\in i

tmm

JUNE 1957 — Montana Fish and Game Departmenl Official Publication

H

>

5 o

■■s^

MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT

Official

iiM^ Publication

State of Montana

J. Hugo Aronson, Governor

MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

E. J. Skibby, Lewistown, Chairman
H. W. Black, Poison Ralph D. Shipley, Miles City

John T. Hanson, Sr., Malta William T. Sweet, Butte

A. A. O'Claire, Helena, Secretary

DIVISION DIRECTORS

A. A. O'Claire ....Director

Walter J. Everin.... Deputy Director

Walter M. Allen.. Fisheries Superintendent

Robert F. Cooney Game Manager

Wynn G. Freeman Coordinator, Restoration

Don L. Brown Chief Law Enforcement Officer

W. Kenneth Thompson Information and Education

R. H. Turnbull Chief Clerk

Vernon Craig, Editor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Roadside Flora — Guest Editorial 3

1957 Fish and Game Legislation 4

Game Bird Inventory Methods 7

Use oi Aircraft in Fish & Game Management 11

Wild River . . ._ - 15

Shooting Safety 21

DDT and Fish... .-. 23

Montana Blue Grouse 28

Predators Are Like People 32

"Montana Wildlife," may be obtained free of charge by writing the
Montana Fish and Game Department at Helena. Contents of this
magazine may be reproduced in whole or in part if properly credited.

7

'I

EDITORIAL

Guest Editorial — By John Willard '!

Last year, as I drove through one of Western Montana's nicest mountain valleys, the
left front hub cap flipped off the wheel, spun across the road and into the borrow pit.
When 1 climbed out of the car to go after it, the roadside looked as clean as a
hound's tooth, grass green and neat along the shoulders, but the bottom of the borrow
pit was another story. In the 10 minutes it took to find the lost hub cap, I was treated
to one of the sorriest sights in Montana. Every footstep covered a beer can, piece of
Kleenex, paper milk bottle, pop bottle, old inner tube, paper sack, paper plate, or what
have you.

A wheel barrow wouldn't have held all the junk within arm's length anywhere
along this highway. It would have taken a dump truck to pick it all up' for a mile.

The amazing thing about it is that someone hauled all this stuff out there, an astound-
ing job of trcnsportation matched only by the callous ignorance of the haulers. This
is the age of throw-aways. Everything comes wrapped and sealed in a container made
to throw away.

In my childhood of not too long ago, (?) there was an item of thrift in the container
business. Every bottle, whether it contained beer or milk, was a thing of value, some- (|
thing to be hoarded and taken to the store to be traded in for a few dimes. Now this ii
is an outmoded way of life. Bottles are boldly marked "Not for reuse," as though even ]|
filling one with water would constitute a high crime and punishable under the law. i,
No wonder people are so anxious to get rid of them. Don't even want them in the car S
for fear it might constitute use and foul them with the law. J

Then, there is the paper industry. Use of paper has mounted astronomically in the J
last few years, and what in my boyhood days served only as a writing surface today \
can be anything from a milk bottle to a portable nose-wiper and glasses cleaner, boxed
so that a new one flips up everytime one is used. There are paper cups, paper boxes,
paper wrappings and other items of daily necessity, all carefully coated with wax to
withstand years of buffeting by the elements and thus becoming a permanent part of
the roadside scenery.

And ah yes, the beer can. This noble triumph of engineering science has laid a
firm grip not only upon our civilization but upon the byways of rural America for
centuries to come. Securely enameled outside and lacquered inside to protect the sub-
tle flavor of the hops, it is as indestructible an item as Fort Knox. A tiny bastion, em-
battled against the best efforts of wind, weather and little boys playing "Kick the Can,"
'i it will be with us forever, a perpetual reminder of the thirst of the traveler.
(I Added to the galaxy of roadside flora must be the paper or pasteboard carton,

'i usually filled v«th weather-resistant relics of picnics or car seat lunches such as paper
I' knives and forks, paper cups, paper plates, waxed paper and plastic sandwich bags.
1 1 Festooned across the tumbleweeds they become the flower gardens of our highways,
J' the putrid petunias of the borrow pit.

<! That there is a Montana law against such spring and summer sowing of the road-

J' side matters little. Even that it is enforced and that violations are expensive seems only
(| to stimulate the flingers. There must be some hidden joy in seeing a beer can bounce
'i off the blacktop or a pop bottle sail whistling into the wind. The arc of a paper plate
J' must match the flight of the wild duck in the fantasy of the motorist whose car must be
ii tidy at all costs.

I' Montanans share America's dist.nction in an outdoor sport that costs $50,000,000 a

S year to clean up. It should cause a surge of pride that could be mistaken for a twinge of
'' conscience.

FINAL STATUS OF LEGISLATION CONCERNING FISH AND
GAME MATTERS BEFORE THE 35th LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

During the 35th Legislative Assembly a total of 28 bills concerning Fish
and Game matters was considered by the Legislative Assembly. Of this
number, 18 "were introduced in the House and 10 in the Senate. Five of the
18 House bills were passed by both houses and signed by the Governor.
Six of the 10 Senate bills passed both houses and were signed by the
Governor.

Following is a brief resume of the legislation which was killed, as well
as the bills which were passed and have been enacted into law.

House Bills Killed

H. B. 7 — Introduced by Gray (Sweet Grass) — Provides that any costs incurred by a county in

game law violations will be paid out of the Fish and Game fund.
KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE SINCE A SIMILAR STATUTE IS IN EFFECT.

H. B. 53 — Introduced by Gray (Sweet Grass) — Provides amendment to the game farm la-w which
would permit private owners of rare and wild species of geese to operate without having
pens covered by wire and with birds rendered incapable of flight.

KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 58 — Introduced by Rieder (by request) (Jefferson) — This bill removes the power of the
Fish and Game Commission to limit the number of hours for fishing, or in other words would
put fishing on a 24-hour basis.

KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 212— Introduced by Barnes (Treasure), Allen (Custer), Gray (Sweet Gross) — Would re-
quire payment of crop damage caused by wild deer and antelope.
KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 238 — Introduced by Berg (Park) and Walton (Park) (by request) — Would establish the dates
and hours of Park County elk hunting season and take this power from the Fish and Game
Commission.

PASSED HOUSE— KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE

H. B. 251 — Introduced by Gleed (Beaverhead), Goodgame (Lincoln), Strnisha (Ravalli) — Would

give Fish and Game Commission authority to regulate importation of fish and fish eggs.
PASSED HOUSE— KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 295 — Introduced by Holtz (Cascade), Morrison, (Cascade), Meagher (Cascade), Conklin
(Cascade), Regan (Cascade), Anderson (Cascade) — This bill would provide for transfer of
a State school section of land on Smith River to the State Parks Commission. The bill would
hove given the public access to Smith River for recreational purposes.

PASSED HOUSE. KILLED IN SENATE FINANCE AND CLAIMS COMMITTEE.

H. B. 330 — Introduced by Helding (Missoula) — Would increase the payment for selling a license

from ten cents to fifteen cents.
PASSED HOUSE. KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 359 — Introduced by Gerard (Madison) — Would require public hearing prior to purchasing

or leasing any lands for game purposes.
PASSED HOUSE. KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 396 — Introduced by Goodgame (Lincoln) — Would provide for the election of Fish and

Game Commissioners.
KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 426 — Introduced by Gray (Sweet Grass) (by request) — Would provide for payment of in-
vestigation and prosecution of game cases by county officials.
KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE BECAUSE SIMILAR LAW ALREADY ON
STATUTES.

H. B. 440 — Introduced by Rieder (Jefferson) and Nichols (Ravalli) — Would place 25% of money

r~'-^!"e~', from huntim rrni f'shing license, permiis, etc., in State Park Fund.
KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

H. B. 443 — Introduced by Goodgame (Lincoln' — Would elect the Director of the Fish and Game

Department.
KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

Senate Bills KUled

S. B. 61 — Introduced by Sagunsky (Madison) — Would add Chukar partridge to game bird list,
remove fox from fur-bearer list and add to predator list. Would remove Canadian Lynx
and black-footed ferret from predator list.

PASSED BY SENATE. KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

S. B. 63 — Introduced by Hagenston (Dawson) — Would enable the Fish and Game Director to
appoint as ex-officio game wardens certain Fish and Game Department personnel not work-
ing as game wardens but in the field where they might occasionally assist in law en-
forcement.

