I J» warn January 1958 — Montana Fish and Game Department Official Publication - '** i t f > p < ;>. .^, ■ ♦«&. u H Cm O M < O -j o H U I— I !D O w H CO CO w Q Q < O CO s < W H Cm < MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT Official ra^' -'i?*^- Publication State of Montana J. Hugo Aronson, Governor MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION E. J. Skibby, Lewistown, Chairman H. W. Black, Poison Ralph D. Shipley, Miles City John T. Hanson, Sr., Malta William T. Sweet, Butte A. A. O'Claire, Helena, Secretary DIVISION DIRECTORS A. A. O'Claire Director Walter J. Everin Deputy Director Walter M. Allen Fisheries Superintendent Robert F. Cooney Game Manager Wynn G. Freeman Coordinator, Restoration Don L. Brown Chief Law Enforcement Officer W. Kenneth Thompson Chief, Information and Education R. H. Turnbull - Chief Clerk Vernon Craig, Editor TABLE OF CONTENTS As The Twig Is Bent _ 3 A Turkey Season in Montana . 5 The Montana Wildlife Federation... 9 Where's My Permit 10 Your Dollar's Worth of Fishing 13 Davey Jones' Locker 16 Montana Deer Management — Where Do We Go From Here 18 Department Organization 24 The Shining Mountains 29 "Montana Wildlife," may be obtained free of charge by writing the Montana Fish and Game Department at Helena. Contents of this magazine may be reproduced in whole or in part if properly credited. /I* *7&e *7€»ty % Sent Guest Editorial — By Clifton Merritt A young father oi a son, aged seven, spoke proudly one evening of the fact that each year his rod and gun club sponsored a kids' fishing derby. As though assured I would agree, he asked if I didn't think it "was quite a worthwhile project for his club to undertake — teaching the youngsters a clean, outdoor sport. I was disappointed because, from any way I looked at it, I had to tell him his club couldn't have thought of a worse way to try to teach a bunch of kids to play the game fairly and be real sports. Of course, he was temporarily of- fended by my remarks. And so, perhaps will be several readers who have worked hard at one time or an- other to make a kids' fishing derby a success. But let's consider the situation. What real and intangible values had the father placed on outdoor rec- reation? What worthwhile traits could his son, for example, acquire from a fishing derby? Standing elbow to elbow with the rest of the kids around the pond, the boy would soon be forced to dis- regard some of his neighbors' rights. Kids would get in each other's way. Lines would cross and snarl. Tem- pers would flare. Excitement would run high. And everyone would be working like mad, some by fair means and some by foul, to haul out the biggest, fish and claim the prize money or other material reward. Parents would be there to direct the youngsters, assuredly. But even with a parent by each young hope- ful's side, all the participants, all the grown-ups, all the distractions would make it impossible to observe fully each child and give him effective instruction in the proper handling of rod and line, not to mention teaching him to live up to the rules of the game. The young fisherman, seeing his competitor gaining advantage by an unsportsman-like act, would be severely tempted. None of the artificial conditions would compare to those of angling for wild fish in natural habitat. The father would have little opportunity to instill in his son the ideals of good sportsmanship and a love of the outdoors. There would be no chance to teach the youngsters, from surrounding examples, some of the simple inter-relationships of nature. Yet, isn't it true that this lad and the millions of young Americans like him are the future managers of our natural resources? From a fish derby they can learn only greed, wasteful- ness, and disregard of their fellow man. Why should the largest fish bring a monetary reward? A nice, trout, fairly caught, is a prize in itself. As the father of the seven-year-old boy and I talked, I felt he was be- ginning to see the issue from an- other light. His concluding remarks, however, left grave concern in my mind as to the depths to which the quality of outdoor recreation is apt to decline unless many American parents bestir themselves from their apathy and indolence. I had suggested that we discuss the matter further the following week, since it was getting late and I had promised to take my young nephew on a fishing trip early next morning to a high mountain lake on the Swan Range. "Say, what road do you take to get into that area?", he perked up inter- ested. I told him the road ended at the edge of the alpine area, and that we would walk four miles by trail over the mountain and down to this beautiful lake, where I had previous- ly seen some large trout rising. "What?" he breathed, incredu- ously. "You'd hike that far just to fish? Brother, you must like to walk! There oughta be a road." I left him then, but not without dis- turbed thoughts about the future of Montana's natural assets, including trout fishing. Just what was his idea of quality outdoor recreation, I wondered. Were there many other fathers, like him, training their sons for a sport of du- bious value? A synthetic type of recreation that, because of parental sloth and neglect, may be all that's left of tomorrow's outdoor heritage? A hasty motor trip, perhaps, behind a fish hatchery truck along a beer- can bordered highway to a muddy creek where the trout are dumped by the driver and retrieved by the "fish- erman" moments later? s4 ^un&ecf Season *)*t 7fto*tta*ta ? By B. J. Rose, The rancher closes his gate, pauses for a minute and shakes his head in disbelief, then steps into his pickup and drives away. Cer- tainly, he muses, a turkey wouldn't wander this far from the barnyard. But the strange noises, foreign to Montana forests, could easily be the gobbling of wild turkeys for, to date, seven releases of Merriam's wild turkeys have been made in the central and eastern parts of the state. During the winter of 1954-55, introductions were made in the Ju- dith Mountains near Lewistown and the Longpine Hills near Ekalaka. Last winter releases were made in the Beaver Creek area near Ash- land, the Sarpy Creek Hills south of Hysham, and the Ft. Peck Game Range south of Malta. Two transplants have recently been made during October and No- vember of 1957. One release was made on Indian Creek, northwest of Jordan, and one in the Knowlton area between Miles City and Baker. Game Biologist The ancestral range of Merriam's wild turkey extended through the Ponderosa Pine-Oak forests of cen- tral Colorado, southward through New Mexico and Arizona to the U.S.- Mexico border. At least two states, Wyoming and South Dakota, outside the ancestral range, have made suc- cessful introductions of this sub- species. As the result of a trapping and transplanting program, Wyoming had enough turkeys to warrant an open season on a permit basis in 1955, twenty years after the initial introduction of 1935. South Dakota, during 1948, released Merriam's wild turkeys in the Black Hills. They were spread through the Black Hills area by trapping and transplanting, and in 1954, only six and one-half years after the first release, were hunted on a permit basis. Encouraged by the success of tur- keys in these two adjoining states, the Montana Fish and Game Depart- ment undertook a wild turkey pro- gram. Turkeys for the Judith Moun- tains and Longpine Hills plants of 1954-55 were obtained from Colorado and Wyoming. A careful study of these two flocks, conducted by B. J. Rose, since their release has dis- closed many interesting facts about the turkeys, largest North American game bird. GENERAL DESCRIPTION — Mer- riam's wild turkey resembles its do- mestic relative, but weighs less, is more streamlined in body form, and presents a less clumsy appearance. Both possess white markings on the wings and tail. During the trapping and trans- planting program, 86 turkeys "were weighed in the Longpines. Only one mature torn was captured. The weights were as follows: Maximum Minimum Rverao Adult Toms 183/4 Juvenile Toms I8V4 9Vz \2Va Mature Hens 1 2 Vz QV2 \0lA Juvenile Hens .. 