Yeah. I'll be participating in that.....

Give me break.

 

Seems like there are some potential pitfalls doesn't it?

 

My flush rate of grouse in Monroe County is off the charts.

 

Tons in Wayne County as well

 

Kent county flush rate is off the charts. My bad, I at at El Cunado again.

 

Can you imagine how much of our money was wasted on that

While they were at it they should have added a feature where you can pin the location exactly where you were hunting

 

It looks exactly like the platform the counties were using during covid. Its great at compiling information but is the information even accurate? Honest people will use it but I won't.

 

I want data driven decisions about habitat management, of course, and I suspect you all do as well. Likewise, I generally support DNR efforts related to upland game, as we’re the red-headed stepchild compared to deer.

But let’s stick to drumming surveys, banding woodcock, and aerial habitat monitoring. Our flushes are hard, hard won, and no one wants that showing up in the public domain.

I’ll happily report my total season kills to the DNR, but that’s it.

 

You guys realize this website is gleaning your personal data and selling it far and wide across the internet right?

 

I don’t care what Russian hackers know about me as long as it’s not my grouse spots. 😂

 

Hunters invited to use new online grouse, woodcock reporting tool

Hard nooo

 

Empty shotgun shells that are not Remington #6 are excellent pins.

 

I still find purple 16 gauge every few years that are likely my great-grandpa or grandpa’s.

 

I just listened to a solid multi agency presentation at an RGS get together yesterday.

The reporting app (as well as other things) was discussed.

I’m torn, but generally in support of it.

They explained that the reported information is used to measure the success of our forest management plans. If we are managing for a 50 year rotation of our state forest, ( Meeting our PA 529? requirements for resource use and sustainable harvest), it is important to know the impact on the animals that sportsman harvest.
ruffed grouse hunters, are stake holders in the forest management process.

The birds we hunt are tied directly to the early successional stage of forest management. Years 0-10, and 10-20 of the forest management plan for Aspen.
yeah, I know, Aspen isn’t the only thing that impacts ruffed grouse jnumbers. However, Aspen is the plurality of the wood type that grows in Michigan, and has the biggest role in Forest products. Plays the largest role in forest management.

If we report where we make our kills, and it is overlaid on the map of forest management compartments, a lot of important management information can be gleaned.

I am hesitant because No one asked about whether or not a FOIA request would put every grouse kill in the state of Michigan on somebody’s desk without leaving the comfort of their downstate lawyers office.

I think those of us who hunt multi species already know, that surveying is the preferred method of data collection. That it is expensive, the returns are low, and one begets another.
so in my case, it’s about six or eight different surveys that arrive in the mail every year, and truthfully, I’m kind of sick of them.
I started to call the harvest surveys surveillance, rather than data collection.

So I have mostly given up on filling them out.

That leads us to where the world is today and where it is headed,

Getting rid of the paper, getting rid of the postal costs, getting rid of a hand counting, automating the entire process, those are all things that save Sportsman‘s dollars to be used on those things that are more important to us than the survey.

I believe in scientific management of the resources, and that means you‘ve got to measure at the beginning, measure in the middle, and measure at the end.

The LODGH newsletter collected And reported grouse data for decades. But the reporting lagged, so where I hunted wasn’t pin point accurate.
People definitely used it with some success.

All that said, I feel an undertone in wildlife management of a concern about response rates to forest disturbance in ruffed grouse numbers.
I would like to know if the current plan that the state adopts for state forest, really has an impact on grouse numbers or not. And that should be directly tied to hunters success.

Because, having direct online access to where the cuts were made via your phone and online maps straight from the state, and then correlating that to recorded hunter success, will definitely show, whether or not our grouse are responding to the cutting plan that has been implemented.

This is a tough one, that essentially will have to be boilEd down to a lowest common denominator.

 

I just listened to a solid multi agency presentation at an RGS get together yesterday.

The reporting app (as well as other things) was discussed.

I’m torn, but generally in support of it.

They explained that the reported information is used to measure the success of our forest management plans. If we are managing for a 50 year rotation of our state forest, ( Meeting our PA 529? requirements for resource use and sustainable harvest), it is important to know the impact on the animals that sportsman harvest.
ruffed grouse hunters, are stake holders in the forest management process.

