KDWP - Effects of Stocking

Ranger Danger

Ranger Danger

Member
Same deal as the other I posted.

Effects of Stocking


Statement on Stocking Pen-Raised Birds to Increase Populations
Kansas Upland Game Program
Kansas Dept. of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism

Kansas has been in extreme drought conditions for most of 2011 and 2012. These factors have caused a decline in upland game populations through much of the state, especially pheasant populations. Upland game populations are continually cycling up and down given various weather and habitat conditions. It is often suggested that Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (KDWPT) begin stocking pen-raised birds to “help” the struggling populations. There are important reasons why KDWPT biologists will not pursue this course, and they are as follows:

• Research has shown that pen-raised birds do not survive well (some studies suggest greater than 90% mortality within 30 days or less) after initial release and a very low percentage make it into the following breeding population.
• Research has also shown that those females that do survive into the following spring have very low nest and brood success, and are not able to add significantly to the population. The cost is nowhere near the benefit.
• The only reasonable situation for releasing pen-reared birds is to release them right before a planned hunt, and the expense for a put and take program that would satisfy hunter demand across the state is astronomical and not fiscally feasible. Nor do we know the impact such a widespread release of pen-reared birds could have on our wild populations in terms of genetic change or spreading of disease.
• Our current wild bird populations have filled habitat niches across the state, and have adapted to their local habitats. These wild populations are currently cycling through the ups and downs at the natural capacity of current habitat conditions. Adding pen-reared birds will do nothing to increase current populations in the long term.

So if the above is true, then how did many upland game birds come from pen-released stock in the first place. First let’s consider the habitat at the time of release. Farming practices were vastly different in the early 1900’s when many of the releases took place. There were more weedy fallow fields, more “dirty” farming practices. These areas provided ideal habitat. Second, many thousands, even millions of birds over the years were released. It is likely that a very low percentage of these pen-reared birds survived and an even lower percent that successfully reproduced. But with ideal and unfilled habitat, their wild populations were slowly able to grow until they filled the available habitat. Releasing pen-reared birds today is like trying to put more gas in a full tank, it is just wasting valuable financial resources that could be spent more effectively. The best management practice we can do is to increase usable habitat. Upland game populations have an amazing ability to reproduce and expand given good climatic and habitat conditions. They have shown over the years they will naturally fill available habitat given time. Therefore, as a wildlife agency extremely passionate about our upland game resources we are focusing on how we can conserve what habitat we have and increase available habitat in the future. This is the best use of the sportsmen’s dollars.

Please also visit Pheasants Forever website (http://www.pheasantsforever.org/page/1/stocking.jsp) to see their position on stocking pheasants.

We appreciate your interest and concern, and we share your passion for our wildlife resources.
 
I have to chime in here too.

The fact of the matter is that it DOES work--it just doesn't work very well and its expensive. They admit as much in the first two bullet points. "Very low percentage make it to the following breeding population" is admitting that some DO make it. "Very low nest and brood success" again admits that some DO have next success.

You can't argue, though, with their larger point about cost-benefit. However, as an individual landowner if one released 20 hens on a quarter section in march and brought off just one additional brood, or 20 pairs of quail for one additional brood, perhaps as an individual landowner one might consider that a success and be willing to spend the money.
 
I just have to say. Stocking of pen raised pheasants in an area where the wild pheasant population has died off has little or no chance of working.

There's a problem in the area! obviously. You have to figure out why the wild population has disappeared and start over.

And, if you have things in place. Such as YEAR AROUND habitat, food supply, PREDATOR control. Fact is, pen raised pheasants will reproduce and do well.

Nearly all pheasant populations in North America have been started from pen raised birds.
 
My issue with KDWP is they are not managing public state areas for upland birds. An example is the increased planting of soybeans in public hunting areas. It is known that soybeans can be harmful to quail. A game warden told me that they plant up to 30% of cropland in beans. I'm sure the state collects hefty sharecropping fees from beans but to the detriment of Quail populations. Why not manage habitat with an eye to bird populations rather than profit!!!
 
mnmthunting said:
I just have to say. Stocking of pen raised pheasants in an area where the wild pheasant population has died off has little or no chance of working.

There's a problem in the area! obviously. You have to figure out why the wild population has disappeared and start over.

And, if you have things in place. Such as YEAR AROUND habitat, food supply, PREDATOR control. Fact is, pen raised pheasants will reproduce and do well.

Nearly all pheasant populations in North America have been started from pen raised birds.
Click to expand...

Great post! We're in need of quality habitat in my part of the state, even in 'wet' years. There's no shortage of predators either.
 
Retired Guy said:
My issue with KDWP is they are not managing public state areas for upland birds. An example is the increased planting of soybeans in public hunting areas. It is known that soybeans can be harmful to quail. A game warden told me that they plant up to 30% of cropland in beans. I'm sure the state collects hefty sharecropping fees from beans but to the detriment of Quail populations. Why not manage habitat with an eye to bird populations rather than profit!!!
Click to expand...

