974 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
[June 20, 1908. 
The Ruffed Grouse Scarcity. 
From advance proofs furnished us by Secre¬ 
tary John D. Whish, of the New York Forest, 
Fish and Game Commission, we extract some 
interesting data in relation to the causes for the 
scarcity of ruffed grouse in 1907. These are 
contained in a paper written for the commission 
by E. Seymour Woodruff: 
The ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus ), more 
commonly known as partridge in the North and 
pheasant in the Southern and Middle States— 
though it has no generic relation to either—is 
pre-eminently the king of all our game birds. 
In this State, as well as in all parts of its 
range, except perhaps the extreme northern por¬ 
tion of Canada, the ruffed grouse is strictly non- 
migratory and a resident throughout the year, 
breeding wherever found. It is partial to an 
undulating and hilly country, one well wooded 
and covered with considerable undergrowth, in¬ 
terspersed with cultivated fields and meadow 
lands. But with the continued destruction of 
the timber and consequent increase in cleared 
and cultivated iand, this noble bird has steadily 
decreased in numbers, and in some sections 
been almost entirely exterminated. Fortunately, 
however, there is still plenty of cover left to 
harbor the birds, and because of the more strict 
enforcement of the game laws of late years, they 
have managed to hold their own fairly well dur¬ 
ing the last decade and until the beginning of 
the past year (1907). And this in spite of the 
increasing army of sportsmen, who give the bird 
but little rest throughout the open season, as well 
as the numerous four-footed and winged enemies 
that prey upon it at all seasons. 
The testimony of sportsmen from all sections 
of the country is almost unanimous that grouse 
were more abundant at the close of the shoot¬ 
ing season of 1906 than they had been for sev¬ 
eral seasons past, and therefore every one had 
good reason to anticipate that the open season 
of 1907 would be one of the best in several years. 
But soon after the shooting season of 1907 
opened, communications began to appear in local 
newspapers and sporting magazines, calling at¬ 
tention to an unusual scarcity of grouse in the 
several localities in which the writers resided. 
As the season advanced, reports from different 
parts of the Northwest, indicating that the same 
condition of things existed in all localities, were 
published so frequently that it soon became evi¬ 
dent that some calamity had overtaken the 
grouse between the close of the shooting sea 
son of 1906 and the opening of that of 1907. 
These reports came not only from all sections 
of the State of New York, including Long 
Island, but also from the whole of New Eng¬ 
land, Southern Canada, New Jersey, Pennsyl¬ 
vania and even as far west as Michigan and 
Minnesota. With but two or three exceptions 
hunters agreed in stating that the grouse were 
extremely scarce in their vicinity in the fall of 
1907, and in some localities they seem to have 
been practically exterminated. 
Various theories have been propounded to ac¬ 
count for this scarcity, but these are for the 
most part merely conjectures. It is unfortunate 
that the remarkable diminution in numbers had 
not been noted much earlier in the year, and at 
the time the causes to which the scarcity is due 
were at work, for we might then have been able 
to determine exactly what was the trouble. How¬ 
ever, enough data have been gathered on which 
to base an explanation which may be accepted 
as substantially correct. 
Many people put the blame on the intense cold 
and scarcity of food in the latter part of the 
winter of 1906-1907, but only two reports that 
might support this theory have been seerf. 
[Then follows a mass of evidence from 
Forest and Stream correspondents.] 
A number of reports from all parts of the 
North and East are given, testifying to the 
abundance of the American goshawk. There 
can be no question but that these destructive 
birds of prey were responsible for a tremendous 
loss of life among the grouse during the six 
months they were with us. 
. By far the most generally accepted theory 
accounting for the scarcity of the ruffed grouse, 
is that it is due to the exceptionally cold, wet 
and late spring of 1907 chilling the eggs and 
killing such of the young birds as were success¬ 
fully hatched. 
This has been given as the probable explana¬ 
tion by many sportsmen and game wardens in 
Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania 
and Michigan, and from the following counties 
in New York: Broome, Cattaraugus, Chemung, 
Cortland, Dutchess, Essex, Franklin, Greene, 
Herkimer, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Onon¬ 
daga, Oswego, ' Otsego, Putnam, Rensselaer, 
Rockland, Saint Lawrence, Saratoga, Schoharie, 
Suffolk (Long Island), Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, 
Warren and Westchester. 
