December pheasant hunting should not be allowed.

Three reasons for less Pheasants in Michigan Habitat, Habitat, Habitat. As for winter hunting, no impact, unless your shootings hens. Last actual winter we had was in 2011 not 2012. And numbers don't appear to have changed .
 
Okay, why is there so few birds where the habitat is good? I agree you cannot hurt populations by only shooting males, however the predator chain kills anything it can. We have a overpopulation of predators such as house cats, coyotes, possums, raccoons, crows and hawks that all need to eat. All issues need to be addressed including habitat and predators.
 
Michigan does NOT have the vast, macro-habitat themes required to support a healthy pheasant population. Oh sure, you will see 600 acres here and 300 acres there in a vast area of PREDOMINANTLY useless and even hostile habitat, but those small islands of habitat don't get it done. LARGE areas of grass, crops, grass, crops, grass, crops.......seemingly endless, from one horizon to the other and encompassing 4,5,6,....12.....15 counties, then we can talk about "fine tuning" this habitat for even better numbers.

Michigan CAN'T have good pheasant numbers because:

1. It is not a praire state and there are too many trees.

2. There are WAY too many people in Michigan(it's US or pheasants).
Pheasants are VERY intolerent of large numbers of people.

3. The farming practices on the scraps of ag land left are hostile to
pheasants. The value of farmland in MI is too high to expect it to be
committed to pheasant habitat.

So, to recap:

You will have the foundation for good pheasant numbers IF:

1. The over-riding landscape theme is PRAIRE.

2. VERY low people numbers - at the most, 1/10 of what Michigan has. SD
has 1/10, ND has 1/20! This part of the equation is VERY important!

3. LOW ag land values: < $1000/acre is ideal - when it rises above
$2500/acre, long-term good pheasant numbers will be hard to sustain.

4. Last but certainly not least, GRASS, GRASS, GRASS, GRASS, GRASS.
Yup, LOTS of it! My gosh, it's what pheasants call their HOME! Without
LOTS of it - NO PHEASANTS!!!!!!!
 
You really need to consider a bit, RK.....consider losing the agenda apparently driven by generalizations, misconceptions and comparing a perfect Grimes Golden to a less than perfect Winesap.
The idea is not that Michigan or Pennsylvania ever will be North Dakota.
The idea is to provide a pheasant experience for which no dog and few hunters would look down their nose....and fewer still would waste time in making the comparison to a Grimes and a Winesap.
Because, perfect is not the important point of the matter.
And comparisons?....well, they are a luxury not all can enjoy.
 
Last edited:
RK what you say is somewhat true, however we still have some habitat that could support birds. Birds and people not tolerant? How about birds and predators, cats etc. Michigan will never be like hunting the Dakota's but as I stated predators are a problem that should not be ignored. I cannot legally leave my dogs run loose, but I drive by homes in pheasant country with lots and lots of cats running loose.
 
If "somewhat true" you mean 98% true, I would agree. The last 40 years of Michigan habitat history proves my "theories" correct and, over the next 40 years, as the people population continues its persistant invasion into and its saturation of any last remaining tidbits of pheasant habitat, true wild pheasants will be virtually extinct in Michigan.

Great pheasant habitat "out west" supports many more predators AND MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY more pheasants than Michigan does. Besides, there is no proven cost-effective way to control predators no matter what the habitat is like so it's a moot issue.

HELLO! - more predators is a decent indication that your pheasant habitat is thriving. I just got back from MT and ND. Saw more skunks, raccoons, hawks, foxes, cuyoties, etc. than I could believe. And on cats: a retired farmer whose land we hunt has a barnyard FULL of cats - he loves them - all 65 of them - big ones, little ones, everywhere. His 480 acres is some of the best we hunt - his tree rows are FULL of birds! The habitat on his property is like a PF poster. As is most of the surrounding 6-8 counties around him.

But if you have a cost-effective method to significantly reduce all those mentioned rascals, I'm listening.

A base, foundational, macro-habitat theme is EVERYTHING.

If it were 1953 in Michigan and you asked me: "How would you protect the pheasant habitat we have here in Michigan". My answer: I would put a fence around every city and village and not let anyone out and I would keep the soil bank and require farmers to keep as much grass in the future as they have today. That unrealistic opportunity is LONG gone! That "blink-of-an-eye" period came and went many years ago - it's OVER.
 
