# Any one else think this?



## Mormonboi (Jan 15, 2008)

Does it frustrate anyone else that the native species of grouse are generally in decline, and yet the DWR spends thousands each year to plant non native chukar and pheasants? Am I the only one who would rather those efforts be put forth to help reintroduce/supplement existing flocks of sage grouse, forest/blues/sharptail grouse, and ptarmigan? 

Call me crazy, but I like to see the native species in an area more than the "exotics"....


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

What's this "pheasant" you speak of?


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

You also forgot to mention the non-native elk, moose, turkeys, rainbow trout, etc.


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

gwailow said:


> What's this "pheasant" you speak of?


I seen one once...very rare!

MB,

The UDWR does some work with our native species...but you've got to remember a couple of things.

First and foremost, our native grouse species are not easily propagated like chukar and pheasant. You can't easily start a ruffed grouse farm for example...and any released birds would likely have a very low chance of survival.

Also, the DWR appropriates moneys as the public sees fit&#8230;if more licenses are bought for Chukar and Pheasant hunting they cater more to the "will if the people."

But, I implore you get involved with organizations like the Utah Chukar & Wildlife Foundation, whom have such goals as increasing opportunity for ALL upland species. If you do, you'll find much more goes on behind the curtain than you'd think, particularly regarding native game birds.

Sage grouse studies have been conducted for the past several years, and will continue this year in finding new LEK (breeding ground) areas. This is being done with Sharp-tail as well. However, both of these species are very habitat specific, and unfortunately their habitat is shrinking in Utah, mostly due to urban expansion. But both species have been slowly rebounding the last several years.

Forest grouse are a whole other ball game. It's generally believed that little can be done to "increase" their numbers, short of forest clear cutting. Urban expansion is not as detrimental for these species, and it generally thought that their numbers are doing good-to-well.

Ptarmigan only inhabit a fairly small niche' in our Utah mountains, and because of these habitat requirements they can only live in these specific areas. It's also generally accepted that Ptarmigan have saturated all available range in Utah, and some believe they have actually reached carrying capacity.

What all this means is that our native birds still have a chance, and some are even doing very well. Pitch in and do your part, you'll be glad you did.

Caleb


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

Well said, Caleb. Habit changes. And we can either throw countless dollars after keeping native species around or bring in other game animals that will thrive in the new environment.

If you want a great example of this, look at the Colorado River system. How much money can we throw at maintaning the native, non-game species when their habitat is all but gone?


----------



## Mormonboi (Jan 15, 2008)

Is there a way to look up the numbers of people who targeted chukar vs grouse? It being the same license, I see that there would be a fairly difficult process to determine this. 

I am interested in being more involved in specifically bird organizations, but primarily native birds. I have raised game birds before and found that on a whole they are all difficult to raise, regardless of species. The main issue on the grouse I think would be one of popularity/availability of breeding programs. I just don't think that continuing to reintroduce non native species is a good idea. Call me a purist, but I do believe in preserving native species over introducing non native ones. Besides, who out there actually prefers pheasant or chukar over grouse as table fare? 

And that goes for more than just birds, I am not a fan of the non native rainbows, or the turkeys even. As for the elk/moose comment, I would be curious to know where they have been introduced in Utah that they weren't native to begin with?


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

gwailow said:


> What's this "pheasant" you speak of?


Saw one of those today


----------



## Bridger (Mar 28, 2008)

Phesants can probably be considered "native" since they have been around here longer than most of us, same with the turkeys. I to raised game birds in the past and found the exact opposite they are actually relatively easy to raise and to breed. I even looked into getting a breeding pair of blue grouse and ruffed grouse, but they are like $500 a pair and the survival rate is too low to fork out that sort of money. You are not a fan of the "non-native" rainbows either? How many native rainbows have you caught? My guess is none. They are hard to come by. So what are you a fan of? :?


----------



## Mormonboi (Jan 15, 2008)

I enjoy catching and releasing a cutthroat more than anything, but that is just me. I like to see native species in their native range. 
*and to answer your question as to native rainbows, I have caught hundreds of them in Alaska, but hey, yeah your right, what do I know*
But you just seem to enjoy an attack mode, but again, moot point. 

I don't buy the "because they have been here 100+years they are native" thought line...are blackbuck antelope then "native" to south Texas? what about Aoudad? Nope, they are still exotics. Heck Mountain goats aren't even native to Utah, and while I would not turn down the opportunity to hunt one, I don't agree with actively transplanting and creating new areas for them. You could bolster/reintroduce populations of native bighorn sheep. But that is my opinion, and you have the right to yours. 

I agree that finding grouse to raise for yourself is nigh to impossible. I believe that McMurray Hatchery used to advertise ruffed and blue grouse chicks, but that was only in one seasons catalogue almost ten years ago. Shame. I haven't had the opportunity to raise grouse, but would like to find a way to raise/release if possible.


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

Mormonboi said:


> I enjoy catching and releasing a cutthroat more than anything, but that is just me. I like to see native species in their native range.
> *and to answer your question as to native rainbows, I have caught hundreds of them in Alaska, but hey, yeah your right, what do I know*
> But you just seem to enjoy an attack mode, but again, moot point.


