-7- 
 
 
  The answer is not conclusive, but the fol- 
  lowing facts fit this theory: 
    1. There is stability and protection 
      through covey formation Dunn county 
      quail maintained coveys throughout 
      winter, and suffered little from clinat- 
      ic and predatory influences. 
    2. During spring covey bonds are broken, 
      mating activities result in physiologi- 
      cal stress that decreases the bird's phy- 
      ical resistance to other influences and 
      birds start dispersal (largely raom) 
      to nesting territories, all of which 
      makes them more vulnerable to preda- 
      tion. 
   3. Cover is sparse and beaten down due 
      to winter storms and snows. 
   4. Predators are pressed for food, some 
      already have young to feed, and prey 
      species are scarce. 
   The level of security representing the 
 carrying capacity of Dunn county habitat 
 in summer probably was above the quail 
 population t that time, and the negligible 
 loss observed while trapping indicates a 
 good winter carrying capacity. Hoewever, it 
 should be rememibered that this s am e 
 habitat may well have had an extremely 
 low threshold of security for unstable quail 
 shifting from winter range to nesting ter- 
 ritories. Ja cks on (1947) reported that 
 drought conditions in Texas greatly reduced 
 the carrying capacity of bobwhite quail 
 range, which resulted in the rapid annihila- 
 tion of a quail population by marsh hawks. 
 Although predators wiped out the quail, 
 their instability dueato range deterioration 
 was the real cause. There were just as 
 many marsh hawks and just as many quail 
 *the previous year when practically no pre- 
 dation was noticed. 
 
         Pheouasats, Fox and Quail 
   In addition to the quail counted and 
 trapped on the 9,900-acre Dunn county area 
 in the winter of 1945-46, a' count was made 
 of all pheasants and fox living on the same 
 piece of land. This information was ob- 
 taine'd to determine whether or not fox dep 
 redations caused the current decline in 
 pheasants which is almost universally 
 blamed on "Reynard" by farmers and 
 sportsmen. By the end of February 1946, 
the following numbers of pheasants, fox, 
and quail, were accounted for an reported: 
 
 
  Species         Numbers 
pheat ------------- --41 
Fox   .   .---------------- 34 
Qua -------------- 
   Totals ----------- 411 
   *See footnote, page 7, 
 
 
Density (Acres 
per Animal) 
     241 
     291 
 
     24 
 
 
   Only one conclusion could be drawn from 
this information: If the prevalent fox was 
responsible for the low population of 41 
pheasants, how could quail reachi a rela- 
tively high population of 336 birds? Ob- 
viously the same force that affected pheas- 
ants adversely had little or no effect on 
quail. Such a force does not fit the me- 
chanics of predation, which is indiscriminate 
in action and in proportion to population 
density. Even if "Reynard" exerted his in- 
fluence oiY pheasants before January, the 
quail were exposed to these same influences; 
therefore, some other force caused the "low" 
in pheasants and resulted in the "high" in 
quail . 
  Does this conclusion fit the 1946-47 win- 
ter findings? The following tabulations sum- 
marize the numblers of pheasants, fox, and 
quail accounted for on this same area by 
the end of February 1947: 
 
 
  Species         Numbers. 
Pheasant-----------  71 
Fox----------------- 29 
Quail ---------------407T 
   Totals --------    0 
 
 
Density (A&cres 
per Axnimal) 
 
      24 
      20 
 
 
    The picture