# Surrogator vs. Covey Base Camp



## BirdNut

I think we all followed with interest the Surrogator posts that began last year, but seemed to result in some disappointment as the season opened.

Given the cost of the Surrogator, and the alternative method of using the Covey Base Camp and the costs associated, who has comments on which to use?


----------



## Luke0927

is that the one that supplies feed and water and has a recall speaker on it?


----------



## coveyrise90

This is a great question. I have no idea what the answer is but I would love to find out!



Luke0927 said:


> is that the one that supplies feed and water and has a recall speaker on it?



Here is the website.
http://www.qualitywildlife.com/

Adam


----------



## muckalee

*surrogator vs covey base camp*

I, like others, was dissapointed for the gentlemen who tried the surrogator earlier this year with discouraging results.  I have not used either, so can only give an opinion.  I think that I would go with the covey base camp for cost.  I put out a lot birds for customers to hunt.  We dont get them all.  I use call back birds placed around my hunting areas with good success.   Basically same theory as the covey base camp.  I fashioned long narrow brush piles around my call back birds and just throw some bird feed in them on a regular basis.  
Customers always like to get into these birds because a lot of times the groups of birds are large (8-10).  One problem is sometimes they tend to want to run on you instead of a good flush.   
Thats my experience.

muckalee


----------



## mha

I posted this once before, but it features some great info on the various release methods in question. 

The Incorporation of Pen Raised Quail into a Quail Management Program, Including Soft, or Pre-Release Systems
(Summary report. Marc Puckett. April, 2008)

	Releasing pen-raised quail, and other game birds, has been a common practice on hunting preserves throughout the U.S. for at least 50 years. There are many reasons why people release pen-raised quail and many variations of how they are released. Three of the most common reasons are: 1) releasing the day of the hunt, or training session, strictly for harvest, or dog training, 2) releasing solely with the intent of restocking and re-populating quail, regardless of method used, and 3) pre-season, or soft-releasing to supplement the harvest of wild quail, or to provide a more natural dog training or hunting experience.
	Regardless of the “whys”, many wildlife biologists are hesitant to recommend the practice for a variety of reasons. The most important to many biologists are ethical concerns. Others have biological concerns, or may be opposed for a number of different reasons. This report will try to shed some light on the most recent developments, and provide technical information for advising landowners.
There have always been concerns with how releasing pen-raised quail may affect the health and survival of wild birds in close proximity. These concerns include: disease transmission, parasite transmission, genetic modification through cross-breeding, food and / or mate competition, range modification, and concentration of, and increased exposure to, predators (Devos and Speake 1995). To my knowledge the question of the impacts of pen-raised quail on wild bird health have never been adequately addressed through science. It is still impossible to say definitively that, “based on such and such study, pen-raised quail do, or do not affect wild quail survival.”  That is because it is a very difficult thing to study. Most recently, pen-raised quail were tested in Virginia for disease presence (Cook 2006). This study suggested that Virginia’s pen-raised quail were generally healthy, but the author prefaced the account by stating that results should be viewed with caution as the samples were small and non random (Cook 2006). 

The best evidence that pen-raised quail may have little impact on wild quail health is ancillary, or anecdotal, based on observation. With literally millions of pen-raised quail released annually, the decline in wild quail populations has been steady, occurring over 50 years, and reports of sudden, large die offs have not occurred. In addition, it is common for wild coveys to occupy hunting preserves and persist indefinitely, in spite of frequent, repeated release of pen-raised quail. And, quail have declined across large areas of their native range, most of which is not in close proximity to pen-raised quail release areas.
Devos and Speake (1995) concluded that:
wild coveys in close proximity to pen-raised release sites in the short term experienced slightly lower survival than controls, largely through increased exposure to predators
pen-raised quail exhibited their highest losses during the first month after release
pen-raised quail had no effect on wild covey range size
pen-raised quail did not displace wild quail 
pen-raised quail were frequently adopted by wild coveys
pen-raised quail used habitat similarly to wild quail once acclimated
pen-raised quail that survived the winter contributed to reproduction
pen-raised quail had much lower survival than wild quail 
stocking pen-raised quail was not likely to contribute to wild quail recovery

