1(12 THE SPECIES— ITS TAXONOMY, RANGE, BIOLOGY, & ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE 



Budding of Fruit Trees 



At first thought, it seems rather incongruous to present-day observers that the grouse 

 may at times be an economic liability. Nevertheless, as early as 1870, certain Massachusetts 

 towns instituted a bounty of 25 cents on this species because of its alleged damage to apple 

 orchards and fruit trees in general through eating the buds during the winter and early spring. 

 In Kentucky also, according to Forbush"* they early acquired a reputation blacker than that 

 of the crow, not only for their apple budding propensities, but also because they were said to 

 pick up sown grain from the open fields — a supposition not reported in any other part of 

 their range. 



Apparently, however, New England grouse are the chief offenders, for among these rugged 

 hills apple trees have been planted invitingly close to good grouse coverts. Usually but three 

 or four birds are involved at any one place, but there is one report"" of eighteen birds simul- 

 taneously working on one tree. Though food equally attractive to most grouse be abundant 

 close by, a few birds thus concentrating on an orchard may easily strip many a limb almost 

 bare of buds. Maynard^ mentions a grouse he shot about ten o'clock in the morning from 

 whose crop he extracted 180 apple buds, although the average number taken is apparently 

 much smaller. 



Opinions as to the effects of such depredations vary with the interest of the individual and 

 the severity of the pruning experienced. Complaints usually are limited to periods of grouse 

 abundance and are handled in New York State by giving the harried landowner permission 

 to shoot the culprits. But other more strenuous measures, such as the Massachusetts bountv, 

 have occasionally been resorted to elsewhere. 



Probably the most paradoxical situation is to be found in the record of the State of New 

 Hampshire, where a statute was passed in 1915 requiring the state "to pay for any damage 

 to 'annual crops or fruit trees by game birds or game quadrupeds protected by law' ", such 

 payments to be made "out of fish and game funds, which accrue entirelv from license fees, 

 fines and forfeitures"^'. Under it, claims at first were few, largely because the law was little 

 known and grouse were going through the periodic scarcity of 1917-18. Then the abundance 

 of birds surged upwards and. with it, damage claims. It is even said that the Farm Bureau 

 Federation and the State Horticultural Society started membership campaigns, using as a 

 lever the assistance they might offer in settling complaints. By 1923, the situation had be- 

 come so wides])read that over 400 such claims were presented for adjustment. Since July 1. 

 1922, New Hampshire has paid approximately $70,000* for damage by grouse in spite of an 

 investigation being made in each case. The outstanding years (fiscal), by far, were those 

 ending June 30. 1924 and June 30, 1927. when $26,800.72 and S13.989..S0 were paid re- 

 spectively, the former amounting to almost one-quarter of the total income of the Fish and 

 Game Department. But even in the years 1927-28 and 1928-29 when, to many observers, the 

 future of the grouse over much of the Northeast seemed in danger, payments of $4,152.21 

 and $1,047.60 respectively, were made. In 1941, over $1,000 was paid. 



But, even as the controversy raged, many individuals were of the opinion that grouse bud- 

 ding results in no appreciable damage to the tree. As a rule, the birds confine their activities 

 lo the top and renter portions. Thus it often happens thai trees, which have been quite heavily 

 i)udded, produce on their sides and lower braixhes fniil of a ])etler si/e and qnalily than 

 those which have not been so pruned. 



Carprnirr, R, C |irr§niial ii-tliT In llir ntithnr,. Dri-riiibrr 2ti 1111. 



gguw ^TMW*^ 





,. (tie Cmtrnj/MX. 



W— - 



-?C 



