The dispersal of released pheasants and the risk of their intrusion into English protected areas

Large-scale annual releases of pheasants Phasianus colchicus and their subsequent management for recreational shooting create various ecological impacts in the UK. While effects at release sites are fairly well understood, dispersing birds may influence areas farther away. If they enter ecologically important but sensitive protected areas (PAs), any negative impacts could be especially harmful. Using tracking data, from 766 birds across 10 sites, we estimated survival and dispersal of released pheasants and applied these patterns to gamebird release records near English PAs to gauge intrusion risk. Of 2,885 registered release sites, just over half lay within 2 km of a PA. A large number of shoots release relatively few birds while a small number release many birds. Thus, numbers expected to enter a particular PA likely depend both on the size of releases and proximity to the PA. We estimate that, at a national level, a maximum of between 525,000 and 784,000 pheasants might be found within PAs very soon after release, representing around 1.7% of all the pheasants released annually. This number declines over the months after release until in February, we estimate that there are between 131,000 and 196,000 pheasants (0.4% of the total release) might be found within PAs. The critical metric by which ecological damage might occur is their density within PAs. Mean densities soon after release averaged 12.0 birds/ha in PAs within 250 m of release sites. This density declined markedly both in time (as birds died) and space (as they moved further from the pen as potential areas increased). By November, densities in PAs 500-1000m from release sites peaked at 0.5 birds/ha, falling to 0.16 birds/ha in February. These estimated densities are around two orders of magnitude lower than those known to cause strong, lasting impacts within release pens. The results are subject to assumptions about movement behaviour, game management and bias in registration. Despite these constraints, considerable local variation exists, with a minority of high-volume release sites very near PAs posing the greatest potential ecological risk.