SMALL GAME HARVEST

SMALL GAME HARVEST SURVEY RESULTS

1993-94 THRU 2012-13

MOURNING DOVE WHITE-WINGED DOVEWHITE-TIPPED DOVE COMBINED DOVEWOODCOCK SNIPERAIL GALLINULEDUCK GOOSEFALL TEAL PHEASANTFALL TURKEY SPRING TURKEYCOMBINED TURKEY BOBWHITE QUAILSCALED QUAIL COMBINED QUAIL

COMPILED BY JON PURVIS TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

REVISED 18 JULY 2013

PWD RP W700 719a

CHANGES TO THE SMALL GAME HARVEST SURVEY Because changes in survey methodology and analysis are to be expected upon occasion, we request that the latest data be used for any reports or research as it will be the most accurate, and will also be the official data. Whenever changes are made to the analysis program, the estimates for all previous years are recalculated using the new program, and these new estimates published in the report. There are currently ten different analysis types (statewide, ecoregion, administrative region, administrative district, resident vs non-resident hunters, dove zone, month hunted most, turkey zone, duck zone, white-winged dove special zones, dove zone by month, ecoregion by month, and county) and twelve statistics (hunters, successful hunters, success rate, hunter days, successful hunter days, days per hunter, days per successful hunter, total kill, kill per hunter, kill per successful hunter, kill per day per hunter, and kill per day per successful hunter) calculated for each analysis type. Due to space considerations, only four statistics (hunters, kills, days, success rate) for each of two analysis types (statewide, ecoregion) are shown on the printed report. Estimates from all analysis types and statistics are available electronically from the Wildlife Division's Technical Programs group. Recent survey changes: 1. The sample size was increased in 2008-09. The number of returns had declined to the point that it was felt that an increase in sample size was justified. Therefore, starting with the 2008-09 season the sample size was increased from 15,000 to 20,000. This will not affect the estimates, but should cause the confidence intervals to be smaller. 2. The 2005-06 survey had numerous changes made to the species list. The sample size of bobcat and prairie dogs had become quite small, and it was decided to remove both of these. Rabbit and squirrel were also removed; rabbit has no season or bag, and squirrel has no season or bag in most of the state. It was felt that if we are not regulating harvest of these species, then there is no need to track harvest and hunter numbers. White-winged dove, white-tipped dove, geese, duck, and fall teal were added to the species list. Combined dove is also calculated, and ducks have a zone analysis similar to dove. Dropped species are no longer reported, but the historic estimates are available on request. Because all species on the survey now require a stamp to hunt them, many licenses are no longer included in the sample population. In short, only holders of the Super Combo, Migratory Stamp, and Upland Game Bird Stamp are surveyed. This has caused the surveyed population to drop from approximately 1,000,000 to 650,000 hunters. In theory this should increase the response rate, as it will better target the hunters of interest. It is hoped the accuracy and precision of the survey is better as well, as the non-response bias caused by sending surveys to hunters that only bought the licenses to hunt big game will no longer be surveyed. Please note that due to an error in the computer program that does the random drawing, the 2007-08 sample was drawn from the general hunting population, and not from the more limited group mentioned. This is sure to have affected the estimates in some way. 3. Starting with the 2004-05 season, transforms are no longer done on the data. There has been a long-term, ongoing discussion of the use of transforms in the analysis of the survey. In the past they were used, but were discontinued before the analysis of the 2004-05 report. Due to this change, estimates shown here cannot be compared to those reports issued with the transform methodology. Most estimates of hunter days and harvest will have changed, sometimes dramatically, as a result. Estimates of hunters and success rate will not have changed as they were never transformed.

The day and harvest data collected with the small game survey has a negative binomial distribution, and the use of an inverse hyperbolic sine transform (Thoni 1967) is recommended when doing certain analyses. However, transforming the data, doing analysis, and then back-transforming the results to get the final estimates is problematic, and not recommended by many statisticians. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife estimates of mourning dove harvest in Texas has always been highly correlated with TPWD’s estimates, but our estimates of harvest was generally about half of theirs. This difference can be completely explained by our use of a transform, as they do not transform their data. The Science Review conducted by the Wildlife Management Institute also recommended that we discontinue this analysis methodology. Due to these reasons, the use of transforms has been discontinued in the small game survey. The transform reduces the effect of large numbers, similar to what would happen if medians were used instead of means. As an example, we estimate the average mourning dove hunter takes about 25 dove per year, but on occasion, a single “power hunter” may report over 300 taken. This data point is valid and should be included in the data, even though it can greatly affect the final results. In species such as snipe, where the total number of reported hunters is much lower, the effect of these power hunters is much greater. Transforming reduces the affect such power hunters have on the estimates. Hunters that do well tend to answer surveys more often, so a possible bias exists. If the bias is small and the power hunters respond at close to the same rate as average hunters, then the affect on the results is minimal and transforms should not be used. If power hunters reply at a much higher rate, then the estimates will be biased high unless transforms are used. The current level of bias introduced by power hunters is unknown. Unfortunately, transforming the data, while correcting for the power hunter bias, creates problems in making final estimates. Transforms are appropriate when comparing two sets of data (years, ecoregions, etc), but not when making estimates. We are still discussing the best way to analyze the data, and may implement further changes in the future. 4. We no longer calculate estimates at the county level, or by month within ecoregions. Analysis has shown that the statistical power of these estimates was very low due to small sample sizes and high variance. It was determined that people were using these estimates in ways not valid for the low power, and so they are no longer being provided.

METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATION OF STATEWIDE HARVEST

PARAMETERS Please note that each statistic is calculated separately. This means, for example, that estimated days / estimated hunters may not give the same value as estimated days per hunter. If the sample size is small there may be noticeable differences; when the sample size is adequate it should be within rounding error. Hunter Estimates The statewide hunter estimate is a regression estimator of the number of hunters in the mail-out survey based on hunter sample sizes in the cumulative responses from each of three mail-outs. Thus, the regression corrects for non-response bias in the survey technique. Confidence limits are determined from the binomial distribution. Kill Estimates Mean kill per hunter and its confidence limits are calculated using normal statistics from the kills reported by survey respondents. The mean kill per hunter is then corrected for non-response bias using regression as in the hunter estimates. Total kill is estimated by expanding the mean kill per hunter estimate by the estimated number of hunters in the state.

Hunter Day Estimates Mean number of days hunted per hunter and its confidence limits are calculated using normal statistics from the hunter days reported by survey respondents. Mean number of days hunted per respondent is then corrected for non-response bias as was mean kill per respondent. Total hunter days is estimated by expanding the mean number of days hunted per respondent estimate by the estimated number of hunters in the state. Kill Per Day Estimates The kill per day estimate is estimated by dividing the total kill by the total number of hunter days. Confidence limits are calculated using the variance of the ratio estimate. Subunit Estimates The subunit estimates are a portion of the statewide estimate, based on the proportion of the state’s hunters that hunted in each subunit. Thus, the sum of the hunters for the subunits should be equal to the statewide estimate. In actuality, many hunters hunt in more than one subunit. However, only the subunit and month most hunted in is reported and therefore each hunter is included in only one subunit. Hunters that did not report a county or month are distributed proportionally among the subunits. Variance for the hunter estimate confidence limits are calculated from the binomial distribution as if the estimate was made directly from the sample respondents for the subunit. Subunit estimates of total kill are likewise a proportional allocation of the statewide estimates. Kill per hunter estimates are calculated by dividing the total kill estimate by the hunter estimate. The proportion used for allocation is based on the sum of the subunit kill and the sum of the state kill. The variances and confidence limits are calculated using normal statistics as if the estimates had been made directly from the sample data for the subunit. Individual counties are placed into ecological regions based on deer distribution. That is, if more than one ecological type appears in a county, the ecological type chosen based on what the majority of deer habitat appears in. This may generate inaccuracies with species that occur primarily within the ecological type less used by deer. The dove and duck zones are based on a survey question that asks what zone was hunted most. This is because these zones are defined by the highway system, and numerous counties lie within two zones. Turkey zone is based on the distribution of Eastern and Rio Grande Turkeys; each county was arbitrarily assigned to a zone based on known distribution of the species. Combined Quail Estimates If either bobwhite or scaled quail were hunted, combined quail were considered hunted. If one was marked as not hunted and the other unknown, then combined quail was considered not hunted. Combined quail kill is the sum of bobwhite kill and scaled quail kill. Combined quail hunter days is calculated by adding bobwhite hunter days and scaled quail hunter days if they were from different counties; if the counties were the same then it is equal to the greater of the bobwhite and scaled quail days. Combined quail county is set to the county of whichever species had the greatest hunter days. If hunter days were equal, then it is set to the bobwhite county. Month is determined in the same manner as county. Combined Turkey Estimates If either fall or spring turkey were hunted, combined turkey were considered hunted. If one was marked as not hunted and the other unknown, then combined turkey was considered not hunted. Combined turkey kill and days is the sum of fall and spring turkey kill and days. Combined turkey county is set to the county of whichever season had the greatest hunter days reported. If hunter days were equal, then it is set to the fall turkey county. Month is determined in the same manner as county.

