I agree that habitat fragmentation and loss is the primary cause in the decline
of Greater Sage-Grouse. On the other hand, I think it is the height of
hypocrisy to continue to license the killing of a bird that is warranted for
listing under the endangered species act (ESA). What sort of statement does it
make to allow killing a species for sport (and you can be sure people hunt
Sage-Grouse for sport, not for subsistence) while at the same time trying to
inculcate concern and respect for a species in peril.
There is a lot of taxpayer money available for habitat restoration to prevent
ESA listing, and that money is coming from everyone, not specifically hunters.
I will go a step further and say that it is a conflict of interest for Fish and
Wildlife to be dependent on hunting licenses for its existence. There are a lot
more birders and nature lovers than there are hunters, and there is little
question in my mind that most if not all would be thrilled if a major portion
of their taxes went to protect wildlife.
Sage-Grouse have been trending downward about 2% of its population per year.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife authorizes hunting of 2% of Oregon's
population per year. Then there is an unknown but probably significant number
taken by illegal poaching. Maybe hunting only has a small impact compared to
other factors in the decline, but it does have some impact. Obviously I am not
a fan of hunting, but I am especially irritated when it is allowed on a species
that is headed for extinction.
Craig Miller
Bend, OR
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:51 PM, Margaret Stephens <mlstep@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I have not been following any progress in this task force closely but I think
it is applicable to this discussion: "JOINT INTERIM TASK FORCE ON FUNDING
FOR FISH, WILDLIFE, AND RELATED OUTDOOR RECREATION AND EDUCATION"
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015I1/Committees/JTFFFW/Overview
Subject: [boo] Re: ODFW Statistics for Greater-Sage Grouse Harvested
From: jack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:18:26 -0800
CC: boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: joel.geier@xxxxxxxx; verandafay@xxxxxxxxx; cgates326@xxxxxxxxx
Joel, Chuck & Delores, The Sage-grouse decline is all about habitat. They
need healthy sagebrush with adjacent healthy wet meadow habitat to raise
their young. The longterm increase juniper in these habitats is also not
beneficial to Sage-grouse. The juniper provides hunting roosts for
Sage-grouse predators (raptors) and uses water that supports sagebrush and
wet meadow habitat. As juniper increases in good grouse habitat it is no
longer good Sage-grouse habitat. If livestock use the wet meadow habitat
heavily as the Sage-grouse broods come off the nests there is less cover and
they are more vulnerable to predation. Less cover means that coyotes,
bobcats, badger, weasels and everything else that would love to eat a baby
Sage-grouse will find it easier to prey on them. If the habitat issue is
resolved the Sage-grouse will be return. If you fence out the livestock or
restrict the early season grazing of the wet meadows the sage-grouse will
have better success in raising their broods.
As far as Mountain Quail go in western Oregon go Joel covered it very well.
Go Birding and Enjoy, Jack
On Mar 3, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Delores Porch <verandafay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joel, I couldn't agree with you more regarding funding wildlife from non
hunters. I don't think the issue is that non hunters aren't willing to pay
up. There have been several bills offered in the Legislature for several
years but they don't make it out of the Natural Resource Committees.
Politics, of course. My opinion is that hunters do not want the "lookers" to
have money to back up their wants. They will loose their political position.
I may be jaded on this issue cause I've worked on it for so many years.
Delores Porch
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Joel Geier <joel.geier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Chuck & All,
This is a great question to raise in the BOO forum. I really hope that
this forum will turn into a good place for Oregon birders to talk about
this kind of bird conservation issue, in a reasonably civilized manner.
I'd like to discuss Mountain Quail and Greater Sage-Grouse separately,
as I think they're really in different categories.
Starting with Mountain Quail, I'm not convinced that there is a
long-term decline.
West of the Cascades, this species is associated with early-seral
habitats (in other words, regenerating clearcuts), but year-to-year
numbers seem to depend a lot on the weather (dry spring weather usually
being better for nesting productivity).
The highest Mountain Quail counts (if you look at old CBC data) were
during the 1970s and 1980s logging booms in western Oregon. The Oakridge
CBC recorded some phenomenal totals during those years, that will
probably never be matched again by anyone, anywhere. We still find them
in the same situations in the western Cascades and Coast Range, just
thankfully there aren't quite as many "stump pastures." In my view,
numbers are stable.
East of the Cascades, the habitat preferences are a little different. I
associate them with sagebrush/juniper draws near the juniper-pine
transition. ODFW has introduced (or re-introduced) Mountain Quail in
various places over the past couple of decades. In some places (such as
Wheeler/Grant County) they seem to have taken hold, but maybe not
everywhere.
Word from Lake County is that the early seral conditions produced by
regeneration from the Winter Ridge fire a few years back has produced a
good population there. A Lakeview birder tells me that they're also
finding them regularly on the west slope of the Warner Mountains.
So in summary, I'm not nearly as worried about Mountain Quail as I am
about Greater Sage-Grouse.
On Sage-Grouse, I'm guessing that ODFW's calculations have something to
do with finding revenue for habitat conservation. A certain level of
Sage-Grouse harvest might help to maintain support in the hunting
community, for putting hunting-license revenues into Sage-Grouse habitat
conservation.
But I think that's a good question to raise -- what's the trade-off
between a certain level of harvest to maintain revenues for
conservation, vs. risk to the species from excessive take?
On the flip side of that issue, I keep having to ask when birders are
going to accept responsibility for funding bird habitat conservation. We
can't keep complaining about bird hunting, if we can't put forward an
alternative plan.
Good birding,
Joel
* From: Charles Gates <cgates326@xxxxxxxxx>
* To: boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:15:00 -0800
I used to be a hunter. I don't hunt anymore. It's a personal choice I've
made. My family all still hunt as do several of my friends. I'm not
militant about this issue. But I was very surprised to come across the
ODFW statistics for Greater Sage Grouse and Mt Quail harvest over the
last 10 years. You can view the statistics yourself at
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/upland_bird/harvest/index.asp#Statistics.
I really am surprised at the numbers of Mt Quail and Sage Grouse that are
harvested. It's my understanding that both species are declining. All over
Eastern Oregon, ranchers, biologists, land managers and other interested
parties are regularly gathering to meet and devise mitigation strategies. I
guess I naively assumed a simple way of stopping a population decline is to
stop shooting reproductively viable adults.
--
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for
sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
Chuck Gates
POST: Send email to boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
HELP: Contact boo-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
