Woodcock Limited annual meeting

[2ESRGR8]

Some of you uplanders may not have heard of this newly formed group that supports one of our favorite gamebirds. It's another voice out there supporting the birds we love and the habitat they live in. if you want to learn more I encourage anyone to come to the meeting and show your support and gain some knowledge about the American woodcock.

Woodcock Limited Third Annual Meeting - August 20.

From the WL newsletter:

Join us for the Woodcock Limited's third annual meeting!
We'll be meeting on Saturday, August 20, 2005 at the Days Inn in Clare, Michigan. This year's program will include:

- Updates on woodcock research and status reports
- Dog training tips from expert handlers
- A Sporting clays shoot (optional)
- Discussion of the direction of Woodcock Limited
- Fellowship with other upland hunters.

We will have our two Ruger Woodcock Limited o/u shotguns on display and will kick off our raffle for them at the meeting.

To make room reservations, call the Clare Days Inn at (989) 802-0144. Mention Woodcock Limited to receive a 15% discount group rate on the room. The motel can guarantee these rooms for us until July 25, 2005.

[Steelheadfred]

Grushy I would love to attend but I am celebrating my 2year wedding anversery (sp). Take good notes...


Fritz

[Tecumseh]

I thought they were going to merge with the RGS right after they formed. I take it that they didn't or did they and are just running under the WL name?

[2ESRGR8]

I thought they were going to merge with the RGS right after they formed. I take it that they didn't or did they and are just running under the WL name?

Nope.
It was voted on by the membership to remain a seperate entity.

[dogwhistle]

i hunt a lot of woodcock and belong to the Ruffed Grouse Society but i think Woodcock Limited's agenda is very misdirected.

[Tecumseh]

Nope.
It was voted on by the membership to remain a seperate entity.

Thanks for that clarification. I have been curious about it for a while but have never checked into it.

[2ESRGR8]

i hunt a lot of woodcock and belong to the Ruffed Grouse Society but i think Woodcock Limited's agenda is very misdirected.

What's misdirected about this?

Woodcock Limited Mission Statement

Woodcock Limited is an organization dedicated to the conservation and management of the American Woodcock and its habitat. Woodcock Limited will work with local, state, and federal organizations to promote habitat and woodcock research, habitat management, and harvest management.
Further, Woodcock Limited will engage in educational efforts to advance the public's knowledge of woodcock and its management.

[dogwhistle]

not a thing, but of ccurse the RGS has been doing that very thing for many years.

what is misdirected is the "limited" part. the limit has already been reduced from 5 to 3. and there have already been several studies on woodcock mortality, Moosehorn, one recently in the east as well as studies on grouse mortality. they all show that hunting is not additive to mortality.

no other organization, Ruffed Grouse Society, Pheasants Forever, or even Quail Unlimited makes such recommendations. at least the first two stick with the science and promote habitat improvement.

my chapter of the RGS is full of woodcock hunters and banders, including the premier woodcock researcher- Andy.

if you want to self limit, go ahead. i dont shoot at every bird i flush by any means. somedays, with a pup, i dont shoot at any. but i certainly dont see that self limiting is going to have any positive effect on the woodcock population and neither do the biologists. and i dont see the need for another coverbird organization- just a matter of divide and conquer.

what has this organization actually done to improve habitat?

[HarleyP]

what is misdirected is the "limited" part. the limit has already been reduced from 5 to 3. and there have already been several studies on woodcock mortality, Moosehorn, one recently in the east as well as studies on grouse mortality. they all show that hunting is not additive to mortality.

Limited is the named, not the agenda. When they 1st started the organization they talked of "limit your kill, don't kill your limit" but relatively quickly changed their song and dance on that, I think because alot of hunters pointed to exactly what you mention of in your quote above.

i dont see the need for another coverbird organization- just a matter of divide and conquer.

Really? One is enough (RGS)? I'd think the more lobbying we (RGS, WL, PF, etc) do the better our habitats and birds will be... don't ya think?

what has this organization actually done to improve habitat?

I believe they have been vocal in such areas as the Huron-Manistee NF management plans, etc... along side RGS.

RGS embraces and works with WL.

All that being said, I'm not a member of WL but see no harm. I hope they succeed by leaps and bounds. Lord knows woodcock could use all the help they can get.

