MDC

Strategic Guidance for Northern Bobwhite Recovery 2003-2013

April 2003 - Purpose and Implementation

Providing diverse habitats to conserve a wide range of species is one of our key tasks as an agency. We can't fight head-on the broad trends of society (more people moving into the countryside, continuing decline in small farms, economics of intensive agriculture), but we can and must encourage Missourians to value what diverse habitats can provide.

Early-successional habitat is on the decline in our state and has been for several decades. It requires active work to keep scattered patches of bare ground in land rich with forbs and grasses, and to keep shrubby patches where trees tend to grow. Our task is to get Missourians interested in doing what they can, wherever they can to invest in the future of this rich and varied mix of plant and animal life. How do we do that? How do we sell Missourians on the idea of something that's so complex to explain?

We use bobwhites as the legacy species, the appealing symbol of what Missourians can hope to carry forward by making a place for them in the landscape. Not only bobwhite hunters and field trial enthusiasts, but also anyone who enjoys watching wildlife and hearing their calls has a stake in this future. We use the interest in this one species to benefit the others.

This document explains where we are and where we want to go, and it identifies key issues to work on to get there. The challenge to staff is to make it happen across the state by including plans in Regional Management Guidelines, district team action plans, and statewide program plans. Budgeting should reflect the proposals and concepts in these plans.

The timing is right. On a national level, several new initiatives benefit bobwhite. The 2002 United States Department of Agriculture Farm Bill is a legislative landmark that specifically targets bobwhite habitat and will increase conservation funding on private land by the single largest amount ever. Bobwhite are also a prominent part of national initiatives of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies including the Resident Game Bird Working Group, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, and the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. Because of the potential financial resources available through these programs, the Conservation Department's involvement and linkage to national initiatives is a high priority.

Bobwhite symbolize a legacy of life that Missourians hold dear. It's up to us to translate that into reality using all the partnerships available and all the creative teamwork we can provide.

Statewide Desired Outcome and Goals for Northern Bobwhite Management

Desired Outcome: To reverse the downward trend in bobwhite abundance and bobwhite-related recreation.

Goal: Improve statewide bobwhite population.

Achieve, during 2002-2013, a positive trend in bobwhite abundance indices.

Goal: Increase bobwhite populations statewide on conservation areas.

Achieve, in at least five out of 10 years during 2002-2013, a fall bobwhite density of one bird per 2 acres on select Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) conservation areas.

Goal: Expand interest among Missourians in seeing and hearing bobwhite.

By 2005, test interest, understanding and awareness of bobwhite management in the Conservation Monitor for a baseline number and by 2009 test again to compare after several years of marketing to Missourians the concept of bobwhite as a valued legacy species.

Goal: Increase statewide recreation related to bobwhite and associated species.

Achieve, during 2002-2013, a positive trend in the number of bobwhite hunters as measured by the Small Game Harvest Survey.

Introduction

The populations of northern bobwhite and other bird species with similar habitat requirements have declined over the last several decades with changes in agricultural activities that produced landscapes dominated by large crop fields, annually overused hayfields and heavily grazed pastures of tall fescue. Early-successional wildlife habitat characterized by shrub thickets, bare ground, fields with a diversity of grasses, forbs, legumes and crops and ungrazed woodlots, is not as abundant as it once was. Tall fescue and smooth brome invasion into bobwhite-friendly vegetation and the succession of trees into areas once dominated by annual plants and shrubs adversely impact bobwhite and songbird habitat. The result is less compatibility between certain bird species that need diverse early-successional habitat and modern agriculture. These species include Greater prairie-chicken, Henslow's sparrow, dickcissel, field sparrow, bobolink, northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, eastern kingbird and others.

MDC's Agents' August roadside survey and the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate that bobwhite populations have declined over the past 30 years (Figures 1 and 2). Missouri's portion of the BBS indicates that June singing bobwhite abundance has decreased an average of 2.2 birds/station per year during 1966-2000. During 1983-2002, MDC's August roadside survey reveals an average decrease of 0.50 bobwhite per 30-mile route per year. The lowest MDC index to date, 3.5 bobwhite per 30-mile route, occurred in 2001 and 2002. If bobwhite recovery were to occur at the same rate as the 20-year decline in the August roadside survey, the MDC bobwhite abundance index would be 8 bobwhite per 30-mile route at the end of 10-year strategic guidance (2013).

For a regional perspective on the potential magnitude of change in each of the state's zoogeographic regions, extreme bobwhite indices from the past 15 years are shown Table 1 (average number of birds per 30-mile route). Because the roadways in this survey are predominately adjacent to private land, the survey is a better indicator of bobwhite population status on private land than on public land.

Bobwhite abundance has been alarmingly poor in the 1990s with modern historic lows set repeatedly in 1996, 1999 and 2001. Previous major fluctuations in bobwhite numbers exhibited a pattern of summer drought or severe winter weather causing a widespread decline, followed by a one- to four-year rebound through reproduction and dispersal. Current low bobwhite numbers under conditions of mild winters suggest that other factors are now depressing bobwhite abundance. The most likely underlying cause is the lack of well distributed suitable habitat; other factors such as predation (animals and hunters) could be involved. Further, cool and wet nesting season weather, which is a short-term problem, cannot be ruled out as a population depressor.

