Hunting pressure vs. pheasant/quail population

Quail Hound,

Numerous studies have shown Bob-White Quail females will breed with multiple males and nest multiple times. If the habitat is suitable and the weather is favorable, a female bobwhite may attempt to nest up to three times in one summer.
 
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.

So if all 40 survived and the habitat could support them you'd have a bigger hatch, correct?
 
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.

Were these independant studies or studies paid for by Game Commisions, ect?
 
So if all 40 survived and the habitat could support them you'd have a bigger hatch, correct?

Correct but, if the cover could support 40 birds into spring this covey would already be much bigger coming into season.

The point of my first post was that I believe at least 100 or so quail were lost from my river rose covey from the time hatching began to opening morning of quail season. Now if my assumption is correct do you believe the 20 birds we harvested drastically reduced breeders for spring?
 
Jaytee, I know you've been improving habitat on your land and are being rewarded by quail where none have been in years. This is great and you will see more and more quail as your habitat gets better and better but eventually (pretty soon as quail are prolific breeders) your habitat will reach carrying capacity and will only fluctuate according to weather, not whether or not you harvest a few birds.
 
Last edited:
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.

We know one rooster (pheasant) can breed up to 8-12 hens in a season. It's not necessary to keep a strong population of roosters through the winter season to keep pheasant numbers relatively high.

Typically the fewer the rooster's going into a winter season the better off hen pheasants will be. Roosters are larger and will push hens from a food source leaving them to work harder to find food/nutrients.

If a hen pheasant comes out of the winter with a good body weight and her levels of nutrients are high, she will produce more eggs and have a better chance of staying with the nest to see it through.;)
 
Quail Hound,

Numerous studies have shown Bob-White Quail females will breed with multiple males and nest multiple times. If the habitat is suitable and the weather is favorable, a female bobwhite may attempt to nest up to three times in one summer.

Just as I thought. We as quail hunters have many self imposed rules we live by. Some good; not hunting the last hours of the day, not shooting coveys under 8 birds. Some well intended but arbitrary; only taking rooster quail. I know most of us don't do it but some are very serious about it even though it does nothing for quail populations.
 
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.

Followup, what you are describing is known as the Gypsy Hen Theory.

The ODWC Packsaddle Wildlife Management Area study documented the gypsy hen theory with Bob-White Quail where some hens laid a clutch of eggs and then initiated a second nest while the cock incubated the first clutch.
 
In some cases we are talking about apples and oranges. Bobwhite quail and pheasants require different habitats despite the reality of us finding them virtually together where these habitats overlap. I can't believe that hunting pressure is any factor with pheasants at all. I am less convinced in regards to bobwhites, but I do believe the basic premise that hunting pressure in a prescribed season does little to affect any change on the quail population. In certain cases can you obliterate a covey, sure you can, if it has an isolated habitat, with no place to relocate away from pressure. Reality is we are probably going to lose those birds anyway. As an example I repeat here often because of the stunning disparity, in 1967 Missouri quail harvest was 4,000,000+ quail, with 200,000+ quail hunters. The state having averaged about 2.5 million per year for 10 years in that period. In 2010, the last year available, the figures were approximately 230,000 quail, harvested by 16,000 hunters. Hunting pressure did not do that! Changes in the landscape on a broad scale, changes in weather pattern, competition from other species, focus on other species by the professionals charged with the task, still I might add! All created a perfect storm of destruction. Same with prairie chickens, sage grouse, all the native gamebirds too slow and too ridge in their habits to evolve with the change.
 
Old & New,

Well written and I can appreciate the sense of experience and passion on this topic. I fully concur with all that you said. I’ll add a picture as I believe it speaks clearly that Quail Hunters “Self Regulate” when it comes to harvesting quail based on changes in the quail populations.

picture.php


I will also pass on that the Quail Coalition that has formed in Texas is doing some noteworthy research in desperation to solve the quail decline. Oklahoma is now teamed up and is focusing efforts across state-lines. As you know the remaining three States that have any Bob-White numbers left are OK, TX and KS. I hope to see all three states unified in order to share success and failures. Google “Upland Urgency” for additional information on ODWC effort.
 
