tips on using a surrogator
- Thread starter rfmalecki
- Start date
Well I never bit on the vodoo science of the surrogator. Basically a really nice, really expensive, wilderness brooder. A pheasant or quail chick released at 5 to 8 weeks having been raised in a surrogator, only knows how to survive INSIDE the surrogator, might as well raise them in a box in your bedroom, aclimation to the great outdoors would be the same. I'm sure it is very effective at raising the chicks to 5 or 8 weeks, past that if you let them go, they will be nice little morsels on some predators gut. If 5 of 100 survive four weeks, I would be amazed. I would suggest transfer to a flight pen and grow them out to 12 to 16 weeks, in as natural surroundings within the flight pen as possible, meaning grass cover, dusting areas, insects ( supplement with crickets or mealworms),overhead cover, let them loose right from the flight pen and provide food source, water, if necessary and cover nearby. You will still loose a lot, but a much higher percentage, will make it. Just trying to save you some agravation and expense. I'd brood them in the surrogator in the yard, or shed, transfer to the flightpen where I plan to release. Adult weather hardened and good flying birds are your best shot at release birds, but it will still depend upon habitat, predator count, weather, and all the other variables that challenge any wild bird.
mnmthunting
Banned
Oldandnew, yup, That's some dang good advice.
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
This may be too large to post, and it may be too late to help you with your plans. However, it may help someone else.
Restoration Technologies (PRT/QRT). The Surrogator™ is promoted by PRT/QRT as the “next generation in
game bird restoration”, and “proven to be the most effective means to restore quail and pheasant numbers.”
Game farm-produced, pheasant or bobwhite quail chicks are placed into the device (which acts as a brooder
house) at a few days of age and then are released at about 4-5 weeks of age.
The method employed in using the Surrogator™ is unambiguous—it is simple stocking of game-farm
pheasants and quail. That, of course, is the problem. Decades of scientific studies have shown that stocking
game farm birds is not effective in restoring and maintaining wild bird populations. Indeed, recent scientific
studies, including those with Surrogators™, have returned results showing that survival of liberated game farm
birds is so low that the practice is completely without merit (see the appended studies). PRT/QRT advertised
for a short time in PF and QF Magazines and websites some years ago. In fact, upon examining these
products and the methods they employ, we terminated our advertising and sponsor relationships with
PRT/QRT because of our commitment to wild upland game birds, habitat, and scientific wildlife management.
We do not endorse these products or their claims.
At PF and QF, we have only a small number of very well thought out operational policies for chapters to
follow—and, one of the most important is the prohibition against stocking game farm birds. The reason for the
restriction is very simple—this quick-fix, band-aid approach to upland bird restoration is not only ineffective, it is
inherently dangerous because of potential disease introduction and possible dilution of genetic diversity in wild
populations in the release area. Thus, our Mission at PF and QF remains focused on the proven methods that
do work—habitat establishment and management.
Pheasants (and Quail) Forever’s straightforward stocking policy was established over 20 years ago. It states
that “Pheasants Forever (Quail Forever) prohibits any form of stocking by chapters except monetary donations
to state wildlife agency-sanctioned programs for release of F1 generation or wild-trapped game birds into areas
of suitable habitat, or for state agency-sponsored research purposes.” The policy further “specifically prohibits
sponsorship with Pheasants Forever (Quail Forever) funds for stocking-before-the-gun programs, public or
private.” Stocking game-farm birds is a bad investment of funds that could be better employed for wildlife.
There are no long term benefits to be gained. We strongly discourage the use of all artificial means that rely
on release of game farm stock to restore or supplement wild populations of pheasants or quail. Chapter
purchase, sponsorship, or use of Surrogator™ units or others like them is not permitted.
We encourage our Pheasants Forever, and now Quail Forever chapters to continue their work in the manner
that has proven effective over 25+ years of successful operation. Please focus on the long term horizon and
invest your time, funding and effort in habitat preservation, establishment and management. That alone
remains the key to wildlife restoration.
Thank you so much for your selfless efforts on behalf of wildlife.