PASSED SENATE. KILLED IN HOUSE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

S. B. 103 — Introduced by Grant (Custer) — Would make the use of water and obtaining of water

rights for fish and wildlife a beneficial and legal use of water.
KILLED IN SENATE IRRIGATION AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE.

S. B. 160 — Introduced by Reardon (Silver Bow) — This legislation would repeal the assent act to
the Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, thus depriving the State of Federal Aid
funds used for land acquisition, game development projects, investigative projects and
management.

KILLED IN SENATE FISH AND GAME COMMITTEE.

House Bills Passed and Signed by the Governor

H. B. 42 — Introduced by Rieder (Jefferson) — Provides that persons under 18 purchasing their
first big game license, must have a certificate of competence. The Fish and Game De-
partment would be responsible for training and issuing such a certificate. Becomes effec-
tive January 1, 1958.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR

H. B. 45^Introduced by Juedeman (Toole) — Provides that state fish and game wardens are au-
thorized to enforce the provisions of Chapter 139, Laws of 1955, which required that suit-
able life preserving equipment be carried in boats.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

H. B. 203 — Introduced by Fish and Game Committee — Reduces beaver permit fee and extends

date for trapping.
SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

H. B. 246 — Introduced by Mysse (Rosebud), Helding (Missoula), Nelson (Golden Valley), Strnisha
(Ravalli) — Would provide for removal of certain rough fish, when desired by commercial
fisheries. Limited to Ft. Peck Reservoir.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

H. B. 371 — Introduced by Glancy (Musselshell), Devier (Dawson), Meagher (Cascade) — Provides
that the Commission shall issue a free game bird and fishing license to resident citizens of
the State who are 70 years of age or over. This law becomes effective July 1, 1957.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

Senate Bills Passed and Signed by Governor

S. B. 17 — Introduced by Grant (Custer), Keller (Stillwater), Brownfield (Carter), Minnette (Glacier),
Brenner (Beaverhead), Valiton (Powell) — Would extend for two years, the Commission's
powers to issue $20. permits for deer and antelope. Limits one license per non-resident for
deer and one for antelope.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR

S. B. 18 — Introduced by Sagunsky (Madison) and Goodwin (Broadwater) — Would permit the
Department to open regular and special seasons to control game animals doing damage.
SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

S. B. 82 — Introduced by Brenner (Beaverhead), Robinson (Phillips), Valiton (Powell) — Would

empower the Fish and Game Commission to construct or purchase a building suitable for
its needs.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR

S. B. 104 — Introduced by Mackay (Carbon) — Would repeal several game preserves established
by the legislature and not now needed. Included would be Gallatin, Snowy Mountains,
Powder River, Twin Buttes, South Moccasin and Blackleaf.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

S. B. 114 — Introduced by Valiton (Powell) and Grant (Custei) — Would change requirements for
deputy director to include any qualified person with at least one year's experience with
the Department. As written at present time, only men who had served as game wardens
could qualify.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR.

S. B. 135 — Introduced by Grant (Custer)— Provides for an increase in the amount of per diem
allowed each year by the members of the Fish and Game Commission — increase from
$600.00 to $800.00 for members of the commission and from $600.00 to $1000.00 for the
Chairman.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR

6

A sage grouse defiantly rattles his stiff tail feathers.

— Photo by Reuel Janson

GAME BIRD INVENTORY METHODS

By Reuel Janson, Biologist

In the spring a bird's fancy turns
to the subject which (according to
Kinsey) a young man has been think-
ing about all year, namely, court-
ship. Each species of upland game
bird has its own peculiar method of
attracting the opposite sex. Male
sharp-tailed grouse (often erroneous-
ly called prairie chicken) when stim-
ulated by the lengthening daylight
hours of spring, congregate in small
groups on preferred locations, usually
grassy knolls, to perform their annual
courtship ritual. The same locations
are often used year after year. These

"dancing grounds" are visited early
each mild morning during the spring
by the male birds. During this daily
exercise period, they cackle, hoot,
fight, chase each other and perform
their characteristic dance. With head
lowered, wings out-stretched and tail
held vertically, the grouse dance by
stamping their feet up and down with
the rapidity of a jackhammer. Simul-
taneously, they vibrate their tails
from side to side so that the stiff
feathers produce a loud, rattling
sound.

At first, these performances are
mere dress rehearsals, but by late
April, females are attracted to the
grounds and promiscuous matings
occur.

The performance of the sage
grouse on their "strutting grounds" is
similar, but instead of dancing, they
strut about like turkey gobblers, and
alternately inflate and deflate the
olive-drab air sacks on their breasts
with peculiar plopping sounds.

Sharp-tail dancing grounds are
found in extensive grassland areas
where grazing has been light enough
to allow a cover of rather tall grass
to remain. Sharp-tails have been
forced out of many areas by intensive
wheat farming and over-grazing.

Sage grouse strutting grounds are
found usually on grassy flats sur-
rounded by extensive areas of sage-
brush. The strutting grounds may be
several acres in size and may accom-
modate up to 100 or more male birds.

The ruffed grouse, a forest species,
is more solitary in its courtship hab-
its. The male selects an old rotting
log, and standing on it, he thumps
his wings against the air so vigor-
ously that he makes a sound like a
small gasoline motor just starting up.
This performance is called "drum-
ming."

Pheasants are unlike grouse in not
having any certain location in which
to perform. However, each cock has
a territory in which other cocks are
not allowed to trespass. Each morn-
ing the cock wanders over his terri-
tory, usually accompanied by a

harem of from one to ten hens and
emits a loud, two-note crowing call
at intervals.

The courtship habits of upland
birds are not only interesting to
watch, but they also provide a basis
for spring census work by game de-
partment personnel. Accurate game
censuses are desirable partly for set-
ting hunting regulations consistent
with game populations, and partly
for measuring the effect of various
management measures. For in-
stance, if it were desired to find
out whether or not intensive preda-
tor control affects bird populations,
a census would be necessary both
before and after the control meas-
ures were carried out. When habi-
tat development work is done, game
census before and after would be
necessary to demonstrate the effect
of the work on the game population.

A spring census of a sharp-tailed
grouse breeding population is based
on the fact that most of the male
birds are present on the dancing or
strutting grounds early in the morn-
ing in the spring. Accordingly, a
department observer travels a pre-
selected route by automobile from
one-half hour before sunrise to ap-
proximately one hour after sunrise on
April mornings. If there is little or
no wind, he locates the dancing
grounds by stopping to listen at in-
tervals of from one-half to one mile.
The sounds made by the dancing
grouse guide him to the dancing
grounds. He then tallies the number
of male birds present. When this is

8

done along a route about 15 miles
long, the total number of males count-
ed provides an index to the popula-
tion. If these counts are obtained
each year on the same routes, popu-
lation trends can be accurately fol-
lowed.

Since sage hens are relatively
quiet on their strutting grounds, the
observer locates these either by scan-
ning the country with field glasses or
flying back and forth at a low alti-
tude to spot them. As with sharp-
tails, the total count of male birds on
several grounds in a certain area or
along a certain route, provides an
index to the population density and
trend.

Ruffed grouse can ba censused by
traveling roads in forested areas and
listening at intervals of about one-half
mile for the drumming males. The
number heard drumming along a
route of a definite length would then
be the population index.

Early morning light makes the dancing sharp-
tails difficult to photograph.

— Photn by Reuel Janson

Pheasants, also, can be censused
by listening counts. It has been es-
tablished that early in the morning
during the breeding season, a cock
pheasant crows at an average rate
of about one call per two-minute
period. Consequently, we have es-
tablished a number of listening routes
distributed in the main pheasant
areas in the state. These are traveled
by automobile early in the morning
by department observers. Each ob-
server stops at mile intervals on his
route and listens for a two-minute
period at each stop. He counts and
records all the pheasant crowing
calls he hears during this period. The
average number of calls per two-
minute stop is then used as the index
to the cock population. If this is to
be used as an index to the total
population, the sex ratio must also be
known. For instance, a heavily hunt-
ed area such as the Fairfield Bench
may have a sex ratio of only 15 cocks
per 100 hens while a lightly hunted
area may have 50 cocks per 100
hens. A crowing count of 15 calls per
two minutes on the Fairfield Bench
would thus indicate a total popula-
tion almost as high as that indicated
by a crowing count of 50 calls per two
minutes in the lightly hunted area.
The sex ratio counts used to correct
the crowing counts are best obtained
in the late winter when the birds are
concentrated in certain areas and are
easy to count.

