Re: [CT Birds] State response to Rough Grouse
Paul,I'm as outraged as you. By the time DEEP decides to do anything re:Ruffed Grouse, the grouse will be history in CT.I'll contact my representative and another in the next district who is on theEnvironment Committee and cares deeply about animal issues. I encourageother CT listers, birders to do likewise. Couldn't COA also speak up about this? Meredith SampsonOld Greenwich
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Carrier Graphics carriergraphics@sbcglobal.net
To: ctbirds@lists.ctbirding.org
Subject: [CT Birds] State response to Rough Grouse
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:30:29 -0800 (PST)
I just called the State DEEP and talked to Mike Gregonis on the welfare of Rough
Grouse here in CT, and he told me the following...
"Their are more than hunters that take Grouse here in CT. And that bird that is
taken by a hunter will most likely be taken by a natural predator anyway."
Well this says to me - the State has determined that hunters have as much right
to take that Grouse as a natural predator does, its going to die one way or the
other anyway! This is our States answer to the dwindling population numbers of
Grouse here in our State at present. I for one could not believe what I heard. I
hope you do not as well.
This is not a hunting issue, it is one of common sense and the right and will to
let and help a declining State species to possibly regain some ground in
population numbers by saving the few that are left to breed. If not, we could
loose them as a State species altogether. But apparently, the remaining Grouse
are going to die anyway from natural predation, so let the hunters do their
thing.
Bird watchers and all the peoples of our State also have the right for a chance
to at least see this vanishing bird, But as of now, hunters have much more
rights to shoot one than the rest of us have at that chance to just see one.
If you disagree with the way our State is handling this situation with our
dwindling Grouse numbers, please leave a message to:
the State of CT Wildlife manager - Rick Jacobson at - rick.jacobson@ct.gov
If you are as outraged as I, Please mention you believe the Ruffed Grouse should
be taken OFF our States Hunting list to help the species regain their population
numbers in our State.
Thank you - Paul Carrier
This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA) for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut.
For subscription information visit http://lists.ctbirding.org/mailman/listinfo/ctbirds_lists.ctbirding.org
One thing to keep in mind is that by virtue of them being a harvested species, it makes them eligible for far more funding than for non-harvested species, which is one reason there has been so many resources going towards creating new habitat for them. There is dedicated funding that can support habitat management for hunted species. It is likely the maturation of our woodlands that is the limiting factor for Ruffed Grouse in CT, as they are an early successional species. Most species dependent upon this habitat type are in serious decline in the state. There is a lot of work going into improving habitat for Ruffed Grouse and woodcock in the state, both on state lands and at places like private fish and game clubs, which provide 1,000's of acres of critical habitat for birds in the state, both hunted and non-game alike.
Patrick
Patrick M. Comins
Director of Bird Conservation
Audubon Connecticut
185 East Flat Hill Road
Southbury, CT 06488
Phone: (203)264-5098 x308
Fax: (203)264-6332
pcomins@audubon.org
http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewState.do?state=US-CT
Audubon Connecticut is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AudubonCT
Friends of Conte is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Silvio-O-Conte-National-Fish-and-Wildlife-Refuge/121976791147545?v=wall
Patrick beat me to one of my points regarding Ruffed Grouse in this
State, and that is the maturation of their habitat. Forty years ago
the woodland edge habitat perfect for Grouse and Woodcock was more
plentiful than today. This habitat made up of old abandoned farm
fields, orchards, cedar edges, etc, has been severally reduced due to
the growth of encroaching woodlands and development.
With the severe reduction in suitable habitat the bird numbers follow.
It doesn't surprise me that the count numbers that have been charted
have fallen. Another count that never get posted is the number of
acres of suitable habitat still available for these birds. It also
could be that many of the usual counted birds have retreated farther
back into the woodlands to find suitable habitat away from the normal
birding areas where they have been counted in the past. And maybe more
of the birds have settled into private property areas where they will
never be counted.
Around my house I am surrounded with thousands of acres of private
land owned and leased by the water company, and private shooting and
game clubs. My back yard property alone backs up to hundreds and
hundreds perhaps thousands of acres of water company private property.
There are many old fields, sloughs, cedar swamps and edges throughout
the main mature woodlands in this area. I hear Grouse drumming every
spring in several locations, yet these birds never make any counts. I
wonder how many Grouse are in these areas? I also wonder if any of
them have have relocated here from other dwindling locations and will
never be counted.
