.‘5 ‘. 3.5557,, L t Mir 4 V I. ,. '0 7 ‘ Earl t 1‘; “15%; n‘,o.'_ 5:/~ " ? I "f ‘1 ', afliai; hlrrnn- :3 . _ 4"‘37541'fi , ‘J 45:; 4’53?!» #4" F 77 «=3; ~_-‘:—' 1!? :- Pt!!! ‘3: . ’ i m l "‘ 5:39“ 1 ~v~ r1. 2 £77 .’ (.11; , . (Lt; ‘ "323:? J, ., 4 I ‘r F: i I: l 1:55 I" I :I' , ‘ ”’th ghw‘ w: W5 3% ADV Ia”. Q‘WDIIS / '41 A STUDY OF CROP DAMAGE BY WILD BIRDS AND MAMMALS IN THE SOUTHERN PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN With Observations On The Effect Of Repellents On The Germination Of Corn \J A STUDY OF CROP DAMAGE BY WILD BIRDS AND MAMMALS IN THE SOUTHERN PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN With Observations On The Effect Of Repellents On The Germination Of Corn Thesis Submitted To The Faculty Of The Michigan State College In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master Of Science BY David Damon may, 1933 TH ESIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ................................ 1 Purpose of Studies .......................... 2 Projects and Methods ........................ 4 Presentation_of Data ........................ 5 Field Studies of Crop Damage ................ lO Pheasant ................................ ll Observations on the Effect of Repellents on Corn Germination .................... 50 Crow .................................... 44 Bronzed Grackle ....L.................... 55 -Red—Winged Blackbird .................... 61 European Starling ....................... 62 Robin ................................... 64 Red-headed Woodpecker ................... 64 Blue Jay ................................ 65 Killdeer ..........................;..... 65 Fox Squirrel ............................I 66 Rabbits ................................. 72 Raccoon ................................. 74 Muskrat ................................. 75 Skunk ................................... 77 General Survey of Wild-life Damage to Crops in the Southern Peninsula .................. 77 Summary of the major Types of Mild-life Damage Observed in These Studies ........... 83 95448 \J " TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) Page Conclusions .................................. 96 Tables No. I .................................... 98 l\r00 II OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00... 99 No. III .................................. 109 No. IV ................................... 111 Special Investigations ....................... 112 Literature ................................... 166 Acknowledgments .............................. 168 Photographs OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.0.. 169 INTRODUCTION There appears to be a growing tendency for farmers in southern Michigan to consider the game birds on their farms as a crop'like their beans and wheat. In most cases, however, the farmer does not sell his pheasants outright by charging the hunter a set price for each bird taken, but instead hunt- ing rights are leased - each hunter paying so much per day of hunting. The universal depression that surrounds us has been a stimulus which has caused many farmers in all parts of this country to consider game as a crap. Other stimuli have come from.the various progressive conservation groups, and in Michi- gan the most prominent organization in this work is the Michigan Division of the Izaak Walton League of America. This group has taken a broad view of the subject and while urging the farmer to do his share in pr0pagating game by furnishing a little food and cover, it has at the same time listened to the farmer who claimed that the damage done by a bird was far in excess of the returns on hunting rights and leases, and in excess of the good done by the bird in eating insects and weed seeds. If the Izaak Walton League wished to propagate and re- lease game birds on farms it had, therefore, to choose one of two roads of approach to the subject. The League could either -2- go ahead and release prepagated birds without giving the far- mer an ear, but assuming that he would profit by this act in every case, or it could listen to the farmer and cooperate with him.by first investigating the matter and learning to what extent each party was correct.’ The League chose the latter road of approach. PURPOSE OF THE STUDIES The chief object of these studies was, as has already been hinted, to determine the status of the ring-necked pheasant, Phasianus colchicus torquatus, on.Nfichigan farms. The Izaak Walton League wanted to learn the correct answer to this question. The Zoology Department of the Michigan State College agreed to 000perate with the League in this work and added that it wished the studies to be made on other forms of wild-life found on Michigan farms, esPecially those affect- ing farm creps. Control or preventive measures were to be taken into account in cases of serious cr0p destruction. The species of birds found to do more or less damage to crops and included in these studies are as follows: pheasant; Eastern crow, Corvus brachyrhychos brachyghychos; bronzed grackle, guiscalus guiscula aeneus; Eastern red-winged blackbird, Agelaius phoeniceus phoeniceus; EurOpean sterling, Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris; red-headed woodpecker, Melanerpes ggythrocephalus; killdeer, Ogyechus vociferus vociferus; /’ Eastern robin, Turdus migratorius migratorius; and Northern bluejay, annocitta cristata cristata. The mammals included the fox squirrel, Sciurus niger rufiventer; varying hare, Lepus americanus americanus;cottontail rabbit, Sylvilagu§_ floridanus mearnsii; raccoon, Procyon lgtgg.lggg£5 and mus- krat, 0ndatra zibethica zibethica. As all field men know from experience, it is not an easy matter to observe all animals going about their routine life. It is often a stroke of good luck that permits one to observe the more wary animals or those which have nocturnal habits. As a result, attempts to see all species in the act of feeding have not been rewarded. Sufficient evidence has been accumulated in all but two or three instances to recog- nize the Species involved. In every case unless otherwise stated personal field examinations were made. Numerous photographs were taken in the field and serve as a permanent record. Several are included in this paper. PROJECTS AND METHODS l. Prelimina£y_surv§y_- Since it was planned that in- tensive studies would be conducted in Williamston township, Ingham county, it was thought advisable at the outset (July 1931) to learn what cr0p injuries or benefits, if any, the farmers of this township thought they had experienced from the wild-life population of their farms. This was done by personal interviews with farmers or farmers' wives. The following year a check up was made on several of the same farms by actual field inspection in an attempt to learn the value of such interviews. ‘ 2. Field studies gf_cr0p damage - Throughout the summer and to a lesser extent during spring and fall, field studies were made in an effort to determine the extent and kinds of damage that the various species of wild-life were doing to the farmer‘s crepe. Cooperation of the Conservation Department made possible field studies of wild-life damage throughout southern.Michigan to supplement the Williamston township studies. Thus it was possible to gain a better idea of the extent of damages as well as to have access to a greater variety of damage types than could be had in one township. Field studies were confined almost entirely to the farming land in southern Michigan (south of Town Line 16), although wild-life blanks and form letters were sent to the Conservation Officers and County Agricultural Agents throughout the southern peninsula. 5. Studies Q; damage prevention - In discussing a particular crOp damage with a farmer he was asked what, if any, measures he had taken to prevent the damage. He was also asked what results he had obtained. In addition to this accumulation of "home preventive measures", experiments were conducted on the effect of various repellents on seed corn germination. The repellents least harmful to germination were then used to determine their value in preventing corn pulling by pheasants. For this work captive pheasants were used at the college and at the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary. To supplement these experiments under actual field conditions, trial plots of treated corn were planted on various farms scattered over Williamston township. PRESENTATION OF DATA .Preliminary Survey of Williamston Township As it was desirable to know what the farmers' atti- tudes were towards the various species of wild-life, the first problem attacked was that of making a crOp-damage comp plaint survey for Williamston township. Seventy-six farmers ‘were interviewed. The entire township was well represented in this survey save for the three experimental areas upon which Messers Wight, Dalke, and English were doing intensive research work. It was found that a number of farmers who were renters had lived on the farm one year or less so that in order to have comparable results only damages which had occurred with- in the last year could be used. Damage which was reported as occurring in previous years, but not within the past year, was not included in the final results. Care was taken not to place emphasis on any one bird or mammal, but to allow the farmer to place each animal in the niche where he believed it belong- ed. A Spot map was made showing the location of complaints for the various Species. (See sheet #1.) Among the seventy-six farmers interviewed the follow- ing complaints of damage were made for the year 1950-51: to field craps, thirty-six cases;to poultry, four; to both poultry and field craps, one,while thirty-five filed no com- plaint of any kind. The Species involved and the number of farmers making complaints on each are as follows:1 Pheasant - 24 Raccoon -1 Gran - 24 Pigeon -1 Skunk - 5 Killdeer -1 Hawk - 5 Mhskrat -1 Grackle or “Blackbird" - 2 Squirrel -l 1. Some {Ermers had complaints on more than one species. Nature 9; Complaints: - Pheasant — Approximately one half of all pheasant com- plaints concerned corn pulling. The next most numerous com- plaint was that of pheasants eating, standing and shocked wheat. Two reported garden damage (mostly to seedling peas and ripe tomatoes), two said ear corn was damaged, one report- ed the pulling of field beans. One farmer disliked pheasants, because he had seen them kill quail and rabbits, and one far- mer had an indirect complaint about pheasants in that hunters damage his fences when they swarm over his farm during the hunting season without permission. The southeast part of the county has much good cover and many pheasants. One half of the total complaints on this Species came from Six sections in this part of the township. 932w,- Over one half of the crow complaints resulted from corn pulling. Five farmers complained of crows killing young chickens and four reported damage to ear corn. Crow complaints are well distributed over the area surveyed. EEEE.§EQ.§§EEE.‘ The three hawk and five skunk damage reports were of chicken-killing. Grackle - One of the grackle complaints was of damage to ear corn, the other was of injury to wheat. Red-winged blackbirds may have been the violaters as well as grackle, 'because in most cases the farmers call red-winged blackbirds, 'brpnzed grackles, and cowbirds, "blackbirds". -8- Squirrel - The feeding on ear corn near a woods was the occasion for this single squirrel complaint. Pigeon - A case of barn pigeons pulling corn seedlings was reported. Killdeer - This bird was Said to have been seen digging out newly planted cucumber seed, shelling them, and eating the "meat". The farmer said he then shot the bird and found the "meats" in its stomach. Raccoon - In the single case of raccoon damage, this mammal was reported to have eaten green sweet corn ears. It was said that fifty ears were ruined in one night. Muskrat - Although there was but one case of muskrat damage recorded as occurring within the previous year, there were two other reports in the same vicinity of similar damage occurring the year before. The muskrats also attacked corn, but in a different way from the animals mentioned above. This mammal was said to cut down the entire corn stalk. This dam- aged corn Was found only along small streams or ditches. Determination of the Accuracy of the Damage Reports In 1932 (the year following the survey) it was de- cided to study the same area in an effort to learn the accur- acy of the damage reports when collected by the house to house canvasing method. Thirty-three farms were revisited and signs of crop damage by wild-life were looked for by personal field exam- inations. The results of the check up are as follows: 12 (56.5%) made complaints in 1951, but no damage seen in 1952. ___6_ (18.173) made no complaints in 19251, but damage was seen in 1952. Total fl 18 (54.5%) of the observations differed from the ori- ginal survey. 6 (18.1%) made complaints in 1951 and damage was seen in 1952. la (27.2%) made no complaint in 1951 and no damage was seen in 1952. Total 15 (45.4%) of the observations differed from the ori- ginal. It will be noted that damage was found on twelve farms. On some farms the crops were damaged by two species. Squirrel damage alone was found on two farms; squirrel and crow, one farm; crow alone, four farms; pheasant and crow, three farms; pheasant alone, one farm; squirrel and blue jay, one farm. In the observations a farm was considered as having damage if any injury was noted on any crOp whether or not it was perpetuated by the same animal as in that complaint of the previous year. Too much importance must not be attached to the results of this check up. The methods used put the farmer at a disadvantage by suggesting that he tends -10- to over-estimate his crop losses. There are several factors which contribute to this tendency. First, crop rotation will affect the amount of damage in any one field from year to year. Second, all the farms could not be visited frequently enough to catch sight of all the damage likely to occur at the critical stages of the plant throughout its development. Third, the amount of damage may vary from year to year in the same field having the same crop. There are various reasons for this, such as, for instance, a reduction in the number of the animal Species or the finding of other feeding grounds. Comparing this survey for Williamston township in which farmers were interrogated with voluntary reports from farmers throughout the state, it has been found that in most cases the complaint more nearly approaches the amount of damage in the case of voluntary reports. The reason is that the average farmer will not take the trouble to report his cr0p damage unless it is of some importance in the first place. FIELD STUDIES OF CROP DAMAGE These studies consisted of observations made in William— ston township and on farms scattered over southern Michigan. In the latter case, Specific damages, as reported by farmers either directly to the Zoology Department or indirectly through the medium of Conservation Officers or County Agricultural -11- Agents were studied. Pheasant Types and Extent of Damage Eigld_§g§§ - The majority of the reports of crap dam- age dealt at least in part with pheasants. Complaints of damage to corn and truck crops were about equal in numbers. An occasional report of corn damage was of feeding on ears, but the remainder concerned corn pulling. The corn pulling habit of some pheasants has given rise to the greatest number of complaints on this bird as it affects corn. maxson (1921) and Burnett (1921) report corn pulling by pheasants in Colorado. Cottam (1929) in Utah, Swank (1950) in Nebraska and Pirnie (1927) in New York report the same to occur in those states. The removal of young corn seedlings by pheasants is usually Spoken of as "corn pulling", but it would be more accurate to say "corn digging". In the method used by the pheasant there is very little actual pulling. The fourteen birds observed by the writer used their beaks like a minia- ture pick-ax in digging. The crater shaped hole about one and one half inches across is dug beside the stalks until the kernel is reached. (Fig. l) A small mmund of soil is piled at the bird's feet on one side of the hole. Sometimes the stalk is snapped off with the beak and left lying; it is seldom eaten. The germinated kernel and sometimes the succu- -19- lent roots are consumed. It is the writer's belief that there may at times be a preference for the roots because a kernel (untreated with a repellent) will occasionally be found which has been dug out and left, whereas the holes are quite free of roots. One farmer reported examining a pheasant‘s crop which was packed full of succulent corn roots, but had only two or three kernels. Edges of fields adjacent to good cover (Fig. 2), furrows and other depressions which aid in concealing the pheasant are especially subject to attack. Each hill in a row for some distance will frequently be dug up (Fig. 5). Over a score of sweet corn patches were studied and it was found that this crop is frequently attacked by pheasants. The damage done to the seedling is exactly the same as described under field corn. The loss here, however, is considerably higher than in the field corn Since as a result of low ears the pheasants have easy access to them. One farmer was able to get but two messes of corn which were not damaged. This was from a patch of eight rows, each about twenty rods long (Report 7). Another farmer estimates 20% of his corn taken by pheasants while it was green (Report 6, Part II). A third farmer has had to stop trying to grow sweet corn in fields some distance from the house (Report 9). His was a case of corn digging by the pheasants and one year he had to replant a whole field (4 acres) three times and -15- then got a poor stand, allegedly from pheasant damage. Reports that pheasants feed on green ears of corn has not been verified by these studies. Such cases are believed to be rare and the damaging species may be "blackbirds" and the crow (Report 2) who with his constant sentinel manages to escape the farmer's eye. One farmer reported that the young pheasants were the individuals doing the damage Since the ear would support their light weight while they stood on it and fed. Another farmer claimed that he watched the birds (of any size) "hold on to the side of the ear and eat the corn like a woodpecker". On five occasions the writer has observed pheasants picking a few kernels from a mature ear where it hangs with- in reach and especially if the tip is exposed (Fig. 4). Such losses are not great and are usually unnoticed. Now and then a farmer complains that the pheasant eats considerable corn from his shocks which he leaves out over winter. It is true that some corn can be taken in the course of a winter (Fig. 5), but a farmer who neglects to haul in his corn must expect such feeding if he has pheasants on his farm. Out of eighty corn fields observed on January 8, 1952 in Williamston township, the corn had been hauled from forty-two. On the remaining thirty fields there was corn still in the shock. In this township, at least, a little over -14- half of the farmers had hauled their corn to cover by New Years. It is not known what per cent of those remaining were husked. Some farmers purposely leave a few shocks of corn to help the birds through the winter and sometimes a farmer is found who will invite the pheasants to feed with his chickens. Calamity has been known to accompany the latter practice be- cause valuable roosters may be killed in the spring by the cock pheasants who are of a fighting disposition at that time. matings of cock pheasants with the domestic hens giv- ing rise to hybrid fowls have been reported, but these hybrids have not been seen by the writer. The most serious drawback in feeding pheasants with chickens is the danger of destruc- tion of gardens in the spring. The pheasants become less afraid of humans and may make frequent raids on the garden even though near to the house. I It is recommended that winter feeding stations be placed in the field in the vicinity of the birds' winter quarters. Pirnie (1950) advises that feeding stations should be established early in the season so that the birds will learn where to find food when really needed. This will also reduce the tendency for pheasants to look for food around the farmyard. It is not to be understood that pheasants will not visit the garden if they are fed in the field, and garden patches far removed from the house are eSpecially subject to -15- injury. market Gardens - The market gardener often experiences con— siderable money losses as a result of pheasants feeding on his vegetables. This type of damage is found mostly at the outskirts of cities, not only because the most truck gardens are here, but also because city hunting restrictions prevent hunting at any time. Frequently there are many acres of sub- divisions not yet built up (Fig. 6). These are allowed to grow to weeds which furnish the pheasants with excellent cover. Tomatoes - Of seventeen market gardens observed near Detroit and Lansing the largest losses occuring on any one cr0p are those with tomatoes. Depending upon local circumstances the loss will vary from a few dollars to several hundred. In some places the farmer is fortunate to receive enough to pay expenses at the end of the year. One farmer estimated his loss on non-salable tomatoes to be between $150 and $200 (Report 15). Another placed his loss between $500 and $600 on tomatoes alone (Report 6). These figures are computed by multiplying the current market price by the number of bushels of ruined tomatoes gathered. The bulk of the loss comes at the very first of the tomato season when this vegetable is sold at a very good price. -15- At this time each ripe tomato is valuable, but just as the first ones begin to redden on one side, the pheasant arrives and takes two or three mouthfuls out and looks for another tomato (Fig. 7). Later when the tomatoes are numerous and of little value, the loss is lessened. A pheasant seldom eats much of any one tomato, but he seems to sample many. Often one peck in a fruit is all he cares for, but that peck has ruined the tomato for selling. Melons - Both watermelons and muskmelons are relished by pheasants, but there may be a slight preference for the latter (Report 6, Part I). No case of pheasants attacking green, immature watermelons was found, but such may exist, because one case of a light attack of this kind on green musk- melons was found (Report 16). However, melons are readily eaten when they ripen. Observations on injured melons in which the rind was penetrated seem to indicate that the bird is after the seed of muskmelcn and the sweet water of the watermelon. Some of the injured melons have little left but the rind while others have only shallow beak marks on the surface (Fig. 8). If the rind is penetrated at all the melon soon rots and is a total loss. Melons with but a tiny'hole are suitable for home consumption and should be eaten before the sound ones . Small melon patches of less than an acre and adjacent -17- to suitable pheasant cover on one or more sides (Fig. 9) suffer more loss in proportion to their size than more extensive areas. Apparently, the pheasant will feed on a melon for a long time and may get a whole meal from it. Although no case was found in which crows were known to be responsible for the types of damage described above, it is not unlikely that they may be the cause of some melon in- juries which are blamed on the pheasants. Strawberries - Reports have been received of pheasant injury to strawberries. Some farmers report heavy losses but most are relatively mild. The larger losses are sustained by farmers who grow large beds of strawberries for market. A farmer's wife reported that she was able to obtain but thirty- eight quarts of berries from her patch in 1951 where she used to get a crate (24 qts.) every other day. However, since all the berries were undersized, there is some question as to how much of the reduced crop can be laid to