The Purina Top Coverdog of the Year Award   

 and it's

    Companion Derby Award  

                                                                 In Honor of                               

        William Harnden Foster             

Click the Banner above to get to Lion Country Supply

The American Sporting Dog Alliance

News

Beaverton Grouse Dog Club Trial

Wisconsin CVGDA Trial

Lancaster Co Bird Dog Club

Lake States Field Trial Club

Minnesota Field Trial

National Brittany Open Grouse Championship

The Barrens Facts 

  If there is anything that any grouse hunter knows it is that the Ruffed Grouse is almost completely quite dependent upon suitable habitat to live and  to thrive. More and better habitat usually translates to more birds and better bird hunting.  Any thoughtful grouse hunting sportsman or woman who hunts grouse,  therefore,  ought to want those managing the grouse habitat to have as much information as possible,  so that informed decisions can be made.  Apparently,  however, there are some sportsmen and Game Commissioners who do not think knowledge of habitat it is all that important.  

       It seems that,  under pressure from some local hunters,   PA Game Commission,  in all of its wisdom, recently went against the recommendation of their Bureau of Wildlife Management staff and  voted to allow grouse hunting at a study area in The Barrens in State Game Lands 176 near State College,  PA.  The decision,  if it comes to fruition,  compromises and effectively ends the only grouse habitat study in the state.  Only one study on grouse habitat is sad enough,  but to end it before its time seems shameful to me. 

    This is not the first time that such an effort has taken place and I have gathered some information from this and previous efforts  to open the area up to hunting.  Here are some facts about the case:

   The area in question represents less than 1/10^th of 1% of public game lands in the state.  Grouse hunting is thus  allowed on more than 99.9% of game lands acreage.  Less than half of SGL 176 is part of the study  area with the remaining area open to grouse hunting.  The study area at the Barrens  has always been open for hunting all species except grouse,  and is used by sportsmen and women  with for bird dog trials and to "hunt" grouse,  but just not shoot them because  this small area has been  set aside for the habitat study.  In addition, there is a wealth of other public lands within 10 miles of State College including Rothrock State Forest, Bald Eagle State Forest, and Moshannon State Forest. The Penn State Experimental Forest alone is over 6,000 acres and is intensively managed for timber, which creates lots of grouse hunting opportunities.  The Appalachian Grouse study project had 12 study areas in 8 states including one in a nearby  Forest.  At each site  50 grouse were trapped and monitored with telemetry.. According to a lecture I attended in State College,   a biologist with the project named William Guliano stated they were able to trap grouse more quickly at the local spot than any other study site.  

     Despite these plentiful hunting opportunities in the immediate vicinity,  some want to hunt the only public place where grouse hunting is not permitted,  and seem to have convinced the commissioners that killing grouse there too is more important than the state's only grouse habitat study.  The claim,  in a recent newspaper account,  that the study was basically completed anyway,  is not true.  The fact is that nearly 1/4^th of the study area was just cut in 2000 and the impact of that on the habitat will not be known for another 12 years or so.    

    Here are some other facts to consider.  Most every grouse hunter cites most every study that has ever been done that grouse hunting has no impact on overall numbers. The 

 Appalachian Project study

( http://www.nbii.gov/portal/community/Communities/Geographic_Perspectives/Mid-Atlantic/Featured_Projects/The_Appalachian_Cooperative_Grouse_Research_Project/} gives a TENTATIVE confirmation that grouse hunting at the current levels is compensatory:

Quote: "Management Suggestions:

§         Maintain current harvest levels and seasons; populations are not limited by current hunting levels.

§         Increases in populations are most likely to come from habitat management."

(The "tentative" statement will be explained shortly). The study confirmed,  essentially,   that,  since "populations are not limited by current hunting levels" the grouse populations in the study area should be the same as the surrounding areas of similar cover that is being hunted.   That is what compensatory means. Then the study quite clearly  suggests that “Increases in populations” which is what very hunter should like,  “are most likely to come from habitat management."  If the Game Commission wishes to compromise its only study on habitat,  and goes against the recommendation of THEIR BIOLOGIST,  it is obvious that grouse habitat management is a low priority. 

  I said previously that there was a bit of a  tentative confirmation of grouse hunting being compensatory by the Appalachian project. As many know,  the AP tried to fill a gap in the literature by studying the ruffed grouse in its more southernly haunts,  in areas where aspen is not so dominant,  including most of PA.  Most of the classic studies took place in places where aspen was the staple.  Different conditions prevail and much still needs to be learned about habitat in these forests.

   In the areas studied by the Appalachian Project,  where grouse where fitted with telemetry collars:

"Hunting was only 12% of all mortality on average, and ranged from 0% to 35% across sites and years; we cannot conclude or infer that hunting would be compensatory at higher harvest rates." 

  "Higher harvest rates" which might indeed reduce populations year to year were likely related to access because the study recommends that   "Roads should be managed by gating to control harvest pressure ..." 