Devos and Speake (1995) also made several valid points which have become even more relevant in 2008. Most releasing is done to supplement harvest, not to re-populate quail range. Plantations, hunting preserves and private landowners use soft-release techniques to provide an experience that more closely resembles wild bird hunting and supplements wild bird harvest through time, particularly on small properties (500) acres or less). The use of release systems can, in some cases, provide quick response to habitat management / establishment. Landowners invest time, money and effort into developing their land and are impatient to see results. Using released quail can provide encouragement and stimulate continued habitat management efforts.

On Stockpiling Quail…
One reason pre-season release has become so popular is that you cannot “stock pile” wild quail on small properties (less than 500 acres). On average, with good habitat management, Virginia landowners managing small properties can produce and maintain one covey of quail per 50 acres. On larger properties (2000 acres plus) with intense quail management including supplemental feeding and predator control, it is possible to achieve a wild covey per 15 to 25 acres (Rosene 1969). Only on very large landholdings, those larger than 10,000 acres, can higher quail densities be achieved.
Why? A variety of studies have shown that wild quail are genetically programmed to disperse (Fies et al. 2002, Cook 2004). Dispersal occurs primarily during spring when coveys break up and nesting pairs form, or in fall during what is referred to as the fall shuffle. Regardless of season, individual quail inhabiting small pockets of isolated quality quail habitat often disperse into areas of poor habitat quality. These dispersers are rarely replaced by immigrants because there are few other sources of quail nearby. Therefore, through time, a 200 acre property that has 3 or 4 coveys of quail will very rarely have more than that. And, the small population on the property may not sustain itself through time, as it is particularly susceptible to extreme weather events, disease or over harvest. This is a “nutshell” example of meta-population theory. The bottom line is, four coveys of quail can tolerate a limited amount of hunting before adverse effects are seen. This is the backbone of the argument for using release methods to supplement harvest on small properties, particularly in the fragmented landscapes typical of Virginia. 
The large quail plantations in the Deep South are able to maintain high densities of quail through time because the majority of the dispersing quail remain somewhere on the property. Only those quail near the perimeter of such large properties may disperse off the property. On the very largest properties quail can essentially be stockpiled. In addition, hunting pressure can be rotated in a fashion to minimize impact on any one segment of the population.


Soft, or Pre-Season Release Systems…
	I will always be a wild bird hunter by choice. I enjoy the exercise, the movement, the “seeing what is around the next bend” feeling I have when out with my dogs. But, once or twice a year, I am going to a hunting preserve to fill my game bag and get some treats for the grill. When discussing the issue of pre-season release systems, or soft-release systems (SRS) with landowners who call in, I try to be unbiased. I provide them with as many facts as I can, pro and con, including price. I have also begun informing them that in bear country the feeders these SRS rely on can become targets for bear damage. This has happened in several cases in my old district already. 
Let’s define soft-release, too. I use “soft-release” because, while most of the releasing is done pre-hunting season, supplemental releasing often occurs during the hunting season. Whether you say soft, or pre, they are the same systems. The “soft” comes from comparison to simply “dump releasing” quail out into cover abruptly just prior to shooting, or training. The SRS uses a method that allows the quail to gradually release themselves once the handler leaves. The quail typically have 4 to 6 weeks to acclimate before hunting season begins, thus behave more like wild quail when hunted. 

