New Associate Editors

New associate editors are Dwayne Elmore and David Dahlgren. Dwayne Elmore is a professor, wildlife extension specialist, and Bollenbach Chair in wildlife biology in the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Oklahoma State University. Specific areas of interest include wildlife habitat relationships, Galliform ecology and management, and thermal ecology. Current research projects are focused on how management and human activity affect various species of grouse and quail. He works with stakeholder groups including private landowners, NGOs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and multiple state wildlife agencies to provide technical assistance on land management issues. David Dahlgren completed his master’s and doctoral degrees as well as a post-doctoral fellowship while researching sage-grouse reproductive habitat and ecology at Utah State University (USU). Following his formal education, in 2010 he began working for the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism as their upland game specialist, a statewide coordinator position covering pheasants, quail, and prairie-chicken management and research. His time in Kansas reemphasized for him the importance of local communities, private producers and landowners, and inter-agency coordination for wildlife conservation and management. In 2013, he returned to USU and began a position as an extension associate working in the Community-based Conservation Program. In 2016, he began an assistant professorship within the Department of Wildland Resources at USU as an extension specialist with an emphasis on wildlife and rangeland habitat. He has a beautiful wife (Lacey), and 3 wonderful girls (Maylee–10; Adalou–8; and Phoebe–6). He is owned by 4 birddogs, one of which is a young German Wirehaired Pointer, his first non-German shorthair pup. He also loves fly-fishing and any time when he can get a fishing pole with a hooked fish at the other end into one of his daughters’ hands

North American Forest Grouse Harvest Regulations

This bulletin reviews North American forest grouse harvest regulations. Forest grouse are a highly sought-after wildlife resource across North America, both for their intrinsic value and as game species. Their unique breeding displays and the habitat they rely on are part of North America’s incredible natural heritage. Most forested landscapes in the upper latitudes of North America have the potential to provide habitat for one or more forest grouse species. This includes a large variety of vegetation types including the aspen forests of the upper Midwest, the coniferous boreal forest of Canada, the Pacific coastal rain forests that extend from Alaska to California, the Intermountain Rockies as far north as the Yukon and as far south as New Mexico and Arizona, and the mixed forests of the southern Appalachians. Across nearly the entire distribution of these forest grouse species, states and provinces have regulated harvest. Eastern states and provinces generally have shorter seasons and non-aggregated bag limits compared to western states and provinces, which tend to have more liberal season lengths, earlier start dates, and most often have aggregated bag limits for multiple forest grouse species. North American forest grouse species have different life-history strategies and yet, in many cases, harvest regulations are combined. Thus, harvest management strategies for forest grouse, especially for western states and provinces, may warrant increased evaluation to ensure appropriate harvest management and conservation of these species into the future

Forest Grouse in the Fall

This bulletin describes the two types of forest grouse that inhabit mountain forests and rangelands in Utah, the ruffed grouse and the dusky grouse. It tells the species differences such as breeding, survival and reproduction, and broods. It includes tips for forest grouse hunters

What Does a Sage-Grouse Eat?

Although sage-grouse may eat only sagebrush during the winter, knowing that they need to eat other foods at other times of the year helps wildlife managers implement projects that will ensure a balanced diet. By knowing what a sage-grouse eats and when, we can determine what we need to do to maintain and improve populations and their habitats

Effects of livestock grazing on rangeland biodiversity: A meta-analysis of grouse populations

Livestock grazing affects over 60% of the world’s agricultural lands and can influence rangeland ecosystem services and the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat, resulting in changes in biodiversity. Concomitantly, livestock grazing has the potential to be detrimental to some wildlife species while benefiting other rangeland organisms. Many imperiled grouse species require rangeland landscapes that exhibit diverse vegetation structure and composition to complete their life cycle. However, because of declining populations and reduced distributions, grouse are increasingly becoming a worldwide conservation concern. Grouse, as a suite of upland gamebirds, are often considered an umbrella species for other wildlife and thus used as indicators of rangeland health. With a projected increase in demand for livestock products, better information will be required to mitigate the anthropogenic effects of livestock grazing on rangeland biodiversity. To address this need, we completed a data-driven and systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to determine the current knowledge of the effects of livestock grazing on grouse populations (i.e., chick production and population indices) worldwide. Our meta-analysis revealed an overall negative effect of livestock grazing on grouse populations. Perhaps more importantly, we identified an information void regarding the effects of livestock grazing on the majority of grouse species. Additionally, the reported indirect effects of livestock grazing on grouse species were inconclusive and more reflective of differences in the experimental design of the available studies. Future studies designed to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on wildlife should document (i) livestock type, (ii) timing and frequency of grazing, (iii) duration, and (iv) stocking rate. Much of this information was lacking in the available published studies we reviewed, but is essential when making comparisons between different livestock grazing management practices and their potential impacts on rangeland biodiversity

