Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
MT Gov Logo
Montana Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Ruffed Grouse - Bonasa umbellus

Image Copyright and Usage Information
Native Species

Global Rank: G5
State Rank: S4
(see State Rank Reason below)


Agency Status
USFWS:
USFS:
BLM:
PIF: 2


  

External Links


Listen to an Audio Sample
Copyright by: The Macaulay Library at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, all rights reserved.
State Rank Reason (see State Rank above)
Species is apparently secure and not at risk of extirpation or facing significant threats in all or most of its range.
  • Details on Status Ranking and Review
    Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Conservation Status Review
    Review Date = 01/15/2009
    Population Size

    ScoreU - Unknown

    CommentUnknown.

    Range Extent

    ScoreG - 200,000-2,500,000 km squared (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)

    Comment220397 square kilometers based on Natural Heritage Program range maps

    Area of Occupancy

    ScoreH - >20,000 km squared (greater than 5,000,000 acres)

    Comment61,517 square kilometers based on GAP predicted model.

    Long-term Trend

    ScoreE - Relatively Stable (±25% change)

    CommentDry Conifer Forest habitats with shrub cover have remained stable, although there have declines in aspen. Overall habitat is been relatively stable since European arrival.

    Short-term Trend

    ScoreE - Stable. Population, range, area occupied, and/or number or condition of occurrences unchanged or remaining within ±10% fluctuation

    CommentBreeding Bird Survey (BBS) has relatively low credibility in Montana, but shows a decline of 3.8% per year since 1980 which is a 22% decline over a 10 year time period. FWP has harvest data that shows harvested numbers holding steady between 15-40,000 per year since 1979 or so. There are a variety of problems with using hunter reported harvest as a status assessement for populations (e.g., hunter effort is not accounted for), but this probably indicates a relatively stable population over the last 20-30 years.

    Threats

    ScoreG - Slightly threatened. Threats, while recognizable, are of low severity, or affecting only a small portion of the population or area.

    CommentLoss of aspen habitats due to climate change. Grazing in some areas.

    SeverityLow - Low but nontrivial reduction of species population or reversible degradation or reduction of habitat in area affected, with recovery expected in 10-50 years.

    CommentAspen and deciduous shrubs respond quickly to fire or reduced grazing

    ScopeLow - 5-20% of total population or area affected

    CommentSince species is a habitat generalist, loss of aspen probably does not constitute a very large portion of habitat

    ImmediacyModerate - Threat is likely to be operational within 2-5 years.

    CommentOngoing but could accelerate

    Intrinsic Vulnerability

    ScoreB - Moderately Vulnerable. Species exhibits moderate age of maturity, frequency of reproduction, and/or fecundity such that populations generally tend to recover from decreases in abundance over a period of several years (on the order of 5-20 years or 2-5 generations); or species has moderate dispersal capability such that extirpated populations generally become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).

    Environmental Specificity

    ScoreC - Moderate. Generalist. Broad-scale or diverse (general) habitat(s) or other abiotic and/or biotic factors are used or required by the species but some key requirements are scarce in the generalized range of the species within the area of interest.

    CommentUse a wide variety of habitats, but need understory shrubs or late seral aspen.

 
General Description
Sexes similar; the long, fan-shaped tail has a broad black band just below the tip (in females, the band is often broken in the central tail feathers). Both sexes have black neck ruffs (less conspicuous in females), crested heads, and brownish bodies. Males have a small orange-red eye comb. Feathering reaches about halfway down the legs; in winter, birds develop conspicuous fringes (pectinations) on the sides of their toes. Two color phases exist: red (or brown) and gray. Adult males and females range from 16 to 19 inches in length; adult males range from 21 to 23 ounces in weight, and adult females, 18 to 21 ounces.

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
No other grouse has the fan-shaped, distinctively banded tail and black ruff.

Species Range
Montana Range Range Descriptions

Year-round

Montana Distribution


Western Hemisphere Range

 


Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 7224

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

Recency

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)



Habitat
Ruffed Grouse are found in dense, brushy, mixed-conifer and deciduous tree cover, often along stream bottoms. In the Bozeman area they are mostly in deciduous thickets in the foothills and mountains; also in riparian areas to the lowest elevation (Skaar 1969). Mussehl (1971) says they inhabit the denser cover of mixed conifer and deciduous trees and brush, and are often along stream bottoms.

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: mtnhp.org/requests) 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 the winter they eat deciduous tree buds and shrubs. In summer, they subsist on a mixed diet of insects, green plants and berries, with young birds eating primarily insects (Mussehl 1971).

