_——_
'—
_____—.
—_—
.———-
_—_—
___—.
—_..
_—_—_
__——.
_—_—
__._——_
__—_—_
—_—
____———
_____—..
_———
_——_
_-_'—-
._—_-—
—_4
_‘_—.
_—_—
__—_—_
.—__—
I.—
—__—

103
626
THS

 

THE RENG NE» Cm ’(E a »
1‘1"?» Z‘ELA? EON "i0 AGRECUL?UR3W1TH
SPECEAL ; EFER7NCB T
M‘CHi GéN STAT
FARMS AND E}{?ERER EN

[3‘1
( 3

7'3 C)
a"
r

’E‘hezis farika 3'33?“ 9": E‘é‘ 3'

MECE‘MG‘iN SIAFE CCLLECE
Hamid Hawam Burgess

159%

m Wffli " V I-

'r-I"—

B
r\

  
 
    

 

 

\\
‘.

 

\l

‘4
~
0

 

 

_:,__.«2.3::2:12,:E__,__,:_E_:,_£22:

P

0‘.
~

3

'fidfi‘

4&3

wens

.- .
2:13?
8 his

:2

war;
:;3

Ԥ

:' E‘FE‘K :
I " .‘
b‘L H

z'gr-L
.; ._‘
{;\“L-

l
x
O

‘.

7*

a;

“a" a

mi.”
«.5,
”N“
«U

luv'v.

41.4...
:i

. .COI.’

9L0...“
mm
i.

«w:

3

3 '.'
iii:

."5
u”:

agrss

, :‘g
"5 :J

t
I
53%

~ i

.-
3

3i!

4
fi
O

~esi

b .‘p‘.

.15:

.r Mia-O

. a Ilt Ill-cf- iilhlufl. '

aww
n3.

2!...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
"THE 13.1mm PHEASAHT: ITS MATION TO
AGRICULTURE With Special Reference to Michigan
State College FarmSand Experimental Crops".

presented by

Harold Reward. Burgess

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

ML—degree mmM—

Major professor

Date Aggget 6I 19146 _

 

A: 3"! ‘
Va'fJg‘l' '
i!‘ v. ‘
.| V'4

v 4.1‘.
1 '1 1‘.“

liver; 3.-
n' v I

3'30}!
_.c(_.[J "
' rt
”Ii-‘31:?

“' til) :5
' " v
,; 't' '1
m5 ‘1:
' o
r". ‘7' '4

"""v: a e
:r- CHEQT r‘:

  
 

.,

4,: a»...

I

A,

* p'e4"".2;r~ "l
'e 7 r' <- .-. .‘
o . s n " . - -
. ~ ‘ l7.
m‘ 2,,

" . L“'l>;*
frag-33

,‘1
.-

o .' . .,

313:1“.

..
‘A

n -\
‘1-
1

‘1

‘

..
G.
‘e
-

..§\.‘o
"t "agil-

'. F f:u e

1" ..
1

~ 1_[‘I

'1‘ fl --‘

"I " -'- .-_. ...

it’ll .‘l'll’l'll

 

.3 ,T
jrusflffl.
.—I.1.)h«u»1c.u rah...»

“‘in 1".’. l V, " V

 

 

 

 

     

 

  

 

THE RING-NECKED PHEASANT; ITS RELATION TO AGRICULTURE
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

FARMS AND EXPdRIhENTAL CROPS

BY
meow he 'JARD gtgacrss

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Zoology

l9#6

 

THESls

“ch:

TABLE OF CONTiNTS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Description of Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Physiography and 80118. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Original Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Agricultural Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Management. , . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
Vover Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13
Woodlot Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Baker Woodlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
W.A.A. Woodlot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sanford Woodlot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO
Toumey Hoodlot. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hudson Woodlot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Redman Woodlot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Pinetum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Sandhill Plantation . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 11
Diapersed Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Shrubs . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Perennial Herbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
New nerbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 12

Bare Areas 0 e o e o e o o o o e o o e o o e e o o o 12

18157&

 

“...-u- ” ‘-""-‘

 

‘Nater o o o e o o o o o o e j." o o o o o o o o o o O o 0

Transition . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .

Cover map MOSOCO FarmB. o o o o o o o o o

The Ring~necked Pheasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Line-Drive Census
Trend of Populations . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Photos-~Inventory and Production . . . . . . . . . .
Life Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
Cock Growing .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sex Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
nesting and Brood Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Food Habits Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stomach Analysis . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crop Depredation . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photos-~Pheasant Damage to Corn . . . . . . . . . . .
Damaged Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photo-~Corn Seedling Pulled by Crows . . . . . . . .
Photos-— Damage often Attributed to the Pheasant. . .

Damaged Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

me 10 n8 0 o o o o o o o o O o o o O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O

Miscellaneous crops 0 e o e o o o o o e e o e o o e O

Ph0t0*-?iildlife Damage. 0 o o c e e e o o o o e o e 0

Control of Pheasants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relief Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Patrolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buffer hows . . . . . . . .

Fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IGChniOueS o o o o o o o o o o o 0

22-25

26-50
31-33

35-40
36
38
ALA}

Essa
Large Fields 0 O O O O O O O O O
Modification of Environment . . . .

Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hunt inc 0 O O O O O O O O O

. . . . . . . 49-52
. . . . . . . . 51-52
. . . . . . 52
sildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53-54
. . . . . 54-55
. . . . . . . . 56-58
. . . . . 59-61

Live Trapping . . . . . . .. ..
Uost of Trapping . . . . . . . .

bummer Trapping . . . . . . . ...

Controlled hunting .
bummary.......oooo

Literature Used . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix
I Nesting Data 1941

II Pheasants Collected on M.S.C. Farms

 

THE RING-NECKED PHEASANT; ITS RELATION TO AGRICULTURE
“With Special Reference to Michigan State College

Farms and EXperimental Crops

INTRODUCTION

Previous to 1939 the few departments whose areas
were affected by wildlife damage on Michigan State Col-
lege farms attempted to control the resident wildlife
in their own way.

Ring-necked pheasants (Phasianug’colchicus torquatus)
were reported not very important crop destroyers as late
as 1932 by Damon, who states, "Lack of pheasant damage
to the crops on the college farm in 1931-32 indicates that
a concentration of 20 to 25 pheasants spread over a section
of land (640 acres) as determined by two censuses is not
likely to be serious in general farming land upon which
such crops as corn, small grains, beans, and hay are
grown." (Damon, 1933)

The damage done by concentrations of pheasants, and
other wildlife, was so great in 1939, however, that the
college requested permission to allow the campus police
to shoot destructive wildlife found in critical crop
areas. An investigation was made by a member of the Game
Division of the Michigan Conservation Department and
sufficient damage was observwd to warrant granting such
a permit .

Many Sportsmen denounced the college policy of “re-

-1-

 

sorting to guns before trying some other method", after
an outdoor editor had criticized the secrecy blanketing
the issuing of the permit. (East, 1939)

It was apparent that the management of wildlife on
the Michigan State College farms needed a thorough study:
first to acquaint our technicians with the basic reasons
for the concentrations and damages, and second to eXperi-
ment with types of control less controversial than shoot-

ing.

History g£_Project

In October, 1939, the Conservation Institute was
asked by the college administration to give Special at—
tention to the wildlife management problems.

Animal ecology students, under the direction of
Professor J. W. Stack of the Zoology Department, were at
that time studying the ecology of the pheasant concentra-
tions (Burgess, Cooley, Denman, and Dunning, 1939), and

this study was followed later with a live-trapping pro-

 

ject during the winter of 1939 and 1940 (Burgess, Cooley,
and Hume, 1940). Therefore it was not necessary for the
Conservation Institute to direct any of these activities
until the late Spring damage period of 1940, when the pre-
vious investigations needed greater consolidation, and fur
ture investigations required closer coordination between all.
of the departments concerned.

From July 19, 1940, to February 20, 1942, the Cone

servation Institute continuously employed one or more

-2-

 

 

wildlife investigators. During the summer of 1940, Don. W.
Hayne, Research Assistant of the Zoology Section of the Ex—
periment Station, directed the investigations of Fred. C.
Durchman in these problems. During the fall of 1940, Harold
H. Burgess was employed by the Conservation Institute to

carry on the investigations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Appreciation is gratefully orpressed to Michigan
State College and in particular to Director L. R.
Schoenmann of the Uonservation Institute for guidance
and for prodiding means for carrying on this project;
to Mr. B. T. Ostenson, and Mr. J. W. Stack of the Zo-
ology Department for guiding the management studies; to
Dr. H. T. Darlington of the Botany Department for as-
sistance in identifying stomach contents; to Mr. R. 8.
Hudson for cooperation in attempting to coordinate farm

and wildlife management; to the Michigan Conservation

 

Department and its Game Division personnel; and cape-
cially to Mr. H. D. Ruhl, Mr. Farley Tubbs and Dr. Dur-
ward Allen for valuable suggestions and assistance.

