Click for next page ( 93


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 92
,, Influence of Land Management on Wildlife Historical attitudes toward the land and its products were discussed in Chapter 1. Over the past century, the elaboration of land-use concepts and the development of policy guidelines have accompanied the inten- sification of management. The growing expectation that every area can yield more products and services through applied technology than through single-purpose exploitation has raised issues with which land managers were not earlier concerned. It became evident that benefits of several kinds might be obtained through a recognition of the diverse values that any particular land type might provide for various segments of the population. That the general public has an interest and a respon- sibility in effecting and perpetuating sound management policies for all natural resources has been inherent in the conservation idea from its beginning. MULTIPLE USE A significant and commonly accepted policy relating to land husbandry is that of "multiple use." Logically it developed first as a guide to oper- ations on certain public properties, especially the national forests, although its applicability to other types and ownerships is becoming progressively evident. Since -wildlife is a public resource, commonly of secondary value in land-use economics, its status and utilization as a land and water product generally depend on effective multiple-use policies. How such policies vary and how they are implemented in dif 92

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 93 ferent economic situations must be understood in determining relative investments for, and expected returns from, the wildlife resource. Policies on Public Lands In 1960, after many years of multiple-purpose operations by the U.S. Forest Service, Congress authorized and directed the Secretary of Agri- culture to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield (PL86-5 17; 16 USCA 528-53 1; 74 Stat 2153. In this act a definition was included: "Multiple use" means: The management of all the various renewable surface re- sources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of those resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various re- sources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. This definition is remarkably similar to the 1905 directive of the Secretary of Agriculture to the Forester concerning the national forests-" . . . when conflicting interests must be reconciled the ques- tion will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run."* Both imply the satisfaction of minority interests as well as those of a simple majority. In 1964, the Congress instructed the Secretary of the Interior to develop and administer for multiple use and sustained yield those pub- lic lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management consistent with and supplemental to the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat 1269; 43USC 3151. The definition of multiple use in this act (PL 88- 607; 43USCA 141: (b); 78 Stat 987) is nearly identical with that apply ing to national forests except that the 1964 act includes also nonrenew- able and subsurface resources. Wildlife and outdoor recreation are recognized resources under both acts. Thus the Congress has established a national policy of multiple use, *In a letter of February 1, 1905, from James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, to Gifford Pinchot, Forester, upon transfer of the Forest Reserves (now national forests) to the Depart- ment of Agriculture.

OCR for page 92
94 Land Use and Wildlife Resources including wildlife resources, in the administration of national forests (186 million acres), and on lands temporarily under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (459 million acres) pending their classification for retention in federal ownership or disposal to private ownership. * The administrator of federal lands is subject to competitive demands from different segments of the public, not all of whom are likely to be fully satisfied. Pressures also arise from specialized staff personnel within the agency, and the desire of each of several specialists to pro- duce the maximum output from "his" resource. Under multiple-purpose management, a given use seldom can attain its maximum production; rather, the objective is optimum benefits from all or several uses in combination. Ridd (1965) stated: Multiple use management of the land may be accomplished by any one of the fol- lowing three options, or by combination of the three: (1) concurrent and con- tinuous use of the several resources obtainable on a given land unit; (2) alternating or rotational use of the various resources or resource combinations on the unit, so that multiple use is achieved on a time basis; or (3) geographical separation of uses or use combinations so that multiple use is accomplished across a mosaic of units. All of these are legitimate multiple use practices and should be applied in the most suitable combination on lands under public administration. It is here that a form of zoning is essential-zoning, not for a single use, but in terms of a dominant value. For specific areas within a large planning unit, one use may be given precedence, with others permitted to the extent that they do not materially conflict with it. Many federal lands other than the national forests and lands admin- istered by the Bureau of Land Management are managed for several uses. Military lands, for example, are being developed for wildlife habitat, hunting, and fishing, when compatible with military objectives. On some wildlife refuges, timber operations, hay cutting, or livestock grazing are beneficial habitat improvement practices. Many state-owned areas are managed similarly. On certain public lands little, if any, management is directed toward marketable products. Thus a primary motive in establishing national parks and wilderness areas has been to reserve some lands from such disturbance factors as mining, cultivation, livestock grazing, forest cutting, and hunting; here the premium is on natural conditions. The Wilderness Act, as passed, did not conform fully to this objective. *The Bureau of Land Management mulEple-use authonzabon expired June 30, 1970