The most common system in use today is called the Covey Base Camp® (CBC) and is a pre-fabricated version of the Smith/O’Neal systems developed over 50 years ago. The CBC has been on the market in various forms for 15 years. Information: www.qualitywildlife.com 1-877-242-2482. The best way to understand this system is to watch the video they sell.
The basic method is:
Must have good cover that already supports, or is capable of supporting wild quail
Use one release system per 25 to 40 acres (sold as 40 acre unit)
Must be set up in an area of good shrubby cover, such as plum thicket, sumac thicket, blackberry thicket, or similar, often known as a covey headquarters area
Video warns NOT to set up in VA-70 or bi-color lespedeza thicket, as very little cover is provided during winter
Use initial release coveys of 25 adult birds in mid- September to mid-October using the protocol outlined in CBC video consisting of a crate and an ice block frozen in plastic bag lain flat to form a sheet of ice. A whole is cut in the cardboard crate, the ice block is removed from the baggy and leaned up against the hole and the quail can only exit after the ice melts an hour or two after the handler leaves. Handler returns before dark to remove cardboard crate
Must release early enough in the day to allow the ice block to melt and the coveys to enter the cover
Must use weather and flight conditioned quail (we cannot recommend one source, but the CBC video recommends a group called Quail Valley in North Carolina that sells over 1 million quail a year and is preferred by numerous Virginia operations. I leave this up the landowner to research)
Proper use of the electronic recall bird “Total Recall” for at least 2 weeks post release
Most use wheat as the feed, some use milo, some cracked corn, CBC video recommends wheat
Must check and maintain feeders at least every 2 weeks (cannot allow feeders to run out of feed)
A follow-up release is often conducted during December (or as needed) to further supplement harvest using 10 birds per covey, or crate
It is recommended the feeders be maintained throughout the year, except summer
Predator control is also recommended
Monitor each system for use. If a system is not being used by the released quail, it is in a bad location and needs to be moved into better cover
Like anything else, it takes some work, time and study to become proficient with the system

It is important to note that no matter what release system is used, they all say habitat is the key. You must create and maintain great quail habitat through time. The systems will not work in a cow pasture.
A system that is gaining in popularity, and in some ways contradicts the claims of the CBC folks, is called the Quail Surrogator® (www.quailrestoration.com 1-316-200-0134). This system relies on partially raising, or surrogating, hatchling quail to an age of 5 weeks old, during summer. They believe that pen-reared quail retain many wild characteristics at a young age and state that after 7 weeks of age, pen-raised quail lose their innate survival abilities. For more information you need to look at their website and get a copy of their free video and brochure. Persons using this system who hatch their own eggs to obtain quail chicks will need a Virginia Propagator’s Permit. Those who buy day old chicks should be exempt.
 The Surrogator is set-up in good quail cover where the manager wants to establish quail and provides food, water, safety and cover for 5 weeks. The Surrogator uses up to 125 one day old quail chicks per system. It is the most complex of all systems I am aware of. They recommend one unit per 160 acres of land. They stress that 3 to 4, 5-week cycles can be completed per year depending on length of the natural breeding season. In Virginia, we like to see 80% of quail chicks be at least 150 days old when the hunting season starts. This suggests that the latest day old chicks could be started in the Surrogator would be in early July. You would need to begin running cycles in late April to achieve 3 cycles in one breeding season. 
A study was conducted in Georgia to address the efficacy of using both traditional “dump release” and the Surrogator systems (Thackston et al. 2006). This study released 1,641 - 5-week old quail using the Surrogator and 1000 - 12 to 16 week old quail using “dump release” onto an approximate 1000 acre portion of a private shooting preserve where supplemental feeding and predator control occurred. All Surrogator released quail were raised and released per manufacturer’s protocol. Relative to total number of birds released, hunter bag returns were 0.80% (eight tenths of one percent) for the Surrogator released quail and 7.5% for the “dump released” quail. Excluding the cost of the release systems used, the cost per quail returned to hunter bag was $74.53 and $42.00 for the Surrogator and dump release methods, respectively.
Another system that is receiving some mention, mainly from dog trainers, is called the Texas Covey House®. It is essentially a modified quail re-call pen, commonly called a “Johnny house.” These houses are set up one per 150 - 200 acres and quail are kept in them fall, winter and spring. Prior to beginning a training session, a number of quail are released and flushed out into the training area. Or, they may be captured from the recall pen and transported in a hand crate for planting at various locations throughout the training area. After training is completed, the released quail are “re-called” to the pen by the birds that remained in the pen. At least a few re-call birds are always left in the pen. The quail can enter on their own, but not exit…functions essentially like a minnow trap. They are also using the Texas Covey House® in a fashion similar to the CBC to establish wild acting “coveys” prior to hunting season. It is a portable system that can be repositioned throughout a property to establish coveys.
Lastly, some folks are conducting quail releases without using any of the systems described above. They are simply using good habitat, supplemented with feed, as release / covey establishment sites. Most use light brown milo as their feed (hard to find in Virginia). Some use wheat, cracked corn or whole-kernel corn. Some use the “ice block” method described under CBC. They take their cardboard crate of 25 quail to the identified release site, make the opening in it, set the ice block, and leave. The birds gradually exit the crate into the natural cover where feed is abundant. The handler returns before dark to remove the crate. Others simply cut a hole in the box and use no ice block. Supplemental feed is broadcast at the release site and along trails and roadways on the landowner’s property, throughout fall, winter and spring. 

