Significance of Forage Quality as a Tool in Wildlife Managment 
W. O. HANSON! and JUSTIN G. SMITH? 
INTRODUCTION 
In the scriptural reference of Isaiah 40:6 
. all flesh is grass. . .,” the author likened 
the destructibility of flesh to that of grass, al- 
though he may have also understood the phys- 
iological conversion of grass to flesh. The 
quotation, however, is an appropriate introduc- 
tion to the presentation. 
The fundamental relation of vegetation to 
animal life is effectively stated by Komarek 
(1966) of the Tall Timbers Research Station: 
All species of wildlife, in the final 
analysis, are dependent on vegetation 
in one way or another. Man, himself, 
in the final analysis, is dependent for 
his very existence, directly or indi- 
rectly, on plant life. If vegetation is 
basic, then man prospers in direct 
proportion to his skill in managing 
that vegetation. Again, if vegetation 
is basic, then wildlife prospers in di- 
rect proportion to man’s skill in man- 
aging the vegetation. If this is a valid 
summation, then research concerning 
the manipulation of vegetation to de- 
termine wildlife response should be of 
major import to the wildlife manage- 
ment profession and to the whole field 
of wildlife conservation. 
Komarek goes on to describe the 
similarity of wildlife management, 
forestry, and agriculture as they re- 
late to management of vegetation. He 
states, “.. . you cannot have a forest 
without trees, or you cannot have a 
farm without fields or pastures, but 
you can have a forest lacking wild- 
life. What is it that produces abun- 
dant wildlife on the farm and in the 
forest? Essentially, it is the composi- 
ce 
tion, quality, and arrangement of 
the vegetation. Wildlife management, 
therefore, is a form of landscape 
management.” 
Of all factors affecting wildlife production, 
the supply and maintenance of quality forage 
is perhaps the most challenging to the wildlife 
manager. What, then, is the practical applica- 
tion of forage quality as a tool of wildlife man- 
agement? 
* Director, Division of Wildlife Management, Forest 
Service, USDA. 
* Project Leader, Wildlife Habitat Research, Pacific 
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station For- 
est Serv., USDA 
In habitat management, there are minimum 
levels of each element of nutrition, and there 
are optimum nutritional levels which play a 
key role. With an understanding of the cause- 
and-effect relations between forage quality and 
animal productivity, the land manager is in a 
position to translate knowledge into action. 
Various cultural improvement practices can be 
applied to enhance the quality of forage. 
Wildlife habitat management techniques are 
usually positive from the standpoint of wild- 
life, but they may be negative from the stand- 
point of other resources. For example, the most 
important precaution on livestock ranges of 
the Southeast—to protect habitat for deer, tur- 
key, and small game animals—excludes cattle 
from hardwood bottom lands (USDA/ 1968). 
This action is needed to protect the critical or 
quality wildlife foods from livestock. 
Inadequate supplies of nutritional foods for 
big game animals often damage timber re- 
sources. For example, on the Tillamook burn in 
western Oregon, browsing damage to planted 
Douglas fir seedlings coincides with the period 
of snow cover (from about December through 
early March). During this period, trailing 
blackberry, the most preferred species, is 
largely unavailable under snowfall. Thus, the 
degree of tree regeneration damage incurred 
helps determine the level of deer harvest 
planned on high-value timber-producing lands. 
(Oregon State Game Commission 1968.) 
EFFECT OF FORAGE QUALITY ON 
ANIMAL PRODUCTION 
The inherent reproductive capacity of wild- 
life populations is seldom, if ever, achieved in 
nature. Decimating or inhibiting factors are at 
work throughout the prenatal and postnatal 
periods of life. Direct losses resulting from 
malnutrition are spectacular and self evident 
and can usually be measured with some degree 
of accuracy. However, less obvious losses, also 
have a direct effect on productivity as well as 
mortality in wildlife populations. 
Cheatum and Severinghaus (1950) found 
that fertility of deer, based on embryo and ova 
counts, corresponded with the quality of the 
range being used. Measurements of fertility of 
white-tailed deer afforded an indicator of 
trends in population density in relation to 
range adequacy. These conclusions were later 
confirmed by Julander et al. (1961) in studies 
of mule deer on Utah ranges. Deer productiv- 
ity on excellent summer range, compared with 
25 