I am indebted to Mr. D. W. Hayne, for his suggestions
and field notes.

The suggestions of the late Mr. H. M. Wight of the
University of Michigan, School of Forestry and Conser-
vation, were greatly appreciated. Appreciation for the
graduage study guidance of Dr. H. R. Hunt and Dean E. A.

Bessey is here expressed.

-3...

 

I am very grateful to Marvin Cooley, Robert
Dunning, Sally Denman, Robert Hume, Morton Livingston,
Fred Durchman, Robert Scholes, Bruce Wilson, and Robert
Bartlett, who at different times assisted on this project.

Gratitude is also eXpressed to the M. S. C. Forestry
Club, the M. S. C. Conservation Ulub and the Lansing Boy
Scouts for their cooperation in making wildlife censuses.

The contributions of many other students, faculty
members, farm field men, associates and friends were so
numerous that they cannot be acknowledged individually
even though their efforts have assisted this investigation
greatly.

I am very grateful to Mr. F. Foster and student Miss
Margaret True of the Department of Geology and Geography
for their cooperation in preparing the photostatic cover
map of the Michigan State College farms presented on
page 14.

Grateful acknowledgement is given of the constant
companionship and untiring assistance during these studies

of Bonnie, my English setter.

 

DEscaigTION OF AREA
The area included in this study is 1800 acres in

extent, and is located on the prOperty of Michigan State
College at Town 4 north, Ranges 1 and 2 West in Lansing
and Meridian townships of Ingham County, Michigan. This
block is bounded by the Red Cedar River on the north,
Harrison Road on the west. (See Map Page 1H.) The ad-
joining areas were also included in the studies whenever
convenient, but only to gain a clearer picture of their

environmental relationships.

Phys iography and Soil;

The area consists of a portion of Grand Ledge till
plain, bordered on the north by the Grand Ledge Moraine,
and on the south by the Lansing Moraine. The land is un-
dulating sandy clay plains with low relief, gentle lepes,
and having a large proportion of swampland and Hillsdale
Conover soil associations with the exception of a small
area of hilly sandy land on the west border and level
sandy and gravelly plains on the northwest corner of the
area. The highest points in the area are at the central
and the southwest corner and are 869 feet above sea level;
the lowest point is on the Red Cedar River'at Harrison
Road and is 837 feet. According to Veatch (1941) this
is first class general agricultural land. The principal

craps of Ingham County are corn, small grains, and hay.

Climate

The climate of Ingham County is characterized by
cold winters and mild summers. The normal annual pre-
cipitation is 31.43 inches. The annual snowfall averages
47.4 inches. Wind movement and evaporation are relatively
low, and humidity is moderately high. The mean annual
temperature is about 47°F. The mean winter temperature
is about EMOF. while the mean summer temperature is about
68,60F. The average number of frost free days (corn grow-

ing season) is 160 days. (Veatch, Adams et. a1. 1941)

Original vegetation

This portion of Michigan was originally covered by
various associations of hardwoods. The principal Species
were sugar maple, beech, red oak, white oak, black oak,
hickory, red maple, silver maple, and swamp white oak,
with an admixture of smaller amounts of walnut, butter-
nut, black cherry, sycamore, cottonwood, and tuliptree,
in less concentrated stands. Such shrubs as red osier
(other) dogwoods, winterberry, rose, wild blackberry, and
raspberry were common associates. (Veatch, Adams, et. a1.

1941)

 

AGRICULTURE PRACTICES

Management

All of the college land outside of the campus is
managed under two types of supervision. Approximately
400 acres used for experimental and demonstrational pur-
poses are under the departments most closely concerned,
while the rest of the 1800 acres of farmland is under
the Michigan State College Farm and Horse Department and

is Operated as a large farm.

Land Use

Pheasant life is quite closely correlated with the
use and production of the land, since it is only in rich
agricultural areas that large nmmbers of pheasants are
produced.

Leedy (1939) comments on this correlation as follows:
"The abundance of the pheasant depends upon various phases
of land—use. Food habit studies indicate that most of the
subsistance of the pheasant consists of cultivated crops
or their by—products. The cr0p plants and the weeds as-
sociated with them also provide valuable cover."

The college crop land is used as indicated in Table

I, page 8.

 

TABLE I MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE FARM LAND USE 1941

 

 

CROPS - ~ ACELEAGE - - ' % or TOTAL

25?:lfa or alfalfa and brome hayrr A 425 26.
Cats, or cats and barley 179 11.5
Alfalfa and misc. pasture 173 11.0
Ungrazed hardwoods 173 11.0
Blue grass, etc., (permanent)pasture 130 ”8.0
Silage corn 123 8.0
Ear corn 94 6.5
Timothy (winter) pasture 45 3.0
Livestock paddocks 7A 5.0
Fruit orchards 25 2.0
Fallow land or summer fallowed 20 1.0
Sugar beets 16 1.0
Berries 15 1.0
Clover (sweet, red, and alsike in

plots) 14.5 1.0
Wheat 10.5 .5
Potatoes 10 .5
Timothy or timothy and fesque 10' .5
EXperimental sheep pastures 9 .5
Beans 9 .5
Soybeans H .22
Sweet corn h .22
Chicory 2 .12
Misc. vegetables 2 .12
Melons 1 .06
Tomatoes 1 .06

TOTAL 1569.0 100.00

Cover Types

With the exception of 173 acres of ungrazed wood-
land, most of the area has been under cultivation for a
half century or more, and therefore is divided into
various artificial cover types. In this study, cover is
classified according to its value for shelter in winter
and Spring, as woodlots, diapersed trees, shrubs, dis-
persed shrubs, perennial herbs, new herbs, water, and

bare ground. (See map, page 14.)

Woodlot Types

Two large and several small hardwood woodlots as
well as several small coniferous plantations are main-
tained on the college farm for practical forestry study.

These can best be described by individual areas.

Baker WOOdlot

This 70 acre hardwood multi-purpose woodlot, for-
merly known as Woodlot 17, is very important to this
study, situated as it is, hear the central portion of
the most important critical crOp experimental areas.
Throughout the year it provides shelter for numerous phea-
sants and other wildlife, which at times seriously inter-
fere with experimental research.

Baker woodlot is predominately a sugar maple-beech
association with a heavy interspersal of red oak and black

cherry on the southwest portion. Shrub growth is intense

-9-

in Open areas and intermingled throughout the woodlot.
A double row of ponderosa pins on the south side and a
stagnated plantation of black walnut on the north have

been added to the area.

W. A. A. Woodlgj,

This 5 acres of beech-maple woodlot provides winter
shelter at times for as many as 200 pheasants. The asso-
ciation is predominately beech—maple with maple seedling
and sapling understory. Its value as a shelter is indi~

cated by the large number of pheasants using the area.

Sanford Woodlg£_

These 55 acres of maple and beech, formerly known as
the "River Woodlot" or the "College Sugar Bush", carries
about 25 pheasants and 100 Squirrels over winter. No

critical crOp areas are located in the vicinity.

Toumey Woodlot

‘This 20 acres of maple and beech provides shelter
for some pheasants and crows near the Farm Crep's experi-
mental areas during the Spring and summer, but carries

vexy_few pheasants during the winter.

Hudson WOodlot

This newly acouired 15 acres of selectively cut-over
maple and beech hardwoods provides shelter for about 20
pheasants during the winter far from any critical crop

areasi

..lO-

Redman Woodlqt

This formerly grazed 5 acres of hardwood has little
undercover, but will become increasingly important as the
undercover grows in. No critical crOps are grown in the

near vicinity.

Pinetum
This plantation of white pine with no undergrowth

is almost entirely valueless as pheasant cover.

Sandhill Plantagigg

This mixed plantation of Norway Spruce, black Spruce,
and pine provides little food and ground cover for wild-
life, but in the past has been regularly used for roosting
by a flock of 25 pheasants.

Dispersed Trees

Scattered trees are found throughout the area as
individuals, small groves, or in lines on fence rows and
road sides. These trees also play an important part in
the pheasants' lives. During the Spring, the pheasants
often nest in the vicinity of these trees; in the fall
and winter they roost in the branches and often can be
observed feeding around the base, when these trees happen

to be food producers.

