PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE

IN THE UNITED STATES

PART IX

OF THE

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE LAND PLANNING COMMITTEE

TO THE

NATIONAL RESOURCES BOARD

For aale by the Superintendent of Documants, WashlnSton, D. C. - - Price 10 centa (paper cover)

SXJPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE LAND PLANNING COMMITTEE
• TO THE NATIONAL RESOURCES BOARD

Published in eleven separate parts

Part I. General Conditions and Tendencies Influencing the Nation's Land Requirements

Part II. Agricultural Exports in Relation to Land Policy

Part III. Agricultural Land Requirements and Available Resources

Part IV. Land Available for Agriculture Through Reclamation

Part V. The Problem of Soil Erosion

Part VI. Maladjustments in Land Use

Part VII. Certain Aspects of Land Problems and Government Land Policies

Part VIII. Forest Land Resources, Reqmrements, Problems, and PoUcy

Part IX. Planning for Wildhfe in the United States

Part X. Indian Land Tenure, Economic Status, and Population Trends

Part XI. Recreational Use of Land in the United States

From the collection of the

i— m

Prelinger

'ibrary

p

fj

San Francisco, California
2008

PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE

IN THE UNITED STATES

PART IX

OF THE

REPORT ON LAND PLANNING

THIS PART WAS PREPARED BV THE BUREAU OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND THE FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOR THE

LAND PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL RESOURCES BOARD

The National Resources Board assumes no responsibility for the views
and opinions expressed herein

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1935

PREFACE

On November 2S, 1934, the National Resources
Board submitted to the President, in accordance with
an Executive order, its report on National Planning
and Public Works in Relation to Natural Resources
and Includino; Land Use and Water Resources. Part
II of that report was the Report of the Land Planning
Committee. In the course of preparing part II of
the above report a large volume of basic data and infor-
mation was collected which could not then be included.
The publication of the present report is for the purpose
of making such data and infonnation available to
interested persons and organizations.

The present land report has been organized into 1 1
parts according to subject matter and the contributmg
agencies. These 11 parts are made available as 11
separate publications. Organization and publication
on this basis was done because many persons and
agencies are interested only in certain parts of the
present report, and the necessity of purchasing the
whole report in order to obtain the desired part or
parts is thereby eliminated.

The present land report, when conceived as a whole,
does not purport to be a complete work on the subject
of land utilization, or of its related problems and pro-
posed lines of action ; neither is it designed to be a thor-
oughly integrated piece of work. The prunary aim
here has been to set forth the facts, analyses, and v,he
recommended lines of action as developed by each of
the various contributing governmental bureaus, divi-
sions, sections, or individuals, on the problems with
which each of such agencies or persons is concerned.
The points of view are, therefore, those of the con-
tributmg agencies or individuals themselves. The
Land Planning Committee presents the report as

information, but assumes no responsibility for the
opinions expressed in it.

This report was prepared under the direction of
Dr. L. C. Gray, director of the Land Section of the
National Resources Board, aided by John B. Bennett,
who served as administrative assistant and as secre-
tary to the Land Planning Committee. Editing and
preparation of the report for publication were under the
direction of Mr. H. H. Erdmann, agricultural economist
of the Land Section, National Resources Board.

Authorship by agencies and individuals is acknowl-
edged in their respective contributions. The follow-
ing governmental agencies have contributed to the
whole report: The Geological Survey, the Division
of Grazing Control, the Office of Indian Affairs, the
National Park Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation,
in the United States Department of the Interior; and
the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering, the Biological
Survej', the Bureau of Chemistrv' and Soils, the Forest
Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Weather
Bureau, the Divisions of Land Economics, of Farm
Management and Costs, and of Farm Fmance in the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and the Land
Policy Section, the Production Planning Section, the
Import-Export Section, and the Agricultural-Indus-
trial Relations Section of the Division of Program
Planning of the Agricidtural Adjustment Administra-
tion in the United States Department of Agriculture.
Credit also is due to the State agricultural expermicnt
stations and extension services, State planning boards,
commissions, and other State organizations and indi-
viduals for aid in preparation of several sections of the
report.

Land Planning Committee
M. L. Wilson, Chairman.

Oscar Chapman.
W. G. Mendenhall.
H. H. Bennett.

mordecai ezekiel.
Jacob Baker.
Charles W. Eliot, 2d.

L. C. Gray, Director.

LAND REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES WITH RESPECT

TO WILDLIFE

Contents

Page

Preface iii

Section I. Requirements for Wildlife Areas 1

Economic importance of wildlife — Social and recreational importance — Need of wildlife management —
Possibilities and limitations in associating wildlife with other uses of land — Public areas employed as special-
ized refuges — Public areas designated as refuges but devoted to other major uses — Public areas needed for
specialized refuges — -Public areas in other uses that should be designated as wildlife refuges — Private lands
employed as a habitat for wildlife.

Section II. Policies With Respect to Wildlife 12

Areas now in public ownership devoted to wildlife — Programs of acquisition; suggestions for modifica-
tion— Integration of Federal and State policies — Encouraging game production on private lands.

Section III. Wildlife Management in National Forests 15

Encouraging game management on public land in other use — Economic and social values of wildlife
areas — Wildlife and other land uses — Areas suitable only for refuges — Areas specially adapted to wildlife — •
Areas available for wildlife — Needed additions to forests — Privately owned land as a hibitat for wildlife.

SECTION I
REQUIREMENTS FOR WILDLIFE AREAS*

Economic Importance of Wildlife

Wildlife is as essentially a product of land (or land
and water) as is timber, agricultural crops, or domestic
livestock. A multitude of kinds, bearing importantly
upon human welfare, are especially adapted to various
kinds of habitat, from dense forest and open range to
cultivated fields, water, and marsh. It follows, there-
fore, that wildlife cannot be ignored in any compre-
hensive, well-considered plan for land utilization.
Mammals, birds, fishes, and other wild vertebrates con-
stitute a major national resource that is becoming more
generally appreciated, as evidenced by increasing
interest in every phase of nature study.

Many of the various forms, fur bearers and fishes
especially, are of direct economic value. An example
is the income derived from the sale of hunting, trapping,
and fishing licenses; the furs of course have a great
commercial value also, and in some cases the meat
supphes a highly prized form of food. That the meat
and fur value of wild mammals and birds is considerable
is indicated by an estimated total for 1 year of more
than $190,000,000 for the whole country. Capitahzed
on a low-percentage basis the total value of wildlife
would far exceed $1,000,000,000. Other economic
values are receipts from the sale of hunting and fishing
equipment, including guns, ammunition, fishing tackle,
and clothing, expenditures of sportsmen for transporta-
tion, board, hire of guides, and for hunting and fishing
privileges on private lands. To the foregoing may be
added the output of the fur trade, including the fur
manufacturing industry, the annual expenditures for
the maintenance of the numerous and widely distributed
hunting and fishing clubs; also the general expenses of
tourists and others attracted primarily by an abundance
of wildlife. It is these various wildlife values that go to
make up the estimated grand total of at least $1,000,-
000,000 annually.

Last but not least should be mentioned the incal-
culable value of wildlife, chiefly birds, as destroyers of
the insects that prey on agricultural crops and forest
trees.

Social and Recreational
Importance

The social values also, including the recreational and
educational advantages arising from an abundance of
wildlife in general, are more intangible and therefore
more difficult to appraise than the economic values, but
thev arc none the less real.

* Contributed by the Bureau of Biological Survey.

In Europe from time immemorial hunting has been
a sport restricted mainly to the nobility or the wealthy
classes, who usually assume direct owTiership of all
game ranging on their large estates. In America, on
the other hand, the traditional concept is that owner-
ship of most game, whether on privately owned or
public land, is vested in the State or the Federal Gov-
ernment, and that hunting, subject to restrictive laws
and regulations, including those in regard to trespass,
is for all who wish to indulge in it. The relative free-
dom of the American system is due to the fact that for
the early settlers the pursuit and killing of game and
fur bearers was a vital necessity in providing meat for
food and furs for clothing. The skilled hunter became
an expert marksman who defended his home and gave
an excellent account of himself in early military cam-
paigns. The role of the hunter, important first in
gaining a livelihood, led naturallj^ through successive
generations to the development of a love of the chase
as sport. The joy of the chase provides wholesome
recreation of a kind that can be obtained in no other
way, and one that perhaps only a hunter can fully
appreciate. The many difi'erent kinds of hunting for
large and small game and the several kinds of fishing
afford the variety adapted to the need and inclination
of the various classes of our growing population. The
pursuit of large game, especially, which often requires
persistent effort as well as skill, tends to bring out
quaUties contributing to the virility of the race.

A considerable number to whom the taking of animal
life is repugnant, satisfy a natural urge for contact
wath primitive nature by stalking wildlife to obtain
photographs at short range, or to make detailed studies
of the life habits of the several species.

A report of the Senate Committee on Conservation
of Wildhfe Resources (S. Kept. 1329, 71st Cong.),
estimates that there was during the decade ending in
1930 a 400-percent increase in the number of people
who enjoy the pastimes of hunting and fishing. It
estimates the number of licensed hunters in the United
States in 1929 at 7,000,000 and the total of all hunters
and fishermen at probably 13,000,000. The current
trend toward shorter hours and fewer working days
should add tremendoush- to the number of men who
seek such out-door recreation.

Hunting and fishing as a sport attract men to the
forest and mountains, the lakes, and the streams,
where for a brief period they may escape the artificial
life to which by modern conditions most are confined.

1

Land Planning Report

From such an outing they return to their usual duties
improved mentally and physically, with a broadened
outlook and a quickened appreciation of natural re-
sources that should contribute immeasurably to the
wealth, comfort, and well-being of the people.

Need of Wildlife
Management

Conservation Alone Not the Solution: Recognition of
wildlife as a national asset of major importance brings
into relief the problem of management. Much has
been written on the conservation of wildlife by authors
representing many shades of opinion, but compara-
tively little indicating a broad, clear concept of its
corollary, wildlife management. The emphasis on
conservation has doubtless been due to the necessity
of building up a militant opposition to destructive
forces leading toward the extermination of so many
species. In many directions this danger is not yet past,
but conservation should be recognized in its true rela-
tion as a means to an end and not an end in itself.
The overabundance of game in one region may present
a more pressing and difficult problem than would its
absence or scarcity in another. Game management
consists largely in the regulation of numbers in accord-
ance with food supply and cover, with due regard for
other local interests.

At the time of the discover}^ of North America, its
•\vildlife, probably unequaled elsewhere in diversity'
and abundance, ranged in everj' kind of habitat
throughout the length and breadth of the continent.
Great herds of grass-feeding animals — buflFalo, ante-
lope, elk, and mountain sheep — occupied the open
plains or high mountains of the West. Moose and
caribou had an extensive range in the northern forests,
and bears were numerous wherever conditions were
suitable. Fur bearers in great variety, including the
beaver, otter, wolverine, marten, mink, fox, raccoon,
and muskrat, were widely distributed and soon became
the basis of an extensive and profitable pioneer indus-
try. Upland game birds, as wild turkeys, passenger
pigeons in amazing numbers, and the various kinds of
grouse and prairie chickens, occupied great areas
adapted to their divergent needs. Waterfowl in count-
less millions, especially ducks, geese, and swans, nested
over an enormous territory but particularly in the vast
prairie regions of the Middle West, the Northwest, and
areas extending into Canada and Alaska ; and in concen-
trated niA-riads migrated southward to winter. Many
writers attest to their almost incredible abundance.

For example, Grinnell records that in Eastern and
Hogg Bay, Chesapeake Bay, one might see redlieads
rafted in bodies miles in extent, probably not less than
50,000 ducks in a mass.' Incidentally the redhead is
new so reduced in nuinbei*s that only special protection
will prevent its extermination. Geese also were in such

' Grinnell, G. B. American Duck Shooting. New York, 1901. pp. 485-86.

abundance that, especially in California, they became
destructive to winter wheat on a large scale.

Previous to the arrival of the settlers, the scattered
Indian population, hunting mainly with bows and
arrows, and without effective tools, was negligible in
its effect upon the game. Predatory animals — wolves,
mountain lions, bobcats, and, in the West, coyotes — took
their toll, but there was ample food for all.

Essentials of WihUife Management: A re\'iew of the
general field, and contrast with past abimdance, shows
that wildlife has nearly every^vhere been sadly neg-
lected as a national resoiu-ce or grossly mismanaged.
The essentials of wildlife management are relatively
simple but exceedingly difficult to put into effect,
owing to public apathy, sheer ignorance or misunder-
standing, selfishness, misguided sentiment, and politics.

First of all, only a well-informed public opinion can
overcome the inertia and prejudice that tend to paralyze
constructive effort. The management of game, and of
wildlife as a whole, calls for professional skill of the
highest order. The wildlife administrator should com-
bine broad technical knowledge and the instincts of a
natiu-aUst with capacity for dealing with hard, factual
realities. Such a combination of qualities is not easily
obtained, and it is rare where game officials are ap-
pointed merely as a reward for political party services.
Occasionally a political appointee will develop some
capacity as a game manager, but by the time he has
become familiar with the intricacies of the work his
services are apt to be terminated. His political suc-
cessor may be sincere, but untrained, and the splendid
game assets suffer for lack of the attention that can be
given only by those who would make wildlife manage-
ment a career. In order to function properly, game
commissions should be composed of well-informed indi-
viduals, free from political pressure, and must have
authority to deal promptly and effectivel}' with rapidly
changing conditions as the\ arise.

