MONTANA

WINTER ISSUE 1951

VDL. I - NO. 2

STATE OF MONTANA

John W. Bonner, Governor

MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

Elmer Johnson, Chairman A. C. Grande, Jr.

Edward M. Boyes Thomas S. Morgan

William Carpenter Robert H. Lambeth, Secretary

*7<4e GU&iSiman'A. MedAoxpe

The slogan "the greatest good for the greatest number" also
applies to Montana's wildlife and sportsmen. Visitors tell us that
Montana has a great resource in its fish and game. It is our plain
obligation to protect and conserve these resources, just as we would
any others, for our citizens.

But our obligation goes even further. For we are pledged to
extend and restore wildlife throughout the Treasure State, and to
many areas that have seen it depleted over almost a century.
Through scientific management and restoration practices, the Mon-
tana Fish and Game department is now moving along this new trail.

The slogan also emphasizes our duty to see that the enjoyment
and recreation inherent in our wildlife resources are passed on to
the greatest number. There, too, we are embarking on work of estab-
lishing and improving areas that will help guarantee this same en-
joyment for our children and children's children.

£l*+tei j}aU+t<Lan

REPRINT PRIVILEGES

Permission to reprint any of the articles, or portions thereof, appearing in
this magainze is hereby granted, provided a credit line is included.

Your Department's Structure Table of Contents

GOVERNOR

FISHi

conn

rCiRME
ISSION

STATE FISH c+"
GAME WARDEN
Robert La*6Etm

CHIEF OEPUTY
GAME WARDEN
WALTCR EVERlN

1

1

FISHERIES
DIVISION

WILDUFE

DIVISION

1

L

GAME FAR»i

DIVISION

ADMINISTRA-
TION

1

1

MAINTENANCE

PHOTO -LA6

1

FISCAL
DIVISION

PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN

1

i

ENGINEER

PUBLIC

INFORMATION
=4- UEC-iAL

Vol. I — No. 2

Lorraine D. Kurfiss, Editor

Editorial 2

Wildlife Unit 3

Department Personalities 5

Silent Hunter 6

Doe Story 8

Waterfowl Hunting 10

Department Inventory 11

Chukars in Montana 15

Waterfowl Regulations 16

COVER PICTURE

Montanan's all have their
favorite seasons according to
their likes and dislikes. But in
Montana, no season surpasses
the other three in beauty, for the
Treasure State wears all colors
well — the greens of spring and
summer, the multi-colors of fall,
and now it wears equally as
well the bluish-white of its
snowy winter.

At the time SPORTING MONTANA
went to press, John H. Risken, director
of the department's public information
division, was called to Washington,
D. C. on another job for the federal
government. He has supervised and
contributed to this publication besides
handling other public relations and law
work. The Department will miss him,
but wishes him luck in his new en-
deavor. — LK, Editor.

It takes just a fraction of a second,
one careless action, to turn an other-
wise enjoyable hunting trip into a
tragedy which no one can forget.
Taking a chance "just this time" be-
cause a person is too tired to bother
unloading the rifle or shotgun, or be-
cause there may be an opportunity
for another shot on the way home, is
small consolation when the life of a
hunling partner has been snuffed out
or injury is inflicted.

An an integral part of its public in-
formation program, the Montana Fish
and Game department has, for the
past year, directed much of its at-
tention to the reduction of hunting
casualties in the Treasure State.
Working hand in glove with the Na-
tional Rifle Association and the Sport-
ing Arms and Ammunition Manu-

odutcvual:

HUNTING CASUALTIES -

an PutHecedAGSiy eoll

By JOHN RISKEN
Director, Public Information

facturing Company, it has endeav-
ored to make the state's hunting pub-
lic more aware of the capabilities of
the weapons carried on hunting trips
— to incalculate a respect for firearms
in the minds of those who seek rest
and relaxation in Montana's many
hunting areas.

Approximately 150,000 pamphlets
were distributed to sportsmen's
groups and license dealers in the
state in September. Their title was
"The Ten Commandments of Safety,"
and, as implied by the title, the sub-
ject dealt with was the proper han-
dling of firearms. Whether any hunt-
ing accidents were actually avoided
as a direct result of this widespread
pamphlet distribution will probably
never be known, but if only one acci-
dent were prevented, the Department
would feel sufficiently well-rewarded
for the effort made.

Prior to the hunting seasons of last
fall, forms were sent to all game war-
dens to be filled in when a hunting
casualty was reported in their vari-
ous districts. Many questions were
asked in these forms, dealing with
all phases of the hunting trip from
the size of weapon used to the query,
"Were intoxicants present?" As ac-
(Continued on page 32)

p

-

p m

Im

A

^WF • ft

5 W If,; ,.*■

•

Above are professors and students making up the wildlife research study unit at Montana
State University. Top row, left to right; Dan Poole, Missoula; Prof. Melvin Morris; Dr. E. L.
Cheatum (seated), unit leader; Dr. Philip Wright; Summer Dow, Knoxville, Tenn. Bottom row:
Dick Carter, Missoula; Dwight Stockstad, Rapids, S. D.; Wes Woodgerd, Missoula; and Roger
Hungerford, Moscow, Idaho.

WILDLIFE RESEARCH:

a+i catnjxul

Animals can't talk, but they sure
can tell you a lot if you're interested
enough.

Now meet a colony of scientists
and students who are interested
enough, and hear what they're doing
about it.

Roughly ten years ago, the need
was realized by men prominent in
Montana's wildlife program for an
intensive research study unit to in-
vestigate, demonstrate, and dissem-
inate their findings on the state's
wildlife and its problems. Now, in
1951, just such an organization is
celebrating its first birthday on the
campus of Montana State University.

It is comprised of twelve personnel
members including five students —
four of whom are working under
fellowships — four staff members, and
a three-man co-ordinating committee.
The unit is financed by the Montana
Fish and Game Department, Mon-
tana State University, the Wildlife
Management Institute, and the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Co-or-
dinating committee members are Dr.
J. W. Severy, representing Montana
State University, R. H. Lambeth, rep-
resenting the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice and the Wildlife Management In-
stitute. Four one-thousand dollar
(Continued on page 4)

scholarships are sponsored by the
fish and game department.

leader chosen

With financial and moral backing
obtained, the co-operating agencies
set to work to find just the right man
to be unit leader. He had to be a
wildlife biologist with plenty of back-
ground in research work, and one
who could handle students. They
shot for the top man and got him —
Dr. E. L. Cheatum, who was leading
a Pittman-Robertson project on di-
sease studies in wildlife and research
on physiology of the reproduction of
whitetailed deer for the New York
Conservation department at Albany.
He came with good recommenda-
tions: He had attended Southern
Methodist University for three years,
and claimed his BS, MS, and Ph. D.,
degrees at the University of Michi-
gan; he taught bacteriology and hu-
man physiology at John Tarleton
Agricultural college and fresh water
ecology and general biology at
Southwest Texas Teachers' college
and had 1 1 years' experience in wild-
life research in New York State.

assistants

Assistants appointed under Cheat-
um were Prof. Melvin Morris, of the
MSU Forestry school and Dr. Philip L.
Wright of the Zoology Department.
Mrs. Alvina Barclay was named staff
secretary.

The student program, accepted by
the University Graduate Council pro-
vides for the Master of Science De-
gree in Wildlife Technology under
the Biological Science Division, and
the Forestry school has a graduate

program for the Master of Science de-
gree in Wildlife Management.

The students, Dan Poole, Missoula;
Roger Hungerford, Moscow, Idaho;
Dwight Stockstad, Rapids, S. D.; Dick
Carter, Missoula; Wes Woodgerd,
Missoula, and Summer Dow, Knox-
ville, Tenn., are undertaking individu-
al projects under the directions of
Cheatum and his associates. Here's
what they are doing:

botulism

Dan Poole, collaborating with Doc-
tors J. Frederick Bell and William
Hoyer of the U. S. Public Health Lab-
oratory at Hamilton and with Fish
and Wildlife Service personnel, will
conduct an investigation of the spe-
cific sources of botulism toxin poison-
ing ducks. Botulism, perhaps better
known as western duck sickness, is
a form of food poisoning that takes
an annual summer toll of thousands
of waterfowl in the western portions
of the United States, Canada, and in
Mexico. The long-range application
of this study will be the devising of
control measures so as to reduce bo-
tulism losses.

Roger Hungerford wants to deter-
mine the value of certain types of hay
and browse foods for elk. His plan
of action is to construct pens at the
Boyd ranch on the Blackfoot-Clear-
water Game Range acquisition for the
trapped animals wherein there is no
natural food. Natural food may con-
sist of cured native bunch grass and
other common browse. Then sep-
arately, he will weigh the elk and the
amount of food to be offered him. At
(Continued on page 23)

DEPARTMENT PERSONALITIES

Margaret Jennings, cashier for the
Fish and Game Department, is one
who believes that women who leave
the sporting world to the men are de-
priving themselves of probably the
most wholesome hobbies available.

Whether armed
with shotgun or
camera, Margaret
takes advantage of
her leisure time in
the outdoors. Con-
sidering Montana's
wealth of big
game says she,
some of it certainly
is ear-marked for
the female hunt-
ress. That's how
she knew last fall
that somewhere in
the hills there was
an antelope wait-
ing to wear her
tag. So she, with
the aid of her husband, Jim, decided
to find him.

Margaret had never hunted an-
telope before, and the day was not
half over until she realized it was no
cinch. She and Jim trudged many
weary miles, and then, toward the
end of the day, when it seemed as if
antelope had never set foot upon that
ground, Margaret spied her prey.
There was no question about it. She-
had to get him, and she did.

— 9nt>ioduci+t<f MalXfdlet

On the serious side of the sporting
world, Margaret is strictly a business
woman. Her work at the department
involves income accounting and she
deals with approximately 500 license
agents in the state who handle the
sale of hunting
and fishing li-
censes.

