The 2024 Woodcock Population Report is Out!

To review the report you can visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services website at https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-08/american-woodcock-population-status-report-2024.pdf. Compared to last year's report, the data shows a slightly greater population decline in the last 10-year interval ( -1.35 % change in 2024 vs. -1.17% change in 2023) and a slight improvement in the decline for the long-term interval (-0.91% vs. -1.01%). As with many shorebirds the reason for the decline is complex although, likely, the biggest negative impact to this species is the loss of early successional habitat.

So the decline isn't due to guys with good setters?

20.3% decline in "recruitment index" (number of immatures : adult females in harvest) from Central Region's average from 1968-2024. Way too many adult females are being taken. Looks like the nail in the coffin for the remaining population unless CWS wakes up. It's ridiculous, given the data, that they are still allowing 8 birds per day limits and 16 bird possession limits. Wonder who goes extinct (or exterpated) in the next two decades - Monarch or American Woodcock ? Maybe both.

I'm not sure the 8 bird limit is the issue. I'm sure like with everything else, hunting has a very small effect on populations. I also don't see guys posting pics of 8 bird days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cass

I also don't see guys posting pics of 8 bird days.

---

Challenge accepted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenelon

20.3% decline in "recruitment index" (number of immatures : adult females in harvest) from Central Region's average from 1968-2024. Way too many adult females are being taken. Looks like the nail in the coffin for the remaining population unless CWS wakes up. It's ridiculous, given the data, that they are still allowing 8 birds per day limits and 16 bird possession limits. Wonder who goes extinct (or exterpated) in the next two decades - Monarch or American Woodcock ? Maybe both.

---

or hawks. My husband is a member of a "bird club". Each year they count hawks across Ontario on a certain day. That happened this weekend and they have never seen fewer hawks of all kinds counted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cass

I'm not sure the 8 bird limit is the issue. I'm sure like with everything else, hunting has a very small effect on populations. I also don't see guys posting pics of 8 bird days.

---

The same "non-action" by our useless CWS reads like a broken record. The Director needs a good frontal kick in the testicles. I know a man who is now 88 and used to travel west to the Canadian Prairies every fall to hunt Greater Prairie Chicken and Sage Grouse. Five decades of incompetent non-action gives us the result we have today. Both species now extirpated from Canada. Woodcock is next on the block. They will be gone before we know it. If you have kids now I highly doubt there will be a huntable population by the time they are in their early thirties.

Ethics of Bag Limits and Self-Imposed Limits

https://projectupland.com/culture/bi...ng-bag-limits/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Ethics of Bag Limits and Self-Imposed Limits

https://projectupland.com/culture/bi...ng-bag-limits/

---

To me limits are a thing that says for today you harvested enough, there have been times when birds were easy and the dogs still fresh I'd continue on with the camera instead. Other days when conditions made it feel more like work than fun I'd cut it short no matter the weight in the bag. Every bird I take is treated as the precious commodity it is. Never took more to give it away. Never just breasted because took too many to process so that every morsel could be used. To me that is what ethical harvest means to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

To me limits are a thing that says for today you harvested enough, there have been times when birds were easy and the dogs still fresh I'd continue on with the camera instead. Other days when conditions made it feel more like work than fun I'd cut it short no matter the weight in the bag. Every bird I take is treated as the precious commodity it is. Never took more to give it away. Never just breasted because took too many to process so that every morsel could be used. To me that is what ethical harvest means to me.

---

Ok...I call BS on this. Refer to exhibit "a" in the Ducks forum...under the thread "Do to you pluck or wax your birds"

... you typed (I quote)

fortunately don't get much waterfowl early just breast them out if not heavily pinned will pluck. Any other bird gets plucked using hot water.

Care to explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chocolateman

Ok...I call BS on this. Refer to exhibit "a" in the Ducks forum...under the thread "Do to you pluck or wax your birds"

... you typed (I quote)

fortunately don't get much waterfowl early just breast them out if not heavily pinned will pluck. Any other bird gets plucked using hot water.

Care to explain?

---

sure, You read "if not heavily pinned will pluck" right? If there are alot of pin feathers then can't fully pluck a heavily pinned bird so breasting it out, taking the legs and then the heart/liver gizzard its the best way to recover as much edible meat as possible right?.
How do you process a heavily pinned bird?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

sure, You read "if not heavily pinned will pluck" right? If there are alot of pin feathers then can't fully pluck a heavily pinned bird so breasting it out, taking the legs and then the heart/liver gizzard its the best way to recover as much edible meat as possible right?.
How do you process a heavily pinned bird?

---

Sorry my bad....that's on me. I must of misinterpreted your response of just never breasted a bird & it confused me.
Somehow I thot you were calling out all hunters who choose to breast a bird and it was an unethical thing to do.

Know I understand you do both the pluck and breasting of bird when convenient to you.

We are good.

:moose:

Honestly, I'm surprised that our daily woodcock limit is still at 8. Five would be plenty IMO. I would also not object to a reduced daily limit of 2 ruffed grouse south of the Trent-Severn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Honestly, I'm surprised that our daily woodcock limit is still at 8. Five would be plenty IMO. I would also not object to a reduced daily limit of 2 ruffed grouse south of the Trent-Severn.

---

yup we can only speculate as why. I can only reason as a shared resource with the States, to meet our quota the limit is set at that number. Figure there isn't that much harvest to warrant a reduction. Do my part by sending in my wings to the survey. Sure if there was an excess taken by us the US would call for a reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharon

or hawks. My husband is a member of a "bird club". Each year they count hawks across Ontario on a certain day. That happened this weekend and they have never seen fewer hawks of all kinds counted.

