408 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



It is the purpose of the foregoing paragraphs to suggest, not to ex- 

 plain, the analogy between game management and forestry. A full 

 explanation must necessarily transcend the scope of this paper. It 

 must be apparent to the reader, however, that the prime necessity for 

 stock-taking, protection against damage, and management for sustained 

 production under a fixe^ system of regeneration is common to both. 

 Especially so is the principle of guarding at all costs against the deple- 

 tion of the normal breeding stock (normal stand). 



The skeptic may promptly rebut the foregoing analogy. American 

 foresters, he will say, have preached the principles of silviculture, nota- 

 bly sustained yield, but have as yet been unable to practice them. How, 

 then, could they have practiced them with game? True; but why? 

 Because of lack of a demand for inferior grades and remote stumpage. 

 Because of our old bugbear — inaccessibility. Does game management 

 labor under the same handicap? Emphatically it does not. There is 

 a demand for every head of killable big game in the United States, 

 wherever it may be. Five million sportsmen are looking for hunting 

 grounds, and many in vain. Indeed, it may be said that, as far as a 

 market is concerned, we are more ready to practice game management 

 than to practice forest management. 



The next question is : To what extent have the principles of forestry 

 been applied to game? 



The big outstanding fact which confronts us here is that absolutely 

 no volume limitation has been applied to the annual kill except bag 

 limits. Having failed to regulate the number of bags, we have really 

 applied no volume limitation at all. There has been applied (but often 

 not enforced) a time limitation (hunting seasons), and we have begun 

 to discuss an area limitation (game refuges), but that is all. Hunting 

 seasons and bag limits are essential, but they do not go far enough. 

 They have necessarily failed to prevent depletion of the breeding 

 stock ; consequently we are raising little game. What would we expect 

 of a Forest wherein every millman who could pay a license fee were 

 turned loose to cut ad libitum from September 15 to November i, pro- 

 vided he did not haul to market more than 50,000 feet in any one day ? 

 Obviously mighty little. Such practice would end by stripping the 

 accessible parts, culling the most desirable species, no matter how badly 

 needed for seed, leaving other areas untouched, and in general creating 

 the antithesis of a productive forest. Yet just so have we created the 

 antithesis of a productive game supply. 



Granting that the present system applies no adequate limitation of 

 annual kill, how are we to make good the deficiency? The following 