Shrubs
Shrubs are important both for shelter and food. The

fruits of shrubs are often the main fall and winter foods

-11-

and often make the difference between starving or surviv-
ing during critical periods. Shrubs are common around
woodland borders and in Openings, swales, and fence rows,
where they supply valuable nesting and escape cover, as

well as food.

ngepnial Herbs

Perennial herbs are here classified as herbaceous
plants which are carried over as cover from fall to the
following Spring. Most hayfields and lightly grazed
'pastures are in this classification. Perrenial herbs are
important in the Spring to the pheasants because they
supply attractive early nesting cover. The fact that they
may be mowed before hatching time increases their impor—

tance in this study.

New Herbs

New herbs are here classified as herbaceous plants
which are carried over the winter, not as cover, but usual—
ly in root form. They consist mainly of grazed pasture,

wheat and rye fields.

Bare_é£eas

Bare areas are those areas which during early Spring
have little or no vegetation. The area may be lying fallow,
or being fitted for a summer crep. Neither the new herb
type nor the bare area type are very attractive to the

pheasant during the early Spring, and their later value

-12-

varies with their use.

This};

Besides the Red Cedar River there are many other
water areas on the college farm. Numerous ditches,
swales, ponds, kettle holes, and other depressions cut
and dot the area providing surface water at many places

on the farm.

Transition

Because of the interSpersal of vegetation, some
areas cannot be classed as of one single type, but ins
stead represent a transition type. This is true of the
woodland borders, fence-rows, various eXperimental plots,

and water area borders. (See Cover Map, page 14.)

-13-

I y ‘4 If
I’ll
(Alli); I.tl.l.l.o‘

c
1"

KC)»

h

‘- V K; 1. 1;-»‘J

\
(.3

 

.5. ‘0’

i'll ...
N 'l

41,

v. n~fisa<w

“a

‘5‘ \.

 

N ‘L‘ .71: ”-1, ._

-‘—Q ".£5 . .

 

 

 

Q _
1’ .
‘1‘ ., d _ ,_
mwwmm
“ ‘ . . _. .' . . . .
boss-cic;inq a as

.12 3.0 ‘- 5:. at

,1-
“J\.' v ...).

.3

¢ . ,
. _ I
'J"‘~J «..u \l

\t

V
[.1

i
A

31 . 1: .l\!)

1.
L1:

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE FARMS
coves MAP, APm. T0 JUNE l94l

 

 

 

\\\\\\\
* \\

 

 

 

 

 

\\
\
\

/ _ j 7:? was“?

 

 

»\

 

V\h\\

 

 

PA

—.-4

2‘
gm
8‘

\

‘ a

31 we“

. .55

 

 

7W

 

 

 

“...—...—

\\\\\\
\\\\\
\\

 

 

 

 

\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEGEND

WOODLOTS

INTERHITTENT

SHRUBS

NEW HERBS

pmmmm. asses m
BARE AREAS I l‘
mans {“5“}

YO
#0)
ix

'wEES

 

 

 

 

‘» "F'I‘t'c‘

-----

 

 

 

." fr. ; \ a ' '
m'fi’. . -‘ smrono peg" ,.
‘ a v.9wra2kat :

fl

'F '.
first?“
.‘er

( T

Fr_
9

 

 

 

 

 

""* wPASTURE

OILS

FARM QR ‘

TY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE RING-NECKED PHEASANT

The ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus toroug
Egg), a hybrid between the English black-necked and the
Chinese ring-necked, was first introduced into Michigan
in 1895. Hearing and liberation Operations began at the
State Game Farm at Mason in 1917; by 1925, pheasants were
common and a pheasant hunting season was Opened.

The ring-necked pheasant thrives best on cultivated j

agriculture land. When this land is interSpersed with

woodlots and fence rows, and the pheasants have year
around protection from hunters, as on the college farms, 1

conditions are favorable for their rapid increase.

Populations
During the falls of 1931, 1932 (Damon 1933) and

1939, estimates were made of the pheasant pOpulation by

flushing the pheasants and plotting and counting the

home sites on the area. During the winters of 1939,

1940, estimates were made by totaling the largest num-
ber Of pheasants seen in each concentration area. Line
drive censuses were made quarterly from the fall of 1940

to the winter of 1942, to estimate the number and sex

ratio of the pheasants in the study area. (Table II,

page 16.)

-15-

 

Pheasant.Ponulations

 

 

 

TABLE II __ p
, Date Acres M F 7 Total A/ph 32:;0 Authority
Fall 1931 1700 60 28.3 Damon
Spring 1931 1200 46 27.6 Damon
Fall 1939 1000 137 138 275 3.6 1:1.0 Burgess
Winter 1940 1000 142 213 355 2.8 1:1.5 Biiéii;
Spring 1940 1000 40 60 100 10.0 1:1.5 Lifiiiél
Oct.l3,l940 1800 168 178 346 3.4 1:1.3 Buiégis

486 4.0 1:1.2 Burgess

O‘\

Jan.26,l941 2000 210 250 2
Apr.12,l941 1200 58 66
July 8,1941 720 10 15
00t.1941 1200 494
Jan.25,1942 1200 93 102 276 471 2.5 1:1.1

128 9.4 1:1.1 Burgess

30 24.0 1:1.5 Burgess
2.5 Burgess

U14:

Burgess

In 1931 the fall census indicated about 1 pheasant
for each 28 acres (Damon,1933), while fall censuses found

1 bird for each 2.5 acres in 1941, indicating an increase

Of 11 times its 1931 pOpulation in 10 years!

Line-drive Census Techniques

The lineedrive censuses used for counting pheasants
is a modification of the deer line-drive census. About
25 drivers are lined up on a block boundary 200 feet apart.
These men, keeping equidistance apart and in a straight
line, move forward across the boundary flushing the phea-
sants, counting the birds that move back over the census

line. Individual drivers count those birds crossing

-l6-

 

the line at their right, while boundary drivers also count

the pheasants that fly over the side boundaries. Counters

Spaced about 1000 feet apart, tally all of the pheasants
that pass over the forward boundary on their right.

D: II Luau-S

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

Jli a m
8
I». ‘ I V
IN 3
/\ ‘
FbF /\
xx
/\
I. I
A f
LEFT OBSERVER L IN RIGHT OBSERVER. :
m CAR D3 8c 3.» IN can. :

 

__J

   

 

 

I
ISIGI'ITMAN

I

 

I I 7‘

I

I

I

I RIGHT BOUNDARY DRIVER
I
I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS

LE FT DOUN DAILY DRIVER.

Ia.‘ 9... mo ~53-

 

Diagram I. Mechanics of Line—drive Census
A sight man, in the center of the line, regulates
the pace. Observers in cars keep the Operations func-
tioning and count boundary transits not tallied by the

drivers or counters. For example, A pheasant is counted

by driver #1, B by Observer R, C by driver 15, D by driver
16, E by counter #2, and F by observer L, while G may be

counted by either counter #1 or observer L after they con-

sult with each other as to who should count it.

-17-

Birds reflushed during the census are not recounted.
If they fly into the same or different census blocks,
they are credited only to the block from which they were
initially flushed and are subtracted from the total num-
ber flushed in the block to which they fly.

The data summarized in Trend of POpulation graph on
page 18 illustrates an upward trend during the period
studied, and that the maximum pheasant population would
probably be still greater than those previously reached.

The 1941 fall population of 1 pheasant per 2.4 acres
apparently from the Spring breeding population of l
pheasant per 9.4 acres, indicated that both the breeding
potential and production capacity of the college farm
wasehigh for pheasants.

The effect of trapping Opeeations in the reduction
of population during the winters 1939 and 1940 is shown
by T, and T2. The 166 pheasants trapped in 1941 account-
ed for more than nine-tenths of the difference between
the fall of 1940 and the Spring 1941 pOpulations. It might
be assumed that this pOpulation reduction would reduce
the 1941 Spring breeding pOpulation and thus reduce the
1941 fall population. In this assumption it must be kept
in mind that with a greater concentration of pheasants

there would probably follow a greater outflux and a heavier

winter mortality.

-18—

I00 ACRES

PHEASANTS PER

TREND OF PHEASANT POPULATION

   
  
 
 
 
  
 

 

 

l93l " l94l
40F 4|.0 PHEASANTS
PER I00 ACRES
2.4 ACRES PER
PHEASANT
35—
29.I PHEASANTS
PER I00 ACRES
3.4 ACRES PER
30.. 27.7 PHEASANTS PHEASANT
PER IOO ACRES
3.6 ACRES PER
PHEASANT ‘
————- r
/ ‘ 2 ‘765 PHEASANTS
\ TRAPPED
25.. / \ PER 100 ACRES
// ‘
/ \
/ \
20— - / I
6.9 PHEA SANTS I
V/ TRAPPED
3.33 PHEASANTS (97 PER I00 ACRES I
PER I00 ACRES / “ r,
26.6 ACRES PER /
IS'PHEASANT /
I /
/
/
/
e / ‘~—
I0 / / , ,— I0.6 PHEASANTS
/ / / / PER I00 ACRES
. / 9.4 ACRES PER
/ RING / Io.o PHEASANTS
/ EP/ / PER I00 ACRES ”“5“”
/ / / ’ I0.0 ACRES PER
5 / //’ PHEASANT
,/ ...; 3.62 PHEASANTS

PER IOO ACRES
27.6 ACRES PER
PHEASANT

 

 

I93I
I933-
I935r
I937L
l939r
|94l-

"TM

INVENTORY

'1" -' ”Q-MF.'~ -—-—- ..g .

