FOREST AND STREAM 
215 
Increase of Planted Pheasants In 
Sportsmen and state game authorities every¬ 
where will be much interested in the report which 
has just been prepared by the State Game Com¬ 
missioners of Massachusetts on the habits, breed¬ 
ing qualities, etc., of the ring-neck pheasant in¬ 
troduced in that state eight or ten years ago. 
The imported pheasants have multiplied rapidly, 
and some complaint has been forthcoming to the 
Legislature from farmers and other people that 
the birds are crop destroyers. This is utterly 
refuted in the report of the State Game Commis¬ 
sioners. It is shown, on the contrary, that the 
pheasants are among the most valuable insectiv- 
erous birds of the state, destroying millions of 
the gypsy and brown-tail moth and larvae yearly. 
The State Commission speaks highly of the im¬ 
ported pheasant as a game bird. So easy is it to 
breed these birds in a semi-domesticated state that 
it is a certainty that Massachusetts, although a 
thickly settled state, will have better shooting in 
the future than in the past. 
The particular qualities which have caused ex¬ 
tensive distribution of the pheasant are that of 
all the game birds they are specially adapted for 
artificial propagation. The eggs may be secured 
in large numbers, the average yield per hen un¬ 
der favorable conditions running from 50 to 80. 
The highest record known to the writer is 108 
eggs in one season, and an average of 80 for a 
flock of 18 hens. The breeding stock may readily 
be procured in any quantity at a relatively low 
price. It stands confinement fairly well, is hardy 
in the New England winters, and, if it has suffi¬ 
cient range, will seek out the swamps and spring 
holes, which are rarely frozen, and there pro¬ 
cure an abundance of food, supplemented by such 
fruits, berries and seeds as persist through the 
winter, by evergreen leaves and buds, and by 
hibernating insects. It is, as a species, fairly 
resistant to diseases and avian parasites. The 
young under favorable conditions, which can be 
developed well-nigh anywhere, can be readily 
reared in large quantities. As in the case of 
poultry, the number of persons who can rear 
pheasants by the thousand is limited when com¬ 
pared to those who are able to raise a small num¬ 
ber. Therefore, if the pheasant is to be main¬ 
tained, the supply must come, as 'in the case of 
poultry, from a large number of small breeders 
rather than from wholesale production on a large 
scale. The most satisfactory method is to hatch 
the eggs under hens or by incubators, and rear 
the young in brooders or with hens until four 
to eight weeks old, at which time they are able 
to care for themselves and become impatient of 
restraint. The brood then separate until au¬ 
tumn, when they unite in flocks, made up, often, 
exclusively of males or females. In Germany 
and England, where pheasant rearing has been 
carried on extensively and successfully for many 
generations, it is reported that about three- 
fourths of the hatch may “come to gun,’’ but 
more frequently more than one-half fall vic¬ 
tims to “the moving accidents of flood and 
field.” From 1896 to 1906 in Massachusetts the 
pheasants increased rather rapidly. Chapter 482, 
Acts of 1906, made an open season o'f one month 
(November), and it was estimated that about 
3,000 cock pheasants were legally killed (1906). 
In 1908, by chapter 477, Acts of 1908, a close 
season was again established. Since then there 
have been no open seasons; but large numbers 
'have been killed by cats, dogs and illegal hunt¬ 
ing, the chief offenders being the man with the 
automobile and the Italian, who has previous 
knowledge of the habits of this bird. Both these 
groups of persons have special advantages which 
make infractions of law difficult of detection. 
During the past two years numerous com¬ 
plaints have been made relative to damage to 
farm crops. In some cases fictitious claims have 
been made, where the damage attributed to the 
pheasants was done by domestic fowl and by 
crows. There is no question that in certain lo¬ 
calities where the pheasants have increased ab¬ 
normally very great damage may result unless 
an effective check is applied, and while in many 
instances real damage has been done to crops, we 
have many unsolicited testimonials to the fact 
that pheasants, though numerous, have never 
done appreciable damage. 
