More on the proposed MLQP

Date: 17 March 2005

To: Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

From: Dale Rollins

Subject: Testimony on Managed Lands Quail Permit Proposal

"People love high ideas, but they got to be about 33% plausible."
- Will Rogers

My comments tonight are in response to the proposed MLQP, which I oppose on biological, political, fiscal, and sociological bases. I am speaking as a concerned quail hunter, a professional quail biologist, and as someone who has worked with hundreds (if not thousands) of landowners across Texas in the past 20 years. I presently serve on the TPW Quail Technical Committee.

While I’m pleased to see that the present TPW Commission has elevated the status of quail and quail management in the past two years (as evidenced by the formation of the Texas Quail Conservation Initiative), I believe the MLQP is a case of misguided attention. As I understand it, the motive behind the MLQP, as with other incentives to private landowners (e.g., Managed Lands Deer Permit), is to enhance habitat management for quail. While I support wholeheartedly this goal, I disagree with the notion of increasing bag limits as is the public’s perception of this program.

Biological concerns

Quail aren't deer; they're not going to overpopulate and destroy their habitat. There is no problem with “doe harvest” in quail management, and even if there was, a 4 month-long season and 15 birds a day should be enough for anyone. Most of the quail hunters I know have long bypassed the day when they had to shoot 2 limits, or even 1 limit to have a successful hunt. And remember, every quail is a trophy (no need for “spike seasons” or antler restrictions).

Excessive quail hunting pressure can potentially overwhelm even the best quail habitat management program. Doubling the daily quail bag limit in Texas could thus result in a potential impact where local extinction or excessive additive mortality could be relatively easily inflicted on quail populations on properties up to 10,000 acres. At these harvest rates, it has been estimated that it would require at least 20,000 acres to sustain such hunting pressure.

To implement a biologically based harvest management scenario, it is essential to obtain a reliable and accurate estimate of prehunting population density to determine the number of birds that can be removed via harvest without inflicting excessive or additive mortality on the quail population. Additionally, it is necessary, and informative, to obtain a reliable spring density estimate to assess the extent to which harvest and overwinter mortality actually reduced the population. Without such information, it would be impossible to implement a targeted quota, or biologically meaningful, approach to harvest.

Who's going to do the requisite preseason quail population estimates? TPW biologists??? I can hear them screaming now. If there's a quail equivalent to browse surveys, it would be early morning covey calls. Imagine the amount of time spent in collecting those data. What credibility do we assign to the preseason population estimates? If I drive through my place on Oct. 1, and say I saw 50% more quail than I think I had last year, will this suffice as a population survey? What kind of quality control will be in place? Will these estimates be strictly on the honor system?

We have no "quick and dirty" techniques for estimating preseason quail density. Whistle counts and roadside counts are strictly trend data. While helicopter counts have been evaluated for providing density estimates, they are only now being critically reviewed, and need further testing before one would feel comfortable assigning harvest rates based on them. The other protocol using a grid of listeners for covey call counts has been tested at Tall Timbers Research Station in Florida, and shows promise for density estimates, but is likely too time- and labor-intensive for anyone to implement on a practical basis.

And the bag limit is just part of the quail mortality iceberg - wounding loss typically ranges from 15 to 30%, so a bag of 30 birds would be a loss to the population of 35 to 40 birds a day.

Fiscal concerns

From what I gather in visiting with TPW biologists, the technical guidance staff is presently overwhelmed with administering the Managed Lands Deer Permit and Wildlife Tax Valuation (“Proposition 11”) programs. Implementing the MLQP program has the potential to further overwhelm the technical guidance staff of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. How long will an interested owner have to wait to have a written management plan developed? If long delays are the rule, will this not tend to disenfranchise landowners with the process? With TPWD? Landowners can be assumed to be generally unfamiliar with how to implement fall and spring quail census techniques. The labor required to first implement, and then train people in how to apply these techniques, will be enormous.