,JIU‘ 1]

 

‘9 hate 1. Line-ante pne‘aeaat‘o‘enews Strongman-1:
culture and Forestry Experimental areas.

¢_PBODUCTION

fl two—.... -~_ fl‘uvfi-

 

 

‘3 9’ ‘ ‘. “-w‘.’ ' . 'v—Y WWI-WW

Photo 2. Twenty three pheasant nests were found
inmhayfields.

Photos by H.H.Burgess

Life Cycle
The pheasant mating season begins in late winter and
early Spring, at which time the cock selects his crowing
area. By crowing and diaplaying, he announces his intention
of keeping off intruders, and courts all females which come
.near. Livingston (1940) reported on observation of 5 un-
successful neets. Further studies were made during the

Spring of 1941 as a part of the current study.

COCk-Crowing and Spot mapping

An attempt was made during the latter part of March
1941 to determine the home range Of individual male phea-
sants by marking on a base map his crowing sites for several
mornings or evenings.

Over 80 different male pheasants' crowing areas were
thus plotted. Concentrations and erratic wandering compli—
cated the location of more cock-crowing areas. This study
has substantiated other workers' conception that these
breeding areas are definitely associated with cover and tOpo-
graphy. This is shown on the overlay of the cover map on
page 14, by the fare crowing areas grouped in a single de-

pression in the dairy pasture east of Farm Lane.

Sex Rat 10

The sex ratio of approximately 1 male to b female
pheasant seems to have remained constant throughout the
year of 1941 (See Table II page 16). Cocks were observed

alone and with as many as 4 hens. Other investigators

-21-

studying pheasants have ODserved as many as a dozen fe-
males with one male. The pheasant is polygamous and pro~
miscuous so that it is improbable that any healthy male
or female pheasant on the college farms goes through a

breeding season without mating.

Nestlng_8tudies

During the Spring of 1941, intensive searches were
made in bushy fence-rows, woodlot borders, and herbaceous-
covered fields for pheasant nests, since apparently that
was the only good nesting cover at that time. In this
work, an English setter dog was used on a 12—foot leash
for the narrow bushy areas and on a lOO-foot rope for
the fields. Direct search did not prove satisfactory as
no nests were found by this method.

COOperation in reporting nests was requested from
all employees, faculty members, and students who might
be working or studying in pheasant habitats. This me-
thod has proved the most satisfactory as 32 nests were
found and reported by COOperators while 1 other nest was

accidentally found in the course of field investigations.

TABLE III
Departmental Coonerators in.Pheasant Nest Stud:

000p. Crops Farm Botany Hort. Ent. 2001. For. Cons.Inst.

 

No.0f _
Nests 15 11 1 1 1 2 1 1
Reported

 

-22..

The date the first egg was laid was computed in our
studies by subtracting 1 day per egg from the date the
nest was discovered. If the eggs were being incubated, the
number of days of incubation was determined by the incuba-
tive stage of the eggs, and this number wasxgfibtracted from
the date the nest was discovered. The largest number of
nests known to be initiated in any 15 day period was the
5 nests started between May 1 and 15. Since the dates of
the first eggs laid were estimated for 14 nests, the 5 nests
initiated during the first half of May indicate that about
one-third of the nests were started at that time. The aver—
age size nest of approximately 12 eggs (11.6) was computed
from the 13 nests of which the most complete data were were
Obtained. (See Appendix I, pages 1 and 2.)

In comparison, with studies made by Randall (1940) in
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, where climate factors are simi-

lar, tnis was about half a month earlier than his most im—

portant nesting period in 1340.

figst Mortalit1__

Twenty-three of the 33 nests studied in 1941 were lo-
cated in hayfields, where three succeeded in hatching. Six-
teen of these nests were destroyed by mowing. Crows, floods,
and man's disturbances were the agents of destruction of

the other four hayfield nests.

-23-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE LV Agents of Nest Destruction
Agent

Mow- Felled Pred- Deser- Percentage
Site ing Tree ators tion Hatched of Failure
Hay- 16 2 2 3 87
fields
Wood-
lots 2 1 100
Pas-
tures 1 1 1 67
Coni-
ferous
Plant- 1 1 50
ings
Or- 1 l 100
chard “_
Total 17 1 5 4 6 81.8

 

Brood Study

The first chicks to hatch in this area were the five

hatched on June 3rd in an incubator where they were placed

after a tree
the railroad
consisted of
barb on June
observation,

a coniferous

fell and broke up a nest in a windbreak along
Spur. The first brood to hatch naturally
eight chicks hatched in the Horticulture rhu—
6th. The five other successful nests under
were located one each in: an alfalfa pasture,

planting, and three in alfalfa hayfields.

During the summer of 1941, 104 observations were made

on pheasant broods. Many of these were made in the early

morning when the young pheasants left the wet vegetation

.24.

for partly denuded areas.' The broods could often be
found at the edges of the roads at that time, where it
was a simple matter to obtain an apparently complete
count of the orood by hunting out each individual with
a setter dog. Counts were obtained on 32 broods, the
average size of which was 8.3 chicks. 0f the four
broods on which complete mortality records were obtained,
56% were alive at the age of ten weeks. In our nesting
records weyfind that 83.3% of the eggs of the average
successful nests hatched. This means that 10 chicks
were hatched in the average successful nest. If the
average successful brood suffered 44% mortality after
hatching, as indicated by mortality records obtained on
four broods, the average brood at 10 weeks would be

5.6 chicks.

 

TABLE V' Brood Study Summary
No. No. in NO. in Nest Brood
No. Eggs Chicks Brood Brood at Fail- Mor-

per Nest Hatched all ages ten weeks uree tality

 

12 10 8.3 5.6 81.8% 44%

The abnormal mortality and diminishing reproductive
index were indicative for hayfields and other very vulner-
able areas, but were not true for the areas as environ-
ments. In less vulnerable environmental areas, hests data
were much harder to collect and therefore could not be

pr0per1y evaluated.

-25-

FOOD HABIT STUDIES

Stomach Analysis

In our food habit studies at Michigan State College,
82 pheasants were collected. Sixty-four of these individ-
uals were collected in 1939 previous to the present study,
by the campus police and farmhands shooting any pheasants
Observed in or near critical experimental areas. Two
additional pheasants have been collected by this method
since this study began. The remaining 16 individuals
were found dead in traps during trapping Operations, in

fields, or on roads.

TABLE VI Collection Distribution by Months

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
7 10 0 O 3 21 7 27 8 l 0 0

From the above distribution table, it is observed

that the greatest numbers of pheasants have been collected

during the summer months, the time of the most critical

crop damage. Since many investigations have been based

on male pheasants collected during the fall hunting season,

this collection should have unusual value in providing

data from other seasons, particularly pertaining to sex

and age.

TABLE VII Distribution of Sex and Ages
of Pheasants Collected
Males Females Undetermined Total

 

Adults 27 91+ 0 61
Immatures lO 8 1 l9
Undeter- l l 2
mined .

Total 38 #2 2 82

Sex ratio: 1 male: 1.105 females

Age ratio: 1 immature: 3.2 adults

All of the specimens were autOpsied, by the Michigan
Conservation Department Game Division Laboratory techni-
cians. The craps and gizzards were taken out of the
birds, tied in a small Cheese cloth, labeled, and stored
in a solution of formaldehyde until needed for analysis.
The volumetric analyzing method, as modified by Davison
(l9fll) of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, was used
in our stomach analysis. Each kind of plant or animal
was measured by volume to determine its percent of total
food contents. Materials of less than l 0.0. were tabur
lated only as traces. Grit was measured separately by
volume.

The following procedure was followed:

1. The contents of the stomach were placed in a
cheese cloth bag and washed in running water.

2. Total crop volume contents were measured. Grit

from the gizzard was measured and discarded.

-27-

3. The contents were decanted so as to separate

them into light and heavy materials.

4. Material was examined and separated into similar
Species.

5. Recognizable material was identified and each
Species was measured in cubic centimeters and.percentages
of total food contents were computed.