Recent literature on survival of pen-reared game birds released in the wild
Idaho (2009). Compared vital rates of two different (pen-reared and wild) ring-necked pheasant stocks and assessed
effects of predator control on these pheasants released into current range. Wild (31 males and 112 females) and penreared
(230 males and 1,059 females) ring-necked pheasants were released in spring into two areas in southern Idaho
during 2000–2001 to augment low resident populations. Wild female survival from 1 March-1 October was
significantly greater than that of pen-reared females in both 2000 (40% vs 4%) and 2001 (43% vs 8%). During 2001,
predators were removed within our study areas. Survival did not increase for either stock of female pheasants after
predator removal. Predator control did not increase the number of hens surviving to reach the nesting season (1
May), nesting rate or nest success. Wild female pheasants were seven times more likely to survive translocation to 1
October, ten times more likely to survive to the nesting season, eight times more productive, and one-third as expensive
per egg hatched than pen-reared females. Low survival, poor productivity and higher costs of spring-released penreared
female pheasants strongly suggest that this is an inappropriate management tool for increasing pheasant
numbers (Wildl. Biol. 15:80-88).
Nebraska (2008). The Surrogator™ captive propagation system is purported to significantly increase populations of
northern bobwhite and ring-necked pheasants. The units provide food, water, heat, and shelter for chicks until they are
released. Releasing pheasant chicks at 4-5 weeks and limiting contact with humans while they are in the Surrogator unit
is purported to allow the chicks to retain the survival instincts of wild birds. We evaluated the efficacy of the Surrogator
system by evaluating the survival and return-to-bag of pheasant chicks raised in the units placed on 2 shooting preserves
and 2 public wildlife areas. Survival from release until the start of the pheasant hunting season was low (12%) and annual
survival was less than 1%. Of the 170 pheasant chicks placed in the unit at the beginning of the study, 6 (3.5%)
were returned to bag (NE Game & Parks Special Report).
Georgia (2005). Private managed hunting plantation. A total of 1,641 five-week-old wing-tagged pen-reared
bobwhites were released using the Surrogate Propagation™ system during June, August and September; and 1,000
12-16 week old leg-banded bobwhites were “dump released” during November. Birds were liberated into intensively
managed pine savanna habitat that included supplemental feeding and predator control. A total of 93 birds were
harvested of which only 13 were wing banded Surrogator birds. In this study the Surrogate Propagation™ release
system alone did not result in the establishment of a sufficient number of “coveys” to meet the shooting
objectives of the landowner. In fact, when the land manager conducted an informal bird dog census during early
November, after the Surrogate Propagation™ releases, only five “coveys” were located. At that point the decision was
made by the landowner prior to hunting to supplement the population with more dump-released birds than originally
planned (Georgia DNR Special Study).
Kentucky (2007-2009). Study conducted by the Kentucky Department of Wildlife. In 2007, 294 birds were released
using the Surrogate Propagation™ system at a research farm. The farm was hunted hard during the 2008-09 season,
with no birds flushed or harvested. In 2009, KDW released 277 birds at the same site. Covey call counts were conducted
on the property during October; with 1 covey detected. In mid-November, 5 hunters using 5 dogs hunted 2 hours with no
birds flushed or harvested. At a second release site where no hunting was allowed, no birds were detected during Oct
covey call counts, flush counts, or in call back pens.
South Dakota (1990-92). Released 44 wild and 159 pen-reared hens on public lands with excellent habitat during April to
augment natural reproduction. Hens were followed for 181 days, through the nesting season, by radio telemetry. Only
8% of pen-reared hens survived the nesting season verses 55% of the wild hens. Predation accounted for 90% of penreared
hen losses. Pen-reared hens contributed little to nesting, because few lived long enough to hatch a nest. On
average 100 wild hens produced 34 broods, 100 pen reared hens produced 3 broods (J. Wildl. Manage. 58:501-6).
England (1982-85). Large releases of pen-reared hens in the fall of each year showed that pen-reared hens were 3x
more vulnerable to predation than wild hens, and that wild hens were 4x more productive then pen-reared hens (J.
Wildl. Manage. 52:446-450).
Iowa (1977-79). Released 2,510 hens on 3 study areas to increase populations. Subsequent analysis by winter flush,
roadside, and crowing counts showed no increase in local populations. Populations on the 3 study areas fluctuated
similar to populations on nearby areas that received no stocking (IA P-R Comp. Rpt. 16pp).
Oregon (1972-73). Released 335 pen-reared hens on public land in early April. Nearly all had disappeared within 40-50
days of release. Only 17 known young were produced from 335 pen-reared hens released. Wild hens (61) on the
area produced 378 young during the same time period (Northwest Sci. 50:222-230).
Nevada (1972-73). Released 60 birds in April to augment natural reproduction followed by radio telemetry for 80 days.
Recorded 63% mortality, 30% which occurred in the week following release. Most of the mortality 63% was due to
predators. None of the hens successfully hatched a nest.
Minnesota (1967). Released 74 hens and cocks in August and followed movements for 28 days by radio telemetry.
