Surrogator or Not???

RoosterFetcher

RoosterFetcher

New member
Hello Gentlemen/Ladies: Need your advice on something...
Does it do more harm to release pheasants into the wild? If not is a surrogator worth the money?
 
If you'll read the independant research on surrogators, you'll see that the success rate for survival of those birds is no different than other release methods. In general, 95% of the birds released will be dead in 30-90 days. If you want to pay 20X the price for the birds alive after 90 days, then surrogators can get you there. If you want to have a high in the bag return, release the birds 10 minutes before you drop the tail gate to let the dogs out. Again, this is the independant research, not the sales pitch of the people trying to get your money. As for hurting wild populaltions, I would say the there is evidence that the inferior genetics and education that those wild birds bring to your population along with the capability of the released birds focusing predators on that species of prey, they are more apt to be a negative to the wild population that they are a positive.
 
It's been proven over and over and over that. Pen raised pheasants do quite well released in an area of proper habitat and predator control.

Pheasants released in "say" a Wild life management area for instance will do poorly. WMA's are just that, managed for all wildlife including a whole host of pheasant eating critters.
 
I have read dozens of research papers on the release of pen-reared pheasants and quail and I have not read one that came up with good results releasning pen-reared pheasants or quail in any situation. Much of their predator avoidance and feeding/survival skills must be learned from a parent, and an incubator and surrogator do not provide that.
 
It won't hurt. A few farmers around here do it and they have tons of birds on their land. More then 5% are living thats for sure:)
 
Let me state this another way. For the price you'll pay to buy a surrogator and chicks, you can develop 80 acres of suitable habitat.
 
Here's the way the research goes.

OK, Wild pheasants have all but disappeared in an area. Habitat seems to be about the same as always.
Government guys are confused:confused:
Time to do some research, spend some tax dollars.:)

So, They pen raise a 100 pheasants, let them go in the research area at about 6 weeks of age.

Dang!! The pen raised pheasants seem to have mostly disappeared too.:eek:

So why would pen raised pheasants make it where the wild ones can't.

No one can use the "P" word.

Studies conclusion. "Pen raised pheasants won't make it in the wild"

Same type thing with the studies of pheasant and coyote predation.

Pheasant are all but gone in an area where once abundant.

Concerned citizens and hunters are aware of a high local Coyote population.

DNR boys think it's time for a study. So they gather up all the fresh yote feces they can find, study it closely. :cheers:

Find evidence of coon and an assortment of other critters in some of the poo. [most likely road kill]

Very little evidence of coyotes predation on pheasants.
Maybe should have done the study while there were still some pheasants in the area, you think!

Conclusion of the study. [We need to protect the coyotes]

This really isn't all that "far fetched you know]
 
I don't think raising quail and pheasant chicks in a tin cat surrogator is any superior to raising pheasants in a flight pen and setting them free. I can use a johnny house call back to naturalize bobwhite quail, AS LONG AS THERE IS HABITAT TO RELEASE INTO. The release of pheasants or quail, and their relative survival rate will be completely dependent upon the habitat. Now if you have superior habitat and a remnant population of wild birds, all things being equal, within a short time, they will colonize the superior habitat, all by themselves. Possible exceptions a brutal winter, with ice and deep snow that beats down the carryover population as to severely limit the numbers and condition of birds going into nesting season, or the cold wet spring phenomenom which eliminates or sharply curtails natural reproduction success. In these cases artificial propagation will boost harvestable fall birds, and possibly, but not as likely, add numbers of potential nesters. The rearing method is not as important as the exposure to dirt, flight, natural food sources, etc. non of which they get in a surrogator. IMO the surrogator is a gimmick designed to catch customers, like most fishing lures are designed to catch fishermen. Nothing more than a glorified incubator/growout unit, whether it's in the great outdoors or in your basement makes little difference and 6 week old green birds are a predator buffet!
 
The problem with a forum like this is that everyone gets the same opportunity to speak and not everyone will confine their speech to topics that they have knowledge of or training in. Thus, it is difficult at times to differentiate between good information and bad. Mnmthunting, I'm seriously disappointed with your input on this topic. As moderator, you cannot know everything about every topic and you bear a greater responsibility to ensure that the information you present is correct and beneficial. On this topic you have failed your fellow sportsmen, possibly costing many of them the limited dollars they have available to improve their own hunting situation by promoting ideas based on your own misinformation, bias, and ignorance. This is one of those times when your mission as moderator should have been to attract someone with advanced knowledge on the subject, or leave it alone. We have had good correspondence in the past, and I hope more in the future.

This is an emotional topic. Unfortunately, this is not simple addition and subtraction. There are numerous variables that both add and detract from the inputs into stocking and habitat issues. I am trying to get a digital copy of Randy Rodgers' article "The Stocking Controversy" to attach so that everyone can benefit from his 40 years of experience in the field. Until then, I will try to input facts and exerpts that might help provide better understanding. First, one has to understand the financial here and how the rush to get your limited management $ can ensure that you waste those precious dollars or benefit from them. Game breeders frequently exagerate or turn a blind eye to the success of the release of their birds because the more birds they sell, the more they make. So too are the motivations of those who promote and sell the various release systems to landowners and sportsmen. Yes, I could be sounding just like Mnmt's opinion on "State Biologists". You'll have to be the judge!

