1 Dr. Jeffrey J. Lusk, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission

Outline  Captive propagation  The Surrogator  : What is it?  The Pheasant Decline  Objectives and Methods  Results  Conclusions  Caveats 2

Captive Propagation  Dilutes genetic diversity  Introduces diseases  Low survival rate  Reproduction lower among survivors  Costly 3

The Surrogator   What is it? Provides food, water, shelter, and warmth Bobwhites & Pheasants  How does it work? 1 day old chicks Minimum human contact Release pheasants at 4 weeks old ~$ s/h 4

The Surrogator   What is it supposed to do? Keeps birds in “wild” state ○ Avoid predators ○ Improve survival Imprints chicks on a location ○ Chicks stay in area ○ Available for later harvest 5

The Surrogator   Does it work? Developers’ research Georgia study with bobwhites ????? 6

The Pheasant Decline

Nebraska Surrogator  Evaluation  Objectives Evaluate survival of pheasants after release Determine return to bag 8

Study Sites  2 Controlled Shooting Areas Jefferson Co. Gosper/Frontier Co.  2 Public Hunting Areas Sherman Reservoir WMA Sacramento-Wilcox WMA 9

Approach  Our approach was to deploy the Surrogator  system following the instructions as closely as possible.  We used multiple marking methods to help insure Surrogator  birds were identifiable among harvested birds.  We radio tagged a subset of birds placed in Surrogators  and followed the fate of these birds until the season opener. 10

Study Methods 11  Select site for Surrogator   Purchase rooster chicks  Mark chicks with patagial tags  Implant radio transmitters for survival rate estimation on 20 birds at each site  Mark all released chicks with expandable, coiled leg bands  Add chemical marker (deuterium) to water for last 2 weeks in unit

Site Preparation and Set Up 12

Site Preparation and Set Up 13

Patagial Tagging 14

Radio Transmitter Attachment 15

Radio Transmitter Attachment 16

Leg Banding 17

Radio-tracking & Recovery 18

Aviary Study  Implanted 20 pheasants with radios  Pheasants held in aviary at Sac-Wilcox WMA  Determine direct impact of surgery on survival  Banded birds to determine retention  Most pheasants released prior to hunting season 19

Harvest Wing Collection 20

Survival  Overall Survival from 30 July release For every 100 released pheasants, 14 survived until 25 October Of the 14 that survive, on average 6 would be expected to be harvested 21

Survival Site Number expected to survive until opener per 100 released Number of released birds returned to bag (25 OCT – 31 JAN) CSA1181 CSA200 Sac-Wilcox12 Sherman273 22

Return to Bag  Return to bag estimated from harvested birds with leg or patagial bands 11.5% of reported harvest were marked Hunter bag returns were 5.4%  One banded bird was a late release from the penned bird study  Cost/pheasant = $36.21 ($3.50 w/o Surrogator  )  Cost/pheasant returned to bag = $ ($32.14 w/o Surrogator  ) 23

Aviary Study Results  Pheasants implanted on 3 September  3 pheasants died within week of surgery  17 pheasants survived until 27 October  14 of 17 surviving pheasants had both leg bands  2 surviving pheasants had one leg band  1 surviving pheasant had slipped both leg bands  1 pheasant lost its radio 24

Conclusions  Survival rates were generally low at all sites  Retention of tags and radios was high  Mortality from surgery in aviary birds low  Return to bag of Surrogator  pheasants low 25

Caveats  1 year study  Variability in survival among sites  Transmitter effects beyond mortality 26