I guess what I have a hard time believing is the different arguments or info used to substantiate these various arguments. Such as weathers effect on quail populations. You always here that "if we could only have a couple of good winters/springs you'd see the population really rebound". I agree with that for sure. But why wouldn't a couple of years of non-harvesting make a difference? In no way am I suggesting that a permanent closing needs to take place, instead more of a temporary closing to give bird numbers a chance to at least steady themselves and hopefuly along with favorable weather conditions and a real effort in habitat improvement on a large scale, allow them to increase. Please realize that I am talking about quail numbers here and not pheasant as it seems that the two are really quite different.
 
Last edited:
Jaytee,

Below is a lengthy read, BUT worth the time. It speaks directly to some of your thoughts.


QUAIL HUNTING SEASONS, BAG LIMITS,
DROUGHT, AND HABITAT IN TEXAS

Leonard A. Brennan
Professor and C.C. Winn Endowed Chair

Fidel Hernández
Alfred M. Glassell, Jr. Endowed Professor

Richard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail Research


“The first game law ever adopted by the Texas Legislature occurred in 1861. The purpose of the law was to close the bobwhite quail season on Galveston Island for two years to allow the quail population to recover. This law....did not work. Sick quail populations reflect sick landscapes and not the impact of unruly, overzealous hunters and poachers. Some quail populations have declined and disappeared where no hunting was conducted. Despite this fact, many have tried to repair quail populations with regulations. All such attempts have failed."
—Jerry L. Cooke, Quail Regulations and the Rule-Making Process in Texas, in Texas Quails: Ecology and Management, Texas A&M University Press, pp. 304 and 300.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
—George Santayana

Of the two remaining stronghold regions for quails (bobwhites and scaled quails) in Texas, the Rolling Plains has not had a quality quail hunting season (if any quail season for that matter except in theory) during the past three years (2009 -2010 through 2011-2012), and South Texas has not had a quality quail hunting season during two of the past three years (2009-2010 and 2011-2012). For South Texas, we recorded juvenile:adult age ratios lower than 1:1 during those years. The problem, as we see it, is that an extreme and persistent La Niña oscillation in the Pacific Ocean has been the driver behind historic drought and excess heat during much of this period. The La Niña oscillation broke down a bit in late 2009, and we received some well-deserved rain in 2010. In South Texas, bobwhites responded quite well to this influx of rainfall, and the 2010-2011 quail season was very good. We recorded juvenile:adult age ratios as high as 5:1 in many areas.

Quails in the Rolling Plains also responded to the 2010 rainfall pulse; their numbers increased by 20% from 2009 based on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department roadside count data. However, quail numbers in 2009 were historically low and even with this increase, the 2010-2011 quail season in the Rolling Plains was lousy and quail hunters were extremely disappointed. Hunters were left scratching their heads as to why the 2010-2011 quail season in the Rolling Plains was so terrible, when in fact it was simply unrealistic to expect that quail numbers could triple or quadruple in one year.

Since then, that witch—La Niña—has come roaring back and in her wake, more drought and heat. The result was virtually no quail production in either the Rolling Plains or South Texas during the 2011 nesting season. The result of such extended drought and excess heat is that under such conditions, quail production essentially goes to zero no matter how much good habitat and usable space is available.

We have a 10-year data set that shows more than 90% of the variation in annual production of bobwhites in South Texas is explained by cumulative rainfall from April through August. In semiarid, subtropical environments such as South Texas, adequate rainfall is the key driver of quail populations, so long as ample habitat and usable space for quail is kept on the landscape.

