Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
MT Gov Logo
Montana Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

White-tailed Ptarmigan - Lagopus leucura

Species of Concern
Native Species

Global Rank: G5
State Rank: S3

Agency Status
PIF: 3

External Links

Listen to an Audio Sample
Copyright by Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, all rights reserved.
General Description
The White-tailed Ptarmigan is a grouse of alpine (above treeline) habitats. It is the smallest grouse in North America (total length 30 to 31 cm, weight 295 to 440 grams), and the only species of grouse with white tail feathers. It possesses cryptic plumage that changes annually from white in winter to grayish-brown in summer. The sexes are similar in body size, shape, and winter plumage.

Breeding season males have a conspicuous necklace of coarsely barred brown and black breast feathers, while female plumage is predominantly brown and black with yellowish barring. Male plumage is generally more brown and gray than in the female. Males possess scarlet eye combs that are especially conspicuous during the breeding season; females have less conspicuous and smaller salmon-colored eye combs. In winter, in addition to the completely white plumage, the legs are heavily feathered to the ends of the toes, creating a snowshoe effect for walking on snow (Choate 1960, Braun et al. 1993).

For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.

Diagnostic Characteristics
White-tailed Ptarmigan can be differentiated from all other grouse (including other ptarmigan) by their small body size and distinctive white tail feathers. Dusky Grouse often appear at or above treeline in the mountains of western North America, but lack the white tail.

Species Range
Montana Range Range Descriptions


Western Hemisphere Range


Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 480

(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density


SUMMER (Feb 16 - Dec 14)
Direct Evidence of Breeding

Indirect Evidence of Breeding

No Evidence of Breeding

WINTER (Dec 15 - Feb 15)
Regularly Observed

Not Regularly Observed


(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)

Movements tend to be elevational, from higher breeding grounds to lower wintering grounds, although some birds do not migrate. Distances moved are 0.2 to 22.7 km (in Colorado), with females moving farther than males (Braun et al. 1993). Females may also move up to 30+ km between potential breeding territories early in the breeding season (Martin et al. 2000). In Glacier National Park, birds moved an unspecified distance off of the breeding grounds onto adjacent tundra and valley bottoms by mid-October, and reappeared on the breeding grounds by June (Choate 1963).

Habitats occupied in Montana are similar in structure and composition to other locations in the species' range. These include alpine locations with a wide variety of plant habitats from dry, rocky, windswept areas to perpetually wet and mossy streamside areas; level or gently sloping sites are most favored. Moist vegetation (in recently snow-covered or stream-fed areas) and rocks are present in all areas heavily used by ptarmigan in summer, and in Glacier National Park it is often associated with net-veined willow (Salix nivalis), heath (Phyllodoce sp. and Cassiope sp.), and mosses. They do not occur during summer in forest or shrubby vegetation over 50 cm tall, although limited data from autumn and winter indicate ptarmigan sometimes occupy patches of krummholz (stunted and wind-deformed) trees (Choate 1963; Scott 1982). Nests are built in alpine terrain, in rocky areas or sparsely vegetated, grassy slopes. High fidelity to breeding territories in successive years tends to result in young adult birds searching for vacant territories in the natal area.

Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
  • Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
    2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
    3. Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system;
    4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.

    Literature Cited
    • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp.
    • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
    • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
    • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Food Habits
In Glacier National Park, males, females and young ate similar plant parts - new shoots, flowers, seeds and fruits (Choate 1963). Their winter diet includes alder catkins, willow buds and twigs (the primary winter food in Colorado is willow buds); also buds and needles of spruces, pines, and firs. Spring and summer diet includes leaves, buds, and flowers of herbaceous plants, willow buds, berries, seeds, and insects (Choate 1963, Braun et al. 1993).

Chicks leave the brood after 8 to 11 weeks. The density of birds was 2.7 per 100 acres. About one-third of territorial males did not get a mate. The average adult mortality was 29%, chick mortality was 35 to 44% by the time of dispersal (Choate 1963).

Reproductive Characteristics
In Glacier National Park nests are found close to rocks, water, and a good food source; the site is chosen by the female. Populations in the Park appear to be genetically monogamous as well as socially monogamous, with a low incidence of extra-pair paternity (Benson 2002). Clutch size varies from 3 to 9 eggs, averaging about 5 eggs. Most clutches are produced in late June and early July. Renesting is infrequent, with a week delay between attempts, and the clutch size of second nests is smaller than in first attempts. Average annual productivity in Glacier National Park is about 56% (Wright and Conaway 1950, Edwards 1957, Choate 1963, Braun et al. 1993). Generally this species first breeds at 2 to 3 years of age.

No management activity appears necessary at this time. Populations of White-tailed Ptarmigan are largely in protected or remote areas (Choate 1963). No hunting season currently exists and survey and census estimates for most local populations are not available. No change in hunting status is warranted unless adequate field surveys are conducted. Livestock grazing in White-tailed Ptarmigan habitat could have a detrimental effect on the availability of summer and winter foods and should be avoided (Braun et al. 1993).

Login Logout
Citation for data on this website:
White-tailed Ptarmigan — Lagopus leucura.  Montana Field Guide.  .  Retrieved on , from