Try living in Rhode island, we can't hunt grouse here anymore and I haven't seen or heard one in probably 15yrs. I don't believe in shooting any game bird on the ground or tree, except calling in turkeys of course. I don't believe in a 2 shot system either thou, if you have a double flush of grouse from an apple orchard and hit the first bird with your second shot you could still double up with your 3rd. I know thats a extreme scenario but limiting one to a certain amount a gun can hold is wrong and sounds like gun control.

 

Unenforceable regulations don't help.
They do reduce respect for the law in a significant percentage of the population.

 

That's a good way to look at it. Some states have a three-shot capacity small game limit, in line with fed migratory bird regulations, and others no limit at all. But hunters, for the most part, have less of an effect on small game than weather or habitat loss or land management. As others point out we are damn near out of small-game hunters (particularly in the east, where whitetail get all the attention), and alienating the remaining ones is counterproductive for their quarry. A lack of hunters equals a lack of a fan base for the grouse.
I quit duck hunting for more than a decade when steel shot became the rule, after unsuccessfully searching for a lawyer and a CPA to hunt with me during the "point system" bag limit era. And, of course, quit blowing money at DU events during that time.

 

I sympathize somewhat as an Ohio grouse hunter who watched our grouse population dwindle down to nothing. I listened to the dnr and the RGS defend the February season till I lost all respect for either. But I must say that a two shot limit or a no ground pounding law would not have saved our grouse. Better management might have.

 

Yes....flattening the curve in Ohio was possible, at one time....then, the harder work would have begun.
The ODNR, the RGS and some Ohio ruffed grouse hunters, all three, worked too hard to ignore that curve, ignore commonsense by measuring Ohio under the lens of the upper great lake states, by crediting raptors as having too great an impact or, by blaming the non-existent ruffed grouse cycle seen in those blessed UGL states....plus, the list goes on.
Range-wide is simply a p-poor method of analyzing ruffed grouse viability on the level which Ohio's reality demanded.
Oh yea, Ohio bugging out of the ACGRP before the study ended....pretty much defined odnr attitude, too much of the time.

While some ruffed grouse may be limb swatted in PA as everywhere....the state, quite honestly, lacks the depth of the graveling tradition as seen in Maine or the Yoop, for that matter.
Limiting hunters to two shots is just plain silly and more rooted in an even sillier artfully created image of a double gun vs Bonasa U.
That said, I often prefer a two-row.

 

There is also the fact that the US has 103 Million more people now than in 1970, nearly a 50% increase. Surely quite a few are also additional hunters. I doubt the grouse faired as well.

I'm sure severe limits are on the horizon

 

Don't forget massive loss of habitat for all of those folks to have a place to live

 

I wished and spit for the grouse to come back. Unfortunately, the spit filled up

 

I guess our PA game commission can charge extra to hunt grouse like they did with pheasants. That really helped alot didn't it!? Be careful what you wish for when asking for more regulation.

 

Actually and comparable to it's surrounds....PA's state-released pheasant program is stellar.
Imperfect and facing it's own realities but, with or without the $25 permit, it shines....thanks in part to the wisdom in creating the Gameland system and the PGC.

Establishing a stand-alone native pheasant population tho?...not so much, as the world of the bird has changed.

 

I lived in CT for 66 years and first started to hunt ruffed grouse and woodcock in 1982 always with a dog. The problem with grouse and woodcock numbers, was never what shotgun a hunter might carry, it was always loss of good habitat that ruined the grouse population. I truly believe in only shooting a flying grouse, woodcock, pheasant etc. Hunters that shoot them on the ground or on the limb might be an annoyance and might go against tradition, but they are a very small part of the problem when it comes to game bird numbers. Loss of habitat is the #1 issue.

The OP loves his very beautiful S x S shotguns, and they truly are well made and traditional, but they aren't everyone's cup of tea.

BTW just because I hunt with an SA, doesn't mean there are always 3 shells in the shotgun.

 

In other words, sportsmanship is not determined by the tools used.

 

FWIW, most pumps and SA shotguns have a plug that limits the maximum number of shells in the shotgun to 3......it would be very easy to make that plug limit the maximum shells in the shotgun to 2. Not that I believe it would change much.

 

I don’t think I have ever shot three times at a ruffy. The wood they live in are so dense they are gone before you could get a second off, but have used 3 shots on lots of wounded game running or swimming on the ground. I think habitat loss has more to do with the ruffies demise than anything, they are very particular. Same with quail in Va.

 

Limiting guns to two shots is a slippery slope. The anti gunners and anti hunters will seize on that. They have already mentioned the three shot limit for ducks when talking about magazine capacity. That should be a hard no.

Only shooting pointed birds? So hunting is for the wealthy only? Another terrible idea.