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife Under congressional definitions of multiple use, hunting, fishing, and wildlife habitat development are not required in all places and at all times on the national forests and public domain lands. However, these are acceptable practices on most public lands, and the wildlife resource has generally benefited from them. Appl ications on Private Lands 95 The American Society of Range Management (Hues, 1964) defines mul- tiple use as: Harmonious use of range for more than one of the following purposes: Grazing of livestock, wildlife production, recreation, watershed, and timber production. Not necessarily the combination of uses that will yield the highest economic return or greatest unit output. be: The Society of American Foresters (1964) considers multiple use to The practice of forestry which combines two or more objectives, such as produc- tion of wood or wood-derivative products, forage and browse for domestic live- stock, proper environmental conditions for wildlife, landscape effects, protection against floods and erosion, recreation, production and protection of water sup- plies, and national defense. Orell (1964) describes multiple use from the standpoint of the tim- ber industry as: . . . the accommodation of a maximum of other compatible uses with the highest single use of the land. On private commercial forest land the highest primary use is the production of successive timber crops. The maximum use of every forest land acre is the objective of every forester. Still another description of multiple use is that of American Forest Products Industries (Sayers, 19661. Continuous growing and harvesting of crops of trees is the primary objective of Tree Farm management. Other multiple-use benefits, including the protection of watersheds, maintenance of desirable wildlife populations, and recreational oppor- tunities are the natural results of well managed forest lands. Multiple use is en- couraged on Tree Farms consistent with the primary objectives of the owners. It is evident that the intensive management of one resource often is not good management for another. The growing of fully stocked pure stands of conifers over extensive areas may preclude game production;

OCR for page 92
96 Land Use and Wildlife Resources it might well comply with the primary timber objective of the land- owner but would fail in maintaining wildlife populations satisfactory to the hunter. In the coordinated management of timber arid wildlife a moderate reduction of timber yield may permit a more than moderate increase in wildlife production. Yet the incidental improvement of wildlife habitat, or even just the granting of permission to hunt, con- forms with most definitions of multiple use. Hence there is need to analyze the objectives, procedures, and actual results on any unit of land to ascertain the prevailing direction and extent of the application of multiple-use concepts. The fact that multiple use is a desirable policy in the management of most public lands does not mean that it is applicable in equal degree to private lands. Motivations in public land management derive from legis- lation (including appropriations) as a response to public demands; on private lands the motivation is primarily in terms of dollar returns. Subject to ecological limitations, certain governmental controls, and occasional zoning restrictions, the landowner will determine the uses to which his land will be devoted. Wildlife production and utilization may or may not be a management objective, and it is commonly true that the landowner has little economic incentive to develop wildlife habitat or to encourage its utilization. Multiple use can mean different things to different people. Under various definitions and practices the wildlife resource may be benefited greatly or not at all, according to the nature of land and water, the economics of competitive land and water uses, and the mores of various social groups. FO R EST AN D WOO D LAN D MANAG EM E NT Within the 50 states, 759 million acres support forests and woodlands.* Two thirds (509 million acres) of this area is classified as commercial forest land, suitable for growing continuous crops of sawlogs or other industrial timber products. One third (250 million acres) is classified as noncommercial either because of low productivity for timber growing (234 million acres), or because of legal reservation ( 16 million acres) for parks, wilderness, or other nontimber uses (U.S. Forest Service, 1 9651. *Woodland includes both small forested areas, such as farm woodlots, and larger areas of mainly noncommercial species. Many acres classed as forest and woodland are grazed by domestic livestock; hence there is an overlap of areas (244 million acres) in forests and wood- lands and range and pasture.

