Describes what's gone wrong with the pheasant population in the Central Valley anyway.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=106141&inline
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=106141&inline
Calif. study regarding pheasant population
- Thread starter calamari
- Start date
bunktheclown
New member
Interesting read for sure but nothing really ground breaking. Our club has been trying to work with local farmers to increase nesting habitat and reduce spraying although not much has been implemented as there is no real incentive for them to leave a the corners fallow etc. Predators are huge in the north central valley. Have seen hawks right before 8am shooting time swoop down and nail birds. Most of this is because our planters are not aware of danger from above. This has to effect wild birds too as there is just not enough cover for them to hide. Its also good to see the mitigation strategies but no time frame of when actions happen. This looks like a good step forward though.
-jb
-jb
quail hound
Moderator
One glaring omission that we address frequently is mosquito abatement but I'm sure vector control districts are willing to bend much even on refuges. I'm glad to see at least the beginning of some possible movement.
1pheas4
Moderator
Thanks for the link Cali. There's a few things that came to mind when reading through the "study".
1. As predators numbers increased through the 80's and 90's so too the pheasant populations. Why such a sudden collapse in the mid/late 90's? Is it possible that there's a increase/% reached (predators) where wild ringneck pheasants could no longer withstand?
2. What percentage of pheasants fell victim to predators today vs. the 1970's (relatively speaking)? (this requires radio collar studies)
3. Turkeys; are pheasant numbers on the decline where turkeys are not present too, or, just within areas where turkeys are inhabiting the same habitats/areas as wild pheasants?
4. When wild pheasant numbers collapsed, was there a correlation between advancements in farming implements/practices within the year or two they declined--only to never bounced back? How great was the expansion of such practices within those years, and would the expansion be great enough to effect pheasant numbers on such a large scale in a short period of time?
5. Pen raised birds; like the turkey studies/theory, are populations of wild pheasants similar where pen birds have been released vs. areas where releasing pen raised pheasants has been virtually non existent?
6. Have brood sizes declined? Are birds "willing" to breed but are not breeding? If so, why?
Nick
1. As predators numbers increased through the 80's and 90's so too the pheasant populations. Why such a sudden collapse in the mid/late 90's? Is it possible that there's a increase/% reached (predators) where wild ringneck pheasants could no longer withstand?
2. What percentage of pheasants fell victim to predators today vs. the 1970's (relatively speaking)? (this requires radio collar studies)
3. Turkeys; are pheasant numbers on the decline where turkeys are not present too, or, just within areas where turkeys are inhabiting the same habitats/areas as wild pheasants?
4. When wild pheasant numbers collapsed, was there a correlation between advancements in farming implements/practices within the year or two they declined--only to never bounced back? How great was the expansion of such practices within those years, and would the expansion be great enough to effect pheasant numbers on such a large scale in a short period of time?
5. Pen raised birds; like the turkey studies/theory, are populations of wild pheasants similar where pen birds have been released vs. areas where releasing pen raised pheasants has been virtually non existent?
6. Have brood sizes declined? Are birds "willing" to breed but are not breeding? If so, why?
Nick
Last edited:
Nick, I am not a bilologist but I have done a lot of reading on this over the years and farm and live in the Central Valley in an ag area that used to be full of pheasants. I have a few obersvations.
I believe the pheasant dropoff is a comibination of factors you have listed above. Increased predators and a lack of habitat. Pheasants naturally have a high mortality rate but comspenate by producing a large number of offsring. Chick survival has been poor due to starvation and a lack of cover which is a result in part to some of what you listed above.
From what I've read and people I've talked to, pen raised birds do not help the wild bird populations. Pen raised birds are not equipped to live in the wild. Maybe the few that manage to survive for a time can develop those skills but from what I've read pen raised birds have a very high mortality rate. I met the person who runs a local pheasant club near me and he told me pretty much the pen raised birds they release are wiped out. He doesn't see any birds around during the offseason. They also don't release any hens, and its just roosters so there isn't a larger number of hens being released to hatch chicks. Biologists are also concerned about possible diseases the pen raised birds could put on wild birds and the unwanted predators they would attract.