Political concerns

I get nervous whenever any program is cloned as a 1-size fits all, i.e., if the MLDP works for deer, then it can be cloned for quail. While the MLDP may have fit for white-tailed deer, I fail to see how extrapolating that logic to quail will be endorsed by the landowner, conservation, or hunting communities. You might argue that perhaps only a small contingent of landowners would ever seek or qualify for the increased bag limit, and then they might or might not exercise it. Exactly . . . so why pursue the idea for such an elite minority? Could this be perceived as pandering to a small group of elite landowners? And is this perception something TPW wants to perpetuate? I doubt it.

I've never met a landowner who I think would be supportive of this concept (again saying that it will all hinge on the double-bag carrot). Indeed, if landowners had their way, the season would be about half what it is today. The outfitters with whom I’ve visited are opposed as well.

Another problem inherent in this proposal (if doubling the bag limit is indeed used as an incentive) is that a "small" landowner next to a "large" landowner may be tempted to blade roads on his side, feed heavily, and attract quail from the adjoining property, sporting discontent for sure on 1 side. Maybe this happens some already, but the temptation associated with opportunity to shoot 30 quail on the small landowner's side will exacerbate the problem. If I've got 400 acres, it don't matter how good my habitat is, or what improvements I make, I can only shoot so many quail before I'll need to start siphoning them off the neighbors. High fences deja vu (so does the large landowner clear all the brush or graze the heck out of that pasture to defeat his siphoning neighbor?). Is that a net gain or loss of quail habitat?

In my opinion, this proposal is of questionable need and merit, and it couldn't have come along at a poorer time. The Quail Technical Committee shot it down like a lead balloon when it was brought up back in Oct' 04. How do your conservation partners react to a program for doubling bag limits when the caucus was convened to address quail decline? Talk about your mixed signals!

Finally, do we really want to go down the deer road of a Pandora's box of permits??

Alternatives to Bag Limits as Incentives to Landowners

There are better ways of incentivizing quail management among landowners. I think a simple recognition program (ala "Texas Quail Steward" complete with an appropriate gate sign) would suffice. Have them develop a management plan, which includes habitat practices, population estimation, and hunter appreciation (i.e., did they encourage youth to hunt on the property). This would be a win-win-win with no political baggage.

At the very least, make it a tiered approach, where if a landowner develops a plan, and implements the actions therein for a minimum of 3 years, then he would qualify for consideration for relaxed harvest regulations. Rancher Brown would have to file a management plan and demonstrate his adherence to that plan for a minimum of 3 years after which time he would receive a gate sign proclaiming his property as a “Texas Quail Steward” and the opportunity for some relaxation of bag limits contingent upon his successful completion of the 3-year agreement. He would have to earn the privilege over a period of demonstrated commitment. This would filter the potential applicants to those who are dead serious about it.

I am concerned that this double-bag issue will elevate the whole issue of harvest management in quail management; the leg of the quail management triangle that we know the least about. About the only thing we agree upon is that hunting mortality becomes more additive later in the season. If we were bound to manage strictly on biological basis, we'd likely lose Feb as a month for quail hunting. I like to hunt in February. Maybe that becomes the carrot for participation in the MLQP; hunting season closes Jan 15 for all parties not enrolled in the “Texas Quail Stewards program.” But then that limits hunter participation (license sales) which is a perennial concern of TPW.

I suggest that TPW evaluate the adaptive harvest management philosophy on the Chap, Matador, and Gene Howe WMAs for a minimum of 3 years, duly evaluated by the various means (distance sampling, telemetry or banding) to estimate/assess the various parameters described by notable quail scientists. These WMAs were/are intended to be sites for experiments. After those studies (i.e., 5 years from now), then revisit this issue (if it hasn't already been dismissed as un-doable at that point) and make a science-based decision on the idea of adaptive harvest management.

Summary

As TPWD leadership has correctly pointed out on numerous occasions, habitat enhancement is the real goal of the MLQP. But in my opinion, the idea of doubling the bag limit will be the bathwater that results in getting the baby (good habitat management) thrown out I'm afraid.

Let's keep any incentives habitat-based, not limit-based.

This proposal, as I understand it, is a false point. We have bigger quail to fry, and better smelling oil to do the cooking. I urge you to reconsider.