the pheasants and how much to the extremely dry weather of that year (Re- port 7). It is interesting to note that in this particular garden there were two rows of ripe tomatoes adjacent to the damaged strawberries, but not a single injured tomato could be found. This might indicate that the pheasants preferred strawberries to tomatoes at times. Another farmer, who had two rows of strawberries for -18- home use, reported considerable damage on them (Report 10). A few injured berries were found, but not nearly as many as was expected from his complaint. Later in the day two robins were seen feeding on the berries and there is a possibility that this species is as much to blame as the pheasant (if not more so) for the strawberry damage in this particular field. The strawberries are attacked when they ripen. One or two pecks are made in a berry and the remainder left so that here as in the tomato much can be Spoiled, although but little is actually eaten. Sometimes the berries are severed from the vine and scattered over the ground without being peeked into. These berries soon shrivel up and are a complete loss. Pheasant damage to other garden creps are of less importance over southern Michigan as a whole, although con- siderable injury may occur locally to particular cr0ps. Other crops upon which pheasant damage has been re- corded for Michigan in these studies are as follow. Pepcorn may be dug out as a seedling; garden peas may also be dug out or taken from the pods on the vine; cucumbers have been peck- ed into (Fig. 10); and likewise potatoes which were partly exposed at the surface of the soil were attacked. -19- Control of Pheasant Damage Value of Repellents on Seed Corn Experiments were conducted both in the laboratory and in the field to determine the value of various repell— ents on seed corn in preventing corn "pulling" or digging. The laboratory tests were for the purpose of determining the _effect of a repellent on the corn consumption by the pheas- ants, and the materials finally used were those chosen from some thirty-three after determining the effect of each sub- stance on the germination of the corn. The results of the germination tests are found under another heading (p.30 ). The field tests were for the purpose of determining the effect of a repellent on the corn consumption by the pheas~ ants when the corn was actually planted (p. 25). All the treatments used in the field were those which had permitted a germination of 90% or more in at least one doll1 on both varieties of field corn used (Polar Dent and M. A. C.) Two laboratory tests were made in which treated seeds were exposed in containers to pheasants. These tests included more treatments than the field tests, the former having a number of powdered compounds, the best of which were not used in the field because of the lack of a suitable sub- stance (at that time) for making the powder adhere to the I. The rag doll method was used in making the germinatidfi tests. See page . -20- kernels. Only one commercial repellentl was used because the Farm CrOps Department had reported poor germdnation of seed corn when treated with this. The following repellents were used: 1. Lysol (1 hr. soaking) 2. Bunny Bane 5. Gypsum 4. Hammond's Copper Solution 5. Lime 6. Salt Petre 7. Lysol (5 min. soaking) 8. Copperas 9. Zenoleum 10. Semesan ll. Chloride of Lime 12. Copper Carbonate l5. Cro-Shoo 14. Red Lead The solid repellents were dissolved or suSpended in water because it was felt that the effects would be more last- ing if the chemicals were allowed to penetrate the kernel than if dusted on the surface. Later on crank case oil was found I: TCro-shoo" -21.. to be excellent as a "sticker" or substance causing the pow- dered compounds to adhere to the kernel and no doubt would have been ideal for these treatments. Lysol was diluted in water 1:400 and Zenoleum was diluted 1:100. Cro-shoo was used full strength as its makers direct. In all treatments the corn was soaked for five min- utes except in one lysol treatment when it was soaked one hour. The latter treatment was reported by a farmer's wife to be successful in preventing corn pulling. Five untreat- ed controls consisted of seed which was soaked five minutes in clear water. Each treatment was applied to fifty grams of field corn which was then placed in an uncovered, large-mouthed, pint fruit jar. The jars of treated corn were set inside a pen with six captive pheasants, with the controls well dis- tributed along the row of jars. A cleat held the jars up- right along the Side of the pen and prevented Spilling. The pheasants received no other grain during the tests. This experiment was designed merely to give the rel- ative value of one repellent compared to the others on the assumption that the grains would be eaten in order from the least distasteful to the most distasteful. Irregular visits were made during the day to determine the order of eating. The two tests varied considerably as to the order, yet there -22- were a few consistencies worth noting. In both tests all lysol treated seeds were eaten before the last jar of con- trol (untreated) seed. In one of the tests the seed treat- ed for one hour in lysol was the very first jar to be emptied. The gypsum treated seed was also eaten in both tests before the last jar of control seed. After ninety-six hours of exposure to the pheasants, the remaining seeds were those treated with red lead, semesan, cro-shoo, chloride of lime, cOpper carbonate, and zenoleum. Of these red lead and cro-shoo treated jars showed the least loss, indicating that they were the most valuable repellents. Field Tests on Captive Pheasants In an.effort to find some effective seed treatment which the college could recommend to farmers, outdoor experi- ments were run with captive ring-necked pheasants at the W. K. Kellogg Bird Sanctuary near Battle Creek. Pine, gas, and coal tars were used. The plan was to find which tar was most valuable as a repellent. At the same time it was planned to find out whether or not all stages of the corn up to a height of three inches are equally subject to damage. The pheasant pens at the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary are 6 x 70 feet. Three of these pens were chosen and all but 10 -23- feet of their length was spaded and planted with three rows of untreated corn alternating with three rows of treated corn running the entire 60 feet. Thus the first pen alternated coal tar treated corn with the untreated corn, the second pen was handled likewise, but the seed treatment was gas tar and the third pen had seeds treated with pine tar. A wire partition was put across the pen in such a position as to allow the pheasants access to only the first 10 feet of the 60 feet strip of corn the idea being that as the corn grew, the birds would be allowed on another portion of the stand by moving the partition, the corn being of an older age each time. It was planned that six ages of corn would be used, each time exposing 10 more linear feet. The first area was exposed to the pheasants immediately after planting, the second after germination, the third when the first shoots appeared above ground, the fourth when one inch high, the fifth when two inches high, and the sixth when three inches high. Two hens and one cock pheasant were put in each pen and each group was transferred to a different pen when a new exposure was made so that no group remained in the same pen during two successive exposures. This was done to reduce any tendency for the birds to become accustomed to the taste of -24- one repellent. The birds were not fed for a day after being put on a new area so that they were somewhat forced to feed on the plant ed corn. The purpose was to find if the pheasants would eat the untreated corn in preference to the treated, and also in what stage the corn was first eaten. The three pheasant groups were lettered A, B, and C. The first corn eaten by group A was on section 2 (germinated corn); group B first fed on section 5 (corn first appearing above ground); group C first fed on section 4(one inch corn). It was after the first corn was dug out by a group that all succeeding sections were attacked by that group, frequently leaving nothing but holes and wilted stalks where the corn once grew (Fig. 11). Since these birds were all pen raised, the above observation indicates that pheasants acquire the corn digging habits either accidentally in digging for worms or for food other than corn, or they may learn from other birds already familiar with the art of corn pulling. An ob- servation on group A bears out the latter statement of the ability of pheasants to learn from their associates. None of the birds of this group had dug any corn up to the time they were put on section 2. Soon after this section was exposed to them one of the hens while digging here and there in the soil came across a hill of corn. When the other hen saw the -25- first hen had something to eat she rushed over and proceeded to help dig and soon she uncovered a seed. By this time the cock who had taken notice came over and both hens left and began to dig vigorously elsewhere for themselves. None of the groups found very many of the hills before the corn appear- ed above ground, but after the corn's appearance practically all of it was dug out. The tar coats on the corn did not prevent the pheas- ants from eating it, nor did it even reduce the damage. Since the treated and untreated rows alternated, the birds were apparently unable to distinguish one row from another and it was just a matter of chance which hill was dug. Regardless of which hill was dug, the kernels were eaten. The conclusions from this experiment are: l. Pheasants learn to dig corn in at least two ways, (a) by accidental discovery of the corn and (b) by imitating others familiar with corn digging. 2. Treating corn with coal, gas or pine tar will not insure it against pheasant injury. Field Tests Under Natural Conditions Thirteen plots of treated corn with untreated con- trols were planted on various parts of Williamston township. Three of them were destroyed by farm operations thus leaving but ten upon which final results could be obtained. These -25- were not plots in the ordinary sense of the word. The term "row" would be more fitting since each plot was a single row planted along the edge of the cultivated field and in those places one would expect pheasants to visit. Each row con- sisted of one hundred and fifty hills of 5 kernels each.‘ Three controls were run with twelve repellents in a plot. Each ten hills were treated in the following order: Control #1, coal tar, gas tar, pine tar, crank case oil, Carbolin- eum, Zenoleum; Control #2, Stanley's Crow repellent, Crow- tox, Bye Bye Blackbird, Cro-shoo, Corbin, dilute lysol (soaked one hour), and Control #5. The various repellents which were in solid form such as lime, red lead, gypsum, etc. were not tried in the field because it was thought that contact with soil and rain would soon dissipate the repelling power of these compounds. Later it was discovered that oil made a good "sticker" for such powders and would withstand considerable weathering. Observations were made from time to time and it was found that the corn which had been dug out was done by pheasants in all recognizable cases. Where rain had fallen befbre an observation Was made it was difficult to tell what animal had done the damage which occurred since the last ob- servation. war: 13:13.... .....; . . . 1.490.. Jame.“ .. 3...... 14.1.1... 6......an in , 1%... . .. Her. -27.. No distinction was made between stalks missing in the final tally as a result of pheasant digging and those missing because they failed to germinate. The percentage of stalks missing for the three controls combined is 52.5%. The perc- centages for the coal tar and the carbolineum treatments both exceed 52.5% while the remaining treatments have smaller loss- es. One plot of coal tar treated seed accidentally received an overdose of this very heavy repellent which prevented water from reaching the seeds and none of them grew. This fact con- tributed to the large percentage of missing stalks in the coal tar treatment. From Table I (p.98) it will be noted that "Bye Bye Blackbird" shows the lowest percentage of missing stalks, but is followed closely be Zenoleum. Assuming that the effect of a repellent on corn ger- mination is the same in the field as in the laboratory, a correction was made by using the results obtained on the germination tests of the same corn (Polar Dent) as given in Table II (p.99). A new percentage Was thus obtained which represents the loss of corn due to factors (chiefly pheasant digging) other than the effect of the repellent. It is difficult and often impossible to determine the significance of these results by simply comparing the percen- tages with the control, but by using the Probable Error (P.E.) -28- of the percentages to the Probable Error of the difference can be obtained. If the latter figure is 5 more the differ- ence is considered significant. These ratios are given in the last column of Table I and were obtained after combining all the three controls. It will be noted that gas tar and Carbolineum are not significant. Coal tar appears to be highly significant, but when one takes into account the relative percentages of loss of coal tar and control, it is seen that the signifi- cance is in the opposite direction. That is, the results in- dicate that corn treated with this material is most likely to succumb. It is interesting to compare the field and laboratory tests on lysol treated seed. It will be remembered that in the laboratory the tests showed that the pheasants ate this seed as readily as they ate the untreated controls, which would indicate that lysol was a poor repellent. When the ly- sol treated seed was placed in the field about 5% was lost due to factors other than the repellents. The ratio of the differ ence of the percentage to the P. E. of the difference is 18.5, a number highly significant. These results cannot be taken as conclusive since a maximum of only 500 seeds was used, but they do indicate the value of further research along this line. Coal tar, gas tar, pine tar, engine oil, and lysol ; _ ..29- are familiar to everyone. All were uSed full strength except the lysol which was diluted approximately 1 z 400. Stanley's Crow Repellent, Crowtox, Bye Bye Blackbird, Cro-shoo, and Corbin are commercial repellents having tar basses. These were used in the strengths recommended by the manufacturers. Carbolineum is a wood preservative which apparently has a creosote base. This was used full strength. Zenoleum is a liquid used to eradicate lice and mites in poultry houses. This Was diluted approximately 1 : 100. Since the pheasants may find enough food value in the roots of corn seedlings to make the digging of corn worth- while without always eating the kernel, as stated elsewhere in this paper, the repellents used in this experiment are of doubtful value. The discovery of oil as a "sticker" for such apparently effective repellents as copper carbonate, red lead and chloride of lime may be the solution to seed treat- ment against pheasant pulling since these chemicals gave good results in the two laboratory tests. Although these chem- icals are considered poisonous in large quantities, no pheas- ant used in these experiments has been induced, even by star- vation, to eat enough corn treated with these chemicals to produce any ill effects. ' {13411-4 ) an? (i .1 -50- Observations on the Effect of Repellents on Corn Germination It was desirable to know the effect of repellents on the germination of the corn before making tests on their re- pelling powers. Obviously any chemical which greatly retard- ed or reduced germination would be discarded on the start. After consulting the Farm Crops Department as to the popular varieties of field corn, M. A. C. and Polar Dent were decided upon. It was also decided to include pop corn in the tests since several farmers were found to raise large quan- tities of it for market. The fields were larger than market sweet corn fields. The Australian Hulless variety of pop corn was chosen. Thirty-six different treatments were used on these three kinds of corn, but all treatments were not tried on each kind of corn. The M. A. C. variety of field corn was used the least, because it was the last received and tests of a number of chemicals had already been made on Polar Dent. Those which were decidedly detrimental to germination were not duplicated on the M. A. C. As will be seen from Table II, (p.99), most of the substances used as probable repellents are more or less common compounds, many of which can be found on the average farm. . . 1 v 1.1.1.“ .5 1.. H. -31- Five commercial repellents having trade names were used. More such substances are manufactured, but were not obtainable at the time. The other substances having a trade name are des- igned for purposes other than a deterrent, but were tested be- cause it was believed they would impart a disagreeable taste or odor to the corn. The list of substances used was obtained from three sources: first, "home remedies" or methods used by some of the local farmers; second, information received from the Bureau of Biological Survey; third, products advertised in farm and garden magazines. The ”repellents" can be grouped as follows: Commercial Crow Repellents - Crowtox Cro-shoo Corbin Stanley‘s Crow Repellent Bye Bye Blackbird Commercial Products Other Than Crow Repellents - Semesan ) Ceresan ) Fungicides Hammond's Copper Sol'n ) Weedex - weed killer Wilson Weed Killer Hammond's Weed Killer Carbolineum - wood preservative Pyrox - insecticide and fungicide Bunny Bane - rabbit repellent for fruit trees Zenoleum - insecticide for poultry houses -32- General Compounds - Oil Salt petre Red lead Chloride of lime Kerosene Copper carbonate Lime Copperas Turpentine Gypsum Coal tar Nicotrol Pine tar Lysol Gas tar Arsenate of lead "Rag dolls" were used in all tests. (Figs. 58 and 59). Each doll was made of a piece of unbleached muslin l x 5 ft. The kernels were spread out on the cloth and rolled into it. The complete doll was then kept moist during the test. Four hundred kernels were put in each doll, except one small group (dolls 149 - 151 inc.), and all germinated kernels were counted after 48, 72 and 96 hours, except dolls 85 - 104 inc. which were also examined after 120 hours, because it was believed that the accidental drying which occurred in this set might have retarded normal germination. However, it will be noted that there was very little additional germination during the last 24 hours. Observations were discontinued after 72 hours on those dolls which had a germination percentage of 97 or more, providing the remaining seeds were all discolored and showed no indication of Sprouting. The other dolls were germinated for 96 hours with the exception noted above on dolls 85 - 104 inc. which were carried an extra 24 hours. a ' -55- It will be noted in Table II (p.99) that where the same treatment was applied to more than one doll of one kind of corn (separate sets) the results sometimes varied widely. It is believed that the fluctuation in room temperature was the cause of these cases of wide divergence since each set of tests was begun on different days. To get a better picture of the "repellents" effect on germination more dolls should be tested. FeWer kernels might then be used in a doll. Table III (p309) is a summary of Table II (p.99) and gives the comparative effect of each treatment on the three kinds of corn. Where more than one test was made on a "re- pellent", the average for all tests was used. It was then seen that in a few cases there was a marked difference between the field corn and the pop corn. Eight of these ”repellents"1 were tested on pop corn and field corn (Polar Dent) at the same time under identical conditions. The results are given in Table III (p.109. In all but two cases (control and chloride of lime) the figures for the two corns were brought closer together than before and in four cases (control, chloride of lime, Cro-shoo, and Bye Bye Blackbird) the relative percentage of germination was reversed. Table IV (p.113 suggests that too much importance should not be put on the marked difference between field corn and pop corn as to their reaction to some repellents as shown in Table III (pJIB). 1. Bye Bye Blaékbird Carbolineum Copperas Corbin Chloride of lime Lysol (soak 1 hr.) Cro-shoo Salt petre -54- All of the commercial repellents which were tested gave satisfactory germination results. In addition to these, the following can be used on corn without serious reduction in germination: Coal tar Carbolineum (conc.) Gas tar Hammond's copper sol'n (Dilute 1:50 Pine tar soak 5 min.) Lime Arsenate of lead Chloride of lime Bunny Bane Copper carbonate Ceresan Gypsum Lysol (Dilute 1:400, soak 1/2 to l Semesan hour) Red lead Zenoleum (Dilute 1:100, soak 5 min.) The compounds in powdered form are applied to corn previously treated with a thin coat of used crank case oil or glue size. Red lead is the most highly recommended of the powders. If Carbolineum or any of the three tars is used, extreme care must be taken not to apply too much. Two table- Spoonfuls to the bushel is sufficient and is most easily applied to corn previously heated with warm water and drained. If the seed is too heavily coated there is danger of prevent- ing germination by sealing out the water. -55- Other Methods of Control A few methods have been tried out in an attempt to reduce pheasant depredations. The most conmmn and simple yet tedious method is pheasant chasing. The benefits, how- ever, are few unless a constant watch is maintained because the effect of chasing is temporary and the birds often re- turn as soon as the chaser has gone to another part of the field. Some farmers keep a dog trained to chase the pheas- ants from their corn field or tomato patch. One farmer reported that he had tried this method in his tomato field, but had to discontinue the practice because the dog did more damage to the vines than the pheasants did to the fruit. Even where a dog can be used successfully, as in "milk stage" corn, usually someone has to be on hand to see that the dog does his work. Each year the Conservation Department gives a number of permits to farmers allowing them to shoot to scare pheas- ants. The report of a shotgun in most cases gives but tem- porary relief and must be followed up at frequent intervals. .A Williamston farmer discovered a unique way of frightening pheasants from his tomato patch which was next to his house. He went out the front door with his shotgun and scared the birds away a couple of times. From then on he said that all he had to do was to squeak the front door hinges. A farmer west of Lansing was troubled with a cock pheasant who made regular visits to his garden. This man emptied the lead out of a shotgun shell, replaced it with little pieces of Wadded paper and waited for the pheasant's return. While the bird was busily eating in the garden the farmer came up behind it and fired. He reports that the cock was so surprised at the sudden explosion followed by a snowstorm of paper wads that he ran down the hill squawking at the top of his voice and never returned. Sometimes the farmers will put up various types of scarecrows to frighten pheasants. Human effigies, shiny metals, clattering tins and these have not brought reports of satisfaction from all the users. Plans were made in the fall of 1951 to try live trapping of pheasants on the college farms in the winter, when food was scarce and carrying them off the farms as a means of control in those places where pheasants do considerable dam- age and where no open hunting season is allowed as, for in- stance, on sub-divisions within city limits. A fall pheasant census was to be made first and this followed by live trapp- ing and removing of the birds. In the spring another census was to be made to determine the relative abundance of pheas- ants then as compared to the fall abundance. The fall census was made and the first blanket of -37- snow was anxiously awaited. When it finally came it immed- iately melted and throughout the winter the snow was so scanty and temporary that it was felt that live trapping in the midst of an abundance of food would be useless. It is thought that this method may be of value in a few instances, but unless a combination of favorable conditions is to be had, time-con- suming live trapping should not be tried. Two methods of taking a pheasant census have been employed on the College farms. The first one (mentioned above) was made by the writer with the aid of a bird dog and every field was covered thoroughly. The entire census was made over a period of about three weeks in October and November 1931 (during spare hours). No field was covered more than once and each flushing of a pheasant was recorded. Approx- imately 1700 acres were covered in this census with a total of 66 flushings. When a pheasant was flushed it was followed with the eye and if a bird of the same sex was flushed at the approximate place of alighting a few minutes later it was con- sidered as a reflush. Allowing for a few of these flushings which were, no doubt, reflushings of birds seen a few minutes earlier, it was estimated that the total of 60 pheasants were seen on the entire area, or 28.3 acres per bird. This repre- sents 22.6 pheasants per section. In February 1952 the class in Forest Zoology made another pheasant census; but this time only college property -58- was covered, reducing the area to approximately 1250 acres. The entire class (16) went into the field at once and in two laboratory periods (total of four hours) the work was com- pleted. The class worked in pairs and on a map of their area each pair recorded all flushings including the sex of the bird, time flushed and direction of flight. The data were then com- piled and a composite map made. From this map it was found that a total of 71 flushings were made, but due to the nature of the method used, there was much more reflushings. It was estimated that 46 different birds were seen during this census or 27.6 acres per bird. This represents nearly 25.2 pheasants per section. Pheasant damage has been reduced, particularly spring damage, by reducing the amount of cover in which these birds gather in the winter. In some cases this means putting more land under cultivation or in case of lowlands which are expen- siVe to drain, burning during spring and fall. If it is im- possible or undesirable to burn the area, mowing the vegetation with a scythe is sometimes resorted to. Destroying pheasant cover gives only local control by affecting the local distribution of pheasants. A drawback to this method as a means of control on any one farm is that the adjacent farm may furnish sufficient cover, so that crops near the line fence may continue to suffer. This is noticed ..59- eSpecially in small truck farms in city sub-divisions. Over a dozen such farms were observed by the writer to be surround- ed by a rank growth of weeds which gave splendid cover while the truck crops supplied the food. It has been noted that the most damage is done to those crops which have been planted next to alfalfa or an uncropped area covered by weeds. The least damage is found on fields separated from the weedy area by another field of several rods width. This fact suggests a method of reducing damage by planting those crops such as tomatoes, peas, etc. which are very subject to damage, as far from the uncultivated area as is possible. On the average farm in southern Michigan the annual open season on pheasants is sufficient to keep this species in check, but there are many localities in which this bird has found conditions very favorable for its increase. On market gardens within city limits this has been largely a re- sult of hunting restrictions which permit no Open season. There are times, however, in which even an open season is not effective in reducing pheasants. An example is that of a market gardener living just outside the city limits of Detroit. Pheasants were very plentiful on his farm and each year the vicinity was artificially stocked with pheasants by a group of city sportsmen. This farmer allowed any one to hunt on his place hoping that this would reduce the number of pheas- a}; ink. m». ..vbfvy any. hm. . a .PI A at ah... , JVTK‘r and.” .... it. n . 21:9; . .1. -40— nts. Theoretically his idea was good, but he had forgotten hat birds would not remain on his farm to be shot. Instead hey escaped destruction by crossing the line fence on to the djacent farm which was owned by a man who lived in town and ho permitted no hunting. The latter farm was not cropped, ut allowed to grow up into excellent pheasant cover and as result a very few birds were shot on the market gardener‘s arm. Most farmers enjoy seeing a few pheasants on their arms, but when this bird reaches such numbers as to become .estructive to the crops it is no wonder that the farmers' ‘ttitude towards the pheasant is changed. The average farmer .s not a sportsman and when he asks the state to allow him ;0 shoot a troublesome bird it is because he wants to pro- :ect his tomatoes, corn, peas or other crops. To whom per- xits to shoot pheasants out of season should be given could )6 determined by a trained field man who would personally 'isit the fields damaged. In order that such a method be :ffective inside city limits it would be necessary for the :ity to cooperate with the state in giving the farmer hunt- .ng privileges. The cost of maintaining an effective force >f field men might prohibit such a plan while there are so few complaints. A more general plan by which the state could help the farmer would be to increase the bag limit or the length of ..— -———.,-...-__. -41- unting season in those counties having the greater crop dam- ge by pheasants. Which counties these are could be determined y a survey. It would thus be incumbent upon the individual 'armer to control the amount of hunting on his farm during the eason. Needless to say, the human element would enter here wince some farmers find the control of hunters more difficult ;han the control of pheasants and for this reason dislike the >heasants. Hunting organizations could also help the farmers liv- Lng near the hunting grounds by improving and increasing food in these grounds so that the birds would not have to call upon the farmers for so much of their food. State permits to reduce the pheasant population on a farm by shooting if given after a careful investigation, to Earmers who suffer severe crop losses by pheasants the writer feels to be a wise policy. The town or city should cooperate 1nd aid those who have farms within its limits. Status of the Pheasant These studies show that the answer to the question con- 3erning the status of the pheasant is a purely local matter 1nd must be worked out separately for each area. Since it m often impracticable to reconcile perfectly the rival in- terests of hunter and farmer, it is desirable to favor the farmer inasmuch as measures should be taken to keep the pheas- -42- nt population to such numbers that serious crop damage will at result. Both the city sportsman and farmer must be taught 0 see the other's viewpoint before a favorable spirit of ooperation can exist between them. Certain hunters are to Lame for the hostile attitude which exists between both par- ies in many places and until he learns to respect the farmer 3 he does his partner in other lines of business or sports 1e cannot expect the farmer to listen to suggestions for 1couraging wild—life on his farm just for the Sportsman's Leasure. Instead of overstocking the land already well stock- l the sportsmen might better spend their money in discovering Ly introduced stock fails in apparently good pheasant land. ? the range of the pheasant could be increased this would Ind to relieve the over—crowded hunting conditions which now 11st and might help reduce overstocking in the present range. Lack of pheasant damage to the crops on the college 4“ rm in 1951 - 52 indicates that a concentration of 20 to 25 easants spread over a section of land as determined by two nsuses (p.57) is not likely to be serious in general farming nd upon which such crops as corn, small grains, beans, and y are grown. No doubt areas under this type of farming can i do support twice as many pheasants without serious crop nage. It must be remembered that 20 pheasants per section the fall and winter may mean many more in the following \ ummer. There is always danger of local damage to garden egetables and as to the truck garden districts, it would be est to have no pheasants,even though some farmers may desire few,because one or two birds can ruin considerable produce ver an area of considerable size, and in the case of the arliest tomatoes the pheasants peck into all the ripening ruits as fast as they appear. The above figures are necess- rily inconclusive since no great area was studied and since ae area will differ from another and several areas-should be ivestigated before coming to any definite conclusion as to ie best pheasant policy. James Ritchie (1951), a Scottish writer, considers 1e pheasant in Scotland as one of the "casual bird marauders" 1 grain crops and says, "On the whole, and where the condi- ions approach those natural to the species, the pheasant is alpful rather than injurious to the farmer, but where excess- re rearing of pheasants for Sport takes place, the conditions re apt to be reversed and hr. Hugh S. Gladstone is of the pinion that in numbers of more than one bird per acre, it is Lable to become harmful". Crow Kalmbach (1920) states that the common crow, Corvus gghyrhynchos brachyrhynchos, is the most abundant and wide- 'distributed of our American crows. This bird is well known .practically all parts of this country east of the Rocky untains. Its bad habits are generally recognized; in fact, ch better known than the good habits.' The result is that is species has received criticism throughout most of its nge. I Since the crow is an omnivorous feeder, its destruc- ve habits from the farmers' vieWpoint fall into two broad oups. First, there is the destruction of crops, and second, a destruction of poultry and eggs. Types and Extent of Damages 9222 - Crows attack corn more than any other single nn crop. The damage to corn has been found to occur in at ast four different stages of its life history. The greatest sses occur at the time of Sprouting. Observations were made eight crows who were seen to pull a total of fourteen hills seedling corn in five fields. Hundreds of similarly damaged Lls have been seen. The crow removes the germinating kernel 1 if the little stalk is not entirely pulled out of the rand, the roots are so exposed that the seedling soon dies. 3 type of injury can usually be distinguished from that of nasants. First, it must be kept in mind that the crow has -45- 1 tendency to do more actual pulling of the stalk, whereas :he pheasant does more digging to reach the kernel. The :row also digs, but the hole is usually small at the top With all sides Vertical or nearly so and the conspicuous .ittle mound of dirt at one side of a hole made by a pheas- Lnt is lacking where the crow digs. The stalk often shows 2W0 transverse depressions at about its middle where the two ;ides of the beak have grasped it in the act of pulling. Ehe pheasant usually snaps the stalk in two if he touches it Lt all. If the soil is in just the right condition, foot- prints may be found that will indicate which species was responsible for the damage. The hind toe of the crow is long ind leaves an imprint on the ground, whereas that of the pheas- Lnt is very short and usually leaves no mark unless it be a small hole behind the imprint of the other three toes. Corn pulling by crows is likely to occur in any part )f southern Michigan where corn is grown. Fields well re- moved or hidden from the house have been noted to suffer the greatest losses. In hilly or rolling fields the portions rhich are hidden from the house by the hills are damaged more ;han the other parts. One farmer reported that his heaviest .osses were on the light sandy soils rather than on the clays, )resumably because of the greater ease with which the stalks :an be removed from the sandy soils. Another type of corn injury has been found and believed -46- o be the work of crows, although no animal has been observed n this act. This injury occurs to the corn from the time it 8 four feet tall until it has reached the tassel stage. The njury at this time is found at the base of the stalk into hich a hole is peeked. The hole is ragged looking, from one 0 four inches long, and usually between the first and second odes, (Figs. 12 and 15). It is not known why crows should ttack the corn in this manner unless it is for the sweet uices found in the succulent stalk at this time. It was hought that the crow was digging out borers so approximately hree dozen stalks both injured and uninjured were carefully xamined, but no trace of borers was found in any. After being attacked the stalks are, of course, very 1ch weakened and usually topple over with the first gust of ind and the whole plant is then a total loss (Fig. 14). This injury to corn stalks appears to be quite common .nce only four cases have been noted in the course of these :udies, two in Ingham county, one in Calhoun county and one 1 Kent county. The past two summers have been unusually dry, Ld it would be interesting to note if this type of damage ‘uctuated with the amount of summer precipitation over a riod of several years. The greatest damage was seen in a field at Union City. 6 injured portion of the field (around a large elm tree owing in the fence row) Was an area twelve rows by twenty -47- ows on which 26% of the stalks were injured to such an ex- ent that the entire plant was a total loss or would be tunted later (Report 1). A local high school biology teacher reports that he as observed pheasants feeding on the stalks of corn, but he iys that this injury is more in the form of a round hole than greatly elongated hole. Corn is commonly injured by crows when the ear is in ac "milk stage". The writer has observed over a dozen crows eeding on corn, and in every case the ear attacked Was im- adiately examined. In addition several hundred crow damaged trs have been seen. In the average field of corn where the Lrs are two feet or more above the ground the kernels are Lten after the husk has been torn away from the ear. This : accomplished while the bird stands on the top of the ear » that the typical injured ear has the husks on the top un- .sturbed, except perhaps at the tip while one or both sides ,ve the husks torn to shreds and the kernels broken. The (sks on the underside usually remain intact (Fig. 15). There e a number of variations from the typical damage, but as a 16 several ears as described above will be found. The jured ears are always horizontal or very nearly so and a1- ys at the edge of the field or around a tree or other good ocflcout" post within the field. A fence row serves as a -48- mod "lookout" for the crow on guard and consequently the .djacent corn is likely to be damaged (Fig. 16). It is not :0 much the amount of corn eaten as it is the subsequent .njury resulting from water entering the ears that makes :uch attacks more serious than they appear to be on first :ight. Sweet corn and field corn which is unusually short to that the ears are close to the ground may be greatly dam- .ged. In such cases the damage will occur in any or all >arts of the field and the ears are badly mutilated (Fig. .7). Damage of this kind is difficult to distinguish from iimilar damage by other forms of wild-life. Unless one ,ctually sees the animal feeding on the corn, the wrong pecies may be condemned. The feeding by crows on roasting ears is widespread n the lower peninsula, but the amount of damage is seldom reat, especially in southern Michigan where the corn is all enough to prevent the crow's feeding from the ground. ometimes serious damage results in shorter corn where ground ceding is possible. a ten acre field of short corn (one- alf mile from the house) near West Branch (Ogemaw county) as observed in which between one-third and one-fourth of he ears were damaged (Report 5). The loss of each ear of corn means more to the Michi- -49.. n farmers than it does to the farmers in the corn-belt ates, and for this reason more crow complaints are heard om Michigan and similar states, although the total amount damage may be less than in the corn-belt states. The eat number of woodlots in Michigan furnish numerous crow osts and nesting areas in close proximity to the relative- small corn fields. In spite of this condition, it is rprising that there are not more complaints made against ows on these grounds. This is due, first, to the feeling at such damage is not serious enough to lodge a c0mplaint ,d, second, the damage is frequently undiscovered and if it discovered the farmer may believe it a result of feeding ' some other species. Kalmbach (1918) states that crows may injure corn fter it has been shocked, but he adds that this form of [jury appears to be the least serious of all the crow's :tacks on corn. This type of damage has not been observed L the course of these studies nor has a single complaint of 113 nature been received. muskmelons - Aside from a case of muskmelon injury :ar Detroit (Report 17), no other garden crop (except possibly Lcumbers) has been observed to be damaged by crows. All of re injured melons on this six-acre field were small green 168; the larger ones being untouched, perhaps because of the arder rind. The most severely injured melons were com~ letely hollowed out, leaving only the rind (Figs. 18 and 9). It was estimated that one melon out of ten or fifteen is injured over most of the six acres. On a farm adjacent to the college farm several in- ured cucumbers (Fig. 20) were found along with some injured op corn, but it was not known what species caused the dam- ge. Both pheasants and crows were common in the vicinity, ad a number of ears of field corn nearby were damaged by i rows. Apples - One orchard was observed in which several ushels of apples were injured while on the tree by having ortions of each apple eaten by crows. Live-stock and Poultry Destruction - In the course f this study no reports of crows attacking live-stock in ichigan were received, but Kalmbach (1918) says, "The crow s accused of molesting and in some instances actually kill- ng live-stock, as young lambs and swine, and no doubt in ome cases he is guilty". However, he finds stomach exam- nations have shed no light on this habit. Kalmbach also ecords a report of crows "killing young merino lambs by ecking into the brains, which with the eyes, Were eaten". In the complaint survey of Williamston township, everal farmers reported that crows had given them some -51- :uble with the poultry. Eight or ten farmers in widely parated counties of southern Michigan have stated that they 1 losses of this type at one time or another. FrOm this a may well conclude that the damage is widespread, and the verity of the damage is dependent upon local conditions. fact, it seems to be due to the habits of individual crows cause complete relief has been obtained by the killing of single crow caught stealing a chicken. Kalmbach‘s (1918) udies of crow stomachs show that nearly 5% of 1540 adult ows contained remains of chickens or chicken eggs. He and that such food was most important to the crow in may d June, the same months that most of the depredations on ultry are committed. He found that 12 of the 127 stomachs llected in January contained poultry or their eggs and be- eves that a "portion, at least, of such food should be assed as carrion". Since no personal studies were made on poultry de- edations, it is not possible to give any data on the loss- to poultry raisers resulting from crow raids in Michigan. Control of Crow Damage Various kinds of frightening devices have been used the farmers in their fields. A method which gives satis- ctory results on one farm may be useless on another farm. us the method of control appears to be just as much a -52- cal matter as is the type and extent of damage. The old-fashioned human effigy is seldom employed ex- pt in gardens or small acreages of vegetable crops. The maged six acre field of muskmelons mentioned above contain- .six of these Scare crows well distributed and this was e largest area noted upon which human effigies were employ- .. Their value was little since damaged melons were found close as twenty yards from them. Shining tins hung so that they rattle in the breeze, .ite boxes set in the field, shiny wire laid on the ground, .d newspapers spread on the ground have been found success- .1 in some instances. Dead crows hung on a pole in the field believed by many farmers to be an effective method of con- '01. Farmers living in the vicinity of West Branch (Ogemaw unty) where crow damage to corn was very great found that 'en temporary relief could not be had until they had Shot and ng up a crow. A crow killed with a gun and hung up was und by one farmer near West Branch to be more effective than ght crows which were poisoned and hung up earlier in the ason. Perhaps a terrific explosion coupled with the death ‘ one of their kind throws more terror into the crows than quiet death by poisoning. A farmer living in willismston wnship finds that a black cloth tied to a pole and stuck t in the field is a suitable substitute for a dead crow. Some farmers find that their Sprouting corn can be -55- easily protected by scattering a quantity of grain on the field, the result being that the crows will eat this ex- posed grain rather than take the trouble to dig out planted corn. Better results are obtained if the grain is previous- ly softened in water. There are a number of commercial crow deterrents on the market for treating seed corn to reduce damage to ger- minating seed. Most of these deterrents have a tar base of one kind or another. Coal, gas, and pine tars have proven successful as crow repellents. In using any tar care must be taken not to give the seeds an over-dose which would make them waterproof and thus prevent germination. Two table- spoonfuls of tar to a bushel of seed is the usual quantity applied. The corn is more easily and evenly coated if it ias been previously heated with warm water and drained. The :orn is stirred until all the kernels become uniformly coat- ed, then spread out and thoroughly dried before using in the Jlanter. Kalmbach (1920) mentions that a coating of red lead »n corn has proven quite successful in Europe and it will be 'ecalled that this compound was one of the more successful Iheasant repellents. To date no experiment has been con- Iicted to determine the value of red lead as a crow repell- zrt. Kalmbach (1920) says that a thin coat of glue size is -54- used as a "sticker" for the red lead dust. The writer has found used engine oil to be a very good "sticker" for red lead. ‘ Whatever deterrent is used on the seed, it must possess three properties to be of value. First, it must not inhibit or retard seed germination too greatly. Second, it nust remain on the seed during the period when the sprouting seed is subject to damage. Third, it must be obnoxious to the Species which is to be controlled. However, if the inimal is satisfied with eating just the tender roots, as seems to be the case with some pheasants, it is not surpris- Lng if damage continues to occur after application of a good Leterrent. Kalmbach (1920) reports that poultry yards can be :asily protected from ravages of crows by strands of cord stretched across at intervals and at a height of 6 or 8 feet .bove the ground. The killing or eradication of crows is sometimes ne- =essary. Wholesale slaughter of this bird by poisoning or rganized shooting campaigns is advisable only in special ases, because crows have been found to be about neutral with >egard to "good and bad" feeding habits; that is, one Side alances the other and it is in many cases a few individuals hich.cause the greatest irritation to the farmer. Thus un- ecessary expense might,be