The current plight of quails in Texas has caused many people, including those who wield great influence over public opinion, to call for cutting back quail seasons in Texas by either shortening the season, reducing the bag limits, or both. While these opinions are well intentioned, it is our opinion that shortening the season or reducing bag limits will do nothing to solve the plight of quails in Texas. It is impossible to repair quail populations with regulations. It has been tried numerous times. It has failed every time it has been tried.

Sending a Message
One of the rationales for shortening the season and/or reducing bag limits for quail in Texas is that many people think Texas Parks and Wildlife needs to “send a message”. Presumably, the people who are calling for these additional limits think this message is: “Quail numbers are so low that you should stop hunting them or drastically reduce the extent to which you hunt them.”

However, at least in South Texas, quail managers and hunters already know and heed this message. They have self-regulated their quail hunting accordingly. For example, during the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 quail hunting seasons, there has been virtually no quail hunting in South Texas. It has been difficult to impossible for us to get even a sufficient number of wing samples from our Quail Associates Program to estimate juvenile-adult age ratios!

Unfortunately, the idea of “sending a message” about hunting seasons and the plight of quail has a high likelihood of backfiring. This is because a huge proportion of the public will perceive this message in a way that somehow makes them think quail hunting has been responsible for the low numbers of quail. In our view, this is would be a grave mistake. Too much quail hunting pressure is not the cause of the dire situation for quail in Texas. Nevertheless, this is how many, many people in the general public will perceive such a message. And perception often becomes reality, whether we like it or not.

North versus South
Much has been said and written about the failure of quails in the Rolling Plains to respond to the pulse of rainfall in 2010, in contrast to the fact that the birds in South Texas did respond quite well. We think that the role of habitat is as important, and perhaps even more important, than any other factor that may be limiting quail numbers in the Rolling Plains.

Although the actual landscape metrics have yet to be quantified, quail habitat in the Rolling Plains is likely far more fragmented than it is in South Texas. One can come to this conclusion simply by driving around these two regions of Texas. In the Rolling Plains, much of the remaining quail habitat sits as fragments in a broader matrix of dry-land cotton and other sterile—for quail anyway—agricultural fields. When historic drought hits such a landscape and devastates quail numbers to the point where there are local extinctions, it is extremely difficult for the birds to recolonize vacant patches of habitat when conditions again become favorable. Expecting a rapid recolonization by quail in such a landscape in only one year is probably unrealistic.

The quail habitat situation in South Texas is considerably different from the Rolling Plains. Most importantly, there is no cotton farming or other production agriculture operating in the heart of South Texas quail country. This simple phenomenon has probably been a saving grace of quails in South Texas. Thus, the vast majority of land throughout places like Kenedy, Brooks, Jim Hogg, and other counties is still dominated by native rangeland (even though invasive, exotic grasses loom as an emerging problem, there is still a critical mass of quail habitat in South Texas that is unequalled anywhere else in the U.S.).

During the 2009 drought, bobwhite populations were significantly reduced over vast regions of the South Texas landscape. It was quite odd and in fact unsettling, to drive around for 2-3 hours at a time, through excellent habitat and see essentially no bobwhites. During the 2010-2011 hunting season, we observed a dramatic recovery of bobwhite numbers. However, during the course of several hunting trips, it was clear there were still large areas of habitat that were not recolonized by the birds after just one year of favorable rainfall.

Things are Upside Down
In a recent article, our colleagues Drs. Chris Williams, Markus Peterson, and Fred Guthery argued that quail management today is “upside down”. By this, they mean that state hunting regulations are imposed on a broad scale and habitat management is implemented on an individual property or pasture scale. Thus, a change in hunting regulations is usually ineffective with respect to sustaining quail numbers at the landscape scale. Self-regulation on the local ranch or pasture scale, which is already being done in many areas, however, can be extremely effective at conserving quail numbers.

