# Tall Timbers Research on Quail "Surrogators"



## muckalee (Sep 30, 2011)

Was in Thomasville yesterday.  Picked up a copy of Tall Timbers Research most recent edition.  Long story short, their research on Surrogators is that it is a waste of time, effort and money with a harvest rate of only 0.8%.  Over a 2-3 year period they tagged and released a total of 1,366 chicks on land intesively managed for quail hunting.  Property hunted heavily (2-4 half days a week).


----------



## CAL (Sep 30, 2011)

I have 2 surrogators and 2 brooders I built.I am on my second year with the surrogators and my first with the brooders.I put out birds last year raised in the surrogators.One group could be found any time any day.The others were never seen again.I think habitat where the birds are released has more to do with success than anything.This year I have the surrogators and the brooders on trailers so I can put them where the best habitat is.Time will tell,I am still searching for the correct answer.


----------



## Sam H (Oct 1, 2011)

muckalee said:


> Was in Thomasville yesterday.  Picked up a copy of Tall Timbers Research most recent edition.  Long story short, their research on Surrogators is that it is a waste of time, effort and money with a harvest rate of only 0.8%.  Over a 2-3 year period they tagged and released a total of 1,366 chicks on land intesively managed for quail hunting.  Property hunted heavily (2-4 half days a week).




The information here that "shocks me" is not that surrogators are a waste of time , BUT that...."Property hunted heavily (2-4 half days a week)"...Given the fact that TT has probably some of the best managed habitat possible....How can ANY habitat , support / maintain a viable bird population being hunted that hard and often...Now given , I don't know the acreage and amount of hunters used in this scenario...But that does seem like some serious hunting pressure on ANY property!!...Just my opinon?!


----------



## StevePickard (Oct 1, 2011)

I agree with you Sam! We don't hunt a particular course but once a week.
Steve


----------



## irocz2u (Oct 1, 2011)

i would of thought the same  to hard huntted  for a test sould of been less hunting n  more time for the  birds  to  incress on there owen


----------



## goose buster (Oct 3, 2011)

irocz2u said:


> i would of thought the same  to hard huntted  for a test sould of been less hunting n  more time for the  birds  to  incress on there owen


I agree.


----------



## cooter (Oct 3, 2011)

After reading the article, I would disagree with some of the comments above.  The plantation is 3,000 acres and intensively managed for quail.  If they are hunting it 2-4x a week, I would not consider that overhunted for a plantation of that size.  They only killed 6 of the 1,366 released over two years.  This is an incredibly low yield for the Surrogator.


----------



## sage954 (Oct 3, 2011)

At Tall Timbers don't they only hunt the birds one month(Feb) out of the season? I believe I heard this in a show one of the Outdoor hosts (Wayne Pearson from Alabama maybe) did about TT.   If this is the case then that is not much at all.


----------



## coveyrise (Oct 3, 2011)

Sam H said:


> The information here that "shocks me" is not that surrogators are a waste of time , BUT that...."Property hunted heavily (2-4 half days a week)"...Given the fact that TT has probably some of the best managed habitat possible....How can ANY habitat , support / maintain a viable bird population being hunted that hard and often...Now given , I don't know the acreage and amount of hunters used in this scenario...But that does seem like some serious hunting pressure on ANY property!!...Just my opinon?!



  I helped in this study. The Plantation was in Alabama and has numerous[maybe 10] hunting courses. They never have to overhunt any course. The bottom line is the surrogator is such a lie and has been proven through study after study[including the state of ga. DNR] to be a lie that most reputable magazines will not sell ads for the surrogator anymore. I know where stacks of those things are sitting rotting away from North Carolina to Texas and Florida. Its a really sore subject to bring up with land owners. At $1500 a pop I don't blame them. The sad thing was Rocky Evans and Q.U. backed the surrogator as the next great quail management tool that would help bring back native populations of quail. 
   Tall Timbers has never backed the surrogator and always saw it for what it was. They among others have proved it does not work. Reggie Thackston also did a study in Ga. and came up with the same conclusion.
     Can anyone tell me one study that has shown where quail populations have been restored using pen raised quail? There are millions of birds released in the state of Ga. every year but yet quail numbers are plummeting. I wonder why. 
    We are all looking for the magic wand that does'nt exist. If you have True Native Wild birds on your property guard them with your life. Contaminating your gene pool  with pen raised quail will never be reversable.


----------



## coveyrise (Oct 3, 2011)

There is a good article on the Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever website about the surrogator and stocking with pen raised birds. Its worth reading.