Combined Bobcat Estimates If either sport or sale bobcat were hunted, combined bobcat were considered hunted. If one was marked as not hunted and the other unknown, then combined bobcat was considered not hunted. Combined bobcat kill and days is the sum of sport and sale kill and days. Combined bobcat county is set to the county of whichever had the greatest hunter days. If hunter days were equal, then it is set to the sport county. Month is determined in the same manner as county. Combined Dove Estimates

The survey has traditionally asked about mourning dove harvest, but it was felt that some hunters were giving the total dove (mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped) harvest instead. Rather than asking each separately, starting in 2005-06 we asked if they hunted any dove species. White-winged dove are spread across most of Texas, and a person can no longer know with certainty that they are only hunting mourning doves. For this reason, we calculate dove hunters, and use this value for each species. Likewise, the total days spent dove hunting, the month hunted most, and the county hunted most is the same for all three species. Harvest, however, is asked for each species, and estimates are made for each separately, as well as combined dove harvest. This methodology has also been used for some time on the white-winged dove special season harvest survey, and its use here helps comparisons between the two.

SOURCES OF BIAS Non-response Bias A source of bias in the survey method is non-response bias. The non-response sub-sample tends to have a larger proportion of non-hunters and a lower kill per hunter than the respondent sub-sample. From looking at the response by mailing (non-respondents to the first survey questionnaire were sent a second notice, and non-respondents to the second survey questionnaire were sent a third notice), it seems that this bias does not affect species which lack bag and season limits (at least for most of the state), and is consistently and significantly positive for other species. Estimates in this report have been corrected for non-response bias using regression estimation from the three mailings used for the survey. These regressions are species specific and therefore account for differences in the amount of bias between species, and between the estimates for hunters, kill, and hunter days. Post-Season Survey Bias This survey is conducted as a post-season survey and as such is fraught with the usual problems of memory bias and prestige bias associated with post-season surveys. For species where the season bag limit is relatively large or the maximum possible hunter days per hunter is large, the kill data and the hunter day data has a negative binomial distribution rather than a normal distribution and usually shows heaping bias (peaks at multiples of 100, 50, 20, 10, and 5). These problems cause some over-estimation of total hunters, but total kill and hunter day estimates may be nearly double actual total kill and hunter days. Small Sample Size A problem for some estimates is small sample size. If there are no hunters for an area, then no report is made for that region. However, if there is even one hunter the estimates are made and printed. Small sample sizes cause lack of accuracy and precision in the estimates, and estimates for these areas should be used with care. Incorrect County Often respondents report hunting in a county for which the species is not legal game. Although this may be illegal hunting, it can also be memory error or incorrectly answered question. Usually this is

due to the respondent reporting the county of residence instead of the county hunted. If the county is not legal for the species in question then the county is set to unknown for analysis purposes. Likewise, if it is outside the known range of the species, then it is set to unknown.

Sex of Small Game Hunters in Texas. Age of Small Game Hunters in Texas.Year Sex N % Lower 95% Upper 95% Year N Mean Lower 95% Upper 95%1997-98 F 185 5.23% 4.50% 5.96% 1986-87 4,574 38.70 38.23 39.181998-99 F 223 4.79% 4.17% 5.40% 1987-88 4,543 38.27 37.79 38.751999-00 F 205 5.32% 4.61% 6.03% 1988-89 4,065 38.11 37.61 38.612000-01 F 162 5.16% 4.38% 5.93% 1989-90 4,244 41.32 40.89 41.752001-02 F 90 4.10% 3.27% 4.93% 1990-91 3,962 41.80 41.36 42.252002-03 F 137 4.71% 3.94% 5.49% 1991-92 4,138 42.75 42.31 43.192003-04 F 138 4.75% 3.97% 5.52% 1992-93 4,852 42.85 42.45 43.252004-05 F 175 6.21% 5.31% 7.10% 1993-94 4,357 42.74 42.32 43.162005-06 F 152 4.54% 3.84% 5.25% 1994-95 3,743 43.59 43.12 44.052006-07 F 151 4.71% 3.98% 5.45% 1995-96 3,451 43.76 43.29 44.242007-08 F 107 4.53% 3.69% 5.37% 1996-97 3,443 43.74 43.27 44.202008-09 F 201 4.55% 3.93% 5.16% 1997-98 3,535 43.35 42.86 43.832009-10 F 226 5.16% 4.50% 5.81% 1998-99 4,649 41.62 41.14 42.102010-11 F 228 5.29% 4.62% 5.95% 1999-00 3,871 41.71 41.18 42.252011-12 F 169 4.84% 4.13% 5.55% 2000-01 3,203 41.27 40.70 41.852012-13 F 198 5.59% 4.83% 6.35% 2001-02 2,911 44.75 44.18 45.321997-98 M 3,352 94.77% 94.04% 95.50% 2002-03 3,153 42.20 41.60 42.801998-99 M 4,433 95.21% 94.60% 95.83% 2003-04 3,090 40.48 39.89 41.071999-00 M 3,647 94.68% 93.97% 95.39% 2004-05 2,956 42.81 42.17 43.452000-01 M 2,979 94.84% 94.07% 95.62% 2005-06 3,452 47.72 47.24 48.202001-02 M 2,106 95.90% 95.07% 96.73% 2006-07 3,281 47.59 47.10 48.092002-03 M 2,769 95.29% 94.51% 96.06% 2007-08 2,451 44.02 43.30 44.732003-04 M 2,770 95.25% 94.48% 96.03% 2008-09 4,606 48.59 48.17 49.022004-05 M 2,644 93.79% 92.90% 94.69% 2009-10 4,586 44.21 43.69 44.732005-06 M 3,195 95.46% 94.75% 96.16% 2010-11 4,485 44.45 43.92 44.972006-07 M 3,052 95.29% 94.55% 96.02% 2011-12 3,645 44.90 44.31 45.482007-08 M 2,254 95.47% 94.63% 96.31% 2012-13 3,694 44.55 43.96 45.142008-09 M 4,220 95.45% 94.84% 96.07%2009-10 M 4,157 94.84% 94.19% 95.50%2010-11 M 4,085 94.71% 94.05% 95.38%2011-12 M 3,323 95.16% 94.45% 95.87%2012-13 M 3,344 94.41% 93.65% 95.17%

y = 0.2255x + 39.874R² = 0.4826

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

Mean age of small game hunters in Texas.