The adequate management of big game on national
forests ^ is urgentlj" needed and presents especial diffi-
culty owing to conflicting views with regard to juris-
diction. Game is a product of the forest, and too
abundant game on national forests may be destructive
to forest reproduction and may seriously interfere with
the proper regulation there of the grazing of domestic
stock. Proper game management calls for the regula-
tion of niunbers, ordinarily by himting under a limited
license plan, the game supply to be maintained with
due regard to range-carrying capacity and other
local interests. The game should be fostered and made
to yield an annual crop that will be harvested in an
orderly way adapted to local conditions.

Some States may have what is regarded as compe-
tent game administration, but it is obviously impossible

3 See also contribution by the Forest Service on wildlife management on national
forests. Sec. Ill of part IX.

Wildlife in the United States

for them, subject as they are to changing policies and
political expediency, to equal the efficiency of the wild-
life service that can be extended to national forests by
the Federal Government under plans coordinating all
forest uses.

Possibilities and Limitations
in Associating Wildlife
with Other Uses of Land

Wildlife in a multiplicity of forms has a more or less
direct bearing upon land uses nearly everywhere.
Certain kinds may be highly beneficial, others neutral,
or some maj' seriously interfere with economic utiliza-
tion of lands. Crows, for example, are beneficial in
consuming grubs or cutworms that injure agricultural
crops, but they destroy many eggs of wild ducks, the
breeding of which constitutes a highly important form
of marshland utilization. And these differing crow
activities may be carried on over closely adjoining
lands.

Competitors with Wildlife for Land: With the appear-
ance of the settlers, the clearing of the forests for farms
and town sites, the occupation of grasslands for agri-
cultural purposes, or the grazing of domestic stock, the
general aspect of much of the former domain of wildlife
was transformed. As the tide of civilization and gen-
eral land occupation moved westward across the con-
tinent the greater part of the plains animals either were
wiped out or resorted to the forests, which are the great
reservoirs of so much of our remaining upland game.
Though deplorable, the displacement of much of the
game was inevitable. The final passing of the buft'alo
on open ranges could not have been prevented, for great
herds of buft'alo have no place, as game, under modern
conditions. Inevitable also was the passing of most of
the antelope, originallj' more numerous perhaps than
the buft'alo.

The intensive settlement of the vast prairie areas of
the Middle West and north into Canada, and the devel-
opment of one of the greatest grain-producing regions in
the world, led directly to the virtual elimination of
large sections of the best breeding ranges of our most
important waterfowl. The surface absorption of mois-
ture by the cultivation of land, and the deliberate drain-
age of so many of the originallj' innumerable ponds,
lakes, and marshes, have wiped out most of the local
waterfowl breeding grounds. Another serious result
has been the lowering of underground water levels,
shown in the failure of wells, the drying up of springs
that should feed streams, and the general desiccation of
the country. Meanwhile many of the lands drained
have proved to be of little agricultural value, and during
periods of drought wind erosion has strongly tended to
complete the picture of desolation.

Restoration Measures Attempted: Efforts are now
being made to restore some of the 84,000,000 acres
that have been drained in the country as a whole; and

144090 — 36 2

yet drainage engineers may in many localities be con-
tinuing the destructive policy of the past.

All drainage projects of the Reclamation Service
should be scrutinized with a view to determining their
effect upon the native wildlife and other water uses and
values, and these should be balanced against their
prospective value for the purposes already planned.

Pressure on wildlife by human occupation of the land,
therefore, together with almost unrestricted killing by
hunters, inroads by predatory animals, and other inci-
dental factors, has led to the disappearance of game of
many kinds or to its reduction to comparatively small
numbers over most of its former range. In the Eastern
States the larger predatory animals virtually disap-
peared many years ago along with the larger game, but
the destruction of game by the mountain lions, wolves,
coyotes, and bobcats that still remain in the Western
States continues on a scale that is not generally realized.
The greatest predatorj"^ animal after all, however, is
man. Control must be exercised over the too indiscrim-
inate use of modern firearms by the increasing millions
of hunters, if a sufficient breeding stock of game is to be
maintained. This does not mean that hunting under
proper conditions should be discouraged, but rather
that its implications should be realized and that it
should be carried on and regulated as a game-crop
harvesting operation.

Although the general outlook for forms of wildlife
hunted as game may seem discouraging, conservation
progress is being made and much imiy yet be done
through the properly coordinated use of land, not only
to save the remnants, but greatly to increase numbers
and restore game to vast sections from which it has been
eliminated. To deal intelligenth' with the problem
requires an appreciation of the requirements of the game
and of all the factors that maj' result in decreases or
increases in numbers of wildlife forms. With these
requirements clearly in mind wildlife values should be
measured against land values for other uses everywhere.

Forest Wildlife: The fact that the forests are the great
reservoirs of most of our upland game leads logically to
a consideration of the relation of forestry to game con-
servation with a view to the best use of forest lands.*
Since the maximmn production of timber tends to con-
flict with the maximum production of game, the rela-
tive economic and social values and all the factors
involved should be carefully weighed in connection with
general forest numagement. Forest reproduction is so
unsatisfactory in many places, from the forester's stand-
point, that planting has to be resorted to. In such proj-
ects of forest restoration the probable trend in future
comparative values of timber and game should be antici-
pated as far as possible. These comparative values,
difficult to measure, will vary with manj' local condi-
tions. The rapid substitution of other more durable

• See also contribution by the Forest Service on wildlife managemeDt on national
forests. (Sec. HI of part IX.)

Land Planning Report

materials for the wood that was formerly used in con-
struction of all kinds, and the slow growth of mer-
chantable timber suggests that in planting operations
the potential values of wildlife as well as of timber
values should be given consideration.

Large game animals, as well as beavers, porcupines,
rabbits, and other smaller forms, are apt to become too
abundant and destructive to the forest. In places the
competition between unregulated game and domestic
stock for forage has become acute and the range per-
mancntlj- impaired. Serious problems thus tend to
arise.

Wilderness Preservation and Restoration: Conditions
even appro.ximating the primeval wilderness can hardly
be maintained anywhere unless the areas available are
extensive. Wilderness, or natural, areas typical of the
principal kinds of land surface and landscape aspect,
includuig humid and arid, forested and unforested,
should be preserved in the various parts of the country
for values that cannot readily be measured in dollars
and cents. The fauna is dependent upon the flora,
and typical samples of both should be perpetuated.
Such a plan contemplates, as examples, the setting
aside for posteritj" of suitable tracts of such divergent
character as the great forest of the Olympic Peninsula
of Washington, the Everglades of Florida, and the
giant cactus desert of southern Arizona. The areas
should to well-rounded units and include, as far as
possible, both summer and winter range for game, and
should function as wildhfe preserves of the highest
type. In such areas modifying human influences
should be limited to such emergency measures as fire
and flood control and the reduction of excessive num-
bers of large game and predatory animals. Suitably
distributed wilderness or natural areas should be
maintained in the national forests; several in the larger
national parks might be so designated, and others
might be carved from the unreserved public domain.
It is probable that few typical areas of the long-grass
and short-grass prairies that played so prominent a
part in our national development remain unmodified,
but some might be restored to an approximation of
their original condition. As such, and supporting
suitable wildlife, they would be of surpassing interest
to posterity. Some suitable prau'ie areas would
probably have to be acquired by purchase.

The present limited system of refuges. Federal and
State, designed for the perpetuation of particular
species, as the buffalo, should be extended to provide
more amply for other animals, including the antelope,
valley elk of Cahfornia, the peccary, and others.

Human capacity to transform the land surface and
to render it imfit for habitation by wildhfe, especially
game, has been clearly demonstrated. That a reversal
of the destructive process can bring about an amazing
restoration of game has also been amply attested. It
foUows then, that in manipulation of the environment,

game should be given due consideration as a natural
resource in all plans for land utilization. Game must
be subject to appropriate control measures, but it will
often be found highl.y profitable to encourage its pro-
duction along with other land uses.

Relations of Big Game, Predators, and Livestock:
Large game animals, as deer, antelope, and elk, often
compete directly with domestic stock for forage. To
maintain the food-producing capacity of a given area
may require a reduction in the numbers of either or
both. Adjustment of the conflicting interests of game
and the grazing of domestic stock, and the relation of
both to predatory animals, is a compUcated problem
on the national forest and the public domain. Or-
ganized predatory animal-control operations are carried
on by the Federal Government, largely on national
forest areas and the pubhc domain but also on State
and private holdings in cooperation with the States.
The direct objective is the protection of the domestic
stock for which grazing fees on the national forest are
collected by the Forest Service. The work is financed
jointly by the Federal Government, which through the
Biological Survey is charged with the direction; and
the States or stock associations, which furnish the larger
share of the funds required. This seems an equitable
arrangement, as the States are heavily interested in
the stock industry both on and oft' the forest, while the
Government is the principal landowner. But the same
national forests are the principal reservoirs of our
larger game, especially deer, and a heavy toU is nor-
mally taken every year by mountain Uons, coyotes,
and bobcats. \Vhile mountain hons are the more
notorious deer slayers, each year kiUing great numbers
of deer in sections where abundant, the inroads of
coyotes, especially on fawns and the smaller game
species, are usually more serious, owing to the greater
number of these wild members of the dog family.

Predatory animal control, undertaken primarih' in
the interest of domestic stock, now incidentaUy extends
similar protection to game, which only a few years ago
became threatened with the actual danger of local extinc-
tion. On many of the domestic stock ranges of the
West, notably in the national forests of central and south-
eastern Arizona, deer, antelope, and elk have become
overabundant and threaten the forage supply for both
stock and game. This maladjustment is due partly to
the creation of game refuges that are far too large, and
partly to lack of adequate provision for the harvesting
of the game crop. In such places, where hunters are
unable to utilize the game, projects of predatory
animal repression should be pressed only as necessary
to prevent serious injury to local economic interests.

Buffalo and Other Big Game: The herds of wild and
semidomesticated buffalo that range in an isolated part
of Yellowstone National Park and the larger herds in
Canada, together with numerous groups under fence,

Wildlife in the United States

assure the perpetuation of a species once threatened
with extermination. Deer, moose, and black bears
now tend to increase where accorded protection,
especially in some of the national parks. A few cari-
bou still persist in continental United States in an area
closed to hunting in northern Minnesota.

Mountain Sheep, or Bighorns: Formerly widel}- dis-
persed in the more rugged sections of the West,
mountain sheep, or bighorns, still occur in places in the
higher mountains in the national forests and national
parks, and in the desert ranges of the Southwest,
usualh^ in small bands. As a rule these show Uttle or
no increase, although under the laws of most States no
killing is permitted. In many sections local extinction
was due to unrestricted huntmg, especially for meat to
supply mining camps. There seems to be good reason
to believe that scabies and perhaps other diseases
introduced by domestic sheep have killed manj'
mountain sheep; and predatory animals have taken
their toll. In some parts of the public domain little
utilized by man the causes that led to the elimination
of mountain sheep appear no longer to be operative.
Mines have been worked out and abandoned. Domes-
tic sheep are now dipped and kept more generally free
from scabies, and under proper control may be ex-
cluded from areas especiallj' adapted to their wild
relatives. In some of the rugged, desert mountains,
especially of California, Nevada, Arizona, and New
Mexico, there is sufficient forage, but ranges cannot be
used bj' domestic stock of any kind except possibly at
certain seasons, owing to lack of water, which, however,
could be made available at moderate cost by impound-
ing the run-off at favorable sites. Many such areas,
now scarcely utilized for any purpose, could undoubtedlj'
be stocked and developed as excellent mountain sheep
ranges. Owing to the habit of twinning, mountain
sheep have a high potential rate of increase, a rate
actually attainable under favorable conditions, as
shown for a time on the National Bison Range, in
Montana. A system of well-administered Federal
mountain sheep refuges would encourage State conser-
vation efforts and should in a few years afford a surplus
for stocldng many ranges on which limited himting of
one of the finest game animals in the world could be
permitted.

Antelope: The antelope, regarded by manj- as the
most beautiful and characteristically American of our
game mammals, have decreased rapidly in most places
during recent years. Though they still occur in parts
of most of the Western States, many of the smaller
groups, unfortunatelj', are in sections where unfavor-
able local conditions make their extinction practically
certain. Antelope have held on with remarkable
tenacity, but they are not likelj' to survive except on

areas where they are accorded special protection.
They are reasonably safe in the national forests and
national parks, but much of their natural range is on
the public domain or on lands to which adequate pro-
tection or management has not extended. In some
sections, however, as in parts of Arizona, California,
Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming, protective measures
have favored substantial increases. On the Coconino
National Forest and adjoining territory in Arizona,
where extinction seemed imminent a few years ago,
antelope have now increased to thousands. In the
competition between antelope and domestic stock, the
low-growing food plants are cropped with killing effect,
and the normal forage supply is so diminished that the
antelope are forced to browse on junipers and other
unpalatable trees as high as thej- can reach, leaving
them completely defoliated to a sharp line that is
always indicative of seriously destructive overutiliza-
tion on stock or game ranges. Such forage curtail-
ment, increasing general surface erosion, results in
rapid, permanent deterioration of the range and starva-
tion on a large scale. Here the mounting numbers of
the antelope, on areas closed to hunting, hke those of
other game in many parts of the West, have been
coincident with the control of predator}^ animals,
mainly coyotes, instituted primarilj' in the interest of
domestic stock production.

