To clarify these important points, a study was initi¬ 
ated in 1962 to determine the feasibility of using randomly- 
selected routes to measure density and changes in density 
of the breeding population. 
With the assistance of biologists in the Michigan 
Conservation Department, 126 routes were selected at ran¬ 
dom in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Most routes ( 75 ) 
were selected in the northern portion of the Lower Peninsula, 
where satisfactory woodcock habitat is more abundant. 
In 1962 , routes were examined, and individual stops 
were judged as to suitability for ’’singing" woodcock dur¬ 
ing the breeding season. Stops were classified as good, 
satisfactory, poor, and unsatisfactory on the basis of 
type and distribution of vegetative cover within a 0 . 2 - 
mile radius (approximate maximum distance that "peenting" 
woodcock can be heard) from the stop. 
Additional details on random routes, and results of 
counts made last year,'are included in the 1963 Woodcock 
Status Report (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special 
Scientific Report--Wildlife Wo. 76). 
The results of counts made in 196k are shown in table 
3 - Counts made each year on both types of routes are com¬ 
pared in table k. As expected, some stops could not be 
censused because of traffic, noises, etc. Average numbers 
of birds heard on stops of each category covered in each 
of the two strata were used to estimate numbers of birds 
that would have been heard had all stops been covered. 
Table ^ shows the relative population sizes of "peent¬ 
ing’' birds expanded from counts on both types of routes. 
These population values are "indexes" because all "peent¬ 
ing" birds probably were not heard when numerous birds 
were performing at a stop, when some birds did not "sing," 
or when extraneous noises reduced efficiency, but did not 
eliminate hearing. Population indexes were obtained as 
follows: 
Average numbers of peenting birds per stop 
pi r^ (where r = 0,2 mi.) 
X 
Total sq. miles 
in each stratum 
-5- 