OCR for page 92
I Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 97 Of the commercial forest land, 142 million acres are in public owner- ship, of which four fifths is federally owned; 67 million acres are owned by forest industries; 151 million acres are in farms; and 149 million acres are under miscellaneous private ownership. Of the noncommercial (low productivity) forest land, over three fourths is federally owned and situated largely in Alaska and other western states. Covering one-third of the land area of the United States, forest land supports a wide variety of wildlife. Much of the big game, many upland small game species, and some waterfowl are hunted in the forest environ- ment, and nongame species are numerous. Many fishing waters are in, or have their sources in, forested areas. Significantly, from the stand- point of the management of wildlife for public recreation, nearly half of the forested area of the country is under public ownership. Wildlife Habitat Objectives From latitudes 20N in Hawaii to 60N in Alaska, at elevations from sea level to 12,000 feet, and showing many different successional stages within the several life zones, forest lands of the United States vary greatly in the composition of their plant and animal communities. For the contiguous 48 states, Kuchler (1964) recognizes 69 potential na- tural types of forest and grassland-forest combinations. The Society of American Foresters recognizes 156 timber types that vary widely with respect to age, species composition, soils, and other conditions. Within this broad spectrum of environmental conditions lie forest-wildlife management opportunities for directing management toward compat- ible objectives. It is here that wildlife managers seek to identify and lessen the adverse effects of such limiting factors as food, cover, water, or space and to attain a range of habitat types favorable to the species of wildlife concerned. Interspersion of Types Aside from seasonal migrations, the ranges of individual animals of dif- ferent species may vary from a few acres or less (cottontail rabbits) to a square mile (deer) to 36 square miles or more (wide-ranging carni- vores). Each individual needs ready access to habitat that meets all of its requirements, and the more home ranges there are in a forest hold- ing the larger the wildlife population is likely to be. Many species of wildlife-deer, rabbits, turkeys, grouse-are "edge" creatures, requiring variety in their ranges. They make extensive use of openings and early forest successions and are benefited by an intimate mixture of vegetative, topographic, and moisture conditions. The need

OCR for page 92
98 Land Use and Wildlife Resources for "interspersion" in the habitat is an accepted principle among wild- life managers, and to meet this need is a basic objective in developing productive environments in forested areas. Thus extensive stands of a single tree species do not support high populations of wildlife; small farm woodlots, closely associated with croplands and pastures, are more productive. On extensive forest areas the manager frequently has a clearly defined wildlife habitat objective, in terms of variety and edge, that he can approximate in harmony with timber management priorities. Water Conditions Runoff waters from forested watersheds provide the basic resource for a fishery, and for some mammals and birds as well. The physical, chemi- cal, and biological factors that constitute fish habitat are affected by the forest and the activities therein. The temperature of streams and degree of siltation relate to condition of the watershed. The stability of streambanks and the presence or absence of bank cover and shade greatly affect the fishes and their food supplies. Aquatic fish-food organisms depend closely, in species and abundance, on the type of stream bottom; particularly in mountain trout streams, fish food pro- duction in clean rubble stream bottoms exceeds that in silted stream- beds (Chapman, 19629. To an appreciable extent, the amount of runoff and the time and degree of peak flows are influenced by the species of trees and their distribution (Hoover, 19621. To some degree, nearly all actions (or their absence) on the forest watershed affect the suitability of the aquatic habitat for wildlife. Thus the decisions of the forester can result in habitat improvement or deterioriation, depending upon the objectives of management and the ways in which objectives are fulfilled. Through well-coordinated management for timber and wildlife, habitat conditions can be fostered; without coordination they may be damaged. Public clamor for fish hatcheries has often obscured the fact that effective fishery manage- ment starts with land management on the watershed. Timber Management Practices A virgin forest seldom supports an abundance of wildlife-either in number of animals or number of species. Increases in game animals often followed early exploitation of our forests. Today the saw and axe, controlled fire, and chemicals can be employed to improve wild- life habitat without destructive effects. Forest management provides many opportunities for improving wildlife habitat.