[Unregistered4]

I have to agree with what Dave has said, whats wrong with another voice. Sometimes, I would think a lot of different organizations but, with similar views, would be helpful in voicing our views on, habitat, bag limits and length of seasons. And, steelheadfred, what has the words, "anniversary get away" written all over it, more than a trip to "the" beautiful town of Clare, for the Woodcock Limiteds third annual meeting. :lol: By the way, you may what to get the spelling of the word anniversary "down" by that time, a lot of us on this forum don't care about spelling;) but, when your wife opens that card(you are getting her one, right), there better be "hand written", the words "happy anniversary and let me count the ways I love you, blah, blah, blah, not just your name at the bottom of the card. Or, your "woody" will be seeing a lot less of it's beloved habitat, if you know what I mean. Happy anniverary and many more. Brian.

[dogwhistle]

their mission statement still includes the phrase "limiting their take" although it is not stated as strongly as i recall in the past.

i believe we have about 11 million acres of land open to public hunting in this state, so access is not a problem as it is in many other states. for a number of reasons, we are not renewing our habitat, so i certainly agree that this should be the focus of any organization dedicated to improving gamebird populations.

as far as 1 or 2 organizations, i can see some pros and cons both ways, but at this time, still favor one voice with less duplication of effort. i do not favor more studies, i think it has been studied more than enough and the focus should be attempting to implement the conclusions reached in previous studies.

they are wonderful birds and a joy to hunt, no question. i recall taking my son out a couple years ago. he's usually working hard during that time and hadnt hunted since he was young. but he found a weekend. his shooting was rusty and the gun was way too short, but the dog pointed 20 in a row and i was digging in my pockets for spare shells. memorable day.

[Steelheadfred]

Plain and simple the more active (I am a board member of the Grand Traverse Chapter) I become in RGS the less effective I see there efforts, they need to become a major player in Washington as a lobby organization there to educate elected officials, on proper forest management and the multiple use facets those managed forests have on both recreation and economy in the form of jobs, lumber, ext....


RGS is having a push towards involving youth, I am all for that, but in truth how to get more youth hunters, get more habitat that will support more birds and the hunters will come. I believe it has been proven here in MI time and time again, where pheasants were once KING and small game hunters out number deer hunters 2:1 - the pheasants died off due to lack of habitat and other reasons and Deer thrived in the landscape - now deer hunting is king....

I will support RGS and work to make changes I think will benefit our great species, all that is keeping me from joining WL is a lazyness not to send in a check, two voices in washington is a hell of alot more than one!

[2ESRGR8]

their mission statement still includes the phrase "limiting their take" although it is not stated as strongly as i recall in the past.


The actual phrase I think you are referencing is "harvest management".
I read that as using harvest data to watch population trends and densities throughout the woodcocks specific flyways.
The reduction in bag limit came long before Woodcock Limited went into action. Those numbers are dictated by the USFWS. They set the season length guidelines and the bag limits. Actually, DR. John Bruggink from (I believe) Northern Michigan University was working for the Feds when that change came about. He has been in charge of the Michigan portion of the three year project that has been on going in Dickinson county. If you come to the meeting he'll be there with a report.

I know what your getting at though. Many were stuck on the limiting your take phrase that so many associated with WL when they began, but remember, WL was comprised of woodcock hunters who pursued and shot at these birds in their home states every season. The welfare of the species was the driving force.

In my opinion, the greatest benefit of WL is that they appear to focus more on habitat issues on the large scale. While RGS seems to be geared toward the private landowner. Land which will never be open to me for hunting although it does benefit the grouse and woodcock immensely since something like 80% of all land is privately owned.
The president of WL is a retired DNR biologist, he represents the group at the forest action plan meetings which determine the amount of aspen cutting that is being done in the National forest. Again, the more voices out there, the better chance of them being heard.

I'm a memeber of the RGS and WL. I hardly hunt or target woodcock, consider myself a grouse hunter at heart, but anyone who wants to see more cutting being done in our National and State forest has my support.

[wingshoot]

I belong to both groups right now, and I concur that the birds need all the help we can muster.

Woodcock share alot of the same requirements as Grouse, but they are also migratory which brings up a whole new set of problems. One of the things that WL is trying to do is to look at the habitat needs on their route south.

I went to the first Woodcock Limited meeting here in T.C. 2 or 3 years ago. Great people, great agenda.

I don't believe the group is trying to dictate how many birds hunters kill. However, as another predator in the chain we must be aware of our impact on the species ( mortality reports not withstanding).

It wasn't so many years ago that I used to kill 40-50 woodcock every fall but before the State lowered the limit I started limiting my take to no more than 3 a day.

I learned, like most do, that I didn't need a limit to have a fulfilled hunt.

Last year there were several outings where the only shooting I did was with a video camera.

Please understand this is MY path and I certainly wouldn't try to impose it on another Hunter.

[Linda G.]

