Dennis Paulson wrote:

>I don't know what to say about your other grouse. Empirical evidence is
>better than theory, but I'm still pretty skeptical about Ruffed Grouse in
>high spruce forest. Habitat choice is extremely important in birds such as
>grouse, that don't wander widely. Ruffed Grouse don't eat conifer needles
>and don't occur in conifer forests, to my knowledge.

I must correct myself. It's indeed true they don't eat conifer needles,
but they certainly do occur in conifer forests, wherever there is a good
mixture of broadleaf species. In Washington, they are almost always
associated with riparian stands and stands of broadleaf or mixed woodland
within conifer forests, as we don't have the extensive deciduous forests in
which they occur in the east. High-elevation spruce forests don't have
enough broadleaf species to provide food for Ruffed Grouse--but maybe there
were dense willow stands where Mary saw these birds?

Last winter I examined some boxes that the WDFW put out for hunters to
deposit grouse wings (they check the sex and age ratios), and found only
Spruce and Blue Grouse wings in conifer-forest areas in the Okanogan. I
guess this could be considered evidence attesting to the much less common
status of Ruffed in that area (or the difficulty of hunting them?). Only
Blues in a box at Fish Lake (checked twice), and 2x as many Blues as Spruce
in a box near Winthrop.

After this, I'm abandoning my position as resident bird-sighting skeptic,
as it's lonely there and not that much fun, either. I hope someone else is
willing to take over.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 206-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 206-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416