Spring counts sample small game
populations at their lowest numbers
of the year. Further work in late sum-
mer or early fall is necessary to de-

termine the number of young pro-
duced. These young birds are usual-
ly more important to the hunter than
are the adult birds since they make
up a greater part of the total fall
population. This is especially true of
pheasants in a heavily hunted area.
In the fall of 1956, 94 percent of the
cocks taken by hunters on the Fair-
field Bench were birds of the year,
and the average hunter was able to
bag a pheasant in three hours of
hunting. Without these young birds,
48 man-hours of hunting would have
been required to bag each bird.

The reproductive success of the
various upland game species is
measured by means of brood counts
made early in the morning along es-
tablished routes in late summer. The
number of young birds observed in
comparison to the number of hens or
adults indicates the success of the
hatch. Thus by using a census of the
spring breeding population as a
base, and combining this figure with
the results of brood counts made in
late summer, department biologists
are able to estimate the supply of
game birds available to the hunter.

10

Gene Sherman, District 3 Warden Supervisor, steps from a Super Cub equipped for both snow

and dry landings.

THE USE OF AIRCRAFT IN FISH
AND GAME MANAGEMENT

Ey Gene H. Sherman — Warden Supervisor

In Montana, the airplane plays an
important role in fish and game ma i-
agement which, of course, includes
law enforcement. Enforcement of the
rules is considered just one of the
tools in Fish and Game management.

The Department employs one full-
time pilot who, in addition to flying,
is in charge of the general and main-
tenance operations for state-owned
aircraft. Other department personnel
who hold commercial pilots' licenses
do part-time flying incidental to regu-
lar duties. Fish and Game pilots have
been granted a waiver by the CAA
for- minimum safe altitudes over other
than congested areas for the pur-
poses of aerial search and rescue,
game surveys, forest patrol, law en-
forcement, fish stocking and poison-
ing, and game trapping and herding.

The question has arisen from time
to time as to the justification of the
state owning airplanes instead of
renting them from commercial opera-
tors, which is often done. There are
three essential reasons for state own-
ership:

1.
2.

3.

IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY
SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT NEC-
ESSARY FOR PARTICULAR
JOBS (UTIUTY)
ECONOMY

IMMEDIATE AVAILIBILITY . . .

Most privately owned small planes
available during the winter are con-
verted for crop spraying the remain-
der of the year and are unavailable
to the Department. Some of the
larger planes available during winter
are rented during other seasons by

11

the Forest Service, and other agen-
cies for fire patrol, spraying, dusting,
and chartered trips.

UTILITY . . . The type of airplane
which best suits most of our needs is
one that operates economically, has
ample reserve power for mountain
flying and yet is light enough for
short field landings and take-offs.
The helicopter would meet part of
these requirements, but because of
high rental cost, the additional serv-
ices rendered would be unjustified in
most instances.

In addition to the aforementioned
requirements, our planes are
equipped with 2- way police radios,
some are equpped with hydraulically
operated ski-wheel combinations and
two contain built-on tanks for fish
planting. This equipment is unavail-
able on rented aircraft, and installa-
tion of fish tanks on such planes
would make rental considerably
higher.

ECONOMY . . . Operators who own
and rent aircraft or automobiles must
charge a fee above operational costs
if they are to stay in business. It is
conceded that a certain amount of
flying is necessary if a profit is to be
made, thus justifying ownership of
aircraft. The amount of flying done
by the Department gives this profit
margin notwithstanding the avail-
ability of aircraft equipped for our
particular jobs.

For example, we are able to rent,
when available, Piper Super Cubs
for $9.00 per hour without a pilot. A
31 months record of a department-

owned Piper Super Cub 135 revealed
an operational cost of $4.42 per hour.
This included gas, oil, maintenance,
and rent for a heated hangar. It did
not include insurance or depreciation
— these two items may be variable.
Based on an average cruising speed
of 90 mph, the operational cost fig-
ured approximately 5c per mile.

I believe it has been demonstrated
that department ownership of aircraft
is both advantageous and economi-
cal. So much for that. The task ac-
complished with airplanes is the true
yardstick for measuring their value.

TRANSPORTATION . . . Since Fish
and Game personnel are required to
attend many meetings throughout the
state and executive personnel from
the state office spend considerable
time traveling to and from these meet-
ings, transportation by aircraft is an
economical timesaver. A trip to Miles
City from Helena, which requires 6
to 7 hours one way by automobile,
can be made by airplane in about
1 V2 hours. Instead of officials spend-
ing the better part of two days driv-
ing to and from a meeting, they can
leave Helena late one afternoon, at-
tend evening meetings, and be in
Helena early the following morning
ready for a day's work. Thus, air-
plane transportation is not only more
economical but enables officials to
do a better job of public service. In
addition, ski equipped planes more
quickly and economically transport
personnel into back country where
road travel is impossible in the win-
ter.

12

These are but two of the many ex-
amples of the advantages of aircraft
transportation.

GAME SURVEYS ... The depart-
ment has been making trend counts
on elk, moose, bighorn sheep, rocky
mountain goats and antelope for the
past eleven years. While the counts
aren't deemed altogether accurate,
when coordinated with hunter kill
questionnaires, they provide our best
index for arriving at harvest recom-

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT . . .

During the recent rehabilitation of the
Marias River where about 1,000 miles
of stream were poisoned, the airplane
proved its worth in Fisheries Man-
agement. Though there was a lot of
ground work and many hours of
pumping and slugging rotenone into
small back waters and streams, the
bulk of toxicant was aerially sprayed.
The job of restocking the poisoned
areas was also a tremendous one. It

Ralph Cooper, department pilot, displays one type oi tank used for aerial fish planting.

mendations. For the past four years,
we have been making state-wide
beaver cache count surveys. We are
able to closely estimate the beaver
population on a stream-mile basis.
This information is used for setting
up trapping quotas in our beaver
management program.

The airplane is also widely used
in waterfowl management. A census
is taken of wintering birds which are
located from the air. Many miles of
goose nesting areas are flown in or-
der to census nesting geese and their
broods.

goes without saying that planting
6,000,000 rainbow trout with the near-
est hatchery 1 00 miles away is a big
distribution order. Also, it must be
realized that stocked fish could not
all be liberated in one spot at the end
of the road. Access roads to many
miles of stream and shoreline were
not present, so again the airplane
was called to the rescue and the area
was rapidly and efficiently planted
by air.

The planting of Golden Trout in
some of our high, virgin mountain

13

lakes was very impractical if not im-
possible before tanks were installed
on department planes. Incidentally,
in a few years from now some of
those goldens should be whoppers.

LAW ENFORCEMENT ... The use

of the airplane in certain types of law
enforcement has proven very valu-
able. Perhaps number one in impor-
tance is the preventive power it
seems to possess. Prevention of vio-
lations is more pleasant than appre-
hension and an enforcement program
based on that principle will gain far
more support in the long run.

This power of prevention did not
come about by accident but took con-
siderable effort. The results have
helped build the airplane's reputa-
tion. In order to evaluate the results,
it is necessary to compare present
pre-season foot patrols to those be-
fore air support existed.

About 15 years ago 1 started tramp-
ing the stream banks looking for
people who seemed to think fishing
was best when the streams were le-
gally closed. It was not uncommon
to find freshly used and discarded
worm cans and salmon eggs jars
along stream banks while fresh fish
entrails floated at the water's edge
in many secluded spots. Poachers'
boot tracks were a common sight — ■
some practically smoking — some a
few days old. Once in a while a
culprit was apprehended but the
miles of stream one warden could
cover on foot was very limited.

Now a large area con be readily
observed from the air. Poachers may

easily be spotted in the brush and
radio-directed wardens can await
their men at a convenient spot. After
a few arrests were made in such a
fashion, the word seemed to get
around among early fishermen.
Tracks along stream banks before
fishing season became far less nu-
merous.

The same story applies to pre-sea-
son hunters. Some poachers have
been apprehended when an unex-
pected plane landed in the middle of
their happy hunting ground. The air-
plane has also been used on several
night patrols. The word apparently
got around and jack-lighting became
far less frequent.

Montana is a big state and the
wardens have a lot of area to cover.
The program of prevention is really
emphasized when a few airplanes
are used.

