

California averaged 17 and 13 actual doves heard per 

route, respectively (Fig. 11). The other states in the Unit 

averaged < 10 birds per route. 

2003 to 2004 Population Changes.—The average 

number of doves heard per route did not change 

significantly between years although the index increased 

by 10.1% (Table 1). The 2004 population index of 9.4 

doves heard per route is above the predicted count of 8.2 

based on the long-term estimate (Fig. 12, Table 3). 

The number of doves heard per route increased 

significantly in California and Utah (Table 1). No 

significant differences were found in other states. 

Fig. 8. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning 

doves in the Central Management Unit, 1966-2004. Heavy 

solid line = doves heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light 

and heavy dashed lines = predicted trends. 

Fig. 9. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per route 

by state in the Central Management Unit, 1995-2004. 

Population Trends: 10 and 39-year.—No significant 

trend in numbers of doves heard was indicated over 10 

years although a significant decline was apparent over 39 

years (Table 1). Analyses of doves seen gave the same 

results (Table 2). 

Trends by state are illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14, and 

Table 1. Idaho and Oregon show significant increases 

over 10 years while Utah showed a decline. All states in 

the Unit except Idaho and Washington have a decline 

between 1966 and 2004. 

6 
Fig. 10. Trends in mourning doves heard per route by state in 

the Central Management Unit, 1966-2004. 

Breeding Bird Survey Results 

There has been considerable discussion about utilizing 

the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) as a 

measure of mourning dove abundance. Consequently, 

we are including trend information in this report to 

enable readers to compare BBS results with the 

Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS) results from 

last year’s mourning dove status report (Dolton and Rau 

2003). Sauer et al. (1994) discussed the differences in 

the methodology of the 2 surveys. The BBS is based on 

50-stop routes that are surveyed in June. Also with the 

BBS, data for doves heard and seen at stops are 

combined for analyses while those data are analyzed 

separately with the CCS. Unfortunately, BBS data are 

not available in time for use in regulations development 

during the year of the survey. Trends calculated from 

BBS data for the 10-year period (1994-2003) and over 

38 years (1966-2003) are presented in Table 4. 

In general, trends indicated by the BBS tend to indicate 

fewer declines. The major differences occur in the 

Eastern Unit. This is likely due to the larger sample size 

of BBS survey routes and greater consistency of 

coverage by BBS routes in the Unit (Sauer et al. 1994), 

although additional analyses are needed to clarify some 

differences in results between surveys within states. 

For the 10-year period, 1994-03 the CCS indicated a 

Fig. 11. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by 

state in the Western Management Unit, 2003-2004. 

Fig. 12. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning 

doves in the Western Management Unit, 1966-2004. Heavy 

solid line = doves heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light 

and heavy dashed lines = predicted trends. 

significant decline (P<0.01) in doves heard for the 

combined hunting states in the EMU while the BBS 

showed no trend (P>0.10). For the nonhunting states, 

both the CCS and BBS showed a significant increase 

(P<0.05). For the EMU as a whole, there is no trend 

indicated with the CCS (P>0.10) while the BBS showed 

a significant increase (P<0.05). For the CMU, both 

surveys showed no significant trend (CCS, P<0.10; 

BBS, P>0.10). In the WMU, both surveys indicated no 

trend (P>0.10). 

7 
Fig. 13. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per 

route by state in the Western Management Unit, 1995-2004. 

Over 38 years, results were very similar with both 

surveys for the Central and Western Management Units 

with both surveys indicating significant declines (CCS: 

P<0.01 for both units; BBS: P<0.05 for both Units;). In 

the Eastern Unit, the CCS analyses indicated a 

significant decline (P<0.05) over the period. In contrast, 

the BBS showed a significant increase (P<0.05). For the 

combined hunting states of the EMU, the CCS showed a 

significant decline (P<0.01) compared with no trend 

(P>0.10) with the BBS. The nonhunting states of the 

EMU were different also. The CCS showed no trend 

(P<0.10), but BBS data indicated a significant increase 

(P<0.05). 

HARVEST ESTIMATES 

State Surveys 

In past years, a compilation of non-uniform, periodic 

state harvest surveys has been used to obtain rough 

estimates of the number of mourning doves killed and 

the number of dove hunters. Although those data are no 

longer used, a summary provided by Sadler (1993) is 

reviewed here for historical purposes. In general, 

mourning dove harvest in the EMU was relatively 

constant from 1966-87, with between 27.5 and 28.5 

million birds taken. The latest estimate, a 1989 survey, 

indicated harvest had dropped to about 26.4 million birds 

shot by an estimated 1.3 million hunters. In the CMU, 

although hunting pressure and harvest varied widely 

among states, dove harvest in the Unit generally 

Fig. 14. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per route 

by state in the Western Management Unit, 1966-2004. 

increased between 1966-87 to an annual average of 

about 13.5 million birds. In 1989, almost 11 million 

doves were taken by about 747,000 hunters. Dove 

harvest in the WMU has declined significantly over the 

years following a decline in the breeding population. In 

the early 1970's, about 7.3 million doves were taken by 

an estimated 450,000 hunters. By 1989, the harvest had 

dropped to about 4 million birds shot by approximately 

285,000 hunters. 

In summary, it appears that the dove harvest throughout 

the United States is on the decrease. However, the 

mourning dove remains an extremely important game 

bird, as more doves are harvested than all other 

migratory game birds combined. A 1991 survey 

indicated that doves provided about 9.5 million days of 

hunting recreation for 1.9 million people (U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census 1993). A survey conducted in 1996 estimated 

that doves were hunted about 8.1 million days by 1.6 

million people (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1997). 

Harvest Information Program (HIP) 

Wildlife professionals have long recognized that reliable 

harvest estimates are needed to monitor the impact of 

hunting. To remedy problems associated with state 

surveys, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state 

wildlife agencies initiated the national, cooperative 

8 
Harvest Information Program in 1992. This program is 

designed to enable the Service to conduct nationwide 

surveys that provide reliable annual estimates of the 

harvest of mourning doves and other migratory game 

bird species. Under the Harvest Information Program, 

states provide the Service with the names and addresses 

of all licensed migratory bird hunters each year, and the 

Service conducts surveys to estimate the harvest in each 

state. All states except Hawaii are participating in the 

program. 

Preliminary results of the mourning dove harvest survey 

for the 2002-03 hunting season are presented in Table 5 

and preliminary results for the 2003-04 season are shown 

in Table 6. The total estimated harvest for the 2003-04 

season by management unit and for the U.S. are as 

follows: Eastern: 8,078,500 ± 9%; Central: 7,714,600 ± 

9%; Western: 2,420,100 ± 8%; and, U.S.: 18,213,200 ± 

5%. It is important to note that these estimates do not 

necessarily indicate that the harvest has declined from 

past years when harvest estimates were compiled from 

state surveys. And, they cannot be compared directly 

with the earlier estimates since they are based on a 

different sampling scheme. The reliability of these 

estimates depends primarily upon the quality of the 

sample frame provided by each participating state. If a 

state's sample frame does not include all migratory bird 

hunters in that state, the survey results underestimate 

hunter activity and harvest for the state. 

The Harvest Surveys Section is continuing to work with 

states to improve the accuracy and precision of the 

harvest estimates. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Personnel of state wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cooperated in collecting 

the data presented in this report. C. Quasney and N. 

Tucker (USFWS) provided invaluable assistance with 

data entry. H. Bellary (USFWS) played a vital role in 

web site and database development. J. R. Sauer (BRD) 

analyzed the data and provided statistical support. P. I. 

