Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BUREAU OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY

Wildlife Research and Management Leaflet BS-93

Washington, Dew Ge * HGoeitls IUS/Z%7/

THE CONTROLLED HUNTING AREAS AND THE PHEASANT REFUGE-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
IN NORTHWESTERN OHIO

By Lawrence 2. Hicks, Biologist, Section of Wildlife Surveys, Division of
Wildlife Research, and Director of the Onio Wildlife Research Station Ly

Introduction

_ Pheasant management, as developed in the study conducted in northwestern
Ohio, involves two phases--production and harvest. Production problems are
disposed of by the Ohio pheasant refuge-management system, and the harvest prob-
lems by various modifications of the Wood County controlled-hunting system. ‘The
two systems--production and harvest--exist and function well separately, but
because of their interdependence they reach their maximum efficiency when oper-
ated simultaneously on the same areas.

This report is not of a proposed or theoretical management-production
plan, but of management systems now in operation and carefully tested over
periods exceeding five years. The one best test of any management plan is
whether it actually succeeds, and at a cost less than that of other existing
methods. The present plan survives this test as it (a) preduces pheasants by
natural propagation at a small fraction of artificial propagation costs; (bd)
makes possible an average take of 50 to 80 cock birds per square mile; (c) pro-
duces surplus birds for stocking purposes, of which more than 2,000 have been
live-trapped in a single winter at low cost on a single refuge; (d) provides
good hunting for more sportsmen, not less; (e) involves participation of the
landowmmer in both the production (management) and the harvest of the crop; and
(f) provides an orderly harvesting system without abuses, which safeguards the
crop and creates ideal sportsmen-landowner relationships.

on

Presented, as a condensation of about 400 pages of more complete reports
at the Second North American Wildlife Conference, St. Louis, Mo., March 4, 1937.

General Statement

1. Ohio has 28 southeastern unglaciated hill counties that are
essentially worthless for pheasmt production and 15 additional counties
(mostly northeastern) that are relatively unproductive, because of mis-
céllaneous factors. “iis

e. In the remaining 45 counties (all either Till Plain or Lake
Plain counties) corn is the predominant agricultural crop and the natural
pheasant-producing capacity is high.

3. In many of these 45 counties (west central and northwestern Ohio)
the pheasant-producing capacity has been greatly increased during the last
ten years by the adoption and extension of the Ohio pheasant-refuge manaze-
ment system and the spread of the Wood County plan of controlled hunting.

4, These developments have made the ring-necked pheasant the principal
game bird of Ohio and have made possible the largest pheasant harvest of any
State east of the Mississippi, a take of more than 620,000 male birds annually.
More than 98 percent of this crop is produced by natural. propagation, and in
the best producing counties no artificially propagated birds are released.

5. The Ohio pheasant-refuge management system was developed from 1928
‘to 1932 and has been expanding rapidly and with increasing success since that

time.

6. The Wood County controlled-hunting plan began in 1930 and 1931 and

has been so successful that it has spread to all but one towmmship in the county

and is being adopted as rapidly as organization can be effected in many towm-—
ships of other counties of northwestern Ohio.

7. The Ohio. Wildlife Research Station, a cooperative organization
Maintained jointly by the Ohio State University, the American Wildlife
Institute, the State Division of Conservation, and the Federal Bureau of
Biological Survey, has made both the pheasant refuge-management system and
the controlled-hunting system the subjects of major research, with three men
assigned to the work. One of its staff members has been closely associated
with the present problems and related pheasant research since 1925.

The Ohio Pheasant-Refuge Management System
The Ohio pheasant-refuge management system involves-—-
1. A large permanent State-owned or State-leased centrally located
refuge in each towmship of 100 to 400 acres, including at least 40 acres of

timber and brush with some adjacent waste land and a network of drainage
ditches for use as dispersal paths.

2. The maintenance of about four smaller auxiliary refuges, one to
serve each corner of the township. These smaller refuges may be temporary
(for one or two years only) and without extensive manazement improvements.
They are locally maintained by the individual farmer, by a group of farmers
and sportsmen, or by the township cooperative-hunting association.

3. The production of a very. large pheasant crop on high-value lands
without inverference with agriculture. The region is intensively cultivated.
Forest land is less than 5 percent.. Townships have 88 percent to 99 percent
of their total area in farms and 70 percent to 90 percent in harvested crops.
Farms by towmmship average 75 to 110 acres. each and are worth $100 to $175 per
acre, even at present reduced land values.

