I have- endeavored 'to point out several possitle modifications of 

 , icT^^ttj practice -whicPi will make a correlation of fore'stry and game 

 Sangigemeht feasi"blc. Gdnversely, there are modifications which may well 

 he., mado in the practices advocated hy wildlife conservationists hefore 

 they can he successfully applied -cjider present-day forestry conditions. 

 This should include a recognition that forest lands cannot he managed 

 exclusively or even chiefly for the henefit of wildlife, hut rather that 

 wildlife values must he improved in correlation with other use of such 

 lands. 



Planting of wildlife food and cov^r plants as a general proposi- 

 tion is of douhtful economic feasihility on puhlicly owned forest lands. 

 There are places where it can prohahly he Justified, hut the existing 

 data do not point the way to its widespread use imder present conditions. 

 Such plaatingB should therefore he frankly experimental and limited in 

 extent when done from the wildlife standpoint alone. TThere erosion con- 

 trol hy planting is necessary, consideration should he given to wildlife 

 needs, and trees, shruhs, perennial plants, or grasses of value to wild- 

 life utilized for this purpose. Herhaceous plants hy introducing a new 

 vegetative type may he especially desirahle for wildlife, and at the same 

 time serve admirahly from an erosion control standpoint. Plant species 

 of major importance for wildlife may also he encouraged on sites too poor 

 to grow first-class timher. In other words, a timber stand improvement 

 program which sacrifices timher trees on poor sites in favor of trees and 

 shruhs having game value may he as justifiable economically as the re- 

 serve program. ' ■ ■ " 



Actual planting solely for wildlife on puhlic lands should he 

 carefully studied hefore heing attempted on a large scale. 



The concept of large forest refuge areas where wildlife will always 

 he unmolested, unanalyzed, seems attractive, hut it is not in accord with 

 hiological prohahilities nor with experience. 



Por example, the deplorahle Kaihah deer situation res"alted from a 

 comhination of favorahle environment and entire protection of the animals 

 for a term of years. The Yellowstone's elk problems and those of several 

 other areas are essentially the same - as the herd increases it automat- 

 ically seals its doom hy progressively destroying the available food plants- 



These and many other examples are giving rise to a feeling that some 

 modification of the refuge system is desirahle. Such a modification should 

 recognize the transitory nature of forest game ranges. It should take into 

 account the fact the the earlier stages of forest growth provide the most 

 favorahle conditions, and that building up game stocks, particularly of 

 deer and elk, to maximum carrying capacities during these favorable periods 

 eventually will lead to destruction of available food supplies and ultimate 

 starvation for many of the animals. Conservationists should frankly recog- 

 nize this and realize that flexibility in the refuge idea so as to provide 

 for utilization of surpluses is a requirement in the long-time program. 



-- 6 