1 1 Vz 7 QVz MOVEMENTS AND ROOSTING During the summer months, wild tur- keys are found in the forested areas at the higher elevations. Here, they feed upon insects, berries, and grass heads. In the fall, however, there is a general movement to lower coun- try. Grain stubble fields scattered around the periphery of the hills are visited at this time and it appears that waste grain, at least in Montana, replaces insects in the fall and winter diet. There are no known instances of turkeys utilizing grain fields during summer months, the time when crops could be damaged. The daily summer cruising range was determined by continuous ob- servation, to be about two to three miles. The "winter range was about the same; however, during periods of deep snow the distance may be about one-fourth mile from the roost. Wild turkeys fly into the trees to roost about sunset where they re- main until daybreak. The larger — T-— H s L ■ I I — j JZZ Z^M: Judith Mountains Release (one P.ne tilth (Mease fieaver Creek Re/cose Sarpy Creed Milh TVornpfanf Fori Peci Gome Range Jrampla Indian Creek TramplQftt. Know/ion frarupJon* Releases of Merriam's wild turkeys in Montana as oi November, 1957. &!^::¥> -& £ A clutch of 10 turkey eggs. —Photo by B. J. Rose trees are selected, usually at the head of a gulch or on a hillside. Small flocks may use a single roost tree, but the larger flocks utilize a group of adjacent trees as a roosting area. BREEDING AND NESTING— Gob- bling of toms may be heard at any time during the year. The first strut- ting by adult toms was observed in February; however, the displaying and breeding peak is not reached until April. Early morning hours ap- pear to be the best time to observe strutting males. Hens begin laying eggs after mid- April in nests built upon the ground. The average clutch contains ten eggs and requires 28 days incuba- tion. In Montana, hatching occurs primarily during the first two weeks of June and one brood per year is raised. FOOD HABITS— During the study, over 2,000 droppings were analyzed to determine the turkey's general food habits in Montana. The main food item during summer was insects, with grasshoppers rep- resenting the bulk. Next in impor- tance were the fruits of bearberry, snowberry, and skunkbrush, the leaves and heads of grasses, and the fruits of chokecherry. The principal food item during the winter was grain, including wheat, oats, barley and corn. Most of the grain taken is waste found in stub- ble fields and around livestock feed- ing areas. Fruits of hawthorn, snow- berry, and grassheads were next in importance. REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS— One year alter the initial release of 13 turkeys in the Judith Mountains, only seven could be found. Three of these seven were juvenile birds, and evidence indicates a net loss of six birds (46%) for the first year. Dur- ing the fall of 1956, a total of 44 tur- keys was found. This is a substan- tial increase over the previous year's count and gives a net increase of 31 birds, or about 240%. The 1957 fall estimate of birds for this area is 100. The Longpines flock has exhibited a substantial increase following the release of 18 turkeys in January 1955. During January 1956, a total of 84 was located, representing a net increase of 66, or 367% during the first year. In a single day, October 7, 1956, a total of 184 was observed. It is not known how many birds were unseen, but a population estimate of 200 is believed conservative. This would indicate that the 1956 net in- crease was approximately 140%. For the two-year period, this represented an amazing net increase of 182 or 1,000 percent. The 1957 fall estimate for turkeys in this area places the population between 500-600. PREDATION AND POACHING — Predation does not appear to be an important limiting factor in either study area. Coyote control with 1080 has virtually eliminated this animal from both areas, and during the study no coyotes were observed. Bobcats are relatively abundant in both study areas, however only one turkey is known to have been killed by this species. One bird was re- portedly killed by two eagles and one poult was killed by a domestic cat in the Judiths. These are the only known acts of predation on wild turkeys in two and one-half years of study. There is some evidence that illegal hunting was a limiting factor in the Judith Mountains during 1955. The removal of only a few birds at such a low population level could have a serious effect on future success. Poaching is one factor that could con- tribute to the decline of our turkey numbers. TRAPPING AND TRANSPLANT- ING— During February and March of this year, a turkey trapping and transplanting program was con- ducted in the Longpines. Two types of traps were used — a double-end drop gate type made from fish net- ting to capture less wary birds, and cannon nets to capture the more wary. Three cannon nets were used to project a weighted net over birds which had been baited into range. A total of 61 turkeys was captured with the use of both types of traps. Of the two transplants made from these trapped birds, 1 6 were released in the Ft. Peck Game Range and 17 in the Sarpy Creek Hills. Eighteen birds were color-banded with bright red, white, blue, yellow and green heavy plastic leg bands. Combinations of these colors were used to mark the birds so that each could be recognized individually. These color-marked turkeys "will aid in determining movements, reproduc- tive success, survival, etc. The remaining ten turkeys were released at the trap site after cap- ture. FUTURE PLANS— The department plans to use the Longpines flock as a nucleus from which turkeys will be trapped and transplanted in other areas of eastern Montana which have stands of Ponderosa Pine inter- spersed with open grassy parks and associated shrubs. If the Longpines flock exhibits a reproductive success this summer, comparable to the success of preced- ing years, a season may be declared on wild turkeys in this area in 1958. Details of the proposed season have not as yet been worked out. 8 THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION By Del Rush, President The Montana Wildlife Federation is a state-wide organization that con- sists of sportsmen's clubs, men's clubs, archery clubs and conserva- tion organizations. At the present time there are 114 sportsmen's clubs affiliated with the state federation. The organization is divided into five districts which correspond with the five State Fish and Game Commis- sioner districts. Each district elects its own officers including president, vice-president and second vice-pres- ident. These officers make up the di- rectors of the Montana Wildlife Fed- eration. The main objectives of the Wild- life Federation are as follows: pro- motion of both adult and youth edu- cation in conservation and problems of fish and wildlife; coordination of worthwhile ideas stemming from local sportsmen's groups or conser- vation organizations affiliated with the Federation on problems of wild- life and fish management and legis- lation pertaining thereto; coopera- tion with the state Fish and Game Department personnel on develop- ment of state policy or new legisla- tion in regard to fish and game matters. In addition, the Federation is con- cerned with many other diversified activities — some on a national