The VDGIF Study of Release Systems…
	In 1998 VDGIF staff under the supervision of Mike Fies began a study testing the use of the CBC system, then called the Anchor Covey Release System® (ACRS) and compared it to the habitat release method described above (Fies et al. 2000). The sites we picked as release sites for both methods were reviewed on site and approved by the manufacturer and proponent of the ACRS (now CBC). This is the abstract verbatim:

“We estimated survival rates and cause-specific mortality of radio-marked game farm (n=120), F1-wild progeny (n=120) and wild relocated (n=80) northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) released on Amelia Wildlife Management Area (WMA) during October 1998 and March 1999 using the Anchor Covey Release System® (ACRS) and a habitat release system. Mortality of game farm and F1-wild bobwhites was high immediately following both releases. During fall, game farm bobwhites survived an average of 1.6± 0.2 days and F1 wild progeny survived 3.3± 0.8 days. Post-release survival of game farm and F1-wild bobwhites released during spring averaged 3.3± 0.4 and 6.1± 2.4 days, respectively. Survival of pen-raised and F1 bobwhites did not differ (P>0.05) between seasons and by release method. Wild-relocated bobwhites survived longer (P< 0.05) than game farm and F1-wild quail during both seasons. Predation was the primary cause of mortality for released bobwhites. Mammalian predators killed a greater (P< 0.05) proportion of game farm (55.8%) and F1 quail (48.3%) than wild-relocated (32.5%) quail. The proportion of avian predation was greater for bobwhites released using the ACRS than the habitat release system (P = 0.07) and was also greater (P< 0.05) during spring than fall. We found no evidence that the ACRS enhanced survival of game farm or F1 bobwhites. Although game farm quail reportedly survive longer following release in some areas, our data suggest that the release of game farm and F1-wild quail to restock depleted northern bobwhite range is unjustified in situations similar to those we studied.”

