FITTING GROUSE NEEDS INTO MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS 683 



iDiilail rabbit, white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, woodcock, varying hare, raccoon, mourning 

 dove (a game bird only in the south), black duck, beaver, red and gray foxes, New York 

 and small brown weasels, skunk, muskrat and mink. In some places the pheasant overlaps 

 the fringes of grouse range. Only the first six are usually of enough widespread importance 

 to seriously affect land management problems. 



In their broad aspects, the needs of rabbits, deer, squirrels, woodcock, hares and 'coons are 

 much the same as for grouse. They occupy, in part at least, the same habitats and their cover 

 needs are similar in many respects. Clear-cut plots that are good for grouse are likewise 

 useful to rabbits and deer. Spring nesting grounds are good gray squirrel cover, with due 

 regard for denning facilities. Winter shelter for grouse will serve the same purpose for deer, 

 hares and cottontails. In most ways the one pattern of land use fits the group to a surprising 

 degree. 



In minor details there must be adjustments, some of which may affect the grouse. If beaver 

 are stocked they may destroy valuable fall and winter food in popple groves. The beaver 

 may also furnish desirable openings by flooding and killing small areas of woodland. These 

 and similar interests must be reconciled in the overall plan. Generally, the broadening of 

 the resource base, as by the addition of beaver, will be warranted for the development of 

 more favorable conditions for native species, even though it may mean a few less grouse. 



On game lands not in grouse range, or in marginal grouse range, the land use pattern may 

 well be unsuited to the species. Areas mainly adapted to waterfowl and farm game species 

 will offer little opportunity for practical grouse prodiirtion. Here there is no problem of 

 coordination insofar as grouse are concerned. 



Public Forests 



The largest public land areas are in this category. Here one often finds real opportu- 

 nities for coordinating grouse production with the primary use of timber production. This 

 comes about not only because of the extent of these areas but because much of this land is in 

 regions where grouse can be produced in significant numbers. Management of public for- 

 ests has given but little recognition to the development of secondary crops, such as game and 

 recreation, until very recent years. Much more progress can be made in this direction. 



Coordination of grouse requirements with timber growing implies that some modifications 

 in the plans for developing wood products are needed in order to produce on the same land 

 a reasonable crop of grouse. It also implies that the public interest will best be served by 

 producing the two crops with fair regard for each, rather than concentrating on the one alone. 

 This decision is fundamental. 



The technical methods of correlating grouse management with wood production have 

 already been fully covered.* The problem here is one of policy, and is administrative in 

 nature. It is apparent that the various modifications of forestry practice needed to favor an 

 increase in grouse will only be realized if it is the policy of the agency handling the lands to 

 include these provisions in their various plans and operations. 



As an example, the planting policy of the New York Conservation Department Division of 

 Lands and Forests on State reforestation areas may be cited. In the early >ears of the 

 acquisition and development of submarginal farm lands for State forests, it was the standard 

 practice to plant all open fields solidly to trees — excepting, of course, lanes needed for fire 



* Sec Chapter XVI. 