An analogous way to think about quail hunters and self regulation is to consider the speed limit on Interstate 10 in West Texas, which is 80 miles an hour. This 80-mile per hour speed limit is the maximum driving speed allowed under ideal road conditions. Speeding along I-10 at 80 miles per hour through thick fog would be extremely dangerous, if not fatal. Driving 30 or 40 miles per hour would be more reasonable under such conditions. Self-regulation by quail hunters works the same way as drivers self-regulating their speed—when conditions call for it, they adjust their behavior accordingly.

Changing the quail hunting season by shortening the season length or reducing the bag limit will only perpetuate the upside down nature of quail management. This is because the problem with quails in most of Texas is too little habitat, not too much hunting. When quail numbers are low, quail hunters self-regulate. They do not need any one to tell them that there are too few quail to hunt. They already know this. On the other hand, when quail numbers do recover, having a shortened season and reduced bag will only limit opportunity and punish hunters who have already self-regulated their efforts during the bad years. This kind of policy also sends a message, albeit a bad one. What it says is: “Ok quail hunters, your reward for restraint and self-limiting your hunting during bad years will be to impose more restrictive, top-down limits on your hunting during good years.” Is this any way to reward a constituency for good behavior?

Finally, the solution to the quail problem in Texas lies in creating and restoring habitat in a large-scale, purposeful manner that provides for the annual life history needs of the birds. The scale of habitat needed by bobwhites is much, much larger than we originally thought. For example, a genetic analysis of South Texas bobwhite population structure indicates that dispersal takes place over a radius of more than 30 miles, or across an area of habitat greater than 200,000 acres, which is much larger than we originally thought. This kind of information certainly challenges the long-held belief that bobwhites live and die within about a mile of where they were hatched. It also should make us rethink the scale at which we need to maintain, or restore, habitat to sustain bobwhite populations.

Purposeful management on the appropriate scale provides nesting, brooding, loafing, and escape cover that provide the habitat structure and foods the birds need to survive and reproduce, when it finally rains again. And it will rain. 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.
 
Okie
Good link. I think a lot of people confuse fisheries management (unlimited habitat and conditions available for population boost) with game management (habitat and condition limited populations).
 
Well so far nobody has been able to prove my numbers/math are wrong. All I know is that I've got a covey of about 9 birds, just seen them this morning. If I went out and shot 2, maybe 3, then their chances of survival through the winter would be slim. And if say a house cat or something else kills one or two more then their chances of survival is pretty much nill. Isn't that a pretty fair and accurate statement? Like I said earlier, I know and understand that the main roadblock to restoring quail numbers is having quality habitat not only on say your 80 acres but also on the next 80 and next 80, ect. Connectivity is the key. Now as far as the udside down argument, I agree to a certain point. The one thing I wonder about is dispersal and self regulation. If you have an area that has lots of quail and lots of hunters, explain to me how by reducing the numbers of quail in the good area will not reduce the numbers of quail available to disperse to areas of marginal habitat, habitat that will hold quail, just not large numbers?
 
Jaytee, in your situation I would not go after the quail.
Actually I would get into the "cultural" aspect of quail management.
Keep after the predators. Manage the quail for hunting, not for predation. More and more game is being managed for predators. Examples are N MN deer and Moose herds, mule deer in the Missouri Breaks, Elk and deer and all game species in the Northern US Rockies.
As hunting restrictions are put into place the more predation will take game populations once utilized by hunters.

And if native game bird species had colorful males twice the size of the camo'd brown females there in most cases be cocks only harvesting.
Ring neck pheasants have a huge advantage.
 
.... All I know is that I've got a covey of about 9 birds, just seen them this morning. If I went out and shot 2, maybe 3, then their chances of survival through the winter would be slim.....

