*
i
ie

Cornell University Library
SK 361.W67

Placing Am
3 1924 000 424 832 mam

PLACING AMERICAN
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
___IN PERSPECTIVE

ENDANGERED
SPECIES

Illustrations
by
Oscar Warbach

Sk
4 6/

We7

Published by
Wildlife Management Institute
1000 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
709 Wire Building
Washington, D.C. 20005

The Need for Management

Writers and photographers have known for a long time that the plight
of a wild animal struggling for survival makes a good story. Today, TV
and illustrated magazines bring the problems of endangered species —
sometimes with calculated shock effect — into the American home.

Much of this publicity has been constructive. It has aroused needed
public support for efforts to save animals threatened with extinction at
home and around the globe. Congress, as a result, has approved pro-
gressively stronger programs to aid wildlife species in difficulty. And the
United States has taken leadership in developing a world treaty that
commits all nations signing it to protect threatened and endangered
animal populations.

As with all emotion-tinged issues, however, there is tendency to
overstate the case. Some journalists distort the status of American
wildlife in general, the steps needed to maintain wild populations, and
the actions required to reverse declines of species that really are
threatened. Because of such misinformation many interested persons get
the impression that all American wildlife is endangered. This view is
unsupported by facts.

That man and his works have destroyed a number of species and
greatly reduced others that were abundant in early times is well-known.
Less well-known is the fact that many species, some of which were rare
in colonial times, are thriving today largely because of compatible
human influences on the environment, well designed private manage-
ment efforts, and sound state and federal wildlife management programs.

UY, | if)
Ye”

eo - ALL WILDLIFE REQUIRE ADEou
fae QUIRE ADEQUATE

SS — HABITAT Too SUSTAIN POPULATIONS

All wildlife is affected in one way or another by man. But man can
build as well as destroy. Of all of the creatures on earth, he is the only
one with the ability to tailor the abundance of most species to fit his
desires. With some birds and mammals this can be done with minimum
effort because human changes in the environment favor their increase or
their needs are not as critical. With others deliberate and often expen-
sive programs must be developed to maintain specific habitats. Actions
needed to save one species may be entirely different from those needed
to save a second. But all wild animals require adequate habitat to sustain
their populations and breeding stock from one year to the next.

2

Habitat — The Vital Element

Food, water, and cover used to escape enemies and adverse weather
are the essential parts of the habitat of every species. But the specific
habitat needs of each species vary in some degree from those of every
other kind of animal, although many different animals may occupy the
same general area.

The water requirements of a desert jackrabbit obviously differ greatly
from those of a beaver. What might be year-round food and cover for a
meadow mouse would be little more than a full day’s meal and no cover
at all for an elk. Many migratory birds occupy and need widely different
types of seasonal habitats separated by hundreds and often many
thousands of miles. Some large mammals, like caribou and cougars,
range over wide areas to find their year-round needs. Small animals, like
shrews and moles, may live out their lives in one small corner of a field
or woodlot.

Some species need a highly specialized type of habitat. Most wood-
peckers require dead and dying trees to supply their insect foods and
nesting sites. But the Gila woodpecker of the desert Southwest digs its
nesting holes exclusively in the larger cacti.

Some species, like the California condor, can stand almost no human
disturbance. Others, like the common pigeon and English or house
sparrow, thrive in the most populous cities, nesting on buildings and
garnering meals from human handouts and leftovers.

When the habitat needs of every species and subspecies are computed
in detail, the range in variety is almost infinite.

Whenever local conditions change, the species composition of the
local wildlife populations also changes. Some species may be eliminated,
others decline, and still others increase. If changes remove any of its
essential habitat requirements, a species cannot continue to live in the
area affected. If habitat of the kind it needs is reduced to remnants, the
species will become endangered. If it is eliminated everywhere, the
animals will become extinct. In the absence of adequate habitat, protec-
tion of individual animals is meaningless in terms of perpetuating wild
populations.

Wildlife now threatened and endangered can be maintained only by
protecting those populations that still exist and preserving what remains
of their vital habitats. But their numbers can be increased by expanding
and improving suitable habitats.

This does not mean that threatened and endangered wildlife can be
saved only by denying or limiting human use of the land. Rather, it
means that such use be done with thoughtful planning and with full
consideration for wildlife’s needs. Incorporation of such considerations
in all programs affecting the landscape would assure a future for
America’s varied wildlife.

AN

ZA

LAND USE

fo?
<Z PLAN

Habitat-Population Relationships

The potential for increase in wildlife populations in ideal habitat
almost defies belief. In 1900, there were virtually no wild deer left in
Pennsylvania. The state’s original deer herd had been destroyed early in
the 19th century by landclearing for agriculture, overgrazing, by destruc-
tive timber cutting followed by wild fire, and by unregulated shooting.
After the Civil War, with increased industrialization and the opening of
the West, thousands of farmers abandoned their marginal lands to move
to towns, gold fields, or fertile soils beyond the Mississippi. Behind
them, the forests, under protection from wild fire, gradually began to
reoccupy abandoned fields and homesites, creating the early-growth
forests favored by deer.