Have been working on a couple of stories based on recent reports from woodcock banders, hunters, and singing ground surveys that are showing...brace yourself...an indication that woodcock numbers are stabilizing...

Now, no one wants to point any fingers, but could it be...well, we know the possible increase isn't due to an increase in habitat, or a decrease in predators, or better nesting and hatching conditions (woodcock aren't believed to be terribly impacted by spring storms, according to the feds and other wildlife professionals..

So...what could it be? Could numbers possibly be stabilizing because woodcock hunters have been forced, since 1997, to take only a maximum of 3 birds a day instead of the bag limit of 5 that was allowed until 97?

Acch...heresy...I know...but could it be that hunters themselves impact the bird numbers...

Think about it...lord knows we're much better woodcock hunters in the last couple of decades than we were 30-40 years ago. Better guns, better loads, better dogs, and a much improved awareness of woodcock habitat, along with smaller areas to find them in.

The vast majority of the hordes of orange you see around Crystal Falls in October isn't there for grouse-they're there for woodcock, and they hammer them up there, something that has concerned me for years-that's the very heartblood of the woodcock's breeding range.

No one wants to admit it, even the feds won't really say that, but they're thinking it, believe me...and so am I. I know guys who can go out every day, 7 days a week, during the woodcock season, and take a limit every time they go. And a lot of them do. These are folks I'm very glad are now limited a bit...you probably know people like that, too.

So I think WL has some very valid talking points, even if they aren't talking about limiting the take, maybe they should...

Don't jump all over me until you've read all the latest data...I know, that 3 state woodcock mortality study didn't show that hunters impacted the resource, but a lot of unknowns came out of that study with birds that disappeared. There's a lot they didn't find out.

I think we've all got something to think about...and I, for one, will be this year, as I have for the past 5 years or so, limiting my take to 2 or fewer birds a day, particularly because I'm out there every day. I wouldn't expect that of the guy who only gets out a couple of times a season, I don't think anyone would. And I'm not in favor of any more mandatory limits. I'm in favor of educating hunters.

I'm hoping to be at the meeting, too. We'll see how my schedule, and my summer renters, go. Look forward to reading the minutes and talking to the folks that attend if I don't make it.

[Double Gun]

Have been working on a couple of stories based on recent reports from woodcock banders, hunters, and singing ground surveys that are showing...brace yourself...an indication that woodcock numbers are stabilizing...

Now, no one wants to point any fingers, but could it be...well, we know the possible increase isn't due to an increase in habitat, or a decrease in predators, or better nesting and hatching conditions (woodcock aren't believed to be terribly impacted by spring storms, according to the feds and other wildlife professionals..

So...what could it be? Could numbers possibly be stabilizing because woodcock hunters have been forced, since 1997, to take only a maximum of 3 birds a day instead of the bag limit of 5 that was allowed until 97?

Acch...heresy...I know...but could it be that hunters themselves impact the bird numbers...

Think about it...lord knows we're much better woodcock hunters in the last couple of decades than we were 30-40 years ago. Better guns, better loads, better dogs, and a much improved awareness of woodcock habitat, along with smaller areas to find them in.

The vast majority of the hordes of orange you see around Crystal Falls in October isn't there for grouse-they're there for woodcock, and they hammer them up there, something that has concerned me for years-that's the very heartblood of the woodcock's breeding range.

No one wants to admit it, even the feds won't really say that, but they're thinking it, believe me...and so am I. I know guys who can go out every day, 7 days a week, during the woodcock season, and take a limit every time they go. And a lot of them do. These are folks I'm very glad are now limited a bit...you probably know people like that, too.

So I think WL has some very valid talking points, even if they aren't talking about limiting the take, maybe they should...

Don't jump all over me until you've read all the latest data...I know, that 3 state woodcock mortality study didn't show that hunters impacted the resource, but a lot of unknowns came out of that study with birds that disappeared. There's a lot they didn't find out.

I think we've all got something to think about...and I, for one, will be this year, as I have for the past 5 years or so, limiting my take to 2 or fewer birds a day, particularly because I'm out there every day. I wouldn't expect that of the guy who only gets out a couple of times a season, I don't think anyone would. And I'm not in favor of any more mandatory limits. I'm in favor of educating hunters.

I'm hoping to be at the meeting, too. We'll see how my schedule, and my summer renters, go. Look forward to reading the minutes and talking to the folks that attend if I don't make it.
Or could it be that the habitat we currently have can finally support the current bird numbers. If we start creating more habitat and raise the limit back to 5 would the bird #'s go down. There are many limiting factors in wildlife. I have always been in the more habitat more birds camp. I just don't believe the number of upland hunters we have could be a major factor in bird numbers. I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. Anyways ways I limit my take of woodcock becuase I can only stomach eating so many.