Ecology
Gray phase birds occur in Montana (Johnsgard 1986). Adult birds may spend most of their lives in less than two square miles of habitat. Males are generally found within one-half mile of their drumming logs (Mussehl 1971).

Reproductive Characteristics
Egg dates for the Fortine area are from May 1 to June 5; hatching dates are usually during June, but sometimes as late as July 10. Drumming has been heard in the Bozeman area as early as April 25 (Skaar 1969).


References
  • Literature Cited AboveLegend:   View Online Publication
    • Johnsgard, P.A. 1986. Birds of the Rocky Mountains: with particular reference to national parks in the northern Rocky Mountain region. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, CO.
    • Marks, J.S., P. Hendricks, and D. Casey. 2016. Birds of Montana. Arrington, VA. Buteo Books. 659 pages.
    • Mussehl, T.W. P. Schladweiler, and R. Weckwerth. 1971. Forest Grouse. pp. 142-152 in T.W. Mussehl and F.W. Howell (eds.), Game Manaqement in Montana. Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena. 238 pp.
    • Skaar, P.D. 1969. Birds of the Bozeman latilong: a compilation of data concerning the birds which occur between 45 and 46 N. latitude and 111 and 112 W. longitude, with current lists for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, impinging Montana counties and Yellowstone National Park. Bozeman, MT. 132 p.
  • Additional ReferencesLegend:   View Online Publication
    Do you know of a citation we're missing?
    • Aldrich, J. W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American Tetraonidae. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:529-545.
    • American Ornithologists’ Union [AOU]. 1998. Check-list of North American birds, 7th edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 829 p.
    • Anonymous. 1959. Ruffed grouse. Montana Wildlife. November.
    • Atwater, S., and J. Schnell, eds. 1989. Ruffed grouse. Stackpole Wildlife Series. 384 pp.
    • Brenner, F.J. 1989. The essentials of habitat. P. 311-326 in S. Atwater and S. Schnell, eds. Ruffed Grouse. The Wildlife Series, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
    • Cade, B. S., and P. J. Sousa. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: ruffed grouse. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.86). 31 pp.
    • Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0. 287 pp.
    • Champlin, M. R. 1979. Structural characteristics of territorial male ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) habitat in western Montana. MS Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 159 pp.
    • Dickson, D.C. 1991. Systematic wildlife observations on the Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Missoula, MT. 14 pp. plus appendices and photographs.
    • Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and Schuster Inc. New York. 785 pp.
    • Gullion, G. 1989. The ruffed grouse. NorthWord. 144 pp.
    • Hays, R., R.L. Eng, and C.V. Davis (preparers). 1984. A list of Montana birds. Helena, MT: MT Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
    • Hejl, S.J. and L.C. Paige. 1994. A preliminary assessment of birds in continuous and fragmented forests of western red cedar/western hemlock in northern Idaho. In: Proceedings of interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: ecology and management. p. 189-197 Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Pullman, WA: Washington State University.
    • Hejl, S.J., R.L. Hutto, C.R. Preston, and D.M. Finch. 1995. The effects of silvicultural treatments on forest birds in the Rocky Mountains. pp. 220-244 In: T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch (eds). Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press. 489 p.
    • Hungerford, K.E. 1951. Ruffed Grouse populations and cover use in northern Idaho. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 16(1951): 216-224.
    • Hutto, R. L., and J. S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-32, Ogden, Utah.
    • Johnsgard, P. A. 1973. Grouse and quail of North America. U. of Nebraska, Lincoln. 553 pp.
    • Johnsgard, P.A. 1992. Birds of the Rocky Mountains with particular reference to national parks in the northern Rocky Mountain region. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. xi + 504 pp.
    • Johnson, D.E. 1999. Ruffed grouse productivity and habitat selection at the base of the Beartooth Plateau in southcentral Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 78 p.
    • Joslin, Gayle, and Heidi B. Youmans. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. [Montana]: Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
    • Joslin, Gayle. 1980. Wildlife inventory and hard rock mining impact analysis of the West Cabinet Mountains and Lake Creek Valley, Lincoln County, Montana. MTFWP 91 pgs + 47 pgs app.
    • Lehtinen, S.A. 1983. Movements and habitat use of ruffed grouse in the Bridger Mountains, Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 96 p.
    • Lenard, S., J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 2003. P. D. Skaar's Montana bird distribution, 6th edition. Montana Audubon, Helena, MT. 144 pp.