Great conversation here and very civil - unlike most of these discussions on Internet forums.

I was a wildlife manager in Michigan. I did my college work on ruffed grouse, and worked on deer, turkeys, grouse, the Sichuan pheasant program, waterfowl...habitat management, etc. I managed a state wildlife area in southern Michigan and worked in the U.P. My family and in-laws live in the Traverse City area. I have extensively hunted throughout the state of Michigan (deer, Turkey, rabbit, squirrel, waterfowl, pheasants, ruffed grouse )and have also extensively hunted Wisconsin (deer, grouse, pheasants, waterfowl) North Dakota (pheasants, waterfowl, sandhill cranes, sharp tailed grouse)Nebraska (pheasants, prairie chicken), Kansas (pheasants) and Colorado( deer, elk, pronghorn, pheasants, doves, waterfowl). I say this not to brag but to just point out my hunting experience juxtaposed with my biological knowledge and experience as a wildlife manager.

It is indeed a fact that all wildlife species have their own set of unique habitat requirements for breeding, birthing, bringing up young, and survival to breeding age. But "habitat" is THE basic requirement. Considering habitat Ina most-general sense, there can be "habitat" devoid of good numbers of critters, and there can be limited numbers of critters existing in very marginal "habitat". This is especially the case in areas which are marginal range for the species under consideration.

The lower the quality of the habitat for a given species, the greater the impact on that species from other negative influences. Take pheasant predation for instance; in the Dakotas, with its seas of grasses and agriculture as previously described, there are tremendous numbers of predators. But they have very little overall impact on pheasant numbers because of the sheer abundance of high-quality, year-round "habitat". Pheasants, being non-migratory gallinaceous birds (as are ruffed grouse), need all their life requirements in a relatively small area. It is generally agreed that where ALL life requisites for the ring-necked pheasant exist in about a square mile, there is a good chance pheasants can be sustained, and where they do not exist pheasants will not and cannot be sustained in any significant numbers over the long-term.

Islands of seemingly ideal pheasant habitat, which exist throughout many parts of the Midwest, might be able to support a few birds now and then. However, as the landscape in southern Michigan, southern Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, southeast Minnesota, etc., has transitioned from a family-owned "farmscape" with lots of "waste" and "inefficiencies" to a corporate-owned "agriscape" with just the opposite, the only thing that exists in many places are relatively small islands of habitat which are incapable of supporting sustainable populations of pheasants over the long-term. The "pheasant states", as many of you know, have tremendous amounts of large blocks of habitat. Here in Colorado and western Kansas pheasant numbers wax and wain due to the impacts of seasonal weather...we can have a great hatch in the spring and lose almost all of the production in localized areas due to hail storms (which we get a LOT of!) or drought. The last three years we have had very few birds on tremendous amounts of acreage suitable for pheasants...but they will come back to relative abundance given advantageous weather conditions. And I will be out there hunting them until the season ends of January 31st.

This is a large part of the basic argument against "stocking" pheasants. The average life span of the ring-necked pheasant is 9-11 months, whether they are hunted or not. This DOES NOT mean that some birds don't live to 2 or even, in some cases, 3 years - they do. But AVERAGE, in the WILD, is 9-11 months. So the sustainability of a population relies upon "recruitment", which depends upon "fecundity" and ... "Habitat". So large areas of marginal habitat which might seem ideal to some are simply incapable of supporting a significant number of birds over time. Lots of corn is not year-round habitat; lots of smooth brome grass is not year-round habitat; fields of indiangrass and switchgrass surrounded by tree rows and wood lots (all predator perches) in not year-round habitat.

So when it comes to hunting, in December or otherwise, for r-selected wildlife species it is still a compensatory mortality factor. Hunting CAN BE an additive mortality factor when the islands are too small - if you have a rooster and three hens on your '40' in the Thumb and you shoot the rooster things don't look good for your "pheasant population". But the reality is that rooster's (and the hen's) odds of surviving to breeding season are not that great. The idea with pheasants is to survive to your first breeding season. If that happens generation after generation, you can have a sustainable population; if it doesn't, you can't.

And we just aren't that good at "hunting" for the most part. We can't smell, we can't see, were noisy and unstealthy, and we are only out the practicing it for a small percentage of the year!
 
