INTENSIVE VERSUS INCIDENTAL COVER MANAGEMENT 



587 



favorable to result in a bumper crop of grouse. Yet the number of sportsmen wishing to 

 harvest this crop is constantly increasing. The alternatives are clear. Either the hunter har- 

 vests less or he must give Nature a helping hand by encouraging her to produce more and 

 better coverts. Though of less importance, the local control of the more destructive preda- 

 tors*, and a complete harvest of the surplus of grouse each year, will also help to maintain 

 the supply. But, fundamentally, grouse populations are a reflection of covert quality and 

 abundance. 



The surest way to have more grouse, then, is to improve the coverts and increase their 

 number. This requires management. 



INTENSIVE VERSUS INCIDENTAL COVER MANAGEMENT 



Considering the State as a whole, grouse are but one of several desirable crops, to the 

 production of which wooded areas are adaptable. Each crop has its own SQt of requirements 

 which parallel or conflict at points with those of the others. To fully meet these for any 

 one usually entails an expense greater than the value of that particular crop. On the broad 

 front, therefore, it follows that any management practices favoring grouse must be exten- 

 sive in character, and dovetailed wherever possible to meet the needs of as many other crops 

 as possible. Furthermore they must be modified to some extent where serious conflicts arise. 



When one considers the individual covert, however, the decision must be made at the out- 

 set as to whether grouse is to be the primary crop or merely an important subsidiary product 

 to be skillfully encouraged as opportunity arises. In many cases, the latter will be the case 

 for few have as yet developed grouse shooting preserves where the sport is so superior as 

 to encourage the expenditure of substantial funds for grouse improvement alone. In fact, 

 the management of woodlands for grouse often may be combined with the production of 

 other forest products so successfully as to malie the real question one of individual interest 

 rather than of opportunity or economics. 



For instance, in New York State, grouse require a mixture of hardwood and coniferous 

 cover. To encourage such a combination is likewise good forest practice. Grouse need brushy 

 edges, overgrown lands or small slashings to provide summer and fall feeding grounds. Scat- 

 tered through most woodlands are areas, which because of poor site conditions or the char- 

 acter of the present stand, are of little value for the production of timber. With a little 

 thought and effort many of these can be made or maintained so as to meet grouse needs. 

 Here i| should be clearly understood that such areas must be scattered through the wood- 

 land in such a way as to make a large number of good habitats meeting all the predominant 

 requirements of grouse, rather than concentrated in a few locations. In general, if one is 

 willing to devote from 10 to 20 per cent of the total wooded areas to this end, fair to good 

 grouse crops may be had, with very little sacrifice of forest products. In the Northeast where, 

 at present, only a small fraction of our forest lands are producing at anywhere near capacity, 

 there is, therefore, little economic justification for not including grouse production among 

 the principal ends to be encouraged on managed woodlands. 



It is well to point out that in developing a woodland for grouse many subsidiary ends, 

 each desirable in itself, are attained. Both bank and sheet erosion are controlled, stream 

 flows are regulated, floods made less severe, fire made easier to control. Soil fertility is im- 

 proved to a greater degree when the forest cover is varied than when it is composed of but 



* No practical method of predator control, applicable on a state wiile basis, is known. 



