Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Predators and Varmints Woodchucks killed off by coyotes.

battue,

Good to know that you know so much more than any game biologist, that all game biologists are ignorant and agenda-driven--and that you can speak for all grouse cover, everywhere, at any time. I am sure there aren't any game biologists who've seen nearly the years and habitat you have.

At the time the WV biologist and I were discussing this very subject, we were standing on a piece of deer-over-grazed West Virginia land that had so little ground cover it couldn't have concealed a meadowlark's nest. Which is partly why the subject came up. The cover much over waist-high was thick enough to make shooting a grouse very difficult, but it you bent over you could see 50-75 yards between the young trees. He'd been familiar with this particular country for around 35-40 yards, and seen all sorts of changes.

Well you are jumping to smart azz conclusions. But it pretty much follows the norm around here. But before I do the same I will try to clarify. I didn't reference over grazed land with little ground cover that couldn't conceal a Meadow Larks nest and posted pics that showed just the opposite. It would be rare to find enough Grouse in that kind of cover to make it worth effort. Even mentioned it could occur on on more mature open cover, but you choose to avoid mentioning same. Either that or it didn't fit into a smart azz answer.

Ya sometimes I just don't agree with every so called expert. In this case it happens to be you.

My answer was smart-assed because yours was condescending, both to me and game biologists. In fact it implied that all game biologists are incompetent or mouthpieces for their agency.

Game biologists are humans, so naturally vary considerably in their competence and integrity. I know this partly because I was a wildlife biology major, many years ago, and even though I never made my living that way it acquainted me with biologists and their methods, partly through helping on more than one field study. Two of my favorite examples of incompetence or “paid results” are the Yellowstone Park biologist who claimed bison never migrated out of the park in winter until plowed roads and snowmobile trails appeared in the 20th century—part of a report that appeared while I was still in college. A more recent example is the report from a California university, funded by an animal-rights group, claiming that cattle grazing on prairie-dog infested ground gained MORE weight than cattle on PD-free ground. (The general rule among range specialists is a loss of 50% of available grass to prairie dogs.)

There are also some biologists with very limited outlooks. When mule deer populations started crashing in the early 1970’s, after decades of overall increases, often massive, biologists of course started looking at possible reasons why. I got into a discussion about this at a convention of the Mule Deer Foundation a number of years ago, held in conjunction with a meeting of western deer biologists. There was general agreement about the overall causes—including habitat changes such as subdivisions in mountain foothills and browse growing into mature forests, an increase in coyotes due to the cessation of the use of 1080, and a rise in populations of other big game animals, including whitetails and elk—
except from one guy. He insisted very different reasons caused the mule population to drop in his particular area of Colorado, which seemed very odd, since the drop was so wide-spread and simultaneous. (Localism is also popular among many hunters. In a Campfire thread a few years ago a hunter claimed that the well-documented increase in whitetail numbers since World War Two was BS, because he lived in a part of—yes—Pennsylvania where the population had dropped.)

Game biologists sure don’t agree on everything—during that same mule deer gathering two gray-haired biologists had to be separated in the lobby of the hotel during an argument over the effect of coyotes. In fact I’ve found game biologists and engineers to disagree more often (and vehemently) than just about any other professionals. However, most of them are dedicated to trying to find out why game populations go up and down, and willing to look intensively at all sorts of possible factors.

Game biologists don’t just work for government agencies or pay-for-results universities. Some work for hunting groups, especially those that advocate for various animals, or private landowners, and are actually looking for reasons and solutions, rather than creating propaganda or covering their employer’s butts.

They also must actually quantify their results, to provide their conclusions with back-up data. This means they can’t just say “a lot of deer,” but must provide reasoned estimates of numbers. Luckily, methods of making estimates have improved considerably in recent decades, one reason we out here in the West will eventually have a grizzly bear hunting season. Bait stations that provide hair for DNA testing have provided a far better idea of how many bears are out there, though anti-hunting groups continue to deny the results, using phrases like “not enough bears” (which is remarkably similar to “a lot of deer”).

“A lot of deer” also doesn’t mean much: Is it 10 deer per square mile, or 20 or 50 or 100? A whitetail biologist here in Montana did document over 100 whitetails per square mile on the Yellowstone River bottoms in the eastern part of the state, which is indeed “a lot of deer.” They also document the degree and type of over-browsing resulting from a lot of deer. But because you’ve flushed sufficient grouse in areas with “a lot of deer,” you somehow suspect field reports of deer impacts on grouse nesting are false.

When researching biological game studies for articles I look at a lot of ‘em from various parts of the country (or even the world), and from various sources, not just game department biologists but those employed by hunting groups (whether Ducks Unlimited or the Mule Deer Foundation), universities well-known for their competent wildlife biology departments rather than providing what a study-funder wants, or private landowners actually looking for solutions.

