Vol. 1 9 , No. 2 
Page 3 
Trt.yV'l- l hese2 m °nths cover the peak booming and breeding season of 
by cock pheasants!" ' " n °' S a " d also the '"'tiation of crowing territor 
!es 
During March and April 1970-75, observers sneni- -ioL ui: ^ 
booming grounds. Pheasants were on ttZ^U °" 
(46 perce^tl^f^helfi 15 °" b0 ° mi " 9 S^nds P rior <° WO On 3. 
£< p :4 sms 
behavior'by cocMheasants'arvaria^ S hick,nl * A 99~“i« 
to severe was as follows: Vanable - The ra nge of aggression from mild 
1. Confrontation and brief chasing of one or two prairie chicken 
cocks on the periphery of a booming ground. 
2. Repeated chasing of a single prairie chicken cock until the prairie 
chicken leaves the booming ground in flight. P 
3 - cock off the 9 — d -« 
add i t iona^°ch i ckens " etUr "' t0 the P 6rf °™ a "« with 
5. 
6 . 
ch?cken C cocks en w!th !°“ i '’ 9 9 ™ Und ' includin 9 the dominant prairie 
cken cocks, with some or all chickens leaving the ground. 
d?sniT C w ? f entire boom! ng ground, followed by active courtship 
display before a prairie chicken hen. courtship 
In every case, a single cock pheasant was responsible for all harassment. 
the pheasant S ini tlated°the'conn !ct"'^th'' C , en f P— d d °-nant over a pheasant, 
was chased to the edge of the 2 ^ ” 3 prairie chicken ~ek and 
cocks. At no time did 
However^' no^benef It to P pla ilie'ch i cken^' "“"h bV C ° Ck pheasants is difficult. 
especially when it involves dominant pra i r ie^h icken cockr'could'del^ a " reSSion ^ 
prevent successful breedina bv nrsiriP r-h; i coc ' sS > could delay or even 
At its worst, aggressive behavior bv n h^ C T S ° n ,! P art,cular booming ground. 
offspring, thus^educ!£ he^p odL? " pounUa" ofTd\ Ster " e hybrid 
Of prairie chickens in iiin n ; t F 1 potential of the largest remnant flock 
reported in other states Consider -eaSa I! t * P rairie chicken hybrids have been 
recent population declines alLota 9 T p0S5ible “"fences and the 
cock pheasants as possible on prairie ch i IkeHa'nct'uar i’e^' ° f m3ny a 99 ressi '' e 