Statewide dove harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Mourning Dove

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIWhite-winged Dove

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIWhite-tipped Dove

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 12,057,6810,813,0311,435,351994-95 10,263,279,005,1429,634,2071995-96 8,673,2307,597,3818,135,3061996-97 8,165,0657,120,1937,642,6291997-98 9,312,2438,168,4708,740,3571998-99 10,145,199,070,2609,607,7261999-00 10,527,679,277,3379,902,5072000-01 10,422,299,003,7119,713,0052001-02 10,494,409,173,9159,834,1602002-03 10,496,789,092,2149,794,5002003-04 10,034,408,701,2449,367,8242004-05 9,236,7067,949,2338,592,9702005-06 6,806,8395,978,5646,392,702 2,168,452 1,921,880 2,415,023 150,617 84,827 216,4062006-07 6,083,2875,310,0675,696,677 1,844,890 1,604,405 2,085,376 144,498 113,552 175,4442007-08 6,432,3955,425,9115,929,153 2,152,584 1,851,477 2,453,690 162,177 101,925 222,4292008-09 5,441,9324,866,1315,154,032 1,825,876 1,647,706 2,004,047 191,397 142,192 240,6012009-10 7,091,2196,239,5216,665,370 2,851,369 2,524,092 3,178,646 272,411 199,213 345,6092010-11 6,119,3565,392,2625,755,809 2,562,194 2,323,240 2,801,149 228,608 175,262 281,9532011-12 6,336,1925,567,9565,952,074 2,209,108 1,979,508 2,438,707 154,429 117,047 191,8102012-13 6,833,0846,056,8736,444,979 2,923,523 2,676,466 3,170,581 228,763 171,760 285,767

Statewide dove harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCISuccess Rate

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCITotal Days

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 453,891429,312441,601 0.917 0.908 0.925 2,326,896 2,207,325 2,446,4671994-95 409,831385,107397,469 0.900 0.890 0.910 1,836,882 1,736,227 1,937,5371995-96 375,604350,898363,251 0.889 0.878 0.900 1,685,302 1,576,188 1,794,4161996-97 333,498311,558322,528 0.906 0.895 0.917 1,619,868 1,512,427 1,727,3081997-98 335,754318,297327,025 0.913 0.905 0.921 1,716,328 1,627,775 1,804,8811998-99 371,162350,812360,987 0.924 0.915 0.932 1,883,998 1,783,808 1,984,1881999-00 404,382381,492392,937 0.902 0.892 0.913 1,881,266 1,775,951 1,986,5812000-01 374,848349,683362,265 0.913 0.903 0.923 1,813,607 1,694,057 1,933,1572001-02 389,782363,510376,646 0.900 0.889 0.911 1,916,476 1,788,485 2,044,4672002-03 406,613380,303393,458 0.913 0.903 0.924 1,983,122 1,861,753 2,104,4902003-04 395,013370,330382,672 0.907 0.896 0.918 1,903,395 1,793,833 2,012,9562004-05 368,373342,793355,583 0.894 0.881 0.907 1,696,537 1,578,168 1,814,9062005-06 288,503271,502280,002 0.859 0.848 0.870 1,497,427 1,412,734 1,582,1202006-07 282,017264,750273,384 0.831 0.818 0.843 1,390,451 1,304,724 1,476,1782007-08 356,549329,324342,937 0.783 0.766 0.801 1,684,124 1,565,104 1,803,1442008-09 264,818251,378258,098 0.840 0.830 0.850 1,393,577 1,324,193 1,462,9622009-10 335,126318,585326,856 0.844 0.834 0.853 1,744,584 1,662,538 1,826,6292010-11 324,545307,811316,178 0.824 0.813 0.835 1,618,865 1,539,509 1,698,2212011-12 324,197305,229314,713 0.775 0.760 0.790 1,643,922 1,557,900 1,729,9442012-13 369,611349,287359,449 0.811 0.798 0.823 1,748,873 1,661,512 1,836,235

Statewide combined dove harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters


Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCITotal Kill


Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI2005-06 288,503271,502280,002 0.891 0.881 0.901 8,071,826 7,568,915 8,574,738 1,497,427 1,412,734 1,582,1202006-07 282,017264,750273,384 0.873 0.862 0.884 7,068,380 6,602,435 7,534,325 1,390,451 1,304,724 1,476,1782007-08 356,549329,324342,937 0.849 0.833 0.865 7,782,063 7,131,244 8,432,882 1,684,124 1,565,104 1,803,1442008-09 264,818251,378258,098 0.895 0.886 0.904 6,686,176 6,314,361 7,057,990 1,393,577 1,324,193 1,462,9622009-10 335,126318,585326,856 0.898 0.889 0.906 9,028,748 8,488,971 9,568,525 1,744,584 1,662,538 1,826,6292010-11 324,545307,811316,178 0.886 0.876 0.896 7,923,377 7,457,256 8,389,497 1,618,865 1,539,509 1,698,2212011-12 324,197305,229314,713 0.858 0.846 0.871 8,095,950 7,597,805 8,594,094 1,643,922 1,557,900 1,729,9442012-13 369,611349,287359,449 0.885 0.873 0.896 8,897,874 8,395,057 9,400,691 1,748,873 1,661,512 1,836,235

Statewide bobwhite quail harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 234,801214,095224,448 0.853 0.838 0.868 4,961,802 4,367,983 5,555,621 1,279,362 1,152,343 1,406,3801994-95 156,697138,522147,610 0.771 0.746 0.796 2,080,913 1,803,805 2,358,021 686,529 600,275 772,7841995-96 133,313116,101124,707 0.748 0.719 0.776 1,624,126 1,369,851 1,878,401 559,979 486,105 633,8521996-97 102,67988,46395,571 0.722 0.690 0.754 1,533,926 1,252,023 1,815,829 424,088 358,879 489,2971997-98 118,624106,595112,609 0.811 0.793 0.830 2,039,727 1,747,815 2,331,640 527,350 472,149 582,5501998-99 118,530104,943111,736 0.806 0.783 0.828 1,618,019 1,391,777 1,844,261 575,128 502,254 648,0021999-00 125,914110,424118,169 0.793 0.766 0.819 1,838,942 1,491,490 2,186,393 510,844 444,279 577,4092000-01 103,68488,01595,850 0.800 0.770 0.830 1,629,467 1,329,188 1,929,747 592,531 504,834 680,2282001-02 88,87973,00980,944 0.797 0.762 0.832 1,195,219 978,061 1,412,377 403,341 335,872 470,8102002-03 91,16275,46683,314 0.788 0.756 0.821 1,634,567 1,301,263 1,967,871 388,807 304,139 473,4742003-04 115,09098,962107,026 0.849 0.821 0.876 1,664,292 1,423,998 1,904,586 432,034 372,065 492,0032004-05 116,08599,006107,545 0.833 0.807 0.859 2,316,344 1,845,952 2,786,736 509,992 438,284 581,7012005-06 99,23886,99993,119 0.874 0.854 0.895 1,947,898 1,456,675 2,439,121 408,477 359,591 457,3642006-07 57,91847,90552,912 0.760 0.724 0.796 624,704 507,821 741,587 197,361 164,638 230,0852007-08 102,14185,16893,654 0.821 0.787 0.855 1,540,587 1,251,781 1,829,394 400,386 333,115 467,6572008-09 62,90154,56958,735 0.812 0.788 0.837 1,066,276 765,695 1,366,857 270,380 232,060 308,7002009-10 52,35744,13548,246 0.797 0.762 0.833 584,533 493,420 675,645 221,322 191,215 251,4302010-11 51,91743,47047,694 0.799 0.766 0.833 510,531 428,392 592,669 213,210 179,597 246,8242011-12 33,28425,86729,576 0.697 0.642 0.751 257,693 207,414 307,973 110,586 87,235 133,9382012-13 24,10817,55520,831 0.637 0.566 0.707 140,876 99,733 182,019 80,298 57,957 102,639

