.iS!! ILL CWATIONS IN GROUSE ABUNDANCE 



longest series extending from 1932 to 1936 although estimates for the Pigeon River tract were 

 continued through 1940 by tlie Michigan Conservation Department.* Finally that of this In- 

 vestigation has covered 1930-1942 and 1931-1942 on its Connecticut Hill and Adirondack 

 study areas respectively, the records of which have been already presented.^ These data also 

 demonstrate the constant fluctuation of grouse abundance. 



CHARACTERISTICS 



In order to pursue further an appraisal of these fluctuations the major features of those 

 which have been recorded may be examined. The territory considered has been limited 

 mainly to the range of the grouse east of Manitoba and the Dakotas. and from Pennsylvania 

 north. In this area environmental conditions are most nearly similar to those of New York. 



Amplitude 



While it is evident that grouse populations have repeatedly fluctuated from abundance to 

 scarcity and back again it is less clear just what has constituted abundance and scarcity at 

 different times. Only recently have studies in a few localities furnished estimates of density 

 in terms of birds per unit of area. Most of the evidence is of a much less precise nature. As 

 has been pointed out the assumption of similar values for the two extremes in various graphs 

 which have been published covering the past half century has been purely arbitrary and with- 

 out numerical validity. There is no assurance that successive "highs" and "lows" have involved 

 similar densities. Another complication arises from the fact that the season during which 

 grouse hunting has been legal has changed considerably over the yegrs. Throughout the '90s 

 the usual opening date was sometime in September. Undoubtedly such early hunting colored 

 many accounts, of abundance at least, disproportionately in comparison with j)resent experi- 

 ence during the open season. Nevertheless there can be no doubt that the differential has 

 often been great. 



A few accounts, however, suggest densities which have been involved. Thus in 1881 a 

 writer in Forest and Stream" described grouse as plentiful in Franklin County (N. V.) and 

 stated that one man bought over 2,000 for the market. Another observer reported seeing 

 more than 150 grouse in a day near Lowell, Michigan in 1887*. In 1899 a correspondent at 

 Smithville Flats, N. Y.'"^ commenting on partridge being "more numerous . . . than they 

 have been in a dozen years," noted putting up 50-100 in a day's hunt in September. Again 

 in 1906, just before the general scarcity reported the following year, an item from Chenango 

 County (N. Y.)"" reported flushing 40-50 birds a day and commented that they were "more 

 common than last year." Leopold"' has recorded a number of statements by market hunters 

 and others indicating high levels of abundance in the north-ientral states on manv occasions 

 during the late nineteenth century. 



Turning to scarcity, three early records have already been mentioned^ Similarly a report 

 from southwestern Ontario in 1883' stated that not a single individual was seen in a whole 

 day's tramp where two years before grouse had been plentiful. Later Carppnter" related that 

 he found only two grouse in the vicinity of Moosehead Lake, Maine from September 27 to 

 October 10, 1887. An even greater dearth of these birds in northern Maine was noted in 1899 

 by Hardy"" who saw only one partridge in traveling "150 miles by canoe and half as far by 

 foot" during the early fall. Another observer'"' stated that he found from two to eleven grouse 

 near Woodhaven, N. Y. in 1917 where in former years 25 would have been found. In Pine 



* Ruht. H. D., pcrional letlrr to the aulhori Drrcinbcr 12. 1911. 



A Sec Cliaptcr XII. p. 539. 



t Sec diflcuition of Occurrence, p. 556. 



