Page 1 of 1

Trees vs Grouse

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:00 pm
by Lucas ... ndiana.pdf

No low bushes for grouse so lets cut the trees.

Ruffed Grouse Society has been pushing this for years ever since big timber bought them for 'useful idiots'.

Re: Trees vs Grouse

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:33 pm
by JHarkness
Absolute nonsense, I used to have a thriving ruffed grouse population on my land without any young stands, in fact the area the grouse favored was the oldest part of my forest with trees exceeding 200 years of age, it was the dense natural understory, largely hobblebush, that allowed them to thrive. Of course that has all been lost now to white-tailed deer, so I suppose clearcutting more forests to "help" the grouse would also boost the deer population even higher, giving timber companies yet another chance to say "see, young forests are better for wildlife". Despite this, there is truth in the article, grouse do need young forests, such as those created after large blowdowns and after beavers abandon ponds, but widespread clearcutting of maturing forests is not going to help matters at all, decreasing deer populations and further reintroducing beavers certainly would, however. But what would help the grouse above all else would be to stop hunting them, or at least reduce the bag limits, I believe the bag limit for grouse in NY is six, compared to I believe just two deer. It's all about money, unfortunately. As long as timber companies can clear cut forests and make a profit from it while raising game animal populations, I'm afraid healthy forested ecosystems on managed land are gone for good.