Since June of
1944, when she
started working
for the department,
she has become
familiar with many
of her license deal-
ers, if only to rec-
ognize their hand-
writing.

"It's a lot of
work," Margaret
says, "but the
agents are really
good Joes." That
remark is evi-
denced by the frequent boxes of
candy she gets from her dealers.

Margaret and Jim seldom find it
necessary, on long winter evenings,
merely to reminisce over previous
hunting and fishing trips — they can
actually re-live them. With their own
home movies, all they have to do is
sit back on the sofa, relax, and watch
the excursions of previous seasons
unfold in color before their eyes.

Waldo Newton, famous Montana bowhunter.

Definitely in the minority, but in-
creasing in numbers year by year
are those who stalk for big game
each fall with a weapon as primitive
as the sling-shot David used to kill
Goliath.

These are the bowhunters. To them,
the purpose of hunting is not merely
to bag game, but the enjoyment of
combining skill, instinct, split-second
timing, and silence to out-wit their
fleet-footed prey.

At the present time, there are more
than two hundred archers in organ-
ized clubs in Montana. They hail

THE SILENT HUNTER-

from Anaconda, Great Falls, Living-
ston, Missoula, Helena, Bozeman,
Billings, West Glacier, and Brush
Lake Resort.

Probably the most famous of Mon-
tana's bowhunters and certainly a
national figure is Helena's Waldo
Newton who bagged his moose last
fall with three arrows, and who was
featured as cover man on Archery
magazine. He has also contributed
to national sports magazines. Waldo
expresses what every archer feels
when he says that he likes hunting
with a handicap — there's more of a
challenge, and it's more fun.

Today's Robin Hood considers his
a weapon of beauty and romance —
light, deadly, and beautiful. He fig-
ures that his life's energy is put into
every arrow sent into the air. Truly,
the force behind the flying shaft must
be placed there by the archer. At
the moment of greatest strain, he
must draw every sinew to the utmost.
His hand must be steady, his nerves
under absolute control, his eye keen
and clear. He must outsmart the in-
stinctive cunning of his quarry. With
indian silence, he must approach his
game within striking distance; then,
with every nerve taut, he draws his
bow.

Zing! . . . thud! And that's all that
is heard. Then, quick as a flash,
another shaft is released, then
another. His animal is felled.

The bow is generally thought of
by those who do not know, as a

stlte MiSuU ,ajf .the Mill

By LORRAINE KURFISS

primitive and ineffectual weapon
compared to the rifle. This is not so,
for while the arrow does not kill by
shock as does the bullet, it has pene-
tration equal to the highest powered
rifles generally used for big game.
The arrow kills by inducing terrific
hemorrhage and the arrow placed
anywhere in the body cavity is ef-
fectual. Game waste by this method
of hunting is never high.

Bowhunting may well be a poor
man's sport as far as cost is con-
cerned. The complete outfit for the
bowhunter consists of a bow with a
pull of about fifty pounds to as much
more as the hunter can handle, a
dozen blunt arrows for small game,
a dozen broadhead arrows for big
game, a shoulder quiver in which to
carry arrows, a leather shooting
glove, a leather wrist guard and a

file to sharpen the broadheads. The
cost of the complete outfit is about
$40, depending upon the quality of
equipment. Compare that with just
what the average hunter plunks
down on the counter for shotgun
shells during the hunting season.

The average sure, or point-blank,
range is forty to sixty yards and the
odds are very good up to eighty. The
arrow, however, is deadly to the end
of its flight which is about 250 yards,
depending upon the type of pull and
bow used.

Most hunters who take to the field
with bow and arrow were once rifle
and shotgun hunters who missed the
thrill that goes with competition and
handicap. Come fishing season,
they're probably the one who will be
fishing with a willow, a string, and a
bent pin.

^

Courtesy Iowa Conservationist

THE DOE STORY - iUoja ^% u uu^ud?

The old saw, "The hand that rocks
the cradle rules the world," has been
applied to many situations, each of
which illustrated the undeniable
power of womanhood. Though the
class, as whole, has been labeled
the "weaker sex," it is irrefutable that
females treading lightly over the sur-
face of this planet have the upper
hand in most of the affairs of man,
whether the male of the species rec-
ognizes it or not.

As it is in the human world, so it
is in the realms of Odocoileus hemi-
onus and Odocoileus virginianus, or
the mule deer and the white-tailed
deer, respectively, the two types to be
found and hunted within the borders

8

of the state of Montana. Approxi-
mately 150,000 deer find Treasure
state forest and plains to their liking,
and their stay here places the herd-
management job directly in the lap of
the Montana Fish and Game Depart-
ment. Roughly speaking, between
two-thirds and three-fourths of the
total number cited above are doe
deer, and their role in the proper man-
agement program of the various in-
dividual herds is becoming increas-
ingly important.

the "buck law"

In the early days of game manage-
ment, a doctrine came into being re-
lating to the management of deer
herds throughout the United States,

which has been absorbed to some ex-
tent by most of the Western states.
Around the turn of the century, deer
stocks over the nation had been sad-
ly depleted by "meat hunters" and
"skin hunters," the latter taking only
the hide and leaving the meat as
carrion. The doctrine referred to has
become known as the "buck law,"
and it served well when the deer
were in danger of becoming extinct,
or at least reduced to a number
where indiscriminate hunting would
endanger their existence. By allow-
ing the hunting of the male of the
species only, it was not long before
strong gains were noted in population
figures, much to the relief and de-
light of those proponents of the buck
law. Pennsylvania, in 1907, was the
leader in the field, followed by New
York, 1912, Wisconsin, 1915, and
Michigan, 1921.

In addition to the no-doe seasons,
steps were taken to prevent forest
fires and fire hazards, and the elimi-
nation of predators, the deer's natural
enemies. These, combined, made for
a gathering momentum in deer pro-
pagation. Warden surveillance in
keeping poaching activities at a min-
imum was also a factor in the re-
building of the nation's deer stocks.

herd increases

Examples of the ability of deer to
reproduce are legion, some of the
more outstanding coming from North
Carolina, where, in 1916, a survey
showed 1,000 of the animals in the
Pisgah National Forest. Two decades
later, in 1936, this number increased

to the point where more than 10,000
deer occupied the same area, a
1,000% increase. Pennsylvania, deer-
less at the beginning of the 20th cen-
tury, developed a herd that totalled
almost a million by 1935.

Montana did not have an exact
parallel to these two mentioned
states, but its story was similar
enough in content to warrant the ci-
tations set forth to give the reader an
idea of the measures found neces-
sary elsewhere were also adopted
here; viz, the buck law, forest fire pre-
vention, predator control and war-
dens on the job. These, and other
measures, have been utilized to give
this state one of the finest deer herds
in the West. Although never in
danger of complete extinction, a situ-
ation experienced mostly east of the
Mississippi, the local deer population
did , at one time, drop to an alarming-
ly low point. Those were the days
(Continued on page 22)

Courtesy Wisconsin Conservation Department

The Waterfowl Hunting Season in Montana

By Wtptn tyiee.m.a+if Itfatehjjcuul Blala^Ut

Hunting regulations for wild game
are established primarily for one rea-
son. That is, to provide an equitable
harvest that will maintain an ade-
quate breeding population. The U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is charged
with the responsibility of maintaining
an adequate breeding population of
waterfowl and, therefore, hunting
regulations.

In order to sell of surplus stock, a
farmer must know how many head
he has on the ranch and how many
head he wants to keep. The same
principle applies to wildlife. How-
ever, a wild population scattered over
an entire continent poses many prob-
lems concerning what the basic unit
is to be and also the determination
of what the harvest should be.

yearly nose counts

With this problem of harvest in
mind, the waterfowl population is
counted twice each year. One count
is made in January to determine how
the waterfowl came through the hunt-
ing season. The Fish and Wildlife
Service, the various State Game De-
partments and the Republic of Mexico
all cooperate in this winter census.
The second count is made in the
spring when the birds have become
established on their nesting territor-
ies. This count is made through the
cooporeation of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the State Game Depart-
ments, the Dominion of Canada, and

various private agencies including
Ducks Unlimited, and concerns the
variations apparent in what would
be considered the basic breeding
population. These counts may not be
100 per cent accurate but, when taken
over the same area during the same
time of year, they do establish yearly
trends in the over-all waterfowl popu-
lation.

The part the individual State Game
Departments play in aiding the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in making
these counts cannot be overempha-
sized. It has made possible a very-
complete coverage over a necessarily
huge area. For example, the Mon-
tana State Fish and Game Depart-
ment flew over 2,000 miles in addition
to many miles covered by ground
crews counting ducks in order to de-
(Continued on page 28)

10

The Montana Department Takes Stock

As in any other large business, the
Montana Fish and Game Department
took stock of itself at the close of 1950.
The yearly "glance back" is one of
the absolute necessities for all well-
run businesses because what is re-
vealed by the stock taking in many
cases points out new methods to be
utilized for the betterment of the en-
terprise and the welfare of those in-
dividuals working for the enterprise.

Montana is recognized the nation
over as one of the foremost states in
the fields of fish, big game, and game
bird management. It is a recognized
leader due in large part to its vast re-
sources of these wild things, and their

proper management is the direct
responsibility of the Fish and Game
Department.

department structure

The basic organization of the De-
partment is materially unchanged
from the previous year when the
Commission, the 'Department's board
of directors,' designated the State
Fish and Game Warden as its execu-
tive officer and directed that all oper-
ations would function through his of-
fice. Robert H. Lambeth is the State
Game Warden and the Secretary of
the Commission.

The operations of the Department
(Continued on next page)

Below is the shiny Sam W. Mitchell building, new headquarters for many state offices.

-* *f

jgi-

*wr is.

f: L

-!*»'

T l

"H!

■■I

II!