Many verbal complaints have been made rela¬ 
tive to damage to quail and to ruffed grouse, but 
almost invariably they take the form of the state¬ 
ment that “before the pheasants became so nu¬ 
merous we had large flocks of quail and part¬ 
ridge feeding on our grounds through the win¬ 
ter months. The pheasants, however, have driven 
them away, and a quail or partridge is a rare 
sight in this vicinity at the present time.” In the 
great majority of instances, however, these are 
to be ascribed to incomplete observations. In 
the neighborhood of cities and towns quail dis¬ 
appear on account of the multitude of cats and 
other enemies. The ruffed grouse disappear with 
the destruction of the covers, and their place is 
taken by the pheasant, which has the power to 
increase under conditions so unfavorable that 
quail and ruffed grouse have been extirpated. 
Over against this testimony is the observation in 
Oregon, where in the Willamette valley there is 
a dense bird population, made up of pheasants, 
ruffed grouse and at least two varieties of quail, 
all of which are liviqg together in harmony. In 
places, however, where there would be a compe¬ 
tition for food, doubtless the pheasant, being the 
stronger bird, would displace the quail, though 
in general there should be abundant food for 
both these species. 
More conclusive is the testimony from records 
of the great shooting estates in England, Scot¬ 
land and Germany, where for at least two genera¬ 
tions accurate records have been kept of the num¬ 
ber of birds produced annually on each estate. 
These records show conclusively that there has 
been no diminution in the number of native 
grouse and quail, and no displacement of these 
birds by the introduced and naturalized pheas- 
Massachusetts 
ant, which is here produced in larger quantities 
than on any similar area in the world. 
Mr. Dallas Lore Sharp writes: 
In reply to your inquiry about the pheasants 
in Oregon, I helped liberate a great many pairs 
over several sections of the state among enthusi¬ 
astic farmers and sportsmen, who, far from dis¬ 
couraging them, signed agreements with the war¬ 
den to protect and feed them during the next 
closed season, or until they got a hold. Riding 
from Corvallis to Portland on the train we saw 
hundreds of the birds in the cut-off wheat fields. 
Willamette valley is alive with them, farmers and 
village folk feeding and caring for them, and 
constantly calling for the warden’s protection 
when they are illegally shot. Some complaints 
came in of their digging out potatoes and picking 
tomatoes, etc.; but I had a large garden right 
among them and never suffered at all. 
The state as a whole is tremendously interested 
in them, and in the last twenty years has done 
everything to increase their number. New and 
more rigorous laws have been enacted in the 
last year for their protection, and thousands of 
young birds have been “planted” over the state 
from the great game farm. 
They are beautiful, interesting, useful, and so 
easily taken care of when they (if they ever do) 
become too numerous that from every point of 
view they seem to be most desirable. 
Sensational newspaper accounts of cannibalism 
among pheasants would not have been written 
had pains been taken to investigate the facts. 
The sportsman’s objections, which ten years 
ago were frequent and vehement on the ground 
that pheasants not only drove out the grouse and 
quail, but on account of the habit of running 
were “bad for the dogs,” have largely subsided. 
Many sportsmen also complained that the propa¬ 
gation of pheasants was not adapted for our 
methods of hunting, and deplored the possible 
tendency to European conditions of land owner¬ 
ship. The majority of sportsmen to-day agree 
with us that these reports appear to have little 
basis of fact. The more valid objections, how¬ 
ever, to which the greatest weight should be 
given, are, first, that certain diseases, such as 
coccidiosis, amcebiasis, avian tuberculosis and 
possibly others, may be brought by imported 
birds; second, that they divert necessary attention 
from our native birds. The imported strangers 
have a combination of peculiarly attractive and 
valuable qualities, such as gorgeous plumage, 
large size, rapidity of growth, fine quality of 
meat, the readiness with which they are reared, 
their patience in confinement and their hardiness 
under neglect and the rigors of our New Eng¬ 
land climate. Such a combination is lacking in 
any one of our native birds. 
Over against these statements of objection to 
the birds are to be placed the benefits which the 
study of the past seventeen years has disclosed. 
Although the pheasant was introduced solely for 
the purpose of furnishing a shining mark for the 
sportsman, the 'late Commissioner Brackett soon 
observed that both the young and the adult ate 
large quantities of gypsy and brown-tail moths, 
as well as 'the pupae and larvae. During the past 
year special observations have been made at the 
Sutton hatchery by Arthur Merriam, at Concord 
by Dr. H. B. Bigelow and at Sharon by F. R. 
Cushing. The feeding habits of birds running 
at large have been observed, and the crops and 
(Continued on page 229.) 