When I did a short search yesterday on the effects of deer browsing on ruffed grouse nesting, similar results showed up from a wide area of the country from the East Coast to the upper Midwest. Also, the field studies were done by biologists working for various entities, not just state game departments. This corroborated what my West Virginia biologist friend suggested—as I guess it would, since he’s a pretty thorough professional.

Mule Deer:"My answer was smart-assed because yours was condescending, both to me and game biologists. In fact it implied that all game biologists are incompetent or mouthpieces for their agency."

First, my reply wasn't condescending to you or game biologists. If you think it was anything other than disagreeing with words and an opinion-and while I do enjoy your work and appreciate your experience and wish to see it often-if you are looking to have your azz kissed, like more than a few on here do and have arrived at the point of thinking any who disagree are being condescending, well that's your problem not mine. I guess I didn't say the right words. "Well MD, while you have a vast amount of experience, I must humbly disagree on a couple points."
Hint: Don't hold your breath.

It was an opinion on what I have observed in prime Deer and Grouse habitat. Which in that type of cover it would take more Deer than I can imagine to have an adverse effect on Grouse numbers. I was throwing that observation out and also mentioned in mature covers it can be a factor.





MD: "Game biologists don’t just work for government agencies or pay-for-results universities. Some work for hunting groups, especially those that advocate for various animals, or private landowners, and are actually looking for reasons and solutions, rather than creating propaganda or covering their employer’s butts."


I have more than a little respect for the Game Biologists. They get it right most of the time. However, lets take the Pa GC for example. They have dedicated people on the whole. They are funded almost entirely by hunters dollars. Yet they have State imposed mandates that force them to study and improve the habitat on not only specific non-game species, but in some cases prey species that are not beneficial to the improvement of game numbers. IE: Eagles, Hawks, Owls. At some point there is an obvious conflict between the goal of one biologist against those of another. Hmmmm and all paid for by hunters dollars. No general fund money, no charge for a non-hunter to roam over a million acres of hunter paid for game lands.

I for one enjoy the Eagle and Peregrine Hawk cams that the GC currently partner with other organizations to not only increase their numbers, but also public awareness of raptors. But I have yet to hear a GW say, Ya I know your dollars are being spent to enhance species that will diminish Grouse, Rabbits, Squirrel hunting opportunities. Forget Songbirds hea!!!! And something is going on, because their numbers have been going down considerably in these parts for years. And again its my opinion the Deer have little to do with it.


No one said you WV friend is FOS. Did say that in prime first rate Grouse cover, Deer numbers have minimal effect on Grouse nesting success. Give him a call and ask him. Would be interested in his reply.

I understood your point that in marginal Grouse cover Deer numbers can have an adverse effect. You missed mine that they have minimal if none in prime covers. Not being condescending, just how it appears on this end.

Thanks for your explanation. That't what I got out of your post, but miscommunication often happens on the Campfire. (I also don't expect anybody to kiss my ass, as I think has been proven on this site many times.) I've enjoyed and learned from many of your posts over the years, so hopefully we can start over.

We have some of the same problems with the game department here in Montana--because it's part of the Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department.

Words get twisted no doubt. I also had little doubt they would straighten.

Take care,

We've got more coyotes now than ever, and more groundhogs around that we can shake ten stick at. Hell, I've killed two dozen out of my neighbors back yard over the last year alone, and that doesn't count the scores out agricultural fields.

As usual, Dumbass Don proves how much he DOESN'T know and DOESN'T do.

As for grouse, I would certainly like to see them (and quail) come back. Quail is all about habitat; that's been lost over the decades in this area and when the habitat is restored, the quail come back. Grouse? That's more complicated. On the NF lands, there's no "management" any more so there's increasingly less good grouse cover. On private lands, though, that's a different story and still no grouse. Could it be coyotes? Maybe, but they would seem to impact the turkey populations just as much, and we have TONS of those things (though increasing predation by coyotes on them). Could it be turkeys scratching out the nests and out competing them? I don't know. It's probably a combination of many factors, so teasing out where to start is a pain.

4, I used to shoot chuck's in Pa. and W. Va. The country I hunted is now about void of any chucks.. I know some of this is due to the farms growing up in to weed patches.. But the fields that are still in good shape have no chucks either.. It is great to hear there still are places with lots of these critters.. I used to prefer hunting them to everything but deer.. I also know they are not being shot off.. In that country there are very few people hunting chucks any more..

Some think our Eastern forest health and regeneration decline is caused by factors more significant than too many Deer.

Studies, who do you believe?

http://news.psu.edu/story/185931/20...blames-forest-problem-acid-rain-not-deer

There are also few dedicated Grouse hunters. Rare to see another when out.

True. I don't even hunt grouse. I just miss having them in the woods. Deer season just isn't really the same without a few "ticker testers" in the predawn...

battue, I was just thinking about acid rain.. I have a friend that is a life long resident of Clearfield county. He has a farm there, and is and avid hunter and fisherman..