  Because much of the study area in SGL - 176 runs along the road to the Scotia Shooting Range it cannot be gated.  Moreover,  because field trials run in the study area,  trails are maintained and flagged near some of the likeliest habitat. Major grouse championships that draw national attention are conducted there.  Much of the challenge of grouse hunting comes from finding covers which have birds,  and negotiating and navigating the terrain.  Both of these become moot in the study area of SGL- 176.  With an un-gated road and a number of trails leading to the covers,  higher mortality rates,  rates that are might well reduce the populations can be anticipated. Just to remind you,  even without flagged trails, grouse mortality due to hunting was 35% at some of the Appalachian Project study sites. 

    In my view:

1)      Any grouse hunter worth his salt would want those managing grouse habitat in PA to have as much information on doing so as possible.  If there is even an outside chance that the only area set aside for grouse habitat study might yield some information,  I am in favor of it. 

2)      Our state bird deserves much better than the treatment it is getting here. 

Please write to THE GAME COMMISSIONER FOR YOUR AREA, WITH COPIES TO ALL people below and feel free to quote this article.   

COMMISSIONERS

HILL, DANIEL H., III

415 Ridgeview Dr., Erie  16505
 

 SCHLEIDEN, Russell E. 

106 Penns Cave Rd., Centre Hall 16828 

SCHREFFLER, David W.                                                            1015 Elk Lick Rd., Everett  15537

DELANEY, JAMES JAY, JR                                                                                

            275 Mayock Street, Wilkes Barre  18705 

EXECUTIVE office 

ROE, Carl, Executive Director                                                                            

PA Game Commission

2001 Elmerton Ave., Harrisburg 17110               

The preferred option is to write to your area commissioner, with copies going to other commissioners and to the Executive Director.

You can send email to PGCCOMMENTS@state.pa.us. This last option will result in only a tally of  "support for or against" the hunting closure going to commissioners,  without commissioners reading your comments.  It is best to write to your commissioner and copy the others along with copy to executive director.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance has provided this file of the text of the proposed new Legislation on Pennsylvania's Kennel Laws. This is in .pdf format for download.

Pennsylvania's Proposed Kennel Regulations

right click on the above link and "Save as or Save Target as" to save it to your computer for your own use

January 28th posting

Top link is to read the proposed regulations, bottom link is to download a copy for your own use

Draft of Proposed Pennsylvania Kennel Regulations

Link to .pdf file to download a copy of the proposed Regulations

PA Tail Docking Legislation

Will Kill Thousands of Dogs

By John Yates, Director

The American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org 

Draft legislation in Pennsylvania to require proof of tail docking by a veterinarian would result in the needless and cruel deaths of thousands of dogs a year. The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this legislation, which would shut down rescue groups for breeds of dogs with docked tails and make these breeds of dogs ineligible for adoption from animal shelters. 

The legislation would make it illegal for a breeder to dock the tails of newborn puppies, and requires people who own dogs with docked tails to either prove that the work was done before the law takes effect, or prove that a veterinarian performed the procedure. Dog owners who cannot provide this evidence would be guilty of a summary offense under the state’s Criminal Code simply for possessing a dog with a docked tail. 

Many recognized breeds of dogs traditionally have their tails docked shortly after birth, including poodles, Yorkshire terriers, vizslas, Australian shepherds, weimaraners, Brittanys, Airedales, schnauzers, doberman pinschers, German shorthaired and wirehaired pointers, and cocker spaniels. Some of these breeds of dogs are among the most popular and numerous in America. Many thousands of Pennsylvanians own dock-tailed breeds.

Unfortunately, this also means that these breeds of dogs are among the most numerous in rescue shelters, and with pet rescue groups. These dogs would be sentenced to death if the legislation becomes law. 

Death would be the only choice, as the law prohibits people from adopting these dogs in the absence of proof that a veterinarian did not perform the docking procedure or that the docking was not done prior to the law’s passage. 

People who find a stray dog with a docked tail would be afraid to help the dog or even take it to the local animal shelter, because the mere possession of the dog would make them guilty of a criminal offense. We see the potential for – quite literally - thousands of stray dogs to slowly starve to death and endure incredible agony because people would be afraid to help them. 

The legislation turns compassion into a crime. 

In addition, dogs born with naturally short tails, or dogs that have lost part of their tails through an injury, also would be sentenced to death if this legislation is approved. 

Animal rights groups who support this legislation believe that dogs are better off dead. These groups, such as The Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, oppose the private ownership of animals, even for companionship. PETA, for example, kills close to 2,000 dogs a year at its “shelter” in Virginia alone.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) urges the Pennsylvania Dog Law Advisory Board and the state Legislature to soundly reject this cruel legislation that would send thousands of innocent dogs to their death every year. 

ASDA fully supports the rights of dog breeders to make their own choices about docking tails, and to retain the right to choose to use a veterinarian or do the work themselves. Tail docking is a risk-free and painless procedure. Most experienced breeders of dock-tailed breeds are well trained about performing this simple procedure, and there is no evidence that any problems have resulted from it.