The 2024 Woodcock Population Report is Out!

[finsfurfeathers]

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

[Gilroy]

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.

[Frank16]

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.

[finsfurfeathers]

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.

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?

[Gilroy]

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.

[finsfurfeathers]

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

[Gilroy]

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.