|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,481
Posts545,233
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
There are more raptors here now than I can remember in my 66 years on this sod. Smaller hawks that are such devastating predators of quail, such as Cooper's, goshawks and sharp-shinned are thick as fleas. One here claims they are terribly inefficient at killing quail, but I know better. Seen it with my own eyes too much to deny.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 477 Likes: 59
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 477 Likes: 59 |
Also this, before federal protection, (1972) hawks were aggressively managed at the county level in quite a few states. A bounty was placed on them. Bring in a set of feet and you'd get a buck or two. Hawks, owls, gophers and ground squirrels were a good source of income for farm kids in the mid west. Not to mention the hawks were shot on sight by most farmers or their wives, protecting the chickens. There were a lot more people living in the country then, a lot more. All with a vested interest in those chickens! Now only a few live on the land there. They mostly get their chicken same as those that live in town, at the store.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381 Likes: 1 |
Can't draw any conclusions from that. Data is only as good as study design, sample size, statistical methods used in analysis of data. Who published the results and what journal it was published in is usually good indication of quality of work. Added to the problem are other factors that affect quail populations that need to be factored in: other predators: cats, crows, rats, foxes, raccoons, skunks,....loss of habitat,...There are plenty of squirrels, rabbits, wildfowl, turkeys,......no worries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 477 Likes: 59
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 477 Likes: 59 |
Where are you seeing plenty of squirrels, rabbits and wildfowl? Turkeys, yes. They are tough customers and do a good job of defending their young. Not much will take out a turkey head to head. Plus they roost in trees, above the fray. Small predators avian or other aren't much of a threat to a turkey. Crows are opportunists and scavengers mostly.
Many studies have been done, money spent and spent, and again. Nice work if you can get it! There seems to be some intangibles that just can't be pinned down or there would be an answer. SO even if you cannot "draw a conclusion" from practical experience you can at least add it to the collective knowledge base and accept that even the unwashed have eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
But, I just grow weary of so much of the blame for the bobwhite quail decline being laid at the feet of the American farmer.
Stan, I can't blame you for feeling that way. At the same time, however, American agriculture is clearly "to blame" for reductions in wildlife populations, simply because of the changes that have taken place--mostly beginning in the last half of the last century. Bigger fields. "Cleaner" farming (weed control). I recently drove through Illinois, from north to south (it's a darned LONG state!) and back again. Shared driving duties with my wife. We were driving through farm country, much of it flat as a table top. At one point I asked her how long it had been since we'd seen any fences. I've been watching fencerows disappear in Iowa for a very long time, and it's not at all unusual to see fields with no fences along roads--mainly because more livestock is raised in confinements, which means they aren't wandering around in the fields, which in turn means there's no need for a fence to keep them from wandering out onto the road. But we'd go for miles without ever seeing a fence on farm ground in Illinois. Really struck me. And those "micro-habitats", like fencerows, are important to upland birds like pheasants and quail. I think Illinois market hunter and famed shotgunner Captain Bogardus may have been one of the first to note the impact of habitat changes on wildlife populations. In a book written not long after the Civil War, Bogardus noted how--as more and more of Illinois' soil was broken for farming--bird hunters were seeing fewer and fewer prairie chickens. But more quail! Agriculture back then--and for a long time--was the bobwhite's friend. (True also of pheasants, after they were introduced.) But certainly not the prairie chicken's friend. Those birds need large expanses of unbroken grasslands. So we traded prairie chickens for quail, and had great quail populations across the Midwest (if you didn't go too far north) and the South for a long time. But as agriculture became more intensive--partly Washington's fault, because farmers were told to farm fencerow to fencerow, because we were going to feed the world--certain species of wildlife suffered. Game birds like quail and pheasants were losers. So chemicals are only one small part of an overall trend in late 20th century/21st century agriculture. Unless farmers intentionally "farm for wildlife", it's very easy for them to pretty much wipe out wildlife, simply by going about their business. Unless Washington steps in with something like the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays them NOT to farm fencerow to fencerow. (Assuming there are fencerows still left.) Or unless the farmer is sufficiently interested in wildlife to leave undisturbed pockets of habitat--assuming he can afford to do that and still make a living.
Last edited by L. Brown; 05/10/18 08:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593 |
Yes, I hear you guys. The same here.
Like the hunt master says, there are many more predators as well.
Foxes used to be persecuted worse than Roman Christians & their pelts were worth upward of thirty bucks.