A kdwp biologist told us 2 years ago that soybeans have to be in a certain phase and produce a certain fungus while in that phase to hurt the quail. He said it happens so rarely it is not really a factor in quail production or reproduction.
 
turtle said:
A kdwp biologist told us 2 years ago that soybeans have to be in a certain phase and produce a certain fungus while in that phase to hurt the quail. He said it happens so rarely it is not really a factor in quail production or reproduction.
Click to expand...

Missouri is researching the trytophan content of soybeans with the idea that it IS toxic to quail. Not so much the chemical, but it makes soybeans undigestable without some heating to make it palatable, it is true in livestock too! So a quail can fill his crop and eventually starve to death, or get worn down over time. this is not fungus, corn, milo, rice, soybeans, but under certain conditions which are thankfully rare. This is a different anmal, more like the fungus on fescue that causes grass tentany in beef cattle.
 
Last edited:
If we go back to the post "dust bowl" days and use strip farming techniques, native pasture, little if any chemical application, wide row spacing, less fall plowing. We could populate the country with transplated pheasants. Of course we would not need stocking to do it!
 
A drive around the Winner SD area demonstrated what it takes to create a large pheasant population - lots of habitat. Along the highway it is rare thing to see any 40 - 80 acres of cropland that does not have a big shelter belt in it or along side it. Shelter belts = pheasants.
 
Do farmers plant these shelterbelts on their own then?

I would assume that they do it so that their land can hold more pheasants so that they can charge to hunt birds, sort of like an additional cash crop only with much less risk involved.
 
I don't want to sound like the lone wolf on this subject but I do want to add some balance to the subject.

How can you say that research shows that pen raised pheasants do not survive when 98% of the wild pheasants in N. America, initially came from pen raised stock.
Research also shows that places like Arnett, Kingfisher, Hennessey and Perry Oklahoma did not have wild pheasants in their areas 30 years ago. But after thousands and thousands of wilder strains of pen raised pheasants were released and after a long time they were successful in establishing a wild reproducing population of wild pheasants.
The same story is true for the Texas panhandle south of I-40. Wilder predator wary strains of pen raised pheasants released by the thousands got pheasant started 40 years ago.
Private outfitters that also release pheasants also added to the wild population. I will agree that 80 to 90% of these pen raised pheasant will fall prey to predators but the 10 to 20% that survive can hatch wild birds and add to the overall wild population.
I will not name all of the states that still stock pen raised pheasants but it is quite a few, those are educated people they have good reasons to continue the project.
I will add that the commercially available pen raised stock after 40 years in the pen tend to become inbreed and tame. We need an infusion of new authentic wild blood directly from China not from cages or pens but directly from wild fields.
 
Last edited:
planting birds

much has been covered but the most important thing is that the habitat has changed since the first release. if you were to drive around the places i hunt in kansas, the last two years, the area likely couldn't support a whole lot more as there is no place to put them, especially dumb one's. something else has changed and that is cost. 100 pheasants at $10 each is a $1000. with better than average luck, maybe 10 would survive, that's a $900 loss, studies also show that roosters are more likely to survive than the hens, so now you may be down to 4 birds and again the studies show that those 4 birds are likely unable to complete a nesting, therefore no chick. where is the money coming from?? if you multiply these birds by the thousands, look at the cost and then see what kind of land and habitat improvements could have been done with that money. anyway

cheers
 
It's not "game management" or "pheasant management" anymore, can't happen.

It's got to be wildlife management now days.

True, during the successful stocking days of pen raised pheasants. It was PHEASANT management.
ALL critters that posed a threat to the stocked birds were trapped, poisoned, whatever it took. Gave the pen raise birds a MUCH better chance of survival.

GASP!:eek: right? It's true.

I Know, I know. Of course, pheasant management like that can no longer be done.
 
Preston1 said:
I don't want to sound like the lone wolf on this subject but I do want to add some balance to the subject.

How can you say that research shows that pen raised pheasants do not survive when 98% of the wild pheasants in N. America, initially came from pen raised stock.
Research also shows that places like Arnett, Kingfisher, Hennessey and Perry Oklahoma did not have wild pheasants in their areas 30 years ago. But after thousands and thousands of wilder strains of pen raised pheasants were released and after a long time they were successful in establishing a wild reproducing population of wild pheasants.
The same story is true for the Texas panhandle south of I-40. Wilder predator wary strains of pen raised pheasants released by the thousands got pheasant started 40 years ago.
Private outfitters that also release pheasants also added to the wild population. I will agree that 80 to 90% of these pen raised pheasant will fall prey to predators but the 10 to 20% that survive can hatch wild birds and add to the overall wild population.
I will not name all of the states that still stock pen raised pheasants but it is quite a few, those are educated people they have good reasons to continue the project.
I will add that the commercially available pen raised stock after 40 years in the pen tend to become inbreed and tame. We need an infusion of new authentic wild blood directly from China not from cages or pens but directly from wild fields.
Click to expand...

As mnmthunting said, if an area hardly has any wild pheasants, then why do you think the pen raised pheasants will fare any better? Even the best strain of pen raised birds aren't going to fare better than wild birds that have adapted to the area over a hundred generations. If you've got ideal habitat and lots of wild birds, then I'm sure the pen raised birds have a better chance, but why release pen raised birds if you've got plenty of wild birds? The only fix for lack of birds is more habitat.
 