Sixty birds or 81% died by day 28. Mortality was mostly predation (55%) (J. Wildl. Manage. 34:267-274).
Illinois (1983-85). Wild bobwhite quail were shown by electorphoresis of blood samples to have greater genetic
variability than game farm stock. The lower genetic variability among game farm birds is likely related to inbreeding and
make-up of the founding game farm stock. Low survival and poor fitness of game farm quail may be partially
attributed to the loss of genetic diversity.
Tennessee (2002-03) Genetic assessment of pen-reared Northern Bobwhite releases on Ames Plantation
K. O. Evans, M. D. Smith, L. W. Burger Jr., R. Chambers, and A. E. Houston, and R. Carlisle. In response to low
encounter rates with wild northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus; hereafter, bobwhites) during bird dog field trials at
Ames Plantation in Tennessee, a large-scale release program of pen-reared bobwhites was implemented in the fall of
2002. To evaluate potential genetic effects of pen-reared releases on wild populations, we monitored survival of penreared
and wild bobwhites from fall release of pen-reared bobwhites through the breeding season. We used genotypes
from 6 polymorphic microsatellite loci to measure genetic diversity and conduct population assignment tests. Genetic
diversity, number of alleles, and allelic richness were greatest in the wild, intermediate in the F1 generation, and lowest in
the pen-reared populations. In some years, some pen-reared birds will survive to the breeding season and successfully
reproduce with wild birds. Given that pen-reared and pen-reared x wild birds have reduced genetic variability relative to
locally adapted wild birds, large-scale releases of pen-reared bobwhites may result in negative impacts on the
genetic integrity of resident wild populations.
Compiled by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Pheasants Forever, 1/15/2010
Restoration Technologies (PRT/QRT). The Surrogator™ is promoted by PRT/QRT as the “next generation in
game bird restoration”, and “proven to be the most effective means to restore quail and pheasant numbers.”
Game farm-produced, pheasant or bobwhite quail chicks are placed into the device (which acts as a brooder
house) at a few days of age and then are released at about 4-5 weeks of age.
The method employed in using the Surrogator™ is unambiguous—it is simple stocking of game-farm
pheasants and quail. That, of course, is the problem. Decades of scientific studies have shown that stocking
game farm birds is not effective in restoring and maintaining wild bird populations. Indeed, recent scientific
studies, including those with Surrogators™, have returned results showing that survival of liberated game farm
birds is so low that the practice is completely without merit (see the appended studies). PRT/QRT advertised
for a short time in PF and QF Magazines and websites some years ago. In fact, upon examining these
products and the methods they employ, we terminated our advertising and sponsor relationships with
PRT/QRT because of our commitment to wild upland game birds, habitat, and scientific wildlife management.
We do not endorse these products or their claims.
At PF and QF, we have only a small number of very well thought out operational policies for chapters to
follow—and, one of the most important is the prohibition against stocking game farm birds. The reason for the
restriction is very simple—this quick-fix, band-aid approach to upland bird restoration is not only ineffective, it is
inherently dangerous because of potential disease introduction and possible dilution of genetic diversity in wild
populations in the release area. Thus, our Mission at PF and QF remains focused on the proven methods that
do work—habitat establishment and management.
Pheasants (and Quail) Forever’s straightforward stocking policy was established over 20 years ago. It states
that “Pheasants Forever (Quail Forever) prohibits any form of stocking by chapters except monetary donations
to state wildlife agency-sanctioned programs for release of F1 generation or wild-trapped game birds into areas
of suitable habitat, or for state agency-sponsored research purposes.” The policy further “specifically prohibits
sponsorship with Pheasants Forever (Quail Forever) funds for stocking-before-the-gun programs, public or
private.” Stocking game-farm birds is a bad investment of funds that could be better employed for wildlife.
There are no long term benefits to be gained. We strongly discourage the use of all artificial means that rely
on release of game farm stock to restore or supplement wild populations of pheasants or quail. Chapter
purchase, sponsorship, or use of Surrogator™ units or others like them is not permitted.
We encourage our Pheasants Forever, and now Quail Forever chapters to continue their work in the manner
that has proven effective over 25+ years of successful operation. Please focus on the long term horizon and
invest your time, funding and effort in habitat preservation, establishment and management. That alone
remains the key to wildlife restoration.
Thank you so much for your selfless efforts on behalf of wildlife.
