A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 503 



For example, the Forest Service's administration of national forests 

 in 31 States of the Union embraces an area of approximately 140 

 million acres, not all of which, however, is forested. The net forested 

 area of the national forests is approximately 108 million acres. The 

 regional administrative units of the Forest Service cover all or parts 

 of two or more States. The Forest Service then is in the position of 

 being responsible for the administration and protection of large areas 

 of land involving the proper management of wild life, together with 

 timber and other resources, without having direct control of game 

 except as a final recourse for protection of the land and other re- 

 sources. 



Not only does the Forest Service not have use or control of this 

 wild-life resource, but administrative plans that it develops and which 

 tie in with wild-life management must be shaped and fitted to meet 

 in some degree requirements of State game departments and State 

 legislation. This situation may affect vital administrative measures. 



Certain States have ceded the authority to the United States to 

 administer the game on national-forest lands. Georgia, by acfc ap- 

 proved August 15, 1922; North Carolina, by act approved March 9, 

 1915; and Tennessee, by act of March 28, 1917, consented to the mak- 

 ing by the Congress of the United States or under its authority of all 

 such rules and regulations as the Federal Government shall determine 

 to be needful in respect to game animals, game and nongame birds, 

 and fish in such lands as shall have been, or may hereafter be, pur- 

 chased by the United States under act of March 1, 1911. 



Arkansas, by act of February 9, 1925, consented to the same Federal 

 control of game animals, game and nongame birds, and fish as in the 

 above instances, but limited it to specific counties. 



Some States have recognized the value of game to the private 

 landowner and have enacted laws encouraging game management 

 and allowing the private landowner to share in its benefits. Various 

 plans are now being tried out. The " Texas shooting preserve 

 statute" requires the landowner wishing to sell or lease shooting on 

 his land to purchase a license which is renewable on condition that 

 the licensee has enforced laws and kept a record of hunters and kill. 

 State protection against trespassers is not extended to those charg- 

 ing over 25 cents per acre or $4 per man-day. The Michigan "shoot- 

 ing preserve statute" authorizes on licensed preserves a regulated 

 pheasant kill under a special long season. To qualify under this 

 privilege the owner must release twice the proposed kill under warden 

 supervision and operate the preserve satisfactorily. Under the 

 Williamston plan operating in Ingraham County, Williamston 

 Township, Mich., the farmers pool their land resource and issue 

 tickets to members, who may dispose of them as they see fit. The 

 number of tickets to each family represents the number of hunters 

 his land can carry simultaneously. Under the Pennsylvania plan 

 the State leases auxiliary refuges at a nominal rate, and the owners 

 of immediately adjacent land agree to allow public hunting with per- 

 mission in consideration of State patrol, State restocking, and laws 

 regulating conduct of hunters. Indiana has enacted a tax law of 

 fundamental importance to game, particularly quail. This law en- 

 courages the development of ungrazed woodland and extends to 

 registered woodland a flat valuation of $1 per acre, against which 



168342 33 vol. 1 33 