The general public, and even many who regard
themselves as conservationists, often uninformed and
accustomed to think of the antelope as a vanishing
species, may oppose that feature of game manage-
ment that involves the IdiUng of surplus animals.
This case is an example, of which manj- could be cited,
of the necessity for clearer general understanding of
the requirements of game and the urgent need for its
consistent management in well-considered plans for
the multiple use of land.

W}-oming contains far more surviving antelope than
any other State, and, as in some other places, mounting
numbers on the public domain constitute local problems
pressing for solution. Federal refuges established
primarilj- for antelope in suitable sections of the public
domain in several Western States would also extend
needed protection to mule deer and sage hens. On
other parts of the public domain the grazing of domestic
stock should be controlled in accordance with the
reasonable needs of game as well as with a view to
watershed protection and the prevention of soil erosion.

Deer: Owing to large numbers and wide distribution
the deer are by far the most important of the big game
of the United States. They constitute a national
resource capable of great development. Although now
extinct over large areas formerly occupied, four species
of deer still divide territor}' or overlap in geographic

Land Planning Report

range. In order of importance these are, first, the
white-tailed, or Virginia, deer of the Eastern and
Northern States, extending west and invading the
general territory of the mide deer in the northern
Rocky Mountain region. Second in importance is the
mule deer, commonly called the blacktail, of the more
arid West, from the Rocky Mountains west to the
Cascades, reaching the Pacific coast in southern Cali-
fornia and extending southward into Mexico. Third,
the true blacktail of the Pacific coast region, the close
relative of the mule deer, occurs from California north
to southeastern Alaska. And, fourth, the Arizona
whitetail of the mountains of southern Arizona, south-
ern New Mexico, and western Texas, has a main range
extending far south along the Sierra Madre of Mexico.
As these four members of the deer family are quite
distinct and also differ considerably in the character of
terrain occupied, their relations to one another should
be clearly understood and considered in connection
with plans for land utilization.

Elk-: The elk, one of the largest and most majestic
members of the deer family, had a range measured
originally by the width of the continent, from Penn-
sylvania to California. Unfortunately so large an
animal can be destructive to agricultural interests, and
like the buffalo, its displacement in densely settled com-
munities was inevitable. Thousands have remained,
however, in the wilder parts of the Rocky Mountain
region, chiefly in and around Yellowstone National
Park, and in the mountains nearer the Pacific coast
in Oregon and Washington. These elk are of special
interest, as they constitute the only really large herds of
big game remaining in the United States, exclusive of
Alaska, but while comparatively numerous they are
mere remnants of the former great herds.

In the West, the elk were accustomed to summer
largely in the high mountains and to migrate to winter-
ing areas on the lower mountain slopes and the sur-
rounding plains, where there was less snow and abun-
dant food. Occupation of the grasslands at the lower
levels for agricultural purposes or for grazing stock
forced many of the elk to winter in the higher and more
inaccessible mountains, where they suffer pitifully,
many dying from starvation and disease in hard
winters. The result has been the elk problem about
which so much has been written.

The preservation of the elk is a land utilization
problem of major importance. Elk of a northern group
are fed in winter in Yellowstone National Park by the
National Park Service. Those of a more southern
group winter in the Snake River drainage, in Jackson
Hole, Wyo. Here the Winter Elk refuge, embracing
4,500 acres of meadow land, maintained by the Bureau
of Biological Survey, together with supplemental feed
provided by the Wyoming Game Commission, has
repeatedly prevented a final disaster. Several thou-
sand elk frequently congregate on the feeding ground,

where they crowd close about the wagons from which
the hay is distributed, and the spectacle thus presented
is one long to be remembered by the fortunate visitor to
the place. But such large concentrations are unde-
sirable, and the feeding facilities are inadequate. In a
solution of the problem of winter range and forage for
these elk, about 12,000 acres of additional land are
urgently needed. Authorization for the acquisition of
this land has now been obtained, and actual acquisition
is under way. A bill providing for the acquisition of
the lands selected has been before Congress for several
years.

Elk are hardy animals, adapted to a fairly wide
range of conditions. Owing to their large size they
are more destructive to agricultural interests than the
smaller deer, and for this reason they should not be
introduced in the vicinity of farming communities.
In some of the wilder and more mountainous parts
of the West, however, the range of the elk might be
extended. Under proper management, surplus elk
should afford not only rare sport but an ample supply
of excellent meat for the fortunate hunter. As hunting
is prohibited in national parks, the provision of open
hunting grounds for elk should be given careful con-
sideration in connection with any plans for park
extension.

Management oj Beavers and Other Fur Animals: The
original range of the beaver included practically the
entire country. This fine fur bearer is at home along
streams in suitable places from the lower Rio Grande
and the lower Colorado River on the Mexican boundary
to near timber line on the highest mountains. It is
easily trapped and was eliminated or reduced to small
numbers in many localities, where it should be restored
and colonies increased as a major asset. Like many
other kinds of wdldlife, beavers require expert manage-
ment. The location of their dams may in some places
seriously injure other important human interests.
Roads or fields may be flooded, or valuable timber
killed. Fortunately beavers can readily be trapped
and moved alive and uninjured to sites where their
activities will do no harm. At low elevations streams
desired for trout fishing may become too sluggish and
warm owing to the impounding of water by beavers,
but cold, swiftly flowing streams at the liigher elevations
are more likelj' to be improved for these fish, as the
dams tend to equalize the stream flow and prevent
erosion. In many forested sections food is abundant
and general conditions are still suitable for beavers.
Under proper management the value of the annual fur
crop from this source alone could be made to reach
high figures.

Other fur bearers, as the muskrat, marten, mink, and
raccoon, should be more adequately managed, with a
view to developing neglected wildlife assets.

Forest Game Restoration: Along with the clearing of
forests incident to settlement in the eastern United

Wildlife in the United States

States, the game, notablj' the deer that played an
important part in pioneer development, disappeared
or were greatly reduced in numbers as they were
hunted and killed without stint. With the decline of
the deer, the larger predatorj- animals that prej-ed upon
them — mountain lions and wolves — became extinct
nearl}' throughout the East.

Much of the forested land, however, was too moun-
tainous or rocky for agricultural purposes. The large,
mature timber was gradually cut for use in construc-
tion of manj' kinds. The logging operations, taking
about all the merchantable timber, were extended
successiveh' from area to area nearly throughout the
forested regions of the East, continuing over a long
period down to the present. In the original forest, the
older trees, largely hemlock, white pine, and mature
hardwoods, heavily shaded the ground. The result of
the shading was a thin stand of small trees, berry-
producing shrubs and other vegetation, and a limited
supply of tender browse for deer and fruit for bears and
other wildlife. The removal of the forest canopj"
through lumbering operations, however, brought a
great change. The dense new growth springing up
afforded far more food and cover for game. The larger
predatory animals were eliminated as has been men-
tioned. In marginal or submarginal territorj^, such as
in many sections of the Ozark Mountain section of
southern Missouri and northern Arkansas, and the
Appalachian Mountain region in half a dozen States,
now virtually barren of game, the forest setting has
thus been prepared for the restoration of deer, bears,
rabbits, grouse, and wild turkeys on a scale far exceed-
ing the game populations of the same areas before the
coming of the white man. If such areas were restocked
and properly administered, the annual game and fish
crop that could be taken would go far to reheve the
general poverty so prevalent there at the present time.
The phenomenal success of forest-game restoration in
cut-over areas in Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan,
and other States where large predatory animals are
now absent or scarce is indicative of what could be
done in similar sections in many other States.

Conditions in the West differ materially from those
in the East, as the western forests have been cut over
only in part, domestic stock grazing is a more important
factor to be reckoned with, and large predator}^ animals,
especially coyotes, are still numerous. The remarkable
increases in game, especially deer and antelope, coinci-
dent with predatory animal control undertaken pri-
marih- to protect domestic animals, have already- been
mentioned. In spite of these differences it is evident
that the general principles bearing upon the relation of
game to the use of forested lands in the West are the
same as in the East.

Wildlife Refuge Needs: The importance of establish-
ing more refuges, Federal, State, numicipal, and private,
as a part of a comprehensive program of wildlife man-

agement, is becoming more generally recognized; but
these must be suitably located and properly adminis-
tered to achieve their highest usefulness.

Wildlife refuges of one kind or another are under the
jurisdiction of several departments of the Federal Gov-
ernment, their varied situations being largely due to
expediency, as the control of wildlife tends to run con-
currentl.y with that of the land (or water) it inhabits.
The national parks under the Interior Department and
refuges on the national forests under the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, have alread}' been men-
tioned. Over 100 refuges, mainly for birds, but includ-
ing a few big game ranges, under the Bureau of Bio-
logical Survey, Department of Agriculture, are far flung
in general distribution — from Puerto Rico and the
coastal islands of the United States, to the Aleutian
Archipelago in Alaska and islands of the Hawaiian
group. These Federal refuges are administered with
special emphasis on the interests of all the wildlife
found on them. The protection of marine mammals,
notably the northern fur seal, which breeds on the
Pribilof Islands, and the sea otter, is intrusted to the
Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce.

Specialized Refuge Needs for Upland Game: The ideal
upland game refuge is a protected area that will favor
the rapid increase of game within its borders and from
which the surplus may readily spread to suitable sur-
rounding territory that may be open to hunting. It
need not necessarily be very large, but alone or in con-
junction with neighboring refuge units should provide
j^ear-long range, ample forage, water, and cover for
resident game. This is the type of refuge that has
succeeded so admirably in building up the game supply
in the State forests of Pennsylvania and other Eastern
States, and on Federal and State refuges on the national
forests, mainly in the West. ^Mierever game thrives,
a surplus representing a game crop may reasonably be
expected. It can be removed by hunters, consumed
by predatory animals, or allowed to die of starvation or
disease. Game management, therefore, calls not only
for adequate protection but the prompt and well-
planned disposal of all surplus. The national parks
serve as great game reservations in which no shooting
by sportsmen is allowed.

Game Refuge Needs on Foreats: Additional refuges of
suitable size and distribution should be created for
forest game in the forested areas, but are even more
urgently needed for restoring mountain sheep, antelope,
mule deer, peccaries, sage hens, and other denizens of
the more arid parts of the public domain. The un-
wieldj' surplus of deer, antelope, and elk that has
already resulted from overprotection in certain places
should not be taken to mean that the protective prin-
ciple is wrong, or that additional refuges are not de-
sirable, but should be considered as examples of game
mismanagement.

8

Land Planning Report

Waterfowl Refuge Area N'eeds: While a sufficient
breeding stock of most kinds of upland game, and even
of some of the more important fur bearers, seems within
relatively easy reach, the plight of out migratory water-
fowl is far more critical. Human encroacliment, the
primary cause of the great reduction of waterfowl —
ducks, geese, and swans — that formerly nested in the
Prairie States of the Middle West, and the Prairie
Provinces of Canada, and migrated southward in
uncounted millions, has already been described. To
this primary cause should be added overshooting by
an ever-increasing army of hunters. The combined
unfavorable influences have led to the diminution of
waterfowl at a rapidly accelerating rate, and, unless
they can be modified, they must lead to the early
extermination of one species after another. In order
to check the depletion of breeding stocks of waterfowl
common to the United States and Canada, especially
the ducks and geese. Federal regulations are annually
promulgated under the Migratory Bird Treaty with
Great Britain. State laws and regulations tend to con-
form with those of the Federal Government; but
restrictive regulations alone will not suffice to save the
birds. An appraisal of the relative value of many
prairie areas before and after drainage brings into relief
the vital importance of putting into effect a wildlife
restoration program by the Federal and State Govern-
ments in cooperation with all other agencies interested.
A system of Federal refuge areas, covering especially
ihe Middle West and the great migration fiyway
through the Mississippi Valley, is planned to take the
form of inviolate refuges, on which the birds can breed
unmolested, and on which also they will have feeding
and resting grounds.

Wildlife Management on Privately Oumed Lands:
Meanwhile the cooperation of private landowners
should be enhsted, with a view to restricting as far as
practicable the grazing of domestic stock and other
destructive practices about prairie ponds and in marsh
areas of critical importance to breeding waterfowl.

On Farms: The relation of small game, as rabbits
and squirrels, the fur bearers, and the various species
of upland game birds, to private holdings, and especially
farmland utilization, is of major importance owing to
the vast extent of the land involved. The cultivation
of land brings radical changes in environmental condi-
tions, and these may be either beneficial or harmful,
depending on the varying needs of the different classes
of wildlife. Farm operations may provide an abun-
dance of food and shelter at certain seasons and leave
the game and fur bearers bereft of these prime neces-
sities at others.