Shooting only when flying? Unenforceable. Make it part of hunter education. Teach ethics not tyranny.

 

Not to defend David's rather fanciful suggestions but while habitat, weather during hatch and post-hatch along with predators will always be the top 3 decline factors....once a bird, like the ruffed grouse, slides waaay down a decline curve then all the lesser factors of decline begin to gain in importance and should therefore be considered and, possibly, addressed.

It is just that limb-swatting and somehow limiting shots to two at only a flying bird have a triple fistful of other small factors in any decline stacked up ahead of them like cordwood.
Best to fret about stuff in the order of it's importance, imso.

 

Loss of Habitat and predator control, or lack thereof, were what killed the Grouse population in CT.
We used to have them in the 80’s, but not any more. I haven’t seen, or heard a grouse in decades.
Woodcock we still have, but not in the numbers they once were.
I have no comments on the shotgun used, or how many shells it can hold.
I don’t shoot them on the ground, or in trees, but I won’t lie and say every bird I ever shot was over a point.

 

There are FAR too many regulations already and what is already on the books is not enforced, or unenforceable as is. Hunter numbers continue to dwindle in many areas, yet there is continuing harassment inflicted on the ones that remain.

 

I’m from Eastern Ohio. The habitat is still here. There are no grouse or quail as there were. Coyote, fox and raccoon have taken over.

 

Yes, and Ohio still has a paper mill that needs fed....but the Wayne has aged to a % of ES less than 3% and that matters.
Plus, the ice storm area of a decade + ago never responded as the odnr folks predicted.

I would say the growth in deer feeding has boomed the nest predators and a health component weakening the bird at bad times of the year remains a non-interest and, probably, is untouchable.

Remaining ruffed grouse in Ohio have a tough gig.

 

Places I used to hunt in the 70s have houses with mowed lawns now. When I bought my house, in 1989, it was on a dirt road, with private septic and well. I remember seeing thousands of woodcock pick night crawlers in the rain on the dirt road, and watching them sing and dance at dusk in a cut field up the road. All gone now. Haven’t seen a one since they paved the roads.
I’ll use what I please to hunt birds, thank you very much. No state needs to tell bird hunters what type of gun to use. Near as I can tell, the DNR in Minnesota concerns itself with three things in this order, timber sales on state and tax forfeited lands, deer, and turkeys. If it wasn’t for RGS, I doubt they would care if another grouse was ever seen in this state. Several years past the DNR tried to write non-toxic only regulations into law here, bypassing the legislative process and citizen input, which, didn’t go that well for them. That issue went away, for now, and I believe most of the bureaucrats employed with the agency care only about how much money goes to the general fund from DNR regulated activities. Nothing else matters.

Phage

 

Places I used to hunt in the 70s have houses with mowed lawns now. When I bought my house, in 1989, it was on a dirt road, with private septic and well. I remember seeing thousands of woodcock pick night crawlers in the rain on the dirt road, and watching them sing and dance at dusk in a cut field up the road. All gone now. Haven’t seen a one since they paved the roads.
I’ll use what I please to hunt birds, thank you very much. No state needs to tell bird hunters what type of gun to use. Near as I can tell, the DNR in Minnesota concerns itself with three things in this order, timber sales on state and tax forfeited lands, deer, and turkeys. If it wasn’t for RGS, I doubt they would care if another grouse was ever seen in this state. Several years past the DNR tried to write non-toxic only regulations into law here, bypassing the legislative process and citizen input, which, didn’t go that well for them. That issue went away, for now, and I believe most of the bureaucrats employed with the agency care only about how much money goes to the general fund from DNR regulated activities. Nothing else matters.

Phage

Sadly, money going into the coffers controls most government actions. While I'm sure there are many, many dedicated wildlife officers, the upper management are usually those who may have started well but had a talent for politics in the agency. All too soon, the politics seems to become more important than the wildlife. What's the biggest driver in politics? Money, of course.

 

Game population decline is almost always due to habitat loss. By habitat, I mean access to food, water, and shelter from weather and predators.

 

Affirmative. Have a buddy who owns/leases close to 600 acres here in Georgia. he`s a trained forester ( went to Auburn, but we can`t all be perfect, LOL! ) and knows how to manage ( plant, control burn, etc ) a piece of property. The results? He`s pretty much overrun with a quality deer herd and turkeys. Not just that. Wild quail have established several coveys. All that with no predator control.

 

Blaming predators ignores the fact that grouse, and all other animals, have lived with predation for hundreds of millions of years - they don't suddenly lose that resilience. Fox, coyote, racoons, and a dozen species of raptors were always been here when grouse were abundant. There are rare circumstances when predation can delay recovery of a population which has already been severely reduced by another factor, but that does not explain the disappearance of a once common animal. Habitat destruction and degradation is by far the most common cause of declines, and no habitats anywhere have been free of human-caused damage. Of course, habitat degradation can also make animals more vulnerable to predation when cover is reduced or eliminated.