% i c: r r

11
iff

.«*•%*

are many and varied. These include
fisheries, law enforcement, game
farms, wildlife restoration, administra-
tion, public relations and legal, en-
gineering, property custodian, shop
and graphic reproduction.

a new home

One of the most significant events
in the Department's life occurred last
year when the new Sam W. Mitchell
building was completed, and space
was allotted for the use of the Depart-
ment. Through this move, the crowd-
ed condition which existed when the
agency was housed in the Capitol
building was relieved. The main of-
fices are on the fourth floor of the
new edifice, while the photo lab, en-
gineering and accounting offices are
on ihe bottom floor. All personnel
have expressed satisfaction over the
new accommodations.

self-supporting agency

One of the characteristicts of the
Fish and Game Department which
singles it out as unique among gov-
ernmental agencies is its source of
revenue Money to finance the wide-
spread operations cited above comes
entirely from recipts from license
sales, federal aid funds, fines and re-
mitances from confiscation sales. The
Department does not enjoy a legisla-
tive appropriation to finance its func-
tioning.

During the first eight-month period
of the Department's "license year,"
which began May 1, 1950 and ended
December 31, 1950, the following
number of licenses and miscellane-
ous permits were noted:

Resident Bird & Fish $462,297.00

Resident Big Game .... 162,582.00

Tourist Fishing 57,225.00

Non-resident Fishing 35,350.00

Non-resident Bird ..... 2,325.00
Non-resident Big

Game _ 76,800.00

Shipping Permits 1,238.40

Special Moose

Permits 1,900.00

Special Antelope

Permits 41,725.00

Special Elk Licenses . 175.00

Special Deer Licenses 7,440.00

$849,057.40
Less Dealers' Fees _. $ 26,143.30 $822,914.10
Plus 1949 Accounts

paid in 1950 _. $ 4,510.10

Miscellaneous Sales:
General Trappers

License $ 7,500.00

Land Owner Trappers

Licenses 351.00

Beaver Tags 4,453.50

Beaver Permits $13,777.00

Guides Licenses 585.00

Resient Fur Dealer

Licenses 450.00

Certificates of

Identification 403.50

Fur Dealer Agent

Licenses 210.00

Non-resident Fur

Dealer Licenses ... _ 100.00
Minnow Seining

Permits 120.00

Rough Fish Seining

Permit 50.00

Alien Gun Permit 25.00

Outfitters Licenses __ 1,390.00

$29,520.00 $ 29,520.00

Miscellaneous Revenue:

Fines $19,239.55

Sale of Confiscated

Meat and Fish 1,418.57

Sale of Confiscated

hides and furs 8,427.35

Royalty on Beaver

Sold 7.50

12

Extra Beaver Granted. 87.00

$34,346.94 $ 34,346.94

Less returned check _

$891,291.14
554.80

Pittman-Robertson
Income by Federal
Reimbursement

$890,736.34
206,252.60

TOTAL INCOME from
May 1, 1950 to
Dec. 31, 1950

$1,096,988.94

As of the date when the above fig-
ures "were compiled, an estimated
90% of the annual income for the
Department's operation had been re-
ceived. During the period from the
close of the general hunting season
in the fall until the beginning of the
fishing season of the next year, little
income is received by the Depart-
ment.

outgo is up

Like other large businesses, the
Fish and Game Department has been
affected by the upward spiral of
wages and prices of materials. These
have necessitated the curtailment of
an expanded over-all program. Fish-
eries research will be enlarged under
the provisions of the newly enacted
Dingell-Johnson bill which will pro-
vide federal money in the same man-
ner as the Pittman-Robertson bill pro-
vided for wildlife restoration projects.
A further increase in operating costs
will curtail present plans for expan-
sion in upland and migratory bird
work, and other important projects.
An increase in revenue seems to be
indicated.

sports pressure up

Hunting and fishing pressure over
the years has been steadily building
up to a point where interest in these
sports seems to be shared by a large
number of the population of this state.
To illustrate this point, comparative
figures are presented for your per-
usal:

Resident Bird and Fishing Licenses Sold —
1920—70,429; 1930—82,331; 1940—92,645;
1950—160,484.

Non-resident Hunting and Fishing Licenses
Sold— 1920— 1,407; 1930—4,954; 1940—7,227;
1950—28,335.*

* Not yet complete.

Percentage wise, this represents a
gain of 227% in the sale of resident
bird and fishing licenses and a gain
of 1900% in the sale of non-resident
licenses during the 30-year period
from 1920 to 1950.

The growth of the Fish and Game
Department has coincided with the
license sale trend, and it is indicated
that continued expansion of services
to the hunting, fishing and trapping
public will be geared to annual li-
cense sales.

the budget

The annual operating budget is
prepared for our fiscal year from May
1 to April 30 of the following year.
Figures showing expenditures from
the current budget are complete
through November 30 and are as fol-
lows:

Budget Expended

Estimate to Nov. 30

Commission $ 6,250.00 $ 4,238.21

Administration 87,893.00 57,742.17

Public Information .... 15,000.00 5,122.45

Predator Control 39,300.00 25,993.85

(Continued on next page)
13

Miscellaneous 36,000.00 14,059.17

Enforcement 240,000.00 127,370.18

Fisheries 308,184.70 173,336.32

Game Farms 63,392.00 37,998.68

Wildlife Restoration... 188,600.00 112,242.81
University Research

Unit 6,000.00 881.56

Apporpriation by Legis-
lature from Fish and
Game Fund to Pur-
chasing Department.— 1,977.50

general wildlife conditions

It has been demonstrated many
times and in all sections of this state
that what fish and game need most
are suitable habitats in which to live
and thrive free from continual moles-
tation and predation by man, with
limited annual harvests so as not to
impair adequate breeding potential.
The basic management plan then is
simple, but complex problems arise
over economic use of land where the
raising of wildlife conflicts with other
interests. Problems of development
of suitable habitat for introduction of
wildlife or restoring habitats which
have been destroyed by abuse and
problems arising from human inter-
ference must be overcome. Many
persons in wildlife work have often
stated that wildlife is more easily
managed than are the people for
whom it is managed.

Generally wildlife populations
throughout the state are considerably
higher than they were 10 years ago.
This is true except for certain native
upland game birds which are dwin-
dling due to man's encroachment
upon their natural habitat. Fortunate-
ly, introduced species, such as the
ringneck pheasant and Hungarian
partridge are adaptable for the new

14

habitat created by agricultural pur-
suits, and now greatly outnumber all
native species of game birds com-
bined.

The ringneck population was down
40% from the preceding year which
is considerably below the all time
high set in 1941. During the past
year, the bag limit was reduced as
well as the length of the season nor-
mally provided. However, reports
from many areas indicated that the
pheasant population was not as low
as was anticipated and as a result,,
most hunters had a fairly successful
season.

game farm production

Continued operation of three game
farms provided approximately 30,-
500 ringneck pheasants for release in
the state's most suitable areas. Be-
cause pheasants have been released
for 50 years or more in Montana,
either by the game department or by
individuals or sportsmens groups, it
is useless and costly to attempt to es-
tablish pheasants in areas where it
is obvious that suitable habitats do
not exist and all previous attempts
have failed to produce huntable pop-
ulations The cost of each liberated
bird in 1949 was approximately $2.35.
It is evident that too many sportsmen
yet believe that good pheasant hunt-
ing depends upon the number of
game farm birds that are released.
The pheasant habitat is increasing in
proportion to the development of new
irrigation districts. Ordinarily, there
is a lag of several years or more be-
tween development of an irrigation
project and the appearance of the
(Continued on page 27)

THE CHUKAR IN MONTANA - j~ uu j*^

A policy adopted a long time ago
by the Montana Fish and Game Com-
mission has been the introduction into
this state, whenever and wherever it
was possible, of new species of fish,
game and game birds. The Treasure
State originally was endowed with
many different typs of quary, so not
too many new ones have been
brought in. But, of those who have
found Montana their foster-home, the
Chukar partridge presents the most
interesting background and most

promising future.

The Chukar (Alectoris graeca chu-
kar) is native to northern India, Af-
ghanistan and Napal, and has cous-
ins bearing various degrees of re-
semblance roaming the vast reaches
of Central Asia. Before the turn of
the century, attempts were made in
Massachusetts and Nova Scotia to
transplant these game birds, but they
met with failure because of the cold,
rainy weather, to which the Chukar
(Continued on page 26)

15

Courtesy U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Presented by Clarence Cottam, As-
sistant Director, Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Washington 25, D. C, before the
annual meeting of the International
Association of Game, Fish, and Con-
servation Commissioners, Memphis, Ten-
nessee, September 15, 1950.

Few of us in the conservation fraternity
sigh with nostalgia when the conservation
turns to the great duck kills of several decades
ago. To thousands of gunners, that age of
waterfowl slaughter stands out as the period
of "good hunting." It would be wonderful,
we readily admit, if those great flights of
waterfowl still filled the sky during their fall
migration. It would be wonderful, we agree,
if we were thus enabled to provide better
hunting for the million-and-a-half additional
hunters that we have today over and above
the number of nimrods of even a few years
ago. We all know, however, that the inor-

THE WHY OF
MIGRATORY
WATERFOWL
REGULATIONS

dinate kills of the "good old days" can never
again be permitted. Indeed, I believe that
further restrictions ultimately are inescapable
unless more effective public support and
sportsmen's cooperation are forthcoming.

A great many hunters can remember the
time when the daily legal bag was as much
as 25 birds — or at least 10 birds, as in the
1930's and early 1940's. These hunters,
though less acquisitive than the early gun-
ners, have not become reconciled to the pres-
ent limitations.

the big question

"Why," they clamor, "must our daily bag
bag limit be set at such a low figure as four,
five, or six birds Why are we not per-
mitted to hunt earlier and later in the season?
Why are we restricted to a miserly 35, 40, or
55 days — when we used to hunt for 60, 70, or
even 90 days, or all winter? Why can't we
have to suffer a reduction of days when we
choose a split season. Why can't we use live
decoys?"

The "why's" of our hunting regulations
seem to be the burning questions of the day.
The answer is obvious when we understand
the problem facing us today — a problem aris-
ing from the marked decline of waterfowl
populations and a marked increase in hunt-
ing pressure.