Statewide scaled quail harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 71,39459,09965,247 0.735 0.698 0.772 720,952 555,202 886,702 350,756 281,715 419,7961994-95 51,99341,40046,696 0.699 0.647 0.751 511,116 397,765 624,467 191,514 154,714 228,3151995-96 37,12827,89132,509 0.608 0.540 0.677 256,345 192,645 320,046 166,946 120,475 213,4181996-97 26,75719,28523,021 0.636 0.565 0.707 170,959 106,898 235,020 98,298 69,411 127,1851997-98 41,26033,87037,565 0.788 0.754 0.822 444,503 346,222 542,785 170,254 137,028 203,4811998-99 41,31933,21337,266 0.765 0.721 0.810 372,538 276,497 468,579 191,686 153,944 229,4291999-00 45,41635,77640,596 0.765 0.719 0.810 424,169 331,351 516,988 177,705 134,619 220,7912000-01 30,61421,29225,953 0.758 0.695 0.821 248,700 179,588 317,811 150,488 99,325 201,6512001-02 38,69528,62433,659 0.829 0.774 0.884 567,188 410,971 723,406 182,566 138,877 226,2542002-03 32,69523,43128,063 0.769 0.713 0.826 307,377 170,209 444,544 106,243 64,870 147,6152003-04 44,77534,50439,640 0.798 0.748 0.848 601,054 379,090 823,018 180,243 137,954 222,5322004-05 52,33140,82546,578 0.786 0.741 0.830 666,853 468,244 865,462 210,932 164,548 257,3172005-06 38,22930,11534,172 0.887 0.856 0.919 463,067 334,972 591,162 161,686 129,591 193,7812006-07 26,33219,69223,012 0.766 0.710 0.822 553,537 298,887 808,187 100,063 73,527 126,5992007-08 35,72225,22730,475 0.809 0.749 0.869 424,487 301,949 547,024 146,808 110,596 183,0202008-09 20,53715,62618,082 0.771 0.721 0.820 174,424 135,167 213,681 81,285 64,696 97,8732009-10 18,33813,28415,811 0.648 0.579 0.717 145,417 97,462 193,371 75,780 56,723 94,8362010-11 18,68913,50416,096 0.766 0.705 0.827 163,308 120,607 206,010 79,115 60,003 98,2282011-12 9,2475,3567,301 0.490 0.375 0.605 27,221 10,021 44,420 41,627 24,421 58,8342012-13 10,2596,1378,198 0.627 0.513 0.740 53,946 31,642 76,250 24,776 16,429 33,123

Statewide combined quail harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 243,814222,812233,313 0.854 0.839 0.868 5,691,563 5,035,606 6,347,520 1,377,643 1,242,794 1,512,4921994-95 166,635148,054157,344 0.776 0.752 0.801 2,597,842 2,276,992 2,918,692 762,845 669,118 856,5721995-96 140,188122,623131,405 0.755 0.727 0.782 1,882,071 1,608,219 2,155,923 612,806 535,577 690,0351996-97 107,36492,830100,097 0.723 0.692 0.754 1,706,467 1,404,917 2,008,016 449,114 382,130 516,0971997-98 125,125112,783118,954 0.818 0.800 0.835 2,487,034 2,162,659 2,811,410 581,467 522,816 640,1181998-99 127,716113,671120,694 0.821 0.800 0.842 1,991,965 1,719,219 2,264,711 634,337 558,416 710,2581999-00 135,442119,459127,451 0.803 0.777 0.828 2,265,103 1,881,540 2,648,667 576,837 504,803 648,8702000-01 109,72693,548101,637 0.806 0.777 0.835 1,879,254 1,555,080 2,203,429 629,513 538,756 720,2702001-02 100,27483,62891,951 0.826 0.795 0.858 1,763,767 1,476,340 2,051,193 490,696 416,697 564,6952002-03 104,21887,71095,964 0.798 0.768 0.827 1,944,118 1,573,080 2,315,156 439,076 352,582 525,5712003-04 126,327109,512117,919 0.849 0.825 0.874 2,268,670 1,915,102 2,622,238 500,705 435,770 565,6402004-05 130,041112,127121,084 0.847 0.824 0.871 2,986,199 2,447,493 3,524,904 598,279 521,331 675,2282005-06 105,39592,79699,095 0.884 0.866 0.903 2,412,515 1,894,541 2,930,488 450,979 396,964 504,9942006-07 66,37455,80261,088 0.786 0.754 0.818 1,179,277 893,400 1,465,154 240,667 203,896 277,4392007-08 110,41492,712101,563 0.834 0.803 0.866 1,965,000 1,627,206 2,302,794 467,308 394,067 540,5492008-09 68,89660,23464,565 0.830 0.807 0.853 1,240,952 935,875 1,546,030 302,147 262,113 342,1812009-10 57,46848,79953,133 0.808 0.775 0.841 730,099 620,758 839,440 246,059 214,252 277,8652010-11 57,55948,66753,113 0.814 0.783 0.845 673,973 572,238 775,709 234,614 200,172 269,0572011-12 35,68127,99431,837 0.681 0.628 0.734 284,927 228,291 341,564 119,817 95,662 143,9732012-13 28,50421,39124,947 0.668 0.604 0.731 194,823 144,031 245,614 93,737 70,359 117,114

Statewide fall turkey harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 154,061138,042146,052 0.361 0.332 0.390 45,835 41,012 50,657 1,878,100 1,688,740 2,067,4601994-95 133,715118,211125,963 0.333 0.302 0.365 37,687 32,706 42,669 1,617,020 1,434,262 1,799,7781995-96 127,260111,774119,517 0.314 0.282 0.346 37,067 31,995 42,139 1,538,784 1,355,500 1,722,0681996-97 112,65998,838105,748 0.270 0.240 0.301 24,174 20,401 27,947 1,534,304 1,348,727 1,719,8821997-98 97,77787,60392,690 0.300 0.273 0.327 27,428 24,114 30,741 1,301,380 1,164,644 1,438,1161998-99 108,39296,333102,362 0.411 0.381 0.441 40,628 36,259 44,997 1,529,642 1,364,150 1,695,1331999-00 119,572105,722112,647 0.337 0.305 0.369 36,625 32,153 41,096 1,407,852 1,229,489 1,586,2142000-01 96,13981,46488,802 0.274 0.239 0.309 23,275 18,855 27,694 1,221,236 1,031,645 1,410,8262001-02 109,58694,343101,965 0.382 0.344 0.420 35,398 30,163 40,634 1,434,071 1,244,986 1,623,1552002-03 93,38578,56085,973 0.466 0.427 0.505 36,608 31,422 41,794 1,077,094 889,389 1,264,8002003-04 101,02186,59093,805 0.396 0.359 0.434 35,753 30,594 40,912 1,189,284 1,032,687 1,345,8812004-05 93,73579,46986,602 0.413 0.372 0.453 32,725 27,942 37,507 1,093,458 920,506 1,266,4112005-06 73,29563,50268,399 0.431 0.393 0.468 26,143 22,856 29,429 857,442 750,749 964,1352006-07 65,08955,56860,329 0.389 0.350 0.427 20,403 17,429 23,378 878,858 755,305 1,002,4102007-08 82,23768,21275,224 0.392 0.346 0.438 25,982 21,198 30,767 936,149 792,933 1,079,3642008-09 52,90745,93449,420 0.438 0.403 0.473 19,181 16,933 21,428 729,706 645,195 814,2172009-10 60,44152,34056,391 0.359 0.323 0.394 16,511 14,307 18,716 725,319 644,791 805,8462010-11 51,77143,96247,867 0.390 0.352 0.428 17,974 15,317 20,631 694,091 590,490 797,6922011-12 51,73943,10847,423 0.349 0.308 0.390 14,926 12,386 17,467 554,824 466,046 643,6032012-13 58,18648,87253,529 0.405 0.364 0.446 18,695 15,732 21,659 793,727 676,344 911,109