Around the turn of the century, sportmen’s organizations and the
Pennsylvania Game Commission purchased a relatively few deer from
other states and from private dealers, had laws passed to protect them,
and released them into habitat that changing land use had made ideal for
deer. Twenty-five years later, Penn’s Woods held nearly a million
whitetails, almost twice as many as the available range could support
through winter.

Potentially, a deer population can more than double every second
year. One doe can produce 15 or more fawns in an average life span of
eight years. If all her young and theirs survive to the same age and breed
as successfully, they would number 150 or more before her death. Many
animals — songbirds, rabbits, squirrels, quail and ducks, for example —
can increase at even greater rates.

4

Obviously, when a population of a particular species begins to multi-
ply, something has to give — and it does. Each piece of land has a limit
on the number of animals of any one species that it can support. Wildlife
biologists call this carrying capacity. It is the capability of an area to
provide a species’ food, water, shelter, and other needs in a given
season. Once carrying capacity is reached, the surplus animals must
move elsewhere or die. If suitable under-stocked habitat is not available
within their range of mobility, the surplus animals are doomed.

The tendency of populations of nearly all wild species is to expand
rapidly to the carrying capacity of the available habitat. In some species,
like pheasants and rabbits, which often produce ten or more young in a
single breeding season, this level can be attained very quickly, even by a
reduced breeding population. In other species, such as bears, which
rarely breed until they are several years of age and then produce fewer
young, the rate of increase is slower. But nature compensates by
endowing the slower reproducers with longer lives.

For many species, particularly the smaller animals, nature’s scheme is
to produce an overabundance of young. This increases the likelihood
that some will survive to perpetuate the species in spite of the inevitable
toll taken by adverse weather, disease, starvation, predators, and other
hazards. Most wild animals in North America produce all of their young
during a restricted season of a few weeks, usually in the spring or early
summer. In northern or temperate areas, summer carrying capacity is far
higher than that of winter because of the abundance of plant and other
life. A relatively small patch of cover may contain a population of a
dozen or more cottontail rabbits in early September, but few are likely
to survive until March. No more than 35 percent of the young mourning
doves produced in summer live until the next breeding season. The
higher the reproductive rate of a species, the higher its natural mortality
rate. In the wild, animals that produce many young have short lives and
lose most of their young in their first year.

Nature has many methods for regulating wild populations. One of
these is territorialism — the tendency of breeding animals to defend a
given area. Some sea birds nest almost shoulder to shoulder in dense
colonies, but they will not tolerate the presence of other birds within
reach of their nests. The lilting song of a male house wren is not a song
of joy, but a warning to all other wrens to keep away from his nesting
territory. If an intruder ventures too near, the defending male will attack
with righteous fury. A cock pheasant may gather a harem of six or more
mates and defend a crowing area approaching an acre or more. A male
grizzly bear, in breeding season, may defend 20 or more square miles
from all other males of his kind.

Such natural population controls are nature’s way of assuring that
only the stronger, quicker, and more alert animals of each species
survive until breeding season and perpetuate the species.

At times, a series of mild winters and unusually favorable conditions
over several breeding seasons may temporarily raise the normal carrying

5

ID LIKE To
SEE ANYBODY
KNOCK La

capacity and the populations of animals that depend on plants. When
weather conditions return to average, crowding leads to stress and
competition for food, space, and mates and permits the spread of
diseases. Winter food supplies become inadequate and malnutrition,
diseases, and predators take heavy tolls. In turn, populations of wolves
and other predators that feed on the plant eaters are regulated by the
abundance or scarcity of the animals on which they feed.

Overpopulations can be especially disastrous to large browsing and
grazing mammals, like deer and elk. Where overabundant, such animals
can cause great damage to their own habitats, resulting in a much
reduced carrying capacity for many years. That is what happened to the
Pennsylvania deer herd in the late 1920’s. Hundreds of thousands of
deer died of starvation and disease in a series of bitter winters before the
numbers could be lowered by regulated hunting to the carrying capacity
of the winter range.

Even in some wildlife refuges and national parks, elk and deer herds
must be thinned to prevent overabundant animals from destroying their
food supplies and damaging the food supplies of other species. The
lesson here is that man and his activities have so interrupted wildlife’s
natural cycles and systems in most places that only through deliberate
management can mankind assure the survival of most species of wildlife.

6

The Role of Protection

Protection plays an important part in wildlife management. The best
habitats are of no value to wildlife if there are no breeders to occupy
them. But to argue that total protection is the answer for all wildlife
problems is a dangerous oversimplification. It ignores the differing needs
of the various species.