Oak clear cuts

Marshrat,
Sounds like you know your stuff, I have a question for you being that you are very educated with Michigan and it's wildlife. I have been noticing a lot of oaks being clear cut in northern lower,100 to 300 acre parcels. Are we not cutting a great food source for both are deer and other wildlife in trade for a short term aspen. Also would it not be better for wildlife if we cut small parcels 5-30 acres, creating more edges for wildlife as well as leaving a food source of acorns. Thanks for your input.
 
"The average lifespan of the ring-necked pheasant is 9 - 11 months."

What exactly does this mean? Is chick mortality included in this lifespan? I would imagine most deaths are chicks. After the bird has reached adulthood, would it's lifespan be considerably greater on average than 9 to 11 months, especially hens?
 
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.
 
The 9-11 month life expectancy comes from studies done in South Dakota and a few other "pheasant states" where birds were radio collared and followed in areas closed to hunting and areas open to hunting. General findings were that very few birds made it much past their first breeding season, and fewer still made it to their second breeding season.

Chick mortality is sort of in a different equation. When I mentioned the term "r-selected" I figured a few would look it up. Basically ecologists and population biologists categorize animals into two broad categories, r-selected species and k-selected species. The term refers to overall strategy a species uses to maintain itself. K-selected species are described as having high birth rates and low parental care (thus low energy expenditure) and short life expectancy to compensate for high death rates...they're food. Rabbits, mice, and many species of birds are examples of r-selected species, as are pheasants. Many more young are produced than are needed to sustain a viable breeding population.

K-selected species are the opposite; they have relatively low birth rates, high parental care, and long life expectancy. Humans, elephants, bears...are examples of k-selected species. The category a particular species or group of species is in has much to do with what regulations (bag limits, season length, etc.) are in place for hunting that species.

As far as the oak question, the answer depends upon who the landowner is and what the management goals are. Most of the oak stands in northern Michigan are the red oak type. Red oak has fairly high commercial value (lumber, firewood, etc.) and is a relatively fast-growing tree. It is also pretty shade intolerant, so clear cutting is a silvicultural technique for regenerating oak stands. Some sites are seed-tree cut and good regeneration can be experienced from that method as well. If there is aspen on the site, the aspen will outcompete the oak most likely and at least for 30-50 years, but eventually it will tend toward a mixed stand.

Red oaks do produce acorns, obviously. But they are very unreliable producers. Some individual trees will always produce a good crop and some will never produce a good crops, but a red oak stand, in general, produces acorns every 2-5 years. So relying on oaks as a reliable food source is not a winning strategy generally, and acorns really are considered "ice cream". Clear cutting a red oak stand with aspen in it, converting it to an aspen stand, will provide far more food value and cover more reliably than the oak stand will. Of course, identifying good acorn-producing trees and leaving 2-5 per acre would be a good thing to do. Another consideration would be to live-lop some of the oaks trees around the edge ; the stump sprouting provides really good thermal cover for a variety of wildlife species.

Cutting smaller blocks does create more edge and is a good thing to do when feasible. Sometimes cutting smaller blocks is economically challenging for commercial logging operations and larger cuts can be designed utilizing natural contours of the land, etc, to avoid straight edges which reduce habitat quality. The consideration is the deer population. In areas with high deer numbers for the existing habitat, the cuttings have to be large enough to overwhelm the browsing pressure that will occur. That has an impact on the quality/quantity of the regeneration. So, lots of things to consider....
 
Also, bag limits DO NOT enhance(to any real significant degree) long-term numbers of upland game birds. Bag limits simply serve to fairly spread out CURRENT SEASON hunting opportunities and provide a longer hunting season.

Ya can't "stockpile" the birds.
 
Bird hunting has been terrible in Missouri for 15 years with the exception of one week.

In 2000, a large conservation area was closed for duck renovation. Did not open until after the 2003 duck season.

2003 was not a great year until duck season closed. I shot 50 quail in one week. Never saw so many hunters so I figured I should shoot the birds myself. Actually saw a flock of roosters (30 birds) land in some milo 100 yards in front of me. A friend shot a limit of roosters for over two weeks.

If hunting does not affect bird numbers, why was hunting so good here and poor in areas with similar cover?

Next year, this area was like the rest. Cannot believe hunting does not hurt in the era of little cover. Everything changes. Time to change bag limits.
 
Nope, bag limits are ABSOLUTELY the wrong focus. The facts of pheasant biology just don't support it. Oregon biologists have done extensive studies on this - if you go to their web-site find a link: Game Birds - Harvest Studies.