If you already have a healthy wild population of well established wild reproducing pheasants in an area there is no need at all for pen raised pheasants.

The question only comes up concerning areas completely void of wild pheasants. There are real pockets or large areas with good pheasant habitat but is completely void of wild pheasants. We are talking inside the traditional pheasant range and adjacent to the wild pheasant range.

So if you want wild pheasant back on your land and you already have good habitat then what do you do? Or have good pheasant habitat healthy green nesting cover and you want to get wild pheasants started on your land what do you do?

Do you wait patiently for the wild pheasants to fly to your property, that is possible but it may take 5, 10, 15 or maybe 20 years. The best thing to do would be to wild trap adult pheasants and relocate them to your land. But the average citizen can't trap wild pheasants.

We have two example to show what i am saying, Arnett, Oklahoma is around 75 or 80 miles from Liberal, Kansas. We all know that in a good year with normal moisture there are lots of wild pheasants all around Liberal and southward into Oklahoma. But the wild pheasants simply had not worked there way down to Arnett yet (they have good wheat county nice habitat around Arnett). And we have to remember that 50 to 60 years ago Liberal did not have a lot of pheasants.
In the 90's the people around Arnett released pen raised pheasants (a lot of them) and got the wild population started in their area. Maybe the wild pheasants would have eventually moved in or maybe not.
In the Texas panhandle in the 60' s they did the same thing. They were not trying to replace wild pheasants but trying to start wild pheasants with pen raised birds. They were told by the experts at that time, that the south plains of Texas was too hot, not the right minerals for pheasants and pheasants had already filled their niche north of them.
Now wild pheasants are seen south of where anybody expected to see them. See article below:http://amarillo.com/stories/120201/whe_legionsofspo.shtml
 
Last edited:
I am NOT saying that releasing pen raised pheasants is bad. DO IT!
If you have the year around habitat, food supply and no pheasants or even just a few wild ones by all means raise and release pheasants. It works for sure, the more work you put into it the better survival rate.
 
My thought is why is introducing pheasants to habitat they have not colonized is a great idea. Most of what we are describing once was a quail area, 100 years ago it was lesser prairie chickens. Well we destroyed the chickens, the quail struggle on, perhaps their habitat is encroached upon by introduced pheasants, could be competition, disease, who knows? The truth is we don't know and neither do the experts. So is introducing pen raised birds a great theory any way? As to pen raised pheasants being successful in many areas, The defenition of pen raised to wild extracted pheasants, ( assuming you can actually trust China, to deliver, consider the seafood scandal, eavedropping scandal, et.al.) any bird transported from China or South Dakota is a pen raised bird, at least temporary. Stocking is outrageous expense, wether many generation domesticated or fresh out a thicket a half a world away, most are dead meat on arrival, some will survive, reproduce, and survive within the quality, and quantity of the habitat, period. Otherwise they will scramble across roads in west Texas, the Missouri bootheel, Anchorage, Alaska, and inhabiting Detroit, a new urban nature preserve to provide coffee table conversation. Until we have some wholesale conversion of farm management, or some economic cataclism, stocking might possibly increase the bag, give us a conversation piece, and little else of value. Maybe we can help the quail, in these areas or reestablish the lesser prairie chickens, an expensive procedure, and a stiff climb, but might actually be attainable long term. If the pheasant can prosper, he's welcome. There is a silly preoccupation with pheasants, where are the hungarian patridge stockers, the Chuckar society with stocking plans? They are gallant gamebirds in there own right. Just wishing it so, and dropping a bird on the roadside won't cut it.
 
I think the possibility of stocking non native birds anywhere, anymore, in the USA is a long gone idea. State and federal agencies will not touch it and always come up with ton of excuses not to do it. (follow the all native movement)
You'll have to do it on Your own.
There are a lot of places Huns would thrive if introduced. Toughest little birds there is. They handle drought, wet, extreme cold, prolonged deep snow. They know how ti get up and find cover and food. Thrive in badlands, sage hills prairies and stubble.
 
release

i think the common thread here is at what cost and what seems to be declining habitat due to what ever. it is marginal undertaking, finding a great strain of birds might also be problematic. think i have read that quail are even harder to get going. i know if i had the land and habitat, i would try, but then it would just be a hobby. mostly the studies say it is a flop, spend the money elsewhere. i remember years ago you could hardly find a place to park your plane at liberal, wow! what a change they have had down there recently

cheers
 
Until habitat loss and management practices are addressed nothing is going to strive in this state. It is not a pheasant problem, it is a general availability of all game. Habitat will improve everything. Pheasants are on the decline, quail are on the decline, prairie chickens are on the decline, deer are on the decline, and the list goes on. Even turkeys have suffered a serious setback in Cherokee county.

We are severly over crowed with hunter numbers and have a declining habitat. You could stock a million pheasants this spring and it would have zero effect on the quality of hunting this fall. CRP is on the decline and to me that is the single most important thing we can address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top