Padding (USFWS) provided the HIP data and 

explanation. M. Koneff (USFWS) reviewed a draft of 

parts or all of this report. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Aldrich, J.W. 1993. Classification and distribution. 

Pages 47-54 in T.S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R.E. 

Tomlinson, and R.E. Mirarchi, eds., Ecology and 

management of the mourning dove. Stackpole 

Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Dolton, D.D. 1993. The call-count survey: historic 

development and current procedures. Pages 233-252 

in T.S. Baskett, M.W. Sayre, R.E. Tomlinson, and 

R.E. Mirarchi, eds., Ecology and management of the 

mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

Dolton, D.D. and R. D. Rau. 2003. Mourning dove 

population status, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 

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

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

Mourning dove banding analysis, Central 

Management Unit, 1967-77. Special Scientific 

Report--Wildl. No. 249. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Foote, L.E. and H.S. Peters. 1952. Pages 1-2 in 

Investigations of methods of appraising the 

abundance of mourning doves. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report--Wildlife 

17. 

Geissler, P.H. and J.R. Sauer. 1990. Topics in route 

regression analysis. Pages 54-57 in J.R. Sauer and 

S. Droege, eds. Survey designs and statistical 

methods for the estimation of avian population 

trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Report 90(1). 

Kiel, W.H. 1959. Mourning dove management units, a 

progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Special Scientific Report--Wildlife 42. 

____. 1961. The mourning dove program for the future. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference 26:418-435. 

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

estimates of trends. Bird Populations 2:23-32. 

McClure, H.E. 1939. Cooing activity and censusing of 

the mourning dove. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 3:323-328. 

Mirarchi, R.E. and T.S. Baskett. 1994. Mourning dove 

9 
(Zenaida macroura). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., 

The birds of North America, No. 117. The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The 

American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., 

USA. 

Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Sauer and W.A. Link. 1994. The 

1992 and 1993 summary of the North American 

breeding bird survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61. 

Sadler, K.C. 1993. Mourning dove harvest. Pages 449­

458 in T.S.Baskett, M.W. Sayer, R.E. Tomlinson 

and R.E. Mirarchi, eds., Ecology and management 

of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

Sauer, J.R. and P.H. Geissler. 1990. Annual indices 

from route regression analyses. 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 Wildlife Service, 

Biological Report. 90(1). 

Sauer, J.R., D.D. Dolton, and S. Droege. 

1994.Mourning dove population trend estimates 

from Call-count and North American Breeding Bird 

Surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

58(3):506-515. 

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

Nichols and L.A. McKibben. 1988. Migration, 

harvest, and population characteristics of mourning 

doves banded in the Western Management Unit; 

1964-1977. Fish and Wildlife Technical. Report 13, 

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

USA. 

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

Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census. 1993. 1991 National survey of 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C., USA. 

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

Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census. 1997. 1996 National survey of 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C., USA. 

10 
Table 1. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves heard along 

call-count survey routes, 1966-2004. 

2 year (2003-2004) 10 year (1995-2004) 39 year (1966-2004) 

