By: David Hoover, Small Game Coordinator, Missouri Department of Conservation
As an avid bird hunter I hunt both public and private lands and have had many quality hunts on both. However, as many of you have likely experienced, hunting quail on public lands is often more challenging. So much so that hunters are often left with the impression there are no quail to be found; even on areas where proven survey techniques have documented good quail populations. Why is this? One of the obvious reasons relates to the fact that public lands generally receive more hunting pressure, which can cause quail to engage in evasive maneuvers not often deployed by their private land brethren. So what is the public lands quail hunter to do? Quail researchers in Kentucky recently investigated quail biology, habitat use, and daily movements on a large wildlife management area managed primarily for quail. What they found regarding quail behavior in relation to hunting pressure may be surprising to many. Some of the more interesting findings included:
- Bird dogs were 8.6 times more likely to find pen-raised quail than wild birds.
- Skilled dogs and hunters found only 29% of wild coveys on the management area.
- Wild quail ran from hunters in herbaceous cover and held in shrubby cover, letting hunters pass by.
- Most of the year, quail were found in open herbaceous vegetation within 40 yards of shrubby cover.
- During winter, distance to shrubby cover was generally less than 25 yards.
- Quail spent very little time in food plots.
- Trusting your dog – when dogs get birdy but don’t find anything, slow down and circle back through the area. Birds are likely there, but have moved in response to the dogs.
- Maintaining close spacing between hunters to minimize birds slipping through.
- Hunting no more than 50 yards from shrubby cover.
- When you flush fewer than 4 birds, don’t give up, the rest of the covey is likely close by.
- More dogs equals greater success.
- Slow down and hunt cover thoroughly.
This article was syndicated from MOre Quail Blog Updates.
This fall, the US Geological Survey released a summary analysis of the 2015 vs 2005 lists of state “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (SGCN) as depicted in all the State Wildlife Action Plans
(https://www1.usgs.gov/csas/swap/index.html ). Predictably, I went straight to bobwhites. The first point I noticed from the USGS summary is that bobwhites are the 28th most-frequently-listed SGCN in the nation, out of 657 total SGCNs. Second, bobwhites are the 3rd-most-frequently-listed game species, behind king rail and American woodcock.
This simple spreadsheet shows how states listed bobwhites in 2005 (when the NBCI was still new) compared with 2015. Some of the state-by-state findings are interesting:
1. NBCI states that do not list bobwhites at all:
2. NBCI states that added bobwhites in 2015:
3. NBCI states that dropped bobwhites in 2015:
4. Non-NBCI states that listed bobwhites both years:
District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, Wisconsin
5. Non-NBCI states that added bobwhites in 2015:
6. Non-NBCI states that dropped bobwhites in 2015:
Connecticut, Michigan, Rhode Island
7. # of States listing bobwhites in 2005: 28
# of States listing bobwhites in 2015: 26
From follow-up conversations and emails, I’ve learned that Indiana subsequently has administratively acted and recently approved adding bobwhites as a SGCN. Alabama considers bobwhites to be of “moderate” conservation concern, thus not in enough trouble to warrant SGCN status. Missouri and Tennessee added bobwhites in their revised 2015 plan after determining it was legitimate for game species to be designated as SGCNs. Pennsylvania dropped bobwhites in 2015 after officially determining the species was already extirpated statewide in the wild. In Nebraska, bobwhites are doing comparatively well statewide.
The attention to bobwhites from eight states that are not participants in the NBCI is interesting and a bit perplexing. NBCI has approached at least four of those states in recent years about joining the Initiative, without success; the five that still list bobwhites as a SGCN seem not to be concerned enough to participate in the NBCI. The obvious question about the three states that removed bobwhites in 2015 is whether the species has been extirpated in those states, too, but no formal declaration has been made.
“Adoption of Natives First by USDA could be the single most important development in restoring bobwhites and declining grassland birds across their ranges. Establishing a native vegetation standard for public conservation money spent by USDA would be the game changer that finally tilts the playing field in favor of bobwhites and many other declining species on private lands.”
