ILLINOIS AUDUBON BULLETIN 5 
there is a world of difference between an eagle and a traditional game 
species. This difference involves an important principle of wildlife biology: 
the more finicky a species is in habits and needs, the more difficult it is to 
control. Eagles have highly specific nesting requirements and a very low 
biological potential (reproduction rate). This makes them intractable as a 
managed species. In other words, there are not many eagles around — there 
never were, and never will be. In comparison, a whitetail deer is extremely 
manageable. We can produce within reason almost as many deer as we 
want. 
We must insist, emphatically, that if you could coax an eagle to a 
shooting blind, and we wanted it for the plate, the species would now be as 
dead as the proverbial Dodo. An outstanding example of a species that was 
good to eat and was hunted, and yet declined to near-extinction, is the 
Greater Prairie Chicken. The bird was heavily hunted as a choice table item, 
but the main reason it disappeared was the loss of habitat and its replace- 
ment by cultivated fields. The prairie chicken needed specific native grasses 
to thrive, and a specific configuration of open fields as spring ‘‘booming 
grounds.”” Without these places, the bird could not carry out its elaborate 
mating ritual, and reproduction was thwarted. 
The apparently successful program to save the prairie chicken in Illinois 
is an excellent example of non-game management ‘‘in action.” It shows 
what can be done when hard work, scientific knowledge and public 
financial support are successfully combined. 
| would like to mention briefly a few other principles of wildlife biology 
that are important to the non-game manager. 
In order to control animal populations, our efforts have to be species- 
specific. We have to study and manage on the basis of life-histories and 
ecological requirements of each species. Our goal must be to acquire the 
kind of data for non-game that is now available for deer, quail and other 
game species. 
Our work in non-game management must involve the broadest scope 
possible: the larger the area studied or preserved, the better. We can’t limit 
our concern to state breeding populations, but must take into consideration 
migratory species as well. We live in perhaps the greatest flyway in the 
world, and we have an obligation to these birds no matter where they nest or 
overwinter. 
We must recognize the wide variance in management potential among 
species. We have already touched on this principle. It is easy to manage 
mallards, but exceedingly tough to manage red-shouldered hawks; quail 
represent a simple problem, the peregrine falcon is almost impossible. 
Diversity is the key to a healthy, stable and beautiful environment. 
Although it is desirable on occasion to manage broad areas for a single 
species (as they are doing in Michigan with early-seral-stage jack pine to 
