GAME MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS.

Forest and Bird, Issue 23, 1 March 1931, Page 15

GAME MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS.

(By Aldo Leopold.)

(Extracted from American Forests and Forest Life.)

The administration of the National Forests of America has for its real purpose the perpetuation of life —human, plant and animal life. Of first importance is human life, and so closelv related is this to tree and plant life, so vital are the influences of the forest, that their problems have been fashioned into the major problems of forest management and administration. Of next importance—and ever increasing—is the problem of animal and bird life. Driven from their once great range by civilisation the wild life that was at one time America’s most, picturesque heritage has found refuge in the National Forests. Under protection their numbers have multiplied, and with it has come a new responsibility and a greater problem for the administrators of the National Forests. The wild life census of 1928 indicated there were nearly one million game animals within the boundaries of the National Forests.

The National Forests were placed under management in 1905. Up to that time the game-conservation movement had given birth to two major ideas. The first was the reservation or park idea —withdrawing samples of game range from economic development with a view to the perpetuation of threatened species. This has since grown to include the refuge idea. The second was the idea of limiting the annual kill on hunting grounds to the annual increment or “natural increase” of the game thereon. This idea of limitation of kill was really contemporaneous with National Forests, and part of its development may be credited to the foresters who had them in charge. In the interim, however, one additional major idea has emerged. This idea is corollary to the idea of limiting the kill to the annual increase. It asserts that the annual increment of any given game population may be increased at will by manipulating its environment. Such increase is limited only by the carryingcapacity of the range, or, more rarely, by the unimpeded increase rate or “breeding potential” of the species. Environmental control, in its essence, and as applied to hunting grounds, is in effect the shifting of mortality from natural enemies to human hunters. It is not a new idea. In

various empirical forms it has been practised in Europe since the Middle Ages, and in Asia since the days of Genghis Khan. The biological equation responsible for its success was probably not understood, but this did not worry the Great Khan as long as his hunting was good. It should, however, worry us. Environmental control, like every other really potent idea, is a two-edged sword. It is the only possible way of keeping alive the sport of hunting in the face of unregulated human population growth. This is one edge of the sword. The other is that overcontrol is open to many abuses. A case in point is the bitterness which European naturelovers feel towards the excessive and indiscriminate predator control practised on private hunting preserves. This should be a lesson to managers of both private and public hunting grounds in this country. Moreover, excessive manipulation of environment tends to artificialise sport, and thus destroy the very recreational values which the conservation movement seeks to retain.

Intelligent manipulation of game environments is impossible without research. In only a few cases are the main factors affecting National Forest game as yet known. This is no reason for a do-nothing attitude, but it is a powerful reason for a radical expansion in the game research programme. The “reservation” idea has enjoyed a satisfactory growth, and requires no lengthy comment. A far-flung system of refuges is gradually being built up. These, to be sure, differ somewhat from the original idea of preserving a sample of threatened species. Refuges are a machine to feed breedingstock to the adjoining range; reservations are a museum where specimens are set away for safe keeping.