The VDGIF study was criticized by proponents of the release systems for several reasons. We did not use weather and flight conditioned quail for release. Our thinking was we would use the type of quail typical of game farm release in Virginia at that time. In the eyes of release system supporters we did not use “quality birds.” Secondly, Amelia WMA has a long history of having quail released for field trials. It was theorized that predators on Amelia WMA had developed a search image for quail beyond that of predators in a normal situation, hence greater and more rapid predator response to quail release there. Amelia WMA was trapped by two highly experienced trappers the winter and spring before the spring release and each trapper felt mammalian predator densities were low at Amelia. Very few animals were captured. We did see high predation by raptors, but have no way of knowing whether raptor populations were higher at Amelia than on surrounding lands. New research indicates that raptors will adjust their habits and concentrate movements around quail feed sites (Turner et al. 2008). This indicates the potential for increased predation regardless of release method, as all release systems rely on supplemental feeding. We were also criticized for holding the release birds in crates over night prior to release, but this was only true during one of the releases. During the spring release, coveys were only held in crates for a few hours prior to release. In all cases, crates were removed within a few hours of release. We would counter argue that many folks buy birds and have them shipped in crates where they may spend even more time in crates prior to release than our birds did. We still contend that this study failed to demonstrate the viability of the ACRS (now CBC), or other release systems in typical situations for restocking, and demonstrated limited use in supplementing harvest beyond a few days.
Regardless of our study results and those of other studies, there are many private landowners who believe in release systems. Some of these landowners are having success. If they believe in their success, it is not our place to re-define success for them or to try to convince them they are failing. For landowners thinking about trying these systems for the first time, I would advise them:
of the need for lots of good quail habitat
make sure they know why they want to use a release system (may work for supplemental harvest, but not for range re-population)
advise them of cost
give them contact information for conducting their own investigations
My final note, I hunted on a 200 acre farm using 8 of the CBC systems, or equivalent, this winter (January 6th). This farm had excellent quail cover throughout. We hunted hard for 3 good hours. We found 6 coveys of quail, most near the systems. They flushed well and flew strong. We were able to follow-up and hunt singles, too. The way this landowner is using his systems I would consider successful for his goals…being able to hunt close to home, repeatedly, on small acreage with a result more pleasing than simply releasing quail the day of harvest.


----------



## coveyrise90

muckalee said:


> I, like others, was dissapointed for the gentlemen who tried the surrogator earlier this year with discouraging results.  I have not used either, so can only give an opinion.  I think that I would go with the covey base camp for cost.  I put out a lot birds for customers to hunt.  We dont get them all.  I use call back birds placed around my hunting areas with good success.   Basically same theory as the covey base camp.  I fashioned long narrow brush piles around my call back birds and just throw some bird feed in them on a regular basis.
> Customers always like to get into these birds because a lot of times the groups of birds are large (8-10).  One problem is sometimes they tend to want to run on you instead of a good flush.
> Thats my experience.
> 
> muckalee




Where do you guide hunts?

Adam


----------



## Medicine Man

I would talk to Hevishot about this..He knows his stuff on this subject. Send him a PM. He is one of those people that will help you anyway he can. He has tried these before and I'm sure will tell you his findings from personal experience.


----------



## redneck_billcollector

Some interesting reading, makes you wonder, I have talked to folks who have had sucsess with both methods, and others who cuss both methods.  With that being said, I would think if you broadcast feed your birds and had really good cover I imagine your results would be decent as to having some birds survive with the surrogator.  I really like the fact that broadcast feeding apparently  causes the cotton rat population to increase which gives ye ol hawks something else to eat 'sides poor ol bob.  The broadcasting of feed over large areas would not give the hawks, foxes and bobcats something to key in on and the quail dont have to wander far from cover to have a meal.  I have never been one to blame cotton rats like others do for eating quail eggs, and with released birds that aint really the issue anyway.  The studies I have seen seem to say that year round broadcasting will really spike the rat population and well, most hawks would just assume eat them as quail.  (also would keep the number one nest predators' bellies full too, mr. slim...aka snakes).  Protien is protien when it comes to varmits and providing a ready alternative meal for them you will decrease preditation on the quail.  Back when folks went out of their way to kill the cotton rats they were just high lighting their birds as the only meal in town.  Predators, like most animals, want the highest caloric intake for the least energy expended and I would imagine a rat is easier to catch for a fox than a quail is (same for a hawk too).  I would be interested to see some studies done where there was widespread broadcast feeding, with good habitat (meaning good overhead cover...ragweed fields, plums, brush piles, etc....) and how the surrogator would work in those conditions.  I have about come to the conclussion that about the only thing to plant for quail would be ragweed, partridge peas and begger lice along with plum thickets you could protect from a fire heavy regime.  And spend all the money you would be spending on fertalizer and foodplot seed on cracked corn and broadcast food year round on a regular basis.