involved in a wholesale slaughter -55... npaign. Even in cases of corn pulling of which all crows 7 be guilty, a good deterrent may be the best control isure. Poisoned eggs in artificial nests or traps hidden in sts of unpoisoned eggs will usually put an end to egg- aaling crows. Kalmbach (1920) suggests the destruction of crows' sts as an aid in reducing depredations on poultry. "The acess of this measure lies in the fact that most of the >ws' raids on the poultry yard are prompted by its desire secure food for its young." Pirnie reports (verbal) that has found a dominance of non-breeding crows so feeding )its are not altogether the result of the need for food ~ the young. Bronzed Crackle 9233 - The most serious injury which this species ?licts on crops is in its attacks on corn in the "milk staged a writer has observed scores of grackle feeding on ears. flock estimated to be over a thousand was seen in a college rn field. By driving slowly past the field it was possible see from five to ten birds at a time perched on the tips ears along the edge of the field. Detailed examinations were le on a total of over three dozen ears immediately after ickles left the ears. The injured ears are usually in an -56- [migm position, but may be nearly horizontal. A damaged ir affield corn has the husks torn back from the tip of it, 1d1me exposed kernels punctured and eaten (Fig. 21). When m bird has eaten as much of the corn as he is able to expose, :will begin on another ear. Sometimes cornfields near grackle osts have practically every ear opened at the tip as a result thousands of grackle feeding day after day. A case of this nd was observed in the college field mentioned above which 8 but a short distance from a grackle roost on the Red Cedar ver. By walking through this field while the birds were ading one could flush literally hundreds of grackles (Fig. (, Here, as in the case of the crow damage, the loss is not much the corn actually eaten as it is the subsequent damage m water entering the ear. Occasional reports were received of this species pull up germinating corn in the spring, and one farmer ranks S bird above the pheasant as to this habit (Report 11). uher farmer reported that "blackbirds" had dug up some of sweet corn (Report 8). Most farmers call red—winged flflairds and bronzed grackle "blackbirds". Both of these =ies were common on this man‘s farm. Crackle Boosts Grackles in association with starlings and cowbirds 3f15e112nuisances in towns and cities when they choose those -57- aces for night roosting. The birds come in various sized ocks from all directions shortly after sunset and gather in eat numbers in the tree tops where they keep up a continual ise until nearly dark. About sun-up the birds leave, at rst as a few individuals then suddenly the remaining several ausand all leave at the same instant going in all directions. this time the sidewalks under the trees are white with cal material which means Sidewalk scrubbing each morning. LS nuisance is confined to a few blocks, usually not over ree or four, but frequently continues for several years in a summer time. The small branches in the t0p of the trees ie their leavas and may be killed. .Grackle Control Prevention of corn ear damage by grackles has been .nd possible by shooting at the first flocks which arrive in morning for three or four mornings. The control is local LOG the birds merely move to another field. Over the state a whole this damage is of little consequence, and it is y in occasional fields that damage really becomes serious ugh to need control. A few farmers who have experienced n pulling by grackles report that a good deterrent will p this damage. Two experiments were made on the eradication of grackle sts. At Rockford, a powerful search light was tried by -58- Le writer as a method of eradication. The light was direct- . into the trees containing the grackles and at first the .rds would fly out and go to other trees, but a little later [the evening, the light had no effect. It was concluded at this method of eradication is of no value. A roost of several thousand birds (grackles, star- ngs and cowbirds at Mason (Ingham county) was successfully oken up by organized shooting for three evenings. Mason had d this nuisance for several years with the roost increasing ,size each year. Finally, last year (1952) the residents com ained so strongly that the City Council saw that the whole tter of relief was a municipal affair since individuals had en unsuccessful in combating the birds. The first thing e City did was to purchase a case of 12-gauge Shotgun shells d the night watchman chose a date for the first "Shoot" and vited every adult male who had a l2-gauge gun to take part. ditional guns were loaned by the Conservation Department. ortly after the birds had ceased to come in from the fields, signal was given and everyone began to fire at once. Quite number of birds fell dead while the thousands which escaped ath left town very quickly. 0n the following night the cond "Shoot" was held, but this time the shooting was post- ned until later in the evening. The result was less satis- ctory, because many of the sleepy birds refused to leave. e next evening the third "shoot" took place, but by this 3 t J . r.. . I. s C. . . . l a J .1. , .. e r - s r s . . . -59.. ime so few birds returned that a "Shoot" was hardly necessary. fter the third evening of organized warfare, there was no more cost for the rest of the season. This method proved very ffective and relatively inexpensive. Ten or twelve dollars 'ould cover all expense to the city. The composition of the roost can be estimated from the Lead birds collected by the writer. Of course, these figures Lo not represent all the birds killed. £122 Starlings Cowbirds Bronzed Grackles Robins 3/50/52 545 51 29 1 3/51/52* 175 67 9 2 9/ 1/32 _29 .29 .41 l Dotals - 540 158 45 4 t of 74.2-% 18.9-% 6.1—% 0.5-% Grand Total - 727 Feeding Habits - Stomach contents from a number of these birds were examined to compare the food of the various species at that time of the year. Although an attempt Was made to have the insect remains accurately identified by send- ing them to entomologists, the pieces were so small that identification was nearly impossible. The unknown Seeds were sent to seed specialists but here also few definite identi- fications could be obtained. Gross examinations were made of the stomachs and no * These figures include 105 birds Which one lady saved from the night before. . _ . . .501?! . . .3. - . can" . l ; ._.-) . . . _ . ... , . ._ _ - ........ - - . . - . . .. -.-.' u I . . \ I . c I . L a u - J 'I . . n ' l l . _ . I . _ .-. . : . L l . I -60- :mp‘t was made to obtain accurate proportions of each food, aim being rather to determine whether the diet at this a of year (late August and early September) was chiefly it or animal and if farm crops were eaten to any extent. ummary of these examinations is as follows: ronzed grackle - total 27 examined Milk stage corn found in 25 gizzards Seeds of green foxtail found in 3 gizzards Unidentified seeds of wild plants found in 20 gizzards Insects'remains (mostly Oarabidae) found in 25 gizzards One gizzard completely empty Corn was far in excess of all other foods together. ound beetles (Carabidae) made up the greatest proportion ’ the insect food. Starling - total 59 examined Insects' remains found in 56 gizzards Unknown seeds of wild plants found in 20 gizzards Two gizzards completely empty One gizzard " " except for one seed Insect food was far in excess of all plant food and any species of insects were eaten. Ground beetles, weevils .nd plant bugs were most common. One bird had eaten a great Jany ants and another had chosen wasps. Grubs, water beetles 1nd dung beetles were consumed by others. Seeds were of minor \ -51- >rtance in most gizzards, but one bird which had eaten vast rtities of plant bugs, wasps, weevils, ground beetles, and eggs had also eaten 156 seeds of one plant species. :wbirds - total 12 examined Insect remains found in 4 gizzards Green foxtail seeds found in 12 gizzards Black bind-weed seeds found in 5 gizzards Barnyard grass seeds found in l gizzard Wheat seeds found in 5 gizzards Lady's thumb seed found in 1 gizzard Unidentified seeds of wild plants found in 5 gizzards Very few insects were found. These included ground :tles, wasps and weevils. :obin - total of I examined Considerable unidentified insect remains Twenty-four unidentified seeds representing two species Red-winged Blackbird Corn - Feeding on the tips of corn ears in the "milk xge" is the only serious offense of which this species has an.found guilty. The injured ear is opened at the top Qp.25) and resembles an ear fed on by bronzed grackle, but nuaboth species feed in large flocks and are quite bold, is not difficult to see them at work. The grackles seem to :flkr feeding on the corn in the early morning and late after- -52- n mfliile the red-winged blackbirds may feed most of the day. The most serious case of corn damage by red-winged ckflnirds noted was on a farm in Nilliamston township. In area 10 x 15 rows, there were 62 injured ears out of 175 .ch were large enough to be damaged. This represents 55.8% the ears injured. This area was representative of the in- red portion of the field which was about three acres on the ab land. The corn at the foot of the hill was uninjured. Green foxtail grass - Sometimes the presence of red- nged blackbirds in a cornfield is a distinct benefit to the rmer. A case of this kind was observed by the writer near st Lansing. In this particular field there were about 200 ackbirds, but not a single damaged ear could be found. It .s soon discovered that these birds were feasting on the seeds fgreen foxtail grass, Chaetochloa viridis (Fig. 24). European Starling A questionable record of sterling in Michigan was re- eived in 1922, but since 1924 its spread in this state has een rapid. Now this bird has beOOme very common in the outhern part of the state. Several reports of starlings have een received from the eastern part of the upper peninsula. misbird has become abundant enough in some localities in ;ouflmast Michigan to bring about quite severe crop damage. -55- Types and Extent of Damage Market Gardens - Two reports of starling damage were ived and both were concerned with garden crops. One far- near Monroe (Monroe county) reported heavy losses on his ut corn, watermelons, and muskmelons (Report 12). He said ; newly planted seeds were found by the starlings, cracked 1 and eaten. Even after the plants appeared above ground bird used its bill as a probe to reach the seed at the a of the stalk. This farmer lost most of his second plant- of a three-acre field of sweet corn and portions of the id were planted a third and fourth time. It was claimed that the starlings continued to raid melon field for a period of five weeks and a fourth plant- was necessary to get even a partial stand. Eleven dollars th of melon seeds were used. The only successful method s farmer found for protecting his melons was to cover the ls with boxes, etc. The writer has found that the ordinary 'deterrents which are applied to corn have been found to be :rimental to the germination of watermelons and muskmelons. The other report of starling damage came from a far- rliving near Farmington (Oakland county) and although more acies of vegetables were attacked, the loss was less (Report ). One row of lettuce, one row of Chinese cabbage and two vs of beets were destroyed as seedlings. Each row was about ree rods long. The sweet corn suffered little or no injury. -64- s farmer also loses several peeks of cherries and a number apples each year to birds. Kalmbach (1928) includes these its among those attacked by the starling, and it is possible t this bird was partly reaponsible for the losses in this 6, although the farmer placed the blame on other species. Starling Roosts Starlings, like grackles, sometimes choose the shade (es of towns for their roosts and are often associated with 9 latter species. The description and control of these )sts have been discussed under "Bronzed Grackle". Robin Cherry - The robin is considered one of the greatest arry consumers in cherry orchards. One farmer estimates 5 yearly loss to average between 1 1/2 and 2 bushels of arries from his eight large cherry trees as a result of feed— ; by robins and catbirds (Report 15). Strawberry - Robins have been observed eating straw- rries (Report 10) and no doubt this bird does more damage this crop for which other species are blamed than is alized. Red—headed Woodpecker Corn - This woodpecker has been found to attack field rn in the "milk stage" along the sides of fields, especially ose sides bounded by a woods. The writer has observed nine -65- >dpeckers feeding on ears of corn and in each case the dam- ad ear was in an upright position and had a narrow, elongate Le through the husks. The hole ran parallel to the axis of a ear, sometimes starting at the tip, but frequently not igs. 25, 26 and 27). Due to the method of attack, the ker- ls were damaged slightly in advance of the opened husks ig. 28). This type of damage has never been known to become rious, but sometimes met with while the animal involved is discovered. Blue Jay 9233 - a blue jay was seen eating on an ear of "milk )age" corn in a field adjacent to a woods. The injury re- embled that of grackle and red-winged blackbird. As far as 1e writer‘s observations go the amount of damage to corn by 1is bird is negligible. Killdeer Cucumber End muskmelon — A farmer living in William- ton township reported that he saw a killdeer dig up shell ad eat several newly planted cucumber seeds. He said he shot he bird and found the seeds inside it. A farmer living near onroe reported that killdeer did likewise to his newly plant- d cucumber and muskmelon seeds (Report 12). He said that he bund the king bird also guilty of these offenses. The writer as not observed this type of damage and since such damage -55- ms unlikely for these birds, it may be that the species 6 Inyt correctly identified. More observations will be ded.befbre this matter can be satisfactorily settled. Fox Squirrel Corn - The writer has seen fifteen fox squirrels different times feeding on corn and all of the corn was the "milk stage", but the injury was very variable in pearance even in the same field. Sometimes the bare cob left on the stalk, the kernels having been eaten and the sks pulled back to the base of the cob or cut off and dropp- on the ground. The cobs may be either vertical or horizon- 1 (Fig. 29). at other times, the cob is also destroyed with e husks remaining (Fig. 50, first 2 ears on left) or the ear y'be Opened on one side and only the kernels eaten (Fig. 50). .cases where the cob is destroyed portions of it can be found Lthe ground at the base of the stalk. Less frequently an mire ear will be removed and carried to the top of’a fence at or stump and eaten there. In a field where there are num- xms injured ears one can usually find upon close examination .ny toeanail holes in some of the leaf sheaths now and then a an broken back as a result of the squirrel‘s climbing. This type of injury is common in cornfields bordering rrmar to woods inhabited by fox squirrels. The damage is rmnmmt along the-side of the field nearest to the woods, and -57- Lnjured ears are scattered or isolated. It is apparent- ust by chance that a squirrel will choose to eat one ear not touch other ears nearby and equally good. The den- of the damage is usually greater towards the edge of the d. The portion of the field which has injured ears will ‘ in size depending upon the squirrel population and the .ity of the strand of corn. A large squirrel population l poor stand of corn means that a relatively large area L be injured. Squirrel damage on corn can be found in the Jrity of cornfields in southern Michigan which are adjacent voods, but in spite of its prevalence, it seldom becomes ious. In the preliminary survey of Nilliamston township y one farmer made a complaint and that was a feeble com- int since he liked to hunt squirrels. Watermelon - A serious case of reported fox squirrel ury to watermelons on a farm near Middleville (Barry county) (observed in September, 1951 (Report 4). That year 25 es were planted to watermelons, and the farmer said his :s on the earliest melons ran into the hundreds of dollars. ’25 acres were divided among three fields. The largest 31d was bounded by woods on one side, another field had we on two sides and the third was completely surrounded by ads. The field farthest removed from the timber suffered aleast. Although no other case of this kind Was reported, are are perhaps other watermelon fields under similar sit- . . _ -- nu..- . I o.-’ un ..- ...- ..... -v.——.—o__ .t- ...—. —~‘ . ._.___.._-v--... '— . -68.. one “mich have been raided by the same animals and all .ence points to the fox squirrel. The melons are attacked while green; in fact, some attacked while very small. Portions of the injured melons eaten. Some have but a small hole penetrating the rind ;. 51) while others may be nearly half eaten (Fig. 52). 1 though the hole through the rind is very small, rot fungi ediately enter and whole melon is lost. Teeth marks can seen around the edge of the holes and on the ground are 11 chunks of the rind together with the empty hulls of the ds. It is apparent that among other things, the Squirrel fond of the seed kernels. Thinking that the squirrels were craving water, the 'mer placed pans of water over the fields, but this did not b the damage. The squirrels could not be frightened away shooting in the field. It is apparent in this case, at LSt, that watermelons cannot be satisfactorily grown near mer inhabited by fox squirrels. Either the timber will re to be cut, the melons grown elsewhere or the squirrels mnnated by traps and guns. Maplg gag nggh Taggs - A woodlot near Fremont in ich the sugar maple and beech trees were barked was exam- ed in the summer of 1952 (Report 14). The farmer was at less for an explanation as to what animal species was in- t -69.. olved. At the time of the writer's visit to this 5-acre oodlot, very little damage was being done and although an vening, an early morning and one all-night watch were made, 0 clew as to the identity of the culprit was to be found. lthough the teeth marks appear to be those of a rodent and he portion of the tree barked is similar to that on squirrel amaged trees, this species was dismissed, because the indi— ations were that the damage was done at night while the quirrels were inactive. The injury was confined to trees beech and maple) between 5 and 6 inches diameter breast Leight. The extent of injury on a tree varied greatly from . small patch (less than a one square inch) of bark removed ;0 complete girdling starting at the ground and reaching var- .ous heights up to 4 feet (Fig. 55). Sometimes bark was re- loved from exposed roots and sometimes from the smaller >ranches in the top of the tree. Apparently the outer bark vas not eaten because great quantities were found at the base >f the injured trees. The pieces of bark ranged from very small chips to strips 1 inch wide and 6 inches long. The Large size of some of the chips has not been found in the 3ases of damage trees in which there was little doubt that fox squirrels were responsible, so it appears that an animal Larger than a squirrel is guilty. Another difference between this injury and the average squirrel injury is that here deep teeth marks in the sapwood left it in a splintery condition -70- Lnd the marks ran parallel to the tree (Fig. 54), whereas .n the latter case the teeth marks were mere scratches and ran mostly at right angles to the tree. This spring (1955) two cases of squirrel damage to mple trees near Lansing were reported in the same week and Lndoubtedly other farmers experienced similar losses, but .id not report. Squirrel damage appears suddenly and in :onsiderable quantity where it never before occurred and 'here it has once appeared the damage may continue year after ear. In some woodlots the injury is confined to the top f the tree and in other cases the bark may be removed all the ay down to the ground. This is believed to be due to the ize of the trees in various woodlots. Where the trees are arge, the bark is left on the trunk, whereas in stands of maller trees, the trunk bark is attacked. The most extreme amage noted was on a medium sized sugar maple which had all he bark removed from the trunk and the larger branches in he crown so that the entire tree was white. At the base of a injured tree is a quantity of small bark chips, the amount irying with the extent of injury. From the appearance of me injured portions, it is quite evident that the squirrel its only the inner bark. The average tree is usually girdled t some point, and, of course, that portion above the girdle Lll die. If girdling is done on the trunk up in the crown, -71- 1e tree becomes stagheaded, but if girdled at the base the 1tire tree dies. In the few cases of this kind of damage which were :udied, reports were received so late that little or no more ;tacks were being made, and the writer has been unable to Ltch the culprit at work, but people who have seen known cases ? fox squirrel damage say when they see samples of this dam- ;e, that it is also fox squirrel damage. The teeth on skulls 3 fox squirrels fit exactly the teeth marks in the bark. ,ry (1912) says that fox squirrels have been observed to gnaw er from gggg trees, but makes no mention of bark being re- uved from living trees. It is not known whether it is one or many squirrels Lat do all the barking of trees in a woodlot. Stack reported rerbal) a case occurring on the college campus several years go in which it was found that squirrels were destroying maple 'ees. One squirrel was killed and following that event no )re damage Was done. This may have been a coincidence since Lch damage usually stops as suddenly as it appears. Shooting and trapping of squirrels during open seasons ' at other times with a permit will perhaps reduce materially f not completely prevent this damage. If it becomes more .despread, perhaps a deterrent sprayed on the trees will be ractical. Since the squirrel damage appeared in early spring, K. n. . .. . . . -72- :errent applied then would not affect the foliage. How- , the case of the barking of the tree by the unknown an- occurred in the summer so that a deterrent which had a ency to burn the leaves would have to be used with care. Rabbits Ornamentals agd Frgit Taggg - From time to time in- .duals report that the cotton tail rabbits are destroying .r flowers and ornamental shrubs, but the most notable case thed in the past two years was the Grosse Isle rabbit elem (Report 5). Grosse Isle and Hickory Island, both ends in the Detroit River, were closed to rabbit hunting the Conservation Department for a period of five years lowing a petition by the residents. This five-year period ed in September 1951 and some of the people wanted it to sin closed, while others did not because the rabbits had :reased to such numbers that considerable loss was suffer- when they fed on herbaceous and shrubbery ornamentals in- Ming expensive and exotic species. The rabbit population Was found to be considerably deer on Hickory Island than on Grosse Isle and, of course, a damage to gardens was more severe on the former island. ecottages here are built around the edge of the island. 