December pheasant hunting should not be allowed.

Here's another way to make my point:

If 100,000 WILD birds(75k hens - 25k roosters) were live-trapped in SD and immediately released into the 4 best counties in MO AND the season entirely closed for 5 years in those 4 counties, I would venture to say that at the end of the five years, there would be no more pheasants in those counties than there is today.

The #'s would simply revert to that amount that is possible by the habitat.
 
No matter where, you have a chance to hunt two parcels of identical habitat. It is opening day. One has not been hunted in ten years; one has been hunted every year. Which one are you going to hunt? This is the only hunt you can have on either of these places.

I understand the long term loss of habitat and carrying capacity. I agree with you. All I want to know is which area you would hunt.
 
RK Special K said:
Here's another way to make my point:

If 100,000 WILD birds(75k hens - 25k roosters) were live-trapped in SD and immediately released into the 4 best counties in MO AND the season entirely closed for 5 years in those 4 counties, I would venture to say that at the end of the five years, there would be no more pheasants in those counties than there is today.

The #'s would simply revert to that amount that is possible by the habitat.
Click to expand...

I think you and crossing shot are debating apples and oranges. Nobody disagrees that the capacity is determined by the habitat, and it will revert, unless management practices are changed. What we are discussing is the numbers which hunters bag vs. what is taken by ALL sources in a particular habitat. The refuge example is accurate. I would say because it has habitat, and was not hunted, with birds adapting to NOT being hunted. I assume that a lot of those birds were hunted before crossing into the refuge zone, making the population bigger than historically it was. Your theory is right, the end game is how many birds it will support, is the balance, the habitat will carry. Crossing shot is right that a refuge area, especially when other adjacent areas are hunted, will support higher yields when the refuge is opened. Crossing shot is wrong in my opinion, that closing the season in December will produce a higher ratio of breeding stock, in my opinion they get pruned by weather, predators, countless dangers inherit in the life of wild game birds. I believe he is right that a juggled or staggered season, with some closed and while others open, allowing a rest period, will result in hunters harvesting more of the population. Regardless of the dates, either early or late season. Again apples and oranges, how many are there, and where? vs. how many we harvest of the surplus? The Mo. conservation commission is not the cheerleaders for hunters, they are a cheerleaders for the game, as is abundance and escape cover! A lot of areas, have game, but they are hunter educated, with a vast acreage of escape cover, and wise enough to use it! so a possibility is that there may be more game present on an area....but devilishly hard to find!
 
oldandnew said:
I think you and crossing shot are debating apples and oranges. Nobody disagrees that the capacity is determined by the habitat, and it will revert, unless management practices are changed. What we are discussing is the numbers which hunters bag vs. what is taken by ALL sources in a particular habitat. The refuge example is accurate. I would say because it has habitat, and was not hunted, with birds adapting to NOT being hunted. I assume that a lot of those birds were hunted before crossing into the refuge zone, making the population bigger than historically it was. Your theory is right, the end game is how many birds it will support, is the balance, the habitat will carry. Crossing shot is right that a refuge area, especially when other adjacent areas are hunted, will support higher yields when the refuge is opened. Crossing shot is wrong in my opinion, that closing the season in December will produce a higher ratio of breeding stock, in my opinion they get pruned by weather, predators, countless dangers inherit in the life of wild game birds. I believe he is right that a juggled or staggered season, with some closed and while others open, allowing a rest period, will result in hunters harvesting more of the population. Regardless of the dates, either early or late season. Again apples and oranges, how many are there, and where? vs. how many we harvest of the surplus? The Mo. conservation commission is not the cheerleaders for hunters, they are a cheerleaders for the game, as is abundance and escape cover! A lot of areas, have game, but they are hunter educated, with a vast acreage of escape cover, and wise enough to use it! so a possibility is that there may be more game present on an area....but devilishly hard to find!
Click to expand...

I do not think we should lower the limit until I am long and gone. I was saying the first time I saw a flock of 25 to 30 roosters was on an area that wasn't hunted for three years. I hunted that area for a few years before it was closed and it was good. Never saw a flock move on its on accord in Missouri.

I also believed the standard line that harvesting a large percentage of one gender of a species has no negative effect.

Now I'm not too sure. It is unnatural harvest and warrants close scrutiny.
 
I kinda like your last point...South Dakota did a study that suggested maybe we should be considering hens as part of the bag limit. The hens actually select the roosters they will "allow" to be bred by. Years ago biologists thought that roosters gather a "harem", so to speak, and then breed all the hens in the harem. With hens selecting roosters, it has also been found that if the hens don't find suitable roosters, they won't mate.