----------



## muckalee (Oct 6, 2011)

coveyrise said:


> There is a good article on the Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever website about the surrogator and stocking with pen raised birds. Its worth reading.



Could not find the article, could you direct me to it?


----------



## coveyrise (Oct 6, 2011)

muckalee said:


> Could not find the article, could you direct me to it?



     Put in Stocking Surrogator#8A76D1 on your search engine. I tried to post the link but it never would come up correctly. Maybe you or someone else can do it correctly. Anyway pay close attention to the Tennesee report. We are killing our native quail genetics with inbred pen raised quail. These are some of the best biologist in the nations report. Facts that can't be disputed.


----------



## Supercracker (Oct 7, 2011)

coveyrise said:


> I tried to post the link but it never would come up correctly. Maybe you or someone else can do it correctly.



Here's a link to the article.

Stocking Pen Raised Birds





.


----------



## Setter Jax (Oct 7, 2011)

Ok then, what is the answer?  When I was growing up in Northern Indiana you saw few white tail deer and turkey.  Now you see tons of them and they have been restored.  We didn't even have turkey when I was a kid.  How can these species survive and make a comeback and the quail and pheasant can't. I've seen good cover that should hold birds but doesn't. We had predators back then too.  I don't by the fire ant explanation either. The pesticide explanation makes since, but it's been decades since they were allowed to use DTD. With what they are doing with genetics these days in farm animals, I don't buy the theory that they can't grow or genetically engineer a game bird that has a high survivability rate. There has to be another answer.


----------



## StevePickard (Oct 7, 2011)

Just something to stir the pot a little.  I know very little about the Ringneck Pheasant that we have in the U.S. other than what I learned about them a long time ago in one of my wildlife management classes in college.  If my memory serves me correct, prior to 1850, there were no pheasants in the US.  They were an imported species.  They are not native to the US.  Now with the transportation as slow as it was back then, I'm quite sure  that all the birds that were stocked were not first generation wild birds caught and brought over by ship from Asia. There was no other way to get them here but by ship back then and it was a long voyage. More than likely, someone had to raise some of those birds that were initially stocked, so technically and more than likely, but I can't verify it, there were probably more than just a few pen raised pheasants that were initially released and they were the ancestors of our modern day pheasants in the U.S.  I can't imagine that they were so prolific that a few birds caught and put on a ship and turned loose in the U.S. established the whole population we now have. If I had to bet, I bet there were some rich ranchers raising them and turning them out to hunt in the 1850's and beyond, and those birds that managed to escape started the population we have now. The rich ranchers raising them and having fun hunting them probably didn't have anyone to tell them you are wasting your time turning out birds...they will never survive....so they probably just kept having fun, turning some out for hunting and failed to kill all of them.
Oh, sorry I forgot.... you can't establish a population of birds from pen raised birds...
Maybe my theory about how the pheasant got here is all wrong....Maybe I was asleep in class and dreamed that they were stocked.
Never say Never.....
Steve Pickard


----------



## Jim P (Oct 7, 2011)

Steve I agree with you there is no way that there could be that many pheasant these days without released birds in the olden days. The bird did come from China when some wealthy hunters wanted to hunt different kinds of birds, we are all better off because these men did what they did.


----------



## Resica (Oct 7, 2011)

Trap and transfer is the answer, and good habitat, cover and food supply.


----------



## coveyrise (Oct 7, 2011)

Pheasant,Hungarian Partridge even Himalayan Snowcock are not native to the U.S. Almost all came from wild eggs imported to the U.S. and most were hatched using bantams hens.  The birds learned to brood from their parents. In some species,especially quail,  brooding is a learned characteristic not something they are born with.  Every year that we inbreed pen raised birds is one step down from the native genes. I doubt wild genetic birds have been reintroduced  to any breeding stock of quail in 20 years or more. Inbred birds have been proven to be more susceptible to desease such as bronchitis and other upper resperatory problems.
        If pen raised quail were so good at reproduction then why are all these early release plantations having to release the same or more birds every year on their property? Did they kill them all? Sorry the verdict is in. Facts have proven.


----------



## coveyrise (Oct 7, 2011)

Resica said:


> Trap and transfer is the answer, and good habitat, cover and food supply.



        Exactly. Just hard to find donors. Almost impossible. We are experimenting with using Pure wild surrogate hens and F-1 genetic chicks raised from day one by hens in outdoor flight pens and are showing some promising results in the field. All this is being done with a special permit from DNR.