Waterfowl and most other wildlife have al-
ways receded before the pressure of an ex-
panding civilization. Human occupancy of the
land, with its cultivation, drainage, lumber-
ing, pollution — all these and many other fac-
tors have cut deeply into wildlife habitat.
During the recent National emergency, the
cultivation of more land was intensified and
the deforestation of our watersheds was ac-
celerated. Our increasing human population
and the growing needs of a people desirous
of an improved standard of living inevtitably

16

will bring about still further destruction. It is
manifestly impossible to continue to reduce
waterfowl habitat and still maintain waterfowl
habitat and still maintain waterfowl popula-
tions at a level that 'will permit extravagant
hunting.

habitat situation

The loss of habitat has been the primary
cause of the decline in waterfowl populations.
Less habitat is available for the production of
waterfowl; there are fewer areas in which the
birds can find santuary and respite from hunt-
ing pressure; and there is less and less marsh-
land to provide sustenance for the migrating
and wintering flocks. Drainage in America
has been excessive and continuous. At pres-
ent, we have nearly 90 million acres of our
land in organized drainage districts and an-
other 50 million acres in unorganized drainage
enterprises, n the past eight years, with Gov-
ernment subsidy or help, some six million acres
of land have been drained; yet, during the
past 20 years the Fish and Wildlife Service
and conservation departments of our 48 States
have together restored less than 4V2 million
acres of waterfowl habitat. A similar trend
in the destruction of waterfowl habitat has
occurred in the agricultural belt of the Ca-
nadian prairies. At the turn of the cen-
tury there were approximately 3V2 million
acres under the plow. Today there are up-
wards of 50 million acres in agriculture, and
much of the rest is under heavy grazing.
With such destruction of habitat, it is sur-
prising that we have as many waterfowl left
as we have at present.

Aside from the destruction of habitat
through competition or conflict with other
ecomonic interests, the problem of wise water-
fowl management has been intensified by the
growing popularity of the sport of wildfowl-
ing. After the war, workers had increased
hours of leisure and higher wages, soldiers
had come home determined to enjoy the fruits
of their victory and to put to use their newly
acguired knowledge of the use of firearms
and ammunition. As a result, more and more
hunters joined the ranks of the wildfowlers.
Hunting, as a recreation, was played up by
advertisers, sportsmen's organizations, and

game departments, and the increased sale of
guns and shells was accompanied by an in-
creased sale of duck stamps. In recent years,
over a million more hunters than during the
prewar period bought duck stamps. In fact,
in a little more than a decade, four persons
were gunning for ducks where only one was
hunting before.

the obvious WHY

With fewer ducks and four times as many
hunters, it is inevitable that the apportion-
ment of the supply means fewer birds per
hunter. This is a simple bit of arithmetic and
the most obvious reason for the why of the
present waterfowl regulations. Most State
administrators face the same problem in even
greater degree in the management of upland
game. The basic reason for all regulations,
whether they be concerned with strictly local
or with migratory game, is to gear the har-
vest to the production surplus.

By authority of the laws of the United
States, under the terms of the conventions
with Great Birtain (Canada) and Mexico, the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged
with the responsibility for managing our
waterfowl resources. Provision is made by
law — as it should be — for hunters to take the
harvestable increase whenever that increase
is sufficient to permit the hunting without en-
dangering the breeding stock. What the har-
vest should be, and in what manner and at
what times it should be taken, must be de-
termined by the Service, which works in
close cooperation with the States.

As the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged
by law with the preservation of our water-
fowl resources, any harvest by hunters must
of necessity be based upon the annual in-
crement and a long-term consideration of the
population. Production and harvest must be
so geared that each year there will remain
an adequate capital stock of breeding birds.
In preparing the regulations for any season,
the Service must consider the probable sup-
ply for the following year, the next 10 years,
and the next 50 years. To proceed other-
wise would be an abuse of a public trust and
a breaking of faith with posterity. Within the

(Continued on next page)

17

limitations of providing annually for an ade-
quate breeding stock, it is the duty of the
Service to make the regulations as liberal as
the supply will permit. Furthermore, the pub-
lic has every right to expect that any harvest
will be taken on as equitable a basis as
natural factors of supply, distribution, habitat,
climate, and necessary administrative restric-
tions will permit. Here again we see the
why of the waterfowl regulations. Working
in cooperation with the States, the Fish and
Wildlife Service determines the status of
waterfowl, and then recommends suitable
hunting regulations for the United States, be-
cause only a Federal agency can administer
laws pertaining to a National and mobile re-
source— a resource held in common by all the
people rather than by those of a few clubs, a
single State, or even by those of a group of
States.

clamor for more kill

From the point of view of those who must
enforce regulations to conserve this National
resource, the problem of public relations is
greatly complicated by the progressive but
continual loss of waterfowl areas. Although
the flights of ducks and geese are dwindling,
when viewed on a long-time basis, our in-
comparable network of good roads and con-
stantly moving human population causes the
birds to be seen now by more people than ever
before. As the marshlands and potholes are
drained, the waterfowl are forced to rest on
rivers, lakes and reservoirs near human habi-
ations. Moreover, because too many of such
areas have little or no food for the migrating
birds, they must forage on adjacent crop lands
— thereby giving rise to serious problems of
depredation. Thus, with more birds being
seen, an increased amount of damage being
done appears, and these occurrences being
given more and more publicity, and the result
is a great clamor from the sportsmen for an
increased kill and longer seasons.

We cannot yield to the demands of special-
interest advocates, nor to those of sincere but
unqualified "experts." If we were, we must be
certain that our error of judgment favors the
continuance of wildfowling as a source of rec-
reation for future generations of Americans.

It is difficult to know just where to draw
the line between the how and the why of the
waterfowl regulations. You will know how
the Fish and Wildlife Service spark-plugs the
great cooperative surveys that serve as the
basis for the waterfowl regulations. You
know how the various State game depart-
ments and the Dominion and the Provincial
Governments of Canada, and private agencies
including the Wildlife Management Institute,
Ducks Unlimited, and private clubs cooperate
with the Service in gathering information for
the winter inventories or for the detailed
quantitative reports of production on the sum-
mer breeding grounds. With the advice of the
cooperating organizations, the Service inter-
prets the information obtained through these
surveys, and then makes its recommenda-
tions.

In recommending regulations that permit an
equitable harvest of the increase, the Service
must, of course, first determine the population
trends of the waterfowl in the different fly-
ways. If the increase is sufficient, the
hunter should be permitted to take more birds

My Gawd! I didn't know the mist
was this thick.

18

— either through an increased bag, a longer
season, a longer shooting day, or by a com-
bination of these and other measures. Ob-
viously, a decrease in waterfowl necessitates
more restrictions.

population and pressure

In the management of waterfowl on a fly-
way basis, due consideration must be given
both to waterfowl population densities and to
hunting pressure. Unfortunately, this invari-
ably leads to some difficulties, for the simple
reason that the average hunter is heartily in
favor of good conservation for everyone ex-
cept himself. The average hunter approves
of flyway management as long as his State
is granted the most liberal regulations. As
soon as a neighboring State receives more
liberal regulations, however, he charges the
Service with discrimination. Obviously, there
is some overlapping between flyways and
particularly near the boundaries of flyways
in the northern tier of States; yet, in consider-
ing broad belts, the flyway concept is bio-
logically sound. It is based on the informa-
tion obtained from banding more than a mil-
lion waterfowl.

When pointing out some of these difficul-
ties, we might look first at the Atlantic Fly-
way, which (during the 1949-50 season, had
20 percent of the birds, and where 12 per-
cent of the Nation's hunters took 12 percent
of the Nation's waterfowl kill. This flyway is
a huge funnel, its birds coming to the Atlantic
seaboard from base regions in the Canadian
sub-Arctic and from many of our northeastern
and Lake States. As the mouth of this funnel
is in the Chesapeake Bay area, vast numbers
of ducks and geese are concentrated in the
State of Maryland during a large part of the
hunting season. Because of this, many Mary-
land hunters have come to believe that the
waterfowl resource is inexhaustible, that the
ducks and geese they see are their ducks
and geese to hunt and kill, and that a miserly
limitation of four ducks in the daily bag is the
spiteful dictate of "chair-warming bureau-
crats." As a result of this attitude and the
attitude of a few courts, it has been very dif-
ficult to enforce the regulations — particularly
as to baiting — in much of the Chesapeake Bay
area.

thumbs down on bait

It has been virtually impossible to convince
some Maryland hunters that hunting by bait-
ing cannot be allowed because the practice
would result in an inordinate kill — not only in
Maryland, but in every other State which cer-
tainly would also demand the right to use
bait for decoying and holding ducks. If bait-
ing is to be permitted in Maryland, it must be
permitted in other States — and this, incident-
ally, a majority of the sportsmen in our coun-
try will not tolerate. Maryland gunners also
forget that if baiting were permitted in Maine
and New York, for example, more birds would
be held in the north where they would be in-
accessible to Maryland hunters — and might
be killed by late fall ond early winter storms.
The over-all effect would be disastrous, as we
learned when baiting was permitted.

