(Woodcock Newsletters: No. 1, 1958, and No. 2, 1959) that 
both comparisons yield approximately the same results in 
terms of year-to-year changes in relative population levels. 
It is believed that the number of birds per route is more 
useful than the number per stop, however, because routes 
with the most stops apparently occur in areas of higher 
population. Thus, the data from a State or Province are 
weighted to some extent by the average number of birds per 
route. 
Adjustments of the data were made for routes that 
Gid not have the same number of stops each year. Data for 
the year with the larger number of stops were reduced to 
make them comparable to those for the year with the smaller 
number of stops. 
For example, 16 birds were reported in 1960 for 
11 stops on Route 1 in Michigan and 14 birds were reported 
for 10 stops along the same route in 1961. For purposes 
of comparison the 16 birds in 1960 were reduced to 15 birds 
at 10 stops that year. In most instances, as shown in 
Table 1, the necessary adjustments were slight. 
Weighting Factors 
Survey data must be weighted because the number 
of routes varies from area to area without relation to 
woodcock populations. Adequate figureson population density 
and suitable breeding habitat are lacking. As a substitute, 
the average number of woodcock per route was weighted 
according to the land area of the State or Province. The 
land areas used for weighting include the area of unculti- 
vated land, adjusted in a few cases where large portions of 
a State or Province lay in ecological regions where there 
is no woodcock habitat. The area sizes are shown in 
Table 2. Further details are in the 1960 Woodcock Status 
Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific 
Report - Wildlife No. 50). It is realized that much un- 
favorable nesting habitat is included, and it is anticipated 
that future study will permit considerable refinement of .the 
weighting procedure. 