N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90% CI

EASTERN UNIT

Hunt 

 AL 26 9.3 -3.4 22.1 28 -1.5

 DE/MD 13 26.2 * 1.9 50.4 14 0.0 

FL 19 9.8 -9.7 29.3 23 -3.1 ** 

GA 15 -0.5 -20.9 19.9 24 -3.3 ** 

IL 16 -16.0 ** -28.2 -3.9 20 -2.6 ** 

IN 10 7.0 -13.8 27.7 15 -1.2

 KY 15 -17.4 ** -31.0 -3.7 21 1.7 * 

LA 17 -19.0 *** -31.0 -7.1 19 2.1 

MS 18 -30.1 *** -47.7 -12.5 23 -3.6 * 

NC 20 3.9 -7.9 15.6 21 1.5 ** 

OH 34 -1.1 -9.3 7.1 37 0.0 

PA 16 -3.5 -19.4 12.4 18 0.7 

 SC 18 -6.5 -19.6 6.6 21 -0.4

TN 16 -11.0 -22.2 0.3 24 -1.2

VA 22 -7.0 -22.2 8.2 33 -0.7

WI 15 -5.1 -15.6 5.5 22 5.7 *** 

WV 10 63.5 * 6.0 121.0 10 -1.3

-3.1 0.1 42 -0.7 -1.6 0.2 

-3.4 3.4 19 -1.6 -3.3 0.0 

-5.2 -1.1 28 -0.2 -1.1 0.7 

-5.9 -0.7 30 -1.0 ** -1.6 -0.3

-4.5 -0.7 22 0.2 -1.1 1.4 

-3.4 1.1 18 -1.5 *** -2.4 -0.7

0.0 3.3 26 -0.4 -1.6 0.8 

-1.2 5.4 23 1.3 * 0.2 2.4 

-6.9 -0.2 31 -1.8 * -3.5 -0.1

0.4 2.6 24 0.0 -1.0 1.0 

-2.2 2.1 57 -1.1 *** -1.7 -0.5

-3.5 4.9 18 1.0 -0.7 2.6 

-3.4 2.6 27 -1.1 ** -2.0 -0.3

-3.6 1.1 32 -1.6 ** -2.7 -0.6

-2.3 0.9 33 -1.9 -3.9 0.0 

3.1 8.3 23 0.6 -0.7 1.9 

-5.5 3.0 11 1.5 -0.4 3.3 

Subunit 

Nonhunt 

MI 

 N.England c 

NJ 

NY 

300 

14 

28 

9 

10 

-6.4 

-13.3 

-7.9 

8.7 

-11.7 

** -10.8 

 -30.9 

-16.2 

-26.8 

 -28.3 

-2.1 

4.3 

0.3 

44.3 

4.9 

373 

22 

42 

11 

17 

-1.0 

1.4 

-0.5

-3.1 

5.1 

** 

*** 

** 

-1.7 

-2.8 

 -2.2 

-4.1 

1.3 

-0.4 

5.6 

1.1 

-2.1 

8.9 

464 

23 

76 

20 

20 

-0.6 

0.3 

1.5 

-2.3 

1.9 

*** 

*** 

-1.0 

-1.0 

0.6 

-5.2 

-0.2 

-0.3 

1.7 

2.3 

0.6 

4.0 

Subunit 

Unit 

CENTRAL UNIT 

 AR 

CO 

IA 

KS 

MN 

MO 

MT 

NE 

NM 

ND 

OK 

 SD 

TX 

WY 

61 

361 

11 

13 

14 

22 

7 

13 

9 

21 

18 

21 

16 

19 

120 

12 

-12.1 

-7.3 

-22.4 

6.3 

-13.8 

-17.9 

51.4 

-9.8 

-6.3 

-12.1 

-8.0 

-25.1 

7.1 

8.6 

-18.1 

23.0 

* 

*** 

** 

** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

-23.5 

-11.1 

-38.8 

-11.2 

-24.2 

-27.5 

-2.7 

-31.1 

-21.9 

 -29.0 

-22.2 

-38.9 

-10.3 

-10.8 

-27.5 

-24.6 

-0.7 

-3.5 

-5.9 

23.9 

-3.4 

-8.2 

105.5 

11.4 

9.4 

4.7 

6.3 

-11.3 

24.5 

27.9 

-8.7 

70.7 

92 

465 

17 

16 

16 

28 

12 

20 

17 

24 

28 

27 

16 

19 

143 

17 

1.0 

-0.7 

-3.4 

-2.9 

-0.4 

1.7 

-5.2 

-6.0 

3.3 

-2.1 

-1.5 

-0.8 

3.1 

1.4 

-0.9 

-4.1 

* 

* 

** 

*** 

* 

* 

** 

* 

-1.3 

-1.4 

-6.6 

-6.4 

-2.8 

-3.5 

-9.2 

-8.0 

0.1 

-4.0 

-5.8 

-2.4 

0.7 

-1.9 

-2.0 

-8.0 

3.3 

0.0 

-0.3 

0.6 

1.9 

6.9 

-1.2 

-4.1 

6.6 

-0.1 

2.7 

0.7 

5.6 

4.7 

0.3 

-0.2 

139 

603 

18 

21 

18 

34 

13 

28 

28 

27 

31 

30 

25 

28 

205 

23 

0.8 

-0.5 

-0.9 

-1.1 

0.0 

0.1 

-1.7 

-2.1 

-1.7 

-1.0 

0.5 

-0.2 

0.7 

-0.6 

-0.5 

-3.5 

** 

*** 

* 

*** 

** 

*** 

-0.1 

-0.8 

-2.2 

-1.8 

-0.7 

-0.7 

-3.2 

-3.4 

-3.4 

-1.7 

-0.5 

-1.5 

-2.9 

-2.2 

-1.2 

-5.7 

1.6 

-0.1 

0.4 

-0.4

0.8 

0.8 

-0.2

-0.9

0.1 

-0.3

1.6 

1.2 

4.4 

1.0 

0.2 

-1.3 

Unit 316 -13.2 *** -18.7 -7.7 400 -0.7 -1.5 0.2 529 -0.6 ** -1.0 -0.2 

WESTERN UNIT 

 AZ 

CA 

ID 

NV 

OR 

UT 

WA 

Unit 

33 

54 

15 

14 

13 

12 

15 

156 

-3.6 

15.2 

16.2 

34.4 

-0.3

78.8 

-7.6 

10.1 

* 

** 

-24.6 

2.0 

-28.7 

-8.5

 -7.6 

15.3 

-39.8 

-1.6

17.4 

28.4 

61.2 

 77.2 

7.0 

142.3 

24.6 

 21.8 

55 

60 

23 

24 

20 

15 

22 

219 

-0.2 

1.0 

3.5 

-1.6 

5.9 

-2.6 

0.8 

0.1 

** 

*** 

** 

-2.5 

-0.7 

0.8 

-5.1 

3.2 

-4.6 

-6.5 

-1.1 

2.1 

2.8 

6.2 

1.9 

8.6 

-0.5 

8.1 

1.3 

69 

83 

28 

31 

25 

19 

27 

282 

-1.1 

-2.4 

-2.4 

-4.4 

-2.1 

-3.6 

-2.5 

-2.1 

** 

*** 

* 

*** 

** 

** 

* 

*** 

-1.8 

-3.5 

-4.6 

-6.3 

-3.6 

-6.2 

-4.6 

-2.7 

-0.4

-1.3

-0.2

-2.4

-0.7

-1.0 

-0.3 

-1.5 

a Mean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year 

where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 39 years) may exaggerate the total change

over the period.

b *P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10 was 

used because of the low power of the test. 

c New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

11 
Table 2. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves seen along 

call-count survey routes, 1966-2004. 

10 year (1995-2004) 39 year (1966-2004) 

N % Changeb 90% CI N % Changeb 90% CI 

EASTERN UNIT 

Hunt 

 AL 28 1.5 -0.9 3.9 42 -1.0 -2.0 0.0 

 DE/MD 14 4.1 ** 0.7 7.4 19 0.7 -0.8 2.2 

FL 24 3.9 ** 0.8 7.1 28 4.6 *** 3.1 6.1 

GA 24 1.0 -5.3 7.4 30 0.6 -0.7 1.9 

IL 20 6.4 *** 2.7 10.2 22 -0.9 -2.7 0.8 

IN 15 3.8 -0.4 8.1 18 -2.1 -5.0 0.8 

 KY 21 3.8 *** 2.3 5.3 24 1.7 ** 0.3 3.1 

LA 18 4.5 *** 2.3 6.6 23 2.3 *** 1.2 3.3 

MS 23 -0.8 -5.4 3.9 31 -1.0 -3.2 1.2 

NC 21 2.3 -0.3 4.8 24 -0.4 -1.2 0.5 

OH 37 3.2 *** 1.3 5.1 57 1.2 -0.4 2.8 

PA 18 3.0 * 0.2 5.9 18 1.3 -0.7 3.3 

 SC 21 4.2 *** 1.8 6.5 27 1.2 ** 0.3 2.1 

TN 24 0.6 -2.2 3.3 32 -0.6 -1.7 0.5 

VA 33 0.0 -2.5 2.4 33 -1.6 -4.2 1.0 

WI 21 5.5 ** 1.9 9.0 23 2.7 *** 1.5 4.0 

WV 10 2.9 -2.7 8.5 11 3.9 *** 2.2 5.7 

Subunit 

Nonhunt 

MI 

 N.England c 

NJ 

NY 

372 

22 

41 

11 

16 

3.2 

5.2 

-0.2 

-3.2 

5.9 

*** 

*** 

** 

2.3 

2.6 

-2.1

-8.4 

2.1 

4.2 

7.7 

1.8 

1.9 

9.7 

462 

23 

73 

20 

20 

0.3 

1.8 

1.8 

-1.4 

3.6 

** 

** 

-0.4

0.7 

-0.1

-3.4 

0.8 

1.1 

2.9 

3.8 

0.6 

6.4 

Subunit 

Unit 

CENTRAL UNIT 

 AR 

CO 

IA 

KS 

MN 

MO 

MT 

NE 

NM 

ND 

OK 

 SD 

TX 

WY 

90 

462 

18 

16 

16 

28 

12 

20 

19 

24 

28 

27 

16 

19 

143 

14 

3.6 

3.3 

3.8 

-1.7 

1.2 

0.2 

-0.9 

-0.9 

0.9 

0.6 

0.6 

1.2 

0.2 

4.5 

0.4 

-7.0 

*** 

*** 

** 

1.8 

2.5 

-0.3

-6.1

-0.7

-3.5

-5.9 

-3.8 

-4.6

-0.9

-3.6

-1.7

-1.5

0.7 

-1.1

-15.7 

5.5 

4.2 

8.0 

2.6 

3.1 

4.0 

4.2 

2.0 

6.4 

2.1 

4.7 

4.1 

1.9 

8.3 

1.9 

1.7 

136 

598 

19 

20 

18 

34 

14 

28 

28 

27 

31 

30 

25 

28 

206 

21 

1.9 

0.5 

-1.2 

0.1 

-0.2 

-0.7 

-0.8 

-3.1 

0.8 

-0.6 

-0.7 

0.3 

-0.3 

-0.3 

0.8 

-4.4 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

* 

1.0 

-0.2

-2.0 

-1.1

-1.1

-1.4

-2.5 

-4.6

-0.6

-1.9

-3.6

-1.1

-1.5

-2.5

0.2 

-8.5

2.8 

1.2 

-0.4

 1.3 

0.7 

0.1 

0.9 

 -1.6

 2.2 

0.8 

2.2 

1.7 

1.0 

1.9 

1.5 

 -0.4 

Unit 400 0.5 -0.5 1.4 529 0.0 -0.4 0.5 

WESTERN UNIT 

 AZ 

CA 

ID 

NV 

OR 

UT 

WA 

Unit 

54 

55 

22 

21 

19 

14 

22 

207 

-1.7 

2.7 

0.1 

-4.3 

-13.0 

1.9 

3.5 

-0.7 

* 

** 

** 

-5.3 

0.3 

-9.6

-10.2 

-23.9 

-2.1

1.1 

-2.9 

1.8 

5.0 

9.7 

1.5 

-2.2 

6.0 

5.9 

1.4 

70 

82 

28 

32 

23 

19 

24 

278 

-4.4 

-2.4 

-3.5 

-2.7 

-4.9 

-4.9 

0.6 

-3.3 

*** 

*** 

* 

*** 

** 

*** 

-6.5

-3.4 

-6.8 

-5.8 

-7.3

-8.9 

-1.9

-4.2

 -2.4

-1.3

-0.3

0.4 

 -2.5

-1.0 

3.1 

 -2.4 

a Mean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year 

where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 39 years) may exaggerate the total change

over the period.

b *P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where P<0.10 was 

used because of the low power of the test. 

c New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT. 