The attitude of the farmer toward the hunter has an
important bearing in this connection. Farm game,
the fur bearers, and the fishes should be regarded as

having a potential crop value similar to that of any
other product of the soil. Since a farm must be
managed for profit, there should be recognition of the
fact that the farmer has a proprietary interest in the
game attached to liis land, and that he is justly
entitled to a monetary return, proportionate to his
efforts in its behalf. He should be encouraged to
expect a profit tluough the sale of shooting or trapping
rights, under regulations fixed by the State. The rela-
tion of local game, fur bearers, or fishes to other farm
crops of the region should be clearly understood.
Rabbits, for example, may be too numerous and
injurious to field crops or to horticidture in a given
locaUty, while a larger number would be harmless or
even highly desirable in another place. The food and
cover required for wildhfe may be provided by less
intensive cultivation of land, in conformity with current
human needs. In the Prairie States many hedgerows
and bordering thickets, with a higlily beneficial wind-
break value, and incidentally affording game food and
shelter, were uprooted and displaced by barbed wire in
order to make the land yield a Httle more grain in war
time. The result has been increased wind erosion,
soil exhaustion, and game elimination. Obviously,
and in conformity with the shelter belt idea, such
hedgerows should be restored for their beneficial effect
in the general use of the land. The strip cultivation
of land, employed to prevent wind erosion and as a
crop reduction measure, coidd also be made the means
of increasing farm game.

On Areas Generally: Wildlife, in its multiplicity of
forms adapted to every sort of environment, should be
accorded its proper place in the use of land everywhere.
It should be recognized as a rich endowment, one to be
wisely managed and used, and then passed on unim-
paired to future generations.

Public Areas Employed
As Specialized Refuges

Administered by the Bureau of Biological Survey:
Federal areas devoted exclusively to wUdUfe protection
under the administration of the Bureau of Biological
Survey, United States Department of Agriculture,
include more than 900,000 acres of surveyed lands in
the United States, besides unsurveyed islands in Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. A Ust is given in table I
and acreages by States in table II. Most of these
refuges are specifically for the protection of birds, but
several big-game preserves, on which birds also are
protected, are included.

Administered by the Bureau of Fisheries: The Pribilof
Islands, Alaska, of 49,000 acres, are administered by
the Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
primarily for the conservation and utiHzation of the
fur seals.

Wildlife in the United States

9

Table I. — -Specialized wildlife refuges under administration by
the Bureau of Biological Survey, showing the year established,
the acreage of the surveyed lands, and the chief species for the
protection of which each tras established

Table I. — Specialized wildlife refuges under administration by
the Bureau of Biological Survey, showing the year established,
the acreage of the surveyed lands, and the chief species for the
protection of which each was established — Continued

Year

state and designation

estab-
lished

Acres

Chief species protected

Alabama:

Petit Bois Island

1903

956

Laughing gulls, least terns, black
skimmers, Louisiana herons, brown

Alaska:

pelicans.

Alaska Railway Musk-

1927

4.160

Muskrats, beavers.

rat and Beaver Ref-

Aleutian Islands

1913

(')

Puffins, auklets. murres. gulls, ducks,
geese, ptarmigan, sea otters, red and
blue foxes: on Uniraak Island cari-
bou, big-brown bears.

Bering Sea (St. Mat-

1909

(')

Puffins, auklets, kittiwakes, glaucous

thew and Hall Is-

gulls, sandpipers, snow buntings.

lands).

Bogoslof

1909

(')

Puffins, auklets. murres. gulls, sea

Chamisso Island

1912

(')

lions.
Horned puffins. Pallas murres. Pacific
kittiwakes. glaucous gulls.

Curry Bird, Game,

1927

8,960

Grouse, ptarmigan, black bears, foxes.

and Fish Refuge.

lynx, ermines, fishers.

Forrester Island

1912

(■)

Puffins, auklets. guillemots, murres.
gulls, petrels, cormorants.

Hazy Island

1912

(')

Puffins, auklets, guillemots, murres.

gulls, cormorants.

Nunivak Island

1929

(')

Waterfowl, ptarmigan, reindeer, cari-
bou, musk oxen, foxes, minks.

1909

(0

gulls, petrels, cormorants.

1932
1909

8,290
(')

Tuxedni

Pacific kittiwakes, glaucous gulls,

Arkansas:

eider ducks.

Big Lake

1915

8,937

Ducks.

California:

Farallon - . .

1908

91

Puffins, auklets, guillemots, murres.

Delaware:

gulls, cormorants.

Killcohook (see also

1934

586

Ducks, geese, muskrats.

New Jersey).

Florida:

1925

12

Brown pelicans.

Caloosahatchee

1920
1929

40
236

Herons.

Chinsegut Hill

1932

2,033

birds.

1906

90

Louisiana and little blue herons.

1908

3,321

Key West

1908

2,030

Cormorants, brown pelicans, man-o'-

war birds, white ibises, herons.

Matanzas.-

1927

267

Black skimmers, clapper rails.

Matlacha Pass

1908
1908
1905

10

1

36

Cormorants, brown pelicans, berons.

Laughing gulls, terns, skimmers, cor-

morants, herons, sandpipers.

Pelican Island

1903

15

Brown pelicans.

Pine Island

1903
1931

31
36, 862

Brown pelicans, herons.

St. Marks

Gulls, ducks, geese, sandpipers and

Georgia:

other shore birds.

Blackbeard Island

1926

4.659

Herons, ducks, clapper rails, quail,
chachalacas, white-tailed deer, rac-
coons, opossums.

Savannah River (see

1927

424

Ducks, herons, rails, coots, shore birds.

also South Caro-

lina).

Wolf Island.

1930

538

Waterfowl, shore birds.

Hawaii:

Hawaiian Islands

1909

W

Terns, albatrosses, petrels, shearwaters,
boobies, man-o'-war birds, Laysan
teal, rails, finches.

Johnston Island

1926

(0

Sooty and noddy terns, wedge-tailed
shearwaters, petrels, boobies, man-

Illinois:

o'-war birds.

Upper Mississippi

1925

19, 759

Ducks, gee.se, shore birds, upland game

River Wildlife and

birds, muskrats. minks, beavers.

Fish Refuge (see also

foxes, raccoons, fishes, mollusks.

Iowa. Minnesota,

and Wisconsin).

Iowa:

Upper Mississippi

1925

30, 616

Do.

River \\ ildlife and

Fish Refuge (see also

Illinois, Minne.sota,

and Wisconsin).

Louisiana:

Breton Island .

1904

955

Laughing gulls, royal and Cabot's

terns, skimmers, herons, willels.

F-ast Timhnlipr

1907

337

Gulls, roval terns, skimmers, brown

pelicans, herons, clapper rails.

Shell Keys

1907

77

Royal terns, brown pelicans.

Tern Islands

1904

1,000

Laughing gulls, royal. Cabot's and

Maine:

Forster's terns, brown pelicans.

1933

12

Maryland:

1932

8,241

Michigan:

birds, muskrats.

Huron Islands..

1905

83

Herring gulls, ducks.

Slsklwlt Islands

1905

9

Do.

State and designation

Minnesota:
Mille Lacs

Upper Mississippi
River Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (see also
Iowa, Illinois, and
Wisconsin).
Montana:

Benton Lake

National Bison Range..
Nebraska:
Crescent Lake

Niobrara

Nevada:

.\naho Island

Charles Sheldon

Railroad Valley

New Jersey:

Killcohook (see also
Delaware).
North Carolina:

Lake Mattamuskeet...

Swanquarter..

North Dakota:
Chase Lake...

Long Lake...
Stump Lake.
SuUysHill...

Oklahoma:
Salt Plains.

Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge.-'
Oregon :

Qoat Island

Lake Malheur .-.

Malheur (Blitzen Val-
ley).

Three .\rch Rocks

Puerto Rico:
Culebra

Desecbeo Island...

South Carolina:
Cape Remain

Year
estab-
lished

Savannah River
also Georgia).
Utah:
Bear River

(see

Locomotive Springs. ..

Washington:

Columbia River

Copalis Rock

Dungeness Spit

Ediz Hook

Flattery Rocks

Smith Island

Quillayute Needles

Wisconsin:

Gravel Island

Green Bay

Upper Mississippi
River Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (see
also Iowa. Illinois,
and Minnesota).
Wyoming:

Bamforth Lake

Elk Retuge

Flat Creek ,

Button Lake ,

1915
1925

1929
1909

1931
1912

1913
1931
1934

1934
1932

1908
1931
1905
1914

1930
1905

1935
1908

1935

1909
1912

1928

1931

1926
1907

1915
1915

1907

1914

1907

1913
1912
1925

1932
1912

1922
1932

Acres

23.288

12.235

18. .521

40. 782
16.681

248
30. 321
135, 184

856

49. 925
15. 493

2.960

8,795

27

994

19. 453
61.500

21
95, 155

(■)
(')

2,559

64,216

1.031

83
125

65

117

27

2

64.749

2.163
4.558

Chief species protected

40
,708

Galls, ducks, geese.

Ducks, geese, shore birds, upland game
birds, muskrats, minks, beavers,
foxes, raccoons, fishes, mollusks.

Ducks, geese, shore birds.
Ducks, grouse, pheasants, buffalo, deer,
mountain sheep, elk.

Terns, ducks, geese, coots, sandpipers

and other shore birds.
Prairie chickens, sharp-tailed grouse

quail, hufialo, elk. antelope, beavers
Gulls, cormorants, white pelicans.
Sage grouse, antelope.
Ducks, geese, ibises, avocets. shori
birds.

Ducks, geese, muskrats.

Ducks, geese, swans, shore birds,

muskrats.
Ducks, geese, brant, swans, sandpipers

and other shore birds.

Gulls, white pelicans, ducks, shore

birds, grouse.
Gulls, terns, ducks, coots, and willets,

sandpipers and other shore birds.
Grebes, gulls, terns, ducks, Wilson's

phalaropes.
Goldeneye and wood ducks, geese,

pheasants, buflalo, elk, white-tailed

deer.

Franklin's gulls, black terns, waterfowl,

bitterns, rails, shore birds.
Ducks, geese, wild turkeys, buflalo,

elk, deer, antelope, Texas longhorns.

California murres. gulls, puffins, geese.

Grebes, gulls, terns, cormorants, peli-
cans, ducks, gee.se, swans, herons.

Grebes, gulls, terns, cormorants, peli-
cans, ducks, geese, swans, ibises,
herons, sandhill cranes, sage grouse,
deer, antelope, beavers.

Puffins, guillemots, murres, gulls, fork-
tailed petrels, cormorants.

Gulls, royal terns, Bahama ducks,
herons, coots, ground doves.

Terns, boobies, man-o'-war birds,
oyster catchers.

Ducks, curlews, egrets, herons, pelicans
ibises, sanderlings. dowitchers. oyster
catchers, sandpipers and other shore
birds, sea turtles, diamond -.back
terrapin.

Ducks, herons, rails, coots, shore birds.

Ducks, geese, coots, shore birds, peli-
cans, ibises, pheasants, beavers,
muskrats.

Ducks, coots, curlews, avocets, sand-
pipers and other shore birds.

Gulls, ducks, geese, blue herons.
Puffins, miu-res, glaucous and western

gulls, petrels, cormorants.
Grebes, loons, gulls, ducks.
Pigeon guillemots, California murres,

cormorants.
Tufted puffins, pigeon guillemots,

California murres.
Western grebes, pigeon guillemots,

California murres, cormorants, ducks.
Grebes, auklets, gulls, cormorants.

Herring gulls.

Do.
Ducks, geese, shore birds, upland game

birds, muskrats. minks, raccoons.

b^vers, (axes, Qsbes, mollusks.

Ducks, geese, sandpipers and other

shore birds.
Ducks, geese, sage grouse, elk (in

winter) .
Ducks, geese, elk (in winter).
Ducks, geese, and sandpipers and

other shore birds.

'Unsurveyed areas. ' Jurisdiction transferred from Forest Service, 193S.

10

Land Planning Report

Table II. — Acreage by Stales of surveyed lands administered as
uildtife refuges by the Bureau of Biological Survey, Department
of Agriculture

State

Acres

Remarks

9a6

21,410

8,937

91

686

44,984

5,621

Alaska

Figures for Alaska do not include the

acreage of a number of unsurveyed
islands.

Florida

Illinois .

19. 759

30.616

2,369

12

8,241

92

23,289

30, 756

57.463

165,753

856

65. 418

12. 776

80, 953

159,909

Maryland - .

North Dakota

Including Wichita Mountains Wild-

life Refuge.

Unsurveved islands.

South Carolina .

56, 620
7.000

65, 247
630

64,778
8.469

936, 591

Utah

Wyoming -

Total surveyed acreage...

Public Areas Designated
as Refuges but Devoted
to Other Major Uses

Administered by the Biological Survey on Reclamation
Reservoirs: In 11 States the Biological Survey adminis-
ters wildlife refuges, mainly for birds, on areas the pri-
mary use of most of which is as reservoirs under projects
developed by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Interior
Department (tables III and IV). As there is usually
wide fluctuation of water levels, however, their value
for wildlife is limited.

Administered by Other Federal Agencies: Publicly
owned areas administered by several Federal agencies
have been devoted primarily to various major uses and
designated as wildlife refuges, as shown in table V.

