34 Game Survey of the North Central States 



proved unsatisfactory. They expressed not only the abundance of quail, but also 

 the ability of the dog and his handler, their familiarity with the ground, and espe- 

 cially the amount and distribution of cover. Some "covies per day" figures are 

 given in Table D of the Appendix for what they are worth. 



The second method consisted of asking selected farmers and sportsmen to 

 estimate the average number of covies per average farm in the locality best known 

 to them. While better than the first method, this failed to express the local 

 range of variation in abundance, and made comparisons difficult between widely 

 separated localities because of the differing size of farm units. 



The third method, which proved the most satisfactory, consisted of asking 

 selected farmers and sportsmen the actual number of covies (or birds) on indi- 

 vidual sample farms of known acreage. Sample farms representing the best, the 

 poorest, and intermediate grades of abundance were asked for from each observer. 

 Where the observer was unable to furnish an actual count of each covey, the covies 

 were converted at 15 birds each, and the total birds then divided into the acreage 

 of the farm to obtain the number of acres per bird. All figures accepted from 

 sportsmen represent a thorough working of the sample area, with dogs, at the be- 

 ginning of the fall season, during a normal year. Figures were accepted from 

 farmers without specifying dog work. No figures were accepted from any indi- 

 vidual without a preliminary conversation aimed to test his understanding of quail. 



No sample of less than 100 acres was accepted, regardless of the apparent 

 accuracy of the figures, or the qualifications of the observer. Usually 160 acres 

 constituted the minimum area. This is an essential precaution in any method of 

 measuring quail. The reason will appear under the discussions of "cruising 

 radius" and "temporary concentrations." 



The weak point in this method is that sportsmen in good territory do not 

 hunt poor ground, and hence cannot give samples of it. Farmers are the best 

 source of figures for poor ground. 



The ideal way to get representative samples would be to take them according 

 to some rigid geographic pattern, such as in the center of each township or county. 

 The time available for this survey did not permit of this refinement. 



It was found that dog-trainers are the most likely source of covey-counts on 

 large areas, that is, areas of more than 1,000 acres. 



Abundance Map. All quail census figures obtained during the survey by 

 the second and third methods are shown graphically on Map 6, and in figures in 

 Table 5. All samples are grouped according to an arbitrary set of population 

 density classes explained in the legend of Map 6. These classes are defined in 

 terms of "acres per quail" instead of "quails per acre" because this avoids frac- 

 tions. "Density classes" are obviously "grades" of abundance, as determined by 

 the number of acres to each quail. 



The symbols for the various classes are "staggered" in the map legend, so 

 that a large sample containing, let us say, 1 acre per quail, appears in the same 

 density-class as a smaller sample containing 0.5 acres per quail. The reason for 



