1 
Vo). 21, No. 7 
Page 2 
Under our present condition of low pheasant numbers, some may question the 
gi imacy of a pheasant season this fall. With this consideration in mind, the 
reast'c"Ltr a Tn? a 5 °t fac <° raaffap ti"9 Peasant abundance on several areas 
u!:f!^ ral 1111 n °! S J> "here declines in populations of pheasants have been 
™ n d ™ c ! a f e e "l> 9 htening. After the 1977-78 hunting season, winter sex 
The Lrf ,nd ; cated that 1 3 pheasants afield on these areas were cocks. 
T ma e ringneck can successfully mate with at least 8-10 hens. Although pheasant 
formation Z'l n oZT ° f '""« ,9,t,0n '•« Hay, we fo^d no?L? 
“ “ l "' f tbe spnn 9 coants ’ Furthermore, nest studies conducted in east- 
c ntral Illinois this summer show a typically high rate of fertile eaas Thus 
breeding has been successful in 1978 . " s ‘ Thus > 
(MWRL A 2?fb1o q yri i0n J hat u may ar '! e concerns the illegal kill of hens. Our data 
(MWRL 21(4).1-2) do not indicate that this illegal kill has increased with the 
d clme in cock pheasants. In fact, the illegal hen kill has declined on the 
u y areas in recent years as hunter pressure has decreased. In 1977-78 the 
illegal hen kill in Illinois was probably less than 8 percent. 
Our nest studies this summer have shown some encouraging siqns of recoverv 
areater tha° nS ° f pheasa " ts ' Tha ‘'“eh size of nests in^L areas has been " 
has been s^stlnt^aM additi °"< percentage of nests that have hatched 
ren ew V ? rea ! e r than n0rmaK 81 though we expect our brood counts 
fleet the storm-related losses that have occurred over the past two winters 
we believe that the strong reproductive capability of the ringneck will enable ’ 
Ivanab?e Cr a e nd e f r "Tf" °T the " e><t few * ears > dapandia 9 the bitat 
available and favorable weather. The future harvest of pheasants in Illinois 
under the current restraints of bag limits and season length en not ilpUgl 
increasing r the V ah y 'x Curta ' ,ment of hunt ing can have no significant effect on 
wealhe^ 2 L r abu " dance ° f a species so clearly limited by severe winter 
weather and lack of secure habitat. 
Table 1. 
according 
The 15 counties with the greatest relative abundance of pheasants 
to the 1978 RMCC. 
County Rank 
Pheasants per 100 Miles 
Percent Change 
^973 1 
1978 
1973 
1978 
1968 to 
1973 
1973 to 
1978 
Mason 
12 
1 
10.1 
6.26 
+ 58 
- 38 
Winnebago 
25 
2 
3-9 
2.42 
+290 
- 38 
Carrol 1 
20 
3 
5-4 
2.41 
+ 170 
- 55 
Lee 
21 
4 
4.9 
2.18 
+ 75 
- 56 
Stephenson 
37 
5 
2.2 
2.09 
+ 144 
- 5 
Kenda11 
18 
6 
7-4 
2.08 
+ 48 
- 72 
Woodford 
13 
7 
9-2 
1-99 
- 57 
- 78 
DeKa1b 
24 
8 
4.1 
1.89 
- 49 
- 54 
