I know that a lot of the biologist and others in the know seem to really voice their opinion when it comes to arguing wheather or not hunting/killing game birds has a negative affect on populations. I for one have a hard time believing that it doesn't. If you've got 40 birds lets say and hunters take 20 of 'em then that leaves 20 to make it through winter. How can anyone argue that if those 20 weren't taken by hunters then you'd have a certain percentage of those birds to survive through till spring? It seems like simple math to me. Could someone please explain this in laymans terms.
Hunting pressure vs. pheasant/quail population
- Thread starter jaytee
- Start date
OKIEGunner
New member
Jaytee,
I think you can answered your own question if you would reverse the question itself.
Find one example where a state has successfully reduced the bag limit and showed any significant increase in bird numbers after the regulation to reduce the bag limit took effect.
I do know that quail hunters have a tendency to self regulate on their own in down years. I also believe many Kansas pheasant hunters did this year, by reducing or canceling planned trips due to the drought and poor bird populations.
I think you can answered your own question if you would reverse the question itself.
Find one example where a state has successfully reduced the bag limit and showed any significant increase in bird numbers after the regulation to reduce the bag limit took effect.
I do know that quail hunters have a tendency to self regulate on their own in down years. I also believe many Kansas pheasant hunters did this year, by reducing or canceling planned trips due to the drought and poor bird populations.
Why, after over 20 years of preaching by PF and QF, is it so hard to get people to understand that it ALL comes back to habitat.
It's the same reason that the shortening of the Iowa pheasant season will have no effect on increasing their pheasant numbers.
The flipside of purposeful management is cultural management, which is supplemental feeding, predator control, food plots, releasing pen-raised quail, using surrogaters etc. These kinds of efforts typically do little to sustain and elevate wild quail populations. Shortening the quail season and/or reducing the bag limit, even if done on a regional scale in Texas, is simply another form of cultural management that will do nothing to recover, sustain, or elevate quail numbers in Texas. It never has. It never will.
Read more here.
http://www.bringbackbobwhites.org/n...quail-research-addresses-tx-quail-controversy
It's the same reason that the shortening of the Iowa pheasant season will have no effect on increasing their pheasant numbers.
The flipside of purposeful management is cultural management, which is supplemental feeding, predator control, food plots, releasing pen-raised quail, using surrogaters etc. These kinds of efforts typically do little to sustain and elevate wild quail populations. Shortening the quail season and/or reducing the bag limit, even if done on a regional scale in Texas, is simply another form of cultural management that will do nothing to recover, sustain, or elevate quail numbers in Texas. It never has. It never will.
Read more here.
http://www.bringbackbobwhites.org/n...quail-research-addresses-tx-quail-controversy
OKIEGunner
New member
Jaytee,
Example: Quail hunting in Oklahoma the last three years has been almost non-existent, meaning that the number of hunters (trips a field) has decreased 75% from the 1990’s. So if hunting pressure is a significant factor, then why is the state-wide bird population at the lowest level?
The problem is not hunting pressure.
Example: Quail hunting in Oklahoma the last three years has been almost non-existent, meaning that the number of hunters (trips a field) has decreased 75% from the 1990’s. So if hunting pressure is a significant factor, then why is the state-wide bird population at the lowest level?
The problem is not hunting pressure.
I'm not arguing hunting pressure vs. habitat. I know its a habitat issue. My stance on this hunting press. vs. game numbers is that if you reduce the number of birds killed then there is absolutely no way that you can't have more birds for next year. Take the habitat argument plum out of it. I'm just talking available birds for next season. You start with 40 in good habitat or bad, you kill 20 you've got 20 left. You start with 40, in good habitat or bad, you kill zero, you've got 40 left. Tell me how that isn't correct?
I'll weigh in. I think in areas with vast habitat, favorable weather, low predator count, both human and natural, are of no signifigance. For quail, we now know this is 3000-5000 acres and a population of at least 800 birds. A Missouri Dept.of Conservation study revealed with quail, birds taken from the population, late in the season, January on, reduces the breeding population in the spring, by that number. Something about late season birds being survivors, the hardest period being January through mid-March. it's why they close the Missouri season in mid-January. It would seem to support the idea that hunting harvest does in fact affect the quail population. Given the vast acres of quail habitat formerly, and I might add accidently, along with favorable weather through the 50's,60's, and 70's allowed us to do our worst, when it came to harvest. The conditions being able to out-produce the harvest. A luxury we no longer enjoy. A harvest no longer sustainable. Pheasants are bigger, more able and prone to travel to find superior habitat underutilized, or vacated when the original resident made a mistake, are more adaptable, in a word. Pheasants get by and thrive on amazingly sparse covers in which quail have no chance. They are polygamous breeders in the wild, to a larger degree than bobwhites, and we only shoot roosters. All reasons pheasants may survive and provide sport and are less suseptible to the human harvest. Unless we change our ways, quail are probably on the road to curiosity status.