As a first quote from Mr. Rodgers, "Learned behavior stemming from early life experience is very influential in the development of survival skills in birds. In contrast, fish rely more heavily on genetically encoded instinct. Consequently, artificial rearing preduces very different outcomes with fish as compared to gamebirds". One study found,"Perhaps the most common form of supplemental stoocking has been to raise pheasant to the age of 8-12 weeks and release them in mid-summer. One of the more illustrative studies that dealt with such stocking was done in Minnesota using redio telemtery. Those researchers found that more than 40% of their pen-reared juveniles were dead within 5 days of release. After four weeks, more than 75% were dead...and this, remember, occurred in the summer when cover conditions were best".

"A somewhat different study done in Pennsylvania compared the survival of pen-reared adult males to that of wild adult cocks released in the spring. Again, radio transmitters allowed researchers to track the birds and determine their fates. It took 10 days for 40% of these pen-reared adults to die, and more than 80% were dead within 50 days of release. Contrast those figures with the performance of the wild birds. After 10 days, only 10 percent were lost and after 50 days, there were three times the number of wild released birds than pen-reared birds alive.

"And what of the lucky survivors? Do they then go on to become productive members in the pheasant community? The best study I've seen on this subject was done in England. There, scientists compared the breeding abilities of wild cocks and hens to those of pen-reared birds that survived for 9 months in the wild. They found that virtually all of the wild cocks were able to establish a territory and collect a harem, but only 57% of the surviving pen-reared cocks could do the same. In addition, the harems of the wild males, on average, contained twice as many hens as the harems of pen-reared males. Combining those factors, the researchers estimated that wild cocks were three times better breeders than surviving pen-reared birds."

"The more important questions, of course, relate to hens. In the same study, they found no difference in the number of nesting attempts or in hatching success between wild and pen-reared hens. That's interesting because thtese traits must be passed on genetically. After all, when these behaviors are occuring, the chick is only an embryo. But chicks are able tolearn successful survival behavior from their mothers and therein lies the difference. Predators killed proportionally three times more pen-reared hens with chicks than wild hens with chicks. Apparently, the hen's survival skills are intesely important when chicks are present. Without those sharply hoeed skills, remaining pen-reared henss were only 1/4 as successful in raising their young as wild birds."

Enough for now, you be the judge!
 
Prairie Drifter; I'm here only to promote pheasants and pheasant hunting.
Pen raised pheasants DO VERY WELL in the right conditions.

That is, proper habitat and predator control.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
 
Mnmt, there was no personal attack. I commented on the validity of your information compared to the preponderance of information to the contrary. As a moderator, you have a stronger burden to provide information with a base in fact and, in this case, science; which you showed great disdain for in you own comments. For individuals seeking to improve their bird population, following your proposals will lead to a 5-10% survival rate of the birds released which will run a cost of $40-$70+ per bird in the bag. This may only show any benefit for the year of the release. Conversely, the same $ spent on habitat will provide for improved populations that will be available as long as that habitat is made available. Any habitat in good condition will more easily be filled by exceptional (wild) bird before it can be filled with inferior (pen-reared) birds. Releasing inferior birds into a habitat that already won't support larger numbers of superior birds is a waste of their time and money. This is no different than the conditions on your ranch. To release additional stock into a pasture that is incapable of sustaining the stock that is already there will result in both the initial stock and added stock failing. Unlike pheasants, the cattle will damage the habitat. To quote the great Aldo Leopold, founder and conscience of wildlife management, "The enjoyment of wildlife is inverse to it's artificiality. We must not allow misplaced interest in stocking to divert our attention and resources away from the real need of restoring habitat. I believe we hunters, and hunting itself, are diminished in direct proportion to the degree that we accept cosmetics rather than fight for real conservation."

If stocked birds were the answer, the millions of released pen-reared birds should have filled all available habitats by now. That hasn't happened! Our sport is in a fight for it's life against the necessary push to feed a growing nation and the unnecessary land management ambiguity that persists. No longer is there native vegetation from horizon to horizon. No longer does the bulk of our population live with an attachment and understanding of the land. No longer are we burning wood for cooking and heat, keeping at bay the advancing encroachment of succession. No longer is there a coon dog in every yard, traps in every shed, and a boy on every quarter section helping their families bottom line by putting fur in the shed. We now have corn and beans that kill the bugs that would feed on them. Bugs that would feed the broods of gamebirds we seek each fall. The edge of hundreds of 10 acre fields has been replaced by 40 foot disks working complete sections. Get any high school math student to work up the equation that reflects the decrease in interspersion of habitats that that represents and you will see the problems we face at the habitat level. Drive across Oklahoma or Kansas and count the number of cedar trees that are now overwhelming the sliver of native prairie that still persists. Few people that I have met in 26 years working for you, the hunters of Kansas, understand the changes that have come about at the landscape level to reduce our gamebird population. Those changes are pressuring our gamebirds at so many levels. Until that tide changes, the current trends will continue. Spending our limited resources on anything but the needed habitat changes is throwing our future away!!!
 
