388 INFLVEI^CE OF MA\ 



tlie practices of soiiiul laiir] management. 



The passage of laws restricting the activity of hunters was not only the first effort at con- 

 servation of grouse, but also was a forerunner in the field of cooperative effort in conserva- 

 tion. Restocking of coverts, establishment of refuges and bounty pavments for destroying 

 predators are later developments of cooperative conservation practice. The basic practices 

 of good land management, however, remain largely a matter of individual concern and their 

 use or their disregard, an indi\idual determination. 



The ()i)portunity for the further development of man as a conservationist, especially in 

 the collaborative sense, is great. Why should there not be community cooperation in protect- 

 ing coverts from fire and grazing; in making plantations for new cover; in the marketing 

 of woods products that will permit more productive woodland management methods for both 

 trees and grouse? Therein lies future progress. 



Laws 



In the early years of the white man's colonization of the northeastern states, the ratio of 

 hunters to grouse was so low that the supply seemed inexhaustible. No particular cognizance 

 was taken except the harvesting of them for food. There was no need for protection and 

 no conception of a possible need for cultivation. But as the human population increased 

 and commercial facilities became available, lean years of grouse harvest appeared, likely being 

 years following large losses. Understanding only the loss due to hunting, man turned naturally 

 to a means of checking that loss by controlling hunting, by passing laws restricting the liber- 

 ties of the individual. 



In New York the first law on grouse was passed in 1791. There followed a gradual spread 

 and increase in hunting restrictions. These included the elimination of hunting during cer- 

 tain seasons of the year, the curb on and elimination of market hunting, the prevention of sale, 

 limitations <in methods of take and the imposition of restricted seasons and bag limits. This 

 trend culminated in 1928 in New York with the first completely closed season. 



It is generally recognized that sane legislation should form the foundation of good game 

 conservation. That existing legislation is sometimes inadequate should also be recognized 

 as well as the fact that any legislation is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. 

 Legislative machinery is notoriously slow whereas wise grouse management often requires 

 speedy adjustment in existing laws. Proper handling of the harvest, therefore, requires that 

 the executive game officer of the State be empowered to change regulations relating to sea- 

 sons and bag limits without resort to legislation. Tlie recent delegation of responsibility 

 by the New York legislature for the handling of such items within certain limits is a long 

 and productive stej) in the right direction. 



Lack of facilities for adequate enforcement often renders a perfectly proper law practically 

 void. 



Commercialization of the Take 



The nineteenth century saw much development in the marketing of grouse in the big cities 

 of the Northeast. Amazing are the recorded numbers of birds taken and prices for which 

 they sold*. But. stinuilated bv the low grouse populations in certain vears of the 1870s 

 and 1880s and by the obvious extermination that continued comnienialization would bring, 

 conservationists brought about laws which gradually restricted the practice. 



* Rr*-nrdi rovrrinir llir«r arr foiinil in ("hafilrr I. p. 8. 