It's been said that you can remove up to 90% of the roosters in a given population without impacting the following years' production. I think that's the case in many areas, mostly because I think it's almost impossible to remove 90% of the roosters. I'm not saying that can't be and/or isn't done with SMALL relatively isolated island populations in marginal habitats. But in the pheasant belt I don't think it happens...every day that goes by during hunting season the ROI on hunting effort shrinks and it gets harder to kill each bird than it was earlier. I think there is a law of diminishing returns with a lot of hunted species.

Still, there has to be enough roosters around for the girls to "pick from" or, as I said, some just won't breed and that is wasted potential. Interesting stuff...
 
marshrat said:
I kinda like your last point...South Dakota did a study that suggested maybe we should be considering hens as part of the bag limit. The hens actually select the roosters they will "allow" to be bred by. Years ago biologists thought that roosters gather a "harem", so to speak, and then breed all the hens in the harem. With hens selecting roosters, it has also been found that if the hens don't find suitable roosters, they won't mate.
.
Click to expand...

Informative post Marshrat. Thank you.

There's a number of state sights here in IL where "Manchurian" cross roosters where being released. There didn't seem to be any sign (genetically) of the Manchurian roosters cross breeding with wild hens. I believe it's due to the point you made above.

I suggested trying just the opposite---release hens and see if they will breed with the existing wild roosters. Our current wild stock is tough, handsome, has a strong appearance and healthy shape to his wattle, large ear tuffs, and a tail where each tail feather is barbed. Sounds like a hen's dream right? lol

Nick
 
The study of wild pheasants all over the North American pheasant range is a work in progress, we are always learning new information.

This theory that suggest that hunters can safely harvest 90% of the wild roosters with no adverse effect on the overall wild population is only an educated guess or theory. That one rooster mating with 10 or more hens in the real wild, wild (predator infested thorn and briar world) has never been proven with radio telemetry.

The one wild rooster mating with ten or more hens is based on data from safe well feed and well protected pen raised pheasants.

That may be true in places with millions of wild pheasants like South Dakota, that you can harvest 90% of the healthy wild roosters with no adverse effect on the population.

But I know for sure that that is not true on the southern part of the pheasant range in places like the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandle and S. W. Kansas. I spent many spring morning watching pheasants in Texas and Kansas and I know for sure that that wild roosters do more than just mate. With all the predators we have those roosters in the spring stay on alert watching for danger as the hens graze and feed gathering nutrients for laying.

In good wild pheasant country you average 10 to 12 hens per square mile. How can one rooster fly around and mate with all those hens scattered over a mile without being picked off by a aerial or ground predator.

After a three year drought (in the southwest), and the reduced the wild pheasant population by 70% in some areas, it would not be wise to advise people to harvest 90% of the healthy wild roosters.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully, it will be a long time before drought comes back.

Next time it does happens, why not try closing a couple counties to pheasant hunting?
 
Because it doesn't work. What would be the goal of closing counties? If there aren't any birds due to drough-driven lack of habitat, nobody will kill any. Preston1, yes pheasant research is an ongoing endeavour since pheasants are a high-profile and highly-desirable game species. But not all studies have been done on well-fed penned birds...not by a long shot. Here is a link which summarizes a lot (not all of course) of the mortality studies done with pheasants:
www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pheasant/manag.htm.

Consider the study done within adjacent counties (multiple counties) in Iowa and Minnesota comparing hunted and unhunted counties along with other variables. It just doesn't make a difference. The "90%" business, the removal of up to 90% of the roosters, almost never occurs in most habitats. Granted, it CAN occur in isolated cases, but "managing" pheasants on isolated islands of habitat is a waste of time. There aren't many pheasants on isolated islands of habitat because it is marginal habitat...for whatever reason.

I think hunters need to realize that they're just not that great (relatively) at hunting, and pheasants have to survive 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's a lessor challenge for them to evade us and our part-time canine hunters with all the practice they get with real predators. When hunters hear about "90%" removal, the assumption is that is what happens so we need to "back off" somehow so we can "save some for seed" or whatever. Most states could harvest more pheasants than they do without any negative effect. The goal of wildlife managers is not to kill off wildlife; I'll continue to enjoy our resources as much as I can for as long as I am able.
 
marshrat said:
Because it doesn't work. What would be the goal of closing counties? If there aren't any birds due to drough-driven lack of habitat, nobody will kill any. Preston1, yes pheasant research is an ongoing endeavour since pheasants are a high-profile and highly-desirable game species. But not all studies have been done on well-fed penned birds...not by a long shot. Here is a link which summarizes a lot (not all of course) of the mortality studies done with pheasants:
www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pheasant/manag.htm.