4, . Education and cooperation of landowmers in the. best utilization of
the small acreage of wild land available for pheasant production: (a) Improve~
ment and preservation of small wooded or brushy tracts; (b) occasional weedy
fallow land for- nest cover; (c) roadside cover improvements and restriction on
mowing; (d) leaving fencerow cover; (e) use of occasional low-land-value sand

ridges with oak brush as refuges; (f) appreciation of high value of ditches

for nesting, shelter, and travel purposes; (2) minimizing. of nest destruction
during mowing of meadows; (h) leaving majority of corn crop uncut and a small
part or the glesnings unharvested for winter feeding; (i) control of the chief

predators: man, dogs, cats, and crows.

5. Management of the large State refuge. Development of cover, fencing
of pastured parts, cutting of clearings, and creation of- brush piles and shelters.
Encouragement of bait nesting—-cover on or near the refuge. Control of man, cats,
dogs, crows, and other predators where destructive. Planting of food strips along
refuge margins. Corn planted on or near the refuge usually shows some damage,
so the damaged parts and additional rows are purchased by the State and left
standing for winter feeding. Sinilar management measures are practiced to a
greater or lesser extent by individuals and associations on the auxiliary refuges.

6. Extensive winter feeding, chiefly with corn, both standing and ear
corn. Feeding is the key to a large pheasant crop, as a heavy breeding stock
requires much more food than thatusually available neturally. Feeding (a)
attracts birds to the safety of the refuge, (b) results in increased resistance
to winter hazaids, (c) results in increased disease resistance, (d) reduces
predation, (e) concentrates birds for scientific and management studies, (f)
enables checks on size of breeding stock, condition, and undesirable shifts in
the sex ratio, and (¢) results in a heavier, healthier bird that nests earlier
and with greater reproduction efficiency. Some feeding is done by farmers,
sportsmen, and associations on the auxiliary refuges or elsewhere.

7. Live trapping of surplus stock and removal to understocked areas.
A well-maintained State refuge in the center of a pheasant-management town-
ship should, with the aid of the euxiliary refuges, not only maintain the
breeding stock and a large harvest each fall, but produce a considerable surplus
as well. For instance, on the 36 square miles of Liberty Township, Wood County

t
eae
I

(see accompanying map), there is a take of 1,800 to 2,880 male birds each
year (50 to 80 per square mile). The take in 1936 was 2,366 (66 per square
mile). In spite of this heavy kill, more than 1,80C birds were live—trapped
(winter of 1936-37) on the single central refuge and removed for stocking
elsewheré.

8. Leaving reproduction stock. As about 600 birds were left on the
refuge for stocking purposes, the early winter population of the refuge was
about 2,400 birds. As the auxiliary refuges and the remainder of the town—
ship can easily be demonstrated to have 50 percent or more of the township's
pheasant population, the total pheasant population wes at least twice 2,400,
or 4,800 (134 birds per square mile), at the end of the hunting season and at
least 4,800 plus the kill of 2,400 birds, or 7,200 birds (200 per square mile)
at tne beginning of the 9-day hunting season, November 15-25. Shifts in sex
ratio figures based on several thousand birds observed before and after the
hunting season substantiate these figures. ‘

9. Production of a surplus above the take. A properly maintained
central refuge makes possible not only a large annual kill but also the pro-
duction of a valuable surplus of 1,500 to 2,000 birds. If the total cost of
the refuge maintenance be charged up to the surplus birds produced, the cost
per bird (exclusive of labor costs) is no more than 20 to 24 cents. These
birds are of high class stock from an inheritance standpoint and considerably
healthier and heavier than most artificially propagated birds. As they are
already acclimatized and adjusted to cold, natural foods, oredators, and other
natural conditions, and are not malnourished, they have an exceedingly high
rate of survival. They tend to remain where released--not a single bird has
ever returned to the refuge where trapped, and recoveries tend to be very near
the point of release. For the above reasons, these naturally propagated birds
have proved to be superior for stocking purposes. Research data now on file
would indicate that these choice birds naturally produced have a stocking value
equal to at least 1.5 to 2.0 typical game-farm adults and equal to 3 to 8
artificially propagated baby. pheasants of 8 to 12 weeks of age, because of
their greater survival and reproductive ability.

Such general management measures would not produce equivalent results
on low-quality pheasant territory... With present techniques, costs would be
much greater and the results rather disappointing on marginal and submarginal
pheasant territory. In most of the instances where this system has given best
results, no. 1 or no. 2 pheasant territory was concerned. The former accidental
pheasant yield on these same areas, however, was only a small fraction of the
present planned or managed yield.