On public land, MDC managers often provide abundant bobwhite populations. One bobwhite per 2 acres (0.5 bobwhite/acre) is considered good for Missouri. Bobwhite densities of 0.5/acre have been documented at White River Trace, Bois D'Arc, Whetstone Creek, Blind Pony Lake and Lamine River conservation areas.

Missouri's bobwhite hunters have declined from more than 160,000 bobwhite hunters annually in the 1960s and 1970s, to about 100,000 in the late 1980s, and to less than 42,000 in 2001. During the previous 35 years (1967-2001), hunter numbers have decreased, on average, 4,246 per year. An equal rate of increase in hunter participation would more than double bobwhite hunter numbers by 2013. There is tremendous potential for increasing the number of bobwhite hunters considering the historic high numbers in the late 1960s (>180,000), and consistently high numbers in the 1980s (averaged about 108,000 annually).

The downward trend in bobwhite abundance is an important issue to MDC for several reasons. Missouri has a long-held, statewide interest in bobwhite, and the species can be found in all counties. Bobwhite have an important ecosystem function, serving as consumer of plant seeds, predator of arthropods and prey for many predators. Because of their role in the food chain, bobwhite are important indicators of ecosystem health, particularly in agroecosystems. These qualities, plus intense bobwhite-related recreation combine to place bobwhite high on the list of desirable wildlife species. In addition to biological and cultural significance, depressed bobwhite abundance and hunter participation negatively affect the economy of businesses and MDC.

MDC devised plans and programs to restore bobwhite abundance (Project Bobwhite in 1985, Species Management Plan for the Bobwhite in Missouri in 1987). Many of the proximate causes of poor bobwhite numbers were correctly identified (e.g., overgrazing, tall fescue, intensive row cropping, lack of attention to public areas), and some attempts were made to correct underlying problems (e.g., increased management for early-successional plant communities on conservation areas, public awareness campaign aimed at educating/motivating hunters and landowners to provide suitable habitat). Also, it is clear from abundant bobwhite numbers on scattered private lands and some intensively managed public areas that managers have a relatively good grasp of bobwhite management techniques.

Missouri's efforts to increase bobwhite numbers and the abundance of wildlife species with similar habitat needs are part of a national initiative. The nationwide range of the bobwhite encompasses nearly 787 million acres. Over this range the fall population of bobwhite has fallen 65 percent from 1980 to 1999. The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI) was organized to develop population and habitat objectives in each of the 15 Bird Conservation Regions where bobwhite occur. The NBCI is a coordinated and cooperative approach for integrating the needs of bobwhite into other bird management initiatives such as Partners-in-Flight and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).

Large-scale improvement in bobwhite abundance, however, will require the collective effort of many MDC employees, at all levels, and unprecedented cooperation and involvement from landowners, agricultural stakeholders (United States Department of Agriculture, business, University Outreach and Extension, etc.), conservation groups (Conservation Federation of Missouri, Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation, etc.), and national conservation agencies. With Missouri's bobwhite population and hunting tradition on a long-term decline, and with formidable obstacles to restoration, it is imperative that the public be aware of alternatives for the species' future. Bobwhite would serve well as a symbol and target for conservation efforts for a variety of reasons. They are universally liked (and not associated with damage to agriculture or vehicles), require relatively small amounts of habitat, they are one of the most studied wildlife species, and because of a high biotic potential can respond rapidly to habitat management.

Table 1. Average number of bobwhite per route from the MDC Agents' August roadside survey.

Zoogeographic Region*(see figure)	1987	2002
Northwestern Prairie	17.1	8.1
Northern Riverbreaks	18.5	5.4
Northeastern Riverbreaks	21.6	5.3
Western Prairie	38.3	1.7
Western Ozark Border	15.4	3.2
Ozark Plateau	6.8	2.2
Northern & Eastern Ozark Border	5.6	0.3
Mississippi Lowland	14.4	1.4
STATEWIDE	16.9	3.5

Figure 1. Changes in population trends 1966-1999 for selected bird species as determined with the North American Breeding Bird Survey.

Figure 2. Northern Bobwhite Breeding Bird Survey trends for Missouri.

Scrub	Grassland	Woodland
Field Sparrow Northern Bobwhite Prairie Warbler Brown Thrasher Yellow-Breasted Chat	Grasshopper Sparrow Henslow's Sparrow Western Meadowlark Dickcissel Bobolink	Ruby-crowned Kinglet Cerulean Warbler Yellow-billed Cuckoo Whip-poor-will Acadian Fly Catcher

 

 

Figure 3. Changes in Missouri forage types from 1950 to 1980.

Coordination and Implementation

Implementation of this strategic guidance will occur as Regional Management Guidelines are revised, District Conservation Teams prepare actions plans for bobwhite, and Regional Coordination Teams develop annual budgets or regional bobwhite management plans. The Strategic Thinking and Action Planning Process provides the mechanism for identifying specific strategies and tasks for bobwhite management and restoration. Vital interests for the Department are healthy bobwhite populations and a supportive and vigorous bobwhite hunter constituency. A further vital interest is integration of bobwhite management with national initiatives such as Partners-in-Flight and the all bird management concept of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. It is important that the Department utilize conservation features of the 2002 Farm Bill (Rural Investment and Farm Security Act of 2002) and involve conservation partners in a coordinated management approach.

