Baker, Rollin H

SFA ScholarWorks

East Texas Historical JournalVolume 37 | Issue 1 Article 113-1999Texas Clamored for Quail in the 1930sRollin H. BakerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ethjPart of the United States History CommonsTell us how this article helped you.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in East Texas Historical Journal by anauthorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact cdsscholarworks@sfasu.edu.Recommended CitationBaker, Rollin H. (1999) "Texas Clamored for Quail in the 1930s," East Texas Historical Journal: Vol. 37: Iss. 1, Article 11.Available at: http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ethj/vol37/iss1/1142 EAST TEXAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONTEXANS CLAlVIORED FOR QUAIL IN THE 1930Sby RoWn H. BakerIn your mind's eye picture yourself back in the rather ancient 1930s. Jobsand money were scarce, drought wrought havoc on crops, particles from duststorms made many an eye bleary, and prospects in every direction were dim.In those mean, lean days there was not much to heighten one's spirits.Certainly watching movie actors cavort in frivolous roles depicting the moniedset, an assortment of comics and soap operas on radio shows, and assortedsporting events may have helped Texans and others forget the troubledeconomy_The Texas Game, Fish & Oyster Commission (now Texas Parks & Wild-life Department), also did its best to encourage citizens to forget their urbanand farm/ranch problems and learn to enjoy the out-of-doors by becomingacquainted with the diverse array of the state's wildlife resource~.Promoting Texas's Wildlife and Fisheries ResourcesThrough the exceptional oratory of Executive Secretary William J.Tucker at public meetings, news stories and bulletins ably prepared by Publi-cist J.G. Burr, and articles by popular outdoor writers for major newspapers,Texas hunters, fishermen, trappers, nature lovers, outdoor enthusiasts, andpolitical supporters were kept abreast of the ups and downs of game, fur-bearing animals, fish, and shellfish.And the public responded. In the summer of 1939, this scribe was in theaudience when Tucker spoke about the Commission's fish program to anoverflow crowd of several hundred sportsmen at a meeting of the BeaumontRod and Reel Club. Tucker's booming delivery had been cultivated when hehad to yell commands loudly to his troops during noisy trench warfare whenhe was a captain in the Rainbow Division in WWI.Law Enforcement Alone Insufficient to Sustain these ResourcesThe basic policy of the Commission in the early days of the decade wasto enforce laws then regarded as adequate to regulate the harvest of game, furbearers, fish. and shellfish so that sufficient breeding populations werepreserved - sometimes augmented with stocking and predatory animal control- to nurture another shootable, trappable, fishable, or nettable surplus the nextyear.By the middle of the decade, conservation (and restoration) of renewablewildlife resources was emerging as more than just a fantastic dream initiatedin part by a growing national leadership of such stalwarts as A. Leopold, H.Stoddard, R. Bennitt, S. Gordon, Ding Darling, 1. Bode, 0, Murie, and LGabrielson. Tn response to this national awakening, the embryonic science ofwildlife research, ecology, and management in Texas evolved in 1935 withTexas A&M in a major leadership role. Dr. Walter P. Taylor, a highly reputableRollin H. Baker lives in Eagle Loki', Texas.EAST TEXAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 4:\vertebrate ecologist, was dispatched from Arizona to College Station to headthe newly-created and partly federally funded Texas Cooperative WildlifeResearch Unit.This action, plus monies made available later through the Pitman-Robertson Federal Aid to Wildlife Act and the Dingle-Johnson Federal Aid toFisheries Act, enabled the TGF&OC to hire a scientific staff, trained at TexasA&M and elsewhere. and trigger the beginnings of our modem philosophicand action programs for using, hut not abusing, these important resources.By 1936- 1937, the readjusting of old values and the addition of new onescame about. The system of just protecting game surpluses by law enforcement,enhanced by game-and-fish stockings and predator control, became inter-married with the necessity to look not only at the species of game, fur bearers,or fish themselves, but also at the environments in which these resourcesactually lived.One could write a thick volume filled with hard-to-believe accounts abouthow pioneering pre-WWII Commission biologists and other personnelbrought beaver and turkey back to East Texas, pronghorn back to West Texas,and severely limited the decades-old practice of unwise predator control.However, for now let us recount some of the highlights of the attention givento bobwhite quail during those eventful years.Upland Game's Darling. The Bobwhite QuailIn the 1930s, the bobwhite quail was Texas' most widespread andbehaviorally-exciting upland game bird. It was treasured by thousands of avidsportsmen in eastern, central, and southern