    • Marshall, W. H. 1946. Cover preferences, seasonal movements, and food habits of Richardson's grouse and ruffed grouse in Southern Idaho. Wilson Bull. 58:42-52.
    • Maxell, B.A. 2016. Northern Goshawk surveys on the Beartooth, Ashland, and Sioux Districts of the Custer-Gallatin National Forest: 2012-2014. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 114pp.
    • McWethy, D.B. 2007. Bird response to landscape and pattern disturbance across productivity gradients in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 184 p.
    • Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 2012. P.D. Skaar's Montana bird distribution. 7th Edition. Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana. 208 pp. + foldout map.
    • Mosher, B.A. 2011. Avian community response to a mountain beetle epidemic. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 55 p.
    • MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks. No date. Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area checklist.
    • Northrop, Devine and Tarbell, Inc. 1995. Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Developments, 1994 Wetland Mapping and Assessment Study, Volume I of II. 27 pp. plus appendices.
    • Oechsli, L.M. 2000. Ex-urban development in the Rocky Mountain West: consequences for native vegetation, wildlife diversity, and land-use planning in Big Sky, Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 73 p.
    • Ralph, J.C., J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege. 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149. Albany, CA: USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station. 181 p.
    • Richmond, C.W. and F.H. Knowlton. 1894. Birds of south-central Montana. Auk 11:298-308.
    • Rusch, D. H., S. DeStefano, M. C. Reynolds, and D. Lauten. 2000. Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus). In The birds of North America, No. 515 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and American Ornithologists’ Union.
    • Saunders, A.A. 1914. The birds of Teton and northern Lewis & Clark counties, Montana. Condor 16:124-144.
    • Scott, M. D., and S. A. Scott. 1991. Autumn foods of Ruffed Grouse in the Bridger Mountains, southcentral Montana. Northwest Science.
    • Scott, M. D., and S. A. Scott. 1991. Winter roosting habits of Ruffed Grouse in southcentral Montana. Acta Zool. Fenn.
    • Sibley, D. 2014. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 598 pp.
    • Skaar, P. D., D. L. Flath, and L. S. Thompson. 1985. Montana bird distribution. Montana Academy of Sciences Monograph 3(44): ii-69.
    • Sparks, J.R. 1997. Breeding bird communities in mature and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in southwest Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 68 p.
    • Stearns-Roger Inc., 1975, Environmental baseline information of the Mount Vernon Region, Montana. January 31, 1975.
    • Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. 1982. Birds of the Swan River NWR. Kalispell, MT: NW MT Fish and Wildlife Center pamphlet.
    • TVX Mineral Hill Mine, Amerikanuak, Inc., Gardiner, MT., 2002, Yearly summary of wildlife observation reports. 1990-2002 Letter reports.
    • U.S. Forest Service. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: Natural history and habitat use. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 688. 625 pages.
    • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service., 1961, A Detailed report on fish and wildlife resources affected by McNamara Dam and Reservoir, Blackfoot River Project, Montana. June 1961.
    • Waldt, R. 1995. The Pine Butte Swamp Preserve bird list. Choteau, MT: The Nature Conservancy. Updated August 1995.
    • Watts, C.R. and L.C. Eichhorn. 1981. Changes in the birds of central Montana. Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences 40:31-40.
    • Western Technology and Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT., 1989, Reconnaissance of the wildlife resources in the vicinity of the Kendall Venture Mine. January 1989. In Kendall Venture North Moccasin Project: Amendment to Operating Permit 00122, Fergus County, Montana. Vol. 2, App. A, Feb., 1989.
    • Zackheim, K. 1973. Exhibit H: Wildlife Study. In Ash Grove Cement Co. files.
  • Web Search Engines for Articles on "Ruffed Grouse"
  • Additional Sources of Information Related to "Birds"
Login Logout

Take us with you! PDF icon

Look for this PDF icon as you search and browse.  Click it to build a custom PDF with species shown on that page or for all the species within that taxonomic level.  To create your own list of species, use the PDF Creator tool at the bottom of the Advanced Search page.

Here's some links if you want to download a whole group.

Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Invertebrates
Butterflies / Moths
Dragonflies / Damselflies
Ferns and allies
Conifers
Flowering Plants (Dicots)
Flowering Plants (Monocots)
Bryophytes
Lichens
Ecological Systems
Noxious Weeds
Citation for data on this website:
Ruffed Grouse — Bonasa umbellus.  Montana Field Guide.  .  Retrieved on , from