For many years sportsmen have speculated that hunting limits pheasant populations. With the abolition of the Pheasant Game Farm program in Utah in 1953, this popular concept gained much impetus with the result that, because of public disfavor to a longer season, a 3 to 5 day season on pheasants is the maximum that bas been called in northern Utah and this only in areas classed as "better" pheasant habitat. In contrast to the short seasons in Utah, pheasant seasons in southern Idaho have been from 8½ to 15½ days long for the past 10 years, and will be even longer in 1956 (table 1). Since the topography and land-use patterns of southeast Idaho and northeast Utah are similar, the question has been asked by Cache County sportsmen, "how can Idaho maintain a 15½ day season in Franklin County, while just across the line here in Cache County, we have only a 3 to 5 day season?" Thus the purpose of this study was to investigate some of the factors affecting pheasant populations of northeast Utah and south-east Idaho under differing season lengths. Objectives of the study were to determine (1) the response of contiguous pheasant populations to long (15½ day) and short (5 day) seasons, (2) the hunting pressure under the 2 season lengths, (3) harvest of the pheasant crop under the 2 season lengths, and (4) reaction of hunters, farmers, and land-owners to long and short seasons.

Human activity affects white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) movement and habitat selection during all times of the year, but knowledge is limited regarding how human risk affects white-tailed deer during the summer and winter. During spring and summer, variation in patch selection varied. Natural vegetation was selected for early in the year, with anthropogenic forages being important for deer use during the summer. During the winter, deer responded to different levels of risk. As hunter risk increased on the landscape, deer altered selection of the landscape. Deer avoided areas that were heavily used by hunters, using areas containing less hunter risk. Use of land cover classifications varied temporally, with cover selected for during the day and forage selected for at night. I have demonstrated that deer respond to human activity on the landscape, by selecting for anthropogenic foraging sources during the spring and summer and avoiding patches that contain risk.