12 
Table 3. Breeding population indicesa

 based on mourning doves heard along Call-count routes, 1966-2004. 

Management year 

unit/state 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 

EASTERN UNIT 

Hunt

 AL 

 DE/MD 

FL 

GA 

IL 

IN 

KY 

 LA 

 MS 

NC 

OH 

PA 

SC 

TN 

VA 

 WI 

 WV 

Subunit 

25.4 

16.9 

12.0 

29.8 

23.7 

37.6 

24.1 

10.0 

40.8 

34.8 

24.7 

8.8 

33.3 

32.5 

25.6 

10.6 

6.4 

22.7 

22.7 

20.7 

11.5 

27.9 

20.4 

34.6 

21.9 

10.3 

35.1 

28.2 

23.3 

9.4 

36.3 

23.7 

21.4 

13.6 

5.4 

21.3 

20.4 

14.5 

9.8 

23.9 

24.2 

34.0 

21.3 

9.6 

29.7 

29.7 

21.1 

8.7 

37.0 

24.3 

24.2 

13.6 

5.5 

20.4 

20.7 

15.3 

10.4 

25.6 

21.0 

32.9 

22.3 

11.2 

27.3 

42.4 

24.0 

8.3 

35.7 

24.0 

21.5 

10.4 

6.0 

20.4 

21.0 

18.9 

13.2 

32.4 

24.1 

31.8 

26.8 

7.0 

30.3 

48.9 

23.7 

5.5 

33.6 

32.5 

27.4 

11.3 

5.5 

21.2 

17.2 

16.2 

11.1 

25.5 

22.0 

42.9 

24.0 

10.1 

30.9 

28.5 

24.5 

6.3 

29.4 

23.0 

22.1 

16.3 

5.0 

20.3 

24.6 

17.6 

11.3 

24.3 

22.6 

37.5 

20.2 

11.2 

34.4 

23.1 

25.6 

8.8 

26.1 

29.0 

13.2 

17.1 

6.6 

20.9 

21.5 

17.4 

11.5 

26.7 

22.1 

33.5 

24.0 

8.7 

30.8 

44.0 

20.3 

5.8 

29.8 

22.1 

15.6 

11.3 

3.9 

19.2 

16.3 

18.4 

13.7 

27.7 

18.7 

31.9 

27.9 

10.2 

24.7 

25.1 

24.7 

8.5 

27.8 

23.5 

21.3 

12.0 

4.1 

19.5 

20.8

13.1

14.2

30.1

25.8

33.6

19.6

10.7

26.1

14.2

37.7

5.9

27.5

22.5

23.8

15.0

2.4 

19.7 

Nonhunt

 MI 

 N.Englandb 

NJ 

NY 

Subunit 

Unit 

14.0 

6.0 

20.7 

6.2 

9.4 

20.2 

15.2 

6.5 

17.7 

6.2 

9.8 

19.2 

10.0 

5.9 

21.9 

5.9 

8.0 

17.9 

10.3 

5.1 

20.1 

5.5 

7.6 

17.8 

8.3 

6.0 

27.2 

7.2 

7.9 

18.5 

16.4 

6.3 

25.4 

8.4 

11.0 

18.8 

17.0 

7.0 

26.7 

6.6 

11.0 

19.2 

13.5 

8.1 

23.5 

6.9 

10.4 

17.7 

11.5 

5.2 

22.8 

7.1 

8.7 

17.5 

12.8

4.9

16.3

12.6 

10.7 

18.1 

CENTRAL UNIT 

AR 

CO 

IA 

KS 

 MN 

 MO 

 MT 

NE 

NM 

ND 

OK 

SD 

TX 

 WY 

22.8 

25.0 

31.7 

46.3 

31.4 

39.6 

27.6 

46.9 

15.0 

40.7 

18.1 

50.3 

27.0 

23.8 

23.8 

24.5 

28.4 

47.7 

25.1 

37.4 

25.5 

41.1 

11.2 

39.0 

22.3 

31.6 

22.4 

25.0 

22.8 

22.3 

30.8 

49.5 

27.0 

46.9 

20.0 

52.3 

15.6 

53.3 

26.4 

43.2 

22.0 

13.0 

21.9 

30.3 

27.6 

50.2 

19.9 

28.3 

22.2 

51.1 

11.9 

44.2 

25.4 

36.7 

20.0 

21.0 

23.7 

30.3 

20.0 

46.3 

15.8 

39.1 

17.8 

49.4 

11.7 

39.2 

20.1 

43.8 

21.1 

20.0 

23.7 

22.0 

24.6 

47.1 

22.7 

32.8 

25.2 

46.8 

11.0 

40.3 

15.8 

38.6 

20.5 

11.3 

22.2 

27.8 

32.7 

52.7 

26.2 

44.4 

20.1 

44.9 

12.6 

41.7 

26.1 

38.4 

27.4 

15.1 

25.0 

17.1 

30.9 

46.9 

19.8 

33.4 

14.4 

42.9 

9.0 

45.7 

24.6 

40.5 

21.9 

15.1 

23.0 

27.2 

24.6 

46.6 

27.4 

28.5 

16.8 

44.5 

10.9 

44.2 

26.0 

48.6 

23.3 

21.6 

22.1

19.9

22.8

44.7

30.1

33.5

22.9

41.8

13.5

32.1

23.6

41.0

21.1

19.0 

Unit 29.7 26.7 27.6 26.2 25.3 25.0 28.4 23.8 26.7 26.1 

WESTERN UNIT 

AZ 

CA 

ID 

NV 

OR 

UT 

 WA 

Unit 

28.6 

27.8 

17.0 

11.6 

15.8 

20.7 

12.1 

19.2 

28.7 

26.2 

17.5 

10.7 

10.5 

31.7 

17.7 

19.4 

25.6 

24.2 

15.8 

25.4 

12.5 

16.1 

16.6 

20.0 

30.5 

23.9 

16.6 

17.6 

11.4 

15.2 

13.2 

19.0 

30.5 

23.4 

15.5 

12.7 

8.6 

17.8 

13.4 

17.5 

20.6 

17.5 

12.3 

7.7 

7.6 

24.9 

15.8 

14.5 

23.1 

21.3 

11.8 

10.3 

7.4 

14.5 

11.3 

14.6 

27.9 

20.5 

14.5 

7.2 

7.3 

12.6 

10.2 

14.2 

24.1 

22.2 

12.3 

9.7 

12.9 

14.4 

12.8 

16.1 

26.5

18.7

8.5

6.1

9.7

15.4

13.8 

13.9 

a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year. 

Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 39-year period. b

 New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT. 

13 
Table 3. Breeding population indicesa

 based on mourning doves heard along Call-count routes, 1966-2004. 

