MONTHLY WILDLIFE RESEARCH LETTER 
Department of Conservation and Natural History Survey, Cooperating 
Glen C. Sanderson and Helen C. Schultz, Editors 
Urbana, Illinois 
December, 1973 
Vol. 16, No. 12 
Manipulation of Pheasant Habitat G. B. Joselyn 
The last two reports (MWRL 16 (10 and 11)) listed known or presumed advantages 
and disadvantages of the Graded Roadside and Volunteer programs for establishing 
cover on roadsides for nesting pheasants in east-central Illinois. This report 
discusses the potential, advantages, and disadvantages of the third approach to 
roadside management. Block Seedings. 
Potential 
The Ford County Management Unit (FCMU) established in 1968 involved the 
seeding of most roadsides within and abutting on 16 square miles. This under¬ 
taking was highly successful; adherence of cooperating farmers to the delayed 
mowing agreement has been excellent. The success of the FCMU indicates that the 
Block Seedings Program would be equally successful. 
Advantages 
Block seedings would assure the highest level of control over the place¬ 
ment of seedings. This control constitutes the strongest argument for the Block 
Seedings Program. 
(a) Seedings could be placed in those townships where it is judged 
the most benefits would be derived by pheasants. 
(b) Time and expense in contacting farmers would be reduced to a minimum. 
(c) Logistical problems in the operational phase of the program would 
be greatly diminished. 
(d) The upgrading of maximum amounts of roadside habitat in a relatively 
small area should result in maximum benefits to pheasant population levels in that 
area. Comparative data on pheasant numbers on the FCMU before and after the seed¬ 
ings were established there seem to support this contention. 
Disadvantages 
Concentration of seedings in block situations restricts the number of 
counties and townships in which seedings can be established, thus reducing to a 
minimum the public relations benefits to the Department of Conservation. 
ItAlURAL HiSTDRY SURVEY 