I think even if the state tried to infuse a massive number of birds into the state, it wouldn't take long until we are back to the same place as the birds don't have the right environment to survive in the state and probably never will.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting Calamari. Always interested in reading these types of studies. Much of the points in this study confirm what has been written about the decline over the past few years. I was not aware how large of an increase there has been in the number of winged predators over the past several years.
To me, the focus to increase pheasants should be put in the wildlife areas and other public lands. In our area, there is a plan by the federal government to return a lot of land along both sides of the SJ River to its former natural state. The plan is for the fed to purchase land along both sides of the river and fallow the land. This is supposed to aid with flow control as part of the SJ River Resoration program. It has quiet because of the drought but this would be the ideal environment to try and bring back some wild pheasants.
I've read that pheasants thrived under the inefficient ag practices of the early days. Everthing was flooded. Parts of land was left untilled. Herbicides were not used like today and broadleaf cover was available. Now everything is cleaned better. Herbicides are used to clean ditches. Add to that there are federal grants available to install underground pipes and remove ditches and install return systems. Methods are being developed to reduce water use. All of this is a detriment to wild pheasants. Add to that the pesticides that kill the insects used to feed chicks. We also have the massive conversation of row crops to almond groves and vineyards with clean floors. The pheasants can never recover.
To me, the focus to increase pheasants should be put in the wildlife areas and other public lands. In our area, there is a plan by the federal government to return a lot of land along both sides of the SJ River to its former natural state. The plan is for the fed to purchase land along both sides of the river and fallow the land. This is supposed to aid with flow control as part of the SJ River Resoration program. It has quiet because of the drought but this would be the ideal environment to try and bring back some wild pheasants.
I've read that pheasants thrived under the inefficient ag practices of the early days. Everthing was flooded. Parts of land was left untilled. Herbicides were not used like today and broadleaf cover was available. Now everything is cleaned better. Herbicides are used to clean ditches. Add to that there are federal grants available to install underground pipes and remove ditches and install return systems. Methods are being developed to reduce water use. All of this is a detriment to wild pheasants. Add to that the pesticides that kill the insects used to feed chicks. We also have the massive conversation of row crops to almond groves and vineyards with clean floors. The pheasants can never recover.
1pheas4
Moderator
Yes. There's no doubt, and increase in habitat and a decrease in predators will benefit pheasants. But consider areas where there's been a increase in habitat and predator populations are not in extreme levels by any means, yet bird numbers are still lagging. One area I observe sometimes has large areas of standing corn adjacent to a large habitat hub--through out the winter months. Still the birds do not seem to be increasing as we would expect them too.
I realize I'm using examples from here in Illinois, but obviously you too are having the same/similar issues (along with a number of other states).
Nick
quail hound
Moderator
The crow and raven angle is one I've been thinking about for a while after having my chickens nests raided while they got up to stretch, eat, and drink. I also had a crow kill a dozen guinea keets a few years back, pecked out the eyes and left them for dead.
I've been told there are lies, damned lies and statistics. No this isn't a ground breaking study because actually the decline in California wasn't overnight but took more than a decade to reach levels that everyone agreed wasn't just a slump in numbers that the population would recover from. The simple conclusions acknowledge the effects of mosquito abatement control and their non-specific larvacides and insecticides without actually calling them out. A lot is political in the wildlife world.
Showing a 4000% increase in Swainson Hawks is an example of a factoid that has little effect on the subject of the study. Swainsons are also called Grasshopper Hawks or Locust Hawks in some places because they mostly eat insects and some rodents. When I reviewed large development projects in farm land for the county I worked for, one of the common mitigation measures proposed for loss of Swainson Hawk habitat was to place a compensating piece of property into tomato production with ownership in a non-profit group as a place for insect and rodent production that still produced income. That 4,000% is actually good news in that a threatened species is rebounding with habitat available for all wildlife. Swainsons aren't a threat. Buteos in general have little impact on pheasants while accipiters, falcons and Northern Harriers are more likely to eat pheasants. I will say however that I saw a Northern Harrier who I'm sure felt very lucky to have survived an encounter with a wild rooster that I happened to see. Hard on chicks I'd guess though.