9 Gamer of the island contains several acres of ideal bbitcover. The summer cottages are raised about one foot -75- e tflie ground, and apparently the rabbits make their homes r the cottages, at least many of them can be found under of the buildings. The open space under a few of the :es was tightly closed with boards, but the rabbits dug er and were even more difficult to combat. It was report- that fifteen or twenty rabbits were driven out from under cottage with a ferret. Numerous herbs and shrubs were n which had been eaten to such an extent that they re- bled stubble. Several species of plants were eaten, but 8 was most severely attacked. The rabbits seem to choose :se food plants by age rather than by species, the youngest . most tender ones being preferred. In the fruit sections of Michigan rabbits (and mice) netimes do considerable damage to the orchards by gnawing a bark and girdling the trees. This damage usually occurs fall and winter. Protection against rabbits is frequently complished by enclosing the base of the tree with a cylin- r of heavy screening about eighteen inches high. If the ow is deep around the trees it is possible for the rabbits > feed above the screens. Washes and sprays of various ndslmve been used by some fruit growers on their trees to :evan rabbit girdling. A few commercial deterrents have ppmued on the market. In the cases of small rather isolated areas such as owerlfickory Island live trapping may be found practical as -74- ;hod of control when hunting is prohibited. The ex- 3 of removing rabbits by live trapping on islands as a as Grosse Isle proper (over 6,000 acres) may be a Lbitive factor. Conifers - Occasionally word is received of varying 3 feeding on young conifer growths. A farmer living near City reported heavy losses on his spruce seedlings which lanned to raise for Christmas trees. The rabbits do the test damage during heavy snows when they can reach the new th at the tops of the trees. Some of the cedar trees that twenty years old were not over 5 feet tall as a result of inual feeding on them year after year. Four acres of white have been kept out back to stubby growth by the rabbits. pine Was untouched. Anthony (1928) states that this :ies feeds on "foliage, twigs, bark of many species of ms, grasses, trees, and plants". Raccoon Egan - The raccoon is one more of the many animals ; feed on corn in the "milk stage". Both field and sweet 1 are eaten, but fortunately these attacks are not common. 1 an attack is made on sweet corn it may be quite serious. Jman in Nilliamston township reported that in one night lost 50 ears of corn to raccoons. A patch of sweet corn r East Lansing containing 16 rows 40 rods long was prac- -75- .ly a total loss. As much or more corn is wasted than is eaten by the >on and ears with one or more bites taken out of them :trewn over the ground. The appearance of the ears in- :es the feeding of a careless and greedy animal (Fig. Sometimes an ear is eaten on without being torn from :talk (Fig. 56). In the case of sweet corn, the stalks :ometimes broken so that they lie on the ground, while field corn broken stalks are typical since they must be :d down before the ears can be reached. The ears may be .ed away and eaten elsewhere. Muskrat Egan - MHskrats are capable of doing considerable ;e to green corn when it is adjacent to ditches or streams >ied by this mammal. Only one case of actual damage of kind was observed, but two farmers in the neighborhood ted damage in previous years when they had corn planted .e this ditch. Mhskrat injury is unique - unlike any other wild-life ;e to corn which has been observed in these studies. In njured field, mentioned above, the stalks were cut down point 8 to 9 inches above the ground. (Fig. 57). All :s were cut on a slant and many had been dragged away, of the remaining ones all ears were missing. Mhskrat -76.. ks could be seen and runways through the weeds were on” Most runways were floored with corn stalks. rently the corn stalk is cut as a means of getting the , because no indication of feeding on the stalks was The corn in this field had been drilled in and just )re harvest the greatest damage had occurred in an area 5 180 feet in which one-third of the corn was cut down. 3e to five stalks were usually out each night. Muskrat damage to corn is not common and apparently y those fields close to muskrat habitats are subject to ack. It is not known how far muskrats will traVel for n, but it is perhaps only a few rods. 23kg§ and Eggs - Every now and then the Conservation artment receives a complaint of muskrats burrowing into .weakening earthen dikes and dams. Great losses may occur these water retainers give away. Usually the local Con- rvation Officer investigates and if the damage is found to serious enough, the Department will give the land owner :mission to trap the muskrats, but the pelts of such animals aturned over to the Department. -77- Skunk No skunk injury of any kind was observed and only a :omplaints were heard. These few dealt with poultry and‘ Lestruction by skunks, although skunks have been seen pull- iown ear corn (bantam) and eating it much like raccoon. die, oral report). eneral Survey of Wild-life Damage to Crops in the Southern Peninsula In order to gain a more comprehensive idea of the a and extent of crop damage by wild-life in the southern Lnsula, approximately 1,250 report blanks were sent out all Conservation Officers and County Agricultural Agents. se blanks contained 15 questions pertaining to damage by d-life (Sheet 2). These_blanks were mailed out in early , 1952 so that they would be on hand in time for any dam- ‘which might occur after the first plantings. It was thought that a considerable proportion of the Lnks would be filled out and returned, but the fact was that Ly h)(less than 1%) came back to the Zoology Department. yso few of the blanks were returned was the question which turafly arose. The answer to this question was sought through e Cmnmy Agricultural Agents and Conservation Officers and - - ...- 2""... T’s-'7 é:— -78- letters (Sheets 5 and 4) were sent to them asking why heir opinion more complaints of crop damage were not ived. Forty-two replies were received from 84 Conser- on Officers and 52 replies from the 56 County Agricul- L1 Agents, making a total of 74 replies. Forty-six 57.3% of the Southern Peninsula counties are represent- Ln these replies. Sheet 5 shows the distribution of the ities included. There were 84 separate opinions express- in the 74 replies since some men gave more than one son for so few blanks being returned. Including the "indefinite" the opinions have been ided into 12 groups. Under the "indefinite" are those ulies in which the writer frankly admitted he did not know well as those who gave no definite information. The >lve groups of opinions with the number and percentage each are as follows: -79- Number expressing % Total each opinion Indefinite 18 21.4 Prices of farm products too low 7 8.5 Neather conditions 5 3.6 Farmers have become interested in 8 9.5 the wild-life on their farms Farmers dislike to make out reports 5 5,0 Much or most of area is state land 5 5.6 Matters satisfactorily handled 5 5.6 locally Farmers have too many other troubles 4 4,7 Farmers derive income from hunters 1 1,1 Farmers expect damage so do not 4 4.7 report Farmers discouraged because they get 7 8.5 no pay for crops damaged by wild-life Little or no damage occurs 21 25,0 Most of these opinions are self-explanatory, but a will require further comment. "Prices of farm products lmfl merely means that even though damage occurred to the pS'Hm loss in dollars was not great enough to provoke a mlahm. By "Weather conditions" is meant that the open mergmrmitted the wild-life to obtain plenty of natural . . ,.a . .n u " . n _ I n ' ‘- n I I I n ' . . " . u _ I ‘ n - n -80- and with the early spring growth of wild vegetation, the vated crops were fed on less than usual. Suitable weather tions tend to keep the wild-life in its natural habitat rnishing sufficient food and cover. "thh or most of area is state land" is another way of g that there are few farms in the area and naturally very .e damage could occur on farm crops regardless of how abun- wild-life may be. The single opinion "Farmers derive as from hunters" refers to the farmers who board deer hunt- iuring'the hunting season. The distribution of the opinions by counties is as ows: . Indefinite - 1. Cheboygan 10. Ottawa 2. Presque Isle 11. Kent 5. Otsego 12. Lapeer 4. Grand Traverse 15. St. Clair 5. Missaukee 14. Livingston 6. Roscommon l5. Eaton 7. Arenac 16. Barry 8. Clare 17. Van Buren 9. Muskegon 18. Wayne L Prices of farm products too low - 1. Clinton 5. Van Buren 2. Allegan 6. Monroe 5. Eaton 7. Genesee 4. Macomb 5.v%ather conditions - l. Oceana 2. Ionia 5. Ingham fQ fiefif -81- i .TFarmers dislike to make out reports - l. Emmet 4. Berrien 2. muskegon 5. Branch 5. Genesee . Much or most of area is in state land — l. Otsego 2. Wexford 5. Arenac . matters satisfactorily handled locally - 1. Alcona 2. St. Clair 5. St. Joseph , ;. Farmers have too many other troubles - i l. Oceana I 5. macomb '( 2. Clinton 4. Calhoun 3. Farmers derive income from hunters - l. Montmorency " fl 1 . 3. Farmers expect damage so do not report - ‘ E34 1. Lake 5. Alcona Eh _ 2. Osceola 4. Newaygo ' 1. Farmers discouraged because they get no pay for crops '1 damaged by wild—life : 1. Montmorency 5. St. Clair ; 2. Oscoda 6. Livingston “‘ I 5. Alcona 7. Calhoun J 4. Mecosta ‘ -8 2.. .ittle or no damage occurs - 1.. Emmet 8. Arenas 2. Presque Isle 9. Bay 5. Otsego 10. muskegon 4. Leelanlau 11. Saginaw 5. Benzie 12. Tuscola 6. Wexford 15. Sanilac 7. Ogemaw l4. Lapeer 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Genesee Oakland Eaton Barry Allegan Hillsdale manistee -85- SUMWMRY OF THE MAJOR TYPES OF WILD-LIFE DAMAGE OBSERVED IN THESE STUDIES Pheasant Eflgi Qggn Damage 1. Sometimes the newly planted corn is dug out and 1 before it germinates, but more frequently it is not ed until it appears above ground. 2. The hole which the pheasant digs beside the stalk bout 1 1/2 inches across the top and crater-shaped with ing sides. 5. A small pile of dirt is left at one side of the 4. The green stalks are seldom eaten and may or may be broken in two. Some are left standing after the kernel been removed from the base while others are broken off left lying on the ground. 5. If the soil is in the right condition footprints .be left by the pheasant. The tracks are somewhat sim- ‘to those of a chicken except that the toe imprints are :slender in proportion to their length. The middle toe mout two inches long. The tracks can be told from those ;he crow by the absence of a long hind toe imprint. The Ltoe of the pheasant is very short and if an imprint is zit is little more than a small hole. -84- 2_§§§1k_Damage 1. A high school biology teacher reported an ob- -vation.uade by him in which he saw a pheasant pecking o the stalks of corn while it was yet succulent. He .d the hole made was nearly round in contrast to elon- ;e holes made by what the writer believes to be crows. ;n_§a£ Damage ("Milk Stage") 1. Some farmers claim that they have seen pheasants inding on or clinging to the sides of ears, pecking through a husks and feeding on the milky kernels. The writer has ver observed this and believes it to be very rare if it curs at all. The reported cases of pheasants perching d feeding on corn ears which the writer has examined have oved to be crow injury. 2. "Milk stage" corn, especially sweet corn, may be tacked by pheasants where the ears can be reached from the ound. The damage is similar to that of crows, but it is metimes possible to find footprints, and the species iden- fied in this way. Usually it is necessary to make careful servations before determining the species involved. The :re presence of a bird in the field does not prove that it a been feeding on the corn. -85- 15g Egg Damage (mature Corn) Pheasants sometimes feed on mature corn when the ker- als have been exposed by the drying husks. Only those ears liCh are within reach of the ground have been known to be ttacked. Corn shocked and left in the field may be more averely injured. Quail and other birds may be responsible 1r part of the corn consumed at that time. EEEEE Garden Damage Since several species of birds attack the various arden crops the writer has found no certain way to deter- ine the species involved except by actually seeing the nimal in the act of feeding. Pheasants may damage sweet- Jrn (seedlings and ears), tomatoes, peas (seedlings and ads), strawberries, watermelons, muskmelons, and cucumbers. Pheasant Control Mhasures 1. Deterrents applied to seed corn are believed by me writer to be less effective against the pheasant than gainst the crow in preventing corn digging, but experiments 10w that certain deterrents are of some value (p.39). 2. Corn losses in the shock can be prevented if the arn is not left in the field. 5. The greatest injuries inflicted by the pheasant e those to market gardens and nothing short of reducing the easant population has been found effective. The writer be- eves that where pheasant damage becomes very serious (as some market gardens) the state could help by permitting a farmer to shoot the birds out of season. Where gardens 9 within city limits the city will have to cooperate by rmitting these farmers to use firearms for this purpose. rmits to "shoot to scare" have not been satisfactory in . cases. 4. Live trapping as a means of reducing pheasants uncertain since a rather severe winter is essential for success. 5. Pheasants should not be released where they are sly to use market gardens for feeding grounds. 6. In the general farming region of southern Michi- the regular hunting season is usually satisfactory as a .sant control. Crow liégi 99;E_Damage l. Seedling corn damaged by crows can usually be Lruguished from corn damaged by pheasants. The crow does amrtual pulling on the stalk and two transverse depress- Inagr be seen on those stalk which have been grasped by ~87- ebiILand pulled up. 2. The hole beside the stalk is about one inch across atop and the sides are nearly vertical as contrasted to elarger hole with sloping sides made by the pheasant. 5. The mound of dirt beside the hole, typical of asant digging, is absent in the case of crow damage. 4. There the soil is in the proper condition feet- nts can be found. The long hind toe imprint (nearly 2 hes) is characteristic of the crow, but lacking asant track. g Stalk Damage in the 1. Four cases of damage to the stalk of field corn 3 observed by the writer. The stalks are injured while ' are succulent and although the writer has never seen the al feeding there is considerable evidence that he culprit. the crow 2. An injured stalk has a ragged, elongate hole at base and ranging from one to four inches long. 5. A badly injured stalk falls over. Ear Damage ("Milk Stage") 1. The crow will perch on those ears which it cannot 1 iirom the ground. While on the ear the crow peeks .gli the husk and\feeds on the milky kernels. The typical -88- r,several of which may be found, is horizontal or nearly andlms the husk on the top undisturbed except for the p,but on one or both sides the husks are shredded and the rnels punctured. The peninsula of undisturbed husks (on a top) runs to a point a little back of the tip of the cob. 2. In the case of sweet corn or short field corn a ears are fed upon from the ground and are mutilated. 3y reSemble ears damaged by pheasants. If pheasant or »w tracks cannot be found or if both are present it will be eSSary to make a careful observation to determine which cies is guilty or whether both species are guilty. kmelon Damage 1. A single case of muskmelon damage by crows Was erveu. The injured melons were small and green with Ving amounts peeked out of them. Crow Control Measures 1. Crow damage to seedling corn has been satisfac- ly controlled by coating the seed with deterrents. Some e113 find that the damage is greatly reduced or prevented cairtering water soaked corn over the field while the ted. corn is subject to damage. The crows consume the sad. corn rather than the planted. A variety of scare- 3 luave been employed, but their results cannot be guar- -89- teed. .3 scarecrow wlich one farmer claims will give satis- cflflon on his farm will not necessarily be satisfactory on other farm. A surprisingly large number of farmers in uthern Micnigan claim that if a crow is shot and hung in 9 field no crows will return, whereas shooting alone gives ly temporary relief according to many. 2. Damage to corn ears cannot be prevented by any 1d of deterrent. However, since this type of damage is Ldom serious few farmers even attempt to curb it. Where does become severe the farmer usually employs his favor- : type of scarecrow. 5. Little or no corn damage to melons occurs to ches near to the farm house, but considerable loss may ult to patches a great distance from the house. Whenever sible the melons should be planted near the house. Red-headed Neodpecker liEar'Damage ("Milk Stage") 1. Corn planted near to woods may have an occasional damaged by woodpeckers . 2. The injured ears are nearly vertical. 3. An elongate, narrow, slit-like hole through the :8 21nd paralleling the ear is the characteristic injury. K -90.. 4. At the lower end of the hole it will be found lat the kernels are punctured slightly in advance of the arn husks. 5. The damage is limited to the edge of the field. 6. The writer has never found a field in which the oss was great enough to warrant control measures. Fox Squirrel atermelon Damage 1. A case of fox squirrel damage to ripening water- elons was observed. The melons varied in degree of injury. ome had only a small bite taken out of them and the result- ng hole did not penetrate the rind while a few were nearly .alf eaten. The injured fields were bordered on one or more ides by woods. 2. The injured melons had chunks of the rind scatter- :d around them together with the empty seed coats. 5. Rather indistinct teeth marks were present on ;he rind. Iaple Tree Damage 1. Fox squirrels sometimes strip the bark from sugar maple trees in the spring. 2. Small pieces of the outer bark are dropped at the -91- ass of the tree and the inner bark eaten. 5. Teeth marks are conspicuous on the white ex- ased wood. Most of the marks run perpendicular to the :is of the injured branch. 4. Young trees may be almost completely denuded Ebark while on the larger trees the injury seems to be >nfined to the branches. ,rn Ear Damage ("Milk Stage”) 1. Fox squirrels very often attack ears of corn . fields close to woods. 2. Injured ears may be either vertical or hori- ntal. Sometimes an ear has nothing left to it but the re cob. Sometimes the cob is destroyed along with the ker- ls and Small chunks of the former may be found at the base the stalk. Occasionally the entire ear is removed and rried to the top of a fence post or stump and eaten there. 3 remains of the corn can be found there. 5. Tiny toenail holes can be found in some of the if sheaths beneath a damaged ear and occasionally the Lirrel will break the midrib of a leaf when it climbs the leo -92- Squirrel Control Measures 1. Corn and melon fields some distance from a woods re less likely to be injured by fox squirrels than ones :ar to a woods. 2. Perhaps the best way to reduce squirrel injury ; to reduce the squirrel population by shooting and trapping. liS is not necessary in the case of corn damage because the )ss is slight, but may be necessary where heavy losses :cur on watermelons each year or where fine maple trees are .lled. Bronzed Grackle and Red-winged Blackbird 3E §g3_Damage ("Milk Stage") 1. The damage to "milk stage" corn ears by these '0 species is similar, but since both species feed in flocks ; is not difficult to determine which is guilty. 2. The damaged ear is upright or nearly so and the p of it has the husks torn back for a short distance and is exposed kernels punctured. -95- Grackle Control Measures 1. It has been found that shooting at the grackles in the morning for three or four mornings when the first come to feed will prevent further feeding in :icular field. 2. Perhaps a similar attack on the first red—winged lird visitors to a field will have the same effect on pecies. Raccoon g3 Damage ("Milk Stage") 1. Sweet corn fields attacked by raccoons have mu- d ears strewn over the ground. Each ear has some of rnels eaten from it. The injured ear strongly suggests eding of a careless and greedy animal. Sometimes only two bites are taken on an ear. 2. A few of the sweet corn ears may be fed upon with- Lng severed from the stalk. 5. In the case of field corn where the ears are the raccoon's reach he will knock down the stalk and 3 ear in that way. Sometimes the entire ear will be 1 away and eaten elsewhere. 4. All of the damaged fields which the writer has tve been near to woods. -94- Raccoon Control Measures 1. If corn must be planted where raccoon damage we occurred in past years, the farmer should take advantage >f'flm open season on this mammal and attempt to reduce its mmbers. Muskrat 5223 9333 Damage 1. A field of corn adjacent to streams or ditches ahabited by muskrats may be damaged by that mammal. 2. In the single field observed by the writer the Ljured stalks were cut (chewed) down from 8 to 9 inches ove the ground. The cut surface was sloping. 5. The ears were removed from the fallen stalks and parently taken elsewhere to be eaten because no remains of a ear were found. 4. Muskrat tracks were abundant. 5. There were tall weeds growing on the edge of the chm Through these weeds were numerous paths used by the kimrts and some were floored with cornstalks. 6. From three to five stalks were usually felled a night -95- Muskrat Control Measures 1. It is not known how far muskrats will go after rri, but perhaps it is not many rods so if the corn field is une distance (15 — 20 rods) from the muskrat habitat the image may be prevented. 2. The open season gives the farmer an opportunity 0 reduce the muskrat population on his farm. -95_ CONCLUSIONS 1. The findings in these studies indicate that al- hough damage to crops by the various species of wild-life s widespread in the Southern Peninsula, it is seldom serious n the general farming region. 2. These studies reveal that the average farmer laces an aesthetic value on wild-life as well as a money alue, and complaints are seldom made unless there is a onsiderable crop loss. 5. It was found possible to determine the species f animal involved in a number of cases by a detailed ex- nination of the injury. There is still much room for more nformation along this line. 4. The amount of damage which any species will do n a given locality varies directly with the abundance of he species concerned, with the scarcity of natural food, ad inversely with the effectiveness of control measures. 5. Crows, pheasants, and squirrels have been found 0 give Southern Michigan farmers the most trouble to grain rops. Of these, the crow is the worst pest, yet the most asily controlled. Ordinary methods of control such as rightening devices, seed treatment, etc. applied to the ther two species are usually of no value and state protec- -97- tion has given them an added advantage. 6. In the pheasant range those market gardens with- in city limits or sub-divisions are damaged most by that bird. The loss sometimes runs into hundreds of dollars. The losses are much less in the general farming region, but occasionally they run high and local control is needed. 7. The pheasant problem in the general farming region of Southern Michigan is one of diplomatic relations between farmer and sportsman as well as one of biologic relations between pheasant and farm crops. Table I (Cont‘d) Table Sh of Co o erence tween control and treatment. 0 difference to the P.E. of rence Control Coal tar Gas tar Pine tar Oil Carbolineum Zenoleum Control Stanley's Crow Crowtox Blackbird .Cro-shoo Corbin Note:- 100 hills of -99- Table II Table Showing the Effect of Various Repellents on the Germination of Three Kinds of Corn Polar Dent - (Field Corn) 400 Kernels per Doll DEIl Treatment 48’hrs. 72 hrs. 96 Hrs. 1* (Control for 1 84% 98% (Semesan (dry) 91% 99% 2* :Control for 2 90% 97.5% (Semesan (liquid) 92.5% 99.5% 5* (Control for 5 82.5% 95% 96.5% (Crowtox ' 19.5% 65% 90.5% 4-5 Control 1 - 5 inc. Poor start, 89.5% 96.75% too dry 6 Control 7 - 9 inc. 95.25% 98.25% 7 Crowtox 61.5% 95% 99.25% 8 Zenoleum (dilute) 67% 87.5% 97.25% 9 Crowtox (left over 0.25% 10.5% 66.7% from #5, heavy dose for 48 hrs.) 21 Control, 22 - 25 inc. 98.75% 99% 22 Carbolineum (dilute) 88% 99% 25 Stanley's Crow 79.5% 98.75% Repellent *The first 5 dfills had sections of treated and contro seeds alternating in the same dolls. This method proved to be un- satisfactory und was discarded in preference to separate con- trol dolls. -100- Table II (Cont'd) Polar Dent - (Field Corn) 400 Kernels per D011 D011 Treatment 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 96 hrs. 24 Kerosene 16.5% 70.5% 85% 25 Turpentine 0.75% i 10% lg% 26 Control, 27 - 50 inc. 95% 98% 98.25% 27 Lysol (dilute) 92.25% 96.5% 97% ' 28 Nicotrol (dilute) 75.75% 85% 85.25% 29 Hammond‘s Weed Killer 8.25% 11.5% 14% 5O Hammond's Copper Sol'n94.