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 99 Incidental wildlife benefits are likely to accompany most modern types of timber harvest and thinning operations. Greater and more predictable benefits result where forest managers plan their operations to favor wildlife habitat as one of the multiple uses of the forest. On the managed national and state forests, and on managed private lands where there is an incentive to do so, wildlife biologists working with timber managers can develop plans that will increase the more useful species of both animals and trees. On unmanaged "preserves" such as the New York State Forest Preserve and some national and state parks, the opportunities are limited or lacking. In recent decades there has appeared to be some division of public opinion relative to forestry; in particular, growing numbers of people generally have opposed harvesting timber crops. Presumably this atti- tude goes considerably beyond the acknowledged need for setting aside certain areas as undisturbed wilderness. It has earned for such individ- uals the somewhat anomalous designation of "preservationist," as op- posed to the "conservationist," who believes in preservation plus use. Perhaps the opposition to harvesting timber crops is a reaction to the early history of "cut-out and get-out" logging in this country and to appreciable areas of recent clear-cutting of large blocks.* It may be fostered also by instances of erosion, scenic defacement, and slash burning-not all condoned by either lay conservationists or professional foresters (Twiss, 19691. Although some logging operations do not pro- vide adequately for watershed protection and esthetics, many do; tim- ber industries in general are recognizing the public's interest in forests. Perhaps the distinction between conservationists and preservationists relates to varying degrees of tolerance of such things as the disturbance of natural conditions by logging-some of which may be unavoidable if forest managment is to be practiced at all. With respect to wildlife, the distinction becomes real to the extent that the saw and axe are tools without which habitat management would be extremely limited. Few question the need for both commodity production areas and natural areas; the difficult questions concern where and how much land shall be devoted to each, and to what extent both needs can be met through multiple use. On federal lands designated for multiple-use management the success of administrators in satisfying diverse interests may determine the duration of delegated authority, which the Con- gress can retract at any time. *Clear-cutUng of blocks of moderate size is an accepted silvicultural practice in several forest types. The distinction between large and small blocks will necessarily vary, and size is un- likely to be determined solely with consideration for wildlife; but, in a multiple-use forest, it need not be a matter of logging economics alone.

OCR for page 92
100 Land Use and Wildlife Resources Rotations and Cutting Cycles With the decrease of virgin timber stands-in the 1 960's less than 8 per- cent of commercial forests-and the increase of managed forests, the problems and opportunities of wildlife managers are changing. In many cases the old-growth trees are replaced naturally or artificially by spe- cies of lower successional stages, and wildlife communities change. Wildlife management objectives and techniques must be modified to fit the managed forests and, in turn, may influence timber management practices. The development of markets for small trees and more effi- cient equipment for logging and road-building have shortened both the time required to produce merchantable timber (the rotation) and the frequency of practical cuttings (the cutting cycles). To meet anticipated sawtimber demands, more frequent and more extensive cultural cuttings can be expected. Substantial acreages, espe- cially in the Rocky Mountains, support far too many trees per acre for acceptable timber growth. In western Washington and Oregon, for ex- ample, 5 million acres are supporting young stands in which commercial thinning would increase the log harvest. In the South, extensive stand improvement on at least 150 million acres would be needed to reduce the excessive stocking of culls and undesirable trees. Without thinnings, stand densities in many northern forests are expected to increase to the extent of serious overstocking (U.S. Forest Service, 19651. Whether timber cultural operations are favorable or unfavorable to wildlife de- pends upon the objectives of forest management and the degree of coordination between foresters and wildlife managers. Each cutting provides opportunities for wildlife habitat manipulation. For example, on the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, coordination between timber management and wildlife management is a part of the multiple-use program. Here, in a predominantly northern hardwood forest, black cherry is the favored timber crop; game species include deer, bear, squirrel, snowshoe hare, cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, turkey, and woodcock. Both stumpage values and recreational demands are high. Jordan (J. S. Jordan, U S. Forest Service, unpub- lished data) described the program: Under unit area management, the Forest is divided into approximately 1200 com- partments, each averaging about 350 acres in size. Timber management objectives, as they concern wildlife, are: (1 ) to produce high quality hardwoods consisting of 50 percent black cherry, 40 percent in a variety of other commercial hardwoods, 10 percent in coniferous species; (2) maintain 5 percent of the area in coniferous types; (3) make 3,000 acres of regeneration clearcuttings annually in areas 2 to 20 acres in size.

