doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Ruff Grouse being considered an in danger species

I already mentioned it in the other ruffed grouse thread currently running Lonesome, but I'll say it again. Here in my State of Pennsylvania, timber harvesting is alive and well. It is one of the largest industries in the state. And contrary to what the author of the article in your link says, there is still a vibrant timber cutting industry in many other states where grouse numbers are in a steep decline, that cannot be explained by the 11 year population cycle.

Pennsylvania is the largest producer of hardwoods in the country, accounting for 10% of the total hardwood output in the US. Revenues from Pennsylvania's forest products industry exceed $5.5 billion annually. Approximately 90,000 Pennsylvanians make a livelihood on the industry.

rocky mtn bill, the idiot that votes for Democrat anti-gunners, apparently thinks we should eliminate their jobs and put them all on Welfare and Food Stamps!

The types of cutting vary widely. There are small woodlots logged out. There is large scale clear-cutting of large tracts done by big players like Georgia-Pacific, Koppers, Collins Pine, etc. And there is selective cutting where only the best and largest mature trees are harvested. There are also hundreds of smaller logging companies including Amish Dutch crews that use draft horses to haul logs. In addition to the large amount of hardwoods cut here, there is also a great deal of pine, spruce, and Eastern Hemlock.

In short, there is a wide variety of forest in different stages of succession and maturation. The vast majority of this acreage never sees any spraying of insecticides or herbicides, so we can pretty much eliminate that as a factor in ruffed grouse breeding or survival. Hunter numbers are way down compared to 30 years ago, so the decline isn't because of excess hunting pressure or over-harvesting.

The biggest and most obvious change over the last few decades is the introduction of the Eastern Coyote, and the protection of hawks and owls. As GLS said earlier, these critters are eating machines that never quit. I disagree with ed about the influence of wild turkeys, because they seemed to co-exist with grouse quite well. But in recent years, even their numbers are way down as they too have become coyote food.

In 2019, I shot two coyote puppies near my garage, and I will put a bullet in every one I possibly can.

interesting that pa closed its late winter grouse hunting season...perhaps to reduce the impact of two legged human predators?...if so, then why not also put a winter bounty on four legged and winged predators as well?

keith, talk to some old time pa grouse hunters like myself...hopefully they will tell you that turkeys prey on grouse eggs and chicks...and while you are at it ask them how owls can destroy grouse at night when they kill them and just eat the heads...it is about choices...game regulators have chosen not preserve the ruffed grouse at the expense of other species...

I have no doubt that turkeys will eat the eggs of other ground nesting birds, along with insects, grubs, caterpillars, seeds, nuts, and just about any protein they can find during their grazing through the woods. Other than wild grapes, they were competing for many of the same food sources. I cannot recall seeing turkeys in wild grape thickets very often. Yet I can well recall many places that had good populations of both grouse and turkeys at the same time.

I can't say that I really see a much greater number of owls, but I know that they are mostly nocturnal. However, the number of hawks has exploded. I think the Game Commission finally realized that grouse numbers are at a tipping point. There was never a great number of hunters during the late season. I always tried to get out a several times, but it largely coincided with my flintlock deer hunting after Christmas. By then, when winter has set in, there are few guys in the woods, and distant shots from late season small game hunters are few and far between, so the impact on grouse was probably rather small.

When the coyotes really got into the areas I hunt, you could hear them howling at night. At the same time, I began seeing a much greater number of predator killed grouse and turkey carcasses. Turkey numbers are not as bad as grouse, but the numbers are noticeably much lower in most places. This was before we started hearing reports of bird deaths from West Nile Virus. I know that the coyote lovers don't want to have us believe our own eyes, but I'll go with hard evidence I can touch and see over feel-good theories that make little or no sense.

Ted, if the idiots in DC--BOTH parties--continue to ignore trillion dollar deficits, then I can't visualize a very good future for our grandchildren.