With the exception of a few species considered pests in certain
situations, nearly all birds and mammals receive some degree of legal
protection. Songbirds, eagles, hawks, egrets, and many other types of
birds are granted continuing protection under state and federal laws.
Most states provide full legal protection for endangered species found
within their borders. At the federal level, the endangered species pro-
grams and the new world treaty governing trade in threatened and
endangered species provide additional protection for our less common
forms of wildlife. Violators of these laws risk heavy penalties in state
and federal courts.

But the degree of protection needed by the different species varies as
widely as their habitat requirements. The loss of only a few individuals
of an endangered species like the whooping crane or California condor
would be critical. On the other hand, the coyote, in spite of persecution
since early times, thrives in the face of adversity. It remains common on
most of the western prairies and has extended its original range into the

South and East.

Animals classed as game under state and federal laws may be hunted,
but they are not without protection. They may be taken by hunters only
under regulations that prescribe calendar dates, hunting hours, bag
limits, and methods of taking. Under certain circumstances, hunting
seasons for some game species may be closed completely. All game
species are protected by law while they are nesting and raising their
young. These regulations, based on careful research, are designed to
assure the carry-over to the next breeding season of enough animals to
repopulate the available habitat.

S NEARLY ALL BIRDS AND

SST MAMMALS RECEIVE SOME
DEGREE OF LEGAL
PROTECTION .

There are situations under which it may be necessary to reduce
temporarily the population of one species to benefit another. Although
gulls are protected by state and federal laws, legal protection of herring
gulls nesting on islands off the Massachusetts coast was suspended for a
while to permit the poisoning of some birds and destroying the eggs of
others. The reason — the breeding gull population had mushroomed
because of the presence of nearby mainland garbage dumps, and the
abundant gulls were eating the eggs and young of the much rarer terns
that formerly had the islands nearly to themselves.

In order to reestablish a species in suitable unoccupied habitat, it may
be necessary to temporarily reduce the numbers of predators in the area
until the released animals multiply and become familiar with their new
surroundings. After prey species increase above the threshold level,
predators are just one of the many factors bearing on the population’s
survival.

Predation is not all bad, in fact. By falling victim to a fox or an owl,
for example, the prey helps perpetuate a higher and equally valued order
of life.

fio <<

Out CF REACH — BUT:.::

The Real Threat to Wildlife

Man rarely sets out deliberately to exterminate a wild species. Some,
like the coyote and crow, that settlers marked for extermination, still
thrive in spite of massive trapping and poisoning campaigns. But most of
man’s adverse influences on wildlife have been unintentional and inad-

vertent.
Man, his works, and his livestock compete with wild animals for food

and space. Actually, the effects of habitat destruction are worse than
direct killing, because unoccupied wildlife habitat can and, in time,
usually will be reoccupied. Habitat that is drastically altered or de-
stroyed can never support its original wild populations.

Housing developments, highways and airports, hydroelectric and ir-
rigation reservoirs, factories, and mines contribute to the American
standard of living. But each new residential or industrial expansion
reduces the habitat base upon which many wildlife populations depend.

Even some practices associated with farming and forestry can ad-
versely affect wild populations. Large mechanized farms devoted to
single crops, like wheat, and extensive, closely planted pine plantations

9

provide few of the needs of wildlife. Sanitation cuttings that remove all
hollow, dead and dying trees and sprawling nut- and mast-producing
hardwoods eliminate the dens, nest sites, and food of many forest
species.

Draining and filling marshes, potholes, and other wetlands to expand
croplands, commercial and industrial complexes, and transportation
systems pose major threats to waterfowl and other wildlife. Coastal
marshes, favorite sites for factories, refineries, and airports, are among
the most productive types of habitats for a wide range of fish and aquatic
wildlife. Channelization can destroy the habitat of animals frequenting
rivers and streams.

MAN AND HIS ACTIVITIES HAVE INTERRUPTED WILDLIFES
NATURAL CYCLES AND SYSTEMS.

Livestock grazing can improve conditions for some wildlife, but
overgrazing can exclude most wildlife use, often for many years. Large-
scale brush-clearing to favor grasses can eliminate food and cover
needed by many birds and mammals.

Modern technology has produced a broad range of pollutants with
which wildlife must contend. Some, like certain pesticides and mercury,
kill directly. Others, like DDT, operate more subtly on the animals’
reproductive systems, cause eggshell thinning in some birds, and de-
press hatching success in others. Acid mine wastes and industrial
pollutants destroy vegetation essential to the survival of many species.

These and many other critical environmental problems concern the
wildlife manager. Often his recommendations, if applied, can have a
major influence on the continued survival of one or more species in a
given area and help maintain nature’s functioning systems.

Only through careful guidance of all human activities that affect
wildlife, both indirectly and directly, can their populations be assured.

10

Hunting and Wildlife Conservation

Sport hunting is recognized as a legitimate use of surplus wildlife by
state and federal laws traceable in origin to the Magna Carta. These
same laws establish the rights of the states to control the activities of
hunters. Hunting is now regulated under comprehensive laws in every
state. These are supplemented by federal laws applying to certain
species, including migratory birds, and to the interstate shipment of wild
animals and their products.

