12 THE RIFFED GROUSE I\ THE MARCH OF TIME 



so unusually abundant previous to that period as to sell in the markets of Boston for as low 

 as 12*2 cents each". Of more than coincidental significance, therefore, is an editorial carried 

 by the Rochester (N.Y.) Dailv Advertiser of April 11. 1832, beginning. "\^'e have regretted the 

 destruction of this bird by the hard winter of 1830-31, because his note was necessary to the 

 chorus of the field and the forest — the only chorus that we ever admired", and urging its fur- 

 ther protection. The significance of this evidence of scarcity during the same year from 

 sources 600 miles apart, was to remain unrealized, however, for most of the next hundred 

 years. 



But not so with the records of scarcity. A letter from a market hunter of the old school, 

 Mr. W. E. Hookway of Syracuse, N. Y., to the authors, states that a companion of his 

 father's, engaged by the old Saratoga Hotel, killed only one grouse in five months during 

 1867. As though to corroborate this observation for other counties of the State, a few years 

 after the Civil War, Judge John W. Spoare, a locally famous grouse shot of Columbia County 

 (N.Y.), is reputed to have sold his only hunting dog because "the partridge are all gone". 

 That coming events sometimes cast their shadows before, is indicated by Norris^, who 

 records grouse as common in Massachusetts but scarce in Vermont in 1866. "The Fluctuating 

 Grouse Supplv"' is the title of an article published in Field and Stream in 1883. According 

 to the author, in southwestern Ontario, grouse were reportedly scarce, in shar]) contrast to 

 their abundance two years previous. 



Apparently reliable though fragmentary reports indicate a period of scarcity in 1896 or 

 1897. In substantiation of this. Dillin"" records that, in two weeks, he flushed two birds and 

 his companion but three, in southern PennsvKaiiia in 1897. whereas they had averaged 14 

 per day in 1889, on the same area. 



With the turn of the century, interest grew apace. The first comprehensive attempt to outline 

 the problem followed the exceedingly severe winter of 1903-04. when Edward Howe For- 

 bush'" sent a questionnaire to some 400 interested naturalists, game wardens and sportsmen 

 throughout Massachusetts, inquiring as to its effects on bird life. Grouse, as well as other wild 

 birds, were reported exceedingly scarce. On the u inter rested most of the blame. 



The scarcity of 1906-07 was unique in that it was so generalK recognized by observers. 

 Writers recorded that the species fell to rock bottom and it was frankly ])rcdicted that the end 

 (if the grouse was at hand. The New York Forest. Fish and Game Commission became so 

 alarmed that an extensive survey by questionnaire was conducted to "bring out" the situa- 

 tion (Woodruff'"*). 



Attention by now was aroused to the rather regular recurrence of these periods. When the 

 next "die-off" occurred. Stoddart'"'. then Rod and Gun editor on the New York Times, was ac- 

 cordingly engaged by the New York Commission to circulate an even more extensive ques- 

 tionnaire, particularly among hunters and game protectors, to determine supposed causes of 

 the lean years of 191.5-16 and 17. Now, too, the American Game Protective Association, 

 formed in 1912. was becoming intensely interested, not only in attempting to propagate 

 grouse artificially, but also in the causes of their scarcity. An off-cycle decrease in 1924, 

 throughout much of the grouse range, was sufficiently intense to cause the formation of the 

 Grouse Investigation Committee at the American Game Conference that year. Less than 

 twelve months later, throughout the North and Middle W est. competent observers, Leopold"", 

 reported ruffed grouse to be at the numerically low point of another cycle. Throughout the 

 East the tide of scarcity reversed itself, surging upward for two short years, then shrank to the 

 well remembered low of 1927-28. 