Recent literature on survival of pen-reared game birds released in the wild
Idaho (2009). Compared vital rates of two different (pen-reared and wild) ring-necked pheasant stocks and assessed
effects of predator control on these pheasants released into current range. Wild (31 males and 112 females) and penreared
(230 males and 1,059 females) ring-necked pheasants were released in spring into two areas in southern Idaho
during 2000–2001 to augment low resident populations. Wild female survival from 1 March-1 October was
significantly greater than that of pen-reared females in both 2000 (40% vs 4%) and 2001 (43% vs 8%). During 2001,
predators were removed within our study areas. Survival did not increase for either stock of female pheasants after
predator removal. Predator control did not increase the number of hens surviving to reach the nesting season (1
May), nesting rate or nest success. Wild female pheasants were seven times more likely to survive translocation to 1
October, ten times more likely to survive to the nesting season, eight times more productive, and one-third as expensive
per egg hatched than pen-reared females. Low survival, poor productivity and higher costs of spring-released penreared
female pheasants strongly suggest that this is an inappropriate management tool for increasing pheasant
numbers (Wildl. Biol. 15:80-88).
Nebraska (2008). The Surrogator™ captive propagation system is purported to significantly increase populations of
northern bobwhite and ring-necked pheasants. The units provide food, water, heat, and shelter for chicks until they are
released. Releasing pheasant chicks at 4-5 weeks and limiting contact with humans while they are in the Surrogator unit
is purported to allow the chicks to retain the survival instincts of wild birds. We evaluated the efficacy of the Surrogator
system by evaluating the survival and return-to-bag of pheasant chicks raised in the units placed on 2 shooting preserves
and 2 public wildlife areas. Survival from release until the start of the pheasant hunting season was low (12%) and annual
survival was less than 1%. Of the 170 pheasant chicks placed in the unit at the beginning of the study, 6 (3.5%)
were returned to bag (NE Game & Parks Special Report).
Georgia (2005). Private managed hunting plantation. A total of 1,641 five-week-old wing-tagged pen-reared
bobwhites were released using the Surrogate Propagation™ system during June, August and September; and 1,000
12-16 week old leg-banded bobwhites were “dump released” during November. Birds were liberated into intensively
managed pine savanna habitat that included supplemental feeding and predator control. A total of 93 birds were
harvested of which only 13 were wing banded Surrogator birds. In this study the Surrogate Propagation™ release
system alone did not result in the establishment of a sufficient number of “coveys” to meet the shooting
objectives of the landowner. In fact, when the land manager conducted an informal bird dog census during early
November, after the Surrogate Propagation™ releases, only five “coveys” were located. At that point the decision was
made by the landowner prior to hunting to supplement the population with more dump-released birds than originally
planned (Georgia DNR Special Study).
Kentucky (2007-2009). Study conducted by the Kentucky Department of Wildlife. In 2007, 294 birds were released
using the Surrogate Propagation™ system at a research farm. The farm was hunted hard during the 2008-09 season,
with no birds flushed or harvested. In 2009, KDW released 277 birds at the same site. Covey call counts were conducted
on the property during October; with 1 covey detected. In mid-November, 5 hunters using 5 dogs hunted 2 hours with no
birds flushed or harvested. At a second release site where no hunting was allowed, no birds were detected during Oct
covey call counts, flush counts, or in call back pens.
South Dakota (1990-92). Released 44 wild and 159 pen-reared hens on public lands with excellent habitat during April to
augment natural reproduction. Hens were followed for 181 days, through the nesting season, by radio telemetry. Only
8% of pen-reared hens survived the nesting season verses 55% of the wild hens. Predation accounted for 90% of penreared
hen losses. Pen-reared hens contributed little to nesting, because few lived long enough to hatch a nest. On
average 100 wild hens produced 34 broods, 100 pen reared hens produced 3 broods (J. Wildl. Manage. 58:501-6).
England (1982-85). Large releases of pen-reared hens in the fall of each year showed that pen-reared hens were 3x
more vulnerable to predation than wild hens, and that wild hens were 4x more productive then pen-reared hens (J.
Wildl. Manage. 52:446-450).
Iowa (1977-79). Released 2,510 hens on 3 study areas to increase populations. Subsequent analysis by winter flush,
roadside, and crowing counts showed no increase in local populations. Populations on the 3 study areas fluctuated
similar to populations on nearby areas that received no stocking (IA P-R Comp. Rpt. 16pp).
Oregon (1972-73). Released 335 pen-reared hens on public land in early April. Nearly all had disappeared within 40-50
days of release. Only 17 known young were produced from 335 pen-reared hens released. Wild hens (61) on the
area produced 378 young during the same time period (Northwest Sci. 50:222-230).
Nevada (1972-73). Released 60 birds in April to augment natural reproduction followed by radio telemetry for 80 days.
