COORDINATING GROUSE PRODUCTION WITH PRIVATE LAND MANAGEMENT 685 



In wooded land, tree cutting is essential for the development and maintenance of grouse 

 cover values. With cutting of live trees explicitly prohibited, grouse management, in fact 

 most game and timber management, is exceedingly limited in scope and the opportunity for 

 multiple-use of the land is small. 



The wilderness areas of our National Parks present essentially the same problem in so far 

 as grouse are concerned as do the forest preserves. The objective being to maintain primi- 

 tive conditions as nearly as possible, one cannot expect large grouse populations. Some 

 National Parks offer more opportunity for coordinating grouse production with recreation, 

 especially large forested areas. Here the problem is similar to that of public forests, 

 excepting those portions that are intensively developed and where hunting is not allowed. 



Most other types of parks, city- and county-owned areas primarily, are small and are usual- 

 ly not suited to producing grouse. Generally they are situated where grouse have long since 

 been excluded by civilization. 



COORDINATING GROUSE PRODUCTION WITH PRIVATE LAND MANAGEMENT 



The problem of working grouse improvement measures into the handling of private lands 

 is vastly different than it is with public lands. With puliiic lands, each agency mav handle 

 large areas and, once adequate policies and procedures are established, they become widely 

 effective. A public agency has a responsibility li> the general public that is not felt bv the 

 private owner. Furthermore, a public agency such as a Fish and Game Conunission has a 

 specific responsibility to the sportsmen. 



Lands Owned by Individuals 



Today there is very little in our civil laws tliat requires private land owners to use con- 

 servation practices. Each man is King on his own land and he can do about as he wishes, with 

 a few exceptions. He cannot always, in the Northeast at least, burn his woods at will. He 

 must keep his livestock on his own land. He may have to accept certain measures in the pub- 

 lic interest, such as the elimination of gooseberries and currants for blister rust control. 

 But even there, he doesn't have to do it himself. 



Many of the acts he may commit on his land may be detrimental to grouse. Some may 

 be destructive to his neighbor, or to the general public interest. But except where specific 

 personal damages, not caused by "an act of God", can be proved to have resulted from his 

 negligence, there is no recourse for either his neighbor or the public. He can graze the wood- 

 land, clear-cut it with destructive lumbering practices and otherwise eliminate grouse cover 

 values and no one can say him nay. 



Socially-minded people will agree this is not as it should be. Some day there may come 

 to pass a change whereby conservation ordinances will prevent such destruction. But until 

 there are greater limitations in the use of land and its resources by the individual, grouse 

 and other game production will be either accidental or the result of personal interest. 



The development of the interest of the landowner in grouse production to the end that he 

 will practice grouse management on his lands is primarily a matter of education. If he is 

 interested in hunting, he may be a willing student. If he just likes to have grouse around 

 he may likewise do many things in their favor. If he has no special interest in having 

 more birds, the only way that beneficial practices can be coordinated into his operations is 

 by indirection. He may benefit grouse through means aimed at some other objective. 