The Mississippi Flyway, of course, offers
still other perplexing problems which must be
considered when regulations are formulated.
This flyway is like the Atlantic in that it had
approximately 20 percent of the waterfowl
wintering in the United States during the past
winter season. Unlike the Atlantic Flyway,
however, the Mississippi Flyway had 43 per-
cent of the Nation's hunters who took 46 per-
cent of the waterfowl killed in the United
States during the 1949-50 season. In other
words, with only slightly more than 20 per-
cent of the birds, the hunters in this flyway
accounted for nearly 50 percent of the Na-
tional bag of ducks and geese.

the mississippi problem

This tremendous hunting pressure makes it
necessary — unpleasant though it is — to place
restrictive measures on the hunters of the
Mississippi Flyway, and this explains why the
Service is at present being charged with dis-
criminatory regulations, by sportsmen and
some of their leaders in Minnesota, Illinois,
and Louisiana. It is mandatory, however, that
in this flyway the length of season and the
daily bag and possession limits be set at a
relatively low figure in order to reduce the
excessive kill. Although it is true that the
daily bag limit is low and the season shorter
than that of any other flyway, nevertheless

(Continued on next page)

19

the daily bag and season still compare favor-
ably with those set by most of the States for
the various species of upland game birds
over which the States have sole jurisdiction.
For example, in 1949, Illinois hunters were
permitted to take two cock pheasants a day,
with a possession limit of four in a 15-day
season. Ohio hunters could take two pheas-
ants per day; while Minnesota hunters, in
from about five to fifty percent of the State,
had to be content with a daily bag of three
pheasants, three sharp-tailed grouse, or three
Huns, and they were granted a very short
season. The season was closed on some
other of their upland game. I am not criti-
cising these State regulations, as they un-
doubtedly were just and equitable. They are
given to show by comparison that all regu-
latory agencies — Federal and State — must at-
tempt to gear harvest with production, and
must consider both hunting pressure and the
harvestable surplus that is available. They
show that the problem of boundaries is
equally as perplexing to the States in regu-
lating hunting of non-migratory game as it is
to the Federal Service in managing the mi-
grant species.

zone agitation

In the Central and Pacific Flyways, where
there are the large States of Texas, Cali-
fornia, and Montana, there is a great deal
of agitation to split these and other States
into different hunting zones. Considering only
the local or State problem, this attitude is
easily understood. Local sportsmen can
present a logical case for the dividing of such
States as California, Montana, or Texas — or,
coming eastward, Missouri, Illinois, New York,
or New Hampshire, where there is constant
demand for zoning. But, if some States are
granted zones for waterfowl hunting, it will
be almost impossible to refuse the requests
of other States for zones that would be based
on county lines, drainage districts, or an "area
bounded on the north by Highway 6, on the
east by the Red River, south of MacQuarry's
thence westward to the Turnpike." Even
Delaware, with only three small counties, has
been so insistent in her demands to be zoned
that her Congressmen and Senators have in-
troduced several congressional bills to force

the Service to recognize in effect two great
States of Delaware. It will be obvious that
zoning a State has the effect of materially
lengthening the shooting season in that State,
as neither the State nor the Service can pre-
vent the hunters from migrating from one
zoning to the other in that State, and thereby
enjoying a double shooting season. It de-
finitely favors the wealthy sportsmen. Such
a privilege granted one State logically would
be demanded by all other States. The major
objection to granting that priviege is that the
supply of waterfowl will not permit it. Fur-
thermore, it is discriminatory against the aver-
age hunter of low or moderate income. From
a National viewpoint, it is obvious that zon-
ing would increase the kill far beyond what
annual reproduction could permit. Conse-
guently, the Service has been compelled to re-
fuse these requests.

state adjustments

In the last few years, since it has become
necessary to reduce the season to periods
ranging from 30 to 55 days, the Service has
permitted each State to determine its own sea-
son within a framework — a continuous period
or two shorter equal seasons — within a 92-day
period extending from about October 6 to 7
to about January 6 or 7. Thus, within the
over-all period or framework set up by the
Service, each State has been enabled to ad-
just the time of the harvest as closely as pos-
sible to its own conditions and requirements.
The purpose of the framework, of course, has
been to achieve some degree of continuity
among the States, and thereby to prevent
an excessive kill and to equalize, in so far as
is possible, the hunting privileges enjoyed by
people living along the border of a State and
by those living in the interior.

The Service has been compelled to insist
that certain adjoining States have the same
season. By way of illustration, it may be
pointed out that Arkansas, Louisiana, Ten-
nessee, and Mississippi have in common the
Mississippi River as a boundary line. Be-
cause of the meandering river, portions of
one State are often encircled by portions of
another, and exact boundary lines are not
always known. In fairness to the hunters
of each State, we have felt that here we must

20

insist upon reasonable uniformity of season
in these four States.

staggered seasons

Staggered seasons, with rest days between
days of hunting, would be popular in many
quarters. Large clubs, especially, would like
see a season in which two or three shooting
days per week were authorized. The stag-
gered season was put to a test in 1934-35,
when 30 shooting days were provided in a
season of two or three months (whichever
the State selected). The kill of waterfowl dur-
ing those 30 days was as great as the kill
during a 70-day season of continuous shoot-
ing in a year when more hunters were in the
field and the bird populations were much
greater. Because it is well known that larger
bags can be made after "rest days," we must
deny requests for a staggered season — in the
interest of the waterfowl resource and the
future of wildfowling.

The use of sun time, instead of clock time,
has obvious merit in designating shooting
hours. The use of sun time reduces the com-
plications of time zones and daylight-saving
time, particularly along a broad and indef-
inite belt between time zones. Local papers
usually print the clock time of sunrise and
sunset, making it easy for hunters to comply
with the regulations. If a State within a
single time belt desires to choose a specific
opening and closing hour, this can be done
by prescribing those hours completely within
the limits of the sun time prescribed by the
Federal Service.

In certain parts of the country, hunters
complain about the regulations that prohibit
hunting prior to one-half hour before sunrise
and later than one hour before sunset. As
with other regulations, these restrictions have
been formulated more for the sake of the
ducks than for the convenience of the hunt-
ers. Ducks must eat and rest if enough are
to survive to return to the breeding grounds
in the spring. Each year, an individual duck
may be subject to legal hunting for about
six months, beginning early in September in
northern Alaska and Canada and terminating
in March in Mexico.

the hunt, not the bag

All sportsmen worthy of the name learned

long ago that it is the hunt — not the enormity
of the kill — that is worthwhile. If a hunter
bags three or four birds a day, he has enough
for a meal of wild game, and the thrill of a
day in the open must be considered in the
final reckoning. The average hunter has a
season bag in excess of nine ducks, a sur-
prisingly good average. Pheasant and grouse
hunters in most States might envy it.

Occasionally hunters send to the Washing-
ton office of the Service an account of their
hunting expenses. A typical summation
shows that the hunter spends about six dollars
per duck. The disgruntled hunter usualy
follows this statement with the remark: "Six
dollars for one duck . . . bah!" To these
hunters I must point out that the most ex-
pensive round or siroin steak sells for about
one dollar a pound, and most other cuts are
cheaper — if they want cheaper meat. Hunt-
ing game cannot be considered in terms of
its meat value only.

state regulations

Many sportsmen, it is true, recognize the
need of further regulation as a means of pre-
serving their recreation and distributing the
kill more equitably. With this goal in mind,
such well-informed and vigilant sportsmen
have advocated that their States promulgate
with the regulations of the Service. Cer-
tainly it is within the powers of any and
further regulations that will be compatible
every State to limit still further the bag and
season granted by the Service to that State,
and to prescribe further the manner in which
waterfowl shall be taken within its boun-
daries. Thus, where a small group of in-
dividuals may be drawing too heavily upon
the public shooting grounds in a State, the
authorities there may be called upon to limit
the number of trips that any one person may
make to those grounds — or to place a more
restrictive season or bag on the birds in
that State, to require that the birds be tagged,
or to take such other measures as may be de-
sirable for equitable distribution of the kill
in the State.

The fewer and the simpler the regulations
the better. When there is a clamor to liber-
alize or eliminate any regulation, there is

(Continued on next page)
21

one simple, safe, and effective criterion or
yardstick that can be applied to determine
the course of action, and that is simply to
ask ourselves the question: "Will the sup-
ply permit?" Confronted with a request for
a longer day or a longer season, an earlier,
later, or a staggered season, a larger bag, a
zoned State, baiting, the use of live decoys, or
any other measure likely to favor the hunter
as opposed to the birds, the administrator —
if he is mentally honest — has to apply this
yardstick. It must ever be remembered that
our waterfowl are a prize National heritage —
a renewable resource and a product of our
land owned in trust by all our people, so that
any major liberalization granted for one area,
and particularly within a flyway, may logi-
cally be demanded for another, and the effect
may be cumulative.

unity and sportsmanship
The greatest need to insure favorable hunt-
ing and fishing privileges — both State and
Nationally — is for unity of action and an
honest observance of the rules of good sports-
manship. If the staggering illegal kill, which
appears to amount to one-fifth or more of
the legal harvest, could be eliminated and
this loss added to the legitimate bag, and if
the alarming crippling loss which probably
equals the loss from illegal kills could be re-

duced to a minimum through a higher stan-
dard of sportsmanship — for example, through
stopping shooting out of range or flock shoot-
ing, or deliberately spoiling some other
gunner's shoot — there would be fewer doubts
about the future of hunting and fishing in this
country. Certainly the seasons could be ma-
terially lengthened and the bag limits in-
creased. The future of the sport is up to the
sportsman.

The management of this National resource
must be conducted on a National basis,
spearheaded by one Federal agency but
supported by the unity and cooperation of the
State and private organizations concerned
with waterfowl. The problems of maintain-
ing our waterfowl populations are due
primarily to a lack of habitat and the oc-
currence of unfavorable climatic conditions.
Unless and until that habitat can be improved
and rehabilitated through the efforts of private
and governmental agencies, we must safe-
guard our waterfowl heritage and protect it
by rigid regulations, seasons, and bag limits,
and by good sportsmanship and proper
management. That is WHY we have regu-
lations: to preserve and improve for tomorrow
the good hunting that we have today, and to
apportion fairly among our hunters the har-
vestable surplus that is available.

DOE STORY

(Continued from page 9)

when one hunter would take as many

as 100 deer per season.

the crisis

Now we have arrived at what
might be termed the apex of the
cycle. The situation as it stands is
that, instead of danger of extinction,
the deer in the nation's herds have
increased to the point where they are
so numerous that there is insufficient
natural food to support them. This
poses a problem for big game biolo-
gists and conservation departments.
What to do?