scale. Included under the heading of edu- cation programs sponsored by the Montana Wildlife Federation are: the wildlife extension course forums Del Rush, President of Montana Wildlife Federation. handled by a cooperative setup be- tween the University of Montana and the state Fish and Game Depart- ment; the scholarship program which is mainly for teachers at the Conser- vation Workshops conducted by various units of the University of Montana during the summers; financ- ing teachers for the Conservation Caravan and participation in Na- tional Wildlife Federation week. This included an intensified dissemina- tion of recent material dealing with problems of fish and wildlife conser- vation, utilizing press releases, radio programs, talks before local organi- zations, etc. The scholarships are grants in aid money from the National Wildlife Federation. These monies are from the sales of Wildlife stamps. The Conservation Caravan is a ten-day tour conducted for the past several years by the Montana Conservation Council. WHERE'S MY PERMIT By R. H. Tumbull During the hunting season the Fish and Game Department receives many inquiries (and complaints) re- garding the drawing for special per- mits: antelope, moose, sheep and goats. Perhaps an explanation of the system used to process applica- tions and draw for permits will answer many questions and thus allay complaints. Special permit drawings are re- quired by state law when the num- ber of applications exceeds permits available in a particular area. Ap- plications are submitted to the Fish and Game office in Helena and must be postmarked not later than July 3 1 . Each application for antelope must be accompanied by the exchange coupon attached to the big game li- cense. Drawings are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on the weekday near- est August 15th. When the application is received it is examined and if found to be correctly entered, a "control number" is assigned. It is then forwarded to the I.B.M. (International Business Ma- chines) Section where a card is key- punched with name, address, Big Game license number, control num- ber, area choice (3 for antelope only) and number in party. A listing of the cards is then prepared, proof- read, corrected and returned to the I.B.M. Section. The cards are cor- rected and filed by hunting area. In mid-August permits are drawn starting with moose, sheep and then goats. The antelope drawing usual- ly begins at 1 p.m. and requires about four hours for completion. Tak- ing one area at a time the cards are placed face down in a sorting ma- chine and segregated into various pockets. A person, who is in no way connected with the Fish and Game Department, withdraws cards at ran- dom from each pocket. The cards are then counted by a tabulating machine until a pre-de- termined total (quota) for each area is reached. These cards, represent- ing the lucky applicants, are placed on file for permit issuance. Remaining cards are filed sepa- rately and represent the group unsuc- cessful for first choice. In the event area quotas are not filled by the first drawing, the cards in the unsuc- cessful file will be sorted by second choice and processed in the same manner as the first choice drawing. This procedure is followed until three choices have been considered. No more than three choices can be considered because the I.B.M. cards 10 space does not allow key-punching this information in addition to other necessary data. The three choice cards apply to antelope only, since no more than one choice is allowed for moose, sheep and goats. If permits still remain, hunters are asked to reapply, whereby permits are issued on a first come-first served basis until all quotas have been filled. The drawing is now com- pleted in one day, but prior to instal- lation of I.B.M. equipment this opera- tion required several days. Immediately after the drawing is completed, refund checks are issued to unsuccessful moose, sheep and goat applicants. All special permits are then issued. This is a big job. However, hunters may expect to re- ceive their permits in the mail before the end of August. Cards advising those who were unsuccessful are mailed immediately after all permits have been issued. One can well understand that the various phases of the whole opera- tion requires a lot of time so hunters are urged to have patience and re- frain from calling about permits im- mediately after the drawing. Cards must be resorted and tabulated and often the information requested can- not be supplied until this phase of the job is completed. Occasionally persons do not enter the drawings because they are of the opinion that permits will be avail- able at the beginning of the hunting season. In most instances, espe- cially in central Montana, all area quotas are filled in the drawings. If hunters who wish to hunt special permit animals would submit an ap- Sportsmen attend the 1957 machine drawing for special permits. — Photo by W. K. Thompson 11 plication and not wait until the sea- son opens before attempting to get a permit, there would be far less con- fusion and disappointment. ■ Many hunters plan their trips in advance then feel very resentful to- ward the department if they do not get a special permit. No one should plan a vacation or hunting trip based upon the receipt of a moose, sheep, goat or antelope permit in limited areas. When drawings are neces- sary, some hunters are bound to be unsuccessful. Some persons erroneously believe that applicants have a better chance of receiving a permit if they apply individually, rather than a group. This is not true. When applying in groups, the first name appearing on the application represents the group. Cards are key-punched for all appli- cants, but the control indicating the number in the party is key-punched in the first card only. This card is entered in the drawing, thereby giv- ing a single entry an equal chance. It amounts to one card competing with another card. Annually, the public is invited to attend the drawings and annually the usual complaint letters shouting "foul" are received by the depart- ment. Still, to our knowledge, only two sportmens groups have been rep- resented at the drawings since the use of I.B.M. machines was initiated. The department has hoped that many sportsmen's organizations would be represented at these draw- ings so that there would be a wider understanding and appreciation of the system. Occasionally, we get a letter from a landowner who failed to receive a permit to hunt on his own property. This seems strange and unfair to him, and his complaint may be logi- cal; however, the law provides no preference in issuing permits. Every- one must enter the drawings and take their chances with the rest. Some persons are especially criti- cal of the $20 non-resident permit sys- tem. In the past, residents have not hunted eastern Montana heavily enough to hold down antelope num- bers. As a result, antelope herds over-ran certain areas and local ag- riculturists demanded action. Under the $20.00 permit system, the situa- tion has been improved so that $20.00 antelope permits are now is- sued only on a limited number in most areas but not until residents have been given ample time to ap- ply. No $20.00 non-resident permits are issued for areas where residents apply in sufficient numbers to fill the quotas. At present the special permit sys- tem has proven the best method for harvesting limited numbers of game animals. With the continued coop- eration of sportsmen and landown- ers, it will serve as a most useful tool in the management of big game. 12 YOUR DOLLAR'S WORTH OF FISHING By Jack Bailey, Hatchery Biologist When the fisherman lays out hard cash for a fishing license, he