OCR for page 92
I nf luence of Land Management on W ildl if e 101 Several habitat objectives for the forest have been established: (1) brush stage- about 5 percent of the total area in units of 3 to 5 acres spaced 30 to 40 chains apart; (2) open herbaceous areas-2 to 3 percent in units not less than 0.2 acre in size; (3) coniferous cover-about 8 percent of the area in units i/2 to 2 acres, spaced about 10 chains apart (can be overstory or understory); (4) water sources spaced not less than 40 chains apart. Clearcutting for regeneration will generally be made in mature and over mature stands; but where brush stage is needed to satisfy habitat needs, regeneration cut- tings will also be made in immature stands. This will aid in achieving a better balance in age classes, now skewed strongly to poletimber stands-a common wildlife problem in northeastern forests. In addition to the rotation age of 100 years, 10 years is allowed in the forest regulation period to obtain natural regenera- tion. This time is provided for wildlife utilization following clearcutting. Pre-commercial thinnings in immature stands will be light to moderate release. Where required to meet wildlife needs, heavy release will be made in 1 O-acre blocks spaced about 30 chains apart; all stems except the future crop trees are winter- felled to provide browse for deer in the tops and later from the stumps, and to create much-needed cover for small game. Studies have shown that this practice yields a tenfold increase in browse production in the first year. Wherever possible, cutting blocks are located in relation to other habitat com- ponents to obtain optimum use of the browse and cover created. Under unit area management, each compartment should eventually contain a balance of 10-year age classes, each averaging 35 acres in size and suitability distrib- uted for habitat needs. There is sufficient similarity between compartment size- or multiples of it-and game species home range so that timber management opera- tions will approximately satisfy general habitat needs. Supplementary practices to satisfy other habitat needs are incorporated in the planning. Each compartment is examined at least every 10 years and treatments are pre- scribed which include minimum habitat requirements according to prescribed ob- jectives. A continuous inventory of all vegetation is maintained by sampling 10 percent of the compartments annually. Condition and trend in understory vegeta- tion of the Forest is determined from permanent transects measured at 5-year intervals. Reforestation and Afforestation The popular idea that for every tree cut another should be planted overlooks the fact that in many situations forests are regenerated both naturally and through planned silvicultural operations. Also overlooked is the fact that if planting is necessary, the number of trees planted should exceed the number cut-the excess providing for mortality and to insure quality in the ultimate crop trees. If only one tree were planted to replace a tree cut, there would be less concern by wildlife managers. The U.S. Forest Service (1965) reports that nationally in recent years

OCR for page 92
102 Land Use and Wildlife Resources tree planting has covered about 1.3 million acres annually, but more than 100 million acres of commercial forest land is either nonstocked (36 million acres) or poorly stocked (76 million acres) with trees of acceptable quality or species. While forest plantings on many sites are not inimical to wildlife (and sometimes are beneficial), extensive solid plantations of a single tree species, especially conifers, leave little favorable habitat. Conifers create cover but soon reduce or eliminate shrubs that yield browse and fruit and herbaceous plants that supply food, ground nesting sites, and a source of insects for young birds (Bailey and Alexander, 19601. Since most hardwood forest types are more productive of wildlife than are the conifers, conversions from the former to the latter gener- ally result in lower wildlife populations. The unfavorable effects can be offset, as in pine plantations on scrub oak sites in Florida, where, on the Apalachicola National Forest, planting is done in strips, with alter- nate strips left for browse and herbage. Within the brush strips domi- nant oaks are released from competition to increase mast production. Large areas of cutover pine lands in the North have been invaded by such pioneer associations as the aspen-birch. These early successional stages are favored habitat for grouse. Because they are potentially pro- ductive pine sites, plantings have been fairly extensive and there has been a loss of grouse habitat. To maintain the multiple uses by provid- ing an interspersion of pine and open land, some large blocks of public lands have been left unplanted and others have been only partly planted. In the iVest, deep snow at high elevations forces deer and elk to winter ranges in the foothills. Early logging and fires changed many of the lower south-facing slopes from timber stands to the brush types that are essential for browse forage. Conversion of these critical winter ranges to tree cover by planting conifers would in time practically eliminate the game. Planting north slopes, where snow accumulates, may be desirable in places where escape cover is needed. Where wildlife habitat is one of the recognized uses, coordination between timber and wildlife managers is essential, both for enhancing wild animal values and for protecting forest regeneration from exces- sive animal damage. An example of afforestation (the establishment of a forest on an area not previously forested) is the Nebraska National Forest in the sandhills of that state. Since 1903, 30,000 acres of natural grasslands have been planted with primarily coniferous trees. Deer were indige- nous, but increased greatly in the plantation areas, to the extent that hunting was permitted in 1945-the first legal hunting of deer in that

