MN DNR Grouse Meeting
Editor's Note: On Friday, August 30 the DNR Division of Wildlife convened a meeting of staff and people interested in grouse management at Deep Portage.  The Ruffed Grouse Society appreciates the fact that the Division is apparently renewing their dedication to ruffed grouse management in Minnesota.  Division Director Tim Bremicker and Research Leader Dick Kimmel lead the group in discussions of past management, current forest planning efforts and future directions of grouse management.
The meeting began with a DNR presentation of the state of grouse habitat, forestry planning and grouse population trends, then was opened up for comments from the public. Speakers addressed a laundry list of topics ranging from forest management techniques to impacts of increased forest access on grouse populations.  The meeting closed with discussion on possible future directions. Attached is a follow-up letter sent to Dick Kimmel formalizing and expounding on comments and concerns by RGS's Rick Horton.

September 10, 2002
 
Dick Kimmel

Wildlife Research Group Leader

MDNR Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group

Rt. 1, Box 181

Madelia MN 56062

Dear Mr. Kimmel,

Thank you for organizing and moderating the grouse input meeting at Deep Portage. I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to express the Ruffed Grouse Society's view on grouse management challenges in Minnesota. The level of advanced preparation by the Division was impressive and very useful. The DNR representatives present seemed open to the input from outside parties and interested in actively managing the state's grouse populations.

Historical Perspective

Past logging and fire history have left us with an abundant aspen resource that was essentially all one age prior to the regeneration of the second growth forest that began in the 1970's and continues today. Currently about 25% of the remaining aspen is over 60 years old. Forest managers want to balance the aspen forest age class distribution, but it cannot be accomplished in one aspen life cycle. We, as a society, must determine what to do with the remaining mature aspen - how much should be regenerated and how much allowed to succeed to the next seral stage.

With the exception of some WMAs and Ruffed Grouse Management Areas, most grouse habitat management in Minnesota has been a fortunate by-product of typical aspen silviculture. Clearcutting and regenerating aspen creates good grouse habitat. Large initial clearcuts were reduced in size due to public demands for reduced visual impacts, further benefiting grouse. However, public agencies are currently being pressured to stop clearcutting altogether. Private industries are responding to decreased supply by intensifying their practices in order to meet their fiber requirements. We don't know the impacts of this change on forest wildlife.

Ruffed grouse have been taken for granted in northern Minnesota for generations. Due to their relative abundance they have not been accorded the attention they deserve by the public or by resource agencies. However, in the past 20 years we have seen grouse hunting with sporting dogs vastly increase in popularity. People are traveling to northern Minnesota from all over the state, and indeed all over the country to take advantage of our abundant public lands, our quality habitat and our abundant grouse and woodcock populations. It is due time to acknowledge this shift in attitude and work to maintain this resource.

Current Challenges

·       Age Class Imbalance - Historical and current logging practices have created a situation where aspen forests are all old or all young at distinct points in time. We are facing a time when under-mature forests will dominate the landscape. Besides the challenges this poses for the timber industry, it has real impacts on grouse populations. In 20 years will have little old aspen as a winter food source and little clearcut regeneration occurring to create brood habitat. Industry will likely meet their needs with intermediate harvests, imports, by changing processes to use different tree species and other technologies, but what will we do to provide quality grouse habitat?

·       Intensive Forestry - The forest products industry has proposed intensifying forestry practices to meet their needs, increase efficiency and utilize more of the available fiber. The reasoning appears to stems from the reductions in fiber availability from public lands (mainly National Forests), globalization in the industry (Finnish methods), improved technology (cut-to-length machines) and desire for higher quality fiber (smaller, younger wood). Unfortunately, we don't know what impacts of these processes may have upon wildlife, especially those that thrive in dense young forests. Pre-commercial thinning opens up dense forests to hasten growth, but does it allow predators to reach grouse broods? Repeated entries increase disturbance frequencies. How does that effect wildlife?

·       Increased Desire for Conifers - Some segments of society and some industries have expressed a desire for more conifers in our forests. Some ecologists use historic records of species distributions to support the contention that there should be more conifers on the landscape. Agencies are already using concern for "intrastand diversity" to justify planting conifers in aspen stands. However, from a grouse management standpoint conifers are a detrimental habitat component. Gullion clearly showed that conifers provide hunting perches for raptors and increase their effectiveness in preying upon grouse. Conifers can be increased in other forest types, in riparian corridors, and in discrete clumps that provide thermal cover for wildlife without harming grouse populations. But they should never be broadcast planted within aspen stands if we want to maintain quality grouse habitat.