— Don McKenzie, Director, National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
Natives First, the NBCI-led proposal to establish a native vegetation standard for the Conservation Title of the Farm Bill, took a significant leap forward recently. A letter from 20 national hunting organizations was delivered to Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) and other key congressional offices of Members of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees expressing support for a native plant standard in the Farm Bill. An excerpt from the letter reads:
“To help restore declining upland game birds and other wildlife we propose that the Farm Bill direct USDA to adopt a standard for native vegetation that would apply to private conservation and
working lands, where feasible and appropriate. Such a standard should:
• be voluntary and non-regulatory;
• promote the adoption and use of native plants for most purposes;
• allow flexibility for using selected non-aggressive introduced plants that do provide habitat benefits; and
• prioritize financial assistance for native plants in new USDA program enrollments.”
The sportsmen’s organizations were joined in their support by 21 other NGOs, private enterprise and industry organizations (see list below). Senator Bennet is drafting a grasslands marker bill to be introduced as part of the Farm Bill discussion. The letter was followed by calls with Senator Bennet’s office and staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee in which NBCI staff discussed the intent of the proposal and answered questions about why native vegetation was preferable over introduced species. At the request of the Senate Ag Committee staff we shared the Native Vegetation Advantage documents: Overview; Water, Soil and Air; Forage and Biomass; and Wildlife. In addition to Senator Bennet and the Senate Agriculture Committee staff, we are also sharing the letter with House Agriculture Committee staff and all agriculture staff of members that serve on the Agriculture Committees.
Of course, this is only the first step of a long journey to passage of the Farm Bill. Why is it important that preferential treatment of native vegetation become part of the next Farm Bill? One of the answers is to reverse the decline of grassland birds and pollinators, which is inextricably tied to the quality of grassland habitat. Another answer is that funding in the Farm Bill has the ability to create landscape-scale change impossible through any other means.
For example, in the years 2009 through 2014 the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) enrolled an average of nearly 1.9 million acres annually. In 2014, it is estimated that 66% of the EQIP acres (1.25 million) were enrolled in introduced vegetation. While those enrollments do provide some soil conservation benefits, it is well documented that native vegetation can provide at the very least, equal soil conservation benefit but BETTER soil health, air quality and wildlife benefits. For all those additional benefits it then becomes an economic argument. Native vegetative cover provides more bang for your buck. It is the better taxpayer benefit.
In these early stages of the formulation and foundation of the next Farm Bill it is important that we garner bigger and broader support for the Natives First concept. Quickly.
That’s where YOU come in! Help us spread the word and build support! Help us educate! Many in the ag community are reluctant to support native vegetation simply because they are uneducated about its many benefits above and beyond those of introduced species. Others are under the misconception that all grasses are the same and don’t recognize the differences. Public education, Congressional education, industry education and institution education is needed.
We need your help. Please join the Natives First Coalition at: https://bringbackbobwhites.org/conservation/natives-first/. Utilize the Native Vegetation Advantage documents NBCI has made available for your use (Overview; Water, Soil and Air; Forage and Biomass; and Wildlife). You can help spread the word about the benefits of Natives First through whatever communication platforms you have available, whether a website, a blog, a Twitter account, email “action alerts,” etc.
Please become an active participant and join with the following organizations to support Natives First, a native vegetation standard in the Farm Bill:
American Bird Conservancy
American Woodcock Society
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Bamert Seed Company
Boone & Crockett Club
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
Ernst Conservation Seeds
Izaak Walton League of America
Kansas Grazing Lands Coalition
Missouri Prairie Foundation
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of Invasive Plant Councils
National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wildlife Federation
North American Butterfly Association
North American Grouse Partnership
Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council
Park Cities Quail
Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever
Prairie Moon Nursery
Quail and Upland Game Alliance
Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation
Quality Deer Management Association
Ruffed Grouse Society
South Carolina Native Plant Society
Tennessee Native Plant Society
Tennessee Naturalist Program
Texas Wildlife Association
The Nature Conservancy
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
The Pollinator Partnership
Union Sportsmen’s Alliance
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wildlife Management Institute
By: David Hoover, Small Game Coordinator, Missouri Department of Conservation