% 98% 51 Control, 55 — 54 inc. 78.25% 98.75% with 52 52 Control, 55 - 54 inc. 76.25% 97.25% with 51 55 Coal tar 61% 95.75% 98.25% 54 Gas tar 62.75% 95.5% 98% 55 Pine tar 60.5% 95.5% 97% 56 Weedex 58.75% 47% 52% . 57 wilson weed killer 27.75% 52.25% 56.5% ' 58 Lime 75% 95% 95.25% 59 Red lead 88.75% 95.25% 98.75% 40 Salt petre 28% 56.25% 82.75% ~101- Table II (Cont'd) Polar Dent - (Field Corn) 400 Kernels per D011 D011 Treatmgntfi 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 96 hrs. 41 Chloride of Lime 59.5% 78% 92.5% 42 Copper Carbonate 84.75% 96.5% 98.25% 45 Copperas 11% 21% 55% 44 Gypsum 92% 99% 65 Control, 64 - 67 inc. |68.25% 97.75% 98.5% ' 64 Carbolineum (Conc.) 28% 85.5% 94.25% 65 Kerosene and Tur- 0% 0% 1.25% pamhm a1 66 ,Lysol (Soak 1 hr. 15.5% 50.75% 59% dilute) 67 Arsenate of Lead 64.5% 91.5% 95.25% E 75 Cro-shoo 70.25% 86.5% 91.25% 74 Bye Bye Blackbird 74.5% 88.75% 98% 75 Corbin 75.5% 88.25% 96.75% 76 Pyrox 88.75% 92.5% 95.5% 77 Salt petre 28% 65.5% 95% ~102- Table II (Cont'd) Polar Dent - (Field Corn) 400 Kernels per Doll Bail Treagmgnt 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 96 hrs. lEO—HIET 78 Lysol, 5 min. (di- 15% 20.5% 26.5% luted, but strong) 79 Arsenate of Lead 91.5% 97% 98% 80 Copper Carbonate 84.75% 95.75% 97% 81 Copperas 81.25% 96.5% 97.25% 82 Chloride of Line 24% 77% 96% 85 Bunny Bane 86% 95.25% 97.75% 84 Control, 75 - 85 89% 96.75% 98.5% 1110. 100* Control, 101 - 104 70.5% 97% 98% 98% me. 101 Gypsum 88.5% 98% 98.25% 98.75% 102 Carbolineum, cone. 5% 45% 72% 85.25% 105 Cro-shoo 5.75% 65.75% 89.25% 95.25% 104 Lysol, 1 hr. 58.5% 97.25% 98.25% 98.25% (dilute) *This group of dolls (100 - 104 inc.) was run for 120 hours because accidental drying during the test retarded normal germination. ; . Le .. 52.: up? . «:1 . 4 . ..- w «Ends-3,014.. 4:. it. and: a... ...- -103- Table II (Cont'd) Polar Dent - (Field Corn) 100 Kernels per Doll D011 Treatment 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 96 hrs. 149 Control, 150 - 151 85% 96% 97% 150 011 54% 75% 88% 151 011 and Red lead 60% 94% 96% Oil - Red lead 185 kernels planted in garden 95.1% grew Untreated 185 II n n 97 . 8% n ~104- Table II (Cont'd) Australian Hulless Popcorn 400 Kernels per Doll D611 Treaf§§fit 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 6’hrs. 10 Control, 11 - 15 inc. 96.5% 97% 11 Crowtox 95.25% 97.25% 12 Semesan (dry) 98.75% 98.75% 15 Semesan (liquid) 95.5% 97.25% 14 Zenoleum (dilute) 75% 89.25% 95.5% 15 Zenoleum (cone.) 0% 9% 0% 16 Control on 17 - 20 inc. , 96.75% 99.5% 17 Carbolineum (dilute) 65.25% 95.75% 95.25% 18 Stanley's Crow 94% 99.25% Repellent 19 Kerosene 25% 55% 62.25% 20 Turpentine 8.5% 17.25% 21% 45 (Control, 47 - 62 inc. 92.5% 94.5% 95.25% 46 (Control, 47 - 62 inc. 81% 89% 90% 47 Coal tar 92.25% 97% 97.25% 48 Gas tar 96.25% 98.5% 49 Pine tar 91% 94.25% 95.5% 50 Weedex 69.75% 75.75% 74.75% 51 Wilson Weed killer 80.5% 85% 85.5% -105- Table II (Cont‘d) Australian Hulless Popcorn 400 Kernels per Doll DEIl Treatment 48 hrs. 72 hrs. ‘96Ihrs. 52 Lime 81% 96% 99.25% 55 Red lead 97.5% 100% 54 Salt Petre 67.75% 87.75% 95% 55 Chloride of lime 51.5% 58.5% 81.5% 56 Copper carbonate 82% 88.75% 95.75% 57 Copperas 88% 96% 98% 58 Gypsum 82.25% 92% 95.75% 59 Hammond's Copper Sol‘n 98.5% 99.5% 60 Hammond‘s Weed killer 47% 71% 77.25% 61 Nicotrol (dilute) 16% 62.5% 80.25% 62 Lysol, 5 min. (dilute) 26.25% 48.75% 69.75% 68 Control, 69 — 72 inc. 81.5% 97.75% 98.25% 69 Carbolineum 58.5% 69% 71.75% 70 Kerosene and Turpentine 0% 0% 0% 71 Lysol, 1 hr. (dilute) 2.25% 9.25% 11.25% 72 Arsenate of lead 68% 86.25% 87.5% ~106- Table II (Cont'd) Australian Hulless Popcorn 400 Kernels per Doll toll Tréétfient 4i48 hrs. 72 hrs. 96 hrs. 120 hrs. 85* Control, 86 - 99 52.5% 92.75% 95% 95% 1110 o 86 Bye Bye Blackbird % 80% 86% 89% 87 Carbolineum 10% 52.5% 62.5% 75.5% 88 Cro—shoo 5% 56% 54.5% 66.5% 89 Corbin 4% 45.75% 64.25% 76.25% 90 Pyrox 70.25% 90.75% 92.25% 92.25% 91 Arsenate of lead 77% 90% 95.25% 95.25% 92 Salt Petre 67.75% 95% 94.5 94.5% 95 Lysol, 5 min. 65.5% 95.5% 95.75% 95.75% (dilute) 94 Copperas 55.75% 92% 95.25% 95.25% 95 Bunny Bane 72% 92% 95.25% 94.5% 96 Chloride of 55.75% 90.5% 92.25% 95.25% lime 97 Gypsum 61% 90.5% 95% 95.25% 98 Copper carbon- 75.5% 92% 94.25% 95% ate 99 Lysol, 1 hr. 56.5% 84.5% 90.75% 91.5% (dilute) *This group of dolls ( 5’- 99’lnc.f’was run for lib hours Be- cause accidental drying during the test retarded normal ger- mination. 3...?4.«.<....u.mflun.r.u . . . -107- Table II (Cont'd) M. A. C. (Field Corn) 400 Kernels per Doll Doll Treatment 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 95*hrs. 105 Coal tar 62% 96.25% 97.5% 106 Gas tar 85.5% 95.25% 95.25% 107 Pine tar 70% 95.5% 97.25% 108 Carbolineum, conc. 81% 95% 95.75% 109 Cro-shoo 70% 89.5% 90.25% 110 Stanley's Crow Rep. 72.25% 92.5% 95.25% 111 Crowtox 80.5% 95.25% 96.75% 112 Bye Bye Blackbird 79% 94.25% 95.25% 115 Corbin 74% 94.5% 95% 114 Copper carbonate 92.5% 96.75% 97.25% 115 Copperas 65.75% 89.25% 92.25% 116 Bunny Bane 76.25% 86.75% 89.25% 117 Salt Petre 77.5% 91.75% 95.25% 118 Pyrox 55% 66.5% 67.75% 119 Arsenate of lead 55% 71.75% 75.75% 120 Lime 65.25% 82.75% 85.5% 121 Gypsum 86.25% 95.75% 94.75% 122 Chloride of lime 78% 94.75% 95.5% 125 Red lead 90.75% 95% 95.5% ~108- Table II (Cont'd) Iii. A... a (Field Corn) 400 Kernels per Doll Doll Treatggnt 48 hrs. 72 hrs. 96 hrs. 124 Semesan 75.75% 95.5% 95.5% 125 Ceresan 84.25% 94.25% 94.75% 126 Lysol, 1 hr. (dilute) 78.75% 91.75 95.5% 127 Lysol, 5 min. (dilute) 76.75% 88.25% 90.75% 128 Zenoleum 70.75% 95.75% 94.25% 129 Hammond‘s Copper Sol‘n 77% 89.5% 92% 150 Control, 105 — 129 inc. 85.75% 95.5% 95.75% -109- Table III - Table Sh0ding the Comparative Effect of Each Treatment on the Various Kinds of Corn Treatment Australian Hulless M.A.C. Eolar Dent Pop Corn Control 95 .2% 95.75% 97 .86% Oil 88. Red lead 100. 95.5 98.75 . Oil - red lead 95.55 Crowtox 97.25 96.75 94.87 Bye Bye Blackbird 89. 95.25 98. Cro-shoo 66.5 90.25 92.25 Corbin 76.25 95. 96.75 Stanley's Crow Rep. 99.25 95.25 98.75 Semesan 98. 95.5 99.25 Kerosene 62.25 83. Turpentine 21. 12. Kerosene - turpentine O 1.25 2:1 Coal tar 97.25 97.5 98.25 Gas tar 98.5 95.25 98. Pine tar 95.5 97.25 97. Weedex 74.75 52. Wilson Need Killer 85.5 56.5 -110- Table III - Table Showing the Comparative Effect of Each (Cont'd) Treatment on the Various Kinds of Corn Treatment Australian Hulless M.A.C. Polar Dent Pop Corn Lime 99 . 25% 85 .5% 9c .25% Salt Petre 95.75 94.25 87.87 Chloride of lime 87.57 95.5 94.25 Copper carbonate 94.57 97.25 97.62 Copperas 96.62 92.25 75.12 Gypsum 95.0 94.75 98.87 Nicotrol 80.25 85.25 Lysol, 5 min. (dilute) 82.75 90.75 97. Lysol, 1 hr. (dilute) 51.57 95.5 78.62 Hammond's Copper nol'n 99.5 92. 98. Hammond‘s Weed Killer 77.25 14. Carbolineum,(conc.) 72.62 75.75 89.75 Carbolineum,(dilute) 95.25 99. Arsenate of lead 91.57 75.75 96.12 Pyrox 92.25 67.75 95.5 Bunny Bane 94.5 89.25 87.75 Ceresan 94.75 Zenoleum,(dilute) 95.5 94.25 97.25 Zenoleum, (cone.) 0. .J. i.l. . . . : . .. Kw”... .. . . . . . ,. . ..1fl...l.\..a.....an - . "Jr! est/...... ; . was...” ...mm... .. -111- Table IV - Table Showing Comparative Effect of Certain Repellents on Field Corn and Pop Corn under Identical Conditions 400 Kernels per Doll 8 of corn 151 ird .H.P.* ** 153 155 159 ., 141 § 5 145 145 1 147 trol 148 Control, even dolls ** Polar Dent -112- SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS The Game Division of the Conservation Department in cooperation with the Zoology Department made possible investigations of various kinds of wild-life depredations to agricultural crops, including market garden produce, throughout southern Michigan. Special investigations, the reports of which are to be found on the following pages, were made by the writer following complaints from the farmers concerned. Most of the complaints of wild-life damage to crops which the Zoology Department received were forwarded from the Game Division. The Extension Service of Michigan State College forwarded the crow complaint from West Branch and both organizations cooperated in the mailing of the "Report of Wild-life Damage to Crops" blanks to their representatives in the Southern Peninsula. -115- REPORT 1 INVESTIGATION OF CORN DAMAGE C. E. George Calhoun County Union City, Michigan July 25, 1951 Part I About 40 rods north of Mr. George's 7 1/2 acre corn field is a woods in which I saw some 200 crows go to roost. The corn was damaged while it was about 4 ft. tall and still succulent by having the pith eaten out from 4 to 8 inches above the ground. The stalk soon broke over at this point, and the plant was stunted if not killed. In an area of corn 12 rows by 20 rows I found that over 26% of the corn stalks were injured badly enough to affect the plant. Many other stalks had slight scars. This area Was more seriously damaged than any equal area in the field. A large elm tree stood at the northwest corner of the area and under the tree and on the lower leaves was consid- erable bird refuse. Crow feathers and tracks were found on the ground. Mr. George said he has seen crows in his corn a week prior to July 25. He reports that this damage has occurred each year that he has grown corn in this vicinity. Although I made careful observations the evening of July 25 and early the following morning, no birds or animals were seen to injure the corn, presumably because the latter -114- was more mature - the stalk tougher and the pith drier. However, all evidence points to the crow. -115- INVESTIGATION OF CORN DAMAGE (CONT’D) Howard Cadwell Kent County Rockford, Michigan July 27, 1951 Part II Mi. Cadwell has suffered the same injury to his corn as Mr. George, but to a lesser extent. Mr. Cad- well's 9 1/2 acre corn field is some 40 rods from a woods in which he says, "a few, not many" crows roost. He says there are very few pheasants in the neighborhood. What injury he had was limited to about the first dozen rows of corn along the fence. I noted more damage where there were trees in the fence row. A few bird droppings were seen under the trees, and a crow feather was found. This is the first year Mr. Cadwell has noted this corn damage, but undoubtedly he has the same problem as Mr. George. -116- THE GRACKLE NUISANCE IN ROCKFORD, MICHIGAN Kent County Rockford, Michigan July 27, 1951 Part III Each evening during the summer thousands of grackle fly into Rockford from fields for miles around. _They flock into certain trees scattered over the town where they spend the night, and leave early in the morning. The grackles are a real nuisance because of their noise and their refuse. The sidewalks must be washed each morning. Shooting into the trees several nights a week by individual residents has re- sulted in the death of a number of birds, but still they con- tinue to roost in the same trees. In an effort to find some method by which the birds might be driven out of town 8 Spotlight was tried. Before the birds had become settled for the night it was possible to frighten them out of a particular tree with the light, but they would fly to another tree a block away. As it became darker and the birds had settled down, the light had little or no effect upon them. With a spotlight applied at the proper time one might drive the grackles out of the trees in his yard, but this method does not appear practical in ridding a whole town of the pests. -ll7- REPORT 2 CROW AND PHEASANT DAMAGE TO CORN John King Clinton County, Near East Lansing, Michigan August 15, 1951 I made my first trip to Mr. John King's farm on August 15. Mr. King has 80 acres three miles west of Palmer Park (Lake Lansing) and joining the Walnut Hills Golf Course on the west. At the north end of his farm is the Chandler Marsh controlled by the Lansing Hunting Club. On the west his farm joins another narrow farm beyond which are sub-divisions. With a golf course, large marsh and sub- divisions the wild-life finds excellent protection while the farms in the middle offer food. King grew sweet corn for market. He also had 10 acres of field corn, and he showed me where both fields had been attacked by what he said were pheasants. Certainly something was securing considerable corn and judging from the type of injury, it was, no doubt, a bird of some description. The greatest damage was in some very short sweet corn whose ears were only 2 or 5 inches above the ground; the larger field corn suffered to a much less extent. All the corn was then in the "milk stage". For about two weeks before my visit Mr. King said he had sent his children and the dog through the corn several times a day_in order to rout out the pheasants. On some -118- ~ CROW AND PHEASANT 13.4th5 110 CORN (CONT'D) trips he said they would flush 2O pheasants. Apparently King had done such a good job of frightening away the birds that I saw very few pheasants on my subsequent visits. Even King said the numbers had been greatly reduced in the corn. As a result, I saw a total of only about 15 pheas- ants in his corn in 9 observations during the period of August 14 to August 29, inclusive. None were seen to feed on the ears of corn by standing on the ears as has been re- ported by many. This does not mean the farmers were not accurate in their statements. I believe at the time of my observations the young birds, which were reported to stand on the ears were too large and heavy for the ear to support them, thus they, like the mother bird, confine their feeding to the ground and possibly on the corn which has been knocked down. , I found that a certain flock of seven crows were do- ing much of the damage for which the pheasants were blamed. I watched one crow feed on an ear of the small sweet corn and on several occasions when I was a bit late in the morning I saw seven crows fly out of the sweet corn. Judging from my observations in other fields it would not surprise me to learn that crows were guilty of damaging part of the field corn also. The corn was some distance from the nearest woods, ~119- CROW AND PHEASANT DAMAGE TO CORN ( CONT'D) and none of the ears displayed typical squirrel or woodpecker injury. In my Opinion, then, pheasants and crows are both guilty of injuring Mr. King's corn, but during the last half of August, at least, the pheasant was receiving much more than ' his share of the blame. Suggestions - Of course, once a green ear of corn is picked into it is subject to rot which destroys the whole car, but Mr. King is not so concerned with the few bushels (he es- timates 5 or 4) of corn destroyed this year as the extra work required all day from dawn till dark to keep the pheasant out. Under normal conditions he believes pheasants are val- uable as insect eaters, but under his Conditions he feels the Lansing Hunting Club should endeavor to keep more of the birds in their marsh. Mr. King and I tramped through 5 or 4 miles of the marsh with the dog. The dog is good at flushing pheas- ants, but in the whole distance not over six birds were seen. I understand that pheasants are planted on this hunting ground each year, but when the hunting season comes around, relative- ly few birds are taken, apparently because they are not there. King believes the birds leave as a result of lack of food in the marsh. I saw no grain, weeds or berries which would fur- nish birds with food seeds when the young needed them for I -120- growing. There were relatively few insects because many of the host plants had dried up. It is suggested that the Lansing Hunting Club plant some sort of food plants for the birds such as corn, wheat, buckwheat, etc. This practice would benefit both the hunters and adjacent farmers by keeping more of the pheasants at home. There are several high Spots in the marsh such as ditch banks which I believe would support strips of grain very well, and little or no clearing would be necessary because most of the marsh is open. If various strips of grain matur- ing at different times, such as wheat, corn and buckwheat, were planted around the edge of the marsh. I believe this would be a suitable barrier to hold most of the birds in during the summer. Weeds which produce seeds for pheasant food might be encouraged, and no doubt some of the lower areas of the marsh could be utilized. As it is, the pheas- ants must call on the famners for most of their board, de- priving the fanner of his crops and the hunter of his sport. -121- REPORT 5 THE GROSSE ISLE RABBIT AND PHEASANT PROBLEM Wayne County Grosse Isle, Michigan August 17, 1951 Upon the request of the residents of Grosse Isle, the CODSGIthiOD Department closed this island township to hunting for a period of five years. On September 1, 1951, this five—year period ended. A short time ago, however, Grosse Isle sent a delegation to Lansing. This delegation asked the ConserVation Department to continue the closed season for another five years, for it seems that Grosse Isle fears the hunters more than rabbit or pheasant damage. A new free bridge is being completed and naturally the Grosse Isle people anticipate a large foreign element swarming over from the mainland during the hunting season. The delegates' request was granted. Mr. Henry George, who lives on Hickory Island, (Grosse Isle Township) wrote the ConserVation Department asking for help in ridding the township of rabbits which had increased to such numbers as to be very destructive to ornamentals. Mr. Ruhl, of the Game Division, and I drove down to Grosse Isle to obtain SOme first hand knowledge of this pro- blem. We reached the island late Monday afternoon, August 17, and drove around to get an idea of cover, topography, -122- THE GROSSE ISLE RABBIT AND PHEASANT PROBLEM (CONT'D) etc. We also recorded the wild-life, seen on this tour. Forty-seven (approximate count) pheasants, two marsh hawks, and one rabbit were seen. We talked with Mr. James Bickford, a farmer, who rents 40 acres of land. He had several acres in corn to which he says the pheasants do much damage, especially in the shock, when 500 to 500 of the birds gather in his field. He took Mr. Ruhl and myself into the field where we saw several damaged ears, and we flushed about a dozen pheas- ants. About dusk we crossed a small bridge and found our- selves on Lower Hickory Island. All the roads on this island are private and the residents own their own homes. Only one family besides the caretaker remains through the winter. We talked with Mr. Alspaugh, the caretaker, and learned a few details of the rabbit situation and the make-up of the island. The east one-third of the island is organized as an association while the west two-thirds is unorganized. Mr. Alspaugh re- ceives a salary from the association only, although during the winter he also looks after the houses in the unorganized area. There are forty-eight houses on the island. The next morning we went back to LOWer Hickory to go OVer the island. Mr. Alspaugh introduced us to some of the -125- THE GROSSE ISLE RABBIT AND PHEASANT PROBLEM (CONT'D) property owners, and all told of how the rabbits had eaten practically every kind of plant soon after it appeared above ground. The rabbits seem to choose their food plants by age rather than species. The cottages are all raised about a foot above the ground, and we were told that it was under the houses that many of the rabbits lived. One house had been boarded up around the base, but rabbits had dug under or gnawed through the boards. Once Mr. Peabody (then Conservation officer) put a ferret under this house, and some 15 or 20 rabbits ran out, according to Mr. Alspaugh. Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Peabody, Grosse Isle Chief of Police, introduced us to a man who is in the nursery business on Grosse Isle proper. He grows chiefly flowers and shrubs, and he reports heavy losses due to rabbits. The pheasants give but little trouble on Hickory Is- land. Perhaps ripe tomatoes are damaged most by them. Recommendations for Rabbit and Pheasant Relief - It seems that about 50% of the property owners in Grosse Isle want no "open season" whatever while the remainder would tol- erate hunting as a means of reducing rabbits and pheasants. It also appears that the latter 50% are the ones who suffer -124- THE GROSSE ISLE RABBIT AND PIEASANT PROBLEM (CONT‘D) the most damage. I would say that about 5/4 of the area of Grosse Isle can be hunted. The other 1/4 is mostly along the shore line where most of the houses are located. I agree with Mr. Ruhl that the best relief, no doubt, would be an open hunting season followed by live trapping. I am told one difficulty enters here in the fact that since the roads are public, fences would have to be erected (there are very few fences along the road) before the Horton tresspass law could be enforced; otherwise, controlled hunting will be difficult. If hunting is to be allowed, it will have to be controlled. Hickory Island can easily control hunting, if hunting is chosen, because of its small size (60 acres) and because its roads are all private. Mr. AlSpaugh, who is deputy sheriff as well as caretaker, should be able to handle this. If Grosse Isle still decides to remain closed to hunt- ing, perhaps they would permit live trapping of rabbits and pheasants which would be planted in suitable places on the mainland. No doubt, this method would be successful on Hickory Island because of its small size and nearly complete isolation from Grosse Isle proper. Mr. Alspaugh said he would be glad to live trap rabbits if that was what Hickory Island wanted and if the Conservation Department would permit. \ ' ‘Y‘cg I-r 3" . ' -..;.-. :I. ‘E!’ ‘ ”.14" --..~ -125- THE GROSSE ISLE RABBIT AND PHEASANT PROBLEM (CONT'D) I look with doubt on the success of live trapping on the larger island (some 6,000 acres) unless enough full-time men and sufficient traps were employed, and the property owners might not want to bear such an expense. Whatever Grosse Isle desires in way of control they will have to decide as a township or at least as one of the islands, and not send a delegation to Lansing representing 50% of the people, all of one "party". Not until they have done this can the Conservation Department act upon the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned. -126- REPORT 4 FOX SQUIRREL INJURY T0 WATERMELONS Orin Roberts Barry County Middleville, Michigan September 2, 1951 Mr. Orin Roberts, who has farm lands in Sections 25 and 24, Yankee Springs Township, Barry County, five miles south of Middleville, raises watermelons on a large scale. This year he had 25 acres of melons and as in previous years, he has suffered considerable loss from fox squirrel injury. Mr. Roberts reports his losses as hundreds of dollars a year, and each year he says the loss is more than the year before. The greatest loss results from injury to the earliest melons soon after they have set. Of course it is the early melons that bring the best price. Type of Injury - I did not observe any squirrels in the fields when I visited them on September 2, but Mr. Roberts said he had seen many at work for several weeks before, and the appearance of the injury strongly suggests squirrels. The injured melons had various sizes of holes eaten into the rind. These holes showed teeth marks around the edge. The holes rang— ed from small dents which did not penetrate the entire rind to holes whose diameters were nearly equal to the diameter of the melon; that is, almost half of the melon was eaten away. As a rule, there was but one hole in a melon. . .. 3..- . . .4..qu .37... )4 . . 12.