A Department coordinator with responsibility for guiding and assisting with the implementation of this strategic plan will be needed to ensure consistency among regions and Division. In addition, a coordinator can link MDC's effort with the NBCI and other national initiatives, provide consistent evaluation and learning across initiatives, arrange for training on bobwhite habitat needs and biology as well as national initiatives, develop time lines, lead promotional efforts (e.g., statewide newsletter, internet), provide coordination with constituency groups (Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation), create proposals to secure outside grants, organize teams to implement specific proposals, and suggest adjustments as operational plans are implemented.

Private Land Issues and Guidance

Overview

Statewide bobwhite abundance and hunting are inextricably tied to private land use and modern agriculture since 65 percent of Missouri is contained within farming operations. With 93 percent of Missouri in private ownership, the declining trend in bobwhite population is largely reflective of conditions on private land. Moreover, the majority of MDC's bobwhite survey route sampling is adjacent to private land. Biologists believe that bobwhite flourished in Missouri when early European settlers cultivated grain crops in forest clearings and broken prairie sod. Common farming practices, however, provide fewer benefits to bobwhites and the species abundance typically varies inversely to the intensity of agricultural management (e.g., large field size, monocultures, heavy pesticide application, less waste grain, overgrazing, pastures and hayfields dominated by exotic grasses).

Bobwhites provide a barometer of agroecosystem health because of their requirements for diverse vegetation (forbs, legumes, grass, woody), and their position in the middle of the food chain. Bobwhite are prey for most of Missouri's resident and migratory predators, and the species' diverse food choices (includes forage, fruit, mast, seeds and arthropods) render them sensitive to changes in ecosystem function.

Bobwhite and bobwhite habitat have little recognized economic value in a purely agricultural sense, and thus habitat needs are often overlooked. Most common row crop and small grain farming practices (e.g. fall tillage, double cropping, pesticides, removal of woody vegetation to expand field size) create a landscape that has little habitat for wildlife. One notable exception is conservation tillage. Generally, current modern agricultural practices are used because they are income-producing and/or economical in achieving conservation benefits, or landowners are not aware of improved techniques or impacts on bobwhite habitat.

Strategic Guidance

• Targeting: Effective wildlife conservation on private lands is dependent on change in the underlying causes of habitat loss and degradation. These causes vary substantially depending on whether a landowner's objective is
  1. agricultural production,
  2. natural resource conservation (e.g., bobwhite for hunting, native plant communities, soil conservation, etc.), or
  3. some mixture of these, as is often the case.

  Participation in certain programs, such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), that provide compensation for managing the land a certain way, can also impact how a landowner is able to manage land. Because of the high relative cost of bobwhite habitat management, effort should be focused on lands where land management costs are subsidized by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs or landowner desire for wildlife is high and outweighs the out-of-pocket costs of producing bobwhite habitat. One logical approach is to target agricultural lands that are adjacent to public lands or cores of high quality habitat on non-agricultural private lands. However, to complement targeted efforts such as this, improving habitat on more scattered tracts of private land (as landowner awareness/interest/motivation grows) is also important. Bobwhite habitat declined a piece at a time, and will have to be built back a piece at a time.
  Work with conservation-minded landowners is critical because these individuals are motivated by either personal interest or conviction. However, success in working with these individuals has been mixed and is partly due to the tendency for Farm Bill conservation programs (often the largest source of funding) to provide generally for wildlife rather than tailored to meet the needs of a specific species such as the bobwhite. Also, availability of technical assistance is often a limiting factor due to the tendency of overextended staff to cut corners by simplifying advice they give to landowners. These situations must improve if landscape scale improvement in wildlife habitat is to be achieved. Work on agricultural lands is most challenging because the focus on maximum commodity production often leaves little room for wildlife habitat. Wildlife needs on these lands are negatively impacted in two ways. First, farm products that benefit wildlife (e.g., grain, grass) are removed as completely as possible. Second, commonly used farming methods (e.g., pesticides, fall plowing, double cropping, large field size) do not produce nesting, brood-rearing or escape cover for bobwhite. Conservation professionals sometimes avoid working with owners of these lands because of the perception that these landowners are less interested in conservation than landowners who are less focused on agricultural production.
  Since wildlife is perceived by many landowners as of limited economic value, production is often an overriding land management influence. Economics is the driving force in determining the balance between agricultural production and wildlife conservation, including conservation of bobwhite. However, the Department in cooperation with conservation partners can seek ways to make bobwhite management economically attractive to landowners and local businesses. The majority of the larger farmers will be more interested in bobwhite if there are financial gains. Options include hunter walk-in programs, lease hunting, community-wide bobwhite fairs, hunter breakfasts, and other community sponsored events or programs attractive to hunters and landowners.

