Pheasants and Hungarians. 131 



from 1909-14, whereas the planting record does not begin until 1910. In gen- 

 eral, the wave of pheasant planting proceeded westward, and if Iowa was plant- 

 ing pheasants by 1900, the more easterly States may be safely assumed to have 

 started planting also. 



The Wisconsin elapsed time of 17 years is a clean-cut case where the date 

 of the earliest plant is positively known. However, the Wisconsin pheasants 

 did not stand up well under the open season of 1927-28, even though it applied 

 to only a few townships in two counties. The open season has now been re- 

 voked, and the whole State is closed. 



The Iowa elapsed time of 27 years is also believed to be free from error, 

 but the Iowa birds are standing up well under shooting, and are spreading. 



In general, there is nothing in the history to indicate that a successful plant- 

 ing in this region can be opened to shooting in less than 10 years, unless of 

 course active management measures are added to the present hit-or-miss practice. 

 In such case there is no reason why a shorter interval might not be possible. 



Hungarians in Wisconsin were opened in 1921, 11 years after the Pabst 

 plantings began. They did not stand up well, and are said to be declining in 

 Waukesha County. There is no regular open season now. 



Ohio Hungarians were opened in 1920, only five years after the first plants 

 in 1915. They have stood up well in some of the northwestern counties, and 

 these counties are the only place east of the Rocky Mountains successfully with- 

 standing a regular yearly open season. Some counties to the south of these are 

 showing a decline, and there is talk of closing them. 



The history of open seasons on pheasants and Hungarians is shown on 

 Chart 6. 



Pheasant Management in Michigan. While no actual pheasant man- 

 agement is as yet under way in the region, a movement is on foot in Michigan 

 which may soon result in its practice. The inception of this movement, and the 

 circumstances which gave it birth are clearly portrayed by Lovejoy (Country Gen- 

 tleman, October, 1930). 



The essential circumstances are these: Michigan combines, in some of the 

 southern counties of the Lower Peninsula, a good natural pheasant range, a 

 closed season on alternative species such as quail, active sportsmen's associations, 

 able leadership in the conservation department, and an extraordinary pressure of 

 hunters by reason of the heavy industrial populations of the automobile manu- 

 facturing towns. 



This combination of circumstances, in conjunction with the Horton tres- 

 pass law, making it a misdemeanor to hunt on inclosed cultivated lands without 

 the consent of the owner, produces a situation in which the farmers are increas- 

 ingly irritated over the trespass nuisance, while the hunters are equally irritated 

 over the lack of a place to hunt. 



The first attempt at remedial action consisted of passing the so-called "shoot- 

 ing preserve statute" (P.A. 249, 1929), which recognized a distinction between 



