Ted, RGS tells me that when they do large radio transmitter studies of adult grouse, at least half are killed by avian predators. That’s mostly in the context of Hunter impact additive or compensatory, but nevertheless, when they find a carcass after a mortality trigger, it’s about a 50-50 chance that the sign is the death came from another bird.
Clear cutting isn't the only treatment anymore. Sometimes the people get the best value with select cutting, and leaving big old trees to provide acorns, etc for wildlife. They'll leave drumming logs amid known shrubby fruit and food sources trying to improve grouse density as well.
Checker boarding smaller cuts into 25 year and 15 year cycles creates a ton of seemingly great habitat, but the numbers aren't showing up.
ClapperZapper pretty much has provided the answer to low and declining grouse populations, but unfortunately, he isn't really recognizing or acknowledging it... much like the Nutty Professor and most of our Game Management biologists.
There are a multitude of factors that reduce grouse populations, ranging from poor nesting conditions, nest predation, disease, habitat loss, excess hunting pressure, extreme weather, and of course, highly efficient predators like hawks and coyotes.
When telemetry studies show that at least half of adult grouse are killed by avian predators, that should set off alarm bells and whistles. Add to that huge mortality the numbers killed by coyotes, foxes, cats, and other predators, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that a tipping point has been reached... in spite of grouse habitat improvements and lower overall hunter numbers.
Unfortunately, many State Game Management programs are being managed by biologists with a similar myopic mindset as the Nutty Professor. Even with the obvious clues right in front of them, they are too short-sighted to even consider that maybe it's time to go back to something that worked very well in the past. And that simple solution is reducing the number of predators. State Game agencies used to allow killing of hawks and owls, and many even paid bounties on them. They did not become extinct, but some populations of them became endangered. Now the pendulum has swung much too far the other way, but game dept. biologists, and fools like the Nutty Professor, still wish to treat them like some sacred cow that is untouchable.
We simply don't have any truly wild and self balancing ecosystems. That is a pipe dream of tree hugging environmentalist wackos. We hunters pay billions for our Fish and Game Departments to strike a balance and manage the game resources for the benefit of hunters and the general population too. All too often, they get it wrong, and the proof is in the pudding. Here in Pennsylvania, we saw such mismanagement played out when our Game Commission decided to allow harvesting of hen pheasants. When that massive impact was added to every other source of pheasant mortality, it was only a few years before our numbers of pheasants that bred clutches in the wild went to practically nothing. Then the few remaining birds were hammered by predators, and we are at a point where shooting stocked pheasants is about all that's left.
Cause and effect couldn't be more evident, but to this day, our Game Commission and their vaunted biologists refuse to admit they were wrong, and reverse that policy state wide.
And meanwhile, dummies like the Nutty Professor will continue to spout off about how many umpteen-thousand steps they accumulate on their Step Counter Apps, while shooting few if any birds. And they remain too dense to connect the dots. But you just can't fix stupid.
