9v* MiMiMi.niiiii.iiiiiiiiiiHl' r iiliiillllMIIIIIIIIIMII till 1 1 1 1 1 l'li)li)IMIIIIHiMI-IMtMnMIHIHMItMfllMiMinitiMI1lllll|]||||IIIIIIIMIIIIIIItlllllllinii.*#9 



; MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 13 i 



• • 



0^yiiiitiitiit mill I iiiii iiiMiiiiiiiiiii iiiiMiiinnn i iiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiNiiiiriiiiii i t i riir lit "m90 



associations. That has been and will continue to be the policy of 

 the Forest Service. Our plan is predicated on the assumption of in- 

 telligent state game laws, a wise and consistent state game policy 

 and a fair and competent state administration of game affairs. We 

 believe that the amendment to Montana's laws, passed by the 

 legislature four years ago, establishing the State Game Commission 

 was a splendid achievement and that the progress made in game 

 matters since that time constitutes sufficient evidence for proof of 

 this statement. The work has not been and never will all be done, 

 but a good start has been made, and there is a growing sympathy 

 and understanding between all interested agencies. The great need 

 now is for a general recognition among the sportsmen of the state 

 that game propagation and conservation is not merely a question of 

 law enforcement, but one of biology and economics, — intricate and 

 far-reaching, that cannot be solved by rule of thumb, or by opinion 

 based on meagre knowledge of only a few of the facts. If we are 

 going to progress as we should, there must be a more general 

 recognition that accurate and scientific knowledge of all facts are 

 just as applicable in administration of game matters as they are in 

 the handling of any other complicated business, and that the opinion 

 of the sportsman who has not made a study of the biological and 

 economical conditions on the question of perpetuating Montana's 

 wild life is worth just as much and no more than that of the 

 average layman on how to build and fly an airship. To the extent 

 that this fact is recognized by the sportsmen of the state they wilj 

 see to it that provision is made for carrying on the work. 



An always live question with the Forest Service is that of 

 adjusting the demands for range from livestock owners with con- 

 flicting needs of game. Six hundred twenty-eight thousand, one hun- 

 dred and twenty three sheep and goats and 163,463 horses and cat- 

 tle feed during a portion of each year on the National Forest ranges 

 of the state. Livestock are grazed on all areas which they can use 

 except where grazing would interfere with forest production or other 

 higher use, and except on areas withdrawn from use by domestic 

 stock to provide game ranges. There is a total of 7,592,304 acres 

 of usable range in the National Forests of the state. Two million, 

 six hundred twenty-one thousands, five hundred and ten acres of 

 National Forest land are reserved for use of game. The larger 

 portion of this area is not in demand from stockmen because of its 

 inaccessibility but there is a considerable portion of it that would 

 be so used were stock allowed on it. There is, of course, a great 

 deal of grazing of game on areas used by domestic stock and this 

 dual use can and should be continued. There are a few extrem- 

 ists amongst the sportsmen who believe that grazing of domestic 

 stock on the National Forests should not be allowed and that all 

 ranges should be used for game. These are people who fail to 

 appreciate the economic value of National Forest ranges. Twenty- 

 five per cent of the sheep in the state and fifteen per cent of the 

 cattle graze for a portion of the year on the National Forests. Their 

 elimination from the National Forests would mean the elimination 

 of a large percentage of them from the state entirely, and the 

 abandoning or deterioration of a great many ranch properties be- 

 cause owners could not continue in the stock business without sum- 

 mer range. Most of these critics say that the United States could 

 afford to do without the grazing fees. Perhaps it could, but that 

 is a minor consideration. The big question is could Montana afford 

 to do without the stock industry that is dependent on summer range 