OCR for page 92
138 Land Use and Wildlife Resources nest in hollows or nest boxes on city lots. Raccoons, opossums, rab- bits, chipmunks, and woodchucks are common where some open space remains; woodchucks may even become a nuisance in flower beds and vegetable gardens. Where cities have had the vision to preserve natural waters or wet- lands, the waterfowl visitation of spring and fall becomes a popular bird-watching feature for the residents. These areas, even in the midst of a populous and built-up environment, attract wildlife because they are closed to shooting and very often someone will practice artificial feeding. Even rare species may be helped in an important way, as was the case when Hanson (1965) "rediscovered" the giant Canada goose (Bran ta canadensis maxima) and found one of its wintering strong- holds to be Silver Lake at Rochester, Minnesota. He stated that: An attempt to establish nesting Canada geese at Silver Lake was made as early as 1936, when six geese were purchased. However, limited success was achieved until 1947, when a flock of 12 large geese from Nebraska was willed to the city by a former patient of the Mayo Clinic who had enjoyed watching the geese at Silver Lake. This pinioned flock was presumably responsible for decoying wild birds to the lake in autumn. The protection this flock subsequently received permitted its rapid buildup. It is of interest that the geese concentrate in an area of the lake kept free of ice as a result of water being used by the city power plant for cooling purposes and then returned, heated, to the lake. Many of the artificial lakes increasingly common in residential devel- opments were at first a part of storm drainage systems. However, in recent years there has been growing recognition of the advantages of scenic water areas in terms of increased environmental amenity and salability of properties. As has been pointed out by Burby (1967), in studies in North Caro- lina, lakes in residential subdividions are not an unmixed blessing. Questions of safety, ownership, and liability arise, as well as questions of water quality and the related public interest in watershed use. Burby pointed out that since every urban area has a finite number of poten- tial sites for impoundments, the expropriation of these sites for private purposes raises questions of the public's interest in the developments. Although, as he indicated, they have a high scenic and recreation value for the residents of the community, in no case were the lakes investi- gated in the study open to "public" use. Burby said, "Whether the public should be adequately compensated for the use of a diminishing resource is a moot question."

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 139 Burby mentioned, further, that many lake-oriented subdivisions are designed around pre-existing lakes initially intended for agricultural purposes and that, in most cases, the dams that create these lakes were not designed to withstand the pressure of surrounding urban develop- ment. As a result of more rapid and increased runoff-over that exist- ing in more pastoral periods-as the watershed is developed, there is a constant danger of washout and flooding of downstream areas. At present, according to available information, no public agency in North Carolina has the responsibility for supervising the construction of dams for lakes in residential areas or for converting agricultural lakes to urban use, although various public agencies may be involved or con- cerned in relation to highways, mosquito control, and water quality (Burby, 19671. Adequate control or solution of problems of this kind probably will require coordinated action of federal, state, and local of. . . Ma. .s. Urban lakes can provide fishing and boating opportunities, although hunting is, in general, a nonconforming use and must be prohibited within city limits. However, the hunting season may have its effects in such localities. It is well known that, where pheasants are plentiful in adjacent agricultural lands, they will react to shooting by flying into the outskirts of towns and suburbs. There, in shrubbery and weedy lots, they will be protected from the gun but increasingly exposed to cats and dogs. Beyond the suburban fringe changes are commonly taking place that, at least temporarily, favor small game and other wildlife. Especi- ally where soils are not of the highest quality, such lands tend to be broken up into many small residential farms. As noted by George (1966), management is not intensive, pastures are maintained as "vista" open spaces or for riding horses, erosion scars are repaired, gullies are planted to woody vegetation or used for ponds, and condi- tions generally favorable to wild creatures are maintained. Often these conditions develop without any real consideration being given to the effect on wildlife. Farming, as such, is subordinated or abandoned en- tirely, fields being converted to grassland reserve and often allowed to grow up to brush and trees. Although many species of wildlife have been able to survive in human population centers, the disturbing and limiting influences are many. In these areas, the chief mortality factor for some animals (especially squirrels and rabbits) is often the street traffic. In addition to the concrete, asphalt, walls, and fences that supplant the natural cover of open lands, wildlife must contend with such obstacles as