law of natural attrition. nature produces more quail per year than the habitat, whatever it is quality wise can support, planning and allowing for loses in the ranks from all sorts, if you don't harvest your share of birds, something will anyway, so goes the rule, and leaving the proper number of birds to reproduce. This is in step with the limiting factor of habitat, every habitat has a limiting factor, it could be area size, winter cover, escape cover, nesting cover, loafing cover, the variables are endless. But whatever it is, wll only allow for a population of so many birds. Excess birds are candidates for the food chain or the hunters bag. so goes the mantra of gamebird management of the last 75 years, and ascribed to by virtually all Game Departments. May be time for a review.
quail hound
Moderator
The simple fact is that game birds are not a comodity that can be stock piled. I know bob whites are different from our quail and coveys are smaller but are they so dumb they can really be shot out? I keep tabs on a few of my coveys year round, watch brood sizes and how many broods a hen pulls of. Let's take a covey I call the "river rose covey" I estimated about 20 carry over birds of which at least 10 were hens. Spring shuffle came and I observed one hen who averaged 6 chicks per brood and had 3 broods. By opening morning the river rose coveys had about 75 birds in it. We took 10 that morning from that covey. And about another 10 though out the season. Hunted them last weekend and there was about 30 birds and didn't bag one (to damn smart). If I were to guess there will be about 20 when spring comes around, can you say carrying capacity?
OKIEGunner
New member
Jaytee,
With Quail, late season hunting potentially can take away from spring nesting pairing numbers.
With Pheasants the male can service multiple hens. So if what you are saying about hunting pressure is true, then where are all of the hens?
With Quail, late season hunting potentially can take away from spring nesting pairing numbers.
With Pheasants the male can service multiple hens. So if what you are saying about hunting pressure is true, then where are all of the hens?
OKIEGunner
New member
Jaytee,
Now let’s take the same argument on another game bird. Sage Grouse or Prarrie Chicken comes to mind. How many rules such as, “you cannot hunt west of HWY#” or “you can only Harvest birds in Zone 2-3” have produce vast numbers of birds? These rules were put in place to reduce hunting pressure. There are very few success stories.
Now let’s take the same argument on another game bird. Sage Grouse or Prarrie Chicken comes to mind. How many rules such as, “you cannot hunt west of HWY#” or “you can only Harvest birds in Zone 2-3” have produce vast numbers of birds? These rules were put in place to reduce hunting pressure. There are very few success stories.
morrismike
New member
If a rooster has a harem of 4 hens and the chicks are 50-50 sexwise, then the population can withstand hunting pressure. Without reasonable hunter success, hunter hours will decrease not to mention the roosters wising up. Without exception I would say hunting is likely beneficial to the population due to increases state interest in habitat and other factors.
Until you start identify an overabundance of hens then leave the regulations alone.
You know I've heard the comment that "well if the hunter doesn't get them, something else will" and I just dont buy it. Lets take my original numbers of 40 quail, 20 taken by hunters with 20 left over. Okay, lets say that predators, ect. are gonna take another 50 percent so now your left with 10. Now lets take those original 40 birds, none being taken by hunters which leaves us with 40, and again 50 percent of those taken by predators, ect. That leaves you with 20. What am I missing here?
morrismike
New member
Unless you are observing 4 to 1 ratios of hens to roosters there isn't a problem that reducing hunting pressure will resolve. The last time I checked roosters don't lay eggs.
morrismike
New member
In the mid 90s AHM (shoot them if you got them) was a really big issue with duck hunters because many felt the seed stock was being shot down. Drakes don't have harems and AHM was never an issue as we've got more ducks than ever.
OKIEGunner
New member
The Holding capacity of the HABITAT is what Old&New was explaining in his excellent post.
SDJIM
New member
What makes you think that the predators will only take a set % of birds, if the cover hides/supports 10 birds and you don't kill any of the starting 40 by hunting just maybe the predators will a little fatter come spring time.
quail hound
Moderator
If you have a covey of 40 birds at the beginning of season and there are 20 left at the end of season more than likely most of them will survive to breed, even if there are only 10 left for nesting their will be 5 hens who will hatch 8 chicks each giving you a covey of 50 birds. If you want more birds you need more carrying capacity not less hunting.
I'm not sure how bobs work but with valley quail its actually beneficial to have more roosters than hens. The hen will take a mate, lay eggs, hatch them and brood then for about 2 weeks then leave the rooster to brood them the rest of the way so she can take another mate. That's how valley quail are able to pull 3 or even 4 nests in a good year.
OKIEGunner
New member
There have been numerous studies done with telemetry data on quail mortality. Not one report showed that hunting pressure was a significant factor in quail mortality. I believe that the same can be said with Prairie Chickens and Sage Grouse as well.
quail hound
Moderator
Spot on, I bet more sage grouse in Ca die from collisions with barbed wire fences in there lek area than are harvested by hunters every year. Funny sage grouse is a 2 day draw only season here with limits being either 1 or 2 birds per season depending on area and the area with a 2 bird limit has twice as many sage hens every year. Odd!