Among some of the other depart-
ment plane uses are prevention of
game damage, predator control and
search and rescue.

As you know, there are tricks to
all trades. This applies to the use of
airplanes in fish and game work
which in itself is a do and learn
trade. It pleases me to say that we
have satisfactorily worked out some
of the preliminary problems which
go with the use of airplanes. We find
new approaches to different phases
from time to time, but taking all things
into consideration, the airplane is a
great and valuable instrument in our
game management program.

14

iy 'J'

C...^

0..'':-'^ ' .

~ f ■'

1^ ' ' ?

/!^

i^

i

Two boatmen drift through wilderness on a wild river.

Wild River

From a Letter by Dr. John Craighead, Leader, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit

Dear Ken:

I have your letter requesting that
I express myself concerning the pro-
posed impounding of the Middle Fork
at Spruce Park.

I am happy to take this opportu-
nity to present some of my thoughts
and views in the hope they will prove
of value to readers of Montana Wild-
life. The views I have propounded
are strictly personal and not in any
way to be construed as representing
the official position of the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.

The problem of impoundment is ba-
coming ever more acute in the North-
west. Some years ago the emphasis
was on down-stream impoundments
and in general conservationists did
not oppose such dams largely be-
cause it was evident to all concerned
that they increased the usable water
for certain purposes and thus were
necessary to our growing economy.
Those conservationists who realized
that the storing of water for irrigation,
flood control, power production, and
industrial use was frequently in con-

flict with the use of water and water-
sheds for wildlife and recreation were
not sufficiently well organized to
bring their thinking before the public
in a clear and forceful way.

Nevertheless many citizens did rec-
ognize that the construction of dams
without a thorough land and water
use survey, which would consider all
the varied private and public inter-
ests, was basically unsound. We still
recognize this approach as unsound
and many conservationists have be-
come even more alarmed now that
impoundments threaten the headwa-
ters of the Columbia River system
and some of the finest recreational
land left in the U. S. Since much of
this land lies in Montana, the prob-
lems are ones that Montanans should
recognize and be prepared to solve.

I have been particularly concerned
about the effects that dams may have
on some of these remaining wild re-
gions of Idaho and Montana. Rivers
and their watersheds are inseparable
and to maintain wild areas w^e must
preserve the rivers that drain them.

15

The Spruce Park Dam has been of
special interest as this area is close
to home and the proposed dam will
have widespread effect on the area
between Glacier Park and the Bob
Marshall Wilderness Area.

The Spruce Park Dam is just an-
other case where the Corps of Arm.y
Engineers has made long range
plans and the conservationists are in
the unenviable position of having to
hastily accumulate biological data at
the last minute. In the past, conserva-
tionists have been continually on the
defensive with regard to impound-
ments. This is unfortunate since it
places us in the light of obstruction-
ists rather than defenders of the pub-
lic interest whenever a new dam is
proposed. We are in this regrettable
position with regard to Spruce Park.

Until conservationists and the rec-
reational industry propose clear cut
objectives for the disposition of local
and regional water resources, it ap-
pears that about all we can do when
a dam is proposed is to hastily gather
data to evaluate any given situation.
This may suffice for the present but
it will hardly carry us through to vic-
tory in the future.

Last summer I took a five-day raft
trip down the Middle Fork with Clif-
ton Merritt, some interested sports-
men from Kalispell, and members of
the Montana Fish and Game Depart-
ment. I have rafted most of the large
fast- water rivers of the mountain west.
My interest in the Middle Fork trip
was to make a personal evaluation of
its recreational potential. There is
no doubt in my mind that this is one

cf the most scenic "wild" rivers in
the Northwest; one which conserva-
tionists should strive hard to save.
The country is ideal for pack trips
and the river offers a "white water"
float trip of unsurpassed beauty. The
scenery is superb, fish and wildlife
are abundant and in every direction
the outdoorsman meets the challenge
of primeval country.

Although it would be highly desir-
able to have detailed biological and
ecological information on the Middle
Fork River and surrounding country,
and eventually this must be obtained,
I do not believe a lack of this should
now prevent us from stating our case
strongly. In fact, 1 think we may be
imposing severe handicaps on our
efforts by allowing ourselves to be
pressured into attempting to obtain
hasty quantitative biological data,
and assigning to this an inadequate
dollar value in order to justify preser-
vation of wild areas. It is essential to
preserve intact a few of the "wild"
rivers of this region for recreation and
education of future generations. Any
outdoor pursuit which brings a man
into intimate contact with natural
scenery, natural forces and the un-
altered web of life is highly educa-
tional. The right to experience this
should be as inalienable as freedom
of worship. To preserve it is a trust
falling to each succeeding genera-
tion. The aesthetic and recreational
values of a river are so very easily
destroyed — far more easily destroyed
than similar values of hill and moun-
tain country. There are numerous
examples and no specific data is nec-

16

essary to prove this point. One dam
with the accompanying roads would
largely destroy the natural beauty of
the Middle Fork and would have a
tremendous effect on the fish and
wildlife and future recreational pos-
sibilities. The sport fishing would
suffer severely, but the fundamental
lossi will not be in animal species or
populations but in natural beauty
and wilderness. There appears to be
no way to compromise exploitation
of an area with preservation of the
values of a virgin country.

A big bull trout comes from the clear water of
a wild river.

It is my belief that we should
strive to keep intact some wild rivers
on the basis that they are essential
to our way of life; that they have far-
reaching educational and recreation-
al potential and that, therefore, no
single group or interest should im-
pend a "wild" river or open it up
with roads until a thorough land use
survey has been made which would
take into account forest and water-
shed values, the wildlife and recrea-
tional potential, educational and aes-

thetic values, and, of course, the
value of the water for irrigation,
power, and flood control when im-
pounded. Perhaps even more impor-
tant is the need to evaluate these
areas not solely in terms of the pres-
ent, but in terms of 50 to 60 years
from now. In other words, values de-
termined from comprehensive land
use surveys made at the present time
should be projected 50 years ahead
and these values then used to formu-
late and determine our present action.
This task will require the cooperative
efforts of all conservation organiza-
tions.

Recreational values of areas such
as the Middle Fork are not readily
recognized or evaluated at the pres-
ent time, but there is little doubt that
they will be proclaimed and placed
at a premium in the future. There is
ample evidence of this all through
the eastern and central states and on
the west coast. The question is
whether increased power, more in-
dustry, more material things will be
of greater needs to a population con-
tinually increasing, than recreational
areas that relieve the tension and
stress created by population density.
Most certainly we will need both.

Recreational areas such as State
and National Parks, National Forests
and Wildlife Refuges furnish mass
recreation and the value and need of
these is generally recognized. The
necessity of wilderness areas for high
quality recreation is not so generally
endorsed and yet these areas are
vital to a well-rounded outdoor recre-
ation program.

17

We have reason, to be concsrned
about our wilderness rivers. When
one attempts to enumerate the num-
ber of "wild" rivers still left in Mon-
tana, one arrives at the startling
fact that already they are a rarity.
I can think of only one Mon-
tana river I would place in this cate-
gory and that is the Middle Fork cf
the Flathead. The South Fork of the
Flathead has been dammed by
Hungry Horse and although ths up-
per portion lies within the Bob Mar-
shall Wilderness area, it is neverth;-
less not a completely wild straam.
The same is true of the Sun River
that flows out of the Bob Marshall
Wilderness area on the east. It has
a large impoundment and others are
planned. Roads parallel both sides
of the North Fork of the Flathead. The
lower reaches of the Middle Fork are
in contact with roads but the upper
portion is still wild.

Perhaps a reasonable approach is
to sharpen our wilderness objectives.
We must not only continue to protect
existing wilderness areas as such,
but focus attention to wilderness riv-
ers— the most fragile portion of wil-
derness country. In the case of the
Middle Fork, we should emphasize
the wilderness character of the river
itself, making it clear that we are
dealing with one of the few ram.ain-
ing wild rivers — a species now close
to extinction. Our objective would be
to hold this small area intact for high
quality recreation. A place where our
children and their children can seek
adventure, testing themselves against
the wilderness.

