Grouse hunters better get informed

[jrebel]

I'm not partial one way or the other on this topic.  I personally don't see a shortage of grouse.  Every hike I have been on this year I could have limited out.  it is unbelievable how many grouse I see.   The years that the numbers aren't as high...usually correlate to a very cold winter with a very wet spring.  The last 4-5 years have been bumper crops.....literally tripping over grouse. 

[Skyvalhunter]

It's my experience that the wet spring which we had is the result of low spring hatches. This year we had a high snow pack that held late. This affects the blue grouse population. I limited each day I hunted. Saw alot of young small blues size of robins I passed on. I see on average 30 birds a day. However seeing birds and getting them is rarely the case where I hunt. Most times your lucky to get one on the wing and rarely do they fly into a tree and sit there. I have seen alot of hawks this year which is a good indication of a good grouse population.

[Special T]

I think the OP should clarify that this is a BLUE/Sooty grouse issue that the department is talking about.

[packmule]

I also work in the woods and have been hunting NW WA for nearly 30 years. As others have said, grouse numbers don't appear to be in a downward slide (on the West side, at least). Hunter effort probably is, and we all know that access definitely is. Spring weather is the greatest influence on productivity. In my opinion, fall weather has an effect on harvest rates. Long, hot, dry falls are no bueno! Both are highly cyclical.

They didn't go into detail on the spring hooter season. While I generally support expanded opportunity, this idea seems questionable. I'm concerned that if hunters encounter females, they'll shoot them - some unintentionally,  others not giving a damn. Then, you've lost your brood hen and any young that might otherwise be produced.

Lastly, blind support of a comprehensive restriction because they used data is bad thinking. Data can also be misused and I am trying to make the case that this is a prime example. Trying to extrapolate data from one small part of the state without considering decreasing effort and/or access doesn't fly with me.

Anyhow, good discussion and thanks for engaging!

It is a good discussion, and a good thread. I should have added a bit more information to my original post, I’m not blindly supporting this because they used data. I am an avid grouse hunter, in early September it’s very common to encounter family groups which make easy pickings. Dispersal of family groups typically begins in mid September and often takes several weeks. It’s far less common to encounter family groups after late September. I don’t know, but suspect, that this is the reason states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine don’t open their seasons until late September.

[predatorpro]

Doesnt matter what data they collect... it will be used against you.  Seems like this should be common knowledge by now...

[Limhangerslayer]

I also work in the woods and have been hunting NW WA for nearly 30 years. As others have said, grouse numbers don't appear to be in a downward slide (on the West side, at least). Hunter effort probably is, and we all know that access definitely is. Spring weather is the greatest influence on productivity. In my opinion, fall weather has an effect on harvest rates. Long, hot, dry falls are no bueno! Both are highly cyclical.

They didn't go into detail on the spring hooter season. While I generally support expanded opportunity, this idea seems questionable. I'm concerned that if hunters encounter females, they'll shoot them - some unintentionally,  others not giving a damn. Then, you've lost your brood hen and any young that might otherwise be produced.

Lastly, blind support of a comprehensive restriction because they used data is bad thinking. Data can also be misused and I am trying to make the case that this is a prime example. Trying to extrapolate data from one small part of the state without considering decreasing effort and/or access doesn't fly with me.

Anyhow, good discussion and thanks for engaging!

It is a good discussion, and a good thread. I should have added a bit more information to my original post, I’m not blindly supporting this because they used data. I am an avid grouse hunter, in early September it’s very common to encounter family groups which make easy pickings. Dispersal of family groups typically begins in mid September and often takes several weeks. It’s far less common to encounter family groups after late September. I don’t know, but suspect, that this is the reason states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine don’t open their seasons until late September.

all in all your thought is good.  But don't you think hunting pressure has a lot to do with it ñ

[packmule]

Absolutely, I think that’s why they are looking to shorten the season by a couple weeks when these family groups are most vulnerable.

I think as hunters we need to recognize that in some cases management actions are required to protect a valuable resource. Wyoming Fish and Game routinely decreases tag allocations and shortens seasons in units following a bad winter when big game animals are hit hard. When the population rebounds they increase opportunity again. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of many aspects of WDFW management of fish and wildlife. But in this case, shortening a 4 month season by 2 weeks seems like a small price for hunters to pay to potentially see increases in grouse populations. I agree with what many have said, in many years we have plenty of grouse in this state. But I’m not going to ding WDFW on this one when they appear to be making an informed management decision that aligns with what other states have also done.

[Skyvalhunter]

Don't even mention WY fish and game and WDFW in the same sentence. One has better game management technologies and actually uses scientific data while the other has no idea. WDFW is not the same ball park as Wyoming fish and game.

[packmule]

Don't even mention WY fish and game and WDFW in the same sentence. One has better game management technologies and actually uses scientific data while the other has no idea. WDFW is not the same ball park as Wyoming fish and game.

Agreed. My point was that WGF makes management decisions all the time which I think hunters accept because they recognize that’s what’s best for game populations in that year. WDFW has bungled so many things up that many hunters blindly oppose all potential management actions now due to distrust. For this specific topic I’m not sure that’s warranted.

[AspenBud]

If they want to increase grouse numbers they should focus on better habitat creation (more logging) and shorten up the modern rifle seasons.

I don’t think they get a good idea of what is going on with those barrels at all. The vast majority of grouse shot in this state are opportunistic shots taken during the modern rifle seasons. They are camp food and I’d be surprised if even 5% are represented in those barrels.

[Norman89]

For what it's worth my  you want higher grouse numbers? Be active in predator management. Grouse are an easy meal for coyote,bobcat,or cougar. All of which we can hunt, bobcats can be trapped. A unprotected nest of eggs is easy pickings for skunk, raccoon and possum which all can be trapped. It's another reason to get afield and spend time in the woods and since we can only run cage traps legally in our state many old time trappers gave it up when the rules changed and there are far less people involved in lowering the carrying capacity of the land on predators. Think about it as every predator you remove could possibly save between 1-20 grouse if I'm being optimistic. Then wdfw shouldn't feel the need to stick there nose into seasons since their laws are the ones that created what seems to be a plethora of predation problems across our state....but this is just my opinion

[Axle]

For what it's worth my  you want higher grouse numbers? Be active in predator management. Grouse are an easy meal for coyote,bobcat,or cougar. All of which we can hunt, bobcats can be trapped. A unprotected nest of eggs is easy pickings for skunk, raccoon and possum which all can be trapped. It's another reason to get afield and spend time in the woods and since we can only run cage traps legally in our state many old time trappers gave it up when the rules changed and there are far less people involved in lowering the carrying capacity of the land on predators. Think about it as every predator you remove could possibly save between 1-20 grouse if I'm being optimistic. Then wdfw shouldn't feel the need to stick there nose into seasons since their laws are the ones that created what seems to be a plethora of predation problems across our state....but this is just my opinion

And ravens make a huge impact on their numbers too.
Getting rid of a percentage of ravens might be the best start.

[Bucks2Ducks]

In my personal opinion the grouse population is fine. If they really are needing to lesson the harvest, why not have the first 2 weeks youth only? I would really like to see more opportunities for the future generation in this state where its hard enough on adults.

[Smokepole]

If they want to increase grouse numbers they should focus on better habitat creation (more logging) and shorten up the modern rifle seasons.

I don’t think they get a good idea of what is going on with those barrels at all. The vast majority of grouse shot in this state are opportunistic shots taken during the modern rifle seasons. They are camp food and I’d be surprised if even 5% are represented in those barrels.

Going to shotgun only like other upland birds would make sense to me.

[2MANY]

WDFW.......Consistently charging more for less.