----------



## BirdNut

redneck_billcollector said:


> The studies I have seen seem to say that year round broadcasting will really spike the rat population and well, most hawks would just assume eat them as quail.



Crazy hawks...quail taste way better than rats


----------



## zzweims

I have used the covey base camp with mixed results.  The combination of the electronic recall and the feeding station, acts like a big billboard to predators: "Free meal!"

The electronic recall unit really works and is ideal for keeping birds in a particular area.  I particularly like the 'field trial' setting for events.  It will call out every 30 minutes, giving each brace of dogs a fighting chance.  Otherwise, I set it to call dawn and dusk only and position it near a johnny house or thick cover--but never food.

The feeding station is fine if placed far away from the recall.  I use it only because I have it, and only as a stand alone feeder.  Even then, it attracts predators.  Were I to do it again, I would purchase the recall unit only, put the birds out in a secure pen or j-house for a few days, scatter feed once, then release the birds.  Once the birds are anchored to the area, I'd take up the recall, and scatter feed only if they needed an occasional supliment to the natural forage.


----------



## BirdNut

mha said:


> My final note, I hunted on a 200 acre farm using 8 of the CBC systems, or equivalent, this winter (January 6th). This farm had excellent quail cover throughout. We hunted hard for 3 good hours. We found 6 coveys of quail, most near the systems. They flushed well and flew strong. We were able to follow-up and hunt singles, too. The way this landowner is using his systems I would consider successful for his goals…being able to hunt close to home, repeatedly, on small acreage with a result more pleasing than simply releasing quail the day of harvest.



MHA-I assume this last paragraph was your comments...this is exactly what I am looking for.  If you are going to keep bird dogs, you need birds, even if they are only an approximation of wild.  Otherwise, you've just got dogs (which is not bad in itself).

I think we have all witnessed quail hunting dying off for the average person in the state.  True, sustained wild bird hunting does not really exisit except in a few isolated pockets, or can be had for the right $$$$ as people have pointed out in other posts.

I know quite a few old time bird hunters who wont even go now just because the idea of being delighted over finding 1 covey doesn't really intrigue them.

Its hard to get youth involved in the sport because even on some of the "prime" WMA land in the state you will have to get out and walk the young people into the ground in the hope of getting them 1-4 covey rises.  If they have not had any bird contact before, they might get frustrated and flustered because they come home birdless.  Quail shooting can be difficult, even for those of us who have a lot of experience.  For a teenager to go out, put out more physical effort in one day than they probably ever have before, and then to come up empty on the only covey rise will be disheartening.  Just like dogs, you've got to get the youngsters into quail.  

Typically, only those of us who love it and are stubborn enough keep on doing it for long.  I think this is why an organization like QU has so few members and is virtually impotent...there are just not enough quail hunters around and its tough to recruit new ones.

Spending a few thousand on set-up and habitat, pre-releasing birds at $3.75 a piece so maybe adding $1000 of birds to the mix seems to be the only option for someone wishing to hunt more than a few times a year and get his own dogs into some birds and introduce others to the sport.  While not wild, pre-release birds can be tough and beats day-of releases in my mind everytime.


----------



## BirdNut

*Predator Control and Quail*

Repeatedly as we discuss quail, predator control comes up.

What is adequate predator control?

Would you invite coon hunters to your land?  Someone to come and live-trap possum for consumption?  I dont know if such people even exist anymore.  I worked for a gentlemen who grew up in rural Georgia in late 50's and early 60's whose family live-trapped, penned and "cleaned out" possum with sweet potatoes to supplement or be the sole source of protein from time to time.  I told him (as a joke) it sounded like a waste of perfectly good sweet potatoes.  He told me that had it not been for possum, there would have been times they went without meat for long periods.