Tex.as.Trained bird dogs were a necessity for the successful hunt. Kennelshousing pointers and setters were commonplace and conspicuous even in thesmallest Texas communities. Escapees from their wire-mesh enclosures werecarefully avoided by thoughtful motorists when the blooded and highly-trainedanimals wandered aimlessly along highway rights-of-way to the consternationof their less than vigilant owners. Sometimes these escapees were picked upor the dogs were stolen out of kennels by unsavory persons just before theopening of the season in November. What could be lower than to acquireanother's pointer or setter just for the autumn hunt and afterwards either tumthe animal loose or sneak it back in its home kennel.A lesser number of bird dogs were trained solely to compete in field-trials. Owners and handlers entered their highly-bred animals in such eventsheld annually in specially designed and extensive field-trial courses bothlocally, such as at one near Blessing and out-of-state. These field-trial dogs,skilled in far-ranging action, should not be confused at all with those close-working pointers and setters preferred by local connoisseurs of just good quailhunting dogs.The popularity of the bobwhite quail as both a sporting target and aninsect- and weed seed-eating friend of the fanner gained notice amonglawmakers in Austin. For officials of the TGF&OC this could be worrisome.44 EAST TEXAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONFor example, a newly-elected and zealous member of the legislature, withoutconsulting the Commission but anxious to impress the folks in his homecounty, might author a bill to dose the hunting season on bobwhites for twoyears and get obliging colleagues to pass it without fanfare. He might lose afew votes to angry and law-abiding hunters but could proudly boast to farmerfriends and even bird-watchers that he had not only written but "skillfully" ledhis very first biB through the complicated legislative process. However, on oneoccasion in Polk County local bobwhite quail enthusiasts helped get such alaw passed in order to discourage "big city" sportsmen from invading theircounty to hunt. As a result many locals might conceivably hunt with legalbarriers less demanding than in the case of hunters who were penalizedaccording to the law because their dog-carrying vehicles had out-of-countylicense plates.At War with Armadillos and FoxesSportsmen specializing in raising bird dogs and hunting bobwhites werefairly-well organized. This gave them clout in badgering officials of theTGF&OC to consider declaring war on such alleged bobwhite predators as thenewly-arrived (and expanding its range northward), and poorly-understood,nine-banded armadillo and "bird-hungry" foxes. As for the latter, the fox-hunting "lobby" fought back successfully, but the lowly annadillo had noknight-in-armor champion to speak in its. defense.What happened to subdue at least some of the hue-and-cry for theannadillo's demise were studies to convince the public that there waloi nary ashred of evidence that armadillos were dyed-in-the-wool nest destroyers.Certainly an armadillo might indeed disrupt a quail nest were the rootingcreature to encounter one accidentally. However, this rather inoffensive animaldid not "purposely" spend all of its foraging time during the quail-nestingseason "specifically" seeking out nests in order to get a daily ration of edibleeggs.These findings were backed by investigators who found that: (1) mon-itored dummy nests filled with quail eggs were untouched by annadillos evenin areas where they were abundant; and (2) no quail egg contents or tell-taleshell remains were found in the stomach contents of armadillos obtained fromhigh-density quail country in May and June. Even so, many quail huntersremained skeptical and continued in those days to shoot the lowly armadilloon every occasion.The Scientific Approach to Better Quail HuntingBy 1936, game biologist Valgene W. Lehmann, first hired by the TA&MUnit and later by the Pitman-Robertson Federal Aid to Wildlife Program of theTGF&OC, stepped boldly into the middle of the controversy about bobwhitequail productivity. By field demonstrations, numerous service and sportsmenclub talks, and published bulletins and news articles, Lehmann and associatesbroadcast convincingly that places where Texas bobwhites would flourishrequired a year-around food supply (variable as to season), quality woodywinter cover - especially in open lands at which coveys could establish theirterritorial headquarters, and a prescribed open season and bag limit to regulatethe kill. This three-fold suggestion was a new but logical concept. It was soldpublicly through an excellent public relations program with tremendousassistance from newspapers' outdoor writers.In addition, actual demonstrations of the effectiveness of planted foodpatches and cover plantings as bobwhite attractants where these environmentalfeatures were in short supply were convincing.In the piney woods of East Texas, game biologists, notably Daniel W.Lay, demonstrated that bobwhite populations waxed and waned