Pretty much agree.
Matters on what level one considers the problem tho....covert or regional or rangewide as to any effect from hunter additivity.
Covert, yes....rangewide, no and then the particulars kick in.
That is seperate from lowering bag limits...limits means little in most areas...season length can be the killer.
As I mentioned in the Iowa note, it depends, for some species especially, where they are on a decline curve as to what degree any of the many reasons for decline have gained in significance as populations slide down a curve.
Ruffed grouse...hunter additivity makes a difference in late season.
40% of Ohio's grouse were killed in late season...that ignores those flushed from their home range and opened to predation or were wounded and not recovered.
Winter, in the Apps. is also a tough time regarding quality/amount of food.
Ohio's season reduction had a positive impact on grouse populations but so did hatch and post-hatch weather.
Many hunters shy from any mention of HA but, sometimes it is a factor.
How much of a factor can not be generalized, high or low.
I would add that one can not compare ruffed grouse in the Apps to those of the upper great lakes....Up Nort birds have a much better set of conditons to aid their low points....not to mention an actual "cycle."

Pheasants tho have a different breeding dynamic with the roosters than grouse. Let alone the food quality situation and speed of preferred habitat creation along with predators, winged or not, which are not aided by a change in any home range as it is all much the same...compared to the ruffed grouse's area.
So, for pheasants, I doubt hunting makes much of an impact past the areas with very low pops...quail the same tho they strike me as a much more fragile birds to all factors involved.
It basically falls to hunters self-limiting and thinking a bit beyond what used to be....or, our own front sights.
All this ignores Habitat which we know is vital, capital V, but Habitat is not the sole issue for every specie at every point on a curve...consider the curve.
Then respond on a personal level.

Change is sometimes forced upon us...rather than blindly fight a small battle with old data we may want to consider a war which necessitates changed tactics....or, put another way, it may be wise to stop using the same old cannons.
 
Well so far nobody has been able to prove my numbers/math are wrong. All I know is that I've got a covey of about 9 birds, just seen them this morning. If I went out and shot 2, maybe 3, then their chances of survival through the winter would be slim. And if say a house cat or something else kills one or two more then their chances of survival is pretty much nill. Isn't that a pretty fair and accurate statement? Like I said earlier, I know and understand that the main roadblock to restoring quail numbers is having quality habitat not only on say your 80 acres but also on the next 80 and next 80, ect. Connectivity is the key. Now as far as the udside down argument, I agree to a certain point. The one thing I wonder about is dispersal and self regulation. If you have an area that has lots of quail and lots of hunters, explain to me how by reducing the numbers of quail in the good area will not reduce the numbers of quail available to disperse to areas of marginal habitat, habitat that will hold quail, just not large numbers?

Jaytee, only way to know for sure is try it! Nothing like first hand sciientific experimentation over 3 to 5 years to find out. I see the reasoning on both sides, but as far as I know, actual research on fragmented populations and the effects of hunter harvest are unknown. There is research on hunting pressure published on line from both Ames Plantation and Tall Timbers research center, but these involve large, almost ecosystem like tracts, with very little application to the conditions we find here. Hell, we used to think the world was flat!
 
We know one rooster (pheasant) can breed up to 8-12 hens in a season. It's not necessary to keep a strong population of roosters through the winter season to keep pheasant numbers relatively high.

Typically the fewer the rooster's going into a winter season the better off hen pheasants will be. Roosters are larger and will push hens from a food source leaving them to work harder to find food/nutrients.

If a hen pheasant comes out of the winter with a good body weight and her levels of nutrients are high, she will produce more eggs and have a better chance of staying with the nest to see it through.;)

Hunting rooster phez has no impact on sustainable populations year to year,assuming habitat is good.Mortality is as high as 90% over the winter,anyway.For reasons stated above, reducing the number of roosters only creates more habitat for the hens and there will still be enough roosters to fertilize the eggs.I think the aggressive nature of rooster phez is highly underrated.They are a nasty bird and will consume the resources it takes for hens to sustain if they aren't thinned-out.Can't speak for quail, but if you have 40 hens and 4 roosters live through the winter.That's enough seed to fertilize those hens.That's why the chicken farmer doesn't need a bunch of roosters around.
 