Of course, many years ago, there were people that would put most of the predators in a pot and the old-timers tell you that no one ever saw a hawk without trying to kill it.  I think TV cured most of the possum eaters of that, since they realized not everyone lived like they did.

Would you find a trapper to come and try to get as many mammalian predators as possible?

I have lost quail to cats, snakes, of course hawks like everyone else.  I think coons given the opportunity will harass quail in a recall pen.  I once lost about 25 quail to something that had to have more than jsut a paw (maybe chupa cabra or sasquatch).  It was pretty grisly...no heads, no feet, no wings, and the bodies had been worked over pretty good like someone had been picking feathers and almost ready to cook.  

Once I even lost a few quail to a squirrel that got in the funnel of a recall pen to get at the seed and some of the birds broke their own necks trying to get away from a frantic squirrel.

Ground animals harassed our pen so much that we took some stout rope and suspended it between 2 trees, much like you would to cache food out of reach of bears.  Well, once visit to the pen to feed and water the recall bird and we found a rat snake had crawled down the rope, in the funnel and swallowed the recall bird, but was unable to leave the pen.

I once read in GON that quail are the potato chips of nature, everything likes to eat them.

So, staying within the bounds of the law (no hawk shooting etc.)  who has found a program of effective predator control and what do you do?


----------



## BirdNut

sorry meant for that last one to be a new post...


----------



## mha

Birdnut, That was not a note from my personal experience. It was a sidebar from the author:
(Summary report. Marc Puckett. April, 2008)

The reason I found this study to be so interesting was because I saw it right around the time i realized that managment on a small tract of land could never produce a huntable population of quail and started taking a hard look at different ways of releasing birds to hunt with no intientions of restocking birds, but just having good enough habitat and birds to be able to put some out early in the year and hunt them at a later date. One of the things I discoverd was that most habitat is so bad that there aren't even many places to release birds to shoot later in the day.


----------



## mecicon

mha said:


> They are simply using good habitat, supplemented with feed, as release / covey establishment sites. Most use light brown milo as their feed (hard to find in Virginia). Some use wheat, cracked corn or whole-kernel corn. Some use the “ice block” method described under CBC. They take their cardboard crate of 25 quail to the identified release site, make the opening in it, set the ice block, and leave. The birds gradually exit the crate into the natural cover where feed is abundant. The handler returns before dark to remove the crate. Others simply cut a hole in the box and use no ice block. Supplemental feed is broadcast at the release site and along trails and roadways on the landowner’s property, throughout fall, winter and spring.



I understood everything except "ice block" please explain.

I hope it is not as simple as what I think it is. Thank you great info.


----------



## mha

The ice block is apparently used to keep the birds contained until the person setting the crate has left the area. As the ice block melts the birds are able to leave the crate and presumably will have an immediate water source from the melted block, although I'm not certain how necessary that would be.


----------



## BirdNut

I have read/heard that the ice block is used so the birds have no human contact and retain their fear of humans...I think

I once bought quail from a guy in macon who was a fanatic about not letting the birds come in human contact in the daylight.  He did all his feeding and watering and cleanout in the dark with a headlamp...probably scared the quail to death.


----------



## redneck_billcollector

The ice block is nothing more than a simple time release.  Giving the person ample time to exit the area and alow the birds to come out and not have people being the first thing they see.  Kinda let them disperse at their own pace.  I have done that before, an old dog trainer told me about doing it that way.


----------



## BirdNut

I've got a friend that is always in a hurry...he uses a wet washcloth frozen flat in the freezer, then sets it up like a little door in front of the crate.  melts faster than a block of ice.  He retrieves it when he goes back to get the box.


----------



## Gaswamp

interesting thread


----------