I loaded up my 3-year old English pointer, Ranger, along with the necessary gear to sustain us for 2 days of quail hunting in north Missouri. As I pulled up to Shane’s house, a rancher friend of mine, he greeted me with shotgun in hand and a German shorthaired pointer by his side, raring and ready to go. After a brief conversation in the driveway we loaded the dogs and hopped into his truck and headed to our first hunting spot. Along the way Shane pointed out several farms he used to hunt, even describing specific locations they had flushed coveys. I asked him why he no longer hunted those properties, knowing perfectly well what his answer would be. Shane immediately replied, “No cover.” As we continued to drive down the county road I couldn’t help but think about something a well-known quail researcher once said while trying to describe why quail populations have declined over the past 50 years. He said “Imagine driving across the state with a bird dog 50 years ago and stopping along the way at every location that looked like a good place to let the dog out and hunt. Now make that same drive today!” The point is that quail habitat used to be abundant and wide spread and today it is not; and the habitat that does exist is often in small patches and isolated from other areas of suitable habitat. Loss of habitat is the primary cause for the quail population decline over the past 50 years, and it is the one factor we can actually control. It is true that quail die from many things, including predators, weather, disease and accidents, even in areas of good habitat. What many years of research has taught us, however, is that in areas of good habitat, and enough of it, quail can thrive, and in areas that lack habitat, quail don’t. As we pulled into a cut cornfield, a long winding brushy draw lay before us. Several smaller draws entered the main draw from the surrounding uplands, all with adequate cover for quail, and maybe even an unsuspecting pheasant. Just a mere 100 yards from the truck Ranger locked up on a covey of 12 birds along the main draw. After harvesting a bird on the covey rise, we continued hunting until we came upon one of the smaller draws. We decided to take advantage of the wind, and hunt the smaller draw to the top of the ridge. On one side of the draw was the harvested corn field and on the other was a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) buffer strip planted to native grasses and forbs (wildflowers). About 40 yards up the draw, in the buffer strip, I noticed a pheasant roost and shortly after that Ranger locked up on point again. I told Shane we have a pheasant on the run, and moments later my suspicion was confirmed when a rooster pheasant flushed just out of range. As we stood at the end of the draw, in a bean field on the ridge, Shane and I discussed how good the cover was we had just hunted and how awesome it would be if more of it existed on the landscape. We proceeded to cut across the bean field to another draw and circle back to the truck. As we headed to our next location, again passing more properties holding fond quail hunting memories for my friend, we discussed how much habitat quail really need. “As much as possible and everywhere” I replied, clearly understanding there are limits in this day and age, given 21st century economics and the human demand for food and fiber. The good news is that with a little planning, providing adequate habitat for quail to survive is possible, even on today’s intensively managed landscapes. The desire to have the dogs locate another covey of quail and the opportunity to experience the exhilarating rush of one more covey flush is what keeps Shane and I, and all the other “dyed in the wool” quail hunters going from one fall to the next. For more information regarding quail habitat and hunting opportunities in Missouri visit the Department’s quail hunting page.
This article was syndicated from MOre Quail Blog Updates.
Author’s note: Some of this BLOG is derived from a very recent article published in the Journal of Wildlife Management entitled: “Economic Tradeoffs of Managing for Timber Production or Wildlife Habitat.” The article was written by Phillip Davis, Ian Munn, James Henderson (Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University) and Bronson Strickland (Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University). Interpretations of the article and opinions included in this BLOG are mine alone.
Landowner – “So, if I manage as you say, by heavily thinning my loblolly pine timber, really opening it up, letting that sunlight in, and then using prescribed fire to manage for quail, what is it going to cost me down the road in future timber profit?”
Marc – “Dang it!” I think to myself, “I almost had him.”
In reality, I feel it is my obligation to let the landowners know, whether they ask or not, that there will be economic costs associated with pine timber management that heavily favors the quail side of things. It’s a fair question…that I don’t have a great answer for.
My response usually goes something like this: “Well, I can’t tell you down to the dollar what it will cost. First, you have to remember that initially you will get more money from the thinning because you are taking out more trees. Second, timber markets vary from year to year and it’s hard to say what products will be bringing 10 or 15 years down the road when you prepare to clear-cut. Third, there are “value added” aspects to managing timber for wildlife that it is hard to put a finger on the financial benefits of, but…my guess is anywhere from 10% to 25% of the future timber income.”