The answer is simple, but public
opposition to such action is so ve-
hement that most fish and game
agencies are hesitant to proceed with
it, and grope fruitlessly for an alterna-
tive, which is to be had because of
the inherent nature of the dilemma.
When deer in a certain district are
eating themselves "out of house and
home,' start reducing the herd by
eliminating a pre-determined number
of does and fawns.

"slaughter"

When such a move is made, cries
of "sacrilege," "slaughter," "heart-
continued on page 33)

22

WILDLIFE RESEARCH

(Continued from page 4)
the end of the experiment period he
will weigh the elk and figure the
weight change if any in relation to
the amount of each type of food eat-
en. From this study, Roger will be
able to discover which food the ani-
mal likes most, and which will do him
the most good. This knowledge of the
amount of food required by one elk
will help game men determine the
number of animals a winter range
can support.

The Fish and Game Department
will construct the necessary pens at
the Boyd Ranch for this study.
animals like licks

Another project involving the likes
and dislikes of game animals is be-
ing undertaken by Dwight Stockstad

Summer Dow, student from Knoxville, Tenn.,
inspects antelope jaws for his project.

who hails from South Dakota. He
wants to find out why certain natural
mineral "licks" are being used by big
game animals. First on the agenda
of his plan is to run chemical analy-
ses on licks which are known to be
visited frequently by wildlife, par-
ticularly big game species. Then he
will compare that lick with the soil
surrounding the deposit for a mineral
content check. Next he will run a
chemical analyses on the excretions
of the animals to determine what
their bodies used and what was
passed off. The final step is a direct
observation to calculate what per-
centage of specific animals use the
licks most often.

(Continued on next page)

Dr. Philip Wright displays the pelts of two

types of marten; on the left is a Rocky

Mountain, and on the right is the

pelt of the Selway marten.

Considering that perhaps the min-
eral lick which is available to them
may not be the most desirable,
Dwight has planned a "cafeteria," or
assortment of salts from which the
animals may choose. From an eco-
nomical standpoint, these findings
will aid the Fish and Game Depart-
ment in distributing salt to direct the
wild herds to certain areas in winter,
and away from the grazing lands of
domestic stock.

glacier goat-lick

One of the most interesting mineral
licks in the state is the one known as
"Goat Lick" near West Glacier, Gla-
cier National Park. A tourist attrac-
tion, it is a wide blue outcrop in the
side of the river bank where moun-
tain goats and other animals go to
get their minerals.

An environmental study of winter
game ranges to determine suitability
of environment for mule deer, white-
tailed deer, and elk, is the project
chosen by Dick Carter. His under-
taking will follow former surveys
which point out patterns of distribu-
tion of elk and deer in certain areas
and he will endeavor to establish the
criteria on which big game range can
be evaluated in western Montana in
relation to apparent requirements for
whitetailed deer, mule deer, and elk.
In other words, Dick wants to know
why one area is more suitable than
another for a specific type of big
game animal. He will study inten-
sive areas every month, and make
extensive area studies in early and
late winter, examining the territories
for forage density, forage exposure,

snow depth, cover types, and slope.
wild vs. tame

With high hopes of obtaining the
necessary facilities, another student
by the name of Wes Woodgerd will
make a survival study on game farm
pheasants and wild pheasants in or-
der further to evaluate the game farm
as a management tool. He will in-
vestigate the vitamin A content of
eggs, fertility and hatchability, di-
sease, frowth, weights, and mortality
of both game farm and wild birds to
determine why survival of wild
pheasants is higher than that of tame,
or bird farm pheasants.

The success of this project is de-
pendent upon facilities available to
the Moiese station this spring.

The Western Montana Fish and
Game Association at Missoula out of
interest in this project, has already
contributed $1,000 toward initiating
this Moiese area as an experiment
center, and may continue that con-
tribution annually for the next two
years.

age, please

Sumner Dow, a student from so far
south that rabbits are big game, will
do research on age determination in
antelope. He will use the teeth of
antelope of known ages to set up a
standard measuring device. A sim-
ilar study has been done on deer,
and this year those results were used
in determining ages of deer in the
Thompson and Fisher river area. The
antelope results will help set maxi-
mum kill on these animals each year
in order to keep herd balances and
will aid in forming better manage-

24

ment programs for the antelope. The
National Bison Range has offered
space for containment of a small herd
of antelope to provide known-age
specimens for this study.

The National Bison range is also
providing an experimental herd of
bull and cow elk to aid the unit in
another project under the supervision
of Dr. Cheatum and Dr. Wright to de-
termine facts hitherto not well estab-
lished on the breeding habits of elk.

The study will include more precise
checks on the gestation period,
whether cows have recurrent heat
cycles during the same breeding sea-
son, whether yearling bulls are fer-
tile, and under what conditions year-
ling cows may breed. They will also
examine known age embryos from
elk so as to provide a measuring tool
for determining the breeding dates
and the duration of the breeding sea-
(Continued on page 35)

I NEVER GET SHOT AT WHEN I WEAR THESE!

25

THE CHUKAR IN MONTANA

(Continued from page 1 5)
was not accustomed. Because of the
climactic conditions prevalent in the
eastern part of the United States,
game experts state that it is doubtful
whether successful planting and pro-
pagation will ever be accomplished
there.

the trek west

When the famous quotation, "Go
West, young man," was uttered, it
was heeded by those interested in
seeing that the Chukar got a foot-hold
in North America. Successful intro-
ductions of the pound-and-a-half
gamester were made in 1930 in Idaho
and South Dakota. Reports state that
these stocks have been doing very
nicely, and that most of the Rocky
Mountain states east of the Continent-
al Divide afford the ideal habitat
since the climate is very similar to
that of the birds native country.

Last year, for the first time, the

State of Washington, one of the pio-
neers in Chukar importation, had an
open season on the birds. A careful
selection of this states brood stock
seems to have proven beneficial. Ini-
tial stocks from India were taken
from areas of low altitude and re-
leased in high, plateau areas. Now,
the effort is being made to secure
the birds from the type of habitat in
which they are to be released, and
this apears to be working out satis-
factorily.

good luck in montana
Montana's present brood stock
came from Washington last summer.
One hundred and forty Chukar eggs
were shipped to the Billings Game
Farm where they were tended by J. R.
Wells, superintendent of game farms,
and his assistants. Nearly 100% of
the eggs hatched out, and present-
ly 104 Chukars strut within the con-
fines of the Billings establishment.
(Continued on page 31)

26

MONT. DEPT. TAKES STOCK

(Continued from page 14)
minimum cover required for pheas-
ants.

deer and antelope

Deer and antelope in Montana are
more than holding their own, and
are on the increase in some parts of
the states eastern ranches. How
large these populations should be-
come is dependent upon the relation-
ship of each species of wildlife with
other uses of the land. Control meas-
ures have been necessary each year
for the past few years to reduce popu-
lation deer and antelope in areas
where the population of such game
had increased to the critical number
and damage to agricultural crops
was becoming serious. It is over-
optimism to believe that a large game
population can be maintained in such
areas by seeking methods of keeping
game away from crops by fencing
and herding; nor can it be expected
that the Fish and Game Commission
can ever purchase or maintain public
wildlife land sufficient to feed all the
game in any region. Our manage-
ment program must be to keep such
game populations at or below the crit-
ical number where severe damage
occurs either to agricultural crops or
to the habitat itself. Limited kills by
hunters of either sex of animals, or
hunters choice so far has been the
best management tool to accomplish
a reduction in overpopulation.

Special seasons on moose, ante-
lope, deer and elk under special per-
mits are justified when the hunter-de-
mand far exceeds the supply of ani-

mals. It is not conceivable that an un-
restricted season can ever again be
declared on moose or mountain
sheep. In every accessible area, the
use of limited license control is the
only means of preventing an over-kill
on elk, deer and antelope.

elk transplanting

In order to help bring the number
of elk in the Northern Yellowstone
herd in line with available food sup-
plies, a controlled reduction of elk
within the park was conducted by the
Park Service during the winter of
1949-50. Considerable interest in this
operation was shown by sportsmen
and other agencies to trap and trans-
plant as many of these elk as pos-
sible.

Prior to transplanting, agreements
signed by landowners had to be se-
cured, consenting to transplanting in
their areas.

A fine spirit of conservation was ex-
hibited by sportsmen and individuals
all of whom donated time and money
to hire trucks for transplanting elk.
Sportsmen from Powell, Granite and
Mineral counties arranged for trucks
for transplanting elk into areas in
those counties. One rancher from
Custer sent his own trucks to the park
and hauled elk to the Pine Ridge area
located in Big Horn and Yellowstone
counties.

The Park Service usually charges
$5 per head of elk trapped as the
actual cost of trapping. This fee was
waived during the operation because
the Fish and Game Department sup-
plied the hay used to bait the traps.
(Continued on next page)

27

Below is a list of the areas and the
numbers of elk transplanted:

Superior 26

Pine Ridge 25

Horseshoe Hills _ 47*

Garnet Range 212*

Total 310

'Gallatin County.

'Powell and Granite Counties.

law enforcement

An average of 48 deputy game
wardens have been covering the
state during the past 12 months. An
additional district warden supervisor,
was appointed for the central Mon-
tana territory with Great Falls as
headquarters. Two districts do not as
yet have warden supervisors.

A total of 639 arrests was made for
the year 1950. Eight cases were dis-
missed and 10 defendants were found
not guilty. Forty-nine had their li-
censes revoked, and 36 received jail
sentences in addition to fines. The
average fine imposed amounted to
$47 for all types of violations. October
and November were the months dur-
ing which the greatest number of vio-
lators were apprehended. One per-
son out of every 245 who purchased
a hunting or fishing license was ar-
rested during the year for a fish and
game law violation.

The inventory shows that the state's
wildlife resources have been main-
tained at a high level and that the
trust vested in the Montana Fish and
Game Commission for the benefit of
the populace of this state has been
well and faithfully executed.