Troy I agree that habitat work should be at the for front, but what should we do when the right habitat is in place and there are no wild birds around to fill it?

Case in point. My rancher friend has around 5000 acres, 2000 is in rotation of wheat and alfalfa, another 2000 fallowed for the next rotation, and a 1000 in unpressured range. The property has about 1.5 miles of riparian river running through it. We are currently working on some "quail buffers" and food plots. The property could support a population right now but he is doing more improvements.

The problem is the nearest wild population is 60 miles away. What should he do, wait for a migration? Wait for our dfg to trap and relocate birds for him? They can barely support huntable populations on our NWR lands. Wait for PF to trap and relocate birds from SD? Yeah right PF couldn't care less about California. Stocking can't work because studies say so, so I guess all that's left is for him to give up huh?

It's like people are telling us to give up and save our money for our yearly pilgrimage to SD, well that doesn't work for me.:mad::cheers:
 
Montana's pheasant release program.
Successful, and has been going on for some time. State pays land owners to raise and release pheasants. To qualify land owners must have sufficient acres and have existing year around habitat or create habitat.

Roosters can be hunted in these areas, hens are protected. Pen raised pheasants have survived and multiplied to the point where Montana now has huntable pheasant populations in virtually all areas of the state where there is suitable habitat.

The state is aware that land owners with habitat have a better chance of success then the state just releasing birds say in a WMA.

Montana's pheasant population is because of these efforts with pen raised pheasants. Many land owners will allow a courteous hunter on to bag a rooster or two. Couple things a guy should not mention when asking for permission is, "pen raised pheasant can't make it in the wild" OR "coyotes are beneficial to your pheasant population" Sure you might get a big laugh or you could get a rancher a little angry. Either way, you will shortly be headed towards the highway.

The program continues. Landowners are doing a good job of creating habitat, where none exists. And pen raised pheasant will continue to thrive and multiply.

Why just focus on failings by government run studies. Raise and release pheasants in suitable habitat and control predators and you will have success. It's been proven over and over.

Google; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Click "Hunting" click "pheasant release program" Information on 2011 will be available toward the end of August.
 
I'm sure the same rocket scientists that came up with the small % of pen raised birds that make it are the same bone brains that thought a waterfowl refuge shouldn't have water in it around here:D Most of this people are just collecting a pay check sad but true:) They have single handedly destroyed are wildlife around here. Now their throwing millions of taxpayers dollars to try and fix their F ups:D One guy in the 70 - 80's did what it takes 10 now, and he did it better. Is not SD full of pen raised birds I'd say it works if you control predators and have winter cover:)
 
I have a intersting true storie. Thirty years ago we had no wild turkeys in my area. I got 35 chicks out of "wild" stock. Raised them in a big flight pen I put muzzled dogs on them to smarten them up, did a solt release, they got wild quick! hunter's would say they saw them but know one could get close. They made it all summer,fall,winter no problem they were wild. They all died in the spring they did not know where or how to nest. As they had no mother or older birds to show them. Five years later got wild trapped one's and know have two many as they compete with the pheasant popluation.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, as I stated at the start of one of my posts, this is an emotional issue. Some folks find it hard to differentiate between anecdotal information and controlled/replicated scientific studies. Many can't come to trust any kind of government and others blame a government that controls a minor amount of habitat for the decrease in gamebirds on all the available habitat. Unfortunately, as long as we waste our meager management $ on methods that won't fix the underlying problem, we stand to see the current slide continue. I'm not here to cause a fight, offend people, or choose sides. I only wish to help those that will listen with a discerning ear and use the data available to make decisions that maximize their potential for success. I don't come here to boost my ego. Ego isn't in this for me. I have hunted pheasants for 38 years and have had a ring side view of the decline. On a day to day basis I get to see people that have listened to the snake oil salesmen that only wish to take their money today and tomorrow by selling them what looks like a fix but isn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Troy, I am sorry you feel that way as I always enjoy taking in the knowledge you have to share with us. I do not however understand why an opposing idea or belief is snake oil.

I have put in hours of transplanting berry briars and multi floral rose on land to boost quail cover while a wildlife biologist told me it wouldn't boost #'s that the property had reached carrying capacity. Well just 2 years later there are 3 new coveys on the property.

Please let me know what I should tell the rancher I mentioned in my previous post now that he has put some money towards habitat and I man hours. Are we just to throw in the towel?
 
First A personal message should be that personal. We should all agree to that.

Second I think PD has vast knowledge of habitat and gives very good responses. I believe he works with conservation and thats not an easy job. I know I forget weather, crp programs, and change in peoples thinking on wildlife all play a roll in animal numbers. To me theirs no right or wrong do what makes you happy and hopefully it makes a difference:thumbsup:

I know around here the DRN told a group of guys it's a waste of time and money stocking walleyes in the river won't work. Theirs fishermen catching walleyes all along the river now.
We all gave your OPINION to the question so hopeful the person who asked the question can make a better decission on what to do:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top