Man's Relation to the Grouse 261 



The complete losses in grouse tliat are attributable to hunting b\- 

 men are larger than the actual take by the amount of the loss from 

 crippling. This factor is di£Bcult to evaluate and has been the subject 

 of wide differences of opinions, some observers depreciating it while 

 others believe it to be as important as the bag itself. 



An exaggerated estimate of the crippling loss may be derived b\' 

 deducting the hunter kill from the difference between the posthunt- 

 ing season and prehunting season populations as determined by 

 censuses. This figure will include losses from predation, disease, and 

 accident, as well as from hunter crippling or losing. This total loss 

 has been about equal to the hunter-take figure. The corresponding 

 figure for the 1932 Michigan work ( Ruhl ) , was nine per cent, which 

 was 136 per cent of the hunter take. Trippensee (1935) indicates a 

 rather different result, his other losses amounting to only 21.6 per 

 cent of the hunter kiU for the hunting period. 



The proportion of other-than-hunting-take losses of the New York 

 studies that is actually the crippling loss cannot be accurately deter- 

 mined, since these areas were not under intensive study. They indi- 

 cate only the upper limit of such losses. Some information on these 

 losses may be inferred from experience of expert hunters, aided hv 

 trained dogs. The crippling loss averaged about one-seventh of the 

 grouse bagged. These may be considered as minimum figures since 

 the hunters, being experts, probably left less than the average pro- 

 portion of cripples. 



Some additional light may be shed on this problem by a considera- 

 tion of the fall losses on census areas that were not hunted. This is 

 from natural causes but not from gunshot. The loss during hunting 

 season on no-hunting areas is about equal to the hunter kill on a 

 hunted area; and the loss from all causes on a hunted area about 

 double tlie hunter take. Thus the losses other than the hunter take, 

 whether crippling may be involved or not, are about the same. This 

 indicates that the crippling loss is probably nearer the minimum 

 suggested above rather than the maximum. It is my estimate that 

 the true average loss from crippling will approximate twenty-five 

 per cent of the hunter take, or about four per cent of the prehunting 

 season grouse population. 



The total hunting kill is the hunter take plus the crippling loss. 

 By applying the twenty-five per cent of take rule derived above for 

 tlie New York figures we find the estimated total hunter Idll to be: 

 1930-twelve per cent; 19Sl~twent\' per cent; 1936- seventeen per 



