On most of these test areas, censuses were run by each method on 
the same night. The findings are given in Table 9. It was found that 
on all the areas combined 65 percent of the total birds present along 
the route could be recorded by the sampling method. Considerable 
variation was noted, however, ranging all the way from a low of 30 
percent to a high of 89 percent. In general, those areas that are 
largely in open, rather level country, and having a minimum of disturb- 
ing noises (i.e. traffic, dogs, frogs), showed the highest proportional 
count by the new technique. By contrast, on routes having a maximum 
of hills. and ridges the percentage was very low. Even in open country 
the presence of knolls cuts down noticeably on the distence wodcock 
calls can be heard. In establishing new census routes this point 
should be taken into consideration. | 
In spite of the loss, in volume, of data by use of the new method, 
it would appear from the 1953 studies that this loss is more than off- 
set by increased coverage as well as by results that are much more 
standardized and can be more easily compared--route by route. Moreover, 
the quantitative loss is not as great as it wuld appear; it is partly 
made up by the fact that census takers can cover slightly longer routes 
in an evening by the new technique. 
As a final point of interest mention may be made relative to the 
recording of ground calls versus flight songs. From the statistical 
standpoint, it is desirable to utilize only ground calls but physical 
conditions sometimes render this impossible. This year the census 
takers indicated that on 59 percent of their routes all data consist- 
ed of ground calls only. 3 
The planning and organization within the various states of the 
cooperator areas in 1953 was as follows: Maine, by the writer, assist- 
ed by Kenneth Hodgdon and J. William Peppard of the Maine Department 
of Inland Fisheries and Game, and Malcolm Coulter of the Maine Unit; 
New Hampshire, by Hilbert Siegler and Fred Scott of the New Hampshire 
Fish and Game Department; Vermont, by Roger Seamans of the Vermont Fish 
- and Game Service, with Ralph Minns, U. 5. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
handling the Highgate and Swanton areas; Massachusetts, by William 
Sheldon, Massachusetts Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, assisted by 
Russell Norris, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on the Newburyport 
areas; Connecticut, by Mason S. Belden, Connecticut Board of Fisheries 
and Game; New York, by Charles P. Brown, New York Conservation Commission. 
25 