-.7. , -127 FOX SQUIRREL INJURY TO WATERMELONS (CONT'D) The lesser injuries would be of little consequence if it were not for rot fungi entering; thus it is that practically every melon develops rot after a squirrel has fed on it. Around those melons which had holes penetrating into the meat were small chunks of rind together with the empty hulls of a quantity of the melon seeds. Thinking that the squirrels were craving water, Mr. Roberts placed pans of water all over the fields, but this did not reduce the injury. Perhaps the squirrels like the sweet juice of the melon and drink more or less of it, but it is my belief that their chief desire is to eat the seeds. Mr. Roberts finds that the amount of injury in a field depends upon its location to a great extent. A field near the wooded area suffers more than one further away. Mr. Roberts has considerable timber on his farm. His best fields are bounded on at least one side and one field is com- pletely surrounded by woods. Shooting in the field, Mr. Roberts says, will not frighten away the squirrels and placing water in pans in the field has failed. Perhaps the solution to this problem will be to reduce the squirrel pop- ulation with guns and traps. Hm~; 1!? -128- REPORT 5 THE CROW NUISANCE AT WEST BRANCH Zettle and Yancey Ogemaw County West Branch, Michigan September 14, 1951 Mr. Ralph B. Coulter, County Agricultural Agent, reported to hr. 0. V. Ballard, Extension Department of this college, that the farmers around West Branch were suffering from the depredations by crows in their corn. After talking with MI. Ballard and reading Mr. Coulter‘s letter, it appear ed that the crow damage was rather extensive. Consequently I made a trip to West Branch on September 12. I found Mr. Coulter in his office, and he gave me the names of those farmers who apparently had suffered the greatest losses. These farmers then referred me to their unfortunate neigh- bors also. Perhaps the heaviest losses occurred in an area of 25 square miles south and east of West Branch, each farmer giving the same story - the only difference being in extent of the loss. The latter, of course, varies with the location of the field in relation to the house and also with the time the farmer has spent trying to keep the crows away. An equal amount of damage to corn in the corn belt region would hardly be noticed, but around West Branch where a corn field usually contains less than 10 acres, the percentage of dam- -129- THE CROW NUISANCE AT WEST BRANCH (CONT'D) aged corn runs much higher. In Mr. Zettle's field of 9 acres, the crows had worked in more than an acre of the corn and although he had shot at them several times, they had succeeded in eating over 90% of the corn in this area. Zettle estimates that he has driven out at least 200 crows at one time only to have them return again. Another farmer counted 575 crows in a flock as it left his corn. He could not count the remain- der, because the birds were too far away. One day Mr. Zettle saw "at least a thousand crows" circling around over some object (perhaps a carcass) in a field. He said that "the crows were just like a swarm of bees". The farmers told me that they never before had seen so many crows, but that each year there are more than the previous year. Very few crows nest and raise their young in the vicinity, I was told, but "most all of them come from somewhere else". The most damage that I saw in any one field was in ur. Al Yancey's corn, 3 miles south of West Branch. This field of 10 acres was one-half a mile from the house and the Crows had fed in every part of it. On a hillside at one corner of the field I measured an area of 12,240 feet in -130- TIE CROW NUISANCE AT WEST BRANCH (CONT'D) which there was not a single sound ear, and many had less than a dozen kernels left. In this same field, I estimated that between one-third and one-fourth of all the ears had been injured. It is more important to consider the total ears peeked into than the amount of corn taken off an ear, because a green ear is subject to rot once it has been opened. The crows prefer to feed on the corn while it is in the "milk stage". On September 14 it was the late or re- planted corn upon which the pests were feeding. It was claimed that because of considerable corn pulling by crows this spring most farmers had to replant some of their field. Control Measures - The farmers tried several crow controls and a few dozen crows are shot each year, but thous- ands still remain. There is a slaughter house not far from Zettle's farm and Mr. Coulter suggested that Zettle obtain some offal, poison it and expose it to the crows. It was believed that the crows might eat carrion in the presence of grain. Zettle was unable to get any offal at the time, but as one of his chickens had died that day he put strychnine on the carcass and left it in the corn field. The chicken had been touched but little when I was there and no crows were known -151- THE CROW NUISANCE AT WEST BRANCH (CONT'D) to have died. About the same time that the chicken was put in the corn all the crows left and have not bothered his field since. Zettle was uncertain as to whether the crows left as a result of tasting some poison carrion or because the corn had hardened. Since most of the corn was all dented and hard, I believe the latter was the determining factor. Zettle said his brother had managed to poison a few crows by using eggs as bait. Poison grain tried by some far- mers was found to be useless when used at this time of year while other grain is abundant, but poison corn scattered on the ground in the spring about newly planted corn and peas was found to kill a number of crows. The farmers have also tried various kinds of scarecrows. A coat and hat on cross sticks is worthless in the opinion of most farmers as the crows may use such a device for a conven- ient look-out post. many of the farmers believe that a dead crow hung on a pole in the field is the best kind of scarecrow, but its results can not be guaranteed. There is a little evidence to make us believe that the efficiency of such a scarecrow de- pends upon how the crow is killed. This interesting case comes from Mr. Yancey, who last spring killed 8 crows with poisoned grain. He hung the victims in his field, but he had ~132- THE'CROW NUISANCE AT WEST BRANCH (CONT'D) hardly left the field before the pests were back pulling corn. Last Saturday noon a few hours before I called on him, Yancey had succeeded in shooting a crow. This bird he hung under a tree and although it was but a short test, Yancey was pleased to see that no crows returned that afternoon. He had shot at the birds on other occasions but never killing any, and the flock would fly half a mile away then circle back before Yancey reached his house. Other farmers told me that they could not get even temporary relief until they had shot and hung up a crow. Whether or not poisoned crows always fail to work as well as shot crows when hung up, I do not know. A farmer in William- ston township (Ingham county) told me he had success by hang- ing up just a black cloth in the field. Most of the farmers believe that the best step to- wards crow control would be for the county to pay a bounty on crows. "If there was a bounty on crows, more farmers would be induced to hunt when they could get a little to help pay for the ammunition", one man told me. The bounty system, especial- ly as a means of crow control, is an unwise procedure, first, because it is impractical and ineffective and second, because it is a needless cost. In other words, a great deal of money is spent for the death of a very small percentage of the crow population. )I‘ i‘.“l\fl.i JIII‘ )NITJW'JFII . .. .IU'. i.»|‘1...|l.:‘l..4‘ -135- REPORT 6 PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN CROPS Claude Wright Washtenaw County Ypsilanti, Michigan September 18, 1931 Part I Mr. Claude Wright, who lives 2 miles west of Ypsi- lanti, reported to the ConserVation Department that pheasants were destroying his garden. On September 18 I drove down to see Mr. Wright and to study the type and extent of injury. Mr. Wright said at one time he counted 14 pheasants in the garden and that when they come all the chickens rush for the coops. He keeps his chickens in a pen and none have ever been in the garden. In some woods across the road from Mr. Wright's I saw a flock of perhaps 100 crows, but he says no crows have been seen in the garden and he does not blame any of this damage on the crow. Typ§_and Extent of Damage - Three of the crops had suffered injury, namely, melons, tomatoes, and sweet corn. , Melons - Watermelons and muskmelons were growing to- gether and both had been attacked, but damage was confined to about one quarter of the patch or an area 20 ft. by 48 ft. and at the east end. In this area there was a total of 58 melons and 11 showed some injury. Wright said he had already -154- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN CROPS (CONT‘D) removed considerably over a dozen damaged melons. 0f the 11 injured melons, 5 were Watermelons and 6 were muskmelons. The injury penetrated the rind in 2 of the watermelons and 4 muskmelons. This would seem to indicate perhaps a slight preference for muskmelons. However, one watermelon had a hole in it 5" x 6" and half of the inside was eaten out. Qgrn - Next to his melons Mr. Wright had 2 rows of sweet corn of which the pheasants had eaten nearly all. It is interesting to note that the pop corn on the other side of the melons (20 ft. from the sweet corn) had suffered very little. I found but 2 ears of pop corn which had been touched at all. Tomato - It is difficult to determine the extent of injury to Mr. Nright's one row of tomatoes because he had con- tinually picked off those which had been damaged, but perhaps it lies between 2/5 and 1/2 of the total crop. As fast as the first tomatoes would begin to ripen on one side the pheasants would peck into them at this point. Wright says two broods have been visiting his garden until the rains of a week before my visit. Since then he had little trouble. although the ConserVation Department had given Mr. Wright permission to shoot to scare the pheasants, he had -135- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN CROPS (CONT'D) never gone to the trouble to do this. "Besides", he said, "the pheasants must have something to eat." -156- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN CROPS L. E. Brown Wayne County Inkster, Michigan September 18, 1931 Part II From Ypsilanti I went to Inkster to see a Mr. Lionel E. Brown, who also had reported pheasant damage to the Con- servation Department. I located Mr. Brown‘s residence in Garden City. Mr. Brown was not at home, but his wife direct- ed me to the farm about 5 miles west of Garden City where I found him. His farm contains 100 acres, much of which is ex- cellent pheasant cover. While walking out to where men were working, I heard a number of pheasants crowing not far off. Mr. Brown had 4 acres of cabbage, about 4 acres of tomatoes, 4 or 5 acres of sweet corn and a small patch of cantaloup. He suffered injury to his tomatoes, sweet corn and cantaloup. Tomatoes - Since the first tomatoes began to ripen and up until September 4, the pheasants did considerable damage to them. The greatest loss was on the early tomatoes which bring a fancy price. By pecking into the fruits as they turn yellow just previous to ripening, Brown says the pheasants destroyed between 75 and 100 bushel of tomatoes which were selling then at $5.50 and $6.00 a bushel, making a loss of between five and six hundred dollars. He harvested less than 2 bushels of sound fruit at that time. F l -137- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN CROPS (CONT'D) gg£n_- Early in September they left the tomatoes and began on the sweet corn. When the corn began to harden, very little damage was done there. Brown considers 20% of a con- servative figure in stating the loss to his corn. Melons - Brown managed to get a few cantaloup before the pheasants did, but says that they took about 75% of them. As he grows only a few melons and does not consider them a money crop, his loss, though high in percentage, was low in dollars as compared with the other 2 crops. His belief was that the pheasants attack the cantaloup for the seeds and that they much prefer cantaloup (or musk- melon) to watermelon. He told of a neighbor who had a canta— loup patch 4 or 5 rods from the house. Through the center of this patch was a row of watermelons, and the report was that the pheasants peeked into most of the cantaloup while the water- melons were not touched. Mr. Brown says he first thought that the crow was his tomato competitor, but after having poisoned all the crows, the competition continued. One day he saw a flock of 52 pheasants and then he began to suspect them. Coming out to the tomato field early one morning he saw the pheasants doing the damage. He had heard that pans of water set in the field would prevent further damage. This was tried and failed as it has -158- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN CROPS (CONT‘D) in many other instances. As a last resort, Mr. Brown tried the shotgun method of frightening the birds, but this also proved valueless. Perhaps if he had begun the shotgun method earlier he would have had more success. A Williamston farmer reported success by this method when applied early in the season, apparently before the pheasants had developed a taste for tomatoes. -139- REPORT 7 PHEASANT DAMAGE TO STRANBERRIES AND CORN J. G. Kunzleman Livingston County Fowlerville, Michigan September 25, 1951 Mr. J. G. Kunzleman lives six miles southeast of Webberville, Michigan in Hanly Township, Livingston County. He reported that this year just as in the past years, pheas- ants paid frequent visits to his garden and destroyed consid- erable sweet corn, pop corn and strawberries. Mrs. Kunzleman wrote to the Conservation Department giving an account of the depredations by the pheasants and asking if the state did not want to buy their farm to be used as a game refuge. I visited the farm September 25 and found that the Kunzlemans really like to see the pheasants about them just as many other farmers do, but theirs was another case of just too many pheasants. I was told that each year the Kunzlemans try to clear a little more land so that it may be farmed. The garden is adjacent to some very good pheasant cover, and the pheasants were there in considerable numbers. The family depends upon the sweet corn and strawberries, especially the latter, for a living. They had 8 rows of sweet corn in a strip about 20 rods long. There were approximately 50 rows of strawberries 20 rods long. Half are of the mastodon variety, and the other half are Senators. -140- PHEASANT DAMA E TO STRAWBERRIES AND CORN (CONT'D) Type and EXtent of Injury 2232 - Mrs. Kunzleman reported that she was able to pick but two masses of sweet corn this year. The pheasants ate the rest before it reached the roasting-ear stage. One small area of corn was saved for canning because of its better quality, but when it came time to pick it there was not enough to pay to can. Since the ears were so near to the ground, it was no trouble for a pheasant to peck off the kernels. Crows may have been responsible for some of the damage, but I know pheasants were present because I flushed 11 in the corn and later another was flushed. Mrs. Kunzleman said there was injury to pop corn last spring when it was pulled by the pheasants shortly after appear- ing above ground. Strawberries - Both Mastodons and Senators were attacked and the injury was simple. The ripe and ripening berries were pulled off and left lying a few inches to a foot from the vine. Some berries had a hole packed into them while others had none. Money was borrowed last year to buy some new plants, and this year not enough berries were picked to pay this debt. Mrs. Kunzleman reported she was able to get but 58 quarts of berries this year, whereas she used to pick 1 crate (24 quart baskets) every other day for three months. I am sure that the -l41- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO STRAWBERRIES AND CORN (CONT'D) dry weather was in part responsible for this loss because the berries were much smaller than normal. I saw no pheasants in the strawberries, but had opportunity to see the damage as described above. If the state will not buy the Kunzleman farm, Mrs. Kun- zleman said they would continue to destroy pheasant cover, both to reduce pheasants and to make more cultivated land on their 80 acres. This, I believe, will be the only legal solution for the farmers until the state provides some method of pro- tecting them against this game bird when it becomes a nuisance. -142- REPORT 8 BLACKBIRD AND PHEASANT DAMAGE TO SWEET CORN D. R. Bassett Ingham County Lansing, Michigan June 11, 1952 Early this Spring, Mr. D. R. Bassett talked with me about the pheasants which had injured his corn in past years. He said most of the injury was done in the spring when the corn was dug out, and garden peas were also dug at that time. Mr. Bassett said he would notify me as soon as the birds began their destructive work this spring. Not having heard from Mr. Bassett since our first meet- ing, I visited his lZ-acre farm on June 11 to find out whether he was having any pheasant injury. A considerable proportion of his small acreage was very excellent pheasant cover of dense brush and swale. Mr. Bassett explained that he had had so little pheasant damage that he did not consider it worth a complaint. He found that the pheasants were just as plentiful as in other years (over 50 have been seen at one time), but this spring he had spread stable manure on a field and this, he believed, is the reason for so little corn injury. The manure contained a lot of grain and each morning several pheasants were seen feeding in the manure. After gorging themselves, they were not in- clined to dig corn. Mr. Bassett says he will do likewise next -143- BLACKBIRD AND PHEASANT DAMAGE TO SWEET CORN (CONT'D) year. This accidental discovery did not completely eliminate the damage, but reduced it materially. Mr. Bassett estimated that one-sixth of each row of corn over an area of about 150 x 200 feet had to be replanted. The digging he said was done by both blackbirds (grackle and red-wings) and pheasants, but did not know how muca to charge to each species. He pointed out to me several places in which the corn had been recently dug. There were two distinct types of holes at such places. One was typical of pheasant work; the other was more of the crow type, but may have been made by blackbirds. -144- REPORT 9 PHEASANT DAMAGE TO CORN William Franklin Eaton County Delta, Michigan June 15, 1952 This report reached me through the Conservation Depart- ment, and I called upon Mr. Franklin on June 15. His farm of 14 acres is a long rectangle in shape, and he finds pheasant damage to corn in the fields away from the house so serious that he has already given up the idea of trying to raise corn. One year he replanted a whole field (4 acres) three times and then got a poor stand. This year he had the field planted to cats. In another field of about 1 acre, Mr. Franklin planted corn this spring. Only half of the field was planted, because the rest of the field was low, wet and full of willows. The cultivated area was L-shaped and bounded the wet area on two sides. Franklin said that so much corn was dug out that he decided it useless to replant to corn. Instead, he planted it to melons and potatoes - two crops which the pheasants have not injured on his farm. Tomatoes and strawberries are near the house and have not been bothered. —— ...-fit .. .. -145- REPORT 10 PHEASANT DAMAGE TO SWEET CORN, STRAWBERRIES AND GARDEN PEAS S. Hymer Ottawa County Spring Lake, Michigan June 15, 1952 Mr. Rymer finds that the pheasants eat whatever a chicken will, and the chickens would eat practically every- thing he raises if they were not kept in pens. He named a long list of crops which he claimed were damaged for him by pheasants. The list included practically everything that he usually raises. To date the injured crops are corn, straw- berries and peas. Peas - This year the peas escaped very serious injury from digging because the men were working nearby during the critical period. However, Mr. Rymer expects considerable dam- age to the pods in a few days by the pheasants pecking into them. Corn - Sweet corn is a money crop to Mr. Rymer and he has four acres of it this year. Due to his particular location he is able to produce corn for market several days before any one else and thus get a fancy price for the first corn. The corn which has been destroyed by the pheasants in the spring is not replanted because it would be too late in maturing. -146- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO SWEET CORN, STRAWBERRIES AND GARDEN PEAS (CONT‘D) He pointed out several missing hills in the corner of a field knee-high corn which he said was a result of pheasant digging. In another field of smaller corn there was a row planted in a dead furrow in which practically every hill was missing for a distance of about 100 feet. Mr. Rymer says the pheasants prefer corn in furrows because there is more chance for hiding in the depression. After the pheasants were first liberated in this vicin- ity, Mr. Rymer reports a falling off of his corn harvest then a sudden rise the year following the first Open season. The summer of the last closed season he harvested less than 700 dozen ears, and the following year the harvest was over 9,000 ears. His present average yield is between 8,000 and 9,000 dozen ears. He treats his seed with Ceresan Jr. to prevent root rot, and this does not affect the pheasants in any way. Strawberries - Mr. Rymer has two rows of strawberries immediately behind his barn. From them I picked six or eight berries which had been pecked into by birds. This injury I was told was the work of pheasants. Later on, while walking cautiously through the adjacent woods I saw 5 robins in the strawberries. One soon left and each of the other two went up a row of berries, taking one or more peeks frOm several ripe . _-:—-:ur ~v—- -147- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO SWEET CORN, STRAWBERRIES AND GARDEN PEAS (CONT'D) berries. It may be that the robins are responsible for as many (if not more) injured strawberries as are the pheasants. Mr. Rymer's one hundred and fifty-two acre farm is al- most completely surrounded by water (river, swales and bayous). On one side is some idle land which belongs to a hunting club and, according to Mr. Hymer, it is unnecessarily restocked each year. Beyond the waters which bound the Rymer farm I noticed that there Was considerable idle land. Rymer claims that the owners of this land were forced to surrender their farming activities because of the pheasants. Now that the land is idle and furnishes less food for the pheasants, Mr. Rymer says they flock on his farm from miles around. However, the damage on this farm did not appear nearly as great as reported. 