The success of the refugse-management system depends upon (a) proper
selection of the refuge area in relation to sound wildlife-agricultural land
use, (bd) cooperation of landowmmers and sportsmen with "more pheasants desired"
a@universal attitude, and (c) a hard working, intelligent game protector and
refuge manager of the county agricultural-agent type, who can appeal to local
pride, who believes wholeheartedly in his work, and who is immme to inclement
weather, bribes, and discouragements. He must be able to solve difficult
local problems without guidance, to teach by demonstration and example, and
to make management suggestions so indirectly and in such a subtle way that
those who adopt them feel that the new practices are really their ow ideas.

eae, Bin

The pheasant refuge management system makes possible a pheasant
yield sufficiently large to warrant tne establishment of @ controlled-
hunting system. This system, in turn, helps to insure the permanency of
the pheasant crop and to develop the farmer-sportsmen relationships upon
which the crop in no small part depends. Hither system can be developed
and function separately, but the most strixzing results and the greatest
Pheasant yields have been obtained where tie two systems nave functioned
side by side.

The Wood County Controlled-Hunting System
The Wood County controlled-hunting system began its development in
1930 as a defense against trespassing abuses during the hunting season.
The following notice to hunters was issued by the Plain Church Game’ Protective
Association of Wood County: '

As the hunting season approaches, ths can of land-
Owners increases. It is a deplorable and well-known fact
that many who are otherwise law-abiding citizens become
outlaws when out hunting. They kill our quail, hen pheasants,
poultry, and sometimes our livestock, destroy our fences,
and utterly disregard the game laws by trespassiug upon our
land without permission. Since these laws are so flagrantly
violated by so many unscrupulous hunters, therefore, we, as
farmers have met and organized ourselves into an association.

In spite of their common complaint against trespassing BTESES and
their common desire to end them, orgeniz zation difficulties might have pre=
vented any cooperative solution had it not been that the township was a
natural unit, that is, the majority of the residents of each township at-
tended the same township school, church, grange, or lodge. Hence, the
social factor was important, individuel differences of opinion being sub~
merged in the cooperative plan so that to remain cutside meant a degree of
social ostracism. The first real association, the Plain Church Geme Pro~
tective Association, succeeded because of an addi tional commanity objective,
the raising of ‘money to pay off a mortgage and build a new cuurch. _

The development of these associations has bsen carefully followed
from the beginning, and during the past year a project cf the Ohio Wildlife
Research Station has included a careful survey of each associatiur, with a
tabulation of some 140 points about each, followed by an indi viduel analysis
and evaluation, It has been an unusual opportunity to observe this big
out-door experiment, with contrasting systems developing side by side.
Features that have proved desirable or undesirable heve been carefully analyze
as to Why did it work? or Why did it fail to work? As the years have passed
the set-up for the associations has tended toward standardization by borrowing
the best features of the most successful,

No two associations have the same regulations but the general set-up
is about as follows:

1. The majority of the landowners of a township (or part of a
township ) form a geme-protective association.

2. Hunting is by-association members ‘only.

3. Landowners, tenants, and their children hunt on their own
land without permit or ' elsewhere in the territory of the association on
a 2o-cent permit,

4. Township residents who do not own land can join the association
for 50 cents.

5. Nonresidents of the township become members of the association
by purchase of a permit tag at prices ranging from $2 to $3.50. Depend-
_ ing on the size of the game crop, an upper limit of 200 to 350 outsider’
permits EC be sold is established (about 2 for each 50 acres).

6. Purchase of nonresident permit ene teg is worn on hunting coat)
entitles the holder to hunt on all association lands in the township (usually
6,000 to 20,000 acres+-a map given with permit designates the open areas) dur-
ing the 9-day open season (November 15-25, one Sunday out) and the kill is
restricted to three species; Pheasants, Hungarian partridges, and rabbits.

7. General information about the permit holder is recorded, including
name, description, residence, and State hunting-license number.

“8. The landowners' interests are protected by forbidding (a) hunting
within 500 feet of any building or in standing corn where a team is at work,
(bv) destruction of fences or other property, and (c) killing or shdoting at
protected game. Violation of these regulations results in revoking tne permit
and in Been tlon: Kk landowner or tenant usually’ reserves the right to say
under what conditions any person or persons may hunt’ on his land and to ae
the number to 6 on each 80 acres if he so desires.