[Steelheadfred]

Linda makes you think - all though I believe hunters do not have an impact I never looked at from the 5-3 theory....


I just wish they tasted better and were more challenging on the wing.....

[Worm Dunker]

Well dogwhisle I just dropped out of the Andy Ammonn Chapter of R.G.S. because after 10 years as a member and donnor, 3 years as banquet prize chairperson, and a member of the board of director R.G.S. is only about raising banquet money. If you are a member of Andy Ammon due you know R.G.S. wants us to turn over all the money we as a chapter have earned. We sponser a wildlife sudent at M.S.U. every year(for at lest the last 10 years I have belonged) and instead of using our money for that they want our money and we would have to raise money for the scholarship! I(our chapter) sponsered a womens hunt I asked R.G.S. to help with the cost of birds they gave hats and whistle landards instead. Then since the price was to high for most women we had a very poor turn out so the chapter didn't even pick up the cost of the food. So all the food, the door prize, and gifts to the people who helped(furnished dogs) came out of my pocket and I'm on S.S. so it cost me some hunting trip. So don't tell me what a great job R.G.S. does the only money they have spent in Mi. in the last couple years is for newer Suburbans, and wages for the reps! So ya woodcock limmited is a good thing nobody is paided all officers and directors just folunteer their time.

[wingshoot]

I've always felt that we as hunters have to have some impact on bird numbers. How could we not?

Especially when a species like Woodcock is on the decline.

I think Linda is right,

Just because the studies to date don't support it, doesn't rule it out.

[Lucky Dog]

Have been working on a couple of stories based on recent reports from woodcock banders, hunters, and singing ground surveys that are showing...brace yourself...an indication that woodcock numbers are stabilizing...

Now, no one wants to point any fingers, but could it be...well, we know the possible increase isn't due to an increase in habitat, or a decrease in predators, or better nesting and hatching conditions (woodcock aren't believed to be terribly impacted by spring storms, according to the feds and other wildlife professionals..

So...what could it be? Could numbers possibly be stabilizing because woodcock hunters have been forced, since 1997, to take only a maximum of 3 birds a day instead of the bag limit of 5 that was allowed until 97?

Acch...heresy...I know...but could it be that hunters themselves impact the bird numbers...

Think about it...lord knows we're much better woodcock hunters in the last couple of decades than we were 30-40 years ago. Better guns, better loads, better dogs, and a much improved awareness of woodcock habitat, along with smaller areas to find them in.

The vast majority of the hordes of orange you see around Crystal Falls in October isn't there for grouse-they're there for woodcock, and they hammer them up there, something that has concerned me for years-that's the very heartblood of the woodcock's breeding range.

No one wants to admit it, even the feds won't really say that, but they're thinking it, believe me...and so am I. I know guys who can go out every day, 7 days a week, during the woodcock season, and take a limit every time they go. And a lot of them do. These are folks I'm very glad are now limited a bit...you probably know people like that, too.

So I think WL has some very valid talking points, even if they aren't talking about limiting the take, maybe they should...

Don't jump all over me until you've read all the latest data...I know, that 3 state woodcock mortality study didn't show that hunters impacted the resource, but a lot of unknowns came out of that study with birds that disappeared. There's a lot they didn't find out.

I think we've all got something to think about...and I, for one, will be this year, as I have for the past 5 years or so, limiting my take to 2 or fewer birds a day, particularly because I'm out there every day. I wouldn't expect that of the guy who only gets out a couple of times a season, I don't think anyone would. And I'm not in favor of any more mandatory limits. I'm in favor of educating hunters.

I'm hoping to be at the meeting, too. We'll see how my schedule, and my summer renters, go. Look forward to reading the minutes and talking to the folks that attend if I don't make it.

Interesting, but I think you are missing the obvious (at least in my opinion).
Habitat, habitat and more habitat. The woodcock have more habitat available to them than they have had in years. The state has finally got out of this method of forest management called "selective harvest" and started doing the good old fasioned clear cuts again. Not as much as I'd like to see, but it is a start. My records relect a drop in numbers that follows pretty close to the times that clear cutting went out of favor with the DNR. I hunt all over the state and in the last two years have seen more clear cuts everywhere I go than I have seen in the last ten.
I'm not going to dissagree that there are a lot of other factors involved, including hunters, but I really believe that the core of the problem in Michigan is the lack of clear cutting.

