Bob white quail in ON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

... it's well established by repeated studies and real world experience...
Obviously you have to release something to re-establish a wild population, but the pen-raised offspring of pen-raised parents ain't it. You'll be feeding predators weak birds and potentially screwing up any wild population you do manage to establish over the years. The best way to do it is to trap and release wild birds.

---

a few generations in captivity will not change genes - that is a fact! captivity is not an evolutionary driver capable of changing genes in a couple of years. that does not mean that breeding couldn't speed that up tremendously, but why would anyone breed intentionally poor quail?
of course, you are right that pen-raised birds have a significant lower survival rate (has not anything to do with genetic set-up). there are numerous ways to off-set this off (one you mentioned) - all cost money!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This is a truth not many people want to acknowledge. We re-established turkeys and elk by keeping the season closed for years while working to restore their numbers. Releasing a bunch of birds and then declaring open season each fall (and shooting hens) is not going to achieve anything.



+1



Whether you buy into it or not, it's well established by repeated studies and real world experience. I'll take that over armchair theory any day.

Obviously you have to release something to re-establish a wild population, but the pen-raised offspring of pen-raised parents ain't it. You'll be feeding predators weak birds and potentially screwing up any wild population you do manage to establish over the years. The best way to do it is to trap and release wild birds.

---

This is what I asked for earlier. Let's see the studies. What study did the MNR use to reach their decision? The only one I've seen is the one I posted in my thread/first post to start a discussion but which doesn't clarify many issues.

The problem is you don't have enough native wild stock to do a trap and re-introduce program I would think. And there is absolutely no money for any kind of hunting initiative in Ontario right now. Scarce money will go to species that return votes like moose and deer. Realistically how many people would benefit from a quail program in South Western Ontario? Private property and predominantly bird dog guys. Pretty small vote return on your investment. An enterprising guy could duplicate the Pelee pheasant hunt model on an Island like Amherst Island near Kingston or possibly even Manitoulin. Pure put & take but done right I bet it would sell.
As for MNR studies, no money for that not for a long time. Even fish stocking which doesn't really offend most tree huggers is near non existent any more and tens of thousands of GTA people fish. If you want a quail program you need to be prepared to finance it privately.

A sustainable wild population of quail may not be achievable in today's environment for many reasons but chiefly due to subsidized predators, habitat loss within historical ranges and changes in agricultural practices.

The first management decision to be made by the ministry would be; are we trying to re-establish a sustainable wild population of individuals (ON turkey, ON elk, James Bay geese, Yellowstone wolves, etc) or are we trying to manage a recreational resources (brown trout fishery, former Conestoga pheasant release program, etc)? The two approaches are not synonymous yet they both aim to increase the number of individuals but with different end goals.

In terms of a government program the re-establishment of a sustainable wild population is very expensive, very long term and serves more than just the recreational hunting community. The metrics that would need to be established to measure the success and guide the management of the re-establishment program would take years to develop and refine as they would need to mesh with existing legislation. Not to mention a hunting season would be a very distant possibility (ie, turkey reintroduction or james bay geese).

The re-establishment of a population primarily as a recreational resource would be much less onerous and several quasi successful case studies exist to use a model. Similar to the many pheasant release programs or even the fish hatchery programs, community based volunteers or conservation groups (quail forever) would be used to run government subsidized "hatcheries", care, tend and release the quail, whose main purpose is for recreational hunting. Put and take if you will. Like many other put and take schemes, proper care would be required to prevent the spread of agricultural diseases among a very small (if even present) wild population. Intermixing between native and pen raised birds will always be a possibility, but that has not prevented the ministry from using this model with other species.

All comes back to the original management question; are we looking to re-establish a sustainable wild population or are we looking to establish a recreational resource?

To Sharon's original post, I believe if you have a release permit you can release Bob White. There are certainly producers raising thousands of Bob White each year in Ontario. From a personal training point of view, I hate using quail. If they get the slightest bit wet they don't fly worth a damn and I don't know of any other pen-kept bird that is more susceptible to wasting diseases.

Didn't realize that Conestoga wasn't doing the pheasant program anymore? But agreed, that type of scenario can be successful with minimal Provincial funding.

The problem with recreational programs is they're very expensive. Folks talk about our licence fees paying for things when in fact your small game licence only pays for about one limit of birds or fish. So these programs, while not necessarily a bad thing, are a poor long-term model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The problem with recreational programs is they're very expensive. Folks talk about our licence fees paying for things when in fact your small game licence only pays for about one limit of birds or fish. So these programs, while not necessarily a bad thing, are a poor long-term model.

---

Some do quite well but that is only because of the volunteers who run them. As they age out or lose interest you definitely have a risk of deterioration of the programs. The other thing is they are not "inexpensive" so that will turn some away. Although I guess Hullett can actually be hunted for free which amazes me. Can't see that going on forever.
But yes, it comes down to what the real intent for the program is? Hunters will finance some type of program if they eventually can expect to use it. Not so sure bird watchers would be prepared to contribute much for a small secretive bird that is rarely seen? Migrating waterfowl is very visible and grand to observe. You can take your kids or school group to a marsh in the Spring and enjoy it. Can't see many birders or schools having Bobwhites on the radar. I see them as a put & take scenario just like pheasants now.

Conestoga did a pheasant hunting program this year. I went several times and did very well. It can get crowded in there so i personally don't go on weekends.

As for sustainable pheasant/quail programs; if anyone was actually worried about the effect of recreational hunting, they could introduce the birds to areas that simply do not allow hunting such as Conservation areas, provincial parks, or even urban or suburban parks. Non-hunters would likely love to see these birds on their nature walks. Even if these areas had suitable habitat, the sad fact is that the increased numbers of predators like red-tailed hawks and coyotes would destroy the introduced birds quickly.

You would have to use wild birds, then you run into prohibitive costs. :(