Some years ago, he was talking with one of the ag agencies of the state.. He finally ask what do you know about my farm.. The guy said we have photos of your place and all the others, I can tell you what size rocks are in your fields.. So they visited about what he could or should do with the fields.. As the conversation continued.. He said I want to ask about how acid rain is affecting our wild trout and northern forests.. The agent said we are not permitted to discuss that..

globally warmed acid rain is the worstest......

Regarding declining Ruffed Grouse populations most everyone has their favorite expert and theory.

My expert is Dr. Scott Walter, Regional Biologist, IL, IA, MN and WI, Ruffed Grouse Society. He was the Upland Game Ecologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural resources.

I have attended a couple of his seminars and invited him to walk through my woodlots to assess habitat improvement for grouse. In return he invited me to walk through his woodlots on his farm 40 miles north of me which showed not only does he talk the talk, he walks the walk. His farm is textbook forest management and not only did we experience a lot of grouse flushing, we jumped a lot of deer.

He will admit that deer impact grouse habitat, but only to a small extent. Yes, studies of fenced deer enclosures can show a larger impact, but that is in a sense a lab study and rarely occurs in nature.

http://ruffedgrousesociety.org/Walter%20move%20to%20RGS#.V2wjHLgrLIU

DNR's Scott Walter moves on to RGS

08/11/15

RGS in the News

The following article is about new RGS/AWS regional biologist, Dr. Scott Walter.

It seems that no matter how many career moves Scott Walter makes, his new jobs all feature listening for ruffed grouse drumming and flushing.

His recent appointment may actually put him in the best position to help improve habitat and eventually bring about an increase in this handsome, forest-dwelling game bird that is 3-4 times larger than a bobwhite quail.

The Ruffed Grouse Society and the American Woodcock Society (sister organizations) recently announced that Walter has accepted a regional biologist position covering Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa with RGS/AWS. Walter will be responsible for forest management efforts of RGS by working with landowners and government agencies to help ensure forest habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock and other wildlife.

“The exciting thing is the interaction at a number of levels to promote active forest management,” he said. “I’ll be available to do walk-throughs on wooded land and work on development management plans on public and private lands.”

After earning BS, MS and PhD degrees from several Wisconsin universities (Beloit College and UW) in science and wildlife ecology, he taught and did research at UW-Richland in Richland County from 1999 through 2011. From 2011 to 2015, Walter was the upland game bird ecologist and farm bill coordinator in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Walter will continue to reside on his six-generation Richland County farm where he and his wife, Erica, first experienced ruffed grouse drumming and began practicing active forestry.

“This spring my wife did hear a male grouse drumming about 30 yards into the woods in an area we improved,” Walter said. “I regenerated small clones of aspen and practiced oak harvesting in this and other areas.

“With ruffed grouse it’s a matter of ‘build it and they will come’ strategy. It works best with fairly large scale areas. That’s where the impacts are most meaningful.”

Ruffed grouse need a mosaic of old and young forests, biologists, including Walter, say.

Even though the ruffed grouse populations in southern Wisconsin have dropped during the last 40 years, improvements to the habitat can be managed for both timber and wildlife, Walter believes.

“If the habitat is there, the grouse will come. They are their own best indicator species of the habitat. If the birds are there, that tells us the habitat is right,” Walter said.

Supplemental introductions of grouse to a habitat are usually not practiced, or successful, unless the habitat is favorable.

“Habitat improvement for grouse works best if there are fairly large areas involved,” Walter said. “To make those areas meaningful in terms of population improvements, pulling several landowners together to create young forest habitat is necessary.”

Missouri transplanted about 4,000 grouse into areas of dwindling populations several decade ago. Some of those birds came from Wisconsin. Still, Missouri closed its grouse season in 2010.

Even though there are more acres of forest in southern Wisconsin than there were 60 years ago, large tracts of dense young forest is what grouse, woodcock and many other birds, and wildlife, need.

Simply putting grouse in the wrong forest habitat almost never works.

There are areas of NY state that were loaded with chucks back in the 70's and 80's that are very nearly devoid of them now. Other areas are still loaded with them. I don't know what caused it but it ain't coyotes as there are just as many or more yotes in the areas that are still full of chucks as the areas where they're nearly extinct. It isn't a lack of good habitat either as there are still plenty of good hay/alfafa fields in the devoid areas. I think I remember you saying you used to shoot chucks in Schoharie and Delaware Counties and So did I. I agree they aren't there in huntable numbers anymore. You need to go North a bit to find them now. The farmlands of central NY from Cortland to Syracuse still has good numbers.

Blackheart,

What areas in NY are now nearly devoid of chucks and what areas are still full of them?

Thank you

I went back and added to my previous post so your answer is there. There are other Counties in central NY with good numbers as well.

Blackheart,

I have never hunted in NY's Delaware or that other county in NY.

I only hunted chucks in NY's Dutchess county, the towns of Millerton and Amenia the most and also up along the NY border of NY in VT.

The chucks are gone.

They were in fields like this. The fields are still there and so are some deer. The chucks are gone.

Millerton, NY