[2ESRGR8]

Interesting, but I think you are missing the obvious (at least in my opinion).
Habitat, habitat and more habitat. The woodcock have more habitat available to them than they have had in years. The state has finally got out of this method of forest management called "selective harvest" and started doing the good old fasioned clear cuts again. Not as much as I'd like to see, but it is a start. My records relect a drop in numbers that follows pretty close to the times that clear cutting went out of favor with the DNR. I hunt all over the state and in the last two years have seen more clear cuts everywhere I go than I have seen in the last ten.
I'm not going to dissagree that there are a lot of other factors involved, including hunters, but I really believe that the core of the problem in Michigan is the lack of clear cutting.

Maybe its the habitat improvements in Louisiana that are helping our Michigan birds? Who knows? Think continental, not state by state. Michigans birds are affected by habitat along the entire central flyway. If I recall correctly most of Michigan birds winter in the Arkansas region, at least the few they tracked with transmitters did.

Where do you live? Not far from Ontario I bet, I guess anywhere in Michigan is not far from Ontario relatively speaking. Jump the border and you can shoot 8 woodcock a day there. How does that make you feel? That's why I say it's a continental issue when it comes to migratory gamebirds.
Maybe WL should be lobbying the Canadian government to lower their bag limits? Another voice can't hurt.

[2ESRGR8]

I just wish they....... were more challenging on the wing.....

Who you kidding, I've seen you shoot :D :lol: :lol: .

[Lucky Dog]

Maybe its the habitat improvements in Louisiana that are helping our Michigan birds? Who knows? Think continental, not state by state. Michigans birds are affected by habitat along the entire central flyway. If I recall correctly most of Michigan birds winter in the Arkansas region, at least the few they tracked with transmitters did.

Where do you live? Not far from Ontario I bet, I guess anywhere in Michigan is not far from Ontario relatively speaking. Jump the border and you can shoot 8 woodcock a day there. How does that make you feel? That's why I say it's a continental issue when it comes to migratory gamebirds.
Maybe WL should be lobbying the Canadian government to lower their bag limits? Another voice can't hurt.

I agree with you, it should be looked at as a continental issue, but only to a point. Good habitat in Arkansas and Louisiana are important to get birds through the winter, but cover to reproduce in is the key to rebuilding the population. Michigan is the key state for woodcock reproduction. Every study I have seen shows Michigan as the state with the highest population of nesting birds. Wisc. and Minn. and Ontario have good numbers, but everything I've seen says michigan is the strong hold. That is why I think we need to take the lead in habitat improvement. If WL can help that happen then I'm behind them 100%. So far I havent seen much from them, but I'm willing to give them time to get established.

[dogwhistle]

wormdunker, i guess we differ greatly on how we view the purpose of the RGS. i see it as defending and improving habitat, through the courts, legislature, and congress. when i want to promote women hunting, i take my wife grouse hunting. this year i'm taking a dozen girls from Hooters. it's a tough job but someone has to do it.


it's a huge leap from, woodcock numbers are stabilizing to the cause is decreased bad limits. the bag limit has been increased for sometime and woodcock only live a short time, hence recruitment is a big deal. if decreased bag limits are the reason, we should have seen it long before this. it's pure conjecture. there are a number of studies on the matter that involve the best science available with controls. i'll stick with science.

[Steelheadfred]

wormdunker, i guess we differ greatly on how we view the purpose of the RGS. i see it as defending and improving habitat, through the courts, legislature, and congress. when i want to promote women hunting, i take my wife grouse hunting. this year i'm taking a dozen girls from Hooters. it's a tough job but someone has to do it.


it's a huge leap from, woodcock numbers are stabilizing to the cause is decreased bad limits. the bag limit has been increased for sometime and woodcock only live a short time, hence recruitment is a big deal. if decreased bag limits are the reason, we should have seen it long before this. it's pure conjecture. there are a number of studies on the matter that involve the best science available with controls. i'll stick with science.

dodwhistle are you an active member of your chapters local board?
Because I have been for two years and from what I can tell, WD is right on.

It is of my belief that our Chapters money only goes to pay the salary of our Regional Director and his suburban. None of it goes to pay a lobbiest in Washington to spread the message of healthy forests.

Sure it is fun to hang out with the Chapter members at fun hunts, and family picnic's, but that is not getting it done.

I can tell you how to get more hunters, it has nothing to do with women and kids getting involved, GET MORE BIRDS, how are you going to get more birds? Through habitat - if you have more birds and places to hunt you will have more hunters plain and simple!

