16 THE RUFFED GROUSE /A' THE MARCH OF TIME 



condui t a survey, by questi(jiinaire, of the probable causes. The answers ran the gamut of 

 possible influences, with the fdllciwiiig nine theories predominating: 



1 . The severe winter of 1906-07 



2. Unusual abundance of foxes and goshawks 



3. The cold wet spring of 1907 



4. The extreme dryness of the following July and August 



5. A disease epidemic 



6. Internal parasites 



7. An infestation of parasitic ticks 



8. Pot hunting in the closed season 



9. Resumption of migratory instincts 



With commendable inclusiveness he concluded the best bet to be an unhappy combination 

 of the cold wet spring, the unusual abundance of predators, and an epidemic of some disease or 

 parasite. 



By now, interest was general and the outdoor magazines of the day were filled with causative 

 speculations. Biologists, too, were sharing in this interest. Thus George Bird Grinneir% in 

 1910, lists six of Woodruff's nine factors as suggestions but places the most emphasis on the 

 cutting off of the forest, with over-shooting as a close second in importance. He was also the 

 first to publicize the periodicity of the scarcity phenomenon. 



In the meantime, striking progress was being made in raising and keeping grouse in captiv- 

 ity. Poison had brought an end to one of Dr. Hodge's pioneer attempts at Worcester, Mass. 

 as described later. Encouraged by the newly formed American Game Protective Association, 

 Torrey, Dimmick and Fields, in Massachusetts and Walcott and Mac Vickers, in Connecticut, 

 each watched and described the psychology, the food habits and the general reactions of the 

 bird in captivity. In 1915, John Burnham arranged for George Jeffries"" to pen grouse 

 under natural conditions, feed them natural foods and raise a few young grouse to maturity, 

 in an attempt to discover causes for their fluctuating numbers. 



All this contributed lo an understanding of the bird but did not soke the problem. Inter- 

 est remained intense, but. with magnificent disdain for the efforts of the investigators, the 

 grouse calmly proceeded to disappear again in 1916-17. The distractions of war notwith- 

 standing. New York's Conservation Commission pn)ni|)tly organized a survey under the 

 direction of A. M. Stoddarl which was more far-flung than any >('t attempted. Game protec- 

 tors were ordered to submit weekly reports covering their field ()lis('r\ ations of grouse abund- 

 ance and habits. The presence of some birds, dead in the field, was noted, but .surmise was 

 still substituted for the more certain results of scientific examiiiatidii to (Icicrminc the cause 

 of death. 



The methods, basic to good wildlife research, were as yet largely unrecognized. While at- 

 tem|)ting to get at the facts thrcnif;!) the directed iibs<'i vatiori of man) individuals, Stoddart 

 was, accordingly, forced to fall back on the most extensive (picslioiniaire yet devised to furnish 

 the broadest possible backgrountl for his explorations. His report, as finally brought togeth- 

 er, leans strongly toward predators as most likely to be responsible for periodic scarcities. 

 These are listed in the following order: hawks, owls, weasels, foxes and the common cat. To 

 this list were added: disease, the rigors of winter, slaughter by man. and bad nesting seasons 



