GAME 209 



adjacent low-lying private land in winter. The migratory fowl may nest in 

 the Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota, and winter on some private 

 estate in Florida. Private, county, State, and Federal land may all be used 

 even by an individual animal. 



The multiple-use plan of management in effect on the national forests 

 recognizes and provides for wildlife as a major resource, in providing for 

 game range and the improvement of the wildlife food supply and habitat. 

 Conflicts between wildlife and other forest uses are adjusted in accordance 

 with social, economic, and biological principles. Provision is made for 

 temporary or permanent refuges where needed. Surveys and studies are 

 made to determine carrying capacity of the ranges, the existing population, 

 and the effect of changes in population on the carrying capacity. 



The States, on the other hand, make and administer most of the laws 

 relating to use and protection of the animals themselves. Migratory water- 

 fowl is, of course, a partial exception. Among those laws are measures pre- 

 scribing bag limits, sex or size of game or fish which may be taken, open and 

 closed seasons for each species, designation of closed areas, bounties to be 

 paid for taking predatory animals, and many other details. 



Thus the management of game or fish and of the land or water which 

 forms their habitat are in part divided. On one hand are restrictive laws 

 which are essential tools to management, enacted and enforced by the States; 

 and on the other is the management by the Forest Service of a large part of 

 the environment so as to give the maximum contribution of wildlife in the 

 light of other legitimate uses of the land. As part of the management of the 

 environment it is clear that the Forest Service must retain the right to pro- 

 tect the property from damage by wildlife. 



Under the division of authority, the closest kind of cooperation is indis- 

 pensable. In certain States there are detailed formal agreements that are, 

 in effect, cooperative management plans. In other States less formal but 

 progressively satisfactory arrangements are in effect with the constituted 

 State authorities. In some States, dependence on inflexible and restrictive 

 State laws rather than on broad authority vested in a strong responsible 

 game and fish department makes difficult or virtually impossible any ade- 

 quate joint approach to wildlife management. 