ex- pects to get his money's worth. In turn, the fisheries workers do their best to see he gets the most for his dollar. But the job of maintaining a good sports fishery in the face of greater fishing pressure and dimin- ishing trout waters is not a simple nor inexpensive one. The planting of catchable size trout to increase fishing success in waters where fishing pressure is exception- ally heavy has become a common practice for most states. But the ex- pense involved in rearing these large fish is considerable; for example, the Montana trout hatchery feed bill alone amounts to appproximately $70,000 annually*. Most of this goes to produce over one-half million catchable size rainbow trout each year. If the license dollars are to be stretched to the limit, the obliga- tion of the fish-culturist does not end when he plants these trout into ap- propriate streams. What good is done if the fish do not live to be caught? No more than five years ago avail- able information on survival of hatchery-reared trout indicated that nearly all of those planted in streams would not live through the first winter. Thus, fishermen would pre- sumably have only one season at best in which to catch them. It was suspected by many that some factor in the hatcheries such as poor diets, lack of sufficient exercise or lack of psychological conditioning to stream life might be blamed. During the past four years a study has been conducted on Flint Creek, Granite County, to compare the sur- vival of wild trout to hatchery rain- bow. First, a one-mile section of the stream was enclosed between fish barriers. Then all wild and hatchery- reared trout within the study area were marked with serially numbered jaw tags. The entire experimental section was closed to fishing and beaver were kept out of the area. 'Cost of feed represents approximately forty percent of the total cost of rearing catchable-sized trout. 13 Land owners in the valley and the Montana Power Company were espe- cially cooperative in allowing access to the stream and in manipulating water flows to minimize danger of washing out the fish barriers. All in all, fish were pretty well confined to the desired area. Each spring and fall the entire study area was worked with an elec- tric shocker in order to determine which fish were still living. Their life histories in Flint Creek have been interpreted in terms of growth, con- dition, movement and survival. Survival from planting in mid-sum- mer to the following spring has gen- erally varied from 40 percent to 70 percent in Flint Creek (depending on experimental treatment) for both hatchery and wild trout. The usual numbers of fish expected to live through the winter is about 60 per- cent of the total population with the wild trout often having the edge on hatchery fish. This information in itself was enough to warrant a re- evaluation of fish stocking policies. It is obvious that one plant of such trout could contribute to more than one fishing season and where condi- tions were suitable the trout could grow to one and one-half pounds or larger and also contribute to natural reproduction in the stream. Figures demonstrate that the Flint Creek test stream will support ap- proximately 420 pounds of trout per mile. To some extent, this poundage of fish seems to be independent of numbers of fish. For example, when the stream was deliberately over- stocked in 1955, growth rates de- creased, fish became skinny and fewer wild trout grew to a catchable size. Mortality rates were slightly higher and the net tendency was ac- tually toward a reduction in total poundage of fish. Thus, overstock- ing beyond the actual needs of a put-and-take fishery might produce good fishing so far as numbers are concerned, but the fish caught would be inferior in size and quality. Also, the potential wild fish contri- bution might not be utilized to its fullest. During the 1955 tests there was one notable exception to the usually ex- cellent survival rates. A minority of the hatchery trout planted in the test stream that year were from the Hamilton hatchery. Others planted were of the same parent source but were reared at the Anaconda sta- tion. About ten percent of the Ham- ilton trout planted were recaptured the following spring compared to an average 45 percent for Anaconda hatchery and wild trout. The few surviving Hamilton fish were in very poor condition. Had they been planted in the usual put-and-take type of waters it is probable that they would have contributed virtu- ally nothing to the creel after the first few weeks in the stream. Here then, was an example formerly con- sidered by many professional fish- eries workers as the inevitable fate of all hatchery trout. 14 One of the iish weirs used to block ofi the Flint Creek study area. The enclosure is heated to prevent winter ice damage to weir. — Photo by Jack Bailey The two most likely reasons for their low survival were thought to be: (1) the longer time spent in the fish tank because of the greater dis- tance from the test stream and, (2) differences in hatchery diets. In 1956 an experiment was under- taken to test the validity of the time in tanks theory. Trout from the Ana- conda hatchery were hauled 1-, 3-, and 6 hours before they were planted in Flint Creek. Only the 6-hour trip caused a measurable deviation from the expected survival rate. The trip from Hamilton to the test stream had taken less than two hours. Further tests were undertaken in 1957 which threw some light on the diet theory. For this experiment, three groups of trout were reared on three different diets. One group was fed a relatively expensive brand name pellet of unknown composi- tion**. Group two was fed a cheaper pellet of known composition prepared to contract specification for "Name furnished by request. the state hatcheries by a local milling company and the third group was reared on the standard hatchery pro- duction diet of fresh meat and dry concentrates. During the rearing period, the two pellet diets yielded equal growth rates and conversions of food to fish. Growth rate for the meat meal mix- ture was slower and conversions higher. The cost of raising fish on the commercial brand pellet was ap- proximately 30c per pound com- pared to 15c per pound on the con- tract pellet. Unfortunately, survival of trout reared on the cheaper pellet was unexpectedly low. Results are avail- able only from the 1957 fall census at which time roughly 75 percent of the brand name pellet and meat- meal fed fish were recaptured, while only 28 percent of the contract pellet- fed fish were found. Although the experiment was not specifically designed to tell us why the Hamilton hatchery fish failed in Flint Creek, it has demonstrated the importance of balanced, nutritious hatchery diets. We are now attempt- ing to fortify the cheaper pellet with proper amounts of vitamins and other biological requirements. Character- istics of certain hatcheries makes complete conversion to pellet feeds unlikely and this will be done only when there is adequate assurance of success. Further tests with the new pellets are anticipated and, if suc- cessful, the fishermen's dollars will be stretched further. 