Statewide spring turkey harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 101,09887,70994,404 0.416 0.379 0.453 33,477 29,263 37,692 669,982 596,807 743,1581994-95 89,08075,92382,502 0.421 0.382 0.461 33,437 28,656 38,217 508,766 436,285 581,2471995-96 83,55770,61777,087 0.401 0.360 0.442 28,980 24,518 33,443 538,323 459,376 617,2701996-97 76,17664,60170,388 0.391 0.350 0.431 24,680 20,956 28,404 495,392 424,678 566,1061997-98 68,97760,40564,691 0.360 0.326 0.395 20,233 17,518 22,948 424,572 379,177 469,9681998-99 72,71162,46867,589 0.391 0.354 0.428 23,767 20,286 27,249 472,547 416,182 528,9121999-00 74,61463,28968,952 0.389 0.346 0.431 25,185 21,239 29,132 447,979 384,366 511,5922000-01 65,57953,52259,550 0.410 0.364 0.456 22,014 18,061 25,967 420,017 347,580 492,4542001-02 79,90066,62273,261 0.411 0.366 0.457 27,632 23,006 32,257 488,765 420,786 556,7432002-03 72,17559,46165,818 0.436 0.390 0.482 28,945 24,146 33,744 494,981 418,849 571,1132003-04 71,20658,83065,018 0.465 0.420 0.511 27,236 22,549 31,923 502,041 420,848 583,2352004-05 78,52465,40271,963 0.452 0.407 0.497 31,021 25,815 36,228 460,459 388,335 532,5832005-06 66,35356,92061,637 0.466 0.426 0.505 26,810 23,030 30,590 480,368 424,530 536,2062006-07 57,08547,92452,505 0.463 0.422 0.505 23,115 19,625 26,605 374,978 324,357 425,6002007-08 68,68055,43262,056 0.413 0.363 0.463 25,064 20,354 29,773 505,955 428,896 583,0132008-09 48,31041,57944,944 0.460 0.423 0.497 19,531 17,040 22,023 378,859 337,874 419,8432009-10 59,42251,35755,390 0.411 0.374 0.448 20,555 17,746 23,365 428,472 383,964 472,9812010-11 45,37837,85941,618 0.424 0.384 0.465 15,871 13,275 18,467 344,405 298,598 390,2122011-12 45,67937,43041,554 0.342 0.299 0.386 12,033 9,525 14,540 299,825 253,179 346,4722012-13 50,90542,30946,607 0.471 0.426 0.517 20,490 17,328 23,653 365,919 315,531 416,307

Statewide combined turkey harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 183,929166,778175,354 0.437 0.410 0.464 77,599 70,697 84,502 2,559,860 2,333,910 2,785,8111994-95 159,989143,205151,597 0.413 0.384 0.442 70,060 62,460 77,660 2,135,765 1,915,636 2,355,8951995-96 155,801138,941147,371 0.379 0.349 0.409 63,236 55,967 70,506 2,088,263 1,859,718 2,316,8071996-97 137,673122,733130,203 0.362 0.332 0.391 48,522 42,717 54,327 2,039,019 1,812,673 2,265,3651997-98 122,186111,032116,609 0.366 0.341 0.391 46,776 42,212 51,340 1,731,688 1,573,694 1,889,6811998-99 138,965125,560132,263 0.452 0.426 0.479 63,726 57,769 69,683 2,016,885 1,825,740 2,208,0301999-00 150,063134,805142,434 0.393 0.364 0.423 60,130 53,880 66,381 1,870,290 1,653,099 2,087,4812000-01 129,719113,332121,525 0.359 0.328 0.391 45,000 38,591 51,409 1,648,246 1,425,440 1,871,0522001-02 147,362130,075138,719 0.437 0.404 0.470 63,115 55,593 70,638 1,933,297 1,716,047 2,150,5462002-03 132,542115,620124,081 0.486 0.453 0.519 65,189 57,671 72,707 1,579,348 1,356,416 1,802,2802003-04 135,382119,093127,237 0.463 0.430 0.496 62,903 55,388 70,419 1,699,380 1,498,059 1,900,7012004-05 136,554119,891128,223 0.464 0.430 0.497 63,655 56,164 71,146 1,562,811 1,351,703 1,773,9192005-06 104,77193,29599,033 0.503 0.472 0.535 52,452 47,095 57,808 1,344,377 1,210,846 1,477,9082006-07 93,18782,01087,598 0.475 0.443 0.508 43,339 38,429 48,248 1,258,809 1,109,779 1,407,8392007-08 120,206103,402111,804 0.439 0.401 0.476 50,541 43,582 57,501 1,449,431 1,267,834 1,631,0272008-09 78,17069,83074,000 0.491 0.462 0.520 37,681 34,108 41,254 1,112,577 1,007,117 1,218,0382009-10 93,39883,54888,473 0.426 0.397 0.455 37,056 33,206 40,906 1,157,676 1,053,286 1,262,0662010-11 75,11665,69570,406 0.461 0.429 0.492 33,444 29,573 37,315 1,041,126 914,766 1,167,4862011-12 75,40264,99270,197 0.390 0.356 0.424 26,913 23,098 30,728 856,986 743,774 970,1982012-13 86,07074,99080,530 0.481 0.447 0.516 38,926 34,400 43,453 1,165,037 1,015,946 1,314,127

Statewide goose harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI2005-06 26,62119,91223,267 0.820 0.773 0.866 212,619 114,514 310,723 105,973 77,742 134,2042006-07 30,55723,20026,879 0.847 0.805 0.889 265,432 179,536 351,328 125,150 94,447 155,8542007-08 30,81621,22326,019 0.789 0.726 0.852 238,726 117,871 359,582 121,488 57,250 185,7262008-09 19,99315,17317,583 0.815 0.767 0.863 214,687 25,358 404,015 74,136 49,993 98,2792009-10 20,95715,78818,372 0.714 0.655 0.773 153,882 90,634 217,130 79,947 57,968 101,9252010-11 19,21213,96316,587 0.768 0.709 0.828 120,297 78,049 162,545 79,253 57,944 100,5622011-12 23,50917,29520,402 0.815 0.760 0.871 140,258 96,485 184,031 83,151 59,905 106,3972012-13 26,56319,91123,237 0.786 0.728 0.843 171,778 127,776 215,781 94,649 69,218 120,079

Statewide teal harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI2005-06 17,89312,55515,224 0.870 0.814 0.926 104,243 79,048 129,437 38,403 29,273 47,5332006-07 19,27013,27716,273 0.830 0.779 0.882 115,008 86,775 143,241 49,229 37,915 60,5422007-08 30,13720,73725,437 0.796 0.737 0.854 154,879 107,895 201,863 73,390 53,888 92,8912008-09 15,10011,03813,069 0.817 0.763 0.871 81,459 60,010 102,909 35,175 27,108 43,2422009-10 20,38414,86317,623 0.808 0.762 0.854 136,531 103,726 169,336 50,835 40,235 61,4352010-11 21,20115,72818,464 0.860 0.815 0.906 157,662 122,473 192,851 60,523 48,063 72,9822011-12 25,24518,93922,092 0.787 0.736 0.838 177,734 135,603 219,866 70,200 54,975 85,4242012-13 35,80828,22232,015 0.880 0.844 0.917 266,921 220,431 313,410 98,491 82,347 114,635

Statewide duck harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI2005-06 68,09557,70762,901 0.865 0.838 0.891 982,958 805,080 1,160,836 380,950 326,934 434,9652006-07 72,97562,03567,505 0.876 0.853 0.900 731,752 626,825 836,679 357,109 306,353 407,8642007-08 91,98476,11084,047 0.830 0.796 0.865 935,766 752,917 1,118,615 512,316 425,978 598,6532008-09 58,70650,64454,675 0.853 0.830 0.877 629,378 521,447 737,310 306,611 266,467 346,7542009-10 72,75562,85167,803 0.816 0.790 0.842 826,401 689,173 963,629 363,521 318,200 408,8422010-11 75,66165,64370,652 0.855 0.833 0.878 977,614 832,861 1,122,367 380,028 333,328 426,7292011-12 86,38874,72080,554 0.851 0.827 0.875 1,196,187 1,014,267 1,378,106 480,943 418,958 542,9282012-13 101,50788,78295,145 0.853 0.831 0.876 1,405,881 1,196,400 1,615,362 540,821 475,144 606,499

