Bill Cochran is a Roanoke Times outdoors columnist.

xtrails
@earthlink.net

Bill Cochran's Outdoors

Recent columns

• Key players react to defeat of Sunday hunting in Virginia
• Salem fishing pro John Crews launches lure business
• Less freedom at Hatteras for surf casters
• Here’s the scoop on hunting shed antlers
• Column archive

Bill's Mailbag

• Big day of turkey hunting for Little Hal
• Holding onto memories of Outer Banks
• Mail archive

Bill's Field Reports

• It’s official: 74-pound striper a Virginia record
• Bass stocking planned for Back Bay
• Field reports archive

Resources

• Trout stocking schedule

In the early 1970s, Joe Coggin, Bill Treadwell and I put together a survey designed to trace the ups and downs of the ruffed grouse population in Virginia. It still is in use by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and is one of the best sources of information on this illusive upland game bird.

The key element of the survey is the flush rate, which is a measurement of how much time a hunter must spend working grouse habitat for each bird flushed. The longer the time between flushes, the lower the grouse population and, subsequently, the greater the number of unhappy hunters.

It is too early to determine this season’s flush rate since grouse hunting doesn’t end until Feb. 11. Let’s hope it is an improvement over last year’s survey, which revealed that hunters suffered the lowest flush rate since the survey began with the 1973-74 season. Just 0.57 birds were flushed per hour of effort. The initial year, the number was 1.31.

When the survey was initiated, Coggin was a DGIF research biologist doing pioneer work on grouse; Treadwell was a teacher at William Fleming High School in Roanoke and a founder of a Ruffed Grouse Society Chapter; I was the outdoor editor for the Roanoke Times.

Treadwell and I were grouse hunting partners, seldom missing a Saturday during the season. We keep records of the birds we flushed and other data and came to the conclusion that if we got other hunters to do the same we could pool the information and have some nifty data on the population trends of the bird we loved to pursue.

West Virginia already was doing this, and so were members of “The Ancient and Honorable Order of Brush Worn Partridge Hunters” a loose-knit organization of grouse hunters headquartered in Pennsylvania.

Coggon was quick to buy into the idea. In the survey’s first report he stated: “The effort is designed to assist in the management of this bird in Virginia by using information about the productivity and rearing success of grouse.”

That initial year, hunters kept taps on the hours they hunted, the birds they flushed and other data. They collected wing and tail feathers from the birds they killed so Coggin could determine the age and gender of the grouse.

That first year, 22 hunters took part in the survey, collecting feathers from 158 birds in 28 counties. 

Some hunters said they wouldn’t participate because the information would be used to uncover their grouse hunting hot spots. Coggin was a no-nonsense researcher who wouldn’t even tell Treadwell and me where the most flushes were coming from.

The survey wasn’t without its bias, which Coggin readily admitted, but it still provided the best information going.

“We are dealing with a very ardent group of grouse hunters who probably averaged hunting and killing more grouse than the average hunters in the state,” he said. 

To prove his point, Coggin noted that all but three of the hunters in the first survey used dogs. Your average Joe hunter wouldn’t likely have a highly trained grouse dog, or even a poorly trained one, like Treadwell and I had.

The Virginia survey did not reveal the distinct 10-year cycles in grouse numbers that are part of the core population in New England and the Lake States. The flush rate in Virginia never advanced much more than 1.50 birds per hour. The 30-plus year average is 1.12. The 2001-2002 season accounted for the survey’s top flush rate of 1.61. Next in line were the 1982-83 season with 1.57, and the 1995-96 with 1.50.

There were some lean years even in the early days. The 1976-77 flush rate was 0.72.

Last season, sportsmen had to spend nearly two hours in grouse cover just to flush a single bird. That is heart breaking. Hunters are bailing out of the sport as a result and there are few recruits to replace them. There are so few grouse and quail nowadays it is difficult to train a bird dog.

“Many grouse hunters were very dissatisfied with last year’s season,” said Gary Norman, grouse project leader for the DGIF. Some said it was the worst they’ve ever experienced, a statement backed up by the survey.

Even sadder is the fact that there is a good chance the flush rate won’t improve that much in the future. 

Grouse need early succession growth to prosper. To create new trees you have to cut some old ones, which is frowned upon in many circles, especially on national forest land, which once was the bulwark of Virginia’s grouse population.

If you enjoy grouse hunting and would like to see more of these gallant birds in your woodlot or in the national forest, then you need to learn to love the sound of a chainsaw.

Another way you can help is to participate in the annual DGIF survey. Contact Gary Norman at Gary.Norman@dgif.virginia.gov and tell him to send you a survey packet. Last year there were 43 cooperating hunters, well under the 100 of some years. Like the grouse themselves, survey participants are in decline.

“Unfortunately, we’re looking hard at dropping the survey if participation continues to decline,” he said.

Let’s end on a positive note. While the past season’s flush rate points to a very low grouse population, Norman wonders if a record mast crop may have played a role by dispersing the birds and reducing the flush rate. The 2011 spring drumming count suggests that the grouse population is better that last season’s flush rate indicated. I’m also hearing from people who say they are flushing birds.