I don't think anyone is attacking you, just using sarcasm to point out the holes in your logic. If you don't want to hear the answers, then don't ask the questions. You don't have to agree. But I encourage you to study to support your ideas with facts. Then come back and share your newfound knowledge.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Loke said:


> You also forgot to mention the non-native elk, moose, turkeys, rainbow trout, etc.


Elk were here when the whiteman showed up, that makes them native as far as I am concerned. FYI, the DWR is doing a sharptail project on Antelope Island that will bolster their numbers in many parts of the state.


----------



## Bridger (Mar 28, 2008)

Where did Alaska come into play? I thought you were talking about Utah. And why not continue to introduce mountain goats to other parts of the state? Your logic just doesnt make sense! Like Gumbo said.


----------



## Mormonboi (Jan 15, 2008)

I brought up Alaska solely because Rainbow trout are not a native species to Utah. They were found to be hardy and easy to transplant and were used extensively world wide in stocking efforts. They originally were only native west of the Cascades with runs of steelhead into Idaho. Erego, native rainbows I have only caught in Alaska. As for non hatchery or second+ generation fish in Utah, I couldn't tell you if I have or haven't caught those. I just don't particularly care to pay attention to rainbows in Utah. 

My opinions on mountain goats is based on a similar train of thought. While there is speculation that they might have been found in Utah, there is no evidence that they were present in Utah prior to the 1960's transplant efforts. I would rather not see a concerted effort go towards transplanting them to new ranges in Utah, but that is just my opinion.

Thanks for the info on the sharptail project on Antelope Island. I will definitely look more into what they are doing.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Loke said:
> 
> 
> > You also forgot to mention the non-native elk, moose, turkeys, rainbow trout, etc.
> ...


Woofies and grizzlies were here, too. Do you want them back?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Loke said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Loke said:
> ...


No! That isn't my point. You said elk were "non-native", I was just saying that wasn't quite accurate. That's all. 8) FYI, I don't want any meat eating dinos brought back either. :shock:


----------



## Shep (Sep 21, 2007)

I am an avid chuckar hunter and I think it is great that the DWR looks for opportunities to provide additional opportunities for us as hunters to pursue game in areas that previously did not hold game. I use chuckars as an example and where the DWR has worked on building populations as far as I know the areas where chuckars are found usually can't support other types of birds like the grouse because the chuckars can live in areas where cheat grass has taken over the grass areas and other plants that other birds need. (I'm no expert on what grouse need or anything I just know that most grouse I have seen are usually in a heavy timbered area up in the mountains with a lot more grass and forage) For me having the chance to see any wildlife this day and age to me is a wonderful opportunity and I will not complain to have the DWR using my money to try and give me more opportunities to hunt.


----------



## coolgunnings (Sep 8, 2007)

One factor that has not been mentioned that really effects the grouse populations is grazing. Cattle and sheep are moved into the mountains every year on property leased by the owner of the domesticated farm animals. Sheep in particular will eat everything on the mountain in the area they are permitted to be on. It is kind of a catch 22 though, because if the domesticated animals are not permitted to be on the land our beef prices and wool prices would go way up. Now I have found some areas where there have been cattle grazing and good populations of grouse. But with the sheep, if they have been in the area, I don't even get out of the truck to hunt. Just move on to another area to hunt grouse.

Another thing that may be effecting forest grouse populations is wild turkey's. But I have no proof of this, just think that the chicks are eating the same bugs in the spring, and competing for food. Does anybody know of any studies that have been done on this?


----------



## Mormonboi (Jan 15, 2008)

I have definitely noticed the grazing issue. I like to hunt grouse between Skyline Drive and Castle Valley Ridge, and really, the ridges that the sheep herders utilize produce zero birds until well after the sheep have been moved to winter range. 

That is definitely an intriguing thought on the turkey vs grouse. I couldn't find any studies in a quick google, but in theory it would happen on some level. Huh, now I have that itch to look into something further again!


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Why in the hell should "native species" be the only test. Man has done lots in the past to improve on "native species" (and of course he has done much to destroy them) but the fact that a species is "native" or been around for a long time shouldn't be the only test for species existence, or, survival for that matter. Extinction is part of nature! I believe we should do what we can to head off extinction wherever we can, within reason, but if a species has out lived its place on this earth (or within a local ecosystem), let it go. We put way to much stock into the “native species” argument. “Native” species have been displaced by competing, better adapted species for all time and eternity. It is the way nature works. 
Not sure what all this has to do with this very specialized discussion you guys are having right now, but if we keep these facts in mind when discussing life management, some of your arguments won't sound so silly. 
And Mormonboi, go back, re-read what InvaderZim wrote early on in this discussion, read it slowly, re-read it again, and then think about it for a while.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

tumblingwings said:


> It is kind of a catch 22 though, because if the domesticated animals are not permitted to be on the land our beef prices and wool prices would go way up.