I hunted Grouse years ago, and one thing we kept in mind was that the
usual Grouse cover changed every year. You couldn't rely on the same
good Grouse cover to be as productive as it was last season. You had
to search for the new areas of cover that the Grouse preferred. It may
have been on a different area of the private property, or a completely
different piece of property all together. Some seasons you would find
them, sometimes less and other seasons none at all.
Just because these birds may not be showing up in counts at usual
locations each year or with reduced numbers, there could be many
reasons.
We have to put our trust and faith in the biologists who are trying to
put things in perspective. If the numbers were low or critical, they
would alter the season from the length of the season and/or bag limits.
Keith Mueller
Quoting "Comins, Patrick" PCOMINS@audubon.org:
One thing to keep in mind is that by virtue of them being a
harvested species, it makes them eligible for far more funding than
for non-harvested species, which is one reason there has been so
many resources going towards creating new habitat for them. There
is dedicated funding that can support habitat management for hunted
species. It is likely the maturation of our woodlands that is the
limiting factor for Ruffed Grouse in CT, as they are an early
successional species. Most species dependent upon this habitat type
are in serious decline in the state. There is a lot of work going
into improving habitat for Ruffed Grouse and woodcock in the state,
both on state lands and at places like private fish and game clubs,
which provide 1,000's of acres of critical habitat for birds in the
state, both hunted and non-game alike.
Patrick
Patrick M. Comins
Director of Bird Conservation
Audubon Connecticut
185 East Flat Hill Road
Southbury, CT 06488
Phone: (203)264-5098 x308
Fax: (203)264-6332
pcomins@audubon.org
http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewState.do?state=US-CT
Audubon Connecticut is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AudubonCT
Friends of Conte is on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-the-Silvio-O-Conte-National-Fish-and-Wildlife-Refuge/121976791147545?v=wall
This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association
(COA) for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut.
For subscription information visit
http://lists.ctbirding.org/mailman/listinfo/ctbirds_lists.ctbirding.org
Patrick makes a very good point. And I'm not a hunter nor have I ever hunted
Ruffed Grouse, except with binoculars that is! And in an ideal world I would
very much prefer that no avian species be hunted by humans anywhere on the
planet. However, habitat management is the only way we are going to increase
the population in CT, or even just avoid extirpation in CT. We may well
already at the point that Ruffed Grouse recovery in CT will require
importation of birds from outside our state. Take Northern Bobwhite as an
example. Many Bobwhite are released each year for hunting. Now I know many
of these birds are less than savvy when it comes to being in the wild, but
if there was abundant habitat some of these birds would establish
themselves. But there is precious little habitat for them currently in CT. I
believe Bobwhite require a habitat mix that is a bit more complex than
Ruffed Grouse, but the successional habitat is needed by both. In order to
have the best chance of a successful recovery program for Ruffed Grouse
there needs to be the largest possible human community interested in making
it happen. That really means trying to get a coalition of birders,
conservation groups, and hunters, (as a minimum) to influence legislatures
to bring funding to bear in a time when virtually all funding is shrinking.
Not easy, as Patrick well knows. I for one am happy we have people such as
Patrick (and many others) working towards such goals. In a political
environment of ever increasing partisanship and devaluation of scientific
research, we have many challenges that can only be properly addressed by
trying to build consensus.
Dave Provencher
Naturally New England
http://naturallynewengland.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: CTBirds [mailto:ctbirds-bounces@lists.ctbirding.org] On Behalf Of
Comins, Patrick
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 9:50 AM
To: ctbirds@lists.ctbirding.org
Subject: Re: [CT Birds] State response to Rough Grouse
But don't you, Dave, Pat and others think that at least a temporary
hunting moritorium on our own home-grown Connecticut Grouse would be a good
thing, while the habitat recovers? Why should we import Grouse in the
future when we might salvage our own? I'm sad that we no longer have
Bobwhite native in Connecticut. Some escaped caged grown bird just doesn't
make it for me. I would hate to see the Ruffed Grouse follow that path. I
do believe the Christmas Count indicates a real problem here, possibly one
that we don't have time to solve by habitat resoration and hope for the
best, whil;e hunters blast away.