Management year 

unit/state 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

EASTERN UNIT 

Hunt

 AL 

 DE/MD 

FL 

GA 

IL 

IN 

KY 

 LA 

 MS 

NC 

OH 

PA 

SC 

TN 

VA 

 WI 

 WV 

Subunit 

20.0 

16.0 

13.1 

23.7 

25.3 

33.8 

24.6 

10.8 

26.6 

17.3 

27.4 

6.0 

27.2 

22.2 

22.9 

15.1 

5.9 

19.8 

22.1 

14.7 

14.4 

24.6 

27.0 

37.7 

23.1 

8.9 

27.3 

46.0 

26.3 

4.9 

23.1 

24.3 

30.5 

19.8 

5.6 

21.4 

24.2 

15.4 

11.2 

27.1 

20.7 

20.4 

24.7 

10.5 

30.8 

24.6 

13.9 

6.0 

30.6 

30.1 

22.6 

8.0 

6.4 

18.4 

23.3 

14.9 

12.2 

23.7 

18.0 

21.6 

17.0 

8.9 

26.3 

29.1 

13.5 

6.7 

25.9 

20.6 

19.9 

11.7 

7.2 

17.6 

23.2 

14.2 

9.7 

24.1 

18.4 

27.4 

16.5 

12.4 

25.0 

28.3 

16.2 

8.0 

32.6 

22.3 

19.5 

15.1 

8.3 

18.9 

22.2 

13.6 

8.7 

26.7 

20.6 

31.6 

28.0 

10.7 

25.0 

27.8 

19.6 

9.5 

31.7 

18.8 

16.9 

20.3 

6.7 

19.7 

22.6 

14.2 

10.3 

28.7 

25.1 

22.4 

24.1 

13.4 

31.6 

23.3 

18.7 

9.0 

32.7 

25.2 

18.6 

11.3 

6.3 

19.7 

22.6 

10.0 

11.9 

25.6 

25.8 

19.2 

13.5 

12.4 

26.5 

27.6 

19.9 

9.0 

31.1 

19.5 

18.4 

13.2 

6.0 

18.7 

18.9 

11.5 

8.2 

20.9 

20.9 

20.9 

21.6 

11.8 

19.5 

30.9 

18.4 

8.2 

28.2 

16.7 

18.0 

10.4 

5.3 

16.8 

24.1

12.5

10.5

26.6

18.0

18.4

22.5

10.6

25.8

21.5

17.3

9.1

28.4

21.5

16.9

10.7

6.6 

17.7 

Nonhunt

 MI 

 N.Englandb 

NJ 

NY 

Subunit 

Unit 

13.0 

4.6 

20.5 

7.5 

9.0 

17.8 

11.0 

8.6 

22.4 

7.4 

9.8 

19.1 

12.6 

7.3 

17.8 

9.0 

10.3 

17.0 

7.4 

6.1 

19.0 

6.1 

7.1 

15.3 

13.6 

7.5 

17.7 

10.9 

11.2 

17.6 

15.5 

9.2 

14.3 

9.2 

11.8 

18.4 

11.3 

7.5 

16.5 

9.9 

10.1 

17.9 

10.0 

8.0 

19.6 

9.1 

9.7 

17.0 

10.7 

6.9 

12.4 

9.0 

9.2 

15.4 

11.8

7.6

12.4

8.2 

9.7 

16.2 

CENTRAL UNIT 

AR 

CO 

IA 

KS 

 MN 

 MO 

 MT 

NE 

NM 

ND 

OK 

SD 

TX 

 WY 

26.8 

28.2 

28.0 

49.2 

26.0 

29.6 

16.7 

47.2 

13.2 

51.7 

24.9 

44.1 

20.6 

17.5 

21.8 

25.9 

21.8 

46.7 

29.9 

34.3 

20.3 

47.7 

11.7 

42.6 

32.4 

38.7 

19.7 

11.1 

15.4 

28.6 

24.5 

36.7 

28.8 

22.0 

19.6 

39.2 

11.8 

45.3 

24.9 

41.7 

20.5 

17.5 

12.5 

23.6 

20.9 

53.7 

29.3 

20.9 

19.5 

41.9 

8.0 

42.3 

24.5 

40.9 

25.3 

13.2 

20.7 

27.1 

28.2 

58.4 

31.6 

32.6 

17.9 

53.3 

12.9 

47.9 

25.6 

41.0 

24.2 

11.8 

22.6 

30.5 

31.1 

55.8 

27.8 

27.5 

16.7 

50.6 

12.8 

48.3 

25.5 

36.9 

22.0 

13.1 

26.3 

29.5 

22.4 

53.2 

24.4 

24.2 

21.4 

49.3 

10.0 

45.2 

26.7 

44.0 

21.2 

16.8 

19.7 

16.2 

16.0 

60.1 

21.3 

23.4 

17.2 

44.9 

13.5 

43.1 

27.3 

38.0 

19.7 

11.2 

14.0 

20.2 

23.5 

47.6 

18.2 

22.3 

13.0 

42.8 

14.4 

33.8 

20.8 

42.4 

19.3 

10.1 

13.9

24.0

26.0

61.7

19.8

21.3

18.0

44.0

12.3

44.2

20.4

39.8

20.0

11.6 

Unit 26.8 25.7 25.2 24.8 27.9 27.0 27.0 23.9 22.4 24.5 

WESTERN UNIT 

AZ 

CA 

ID 

NV 

OR 

UT 

 WA 

Unit 

27.4 

22.4 

15.7 

10.0 

10.2 

17.9 

13.3 

17.4 

24.5 

17.2 

19.1 

10.2 

11.4 

21.0 

14.4 

17.3 

24.5 

15.5 

10.6 

6.0 

6.1 

9.3 

9.3 

11.7 

24.0 

12.0 

10.2 

8.8 

6.3 

11.5 

13.0 

12.4 

21.4 

20.3 

10.8 

12.6 

9.4 

13.8 

8.9 

15.3 

24.1 

16.9 

11.8 

9.1 

8.0 

18.3 

10.6 

14.9 

27.5 

20.9 

12.2 

5.1 

7.9 

11.1 

9.9 

13.7 

21.4 

12.9 

9.4 

4.6 

6.0 

11.2 

8.3 

10.8 

26.3 

17.9 

11.0 

4.5 

7.6 

12.5 

7.3 

12.7 

21.2

12.7

10.1

5.7

8.3

8.3

9.1 

11.4 

a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year. 

Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 39-year period. b

 New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT. 

14 
Table 3. Breeding population indicesa

 based on mourning doves heard along Call-count routes, 1966-2004. 