6. Unclassified material was separated and measured

and samples were labeled with Game Division autOpsy num-

bers and filed for future reference.

7. Unknown material was identified.

TABLE VIII Summary of Contents of Stomachs of Pheasants
Collected on Michigan State College Farms _jSee Appendix II)

 

average Percent of Average Percent of
Total Crop Contents Total Gizzard Con-
Corn 62.0 tents 25.7
Oats 9.0 7.0
American Elm 8.5 0.0
Wheat 6.0 11.5
Beans 5.5 4.0
Insects 4.0 7.5
Unknown leaves 2.0 21.0
Barley 2.0 2.0
Rumex 0.0 2.0
Grass and Clover leaves 1.0 11.5
Lamb's Quarters 0.0 0.5
Wild Cherry 0.3 6.0
Bindweed 0.0 2.0
Ragweed 0.0 0.2

-28-

In the summaries a discrepancy exists between the
data collected from the cr0ps and gizzards. A prepon-
derance of the least digestible food occurred in the
gizzards, indicating a differentiation of digestive action
instead of a difference in food habits. A large amount of
unidentified plant material was found in this organ because
digestion made it impossible to recognize the material.
Investigators usually use the gizzard analysis as supple-
mentary facts, and the crap data for the main indicators.
However, some investigators eliminate crop data, when birds
are trapped in heavily baited traps; but this was not ddne
in this study because the bait habit was assumed to be a
phase of the normal efforts of the pheasant to obtain palat-
able food. This will be seen in Appendix II, pages 1 and

2. Contents of 44 crops were analyzed out of 82 Specimens

autOpsied.

-29-,

TABLE IX Comparison of the Most Important Foods
of Four Studies

Burgess(l?4l) Dalke(l93§) Hicks(l936) English and

 

(Michigan (Michigan (Ohio) Bennett(i940)
(Pennsylvania)
1. Corn Corn Corn Corn
2. Oats Wheat Ragweed Lesser ragweed
3. American Barley Wheat Grasshopper
Elm
4. Wheat Ragweed Foxtail Buckwheat
5. Beans Beans Smartweed Skunk cabbage
6. Insects Oats Cats
7. Barley Buckwheat Black bind-
weed
8. Leaves of Fox Grape Ground Cherry
Grass and
Clover
9. Wild Cherry Hog peanut Red clover seeds
10. LepidOptera Buckwheat

(Larvae)

Although corn was the most important pheasant food
on the MIchigan State College farms, only about 5% of the
stomachs of the pheasants shot in June (season of corn
DU111ng) contained corn, while almost all of the phea-
sant crops obtained in February were filled with corn.
This indicates that corn plays mush.less importance as

pheasant food during the critical Spring damage period

than during the winter.

-30-

CROP DEPREDATION

Innocent or partially innocent Species are often
unjustly blamed for damage committed by some other variety
of wildlife, because little definite information on the
identification of crop damage is available to the agri-
culturists. The pheasant is accused of damaging tomatoes,
melons, seedling and ear-corn, and various other crOps.
By numerous observations, exclusion fences, controlled
experiments and trapping, various types of crOp depre-
dations have been identified and classified.

In attempting to identify crop depredation it is
pertinent to know which Species are on the critical
areas. Numerous pheasants, crows, "blackbirds", (star-
lings, grackles, and redwings), and fax squirrels were
observed on the critical SXperimental areas. (Table X

page 32)

TABLE X Wildlife Sighted on Critical Areas
Aug. 9th to Oct.lOth, 1941

 

AREA GROWS PHEASANTS RABBITS PASSERINES TOTAL
Horticulture A
tomatoes 132 10 imm. 2 Few 144
Horticulture
sweet corn 57 12 imm. 2 Numerous 71
Horticulture .
melons 100 2 imm. 1 Few 103
Horticulture
vicinity 237 12 imm. 2 Numerous 251
Botany
tomatoes 6 3 adults 1 Few ‘ 10
TOTAL 532 39 3 579

The presence of cottontail rabbits and Norway rats

was ascertained by trapping.

TABLE II Trapping Records--Horticulture Vegetable Plots
Aukust_3th to October 10, 1941

CROP and COVER PHEASANTS RABBITS NORWAY RATS TOTAL

 

Early sweet corn 6 imm.

and tomatoes 1 adult (3) 0 0 7
Early sweet corn

and fallow 6 imm. 0 0 6
Late sweet corn

and melons l imm. 8 7~ 16
TOTAL 13 imm.

1 adult (F) s 7 29

 

The relative abundance of various Species of wild-
life in Specific areas were indicated by the number of

separate track sets counted.

TABLE XII Track Sets Counted July 9th to Sept. 1, 1941

Horticulture Tomatg Track Stggps

 

SPECIES GROWS PHEASANTS RABBITS TOTAL‘.
SEts of .

Tracks 81 21 10 112
Part of .

Total 72m 19m 9% 100%

 

All of the critical areas were scanned daily with a
pair of binoculars from an automobile for wildlife activ-
ity. The areas were then hunted thoroughly with an Eng-
lish setter to flush wildlife, after which a detailed ex—
amination of current damage, traps, and tracks were made.
A crow trap, two Ohio-type pheasant traps, and six live-
mammal (cat) traps, were set in the Horticulture Depart-
ment's Vegetable plot. Track count strips were maintained
in critical and test areas by daily raking these 12 inch
paths after the counts were tabulated. Five exclusion
cages, which kept out pheasants and crows were placed over
some melons, thereby assisting in identifying rodent damage.
Controlled feeding of tomatoes and melons to captive phea-
sants provided type examples of damage. This feeding in-
dicated the place of succulent fruit in the pheasant's

food habits.

-33..

PHEASANT DAMAGE TO

 

 

photo 3. Holes made by pheasants Photo 4. Pheasants sometimes
digging corn seedlings. feed on low ear corn.

[3 ‘..-. .. at . 1 ~ .. - — 71,—. .

 

 

 

Photo 5. Pheasant damage is usually negligible to final yield

in fields of 10 or more acres of corn.

Photos by David Damon from M.S.C. Cons. Inst. files.

"it

 

Corn

 

During the period of corn Sprouting, pheasants

and crows destroyed a considerable number of corn seed-

lings. The pheasant damage could be identified by the _
distinct hole and mound of dirt left by the pheasant in

digging out the corn. The crow, on the other hand, left
no noticeable hole, for it graSped the stalk in its beak,
and often left a telltale beak mark as it jerked out the

seedling. In both cases the kernel was eaten and only

in very few cases was any other portion of the seedling

consumed.

   
 

4. - - -BEAK MARK

 

-UPROOTED CORN SEEDLING —PULLED CORN SEEDLING

 

Han PHEASANT DAMAGE “6.3 CROW DAMAGE

m._.____ , _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the Spring, pheasant damage to corn in fields
of five or more acres was negligible. However, pheasants
destroyed over 50% of two border rows of sweet corn in the
unpatrolled Horticulture plots near Baker Woodlot, indi-

cating their possible detriment to small experimental

 

DAMAGE OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHEASANT

 

 

Photo 6. Corn seedlings pulled by crows. (Note beak marks)

Photo by Huby, M.S.C. phgvto Lab. Files

 

areas or gardens.

Io important Spring damage could be blamed on crows,
with the exception of an estimated 25% denudation of a
five—acre Horticulture plot of late-sown sweet corn.

‘During the summer, pheasants punctured numerous corn
stalks, probably to obtain moisture, but as a whole this
destruction was insignificant, even in the experimental
plots. The pheasants also peeked at numerous low ears
attached up to eighteen inches off the ground but this
damage was important only in low-eared sweet corn, and
even there, crow damage was much more significant.

Several intensive surveys were made on field corn
plots, which were observed to be affected by wildlife
damage. In these studies the fraction of the ear dam-
aged, as well as the number of ears damaged, were noted
so that the actual damage could be computed. Only those
injured ears which were less than two feet from the ground
were considered damaged by pheasants, but this damage may
have been due to any of several other animals. The fol-

lowing tables demonstrate that pheasant damage was negli-

Sible to field corn in the green ear stage.

 

{DAMAGE OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO PHEASANTS

 

Shoto 7. Crow damage to ear corn Photo 8. Red-wing damage to
ear corn.

 

 

fihoto 9. Flocks of 500 or more crows have been observed on
the college farms.