My home area is an example - cats drove quail to local extinction forty years ago, but today coyotes keep outdoor cats in check. However, the quail cannot recover because people have removed all undergrowth in order reduce wildfire risk and without cover, quail are hopelessly vulnerable to predators - they can't survive here any more.

 

Before the ‘80’s there was active hunting of fox and raccoon. There were no coyote. The fox, and raccoon haven’t had a predator in the area for 2 hundred years. Even cotton tails are not as frequent and there is no loss of habitat for them. In my area it is not a matter of habitat but of out of control predators. I can hear the coyotes at night and I don’t live in town. The raccoon and fox hunters couldn’t get enough money for the pelts to feed their dogs. That wasn’t the case before. The fox and coyote eat the chicks and the raccoons eat the eggs.

 

In Eastern Ohio the blizzards of 1977-78 wiped out the quail but the grouse were strong. The lack of fur hunting and coyotes depleted the grouse until I haven’t seen one in 10 years. Habitat has actually increased due to the demise of small farms. The ODNR decided to replenish the quail in the Southern river counties but nothing here. They also used to plant pheasant here but none for 20 years. They are happy to collect my hunting license and tag fees but ignore this area except for fishing.

 

I live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and have hunted grouse and woodcock for 40 years and kept a kennel of at least 2 English Setters nearly that long, all have been dogs that any hunter would be proud to hunt behind. After my first season I have exclusively hunted with double guns, mostly 20 gauge, and after the second or third season with SxS guns ranging from a 28 gauge Parker VH all the way up to a number of London side locks. I can probably count the grouse and woodcock not taken over a proper point on one hand.

I have raised money for the RGS and am a life sponsor of the RGS and the Woodcock Society.

I started noticing a decline in birds in the 90's and limited myself to 3 and then 2 woodcock long before the legal limit was reduced to 3. Killing a limit of grouse never was an issue because I started on this journey at age 40 and had to learn coverts, dog handling and shooting all at once. In the last 10 years my self imposed limit was a combined 3 and then 2.

I also have seen the population of grouse and woodcock decline to maybe 15-20% of what it was when I started. I don't pretend to know all the reasons, but yes, there has been a habitant reduction, not from a growing population, new houses or developments, but from closing of paper mills, importing pulp and recycling scrap paper. I also do not believe that begins to account for the decline in population.

Other than the normal cycles, which I have seen, I believe the culprit is over hunting and as the previous posted mentioned increases in the numbers of natural predators. IMO a grouse and woodcock hunter with a decent dog and lots of shoe leather is a very effective predator. When I started the limits were 5 per day for each species. We hunted 7-8 hour days and I knew people that shot 60-100 woodcock per year and near the lower number of grouse. It was rare to meet another hunter in your favorite cover or see other than Michigan or Wisconsin license plates.

Now I am 80 and for the last 5-10 years it was rare to find good cover without other cars/trucks in them. Out of state license plates invariably outnumber Michigan plates and it is not unusual to see camps with 4-8 hunters than come here for weeks. I do understand the rational behind the RGS GMAs but believe that has contributed to the the over-hunting.

IMO, the "shoot flying rule" is unenforceable and therefore just window dressing with another silly rule. Woodcock hunting is already limited to guns that hold no more that three shells and limiting hunting to double guns is equally silly 1. because it will never happen and 2. even suggesting it will do more harm than good. Similarly, I believe "natural predator control" is politically impossible.

I believe the only tool that may prove to be effective is shortening the season, and further reducing the bag and possession limits. This may require years with a closed season and is not intended to diminish the great work the RGS does promoting proper habitant management.

Outside our kitchen window this morning

 

Your concern for the grouse population in your area is commendable!
It seems that you're concerned that you're not seeing an abundant population, and you'd like to do something about it. That's great.
You don't think shooting ground birds or roosting birds is sporting, and that's an important tradition for many. You make some specific suggestions, which is a good start. But how would we know that the effort to implement those suggestions would be effective at achieving your goals?

I feel lucky to live in Wisconsin, because we have a top-notch Department of Natural Resources and being a University town, we can maintain topnotch wildlife ecologists who can study game populations, model them, and predict with great accuracy what actions affect things. Unfortunately, quite a few people don't want to listen to the science of it and are convinced that their opinion is better than the results of game survey studies and studies across many locataions and many populations. Or politicians bend to please tourism dollars rather than the health of the wilds.

My hunch is that the manner in which birds are shot and the number of shells in the shotgun are not the primary factors that are keeping your grouse populations low. My hunch is that it's land management, breeding and growing conditions. But a wildlife ecologist at the PGC should be able to tell you about that.