Actually, very little of the beef available in grocery stores was raised in Utah. Utah lamb does have a significant share in the local market, but meat prices aren't set by the cost of production.

Zim said it all. I just wonder how much better the hunting would be if we didn't have so many non-native people here. :lol:


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

As an interesting side note:

There is some paleological evidence that many areas of the lower 48 had a population of _Harrington's Mountain Goats_ that became "extinct" during a period of dry and warm weather several thousand years ago.

Below is an except from the DWR site, which you can read in full here, Rocky Mounatin Goat Plan



> The mountain goat of western North America is one of two known members identified from the genus Oreamnos. The closest extant relative is the chamois of Europe. The other member of the genus, Oreamnos harringtoni, is an extinct species.
> 
> Because of the harsh sites inhabited by mountain goats, the fossil record is not extensive. Most probably the genus is derived from parent stock originating in Asia, and entering North America sometime during the Pleistocene.
> 
> ...


 8)


----------



## Mormonboi (Jan 15, 2008)

That is an interesting sidenote, however, the Harrington's goat is phylogenically as similar to the present day mt goat as is the chamois. A fairly accurate comparison to using the history of the Harrington's Mt Goat as justification for the present day introductions would be this: We should introduce the African Lion into the midwest, as they are the closest surviving relative of the now extinct American Lion, which was from the same time period as the Harrington's. 

But I think you knew that flaw to begin with. But hey, it was definitely an interesting read, I thank you for that!


----------



## Red-Grouse (Sep 22, 2007)

I would bet dimes to dollars more money is being spent annually in Utah (currently) than is being spent on chukars! The state has dumped quaite a substantial amount of money toward Sage grouse. Forest grouse (blues and Ruffs) numbers are not declining.........(do you have evidence for this). Now Sharpies could use some money thrown their way but the DWR is working on it! You should check out the Utah Chukar Foundation, They do more for all game birds especially natives than any other groups int eh state. they have aided in Sage grouse research providing flush counts, Help with sharptail counts, were the only group doing hoot and drum counts for forest grouse this last spring and still find time to help with chukars..........If you are only interested in native grouse maybe you should check out the North American Grouse partnership...
http://www.grousepartners.org/....


----------



## bucksandducks (Sep 11, 2007)

Mormonbo, the DWR is going to what they are going to do! Get off it! Your arguments are not very good! And quite frustrating and annoying!


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

Mormonboi said:


> That is an interesting sidenote, however, the Harrington's goat is phylogenically as similar to the present day mt goat as is the chamois. A fairly accurate comparison to using the history of the Harrington's Mt Goat as justification for the present day introductions would be this: We should introduce the African Lion into the midwest, as they are the closest surviving relative of the now extinct American Lion, which was from the same time period as the Harrington's.
> 
> But I think you knew that flaw to begin with. But hey, it was definitely an interesting read, I thank you for that!


I guess my point was lost in translation. :shock:

Furthermore I'm not all that sure I understand yours?

Oh, and your definition of "fairly accurate comparison" differs slightly from mine.

Oh, one more thing, welcome to the forums.

:mrgreen:


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

Mormonboi said:


> I would rather not see a concerted effort go towards transplanting them to new ranges in Utah, but that is just my opinion.


OK, I now see your view...but I don't yet understand it.

Mountain Goat inhabit a very specific niche'. A niche' that no other big game animal inhabits. So why not introduce them into said habitat; the alternative is to just keep that area devoid of game.

Same goes with chukar. They inhabit an area that was nearly devoid of gamebirds. It gives hunters the opportunity to pursue a new species where there once was none.

And another interesting tidbit...Our Ptarmigan aint native either. :wink:


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

InvaderZim said:


> Mountain Goat inhabit a very specific niche'. A niche' that no other big game animal inhabits. So why not introduce them into said habitat; the alternative is to just keep that area devoid of game.
> 
> Same goes with chukar. They inhabit an area that was nearly devoid of gamebirds. It gives hunters the opportunity to pursue a new species where there once was none.


Zim, that about sums it up for most of us. While I see mormonboi's idealistic viewpoint, it just doesn't make sense. We'd all like to turn back the clock several hundred years and see a Utah as nature created it. But things have changed over the years, habitat has changed, even species have changed and adapted on their own. And that change isn't necessarily bad, though some of it may be.

Now if importing chukars meant displacing another native species, then I'd understand his argument. But putting non-native game species on habitat not being utilized, and that would provide many opportunities for sportmen in the state, I can see only good coming of it. Keep in mind we're not talking invasive non-native species like kudzu, phragmite, carp, zebra mussels, etc.


----------



## Ryfly (Sep 13, 2007)

InvaderZim said:


> As an interesting side note:
> 
> There is some paleological evidence that many areas of the lower 48 had a population of _Harrington's Mountain Goats_ that became "extinct" during a period of dry and warm weather several thousand years ago.


What??? Warm dry weather??? Extinct animails??? That just can't be. Everyone one knows that only SUV's cause such things and I don't think they were around several thousand years ago. :wink:

I prefer catching Cutthroat trout and hunting Blue Grouse but I don't mind the Chukars either.


----------