28

WATERFOWL HUNTING SEASON

(Continued from page 10)
termine the trend of nesting birds.
Other states do similar work in their
own areas. The U. S. Fish and Wild-
life Service concentrates on this type
of work on the Canadian and Alas-
kan breeding grounds. This work
pays off in the more complete man-
agement of the waterfowl resource.

a third factor

This yearly trend in the total breed-
ing population is then incorporated
with a third factor, the success that
the nesting birds had on the breeding
grounds. Thus, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has two checks on the total
waterfowl population and an addi-
tional check on the success of the
nesting season. Armed with these
facts and figures they can apportion
to each flyway the number of birds
that can be killed without cutting into
the breeding stock.

The average daily bag of hunters
and the number of hunters for each
state within the flyway are being de-
termined by the states for each hunt-
ing season. These averages if taken
over a long period of time, provide
reliable figures on how many birds
can be expected in the hunters' bag
during an average season. These
figures, plus the estimate of the har-
vestable surplus for the flyway, pro-
vide the Fish and Wildlife Service
with a basis for the hunting season
necesary to remove the birds. The
methods used to regulate the kill are
of course well known, as: length of
season, bag limitation, hours of hunt-
ing, and gun limitations. After the
proper restrictions have been deter-

mined for the maintenance of the
breeding stock, the states involved
are given as much choice as possible
in the season desired.

montana's 1950 season
The State of Montana was given a
choice in 1950 of a season of 45 con-
secutive days, or a split season con-
sisting of two 18-day periods. In ad-
dition, they were given the choice
of opening the season on any one
of the following dates: October 6, 13,
20; November 3, 17, December 1 or
December 19, providing that the sea-
son did not close later than January
5, 1951. If a split season were chosen,
at least two weeks must elapse be-
tween the close of the first period and
the beginning of the second period.

The season chosen by the State of
Montana for 1950 was the split sea-
son of two 18-day periods, the first
beginning on October 6 and the sec-
ond period beginning on November
17.

At first glance, it would seem an
easy matter for the Fish and Game
Commission to pick a season from
the several choices offered by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. However,
when you take into consideration
that: (1) The hunters throughout the
entire state should be given an equal
oportunity to hunt waterfowl, (2) The
State of Montana stretches east and
west over a distance of approximate-
ly 550 miles involving mountains,
plains and intermediate areas (be-
cause of the north-south migration of
waterfowl, the distance through the
state from north to south does not
exert a major influence on the hunt-

ing), (3) The extent of waterfowl hunt-
ing seems to be primarily dependent
upon the weather which is extremely
difficult to predict, (4) Water areas in
the eastern end of the state are gen-
erally frozen over completely by
November 1, and consequenty an
early season is desired, while the
water areas in the western end of the
state stay open later and the hunters
are desirous of a season which runs
into December, and (5) The length of
the season is limited by the choices
extended by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. When these points, and they
are only a few of the many involved,
are taken into consideration and just-
ly weighed one against the other by
the Fish and Game Commission, the
difficulty involved in picking a sea-
son to satisfy everyone becomes
more apparent. All too often, we are
prone towards criticism of a hunting
season that does not suit our particu-
lar situation. We sometimes tend to
forget the over-all problem of con-
sidering the entire state and its peo-
ple as a unit. The worth of a hunting
season cannot be judged from the
praises or gripes of individuals but
only from the general satisfaction or
dissatisfaction displayed by majori-
ties.

a good season

From the hunters' standpoint, the
1950 waterfowl hunting season in
Montana was the best of the past
three seasons. The past three sea-
sons are the only ones on which a
concerted effort has been made by
the State Fish and Game Department
(Continued on next page)

29

to obtain kill records. There is really
only one way to judge the worth of a
hunting season and that is by the
number of birds bagged by the in-
dividual hunter. The average daily
bag of waterfowl has risen from 1.3
birds per hunter in 1948 to 1.9 birds
per hunter in 1950. Perhaps this
does not seem like much of an in-
crease, but if all of the Montana hunt-
ers who bought duck stamps hunted
for only one day it would mean about
18,500 birds added to the bag for that
day.

The number of waterfowl hunters,
as determined from duck stamp
sales, in the state varies slightly from
year to year. During the past four
years the number of duck stamps
sold in the state has varied from a
low of 30,858 in 1950, to a high of 36,-
065 in 1948. It was determined that
almost 20 per cent of the duck stamp
buyers in 1950 did not hunt ducks
during the first half of the season, but
it was also determined that the num-
ber of hunters under 16 years of age
who are not required to have a stamp
amounted to almost the same figure.
Therefore, the number of hunters in
the field totals about the same as the
actual duck stamp figure.

arriving at a figure

In order to determine the total kill
for the season, we use the number of
waterfowl hunters, times the aver-
age number of birds per hunter per
trip to the field, times the average
number of trips made to the field by
the hunter. For example, to deter-
mine the total kill for the first half of
the season, we use the duck stamp

figure for a base, times the previous-
ly cited average number of birds per
hunter per day of 1.9, times the aver-
age number of trips each hunter
made to the field which was calcu-
lated as three. We then have a total
kill for the first half of the season of
175,900 birds. Computations have not
been completed for the determination
of a comparable figure for the second
half of the season.

Perhaps, by now, the reader is
wondering where we get our informa-
tion since it is an almost impossible
task to contact all of the hunters in
the state. In order to eliminate the
task of contacting all hunters, we
have established voluntary checking
stations in three areas and these are
run each year in the same manner
and on the same days. This method
does not give us total information,
but it does provide us with a good
comparable check of the success
within a prescribed area from one
year to the next. There has been one
checking station at Great Falls which
has given us a yearly sample of hunt-
er success around Valier, the Fair-
field Bench, Freeze-Out Lake, the Fort
Shaw area, and the Augusta area;
another station at Missoula has given
us yearly samples from the entire
Flathead Valley, and, also, that sec-
tion of the Clark's Fork area around
Perma; another station has sampled
the Bitteroot Valley area. As pre-
viously stated, this method does not
sample the entire state, but it is rea-
sonable to assume that if the kill is
greater in these sample areas, it is
also greater in the remaining portions

30

of the state. The 1950 waterfowl kill
was found to be greater than for pre-
vious years at all stations. In addi-
tion to these stations, we also have
personal interviews with hunters,
card questionnaires sent to hunters,
warden checks and other additional
voluntary checking stations, in order
better to determine the kill.
species determination
Another bit of information gained
from our checks of the hunters bag of
waterfowl is the species killed and
what per cent each species contrib-
utes to the total bag. Any Montana
hunter realizes that he kills more mal-
lards than any other duck. We find
that he not only kills more mallards
than any other species, but that mal-
lards constitute 65 per cent of the
bag. The remaining 35 per cent of

the bag is distributed through 16
species of ducks and two species of
geese. However, the five most im-
portant ducks are mallards, bald-
pates, pintails, green-winged teals,
and shovellers which make a total of
approximately 87 per cent of what the
hunter can expect to bag in Montana.
The best hunting regulations are
made when the information on the
subject species is the most complete.
It is the aim of the Montana Fish and
Game Department, in the interest of
its hunters, to supply information see-
to none on the waterfowl conditions
within the state. This of course will
involve more intensive work by the
State Fish and Game Department
but, in addition, will also require a
lot of willing cooperation from hunters
and sportsmen.

THE CHUKAR IN MONTANA

(Continued from page 26)
According to Wells, a release of some
of these birds may be made next fall.

If this release takes place during
the coming Autumn, it will be by no
means the first to take place in Mon-
tana. The first release of record was
made in 1934 when eight of the birds
were set loose. Since that time, 1,200
more Chukars were freed, with the
largest number being released in the
1943-1944 period. In those two years,
473 were placed on their own.

The habitat generally preferred by
the Chukar consists of high, barren,
cheat-grass hills with rock slides.
Other game birds and animals prefer
lusher living, so there is litle compe-
tition with other species for their
homesites. Definite figures are not

available on the ability of the Chukar
to survive heavy snows and severe
cold, but they do not suffer very
harmful effects, apparently, as some
have been sighted in high, cold coun-
try.

the "big plant"

William Bergeson, upland game
bird biologist for the Fish and Game
Department, states that plants of
more than 150 birds have proven the
most successful. The smaller plants,
such as Montana has been in the
practice of making, have not lived
up to expectations, and future plants
will probably be made along the
lines proven by Washington and Ore-
gon, original advocates of the "big
plant."

When the time finally arrives that
(Continued on next page)

31

large transplants of these birds can
be made from the Billings game farm,
there will be no shortage of release
sites. Many have already been se-
lected in anticipation of a thriving
Chukar population.

a montana season?

"When will Montana have an open
season on the Chukar?"

This is one question that only time
can answer. We are now in the cul-
tivation of an adequate brood stock
stage of development. There are too
many variables involved to make a
definite prediction. The Chukar is
subject to many forms of poultry di-
seases; suitable habitat within the
state must be tried and proven satis-
factory; a healthy and substantially
large brood stock must be raised and
protected. These are but a few of
the factors to be considered, but they
give the reader the basis for the state-
ment that a prediction at this time is
impossible.

When Chukar hunting does come
to this state, it will be a source of
much enjoyment for many sportsmen.
Pursuit of this exotic bird is an up-hill
job, the bird seeking refuge in the
higher ridges when alarmed. It is a
job for both man and dog, but the
reward of a roasted Chukar before
the successful shotgunner is second
to none. Those who have tasted of
its delicate meat state fervently that
it is better than pheasant.

HUNTING CASUALITIES

(Continued from page 2)

cidents occurred, forms were filled

out and sent to the Helena offices,

32

and then forwarded to the office of
the National Rifle Association in
Washington, D. C. Here, when all
reports are received from the 43 par-
ticipating states and three Canadian
provinces, the data will be compared
and careful analysis made. From
the results of this digest, it is hoped
that constructive ideas which were
previously not thought of will be
forthcoming. Policies based on these
suggestions and recommendations
can then be formulated by the state
conservation agencies to reduce the
annual hunting toll.