The fact that the Middle Fork drain-
age ties in with Glacier National Park
and with the Bob Marshall Wilder-
ness area is also a strong argument
for preserving it. A dam on the Mid-
o die Fork and the inevitable roads
would be a threat to the Grizzly bear
in Montana and a dam would ad-
versely affect elk v/inter range and
the spoAivning runs of Cutthroat and
Dolly Varden. A high dam, such as
proposed, would virtually eliminate
the spawning runs of Dolly Varden
and prevent seasonal migration of
Cutthrcats. Efforts to artificially prop-
agate Dolly Varden have been unsuc-
cessful and the Cutthroat is not read-
ily reestablished. The impoundment
v/ould favor the increase of rough fish
with eventual deleterious effect on
the game species.

Because it probably will be physi-
cally impossible to gather adequate
biological data before some action is
taken, I think we are justified in
drawing heavily from studies made
in neighboring areas which are in
many cases almost identical to the
Middle Fork country. For example,
information obtained from tagging
studies of Bull trout on the North Fork
of the Flathead could well be used
in defense of the Middle Fork. The
basic biological situation is the same;
likew^ise, data gathered on the mar-
ten in Glacier Park and the beaver
throughout the Flathead River drain-
age could well be used specifically
in defense of the Middle Fork wild-
life since there appears to be very
little difference in basic marten or
beaver habitat throughout the area.

18

From our knowledge of elk winter
ranges in the South Fork and in the
Sun River area, we would state al-
most without qualification that the
winter elk range on the Middle Fork
is vital, that any reduction in this
range would have an effect on the
elk population. Although no inten-
sive long term studies have been
made of the Grizzly, we know from
studies of Robert Cooney and others
that the fundamental requirement is
a wild area, and certainly the open-
ing up of the Middle Fork would
greatly decrease the Grizzly range.
In a similar way it would adversely
affect the mountain goats of the area.

At the present time it is impossible
to tell whether Kalispell, Poison, and
Missoula will, in the future, become
industrial centers. If this should oc-
cur, then there is little likelihood
that we could hold all of our wild
regions inviolate and we probably
should not seek to do so. There is,
however, good indication that these

cities will never be large industrial
areas and that a major Montana in-
dustry is and will continue to be out-
door recreation. I use this in its
broadest sense. Moreover, there is
strong indication that the recreational
industry, now ranking third in Mon-
tana, will continue to grow. The de-
mand for wild areas will increase
and these areas must serve not just
a state or local area, but the nation.
As I see it, the job of the conserva-
tionist is to assure that these areas
are held intact until public thinking
matures and crystallizes, then our
generation or following ones can
make wise decisions based on ade-
quate information.

Possibly the first task of conserva-
tionists today is to develop a system
for evaluating upstream drainages
and to classify these according to
their potential as recreational areas
of the future. We might tentatively
place Montana's upstream drainages
into four categories:

The lack of man's interference is reflected in the primitive nature of the landscape.

m

1. Wild river,

2. Semi-wilderness rivers,

3. Semi-exploited rivers,

4. Exploited rivers.

We might go further and define
Wild rivers, as those that are inac-
cessible except by trail and that are
fiee of impoundments. These streams
and their watersheds are essentially
virgin. Semi- wilderness rivers would
constitute those accessible by road
but where the watersheds were still
largely in virgin condition. The semi-
exploited river would be easily ac-
cessible by road and close to urban
areas. It would be characterized by
heavy land use on its watersheds,
but the upper reaches still unim-
pounded.

The exploited river would fall into
a group characterized by impound-
ments, artificial channeling and dyk-
ing, and exhibiting varying degrees
of pollution. The lower reaches of
most Montana rivers would fall into
this category.

From the conservationist's view-
point it would be desirable to en-
courage increased use of down-
stream areas for impoundments and
to continue to harness those rivers
already exploited, striving to keep
intact the few remaining wild and
semi-wilderness rivers.

I do not believe that we should
make a stand by trading one river or
dam site against another. This be-
comes a political football in which
fundamental issues are readily con-
fused and when this is done the peo-

ple whose task it is to make recom-
mendations through democratic pro-
cedure cannot sort out the facts or
issues involved. Our approach
should be positive and clear to all
interested users of land and water.
If Montana's rivers should be sur-
veyed and classified according to
their recreational values, then we
would have stated objectives and
standards to maintain. These objec-
tives could eventually be integrated
into the development plans of the en-
tire river system. Competing inter-
ests would know where conserva-
tionists stand and the people could
decide with a minimum of confusion
where their interests lay. Such infor-
mation is essential if the State and
Federal agencies responsible for the
management of our land and water
are to administer them in the best in-
terests of all the people. If it is found
to be in the public interest to harness
these wild rivers, then I do not think
conservationists will stand in the way
of economic progress. If, however,
exploitation is found not to be in the
best public interest, then we have
preserved a fragile thing of beauty,
giving other generations an opportu-
nity to know the wilderness, and
make possible an educational and
spiritual experience for future Ameri-
cans that no man-made institution
can synthesize.

Sincerely,

JOHN J. CRAIGHEAD,
Leader, Montana Co-
operative Research Unit.

20

I

These are the men who helped make a shooting safety pro-jram in Helena Junior High School.

Ficturcd left to rirht: Dcve Lane, Bernard McGinle', G. V. Erickson (Princii^a!), Bob Johnson,
Spencer Russell. Vally Swan not pictured.

SHOOTING SAFETY

Bv Frank Dunkle, I. & E. Assistant

Montana's 1957 legislature enacted
into law House Bill 42. This law calls
for all young Montanans between the
ages of 12 and 18 to present a certifi-
cate of competence in order to secure
a 1958 big game hunting license. All
youngsters between 12 and 15 years
of age must take a course in hunting
safety, but those 15 to 18 years would
not be required to take the course if
ihey hunted during the 1957 season.
In a nutshell, it will be necessary for
Montana youth to study proper gun
handling before they go into the
field.

After this shooting safety law was
passed, Montana legislature desig-
nated the Montana Fish and Game
Commission as the responsible agen-
cy for this program. The Department
has decided to use the basic National
Rifle Association Hunter Safety
Course. This five hour course of in-

struction embraces the many phases
of safe gun handling at home, in the
car and in the field. Other topics such
as hunter courtesy and sportsman-
farmer-rancher relations are dis-
cussed. Instruction continually re-
minds the students at marksmanship
is not the basis of the course — safe
gun handling is! A safe gunner can
develop his marksmanship — the un-
safe or careless gunner may not live
to do so.

Of course many problems concern-
ing the development of a system of
instruction for the young people were
discussed. Early in the planning
stage it became obvious that all in-
struction could not be handled by De-
partment people alone. A great deal
of help is going to be needed from
sporting groups, civic groups and
schools. Most of the instructors will
be people like you — people interest-
ed in young people and in hunting.

21

The Montana Fish and Game De-
partment and the National Rifle As-
sociation have entered into an agree-
ment whereby all Hunter Safety in-
structors will be certified through the
Fish and Game Department. In the
near future, there will be Instructor
courses available to interested per-
sons.

Here is how the shooting safety in-
struction program is working in Hel-
ena. It is operated through joint
agreement between the Helena fr.
High School, the Helena Wildlife
Association and the Montana Fish
and Game Department.

Within the Jr. High program there
is an activity period each Tuesday
and Thursday afternoon, which was
utilized for shooting safety instruc-
tion. During each semester a group
of young people were instructed in
safe gun handling. The Helena Wild-
life Association furnished all supplies
necessary for the course, including
student handbooks, cards, patches,
20 rounds of ammunition per student
and rifles for instruction purposes.
Five teachers from the school took
the instructor course presented by the
Fish and Game Department. These
young men then conducted the shoot-
ing safety course during the activity
periods. Also six Saturdays were
utilized to allow all of the young
people to fire on the range. During
the last week of school, the Jr. High
had an Awards Day — here all the

2d

young people were presented the
Safe Shooting Certificates. Such a
program could not have been pos-
sible without the cooperation of the
Helena Wildlife Association, Mr. G.
V. Erickson, principal of the Jr. High,
and the enthusiastic instructors.

Hunting safety courses for our
young hunters will go far toward re-
ducing the tragic accidents that take
place each year. Had past hunters
followed a few basic rules, no hunt-
ing trip would have been marred by
death or pain. Instructors will be
needed through the State if the young
people are to be trained by the fall
of 1958. If you are interested in such
a program, write to the Information
and Education Division, Montana
Fish and Game Department, Helena.
Remember- — Help train a girl or boy
in safe hunting and gun handling
and you may save a life!

Award Day at the Helena Junior High School

where 132 students received shooting safety

certificates.