Management year 

unit/state 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

EASTERN UNIT 

Hunt

 AL 

 DE/MD 

FL 

GA 

IL 

IN 

KY 

 LA 

 MS 

NC 

OH 

PA 

SC 

TN 

VA 

 WI 

 WV 

Subunit 

21.9 

14.9 

12.3 

23.8 

24.8 

24.4 

20.2 

9.7 

25.4 

30.1 

16.9 

9.6 

24.0 

16.2 

13.7 

11.5 

6.2 

17.9 

19.5 

13.0 

11.1 

24.9 

24.2 

24.5 

24.9 

13.8 

22.5 

29.2 

18.5 

10.9 

35.1 

20.0 

14.4 

7.6 

6.5 

18.3 

21.5 

12.1 

13.3 

25.1 

27.3 

29.5 

19.8 

10.3 

26.6 

26.8 

21.1 

7.3 

27.8 

19.6 

15.7 

17.9 

7.5 

19.5 

18.4 

16.6 

12.0 

25.4 

26.7 

25.0 

27.2 

16.0 

25.0 

31.5 

19.8 

9.4 

26.6 

17.8 

15.3 

18.0 

8.1 

20.1 

17.3 

8.0 

10.9 

26.2 

26.1 

27.2 

22.7 

11.3 

21.0 

28.8 

18.2 

9.5 

28.8 

15.6 

13.0 

14.3 

10.7 

18.3 

16.1 

12.3 

11.7 

21.8 

26.4 

27.4 

21.6 

11.7 

17.4 

24.3 

19.5 

9.6 

23.3 

18.8 

13.7 

12.9 

9.1 

17.7 

18.4 

15.8 

11.9 

30.7 

27.3 

24.2 

17.2 

15.6 

22.7 

23.6 

20.4 

10.6 

22.9 

18.3 

12.1 

19.6 

7.4 

19.3 

20.1 

10.7 

10.6 

19.0 

23.7 

25.6 

22.1 

11.9 

24.8 

24.5 

17.3 

11.8 

26.9 

16.1 

13.7 

18.7 

8.6 

18.3 

20.8 

13.0 

10.0 

22.0 

26.4 

30.4 

21.3 

13.0 

20.9 

24.8 

19.2 

11.2 

23.9 

19.8 

13.5 

15.5 

9.4 

18.6 

21.9

11.6

11.6

26.2

27.2

24.6

20.9

14.8

19.1

26.9

17.5

10.7

19.2

18.2

14.6

13.2

9.7 

18.6 

Nonhunt

 MI 

 N.Englandb 

NJ 

NY 

Subunit 

Unit 

15.1 

8.2 

14.6 

6.9 

10.3 

16.5 

12.3 

7.8 

13.4 

9.2 

10.1 

16.8 

14.9 

7.3 

13.0 

7.4 

10.0 

17.6 

18.6 

7.7 

15.9 

11.5 

12.7 

18.8 

14.0 

8.5 

12.4 

10.1 

11.1 

17.0 

11.4 

9.3 

15.2 

12.6 

11.4 

16.6 

13.3 

9.9 

9.7 

10.8 

11.5 

17.8 

12.3 

10.5 

15.6 

9.5 

11.2 

17.0 

11.6 

9.4 

13.5 

9.7 

10.6 

17.1 

12.9

11.8

10.1

10.8 

11.9 

17.4 

CENTRAL UNIT 

AR 

CO 

IA 

KS 

 MN 

 MO 

 MT 

NE 

NM 

ND 

OK 

SD 

TX 

 WY 

15.0 

23.0 

23.5 

42.5 

18.1 

22.1 

18.8 

36.7 

14.7 

40.5 

23.0 

37.0 

21.5 

14.2 

14.0 

24.5 

22.5 

46.2 

23.1 

24.8 

18.1 

36.2 

17.7 

46.3 

25.7 

32.4 

21.2 

11.4 

15.5 

26.5 

30.5 

53.6 

23.5 

25.0 

14.9 

36.2 

13.3 

43.6 

22.6 

38.4 

21.8 

7.4 

21.7 

29.8 

27.6 

48.4 

18.7 

24.5 

19.0 

40.2 

14.7 

45.3 

17.3 

41.4 

16.7 

8.7 

16.9 

26.8 

31.5 

42.3 

15.3 

19.8 

20.7 

39.9 

16.1 

43.8 

22.7 

42.9 

17.7 

8.7 

15.3 

17.7 

23.3 

59.1 

18.9 

21.6 

13.5 

40.7 

14.9 

48.2 

23.1 

45.2 

24.6 

9.3 

18.4 

13.4 

31.0 

57.5 

22.0 

22.7 

14.5 

38.3 

9.7 

51.8 

26.4 

36.5 

22.5 

9.5 

16.9 

12.9 

23.0 

39.0 

15.8 

21.8 

10.5 

40.2 

10.9 

45.0 

22.7 

32.9 

20.5 

6.9 

20.2 

22.8 

24.1 

52.3 

19.6 

26.2 

9.8 

37.3 

13.6 

38.8 

29.8 

35.8 

22.7 

9.0 

18.7

19.0

25.5

62.6

19.4

22.8

12.4

40.8

12.3

40.6

22.5

37.0

17.1

6.5 

Unit 24.7 25.4 24.4 24.3 24.3 24.7 23.7 20.6 24.0 22.3 

WESTERN UNIT 

AZ 

CA 

ID 

NV 

OR 

UT 

 WA 

Unit 

25.1 

14.7 

7.2 

3.7 

6.7 

11.5 

10.9 

11.2 

16.9 

11.3 

7.3 

4.3 

6.1 

10.1 

8.6 

9.7 

18.9 

15.1 

9.6 

5.9 

7.6 

10.4 

8.7 

11.9 

23.4 

11.1 

9.6 

5.1 

6.3 

10.8 

7.4 

10.8 

17.8 

11.1 

10.4 

3.6 

7.1 

9.3 

7.7 

10.0 

22.7 

10.9 

9.5 

4.7 

4.4 

8.4 

9.7 

10.1 

24.4 

11.8 

8.8 

3.9 

6.9 

10.8 

8.6 

10.8 

24.8 

14.3 

7.6 

3.3 

5.7 

9.1 

7.3 

10.4 

22.0 

11.8 

7.5 

3.0 

6.8 

9.6 

7.6 

9.9 

20.8

11.4

6.9

5.0

5.6

6.2

8.4 

9.8 

a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year. 

Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 39-year period. b

 New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT. 

15 
Table 3. Breeding population indicesa

 based on mourning doves heard along Call-count routes, 1966-2004. 

