376 



INFLUENCE OF MAN 



recorded was .33 in 1930 and .37 in 1931. The bag of .63 grouse per 8 hour day in 1931 — 

 based only on the efforts of grouse hunters, probably increased slightly with the increase of 

 the birds in succeeding years. However, the check made on Conneiticul Hill in 19.36 only 

 showed a slight increase to .7 grouse per 8 hour day and only .2 grouse for the average hunt- 

 ing "day" of 2.1 hours. However, this low "day" is partly accounted for by the fact that 

 only the part of the hunters' day that was spent hunting on the check area was counted. 



A measure of the distribution, rather than the size, of the daily bag may be obtained from 

 the proportion of hunters taking one or more grouse per day. In the 1930 study this was 

 25.0 per cent; in 1931, 26.9 per cent; and in 1936. only 15.3 per cent. Thus, even restricting 

 our take figures to hunters alone, in fact, to hunters in grouse cover, only a small proportion 

 actually get grouse in any one hunting day. 



Crippung Loss 



The number of grouse crippled by hunters but not brought to bag, being an exceedingly 

 difficult factor to evaluate, has always been the subject of wide differences of opinion. To 

 some observers it has appeared negligible while to others it loomed even larger than the bag 

 itself. The Investigation has had two opportunities to work on the problem, once in connec- 

 tion with the hunter-check in 1930. 1931. and 1936, and again with the grouse population 

 control ex])eriments in 1933-34, 1934-35 and 1935-36. 



An exaggerated version of the crippling loss is obtained by subtracting the hunter "take" 

 from the difference between the pre-season and post-season censuses in a hunter-check sur- 

 vey. This result represents the entire loss of birds during the hunting season except for those 

 brought to bag and includes losses due to predation, disease, and accident as well as from 

 hunter-crippling. It is assumed in these surveys that grouse movement into and away from 

 the check areas is balanced. The results on the hunter-check areas indicate that the whole 

 hunting season loss is approximately double the hunter take. These data are summarized in 

 table 57. 



TABLE 57. ANALYSIS OF HUNTING SEASON LOSSES OF GROUSE 

 IN NEW YORK— 1930, 1931 AND 1936 



Thus, the losses due to all other causes during the hunting season approximately equals 

 the loss due to hunter "take". Saunder's work in Michigan, which showed a hunter "take" 

 of 6.7 per cent, gives a total Ocloher loss (which ])cri()d is over double the length of the 

 open hunting season of 12 days) from all sources as 15.9 per cent of the September popula- 



