5 88 



Yearbook^ of Agriculture 1949 



With the launching of the coopera- 

 tive wildlife program, efforts were 

 made to spread the work over much 

 more of the national forest acreage. 

 A formal agreement placing both the 

 George Washington and Jefferson Na- 

 tional Forests under cooperative wild- 

 life management became effective on 

 June 13, 1938. 



Legislative action by the Virginia 

 General Assembly in 1938 provided for 

 collection of a fee of a dollar by the 

 Commonwealth for the privilege of 

 hunting or fishing on national forest 

 land and earmarked all funds so col- 

 lected for wildlife restoration and 

 management on the cooperative area. 

 This special license, in the form of a 

 stamp, is issued each year to cover 

 hunting, fishing, and trapping on all 

 national forest land in Virginia. The 

 purchaser affixes this stamp to his 

 regular hunting and fishing license. 



One of the cardinal principles of co- 

 operative wildlife management under 

 the Virginia program has been the re- 

 quirement that all plans and programs 

 be jointly developed and administered 

 under a pattern of mutual participa- 

 tion and assistance. The policy starts 

 with joint preparation of each year's 

 budget by the Director of the Commis- 

 sion of Game and Inland Fisheries and 

 the forest supervisors. The budget is 

 shaped to finance an annual work pro- 

 gram for wildlife, which is also jointly 

 conceived, discussed, and approved. 



The diversion of a part of wildlife- 

 license receipts to the national forests 

 to provide funds for developing and 

 maintaining wildlife habitat marked a 

 new approach to wildlife restoration 

 in Virginia. This action stemmed di- 

 rectly from the concept that wildlife 

 is a product of the land and that active 

 participation of the land manager was 

 essential to continued production of 

 game and fish. 



The joint plans, formulated on the 

 ground, cover stocking of game and 

 fish, law enforcement, planting of wild- 

 life food and cover, mowing old fields 

 to retain them as wildlife clearings, 

 pruning and releasing trees and shrubs 



of value for wildlife food and cover, 

 control of predators, emergency feed- 

 ing of game when the ground is covered 

 by deep snows, and a score of related 

 jobs. Periodic inspections by represent- 

 atives of the Commission and the For- 

 est Service insure adherence to the 

 work plans and faithful compliance 

 with job specifications. 



When the cooperative program was 

 launched, wildlife-management units 

 ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 acres 

 were created on many of the ranger 

 districts. Usually these areas were 

 chosen because of solid Government 

 ownership and well-defined geographic 

 boundaries. Quite commonly, an entire 

 stream-drainage area was incorporated 

 into a management area and a small 

 cabin provided for the resident wild- 

 life manager. Many of the units were 

 originally closed to all hunting. Bound- 

 aries were clearly posted and marked 

 with a single strand of wire drawn at 

 waist height. An extra margin of pro- 

 tection and law enforcement has been 

 provided for these areas, and they have 

 served as centers on which to restock 

 deer, wild turkey, and other game. Ad- 

 ministrative units of this type are now 

 located along the full length of the 

 national forests for a distance of 300 

 miles. 



Most important of all in the pro- 

 gram was the employment and assign- 

 ment of resident wildlife managers to 

 assume direct supervision over wildlife- 

 management areas in the national 

 forests. Great care was given to the se- 

 lection of men for the work; the usual 

 choice was a local resident who was 

 thoroughly familiar with the moun- 

 tains and forests of his locality and in- 

 terested in wildlife, one who had the 

 respect and confidence of his neigh- 

 bors. The employees were selected for 

 intelligence, stamina, knowledge of lo- 

 cal terrain, and familiarity with in- 

 digenous wildlife. 



When large areas of national forest 

 land were closed during the early stages 

 of the program, the wildlife managers 

 explained the action to nearby resi- 

 dents and others who had been ac- 