----------



## waddler (Oct 8, 2011)

StevePickard said:


> Just something to stir the pot a little.  I know very little about the Ringneck Pheasant that we have in the U.S. other than what I learned about them a long time ago in one of my wildlife management classes in college.  If my memory serves me correct, prior to 1850, there were no pheasants in the US.  They were an imported species.  They are not native to the US.  Now with the transportation as slow as it was back then, I'm quite sure  that all the birds that were stocked were not first generation wild birds caught and brought over by ship from Asia. There was no other way to get them here but by ship back then and it was a long voyage. More than likely, someone had to raise some of those birds that were initially stocked, so technically and more than likely, but I can't verify it, there were probably more than just a few pen raised pheasants that were initially released and they were the ancestors of our modern day pheasants in the U.S.  I can't imagine that they were so prolific that a few birds caught and put on a ship and turned loose in the U.S. established the whole population we now have. If I had to bet, I bet there were some rich ranchers raising them and turning them out to hunt in the 1850's and beyond, and those birds that managed to escape started the population we have now. The rich ranchers raising them and having fun hunting them probably didn't have anyone to tell them you are wasting your time turning out birds...they will never survive....so they probably just kept having fun, turning some out for hunting and failed to kill all of them.
> Oh, sorry I forgot.... you can't establish a population of birds from pen raised birds...
> Maybe my theory about how the pheasant got here is all wrong....Maybe I was asleep in class and dreamed that they were stocked.
> Never say Never.....
> Steve Pickard



Just a bit of wildlife management will help your dilemma.  Two things control the successful establishment of a population of wild animals.

1- An unfilled niche in available habitat or an aggressive animal that will displace other animals from existing habitat. Wild hogs in America started with less than a dozen turned out in Fl. by the Spaniards. Deer populations in North Georgia exploded with simple protection and cotton farms being converted to forest. 

And 

2- A carrying capacity of the habitat large enough to support a critical mass. That's why there ain't no Sasquatch. It takes a diverse enough gene pool to overcome the destructive effects of inbreeding.

Understanding "Carrying Capacity" will explain about 90% of why the 100 birds you turned out last week are not to be found.

Dr. Provost taught these simple principles 50 years ago at UGA in Wildlife Management, and unlike many things in our lives, these fundamentals will never change. Now if you want more quail on your property, raise the carrying capacity and Mother nature will put them there.


----------



## waddler (Oct 8, 2011)

coveyrise said:


> Exactly. Just hard to find donors. Almost impossible. We are experimenting with using Pure wild surrogate hens and F-1 genetic chicks raised from day one by hens in outdoor flight pens and are showing some promising results in the field. All this is being done with a special permit from DNR.



Some of my thoughts, FWIW.

I firmly believe the genetics of tame quail play a large part in the unadaptability of released birds, however, the quest for more birds to shoot per acre is beset with misunderstandings by the general public, and there needs to be more education of landowners and hunters of the factors determining how many birds you have. First, wild populations are not static, they fluctuate from year to year depending on the environmental factors such as drought and flooding.  The population in a single year is determined by the lowest level of carrying capacity experienced during that entire year. So it is very possible that come hunting season the carrying capacity could have changed and the habitat is capable of supporting a larger number of birds.  There is a chance then that you could possibly  introduce a covey of wild birds into a particular habitat and they succeed, whereas a repeat of the process the next year may fail.

Theory dictates that if a carrying capacity is one bird per acre, and there exists a population of one bird per acre, turning out more quail there will stress the environment until the CC drops. However, the stressing factors could reduce the number of birds BELOW one per acre depending on the dynamics of the stressing entities. For instance, excess birds could concentrate predators which take out the new birds and then get some of the originals before they themselves yield to the CC principle. It is possible you can ruin your native population by introducing tame birds.


----------



## coveyrise90 (Oct 8, 2011)

Steve,

The first releasing of pheasant occurred in the New England states.  Ben Franklin's S-I-L released some on their farm in New Jersey. George Washington released some at Mt. Vernon in Virginia. But none of the birds survived.... why? It wasn't because of habitat. These states supported great bird number in the early 1900s so there has be to be another answer. The real reason they didn't survive is because they were pen-reared birds (mostly from Old English stock). They weren't wild birds so they weren't successful in starting a wild population.

The first SUCCESSFUL release occurred in 1881 on a farm in the Willamette Valley of Oregon.The farm's owner, Judge Owen Denny (who a U.S. consul to China), had 60 WILD Chinese ringnecks shipped over. Only a few birds died during the over-sea trip. These WILD birds started the first successful population and soon spread to surrounding counties. They were the source of many birds used the start new populations throughout the country. 