OCR for page 92
140 Land Use and Wildlife Resources buildings, panes of glass, and television towers, which produce large numbers of casualties yearly. In the suburbs, homeowners habitually use many kinds of pesticides liberally; in industrial areas, air and water pollution are likely to be local hazards. Airports now constitute a special problem, since danger to human life is directly involved. As Drury observed (1966), many of these spacious, well-grassed areas are so attractive to certain kinds of birds one might think they were designed to be refuges. He remarked: Consider Logan International Airport [Boston] . It was built on many square miles of onetime mudflats and gravel bars, bare at low tide, once a major gathering place for migrating shore birds, and the wintering ground of more than 5 thousand black ducks. Large mussel beds around it are a magnet for herring gulls. Raised runways were built, but between the runways, to hold costs down and help drainage, low areas were left; they are now filled with freshwater. Before 1960, (when a crash of an airplane after colliding with a flock of starlings killed 61 people) the edges of these ponds and most of the low places on the airport were heavily grown up with tall reeds; beyond them on the edges of the runways, were bushes including bayberry and sumac. As Drury pointed out, the area provided a maximum amount and variety of habitat and edge highly attractive to birds and other forms of wildlife. Starlings roosted in the reeds at the edge of the ponds, and gulls were attracted to the garbage that frequently is to be found on or near airports. When the reeds were kept cut, the starlings no longer re- turned in large numbers, but cleaning up the garbage and waste in Boston and other metropolitan areas is more difficult. With respect to problems caused by birds at airports and in connec- tion with the images or "angels" on radar screens, which resemble images created by small fighter aircraft, Drury (1966: 889) concluded: Let me repeat: The problems created by birds at airports and on radar do not seem insurmountable. They would be quite simple were it not for financial or political limitations and motives. We know or can find the biological or political and physical factors and take reasonable steps to remove the basic causes. That is, when we are sensible about where we dump our filth and substitute long-range planning for short-term financial gain. Opportunities for managing wildlife in and around cities and towns are excellent. With a program of grain feeding and a few tame mallards on water areas as decoys, nearly any community can create an out- standing wild bird spectacle during the fall and spring migrations. Resident species of wildlife can be encouraged by such simple mea- sures as the seasonal control of weed burning, of mowing, and of in

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 141 discriminate use of herbicides. Open spaces can often be handled satis- factorily and can serve as study areas for school groups and outdoor enthusiasts by allowing the native flora and fauna to develop undis- turbed. As stated by Stearns (1967~: Within the boundaries of most urban units, whether small cities or vast megaloptic Esic] complexes, it is still possible to find land with good potential as habitat for wild birds and animals. Such urban wildlife habitat would bring to the city dweller some appreciation of the realities of nature. He could learn about ecological con- cepts such as carrying capacity, territoriality, adaptability, competition, and the interdependence of wildlife and its environment. Davey (1967) noted that the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation can be used for wildlife-related recreational projects within urban areas and that the Open Space Land Program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development has no restriction against incorporating wild- life aspects. It is particularly important in metropolitan districts that construc- tion site standards receive attention as a means of preventing unneces- sary erosion, with resulting siltation and degradation of water areas. In recognition of this problem, as it is associated with road construction, an amendment to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1966 directs the Secretary of Transportation to consult with the Secretary of Agricul- ture in formulating guidelines to minimize soil erosion. Engineers of the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Public Roads have developed specifications to be followed by state agencies in projects utilizing federal funds. As another provision of the act, advice from wildlife agencies must be sought in developing road construction plans. This should help to minimize the harmful effects of road building on wildlife and, in some cases, result in improved wildlife habitat. A Department of the Interior news release of February 5, 1968, re- fiected a growing optimism concerning the prospects of preserving and managing the open lands and green spaces of the built-up portions of the country: The year 1967 marked another victory for the American people in the continuing effort to preserve undeveloped lands and waters for public conservation and recreation purposes against the encroachment of urban expansion, highways, air- ports, and similar developments, Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall said today. Citing statistics gathered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Secretary Udall revealed that during 1967 some 1,715,000 acres of land and water were acquired