This was not always the case. Before the turn of the century, restric-
tions on shooters were few, and those laws that existed were poorly
enforced, when enforced at all. In the early days, when the pioneer
philosophy prevailed and many Americans lived off the land, nearly all
edible or useful forms of wildlife were taken almost without restrictions
at any time. ‘‘Useful’’ meant any bird or mammal that could be eaten or
sold for its meat, feathers, fur, or other parts.

THE LAST NAME to THE SAME BUT THEYRE
DEFINITELY NOT RELATED,

The brutalities historically attributed to hunters — the slaughter of the
buffalo, the decimation of the sea otter, the extermination of the pas-
senger pigeon, and others — involved mainly paid butchers who had no
relationship at all with the modern sport hunter. The common use of bird
plumage to decorate ladies’ hats in the Gay Nineties and early 1900's
nearly doomed the egrets and other plume-bearing birds before state and
federal laws backed by firm enforcement checked their slaughter. Until
comparatively recent times, any birds or mammals that eat meat — from
sparrow hawks to grizzly bears — were considered enemies of the
farmer or rancher and subject to killing on sight. Massive poisoning and
trapping campaigns, largely by federal agents and professional hunters

11

employed by livestock organizations, wiped out the prairie wolves and
greatly reduced the numbers of cougars and bears. Now, these abuses,
which were stimulated by economic concerns, have been substantially
checked by a growing public appreciation of the many values of pred-
ators and of wildlife in general.

In recent times, demands for alligator hides by makers of shoes,
wallets, and other leather goods, attracted poachers and illegal hide
buyers to the swamps and bayous of the South. Their activities continue
to be curbed by aggressive state law enforcement and by bringing the
alligator under the protection of a long-standing federal law that pro-
hibits interstate commerce in wildlife products taken in violation of state
laws. Thus, state and federal conservation forces were united in correct-
ing the problem.

From the standpoint of wildlife conservation, hunting must be judged
solely on its effect on the species of animals hunted. The fact that many
designated game species have increased steadily in numbers over the
years, in spite of growing numbers of hunters with greater mobility,
testifies to the effectiveness of scientific wildlife management. It also
shows that the carefully regulated modern hunter has no long-term
negative effect on the comparatively few wildlife species he pursues.
This conclusion is based on research in many regions of the country.
Therefore, with properly regulated sport hunting having no adverse
effects, the decision of whether to hunt or not to hunt is a matter of
personal choice.

As with any large representative group of Americans, there are among
hunters a minority who fail to abide by the laws and rules of sportsman-
ship. These people, when their activities are not checked by effective
law enforcement and the disapproval of the public — especially by
sportsmen — can have undesirable impacts on local wildlife populations
and create unfavorable reactions to hunting and hunters.

WANTED

x 1 =
HOODLUM HUNTER

OUT OF
HUNTING

12

Regulated hunting, however, properly applied, is an important tool of
wildlife management. The annual cropping of grazing and browsing
animals whose populations are near carrying capacity lowers the annual
loss from disease and malnutrition. It prevents the animals from becom-
ing so numerous that they deplete their own food supplies and the food
and cover upon which other species depend. Wild populations that are
below carrying capacity are far healthier and produce more young than
those at or near the capacity of the range.

Virtually all of this essential wildlife management is financed by funds
obtained from sportsmen. By purchasing required federal duck stamps.
waterfowl hunters annually contribute around $10 million to federal
waterfowl and wetland conservation programs. Like any other citizens,
of course, sportsmen also pay federal income taxes that support national
wildlife and allied resource programs. But more important, their license
fees and special taxes provide about a quarter of a billion dollars each
year for the basic support of the state fish and wildlife conservation
programs. Few state wildlife agencies receive funds from the general
public.

Sportsmen also contribute to wildlife conservation through private
organizations. Many local and state sportsmen’s organizations have
active cooperative programs that maintain and increase wild populations
on private lands without cost to the public. Ducks Unlimited, an
association of waterfowl hunters, has created or restored more than
1,000 Canadian waterfowl production areas covering more than 2 million
acres. These critical wetlands provide habitat for more than 200 species
of wildlife.

Sportsmen’s state hunting and fishing license fees are used to buy,
maintain, and improve wildlife habitat that benefits both hunted and
unhunted wildlife on public and private lands and to provide the modern
equipment needed to enforce laws for the protection of wildlife. They
make it possible to employ many thousands of managers, biologists, and
conservation officers to protect and care for wildlife. Many state wildlife
agencies own or control large land holdings that are managed intensively
to maintain wildlife populations at desirable levels.

