328 The Ruffed Grouse 



Ruffed grouse management, like most practical game manage- 

 ment, must be largely of the extensive type for economic reasons. 

 Intensive management for grouse will largely be demonstrational on 

 public lands ( as Connecticut Hill is ) or on estates v^^here the value 

 attached to each grouse is very high. 



To emphasize this point let us consider for a moment the eco- 

 nomics of grouse production. To paint the best possible picture, let 

 us assume optimum conditions. The highest shooting season popu- 

 lation possible is about a grouse to each two acres of cover ( we will 

 assume that only woodland and brush areas are considered). The 

 maximum possible safe kill is fifty per cent (and this only on the 

 assumption that winter losses are negligible ) , or the bagging of one 

 grouse for every four acres. If we assign a value of $2 for a grouse 

 brought to bag, we have a return of 50^ an acre. The investment 

 value of these lands may average around $10 per acre (from $4 or 

 less per acre for "skinned" and worn-out areas to very high values 

 for mature timber stands). The gross return from grouse would, 

 therefore, be about five per cent. This just about covers the interest 

 on the investment, but with no margin for development, mainte- 

 nance, taxes, or management costs. And no profit. 



Moreover, such a return never would be attained. Even in the best 

 range the birds do not attain the production quoted, year after year. 

 There will always be considerable winter loss, hence the kill in fall 

 should be kept below fifty per cent. The desired kill will not be 

 returned from some coverts as it is not possible to hunt an area uni- 

 formly. Counterbalancing some of these factors, it may be contended 

 that $2 is too low for the value of a grouse. Well then, how much is 

 a bird worth? If one values a bagged grouse much over $2 he is 

 placing a high money value on the recreation enjoyed in pursuing 

 it. This is the condition I have already referred to as justifying in- 

 tensive management. But this will hardly be of interest to the run- 

 of-the-mill, "one-gallus" hunter, or to the average landowner. 



Thus, most grouse management must of necessity be of the ex- 

 tensive type. This will be true on public lands if for no other reason 

 than limitations of funds. It will also be true of private lands with 

 the exception of some estates. The economics of grouse production 

 on private lands is further complicated through most lands in grouse 

 range being open to free public hunting, so that the landowner does 

 not get the full return that our discussion of economics assumed. 