State Game Refuges: The list in table VI wiU indicate
the approximate acreage nominally in State game
refuges. Some areas are State owned or leased, and

Table III.- — Acreage by States of Reclartwtion Service reservoir
areas administered as bird refuges by the Biological Survey

State

Acres

Remarks

Arizona

333, 807
88,763
25,540
67,870
5,107

360,513
91.908
94, 249
13,680
14,080
1,120
34,949

Including Boulder Canyon project.

Idaho

Nebraska .

New Mexico

Oregon. -

Utah

Wyoming _ ..

Total acreage

1,131,586

others are Federal lands, cliiefly in national forests,
on which the States exercise jurisdiction over the game.
Owing to frequent changes in status the figures are
incomplete and subject to constant correction.

Public Areas Needed
for Specialized Refuges

Additional Federal lands needed for the purpose of
specialized wildlife refuges fall into two main divisions,
as follows:

For Upland Game: Parts of the unreserved public
domain, aggregating 21,000,000 acres needed for up-
land game, especially such big game mammals as
mountain sheep, antelope, and mule deer.

For Migratory Birds: Marsh and water areas, aggre-
gating 17,000,000 acres, needed for the restoration and
conservation of waterfowl, mainly ducks, geese, and
swans, in accordance with a national plan, in further-
ance of the Migratory Bird Treaty protecting birds
that pass the year between Canada and the United
States.

Table IV. — Wildlife refuges administered by the Bureau of Bio-
logical Survey on areas primarily devoted to other uses — chiefly
on reservoirs for irrigation projects of the Bureau of Reclamation

State and designation

Year
estab-
lished

.icres

Chief species protected

Arizona;

Boulder Canyon (see

also Nevada)

Salt River . _ -

1933
1909

1911

1908
1930

1928

1909
1909

1929

1921
1921
1912
1909

1916

1933
1931

1909
1909

1909

1908

1927
1928

1909

1909
1909

1928

312,687
21, 120

33, 840

45, 560

9,363

12.300
13. 240

56,954

2,022
2.540
3.155
3,199

5,107

346, 443
14, 070

18, 680
73,228

2,677

81, 619

1,813
8,140

13,680

14,080
1,120

34,949

Waterfowl, mammals.

Cormorants, white pelicans, ducks,

California;
Clear Lake

geese.
Gulls, cormorants, white pelicans.

Klamath Lake (see
also Oregon)

geese, herons, ducks.
Gulls, ducks, geese, coots, shore birds.

TuIeLake-

birds.

Idaho;

Deer Flat

Ducks, geese, pheasants.

Minidoka

Montana;

white pelicans, ducks, coots, herons,
avocets, sage grouse.

bitterns, phalaropes, avocets, sand-
pipers, yellowlegs, plovers, sharp-
tailed grouse, pheasants.

Pablo

Do.

Pishkun

Gulls, ducks, geese, swans.

WUlow Creek

Nebraska;

North Platte...

Ducks, geese.

Ducks, geese, swans, shore birds.

Nevada;

Boulder Canyon (see

also Arizona)

Fallon.

Waterfowl, mammals.

New Mexico;

rants.

Rio Qrande

Grebes, cormorants, ducks, geese.

Oregon;

Cold Springs

shore birds.
Ducks, geese, swans, herons, sharp-

Klamath Lake (see
also California).

McKay Creek

Upper Klamath

South Dakota;

Belle Fourche

Utah;

Strawberry Valley. . .
Washington;

tailed grouse.
Gulls, ducks, geese, coots, shore birds.

Ducks, geese.
Do.

Ducks, geese, curlews, prairie chickens,
pheasants.

Ducks, sage grouse.

Wyoming:

Pathfinder

tailed grouse, Hungarian partridges
Ducks, geese.

Wildlife in the United States

11

Table V. — Areas administered as wildlife refuges by other
departments incidental to their primary use

Table VI. — Areas nominally in Stale game refuges, 1931

Alaska

California

Georgia

Do

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland.-

Michigan

Mississippi

Montana _..

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Tennessee

Wyoming

Total acreage

Acres

612,000

129

6,562

150

110

5,640

40

2,680

1,324

1,281

45,423

677

57

2,530

5, 548

4,299

56, 132

644, 582

Department
administering

Commerce.

Do.
Interior.
Commerce.
Interior.
Commerce.
Interior.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Public Areas In Other Uses
That Should Be Designated
as Wildlife Refuges

For a discussion of this subject see contributions by
the Forest Service and the National Park Service.

Private Lands Employed
as a Habitat for Wildlife

Nearly all privately owned lands bearing vegetation
are, or may be, employed as a habitat for some form
of wildlife. In many States no shooting is allowed on
certain areas, and these, therefore, function as wildlife

State

Acres

State

Acres

100,000
2,499,670

35,495
2,399,215
2,601,960

18, 026

12,788

2,472,713

26,525

245 640

Arizona.

California..

North Carolina

124,894
9,684
20,928

Connecticut

Ohio

Florida

2,731,662

14,000

3,479,120

3,360

26,120

8,951

7,955

63,000

329,863

244,212

40,269

9,530

71,560

3,084,756

Oregon

2, 936, 720

Georgia

Pennsylvania:

Primary 77,836

Au.\iliary 27,635

Idaho

Illinois

105 471

17,447

Kansas. .. _-

South Carolina

67 423

190, 933

1,560,520

Maine

Texas

3, 075, 905

Utah

2,119,000

12,088

16,700

Washington

2,619.040

Mississippi . .

120 547

58, 213
2,419,336

72, 622

3,425,112

9,830

46,385

Montana

4, 461 370

Total acreage

Nevada

44,016 458

refuges. Marsh areas, fence rows, and tree- or shrub-
bordered stream or ditch banks should be utilized for
wildlife production. Recommendations by tlie Biologi-
cal Survey for improving the farm environment for
wildlife have been set forth in a recent publication of
the Department of Agriculture. °

• Grange, W. B., and McAtee, W. L. Improving the Farm E.nvirosment for
Wildlife. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bui. 1719, 62 pp.. iUus. 1934.

SECTION II
POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO WILDLIFE'

Areas Now in Public Ownership
Devoted to Wildlife

Federal Ownership: Among Federal lands on which
wildlife is protected are national parks, national forests,
certain national monuments, and national wildlife
refuges established specifically for game birds and
mammals, fur bearers, and other valuable and interest-
ing forms of animal hfe. For all these there should
be formulated definite policies wdth respect to wildlife.

Specialized: There are now under Federal owner-
ship and administered by the Bureau of Biological
Survey, of the Department of Agriculture, approxi-
mately 1,000,000 acres of surveyed lands in the United
States, specifically devoted to wildlife protection,
besides unsurveyed islands of some extent designated
for the purpose in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
Most of these areas are breeding and feeding grounds
for birds, including some for sea birds and migratory
waterfowl, but a few big game and fur animal refuges
also are included. Table II gives the areas by States
of the refuges administered by the Biological Survey.
In table I is given a list of these refuges and the chief
species for the protection of winch each was established,
and in tables III and IV are treated the wildlife refuges
administered by the Biological Survey on areas pri-
marily devoted to other uses, cliiefly on reservoirs
for irrigation projects under the Bureau of Reclamation.

In addition to these areas it is imperative that water-
fowl habitat to the extent of approximately 17,000,000
acres be obtained for the conservation of migratory
game and other birds protected under treaty with
Great Britain. These land and water areas for the
waterfowl should be in two classes — breeding grounds
and feeding and resting grounds. Migratory water-
fowl are in a particularly percarious condition and,
unless positive action in their behalf is taken without
delay, there is little hope of saving some of the native
species now in dire straits. These waterfowl areas
should be grouped along the major flyways in such
way that the birds will find some sanctuary where
they can feed and rest in safety, and where they can
breed without human interference or molestation by
predators. This will involve in some cases setting
aside Federal lands, but more frequently lands now
privately owned should be purchased and placed imder
Federal administration.

> Contributed by the Bureau of Biological Survey.
12

For upland game birds and game mammals, approxi-
mately 21,000,000 acres are needed, especially for
such big-game animals as mountain sheep and antelope,
for which no protection is provided on the national
forests except on a few game refuges. The largest
antelope herds are now on pubhc domain and private
holdings, a fact that must be taken into consideration
in making provision for the future of the herds of this
most interesting North American mammal. Moun-
tain sheep are in a precarious condition, and certain of
the desert ranges, particularly in Nevada and Arizona,
should be set aside and developed for the use of these
unique animals. For the use of sage hens, prairie
chickens, and sharp-tailed grouse, areas on the public
domain need also to be designated as wildlife refuges.

Primarily Devoted to Other Major Uses But Designated
for Wildlife Sanctuaries: In the majority of cases
national forests and national parks provide adequate
summer range for the deer, elk, and other big game
animals that are found therein. Wliere there is any
deficiency in ability to care for these herds, it is usually
from lack of winter forage. This is a pressing problem
from the wildlife standpoint, and the lower lying lands
along the boundaries of both the forests and the parks
should be designated as winter refuges, and forage
should be reserved for these big-game animals. For
a full discussion of this subject, see contributions by
the Forest Service and National Park Service.

State Ownership: While the total acreage in many of
the State game refuges is impressive, httle of the land
is owned by the States involved. A few States, notably
Pennsylvania, New York, and others in the East, have
made some progress toward actually acquiring land for
use as game refuges. In most of the country, however,
such areas are either in Federal or private ownership
but have been designated as wildlife refuges by legis-
lative authorization or by regulations under State
game commissions. Many, however, are merely paper
refuges, with no control of factors detrimental to the
valuable wUdlife they purport to foster. This condi-
tion wiU probably continue to exist until some method
can be worked out of removing State game administra-
tion from political control. It is almost a.xiomatic
now that whenever a man begins to get some acquaint-
ance with the problems of his State and with methods
of handUng them, he is tlirown out for pohtical reasons,
to be succeeded aU too frequentl}^ by one who is entireh'
ignorant of the problems he faces. Until this defect is

Wildlife in the United States

13

corrected, additional State refuges are not so important
in tlie wildlife conservation scheme as woidd be the
better handUng of national lands and the development
of a consistent Nation-wide policy in game management
on Federal lands. There should be a national wildhfe
program administered and coordinated by a single
Federal wildlife agency.

Units Owned by Local Government: Units owned by
other local governments are usually too small to be
entirely satisfactory as game management units or
refuges. Provisions should be made for the exchange
or purchase of many local areas, to consolidate them
with major holdings of either State or Federal organiza-
tions. In a few cases, such as at Lake Merritt, in
Oakland, CaUf., a small refuge has been biult up into a
public attraction of the first order. There is room for
many more such well administered local units through-
out the country.

At present many cities and villages are interested in
such a progi'am, and every encouragement should be
offered them to continue such interest.

Programs of Acquisition ;
Suggestions for Modification

The present program of acquisition of migrator.y-bird
refuges by the Federal Government has as its objective
two major purposes. The predominant purpose is the
acquisition of all possible areas wliich by reason of their
present natural environment will attract migratory
birds in the nesting season, or which through develop-
ment or by restoration to primeval conditions may be
made attractive to nesting waterfowl. The second
objective contemplates the acquisition of more or less
extensive resting and feeding areas in the flight lanes
used by migratory birds spring and fall, in order that
they may be provided with conveniently situated sanc-
tuaries f urnisliing water, food, and cover in an unmolested
env-ironment, protected from both man and predators.

At present, as pointed out by Sal.yer,- the major efforts
are being concentrated on the breeding-ground phase of
this migratory-bird-refuge restoration program, but
not entirely to the exclusion of efforts for providing
resting and feeding grounds. The size of refuges to be
so acqidred should as a rule be not less than 10,000 acres,
but single units where the en\'ironmental elements are
favorable might comprise 50,000 acres or more. An
ideal sj'stcm of refuges woidd contemplate a series of
major projects approximately 300 miles apart in each
one of the four major waterfowl flyways described by
Lincoln," that extend from the Canadian border to the
southern Umits of the United States, and in proximitj'

' Salyer. J. C, U. A Program ok Waterfowl Restoration. U. S. Dept. Agr.
Circ. 339, U p.. 1934.

' Lincoln, F. C. The Waterfowl Fltways or XORTn America. U. S. Dept.
Agr. Circ. 342, 12 p. illus., 1935.

to most, if not all, of these might well be created groups
of refuges smaller in size that would be beneficial in the
wildhfe restoration and conservation program.

These are the ideal objectives. Their accomplish-
ment is largely contingent upon the availabihty of
adequate funds with wliich to carry them out, but in
some parts of the United States, notably where the
natural environmental conditions are most attractive
to nesting migratory birds, there should be a radical
change in point of view regarding the drainage of lands
and the ill-ad viscil use of water through waste and futile
reclamation projects. Without some such change in
point of \'iew, it will not be possible to accomplish fully
the objectives of the Biological Survej^ in the matter
of an adequate system of refuges. The critical situa-
tion of the waterfowl in 1934, following a series of un-
favorable 3'ears, has been elsewhere presented bj- Bell
and Preble,* their findings having been based on inten-
sive investigations by members of the Biological Sur-
vey and cooperating organizations and individual
sportsmen and other conservationists.