Photos by David Damon from M.S.C. Cons. Inst. files.
-33-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XIII Wildlife Damage to Field Corn, Aug.20, 1941
row Pheasant Passerine
Soils Good Dama ed Dama ed Damaged
Blocks Ears No. wTot. wTot. mTot.
~ __Ears. No. Ears No. Ears Smut Total
617-624 '133 65 14 6 3 0 C 3 207
201-204 192 0 0 l 0 0 0 5 19s
South
Block 533 0 0 0 o o 0 0 533
Soil
Fertility
Plots
(South
Block) 150 0 0 l 0 O 0 0 151
luck
Plots
South
Block) 225 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 228
Total 1233 66 5.3 8 .6 2 .16 8 1317
TABLE XIV Wildlife Damage to Field Corn. Sept. 16. 1941..
‘5’ _” Crow Pheasant gasserlne
80118 Good Damaged Damaggd Fagaggg
H' 17‘ I“ .- o ‘ to ‘10 U at.
BlOCks Ears “0’ féggo-ho Eggs 0 gars Smut Total
gusset; 9o 79 45 0 0 0 0 ‘i 173
201-204 5A 0 0 0 0 1 1°35 2 57
South 244
Block 235 7 .s 0 0 0 0 2
Much
Plots
South ' 223
Block) 233 l o 0 0 A 1'3 O
‘5‘ 02
Total 602 a] 14.6 0 0 5 -33 3 7

-3 9..

TABLE XV Pheasant Damageito Seedling Corn-Spring,l9u1

 

 

 

 

 

AREA CONTROL AND COST DAMAGE
Soils Experimental Patrol: 6% hrs. 0 40¢
Plots $27.20
Control neglected half . 25%
, of damage season
Fertilizer Plots Patrol: 68 hrs. @ 40¢ ,
627.20 0%
Muck Plots Feed rows and scare-
crows, extra bushel
of corn” @ 00¢ 0%
Horticulture Heavy planting. #
Gardens extra bushels of corn,
62.#0. A
30%
Heavy planting made
this damage tolerable
Botany Plots No control except mOdi‘ 7
fication of environment 0%

 

M. S. 0. Farms

Farm Crops

Large fields, no control

Patrol 176 hrs. @ 40¢
$70.#0
A number of small fields

totaling about 25 acres

 

lug:

Tomatoes
Wildlife damage to early tomatoes was critical dur-
ing early August-1941, due perhaps, in part, to lack of

drinking water accessible to crows 2nd pheasants.

TABLE XVI Horticulture Early Tomatoes-«August 4, 1941

now RIPE ‘75 0F GREEN % of :
GOOD DESTROYED TOTAL 000D DESTROYED TOTAL 5

 

289 42 51 ~ 55. 290 10 3.

 

Tomatoes damaged by pheasants usually had a shallow
excavation or a single deep purcture (fig. 3), while
tomatoes damaged by crows showed deeply and circular

scoooed cavities (fig. 4)

  
 

_PUNCTURE. __ ___scooPED

HO LLOW

  
 

- -- .. -EXCAVATION

FIGAv cnow DAMAGE

FIG. 5 PHE AsA NT DAMAGE

Criteria for differentiating the damages committed
by the several involved wildlife.3pecies were used only
after repeated observations and in the case of pheasant

damage by controlled feeding to penned birds.

-41-

\r’
r\)

\r'
__ l

About 6770 of the 'wildlife damage in the Horticulture

tomatoes was committed by crows, and 33%»committed by

pheasants.

The damage attributed to diseases was about

twice as great as the damage attributed to wildlife.

Damage due to both disease and wildlife was 6.5% of the

total yield, but only about a tenth of this damage or

.6% of the total yield could be attributed to the phea-

sant according to the following table.

TABLE XVII Horticulture Tomatoes--August 19L 1341

DAMAGED FRUIT

 

 

 

ROW ”DAMAGED shows PHEASANTS afar TOTm—AL REMARKS
&rot

289 352 1 0 50 403 Early, flat,
exposed

326 446 0 15 5 466 Near corn,
spreading

430 254 1 0 o 255 Late, up-
right

2 E 512 5 0 16 533 Late. 4p-
right

374 259 25 0 25 309 Upright

381 241 0 0 5 246 Late, up-
right

TOTAL 2,064 32 15 101 2,212

 

—.._

£42-

 

eat
the

WEI

Since the theory is often advanced that pheasants
eat tomatoes during dry periods primarily to supplement
their water requirements, a number of troughs of water
were placed in critical areas to help sUpply this need.
A track strip was prepared around the troughs and.main-
tained for 53 days, but counts indicated.very little,

if any, actual utilization of this available water.

TABLE XVIIIWater Trough Track Strips July 9,,- Sept.lLAlQil
SPECIES GROWS PHEASANTS RABBITS PASSERINES

 

ggts of
Tracks l4 l4 1 l2

 

These troughs were put out after the tomato-eating
habit was acquired. They apparently did not reduce the
wildlife damage. '

Adult pheasants that had been in captivity for'more
than a year and had plenty of water and grain, ate tomatoes
ravenously. 0n.the other hand, newly-captured immature
pheasants from flocks which had acquired the tomato eating
habit ate tomatoes sparingly. These eXperiments demon-
strated that tomatoes were primarily utilized, and were
needed to supplement the food-supply of the old captive
flock, since a constant water supply was available.

Field observations during the summers of 1940-1941, found
a decline in pheasant damage to tomatoes immediately after
rains, indicating their supplementary use as a source of

water.

.43-

Melons
Bird damage to melons was usually found on the Upper

surface or side of the melon and consisted of a large ex-

cavation when committed by pheasant and a narrow round

hole when committed by crows. Rodent damage was confined

to the easily penetrated base of the melon and consisted

of a gnawed hole into the pulpy interior from which seeds

were dragged out.

 

  

 

”...—“2.2.. ,

Hes '5le AND mom view or DAMAGED MELON

_.H,..‘.—--

About one half of the-earlyfimuskmelons and one quarter
of all melons, both muskmelons and watermelons in the Hert—
iculture plots, were destroyed by wildlife during 1941.

The earlier damage was primarily due to crows which flocked
into the melon patch regularly each morning and evening.
jPheas;nts also caused considerable damage at this time.
Later, the damage done by a combination of crows, phea-
sants, Norway rats, and cottontail rabbits, reduced the
final yield to about 75% of what it should have been.
Pheasants alone probably damaged less than 6% of the

total melon crop.

Miscellaneous Crops

Pheasants also committed some damage to other crops.
Several potatoes were pecked by pheasants in the much
'plots; and since many flocks lived almost entirely in
grain fields, it is probable that pheasants consumed a
quantity of such grain as wheat, oats, and barley. Early
in 1941, pheasants dug up a number of pea seedlings in

small isolated areas but the total damage was not sig-
nificant.

-45-

 

WILDLIFE DAMAGE

r”

'0 .r-h . ‘K'g‘:: '2‘} Q ‘ijf'J.

Photo 10. Damaged Muskmelons and Tomatoes

Left Right
Upper: Muskmelons: Pheasants Rodents
Lower: Tomatoes Crows Pheasants

Photo by H. H. Burgess
in Uons. Inst. files

-46—

 

CONTROL OF PHEASANTS

‘ are:
Relief methods

mm
Oum studies have clearly indicated that pheasants

have destroyed seedling and ear corn, tomatoes, melons,

mi
and rarious other or0ps.

It has been necessary to de-
6m
velOp methods of immediate relief.

SHOOTING: Shooting was the universal method of elim-

inating the wildlife that was harmful to agriculture. ya

This method was used by the college until the spring of m

1940, when due to public disgproval,‘it was discontinued.
It should only be practiced as a last resort, as it will

m
never be popular with the hunting public and is an acknow- ’

ledgement of an unsolved land management problem.

(I)

PATHOLLIHG: The method most widely used to protect

sprouting corn during 1940 and 1941 was patrolling newly
planted areas from daylight to 9 A.M., and from 3 P.M.
to dark, the pheasants' normal feeding time, for ten days,

by which time the corn kernels were usually absorbed by

the new seedlings.

BUFFHH BORS: buffer rows were used on the border of
the husk Farm to protect eXperimental plots in which
scarecrows were used to scatter and equally distribute

further focal points of damage to seedling corn. The
Horticulture Department planted corn heavily and adapted

their eXperiments with an eXpectation of wildlife damage.

-h7-

FENCING: A two-foot high chicken netting fence
around a quarter acre of sweet corn was successful in
keeping out pheasants during the ear stages. Twelve
pheasants were trapped out of the Horticulture sweetcorn
and tomatoes, so that pheasant damage was probably re-

duced there below normal.‘

LARGE IIEKDS: The Farm and Horse Department has
relied, apparantly successfully, on its large fields to

make any damage committed on its boundaries negligible.

MODIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENT: An important focal
point of pheasant damage in 1939 and 1940 was the toma—
to plots in the Botany EXperimental area. During the
summer of 1941, the weedy railroad right-of-way, used
as a travel lane to this area by numerous pheasants,
was cleaned up; one surrounding semi-permanent pasture
was summerdplowed while another was mowed. This re-
sulted in the pheasants shifting to areas with better
cover and practically eIiminated all pheasant damage

in these plots.

PREDATION: During the spring of 1941, crows destroyed
more than 11% of 34 pheasant nests. 000per's hawks have
killed 30 more pheasants on the college farms in 1939-
1941. Red shouldered, rough-legged, red-tailed, and
marsh hawks and horned, barn, barred, and short-cared
owls have also been observed, but did not seem to be im-

portant pheasant predators on the college farms.

-43...

.nUNTING: Hunting is an effective and normal method
of reducing ringenecked.pheasant pupulations. Although
hunting is forbidden on the college farms, both the Grand
Trunk and Pere Marquette Railroads' right-of-ways were

hunted during the regular pheasant season.

LIVE TRAPPING: Previous to 1939, there was no live
trapping of pheasants on a large scale in Michigan but
the Ohio Wildlife EXperimental Station was using a
technique by which they were catching more than 2000
a winter. The ohio men used a modified water—lily type
trap, 20 feet long and 2% feet high. The entrance
was shaped into a “V", narrowing down to a 4 inch Open-

ing. Figure 6 shows the t0p view of the trap.

OHIO PHEASANT TRAP

‘ TOP VIEW

 

 

 

 

i LOCATION OF STAKES
ESCAPE .
DOOR " x :1 u
4"‘8'
20 ft.
:00
I!
N 5 - 5V4.” __ ..Iv
‘ Enhance, ’- '\
l
1
i . l u g DOOR ,
l ' ; 2 If: "
i

”tscmt boon

 

.__5
-—————_
. ___. -. _. .—.__.__._ “b..

Fig 6. Photostat taken from ”Techniques of Pheasant Trap-

ping and Population Control" (Hicks and Leedy 1939)

-49-

 

The sides were made of two sections of #11 electric
welded lawn fencing, 35 feet long by 2% feet high. One
side was in the form of a large "C" and the other side a
reversed ”0". Chicken wire netting of 2 inch mesh, cut
to fit, formed the tOp and was loosely fastened down
with cord or wire.

Since our concentrations were smaller than those
in woods County, Ohio, it was thought that a smaller
model would serve more efficiently. A hundred foot roll‘
of lawn fencing was out into four twenty-five foot sec-
tions usable for two fifteen food traps.

Effective trapping season extended from the first
heavy snow until Spring diSpersal of winter concentrations.
Corn was found to be the most practical bait. Three me-
thods of baiting were used in 1939, namely; impaling ear corn
on Spiked boards, scattering shell corn, and stacking ear
corn in a pile. Impaling kept the corn above the snow but
took too much time to be practical. Scattered shell corn
was covered by each snowstorm, but was sepecially valuable
where small mammals carried away the bait supoly. Piled
ear corn, however, was the most efficient because it usually
projected above the snow and enough (100 lbs.) could be put
out at one time to last a couple of weeks.

Since food is abundant in most of the area, success-
ful trapping usually occurred when.the ground was covered

with two or three inches of snow. Such condiflitnl were

-5 O...

1?.er Q1
:0 COO

tiallj

TBTB

infrequent and lasted only for short periods. Efforts
to coordinate trapping with these periods were only par-
tially successful, since they were hard to forrcast.

A system of trapping, whenever the bait was being
rapidly consumed, and of discontinuing when no more birds
were trapped, proved.to be the most practical.

Few scalping fatalities occurred due to the loosely
hung top netting which yielded readily with the phea-
sants when they jumped. Wing injuries were frequent,

but these were only minor and healed readily.

COST OF TRAPPING: Since there are many areas,
where a surplus of pheasants is found on

it was thought that

such as this,
areas on which hunting is not desired,
-these surplusesmight be harvested economically by

live-trapping, elsewhere, as well as here.

Because of this, a close and accurate check was

ABpt on our trapping operations to determine the cost

of trapping a pheasant. In 1939 and 1940 with no labor

trapping Operations to capture 69 phe
but with labor cost of

Cost figures, asants

COSt about 63 cents per bird,
30 cents per hour, the cost would have been about
#1025 per bird.

In comparison, Pennsylvania Game Commission, during

1939-1940, trapped 3,211 pheasants at approximately 42

cents per bird (Cramer 1941).
nually in Wood County at an aver-

0hio had previously trap-

ped 1,800 pheasants an

age cost of 35 cents (H1048 and Leedy 1939)-

-51-

In 1940-41, our trapping costs were as follows:
Labor, 55 hours at 40 cents per hour.. ....... $22.00
5 traps at $3.00 depreciation cost . ......... $15.00
605 lbs. ear corn at 93 cents per 100 wt..... 5.63
90 lbs. shell corn at al.27 per 100 wt...... 1.14

450 miles at 4 cents per mile .......... ..... 18.00
$51-77

Thus the 154 trapped live pheasants were trapped and
turned over to the Michigan Conservation Department at a
total cost of $61.77 or 40 cents each. This reduction in
our cost to less than 1/3 that of 1940 and to a cost com-
parable with that of Pennsylvania and Ohio was accom-

plished by more efficient trapping.

SUHnER TRAPPING: During the summer of 1940 an at-
tempt was made to capture pheasants in critical areas
by using drift fences leading into "Ohio type" traps.
Eighteen pheasants were trapped. Fourteen.more phea-

sants were thus captured in 1941.

-52-

.1.--

_ _..v

1‘ ‘
pa

:1

«a

 

mANAGEmENT

The control methods discussed in this paper were
attempts to relieve an intoleratde condition resulting
from the incompatibilities of ring-necked pheasant and
cultivated crOps. They are not to be considered as the
answer for an unsolved land management problem, although
they may be important factors in its final solution. It
will require a far-sighted and coordinated land—use plan
to approach.aniadjustment that is compatible with both
game and agricultural crops.

The Michigan State College Extension service ad-
vises farmers to include wildlife as a farm crop in their
land-use planning--and we believe this a sound policy.

Yet, if the public were to consider our own SXperimental
farms where wildlife management has not been properly
Coordinated with other agricultural practices, these
teachings would be discredited. wildlife must be con-
sidered when the use of land is planned, for we cannot
practically shoot, trap, scare, or exclude specific
wildlife from plots which are constantly attracting various
species from surrounding concentrations.

Surveys are made to identify and analyze the effects
of soil, drainage, and locations of areas, before allot-
ments on the college farms are made for various orperiments,
but up to this time, little thought has been given to the

effects of prevalent wildlife Species or wildlife cover in

clos
suc‘;

8111‘?

close proximity. When cr0ps vulnerable to wildkife damage,-
such as those in the horticulture vegetable plots, are
surrounded by woodlots, partially grazed.pasture and.cover—
crOp plots, heavy damage must be expected as an alternative
to heavy control costs. Often the wildlife cover or envirOn—
ment can be eliminated or modified as was done around the
Botany Plots with good results; but in many cases this
would not be advisable. It would not be a good policy to
clear out Baker woodlot which serves as a forestry labora—
tory because pheasants concentrate there and feed in the
nearby Horticulture plots, or because fox squirrels from
this woodlot constantly interfere with the Soil Department's
nearby corn plots. It is much simpler to move the orperi-
ments to less vulnerable areas, to use relief methods, or
to stand the loss as a natural disturbing factor.

when agricultural extension workers advise farmers
to include wildlife in their land-use planning, they con-
sider game animals to be harvestable for food and/or re-
creation. At present the pheasant can only be harvested on
the college farms by trapping or permit shooting, in which

case, neither food nor recreation values are involved.

Qantrolled Huntingpon M.S.C. Farms

It is self-evident that indiscriminate hunting on
institutional-owned prOperty such as the H.S.C. Farms,
is not feasible. Vandalism, interference with orperi-

ments, and over-crowding would eliminate completely the

-511...

possibility of such a method. However in 1929, a group
of Ingham County farmers, with a very similar problem,
organized a controlled hunting system, now nationally
known as the “Williamston plan“. By 1941, 110 clubs
in 24 counties controlling 497,563 acres were managed
by similar controlled hunting methods.

This method has proved itself practical for many
of the southern Michigan farms and possibly with the
'prOpeI modification, it could be just as practical on
those college farm lands lying south of the Pere Har-
ouette Railroad and other outlying M.S.C. landholdings.

Michigan State College had approximately 60 Wild-
life Hanagement, 200 Forestry, and 60 Police Adminis-
tration students in l94l--more than enough men to ade-
quately patrol any area of land the college might desig—
nate as open to controlled hunting. These men and their
instructors need SXperience in patrolling, in collecting
data, and in other forms of conservation work connected
with such a controlled hunting system.