The problem of accidental shoot-
ings is not one, however, that can be
solved by a single, sweeping plan.
A deinite line cannot be drawn sep-
arating those capable of handling
firearms and those naturally careless
or having no respect for the funda-
mental laws of safety. Any situation
involving individuals and their re-
spective personalities is impossible of
solution with only one blueprint.

Each hunter is a potential killer. A
rifle is not a toy. It was meant to kill.
What it kills is up to the person han-
dling the particular weapon.

The Fish and Game Department
will continue to advocate safer han-
dling of guns and will, whenever and
wherever it can, bring to the public's
attention such information as it has
regarding this very vital topic. But,
all of the words said and all the
words written will be for naught until
each hunter realizes than an accident
can happen to him, and not just to
the "other fellow." One of the sports-
man's resolutions for the year 1951
should be, "Teach safety — practice
safety."

DOE STORY

(Continued from page 22)
lessness," and "the end of big game
in Montana" are to be heard far and
wide, both from groups and from in-
dividuals. The Fish and Game De-
partment is showered with resolu-
tions, protests, petitions and assorted
vitriolic comments from the alarmists.
There is apparently a feeling among
some people that conservation agen-
cies are manned and directed by in-
competents, and that decisions made
by said incompetents are without
thought, foresight, or sound reason-
ing. There is a failure to appreciate
that such steps as the proclaiming of
a doe deer season in one area or
another are not made on the spur of
the moment, but only after a careful
consideration of the factors which go
to make up the situation dictating
such action.

"judge not — "

Should a cattle rancher take ad-
vice on the manner in which he
should manage his Herefords from a
person who has casually viewed his
herd from a passing car, and perhaps
purchased a choice cut over a res-
taurant counter? The answer seems
obvious. Should, then, a conserva-
tion agency, the personnel of which
is made up of trained wildlife ob-
servers, experienced biologists, and
other qualified individuals, complete-
ly alter or drop altogether its plans
for the management of deer herds
and base its program on the say-so of
the casual and occasional hunter?

The deer that make their home in
this state are under observation by

field personnel of the Montana Fish
and Game Department all through
the year. Constant checks on popu-
lation are made, along with carefully
compiled analyses of ranges, both
summer and winter, as to their carry-
ing capacities and maximum capa-
bilities. The winter ranges are
given particular attention. The con-
dition of these winter tracts is the
foundation upon which recommenda-
tions for doe seasons are made to a
great extent.

hypothetical hunt

Let us take a purely hypothetical
situation to illustrate the necessity for
the declaration of a doe deer season
by the fish and game officials
charged with this responsibility:

Area "X" is situated in the center of
deer country in western Montana. It
is a known winter range which ex-
perience, scientific tests, and continu-
ous observation have shown capable
of supporting, at the very most, a
total of 1,000 deer during an average
winter. With fall approaching, a
close survey is made of the herd that
will migrate to this wintering ground
when snow flies and temperatures
drop, and it is learned that approxi-
mately 1,500 deer will attempt to find
a haven for the cold months there.

Of this number, 1,100 are does and
fawns and 400 are bucks. The sea-
son opens and the hunter harvest of
bucks is 250, thus reducing the total
number to 1,250, or almost 10 does
and fawns to one buck. Unless a sub-
sequent season is declared, approxi-
mately 250 of this number will starve
(Continued on next page)

33

to death because of the range's car-
rying capacity. Should this subse-
quent season be for bucks alone? If it
is, there is a strong possibility that
they will be entirely wiped out of the
herd, and still 100 does and fawns
will perish because of insufficient
browse. It is quite evident that defi-
nite action must be taken to reduce
the number to less than the critical
point of 1,000, and at the same time
re-establish the sex ratio known to
be best for herd reproduction and a
stable population maintenance. The
"antlerless deer season" is the only
answer.

natural kill

Mother Nature has her own meth-
ods for the reduction of deer herds
when they become too large to be
supported by the winter range she
provides, and if man is too soft-
hearted to take the necessary action,
she mercilessly eliminates the sur-
plus, leaving many carcasses scat-
tered throughout the forest as mute
evidence of her power to balance the
scales. The surplus of animals has
to be controlled. Why not have a
season in which sport can be enjoyed
and from which meat that would
otherwise be totally wasted can be
utilized to supplement the diets of
many families? Is there sound rea-
soning behind the thinking and utter-
ances of these adversaries of "antler-
less deer seasons?" They have, no
doubt, never taken a foot trip through
deer country where winter and food
shortage have joined forces to elim-
inate the surplus number of deer,
otheiwise they would surely con-

clude that shooting is certainly more
humane than starving.

vicious waste

Another factor which should not be
overlooked in the results of a failure
to effect a timely reduction in a given
herd is the condition of those deer
which survive the winter, after a num-
ber of their group has gone by the
starvation route. They are stunted
and susceptible to disease, more
readily so than animals which have
had adequate nourishment through
the cold months. The animals that
have already died ate valuable
browse before succumbing to the
elements and lack of nutrition, there-
by depleting the store for those des-
tined to survive. Consequently, the
survivors are inferior and are not like-
ly to reproduce at a normal rate.
Where a healthy doe would usually
drop twins, or even triplets on oc-
casion, the doe that suffered through
a winter with insufficient food would
either drop but a single fawn or none
at all. The future of the particular
herd would seem dim, indeed.

The experts across the country are
almost unanimous in their view that
"doe deer season" or "antlerless deer
seasons" are absolutely necessary to
the proper management of deer
herds. The lag between this opinion
and that popularly expressed by the
sporting people is sometimes dis-
heartening to the wildlife adminis-
trators charged with the responsibility
of maintaining, among other things,
the deer populations at a high and
healthy peak. But, it is happily noted
that islands of understanding are

34

springing up in this sea of adversity
in the sportsmen's orgnizations, them-
selves. Here in Montana, there is a
growing inclination to rely on the de-
cisions made by the Fish and Game
Department's officials and scientists
in regard to such matters as doe sea-
sons. In the past few years, the slack
has been taken up to a great extent
by some far-sighted individuals who
have come to realize that taking a
rifle in hand once a year to stalk
game does not qualify a person as a
game manger.

the "bottle-neck"

Some outdoor writers have termed
organized groups the "bottle-neck of
conservation" because of their inabil-
ity or unwillingness to understand the
reasons behind actions taken on such
controversial subjects as doe deer
seasons. Though their hearts are un-
disputably in the right places, their
thinking is shot through with anti-
quated doctrines, including the
"buck-only-law," and the stand taken
to protect the innocent female of the
species. Unless the doe members of
our deer herds are brought under
control and hunted when the need
dictates, our over-all deer population
will surely suffer, despite opinions
voiced to the contrary by those cham-
pioning the female cause, bi-ped,
quadri-ped, or air borne.

WILDLIFE RESEARCH

(Continued from page 25)
son by recovering and measuring
embryos from cows shot in wild
herds. It is anticipated that such a
study would continue over a period
of four or five years.

guiding hands

Each student is assigned to one of
the three unit leaders. Prof. Melvin
Morris will conduct projects relating
to food and cover problems of big
game; Dr. Philip Wright will conduct
upland bird investigations and bi-
ology and economics of fur bearers
in Montana, while Dr. Cheatum will
supervise] waterfowl investigations
and population dynamics of big
game species.

The main work of Prof. Morris has
had to do with range work and graz-
ing land management, and the rela-
tionship of game and domestic stock
to grazing land.

Dr. Wright, a Montanan since 1939,
is currently studying marten. It is his
endeavor to determine the rates at
which the small furry animals repro-
duce and something of their abund-
ance from year to year. He believes
that with these statistics maximum
bag for trappers may be set more
easily and uniformily without de-
pleting the marten population.

So much for an attempt at an over-
all picture of an extensive, or series
of extensive programs. Each project
rates a story in itself, but this will do
for an introduction to something that
will grow and grow as time goes on,
as iong as wildlife is of concern to
sportsmen and naturalists. The de-
velopment of this unit will grow be-
cause it arose out of an expanding
need. Conversely, it would not have
been possible without the diligence
and persistence of one Dr. J. W. Severy
and his Wildlife committee members
who were largely responsible for
planning the unit's establishment.

35

HIRING WARDENS -

fLut aft competitive acuOi

From now on, those applying for the job of Deputy Game
Warden in Montana will have to prove that they are qualified
for all the duties which that title entails. So said the Commis-
sioners of the Montana Fish and Game Department in their
February meeting.

The new procedure in employing deputy wardens requires
that competive examinations, both oral and written be given all
applicants, the exams to be given at several points within the
state and to be announced at least 30 days prior to the exam.

Those successful in the written test must pass an oral test,
and those who pass both examinations will attend at least two
weeks of pre-duty school to become acquainted with their duties.

The names of the successful applicants will be carried on
an eligibility list for a period not to exceed three years and all
vacancies occuring in the law enforcement branch of the depart-
ment will be filled from this list.

Temporary special deputy game wardens may be assigned
to duty under trained deputy game wardens further to acquaint
them with their prospective duties. Then they may be assigned
to a district for a probationary period of one year. At their
satisfactory completion of one year of service the temporary
wardens will be classed as special deputy game wardens.

Applicants must be high school graduates between the ages
of 21 and 40, and must be citizens of the United States who have
lived in Montana for one year immediately prior to the date of
their application. They must be healthy, have 20-20 vision, or
corrected with glasses, and their hearing must be normal. Pref-
erence will be given qualified veterans by allowing 5 points on
competitive exams.

Above: the location chosen for the construction of the new Bluewater Springs fish rear-
ing station about ten miles southwest of Fromberg, Montana.

Below: the rearing station after its construction by the Montana Fish and Game Depart-
ment. The new station consists of a house, garage, and refrigerator unit, and, in the fore-
ground, 5 double ponds 100 feet long and 22 feet wide. Fish will be transported from the
Big Timber hatchery to the rearing station.

J give my pledge as an American

to save and faithfully to defend

from waste the natural resources of

my country — its soil and minerals,

its forests, waters, and wildlife.