Statewide pheasant harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 44,75834,93339,846 0.768 0.726 0.811 99,424 75,706 123,142 82,879 66,056 99,7021994-95 30,96322,68826,825 0.701 0.637 0.766 68,070 46,087 90,053 61,738 47,619 75,8561995-96 33,40124,87729,139 0.650 0.583 0.717 62,470 44,117 80,823 58,149 45,725 70,5741996-97 26,45419,24822,851 0.669 0.600 0.738 51,943 37,199 66,686 46,341 37,210 55,4721997-98 27,29321,49524,394 0.727 0.678 0.777 65,509 52,128 78,890 54,797 45,310 64,2831998-99 27,48820,71924,103 0.757 0.705 0.809 67,872 51,468 84,275 44,822 34,675 54,9691999-00 30,37622,71826,547 0.734 0.673 0.795 80,584 61,222 99,946 63,303 48,915 77,6922000-01 32,46823,81328,140 0.754 0.690 0.818 93,012 70,100 115,923 82,094 64,573 99,6142001-02 32,59023,50828,049 0.725 0.658 0.792 86,650 62,728 110,573 62,447 48,407 76,4872002-03 28,09120,00624,049 0.697 0.620 0.775 57,522 40,830 74,214 46,693 35,749 57,6372003-04 29,23721,01425,125 0.708 0.640 0.776 65,990 48,676 83,304 61,863 47,740 75,9872004-05 27,26519,30223,283 0.669 0.593 0.746 59,220 37,816 80,625 62,937 43,889 81,9862005-06 23,33917,14320,241 0.901 0.866 0.935 72,418 57,804 87,032 45,362 35,958 54,7672006-07 21,44615,36818,407 0.763 0.709 0.816 48,982 35,426 62,539 34,929 27,043 42,8152007-08 33,44123,66028,550 0.749 0.683 0.816 86,592 56,890 116,293 68,544 51,004 86,0832008-09 22,41717,55119,984 0.799 0.754 0.845 99,106 68,502 129,710 71,887 51,485 92,2902009-10 21,33715,89818,617 0.730 0.674 0.785 56,789 44,336 69,241 44,832 36,929 52,7352010-11 22,71617,18319,949 0.787 0.735 0.839 61,432 48,408 74,455 50,068 39,405 60,7302011-12 14,2809,67211,976 0.697 0.614 0.780 30,607 18,564 42,651 20,829 9,659 31,9992012-13 12,2338,00310,118 0.698 0.597 0.799 26,242 19,155 33,329 19,479 14,107 24,850

Statewide woodcock harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 2,5593681,463 0.836 0.618 1.000 9,040 71 18,337 6,741 74 16,9351994-95 2,1412911,216 0.201 0.000 0.606 2,527 31 8,842 10,681 126 21,2351995-96 3,7361,2632,500 0.655 0.400 0.910 11,134 2,310 19,959 5,785 842 10,7291996-97 3,4611,2122,337 0.532 0.246 0.818 6,217 1,920 10,514 4,750 1,878 7,6221997-98 2,1317251,428 0.565 0.289 0.842 2,638 40 5,558 2,983 424 5,5421998-99 2,4786701,574 0.747 0.539 0.955 8,495 82 18,349 3,581 530 6,6331999-00 2,9095641,737 0.755 0.508 1.000 4,829 46 9,710 12,917 1,816 24,0182000-01 1,8991131,006 0.075 0.000 0.466 227 3 1,240 11,546 1,239 21,8532001-02 2,1331751,154 0.869 0.451 1.000 3,511 34 11,504 4,693 29 9,6182002-03 2,6397631,701 0.377 0.000 0.872 4,619 622 8,617 8,374 2,439 14,3092003-04 3,4811,0282,255 0.287 0.000 0.638 2,310 20 5,915 3,256 387 6,1262004-05 3,0927511,922 0.316 0.000 0.698 4,109 39 11,359 3,275 24 7,1142005-06 1,8002801,040 0.858 0.559 1.000 3,060 560 5,560 3,620 452 6,7882006-07 1,158111634 1.000 10000 1.000 6,026 1,774 10,278 1,313 96 2,5292007-08 1,7366754 0.685 0.000 1.000 5,241 31 12,696 1,745 15 5,4462008-09 5364230 1.000 10000 1.000 427 7 979 197 3 4622009-10 9457456 0.812 0.394 1.000 756 14 2,236 1,169 20 3,2462010-11 1,484241863 0.684 0.384 0.983 2,341 28 4,726 2,242 38 7,0292011-12 1,6714031,037 0.545 0.127 0.963 1,411 13 2,811 1,934 769 3,1002012-13 1,02461542 0.000 * * 0 * * 411 9 2,164

Statewide snipe harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 3,6691,2562,463 0.465 0.210 0.719 13,202 135 36,233 4,166 42 8,2911994-95 5,2052,0653,635 0.645 0.481 0.809 45,347 473 124,209 9,095 89 20,9231995-96 5,9322,6794,305 0.745 0.585 0.904 29,715 5,887 53,543 19,357 9,049 29,6651996-97 3,0989942,046 0.964 0.816 1.000 23,241 7,396 39,087 7,236 2,750 11,7211997-98 4,5452,4103,477 0.780 0.672 0.889 20,460 8,760 32,160 11,055 4,197 17,9121998-99 3,8921,5882,740 0.715 0.555 0.874 25,614 385 84,129 8,997 4,023 13,9711999-00 4,6271,6203,123 0.909 0.785 1.000 14,090 4,597 23,582 14,868 6,344 23,3922000-01 3,9978342,416 0.730 0.563 0.897 14,019 179 37,400 6,123 71 14,8972001-02 4,6411,4193,030 0.875 0.663 1.000 44,706 17,581 71,832 12,272 78 24,6952002-03 6,6213,2264,923 0.671 0.485 0.856 49,675 23,919 75,431 24,405 13,100 35,7102003-04 3,8261,1062,466 0.766 0.529 1.000 7,878 943 14,814 6,437 62 17,5192004-05 3,4637302,096 0.927 0.739 1.000 12,734 5,218 20,249 4,586 246 8,9262005-06 3,3411,3982,369 0.776 0.570 0.983 33,927 13,845 54,010 9,794 5,097 14,4912006-07 2,6757481,711 0.849 0.720 0.978 9,723 127 21,543 5,747 1,756 9,7382007-08 2,703121,315 0.819 0.605 1.000 40,883 6,311 75,455 7,857 44 16,0032008-09 1,333230781 0.754 0.579 0.930 3,544 89 10,014 2,273 51 7,0862009-10 2,3809971,688 0.429 0.127 0.730 14,841 4,137 25,545 9,241 3,377 15,1052010-11 2,6868521,769 0.977 0.892 1.000 12,661 1,547 23,775 3,663 1,471 5,8542011-12 2,7668141,790 0.417 0.194 0.639 3,496 63 9,348 2,018 28 4,1932012-13 2,005811,043 0.912 0.736 1.000 8,822 118 18,947 2,177 34 4,510

Statewide rail harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 1,0555400 0.600 0.000 1.000 639 8 2,075 1,119 14 4,1361994-95 1,70876892 0.457 0.066 0.848 3,261 40 10,652 1,055 9 2,4001995-96 1,16861614 0.435 * * 1,069 4 2,348 1,064 11 4,2771996-97 5442146 0.000 * * 0 * * 586 8 2,2271997-98 1,259204731 0.462 0.000 0.957 1,027 97 1,958 1,489 60 2,9181998-99 1,1047506 0.669 0.212 1.000 1,733 29 6,537 1,064 17 2,8591999-00 1,3256628 0.452 0.000 0.949 1,562 22 5,119 1,065 15 3,4642000-01 1,6247731 0.690 0.232 1.000 1,286 9 2,834 580 5 1,3352001-02 1,2854545 0.278 0.000 1.000 1,288 17 6,589 303 4 1,3512002-03 9062404 0.193 * * 312 4 1,730 3,577 14 7,3972003-04 6222141 0.000 * * 0 * * 984 14 4,6522004-05 8772377 1.000 * * 1,220 13 5,474 1,143 12 5,0462005-06 278149 * * * 98 2 557 98 2 5572006-07 4441210 * * * 0 * * 210 1 4442007-08 9333238 0.333 * * 79 1 481 79 1 4812008-09 187133 * * * 267 8 1,493 67 2 3732009-10 5032241 0.178 * * 1,073 25 5,699 1,517 108 2,9262010-11 348283 0.500 * * 166 4 916 125 3 5442011-12 271147 * * * 512 11 2,979 93 2 5422012-13 286146 * * * 137 3 859 46 1 286