• USDA Partnerships: Achieving the outcome and goals for bobwhite restoration will require a concerted effort by MDC in cooperation with other conservation partners such as the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), University Extension, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA) and Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Establishing a common-ground and shared vision would lay the foundation for needed progress. Close coordination and staff-sharing arrangements could lend major efficiencies to the overall effort. Meaningful improvement in bobwhite abundance will require increased emphasis, new approaches to meet our changing times and innovation. Efforts must incorporate both public and private lands with increased cooperation and involvement between and among MDC, landowners, agricultural stakeholders (USDA, business, etc.), and conservation groups (Conservation Federation, Quail Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, etc.). The 2002 Farm Bill offers more financial incentives and a greater breadth of programs that could positively impact bobwhite than have ever existed. Accordingly, MDC should closely cooperate with USDA in delivering habitat elements of these initiatives to private landowners. MDC cost-share incentive programs could be structured to complement USDA programs rather than compete with or duplicate them. Significant progress could accrue with MDC staff working to ensure that wildlife needs are incorporated as USDA works with private landowners. Private Land Services Division staff are well-suited to provide a training/awareness link between USDA program opportunities and other MDC staff that work with private landowners. Supporting USDA staff through training, informational materials and technical assistance will aide in the implementation of MDC habitat goals for bobwhite, natural communities and other species of conservation concern.
• Declining Woody Cover: Conversion of woody cover (draws, fence rows, odd areas, etc.) to other uses contributed to the decline in Missouri bobwhite populations. These woody cover losses are attributable to county road maintenance, crop field management, soil erosion control (e.g., advent of grass waterways to replace woody draws) and landowners' desire to have park-like landscaping. Missouri research indicates that bobwhite seldom venture further than 100 feet from protective woody cover; consequently, large areas of otherwise suitable herbaceous habitat are rendered unfit for bobwhite if woody cover is not nearby. Maturing trees do not serve as good covey headquarters. Low growing woody vegetation better meets the needs of bobwhite and brush land songbirds. Large trees are theoretically poor for bobwhite because they provide perches for raptors, and they block sunlight from the ground, thereby limiting food and cover plants (legumes, annual forbs, briars, plum, and dogwood) that would otherwise develop. A notable habitat component of the current strongholds for bobwhite (Texas and Oklahoma) is the presence of brush and lack of large-canopied trees. The MDC and USDA cost-share and incentive programs contain many options for woody coverage establishment and management.
• CRP and Field Borders: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has tremendous potential for providing bobwhite habitat because 1.5 million acres enrolled, and MDC has strong partnership with the USDA and SWCD. However, active management (e.g., prescribed fire, disking) is needed on CRP lands to maintain quality bobwhite habitat (i.e., early-successional plant communities). Equally difficult obstacles to overcome are landowner inexperience with prescribed fire and lack of equipment for burning, disking or planting of food plots. CRP fields that are managed with mowing instead of disking or burning will be deficient in bare ground, forbs and winter cover. Thus, it is important that the CRP be managed to benefit bobwhite and other early-successional wildlife. USDA field border incentive options also have great potential benefit for bobwhite and other wildlife. If CRP fields are not disturbed with disking or fire, edge species such as bobwhite would likely do better if there were more field borders and less CRP. Bobwhite use of field borders, however, could be limited if undisturbed grass monocultures, with low plant diversity, are the USDA standard. Recent field border research in Iowa and North Carolina indicates that bobwhite use is dependent on vegetation structure and plant species composition with plant diversity and open ground being favored.
• Pasture/Hay land: Missouri's pastures and hay lands provide little habitat for bobwhite because of the dominance of tall fescue (Figure 3) and livestock access to woody cover. Landscapes dominated by tall fescue are generally poor bobwhite habitat because tall fescue can withstand overgrazing, resulting in scant cover and little vegetation diversity. On the bright side, agronomists are advocating increased forage plant diversity, a change that could provide opportunities to improve conditions for bobwhite. Because of the ubiquity of tall fescue in Missouri's pastures and hay lands, it is critical that strategies for tall fescue management more friendly to early-successional wildlife be developed.
• Equipment and Assistance for Landowners: A major obstacle in getting early-successional practices applied to the land is that many recreational landowners and hobby farmers do not have the equipment, personnel and expertise necessary to conduct the work being recommended in bobwhite management plans. Contractors capable of performing the work in rural areas are not available or are cost-prohibitive, especially for prescribed burning. Light disking often cannot be conducted until after a prescribed burn removes the deep layers of thatch from a field. Equipment such as ATV/tractor-drawn high pressure spray equipment, and disks or tillers for constructing firebreaks can be made available for loan through SWCDs and MDC. Many MDC tree planters are now too small to handle the size of stock provided by the MDC George White Nursery. Additional tree planters are needed to meet the demands for large scale shrub plantings and larger stock. Other equipment needed periodically by landowners for bobwhite habitat management include native-grass drills and seeders. Landowners may need burn crews of up to six people depending on conditions when conducting burns. Forming landowner cooperatives and helping new burn contractors get started are considerations. Recruiting contractors for disking, firebreak construction and woody cover control will get additional private land work accomplished.