And it is a crystal ball “sort of” educated guess…just to be honest. In all fairness to me, if I could accurately predict timber markets, product preferences and prices 15 years out, I’d be in the timber business…and probably retired by now. There’s an old saying when it comes to money, “If you have to ask how much something costs, you can’t afford it.” Maybe managing timber for wildlife is no different, but I’d argue it is not a zero sum game, there are a range of options and you may be a landowner who can see benefits beyond dollars…that are, as the commercial says, “Priceless”…and for everything else there is a not-named-here-for-fear-of-being-seen-as-an-endorsement credit card.
In my opinion, no forester or wildlife biologist can tell you with 100% certainty what the future costs are in timber production if you choose to manage intensively for bobwhite quail. There are simply too many variables and too much can change over the life of a timber stand. You may have it figured to the last dollar and two days before you are ready to sell a category 4 hurricane makes it all moot. My advice to you is that if it is critical to know right down to the dollar how much future timber costs are associated with quail management, stick to growing timber. But if not, here are a few things to consider.
In the article I referenced in my opening note the authors wrote: “Maximizing timber production usually yields the highest land expectation value (LEV) return when compared to maximizing wildlife habitat, but improving wildlife habitat can result in higher hunting lease revenue to supplement foregone timber revenue.”
The authors of this paper used five basic models for evaluation: 1) timber maximization, 2) deer-timber compromise, 3) deer oriented, 4) quail-timber compromise and 5) quail maximized (my interpretation in layman’s terms) with “quail maximized” being the heaviest thinning. Many variables were incorporated into their models too numerous and complex to detail here. But all management scenarios were based on common forestry and wildlife management practices.
As expected, the timber maximization model produced the highest land expectation values (LEVs), but…all scenarios, including quail management, produced positive LEVs (profits). This means that even under a quail management scenario, the timber still made money over the cost to produce it (profit over the costs incurred to plant, spray, manage through time, etc.). The authors spelled this out by saying “Thus, a non-industrial private forest owner can generate an acceptable rate of return from timber harvesting while managing their forest for wildlife habitat.”
Their examination of compensatory hunting lease rates became a bit more complex. The term “compensatory” as it is applied in this study means how much more per acre would a landowner have to charge for hunting rights to offset the lost timber income from intensive wildlife management? One interesting finding that makes sense is that on the land that is best for growing trees (land having the highest potential for pine growth that foresters call site indexes), the opportunity cost for quail management was highest, and vice versa…the poorest pine sites, had the lowest opportunity costs for quail management.
What does this mean to a landowner? If you have large acreages with varying site indexes and are willing to compromise, on the best lands for pines…you could choose to grow pines intensively, and on the poorest lands for pines you could choose to manage for quail intensively.
Regarding hunting lease rates – the authors used $44.91 per hectare (about $18.00 per acre) as the maximum reasonable compensatory lease rate. They found existing lease rates for “Sixteenth Section Lands” (public lands leased to the highest bidder for hunting to benefit Mississippi public schools) in Mississippi to range from $1.69 / acre to as high as $37.80 / acre…essentially demonstrating that it would be possible to achieve the added $18.00 per acre to offset lost timber revenues under certain scenarios. Unfortunately, under the quail management scenario, the lowest reasonable compensatory rate was $20.74 / acre – meaning they did not find a way through hunting rights leasing to offset all lost timber income.
Whew…this all makes my head spin so let’s keep it simple.
Take home messages:
1) It is your choice as a landowner whether to manage intensively to maximize timber profit, or to maximize quail habitat, or manage somewhere in between.
2) There are professional foresters and wildlife biologists that can work together to help you achieve your goals.
3) Even intensive quail oriented timber management still generates a profit.
4) Land well managed for wildlife should bring a higher hunting lease rate than land not managed well for wildlife and these increases could help offset lost timber income.
5) If you own lands that have varying site indexes – you can choose to grow pine timber where it grows best and manage for wildlife where timber doesn’t do as well.
And, I’d like to say on a personal and professional level – forests are good things. Even a loblolly pine stand that is managed to maximize timber income still provides wildlife habitat on some levels. And thinning loblolly pine stands makes sense from every angle. If you follow standard forestry recommendations and then throw some prescribed fire in after thinning – it may not be perfect for quail, but it will be an improvement for wildlife…the glass will be half full, not half empty.
So this article was not meant to criticize those who choose to maximize timber production. It was intended to show that managing timber intensively for wildlife can still generate a profit and that there may be ways to offset some of the lost timber income.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!