Consider the study done within adjacent counties (multiple counties) in Iowa and Minnesota comparing hunted and unhunted counties along with other variables. It just doesn't make a difference. The "90%" business, the removal of up to 90% of the roosters, almost never occurs in most habitats. Granted, it CAN occur in isolated cases, but "managing" pheasants on isolated islands of habitat is a waste of time. There aren't many pheasants on isolated islands of habitat because it is marginal habitat...for whatever reason.

I think hunters need to realize that they're just not that great (relatively) at hunting, and pheasants have to survive 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's a lessor challenge for them to evade us and our part-time canine hunters with all the practice they get with real predators. When hunters hear about "90%" removal, the assumption is that is what happens so we need to "back off" somehow so we can "save some for seed" or whatever. Most states could harvest more pheasants than they do without any negative effect. The goal of wildlife managers is not to kill off wildlife; I'll continue to enjoy our resources as much as I can for as long as I am able.
Click to expand...

If you are not going to shoot any birds, then it wouldn't matter if the season was closed. If it doesn't matter, try it in one county and see if it makes a difference. Do they bounce back faster?

When I saw that flock of roosters in Missouri, my first thought was a pheasant double. They landed 100 yards away in a milo field. On the way there, flushed two huge coveys that I did not shoot at. Should have, the pheasants were not there. Shot many limits of quail and pheasants, but this day shot a limit of both for the only time in my long life.

This place is now the same as other places. It was good before the renovation because you had to walk a long way to get to the good places. Now there are roads and hunters everywhere.
 
Refuge issue:

If birds are pushed, DURING THE CURRENT SEASON, into adjacent refuge property with poor habitat, there will be more birds there at the END OF THE CURRENT SEASON. But NOT after 5 years at THE BEGINNING OF THAT 5th SEASON.

If birds are pushed, DURING THE CURRENT SEASON(and subsequent seasons), into adjacent refuge property with decent habitat, there will be more there at the end of the current season AND many more at the beginning of the 5th season.

My point: If you push birds into bad habitat, you get nothing long-term. If you "push"(or transplant) them into good habitat, you get more and more birds IN THAT GOOD HABITAT, long-term.

Moral of story: Get birds into existing good habitat OR create NEW good habitat. But cutting limits in BAD habitat just doesn't work. You have to "push" or transplant the "last survivors" of BAD habitat into GOOD habitat.

The season for pheasants in Georgia has been closed for.....for.....for....EVER. Are there any pheasants in Georgia? Nope........reason is simple. No habitat. Transplant "millions" to Georgia? - there will be -0- in less than five years even with no open season. This is a bit extreme but you can't force pheasants to live where they WON'T. Just can't do it. Guns or no guns.

Pheasants need GRASS.........and LOTS of it. Oceans of it......from one horizon to the other, with a checkerboard of crops. Tall, thick grass - the turbo-charged octane booster of pheasant numbers. Oh, they like windbreaks too. Don't want those hens getting too stressed out(or passing away) before the nesting season.
 
I will also add this axiom:

Where there are LOTS of birds, there is LOTS of hunting pressure.
Where there are VERY few birds, hunting pressure is extremely light.

We don't see huge caravans of out-of-state hunters filling up motels in Missouri all for a chance to get one of those last five Missouri roosters. I would suggest that the pressure in MO is already extremely light, just like it is here in Michigan. And Michigan might even have a few more birds than Missouri. Might be a toss-up.
 
RK Special K said:
From what I've gathered from biologists who should know, if an adult pheasant is lucky/smart enough to dodge lead, predators, vehicles, etc., less than 1% would reach their 3rd fall hunting season. Almost all pheasants die of "old age" before they reach their 3rd fall season. As we know, many make it to their 2nd fall season but the "old age", natural die-off gets almost all the rest between the 2nd and 3rd fall season.
Click to expand...

How reliable are spur lengths in aging birds?
 
More reliable:

Pick up a bird with your fingers by the bottom beak. Let it hang for a second or two. If that bottom beak bends, it is a spring bird. If it stays sturdy and does not bend even with a bit of bouncing, it is a 2-year old bird. And the chance that it is 3 years old is less than 1 in 100.

Unless it is obvious, I do this with almost every bird. Using this method, I find that about 15-25% of the birds are 2 years old. The overwhelming majority are spring birds. And almost all of these 2 year old birds die of "old age" before they reach their 3rd hunting season.

Strong bird numbers rely heavily(if not entirely) on the number of hens and their success at raising them to adulthood(late summer to early fall). This depends on habitat and weather. Habitat being THE most important factor in long-term sustainability of numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top