15 Davey 3ones* Locken „ buiging «*, Prote fish scuttled by the fisheries division in their rehabilitation program last year. Trash fish were eradicated from fifteen lakes and ponds representing 4,500 surface acres of water when full. Undesirable or trash fish are removed by chemical treatment to pro- vide more space and food for game fishes, and though the initial cost of treatment and restocking may seem high, the program provides an over-all saving of the fisheries dollar both in the cost of planting in later years and in numbers of fish returned to the creel. To insure maximum benefits, careful prepa- ration is required in advance of the actual chemical treatment. In the top left picture, a biologist is calculating the volume of a lake from a map so the amount of toxicant can be determined. Left side — Although airplanes are often em- ployed, particularly to spray areas that boats cannot reach, a lot of footwork with back pumps is still required to obtain a maximum fish kill in heavy brush cover. Lower right — Spray booms built in Fish and Game shops and attached to boats were used to distribute toxicant over deep water areas. Right center — A pressure pump is shown in use on Rainbow Lake near Hot Springs, Mon- tana to reach areas inaccessible to boats. Upper right — Windrows of dead perch bear witness to the effectiveness of toxicant on Brown's Lake near Ovando, Montana, Brown's Lake which has been noted for its perch fish- ing •was chemically treated because compara- tively few perch were of desirable size. Center — Here are fish eliminated from Tongue River Reservoir near Decker, Montana. Included are two kinds of carp, (the regular scaled, and mirror or partially scaled) gold- fish, crappie, sucker, perch, bullhead, and western golden shiner. Through the coopera- tion of the State Water Conservation Board, this was the first large Montana reservoir purposely drawn down to dead storage to make rehabilitation of the fishery economically possible. — Photos by George Holton Most of this work in 1957 was undertaken with Federal Aid to Fisheries Restoration funds under D-J Project No. F-24-D. ^v:^ MONTANA DEER MANAGEMENT WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? By Glen F. Cole. State Range Biologist This report is largely based upon the results of investigations and sur- veys conducted by Montana game managers and research biologists. These results have been abstracted from technical reports which are re- quired under the Wildlife Restoration Act. On occasion, results of the re- search in other states, with problems similar to Montana, are the basis for conclusions. HARVESTS Regulations governing Montana's deer harvests have changed rapidly in recent years. Restrictive one-deer buck seasons largely governed har- vests from 1912 to 1950. From 1951 through 1954, buck seasons were re- placed more and more by one-deer, either sex seasons. From 1955 through 1957, two-deer either sex sea- sons largely replaced one-deer sea- sons, except for the eastern part of the state. To determine the number of deer harvested and the success of license holders, a questionnaire card is mailed to a sample of persons buy- ing big game licenses each year. Re- sults from cards returned from 1951 through 1956 are shown below: It can be seen that progressively greater numbers of deer have been harvested from 1951 through 1956. The harvest in 1956 is about two and one-half times that in 1951. Num- bers of big game licenses sold each year have also increased, but only about one-third more licenses were sold in 1956 than in 1951. The in- creased success of license holders appears to be the major reason for the greater harvest. In 1951 only 38 out of every 100 license holders bagged a deer. In 1955 and 1956, 77 deer were bagged for every 100 li- cense holders. Complete information on the results of the 1957 season are Big G< ime License: 5 Sold 1951 101,985 1952 118,181 1953 119,591 1954 123,259 1955 129,735 1956 130,445 Number of Deer Per Cent Success Harvested oi License Holders 39,000 38 53,800 45 80,000 67 84,300 68 100,000 77 100,500 77 18 Biologists examine dead deer to determine cause of death. Starvation may be readily determined by fat content of bone marrow. not yet available. Indications are, however, that the harvest was equal to or greater than the 1956 season. The original reason for initiating either-sex deer seasons was to har- vest greater numbers of deer. This was considered necessary to keep deer populations within the limits of their winter food supply. Food sup- plies on summer ranges are gener- ally adequate. The consequences of not keeping deer populations with- in the limits of their winter food sup- ply are wasteful losses of animals by starvation and damage to ranchers' hay stacks. The mail-card-questionnaire re- turns show that greater numbers of deer were harvested as either-sex seasons replaced buck seasons. This raises the question, did these greater harvests keep the deer populations within the limits of their food supply? Unfortunately, the answer is NO. Deer have continued to die from star- vation, and depredations on hay stacks have continued. NOT ENOUGH HUNTERS The primary reason, that increased harvests have failed to keep deer populations within the limits of their food supply, is that Montana simply does not have enough hunters. Even the 100,000 or so hunters in recent years appear to have little effect on present deer populations. This is somewhat understandable when we realize that we have deer spread over a 146,131 square mile area. DEER DECLINES Since we have concluded that hunter harvests have little effect on our present deer populations, it might be assumed that deer are in- creasing. This, however, is not the case in the majority of the state's mountainous areas. Considerable evidence points out that deer popu- lations in these areas are decreasing. The primary reason for this is that populations have been permitted to repeatedly overuse their food supply. The end result of repeated overuse on a food supply is a winter range which will support fewer and fewer deer through the years. The actual decrease in deer numbers is brought about by starvation and a reduc- tion in the number of fawns born. Another factor contributing to the decline of deer populations in some areas is the elk. Elk have increased 19 steadily in many of the state's moun- tainous areas. Deer and elk fre- quently use the same browse plants for food during the winter. This re- sults in direct competition for food. As browse plants become more and more overused, deer starve. Elk are less affected since they can reach higher and paw through deeper snow than deer. In addition, where snow depths are not excessive, elk can subsist on grass. The fact that deer populations are decreasing in mountainous areas will be viewed with alarm by some individuals. It will seem illogical to others that a shortage of winter food rather than harvests is the reason for this decline. Nevertheless, the research biologist and the game manager can only report conditions as they exist. It would seem far better to face up to the facts than evade the problem because it is un- savory. THINGS TO COME Game management has matured into a full-fledged science in recent years. People in this profession now have enough basic information to predict what will happen under cer- tain conditions. Based on the investi- gations of Montana biologists and those from ether states, we may predict the following with respect to deer management in Montana. 1. Deer populations in the state's mountainous areas will continue to decrease as a result of food short- ages and competition with elk. 2. Barring any marked increase in non-resident hunters, the number of hunters in the state will increase slowly. According to a recent sur- vey, Montana is slated for only a 20 percent increase in population with- in the next 10 years. 3. With a substantial decrease in deer and an increase in numbers of hunters, harvests will become more effective. It may then be possible to manage deer so that overused forage plants will be permitted to recover. 4. The recovery of overused for- age plants will be slow. Substantial harvests will be necessary to hold deer populations at levels where old plants will recover and new ones will become established. 