Forests as a Wildlife Habitat 



567 



turbance of channels ; the aquatic hab- 

 itat suffered ; insect life was smothered 

 by silt or injured by abrasion; gravel 

 spawning beds silted up; food-produc- 

 ing ability was lowered; and summer 

 temperature was raised. In cases of ex- 

 treme change, good trout waters be- 

 came nearly barren of such fish. 



When the general public realized, a 

 generation or more ago, that the wild- 

 life resource was so seriously impaired, 

 there was support for wildlife protec- 

 tion and restoration. The first reaction 

 was to restrict the take, often to the 

 point of yearlong closed seasons. In ex- 

 treme cases, such as the bighorn sheep, 

 the ptarmigan, and certain other spe- 

 cies, some States have had closed sea- 

 sons for 20 years or more. Other 

 methods of restricting the take as a 

 measure to protect the breeding stock 

 included refuges, short seasons, small 

 bag limits, and restrictions on sex and 

 age. Such forest big game as deer and 

 elk were subjected to the "buck laws," 

 which designated male animals with 

 certain antler developments as legal 

 game, providing full protection to fe- 

 males. Refuges became popular in the 

 1920's; vast areas of forest lands were 

 included in the State game refuges, 

 and smaller areas in Federal refuges. 



The restocking of game and fish 

 assumed a prominent place in the pro- 

 tection and restoration programs. Be- 

 tween 1910 and 1920, elk from the 

 Northern Yellowstone and Jackson 

 Hole herds were released in 11 West- 

 ern States and in many places in the 

 East. Most of the western plants and 

 reestablishments were in public forest 

 land formerly occupied by elk. Insuffi- 

 cient wilderness areas and conflict with 

 farming districts prevented acceptance 

 of elk restoration in the East. 



The trapping of wild big game, 

 mostly deer, for stocking has continued 

 in some areas up to now. Dependence 

 for turkey stock, however, too often has 

 been placed upon game farms. Pen- 

 raised birds were frequently of mixed 

 domestic strains, and have not suc- 

 ceeded in the wild. 



Fish hatcheries were developed by 



both State and Federal agencies, and 

 in the mountain areas large numbers of 

 trout were produced. Through indis- 

 criminate stocking programs, the trout 

 species were widely and, too often, un- 

 wisely mixed. 



Present knowledge shows that some 

 of these restoration programs were ill- 

 advised; some were good at first but 

 were continued too long. It is now 

 generally accepted that the planting of 

 small trout and fry, except in barren 

 waters, is of little value. The survivals 

 of fry to reach a fisherman's creel are 

 extremely few, although the returns 

 from stocking of adult trout during the 

 fishing season are usually high. 



Perhaps much of the big-game over- 

 population trouble came from public 

 pressure to retain large refuges long 

 after the deer and elk were abundant, 

 and from retention of the "buck law" 

 when females should have been har- 

 vested to control or reduce the herd. 

 The overselling of the "buck law" has 

 probably been the major hindrance to 

 good big-game management in the 

 United States. Even today many big- 

 game ranges in the Lake States as well 

 as in the West are in a serious stage of 

 depletion. 



GAME LAWS of the Old World have 

 had a bearing on the legal status of 

 wildlife in this country. The main in- 

 fluence came directly from England. 

 Before the conquest by the Norman 

 kings, landowners there were privi- 

 leged to pursue wildlife on their own 

 holdings; afterward, William the Con- 

 queror took over forests as crown 

 property. Hunting became the pastime 

 of the royalty; the game became the 

 property of the sovereign. Offenders 

 of the King's game laws were severely 

 punished; sometimes they paid for the 

 offense with an eye, a hand, or even 

 their lives. The laws were liberalized 

 in the Magna Charta, the Charta 

 Foresta, and other steps in the thir- 

 teenth century; a man would not lose 

 his hands or life for killing a deer, but 

 he could be fined and imprisoned. 



The idea that game was the property 