Integration of Federal
And State Policies

Federal and State Governments should work in
close cooperation in deahng with game problems and
as far as possible any causes of friction should here-
moved and questions of jm-isdiction settled. The
national forests are the natural reservoirs of most of
our large game, especially deer. The Forest Service
is charged with the general care of these forests, but
the game pohcy, or lack of pohcy, of some States in
which forests are located may hamper cooperation or
completely nullify well rounded forest management,
which should encompass all forest resources — game as
well as timber. For example, on many western na-
tional forests the grazing of domestic stock is an impor-
tant industry and may constitute the major use of the
land. In places, deer, elk, and other kinds of big
game in uncontrolled numbers seriously compete with
domestic stock for food, and overbrowsing by both
classes of animals may be seriously destructive to
forest reproduction. In addition, such intensive use
results in general watershed denudation, and this
greatly accelerates destructive erosion. Obviously
the urgent need is the regulation of numbers of both
stock and game in accordance with the food supply,
in such way that none of the conflicting interests will
be sacrificed. Such regulation is a dillicult and complex
problem at best, and calls for a comprehensive and
sustained plan of wildlife management. An adequate
solution of the i)rol)k'ni is virtually impossible where
dependent upon ])olicies changing with State politics.

< Bell, W B., and I'reble, E. A. Status of Waterfowl in 1934. U. S. Dept.
Agr. Misc. Publ. 210, IS p., illus. 1934.

14

Land Planning Report

Encouraging Game Production
On Private Lands

Studies of local needs should be made and food and
cover plants developed where required. In many
places the restoration of game that has become extinct
is necessary. One measure usually needed in all places
is to extend more adequate protection to the wildlife
already present.

Educational programs should be developed, includ-
ing the use of motion pictures, to acquaint landowners
with practical means of producing game and with
profitable ways of harvesting the crop. The attitude
of the farmer especially has an important bearing in
this connection. Farmers should be shown that rab-
bits, quail, pheasants, and other game, as well as fur-
bearing animals and fishes, have a potential crop value
similar in kind to that of any other product of their
acres. They should be encouraged to expect a profit
through the sale of shooting or trapping rights, com-
mensurate with their efforts to produce game, under
regulations fixed by the State.

Planned utilization of land for wildlife development,
for game management, and for human enjoyment of
large natiu-al wilderness areas is deserving of the inter-
est and active support of all concerned — the land
economist, the sportsman and conservationist, and
the farmer. Tlie policies in such a program should
be such as not to sacrifice human interests, but rather
to advance them tlu-ough better realization of the
importance of the wildlife resources and of their func-
tion in human economy.

The policies should not give wildlife priority rights
everywhere, to the exclusion of other enterprise. They
should, however, recognize clearly that wildlife is
entitled to its share of land and water and to have
adequate areas set aside solely for its use and benefit.
The time when the best uses are being sought for
submarginal private holdings is appropriate for making
plans to retm-n a vast acreage to its original and best
use — as habitat for wildlife. The need is now so
pressing that it deserves a major place in the national
land utilization program.

SECTION III
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN NATIONAL FORESTS'

Encouraging Game Management
On Public Land in Other Use

Wildlife in National Forests: The production and
management of wildlife is an important objective in
the coordinated management of the national forests
to produce the liighest economic, scientific, aesthetic,
and recreational values. Management contemplates
the production of the largest wildlife population con-
sistent with: (1) Use and needs of other resources,
and (2) permanent food supply of animals, birds, and
fish.

Wildhfe includes all species of game animals (large
and small), game birds, fur-bearers (both predatory
and herbivorous), nongame birds, and fish. Of all
wildhfe, big game animals — deer, elk, bear, mountain
sheep, and others — are by far the most spectacular.
On some national forests, however, small game animals
and birds — squirrel, rabbit, grouse, and turkey- — are
at present far more abundant, and consequently of
greater importance than big game.

Although the national forests are the habitat of
comparatively large proportions of the total numbers
of many of the important wildlife species- — particu-
larly in the Western States^ — distribution of wildhfe
on the forests is by no means uniform. Some areas
are overstocked, others could support larger popula-
tions. Each locality presents its own peculiar prob-
lems of correlation of uses and interrelation of wildhfe
species.

Scientific Management of Game on Federal and State
Refuges: Despite inadequate basic knowledge, lack of
sufficient trained personnel, and a question as to the
legal control over wildhfe, the Forest Service aided
by the Biological Survey has made a start in scientific
management. On Federal game refuges, notablj" the
Kaibab in Arizona and the Pisgali in North Carolina,
the regulation of game populations within reasonable
bounds, by means of controlled hunting, is being
practiced. The 283 State game refuges, comprising
21,000,000 acres on national forests, provide sanctuary
and breeding grounds. Forest officers cooperate with
the States in the enforcement of game laws. Fire
protection alone is of extreme value in the develop-
ment and maintenance of adecjuate wildlife popula-
tions. Stream surveys in cooperation with the Bureau
of Fisheries and the improvements of habitat in

' Contributed by C. E. Rachrord and L S. Qroas o( the Forest Service, Depart-
iiiCDt of Agriculture.

accordance with prescribed plans are also underway.
Wliile wildhfe ranges have long been studied by local
forest officers and preliminary management plans
developed, this work is being carried further in co-
operation with the Biological Survey, whose trained
personnel brings to it the expert advice so badly
needed.

Essentials of Management Program: Two tlungs
need to be done: (1) Bring abovit adequate stocking
of all land and water areas on national forests with
suitable species; and (2) initiate satisfactory man-
agement.

A number of obstacles must be overcome in the
consummation of this program. Of greatest present
concern is the inadequacy of the game laws of most
States. Existing game laws, almost without excep-
tion, have been directed toward preservation rather
than sustained production of wildlife. Results vary
with character of the laws and their enforcement.
Biological relationships are not changed by legal enact-
ments and frequently operate to nullifj' them. Mod-
ern hunting, fishing, and trapping laws, based upon
control of numbers of game lulled by locahties, are
essential to rational management on a sustained
production basis.

Western national forests at present include only
about 40 percent of the winter range needed to support
big-game populations large enough to utihze available
summer range. Despite all possible adjustments of
range use between wildlife and domestic livestock,
this shortage of winter game range constitutes a serious
limitation to increased wildlife populations.

Control of disease and predators constitute fields
wherein increasing activity is needed in research into
basic principles and practical methods of application.

Law enforcement is, and probably always will be, an
important part of wildlife management. Close coop-
eration with State game officials, encouragement to the
States to paj^ greater attention to this phase, and,
where necessary, increase in Federal enforcement
personnel are indicated.

Cooperation of Forest Service and States. — In order to
redeem its responsibilitj- in wildhfe management, the
Forest Service will continue to extend full cooperation
to all States willing to join in constructive efforts for
sound development and use of tlus resource. In any
case where it is not practicable to proceed on this
basis, the Forest Service should assume full authority
and responsibihty for wildhfe management in the

15

16

Land Planning Report

national forests. The former course is much to be
preferred. Steps necessary to its accomplishment are:

1. Educational courses in universities and colleges
to develop personnel trained in scientific and practical
wildUfe management as related to forestry.

2. Provision for the employment of an adequate,
qualified personnel, both Federal and State.

3. Clear-cut definition of the responsibility for wild-
life management on Federal land by Forest Service
and State officials.

4. Complete revision of State game laws, based on
biological facts rather than pohtical consideration and
vesting broad general powers in a nonpartisan board
or commission.

5. Careful survey of wdldhfe resources, both publicly
and privately owned, by competent personnel; devel-
opment of wildhfe management plans.

6. Adequate appropriations for the employment of
personnel necessary to the application of management
plans and the extension of research.

Economic and Social Values
of Wildlife Areas

Value, Eitent, and Conditions oj Wildlife on Forested
Lands : The forested lands of the United States provide
the largest part of habitat for most of that remaining
wildlife which is important for food, fur, hunting, and
aesthetic purposes. In 1929 the number of hunters
and fishermen in the United States was placed, by the
Senate Committee on Conservation of Wildlife Re-
sources, at 13,000,000, an increase, it is estmiated, of
400 percent in a single decade. The total positive
national value of all wildlife is estimated (by the Bio-
logical Survey) at more than $1,000,000,000 annually.

Wildlife has decreased, and is stUl decreasing, on
much of the forest land of our country as a whole. -
Reasons are obvious: The enormous increase in num-
bers of hunters, disease, deterioration, or destruction by
fire (and otherwise) of forest cover and forage, lack of
management on at least four-fifths of the more than
600,000,000 acres now classed as forest or potential
forest land.

Increase of Game Animals in the National Forests:
Contrasted with the general situation the number of
game animals on 167,000,000 acres of national forests
presents a difl'erent picture. Estimates, based upon
observations made by hundreds of forest officers who
spend a large part of their time on the game ranges,
show an increase of 100 percent between 1921 and 1933.
(See chart showing trends of big game populations
1921-33.)

Double Value of Wildlife: Three-fifths of the esti-
mated total wildlife value is classed as economic, the
remainder recreational. Economic values include serv-

' "Wildlife Conservation" S. Eept. No. 1329, 71st Cong., 3d sess.

ices of birds, rodents, and other mammals in destruction
of insect pests, as well as returns in the form of meat
and fur from hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Measurable social or recreational values consist of
expenditures for licenses, transportation, and equip-
ment by hunters and tourists. The large intangible
benefits derived by more than 31,000,000 people who
annually visit the national forests cannot be ade-
quately estimated in cash values. Hunting, fishing,
and nature study attract large numbers of these people.

Contribution of Game to Busiiiess Activity: That those
who go in search of game contribute in many ways to
business activity throughout the country, is shown in
the total annual returns of about $158,000,000 for
hunters' expenditures and $254,000,000 of tourist ex-
penditures credited to wildlife attraction. Hunters'
expenditures include equipment, arms, and ammunition
purchases and, in addition, transportation, lodging,
food, guide, and other personal expenses. Tourist
expenditures are concerned with all of these except
arms and ammunition purchases.

Examples of the value of national forest wildlife may
be cited. During the 1933 regulated hunting season
in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona, 932 hunters
spent more than $43,000 incident to their sport which
resulted in bagging 859 deer. The average hunter
spent $47, 40 percent of which represented subsistence,
25 percent transportation, 15 percent license fees, and
20 percent other expenditm-es. On the more accessible
Sierra National Forest, the records for 1932 show that
1,400 deer were killed by 6,145 hunters, whose average
expenditures approximated $23 each. The meat ob-
tained by hunting and fisliing is a welcome addition to
the larder of many local residents, and highlj^ prized
by many of the hunters and fishermen who travel con-
siderable distances to enjoy their favorite sport. Trap-
ping fur-bearers provides a cash return for many a
family, and, as wildlife management becomes more
intensive, will no doubt assume greater importance in
connection with the conscious effort of the Forest Serv-
ice to supply more work for the dependent population
on each national forest, by developing all resources so
as to secure maximum yields.

Recent studies by the Forest Service show that there
are within, and near the national forests, more than
5,000 farms and ranches primarily operated for recre-
ational purposes. A considerable portion of the fiveh-
hood of the owners and operators of these ranches is
derived from conducting hunting and fishing parties
on the national forests. An example of the magnitude
of these undertakings is obtained from the 1929 report
of the Dude Ranchers' Association. Fifty-one ranches
comprising property valued at approximately $6,250,000
showed receipts in 1929 of nearly a milhon and a half
dollars.

Wildlife in the United States

17

t9ZJ
I60

1922

/92J

/92<-

•J
/92S

/926

/927

f928

/929

/930

/93/

r932

k 10

1933

/60

/4-0

Qrtginot Estimates Corrected by More
Complete Data for R-a , 1923. 1925,
1926 and R-9 , 1929

'fO

8.084^
115,197-

FIGURE I- INCREASES AND DECREASES IN BIG-GAME ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS 1921-33

Increasing OjJjiort unity fur Wildlife Observation: With
increasing intensity of wildlife management on the na-
tional forests, much greater ojiiiortuiiities will also be
created for natm-e study and wildlife observation. A
large proportion of the millions of annual visitors are
primarily concerned with getting back to nature for a
short period. A chance to see — and perhajis photo-
graph— a feeding deer, a band of elk, a drumming
grouse, or a beaver at work adds zest to the adventure
and greath' increases the satisfaction derived from the
trip.

Wildlife and Other Land Uses

Interrelation: Wildlife is directly concerned with
practically all other forest-land uses. The full pos-
sibilities of such cot)rdination, while apparently great,
can be determined onh- by a most careful study of the
biological relationships between the flora and fauna of
each locality. It is desired, however, to set forth some
of the significant developments in the interrelation of
wildlife with other uses of the national forests.

In general it can be stated that those things neces-
sary for the protection of the forest from fire, as well

18

Land Planning Report

as the application of such measures as are necessary to
keep forest land productive, contribute to the welfare
of wildUfe.

The requu'ements of game for various types of cover
are directly related to silvicultural methods used in
cutting, slash disposal, and reforestation. Cutting
operations break the forest canopy, and provide food
and cover by encom'aging the growth of low herbaceous
and shrubby vegetation, and succulent sprouts highly
relished by various wildlife species. On the other
hand, game populations so increased may be expected
to diminish gradually as the forests mature and the
food supplj' diminishes. Management must seek a
proper balance based on the relative importance of
each resource in the locaUty concerned.