Recorded 63% mortality, 30% which occurred in the week following release. Most of the mortality 63% was due to
predators. None of the hens successfully hatched a nest.
Minnesota (1967). Released 74 hens and cocks in August and followed movements for 28 days by radio telemetry.
Sixty birds or 81% died by day 28. Mortality was mostly predation (55%) (J. Wildl. Manage. 34:267-274).
Illinois (1983-85). Wild bobwhite quail were shown by electorphoresis of blood samples to have greater genetic
variability than game farm stock. The lower genetic variability among game farm birds is likely related to inbreeding and
make-up of the founding game farm stock. Low survival and poor fitness of game farm quail may be partially
attributed to the loss of genetic diversity.
Tennessee (2002-03) Genetic assessment of pen-reared Northern Bobwhite releases on Ames Plantation
K. O. Evans, M. D. Smith, L. W. Burger Jr., R. Chambers, and A. E. Houston, and R. Carlisle. In response to low
encounter rates with wild northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus; hereafter, bobwhites) during bird dog field trials at
Ames Plantation in Tennessee, a large-scale release program of pen-reared bobwhites was implemented in the fall of
2002. To evaluate potential genetic effects of pen-reared releases on wild populations, we monitored survival of penreared
and wild bobwhites from fall release of pen-reared bobwhites through the breeding season. We used genotypes
from 6 polymorphic microsatellite loci to measure genetic diversity and conduct population assignment tests. Genetic
diversity, number of alleles, and allelic richness were greatest in the wild, intermediate in the F1 generation, and lowest in
the pen-reared populations. In some years, some pen-reared birds will survive to the breeding season and successfully
reproduce with wild birds. Given that pen-reared and pen-reared x wild birds have reduced genetic variability relative to
locally adapted wild birds, large-scale releases of pen-reared bobwhites may result in negative impacts on the
genetic integrity of resident wild populations.
Compiled by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Pheasants Forever, 1/15/2010
I have used a surrogator used for 5 years. We have had our share of difficulties and admit that our first few years....we may have not had a very good success rate. It is also difficult to measure our success. But, I can tell you one thing...we DO have more pheasants now than when we started. One field that we have used it one (large tract of CRP) had very few birds, now it has a very huntable population. Harvested over 50 birds in 2010-2011. Habitat is very important, the surrogator is not a fix all. Must have good habitat to release into.
Here are some tips: get good birds, follow the instructions to a T, refresh the water weekly (just pour in 2 to 5 gallon during each visit), use chick -aid (helps get the chicks going), use the soft release ( let the birds come and go out of the box upon release ... don't just open the large door and herd them out). Install a nipple waterer and feeder ( I made one out of PVC pipe) outside the box, so that the released birds can use it until the become acquainted with the "wild".
If you are getting chicks next week, you may want to hold them in the surrogator for an extra week. Cool weather is tough on the birds, make sure you check the forecast before releasing.
GOOD LUCK.... don't let all the negative nay sayers get ya down.
Here are some tips: get good birds, follow the instructions to a T, refresh the water weekly (just pour in 2 to 5 gallon during each visit), use chick -aid (helps get the chicks going), use the soft release ( let the birds come and go out of the box upon release ... don't just open the large door and herd them out). Install a nipple waterer and feeder ( I made one out of PVC pipe) outside the box, so that the released birds can use it until the become acquainted with the "wild".
If you are getting chicks next week, you may want to hold them in the surrogator for an extra week. Cool weather is tough on the birds, make sure you check the forecast before releasing.
GOOD LUCK.... don't let all the negative nay sayers get ya down.
Rooster,
Good post! I used two surrogators for 3 years on some land in Southeast Kansas. There were no pheasants anywhere around before hand and now we have a few. We don't hunt them, but we do work the dogs on them. Ya, it cost me quite a bit of time and money. But, I tell you it's pretty cool to see adult pheasants now on the land and I know for a fact I'm the one who put that day old bird in the surrogator. I had luck leaving them in a week longer. Put some stuff in there for them to peck at (cow pie or watermelon) and try to mist your birds a little when you get the chance. It'll be tough at first until you get the hang of it. Oh ya, very important to put rocks in the corners so the chicks don't pile up. Good luck. If you have kids, get your kids involved and they will love it!
