THE cost of breeding game in a wild state is small when 

 compared with the cost of hand-rearing pheasants and other 

 game bred in captivity. The wild nesting birds find most of 

 their food in the fields. The grouse, like the quail, glean the 

 stubbles after the harvest and they can subsist in large num- 

 bers, even in severe winters, on the hips of the wild rose 

 and the seeds of sunflowers, sumacs and other plants. The 

 farmers, whose farms are posted, often are quite willing to 

 rent the shooting for a few cents per acre, and if skilled 

 game keepers be employed to control the natural enemies 

 of the birds and to see that they have proper nesting sites 

 and foods the grouse can quickly be made profitable, and 

 syndicates of sportsmen formed to share the expense of 

 looking after them can have splendid shooting at very small 

 cost. As I have observed, the sportsmen who are looking 

 after the quail often pay only $10 to $15 each per year, and 

 if they could sell some of their quail these amounts would 

 be reduced. 



Since it is very evident that as population increases the 

 grouse shooting must be prohibited everywhere unless the 

 birds be properly looked after, I sincerely hope it will not be 

 long before grouse shooting is restored on many of the posted 

 farms, from Louisiana and Texas to Michigan and North 

 Dakota, by syndicates of sportsmen who are willing to deal 

 fairly with the owners of the grouse lands and to persuade 

 them to assist in making these splendid birds profitably plenti- 

 ful as the red grouse are in Scotland. We should always re- 

 member that most of the farms are now posted against all 

 shooting and that the farmers are supplementing this prohibi- 

 tion with laws prohibiting the taking of grouse at any time. 

 There are good reasons why these conditions must remain and 

 grow worse unless the grouse be preserved, in the interest of 

 sport, on at least a part of the vast area they should inhabit. 



