Why Are Wild Pheasants on the Decline?

January 15, 2015

The decline in wild pheasant numbers is primarily a result of habitat loss and fragmentation. For pheasant populations to recover and thrive once again, more improved available habitat must be developed. (Photo by Jeff Cann)

Question: Wild pheasants in the Sacramento Valley have been in steep decline for many years and very little effort, if any, is being made to help this once-abundant game bird make a comeback. Improved habitat conditions, a reduced season and lowered bag limits could help them recover. What was the Fish and Game Commission thinking when they raised the limit and extended the season to what it is today? (Wally S., Westlake)

Answer: One of the factors you mentioned was that improved habitat conditions could help, and that’s true. The decline in wild pheasant population numbers is primarily a result of habitat loss and fragmentation. Pheasant populations are still plentiful in the larger Midwestern states, primarily because those states rely on private lands programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program funded by the Farm Bill. This program provides subsidies to landowners to fallow their land and grow grasses and other vegetation that make good wildlife habitat. These programs also provide habitat corridors between public and private lands that are critical for pheasants to move. In the Central Valley, rice and other crops have higher values than the crops grown in the mid-west and so the economic incentives for landowners in California to modify their farming practices to benefit wildlife habitat are not there.

According to CDFW Senior Upland Game Scientist Scott Gardner, the general pheasant hunting season was increased by three weeks about 10 years ago because CDFW knew that few people continued to hunt wild pheasants after the opening weekend and the first few weeks of the season. The scientific literature suggests that rooster-only harvest has little effect on population growth, so this increase was not expected to have any effect on pheasant population growth. CDFW is currently working with Pheasants Forever and United States Geological Survey scientists to study pheasant population dynamics and identify factors limiting their populations. If the data suggests that reductions in pheasant hunting are needed, CDFW will make those recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission.

However, pheasant populations will not come back to their former levels through reductions in hunting alone. In order for wild pheasant populations to recover and thrive again, more available improved habitat is a must. This means more quality grasslands and small shrub habitat to provide undisturbed areas for cover, feeding, nesting and brood-rearing, along with travel corridors between fields and other habitats to allow them access to move around.

Ring necks aren't even native to CA. Why should DFW care to maintain their population?

Ring necks aren't even native to CA. Why should DFW care to maintain their population?

Because it falls within the scope of their mission statement.

The Mission of the Department of Fish and Wildlife is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.

    OK,,, we'll stop shooting so many     

 

The biggest proplem is farming practices, crops are grown property line to property line, with no habitat in between. The only place they can nest is in areas with good cover, and with less and less nesting areas, well, do the math. Also these limited areas are buffets for skunks, racoons, bobcats, coyotes, and other birds to feed on nests full of eggs. They have three strikes against them. Areas with lots of CRP land or native vegetation near a viable food source, have better populations of wild birds. The problem is, either it is private, or if it is public-it has enormous pressure.

I spent my first 24 years living in Iowa. I was never too serious about hunting, but I did hunt pheasant once in a while, beginning in the early 70s. The last time I hunted there was in the early 80s, and I haven't paid any attention to Iowa pheasant populations since. This post got my curiosity up, since the response specifically mentions "large" midwestern states as having good pheasant populations, and Iowa is not large by midwestern standards.

This link
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/arsrpt14.pdf
gives historical info on "roadside surveys" for Iowa pheasants. They list the average number of pheasants counted per 30 mile route, from 1962 thru 2014, separated by region of the state. For the southwest region, where I used to hunt, the number in 1981 was 97.1, while it has not exceeded 6.6 in any year of the current decade. They also claim there has been a loss of about 39% of upland habitat just since 1990. In 1990, the roadside survey gave a result of 44.5 for southwest Iowa. So, it seems that the decline in the pheasant population exceeds what would be expected based on habitat loss alone.

In the answer provided by the DFW, they mention the need for "habitat corridors" and this really rings true to me. Starting in the late 70s, in the areas I hunted, I recall a major trend to remove fences and other border areas. Prior to that, fencerows basically connected virtually all habitat to all other habitat. I'd bet the loss of those "corridors" played a role in the collapse of the Iowa pheasant populations.

The bottom line? I won't be taking a vacation to hunt Iowa (or CA) pheasants any time soon...

Our wheat farm has areas with tons, and areas that are void. All depends if there is cover around for them. This is after harvest of course.

   Got me to thinking about the changes in habitat and effects on wildlife, not to mention the enviroment.

   I remember moving to Stockton in  the late seventies.   Fog would be so thick you couldn't see over the hood of your car most times.  I-5 was just being completed.   It was farm land for as far as you could see.
  Now,,,   development of homes and shopping centers have devoured all that rich fertile farm land  Paved over.
      More than just Pheasants on the decline.