Craig, I'll try once more to explain your problem to you. No matter how condescending this sounds, I think your dissatisfaction with the state of the world is misplaced. You see half the problem: that things aren't what they were and that they're getting worse by the minute. What you don't see is that the decline is a direct consequence of how it was for far too long. Our problems weren't invented by progressives. We all did it to ourselves. You don't want to see anything change, but change keeps happening anyway. Denying it only makes it worse. Either we learn to manage it and figure out ways to adapt to it, or it will ultimately do without us. No politician or party will solve it all. The one clear lesson is that we must find some way to bring all our talents to bear on the issues. Magical thinking and the politics of division won't work. PS: I know this sounds pompous, and I apologize for the tone.

Morning Bill, I was curious what you thought your presumptive front runners, Sanders or Bloomberg, would do for you, your state and the nation, but sorry just saying they will change things doesn't add up to a gopher mound of substance. Can you convince my head, not my heart, to vote for the Democrat that will oppose President Trump? Factual policy aside, do you think Sanders praising the castro regime yesterday appeals to a thoughtful, united nation?

Sorry Bill, you have the wrong Craig. When did I ever say that there are no long term problems, blanket disatisfaction with the world, or that some of these long term problems were invented by progressives of recent years? I've written many times here that I have never voted for an ideal candidate, but I've never been so dumb as to cast a protest vote or not vote. I understand the upcoming vote is about today's situations going forward, not about revisionist or romaticized history.

I suspect that you perceive 'every' off topic thing that we dice about is my being stuck on half the picture, because I'm commenting about positions of the left, that you bring up. I still haven't read one thing from you about what one of your candidates will do for the US and how they will reasonably (can-o-worms) do it. So, how about this. Since we can look back, scientifically evaluate results so to speak, can you name a progessive policy that has been rejected by conservatives, yet improved some long term problem and did 'not' create a multitude more problems?

Craig, you've done a good job with this last post. I'm happy to respond. First, I think you're mistaken to call Bloomberg a front runner. He's not my preference for one. As for Sanders, I don't know what he said about Castro, but many of his goals make good sense. Higher wages for one; higher taxes on great wealth is another, and the two are connected. Any of the Democrat candidates will treat veterans and their families better and with greater respect. Any will hire and retain better staff and be open to advice and evidence. Any will improve relations with our allies. Two examples of policy progress: Social Security was and still is opposed by many Republicans while it has saved and improved the lives of countless old and poor people as well as children. Republicans warn endlessly that it's bankrupting us when a simple extension of the tax will keep it solvent forever. Legislation protecting air and water, despite being launched by Richard Nixon, have come increasingly under fire from "conservatives" because they cost money. What gets lost from them is what costs accrue from the lack of such protections, much of which is higher health care. M ost of all I'd cite the Civil Rights Act. Johnson may have come at it as politically expedient, but that detracts nothing from it's great benefits to the country. It was and is today opposed and resented by many Republicans although they're more subtle in their messages. Then there's Women's Sufferage and The ACA. Perhaps you'd like to present some examples of your own?

Craig, I looked up Sander's comments about Castro. No wonder I didn't recall them since he made them 35 years ago. I'll address them nonetheless. He's absolutely right; Castro did increase literacy and health care. Sanders may not have noted it, but Castro also helped produce a lot more doctors. Yes, those are not bad things even granted that they were achieved by a dedicated Communist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/communist-cuba-enslaves-physicians-


________________________
This is what it sounds like...
When grouse cry.

You missed the part about the mass murder,and Fidel himself machine gunning Cubans that were trying to swim away?

You can vote socialism in, but, you have to shoot your way out, Bill.

A neighbor in my Wife's home town of Bogota escaped as a child when Castro's henchmen came looking for anyone who had spoken to the police. He ended up on a fishing boat to the Dominican Republic, put there by a friend of the family. Castro killed his entire family, and the entire family of the friend who assisted his escape, at 12 years of age. He made his way to Colombia, and weeps to this day about it.

Anyone who can lay any praise at Fidel Castro and his regime is a dolt, dumb as a hammer.

Best,
Ted