·       Game vs. Non-Game - Game management is out of vogue with most resource agencies, primarily due to changing values of wildlife professionals. It has become fashionable to express more concern for non-game animals, even if they are not in any peril. We are seeing concern for species that are on the fringe of their natural range in Minnesota (goshawks, black-throated blue warblers), but abundant in the heart of their range, outweigh concern for locally abundant species (grouse, woodcock, golden-winged warblers). The Forest Service and the DNR are currently developing landscape-level guidelines for goshawks that will limit management options for other species. Yet goshawks are relatively abundant in Canada. They come here periodically in response to prey shortages in their core range and some stay to nest, reproducing at rates similar to those at the core of the range. The Divisions of Wildlife and Ecological Services need to work together on species priorities - Do we keep abundant species abundant? Or do we reduce them in favor of fringe species? We would like to see the DNR maintain its long history of commitment to Minnesota's sportsmen.

·       Landscape Issues - There are increasing efforts to coordinate forest management across ownership boundaries to achieve landscape-scale goals and forest conditions. This is commendable, but there is a concerted effort by many of the forest ecologists and planners to use the "Range of Natural Variability" as a basis for this effort. The push is to manage the forests towards the species composition, age class distributions and patch sizes found when European people started settling the region. The justification is that "species evolved in that forest, therefore that would be the best condition to ensure the viability of all species". There are many problems with this notion. The recording system of early surveyors under-represented young forests and early successional species. But regardless of that, forests are, and always have been, dynamic. The pine forests encountered in the late 19th century were a product of 300 years of cool, wet weather and reduced Native American populations. Prior to that a dry, warm period pushed the boreal forests into Canada and extended the prairies northward. It is irresponsible to suggest we manage towards the conditions of a past point in time when we have over 5 million people in the state. We feel that there are a number of forest conditions that are compatible with current human uses of the forest and can sustain viable populations of all species.

·       Riparian Guidelines - The Forest Resources Council developed riparian management guidelines designed to maintain water quality. These guidelines were done in a committee, and were thus fraught with the usual political compromises that are not necessarily in the best interest of the resource. We are concerned that these guidelines specify no even-aged management within riparian management zones. Essentially this means that aspen will not be managed within the RMZ in a manner that produces dense vegetative cover. American woodcock feed on worms and other invertebrates in moist soil conditions and rely on a dense overstory to protect them from predation. They also tend to follow river courses during migrations and feed in RMZs. This guideline could be detrimental to woodcock management if not for the fact that it is VOLUNTARY. Managers must know that they may clearcut aspen within the RMZ as long as they document the exception is for a specific purpose, like woodcock, beaver or duck management.

·       ATVs - The Ruffed Grouse Society does not oppose the legal use of ATVs during hunting seasons. However, we are concerned about the impact of the proliferation of ATVs and the ready access to all portions of the forest on forest wildlife populations. There are currently few refuges for animals to serve as sources for population expansion. We agree  that grouse populations are likely being suppressed in some heavily used areas.

Future Opportunities

Following are some examples of ways in which the DNR and the Division of Wildlife could work to maintain our grouse populations.

·       Form a Grouse Group - This group of DNR wildlife managers, foresters and outside parties would spearhead efforts to maintain grouse habitat in Minnesota. It appears this has already occurred.

·       Develop a comprehensive grouse management plan - The Grouse Group could devise grouse population goals, develop strategies to achieve those goals, and determine where efforts would be concentrated in the state.

·       Create a Forest Small Game Research Position - This full-time researcher would help answer some of the pressing questions related to how changing forest condition and management strategies will impact populations of ruffed grouse, woodcock, sharp-tailed grouse, spruce grouse and snowshoe hares. The position should be well funded and have the ability to perform active research in cooperation with the University of Minnesota. The Small Game Surcharge could be a potential source of position funding.

·       Improve inter-division communications - The Division of Forestry actually performs almost all forest wildlife habitat management. Division of Wildlife personnel should be conferring regularly with forestry personnel on timber management, not just during the SFRMP process.  In addition, the Divisions of Wildlife and Ecological Services must coordinate game and non-game management and reduce conflicts between the disciplines.

·       Develop realistic grouse habitat guidelines - Theoretically, the Gullion Model will optimize grouse populations. However it has always been difficult to implement on the ground. The Grouse Group could devise a scheme for each biome that integrates grouse habitat management with FRC Guidelines, non-game concerns, visual aspects, forest composition goals, access limitations, controlled burns, etc. For example, riparian and leave tree areas can be designed to meet goshawk needs and increase conifers on the landscape. Hidden accesses could reduce motorized use of the forest. 

·       Investigate the impacts of access and ATVS on wildlife populations.

·       Manage Wildlife Management Areas for optimal game populations.

·       Participate in the National Forest planning processes.

Again, thank you for hosting the meeting. We are grateful for the opportunity to express these ideas and look forward to working with the Division in the future. Feel free to pass this on to the other meeting participants. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,  

Rick Horton

Forest Wildlife Biologist

www.twincitiesrgs.org