Some critics of the American system of wildlife management have
charged that because hunters and fishermen carry the financial burden of
wildlife conservation, the state agencies favor game species in their
programs and ignore nonhunted species. This overlooks the fact that
many state wildlife agencies have excellent nongame wildlife programs.
Habitat created or maintained for pheasants or quail additionally benefits
a wide range of nonhunted species, from meadowlarks to hawks and
owls. Most serious birdwatchers know that some of the best birding is
found on state wildlife management areas and refuges. Waterfowl man-
agement areas provide food and cover for a host of nongame species,
ranging from marsh wrens to ospreys and eagles.

13

NS
WATERROWL MANAGEMENT AREAS PROVIDE FOOp AND
COVER FOR A HST 6F NON-GAME SPECIES.

While most state wildlife agencies would welcome financial support
from the general public, state legislators have been reluctant to supple-
ment fishing and hunting license revenues with general fund appropria-
tions. In 1937, a federal law, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
was passed by Congress. It allocated to the state fish and wildlife
agencies receipts from an existing 11 percent excise tax on sporting
firearms and ammunition for the purpose of conducting approved proj-
ects of wildlife research, land acquisition and development, and restock-
ing of unoccupied habitats. To qualify for this assistance the states had
to pledge all hunting and fishing license funds to conservation purposes.
Before that time it was common practice for state legislatures to divert
income from hunting and fishing licenses for schools, highways, and
other public works, while the state wildlife agency obtained only a part
of the funds for actual use for fish and wildlife conservation.

Until state legislatures show more willingness to support wildlife
programs with revenues from other sources, sportsmen will continue as
the principal source of financial support for wildlife conservation. The
reluctance of the general public and state legislatures to support neces-
sary conservation programs overlooks the great social and economic
benefits of sound wildlife management.

Individuals and groups interested in wildlife should bear in mind the
animal’s basic need for habitat. Secondly, they should seek to
strengthen the state-federal system to assure the well-being of all wild-
life. Distortion of the true facts with respect to America’s wildlife only
misleads the public. Further, it confuses lawmakers, who, in their efforts

14

to respond to public concerns, sometimes resort to well-intentioned but
ineffective remedies. The best thing that could happen to wildlife would
be for all concerned Americans to join hands in working for truly needed
programs. In this way, they would assure that adequate and effective
steps are taken to restore depleted species and to prevent others from
becoming endangered.

Extinct, Endangered, and
Threatened Species

To clearly understand endangered wildlife, it is necessary to know
some technical terms that are widely used but imperfectly understood.

Congress enacted Endangered Species Conservation Acts in 1966,
1969, and 1973 to help check the decline of America’s rarer forms of
mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants.
These legal mandates are administered through an Office of Endangered
Species in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Legal definitions used in these Acts do not always conform with strict
dictionary definitions. Under terms of the Acts, a species or subspecies
is endangered when officially declared in imminent danger of extinction
by the Secretary of the Interior after consultation with scientists.
Threatened species are those officially declared likely to become en-
dangered in the foreseeable future over all or a ‘‘significant portion’’ of
their ranges. Lists of these animals, amended periodically, are published
in government documents.

A species in the scientific sense, is a group of animals sharing
common characteristics that are passed on to their offspring and whose
members can produce fertile young only by mating within their own
group. A subspecies is a group of animals of the same species that has
developed common distinctive characteristics because they evolved in
isolation from other subspecies of the parent species. Differences may
include color, size, or bone structure. Although the differences are
artifically maintained, an extreme example can be found in the variety of
breeds in the domesticated dog. Among wild animals, some subspecies
differ so much from others of the same species that the layman would
consider them unrelated. But members of different subspecies can
interbreed and produce young that are capable of successful breeding.

15

As used in the Endangered Species Acts, the term ‘‘species’’ includes
various subspecies. Even scientists and writers who know the distinc-
tion often refer loosely to subspecies as ‘‘species.’’ This leads to public
confusion. The official Endangered Species List may include a localized

16

subspecies that is represented elsewhere by other abundant and widely
distributed subspecies. This often leads the public to believe that the
entire species is endangered when only a small population segment is in
trouble. The endangered Delmarva fox squirrel, for example, is confined
to a small area in eastern Maryland and Virginia. But other kinds of fox
squirrel are common to abundant in the southeastern and midwestern
United States.

Forty known kinds of birds and mammals native to the United States
and its territories have become extinct: 109 animals, of which 64 are
birds and mammals, have been declared endangered by the Secretary of
the Interior.

At face value these figures are alarming. But the situation in North
America is not that bleak. Only six of the 32 extinct species and
subspecies of birds were native to the North American mainland. Most
were native to Hawaii.

Species and subspecies that have evolved in restricted island habitats
are especially vulnerable. They depend for survival upon unique and
fragile ecosystems that change dramatically with any intrusion of man.
Evolution in isolation has equipped few island species to cope with
introduced predators, such as house cats, rats and mongooses, or to
resist introduced diseases.