Further proof of the failure of the regular 
spring hatch is found in voluminous data given 
in the report. With only one exception the ob¬ 
servers state that all or nearly all the birds shot 
in 1907 were old birds, and most of them cocks. 
Scarcely any young birds of the year were seen 
and these were very likely from late broods. 
The scarcity of hens may be laid at least in¬ 
directly to the cold, wet spring for the follow¬ 
ing reason: There is good reason to believe 
that the ruffed grouse is polygamous, but 
whether so or not it is well known that as soon 
as incubation begins the cock leaves the hen, 
not to return till the chicks are nearly grown. 
Incubation lasts from three to four weeks and 
during that time the hen has to forage for her 
self, leaving her eggs only for short intervals 
during the warmer part of the day after incuba¬ 
tion has begun. She is very loath to do so even 
then, as may be judged from her permitting her¬ 
self to be almost stepped on before flushing from 
her nest. Taking all this into consideration, 
what can be more reasonable than to believe that 
during the extraordinary spring of 1907 she 
would have been even more loath than ever to 
leave her eggs exposed to the cold, inclement 
weather, and so, weakened from exposure and 
lack of food, she fell an easy prey to disease or 
to foxes and other enemies. 
The cock birds, on the contrary, having no 
family cares to burden them, were able to seek 
shelter during the cold and stormy days and 
nights and to forage at will throughout the day, 
thus keeping in good condition. That they suf¬ 
fered no appreciable loss in numbers, if any at 
all, through later attacks of disease or parasites, 
or from any other cause, may be accepted as 
probable when we consider the following facts: 
It seems fair to assume that there is on the aver¬ 
age one hen for every cock (though if the belief 
that grouse are polygamous is correct, the hens 
should outnumber the cocks). Again it seems 
fair to assume that at least one-third of the 
average brood of twelve to fourteen chicks reach 
maturity in normal years. This would mean that 
at least six birds would constitute the average 
family. Then if, as in 1907, all or nearly all of 
the hens and young were destroyed, the pro¬ 
portion of birds left would be as one to six— 
the one being the cock. But in all the estimates 
that have been seen, comparing the number of 
grouse in 1907 with that in 1906, none places the 
proportion lower than one to six. The majority 
place it at about one to four or even higher. 
Therefore, when we consider the number of 
cocks that were shot in 1907, it would seem prob¬ 
able that they were practically as numerous as 
in the preceding year, for if they had perished 
to any appreciable extent from the same causes 
which carried off the old hens and the young, the 
numbers of grouse would have been much less 
than they are reported to be. 
Extracts from the monthly section reports of 
the Climatological Service of the United States 
Weather Bureau for April, May and June, 1907, 
follow, and show conclusively what unusually 
severe weather the ruffed grouse had to undergo 
during the past breeding season. 
The theory advanced in a letter to Forest and 
Stream that the extreme dryness of midsummer 
was responsible for the scarcity of ruffed grouse 
has but little data to support it in view of the 
fact that it was not so extremely dry in every 
locality, while the grouse scarcity was universal. 
August was an unusually dry month. The 
average amount of rainfall in the State of New 
York was only 1.53 inches and was the lowest 
on record since the Climatological Service was 
established, but the streams and swamps did not 
become dry in all localities. The grouse were 
just as scarce in localities where there was 
plenty of water to be had all through the sum¬ 
mer. 
The dryness, however, may have produced a 
condition favorable to the growth and spread of 
an infectious disease or parasite, and for that 
reason may be considered a secondary cause of 
the scarcity. 
The theory that an epidemic of a disease of 
some kind carried off the ruffed grouse is sup¬ 
ported by many, but is difficult to prove or dis¬ 
prove at this time. There can be no question 
that an epidemic of some kind killed many birds 
during the summer months, as may be judged 
from the testimony given, but whether it 
was a disease or a parasite, or both, is now diffi¬ 
cult to determine. In fact, much of the data 
given might apply equally well to the parasitical 
theory. 
Several other letters from parties in Massa¬ 
chusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey tell of 
broods that were watched and that suddenly dis¬ 
appeared in midsummer. But all such data will 
apply equally well to the parasitical theory. 
Many other people ascribe the scarcity as due 
in their opinion to a disease, but just as many 
disagree with this and think it due to some other 
cause. 
In the early part of the last century the grouse 
of England and Scotland were severely deci¬ 
mated by an epidemic of the “grouse disease.” 
Just as in the present case in this country many 
theories were advanced to explain the destruc¬ 
tion of the birds. Intestinal parasites were 