Our chapter ran a Shooting School last year that made 7k for RGS, Field Sport donated lots of time and money for their world class instructors, my gun club donated their time and energy, it was never advertised this year? Director said he had a group all ready, well they backed out and the school was cancled, this screwed Field Sport also as they could have filled the school with full paying general public hunters....

[Rudi's Dad]

In my opinion, the greatest benefit of WL is that they appear to focus more on habitat issues on the large scale. While RGS seems to be geared toward the private landowner. Land which will never be open to me for hunting although it does benefit the grouse and woodcock immensely since something like 80% of all land is privately owned.
The president of WL is a retired DNR biologist, he represents the group at the forest action plan meetings which determine the amount of aspen cutting that is being done in the National forest. Again, the more voices out there, the better chance of them being heard.
The president of WL is a retired DNR biologist, he represents the group at the forest action plan meetings which determine the amount of aspen cutting that is being done in the National forest. Again, the more voices out there, the better chance of them being heard.
I'm a memeber of the RGS and WL. I hardly hunt or target woodcock, consider myself a grouse hunter at heart, but anyone who wants to see more cutting being done in our National and State forest has my support.

So...what could it be? Could numbers possibly be stabilizing because woodcock hunters have been forced, since 1997, to take only a maximum of 3 birds a day instead of the bag limit of 5 that was allowed until 97?



One of my problems with RGS is they will NEVER admit hunting has any impact on bird populations. Not that I beleive its THE reason of population changes, but I have an open mind.
I think WL is going to let RGS play the drums on their agenda and WL is in Washington talking to the Feds about the (Woodcock) Migratory Bird issues, including getting more clearcutting done in Federal Forests. Yes another voice is needed to turn up the heat. Thanks to the founders of WL we have an organization focused on Woodcock. They have my support. It only costs $20 to belong. Chump change.

[dogwhistle]

Fritz, i am not interested in the social aspects whatsoever. i believe women are quite capable of getting into hunting all by themselves if they wish. i agree with you completely on habitat.

didnt the Ruffed Grouse Society recently join in defending(sucessfully) a lawsuit that would have greatly crippled timber management here in Mich? that's the sort of thing i like to see.

as far as the woodcock bag limit "theory". it occurs to me that both pheasant and quail populations have stabilized. i prefer to stick to science.

[coverdog]

when i want to promote women hunting, i take my wife grouse hunting. this year i'm taking a dozen girls from Hooters. it's a tough job but someone has to do it.


I can probably free myself up if you need a extra hand to help out. :D

[dogwhistle]

that's a generous offer. if more than the anticipated dozen show up, i might give you a call.

actually i prefer hunting with my wife. she never complains, she's more tuned into the dogs- if they are tired or confused, she truly enjoys the outdoors and flush numbers are inconsequential, she's not a good shot but thinks i'm a great shot and is absolutely the safest gun handler. and she's an aerobics instructor and an excellent cook.

on second thought, maybe i'll let you handle the hooters crowd. you might want to get a couple border colllies to keep them rounded up. and a good tracking dog. they can usually get it together so you are in the woods by 1Pm or so for a good 1/2 of hunting. no thick aspen or alder runs. they prefer pine plantations. enjoy.

[Rudi's Dad]

One more tidbit on WL, they dont have chapters, no banquets, and no regional directors cruising in Tahoe's or flying to Alaska to put on a banquet. They reley on memberships and benefactors (maybe corporate donations also). I am not too sure that they even send renewals to the members. The President is a retired DNR biologist and knows his stuff. These are folks I trust to do their best to Get er Done!

[fishinlk]

I just found out about WL last year from one of the guys in our dog club and I think it's a great idea. I was a little skeptical at first with the thoughts of two organizations = twice the overhead but the more I thought about the migratory issues the more it makes sense. Those birds are getting chased around the woods they're whole trip south and they need decent cover the whole way.

As far as the RGS use of money I think they're doing "ok". The RGS has been instrumental in helping the state with several state wildlife area land acquisitions here in Ohio. The wheels of the state move awfully slow so when prime parcels have come available the RGS and Wild Turkey Federation have stepped in with funds lock up the deals quickly to make these possible. I also need to echo the sentiments of the others that what the do on legal/lobbying front is very much needed. I've seen the lobbying they've done in PA first hand vs. the tree hugging fraternity and attempts keep sound forest management practices in the Allegheny National Forest. I'm not particularly fond of the national hunt they do every year in WI but then again, nothing is perfect.

I'm not a member of the WL yet but will probably join soon and I'll be keeping both memberships active. Just as I do my Trout Unlimited AND my Federation of FlyFishers memberships. :)

[dogwhistle]

i would recommend that you go to woodcock limited's website and do a careful critical reading of their "projects".

