MONTHLY WILDLIFE RESEARCH LETTER 
Illinois Federal Aid Projects W-66-R, W- 87 -R, and W-83-R 
Department of Conservation and Natural History Survey, Cooperating 
Glen C. Sanderson and Eva Steger, Editors 
NftiL'.TAL HISTORY SURVEY 
JUL 8 1981 
UBftARY 
Urbana, Illinois 
June, 19S1 
Vol. 24, No. 6 
Manipulation of Pheasant Habitat - W-66-R 
R. E. Warner 
.ndlviduals who have agreed to cooperate in , 
».rrr-^r?s2««s. ^-^pr^x^t^^rnr 
mowing through at least 1 August annually. 
To identify group differences on the FCMU, a questionnaire, which covered 
3 general categories «^.t^ i ^* r ^ 0 ‘° e dge n ’regarding S wl'ldl Ife, pheasant 
ecotogy’, e anruse of roadsides. (2) personal and farm characteristics, and (3) 
perceived advantages of seeded roadsides as a farm .nnovat . 
Compared with vasciliators and dlscontinuants participants(tended . 
younger (X = Al years), l J ad J^ r 'J| - Nacres), and owned or were In the process 
of r buying 3 approximate!y°one-half of the land farmed. Participants centre,ied 
less land than other groups. 
Discriminant analysis was employed toui^mos^Hkely participate long-term 
classify the type of farm operator who would ” ke ' a a ls as a % r0 up 
in the Department of ^^^‘'^'^ ^tle-relaled ialue orientation, 
scored low on the scale indexing , not related to wildlife values. 
Apparently participation by these ' nd '"'^ 3 S “ S f % a lant populations and 
However, participants scored high on k "°“^ d 9® understood the habitat 
pheasant management; they tended to we c management was beneficial to 
needs of pheasants, and believed that roads de imanagement deve)ope d 
wildlife-al though they were not convinced that wildlife nests me 
roadside vegetation. 
The data suggest that the typical Participant ^s^-nd^the^roadside^rogram 
sasE s n ( a hinrrof si-s^Tir 
