40 



CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



Some of the other species reported also are associated with ajiricuhiire 

 to some degree. This indicates that the higher vahied agricidtural 

 land produced moi-e than the State average but that the lower valued 

 land, such as might be considered economically feasible to own and 

 manage for the production of game, produced far less. 



As Pennsylvania is in a fairly humid part of the United States, it 

 produces more imits of game per acre than many other sections of the 

 country. Information on the annual kill is not available for all re- 

 gions; therefore, the best that can be conjectured at this time is that the 

 Pennsylvania harvest of wildlife is equal to or above the average for 

 the countrv as a whole. 



Figure 11. — There is no ground cover or possibility of forest reproduction in an 

 overgrazed woodlot. Practices like these destroy timber, soil, and wildlife, 

 leaving nothing for future generations. 



CONFLICTS WITH CROP PRODUCTION 



Reconmiended practices of game production are not always in 

 harmony with established farm practices. Providing food and cover 

 for wildlife requires that vegetative growth be available as to the 

 birds and mammals at all times of the year, yet farm practice fre- 

 quently dictates clean cultivation. (See figs. 3 and 4.) 



Recommendations in the interest of Avildlife advocate leaving the 

 less productive parts of the farm to grow up to brush and weeds. The 

 use of hedgerows instead of more modern forms of fences, also of ad- 

 vantage to wildlife, is sometimes uneconomical and may involve cer- 

 tain hazards. Although some lands do not lend themselves to intensive 

 use without becoming subject to loss of soil fertility or erosion, the 

 fact remains that farmers strive to get maximum returns from their 