9. Hach township association elects a president and a secretary— —
treasurer, and all arrangements are made through its officers. From 2 to 20
enforcement deputies are appointed to minimize violations before, during, and
after the hunting season, and necessary mimeographing and printing are done.
Hach landowner is signed up for participation in the coming hunting season.
Refuges and closed areas are posted. Open areas are Ziven "welcome signs".
Refuge care, winter feeding, and certain other pheasant-+management work are
arranged for. Landowners are encouraged to recognize key pheasant—producing
~-areas and to develop and protect them.

The advantages of the controlled-hunting system'may be enumerated as
follows:

1. There is an orderly nee of the surplus crop each year.

2» Law violations are minimized. Unscrupulous hunters avoid controled
hunting areas.

I
o>
|

; 3. Property interests of landowners are protected by the elimination
of trespassing abuses.

4, An adequate brood stock is preserved.

Do. A larger pheasant vield is possible and a given area provides good
hunting for more hunters--not less. ’

6. Landowners regard larger galie crops aS an asset, not as a liability.

7. Landowners modify agricultural operations in the direction of
‘pheasant management.

8. From 65 percent to 95 percent of the farmer-landowners are them-
selves hunters, and sd. view game production from poth the farmers! and
sportsmen's viewpoints. ;

9, Ideal farmer-sportsmen relationsnips are made possible. Sportsmen
value highly the privileges granted, end farmers take great pride in the number
of birds taken on their farms. Instead of finding repeated posting of lands
with "No Hunting" signs, hunters are pleased to see such refreshing and psycho-
logically sound signs as "Welcome Members of Blank Township Game Protective
Association,"

10, The nonresident hunter (city man) is pleased with the system because
he is guaranteed good hunting close to his home and thus is saved much in
time and travel expense.

ll, The system is essentially a democratic and a nonprofit one~-no one
who obeys the regulations is excluded. Hunters consider that the small fees
paid merely support the regulation and management upon which a continued crop
depends. This mutually advantageous system prevents the development of ex-~
clusive nondemocratic harvest plans.

A number of townships each collect $500 to $1,000 a year (about $20
to $40 for each section of land involved). ne Liberty Township Association
collected $965.25 in fees in 1936. The income is expended for the following
items:

-l. Printing and mimcographing, posting of association lands, and cost
of contacting association members. (The officers usually serve without pay.)

ee Wages. The unemployment problem in the townsnip is solved by hiring
2 to 20 part-time (often 2 to 4 full-time) enforcement officers to check on
resulations and reduce violations. ;

3. Management measures, refuge developments, winter feeding, and new
breeding stock, :

4, Social events. Some associations use 10 percent to 20 percent of
proceeds to pay for two social events for association members--one before the
hunting season and one after. These are important in the administration of
the system, particularly in smoothing differences and in promoting community
interest in the plan.

pee > Se

5. Other items. A rather typical distribution of the unexpended
balance is as follows: One-sixth to the township school, one-sixth to the
townshio church, and four-sixths prorated to the landowners on an acreage
basis. The landowners usually feel sufficiently compensated if their pay-
ments cover damege to fences and crops by hunters and corn consumption by
pheasants.

That this controlled-hunting system works is shown by the following:

. 1. Because of the eleven importent advantages outlined under the
above heading on the subject.

2. Because the plan produces more pheasants, results in an orderly

harvest, protects property rights, causes the landowner to want more game-—
not less--and results in ideal farmer-sportsmen relationships.

3. Because the plan recognizes the landowner's individual pride in
his land and what it produces and appeals to his ego, as he likes to have
his farm attractive to pheasants and to harbor more birds than that of his
neighbor.

4, Because the plan is developed and maintained as a local project
with local initiative and local talent doing the work--nence local pride
and local interest in the results.

_ 5. Because of the Ohio pheasant refuge-management system, which
provides the key to high-production yields.

6. Because of the application of scientific management practices,
both in the production and in the harvest of the crop. This information
has been supplied in a subtle way, not forced on the township residents.

7. Most valuable of all has been the contribution of hard-working
county game protectors with sufficient ability to recognize weaknesses and
with sufficisnt tact to correct them, and yet doing nothing to detract. from
the community nature of the project.

References
Chapman, Floyd BE.
1936. Some plans for controlled shooting areas in use today. Ohio
Div. Conservation, Bur. Sci. Res., Bull. 102, 2 pp. (mimeo.).