The problem with pheasant decline is the banning of leghold traps for predator control. Go Look at all the Skunks and Coyotes in California Now.  Google Skunks in Marysville to see how many  have invaded that town. Since banning of  leghold traps and poison  the Pheasant, quail, and deer populations have been in a decline. Were I used to hunt pheasants Near the Sacramento airport 20 years ago  I would get up 500 to 1000 pheasants a day. Now same area maybe 10 pheasants in a day and 10 to 15 Coyotes. So I call BS to habitat depletion. It is predators eating them. Start counting how many coyotes you see on bike trail and on roadways. Goodbye Pheasants Goodbye Quail!!!! Maybe  Some of the Biologists who say its only habitat depletion should put trackers on some coyotes and see how many pheasants they eat a week.  Hmmmm lets see 250,000 coyotes in the State @ 1 pheasant a week reduces pheasant population by 13,000,000 birds a year.

The problem with pheasant decline is the banning of leghold traps for predator control. Go Look at all the Skunks and Coyotes in California Now.  Google Skunks in Marysville to see how many  have invaded that town. Since banning of  leghold traps and poison  the Pheasant, quail, and deer populations have been in a decline. Were I used to hunt pheasants Near the Sacramento airport 20 years ago  I would get up 500 to 1000 pheasants a day. Now same area maybe 10 pheasants in a day and 10 to 15 Coyotes. So I call BS to habitat depletion. It is predators eating them. Start counting how many coyotes you see on bike trail and on roadways. Goodbye Pheasants Goodbye Quail!!!! Maybe  Some of the Biologists who say its only habitat depletion should put trackers on some coyotes and see how many pheasants they eat a week.  Hmmmm lets see 250,000 coyotes in the State @ 1 pheasant a week reduces pheasant population by 13,000,000 birds a year.

If that were the case, then why is are the Dakotas and Minnesota also seeing pheasant population declines (which their officials also attribute to habitat loss)?  Leghold traps are legal in those states, no?

There were field's of wild oat grown for hay bordered by riparian habitat behind the Safeway in Anderson when I was a kid. You could stand there and watch pheasant go in and out of the edges of the fields non stop. Now it's all townhouses - no pheasants. I'd rather have the pheasants.

And trapping has an impact. When we moved here in 85, there was a guy a road over that trapped coyotes and bobcats regularly around our property. Flocks of 100+ turkeys were very common across our property almost daily. Many, many more deer, rabbits and quail as well. No trapping equals having to work for a turkey or two and the deer are sparse. Maybe see a dozen jackrabbit per year and there is ONE covey of quail that I know of around us. Can hear 5, 6, 7 packs of yotes all night long though and see singles or doubles running across or down the road fairly often.

Here's some info - links to the USGS Breeding Bird Survey site.  You can pick a species to see trends from 1966-2013, or play around on the site and get trends for different areas or time periods.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/tr2013/trend2013_v1.html

Here is the pattern for pheasants - significant rates of decline over much of their North American range.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/tr2013/tr03091.htm

In the bigger picture, as a group grassland bird species are declining at much greater rates compared to any other habitat group (e.g., forest birds, waterbirds, etc.) across North America.  Habitat loss is the most important factor with grassland habitat loss continuing due to development, some kinds of agriculture, exotic vegetation species and climate change.  Projections of many grassland bird species ranges into the future look grim.

My uncle used to tell me as a kid, "enjoy it, your kids wont have it like this." Now,  when I hunt/fish with the kids, I see it, and I quote that back to them. Imagine how good it was for my uncles thirty years ago to tell me that back then!?

The CRP And soil conservation, has taken most of our grain, from central coast! When those programs were started. The government said it would not effect our business. As only 10 percent would be in these programs. Well when figuring 10% they took in all the grain, alfa, Grapes, Pistachio, almond and apples not to mention olive, They took 10% and our business closed down. We used to be the largest JD dealer for hillside combines in the U.S. Now there are only about 5 farmers left to farm the grain here. Those fields provided food and nesting. As long as the pigs didn't find those bird's nests. We dry farmed here. I know in the valley east of here irrigates with water they get from up north. So we can't have it both ways. The only reason we have good pigs here is because some farms plant to feed pigs for their hunters. They get so much for a Pig it pays off. And they do not have the expense of a harvester.

Here in southern Sacramento County the birds decline seemed to coinside with farmers taking up planting corn with seed treated with a cocktail of pesticides that included diazinon, and the use of roundup to keep ditch banks "clean". What ever the cause, the decline was sharp, occurring over just a few years in the late 70's-early 80's. They are completely gone now. Haven't seen or heard a rooster in years.