— Photo by Hector LaCasse

-Photo by U. S. Forest Service

DDT AND FISH

By Geogre D. Holton, Chief Fisheries
Management Biologist

Nearly 750,000 pounds of DDT will
be sprayed from airplanes onto Mon-
tana forests this summer. The pur-
pose— to control spruce budworm.
Such famous fishing areas as the
Beaverhead, Big Hole and Madison
River drainages will be included.

Will DDT spraying wipe out trout?

It is certainly poisonous to fish but
serious kills have not often occurred
during forest spraying. Whether or
not there is a serious kill depends
upon a number of factors. Amount of
DDT drift into the streams from sur-
rounding areas, water temperatures,
volume and swiftness of the stream
and numerous other variables are im-
portant in determining danger to fish
life. For example, it has been found
that only 0.16 parts per million of
DDT will kill rainbow trout when they
ore confined in this amount for fifty-
four hours. Yet the rainbow can sur-
vive a dose 200 times as strong for

fifteen minutes. Fortunately, exposure
time is usually short when streams
are sprayed.

Last year a study was undertaken
by the Montana Fish and Game De-
partment, U. S. Forest Service and
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine the effects of spraying
and how to adjust the spray program
to minimize damage to fish and other
aquatic life.'

Several streams were studied in
watersheds sprayed with DDT. There
was no kill of trout held in cages
during the spraying and for three
days following. Stream census with
electric shockers did not show any
immediate losses of wild fish in the
spray areas, however, insects that
live on the stream bottom, such as
immature forms of may flies, stone
flies, caddis flies and midges, were
drastically affected. Reductions of
over ninety percent of the volume of
these insects were common in areas

' The Fish and Game Department's studies of DDT's effects on fish and other aquatic life are
supported by Federal Aid in Fisheries Restoration funds under Project No. F-21-R.

23

affected by the spray. These are im-
portant trout foods. By fall, insects
had begun to recover from the July
spraying but still represented only a
small fraction of their normal volume.
Midges made the most rapid come-
back. Examinations of trout stomachs
later in the summer showed they
were eating midges and land insects.

It is not known if trout had enough
to eat before facing the rigors of
winter. This year's study should shed
light on this question and show if
water insect populations have re-
turned to normal a year after spray-
ing. There are still many questions re-
garding DDT spraying; for example,
are grayling and whitefish more
easily killed with DDT than trout, and
are cutthroat more effected than other
kinds of trout?

Studies on the Miramichi River in
New Brunswick, Canada, showed
spraying with only one-half the dose
used in Montana caused severe
losses of young salmon. Fry-of-the
year were virtually wiped out. How
about young trout? They hatch just
about the time spraying occurs.

It has been found in the labora-
tory that a diet of DDT-killed insects
may prove deadly to songbirds when
followed by a period of partial starva-
tion. Does this apply to fish. They
gorge themselves on DDT-killed in-
sects and the poison has been found
in their fat. It may be that stream bot-
tom insects contain harmless amounts
of DDT and only land insects which
have been directly sprayed are dan-
gerous.

Eighteen days after spraying, DDT
accumulated in stream bottom plants
killed goldfish when plants and gold-
fish were placed in the same bowl.
This discovery in a Pennsylvania
study brings up the question: how
long does DDT remain in the water,
in bottom sand and silt, and in plants
living in the water; and how long
does it stay deadly?

It has been found that DDT be-
comes attached to tiny soil particles
in the water. Would it protect fish
and water insects if finely divided
clay were added to the water or
some other means used to tempo-
rarily make the water muddy during
spraying?

The villain in this battle to save
forests without losing fish is a small
moth with a wing-spread just under
one inch. However, the adult is
harmless. It is the young or cater-
pillar stage that damages such trees
as spruce, true fir and Douglas fir.
In Montana, Douglas fir forests are
mainly affected. Caterpillars feed on
tender young needles which are just
starting to grow. The spruce bud-
form is native to Montana. Nor-
mally, their numbers are kept in
check by natural controls such as
insect enemies, birds and unfavor-
able weather. It is believed epi-
demics start when weather is ideal
for the development of the cater-
pillars but unfavorable for the de-
velopment of their enemies. Then
havoc results! An individual tree
may be infested with thousands of
caterpillars. When new needles have
been destroyed from four to seven

24

Spruce budworm caterpillar. During an epidemic there are thousands on a single tree.
Actual size 5/8 to 3/4 inch long.

— U. S. Forest Service Photo

successive years, the trees die. Sur-
viving trees are so weakened that
they may fall victim to other insects
or diseases. At best their growth rate
is slowed.

Aerial spraying — the only mechan-
ical control known at this time — is
aimed at a nine-five percent kill of
caterpillars. To be effective it must
be done after the worms become ac-
tive in the spring but before they
form pupal cases which protects them
from DDT. There is only a two-week
period during which budworms are
vulnerable to spray. This period
varies with seasons and elevations.
The proper time to spray must be de-
termined by studies for each area by
biologists.

The Forest Service would very
much like to have a more specific

weapon against spruce budworms
than blanket spraying with chemi-
cals. Researchers are working on bio-
logical controls, that is, disease and
parasites of the bduworm that can
be introduced. Future programs will
rely more heavily on these controls
as well as on improved methods for
detecting new budworm outbreaks so
they may be checked before spread-
ing over large areas. Healthy, rapid-
ly growing trees suffer less than slow-
growing mature and over-mature
trees. Accordingly, an important ap-
proach is through improved forest
management techniques. This will
be employed as forests are more in-
tensively managed and used.

In the immediate future, however,
the outlook is for increased use of
chemicals to control forest insects.

25

Douglas fir trees during an attack of spruce budworm. Tree tops are losing their needles and

turning brown.

— U. S. Forest Service Photo

DDT spraying will be used in Mon-
tana not only for spruce budworm but
also for other needle-eating insects
such as the tussock moth and black
headed budworm, a close relative of
the spruce budworm. In fact, 5,000
acres of Glacier National Pork are to
be sprayed this summer for control of
black headed budworm.

It is our feeling, based on the best
information we have, that forest
spraying with DDT at the present rate
of one pound per acre, will lead to
fish kills under some circumstances.
There should be recovery in a few
years. Even if all the young-of-the-
year fish were killed for one year, it
might not be worse than natural
disasters which sometimes occur.
If necessary, rainbow, brook and
brown trout populations can be re-
built with hatchery fish.

We, of course, would be concerned
about repeated spraying. This would
prevent recovery of fish and aquatic
insects. Poisons may accumulate on
stream and lake bottoms.

Our chief concern at present is for
native cutthroat trout and groylmg.
We feel they may be more suscepti-
ble to DDT poisoning than other
game fish. Stream cutthroat are yet
to be domesticated so they can be
easily raised in hatcheries. The gray-
ling sanctuary in the Red Rocks area
is the last stronghold of stream in-
habiting grayling in the United
States. If lost neither of these fishes
con be replaced. The Red Rocks area
is the site of a heavy infestation of
spruce budworms. The Forest Serv-
ice has postponed spraying there
while we try to determine the extent
of danger and care to be taken to
protect the grayling.

26

This is only one of the precautions
the Forest Service is taking on behalf
of fish. Contracts with the spray
plane operators cost $20,000 extra
this year because of requirements for
slower planes which con more ac-
curately spray in critical areas, and
because of additional observation
planes to insure even coverage and
prevent local over-dosage. In addi-
tion, care will be taken to fly around
rather than over lakes. When pos-
sible, streams will not be used as
bundaries for areas assigned to indi-
vidual planes since this might result
in double spraying. Advantage will
be taken of the weather so wind cur-
rents will cause as little drift as pos-
sible into critical areas.

The spruce budworm epidemic is
not a simple problem eit^ier from the
viewpoint of the U. S. Forest Service
or the Montana Fish and Gome De-
portment.

More is at stake than just the tim-
ber ruined by insects. Spruce bud-
worm-killed trees are a serious fire

hazard; across the continent large
areas have burned following insect
epidemics. Then there is recreation- —
nobody wants to camp in a dead
forest! In fact, if fires follow the in-
sects, the very watersheds may be
at stake — this ties directly back to our
fish. Without adequate cover to hold
moisture and feed it gradually to the
streams, flooding would be more se-
vere and low water more extreme.
Stream beds would become loaded
with silt from eroding watersheds.