---

Maybe this is my issue. I'm having one heck of a time trapping a falconry bird this season. Definitely not seeing nearly as many around but I'm hoping it just means they're not migrating much yet.

Up until recently, I never heard or saw of woodcock being taken in their southern winter haunts .Now with the decline of the Bobwhite, I'm seeing you tube videos of winter woodcock hunting.
This can't help populations.They don't breed again down there.

I have already seen two pics of guys up north with 30 plus birds on their tailgates this season. Throughout a weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Honestly, I'm surprised that our daily woodcock limit is still at 8. Five would be plenty IMO. I would also not object to a reduced daily limit of 2 ruffed grouse south of the Trent-Severn.

---

We need a better management system. MNR in Ontario stinks ! I wish we had the wildlife and habitat management the States do! The limit for woodies there is 3! Keeps the population stable I guess!

Early anecdotal reports from the southern states point to a normal flight. Why didn’t we see that here? Smarter people will be analyzing this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Honestly, I'm surprised that our daily woodcock limit is still at 8. Five would be plenty IMO. I would also not object to a reduced daily limit of 2 ruffed grouse south of the Trent-Severn.

---

I don't know much about these birds except that on my land I used to see more on their evening flights than I do now, which corresponds with the reduction in wet areas I have noticed increasing in the same time period. From a purely common sense view point a daily limit of eight would indicate to most folks these birds have a healthy population and the managers have figured out the population can sustain that harvest, that appears not to be the case so the limit should be dropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I don't know much about these birds except that on my land I used to see more on their evening flights than I do now, which corresponds with the reduction in wet areas I have noticed increasing in the same time period. From a purely common sense view point a daily limit of eight would indicate to most folks these birds have a healthy population and the managers have figured out the population can sustain that harvest, that appears not to be the case so the limit should be dropped.

---

to reply to your comment I need one more piece of information. How many birds were taken on your property this year and how does it compare to historic numbers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

to reply to your comment I need one more piece of information. How many birds were taken on your property this year and how does it compare to historic numbers

---

Zero birds have ever been taken in the past 24 years as I do not hunt them, as indicated in my post I know very little about them. But I do know I am seeing less and I do know the wet areas I used to see them in and where they might flush are now dry. The evening sightings off my open field areas just before dark almost never occur now.

Woodcock hunting this fall on my properties was really bad. There was a perfect habitat, but no birds. The windmills, i believe, in the last 15- 20 years have also had an impact on the wildlife in the area, especially migratory birds. The local farmers have also reported more birth defects in livestock since the windmills came in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I don't know much about these birds except that on my land I used to see more on their evening flights than I do now, which corresponds with the reduction in wet areas I have noticed increasing in the same time period. From a purely common sense view point a daily limit of eight would indicate to most folks these birds have a healthy population and the managers have figured out the population can sustain that harvest, that appears not to be the case so the limit should be dropped.

---

You note a reduction in wet areas corresponds to the reduction in sightings than you must have figured out you need to put some money into rehab'ing your property to improve the habitat if you want to put more birds on the land. Here lies the problem if habitat isn't there you can reduce the limit to zero and all you do is delayed their inevitable extinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Zero birds have ever been taken in the past 24 years as I do not hunt them, as indicated in my post I know very little about them. But I do know I am seeing less and I do know the wet areas I used to see them in and where they might flush are now dry. The evening sightings off my open field areas just before dark almost never occur now.

---

So if zero birds have been taken than how is reducing the limit going to increase the numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

You note a reduction in wet areas corresponds to the reduction in sightings than you must have figured out you need to put some money into rehab'ing your property to improve the habitat if you want to put more birds on the land. Here lies the problem if habitat isn't there you can reduce the limit to zero and all you do is delayed their inevitable extinction.

So if zero birds have been taken than how is reducing the limit going to increase the numbers?

---

I do not hunt these birds and if their natural habitat is drying up then there is nothing I would want to do. A limit reduction has nothing to do with my personal case as I do not hunt them, but a lower limit should be considered either by individual woodcock hunters or by legislation which would help ensure a population for the future.

Now if my observation over a 24 year old period of time is correct and the population decrease is attributed to habitat loss then other than flooding areas for new habitat the birds and hunters are out of luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

if their natural habitat is drying up then there is nothing I would want to do. A limit reduction has nothing to do with my personal case as I do not hunt them, but a lower limit should be considered either by individual woodcock hunters or by legislation which would help ensure a population for the future.
.

---

Tried to fix your statement to treat the cause and not the symptoms of the problem
if their natural habitat is drying up then there is nothing I would want to do. HABITAT IMPROVEMENT has EVERYTHING to do with my personal case as I do not hunt them, but HABITAT IMPROVEMENT should be considered either by INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNERS or by legislation which would help ensure a population for the future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Tried to fix your statement to treat the cause and not the symptoms of the problem
if their natural habitat is drying up then there is nothing I would want to do. HABITAT IMPROVEMENT has EVERYTHING to do with my personal case as I do not hunt them, but HABITAT IMPROVEMENT should be considered either by INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNERS or by legislation which would help ensure a population for the future

---

Once again I really have very little interest in these birds as I do not hunt them, but I do support reduced bag limits if the evidence supports it. I have no intention as a INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNER to do any HABITAT IMPROVEMENT . My belief is that warming is depleting their habitat and that is not a localized issue its a global one.