During the season, almost 9,000 wings of waterfowl taken by 

 hunters were collected. These were analyzed by staff biolo- 

 gists and conservation officers as to species, age and sex by 

 noting colour and ware patterns of feathers. An expert in 

 this technique from the United States Fish and Wildlife 

 Service gave leadership in this work, and the data were 

 analyzed by computer at the University of Guelph. 

 Improvement of waterfowl habitat and production continued 

 in various districts. Over 2,000 acres of prime habitat at Tiny 

 Marsh, near Midland, was created by a dam erected in 

 March, 1967. The Districts of Fort Frances, Swastika and 

 Kemptville created additional waterfowl pot-hole habitat in 

 areas of heavy vegetation and shallow water by exploding a 

 combination of ammonium-nitrate and fuel oil. This rela- 

 tively new and inexpensive technique will prove most useful 

 in improving wetland habitat in future years. On the goose 

 management area on Lake St. Lawrence, production of 

 Canada geese continued to increase. More than 700 goslings 

 were produced on the adjacent Ontario and New York water- 

 fowl management areas, where breeding Canada geese were 

 rare or absent only 10 years ago. Over 3,000 migrating 

 Canadas stopped over at the St. Lawrence Sanctuary during 

 the fall flight. Although total kill is not known, all evidence 

 suggests that Canada geese were taken in greater numbers 

 than usual across the eastern counties in 1966. 

 In the Hudson Bay and James Bay areas, the Department 

 continues to assist Indians in establishing commercial 

 goose hunting camps. At the camp at Fort Severn, a total 

 income of $9,510.82 was realized from the 108 hunters par- 

 ticipating; 2,305 geese, 121 ducks, 61 ptarmigan and 14 seals 

 were taken by the tourists and Indians in 1966. Goose hunt- 

 ing was excellent and all but three hunters left with their 

 possession limit of 10 geese. 



A new Indian-run goose camp was set up in 1966 at Kapiskau 

 on James Bay, near Fort Albany, under the direction of 

 Cochrane District personnel, in its first season of operation, 

 the camp ran at less than capacity, but a gross income from 

 all sources of $3,310.50 was realized. A total of 926 geese, 

 482 ducks, one bear (black) and one ruffed grouse were 

 taken by Indian and white hunters from September 14 to 

 October 9 inclusive. 



Table 14 



RUFFED GROUSE HUNTER SUCCESS, 1965-1966 



RUFFED GROUSE MANAGEMENT 



Management objectives are directed toward: (a) encourag- 

 ing and providing suitable regulations for the optimum 

 utilization of this generally under-harvested species, which 

 is subject to periodic severe fluctuations in numbers; 

 (b) encouraging the use of woodland management tech- 

 niques, which increase the production of grouse; (c) improv- 

 ing grouse production on intensively managed public hunt- 

 ing areas through habitat improvement techniques; and 

 (d) recording trends in grouse abundance and providing the 

 public with predictions regarding the annual availability of 

 grouse. 



District staff assessed grouse populations by means of 

 drumming counts in spring, brood counts in summer and the 

 availability of grouse to hunters during the open season. 

 In general, northern populations of ruffed grouse were not 

 at the high levels often reached during the peak of the 

 nine-year grouse cycle. Although there was evidence that 

 declines had occurred in hunter success in many Districts, 

 they were not substantial. From information for the past 

 several years, it appears that grouse are on the ascending 

 aspect of their cycle. 



In the discontinuous woodlands of agricultural southern 

 Ontario, where violent fluctuations in grouse numbers are 

 not common, excellent grouse hunting again was available. 

 The following table shows hunter success figures for 1965 

 and 1966: 