Modifications of management plans for both timber
and wildlife will often be possible. For example, it may
be practicable on intensively managed areas to so locate
timber cuttings that at all times there wiU be sufficient
feed and shelter, within the cruising range of the
wildlife species concerned, to maintain relatively large
populations.

Silvicultural Practices and Wildlife: Silvicultural
practices on eastern national forests are designed to aid
in the production of wildlife as well as timber. This is
given definite apphcation on the AUeghenj^ Forest in
Pennsylvania. Of the timber trees there, beech is the
most important producer of wildlife food, beechnuts
being utilized bj^ deer, bear, squirrels, and grouse.
Beech, although a valuable tunber tree, has a decided
tendency to develop a wide-spreading "wolf tree"
habit in open stands. It is silviculturally desu-able,
therefore, to remove defective limby beech on cut-over
areas, so that the next stand may be composed of tall,
straight, well-formed stems. Following a study of the
situation it was decided, however, that it was desirable
to reserve an average of four large crowned beech per
acre, incident to silvicultural unprovement of cut-ov^er
areas. This policy has been put into practice as a
definite measure for coordinating wdldlife with timber
production. Serviceberry, a nontimber species, is
definitely protected on the Allegheny, because of its
value as a producer of wildlife food.

The George Washington National Forest in Virginia
furnishes another example of the effect of silvicultural
measures on wildlife. In 100,000 acres, of the Massa-
nutten Working Circle 1,249 acres of the best sites were
subjected to timber stand improvement treatment by
the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933. An average
of 37 stems were cut per acre, 70 percent of which were
10 inches or less in diameter. The average acre
supported 253 stems after treatment, including such
producers of wildUfe food as hickory, oaks, cucumber,
dogwood, black gum, and sumac. The area treated

on this working circle is only slightly more than 1 per
cent of the total, and the treatment is expected to
promote better production of timber without inter-
ference with wildlife. As more fundamental data
regarding intricate local biological relationships become
available, even greater coordination should be possible.

Improvement of Game Conditions an Objective of
Forest Planting: The importance of wildlife require-
ments is also recognized in the national forest planting
program. Improvement of game conditions is listed ^
as one of the objectives in planting. It is the policj' to
plant first those areas which may be expected to produce
the most valuable timber crops; that is, the most
productive sites. It is recognized, however, that exten-
sive areas of unbroken coniferous forest — either virgin
stands or maturing plantations — afford ample cover,
but little feed for many wildlife species. It is there-
fore necessary to make definite provision, whenever
possible, for supplies of fruits or browse, within or near
coniferous plantations. Natural growth may some-
times be utilized for this purpose. The Canaan Moun-
tain planting project of the Monongahela National
Forest in West Virginia may be cited. This area of
21,000 acres originally supported dense stands of
spruce, hemlock, and hardwoods. Logging and
repeated fires wrought colossal changes. Since the
tract has come into national forest ownership, protec-
tion from fire has resulted in a new growth of hard-
woods, with some admixtm-e of conifers, over most of
the area. On about 2,500 acres of the most severe burn,
however, it has been necessary to reestablish the forest
by plantmg. Red spruce, the native species, was the
most logical choice, and was the chief species used.
Small quantities of black cherry, a wildlife food pro-
ducer, were planted in mixture with the spruce.

Of greater importance to wildlife, however, is the
natural growth of mountain ash, viburnum, holly, and
other hardwood species. During the establishment of
plantations on this project, most of this native hard-
wood growth was undisturbed. As the plantations
mature, it is anticipated that adequate wildlife cover
and food will be suppUed by the resulting coniferous
hardwood mixture.

The planting problem on the Ozark National Forest
in Arkansas, on which the predominating type is hard-
woods with more or less short-leaf pine in mixture,
consists of restocking abandoned old fields scattered
throughout the forest. Short-leaf pine is used almost
exclusively for planting the old fields. The result will
be comparatively small blocks of almost pure conifers,
breaking the hardwood cover. Many of these old
fields, however, support a scattered stand of persim-
mon, sassafras, black gum, and other hardwood pro-

> p. 129-S, National Forest -Manual.

Wildlife in the United States

19

ducers of \vildlife food. These hardwoods, as in the
case of those in the Monongahela Forest, may be
expected to develop in mixture with the coniferous
plantations. The plantations should eventually pro-
vide both shelter and subsistence for wildlife.

Some wildlife species, notably rabbits and deer, maj'
become inimical to the estabUshment and growth of
plantations. In the national forests of the Lake
States, rabbits have increased to the point where
brush areas cannot be successfully planted. Planting
must either be linoited to more open areas (where rab-
bit damage is much less severe) or measures under-
taken to reduce the rabbit population.

Modification of Wildlife Alanagement: Wildlife
management plans must sometimes be modified to
accord with plans for timber management on specific
areas. Relatively inaccessible portions of many na-
tional forests must necessarily be handled under
extensive forest management, involving less frequent
cuttings wliich cannot be confined to small areas
scattered tlirough the entire unit. Under such condi-
tions, wildhfe management must be directed toward
smaller populations, changes in relative number of
species, or a fluctuation in populations with character
of cover on the various portions of the unit.

Wildlife and Domestic Livestock- on Forest Range:
Probably in no other phase of forest-land management
is the interrelation of wildlife production and other
forest uses so apparent as in the use of forest range by
wildhfe and domestic hvestock.

Increase of wildlife on the national forests, requiring
in some instances adjustments between game and
domestic stock, have sharply focused the attention of
foresters and game specialists upon the need for care-
fully planned and coordinated use of forest grazing
areas.

The outstanding example is on tiie Kaibab Plateau
where an area now comprising about 727,000 acres
was set aside in 1906 as a Federal game preserve, with
deer the principal game species. A measm'e of pro-
tection was afforded by the operations of the United
States Biological Survey up to 1923 in destroying
predators, and conditions were made favorable for the
deer in other ways. As a result, deer increased until
the forage producing capacity of the area was insuffi-
cient not only for the deer and domestic stock, but
even for the deer alone. Notwithstanding a reduc-
tion of domestic livestocks, to a point where competi-
tion with deer was at a minimum, the continued in-
crease in deer resulted in great tlamage to the more
valuable forage plants and timber reproduction.
The productive capacity had been reduced to a degree
which would sustain not more than 5 to 10 percent of
the game which it was capable of supporting under
proper conditions of normal use. Action has been

under way for several 5'ears to remedy the situation,
and the excessive deer population has been reduced.
Restoration of properly balanced wildhfe and vegeta-
tive conditions presents intricate problems of biological
relationships and management.

Increasing knowledge of forage requirements of
game, as difl'erentiated from the recjuirements of
domestic hvestock, offers excellent opportunities for
determining a well-balanced relation between numbers
of game and hvestock. Satisfactory determination
of permanent ratios requires additional research and,
in tlic final analysis, should afford the means of obtain-
ing the best development and use of the wildhfe resource
in its proper relation to timber and other lines of pro-
duction.

Proi'iding a Proiier Balance Between Wildlife Species:
The proper balance between the various classes of
wildlife is also important. Experience in many places
has amply demonstrated that the status of the natural
wildlife population may be disturbed bj- changes of
food and cover conditions that favor one or more
species over others, or protection by man of certain
species from natural enemies. The ultimate goal of
land use is the mdespread application of principles
that will result continuously in proper balanced pro-
duction of timber, other forest products, and a variety
of wildlife.

Competition between ^\•ildlife species may at times
be a vital factor. In the southwestern part of the
Sacramento Mountains in New Mexico, on the Lincoln
National Forest, wild turkey are very scarce. They
have, in fact, nearly- disappeared from that part of the
mountains. On this particular range, deer have in-
creased on private holdings and adjacent national forest
land. Use of the range bj^ deer and domestic stock
has so decreased the available quantities of the more
palatable shrubs that the deer are forced to supplement
their usual food with acorns and juniper berries. This
use of mast by deer, together with reduction of other
turkey food tlu^ough overgrazing, destroys the winter
forage supply for turkey. In the north end of the
Sacramento Mountains, where deer are not plentiful,
there are great numbers of turkeys.

The Sitgrcaves National Forest, in Arizona, provides
another instance of the need for careful balance between
wildlife species. Elk have increased on the simuner
range here to such an extent that they are kiUing out
the wallows in high mountain meadows. This, together
wnth overgrazing of yuccas and other plants utilized
bj' elk along the canj-on walls, and trampling of the
soil, is resulting in erosion. The delicate relationships
between a constant supply of clear water, the develop-
ment of aquatic life, and sliaded pools, so necessaiy
to provide proper habitat for trout in the streams
flowing from this range, are upset by erosion. Floods

20

Land Planning Report

scour the streams, wash out plant Hfe, destroy trout
shelter and breeding places, and materially reduce the
capacity of the streams to produce trout. This serves
to illustrate a little-considered relationsliip between
big game animals and fish.

Winter Range Jor Game Animals: Game animals have
free access to every acre of the national forests which
is suited to them, including the 82,000,000 acres of
range used by domestic livestock. In stocking these
ranges with domestic livestock, it is the object to
provide amply for the needs of game during that
period of the year that game is dependent upon forest
range for feed.

Emphasis should be laid upon that last statement.
Generally speaking, the national forests would support
during the summer season many times the present
numbers of game animals. In the Western States,
however, most of the best winter ranges are outside
the national forests, generally on private lands on which
little if any consideration in given to the welfare of
game. This presents one of the most important prob-
lems to those interested in big game. Obviously, any
expectation that a larger number of game animals
can be maintained than is represented by the capacity
of the winter range is based upon a slender reed of hope
which fails to recognize realities.

To be more specific, it is estimated that national
forest ranges in Colorado could support during the
summer months 300 percent more big game animals
than are now present, if protection and mangement
were provided on some 10,000,000 acres of winter
range outside the national forests. In this case, as
in many others, winter range is the governing or limit-
ing factor in game production. The part which winter
range plays in game production might be illustrated by
many other specific examples. The Targhee National
Forest, in Wyoming, however, is sufficient to show the
relationship between sheep and big game animals.
This forest supports more than 200,000 head of domestic
sheep and a small number of game animals, yet inspec-
tion by grazing experts mdicates that its summer
range is conservatively used by sheep, and that there
is an enormous quantity of food available for game
animals. The area is deficient, however, in winter feed
for game. Cold and severe winters force the game
animals to the lower areas on private lands outside the
forest, where they are subjected to shortage of feed
and other perils. The exclusion of sheep from the
national forest would fail to relieve a condition of tliis
kind.

Grazing of sheep, particularly on western ranges,
may conflict with ground nestmg game birds, such as
grouse, sage hen, and turkey. On national forest
ranges, however, the nesting habits of game birds have
been taken into consideration in the estabhshment of

opening dates for the sheep grazing season. This date
has been set sufficiently late in the season so that the
eggs have hatched and the chicks have left the nest
before sheep are admitted to the range. Management
of the domestic animals is so regulated as to avoid a
concentration of grazing on any particular area. This
method greatly reduces the actual conflict and damage
to nests which occurs on areas of heavy concentration
of domestic livestock, such as lambing grounds, drive-
ways, and bedding grounds.

Control oj Predatory Animals: Predatory annual con-
trol is an important factor in wildlife management.
This is emphasized by reports for 1932 from field officers,
which show that for every deer killed by hunters on
the national forests, one and a half deer were killed by
predatory animals. This raises the question as to
whether game is raised to afford sport or to feed pred-
ators. It seems reasonable to assume that the pred-
ator may play an important part in assisting in the
regulation of numbers of game anmials to the capacity
of the range, or may be responsible for a serious decline
in the herds.

That sheep grazing is not an important limiting
factor in game production can be illustrated by the
situation in the eastern and southern regions. These
regions have more than 5,000,000 acres of the best and
most natural game range. A total of only 2,600 sheep
are grazed on 8 national forests, yet there is a very
small game population per acre. About one-fifth of
the big game animals on the forests in the Eastern
United States are on a Federal game refuge (the Pisgah
Refuge), where full protection is accorded under the
authority of the Forest Service. But wildlife on areas
outside the game refuge is subject to all the perils of a
poor regulatory system, including illegal killing and
destruction by dogs.

Fishing Benefited by Forest Management: Fishing in
the 60,000 miles of national forest trout streams is
also benefited by scientific forest and range manage-
ment. These measures tend to conserve water sup-
plies and maintain continuous stream flow, so essential
to sustain production of satisfactory quantities of game
fish.

Fur Bearers in National Forests: The production of
sustained wildlife yields on the national forests involves
not only game animals, game birds, and fish, but also
fur bearers. Among the latter are such carnivores as
the mountain lion, lynx, fox, and mink. Careful study
of local biological relationships between fur bearers and
both game species and domestic livestock is one of the
pre-requisites to the formulation of wildhfe-manage-
ment plans. Damage must always be weighed against
value, and an effort made to secure maximum benefits.

The beaver is an excellent example of a nonpredatorv
fur bearer. Here again, compHcated relationships exist.