The increase in crows and ravens I find odd as they are very susceptible to West Nile Virus and in places where there were huge aggregations of crows in past winters there are now very few. Driving at dusk through Yuba City during duck season was creepy at best and like the end of the world with a huge cloud of crows covering the sky as they went to the cities trees to roost. Almost gone now and within the last 10-12 years.
The little mention of "Provide non-linear habitats in managed landscapes" is something that gets right at a big result of new farming practices that affects pheasant production. Rectilinear and laser leveled fields with long infrequent checks make it easy for one coyote, fox or skunk to completely cover all the potential nests on a 1/4 section or larger field. Just run the checks and find all the hens.
Only planting roosters depends on where the club is located. I know that a number of clubs plant lots of hens late in their season but I don't think it makes any difference as they are no more likely to survive and the members are able to shoot hens on their operation too.
Showing a 4000% increase in Swainson Hawks is an example of a factoid that has little effect on the subject of the study. Swainsons are also called Grasshopper Hawks or Locust Hawks in some places because they mostly eat insects and some rodents. When I reviewed large development projects in farm land for the county I worked for, one of the common mitigation measures proposed for loss of Swainson Hawk habitat was to place a compensating piece of property into tomato production with ownership in a non-profit group as a place for insect and rodent production that still produced income. That 4,000% is actually good news in that a threatened species is rebounding with habitat available for all wildlife. Swainsons aren't a threat. Buteos in general have little impact on pheasants while accipiters, falcons and Northern Harriers are more likely to eat pheasants. I will say however that I saw a Northern Harrier who I'm sure felt very lucky to have survived an encounter with a wild rooster that I happened to see. Hard on chicks I'd guess though.
The increase in crows and ravens I find odd as they are very susceptible to West Nile Virus and in places where there were huge aggregations of crows in past winters there are now very few. Driving at dusk through Yuba City during duck season was creepy at best and like the end of the world with a huge cloud of crows covering the sky as they went to the cities trees to roost. Almost gone now and within the last 10-12 years.
The little mention of "Provide non-linear habitats in managed landscapes" is something that gets right at a big result of new farming practices that affects pheasant production. Rectilinear and laser leveled fields with long infrequent checks make it easy for one coyote, fox or skunk to completely cover all the potential nests on a 1/4 section or larger field. Just run the checks and find all the hens.
Only planting roosters depends on where the club is located. I know that a number of clubs plant lots of hens late in their season but I don't think it makes any difference as they are no more likely to survive and the members are able to shoot hens on their operation too.
Last edited:
bunktheclown
New member
Hens
We have planted hens in the past with very limited success and only anecdotal accounts of them producing offspring. They just don't have the smarts of a wild bird. I wonder if transplanting birds from another state would help, stronger genetics?
-jb
We have planted hens in the past with very limited success and only anecdotal accounts of them producing offspring. They just don't have the smarts of a wild bird. I wonder if transplanting birds from another state would help, stronger genetics?
-jb
It guess it depends on where we are focusing this transplanting. The real issue is why the birds declined in the first place and we haven't as a state taken adequate steps to ensure their survival. I see transplanting like putting air in leaky tire. The transplanted pheasants will eventually die off like a tire with a hole will go flat again.
I am not familiar with lllinois, but here in CA there are several factors affecting pheasant populations, not just habitat and predators.
Actually when they transplanted wild birds in the past it worked out pretty well. That was when they didn't have the other problems that exist now for pheasants.
Got to remember that pheasants are an exotic planted species. If DFW spends time and money helping them specifically and not helping other native species that just happens to benefit pheasants, they open themselves up to criticism about not helping Striped Bass another popular exotic species. It actually makes sense and isn't just being risk averse. They need to be creative and to do that there has to be more positive feedback than negative. MWD and the San Joaquin water districts would throw a hissy if they actually helped pheasants because of the tie to stripers.
quail hound
Moderator
They help striper, large mouth, and spots all the time by planting all that bait they love eating... I think they call them trout.
Transplanting under certain conditions. But for instance where I live, there used to be pheasants all over but transplanting wouldn't work here. I've talked to some of the DFG people who work out Los Banos. According to them, Pheasants are a non native species to California so they are not a high priority