24 
Region 11—Nicaragua (n = 13). —This is the largest 
Central American country with an area of 147,900 km? and 
about 2.3 million people (Anon. 1977). Although moun- 
tainous in the interior, it is not as rugged as Honduras (Ryan 
et al. 1970). Most of the dove harvest occurs around the 
perimeters of the two huge lakes in the southwestern part 
of the country (Managua and Nicaragua), Estrada O. 
(1978) estimated that 600 hunters killed over 68,000 mourn- 
ing doves in 1976-77 and that 512 hunters killed about 
142,000 mourning doves in 1977-78. As in Honduras, 
hunting by American and other foreign hunters is increas- 
ing, whereas few natives hunt doves. Nicaragua accounted 
for about 14% of the Central American harvest and 1.5% 
of the total Southern Zone harvest of birds banded in the 
United States. 
Region 12— Costa Rica (n = 2). —This country, less than 
half the size of its two northern neighbors, has an area of 
51,000 km* (Blutstein et al. 1970). Its human population 
numbers about 2 million and consists mainly of European- 
origin peoples (Anon. 1977). Costa Rica is also moun- 
tainous, but most of the human population lives in tem- 
perate highland valleys, particularly the Meseta Central. 
The Pacific Coast is narrow and not particularly suited for 
agriculture. As a result, doves banded in the United States 
apparently go no farther than the northwest province of 
Guanacaste near Canas and Esparta. This area appears to 
be the southward terminus for migrating doves from the 
United States and accounts for only 3% of Central 
America’s and less than 0.5% of the Southern Zone harvest. 
Derivation of the Harvest 
Derivation of the harvest is the determination of breed- 
ing or natal areas for doves taken in specific harvest areas. 
As with distribution of the harvest, weighting factors 
(Table A-39) must be used to estimate derivation of har- 
vest. The relative contribution that all breeding areas make 
to the harvest of specific areas can thus be computed 
because each recovery is placed in perspective to the num- 
ber of birds it represents. 
Summaries of direct and indirect recoveries in the CMU 
by State of banding are presented in Tables A-43 to A-48 
and those in the Southern Zone are shown in Tables A-49 
to A-54. Only direct recoveries were used to determine 
derivation of the harvest to eliminate information from 
banded birds that did not return to the original breeding 
or natal area. Thus, a bird banded in North Dakota, that 
wintered in Mexico, and subsequently migrated to Cali- 
fornia where it was harvested the following fall, would not 
be included. Except for a few odd records like this example, 
State and Southern Zone derivations of the harvest based 
on all recoveries were similar to those based only on direct 
recoveries. 
Derivation of the harvest was determined by age class 
for each CMU hunting State (Tables A-55 to A- 57) and for 
each region of the Southern Zone (Tables A-58 to A-60). 
The following discussion of derivation is based on direct 
recoveries of all doves, the data for which are summarized 
in Tables A-45 and A-57 (CMU) and A-51 and A-60 (South- 
ern Zone). 
Derivation of the Harvest—Central Management 
Unit (All Doves) 
Generally, hunters in CMU hunting States harvested 
birds that nested in or were hatched within those States, 
with less than 10% originating from other States (Table 
A-57), Four harvest areas differed from this pattern (Colo- 
rado, New Mexico, North Texas, and South Texas), each 
deriving 40% or more of their harvest from other States. 
Except for Colorado, these areas had southern locations. 
About 98% of the harvest in the CMU came from CMU 
States and 2% from other units, predominantly from the 
EMU (1.8%). Individual areas that received more than 1 % 
of their harvest from the EMU were on the eastern border 
of the CMU: Missouri, Arkansas, North Texas, and South 
Texas. Most of the harvest in Texas from out of State origi- 
nated in the Mid-CMU tier of States, although Missouri, 
Iowa, and Minnesota also contributed to some degree. In 
Colorado and New Mexico, the harvest from outside the 
States came mainly from the West-CMU, although 
Mid-CMU States also contributed to the kill there (between 
10 and 20%). 
South Dakota (n = 573). —The harvest in South Dakota 
consisted almost entirely of birds originating from the State 
(about 98 % ) and North Dakota (2%). Less than 1% of the 
harvest came from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Colorado. 
No doubt some birds from southern Canada also were har- 
vested in South Dakota, but we could not measure this input 
because of the lack of banding in Canada. 
Wyoming (n = 4). — Although few birds were recovered 
in Wyoming, all originated from that State. It is noteworthy 
that none of the 13,000 + birds banded in Montana were 
harvested in Wyoming. 
Missouri (n = 522),—Although most of Missouri’s har- 
vest consisted of birds originating from within that State 
(94% ), 4% came from EMU States, particularly Kentucky, 
Illinois, and Wisconsin. Other CMU States contributed 
slightly less than 2% to Missouri's harvest. 
Kansas (n = 283),—In Kansas, hunters also harvested 
mostly birds banded there (94%). CMU States contributing 
doves to the kill in Kansas were Missouri (>2% ), the 
Dakotas (<2%), and Nebraska and Iowa (about 1%). A 
peculiarity was that the southern areas of Arkansas, Okla- 
homa, and South Texas provided about 1% of the Kansas 
harvest, 
Colorado (n = 189), —Sixty-three percent of the harvest 
in Colorado originated from within the State. Fully 25 % 
came from birds banded in Montana and Wyoming, imme- 
diately north of Colorado. Mid~CMU States contributed 
nearly 11% of the Colorado kill, whereas the WMU ac- 
counted for only 1%, It has been suggested that the Rocky 