Good post! I used two surrogators for 3 years on some land in Southeast Kansas. There were no pheasants anywhere around before hand and now we have a few. We don't hunt them, but we do work the dogs on them. Ya, it cost me quite a bit of time and money. But, I tell you it's pretty cool to see adult pheasants now on the land and I know for a fact I'm the one who put that day old bird in the surrogator. I had luck leaving them in a week longer. Put some stuff in there for them to peck at (cow pie or watermelon) and try to mist your birds a little when you get the chance. It'll be tough at first until you get the hang of it. Oh ya, very important to put rocks in the corners so the chicks don't pile up. Good luck. If you have kids, get your kids involved and they will love it!
Prairie Drifter, this particular section of the main forum was setup specifically of Pen Raised Upland Birds.
All of the points that you brought out in your last post on Surrogators, I would agree with, IF in the real wild world in North America we had truly wild pheasant and wild quail alive and flying around in every square mile and in every county in this great U.S.A.
Habitat talk is good I agree we need good habitat and good weather (in our case rain to make the habitat grow). But habitat is ONLY useful if you have real live pheasants or live quail their to fill the habitat.
There are parts of north and east Texas with good looking habitat but no quail.
Years ago there were parts of the Texas panhandle with great pheasant habitat but no wild pheasants. So they released wilder strains of the true pheasants and got them started. See article below:
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/120201/whe_legionsofspo.shtml
So, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois and Oregon got their wild pheasants started with pen raised birds years ago.
Because PF or QF says it will not support or advertise Surrogators that's no big deal to me.
I don't have all the answer and PF and QF don't have all the answers either.
This man is looking for sound input on Surrogators. We have to give him both side of the story. I think Paul Harvey says "The Rest of the Story". I have never used the a Surrogator, like oldandnew mentioned, I released older pheasants from big pens. But I realize the everybody don't always have that kind of room or time to raise birds. So the Surrogator is a good alternative for people with limited space.
I have heard good reports on getting birds started with surrogators but its like everything and anything related to the wild, its a game of chance. Its always risky business trying to grow wild things. Just ask the farmers.
Predators are not everywhere at the same time, but it helps to have some predator control. Try to order the wilder (more alert) strains of pen raised pheasants like the Manchurian-Kansas cross or the Afghan White Winged pheasant.
Don't expect overnight success, just keep trying for four to five years, success is not cheap. Don't expect to hunt the pheasants, you want to first establish a wild reproducing population. The man from S.E. Kansas, KansasGsp gave good advice.
If you don't plant the seed you will not reap the harvest.
All of the points that you brought out in your last post on Surrogators, I would agree with, IF in the real wild world in North America we had truly wild pheasant and wild quail alive and flying around in every square mile and in every county in this great U.S.A.
Habitat talk is good I agree we need good habitat and good weather (in our case rain to make the habitat grow). But habitat is ONLY useful if you have real live pheasants or live quail their to fill the habitat.
There are parts of north and east Texas with good looking habitat but no quail.
Years ago there were parts of the Texas panhandle with great pheasant habitat but no wild pheasants. So they released wilder strains of the true pheasants and got them started. See article below:
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/120201/whe_legionsofspo.shtml
So, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois and Oregon got their wild pheasants started with pen raised birds years ago.
Because PF or QF says it will not support or advertise Surrogators that's no big deal to me.
I don't have all the answer and PF and QF don't have all the answers either.
This man is looking for sound input on Surrogators. We have to give him both side of the story. I think Paul Harvey says "The Rest of the Story". I have never used the a Surrogator, like oldandnew mentioned, I released older pheasants from big pens. But I realize the everybody don't always have that kind of room or time to raise birds. So the Surrogator is a good alternative for people with limited space.
I have heard good reports on getting birds started with surrogators but its like everything and anything related to the wild, its a game of chance. Its always risky business trying to grow wild things. Just ask the farmers.
Predators are not everywhere at the same time, but it helps to have some predator control. Try to order the wilder (more alert) strains of pen raised pheasants like the Manchurian-Kansas cross or the Afghan White Winged pheasant.
Don't expect overnight success, just keep trying for four to five years, success is not cheap. Don't expect to hunt the pheasants, you want to first establish a wild reproducing population. The man from S.E. Kansas, KansasGsp gave good advice.
If you don't plant the seed you will not reap the harvest.
