392 INFLUENCE OF MAN 



In 1935. the Refuge had only 66 per cent as many grouse as the public shooting area 

 while in 1936 the populations were practically identical. Then in 1937, while the grouse 

 population on the former continued to decrease, that on the latter increased until it carried 

 39 per cent more birds than did the Refuge. 



While the densities of numbers have essentially the same ratios as the populations, the 

 1936 population densities on both areas were considerably lower than those of the previous 

 year. But in 1937 the density of grouse on the Public Shooting Ground showed a marked 

 increase while that on the Refuge continued to decline. The analysis of the effect of the 

 small differences in the areas may serve to explain some of the variations in grouse num- 

 bers, but the vital fact still remains that the protection afforded by the Refuge during the 

 period concerned did not serve to enlarge the crop of grouse. 



The conclusion seems inevitable that refuges are of little value in maintaining popula- 

 tions of ruffed grouse when hunting pressure is not excessive. Fluctuations continue regard- 

 less of the protected or unprotected status of the coverts. 



A sanctuary is merely an undeveloped refuge. Its value as a means of producing grouse, 

 if different from a refuge, is generally less. Yet' we must not overlook the possible value of a 

 refuge or sanctuary for preserving seed stock on areas that have an abnormallv high hunt- 

 ing pressure, as on those near large cities. Rut such areas only function to prevent extermi- 

 nation and not as a means of furnishing hunting on surrounding lands or of increasing the 

 grouse population on the areas themselves. 



The practice of land posting by private land owners, if done objectively to improve the 

 grouse conditions, is gcnerallv unwarranted. Its effect is the same as that of a refuge or 

 sanctuary. de|)ending upon whether the area is utilized and managed or held inviolate. If 

 the object of posting is to keep the hunting privilege for the owner or to prevent trespass, the 

 problem is outside the province of this discussion. 



The explanation of the relative lack of usefulness of the refuge to grouse appears to be 

 three-fold. Violently cyclic species can not exceed definite population levels, nor can they 

 long maintain the maximum levels they do reach. The degree of sedentariness of a species 

 tends to be in inverse ratio to its adaptability to the refuge principle, and grouse are quite 

 sedentary. 



The adaptability of a species to management by the refuge principle depends upon the 

 ease with which the species adjusts itself to recognize protected areas. The ruffed grouse is 

 not very adaptable in this respect, as contrasted with the ducks, for example. Added 

 together, the facts indicate that llie refuge may serve to prevent extermination of some 

 grouse in areas that might be overshot but that it is seldom a priinarv tool of the grouse 

 manager for increasing the crop. 



EFFECT OF MAN'S AIDS ON GROUSE 



The tools of the white man's civilization have exerted a most profound induencc upon the 

 grouse since the first colonization of the Northeast. Ironical as it seems, most of these aids 

 have worked both for the benefit and detriment of the species, depending upon how and to 

 what extent used. While man in his various capacities has already been discussed, it seems 

 j)ertincnt at this point to consider further the effects of his implements on grouse. Consid- 

 ered somewhat in their proper chronological sequence, the more important ones are the axe 

 and plow, types of guns, traps and snares, fire, domestic animals, automobiles and high- 

 ways. 