7 ~148- REPORT 11 PHEASANT, CROW AND GRACKLE ON CORN Fred Peck Eaton County Eaton Rapids, Michigan June 25, 1952 Upon investigating Mr. Peck's damage report, I dis- covered that it was based chiefly upon damage done two years ago. Mr. Peck is unable to explain why there has been so little wild-life injury in the last two years. He believes that the pheasants, crows and grackles are just as numerous as they were then and that the crops have been just as well located in relation to the long swale which lies along the east line fence and runs through part of his 56 acres. How— ever, Mr. Peck has made one change in the past two years and that is clearing a portion of the swale of brush. The grass is yet high. This year he had six acres of corn adjacent to the cleared portion, and he suffered very little damage to it. Mr. Peck reports that two years ago the pheasants ate practically all of his sweet corn that he was saving for seed. Out of 6 or 8 rows which were about 8 rods long he says he found 2 or 5 good ears that the pheasants had not ruined. He said he had nearly all of 2 1/2 acres of field corn dug and pulled by pheasants and crows two years ago this spring and another field of 5 acres had some corn destroyed also. That t ~149- PHEASANT, CROW AND GRACKLE ON CORN (CONT'D) same spring the cock pheasants used to visit his chicken yard and 2 or 5 white leghorn roosters were killed in battles with the pheasants. Last summer the pheasants broke off the heads of ripe, standing wheat along the edge of the field. He did not consider this injury of much importance. I have seen English sparrows do considerable damage to wheat and part of his loss may have been due to this species. Mr. Peck is of the opinion that all pheasants, crows and grackles share honors in corn injury during the spring. He ranks crews and grackles above pheasants as destroyers of corn in the ear. The only damage to ear corn by pheasants that he has experienced Was to sweet corn as described above. Last fall the rabbits gnawed the bark off of a few peach trees. The injury that Mr. Peck pointed out to me was, in each case, on small low shoots rather than on the trunk of the three year old trees. He said the injury was done before snow fell. Peck reports that opossums seem to be on the increase in that vicinity. He showed me a hole in which he said two or three dead chickens had been buried until an opossum dug them up recently. It was the first opossum he had seen, but he says about half a dozen have been caught in the neighborhood. ~150- PHEHSANT, 01—20:; 3TB maria ON C N-N (CONT‘D) Quail in that vicinity are also increasing slightly, Mr. Peck believes. They have held their own in spite of the pheasant which many report as an important quail enemy. A covey of twenty or more stayed around his farm buildings last winter. -151- REPORT 12 STARLINGS ON SWEET CORN AND MELONS Andrew Kurtz Monroe County Monroe, Michigan June 29, 1952 Mr. Kurtz reports that the starlings caused him con- siderable losses on his sweet corn and melons this spring. He states that the seeds of both the corn and melons were dug up, cracked open and the insides eaten and all his first planting of corn was dug out. He said he replanted the en- tire three acres and of the second planting he had parts of eight or ten rows which escaped injury. The remainder of the N field was from third and fourth plantings. Mr. Kurtz says that I the starlings will start in on a row of newly planted corn and take each kernel as they go, "seeming to know just where the corn lies". He explained that the bill is used as a probe to reach the corn which is then removed, cracked open and eaten. It seems that no scratching is done with the feet. ; Damage may continue after the corn comes up. In this 1 case a "neat little hole is made next to the stalk and down to the kernel". The kernel is then pulled from the roots and eaten. I was told the stalk of corn may be so badly injured by root exposure that it dies. Adjacent to his sweet corn Mr. Kurtz had planted two acres of watermelons»and muskmelons about April 15 with hopes -l52- STARLINGS ON SWEET CORN AND MELONS (CONT‘D) of having early melons. When he went out to the field a few days later to see if the plants were up he found 7 little holes on most hills instead of 7 little plants. Out of 15 rows having approximately 50 hills each Mr. Kurtz found about 15 hills which had been untouched. Not knowing then what animal was responsible for the damage he says he replanted, but moved the rows over several inches. The same thing happened so Mr. Kurtz hid himself in the field before daybreak. From his blind he said he watched the starlings dig out the seeds, hull them and eat the insides. Less injury was done to the second planting, only about 75% of the hills were destroyed. Kurtz said the birds continued their work over a period of about five weeks and a third and fourth planting was necessary to get the partial stand which there was on June 29. One of the fields suffered more injury than any other part so Mr. Kurtz finally planted it to beans. This portion of the field is in a slight depression and is adjacent to an orchard and buildings. Mr. Kurtz says that the orchard and buildings used to "harbor many starlings" until he began to shoot them off. Eleven dollars worth of melon seeds had been put into this field. The starlings seem to like watermelon seed and muskmelon seed equally well. -155- STARLINGS ON SWEET CORN AND MELONS (CONT‘D) Mr. Kurtz says he has spent several mornings and eve- nings in the field watching the various birds, and he finds that the killdeer will eat muskmelon and cucumber seed, but this bird has not caused any serious trouble. In the evening he has seen kingbirds eat melon seeds left lying on the ground. A farmer in Williamston township also claims to have seen a killdeer eating his cucumber seeds. It seems unlikely that killdeers would adopt such feeding habits and it is pro- bable that there was an error in the identification of the bird. Several hills were covered with boxes to protect the young plants from frost. These hills escaped starling injury. Mr. Kurtz plans to have about 100 of these boxes on hand next spring to cover the hills so that he can get a few early melons. I asked Mr. Andrews, County Agricultural Agent, how many farmers had reported starling trouble to him. He said that Mr. Kurtz's report was the only one which he had on file, but "one or two other farmers had mentioned having a little trouble". -154- REPORT 15 DAMAGE TO ORCHARD AND GARDEN BY VARIOUS ANIMALS L. N. Heward Oakland County Farmington, Michigan July 2, 1932 Mr. Howard has but a small garden and although it is near to the house he finds that the starlings are very destructive to the young plants. Pheasants are quite common but have done very little damage to the crops. Pheasants .have peaked into tomatoes, but Mr. HCWard finds that this bird can be frightened and made to stay away from the garden. This is not so with the starling. This year for a month (may 15 to June 15) the star- lings were very destructive, and they were seen in the early morning eating off or pulling up young plants of beets, lettuce and cabbage. Mr. Howard reported that the starling destroyed two rows of beets, 1 row of lettuce and 1 row of Chinese cabbage. Each row was about 5 rods long. The sweet corn suffered little or no injury. This is the first year that the starlings had become such a nuisance, which is per- haps one indiCAtion of their natural increase in numbers. Mr. Howard has 40 acres of apple orchard. He finds pennsylvanicus pennsylvanicus or the pine mouse, Microtus that the "moles" (probably the meadow mouse, Microtus l I -155- DAMAGE TO ORCHARD AND GARDEN BY VARIOUS ANIMALS (CONT'D) pinetorum scalopsoides) girdle some of the young trees while rabbits girdle the older ones. However, this damage was not considered as being serious since there was so little of it done. Last year it was first noticed that several species of birds were pecking into the ripe areas of a number of apples while still on the tree. Robins and catbirds are the two greatest cherry consumers. Mr. Howard said that from eight good cherry trees these birds eat on an average of 1 1/2 to 2 bushels of fruit each year. He says this feeding is as costly if not more so than the feeding of all animals in his apple or- chard. -156- REPORT 14 BARKING OF MAPLE AND BEECH TREES BY UNKNOWN ANIMAL E. Sherman Newaygo County Fremont, Michigan July 19, 1932 This summer Mr. Sherman experienced a type of dam- age tc his sugar maple and beech woods which was new to him. This damage was the tearing off of the outer bark, apparent- ly by some rodent, and the consumption of the cambium layer. The greatest quantity of bark was being removed in June. At that time Mr. Sherman said that each morning one could see several trees which had been freshly girdled and others, although not completely girdled, had great areas of exposed sapwood. Comparatively little damage was being done in July, 1952. I found that the trees ranging from 5 to 6 inches d. b. h. (diameter breast height) had suffered the greatest injury to both trunk and branches. The extent of barking on trees of this size ranged from tiny patches of 1 square inch or less to complete girdling, starting near the surface of the soil and reaching as high as four feet. Larger trees had the bark removed frOm exposed roots. I found no trees of less than 5 inches d. b. h. that had been injured. I estimated that about one-third of all maple trees above -157- BARKING OE MAPLE AND BEECH TREES BY UNKNOWN ANIMAL (CONT'D) 5 inches d. b. h. in this five acre lot were damaged. The fewer beech trees which are of little value were less ser- iously injured. At the base of a barked tree were the fragments of outer bark. These fragments ranged in size from tiny chips to stripe nearly an inch wide and six inches long. The sapwood was slightly roughened by fine teeth marks running vertically. Mr. Sherman does not think that the squirrels were the guilty animals. He said squirrels seemed to be no more numerous than the previous year. I saw not over 10 squirrels at different times. By concealing myself I was able to watch the squirrels at close range during evening and early morning, and I did not see the slightest indication that they were eat- ing the bark, although there were many damaged trees in the area. Lhu Sherman said that one porcupine was caught in the neighborhood several years ago. I do not believe, however, that this damage is done by porcupine because of the small size of the teeth marks. Neither do I believe it to be the work of woodchucks (although there are woodchucks'holes in the woods), because small branches in the tips of trees are frequently barked. The damage seems to be done while the squirrels are sleeping. -l58- REPORT 15 PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TOMATOES George Evanoff Wayne County Detroit, Michigan August 22, 1952 Mr. Evanoff has a forty-acre truck farm on the Seven Mile Road. Like many other farms on the outskirts of Detroit much of it is not under cultivation and pheasants are plenti- ful. The uncultivated areas are allowed to grow weeds, chief- ly ragweed and wild carrot. Such places afford excellent cover for the pheasants and frequently the tomatoes are ad- jacent to the weeds. Mr. Evanoff had nearly two acres of tomatoes divided among three patches. One patch Was near the house and high- way and as one might expect this suffered the least damage. Very rarely could one find a ripe tOmato which had not been peeked into in the other two patches. The result was that by August 22 Mr. Evanoff had sold less than five bushels of tomatoes and he estimated that about sixty bushels had been thrown away. An attempt to pick the tomatoes just before they were completely ripe was given up, because it was found that the pheasants promptly peeked the fruit just as soon as one side turned yellow or red. I found an occasional, perfectly green tomato that was damaged. Evanoff says that if the tomatoes Jain-.....- an... -159- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TOIVIATOES (CONT'D) are picked when green and sound and allowed to ripen off of the vine they are of poorer quality. The only method of control has been that of chasing the birds out from time to time, but they merely wait until the chaser has left then they return. Eight or ten birds have been flushed at one time by Evanoff, but he believes that there were nearly fifty feeding on his tomatoes. He believes, as do many others, that the pheasants are seeking a drink when they eat into a tomato. Although the amount of this type of damage may be somewhat increased during a dry season, it does not hold that there would be no damage dur- ing a wet season since the pheasants show a decided prefer- ence for the sweet tOmato juice as compared to water. Several good sized, but green, muskmelons were found with deep holes in them about two inches in diameter. Since no crows have been seen in the garden at any time this seems to be the work of pheasants. The melon patch of about two acres is adjacent to a damaged tomato patch. Peppers next to the tomatoes were not touched. Evanoff estimates his loss on tomatoes Was between $150 and p200. -l60- REPORT 16 PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN Julius Neirynck Wayne County Lockmoor, Michigan August 23, 1952 Mr. Neirynck rents sixty—five acres just north of the Seven Mile Road on hack Avenue. The farm is a narrow strip of land a mile long, and it is all under cultiVation. However, there is a woods on the north, and the land on the south is not tilled to any great extent. Mr. Neirynck grows tomatoes, melons, sweet corn, and cucumbers. All these furnish food for the great number of pheasants. Neirynck has counted 72 pheasants in two groups not farm from his house. Mr. Neirynck has lived on this farm for seven years, but it was only four years ago that pheasants became a ser- ious pest. Each year since then Neirynck as well as neighbor- ing farmers report that this bird's depredations have become more serious. To make matters even worse, the village closed these farms to hunting at all times. In his four acres of tomatoes, Neirynck has had the same old experience of the pheasants pecking into the fruits as soon as they begin to ripen. Of course, the damage starts with the first of the season when the price is the highest. One must see such a field to appreciate how serious a pest -161- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN (CONT'D) pheasants can become in certain localities. A great many more bushels of tomatoes are ruined by the birds than are ever sold in fact, Neirynck could only get enough tomatoes to sell them by the basket and not by the bushel. It is not the total quantity of tomatoes eaten by the pheasants that make such a serious problem, but rather the quantity wasted by them. A pheasant seldom pecks into a fruit which has already been fed upon. And, as Mr. Neirynck found, if an injured tomato is placed on the ground with the hole hidden underneath, the pheasants seldom if ever touch it. It requires but a single peck in a tomato to make it unmarketable. The sweet corn was still too small for marketing, but the pheasants had already begun feeding on it. Mr. Neirynck said that when the sweet corn was gone the pheasants would start eating his field corn even as it stood in the field. He says he has seen grown pheasants fly up and hang on the side of an ear of field corn while feeding on it as do wood- peckers. I have never seen this done. The muskmelons were not yet ripe, but a few tiny ones had been eaten. Mr. Neirynck expected considerable damage when the melons ripened. Such damage, he says, occurs each year. -l62- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN (CONT'D) The cucumber patch of two rows about 100 yards long had 6 or 8 dozen injured fruits. The birds seemed to prefer the green to the ripe cucumbers. All sizes from the smallest to the largest were pecked into. In some cases, little more than the rind remained. Mr. Neirynck picks up the damaged crops by the bushel and computes his yearly loss by the current market price. This now comes to about @500 a year, and he is behind $400 in rent. Mr. Fisher, a neighbor, computed his loss on two acres of tomatoes to be $200 on account of pheasant feeding this year. Mr. Fisher used to raise corn and melons also, but found that with so many pheasants on the farm (15 acres) these crops were a losing proposition. It is unfortunate that the village puts a hunting restriction on these farms. However, this restriction has only been in effect for less than two years and in previous years the pheasants continued to increase in spite of the open season shooting. In my opinion, the State of Michigan could do much to help farmers who are over-run with pheasants, and who do not live under any town hunting restrictions, by issuing written permits allowing the landowner or renter (with the landowner‘s -165- PHEASANT DAMAGE TO TRUCK GARDEN (CONT'D) consent) to shoot any pheasants on his farm at any time. Most farmers like to see a few pheasants around, but when they reach such numbers that the farmers lose more than a hundred dollars a year, from pheasant feeding alone, it is not surprising that they condemn these birds. Farmers who otherwise would not think of shooting during the closed season will then shoot to kill at any time. And partly for this reason, a great deal of illegal hunting is said to be going on; in fact, some farmers do not hesitate to tell of shooting pheasants out of season. ~164- REPORT 17 CROW DAMAGE TO SMALL HUSKMELONS A. Wesley Wayne County Detroit, Michigan August 25, 1952 While tramping through the fields looking for signs of crop damage near the Seven Mile Road, I chanced to meet Mr. Wesley, who was hoeing corn. I asked him if the pheas- ants had been giving any trouble to his garden. He replied, "No, not very much. Oh, they occasionally dig out a few potatoes, but the crows are the bad ones. Come and I'll show you what they are doing to the muskmelons". He took me to a melon field of six acres which was half a mile from the nearest house, but near to two woods. In the field were half a dozen scarecrows. We walked through the field, and I noticed that most of the damage was at the sides and at the far end along which were several trees in a fence row. However, there was considerable damage in other parts, except within about twenty yards of each scarecrow. Very fresh holes in the melons indicated that the birds were still feeding upon them. Wesley felt certain that crows were the guilty birds, although he had not seen them actually feeding on the melons, but he Said that each day ten or twelve crows spent some time in the patch as he had seen them from a distance. I saw no trace of pheasants, but saw ~165- CROW DAMAGE TO SMALL MUSKMELONS (CONT'D) a crow fly out of the melon field as I approached, and there were several crows in this vicinity all day. This case Was rather interesting since only the small green melons were eaten. The larger ones were not touched, perhaps due to the harder rind. The injured melons ranged in length from two inches to five inches. In some cases the small melons were completely hollowed out leaving only the rind with a hole a little over an inch across. I estimated that one melon out of ten or fifteen were injured over most of the six acres. ~166- Ly3 ii. E. 1928. Field Book of North American mammals. G. E. Putnam's Sons, New York, N. Y. tt, .1. L. 1921. A Study of the Food Habits of the Ring- necked Pheasant. Circular 51, Office of the State Entomologist, Colorado Agricultural College. Charles B. 1912. The mammals of Illinois and Wiscon- sin. Eublication 155, Field Museum of Nat- ural History, Zoological Series, Vol. XI. am, C. 1929. The Status of the Ring-necked Pheasant in Utah. The Condor, 51:117-125. bach, E. l. 1918. The Crow and Its Relation to man. Bulletin 621, United States Department of Agriculture. 1920. The Crow and Its Relation to Agri- culture. Farmers' Bulletin 1102, United States Department of Agriculture. 1928. The European Starling in the United States. Farmers' Bulletin 1571, United States Department of Agriculture. ~167- Maxson, Asa C. 1921. Feeding Habits and Food of the Ring- necked Pheasant. Circular 51, Office of the State Entomologist, Colorado Agricultural College. Pirnie, M. D. 1927. Report of the Investigation of the Feeding Habits of the Ring-necked Pheasant in Monroe and Other Counties in may and June 1927. Records of the Ornithology Division, New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, New York. 1950. Winter Feeding Stations and Foods for Ground Feeding Birds in Michigan. Bulletin 1, Michigan Department of Conservation. Ritchie, James. 1951. Beasts and Birds as Farm Pests. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Scotland. Swank, H. M. 1950. The Food Habits of the Ring-necked Pheas- Iant in Central Nebraska. Research Bulletin 50, University of Nebraska Agricultural Exper- iment Station. -168- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author gratefully expresses his appreciation to all who were of assistance in this work. Particular acknowledgment is given to mr. Harry F. Harper then Presi- dent of the Izaak Walton.League, Michigan Division, who founded and financed for the first year the Research Fellow- ship which made possible these studies; to ur. H. D. Ruhl of the Game Division, Conservation Department, who gave many helpful suggestions and whose Division financed the second year of this project; to Dr. M. D. Pirnie, Director of the Kellogg Bird Sanctuary, for his many helpful sugges- tions and sound guidance and for the use of pheasant pens and other equipment; to Dr. H. R. Hunt, Prof. J. w. Stack and G. N. Bradt of the Zoology Department for.va1uable suggestions. 4160- PHOTOGRAPHS 1 E0. Close-up of hill of seedling corn damaged by pheasant. Typical scene of corn digging by pheasants. . .—~'- . - --.—....-.”mm Holes left where pheasants dug out corn. Ripe corn fed on by pheasant. No. Result of pheasant feeding on corn shock. J " 1 i r-i 1 Mo. 6 General view of tomato field 4' damaged by pheasants. Ho. Tomatoes showing typical pheasant injury. Watermelon and muskmelons damaged by pheasant. ;! General view showing relationship of melon patch to pheasant cover. No. 10 Close-up of cucumber damaged by pheasant. No. 11 Results of captive pheasants digging on experimental corn plot. HEDWEEJD , 4 7.1.077. 30 b: , No. 12 Typical corn stalk injury, believed to have been perpetrated by crow, occurring on College farm. Close-up of corn stalk injury, believed to have been perpe- trated by crows, taken near Rockford, Michigan. Fallen corn resulting from injury to stalks. Similar to Figures 12 and 13. Close-up of typical crow damage to corn ear. Typical scene of crow damage to corn ears. No. 17 Crow damage to corn which was fed on from the ground. E0. 18 Typical crow damage to green muskmelons. Close-up of one of the melons shown in Fig. 18. Cucumbers believed to have been damaged by crows. Taken from near corn field which was damaged by crows. No. 21 Typical grackle damage to ear corn. Flock of grackles flushed from corn field upon which they had been feeding. NO. 23 Close-up of tip of corn ear showing typical red-winged blackbird injury. Heads of green foxtail, fed on by red-winged blackbirds, taken from a corn field. Slight injury to a corn ear by a red-headed woodpecker. no. 26 Typical red-headed woodpecker injury to corn ear. 27 No. pecker injury A slightly different form of red-headed wood to corn. Cross section of ear shown in Fig. 27 showing how the kernels are injured slightly in advance of the torn husk. One type of fox squirrel injury to corn. Several corn ears showing various types of fox squirrel injury. No. 31 Decay in watermelon resulting from a small hole eaten through the rind by fox squirrel. 32 No. A watermelon badly damaged by fox squirrel. Trunk of maple tree injured by an unknown mammal. 54 No. Close-up of tree shown in Fig. 33 showing teeth marks on the trunk. Sweet corn ear showing typical raccoon damage. Sweet corn ear fed on by raccoon and left on the Stalk. No. 57 Green corn injured by muskrat showing height to which the stalks are cut. 11‘ ...: «a 58 No. "Rag dolls" ready to be rolled. No. 39 The completed "rag dolls". SHEET NO. 2 The State Depa Outline . . (HUI, '1!" V 1529}: imaged; ...}: If. I" In." ( ., .V 3.. ""7 I. ‘ . Tut??- we i J, “7;; V '1‘ a .‘ -. my», a. ‘4 vd'hu: ,4 ...,r 1 .4 A. ‘u , h." ., r. V A -"u 73.7717 my ...”; , .-_:};Ly;§"~}§,$5iz’ 31:5! , 3"" u- ' 3mm 9 ’ ‘ H x; ‘ ‘ M w \ ‘ ‘ ‘ 1“ x w‘ ‘ x w , 7 t" ‘ , r, 'i,‘.'. -,' A. ._ .f'r .‘"‘ F :’f E”! “"3! _‘lC‘7L,’:;: ‘5 'fi 1’ ' [2’53 ‘41? MUCH 4. “xvi “Amway 4x. “7' " r. ("A ; .\ Vwflhfigi "9+: . .t . , .LrA-I'tm M? ’ {E5113 ' .3." . 'fife; ;, . “23”}??? S‘ 11:7” _ ,4 ”0.3; ' rwy‘ ' ‘4 ' V 4 «, W .39» r . ’IIL‘3.'f£;-{’.TK‘ I 1.; .= ‘"I',-..n. :.E’fi.§‘,7wi}:$,),:; A‘ 11 [113,156 5325"? M4": A . . '1. .‘. ‘w‘e’fi'f «P ”1’ - ‘ l «a: L; '\ {£1 «a. :2; 51‘ E ;\ 1‘ :27" «ML; “(2. ..L 15.? r z? ‘u . “IN“- I ‘v."fv?;‘vr ..H" . 75" -n' [( u: 4 1;_‘: L. rm; '0, l . '- _ ‘ , n. "L 131'“ 03“” q u < 3} -:~ “ . A“ ‘ J $573353; 13; (.1. ' ~13. a,“ $1.. . I r}; l‘if 1 151,731, d. ‘2‘ 3:,ng t rm " - mu. «"1“. r ‘, is. N . w ‘1 x‘ i x W ‘1 \‘M 3 ; "(Ems . {Mind 5 up”. ' I: . “QC; . ‘ - ‘53-. ._ . 3 5 ’12 ['7' pg" (1'. ‘ ' l’u ... . .u .1 4,495,), {WM} 4, k , n ,,' I.’ -~'(