The birds we hunt are tied directly to the early successional stage of forest management. Years 0-10, and 10-20 of the forest management plan for Aspen.
yeah, I know, Aspen isn’t the only thing that impacts ruffed grouse jnumbers. However, Aspen is the plurality of the wood type that grows in Michigan, and has the biggest role in Forest products. Plays the largest role in forest management.

If we report where we make our kills, and it is overlaid on the map of forest management compartments, a lot of important management information can be gleaned.

I am hesitant because No one asked about whether or not a FOIA request would put every grouse kill in the state of Michigan on somebody’s desk without leaving the comfort of their downstate lawyers office.

I think those of us who hunt multi species already know, that surveying is the preferred method of data collection. That it is expensive, the returns are low, and one begets another.
so in my case, it’s about six or eight different surveys that arrive in the mail every year, and truthfully, I’m kind of sick of them.
I started to call the harvest surveys surveillance, rather than data collection.

So I have mostly given up on filling them out.

That leads us to where the world is today and where it is headed,

Getting rid of the paper, getting rid of the postal costs, getting rid of a hand counting, automating the entire process, those are all things that save Sportsman‘s dollars to be used on those things that are more important to us than the survey.

I believe in scientific management of the resources, and that means you‘ve got to measure at the beginning, measure in the middle, and measure at the end.

The LODGH newsletter collected And reported grouse data for decades. But the reporting lagged, so where I hunted wasn’t pin point accurate.
People definitely used it with some success.

All that said, I feel an undertone in wildlife management of a concern about response rates to forest disturbance in ruffed grouse numbers.
I would like to know if the current plan that the state adopts for state forest, really has an impact on grouse numbers or not. And that should be directly tied to hunters success.

Because, having direct online access to where the cuts were made via your phone and online maps straight from the state, qand then correlating that to recorded hunter success, will definitely show, whether or not our grouse are responding to the cutting plan that has been implemented.

This is a tough one, that essentially will have to be boilEd down to a lowest common denominator.

My thoughts are they do not have the resources to do employee based research.
They do however know young forests are full of diversity compared to old growth forest.
They also already know what wildlife benefits from the two.

 

I wouldn't mind it as much if they sent it to you as an online survey after the season, much like the paper ones. Where I take issue is that it would be instantaneous, and anyone coming to hunt will look at that map and see where the "hotspot" is.

Just like the drumming survey was, I really wouldn't be surprised if this could also be subject to foia.

We know that young forest is extremely important for grouse. We also know that there are lots of other factors, some completely out of our control, which also effect grouse numbers. So if grouse numbers dont improve due to cutting what are they going to do, stop cutting?? Well that would be even worse for the grouse. It doesn't take a biologist to see that.

 

Good info for out of state hunters. I won’t be reporting any birds on a time wasting survey

 

So far it looks like Cheboygan and Ogemaw counties are the place to be.

 

Only because they have more than one person reporting. Look at the actual number of reports in the other counties. I think it is way too early to look for any real data.

 

Looks like hunters are reporting their hunts. That's some good info that should give unbiased numbers for bird hunters

 

As of right now the counties that show the best numbers are the ones that have 4-5 people reporting. The ones with 1 report have the least flush rates. I think it is a bit misleading right now but maybe 4-5 weeks in it might have some good data.

 

Is the dashboard having issues, the maps don't reflect the all of the numbers that are on the data sheet? Counties like Lake, Roscommon, Newaygo don't show up on the maps.

 

I

Noticed the same but when you click on woodcock or grouse only they show up. Must be a glitch.

 

Well I decided I just can't resist so I submitted my results from the past week. It hasn't populated on the map yet. I'm guessing it'll require an employee entering the data as it's submitted.

 

This morning there seems to be more people who have reported so flush rates are evening out some amongst counties. 77 reports the last time I looked.

It is odd to me that it shows grouse avgs 1.8 flushes per our and woodcock are 1.7 per hour. I spend most of my time in 3 counties but that seems really odd to me. My woodcok flushes are easily 8-1 over grouse. Maybe higher in some spots. If I was only flushing 2 birds an hr I am not sure i would hunt as much as I do.

 

I don't know the county I hunted on Saturday and Sunday so I can't enter any data.

 

Incognito mode