1- another reseach project on population/hunting mortality, one in a long list of others on the same subject with the same preliminary results.

2-a habitat project in the Canaan Valley of W VA. funded mainly by the RGS-$5K, W VA DNR-$4K and woodcock unlimited -400dollars. Funding administered by the RGS.

3- a huntin' trip to Mississippi to "survey woodcock habitat". hosted by a wealthy timber company owner.

4- a rather unsubtanstianted statement that 'they have caused more to be written about woodcock, woodcock guns, woodcock dogs, and "what the well dressed woodcock hunter should wear(?????). i think that Tom Huggler in the outdoor press probably should the credit for articles and books Andy Ammann certainly is one of the legends in woodcock research. if one is concerned about the effects of woodcock hunting, i'm not altogether convinced you want to make it more popular.

there are some things that i wont write on a public forum, but i am quite convinced this is simply a retirement job for some gamebird bioligists.

[Rudi's Dad]

I would bet the salary of a couple of RGS Regional Directors is about equal to the whole budget of WL. If they were clever enough to get a timber company to pay for a trip (donation) thats a good deal in my book. If WL can look over the winter habitat of woodcock, and come to understand how important the winter habitat is and can do it FREE, I think we have a good deal.
Wl is working with rgs not against them, and if they can get RGS working more on woodcock projects so much the better.(not to mention prying $$ from RGS to do it)
I am a woodcock hunter, and if I cross paths with a Grouse so much the better. This organization is what I put my stock in, and I trust the $20 a yr to belong is money well spent. Thank You

[dogwhistle]

i doubt it was free at all. hosted does not mean paid for.

since you are a member, perhaps you could give a breakdown of income, expenses, i.e. administrative costs including salaries, and the amount directly spent on habitat improvement?

so far all i can find is $400 spent in West Virginia on habitat-primarily grouse. their hunting trip would have cost that much for fuel, food and motel bills enroute. an interesting concept, i've never heard of doing a scientific survey by taking a hunting trip. i would have thought they would have flown over it and driven around it and walked in to various areas. cover a lot more ground that way.

[wingshoot]

WL has gone through some changes in the last year at the management level. What is posted at their website is old news. The site needs to be updated.

I'm a member and I recieved a newsletter this spring which included a form for renewal. The annual meeting, which is open to members and non-members alike is coming up this month in Clare I believe. I can post the time & place later for those interested.

[brdhntr]

Well dogwhisle I just dropped out of the Andy Ammonn Chapter of R.G.S. because after 10 years as a member and donnor, 3 years as banquet prize chairperson, and a member of the board of director R.G.S. is only about raising banquet money. If you are a member of Andy Ammon due you know R.G.S. wants us to turn over all the money we as a chapter have earned. We sponser a wildlife sudent at M.S.U. every year(for at lest the last 10 years I have belonged) and instead of using our money for that they want our money and we would have to raise money for the scholarship! I(our chapter) sponsered a womens hunt I asked R.G.S. to help with the cost of birds they gave hats and whistle landards instead. Then since the price was to high for most women we had a very poor turn out so the chapter didn't even pick up the cost of the food. So all the food, the door prize, and gifts to the people who helped(furnished dogs) came out of my pocket and I'm on S.S. so it cost me some hunting trip. So don't tell me what a great job R.G.S. does the only money they have spent in Mi. in the last couple years is for newer Suburbans, and wages for the reps! So ya woodcock limmited is a good thing nobody is paided all officers and directors just folunteer their time.

I have to chime in on the opposite side of this from WD. I have been the President for the Ann Arbor Chapter for going on 5 yrs. I have seen the devotion to habitat and supporting the local chapters increase. We hold a youth hunt every year, NEVER have I had a problem getting the funds from National to support this. Currently, we are allowed to run events outside the banquet, where the funds stay with the local chapter so we don't have to ask National for funds like that. However, if we fall short on funds for stuff, again, NEVER had a problem with National. This year, we started a youth trap league at Tri-County Sportsmen. Again, no problem getting funds from National. When I happened on a chance meeting with DNR personnel who were responsible for Waterloo, and Fort Custer Rec Areas, and found they were interested in doing some habitat work, again, National and our Regional Biologist ran with it. Granted a lot of our money gets spent in areas outside Ann Arbor, but our area never has been, and never will be the mecca of grouse habitat. I have no problem with the majority of the money going to areas that will make the most of it. At the same token, RGS is dedicated to doing whatever they can, given the limited funds they have.

