382 



INFLUENCE OF MAN 



bers in the face of constant hunting. 



One must conclude that man. as a hunter of predators, is of little consequence to grouse 

 conservation. Whether it be the normal, haphazard, "'catch-as-catch-can" shooting, organized 

 "vermin hunts" or hunting for bounty, the numbers of important grouse predators taken by 

 shooting are small. As for assisting in the management of grouse , sportsmen's efforts as 

 predator hunters are relatively ineffectual. 



As A Trapper of Fur Species 



Trapping for fur is an economic enterpri-ie. Returns come in payment for the pelts 

 taken and, in some cases, additional revenue from bounties and from carcasses. Several of 

 the valuable fur-bearing animals are also important grouse predators. Because of the dual 

 role of these species, trappers unintentionally (in contrast to predator hunters) exert an indi- 

 rect influence on grouse. 



Fur bearers in this State which are also important grouse predators are niainh the red 

 fox, gray fox, small brown and New York weasels and skunk. The raccoon, while a less im- 

 portant grouse predator, is also trapped in some numbers. The take of all these species, ex- 

 cept the weasels, has been recorded in New York since 1918, along with the reports required 

 of game taken. Table 60 summarizes these data beginning in 1926. 



TABLE 60. 



REPORTED TAKE OF CERTAIN PREDATORY FUR BEARERS IN 

 NEW YORK— 1926-1939* 



Number of Animals Reported Taken by Trappers and Hunters 



* The recorded take of otlier predatory fur-bearers not appreciably affecting grouse 

 is not included here. 



Considered from the standpoint of the predators themselves, these data bring out several 

 significant points. With red fox, skunk and raccoon, the take depends mainly on fur prices. 

 It was very high during the booming fur market of the middle *20s. Then it drojjped mark- 

 edly with the economic depression of the early '30s following which it has commenced to 

 increase again. No species has shown any indication of a marked decline in number, or. as 

 a corollary, pelt trapping of these species seems to take only the surplus population, if that 

 much. 



It is apparent that ordinary fur tra|)|)ing h.is not resulted in any widesjiread reduction of 

 any of these species. .An exception miglit occur during a ])roli>Mgc(l period of high fur 

 prices, a circumstance not likely to occur. A substitute for high fur |)rices is the granting 

 of a bounty in addition to the return from the |)ell. Pennsylvania has attempted control by 

 this means but it likewise has failed to control any species except the bobcat. 