There is a matter of effectiveness-
Limiting a capacity to 2 is something I have never heard of. A limit of 3 shots is very common and magazine plugs have been around since 1935 for duck hunting. One might argue "Hey! Why not make it single-shot only! Dust off the ol' Ivar Peterson!" or "Hey! Make dogs illegal! People will get two birds a lot less often!"

If the primary reason the population is dropping is too much harvest- cut the bag limit from 2 to 1.
(I see the PA bag limit is 2 per day. Up north in Wi, bag limit is 5, down south it's 2.)
This is much easier to swallow than "you have to buy a plug for your magazine that doesn't exist, or buy a new shotgun."

Maybe reducing the days that can be hunted, to improve bird breeding and survival would be more effective.

As for the manner in which birds are shot- how can you enforce that? Before passing a rule, one should see if those breaking the custom are really having an effect on the population.

Yesterday, I was out pheasant hunting. For some reason, the wild pheasant population in my area of south-central Wi has disappeared. The DNR has an extensive stocking program, but that's simply releasing a lot of cocks into the public hunting areas. I've flushed about 50 birds this season and none have been hens.

Randy Wakeman isn't all that far south of me in Illinois, and gets to hunt wild birds. Yes, that's better. But why?

Why this has happened, someone could write a Ph.D. thesis on.

Minnesota is re-establishing a wild population, probably because a few people DID write PhD thesis.

Anyways, it seems like the most effective thing to do is get in touch with your wildlife ecologist, find out what's going on, and try to help out with what they advise.

 

Minnesota is re-establishing a wild population, probably because a few people DID write PhD thesis.

I'm just looking for more info on this as far as what type of bird, location in the state, anything else you care to share. Thanks.

 

Pheasant management

www.dnr.state.mn.us

 

If one truly wants to limit the number of grouse taken to preserve their numbers through the choice of firearms, then ditch the shotgun and dog and take up a small bore rifle or pistol. If one is not willing to do that then they are more concerned about their own concerns than that of their quarry.

From personal experience I can tell you that one will cut their take by a good 90% and doing so one will also better learn good cover and actual woodscraft which is not learned nearly as well following a dog's butt over hill and dale or reading some book by a long dead writer. I'm pretty proud of myself to take a dozen birds in a year though I do limit myself to a revolver the majority of the time. Plus, it is usually targets of opportunity rather than dedicated hunting while doing other chores. And, I live in the middle of grouse country so I have potential opportunity every time I walk out the door.

I grew up in a place where one's "leisure time" also had to pay, just not necessarily as much as "work time." Potting birds not on the wing was accepted and actually encouraged as it did not waste ammunition or game. The favored shotgun for such work was a single shot so limiting the number of shells really wouldn't matter in that case. As we did not have bird dogs, the amount of game taken was a lot less than later years when I acquired and trained bird dogs. Then I became an efficient killer of birds, far more so than at any earlier point. When I began carrying a shotgun limited to two shots, my kill numbers rose again.

So, if one really believes there are too many birds being taken, rather than limit the number of shells a gun can hold or how the bird may be shot, maybe the better answer would be for that person to hang up their shotguns, kennel their dogs, and remove themselves from the woods. After all, these people are the most efficient at finding and killing game due to their tools - a well trained dog and a gun they shoot well - which are the real threats to game. For those unable to stay out of the woods, then pick up a rifle or pistol and give it a whirl. You will find it far more challenging than you think and will be doing the birds you love so well a great favor.

 

As is, hunter numbers are in steep decline. 13,000,000 folks in PA, but just over four percent buy resident adult hunting tags.

 

Gentlemen,

Having been a Grouse & Woodcock Hunter for over 50 years now, I have seen our beautiful Ruffed Grouse population effected in a negative manner for many different reasons. IMO the Pa Game Commission should now take action to help our Grouse & Woodcock populations in a manner that needed to happen long ago. IMO Shooting Flying would help safe guard our Grouse & Woodcock populations. In reality ground swatting and shooting wild birds in trees is not only unsporting, it violates every fair chase discipline known. In modern times we hunt for sport not market hunt, or shoot for weekly table food. Although we have a lot less people Grouse hunting today, than ever before, a lot of Ground Swatting and shooting Grouse in trees, still takes place each season. The PGC eliminated our late season Grouse hunting here in Pa, now they should institute a Shooting Flying regulation on Grouse & Woodcock, in fact I would like to see it done for all game birds here in Pa. For many generations our family has only shot pointed Woodcock and most times Grouse also. I know this will never be regulated by law, not all hunters can afford to keep a gun dog, especially at todays cost.
I am a avid believer that few sportsman can effect the Grouse or Woodcock population, when only Shooting Flying, and it is well past time to make it part of the Game laws here in Pa.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Nice gun.
Mike