Utah\u27s Own Habitat Guidelines for Sage-Grouse

Those living and working within western North America’s sagebrush landscapes have most likely been exposed to sage-grouse issues for many years now and may have felt anxiety concerning the potential impacts that could result from implementing conservation measures designed to help this iconic species persist. Society’s challenge to seek the delicate balance between the conservation of nature and the growth related to human endeavors exemplifies the need to use the best available science as we move forward. Representative information, especially at the landscape level related to sage-grouse, has been hard to come by. However, due to the vast amount of research conducted within Utah’s sage-grouse populations and the yeoman efforts carried out by many individuals, Utah researchers have had the unique opportunity to quantitatively assess sage-grouse habitat characteristics across the vast variation in vegetation communities in most of Utah’s sage-grouse populations. From this assessment, representative habitat guidelines have been developed to help all affected parties responsibly move sage-grouse conservation forward in Utah

Predicting Greater Prairie-Chicken Lek Site Suitability to Inform Conservation Actions

The demands of a growing human population dictates that expansion of energy infrastructure, roads, and other development frequently takes place in native rangelands. Particularly, transmission lines and roads commonly divide rural landscapes and increase fragmentation. This has direct and indirect consequences on native wildlife that can be mitigated through thoughtful planning and proactive approaches to identifying areas of high conservation priority. We used nine years (2003–2011) of Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) lek locations totaling 870 unique leks sites in Kansas and seven geographic information system (GIS) layers describing land cover, topography, and anthropogenic structures to model habitat suitability across the state. The models obtained had low omission rates (\u3c0.18) and high area under the curve scores (AUC \u3e0.81), indicating high model performance and reliability of predicted habitat suitability for Greater Prairie-Chickens. We found that elevation was the most influential in predicting lek locations, contributing three times more predictive power than any other variable. However, models were improved by the addition of land cover and anthropogenic features (transmission lines, roads, and oil and gas structures). Overall, our analysis provides a hierarchal understanding of Greater Prairie-Chicken habitat suitability that is broadly based on geomorphological features followed by land cover suitability. We found that when land features and vegetation cover are suitable for Greater Prairie-Chickens, fragmentation by anthropogenic sources such as roadways and transmission lines are a concern. Therefore, it is our recommendation that future human development in Kansas avoid areas that our models identified as highly suitable for Greater Prairie-Chickens and focus development on land cover types that are of lower conservation concern

Comparison of Dog Surveys and Fall Covey Surveys in Estimating Fall Population Trends of Northern Bobwhite

The use of fall covey surveys to monitor population trends for northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus; hereafter bobwhite) have been widely used in bobwhite research. Estimates of relative abundance from this monitoring technique are often important in assessing population responses to management practices or annual variation. However, conducting covey call surveys is labor intensive and typically can only be conducted during a narrow time frame. The use of dogs as a research tool may offer an efficient alternative to monitor bobwhite population trends. While dogs have been used in research for many other gallinaceous species, their application for bobwhite has received minimal research. To compare traditional and novel (dog) methods for both relative population abundance and density estimation, we conducted covey call surveys (50 points) and dog transects (32 km) during the fall (Sep-Oct) season from 2012-2014 at Beaver River WMA, Beaver County, Oklahoma, USA. A total of 306 detections were observed through fall covey count surveys, while only 44 detections were observed through dog transect surveys. Fall covey surveys yielded indices of 1.45, 2.04, and 3.21 detections per point count during 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. Dog transects yielded 0.23, 0.34, and 0.67 detections per km during 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.996 indicated high correlation between indices estimated between both survey methods. However, the low sample size for detections during dog surveys precluded any analysis that would yield bobwhite density estimates. Our results indicate that dog transects can be a method for estimating abundance indices for bobwhite. However, if estimates of bobwhite densities are of interest, then use of dog transect surveys are not recommended as only under high quail densities or with high observer efforts do enough detections accumulate for robust density estimation unless large effort is expended

Greater Sage-Grouse Select Nest Sites to Avoid Visual Predators but Not Olfactory Predators

Birds can hide from visual predators by locating nests where there is cover and from olfactory predators where habitat features create updrafts, high winds, and atmospheric turbulence, but sites optimal for hiding from visual and olfactory predators often differ. We examined how Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) balance the dual needs of hiding from both visual and olfactory predators on Parker Mountain, Utah, where the Common Raven (Corvus corax) is the main visual predator and the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) are the main olfactory predators. By comparing nest sites to random sites during 2005 and 2006, we found that sage-grouse nest at sites where their nests were obscured from visual predators but were exposed to olfactory predators. To validate these findings, we replicated the study in southwest Wyoming during 2008. Again, we found that visual obscurity at nest sites was greater than at control sites but olfactory obscurity was less. Our results indicate that Greater Sage-Grouse select nest sites where they will be concealed from visual predators but at the cost of locating nests where they are exposed to olfactory predators. In southwest Wyoming, we found that olfactory predators (mammals) and visual predators (birds) depredated an equal number of nests. By selecting nest sites with visual obscurity, Greater Sage-Grouse have reduced the threat from visual predators to where it was similar to the threat posed by olfactory predators

Considerations for Sage-Grouse Management Objectives

This fact sheet describes ways to conserve and manage sage-grouse and includes information on population dynamics; movements, habitat, and climatic interactions; and management objectives