Last edited:
I appreciate the comments. I looked at the data (pros and cons) about surrogators BEFORE I made the decision to purchase one. Now that I own one, I am only interested in comments that can help increase the pheasants' survival rate. I feel that the CRP habitat that we have available is good and has held a decent pheasant population in years past. We are also working on predator control as well. Those of you who have submitted helpful tips...I'm writing this all down and thank you. Other surrogator users, who have "weathered the growing pains" and continue to use 'em, I welcome your tips/comments so that I can learn from your experiences.
mnmthunting
Banned
rfmalecki, Fact is, Lots of private land owners, lots of places/states have established pheasant populations from pen raised birds. Go for it! you have the right ideas and help, go for it.
captaincoot
Banned
He asked for Ideas how to be SUCCESSFUL guys. Not goverment reports on how he will fail. Why do some of you have to do this every time someone ask a Question about raised birds. Sorry RFK had to get that off my chest Only thing I've heard about them is control the predators in the area you release them. And you know that already. Someone told me brush piles where you release them gives them some where to hide not for sure about that. Best of luck to you
Only thing I've heard about them is control the predators in the area you release them. And you know that already. Someone told me brush piles where you release them gives them some where to hide not for sure about that. Best of luck to you
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
Captaincoot, the reason I offer up this extensive list of scientific studies for Mr. rfmalecki is that they answer every question he has put forth. This list of studies is part of an even more extensive pool of over 100 years of research done on stocking in every part of the country. Studies in every habitat type, with numerous predator populations, with varied weather, varied genetics, varied cover available etc; and all of those studies came up with similar success rates. Many had little or no connection to the so "feared" government association. There are studies done by sportsman's groups, landowners, colleges, etc. I'm not trying to be arguementative, abrasive, negative, or any other 'ive. It's just the facts relative to the original question. These studies have tried many combinations of variables to improve the success of stocking with little or no success. The days of stocking into a "vacant" habitat, newly formed by a virgin agriculture are gone. Stocking into habitat that has a limited predator compliment like early prairie state agriculture is gone. In many states, the early successional habitat necessary is gone. In some areas, the diversity of crop types has faded to more single crop type agriculture. It is unfortunate, but our sons and daughters will undoubtedly call this "the good ole days".
beaglebob1
New member
We did a study last year with 4 releases of quail in the surrogator and had mix results. We had birds up to about the first of the year and now none. The habitat was sub power at best. We did get some hunting is and did have several coveys of 20-30 birds. I could not tell them apart from wild.
I have had reports on area farms as far as a mile away that they have seen quail all winter long. These are my birds or was. They moved out to better cover/habitat. We did some pheasants , about 30 and they have also left release area and have been spotted by the locals on the road and around bird feeders in back yards. Again habitat here did not hold them.
THIS YEAR we are making serious changes to the landscape. I have milo,sunflower, ragweed and a bunch of seed from PF and will release in these areas. Going to do about 40 acres in several spots with other cover and light timber between them.keep you posted.:cheers:
I have had reports on area farms as far as a mile away that they have seen quail all winter long. These are my birds or was
. They moved out to better cover/habitat. We did some pheasants , about 30 and they have also left release area and have been spotted by the locals on the road and around bird feeders in back yards. Again habitat here did not hold them.THIS YEAR we are making serious changes to the landscape. I have milo,sunflower, ragweed and a bunch of seed from PF and will release in these areas. Going to do about 40 acres in several spots with other cover and light timber between them.keep you posted.
:cheers:Some of that could be the spring shuffle though, right? I released some extras I had from training a couple of years ago around the beginning of October. I had them using a "covey headquarters" that I discovered in February - left me impressed that they were still alive. They were around until the beginning of April and I never saw them again. Then someone told me of that they undergo a "spring shuffle" similar to grouse in the fall and I've since kind of given up on the idea of releasing more (since I don't have the property to release and retain the number I think I'll need to have a population develop.I have had reports on area farms as far as a mile away that they have seen quail all winter long. These are my birds or was
Beagle Bob...... This is very common. It seems that after initial release, birds stay around the box. Especially if you put out a feeder and waterer. But, eventually they will venture out.
I think this is a big reason why some people think Surrogators do not work. It has been noted that wild birds will travel a mile radius of their "home", therefore a released bird may be within a 4 section (2560 acre) area of their release. Good habitat will help hold them in your area. Surrogators will not work without habitat.
I think this is a big reason why some people think Surrogators do not work. It has been noted that wild birds will travel a mile radius of their "home", therefore a released bird may be within a 4 section (2560 acre) area of their release. Good habitat will help hold them in your area. Surrogators will not work without habitat.
Prairie Drifter, in all honesty, you really have not addressed any of my questions in regards to the surrogator. All you've provided are studies showing why the surrogator does not work. I've already read a number of these studies along with a number of other documents BEFORE I made my decision to purchase one. And as you can see, I still bought one. So, I'm not interested in hearing any more comments from people like you(no disrespect intended), telling me that the surrogator won't work. Instead, I want to keep on hearing comments from the likes of Roosters, KansasGsp and others who use surrogators. It only makes sense that they must be having "some success" if they continue to use 'em. All I want to do is to learn from their mistakes.