Civilized man has brought wild and domesticated birds and mammals
from his homeland to every island he has settled. Native animals usually
are unable to compete with the more aggressive invaders. Grazing and
foraging by sheep, cattle, goats and pigs often destroy vital wildlife
habitats. Since its discovery, 40 percent of Hawaii’s original forms of
birds have become extinct, and another 40 percent are endangered,
largely because of inadvertent human influences.

A large majority of the endangered animals and those that have
become extinct were island species, literally or figuratively, in that their
restricted habitats were surrounded by terrain unsuitable for their surviv-
al. Of the eight extinct North American mammals, two were meadow
mice or voles. One was confined to a single small island in Long Island
Sound; the other occupied an isolated marsh in California. The range of
the heath hen was reduced to one island off the coast of Massachusetts
soon after the American Revolution. In spite of 50 years of total
protection, it became extinct in 1932. The population had been built to
nearly 2,000 in the late 1920’s when fire swept its nesting grounds at the
height of the breeding season. Introduced poultry diseases eliminated
the survivors.

Today, the heath hen’s close relative, the Attwater’s prairie chicken,
occupies a similar vulnerable habitat on a small section of the Gulf Coast
of Texas. The natural grasslands that it needs were much reduced and
are now surrounded by cultivated lands and heavily grazed pastures.

Habitat factors even played a role in the fate of species that were
destroyed or reduced to remnants principally by direct, deliberate kill-
ing. Commercial netting was a major cause of the extinction of the

17

SHRINKING HABITAT .
THREATENS ATTWATERS \\
PRAIRIE CHICKEN

passenger pigeon. But the clearing of the northern hardwood forests for
agriculture concentrated the nesting colonies and the activities of the
netters. Steller’s sea cow was butchered to extinction by Russian seal
hunters before the American Revolution. The great auk, which became
extinct in 1844, was slaughtered on its nesting grounds by whalers for its
eggs, plumage, and oil. All of these animals gathered in dense breeding
colonies that made their killing easy. All were destroyed by unregulated
commercialism long before there was more than rudimentary public
sentiment for wildlife conservation.

The Badlands bighorn sheep, Merriam’s elk, and eastern elk were
decimated by meat-seeking settlers, prospectors, and market hunters
before 1910. All occupied restricted and vulnerable habitats, and all
suffered from competition with livestock and agriculture. State and
federal wildlife agencies have introduced closely related subspecies of
bighorn and elk to the original range of the first two animals. Most of the
range of the eastern elk has been taken over by agriculture, but elk of
closely related subspecies have been restored to Virginia and Michigan.

Modern sport hunting, as now regulated, has no relationship to the
thoughtless commercial exploitation of wildlife of the past. The vast
majority of the birds and mammals on the endangered list occupy highly
specialized habitats. Some were not abundant even in early times.
Kirtland’s warbler, a tiny migratory bird that nests only in Michigan,
must have jackpines between 5 and 18 feet high to nest successfully.
Historically, this habitat was created by naturally occurring forest fires.
But foresters in their efforts to develop commercial timber excluded fire

18

COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION PLUS RESTRICTED OR
DISAPPEARING HABITAT CAUSED EXTINCTION OF
MANY SPECIES —CIKE THE GREAT AUK .

from the woods and nearly eliminated the bird’s breeding habitat.
Today, wildlife managers and foresters are using prescribed burning in
special refuge areas to maintain jackpines at their most attractive stage
of growth for the warblers.

The ivory-billed woodpecker needs large areas of old-growth forests,
with their dead and dying trees. Forests of this kind are disappearing
because of the accelerating demand for agricultural and timber products.
The black-footed ferret, never an abundant species, was unthinkingly
reduced to an endangered status by the widespread poisoning of its
primary prey, the prairie dog.

Most predatory birds and mammals have been persecuted for cen-
turies because of their threat — real or imagined — to livestock, poultry,
fish and game. Now, when predators are more widely appreciated, new
threats have arisen to plague these interesting animals. Persistent pes-
ticides, notably DDT and related substances, are absorbed from the
water in the tissues of fish and other aquatic animals. As larger birds
feed on fish and small animals low on the food chain, the contaminants
concentrate in their tissues. The result is greatly reduced nesting success
by larger fish-eating and predatory birds. The rapid decline of the bald
eagle, peregrine falcon, and brown pelican is attributable primarily to
pesticides.

19

Several species, like the ivory-billed woodpecker and Eskimo curlew,
have been so reduced in numbers that there is little hope for their
survival, if any still exist. But many animals now threatened or en-
dangered could be restored to safe levels, if not abundance. This has
already been demonstrated.

i
IM L
ea Gone comine! NATIONAL SELOLIEE

20

In 1935, trumpeter swans south of Canada were reduced to 73 on Red
Rock Lakes and Yellowstone National Park in Montana. Since that
year, when the Red Rock Lakes were declared a national wildlife refuge
to protect the swans from irresponsible people and their habitat from
intrusion, the population has responded well. Consequently, the trumpe-
ter did not have to be included on the endangered species list. Other
ancestral range in national parks and other western wildlife refuges
support substantial breeding swan populations today. These resulted
from the transplanting of surplus birds from the original refuge area.