Forest Service personnel feel DDT
spraying is the best control method
they now have. Since occasionally
serious fish kills have been associ-
ated with DDT spraying, the Fish
and Game Department is cooperating
with the Forest Service and other
agencies in studying the effects of
forest spraying in Montana. The in-
formation gained will be used to
adjust the spray program to minimiza
the damage to fish and other aquatic
life.

Studies are underway to determine effects oi D D T spraying on fish.

27

Sy F:ed L. Hartkorn, Biologist

The blue or Richardson's grouse
(Dendrogapus obscurus richardsonii)

is found over most mountainous por-
tions of Montana. Although during
the summer and in remote areas they
show little fear of men and will usu-
ally "tree" when flushed, in areas
where they have been subjected to
considerable hunting they demon-
strate a high degree of ability to es-
cape the hunter by flushing unex-
pectedly and rocketing through the
timber or power-diving down the

28

mountain side. Under the latter con-
ditions, they provide very sporty
wing shooting for those nimrods with
the stamina and enthusiasm to hunt
their high, ridge-top habitat. But the
reward is worth the effort, as the
blue grouse is second to none in
terms of palatability.

The blue is the largest of the tim-
ber grouse. Adult males often weigh
over two and a half pounds and the
young will usually weigh over two
pounds at the time of the hunting

season in September. Although they
are predominantly gray colored, they
derive their name from the blue-gray
plumage on the breast. They possess
a high degree of protective coloration
and form and it is nearly impossible
to see a blue grouse perched high
among the fir branches with its rela-
tively long neck extended and ap-
pearing to be just another limb.

Blue grouse are present over a
wide altitudinal range in Montana —
ranging from 2,000 feet near Troy to
9,000 feet or more on the higher
peaks elsewhere. High blue grouse
population densities have been ob-
served in parts of Mineral, San-
ders, Ravalli, Lewis and Clark, and
Meagher counties. Their range cor-
responds closely to the range of the
fir trees — Douglas, grand and alpine
■ — which are their chief source of
winter food.

The female blue grouse usually
builds a nest at the base of a tree or
clump of brush with a southern ex-
posure in the foothill canyons and
lays an average of seven eggs which
usually hatch in mid-June. Nature
apparently takes her toll of young
grouse very early, as the broods ob-
served in July and August during
the past ten years in Montana have
averaged only 3.3 young. When one
approaches a blue grouse with a
young brood, the hen will usually
feign injury in a vigorous fashion
to attract attention from the young.
The young mature rapidly and by
late September the males are often
larger than their mother.

In late summer, they gradually mi-
grate to the high ridges where they
usually remain during the fall and
winter. This upward movement is
possibly correlated with ripening of
huckleberries at higher elevation as
the season progresses. Their pre-
ferred late summer habitat seems to
be ridges in the south and west ex-
posures with a semi-open stand of
ponderosa pine or Douglas fir and
an understory of huckleberry. Blues
frequently congregate on high moun-
tain parks where they feed on grass-
hoppers in the late sum.mer; however,
during dry fall seasons, such as ex-
perienced in 1952, they are often
found along creek bottoms and hay
meadows on the forest edge until late
in the season.

Their summer and early fall diet
is mostly berries, seeds, and insects,
whereas, they subsist almost entirely
on conifer needles during the winter
and early spring. Green vegeta-
tion gradually replaces the conifer
needles in the diet as spring ad-
vances.

Census work and questionnaire
returns indicate that blue grouse pop-
ulations have fluctuated considerably
during the past 14 years. Older resi-
dents of western Montana and Fores'
Service personnel of various areas
report that, in their opinion, blue
grouse were more abundant 20 or 25
years ago than they have been dur-
ing the past fourteen years. These
grouse have made up approximately
45 percent of the mountain grouse
harvested by hunters in western Mon-
tana from 1949 to 1956.

29

Since young grouse do not molt
the outer two primary wing feathers,
but adults do, it is possible, with prac-
tice, to determine their ages by the
shape of these feathers. If the two
outer wing feathers are relatively
pointed, the bird is young, or less
than a year old. If they are rounded,
similar to the other primaries, or if
they are in a stage of growth, the
bird is an adult, or more than one
year old. Of the 674 blue grouse
aged during the past four years at

known. Possibly more hens parish
during the breeding season than
cocks, a factor suggested in the cas3
of other gome birds, which have
more adult males than famales when
both sexes are hunted on an equal
basis.

The upward trend in blue grouse
numbers since 1946 could possibly be
attributed in part to the reduction in
coyotes in recent years. However,
considering the reported increased

3 ..

- 2

^ J-.

6/ue Grouse Population Trends -- 1942 Ic l'^56

4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6

hunter checking stations, 459 or 68
percent were young birds.

The sexes of blue grouse can be
determined by plumage variations.
Females have brownish mottled cen-
tral tail feathers while the tail feath-
ers of males are nearly solid black.
Broods of young blue grouse checked
during past years have been half
males and half females. However, of
the 153 adults checked, only 40 (26%)
were females. Whether adult males
are more vulnerable to hunting or
there are fewer adult females than
males in the fall pepulation, is not

numbers of bobcat and other preda-
cious species in the past few years,
probably the cumulative predator
pressure on grouse has remained
about the same in past years. We
have no positive assurance that pre-
dation is adverse to the welfare of
the grouse or that their population
would be higher over a period of
years if predators were eliminated.
Possibly the most practical method
of reducing predation is to more com-
pletely utilize the prey species — in
this case, blue grouse — by hunting
them in the fall.

30

Land use trends in recent years
have, in general, been beneficial to
blue grouse. The number of sheep
and cattle grazing on the mountain-
ous portions of the national forests
have been lower and their grazing
has been strictly regulated to prevent
damage to these watershed areas in
recent years. Consequently adequate
ground forage is usually present for
protected nesting sites, as well as the
seasonal food requirements of the
blue grouse. Timber removal on the
national forests has, in recent years,
been on a basis of selective or small
block-cutting, which by producing
semi-open areas is favorable for blue
grouse. This is another example of
where good land management is
good game management.

The Forest Service has found it un-
necessary or have been unable to
keep many of their trails open in re-
cent years. This restricts blue grouse
hunting in some areas; however,
newly created forest access roads
have made it possible to get into
more areas by car each year and the
advent of the "jeep" has made it pos-
sible to drive to high open blue
grouse habitat areas formerly
reached only on foot or horseback.

The management of blue grouse is
closely coupled with the manage-
ment of all the mountain grouse spe-
cies. The fundamental objective of
grouse survey projects is to provide
information that will form a basis for
and improve the management of
grouse so that maximum harvests

consistent with existing populations
can be made by Montana hunters.
These projects include: (1) periodic
censuses of representative grouse
areas over the State to gain popula-
tion trend information, (2) checking
returning hunters at established
points to gain population trend infor-
mation, on relative hunter success
and grouse bagged, and (3) analysis
of records of grouse observed in the
field.

Legal hunting has little effect on
timber grouse populations. This con-
clusion is based on studies in Mon-
tana and other States where it has
been observed that grouse numbers
have not increased in areas where no
grouse hunting was permitted, and in
areas where hunting was p3rmitt9d,
relatively good populations of grouse
existed. In their timbered mountain-
ous habitat, probably less than 10
percent of their range is ever covered
by grouse hunters. Thus, a rela-
tively long mountain grouse season
appears justifiable in western Mon-
tana.

Considering the observed ability of
the blue grouse to become wild after
being hunted, the inaccessibility of
much of its habitat, and the trend
toward management of the moun-
tainous forest lands in a manner fa-
vorable to grouse, it seems probable
that blue grouse are in no danger of
extermination and there should be
"blue bombshells" on the ridges to
test the shooting skill of many future
generations of Montana sportsmen.

31

By Werner Nagel

^exT^ei Nagel is a staff member of the Missouri Conssrvaiion Commission and is nationally-
recognized fcr his writings on natural resource philosophy. At the same time he is a -well
qualified wildlife biologist. This article is a condensation of a Missouri Conservation Commis-
sion bulletin "Predator Control: How and Why." It is reprinted here by permission.

A PREDATOR is any creature that
has beaten you to another creature
you wanted for yourself.

This is a pretty accurate description
of the way many p9ople think about
predators. It's a psrsonal view, how-
ever, and though it is true it isn't
the whole truth. From a broader view,
predation is a way of getting food —
that is, by kilhng and eating hving
creatures. Many animals, including
people, get all or part of their food

this way. If they did not, they could
not live. Thus predation is a natural
and necessary way of life.