As far as new vehicles and salaries. I can tell you right now, there is NO WAY I would take the RD job. WAAAY too much travel for what they get paid. And since they live out of their vehicles, I can't blame them for needing a new vehicle. I know that Doug was broke down and couldn't make a couple of our meetings because of the high mileage he had on the previous Suburban, and given the stuff they carry on a regular basis, the Suburban is a wise choice.

[Rudi's Dad]

Dogwhistle, here is the e mail addy of the President of WL. jhammill@uplogon.com. I am sure he can provide you with the info you are requesting and answer your questions re the money spent etc. I would appreciate you dropping a response here to let us know if you think something isnt kosher about WL and if all your concerns were addressed.

[dogwhistle]

Todd, that was a good positive message. i think there is a misunderstanding by many of the role of RGS. often times, and probably most importantly, it is defending lawsuits by anti hunting groups. these groups have found that they can severely cripple hunting by filing lawsuits that require the state and federal convservation agencies to file reams of paperwork before habitat can be improved. essentially they have to file an enviromental impact statement. an excellent example is the lawsuit by the Sierra Club agains the Mich DNR and USFWS. the RGS joined that suit in 02 and the good guys prevailed. that sort of thing is not cheap. this is where the real battle is being joined. given the opportunity the state DNR's and USFWS will renew habitat. but they cant do it if they have to spend years filing paperwork and fighting court battles before a single cover can be cut.


Rudi's Dad, i was asking to see if you knew as you are a member. one of the most important ways to determine the effectivenss of a non profit is by how it spends it's funds. RGS spends 5.9% in fundraising and 4.4% in fundraising. the remainder over 89% goes directly into conservation programs.

another is how they actually spend the money. defending a lawsuit that would cripple habitat renewal is an excellent use. a hunting trip to Mississippi is not. another woodock hunting mortality study is not. we've already had many with the same conclusions.

finally, an organization founded on a premise directly opposed to all science and biological studies, which no other organization of that type supports, raises my suspecions greatly. it sounds like a "hook" to get people interested by being radically different.

it's a mistake to confuse the cause with the organization. "feeding starving children" is a worthy cause, but not every organization that purports to do so and asks for your contribution is worthy.

i have hunted grouse and woodcock for over 20 years, pretty seriously. maybe 25-30 days a year. few of my covers have been cut to regenerate over that time. there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the single largest reason for the decline of woodcock is that. there are some others but that's the big one. "build it and they will come". and there are a lot of reasons it isnt being done, legal restrictions on federal land, reduced funding for the DNR, restrictions on cutting near waterways.

i dont doubt that the people in charge of woodcock unlimited are decent guys. but this isnt my first rodeo. i've seen this sort of thing in completely different areas. do as you wish, but gather your facts and be critical. these non profits are just another word for charitys- organizations that depend on donations. i wont contribute or belong to any non profit unless i am convinced they are spending the money wisely, that they have a good cause, and that they are taking it in a worthwhile direction.

[brdhntr]

Here is a list of projects done in Michigan.
Michigan RGS projects (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/map-usa-states.asp)

I, also, know of a 8,000+ acre project going in Northern MI, in the next couple of years that is getting a big chunk of change from RGS. If you are looking for a group that is going to give you your own littl personal grouse hunting ground, then RGS is not for you. However, if you are looking to do some good for grouse in this country, not to mention the benefits to woodcock, deer, etc, then RGS is a darn good choice.

I'm not going to say RGS is the perfect habitat group. There are things that don't work. But sitting at your computer, complaining about it isn't going to get it fixed. I've been involved with various conservation orgs, serving on their boards, and working with them for better than 12 yrs. All have their problems, but most do darn good work despite that. Don't like what they are doing, or think they are paid too much? Then get out and start your own org, build it up and do some good.

Regarding WL, I know little to nothing about them. However, I have heard good things about them, and this is from some of the overpaid people in the RGS org.

[wingshoot]

Woodcock Limited Third Annual Meeting - August 20.

From the WL newsletter:

Join us for the Woodcock Limited's third annual meeting!
We'll be meeting on Saturday, August 20, 2005 at the Days Inn in Clare, Michigan. This year's program will include:

- Updates on woodcock research and status reports
- Dog training tips from expert handlers
- A Sporting clays shoot (optional)
- Discussion of the direction of Woodcock Limited
- Fellowship with other upland hunters.

We will have our two Ruger Woodcock Limited o/u shotguns on display and will kick off our raffle for them at the meeting.

To make room reservations, call the Clare Days Inn at (989) 802-0144. Mention Woodcock Limited to receive a 15% discount group rate on the room. The motel can guarantee these rooms for us until July 25, 2005.