The American alligator has increased rapidly in numbers under joint
state and federal protection. Depleted habitat is now being repopulated
with livetrapped and transplanted breeding stock. Federal and state
authorities consider the alligator safe from extinction in most areas of
the United States for the foreseeable future.

Many other species that are threatened or endangered today could be
similarly restored through intensive management. The know-how al-
ready exists in the modern wildlife management profession. All that are
needed are public and political support, time, and adequate funds to
apply this knowledge.

The American System of
Wildlife Management

The purpose of wildlife management is to maintain populations of wild
animals at levels consistent with the best interests of wild species
themselves and of the American public. Satisfying that objective is a big,
complex job.

At the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the
Department of the Interior is primarily responsible for regulating inter-
state and international traffic in wildlife and wildlife products and enforc-
ing regulations applying to designated migratory birds. The Service
administers the national wildlife refuge system, which provides pro-
tected and managed habitat for a wide range of wildlife species. It
conducts research and maintains cooperative programs with state fish
and wildlife agencies, private conservation groups, universities, and
other federal land-management agencies.

21

US SOIL CONSERVATION

U.S. FOREST FeRMIES
SERVICE
NATIONAL Ss ‘ U.S. BUREAU
FARK ? Pa WA eD- ‘Ce Tan
SERVICE ) |! I eg MANAGEMENT
ES : ) \ \ J
US. FISH : AN \we i,
ANO = WO
WILOLIFE oS FEQOERAL AND
SERVICE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTEC TION
WILELIFE DEPARTMENTS AGENCIES

OF THE 50 STATES

WILDLIFE HAS MANY HELPING HANDS

The Service is funded primarily from the U.S. Treasury to the extent
of around $90 million a year. It receives more than $10 million annually
from Duck Stamp revenues that are applied primarily to the expansion
and development of the national wildlife refuge system. Each waterfowl
hunter, 16 years of age and over, must purchase a federal hunting stamp
each year.

The U.S. Forest Service which controls 187 million acres of national
forests, and the Bureau of Land Management which administers 465
million acres of public lands, and the Soil Conservation Service also
employ staffs of wildlife specialists whose salaries are paid by congres-
sional appropriations. Considering the vast acreages of wildlife habitat
involved, the manpower and funds available have been inadequate to
cope with the magnitude of the task.

Each of the 50 states has an agency responsible for managing and
protecting wildlife. These agencies are financed almost exclusively by
sales of licenses to hunters and anglers and by receipts from federal
taxes on sporting arms and ammunition and fishing tackle allocated to
them for approved fish and wildlife conservation projects. The combined
annual budgets of the state agencies, from these sources and others,
exceed a third of a billion dollars. Approximately, $250 million of this is
derived from sportsmen.

22

Although program emphasis and organizations vary, the typical state
agency contains a research branch that obtains facts on the status of
various species of wildlife and develops techniques for management; a
management branch that maintains, improves and develops habitat, and
performs such tasks as livetrapping and transplanting surplus wildlife; a
law enforcement branch, responsible for enforcing the laws and regula-
tions applying to fish and wildlife; and a branch of public education and
information.

The state, under common law rooted in the Magna Carta, owns and
holds in trust for its people all of the wildlife within its borders. In the
case of migratory birds, marine mammals, eagles, and some other
species, prerogatives for protection have been assumed by the Federal
Government through its treaty-making powers and special acts of Con-
gress. Since state laws affecting these species usually parallel the federal
laws, these species generally receive dual protection. Federal and state
conservation officers cooperate closely in protecting wildlife.

State fish and wildlife agencies own or manage more than 50 million
acres for wildlife production. These refuges and management areas
provide the habitat needs of a wide range of birds and mammals,
unhunted as well as hunted. State wildlife managers also work with
landowners and with state and federal foresters and land managers to
improve, restore and maintain wildlife habitat on private and public
lands.

Application of management has restored some wildlife populations,
and holds promise for helping more.

23

Some Accomplishments of
Modern Wildlife Management

To appreciate the present, one must understand the past. Around
1900, most authorities did not have much hope for any of the larger
forms of wildlife surviving far beyond the 1920’s. This pessimistic view
failed to foresee the scientific wildlife management programs that de-
veloped in the early 1930’s and which have been expanded through
subsequent decades. Here are a few historical comparisons:

® Beaver: /900—Eliminated from the states of the Mississippi Valley
and all eastern states except Maine: common only in Alaska and a few
localities in the Pacific Northwest and Rockies. Today: Common to
abundant in nearly all states except Hawaii.

e Pronghorn Antelope: /925—Authorities estimated 13,000 to 26,000
in U.S.A., most in Wyoming and Montana. Today: Minimum population
in all western states is 500,000.

e Bison: /895—800 survivors. Today: Population about 6,000 in
U.S.A.; all available range fully stocked.

e Elk: 1907—Common only in and around Yellowstone National
Park; estimated total south of Canada, 41,000. Today: About 1 million in
16 states.