Public Land Issues and Guidance

Overview

Although public lands constitute a small fraction of the Missouri land area, MDC conservation areas can make important contributions to bobwhite populations and bobwhite-oriented recreation. These land holdings are important to bobwhite management because they demonstrate proper habitat and hunting management and provide unique recreational opportunities. The objective of using MDC lands to demonstrate proper bobwhite management is critical because record low bobwhite abundance has caused hunters, landowners and even MDC employees to doubt the effectiveness of habitat management. The proof of such effectiveness is an abundance of bobwhite; unfortunately, managers are reluctant to promote their success to the public for fear that hunters will overrun conservation areas. A solution to this dilemma is to combine promotion with prescribed limited hunting pressure and harvest, as recommended below under Hunting quality.

Poor hunting access and widespread mediocre habitat on private land have increased the importance of public lands in bobwhite management. MDC public land bobwhite managers are facing many challenges including increased expectations from hunters, unknown effects of harvest and hunting pressure, unknown effects of increased management for savannas and prairies, reduced availability of contract farmers, high costs of management for early-successional flora, and predominance of tall fescue. The high annual cost, frequency and breadth of manipulation required to maintain early-successional herbaceous and woody plant species is a serious obstacle to bobwhite management.

Bobwhite hunting participation has declined precipitously over the past two decades. With the sport's traditional emphasis on hunting dogs, poor hunting success (i.e., few contacts with bobwhite) is a major cause of reduced hunting participation. Increased hunting contacts with bobwhite are possible in numerous ways including

1. increased abundance of bobwhite via habitat management,

2. habitat tailored to increase contacts with bobwhite,

3. lower hunting pressure,

4. lower harvest,

5. release of pen-raised birds, or

6. a combination of these approaches.

Strategic Guidance

• Hunting Quality: Bobwhite hunting participation could be increased by providing more diverse, satisfying and successful hunting experiences on public lands. The kinds of bobwhite hunting opportunities offered on MDC lands are limited compared to other states. For example, Kansas and Oklahoma have highly successful quality bobwhite hunting areas, where contact with other hunters is minimized and opportunity to contact bobwhite is high. Hunting on these areas is limited to a prescribed amount of hunting pressure that is managed with a drawing/reservation system. MDC began using such an approach in 2002 on a newly created conservation area (Dan and Maureen Cover Prairie). Illinois has popular put-and-take pheasant hunting areas. Missouri upland game hunters have inquired about the possibility of such services on MDC lands. MDC public lands could potentially increase hunter retention and recruitment by offering a wider range of hunting experiences.
• Bobwhite Emphasis on Public Lands: Bobwhite emphasis conservation areas were designated in the 1980's to improve bobwhite populations. The primary justification for bobwhite emphasis areas included recreation and demonstration of suitable bobwhite habitat and harvest management. The current list of 13 areas needs to be evaluated. Criteria for inclusion could include inherent habitat qualities of the conservation area, demand, distance to cities, feasibility of other management options, bobwhite potential on adjacent private land, or other factors. Special consideration should be given to traditional bobwhite areas (Blind Pony, Whetstone Creek, Bois D=Arc, White River Trace, Helton, Crowley's Ridge, Reform, etc.), areas close to cities (e.g., Reed, Busch, Rocky Fork), areas that might require less intensive management of plant succession (e.g., sandy/silty soils along Missouri River bottoms, Des Moines River bottoms, etc.), natural areas (prairies, savannas, glades), other public lands (Mark Twain National Forest, U.S. Army CORE lands, etc.) and areas with special circumstances
• Early-Successional Vegetation Management: Major challenges to bobwhite management on public lands are the effects of agriculture (crops, grazing, disking, fire, herbicides, etc.) and native plant community management on bobwhite abundance and hunting success. An adaptive resource management experiment was devised to address the later management question. Two competing models were identified, one involving a mixed management approach (e.g., diverse and intensive mechanized grain production with prescribed fire, grazing and disking), and the other relying mostly on prescribed fire and native vegetation at the landscape level. Managers believe evaluation of these models is important because numerous factors (economics, biodiversity, lack of contract farmers) are making the mixed management approach less viable. Furthermore, restoration of native plant communities has become a high priority for state and federal natural resource agencies. However, the relative ability of these approaches to produce bobwhite is unknown. Preliminary results of research at Whetstone Creek and Prairie Fork Conservation Areas indicate relatively little use by bobwhite of grassland areas when crop land areas are available. Various studies in Kansas in winter have shown higher levels of digestible energy in annual plants (e. g., ragweed, milo, soybeans) compared to native perennials (e.g., lespedeza, sumac, switch grass), and better body condition in bobwhite using food plots. Research in Kansas and Missouri suggests that winter energy balance could be a limiting factor for bobwhite. On the other hand, the relatively extensive continuous cover typical of mixed grasslands could supply superior thermal cover during winter and predator-avoidance cover during the breeding season. Recent study of radio-tagged bobwhite in Kansas rangeland (dominated by native warm-season grasses) and cropland suggested that rangeland provided poor winter habitat, but superior nesting and brood-rearing habitat. Additional monitoring and studies are needed to determine the most cost-effective methods for managing plant succession for bobwhite.
• Management of Hunting Pressure and Harvest: Inexact understanding of the effect of hunting on bobwhite behavior and population stability reduces land managers' ability to manage for habitat demonstration, recreation, and stable or increasing bobwhite numbers. MDC biologists have long been concerned that persistent and prolonged hunting on wildlife areas could reduce bobwhite densities to levels undesirable for recreation (hunting, field trials, and bird watching) and reduce the demonstration value of Department habitat management programs. Study of MDC wildlife areas regulated under the statewide wildlife code revealed harvests of 25 to 82 percent, depending on year and methods of collecting bobwhite population and harvest data. Moreover, hunting pressure on some wildlife areas has been extreme. Minimum gun hours by bobwhite and rabbit hunters during the 1987, 76-day bobwhite season has been as high as 2,271 gun hours on a 640-acre study site on Whetstone Creek Conservation Area. Gun hours by bobwhite hunters on this area were almost 350 percent greater than the level recommended for a 50 percent harvest by John Roseberry.
  Study of bobwhite hunting restrictions at Blind Pony Lake Conservation Area (BPLCA) revealed mixed results. Harvest rates of 61 and 73 percent appeared to not affect spring bobwhite densities, whereas an 83 percent harvest caused significantly lower spring abundance. Inference beyond BPLCA is dangerous because of lack of replication and potential unique characteristics of BPLCA, e.g., fish hatcheries attract predators.
  Lack of understanding of the relationship between hunting and bobwhite population ecology has led to establishment of restrictive hunting regulations. The most recent example exists on five MDC areas with bobwhite seasons that are shortened and closed daily at 1 p.m. These restrictions substantially reduce recreational opportunities during any given year, with no proven benefit to bobwhite populations. Consequently, bobwhite managers continue to manage hunting pressure with considerable uncertainty. Monitoring of bobwhite numbers and hunting pressure is needed to refine regulations while providing hunting opportunities that will foster hunter retention and recruitment. Additional studies are needed to identify the relationship between hunting pressure/harvest and bobwhite population dynamics on MDC lands with emphasis on depredation as a form of compensatory mortality.

