Reprinted from an April 15, 2007 column in the Morgantown Dominion Post
It is that time of the year when woodcock set up their singing grounds and start to breed. The woodcock is a small shorebird, that migrates to and through West Virginia every spring. They have a long beak that enables them to track down and eat earthworms, and their breeding is quite unique and something to behold.
They are a huntable species and in the early 1980's hunters took around two million woodcock per year. However, since that time numbers have plummeted. Hunter success dropped as well and it continues to drop today.
Part of that hunting decrease was planned. Because woodcock are a migratory species, regulations are set by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the eastern part of the country the Wildlife Service responded to a decrease in woodcock numbers by shortening the season and lowering the bag limits. From 1967 to 1985 the bag limit was 5 per day and the season was 65 days long. This doesn’t mean that hunters went out in an area every day for 65 days and shot lots of woodcock.
Since the woodcock is a migratory species and weather can affect the timing of the fall migration, there are many days when few woodcock are in the area. Then a wave of migrants moves through and there is some hunter success. My point is, because they are migratory, you don’t get great hunting days for the entire season.
In 1985 numbers were still decreasing so the season was shortened to 45 days and the daily bag limit was lowered to three. For the entire Eastern region, woodcock numbers still dropped, but for West Virginia we’ve had a leveling off trend since the late 1990's. But because the overall population was still dropping, the Fish and Wildlife Service again shortened the season in 1997 to 30 days.
Since 1968 woodcock declines in the Eastern United States have been an average of 2.3% per year. Things are bad in most Eastern states, and we’ve lost lots of birds in West Virginia, but in recent years, population levels have stabilized in the mountain state. Overall though, the picture is not good and that is why hunting seasons have been reduced. Interestingly most believed that hunting had little impact on woodcock numbers. Then why did the feds shorten the season and lower bag limits?
The answer is because hunting is the only impact on woodcock they can control. Forest succession (I. E. forests growing older) is a major cause for the loss of woodcock. They need open areas and young forests. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service can do little about that since in the East, and especially the Northeast, most forests are in private ownership. The only timber cutting that might bring back some habitat must be done by those landowners.
We also know that woodcock habitat is being developed rapidly. Here again, wildlifers have no control over development. So, rather than do nothing, the wildlife service cut back on woodcock hunting. Did that affect woodcock numbers?
A recent study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management looked at the impacts of hunting on woodcock. The answer is no. They looked at woodcock survival on sites that were hunted and those that were not hunted. Survival rates were 0.661 where they were not hunted and 0.636 where they were hunted. No difference.
They found that predators caused 75 percent of woodcock mortality with weasels, mink, raccoons, some hawks and some owls doing most of the damage. They also found that birds would die during droughts because they could not find earthworms to eat. In areas where humans hunted, the losses to hunting seemed to balance out the losses to natural mortality.
They also found that mortality from hunting was no different for young vs. old birds, or for males vs. females. Looking at all causes of mortality, they found that females survived at higher rates than males, and that young males had very low survival rates.
Much of the funding for wildlife research comes from hunting, so cutting back on woodcock hunting reduces revenues that might be used to study the real reasons for losses of woodcock. The other issue here is relative numbers of woodcock. One might think that when you have low numbers, you should stop hunting. This is not always the case. There are populations of mountain sheep in the west where numbers are relatively low. But available habitat is also low and can only support low numbers. Using hunting to keep such populations in check may be important to protect the animals remaining and the habitats upon which they depend. We’ve got similar situations with other species.
One situation that intrigues me is polar bears. The outcry on global warming has led to concern about these bears. Apparently there are areas where polar bear numbers have decreased. And now we are hearing major rumblings to stop polar bear hunting. One question we should ask is, will the stoppage of polar bear hunting eliminate problems caused by global warming (assuming that global warming is occurring)? Probably not. Will the stoppage of polar bear hunting impact groups of natives who rely on the economics of hunting for survival? Probably. For now, until polar bear numbers are reduced by major amounts, continuing those hunts will provide resources for natives and for research.
Hunting for wildlife is done under management principles. Politics can compromise those principles, but for now, even though woodcock numbers are on the decline, legal hunting is not the issue. Habitat loss is.
