4 ILLINOIS AUDUBON BULLETIN 
The first substantial awareness of a non-game problem developed in the 
early 1960’s. Widespread loss of habitat, and Rachel Carson’s message, 
struck home: nature was fragile, vulnerable, and technical and social 
progress often was won at the expense of the environment and wildlife. 
A “silent spring’’ may have been hyperbole, but no thinking person 
could hear Rachel Carson’s plea with indifference, and without a sharp 
sense of foreboding. 
This ensuing explosion in environmental concern intensified our 
awareness of the need to help wildlife. The passage of the Endangered 
Species Act in 1973 carried this awareness to its highest point. The Act 
embodied the non-game problem, namely, the decline and possible extinc- 
tion of species as a result of human activity, and the challenge we face in 
doing something about it. 
I’m not saying that the world was shook by the non-game dilemma. It 
was only a tiny tremor. Even to this day, non-game concerns remain 
esoteric, limited to a handful of biologists, game managers, conservationists, 
and perhaps a few hunters. 
The first non-game biologist was hired in 1967 by the state of Arizona. 
By 1975, some 30 states had non-game programs, but only 17 of these had 
at least one full-time person (15 states said that they intended to establish 
programs within two years). Illinois was among the states that had a 
non-game program, with one full-time biologist. | hope our state is com- 
mitted to an expanded effort in this direction. 
Most non-game specialists are ornithologists — a logical choice for 
non-game species are mostly birds. This is also a good choice because birds 
are reliable indicators of environmental health. | might add that birds have a 
growing constituency in local bird clubs, and state and national Audubon 
Societies. Taken together, these people represent a potential army of volun- 
teers to conduct field surveys and provide vital data on the abundance and 
distribution of species. 
| don’t mean to imply that we should go overboard on avian problems. 
lf we have learned one major ecological lesson in recent years, it is that our 
biota is extremely complex and our ignorance of biological inter-relation- 
ships is deep: not only mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, but also 
insects (particularly butterflies) are vital to maintaining environmental health 
and should come under the scope of this program. 
It has been said that if a bluebird weighed three pounds and held to a 
point, the species would not now be in jeopardy. A similar comment has 
been made about the bald eagle: if the eagle were good to eat, and could be 
called to a blind, it would have escaped the Endangered Species List. 
There is substance in these comments, the implication being that if a 
species catches the hunter’s interest, it will be managed, and to be ‘‘man- 
aged” is to be ‘‘saved’’. But these are largely rhetorical statements. In truth, 