General/Statewide Issues and Guidance

Openland Initiative Target Areas

In the late 1990s, MDC identified six multi-county areas for potential open land habitat initiatives. A pilot initiative began in 1998 in northeast Missouri. The goal of the Northeast Missouri Openland Initiative (NEMO OLI) is to improve upland habitat on private and public lands for bobwhite, rabbits and grassland/shrubland songbirds. Estimated cost for the seven-year initiative was $5 million. This pilot initiative was modified several times during the last five years and results should be evaluated to guide similar efforts elsewhere in the state.

Funding-State Level

Improvement of bobwhite conservation on public and private land will be more certain if funding is permanently increased. Two potential sources of funds include state and national initiatives. At the state level, an increase in hunting fees is an attractive choice. Several states have a small game habitat stamp (e.g., Nebraska and Iowa) for habitat management and research. The Missouri State Council of Quail Unlimited and local chapters have expressed interest in such a habitat stamp. MDC's Small Game Hunter Attitude Survey (1999-2000) indicated that hunters are supportive of such a fee. Forty-five percent of respondents were willing to pay for an annual habitat stamp. Hunter's acceptance of such a fee could likely be increased with education and promotion.

National-level funding includes USDA accelerated funding for conservation and new annual grants to the states from the Fish and Wildlife Service for statewide wildlife management programs. These new annual grants from the Fish and Wildlife Service require the preparation of a State Comprehensive Wildlife Plan for Missouri that can include bobwhite management proposals as well as management actions for other species with similar habitat needs.

Continuing Education and Professional Development for Staff

Missouri bobwhite management has gained considerable benefits from local, regional and national education efforts. Bobwhite/CRP field tours hosted by MDC research in 1991 provided excellent training for many MDC and NRCS biologists. National upland game experts have provided information for various MDC audiences. MDC co-hosted the Third National Quail Symposium (Quail III), which provided educational opportunities for more than 100 Missouri biologists. The national symposia series occurs at five-year intervals. The Southeast Quail Study Group meeting takes place annually within the southeastern United States. Quail Unlimited National meets annually, usually within a day's driving distance of Missouri. Formal training and workshops for managers is needed on bobwhite habitat requirements, management and population dynamics on a scheduled basis as part of the MDC Leadership Academy. Technical competencies in bobwhite management should be established.

Public Support and Interest

Bobwhites provide a uniquely appealing species to stimulate interest and support for the creation of early-successional habitat. During the mid-1980's and later, MDC worked to increase awareness of this species through public meetings, slide shows, brochures, Conservationist articles and a movie. In the late 1990s a video on CRP management for wildlife was produced which emphasized bobwhite habitat as part of the NEMO OLI effort.

In spite of the bobwhite management effort over the last two decades, the bobwhite decline has continued. It may be possible that the broader trends in Missouri agriculture, expansion of dwellings into the countryside and other factors simply overwhelm any possible reversal. However, there is support for another attempt to focus public interest on bobwhite and make a serious effort to turn the tide on the early-successional habitat on which they depend.

