ShareThis Page
Frye: Sick bugs may trouble grouse |

Frye: Sick bugs may trouble grouse

| Saturday, February 13, 2016 5:12 p.m.

As if mosquitoes weren’t aggravating enough. Now it seems they might be playing a role — potentially a large one — in the decline of ruffed groused across Pennsylvania.

The birds are scarce, without a doubt. Population monitoring suggests their numbers hit a 50-year low in 2014, said Lisa Williams, grouse biologist for the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Hunters can attest. According to Williams, flush rates — defined as the number of grouse flushed per hour by hunters who volunteer to log their experiences — have been almost universally terrible of late.

Statistics from 2014 — the most recent available — show flush rates were down anywhere from 13 percent to 66 percent across five of the state’s six regions. What’s more, 75 percent of Pennsylvania’s 51,000 grouse hunters ended the year without killing one, Williams said.

Just catching sight of one was tough. On average, it took a hunter five more hours to jump a grouse in 2014 than it did in 2000.

“The trend is fairly bleak over the long term,” Williams said.

For years, troubles with grouse were blamed on the aging of state forests. Grouse need early successional habitat — young forests — to survive.

That cover is in short supply, Williams said. But population declines were slow until 2002, when there was a sharp dip, Williams said. A bit of a weak recovery followed, then another precipitous fall.

“So whatever happened happened very quickly, over just two or three years. And it happened all across the state,” Williams said.

Habitat doesn’t change that fast, so this had the “fingerprints of disease” all over it, she said.

West Nile showed up in New York City in 1999, then went “haywire” in 2002, right when grouse numbers fell, “so the timing fits,” Williams said. Ever since, she added, grouse populations and West Nile have fluctuated in inverse proportion. When one’s up, the other’s down.

“We had the smoking gun, but nobody heard the bang,” she said.

To test that theory, last spring the commission collected grouse eggs from the wild on game lands and got them to a USDA-certified, mosquito-free propagator in Idaho. The hatched chicks went to a university laboratory in Colorado.

Ten of 18 birds were infected with West Nile, said Justin Brown, the commission’s wildlife veterinarian. Of the remaining eight, five were vaccinated, and three were given a “sham” infection.

The vaccinated and sham birds survived. Four of the infected birds became so sick they had to be euthanized within a week, and four others were so significantly impacted they would have had a hard time surviving in the wild, Brown said.

“Basically, their hearts were just annihilated with this virus,” he said.

If things continue, the day might come when the commission has to consider changes to grouse hunting, Williams said. But she’s not ready to go there yet.

For now, she said, the task is to figure out where West Nile is and isn’t having an impact and do habitat work “where grouse have the greatest chance for survival.”

“We’ll be looking at this hard over the next 12 months,” she said.

Bob Frye is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter @bobfryeoutdoors.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.