Contact me in 3-4 years and if I gave up on the surrogator by that time, I'll give you the opportunity to tell me: "I told you so".
Contact me in 3-4 years and if I gave up on the surrogator by that time, I'll give you the opportunity to tell me: "I told you so".
Oldandnew.....
I disagree on buying older/adult birds.
I have personally tried that also. Bought some adult hens, plan was to release them in the spring so that they could breed.
Released 20 hens ...... 2 of them I acutally personally watched die in mid-flight.
I think the adult birds are too accustomed to finding a feeder and water in their pen.
I disagree on buying older/adult birds.
I have personally tried that also. Bought some adult hens, plan was to release them in the spring so that they could breed.
Released 20 hens ...... 2 of them I acutally personally watched die in mid-flight.
I think the adult birds are too accustomed to finding a feeder and water in their pen.
Might want to reread, First of all, I would never espouse releasing birds I bought as adults, with any expectation beyond working and shooting them THAT VERY DAY. Furthermore, I didn't say BUY adult birds to release, I said Raise them to juvenile age, about 12 -16 weeks, acclimate them in a flight pen, located in the release area, and soft release with food and water available. We are discussing pheasants here, quail are different, but the original discussion was pheasants. You can put any spin you want on it, if your goal is to maximize the survival, and provide a hunting experience, reality is that for what your going spend on surrogators and releasing 5 week old birds, you could go on a wingshooting safari to Argentina, or several trips to Kansas or South Dakota. Whereas 2 of your hens died in mid flight, ( doesn't sound like a soft release, by the way), ask yourself how many of your 5 week old, I can fly 10 feet once, downy poults died before the next dawn, from exposure, predators, or just plain stress? If success is measured by raising and releasing hundreds of birds, and seeing one or two 6 months later, only to have to start over next year with the same result, proceed on and Godspeed. My intent was to help whomever, with first hand, expensive, and hard learned, accumulated knowledge of 42 years of bird dogs and necessarily raising gamebirds to train them with, rather than flounder through a couple a years of learning frustrating lessons like refugees from high school science 101.
Released birds
I know the original discussion involved pheasants.
However, just wanted to report that I have had some success in S. Indiana releasing quail late in the summer to bolster areas where there have been wild coveys in the past. The idea being to strengthen the wild population. Two years ago I release 40 birds in two different areas on August 30th. Still a lot of green stuff and bugs around. These birds had been raised in flight pens and were strong fliers when released. My supplier sold me 20 of what he called "Tennessee Reds". Pretty distinctly different from our normal Bob White. Slightly larger and a brown/redish coloring. They stayed within a half mile of where they were released. My lab and I flushed the covey at least 3 times before the season came in. During the season we bagged 6 out of the 20...the last one on January 13th 2 days before the season ended. So...that particular bird had survived in the wild for 4 1/2 months. We have plenty of predators in our area especially coyotes and red tail hawks. I believe we also bagged some of the other 20 we released that were regular bob whites. There were two distinct coveys ...where there had previously been just one. I buy and release to boost areas where I know there are already birds. If any of them have survived to reproduce the next spring...I cannot prove! But basically have enjoyed having a few more birds around to hunt when season comes in! my 2 cents on released quail....
I know the original discussion involved pheasants.
However, just wanted to report that I have had some success in S. Indiana releasing quail late in the summer to bolster areas where there have been wild coveys in the past. The idea being to strengthen the wild population. Two years ago I release 40 birds in two different areas on August 30th. Still a lot of green stuff and bugs around. These birds had been raised in flight pens and were strong fliers when released. My supplier sold me 20 of what he called "Tennessee Reds". Pretty distinctly different from our normal Bob White. Slightly larger and a brown/redish coloring. They stayed within a half mile of where they were released. My lab and I flushed the covey at least 3 times before the season came in. During the season we bagged 6 out of the 20...the last one on January 13th 2 days before the season ended. So...that particular bird had survived in the wild for 4 1/2 months. We have plenty of predators in our area especially coyotes and red tail hawks. I believe we also bagged some of the other 20 we released that were regular bob whites. There were two distinct coveys ...where there had previously been just one. I buy and release to boost areas where I know there are already birds. If any of them have survived to reproduce the next spring...I cannot prove! But basically have enjoyed having a few more birds around to hunt when season comes in! my 2 cents on released quail....
beaglebob1
New member
sir i think you are spot on... only birds i have seen die in flight was after the hammer dropped.