Wildlife in the United States

21

TOTAL FOR

UNITED STATES

133,086.262 ACRES

'includes SoLtth DakoTc:

NebrasKa and

Oklahoma Areas)

16.610

E

J -

916

3°

wwsawild Life Winter Ranges

(Summer ond/brWmter use
in Arizona and New Mexico)

Area used by Cattle , Available
Area used by Sheep \ for
Area not used by either! vvild Life
CatTle or Sheep
Numerals on mop are percents

^^j Existing National Forests

MiLCS

FIGURE 2 - LOCATION OF GAME REFUGES AND WINTER RANGES NEEDED IN CONNECTION WITH
NATIONAL FORESTS. AND PERCENTAGES OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS USED BY CATTLE AND SHEEP

22

Land Planning Report

Studies on a number of national forests show that
beaver are of great value in watershed control. Beaver
dams create small ponds and lakes, impounding and
conserving the water. An instance in which this pro-
duced measurable economic value was noted on the
Gunnison Forest in Colorado. In 1924, the water
supply for the Minnesota Reservoir ran low and suffici-
ent water was not available for late irrigation. Four-
teen large beaver ponds on the streams above were
tapped, filling the reservoir. This supply, which had
been stored by the beaver, practically saved the fruit
crop on every orchard dependent upon this irrigation
project for water. The fruit growers valued this
emergency water supply at $15,000, an average of more
than $1,000 for each of the dams tapped.

Control and Regidation of the Beaver Necessary: Beaver
are responsible, however, for considerable damage to
some irrigation projects, by diverting the flow from
ditches and flooding fields. Damage also occurs by
the flooding of roads, trails, and railroad embankments.
Under such conditions, careful control is necessary.

Forage conditions may be improved by beaver dams
which check the flow of rapid streams, spreading out
the water and resulting in greater production of willows
and succulent grasses. The beaver population must
be regulated, however, since natural increase in numbers
frequently results in shortage of aspen and other beaver
feed. Cases are on record where shortage of food has
resulted in wholesale migration of beaver to other
watersheds. In other cases, unregulated trapping of
beaver has also resulted in virtual elimination of the
species on certain streams. The result of either forced
migration or destruction by man are the same. The
dams are washed out, erosion occurs, stream flow tends
to revert to alternating floods and low stages. The
solution to such problems involves maintenance of the
beaver population on each stream at such a level that
the maximum benefits will accrue without undue dam-
age to other uses, and within the limits of available
feed. This may be accomplished by regulated trapping.

Beaver dams on cold, rapidly flowing streams usually
improve fishing conditions by providing deep back-
waters, suitable spawning grounds, and increased feed.
On the contrary, the results of beaver dams on sluggish
streams may be detrimental to game fish. For example,
water in the dams may reach a higher temperature
than can be tolerated by the fish, or decaying vegetable
matter may create an undesirable habitat.

Use of Water Areas: That the protection and propa-
gation of wildlife species can be properly coordinated
with other land uses is further indicated in the relation-
ship of the use of water areas by waterfowl to the use
by recreationists and domestic livestock. On some of
the lakes on national forest areas where feed conditions
are suitable to resting and breeding grounds for migra-

tory birds, the shore line generally used for nesting
purposes is also occupied by fishermen. Notable in-
stances have occurred where, due to increase in recrea-
tional use, migratory birds have been deprived of the
nesting grounds along the shores of the lakes. This
situation may be easily corrected by the prohibition
of fishing on those portions of the lake shore best
adapted to waterfowl use, and the posting of such areas
against trespass.

The same situation applies where many of these lakes
afi'ord the only available watering place for domestic
livestock. If the livestock is allowed to concentrate
around the shores, the lakes are no longer valuable for
wildlife purposes except as resting grounds. If, how-
ever, the livestock is definitely restricted to watering
at certain portions of the lake, the needs of both are
met.

Conclusions: The foregoing discussion and examples
of the possibilities and limitations of the association
and production of wildlife with other land uses point
to a number of conclusions.

1. Wildlife production may be definitely coordinated
with all other land uses on the national forests.

2. Many biological relationships, basic to complete
coordination, remain to be investigated.

3. Coordination must be applied locally. Dominant
use may vary within regions, national forests, drainages,
or smaller units.

4. Sustained production of wildlife implies regulated
use, necessary to control populations within available
food supplies, and, in varying degree, within other land
use requirements.

5. Adjustments between uses, involving priority
ratings, must be expressed in integrated plans for
management of wildlife and other national forest
resources.

Areas Suitable Only for Refuges

Since the refuge idea must be fitted into the proper
place in the management plan as a whole, permanent
dedication of any area to a wildlife refuge has been
found undesirable on the national forests, except as a
means of perpetuating an almost extinct species or
where the area will serve no other useful purpose.
A refuge may provide excellent cover for breeding or
other purposes when established, but, because of
changing biological relationships, may not be satisfac-
tory for that purpose on a permanent basis. The
system of management must be sufficiently flexible
to permit the closing of areas to hunting and fishing,
and the establishment of other restrictive measures
when and where conditions justify such action. It will
probably always be necessary to reserve certain areas
to meet the purpose contemplated by the refuge idea,
but in the absence of complete management plans for

Wildlife in the United States

23

iill areas there are no data available to indicate the
percentage of land which will be primarily devoted to
that purpose.

Within the national forests, tliere are approximately
8,000,000 acres of land classed as "barren" on which
some forms of wildlife are found. Tliis area, so far as
can be seen, will serve no other purpose than the pro-
duction of wildlife. ^Miile its classification would
indicate lack of vegetative cover, this is not entirely
true since within the cracks and crevices and along the
narrow ledges on the faces of almost perpendicular
cliffs, and on other inaccessible areas there is ample
food for the species of wildlife inhabiting such localities,
such as mountain goats, mountain sheep, and
ptarmigan.

In addition, there are within the national forests
some 10,000,000 acres of "brush land", much of which
will be permanently useful only for watershed protec-
tion and wildlife production.

Areas Specially Adapted to Wildlife

The areas of private land and public domain listed
in table II, as needed for additions to national forests
in regions 1 to 10, inclusive, are vital to wildlife manage-
ment on tlie western national forests. They are an
integral part of the winter range for many of the big
game herds which depend upon national forest ranges
for subsistence during tlie summer months. Hea\T'
snows and severe cold drive elk and deer from the
high sunmier ranges to the lower countrj-, where
climatic conditions are more favorable and food may
be obtained during the winter.

The capacity of the national forests to produce
sustained crops of big game animals is very definitely
limited b}^ the availabilitj^ of winter range. Under
present conditions of ownership and use, that portion
of winter range in private ownership (6,000,000 acres)
and in the pubhc domain (14,000,000 acres), within
and adjacent to national forests, is not capable of
supplying forage adequate to maintain wildlife popu-
lations as large as can be supported by national forest
summer ranges.

These areas, totaling 20,000,000 acres, should be
added to the national forests, and other uses, chiefiy
grazing by domestic livestock, should be sufficiently
curtailed to allow the big game herds to increase to a
size comparable with the carrying capacity of the liigh
national forest summer ranges.

Areas Available for Wildlife

All national forest land is now and may in the future
be employed for the production of some form of \\-ildIife
in conjunction with other uses. The following tabu-
lation shows the extent of these areas, by national
forest regions.

Table I.-

-Exlenl of iialional forest area which is available for
wildlife use

National forest region

Net area of
national for-
ests and pur-
chase units
on June 30,
1934 I

Net area game refuges
on national forests '

Federal

State

Acres

22,791,449

19,383,134

19, 932, 106

29, 183, 676

19.3.12,839

23,121,116

2, 554, 586

5, 512, 882

4,073.985

21.342,300

Acres

Acres
2, 563, 700

2. Rocky Mountain--

195. 158
837.115

26.'776"

4.769.517
2. 224. 397

4. InUTiiiuiinlaiii , - --

5. f-'alifornia .-,

6. North Pacific

5. 348. 396
2.019,870
3, 111,440

90.278

S. Sonthern.- -

9. North Central- --- -

249. 132

2.671

2, 697, 225

251.750
864, 193

10. Alaska

Total

167.248,073

4,002,071

21, 243, ,541

1 Includes land approved for purchase under the Weeks and Clarke-McNary
laws.
' Included in net area national forests and purchase units.

The 167,000,000 acres of national forest land, located
in 33 States, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, is all available
for wildlife. All of this land, except the 25,000,000
acres of Federal and State game refuges, is open for
hunting and fishing, subject to the laws of the several
States. Hunting is also permitted on some of the Fed-
eral refuges, under special regulations.

Almost 3,000,000 acres have been closed to use by
domestic livestock, in the interest of wildlife production.
These areas, however, may be used for other purposes,
such as timber production and recreation. This illus-
trates the policy of correlated land uses, a prmciplc
which can be applied in safeguarding the wildlife re-
source. Strictlj^ speaking, therefore, there are no areas
in the national forests devoted exclusively to wildlife,
but future studies may reveal the necessity for dedi-
cating areas to only one use.

Needed Additions to Forests

The Forest Service believes that, in the interests of
the production and management of wildlife, three
classes of additions to the national forests are essential:
(1) Completion of the purchase program in the East,
within purchase units approved by the National Forest
Reservation Commission; (2) purchase of certain es-
sential areas of ^vinter game range within and adjacent
to the national forests; and (3) transfer of certain areas
of winter game range within the public domain to
adjacent national forests. These recommended ad-
ditions are shown in table II.

Of the 34,000,000 acres needed for additions to the
national forests, all but 14,000,000 acres of pubhc do-
main will, if acquired, be devoted to wildlife in associa-
tion with other uses. The pubhc-domain lands are
urgently needed for speciahzed whiter range use by big-
game animals summering on the national forests.
These lands, if added to the national forests, will be
so administered that the winter range for big-game
animals, chiefly elk and deer, will be greatly enlarged

24

Land Planning Report

Table II. — Needed additions to the national forests for production
and management of wildlife

Table III.

-Privately owned lands within national forest and
purchase unit boundaries

National forest region

Areas needed
to complete

purchase

program on

approved

purchase

units

Areas of winter game
range needed for ad-
ditions to national
forests

Total

needed

additions

to national

forests

Private
land

Public
domain

Acres

Acres
471,893
3, 482, 535

Acres
123, 732
5.925,460
1, 367, 000
4, 125. 329
1,219,093
1,431,000

Acres
595,625

2 Rocky Mountain

9, 407, 995

1,367,000

4, IntArmnnntnin

868,491
451, 380
385,800

4, 993, 820

1, 670, 473

6. Northwestern

1,816,800

3.042,924
6,504,702
4,115,433

3, 042, 924

6, 504. 702

9 North Central

407, 080

4, 522, 513

10. Alaska

Total

13,663,059

6,067,179

14, 191, 614

33,921,852

and improved. (See map sho^ving winter range and
game-refuge areas, fig. 2.)

Privately Owned Land
As a Habitat for Wildlife

Two classes of land are of interest to the Forest
Service in connection with the discussion of the use
of private lands for the production of wHdhfe: (1) Pri-
vately owned lands intermingled ■with national forest
lands, and (2) privately owned lands intermingled with
the public domain. Table II hsts the areas in class (1).

This 37,000,000 acres of privately owned land witliin
the exterior boundaries of national forests and pur-
chase units includes the 19,000,000 acres listed in
columns 1 and 2 of table no. II as land needed for
additions to the national forests. The remaining
18,000,000 acres will largely remain in private owner-
ship. These lands are, by and large, of similar value
and importance in wildlife production as are adjacent
national forest lands. That is, on these lands wildlife
may be coordinated with other private land uses, such
as grazing, agriculture, timber production, mining,

Lands within

Lands within

national

national

forest and

forest and

National forest region

purchase unit
boundaries,

National forest region

purchase unit
boundaries.

in private

in private

ownership as

ownership as

of Junes, 1934

of June 3, 1934.

Acres

Acres

1. Northern

3,768,837

7. Eastern .

4,112,912

2. Rocky Mountain

1,831,473

8. Southern

8. 485, 279

3. Southwestern

2, 085, 575

9. North Central

6. 546. 515

1, 594, 189
4, 857, 503
3,972,889

10. Alaska

54, 633

6 Northwestern

Total

37, 309, 805

and recreation. The degree to which these inter-
mingled private lands will produce wildlife is de-
pendent upon the emphasis placed by the owners on
this use as compared with other uses, and upon the
degree of control or wildhfe management exercised
thereon.

Within western game ranges, but outside national
forest boundaries, there is an estimated total of 55,-
000,000 acres of land, of which 13,000,000 acres is
public domain on which the wildlife use should be
considered of high priority. An additional 8,000,000
acres of public domain is less important for wildlife
usages, but necessarj'' to a full coordination of uses
both inside and outside national forests.

The situation with respect to tliis 55,000,000 acres of
intermingled private and pubhc domain lands is quite
analogous, in at least one respect, to the 167,000,000
acres of national forests, with 37,000,000 acres of inter-
mingled private holdings. The 55,000,000 acres is
largely suited to the production of wildhfe, in coordina-
tion with other land uses. A high degree of integration
of uses, fully coordinated and sustained long-time
programs, and definite and decisive execution of plans
are necessary to bring about complete development and
utiUzation of the wildlife resources on these lands.

o