5. As forage plants recover, sub- stantial harvests will still be needed to prevent a redevelopment of the problem. With better nutrition from adequate food supplies, does will produce more fawns and starvation will no longer hold populations in check. 6. Coincident with deer decreases and increases in numbers of hunters, the success of big game license hold- ers will decline. Instead of 77 deer being harvested for every 100 license holders, as in recent years, we would expect about 40 or 50 for every 100 in the future. 7. With lower deer populations, hunting will become more sporting. Individuals who hunt from cars or do not get any distance from roads 20 .-•<". *fc Big Game biologists measure forage plants on winter range to determine the effects of deer use on forage production. Note the clubbed condition of overused browse. will be largely unsuccessful. Those who expend the effort will get deer, but there may be times when even the best hunter is unsuccessful. 8. Once populations are within the limit of their food supply we can expect larger and healthier deer than at present. Animals will not be stunted from food shortages and nu- tritional deficiencies or predisposed to various diseases. 9. As harvests bring animals with- in the limits of their food supply, the sex and age composition of deer populations will change. Fawns and aged deer are the first to starve on ranges where food is short. With adequate harvests, aged deer be- come less prevalent and the majority of the animals in a population are in the prime and young age classes. With adequate food supplies, fawns will survive through winters and be added to the population. Since ap- proximately one-half of each years fawn crop are males, it can be seen that more bucks will be available to hunters when fawn crops are not lost by starvation. 10. When and if it comes to pass, that hunter harvests become effective in keeping deer within the limits of their food supply, we will be making proper use of a resource. It is en- tirely possible to harvest as many deer as we are now doing from a smaller breeding population. The difference is that we would be har- vesting the annual crop of surplus animals from healthy productive herds instead of losing what little 21 production there is from herds which must contend with food shortages, nutritional deficiencies and diseases. THE SOLUTION The obvious solution to situations where deer are overusing their food supply is to harvest more animals, but the problem is how? In the past two years, Montana has had almost general two-deer either sex seasons in all but the eastern portions of the state. Returns from statewide ques- tionnaires show that two-deer sea- sons have resulted in a harvest of only 9 or 10 more deer per 100 hunt- ers as compared to one-deer either sex seasons. This does not mean that two-deer seasons are of no value in solving local management prob- lems. In some problem areas two- deer seasons have increased the harvest by about one-third over that obtained by one-deer either sex sea- sons. All information shows, how- ever, that the majority of Montana's hunters will not harvest a second deer. This is unfortunate. Instead of utilizing surplus deer, we are per- mitting them to be wasted. THE MANAGEMENT PLAN The management plan for the pro- fessional game manager calls for annual measurements of food condi- tions, deer population trends, and the number of animals harvested. Food conditions are measured each spring by methods which take into account the amount of use on impor- tant forage plants and the effect of this use on future forage production. Population trends are measured by a variety of methods. Two of the most common are pellet group counts and periodic doe-fawn-ratio counts. The number of deer harvested is deter- mined by hunter-check stations and mail-card questionnaires. Information on food conditions, population trends, and the harvest are all evaluated in recommending the type of season needed for a par- ticular area. Since food conditions ultimately determine the welfare of deer populations, they are given the most weight. The population trend or the number of deer harvested is of little consequence if the present num- ber of deer on a range are overusing their food supply. This is the situa- tion we are facing in the majority of Montana's mountainous areas. With respect to elk competition with deer, decisions will have to be made as to which game animal is to be favored. Decisions should be based on range appraisals which would determine if greater benefits could be derived from deer or elk. If elk are to be favored, declines in deer populations must be expected. If deer are to be favored, elk popula- tions must be reduced to levels where they would not be competing with deer for food. The management plan for the gen- eral public and sportsmen calls for a better understanding of the prob- lem which is basically one of food supplies. Winter ranges will pro- duce food for just so many game animals and no more. Attempts to 22 r M Winter is the critical period for food. Too many deer for the available food results in over- used forage plants. Note damage to young evergreen. carry more deer or elk than range will support only result in overuse on forage plants and a winter range which will carry fewer and fewer animals through the years. PLANNED ACTION For the present, it is obvious that one and two-deer either sex seasons are still the best management tools for Montana's deer situation. In gen- eral, one-deer seasons will be recom- mended for the prairie portions of the state where food conditions are less critical. Two-deer seasons will be recommended for the mountainous portions of the state where food con- ditions are critical. More specifically, the type of deer season recommended for any par- ticular area will depend upon the re- sults of surveys and investigations conducted by professional game managers and research biologists Information on deer food conditions, population trends, and the numbers harvested will be the basis for recom- mendations. The extent to which this information is used in the final setting of seasons will determine the soundness of Montana's deer man- agement program. In this age of missiles and Sput- niks, the use of research results and a scientific approach should be some- thing the public demands in a deer management program. The profes- sional game managers and research biologists are hoping that this is the case. 23 MONTANA FISH & GAME DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION The Montana Fish and Game De- partment, like other growing agen- cies, is of necessity a flexible organ- ization. From time to time, as public de- mands grow and the need for ad- justments are felt to cope with management complexities, some re- organization is needed to maintain an efficiently coordinated operation. Following is an organization chart of the Montana Fish and Game De- partment as it exists today and a brief description of staff responsi- bilities. The Montana Fish and Game Com- mission consists of five men selected from five commission districts. These men, appointed by the Governor for a period of four years, meet two days of each month. Their responsi- bilities are primarily concerned with policy setting, budgetary problems and hunting and fishing regulations. The Department Director is ap- pointed by the Commission for an in- definite period. He is the adminis- trative officer responsible for the operation of the entire department, and is assisted in these activities by the Deputy Director. Three major divisions are respon- sible for the direct management of Montana's wildlife resources. These are the divisions of Game Manage- ment, Enforcement and Fisheries. Close cooperation and coordination must exist between the three divi- sions in order to insure maximum efficiency. Standing. L-R: W. J. Everin, Deputy Director; E. J. Skibby, Commission Chairman; H. W. Black. Commissioner; R. D. Shipley, Commissioner; W. T. Sweet, Commissioner; J. T. Hanson, Sr.. Commmissioner. Seated, L-R: A. A. O'Claire, Director; E. Cutler, Commission Secretary. 