Statewide gallinule harvest trends from the Texas small game harvest survey.Year Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCI1993-94 1,612177894 0.500 0.000 1.000 1,134 9 3,011 2,396 17 5,5381994-95 1,56655811 0.402 0.000 0.899 1,549 19 5,966 731 7 1,8441995-96 399180 * * * 0 * * 797 10 3,9931996-97 5442146 1.000 * * 512 7 2,028 659 9 2,5471997-98 1,293239766 0.243 0.000 0.661 504 5 1,138 988 11 2,0581998-99 95954506 0.220 0.000 1.000 1,171 21 5,701 1,183 12 2,6841999-00 1,110124617 0.442 0.000 1.000 3,820 14 7,806 4,863 990 8,7352000-01 6292151 0.000 * * 0 * * 151 2 6292001-02 1,422140781 0.504 * * 1,740 7 3,734 953 3 2,0642002-03 1,4315638 0.488 0.000 0.985 857 11 3,288 4,434 25 9,6592003-04 1,0263437 0.839 0.000 1.000 1,998 22 8,843 1,406 20 6,2222004-05 9682469 1.000 * * 852 7 3,001 8,762 523 17,0022005-06 278149 * * * 0 * * 0 * *2006-07 4312100 * * * 199 4 1,136 299 6 1,7042007-08 7262158 0.000 * * 0 * * 317 4 1,4522008-09 4623197 0.170 0.000 1.000 267 8 1,493 360 5 9122009-10 4493129 0.667 0.000 1.000 472 11 2,053 343 8 1,4222010-11 348283 1.000 * * 166 4 759 166 4 6962011-12 271147 * * * 279 6 1,625 47 1 2712012-13 432291 1.000 * * 1,873 41 11,507 228 5 1,432

Ecoregion dove harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Mourning Dove

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIWhite-winged Dove

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIWhite-tipped Dove

Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 682,068451,963567,016 114,305 73,836 154,775 19,884 4,589 35,179Cross Timbers 1,195,245863,1471,029,196 376,790 297,082 456,498 48,430 28,162 68,698Edwards Plateau 1,106,572819,578963,075 676,551 566,140 786,961 39,177 25,296 53,059Gulf Prairies 485,419282,753384,086 191,798 130,426 253,169 17,521 7,436 27,607High Plains 414,976218,825316,901 133,794 63,065 204,524 9,253 57 18,462Pineywoods 220,601101,887161,244 43,000 16,457 69,542 984 15 3,619Post Oak 694,679489,641592,160 345,545 274,927 416,163 14,568 7,737 21,399Rolling Plains 911,863643,372777,618 125,751 89,754 161,748 29,924 4,634 55,214South Texas 1,734,6401,348,1581,541,399 884,126 771,667 996,584 49,021 34,684 63,357Trans-Pecos 186,60837,963112,286 31,863 10,211 53,515 10 10 2,433

Disclaimer: Analysis unit is based on the county they hunted in the most. Because we do not ask this for each species of dove, those that hunt in more than one unit may have their white-tipped dove harvest assigned outside of that species range. All white-tipped dove harvest should be assumed to be in South Texas, regardless of the unit shown here.

Ecoregion dove harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters



Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 33,24726,21129,729 0.864 0.854 0.873 176,807 143,887 209,726Cross Timbers 66,04056,11861,079 0.794 0.781 0.806 322,405 280,324 364,486Edwards Plateau 64,49754,68959,593 0.765 0.753 0.778 297,203 259,433 334,972Gulf Prairies 23,62317,72820,675 0.832 0.824 0.840 87,751 68,478 107,023High Plains 13,9899,52411,756 0.790 0.784 0.796 61,243 43,272 79,213Pineywoods 15,46410,75213,108 0.719 0.713 0.725 49,882 36,886 62,878Post Oak 49,99941,34945,674 0.798 0.787 0.810 208,538 178,253 238,824Rolling Plains 41,36333,49937,431 0.865 0.854 0.875 165,838 139,142 192,534South Texas 81,71170,71776,214 0.837 0.822 0.851 361,579 320,438 402,721Trans-Pecos 5,5272,8514,189 0.750 0.746 0.753 17,628 9,804 25,453

Ecoregion combined dove harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 33,24726,21129,729 0.876 0.867 0.885 662,662 525,666 799,657 176,807 143,887 209,726Cross Timbers 66,04056,11861,079 0.844 0.832 0.857 1,353,118 1,138,204 1,568,031 322,405 280,324 364,486Edwards Plateau 64,49754,68959,593 0.908 0.896 0.921 1,534,174 1,316,090 1,752,259 297,203 259,433 334,972Gulf Prairies 23,62317,72820,675 0.922 0.915 0.930 547,585 400,296 694,875 87,751 68,478 107,023High Plains 13,9899,52411,756 0.868 0.862 0.874 427,834 290,723 564,944 61,243 43,272 79,213Pineywoods 15,46410,75213,108 0.768 0.763 0.774 194,175 120,294 268,055 49,882 36,886 62,878Post Oak 49,99941,34945,674 0.873 0.862 0.884 877,877 728,612 1,027,143 208,538 178,253 238,824Rolling Plains 41,36333,49937,431 0.883 0.873 0.893 884,501 730,561 1,038,441 165,838 139,142 192,534South Texas 81,71170,71776,214 0.925 0.911 0.939 2,279,571 2,015,878 2,543,265 361,579 320,438 402,721Trans-Pecos 5,5272,8514,189 0.834 0.830 0.837 136,377 52,915 219,839 17,628 9,804 25,453

Ecoregion bobwhite quail harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCICross Timbers 2,1875911,389 0.468 0.445 0.491 2,734 65 5,404 7,026 56 14,795Edwards Plateau 3,6001,4502,525 0.515 0.483 0.547 10,286 2,966 17,605 6,650 2,943 10,356Gulf Prairies 1,16993631 0.618 0.600 0.636 5,338 47 13,291 10,037 80 24,954High Plains 2,1875911,389 0.468 0.445 0.491 5,208 46 10,905 8,030 64 16,205Pineywoods 3671126 0.000 * * 6 6 1,234 125 1 366Post Oak 98624505 0.515 0.500 0.530 3,255 31 8,064 1,004 8 2,081Rolling Plains 7,5794,2885,934 0.504 0.457 0.551 34,243 7,905 60,580 20,200 12,792 27,608South Texas 10,2806,3858,332 0.843 0.778 0.907 79,812 52,411 107,214 27,226 18,788 35,664

Ecoregion scaled quail harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIEdwards Plateau 2,9871,1872,087 0.724 0.645 0.803 11,302 4,380 18,223 5,749 2,630 8,868High Plains 1,484305894 0.338 0.300 0.375 10,849 72 23,183 4,380 87 8,674Rolling Plains 1,484305894 0.169 0.142 0.196 603 4 1,566 2,738 20 5,587South Texas 3,3471,4232,385 0.823 0.735 0.912 17,329 4,146 30,512 6,570 2,780 10,361Trans-Pecos 2,8051,0701,938 0.624 0.552 0.696 13,863 3,845 23,881 5,338 1,825 8,852

Ecoregion combined quail harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 3671126 1.000 0.991 1.000 264 18 3,009 250 2 732Cross Timbers 2,5057711,638 0.477 0.455 0.498 3,298 41 7,018 7,259 58 15,038Edwards Plateau 4,9482,3603,654 0.605 0.571 0.640 22,160 9,640 34,680 9,762 5,401 14,122Gulf Prairies 1,16892630 0.620 0.605 0.635 5,408 57 13,717 10,012 80 24,934High Plains 2,5057711,638 0.556 0.533 0.579 15,037 130 31,868 9,386 857 17,915Pineywoods 3671126 0.000 * * 16 16 2,719 125 1 366Post Oak 98523504 0.774 0.759 0.790 4,089 47 9,657 1,126 9 2,282Rolling Plains 7,9974,6036,300 0.496 0.455 0.536 35,746 9,091 62,402 21,651 13,431 29,870South Texas 10,6846,7038,694 0.883 0.825 0.941 96,686 62,250 131,122 29,160 20,091 38,229Trans-Pecos 2,5057711,638 0.635 0.611 0.660 12,135 1,760 22,510 5,006 1,433 8,579