They were reprieved by the same ones who want to save the world single handedly by banning everything. Little realizing that freeing the robbers, now every house is robbed & the innocent are sentenced to pay the price.
Crows copped it in the neck mercilessly & every boy had a gun.
Their numbers were only impacted slightly but they knew their place.
Now the boys have a cell phone & no shooters licence. They never look or learn about crows being called a murder & systematically working every nest in the area.
In towns here the accipiter's go under the house veranda's & reach their yellow legs into budgie cages & pull the pet birds out through the bars.
Quails cannot stand the constant attack.
O.M
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
Can't draw any conclusions from that. Data is only as good as study design, sample size, statistical methods used in analysis of data. Who published the results and what journal it was published in.... That's a good start, Jm. Of course, we could be a bit more specific about the criterion, unless it's to our advantage to be vague. I'd hope it applies to both sides of a discussion. With wildlife competing for less habitat, I'd wonder also if any species that're on an upswing have done so to the disadvantage of others. I'd also wonder about things like rooting animals such as feral pigs in some areas that weren't around in appreciable numbers at times in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593 |
Feral pis & ground nesting birds. Birds lose.
A pig eats everything, both the placenta & the lamb.
O.M
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
But, I just grow weary of so much of the blame for the bobwhite quail decline being laid at the feet of the American farmer.
Stan, I can't blame you for feeling that way. At the same time, however, American agriculture is clearly "to blame" for reductions in wildlife populations, simply because of the changes that have taken place--mostly beginning in the last half of the last century. Bigger fields. "Cleaner" farming (weed control). I recently drove through Illinois, from north to south (it's a darned LONG state!) and back again. Shared driving duties with my wife. We were driving through farm country, much of it flat as a table top. At one point I asked her how long it had been since we'd seen any fences. I've been watching fencerows disappear in Iowa for a very long time, and it's not at all unusual to see fields with no fences along roads--mainly because more livestock is raised in confinements, which means they aren't wandering around in the fields, which in turn means there's no need for a fence to keep them from wandering out onto the road. But we'd go for miles without ever seeing a fence on farm ground in Illinois. Really struck me. And those "micro-habitats", like fencerows, are important to upland birds like pheasants and quail. I think Illinois market hunter and famed shotgunner Captain Bogardus may have been one of the first to note the impact of habitat changes on wildlife populations. In a book written not long after the Civil War, Bogardus noted how--as more and more of Illinois' soil was broken for farming--bird hunters were seeing fewer and fewer prairie chickens. But more quail! Agriculture back then--and for a long time--was the bobwhite's friend. (True also of pheasants, after they were introduced.) But certainly not the prairie chicken's friend. Those birds need large expanses of unbroken grasslands. So we traded prairie chickens for quail, and had great quail populations across the Midwest (if you didn't go too far north) and the South for a long time. But as agriculture became more intensive--partly Washington's fault, because farmers were told to farm fencerow to fencerow, because we were going to feed the world--certain species of wildlife suffered. Game birds like quail and pheasants were losers. So chemicals are only one small part of an overall trend in late 20th century/21st century agriculture. Unless farmers intentionally "farm for wildlife", it's very easy for them to pretty much wipe out wildlife, simply by going about their business. Unless Washington steps in with something like the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays them NOT to farm fencerow to fencerow. (Assuming there are fencerows still left.) Or unless the farmer is sufficiently interested in wildlife to leave undisturbed pockets of habitat--assuming he can afford to do that and still make a living. And, Larry, if the American farmer had NOT increased production to feed the world, who would be getting the blame for worldwide hunger? Huh? You know the answer to that as well as I, even if you won't admit it. Nobody is saying habitat loss isn't partly to blame for the quail decline, it's a big part of it. It's just not right to blame agriculture alone for it when people were demanding plenty, and cheap, food. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
....Really struck me. And those "micro-habitats", like fencerows, are important to upland birds like pheasants and quail....
....as agriculture became more intensive--partly Washington's fault, because farmers were told to farm fencerow to fencerow, because we were going to feed the world--certain species of wildlife suffered.... It's interesting to read that there may be non pesticide related reasons that affect some wildlife. It's also interesting to note that political agenda may affect some wildlife. I wonder if policy is justified by funding, generating and using only 'scientific' primary source publications that fit agenda, not where science takes scientists or users of resources away from the beltway?
|
|
|
|
|