24 A. A. O'Claire, Director, Montana Fish and Game Department. MANAGEMENT DIVISIONS Game management activities are directed and supervised by the Chief of Game Management. The position of game manager is new in the Mon- tana Fish and Game Department, even though the actual activities have existed for some time. This is a technical and administrative po- sition responsible for the statewide game management program. Close liaison is required with the Federal I I :':X 4* J" W. J. Everin, Deputy Director, Montana Fish and Game Department. Aid Coordinator, the Chief of Law Enforcement and the District Game Managers. The Wildlife Projects Coordinator is responsible for directing and super- vising projects involving federal aid funds. Although these projects are financed to the extent of seventy-five percent federal funds, the state re- tains control and direction of all such projects. Wildlife Restoration funds are allotted to states on an area — li- cense sales basis. R. H. Cooney, Chief oi Game Management. W. G. Freeman, Wildlife Projects Coordinator. 25 Both Biological and Fish Culture programs are supervised by the Fish- eries Superintendent. Assisting him is the Chief Fisheries Biologist who directs his program through District Fisheries Biologist and the Hatchery Superintendent, supervisor of fish culture personnel. W. M. Allen, Superintendent of Fisheries. F. S. Keller, Assistant Superintendent of Fisheries. Manager Coordinator and Fisheries Division wherever aid is required in censusing, stocking, checking sta- tions and other management facets. Directly responsible to him are seven District Warden Supervisors. G. D. Holton, Chief Fisheries Management Biologist. The Chief of Law Enforcement, be- sides dispatching enforcement du- ties, works closely with the Game m i D. L. Brown, Chief of Law Enforcement. 26 SERVICE DIVISIONS Personnel in these divisions con- tribute materially in various ways in the management of wildlife re- sources. To them falls the task of tying up loose ends and caring for the myriad of details that are neces- sary incidentals to actual manage- ment. Service divisions cooperate with and assist all other units of the Department. The Chief of Information and Education is charged with the dis- semination of news, publicity and advertising, wildlife conservation ed- ucation, and general information. The I and E Chief works closely with other divisions. Among the other responsibilities of this division are youth programs, the hunter safety program and wild- life exhibits. The proper dispatch and account- ting of income and disbursements and general office procedure is su- pervised by the Chief Clerk. This di- vision also supervises issuance and dispersal of licenses and permits as well as many other details relating to general administrative matters. The Divisions of Graphic Arts, En- gineering, Shops and Warehouse, and Airplane service are self-explan- atory. The services of these units to other divisions are very important in the everyday functions of the Fish and Game Department. W. K. Thompson, Chief of Information and Education. R. H. Turnbull, Chief Clerk. NOTE ORGANIZATION CHART ON FOLLOWING PAGE 27 < O o I— I H < N ►—i z < o o s H PC < w Q w O «<3 K CO I— I < H Z o 2 S o H S5 3 i b ^ ... f i (j u u o 1 1 1 i 1 be C •»-> » K c ^ 3 fc 0) ce c o fi £ c 0> Q. C! E O O CO w c w ■.-< c CL-H a * «, o 11 <-. c -r-l J^ CI «< n jr 0; o t- C CI o J* c ^. -J O -p .-i to o O 5= n O E- 1-1 < TJ E- ' o2 t3 CJ O » £ s to •o c o x: c C C o c t- c— <: o (- C U- c 1 C n o ca •H CO 2 M u Jh en 5? UJ ,-r <« *-. ■p.f. tn 3 O 3 o w p o (. K £ rr- 5 ^ C- a a c>~ •o .c v •*-! U 43 <« -rH fcu c $ £ b. *7&c S6i*U*ty> 7ftocMfaivt4, By V. E. Craig The history of Montana is as col- orful as the state itself, and wildlife has played an important role almost from the time when the first white man, a fur trader Chevalier De La Verendrye, set foot upon its soil on New Year's Day, 1743. Upon seeing the glistening, snow encrusted Bighorn Mountains piled in magestic grandeur he exclaimed, "This is the land of the shining mountains." To this day, this phrase is used to de- scribe our state, "the land of the shining mountains." Verendrye, and his party, in search of the Pacific Ocean were led into Montana by Indian tales of a great river. Upon leaving Montana, Verendrye raised a monument and planted a lead plate in the name of France. The plate, planted May 2, 1743, in a vast wilderness was dis- covered by a school girl 150 years later near Pierre, South Dakota. Montana later became a war prize to England but was returned to France by Napoleon in 1800. Even- tually, the area was included in the Louisiana purchase and became a part of the United States. Immedi- ately plans were made to explore the northwest wilderness and in 1805, thirty-four men and an Indian woman guide, Sacajawea, crossed Montana under the leadership of Lewis and Clark. Judging from the journals, game animals flourished here in great abundance in those early days. With their primitive hunting methods the few aboriginal Indians could have made but little inroads on their num- bers. Countless buffalo, elk, ante- lope and deer ranged the grassy, wind-swept prairies and rolling foot- hills while the bighorn sheep in- habited more precipitous terrain 29 bordering rivers and badlands. Car- nivores also were numerous and giant grizzlies ranged into the Da- kotas. Early explorers report compara- tively little game in mountainous country, a further indication that the habits of many game animals changed as civilization made its inroads. The lure for furs beckoned trap- pers and traders deeper into the vast and practically untouched northwest. Manual Lisa was one to recognize the great potential of this wild area and in 1807-1808 established the first Montana trading post at the junction of the Yellowstone and Bighorn Riv- ers. During 1810 a second post was established near the three forks of the Missouri River. It was one of Lisa's men, John Colter, who first discov- ered Yellowstone Park while fleeing hostile Indians. The fantastic tales he told of the area were not believed, and for a long time it was referred to as Colter's Hell. As early as 1832 a fur trader (Pierre Chouteau) brought a steamboat to Fort Union near the confluence of the Missouri and Yel- lowstone Rivers. Gradually, the steaming smoke-belching craft re- placed its predecessors — the keel boats and dugouts laboriously brought upstream by earlier pio- neers. As the great wealth of furs began to flow from Montana, more preten- tious posts were established to handle the ever-increasing products of fur trade. The town of Fort Benton built in 1846 by the American Fur Company to handle fur trade, be- came one of the more important cen- ters of fur industry as both white and Indian trappers came to it from the wilderness to ply their wares. Naturalists, including the well- known Audubon were lured to Mon- tana by tales of game abundance. Many of them headquartered at Fort Union and set down in their journals records of teeming animal life. Hunt- ers also turned from depleted game herds of the east and journeyed west where they could pursue their sport or seek fortune in hide hunting. Perhaps the most bizarre of hunt- ers was one Sir George Gore who left Laramie in August 1854, and en- tered Montana