in the nonnalplant successions occurring when cut-over pine woodlands slowly re-established themselves. Also shown was that late-winter, controlled-ground-cover spot burning in longleaf pine woodlands removing stcrile pine needles,old clumps of brooms edge, low shrubs. and other duff and encouraged thegrowth of desirable, seed-bearing plants as choice foods for both bobwh.itesand turkey.The Mexican Quail Importation ProgramOne of the most popular bobwhite-related activities in the 1930s was theMexican Quail Importation Program. In brief, the TGF&OC bought live-trapped birds from importers who obtained them from trappers located acrossthe Rio Grande.Each fall the importers shipped especially-constructed crates, each con~taining twenty-four live "Mexican" hobwhites, to buyers who joined with theTGF&OC in cooperatively splitting the modest costs - anywhere fromseventy-seven cents to a dollar for each bird. The program was impressivelylarge - in 1937, for example, the TGF&OC imported 10,000 birds and in 1940,20,400 birds.Everyone was completely satisfied. The trappers and the importers werehappy to have their money; the sportsmen were happy to release the birds intheir "favorite" areas; and the oftlcials of the TGF&OC were happy at thefavorable publlcity obtained and that the their quail fanciers were happy.However, after the Pitman-Rohertson Federal Aid hiologists, hired be-ginning in 1938, had taken a careful look, they suggested to top TGF&OCofficials that this quail liberation program was unjustified from a scientificstandpoint and needed to be thoroughly examined. Late in the summer of1939, Game Division Chief Phil Goodrum ordered your scribe and anotherfield biologist, Paul Jones. to tum over their normal duties to others and drafta plan to evaluate the program.Our strategy to address this problem was accepted, so we divided intoequal numbers the counties where liberations had occurred in the autumn of1939. Then, armed with names and addrcsses of the recipients of the ship-ments, we began a county-to-county survey of a sampling of these releases toexamine the kinds of habitats in which the birds were released and whetherthese liberation sites already contained native bobwhite populations.II'Il,1r-Jl.(!l1lfEAST TEXAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIO!\ 4546 EAST TEXAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONBy the summer of 1940, after inspecting release sites, in my case fromsuch temporary field bases as Lufkin, Amarillo, San Angelo, and Austin, thesurvey was completed. A report of findings was submitted to Goodrum andforwarded with his blessing to Executive Secretary William 1. Tucker.The field team cautiously had recommended that the "expensive" practicebe discontinued. This was on the basis that almost every place where the cratedbirds were released already had abundant native bobwhite populations present.Further, even if the alien birds were to survive the rigors of habitat change,their presence was certainly not required to support or augment localpopulations.To gain a more solid and convincing position, another liberation wasproposed in which 4,000 of the 20,000 wild-trapped birds purchased in 1940were banded before release. Only thirty of these banded birds were reportedsubsequent to their release by hunters. These birds, apparently unsettled, hadalso traveled an average of 6.3 miles from their release sites. For those releasesites given careful study, only fifteen percent of the liberated birds apparentlysurvived. This failure was expected, according to many experienced EastTexas hunters, who thought the Mexican quail, when compared with nativebirds, were smaller, paler in color, poorly adapted to local conditions, and lesssporty because they were more apt to run than hold in front of their dogs.Tucker and the commissioners, after examining the evidence, adopted therecommendations and abolished the "Mexican" quail project in 1941. Asexpected, there was much hue-and-cry and threatening statements fmmlegislators, dog trainers and handlers, individual hunters, and hunting clubs.Nevertheless, Thcker stood firm and in a year or two the public forgot - at leastto complain publicly - about this interesting "experiment" in unnecessary anddefinitely unscientific wildlife propagation.The report was not altogether a negative one. The authors did indicate forpurposes of public and political relations that the live-bird-release programgained considerable favorable news coverage and public support for theTGF&OC. In fact, many of these crates of birds were eagerly purchased bylocal office-seekers who found them useful as campaign hand-outs to gainfriends and influence people.The glamorous bobwhite quail was a crown jewel amid the spectaculararray of Texas' fauna and floral attractions offered to outdoor enthusia.<.;ts in the1930s, and for many, it still is!....-,I-\..

Texas Clamored for Quail in the 1930s

http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2259&context=ethj

Texas Clamored for Quail in the 1930s

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SFA ScholarWorks