States often released wild birds (or birds raised by Bantam hens) to start wild, self-sustaining populations. When wealthy landowners, hunt club, state owned game farms released pen-reared birds, they were for nothing more than  "put and take" type hunting. Every now again, one of these birds may have raised a brood, but I doubt it happened often. 


Here is the perfect example. Every year, the state of Pennsylvania stocks between 100,000 and 200,000 birds (depending on budget) on the public WMAs. There has be NO wild population started as a result of this stocking. They are simply for "put and take". When the State really wanted to start a wild population they did it the right way. They created habitat and released true wild birds. They have several sites totaling over 15,000 acres where they have created quality habitat and released wild birds brought in from SD and MT. These releases have been successful at starting wild population. 


Pen reared birds are not the way to go for restoring wild bird numbers. I have yet to seen a piece of research or evidence that would prove otherwise.


----------



## coveyrise (Oct 8, 2011)

waddler said:


> Some of my thoughts, FWIW.
> 
> I firmly believe the genetics of tame quail play a large part in the unadaptability of released birds, however, the quest for more birds to shoot per acre is beset with misunderstandings by the general public, and there needs to be more education of landowners and hunters of the factors determining how many birds you have. First, wild populations are not static, they fluctuate from year to year depending on the environmental factors such as drought and flooding.  The population in a single year is determined by the lowest level of carrying capacity experienced during that entire year. So it is very possible that come hunting season the carrying capacity could have changed and the habitat is capable of supporting a larger number of birds.  There is a chance then that you could possibly  introduce a covey of wild birds into a particular habitat and they succeed, whereas a repeat of the process the next year may fail.
> 
> Theory dictates that if a carrying capacity is one bird per acre, and there exists a population of one bird per acre, turning out more quail there will stress the environment until the CC drops. However, the stressing factors could reduce the number of birds BELOW one per acre depending on the dynamics of the stressing entities. For instance, excess birds could concentrate predators which take out the new birds and then get some of the originals before they themselves yield to the CC principle. It is possible you can ruin your native population by introducing tame birds.



    Very well said. I think this year we will find out what the old saying " you can't fool mother nature" means. This drought has been hard on the birds around here. After a few killing frost I am going to hate to see the cover in south ga.


----------



## Coach K (Oct 9, 2011)

StevePickard said:


> Just something to stir the pot a little.  I know very little about the Ringneck Pheasant that we have in the U.S. other than what I learned about them a long time ago in one of my wildlife management classes in college.  If my memory serves me correct, prior to 1850, there were no pheasants in the US.  They were an imported species.  They are not native to the US.  Now with the transportation as slow as it was back then, I'm quite sure  that all the birds that were stocked were not first generation wild birds caught and brought over by ship from Asia. There was no other way to get them here but by ship back then and it was a long voyage. More than likely, someone had to raise some of those birds that were initially stocked, so technically and more than likely, but I can't verify it, there were probably more than just a few pen raised pheasants that were initially released and they were the ancestors of our modern day pheasants in the U.S.  I can't imagine that they were so prolific that a few birds caught and put on a ship and turned loose in the U.S. established the whole population we now have. If I had to bet, I bet there were some rich ranchers raising them and turning them out to hunt in the 1850's and beyond, and those birds that managed to escape started the population we have now. The rich ranchers raising them and having fun hunting them probably didn't have anyone to tell them you are wasting your time turning out birds...they will never survive....so they probably just kept having fun, turning some out for hunting and failed to kill all of them.
> Oh, sorry I forgot.... you can't establish a population of birds from pen raised birds...
> Maybe my theory about how the pheasant got here is all wrong....Maybe I was asleep in class and dreamed that they were stocked.
> Never say Never.....
> Steve Pickard



Ditto: Adam

Yes the pheasants that came to U.S. were brought from Manchuria (China).  They were not domesticated.   Yes, they were transported by ship.  The first shipment did not make it as they were discovered by crewman and eaten along the voyage.  Another shipment was made and they were successfully released in 1881 in Oregon (200 birds).
The # that I had read.  

"Not until 1881, when Judge O.N. Denny released some 100 pairs of Chinese ring-necks in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, did the pheasant *really gain a foothold* in the United States. Since then, pheasants have been propagated and released by government agencies, clubs and individuals, and for all practical purposes are established everywhere on the continent that suitable habitat exists".


----------