Haliconers Jie. Te
1933. Twenty years of Onio agriculture, 1910-1930.. Ohio Agr. Exp.
Sta. Balls, 526, “ElOnpps

Hicks, Lawrence &.
1931. Emergency feeding of game and song birds in winter.. Ohio Dept.

Agr., Div. Conservation, Res. Bur. Circ. 51, 6 pp.

1932. Ohio game and song birds in winter. . Ohio Div. of Conservation
Bull. 2, 68 pp. (Revised March 1935.)

Hicks, Lawrence EK.
1933. A study of the ring-necked pheasant in Ohio. (Manuscript, 320 pp.,
filed with Ohio Division of Conservation.)

1934, Management possibilities for pheasants and Hungarian partridges
in Ohio. Proc. 27th Conv. Internat, Assn. Fish, Game, and
Conservation Commissioners, 1933, 4 vp., Columbus, Ohio.

1935. Management recommendations for the increase of pheasants in Ohio.
ChiomDcpten Aer... Bune. Sci. Res. Bull. 6. 2 pp.) ((Reemambody ton
Trans. 19th Amer. Game Conf., pp.459-465, 1933.)

1935. Distribution of the breeding birds of Ohio. Ohio Biol. Surv.
Wiel | By29 ALAS), 2} jolka 1 Musee) is) eosin

1936. Food habits of the ring~necked pheasant--dased on 92 stomacns
examined. Ohio Div. Conservation, Bur. Sci. Res. Bull. 107,
10 pp.

1936. History of the importation and naturalization of the ring-necked
pheasant in the United States. Ohio Div. Conservation, Bur.
S@Oug oso BLL, M05 SE is

1937. An analysis of 20 controlled hunting areas of northwestern Ohio.
(Manuscript, 200 pp., filed with Ohio Wildlife Research Station.,

—---~+----~ and Leedy, Daniel L.
1936. Statistics on 1936 game crop of Liberty Township, Wood County,
Ohio. Ohio Wildlife Research Ste., Release no. 17.

= and McCormick, Robert H.
1931. Ohio upland game bird research. Trans. Amer. Game Conf. (1930)
17; 268-271.

Dsemicw. dis He, Baker, R. R., and Valleconer, J. I.
1935. Major land-use problem areas and land utilization in Ohio. Ohio
ero, Moon SwWae Tulle 784 IO! jes) Gubler)

Weacobitoe. Wi, Lis

Tne following seven bulletins of the Ohio Division of Conservation,
Bureau or Scientific Research;

192. Game research in Ohio. No. 57 (repr. Trans. 19th Amer. Game
Gomes BilaBels, IB).

1933. Returns from banded ring-neck pheasants. No. 68. (repr. Proc.
evth Conv. Internat. Assoc. Game, Fish, and Conserv. Comm.
2 7}95 5 AUS)

1934. Ohio returns for banded game birds. No. 81, 5 pp. (mimeo.)

1955. Wildlife conservation for the "Future Farmers!" of Ohio.
No. 89, 4 pp. (mimeo.)

1935, Cooperative wildlife conservation. No. 90, 5 pp. (mimeo.)

1936. Upland game bird populations as influenced by experimental
shooting areas or complete closed season. No. 99, 4 pp. (mimeo. )

1936. Management areas; Their organization, objectives, and
results. No. 100, 3 pp. (mimeo.)

Bow

Wap of Liberty Township Game Protective Association lands, Yood County, Ohie, 1936.

The white area is epen to hunting, the shaded
; area is closed. Area of
township 23,040 acres, of which 76 percent, er 17,500 acres, is open to ia teee
bs apt pee ek ag (Nearly ali the clesed area, except the State
; ar o other hunting associations and i o
permit holders of these associations. ) earn

During the winter following the hunting season each year 1,500 to 2,008
surplus birds are live-trapped on the central refuge and removed elsewhere for
breeding stock, at a cost of 20 to 40 cents each.

In 1936, 300 nonresident permits at $3 each were sold to 300 hunters who
traveled from 38 cities in 21 counties of the State. There were also sold 72
resident-nonlandowner permits at 50 cents each and 117 resident-landowner permits
at 25 cents each. There were 11 honorary permits, 140 farmers hunted on their own
lands without permit, and 210 hunted on the lands of the other two associations in
the township. The 850 hunters (24 per square mile) during the 9-day season made
a kill of 2,366 male pheasants (66 per square mile), 216 Hungarian partridges,

and 840 rabbits.

-10-