It's time to change HABITAT not bag limits.

Trying to enhance #'s by using bag limits is like chasing your tail or a mirage in the desert.

I will venture to say that if Missouri closed the pheasant season for 10 years and the habitat stayed as bad as it is, there would be no more birds in the
10th year than there is today - and probably less because the poor habitat is producing ever smaller #'s each year.

The octane upon which bird numbers are built is HABITAT.
 
I don't think so. An area closed for three years had more pheasants than I have ever seen in MO. We never see flocks of roosters. Five thousands acres of prime habitat managed for pheasants did not have many pheasants that year.

Problem is fragmentation in Missouri. Even if you bought land and installed great habitat, where is the breeding stock going to come from? Missouri is not a big pheasant state so mainly talking quail. Not everyone is going to take it easy on coveys. It does not really matter. Last limit of quail I shot was in 2003. Sad. Cannot remember half a limit.

I do agree habitat is the most important factor.
 
First of all this thread was started in Michigan LOL. Has no bearing on other states. We in MN for example have been shooting birds through December since the beginning of time. So has the other states up here in pheasant country. It has changed nothing since the beginning of time. So biology smoligy. Take the study and toss it out the window on your way to a state that has birds.:thumbsup::D If you don't have them by now your not going to.;)
 
Last edited:
The study cited was from Oregon. And I agree it may not apply to other states.

My background is science and you are right about biology smoligy. Non-scientists view experimentation as gospel. It is not. Too many variables; easy to conclude the results you are looking for.

To counter my position you could say I am projecting one occurrence as the norm. If anyone knows of a large area with good habitat that has not been hunted for years, let me know and I will go and collect some data.
 
FCSpringer said:
First of all this thread was started in Michigan LOL. Has no bearing on other states. We in MN for example have been shooting birds through December since the beginning of time. So has the other states up here in pheasant country. It has changed nothing since the beginning of time. So biology smoligy. Take the study and toss it out the window on your way to a state that has birds.:thumbsup::D If you don't have them by now your not going to.;)
Click to expand...
I suspect that research on quail, pheasant, and upland birds have a broad application to other states and areas. Admittedly, Missouri does not have a big pheasant range as other states so there maybe better opportunities there. But I think I could surprise you with the number of birds I can raise on private ground hunted only by me! Part of it is exposure to hunting, and tactics. The Missouri department of conservation made a study that concluded that quail are stressed later in the season, most "excess" birds are harvested without any affect in the early season. Late harvested birds, by logic?( I will trend lightly on that!), reduce the breeding population for the following spring, because of stress. as we know the spring, where food and cover are at their minimum, stress all upland birds. Missouri, as they will tell you, ad nauseum, stops the season on January 15, every year, to compensate. Now, at one point in my life, we harvested over 2,000,000 quail a year for a twenty year span, some of those were years where we harvested 4,000,000! I personally doubt if there are 4,000,000 alive in the state currently. With the quail focus areas, and some effort, with nice assist from low snow and ice, and warm dry springs, Missouri is on a roll. I have hunted recently in Kansas, also having better success, and Oklahoma, which was the last bastion of quail hunting before the drought. Oklahoma is recovered nicely, and has better habitat than Missouri and eastern Kansas currently. Both Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas hunt later than Missouri, and I have not seen populations being affected at all.

Back to habitat! and a good favorable dose of weather. I believe that hunting is affected by closures of an area. If nobody hunts there, the first few who do have a distinct advantage, like groundhog day, or opening day deja vu! works in South Dakota, Minnesota, or Missouri. Heck if we had a one weekend season, all days would be that way!
 
As may be the case in MO, there are always minor exceptions to an over-riding GENERAL principle. Perhaps MO has a few pockets of birds that would benefit from protection from the gun.

But the over-riding principle is this: As habitat remains poor to marginal and/or declines, you will chase limits down until eventually the season will close in a futile attempt to restore long-term bird #'s.

Again, reducing bag limits is commendable if the goal is to share more fairly a declining bird population for the CURRENT SEASON with as many hunters as possible but it should not be a significant tool in restoring the "hey day" era or even close.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about pheasants. Lest we forget, pheasants are the only upland game that shields hens from the gun. Other birds are not so fortunate. Shooting hens is like shooting 5+ of next years birds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top