Forty hens to four roosters. Four roosters to 40 hens might work in fertilizing 40 hens in a safe well fed and watered large flight pen. But not in the real nasty wild world loaded with ground and aerial predators.

All of that data in the old pheasant management books that state that you can get good fertility with 1 rooster to 10 hen ratio, is based on pen raised data. Not research taken from actual wild birds.

Read what PGC biologist Collene DeLong said about the rooster to hen (spring time) ratio on getting pheasant started:

http://republicanherald.com/wpra-s-w...ccess-1.872457

Lets pretend we actually really harvested 90% of the roosters in a 4 square mile area by the end of January. Good pheasant country averages 10 hens per sq. mile.
Feb. 1, we have 4 roosters to 40 hens in a Four sq. mile area. But the hunting season is not over for the predators, they hunt all year 24-7. Suppose a predator picks off one of the roosters or the rooster may accidently injure himself in the wild, I have seen that happen. Now we are down to 3 roosters and 40 hens by March, April & May mating season. Good fertility, it will not happen.

In the spring time roosters not only mate with the hens but they also protect them while they feed and warn them of danger.

The spring reports I have seem (wild pheasants) from Kansas and the Texas Panhandle average a ratio of hens to roosters 4 to 1 and 3 to 1.
 
Last edited:
Forty hens to four roosters. Four roosters to 40 hens might work in fertilizing 40 hens in a safe well fed and watered large flight pen. But not in the real nasty wild world loaded with ground and aerial predators.

All of that data in the old pheasant management books that state that you can get good fertility with 1 rooster to 10 hen ratio, is based on pen raised data. Not research taken from actual wild birds.

Read what PGC biologist Collene DeLong said about the rooster to hen (spring time) ratio on getting pheasant started:

http://republicanherald.com/wpra-s-w...ccess-1.872457

Lets pretend we actually really harvested 90% of the roosters in a 4 square mile area by the end of January. Good pheasant country averages 10 hens per sq. mile.
Feb. 1, we have 4 roosters to 40 hens in a Four sq. mile area. But the hunting season is not over for the predators, they hunt all year 24-7. Suppose a predator picks off one of the roosters or the rooster may accidently injure himself in the wild, I have seen that happen. Now we are down to 3 roosters and 40 hens by March, April & May mating season. Good fertility, it will not happen.

In the spring time roosters not only mate with the hens but they also protect them while they feed and warn them of danger.

The spring reports I have seem (wild pheasants) from Kansas and the Texas Panhandle average a ratio of hens to roosters 4 to 1 and 3 to 1.

Firstly,I am talking of SD since that's my frame of reference.I clearly said that if 4 roosters are still alive after winter(maybe i should have said May1)these would be enough seed to fertilize the 40 hens,and it would be.Because around here they would find those 40 hens in an area the size of a quonset hut,not an area the size of the TX Panhandle.The actual rooster to hen ratio is probably more like the 4 to 1 you mention,but wouldn't neccessarily need to be for good reproduction.See below from PF website.

Should bag limits and season lengths be adjusted with the ups and down of pheasant numbers?
Remember that optimum management for any gamebird provides the greatest possible harvest while allowing adequate carryover stock for reproduction - something easily done with pheasants. Ring-necked pheasants are promiscuous birds, and one rooster (male) may mate with as many as a dozen hens (females). Hunting just the males removes "surplus" roosters not needed for reproduction in the spring. In addition, since hens and roosters are easily distinguished in wingshooting situations, pheasants are managed much more conservatively than most other upland gamebirds—as the hen segment of the population is protected from hunting. Thus, adjusting season length and bag limits on surplus roosters will have almost no effect on future populations!


I guess I will say this.You could come here and shoot every rooster you see,between now and Apr 15 and you'd still be ass deep in pheasants come opening day.
 
Back
Top