COVER REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROUSE 121 



This type selection obviously is not orthodox by such standards as foresters have proposed. 

 A botanist may shake his head doubtfully, though the choice may make better sense to plant 

 ecologists. Perhaps only the grouse-wise will recognize the importance of emphasizing, as the 

 essential difference, the character rather than the kinds or species of plants as the basis of 

 type differentiation best suited to the purpose at hand. Any one of the conifers or the broad- 

 leaved evergreens, such as mountain laurel, may represent, for a grouse, potential sheher 

 from predators; a hundred different plants that grow in slashings may furnish it with food. 

 In other words, the types here selected are largely representative of the different stages of 

 forest succession or regression which function to fulfill some niche in the broad panoply of 

 grouse cover needs. 



In following such a line of reasoning, it is easy to lean over backwards. One cannot simply 

 ignore all species of trees or shubs in evaluating the whole, for some are more productive of 

 food and shelter than are others. The grouse is, however, so adaptable that no one or two 

 species are indispensable to its welfare. Rather it is the groups of plants more or less char- 

 acteristic of each type, which, in whole or in part, serve to fulfill one or more of the bird's 

 principal needs. 



The degree to which these are met is regulated by the composition of the group and the 

 proportion of the whole which it occupies. This, in part, explains why grouse are likely to 

 be found more frequently in certain parts of a type than in others. Other equally important 

 reasons, notably cover arrangement, are mentioned later. 



The properties in each cover type that determine its value to the grouse may be spread 

 throughout or localized here and there. Examples of the uniform situations which may occur 

 are pure coniferous stands resulting from artificial plantings or an alder thicket so dense as 

 to preclude the intrusion of other light-demanding species. Conversely, in brushy pastures, 

 the best food conditions for grouse are usually to be found at some distance from the gate. 



Though the details may differ, counterparts for most of the situations here described are 

 probably to be found throughout the range of the ruffed grouse, for though the species may 

 differ, the pattern of woodland succession is much the same. Nevertheless, the usefulness of 

 these particular type groupings in studying the shelter requisites of the bird or. in fact, of 

 adapting many of the conclusions here drawn to other regions is dependent upon the extent 

 to which conditions are similar to those pictured for New York and upon the success with 

 which the influence of any differences can be evaluated. 



COVER REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROUSE 



Wherever grouse hunters gather, discussions are bound to arise. Where are the birds most 

 likely to be found on warm October days or in a November snow squall? Is it worthwhile 

 hunting steep slopes? How far will the birds wander from sheher in search of food? Thus 

 the questions go. 



Occasionally the thought is expressed that, if the answers were definitely known, it might 

 help an interested landowner or a state game department to manage some woodlands so as to 

 produce more grouse. The only way to settle such matters is to turn to the birds themselves 

 for the answer. 



It was with this thought in mind that the Investigation early started an intensive study of 

 grouse cover requirements. Beginning in 1930 two primary study areas were established in 

 the Rest of State region and one each in the Adirondacks and the Catskills*. Secondary units 



* The principal onrs wi-rr ih^ Conneclicul Hill. Pharsalia. Adirondack and Calskill survey areas. 