@ White-tailed Deer: /895—About 350,000 south of Canada; extir-
pated from more than half the states. Today: Approximately 12 million
in 48 states.

e Wild Turkey: /930—Common in only a few southern states, elimi-
nated from most. Today: Restored to 43 states, including establishment
in several outside original range of species.

e Fur Seal: /9//—Official census in Pribilof Island showed 215,900.
Today: Herd maintained at around 1.5 million under a scientific man-
agement program.

e Egrets and Herons: /9/0—Several species on the brink of extinction
because of slaughter on their nesting grounds by feather collectors -to
supply the millinery trade. Today: Most species common to abundant
over most of the United States.

e Trumpeter Swan: /935—73 survivors south of Canada on one
wildlife refuge. Today: Thriving populations on two national parks and
several national wildlife refuges. Removed from endangered status in the
late 1960's.

@ Wood Duck: /9/5—Greatly reduced in numbers and considered a
candidate for early extinction. Today: The most common breeding
waterfowl in eastern U.S.A.

24

e Sea Otter: /907—Nearly extinct; a few survivors in Alaska’s Aleu-
tian chain and in coastal California. Today: Minimum of 50,000; success-
fully restored to waters of mainland Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and
British Columbia, increasing and extending range in California.

Since 1938, state fish and wildlife agencies have used sportsmen’s
license fees and special taxes under the Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Acts to:

e Acquire, develop, or manage 2,900 wildlife refuges and management
areas totalling nearly 40 million acres. These lands protect vital habitat
of a wide range of wildlife and are heavily used by bird watchers, nature
students, and other outdoor enthusiasts.

e Construct or restore more than 300 lakes for fish and wildlife with a
total surface acreage of 35,000.

e Acquire or develop more than 3,000 public access areas that open
nearly a million otherwise inaccessible acres and 2,000 miles of stream
to outdoor recreational use.

e Livetrap and transplant to unoccupied habitat more than 50,000
deer, 16,000 antelope, 2,000 elk, 1,000 mountain sheep, 18,000 fur
animals, 20,000 wild turkeys, 22,000 waterfowl, and 130,000 quail.

e Conduct extensive research on wildlife habitat needs, diseases,
population trends, predator-prey relationships, and wildlife crop-damage
abatement.

e Assist hundreds of thousands of landowners with wildlife habitat
improvement projects.

e Conduct public conservation education programs for school
teachers and students and promote understanding of wildlife needs and
habits through articles and television shows.

e Protect both hunted and nonhunted wildlife by apprehending con-
servation law violators. Many state conservation law enforcement offi-
cers also enforce laws against polluters, whose activities impose serious
threats to wildlife and its habitats. But, as in all resource management
efforts, public support is essential.

25

What You Can Do

There are many steps the concerned citizen can take to assure the
future of America’s wildlife.

Those who own land, whether suburban lot, woodlot, farm or ranch,
can make improvements that will attract and hold wildlife, often at
minimum expense. Your state wildlife agency has publications outlining
such improvements. Many state agencies provide on-the-ground techni-
cal assistance and inexpensive wildlife food and cover planting stock
within the limitations of budget and manpower. Additional information
and assistance are available from the Extension Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, at your state university.

Those who do not own land directly are shareholders in the largest
landholdings in the United States. These are the 725 million acres of
national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, public domain, and other lands
held in trust for the American public by the Federal Government. Even
on the national wildlife refuges, program funding has not kept pace with
demand. As a citizen shareholder you can insist that Congress and the
Administration provide adequate funds to maintain balanced uses of
resources and wildlife populations on all public lands.

PUTTING (IT ALL TOGETHER

26

Additionally, all citizens can help wildlife if they:

_©@ Support federal, state, and local efforts to develop land-use plan-
ning programs that protect vital wildlife habitat from unnecessary and
haphazard development.

e Urge public officials to consider wildlife in all programs affecting
land and water developments.

© Insist that agriculture, flood-control, and other publicly subsidized
government programs yield broad public benefits in the form of wildlife
enhancement.

¢ Realize that wetlands are not wastelands but essential units of the
landscape that have important ecological functions of economic and
cultural importance to man.

e Reject simplistic panaceas for maintaining and restoring wildlife
based on unscientific emotion.

The perpetuation of wildlife requires the attention of well-trained and
experienced specialists. Each state now has a staff of such scientists.
See that they have the public support and funds needed to carry out
their work in a climate free from political meddling.

America can retain and expand its rich wildlife heritage if it applies
scientifically sound facts to the management of all wild species and if its
citizens harmonize their activities with the systems of nature.

27

4

HHH,
i Ne
Bog
AN <) ‘aly " i
\

974R

i