in 1855 accompanied by 41 men, four mule wagons, three ox wagons and 21 French wagons. Sir George, a so-called gentleman hunter, enjoyed luxury and his ex- pedition carried quantities of assorted items to insure his comfort, including three milk cows and a brass bed- stead. One wagon was loaded with Sir George's battery of firearms (75 rifles, over one dozen shotguns and many pistols). Sir George reputedly never loaded his own firearms but shot his quarry, preferably buffalo, from a comfort- able position and was then handed another gun by an attendant. Little use was apparently made of the ani- mals he shot, and the bloody trail he left brought forth what seems to be the first recorded protest of wan- ton game slaughter in Montana. A 30 The search for furs brought into the wilderness a hardy and adventurous breed. letter written to the Fort Union com- mander by Indian Agent A. J. Vaughn in 1856 reads in part "he states, also his men, that he killed 105 bears and some 2,000 buffalo, elk and deer 1600, he states, was more than they had any use for, hav- ing killed it purely for sport." The exciting gold discoveries at Gold Creek, Bannack and Virginia City (1858-65) ushered in a new era of western immigration. Steamboat- ing on the Missouri River was at a feverish pitch, with the puffers going as far upstream as Fort Benton. In 1867, 10,000 passengers were landed at Fort Benton. In 1865 the Mullen Road, first of any importance in Mon- tana stretched from Fort Benton across the mountains near Helena to Walla Walla, Washington, in order to accommodate the ever-increasing tide of western immigrants. Covered wagons dug deep into trails which had known only the Indian travois. About this time, some of the more far-seeing became alarmed about the destruction of Montana's wild re- sources. It appears odd that their concern over fish was greater than that of the large animals succuming to wholesale destruction. Neverthe- less, the first attempt at manage- ment found its way into the territorial legislature of 1864. An enacted bill which limited the taking of fish by rod and pole, line and hook and pre- vented using poisonous substances 31 or the making of dams to catch trout went into effect February 2, 1865. As early as 1853, Pallister wrote in his Solitary Rambles of a Hunter that the old time hunter and trapper were "a race now rapidly becoming ex- tinct owing to the great fall in the price of beaver from the recent in- troduction of silk into the manufac- turers." The use of nutria and seal further tended to reduce the beaver market. Trappers turned from the beaver and joined professional hunt- ers in securing the more lucrative big game robes. In 1866, the cattle industry got its start in Montana. Longhorns were trailed in from Texas to dot the range where the buffalo had recently roamed. According to records, T. C. Power and J. G. Baker of Fort Benton con- trolled the bulk of robe trade. From 1875-1877 there annually were shipped out of Ft. Benton 80,000 to 100,000 buffalo robes, about 30,000 wolf skins, 150 tons of antelops skins and other assorted small furbearer pelts. .The slaughter of bison and influx of settlers agitated Indian trou- bles which culminated in the Custer massacre on the Little Bighorn in 1876. The numbers of wolf pelts shipped are further evidence that wolves were very abundant in territorial days. In the buffalo range they lived al- most exclusively on the bison. Audubon, in his journals, mentions wolves feeding from pig troughs around Fort Union and of sentries seeing many when the fort's gates were opened at sunrise. Hundreds of wolf paths led to the fort. In 1887, 1,582 wolves and 2,570 coyotes were bountied. This was the first year coyote bounties had out-numbered wolves. This act of one animal in- creasing to fill the niche left by a diminishing species is a common, but not well understood biological phenomenon. After taking the hides of game animals, the early settlers poisoned the carcasses to kill the wolves. Relentless warfare was waged on them by hide hunters and later stockmen until almost total ex- termination resulted. In 1869, legislators again turned their thoughts to the rapidly dwind- ling game numbers and acted to pre- vent the killing of quail and partridge for a three-year period beginning July, 1870. The following year, an- other act concerning game birds was affected. This prevented killing grouse, prairie chickens, pheasants, fool hens, partridge or quail between the first day of March and the 15th day of August of each year. It was not until 1 872 that the larger big game animals were given con- sideration. This year also marked the establishment of Yellowstone Park. A season was set to protect Mountain buffalo, moose, elk, black- tailed deer (mule deer), white-tailed deer, mountain sheep, mountain goat, antelope and hare between the 32 first day of February through the 15th of August. In 1876, it became unlaw- ful to take big game animals for their hides alone. Protection was also allotted beaver, otter, marten and fish between the first day of April and the first day of October. This did not prevent landowners from removing beaver that were causing damage. Some waterfowl were also given protection between May 15 and August 10. Hard winters of 1881 and 1882 ag- gravated the plight of the buffalo and in 1883, professional hunters could not believe what they must have known -would come to pass — the incredulous fact that large scale buffalo hunting had come to an end. The great herds were forever gone. So great had the slaughter been that for some years both homesteaders and Indians profited by gathering and selling the bleached bones that littered the prairies. But the finale of the bison did not put an end to the large drain on game animals. Miners and home- steaders continued to make inroads on the larger animals, and game meat apparently supplied a bulk of food for hungry railroad crews as the steel rails stretched into the west. Though an act of 1883 was designed to prevent market hunting of any animals, it continued to be a prof- itable occupation for many people. Records state that even U. S. cavalry was unsuccessful in preventing reg- ular poaching raids on remnant buf- falo herds in Yellowstone Park. During 1889, the year Montana gained statehood, legislative provi- sions were made authorizing creation of fish and game wardens for each county. If at least 100 county tax payers petitioned the board of coun- ty commissioners, the commissioners could, if they deemed it advisable, select a warden and pay him $100.00 per month from county monies. The first board of Fish and Game Commissioners took office March 14, 1895. They proceeded to set very liberal seasons and bag limits, in- cluding 8 deer, 8 mountain sheep, 8 goats and 8 antelope per hunter in one season. There were no limits as to the numbers of grouse or water- fowl that could be taken during a lengthy season. On April 1, 1901, W. F. Scott was appointed as the first state fish and game warden and was given a force of eight deputies. From this modest beginning has grown the rather complex organiza- tion we have today. Fishing and hunting has become one of Mon- tana's most important assets. Even in the face of greatly increased de- mands by hunters and fishermen, and decreased wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing has continued to improve in Montana. Sound management based on re- search facts together with the sup- port of a well informed citizenry will keep this state among the nation's leaders as a hunting and fishing paradise. Helena, Montana Sec. 34.66, P. L. & R. U. S. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 50 DARREL GUDMUN&SON fcFD 1 , BOX 246 MILES CITY, .v:o:jt 16