Ecoregion fall turkey harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 7643347 0.619 0.614 0.624 134 3 551 3,168 409 5,927Cross Timbers 15,60410,52413,064 0.320 0.299 0.342 3,362 1,254 5,471 222,010 188,048 255,971Edwards Plateau 26,48219,76423,123 0.441 0.409 0.473 8,810 5,225 12,395 324,851 286,821 362,880Gulf Prairies 3561116 0.000 * * 1 1 242 3,655 23 7,753High Plains 7643347 0.000 * * 1 1 242 9,261 1,645 16,876Post Oak 5722231 0.464 0.461 0.468 67 2 408 487 10 2,476Rolling Plains 10,2286,1898,209 0.366 0.348 0.385 2,824 688 4,961 111,614 92,216 131,012South Texas 10,0986,0888,093 0.491 0.470 0.512 3,497 1,179 5,814 118,681 95,094 142,268

Ecoregion spring turkey harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 1,461187824 0.268 0.262 0.274 212 3 750 9,548 5,032 14,064Cross Timbers 14,4209,59012,005 0.386 0.360 0.413 4,522 1,803 7,241 123,349 105,262 141,436Edwards Plateau 16,74011,50714,123 0.492 0.461 0.524 6,924 3,478 10,370 105,544 92,013 119,074Gulf Prairies 9524471 0.938 0.929 0.947 283 4 764 2,839 925 4,752Pineywoods 1,12750588 0.375 0.369 0.381 283 4 1,044 3,613 1,484 5,742Post Oak 4,4271,9293,178 0.347 0.334 0.361 777 11 1,645 15,741 11,924 19,558Rolling Plains 9,7155,8207,768 0.497 0.473 0.522 3,533 1,202 5,863 54,191 46,207 62,175South Texas 9,5835,7177,650 0.592 0.565 0.618 3,957 1,602 6,311 51,094 43,420 58,769

Ecoregion combined turkey harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 1,8903691,129 0.282 0.278 0.286 339 15 1,636 19,518 11,693 27,343Cross Timbers 21,32815,26618,297 0.424 0.404 0.444 7,799 3,997 11,600 337,584 290,484 384,683Edwards Plateau 33,78026,08129,931 0.518 0.491 0.545 15,733 10,422 21,044 440,955 392,160 489,750Gulf Prairies 1,10327565 0.940 0.935 0.946 339 15 1,494 6,506 1,102 11,910High Plains 9334452 0.235 0.233 0.237 68 11 1,117 10,843 2,971 18,716Pineywoods 1,26788678 0.313 0.310 0.317 339 15 1,764 4,096 1,204 6,989Post Oak 4,8392,1633,501 0.364 0.356 0.372 882 23 2,264 19,759 14,677 24,840Rolling Plains 15,30310,22312,763 0.458 0.440 0.475 6,239 2,694 9,784 159,274 135,903 182,645South Texas 15,79810,63113,215 0.546 0.527 0.566 7,188 3,614 10,763 166,503 140,304 192,702

Ecoregion goose harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 1,066103585 0.488 0.474 0.502 5,340 34 10,767 3,238 23 7,023Cross Timbers 2,0375931,315 0.434 0.414 0.454 2,492 421 4,563 10,010 2,078 17,941Edwards Plateau 3871146 0.000 * * 4 4 685 147 2 488Gulf Prairies 9,1675,7407,453 0.823 0.764 0.882 72,805 41,395 104,216 29,881 16,540 43,223High Plains 4,1711,9673,069 0.929 0.886 0.973 35,424 12,295 58,552 9,568 3,026 16,109Pineywoods 1,066103585 0.732 0.715 0.749 3,204 545 5,863 9,421 65 23,891Post Oak 7,3654,3275,846 0.781 0.728 0.833 22,785 15,498 30,072 20,608 12,697 28,518Rolling Plains 4,3432,0873,215 0.799 0.757 0.840 25,099 15,247 34,952 9,862 5,612 14,113South Texas 1,6603861,023 0.837 0.812 0.861 4,628 1,417 7,840 1,914 552 3,276

Ecoregion teal harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 3,8841,7332,808 0.895 0.863 0.928 22,052 10,854 33,250 9,701 4,462 14,940Cross Timbers 3,3791,3952,387 0.776 0.748 0.804 10,823 3,145 18,501 6,063 2,584 9,542Edwards Plateau 6212281 0.471 0.463 0.479 541 22 4,981 404 7 1,508Gulf Prairies 14,60210,11112,357 0.900 0.841 0.958 116,211 86,435 145,988 39,073 29,318 48,828High Plains 1,04380562 0.942 0.927 0.958 6,358 65 14,215 3,099 27 6,837Pineywoods 3,5481,5072,528 0.785 0.756 0.814 11,635 3,277 19,992 6,063 1,644 10,482Post Oak 11,2157,3209,268 0.900 0.846 0.953 84,960 55,381 114,540 27,755 19,320 36,190Rolling Plains 1,620346983 0.942 0.922 0.963 10,552 96 21,869 4,446 368 8,525South Texas 1,240164702 0.942 0.925 0.960 1,759 31 6,333 1,347 14 2,831Trans-Pecos 3811140 0.942 0.935 0.950 2,029 33 7,671 539 8 1,901

Ecoregion duck harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 12,5078,38510,446 0.844 0.824 0.864 183,354 110,510 256,198 77,816 52,659 102,973Cross Timbers 14,0529,66411,858 0.811 0.790 0.832 123,805 78,677 168,933 66,009 42,368 89,651Edwards Plateau 7,0054,0065,505 0.849 0.834 0.864 41,989 19,080 64,898 23,613 14,238 32,988Gulf Prairies 30,39723,81127,104 0.882 0.852 0.912 478,425 347,537 609,312 154,961 119,538 190,384High Plains 2,1736511,412 0.946 0.938 0.954 11,833 2,384 21,282 6,037 982 11,093Pineywoods 9,7006,1107,905 0.845 0.827 0.862 70,746 39,750 101,741 44,409 22,236 66,582Post Oak 23,94318,12421,034 0.863 0.836 0.891 356,401 244,999 467,803 118,066 90,672 145,459Rolling Plains 7,6444,4966,070 0.836 0.820 0.852 103,701 39,296 168,106 35,822 20,452 51,193South Texas 4,4002,0943,247 0.781 0.770 0.793 30,029 7,072 52,986 11,002 2,793 19,210Trans-Pecos 1,04683565 0.709 0.705 0.714 5,599 44 12,877 3,086 147 6,024

Ecoregion pheasant harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIHigh Plains 10,6357,6749,154 0.669 0.562 0.776 21,743 18,535 24,952 17,796 14,054 21,537Rolling Plains 1,445482964 0.978 0.927 1.000 4,499 2,796 6,201 1,683 751 2,616

Ecoregion woodcock harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCICross Timbers 4211181 0.000 * * 0 * * 91 2 573Pineywoods 4211181 0.000 * * 0 * * 320 7 2,005Post Oak 4211181 0.000 * * 0 * * 0 * *

Ecoregion snipe harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIBlackland 5012160 0.988 0.812 1.000 566 5 1,558 233 3 772Cross Timbers 321180 0.000 * * 0 * * 156 2 637Edwards Plateau 321180 0.988 0.859 1.000 226 2 708 78 1 319Gulf Prairies 1,1987562 0.988 0.723 1.000 7,352 844 13,860 1,400 18 3,264Post Oak 321180 0.988 0.859 1.000 339 3 1,062 78 1 319Rolling Plains 321180 0.988 0.859 1.000 339 3 1,062 233 3 956

Ecoregion gallinule harvest estimates from the Texas small game harvest survey, 2012-13.Unit Hunters




Estimate 95% LCI 95% UCIEdwards Plateau 332191 1.000 * * 1,873 40 11,504 228 5 1,432

SMALL GAME HARVEST

Documents

Transcript of SMALL GAME HARVEST