The personal view is more com-
mon. It covers animals that cost you
money by eating a creature that be-
longed to you, or animals that take
game, fish or songbirds in which
you're specially interested. It doesn't
include animals that eat creatures
you don't care about. In short, your
views on predators depend mostly on
your personal experiences with them.

32

This personal definition allows an
animal to be considered a predator
at one time and not at another, to
some people and not to others. Take
a red fox for example: a farmer see-
ing a fox kill one of his chickens
knows very well this fox is a preda-
tor. A rabbit hunter who sees a fox
catch a rabbit knows this fox is a
predator, too. In both cases, the fox
beat the man to a creature he wanted
for himself.

But other people's experiences give
them entirely different views. To the
fox hunter, Reynard is a wonderful
sporting animal that offers thrilling
chase. To the nature lover, the red
fox is one of earth's most beautiful,
intelligent creatures. The trapper re-
members that red fox pelts were once
valuable, and may be again. The
eating habits of the foxes don't inter-
fere with the main interests of these
men, so to them foxes aren't preda-
tors.

There's another angle: a man see-
ing a fox digging out field mice may
think of this as predation, but he's
bound to realize that this fox is doing
some farmer a lot of good.

Poultry-thief, rabbit-eater, sporting
animal, beautiful creature, fur-bear-
er, destroyer of destructive rodents —
the fox is all of these and more. What
he is to you depends on your experi-
ence with him. What he really is,
though, equals the sum of all of those
different aspects.

We used foxes as an example be-
cause there are so many strong views
about them. The same things can be
said of any creature that kills to eat:

fish, cats, dogs or hunters, according
to whether or not they beat us in
taking something we want ourselves.
Mostly, though, we used "predator"
to mean wild birds or mammals; on
those, views differ according to our
interests. All views are "right" but
none are the complete animal, the
broad view that gives the whole
story.

Taking the broad view has its pit-
falls, too. It might seem we could set
down in one column all the good
things about a species, in another
column all the destructive things,
then treat the species accordingly.
But this measurement doesn't work.
It could work only if every individual
of the species were exactly like every
other individual in its eating habits
and values. They aren't: individuals
in a species differ in what they eat
and in how they eat, much as hu-
mans do. Some are mighty fine to
have around; a lot you hardly notice
one way or another, and some are
downright bothersome. You can't
manage all individual animals of a
species the same way, any more
than you can treat all people the
same way. In taking the broad view
we have to consider differences be-
tween individuals as well as between
species.

We must not carry the comparison
of animals with humans too far — we
tend to do just that in taking preda-
tors and their acts personally. There
are reasons for this. One is that pred-
ators are most like us in their eating
and actions — and dispositions. An-
other reason is that from childhood

33

on we're soaked in fairy tales and
other literature in which animals act,
talk and think like humans.

Great-great-grandpa probably had
personal tussles with predators.
Panthers were once common, with a
nasty habit of swiping the family calf,
and of joining hobgoblins to follow
late travellers home from the tavern.
So early settlers took big predators
personally— and, if old stories are
true, big predators sometimes took an
early settler personally.

Now that most people never see
bear, timber wolf or panther, you'd
think old horror stories would die out.
But they haven't died even in the
Midwest, where conflicts with great
beasts have given way to pale tri-
umphs over smaller hawks, brought
down with guns more powerful than
those gran'pop used to slay a grizzly.
Today's predators are small and shy,
they'd be most happy if we'd just go
away and leave them alone.

But we aren't going to leave them
alone, as long as some of them beat
us to another creature we want for
ourselves. In fact, we're going to try
to kill the predators that bother us,
and if they're really bothering us,
that's natural. We can be right,
though, without kidding ourselves.
After all, automobiles probably kill
more chickens than foxes do; worms
kill more lambs than coyotes take;
more calves die of "scours" than pre-
dation. Also, if we didn't make chick-
ens easier for predators to catch than
their wild food, they wouldn't catch
so many. (It's often easier to do

34

something about predators than
about our own carelessness.) It is
true that when a predator makes a
habit of killing our poultry the most
practical thing is to get rid of him
as effectively as possible. But when
a predator is not bothering us, the
best thing is to let him alone — so he
can give us those other interests and
values he has. That's justice, and
that's sense.

Killing predators to control damage
is a necessary but very small part of
good management. Much more im-
portant is the fact that most predators
ore of value to us most of the time.
Of the many creatures — fish, mam-
mal, bird — that make all cr part of
their living by killing and eating
other creatures, only a few individ-
uals of a few species ever become
bothersome to us. Yet every v/ild
creature hunts, or is hunted — kills or
is killed. Man does that when he
raises livestock, or hunts and fishes,
or kills to protect his flocks. From
the one-celled bits of life sought by
minnows to the creatures hunted
chiefly by man, no living thing es-
capes the shadow of this struggle.
Predation is a universal law of life.

We couldn't live without this nat-
ural counterbalance to the great re-
productive power of most creatures.
It is nature's insurance that no one
species will crowd out all others and
over-run the earth. We need this in-
surance; the reproductive power of
most wild species is too great for us
to control; the destructive power of
any species out of control is too
great for us to stand.

Predation is also nature's way of
getting rid usefully of weak, stupid,
stunted and diseased individuals.
Through predation, the unfit are
killed before they can breed or
spread disease, and their death is
not a waste because it provides food
for those that are strong. Culling by
predation maintains the sporting
qualities that make hunting and fish-
ing worthwhile.

This is the real meaning of preda-
tion: the normal and necessary work-
ing of a law that benefits all life.
Men are not harmed by this law
when it is working in a natural bal-
ance. When we upset this balance
by destroying natural cover and food
in converting land and water to our
own use, predation can turn on us as
a destructive force. The important
thing to remember is that only by
understanding the principal of nor-
mal predation can we control the
damage when predation is not nor-
mal. When we know why something
happens, it's easier to keep it frcm
happening again.

35

There are two ways of handling
damaging predation: we can avoid
damage by providing protection for
animals in which we're interested;
when this isn't enough, we can re-
duce damage by killing the predatcrs
that are doing it.

Avoiding predator damage is the
best control, when we can do it.
Using land so that plenty of good
natural food and cover is left keeps
more predators busy in their own
back yards — and out of ours. Good
poultry fences and tight barns are
direct protection that few farmers fail
to provide. Taking the annual pro-
duction by hunting and fishing for
predators that are game, food, or fur-
bearing species keeps them from be-
coming too numerous for their normal
food supply. Controlling tame preda-
tors— dogs and cats — keeps them
from needless killing of creatures we
want for ourselves. All these things
are helpful in avoiding predator
damage.

Sometimes these methods aren't
enough — or we don't carry them far
enough. Then we reduce predator
damage we can't avoid by killing the
cmimals that are actually causing it.
The farmer has every right to destroy
any predator that is molesting his
flocks and herds.

Trappers do not explain how to
control all predation; there are too
many kinds. The hawks, owls, foxes,
coyotes and weasels are by no
means the only animals that can
cause us damage: the very creatures
these "predators" feed on may cause
us the most trouble. These include
rabbits, deer, crows, sparrows, mice,
insects — all of which may damage us
by feeding on something we want for
ourselves. Whether or not we call
them so, they are predators as aie
coyotes and hawks. The mice alone
cause us far greater loss than do
the meat-eaters; the insects far out-
class mice as destroyers of property
and profit.

The point is this: though we em-
phasize a few animals as "preda-
tors," that's just a personal viewpoint.
Actually any kind of bird or mammal
may be destructive when it becomes
over-abundant or out of place, and
the vegetation-eaters are m.ost de-
structive of all. The very creatures
maligned as "predators" are actually
our lowest-cost insurance against
this kind of destruction. Only when
they turn to destroying property
themselves is it good business to
"cancel" this insurance — and then
only the destructive individual itself.
Anything else will not profit us and,
most often, can do us only harm.

36

Bighorn lambs are born from mid-May through June. Ewes and their lambs
generally cluster together away from the other sheep. The lambs become
agile at an early age and when but a couple oi weeks old can race top-speed
over rough terrain. Ewes generally mature at 2^2 years, while rams require
3V2 years or more.

• — Photo by W. K. Thompson

Helena, Montana

Sec. 34.66, P. L. & R.

U. S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 50