Management year 

unit/state 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

EASTERN UNIT 

Hunt

 AL 

 DE/MD 

FL 

GA 

IL 

IN 

KY 

 LA 

 MS 

NC 

OH 

PA 

SC 

TN 

VA 

 WI 

 WV 

Subunit 

17.0 

10.9 

10.8 

22.1 

21.5 

21.1 

17.8 

12.0 

17.9 

27.4 

14.1 

10.5 

24.2 

15.5 

11.7 

11.9 

4.8 

16.0 

15.9 

9.0 

10.0 

19.0 

21.8 

20.8 

16.7 

12.3 

17.2 

30.1 

14.0 

9.8 

23.1 

16.6 

14.8 

12.4 

10.2 

16.2 

17.7 

12.5 

12.4 

18.2 

21.9 

21.0 

21.8 

13.9 

17.6 

29.4 

16.4 

11.6 

26.1 

16.0 

14.0 

9.9 

8.5 

17.0 

17.0 

9.0 

13.1 

18.5 

20.2 

21.9 

22.2 

14.6 

21.3 

30.0 

17.1 

9.6 

25.0 

16.1 

14.3 

19.0 

9.9 

18.0 

18.1 

8.6 

12.6 

16.4 

26.4 

23.6 

23.1 

17.6 

18.5 

35.8 

18.2 

11.2 

23.1 

17.7 

15.4 

16.7 

9.4 

18.6 

17.4 

8.6 

9.6 

22.7 

21.9 

20.8 

19.4 

18.7 

17.6 

39.7 

14.9 

10.7 

23.9 

14.1 

12.3 

16.2 

6.5 

17.2 

20.3 

7.3 

10.3 

12.3 

23.8 

19.1 

22.5 

14.8 

14.1 

33.6 

17.0 

10.8 

22.3 

14.8 

14.4 

13.7 

9.3 

16.4 

15.9 

11.3 

10.9 

19.6 

25.6 

19.2 

21.2 

17.0 

16.1 

32.4 

16.4 

9.9 

23.3 

14.6 

11.2 

19.1 

5.5 

17.0 

18.2

11.6

10.5

18.3

20.9

21.3

18.3

13.9

12.9

29.2

15.3

10.2

21.3

14.1

12.7

19.6

10.3 

16.6 

Nonhunt

 MI 

 N.Englandb 

NJ 

NY 

Subunit 

Unit 

13.3 

8.1 

13.1 

10.2 

10.7 

15.1 

12.9 

8.1 

7.0 

10.9 

10.5 

15.2 

14.7 

8.8 

11.4 

9.5 

11.2 

16.0 

14.4 

10.2 

9.2 

12.7 

12.5 

17.0 

17.5 

10.8 

11.9 

14.6 

14.4 

17.9 

14.3 

9.0 

6.3 

12.2 

11.6 

16.2 

14.3 

12.0 

10.7 

12.2 

13.0 

15.8 

15.5 

9.5 

9.0 

12.8 

12.6 

16.2 

12.7

9.1

8.7

12.5 

11.4 

15.6 

CENTRAL UNIT 

AR 

CO 

IA 

KS 

 MN 

 MO 

 MT 

NE 

NM 

ND 

OK 

SD 

TX 

 WY 

19.0 

14.2 

32.7 

33.4 

18.4 

22.4 

12.6 

34.0 

10.6 

42.4 

23.9 

37.5 

14.7 

7.6 

19.4 

19.2 

26.7 

59.7 

19.4 

22.0 

11.6 

31.4 

14.0 

37.7 

23.0 

32.1 

21.9 

7.3 

19.6 

20.1 

29.4 

55.6 

18.2 

19.8 

14.3 

39.8 

11.7 

35.0 

33.1 

34.2 

22.3 

7.8 

17.7 

21.8 

26.5 

68.0 

16.3 

18.3 

13.1 

36.3 

13.7 

46.2 

30.0 

35.8 

22.0 

5.8 

17.3 

21.7 

23.3 

51.6 

16.7 

18.9 

14.4 

36.3 

15.6 

46.3 

25.2 

38.1 

19.4 

8.2 

17.5 

13.8 

22.4 

33.2 

13.4 

16.0 

10.5 

30.4 

15.9 

37.0 

26.3 

34.0 

19.6 

5.1 

13.2 

17.0 

23.6 

47.7 

19.2 

17.8 

12.8 

28.8 

11.2 

31.3 

25.1 

36.5 

19.2 

6.6 

19.4 

16.6 

32.1 

55.9 

10.0 

19.3 

12.2 

39.1 

15.3 

46.2 

32.7 

36.6 

19.8 

5.1 

15.4

19.7

32.1

47.1

11.5

14.3

12.7

31.1

13.7

34.6

34.8

34.4

16.4

5.5 

Unit 20.5 23.2 24.2 23.9 23.9 20.1 21.2 22.5 20.9 

WESTERN UNIT 

AZ 

CA 

ID 

NV 

OR 

UT 

 WA 

Unit 

12.2 

11.8 

6.6 

4.5 

5.3 

7.0 

5.5 

8.7 

18.7 

10.3 

9.3 

4.1 

5.4 

8.8 

6.9 

9.8 

21.5 

10.8 

5.5 

3.5 

4.1 

5.1 

4.8 

8.1 

23.5 

11.1 

7.4 

4.4 

4.2 

8.2 

6.5 

9.7 

24.5 

10.3 

6.9 

3.5 

6.6 

13.1 

7.5 

10.5 

17.8 

9.6 

5.4 

2.9 

4.7 

5.6 

7.0 

8.0 

18.0 

11.7 

8.9 

3.3 

5.9 

7.9 

7.2 

9.8 

16.8 

10.3 

6.5 

3.2 

6.3 

6.5 

8.0 

9.0 

18.4

11.3

7.2

3.1

5.5

7.6

6.9 

9.4 

a

Annual indices are the predicted value from the trend analysis plus the deviation from the expected value in a year. 

Large but nonsignificant changes due to small sample sizes produce exaggerated indices over the 39-year period. b

 New England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT. 

16 
Table 4. Trends (% changea per year as determined by linear regression) in number of mourning doves heard and 

seen along Breeding Bird Survey routes, 1966-2003. 

 10 year (1994-03) 38 year (1966-03) 

