ANNUAL REPORT, 1936-37 



The condition of scarcity existing at this time is one which prevails perodically 

 and has been the subject of many investigations and reports. Quite recently a 

 paper dealing with fluctuations in the numbers of ruffed grouse and having special 

 reference to this condition in Ontario, was prepared by C. H. Douglas Clarke, of the 

 University of Toronto, Department of Biology. From this report it would appear 

 that these periods of diminution do not occur simultaneously throughout the country, 

 and even in this Province there are local differences of at least three years in the 

 time at which diminution commences. Each period of diminution is preceded by 

 comparative abundance and followed by comparative scarcity so that the conditions 

 of the ruffed grouse population over the sixty years for which data are available may 

 be expressed as a periodic cycle of between nine and ten years. 



QUAIL: — These birds occur in only a small portion of the Province. They are 

 reported to be fairly numerous and their numbers increasing in some Counties in the 

 southwestern peninsula, notably Essex, Kent, Elgin, Middlesex and Lambton. Reports 

 of their existence in other portions of southern Ontario do not indicate any improve- 

 ment, and it is quite probable that there are few, if any, areas outside of the Counties 

 enumerated in which these birds may be encountered. A few pairs of these birds 

 were distributed during the year by the Department in the Counties of Essex, 

 Middlesex and Norfolk. 



PHEASANT: — The Department continued its work along the lines of the estab- 

 ment of this excellent upland game bird in areas suitable to its existence. This 

 branch of activity included the distribution of eggs and the liberation of live birds 

 in proper areas, with more concentration and emphasis on the live bird phase of 

 this activity. Records show that some 1,146 settings of eggs, or 17,190 eggs in 

 all, were shipped to various applicants. Of these, 6 40 settings were sent to parties 

 located in southwestern Counties and 280 settings to parties in Counties along the 

 northern shore of Lake Ontario and the River St. Lawrence. The remainder was 

 practically all distributed in Counties immediately north of these areas. 



A total of 2,803 live birds, including a few of the mutant variety, were liberated 

 in connection with this branch of our re-stocking activities, and of this total 1,401, 

 or fifty percent, were placed in the southwestern Counties, 9 46 in the southerly 

 eastern Counties, and the balance in areas immediately adjoining these Counties 

 to the north. 



This distribution of live birds was augmented by reason of certain conditional 

 loans to breeders under which live birds raised by them to the number of 1,287, 

 included in the distribution figures above set forth, were made available to the 

 Department for use in connection with our general programme of re-stocking. 



The Department is deeply appreciative of a donation of mutant pheasants re- 

 ceived from the Ohio State Department of Conservation, and which birds were 

 liberated on Pelee Island. 



It is believed that the value to the farmer of the various species of upland 

 game bird is becoming more obvious as we learn of the life history and activity 

 of these birds. They provide the farmer with efficient and effective service as 

 insect killers and weed destroyers. It is therefore apparent that game birds on the 

 farm are a real asset, both from the standpoint of service and that of beautifying 

 the farm. To be effective, however, they must be given consideration with regard 

 to food and coverage, and in addition to this must be controlled against over- 

 population consistent with the available supply of food lest they become a pest. 

 This control is best exercised by legalized and seasonable fall shooting restricted 

 as to season and bag limits established in accordance with the number of birds 

 available. This control is a matter for mutual understanding between the sports- 

 man and the farmer, for the game is the property of neither the farmer nor the 

 sportsman, but with the proper spirit of co-operation is available with advantage 

 to both. 



