274 The Ruffed Grouse 



of Pennsylvania has pioneered in estabhshment of refuges for up- 

 land game, notably deer, on lands acquired for game purposes. The 

 fever for acquiring public game lands for refuges hit New York 

 in the mid-twenties (see Plate 40A). The slogan was "A game 

 refuge for every county." While not the panacea it was hoped to 

 be, the refuge still is a valuable tool of game management. 



The idea of the use and value of game refuges has been con- 

 siderably confused, particularly in the minds of sportsmen. It was 

 conceived that a game species, such as grouse, within the confines 

 of a refuge would increase greatly and overflow the refuge bound- 

 aries. This excess would be shot in the surrounding public hunting 

 grounds while the breeding stock would be preserved. It was also 

 contended that game in open-shooting cover near a refuge would 

 seek protection there when hunted. As it turns out, these theories 

 do not apply very well to grouse. 



In the first place, a clear distinction is needed between the breed- 

 ing refuge and the protection, or "seed-stock" refuge. Breeding 

 refuges are needed only when the breeding facilities of a specie^ 

 are hampered or endangered. Such a case is the well-known de- 

 struction of waterfowl breeding grounds by drainage activities. This 

 is not the case with grouse. The change of land ownership and plac- 

 ing of signs and a boundary wire do not help the birds' breeding 

 one iota. Furthermore, the principle of protection refuges assumes 

 that hunting is a vital factor in the survival of the species. Under 

 existing practice this is not true with the ruffed grouse in most 

 areas. 



The questionability of the value of refuges for ruffed grouse in- 

 duced an evaluation of the principle in New York by censusing a 

 2,120-acre refuge area and a comparable public shooting area from 

 1935 to 1937 (Edminster, 1937). ". . . instead of producing a 

 greater supply of grouse, (the refuge) actually had fewer birds 

 than the check area in two of the three years . . . while analysis 

 of the effect of the small differences in the areas may serve to ex- 

 plain some of the variations in grouse numbers, the fact still re- 

 mains that the protection afforded by the refuge . . . did not serve 

 to enlarge the crop of grouse." The study concluded that refuges 

 were not of value in increasing grouse in normally hunted areas in 

 years when grouse are at least fairly plentiful. It indicated that 

 refuges might be more useful in times of scarcity, and that areas of 