Communication/marketing efforts are unlikely to be any more successful this time unless we try something new--something that targets landowners more effectively and makes emotional connections for the public to this issue (much as Smokey did for fire prevention). Quail hunters, who certainly have strong interest in improved bobwhite populations, will also be informed about this strategy and involved as strong public supporters. However, we must broaden our emphasis to the value of bobwhite as an important species to all Missourians. This is especially true with the increase of landowners who do not have any previous connection to bobwhite.

The strategy will be to promote bobwhite as a legacy species--one from our past that we want to conserve for future Missourians to enjoy. The sound of the bobwhite will be used in PSAs (both TV and radio) as a call to action. Public meetings in the northwest region revealed that our website could play a large role in communicating about bobwhite. By providing other information tools (Conservationist magazine, new bobwhite booklet, exhibits, presentation kits, Missouri Outdoors TV, radio news spots, gift shop items, etc.), we will promote the image of bobwhite and tie them to that sense of home place we once had and want to retain. Once we have created that positive link in the minds and hearts of the broader public, we can begin to explain how we can actually get them on the landscape. The truth is that very few people care about the abstract idea of diverse habitats in general or early-successional habitat in particular. Unless there is a stronger emotional connection and a need to do something, we will continue to make little change in the landscape.

We already have existing approaches to reach farmers and recreational landowners.

Providing them with materials that show how to actually do the practices that benefit bobwhite will be critical. In addition to a new brochure on bobwhite due in 2002, MDC will also work with University Extension in the production of other publications. Videos can be helpful, too, but the traditional approach could be enhanced by using a host and more private landowners on camera--sort of a "This Old House" approach for what you can do with your land. It also plays on the local tour approach to sharing ideas and expertise. There is nothing that can beat a one-on-one connection for effecting real change in behavior, but by combining these media tools with local tours, presentations and workshops, we can work with that most limiting of factors, time.

With more people moving into the countryside, we need to target new landowners more effectively with information about habitat and what they can do. This is broader than simply promoting early-successional habitat, but that can be rolled into the same effort. To do this, we propose selecting key counties in areas outlying urban growth places where the city is coming into the countryside. Contacts must be made locally in each of these counties with county recorders who can provide a list of new landowners on a quarterly or bi-monthly basis. We can then mail a "conservation welcome" card to the new landowner with an offer of specific booklets or other information on how they can improve the life of their land. People who show an interest could become part of the mailing list for new landowner workshops and other educational opportunities. One concern is that staff already have more on-site visit requests than they can fill. This mailing should be done with the idea of getting information into the landowner hands but not in necessarily increasing needs for immediate visits.

Other options for promoting public awareness and action for bobwhite management include publication of a series of conservationist articles (the first in 2003 announcing the plan), publication of a statewide open lands/bobwhite/small game/song bird quarterly newsletter, and continuation of the Quail Academy. After a year or so of public awareness and promotion, we should convene focus groups on those who requested materials and technical assistance and on those who did not, to find out what the barriers were, what the benefits were, for improving how we connect to Missouri landowners.

Hunter Attitudes and Preferences

The 60-percent decline in bobwhite hunter numbers during the past 15 years can be attributed partly to low bobwhite numbers. We do not know if increased bobwhite numbers will result in more bobwhite hunters. To better understand retention and recruitment of bobwhite hunters, surveys of hunter attitudes and preferences are needed. Because deer hunting now appears to be the "gateway" to hunting for Missourians, it will be important to survey deer hunters to learn their preferences.

Statewide Hunting Regulations

The outlook for bobwhite as a widely hunted species is uncertain because modern land use and natural plant succession often adversely affect the species. Following decades of study of bobwhite in Illinois, John Roseberry concluded that old paradigms of the effects of hunting on bobwhite populations must be reconsidered in the context of increasingly fragmented habitat. Numerous studies show that bobwhite suffer greater than 50-percent mortality annually from predation. Recent research on private land in north Missouri suggested that bobwhite populations might decline under current conditions of high seasonal and annual mortality (>94 percent annual mortality rate) and widely-distributed poor habitat. Even moderate hunting mortality (about 28 percent) could depress bobwhite populations under poor habitat conditions. Uncertainty about effects of harvest was identified as a major national issue in the Quail III Strategic Planning Workshop in 1992.

The previous bobwhite plan (1987) called for placement of statewide quail-hunting regulations in the Missouri Conservation Commission Wildlife Code to focus attention on habitat issues and to monitor population trends under stable hunting regulations. Because land-use conditions continue to be unfavorable for bobwhite, and in light of a 15-year depression in bobwhite population indices, statewide hunting regulations need to be reevaluated. Wise management of bobwhite will require increased understanding of hunting activity (e.g., level and distribution of harvest across the landscape) and bobwhite population dynamics.