A controlled hunting area on Michigan State College
Preperty would serve many purposes. It would partially
solve the problem of over—pOpulation of wildlife; it would
offer students and faculty an opportunity to obtain fur-
ther field laboratory training in game management; it
would serve as a demonstration area for correct manage—
ment methods; and it would serve the public in Opening

a much needed recreation area.

-55...

SO!

193

at
1'1

8‘

SUMMARY

1. The wildlife depredation to vulnerable crops was
so great on.Michigan State College farms in the summer of
1939 that the Michigan Conservation Department issued.per-

mits to shoot pheasants and other crop-destroying wildlife.

2. The Conservation Department requested.that Michi-
gan State College make a study of the pheasant in an
attempt to develop controls less controversial to the pub!

110 than shooting.

3. During the fall of 1939 and winter of 1939—1990,
ecological studies were made under the supervision of
Prof. J. W. Stack of the Zoology Department. During
1940-42, further investigations were carried out through
the Conservation Institute,under the direction of Prof.
B. T. Ostenson, and with the COOperation of various

acknowledged organizations and students.

4. The Michigan State College farms consistee of
1800 acres of typical Southern Michigan Agricultural
land.

5. The Ring~necked pheasant (Ehggiggg§_gglghign§
torguatus> was the basis of most of the complaints and

therefore was chosen as the Species to study for the

present thesis.

‘-“-"a'm—J :._\'_ _ A

 

 

6. The pheasant had increased from.l pheasant per
28 acres during the fall of 1931 to l pheasant per 2.5
acres by the fall.of.l941, indicating an increase of ll
times its 1931 population in ten years. Counts were made
by plotting home ranges and by line drive censuses. A
spot map of cock-crowing areas indicated a correlation
with cover types and topography. The sex ratio remained
close to 1:1, which is probably normal for unhunted concen-

trations.

7. Direct search with an English setter oner short
leash was unproductive in finding nests, but 32 nests
were reported by field laborers and other workers. The

average nest contained 12 eggs.

8. Seventeen percent of the nests observed, hatched
with an average clutch of 10 chicks which suffered a
mortality of about 44%, resulting in an average of 5.6

chicks in a successful brood at 10 weeks.

9. Food content studies were made of 44 stomachs
and gizzards of pheasants collected in 1939. Corn, oats,
Elm seed, wheat, beans, and insects were found to be the

most important foods.

10. Identification.of damage to corn, tomatoes, and
melons was made by observations, exclusion fences, and

controlled feeding eXperimentl.

-57...

 

Lin—QB .‘r 3.; ‘ 1

ll

incite

prol’cfi

CEIIOD

cor:
liVI
Dec

bi:

 

11. Shooting, patrolling, buffer rows, scarecrows,
fencing, and modification of immediate environment, all
proved valuaole as relief methods for-intolerable depre-

dation.

12. The crow and Cooper's hawk were the most effective

pheasant predators.

13. Live trapping with.0hio type traps has been
carried on. Corn was the pest bait. Traps were set when
Corn was being most rapidly consumed. 154 pheasants were
live trapped and turned over to the michigan Conservation
Department during the yinter of 1940-41 for release. These
birds cost the college 40¢ each to trap. Thirty-two phea-

sants were live-trapped during the summers of 1940 and 41.

14. It will take a far—sighted and coordinated land-
use plan to produce pheasants and other agricultural crops

Compatibly on the college farms.

15. hunting is forbidden on the college farms. Under
the present conditions, pheasant can not be harvested for ;

either food or recreation. I

16. Controlled hunting could be a practical method 5
of harvesting surplus pheasants. Besides reducing the :
pheasant pOpulation, it would give students and instruc- [
tors in Conservation, Wildlife Management, Forestry, and
Police Administration, an Opportunity for eXperience in

farm game management and patrolling.

-58- j

I?!"

 

fiEFEhhnCES USBD
Bennett, L.J. and English, P.F., 1939

”The Fall Foods of the hingneck Pheasant and Bobwhite.“
Pennsylsania Game News. lO:(l) pp. 8,9, 29

Burgess,H.H., Cooley,M.E., Denman,S., and Dunning, 1939
"A Study of the Pheasant Damage on Michigan State
College Pr0perty." Unpublished report in Department
of Zoology files, Michigan State College.
Burgess,H.H., Cooley,M.E., and Hume,R., 1940

"M.S.C. Pheasant Control Study.“ Unpublished report
in Department of Zoology files, M.S.C.

Burgess,H.H. 1940, 1941

1940. "Fall Pheasant Management-~1940". Unpublished
report in Conservation Institute files, M.S.C.

1941. "Winter Pheasant Management at M.S.C.-l94l'.

Unpublished report in Conservation Institute files,
MDSOC.

1941b. "Pheasant Management Studies on.M.S.C.Farms--

Spring, 1941." Unpublished report in Conservation
Institute files, M.S.C.

19410. "Pheasant Management Studies on M.S.C. Farms--

Summer, 1941." Unpublished report in Conservation
Institute files, m.S.C.

l94ld. ”Wildlife Management on M.S.C. PrOperty for
1939, 1940, and 1941". In Conservation Institute
files, M.S.C. ~

Cardinell, H.A., and Hayne,D.h., 1945
Corn Injury by Bed-Wings in Michigan. Technical
Bulletin l9§,~hichigan State College Agricultural Ex-
periment Station.

Cramer, h.m., 1941.

Summary of PennWWMW
igappigg. Letter in Conservation Institute files, M.S¢C.

-59...

Dalke,P.L., 1937

"Food Habits of Adult Pheasants in Michigan, Based on
CrOp Analysis method." Ecologz 18: (2) pp. 199-213

Damon, David, 1933
A Study of Cro D a" ’ ' c
7The Southern Penninsula of Michigan. Unpublished.

thesis for M.S. Degree, M.S.C.; obtainable in
Michigan State College Library.

Davison, Verne F., 1940

"A Field Method of Analyzing Game Bird Foods". The
Journal of nildlife managemgnt, Vol. 4 (2) pp. 105-116

Durchman,F., and Hayne,D., 1940

Report on the ngmer's Wildlife Studies. Unpublished.
Conservation Institute files m.S.C.

East, Ben., 1939

"Declares War on Pheasants." The Grand Rapids Pzgss,
Aug. 12, 1939, page 20, Grand hapids, Michigan

Hayne, Uon., 1941
Field Notes. In Zoology Department's file, M.S.C.

 

Hicks, L.E. 1936

Food Habits of the Ring-Necked Pheasant. Release No. 36
Ohio wildlife Research Station.

hicks, L.E., and Leedy,D.L., 1939

rapping and POpulation Control“,

"Technioues of Pheasant T
$ ‘ a "ildlife Confereng§_pp. 449-461

Transaction of 4th N.Am.

Leedy, D.L. 1939

"Some Land-Use Factors Related to Pheasant Production.”
Transaction 4th North American "ildlife anferenge,

Livinston, Morton, 1941

Pheasant Nesting Spudy M.S.C., Spring, 1940. Unpublished
report in onservation Institute file at M.S.C.

-60-

heAtee,w.L. 1945 (Edited by)

"The Ring-Necked Pheasant", American Wildlife In-
stitute, Washington, DiC.

Randall, P.E., 1939

"Nesting Habits and Causes of Newt Mortality of the
Ringgecked Pheasant." Pennsylvania Game News 10: (9)
pp' ‘7: )0

Veach,J.O., Adams,H.G., Hucbard,E.H., Dorman,C., Jones,L.R.,
Moon,J.w., and nonser,C.H., 1941

Soil Survey Ingham County, Michigag, Series 1933,
No. 36. U.S.D.A. Dureau of Plant Industry

Veach, J.O. , 1941
Agricultural Land Classifications and Land Types

Michigan. Special bulletin 231 (Revised). A ri-
cultural EXperiment Station, Michigan State ollege.

-61-

. .
U I
—.
O o
A -
I
a
I
.-
....
. V
-.
l
’
. .
a.
‘ . » p
.
I a
V -
C I
I .
_'
I l
-
O o
.1.
O |

'_.

 

 

 

 

... .I.II.II.71‘-it1..’!. a\.\. -

 

 

2: r'a C...‘ ‘

'I,
l
r I“ .-~p‘\ :7”
:1 J ..KJ L. ‘4: L

, ' , 4'
; . t .
j“, l, ‘. '5‘ m
; d by .1

wrap” nu; MN; 2!
U Cu" K ‘ I'f ‘7' J -‘

L i
‘4'. “I x” . hI

 

 

 

"ITlljfilafifltflflllt‘w’qlflfil'll 1mm“

13740