Kathy Van Der Aue
Southport, Connecticut
Visit my Blog at http://naturaliststable.wordpress.com
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, David Provencher <
davidprovencher@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Patrick makes a very good point. And I'm not a hunter nor have I ever
hunted
Ruffed Grouse, except with binoculars that is! And in an ideal world I
would
very much prefer that no avian species be hunted by humans anywhere on the
planet. However, habitat management is the only way we are going to
increase
the population in CT, or even just avoid extirpation in CT. We may well
already at the point that Ruffed Grouse recovery in CT will require
importation of birds from outside our state. Take Northern Bobwhite as an
example. Many Bobwhite are released each year for hunting. Now I know many
of these birds are less than savvy when it comes to being in the wild, but
if there was abundant habitat some of these birds would establish
themselves. But there is precious little habitat for them currently in CT.
I
believe Bobwhite require a habitat mix that is a bit more complex than
Ruffed Grouse, but the successional habitat is needed by both. In order to
have the best chance of a successful recovery program for Ruffed Grouse
there needs to be the largest possible human community interested in making
it happen. That really means trying to get a coalition of birders,
conservation groups, and hunters, (as a minimum) to influence legislatures
to bring funding to bear in a time when virtually all funding is shrinking.
Not easy, as Patrick well knows. I for one am happy we have people such as
Patrick (and many others) working towards such goals. In a political
environment of ever increasing partisanship and devaluation of scientific
research, we have many challenges that can only be properly addressed by
trying to build consensus.
Dave Provencher
Naturally New England
http://naturallynewengland.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: CTBirds [mailto:ctbirds-bounces@lists.ctbirding.org] On Behalf Of
Comins, Patrick
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 9:50 AM
To: ctbirds@lists.ctbirding.org
Subject: Re: [CT Birds] State response to Rough Grouse
This list is provided by the Connecticut Ornithological Association (COA)
for the discussion of birds and birding in Connecticut.
For subscription information visit
http://lists.ctbirding.org/mailman/listinfo/ctbirds_lists.ctbirding.org
Being an idealist, If I had my druthers Kathy I'd say yes. But here is my
opinion why it might work against the future of Ruffed Grouse in CT. Much of
the hunting community looks at birders in a less than complimentary way, and
the reverse is true for many birder's opinion of hunters. I absolutely do
not want to see that situation debated on CTBirds however, emotions and
problem solving rarely mix well. I know when I'm hot under the collar I make
stupid decisions! Okay, not just when I'm angry. So given there is less than
a warm relationship between the two communities, it is unlikely an imposed
moratorium is going to be received well by the hunting community. It is more
likely going to be perceived as the thin tip of the wedge of more
restrictions driven by birders coming down the road. I also believe we are
already at the point where recovery in CT must include mostly transported or
hacked birds. The empirical evidence of breeding bird surveys and Christmas
Count data, combined with my own anecdotal evidence of hiking many hundreds
of miles across the CT landscape since last I encountered a Ruffed Grouse or
their tracks, leads me believe we have so few left that the existing
population is too small to recover, even with significant habitat
management, in a reasonable time if at all.
If a coalition of hunters and conservationists jointly recommended a
temporary cessation of harvesting, combined with habitat management, that
would be a different thing. That would not be without its critics in the
hunting community but it would be a much better approach. It would also get
real attention in the legislature. It would be perceived as: If birders and
hunters agree, there must be a real crises! There are many examples of avian
species rebounding in the US and a great many of those successes were
wrought with a large (or very large) contribution from the hunting
community. Now I know birders and hunters will always have many differing
opinions on many issues, but we have worked together for our mutual benefit
in the past and we can in the future. I believe sometimes we have to accept
certain things in the short term that we would rather not accept in order
to achieve the best result in the long term. I think there is one
fundamental truth here, that the future of Ruffed Grouse in CT is tied to
long term habitat management. The birding community is unlikely to achieve
that acting unilaterally.
Dave Provencher
Naturally New England
http://naturallynewengland.blogspot.com/
From: Kathy Van Der Aue [mailto:kathyvda@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 2:16 PM
To: David Provencher
Cc: ctbirds@lists.ctbirding.org
Subject: Re: [CT Birds] State response to Rough Grouse
But don't you, Dave, Pat and others think that at least a temporary hunting
moritorium on our own home-grown Connecticut Grouse would be a good thing,
while the habitat recovers? Why should we import Grouse in the future when
we might salvage our own? I'm sad that we no longer have Bobwhite native in
Connecticut. Some escaped caged grown bird just doesn't make it for me. I
would hate to see the Ruffed Grouse follow that path. I do believe the
Christmas Count indicates a real problem here, possibly one that we don't
have time to solve by habitat resoration and hope for the best, whil;e
hunters blast away.
Kathy Van Der Aue
Southport, Connecticut
Visit my Blog at http://naturaliststable.wordpress.com