Measurement of Bobwhite Abundance

Estimation of animal abundance is important to evaluation of habitat management, hunting, population indices, behavior and density-dependent population phenomena (e.g., compensatory mortality and reproduction). Various methods of estimating bobwhite density have been evaluated in Missouri and elsewhere, including drive counts, distance sampling and fall covey whistle counts. The former two techniques produced mixed results with accuracy and precision questionable; moreover, both techniques were logistically difficult to accomplish because of labor demands. The fall covey whistle count technique, which is currently under study, also has technical problems. However, it is easy to carry out requiring only an hour of observation at dawn. Further testing of the technique is needed to identify strengths and weaknesses and to develop protocol for using the technique

Since 1983 MDC has relied on counts of bobwhite seen along county gravel roads to monitor long-term population trends. It is unknown if bobwhite abundance along roadsides is representative of the actual bobwhite population across the landscape. Recent studies in northeast Missouri (NEMO OLI) reveal potential discrepancies between roadside visual and singing surveys. One explanation (hypothesis) for this apparent discrepancy is that visual counts along roadsides might not accurately reflect bobwhite abundance across the landscape. This could easily be true if roadside habitat (mostly brush) has diminished at a greater rate than brush across the landscape. If this is true, roadside surveys underestimate the abundance of bobwhite across the landscape and long-term trend data are substantially weakened. Research is needed to determine the accuracy and precision of common techniques for estimating bobwhite abundance, and whether bobwhite habitat has changed at a different rate along roadsides than across the landscape.

National Initiatives

State, regional and national conservation programs could provide important opportunities to enhance habitat conditions for northern bobwhite. Bobwhites have traditionally been a prominent part of only a few programs (e.g., the USDA Conservation Reserve Program). The prominence of bobwhite was reinforced in a 2002 Farm Bill Conference Report:

"The Managers find that bobwhite quail are a valued traditional symbol of farmed landscapes, but their populations have declined by two-thirds since 1980. The Managers further find that the success of the Southeast Quail Study Group's new "Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative" is largely dependent upon land management actions by agricultural producers and non-industrial private forestland owners. The Managers further find that many conservation programs of this farm bill have large potential to contribute to bobwhite quail habitat objectives and encourage the Secretary to support the goal of restoring habitat for this species."

Beyond the CRP, the success of attempts to develop a national-level focus on bobwhite and upland game birds has largely been limited to planning and information transfer (e.g., Quail Quail III/IV/V Symposia). Until recently, bobwhite conservation efforts at the regional or national level were fragmented with little or no national focus or federal funding. Significant new opportunities for federal support of upland game bird initiatives exist by integrating bobwhites into all-bird joint ventures. To improve bobwhite conservation, the directors of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) created the Southeast Bobwhite Technical Committee and called for formulation of a national bobwhite plan for implementation within the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), a program of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). Subsequently, the Resident Game Bird Working Group was established under NABCI. Northern bobwhites are considered a NABCI priority species within the Bird Conservation Regions that occur in Missouri. Bobwhite are an emphasis species in many of the Partners-in-Flight physiographic plans where management objectives are outlined for suites of birds with similar habitat requirements. At a 2002 meeting of the Southeast Bobwhite Study Group, Dr. David Pashley, coordinator of NABCI, stated:

"The reasons for all of us to work together are legion. First and foremost is the reality that healthy bird populations depend on healthy ecosystems. Throughout its range, conditions that benefit Northern bobwhite benefit a suite of other birds that have been undergoing population declines. These declines have been based upon deterioration of habitat at a landscape level, and the declines can only be reversed when that deterioration is reversed. Some of the highest priority species that share bobwhite habitat are Bell's vireo, painted bunting, and orchard oriole. The second reason for working together is political with a unified voice, all of us concerned with the well-being of populations of birds in this country can have a much more significant influence than the sum of all of us saying different things. Fixing habitat is expensive, the time to fix it is now, and the way to fix it is through cooperation and coordination."

The following are strategies for linking MDC's bobwhite restoration plan to the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative:

1. Director's staff assumes a leadership role within IAFWA/SEAFWA/NABCI/NBCI to maximize opportunity to use national programs to implement Missouri's bobwhite restoration.
2. Provide NBCI with state funding and in-kind services to include NBCI coordinator/staff/projects, possibly office space/support, and /or sharing of a permanent biologist for one- to three-year stints.
3. Collaborate with NBCI and other partners to create Missouri GIS tools for identifying focus areas within bird conservation regions.
4. Collaborate with NBCI and other partners to increase understanding of human dimensions and effects on implementation of private-land habitat initiatives.
5. Market NBCI, both as a state agency and cooperatively with NBCI, to create shared awareness and motivation within natural resource professionals, hunters, landowners and citizens.
6. Collaborate with NBCI and partners to direct more USDA resources toward bobwhite habitat initiatives.
7. Collaborate with NBCI and partners to fully fund habitat initiatives in the three bird conservation regions that cover Missouri.
8. Collaborate with NBCI/USFWS/NABCI to increase effectiveness to North American Breeding Bird Survey as a measurement of effect of habitat initiatives.
9. Continue statistically valid surveys of bobwhite hunter activities as a measure of effect of habitat initiatives.
10. Continue to build knowledge base of bobwhite ecology and management through intrastate and interstate research.
11. Develop a state-level Missouri Bird Conservation Initiative patterned after NABCI to use as a mechanism for directors/leaders of conservation agencies/organizations and private landowners to guide and promote Missouri's efforts.
12. Link MDC web sites to Southeast Bobwhite Study Group/NBCI.