N 90% CI N % Change 90%CI b % Changeb

EASTERN UNIT 

Hunt 

 AL

 DE/MD 

FL 

GA

 IL 

IN 

 KY

 LA

 MS

 NC 

OH 

PA 

 SC

 TN 

VA 

 WV

Subunit 

Nonhunt 

MI 

 N.Englandc

 NJ 

NY

 WI

 92 

68 

72 

58 

98 

55 

36 

49 

25 

69 

66 

100 

32 

41 

49 

50 

960 

60 

132 

27 

101 

91 

-1.6 

-1.1 

-0.1 

-1.2 

2.1 

0.4 

2.9 

5.9 

-3.1 

-0.7 

1.7 

2.1 

2.7 

0.4 

-0.4 

4.3 

0.6 

3.9 

2.0 

0.4 

3.5 

3.6 

* 

* 

** 

** 

** 

** 

* 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

-2.8 

-2.3 

-1.9 

-2.7 

0.6 

-1.0 

1.6 

3.3 

-6.9 

-2.4 

0.8 

1.0 

0.8 

-1.5 

-1.6 

3.1 

0.1 

2.4 

1.1 

-1.6 

2.5 

2.3 

-0.4 

0.0 

1.7 

0.4 

3.5 

1.8 

4.2 

8.6 

0.6 

1.1 

2.6 

3.3 

4.5 

2.4 

0.7 

5.5 

1.1 

5.4 

2.9 

2.3 

4.5 

4.9 

98 

78 

84 

67 

98 

59 

49 

66 

34 

79 

78 

120 

38 

46 

55 

56 

1105 

78 

154 

37 

115 

93 

-1.3 

0.4 

2.6 

-1.4 

0.8 

0.0 

0.5 

2.4 

-1.5 

-0.3 

0.7 

2.1 

0.0 

-0.6 

-0.6 

5.3 

0.1 

0.6 

3.4 

0.5 

2.8 

1.3 

** 

** 

* 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

* 

-2.0 

-0.2 

1.8 

-2.3 

0.0 

-0.5 

-0.1 

1.1 

-2.3 

-1.1 

0.1 

1.4 

-0.9 

-1.5 

-1.1 

4.5 

-0.2 

0.0 

2.6 

-0.7 

2.4 

0.4 

-0.6 

0.9 

3.3 

-0.5 

1.6 

0.4 

1.1 

3.7 

-0.6 

0.5 

1.3 

2.7 

0.8 

0.2 

0.0 

6.1 

0.4 

1.2 

4.2 

1.7 

3.3 

2.1 

Subunit 

Unit 

CENTRAL UNIT 

 AR

 CO 

IA

 KS 

MN 

MO 

MT 

NE

 NM 

ND 

OK

 SD

 TX 

 WY

 411 

1371 

32 

118 

33 

58 

58 

54 

48 

39 

65 

44 

54 

39 

169 

77 

3.1 

1.1 

2.1 

1.0 

3.5 

0.5 

2.0 

0.0 

-1.0 

-0.5 

1.3 

-0.5 

0.5 

0.6 

0.4 

1.0 

** 

** 

* 

2.5 

0.6 

0.4 

-0.4 

0.0 

-1.3 

-0.3 

-1.3 

-3.5 

-1.7 

-1.5 

-2.5 

-1.1 

-0.9 

-0.6 

-1.1 

3.7 

1.5 

3.7 

2.3 

7.0 

2.3 

4.3 

1.3 

1.5 

0.8 

4.2 

1.4 

2.1 

2.2 

1.4 

3.2 

477 

1582 

35 

126 

37 

59 

67 

64 

53 

46 

73 

46 

60 

51 

195 

101 

1.8 

0.5 

0.5 

1.0 

-0.7 

0.0 

-1.1 

-2.1 

-1.0 

-0.9 

-0.3 

0.9 

-1.6 

0.6 

-1.4 

0.2 

** 

** 

** 

** 

* 

** 

** 

1.4 

0.2 

-0.7 

0.0 

-1.6 

-0.9 

-2.1 

-2.8 

-1.9 

-1.5 

-1.7 

0.3 

-2.2 

-0.2 

-1.9 

-1.2 

2.2 

0.7 

1.7 

2.1 

0.2 

0.8 

0.0 

-1.4 

-0.1 

-0.4 

1.2 

1.5 

-0.9 

1.4 

-0.9 

1.5 

Unit 888 0.6 0.0 1.1 1013 -0.6 ** -0.8 -0.3 

WESTERN UNIT 

 AZ

 CA 

ID 

NV

 OR 

UT 

 WA

Unit 

51 

165 

39 

22 

78 

81 

59 

495 

-1.0 

0.7 

2.6 

0.1 

0.7 

-3.0 

-0.4 

-0.1 

* 

-4.0 

-0.6 

-1.2 

-2.8 

-2.0 

-4.9 

-2.6 

-1.2 

2.1 

1.9 

6.4 

2.9 

3.3 

-1.0 

1.8 

1.0 

71 

216 

43 

33 

96 

86 

65 

610 

-1.5 

-1.1 

-0.9 

2.4 

-2.1 

-2.3 

0.1 

-1.2 

* 

* 

* 

** 

** 

-3.2 

-1.8 

-1.8 

0.5 

-3.5 

-3.4 

-1.2 

-1.7 

0.2 

-0.4 

0.0 

4.3 

-0.7 

-1.1 

1.5 

-0.7 

aMean of route trends weighted by land area and population density. The estimated count in the next year is (%/100+1) times the count in the current year 

where % is the annual change. Note: Extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 38 years) may exaggerate the total 

change over the period. 

b*P<0.1; **P<0.05; ***P<0.01. For purposes of this report, statistical significance was defined as P<0.05, except for the 2-year comparison where 

P<0.10 was used because of the low power of the test. 

cNew England consists of CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

17
Table 5. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, total bag, and confidence 

intervals for each from Harvest Information Program surveys for the 2002-03 season. 

Management Unit Hunters 95% CI Days hunted 95% CI Birds bagged 95% CI 

EASTERN 

AL 59,200 7% 171,000 10% 1,274,700 12% 

DE 3,500 19% 12,600 22% 80,600 25% 

FL 17,100 23% 60,600 30% 305,900 25% 

GA 56,800 12% 188,200 21% 1,238,000 20% 

IL 32,900 9% 118,800 15% 693,700 18% 

IN 18,100 15% 61,800 17% 362,800 20% 

KY 39,800 10% 120,600 17% 822,100 16% 

LA 27,000 24% 73,900 24% 502,600 31% 

MD 9,200 21% 29,900 32% 172,400 40% 

MS 28,300 12% 89,700 15% 823,600 14% 

NC 42,900 16% 117,200 22% 707,700 24% 

OH 20,000 25% 87,200 32% 302,700 14% 

PA 31,200 16% 130,700 18% 457,000 28% 

RI 300 97% 1,000 100% 4,400 115% 

SC 43,200 12% 142,000 20% 943,600 23% 

TN 50,500 50% 149,400 52% 751,700 59% 

VA 27,600 9% 81,200 12% 410,100 14% 

WV 1,700 19% 4,600 24% 22,500 22% 

Unit 509,300 1,640,500 7% 9,877,400 7% 

CENTRAL 

AR 37,700 15% 114,400 18% 777,000 16% 

CO 16,700 8% 49,200 13% 236,900 14% 

KS 37,100 8% 135,000 10% 845,700 12% 

MO 26,900 26% 80,900 26% 490,400 35% 

MT 2,000 41% 4,500 39% 14,700 25% 

NE 15,700 10% 52,200 11% 291,600 12% 

NM 8,400 19% 33,200 26% 246,100 35% 

ND 5,500 35% 17,900 43% 79,100 50% 

OK 25,600 19% 81,200 34% 447,700 35% 

SD 9,100 23% 28,600 21% 136,000 23% 

TX 293,300 10% 1,184,100 11% 6,718,500 10% 

WY 2,800 30% 6,100 35% 29,900 47% 

Unit 480,800 1,787,200 8% 10,313,700 7% 

WESTERN 

AZ 42,700 5% 142,600 8% 941,400 9% 

CA 79,900 6% 235,100 8% 1,195,400 8% 

ID 10,400 17% 27,300 19% 99,500 17% 

NV 5,200 21% 17,800 37% 71,300 50% 

OR 6,800 14% 19,700 19% 62,800 17% 

UT 12,400 14% 36,200 20% 95,000 16% 

WA 5,800 29% 14,700 32% 56,900 21% 

Unit 163,200 493,300 5% 2,522,200 5% 

U.S. 1,153,300 1 3,921,000 5% 22,713,300 5% 

This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one 

state. 

18 

1
Table 6. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, total bag, and confidence 

intervals for each from Harvest Information Program surveys for the 2003-04 season. 

Management Unit Hunters 95% CI Days hunted 95% CI Birds bagged 95% CI 

EASTERN 

AL 49,000 10% 138,900 15% 977,400 17% 

DE 2,200 24% 6,600 25% 38,800 25% 

FL 18,100 16% 65,200 22% 333,300 28% 

GA 41,200 21% 131,300 28% 730,800 24% 

IL 35,300 13% 114,900 16% 877,100 18% 

IN 15,400 15% 57,000 17% 361,500 18% 

KY 33,500 15% 79,600 16% 555,700 15% 

LA 41,300 16% 149,800 31% 767,300 41% 

MD 12,100 22% 34,600 40% 172,100 33% 

MS 17,200 20% 41,200 25% 348,700 29% 

NC 59,800 18% 128,500 21% 762,500 26% 

OH 20,900 19% 73,000 17% 308,000 23% 

PA 28,400 21% 104,700 29% 306,600 29% 

RI 200 107% 1,000 103% 2,100 157% 

SC 30,900 17% 100,500 19% 526,000 15% 

TN 38,600 37% 173,700 83% 737,300 64% 

VA 21,200 11% 52,200 11% 255,400 12% 

WV 1,400 27% 4,100 40% 17,900 40% 

Unit 466,700 1,456,900 12% 8,078,500 9% 

CENTRAL 

AR 32,900 16% 89,000 20% 595,600 18% 

CO 19,100 9% 51,200 15% 262,000 15% 

KS 38,100 8% 135,100 11% 853,600 15% 

MO 40,600 12% 124,800 17% 732,900 19% 

MT 1,600 48% 4,900 72% 19,100 47% 

NE 19,000 10% 62,900 12% 354,900 11% 

NM 7,100 24% 32,900 35% 154,400 30% 

ND 5,700 23% 17,300 20% 77,800 20% 

OK 20,100 19% 73,800 27% 515,600 27% 

SD 10,900 18% 40,400 24% 199,900 25% 

TX 217,700 13% 802,800 18% 3,909,000 16% 

WY 3,000 40% 7,400 49% 39,600 76% 

Unit 415,800 1,442,600 11% 7,714,600 9% 

WESTERN 

AZ 40,800 9% 138,100 12% 872,700 14% 

CA 71,000 7% 216,000 10% 1,168,300 11% 

ID 10,800 18% 33,800 28% 124,800 24% 

NV 4,700 17% 10,800 18% 42,100 24% 

OR 6,400 14% 20,500 24% 66,900 22% 

UT 9,300 18% 23,200 24% 68,900 19% 

WA 7,600 22% 17,300 22% 76,300 22% 

Unit 150,600 459,700 7% 2,420,100 8% 

U.S. 1,033,100 1 3,359,100 7 18,213,200 5% 

This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one 

state. 

19 

1