Are Bobwhites Becoming More Wary?

Are Bobwhites Becoming More Wary?

By Justin Rectenwald | Project Collaborators: Albany Quail Project, Livingston Place, Central Florida Rangeland Quail Program, Tall Timbers, Ichauway, Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch, originally published in the Summer 2022 edition of Quail Call. 

In 1931, Herbert Stoddard posed the question, “Are bobwhites becoming more wary?” in his classic book The Bobwhite Quail. He described how veteran quail hunters of that era with 30 or 40 years’ experience agreed that birds were getting more educated and more difficult to kill. He expounded on the fact that the birds had become quite unruly as they were becoming hard to mark down and shoot singles after the initial covey rise.

Stoddard further explained that on grounds that were becoming “heavily stocked” (at >1 bird per acre), that it was a new experience “to see the majority of coveys habitually flush out of shooting distance.” Even then, Stoddard asked, “How far will the process of education be carried?” The words written by Stoddard nearly 100 years ago sound eerily similar those we hear today. Unfortunately, this process of education has not seemed to slow down.

To address this question, the Albany Quail Project began a study nearly 30 years ago on several Albany area plantations that lasted for eight hunting seasons, and was aimed at understanding how radio-tagged coveys were interacting with the hunting party. The general consensus was that the hunting party only saw about half of the coveys that were available (most of which were pointed), and the other half that were not seen mostly held tight to avoid being detected.

Since the early 1990s, bird densities have at least doubled on many places and we have recently seen a string of years with above average adult survival that have resulted in an older and perhaps wiser age structure along with high fall densities. Both of these factors have likely played a large part in explaining why the birds have been much wilder and harder to get shots at. Because of this unruly behavior that has been observed over the last few years, there is a renewed interest in revisiting this study from the 1990s, to determine if birds are becoming even warier than they were in the past.

We restarted our covey-hunter interaction study this past season on several sites across the bobwhite range, including the primary study site of the Albany Quail Project, Livingston Place, Escape Ranch, Tall Timbers, Ichauway, and the Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch in Texas. Our aim is to see how bobwhite behave compared to the original study in the 1990s, and to see how this varies between study sites.

We believe that the way coveys interact with hunters will vary between sites based on a variety of factors: bird density, age structure, cover conditions, and hunting style. We expect that on sites with higher densities and age structures that favor older, wiser birds, that the hunting party will see a higher percentage of coveys flushing wild, and fewer that are holding tight.

Beginning last fall, our staff of biologists and technicians rode along with the hunting parties on these six properties and tracked radio-tagged coveys to record what percentage are seen and how they are evading detection. After over 500 encounters in the first hunting season, preliminary results indicate that modern coveys seem much less likely to “hold” to avoid detection and are flushing wild about 30% more often than they did in the 1990s. It is unclear how much of these behaviors is being learned and how much is the result of being in a high-density population with high adult survival. We will continue this study for several more years to fully understand how far this process of education can be carried, and how much warier the birds have become.

Examining Crippling Loss Rates Across the Bobwhite Range

By Justin Rectenwald | Project Collaborators: Albany Quail Project, Livingston Place, Central Florida Rangeland Quail Program, Tall Timbers, Ichauway, Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch, University of Georgia–GAME Lab, originally published in the Summer 2022 edition of Quail Call. 

Over the last several years, there have been many discussions between quail managers, property owners, and biologists about how harvest rates may affect wild quail populations. As wise stewards of the resource, our goal should be to maximize hunting opportunity, while minimizing any potential negative impacts on the population. Historically, the idea of over-hunting or pressuring bobwhites has not been an issue, because they have relatively high densities and low harvest pressure.

While populations on large private properties remain high and stable, ownership demographics and the economics of quail hunting have changed slightly in recent years. It has become more common for quail properties to have multiple owners that all want their fair share of hunting days, or they are looking for ways to offset the operating costs by leasing days to other hunters. Both of these situations can lead to an increase in the number of days hunting, which could equate to higher harvest pressure. Tall Timbers and others in the past have developed the industry standard for harvest rates, which sits at 15% of the fall population.

However, the kicker is that the recommendation of 15% is supposed to include birds that are crippled and not recovered as well. While it is easy to figure out how many birds you bring back to the wagon, we do not have a firm grasp on how many birds are actually crippled, and end up dying days or weeks later. Many believe, based on observations, that the current ratio of harvested to crippled birds could be anywhere from 3:1 to 1:1 depending on hunter experience and or a variety of other factors. While a higher than perceived harvest rate may not be a cause of concern on most properties, it may be a limiting factor on properties that are already pushing the 15% recommendation.

Many believe, based on observations, that the current ratio of harvested to crippled birds could be anywhere from 3:1 to 1:1 depending on hunter experience and or a variety of other factors. While a higher than perceived harvest rate may not be a cause of concern on most properties, it may be a limiting factor on properties that are already pushing the 15% recommendation.

To determine the true crippling loss rate, Tall Timbers and the GAME Lab at the University of Georgia began a collaborative study that takes place on our primary study site in Albany, the Jones Center at Ichauway, Livingston Place, Tall Timbers, Escape Ranch in Central Florida, and the Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch in Texas. Our staff of biologists and technicians tracked radio-tagged coveys during the hunts throughout this past season and recorded data on which coveys were shot into, the number of shots fired at each covey rise, the number of birds that were shot down and recovered, the number wounded that kept flying, and the number shot down and not recovered.

On the day after the hunt and 3–5 days later, we rechecked those same coveys in hopes of recovering whole, un-scavenged birds that were initially wounded during the hunt and later died as a result of their injuries. Our staff recovered whole birds on multiple occasions following hunts, and these birds were x-rayed and sent to have official necropsies performed to determine their actual cause of death. Figure 1 depicts several of these birds that were confirmed to have had lead shot in them by x-ray.

We will continue this study for the next few hunting seasons in hopes of providing a true estimate of crippling loss. We expect to see variations in the crippling loss rate, but we should eventually be able to determine how many birds are recovered, wounded, and lost for every 10 shots fired at the end of this study. While it will take multiple years of data collection to complete the study, our preliminary results indicate that for about every 2 or 3 birds picked up, there is another 1 that is crippled and not recovered. We will continue this study for the next several hunting seasons and will expand on the results and conclusions once we have a full understanding of the true crippling loss rate.