Thursday, March 11, 2010
Grouse hunting declines to memory status
Bill Cochran
Recent columns
It is March, the time I normally pause to calculate my grouse hunting success -- hours hunted, birds flushed, the weather, the dog work and, occasionally, a tail feather to tape along side my entry.
Not this year. The 2009-10 Virginia grouse season was the first in probably 50 years that I did not hunt these wiry birds, did not hear their thunderous flush, did not feel my heart pound as I brought my shotgun to my shoulder, did not savor the aroma of burnt powder on cold air.
Age had something to do with that, and the durable snow that piled high in the mountains during the late winter when I normally have done much of my hunting.
The biggest deterrent, however, was the lack of grouse, which brings us to the point of this column -- the grouse aren’t there because so much of their habitat is gone, particularly in the national forest where my career as a grouse hunter began many years ago.
In the southern Appalachians, the time may come when a hunter is more likely to kill a bear than a grouse. According to participants in the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ 2008-09 grouse survey, it took 17 hours of hunting for every grouse killed. We are talking about the results of sportsmen who consider grouse and grouse hunting an intrinsic part of their lives. Survey participants killed fewer than three grouse during the season. I can recall when it wasn’t uncommon for a good hunter to kill three per day, and in the national forest -- especially the national forest.
The reward in grouse hunting is not the killing but the finding. A rate of one bird flushed per hour of effort is enough to keep a hunter pushing hard through prickly briers and grapevine tangles. But it has fallen well below that. In 2008-09, the latest season statistics are available, the flush rate was a measly 0.72 per hour. It was worse the year before, 0.69. That was the sorriest on records that date back to the early 1970s. It could be just as bad -- even worse -- when the tally for the recent season is available.
There are a number of factors involved in the demise of this noble bird, including cold, wet springs that mar the survival of young chicks, predation, mast failures, maybe even an unexplained massive down cycle that is unique to the bird’s southern range. But we’ve had most of them in the past.
Wildlife biologists believe that the loss of stands of young forest, called early successional habitat, is the primary culprit. That is stated every year when the DGIF Ruffed Grouse Population Status report comes out. But it pretty well ends there. We know what the problem is. Doing something about it is another matter.
Criticism often is leveled at the U.S. Forest Service, which holds more than 1.5-million acres in Virginia, much of it prime grouse habitat 30 or so years ago. Many hunters think that the forest service has been forced into a no-management mode by environmentalists who believe public forests should be composed of wilderness, roadless areas and old-growth, practices that are void of new growth habitat. While these advocates skillfully use the courts and costly lawsuits to force their will, hunters sit back and take it, letting emotion rather than science rule the decision making.
As for old growth, I value it. We vigorously preserve some on our family farm. Old growth is desirable, but so is early successional habitat. We should, and can, have both.
The aging of the forest not only is bad for grouse, but other species as well, including woodcock, turkeys, deer, certain songbirds, rabbits, bobcats even bear. All of these benefit from the diversity of having at least a portion of their habitat in new growth where there is cover, herbaceous food, insects, berries and nesting sites.
The lack of diversity is destined to get worse. The forest service likely will be forced to integrate climate change issues into its planning process. Forest budgets have been slashed. The old Wildlife Cooperative Agreement that challenged foresters and DGIF wildlife biologists to work hand-in-hand has been put on the back shelf.
On the positive side, this issue recently has enjoyed a spurt of coverage, including excellent articles in the December issue of Virginia Wildlife and February issue of Wildlife in North Carolina.
Virginia has a new Secretary of Natural Resources, Douglas Domenech, a Virginia Tech graduate, who has a background in forest management. Here is a potential advocate of diversity. Domenech addressed the DGIF board last week and is scheduled to speak at the Virginia Outdoor Writers Association annual meeting next week.
As for me, I haven’t given up on grouse hunting. But if trends don’t change, when I put on my brush pants, hunting coat, boots and orange cap, I may feel more like a re-enactor than one on a real pursuit.
