Vo 1 . 8 , No. 3 
Page 3 
^• Responses of Bobwhites to Habitat Manipu1 ation 
J. A. Ellis, R. L. Westeme 
i er 
The increase in the number of quail harvested on the Forbes and Dale study 
areas in 1964 as compared with 1963 (Table 2) is largely due to the increased size 
of the areas, and to increased hunting pressure on the areas, as measured by the 
number of hunters and gun-hours and the length of the quail hunting season (Table 2) 
The percentage of juveniles in the quail harvest decreased on the Forbes Area 
from 86 percent in 1963 to 80 percent in 1964. On the Dale Area, however, 87 per- 
th - harvest m '964 was composed of juvenile quail compared with 83 percent 
in 963. these harvest data, plus the percentage increase over the 1964 prebreeding 
populations (summer gains: Monthly Wildlife Research Letter, February, I 965 ), show 
that the number of quail available to hunters in fall is highly dependent upon 
reproductive success during the preceding summer. Thus, habitat management should 
emphasize the development and maintenance of top-quality nesting cover, brood-rear- 
ing cover, and other habitat components essential to quail production and brood 
survival. 
• u s " cce f s was generally poorer on both state areas in 1964 as compared 
with. 963 (Table 2 ): Seventy-six and 10 percent more gun-hours, respectively, were 
required to kill a quail on the Forbes and Dale areas in 1964. The kill per hunter 
ec ine 55 percent on Forbes and 25 percent on Dale. Hunting success expressed 
in terms of quail killed per 100 acres showed little change on either the Forbes 
Four methods were used to estimate the percentages of quail harvested on the 
P two areas (Table 3). For the Forbes Area in 1 96 3» the four estimates show good 
agreement and suggest a harvest on the order of 45 percent of the population. We 
believe.that the harvest in 1964 was about 50 percent of the fall population. The 
i^Ak eCtlVe f ' 9ures of 9i+ a nd 80 percent (col. 2) for the Forbes and Dale areas in 
arS t00 h ' 9h because the P r ehunt census was unsatisfactory. In both 1 963 and 
964 on the Dale Area, the percentage harvest of quail appears to have been on the 
order of 65 percent of the fall population. 
The above rates of exploitation seem high. Whether they are biologically 
excessive is a moot question because,as the late Professor Aldo Leopold reported 
more t an 30 years ago, statistics based on experience must be used for deter¬ 
mining the percentage of the population which may be harvested on a given area 
without jeopardizing future populations. More picnicking and camping areas, which 
are restricted from hunting, are being established on state conservation areas. 
These restricted zones may provide adequate protection for quail against excessive 
hunting pressure in the future — thereby making further restrictions on hunting 
unnecessary. 3 
> 