OCR for page 92
142 Land Use and Wildlife Resources for permanent public use in forest, park, open space, fish and game, and multi- purpose reservoir areas, compared with about 750,000 acres converted to urban and highway development. This marks the third successive year, Secretary Udal, noted, that despite rising land prices, the Nation has set aside more undeveloped acres for conservation than for urban and other development. PROSPECT Discussions in this chapter should be considered to deal with a sampling of the broad array of land-use problems that must be faced if we are to preserve and make available for public benefits the wildlife of North America. In most situations, from city to wilderness, management is feasible if enough biological and economic understanding can be brought to bear. The research effort in support of land-use management is well established in public agencies and educational institutions. A reasor~- able level of support will enable this research effort to furnish informa- tion essential to continued progress as populations build and the scene on this continent changes. REFERENCES Allen, D. L. 1949. The farmer and wildlife. Wildl. Manage. Inst. Bull. 84 p. Allen, D. L. 1952. Wildlife and the business of farming. J. Soil Water Conserv. 7(5):223-226, 245. Allen, D. L. 1954. Our wildlife legacy. Funk & Wagnalls, New York. 422 p. Allen, D. L. 1956. The management outlook, p. 431466. In D. L. Allen (ed.), Pheasants in North America. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Alley, H. P. 1965. Big sagebrush control. Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 354R. Allied, B. W. 1949. Distribution and control of several woody plants in Texas and Oklahoma. J. Range Manage. 2:17-29. Anderson, W. L. 1949. Agronomic practices in relation to wildlife. I. Soil Water Conserv. 4:1 07-116, 1 28. Anderson, W. L. 1965. Making land produce useful wildlife. (rev.) U.S. Dep. Agr. Farmers' Bull. 2035. 30 p. Anderson, L., and V. Compton. 1958. More wildlife through soil and water con servation. Soil Conservation Service, Agr. Inform. Bull. 175. Atkins, A. P. 1956. Report of the president, 1955. J. Range Manage. 9:63-64. Bailey, J. A., and M. M. Alexander. 1960. Use of closed conifer plantations by wildlife, N.Y. Fish & Game J. 7:130-148. Bailey, R. W., G. W. Craddock, and A. R. Croft, 1947. Watershed management for summer flood control in Utah. U.S. Forest Service, Misc. Publ. No. 639.

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 143 Baumgras, P. 1943. Winter food productivity of agricultural land for seed-eating birds and mammals. J. Wildl. Manage. 7~1~:13-18. Bennitt, R. 1939. Some agricultural characteristics of the Missouri prairie chicken range. 4th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 491-500. Biswell, H. H. 1959. Prescribed burning and other methods of deer range improve- ment in ponderosa pine in California. Proc. Soc. Amer. Foresters, p. 102-105. Biswell, H. H. 1961. Manipulation of chemise brush for deer range improvement. Calif. Fish & Game 47:125-144. Biswell, H. lI., R. D. Taber., D. W. Hedricks, and A. M. Schultz. 1952. Manage- ment of chemise brushlands for game in the north coast region of California. Calif. Fish & Game 38 :453484. Borell, A. E. 1962. Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) for wildlife and other conservation uses. U.S. Dep. Agr. Leafl.517. 8 p. Boussu, M. F. 1954. Relationships between trout population and cover on a small stream. J. Wildl. Manage. 18:229-239. Box, T. W., and J. Powell. 1965. Brush management techniques for improved forage values in south Texas. Tex. Tech. Coll. Range Manage. Rep. 651. 21 p. Bue, I. G., H. G. Uhlig, and J. D. Smith. 1964. Stock ponds and dugouts, p. 391- 398. In J. P. Linduska and A. L. Nelson (ed.), Waterfowl tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. Burby, R. J., III. 1967. Lake-oriented subdivisions in North Carolina: decision factors and policy implications for urban growth patterns. Part I. Developer decisions. Univ. N.C. Rep. No. 9. Water Resources Research Institute. 177 p. Burger, G. V., and J. P. Linduska. 1967. Habitat management related to bobwhite populations at Remington Farms. J. Wildl. Manage. 31~1~: 1-12. Burt, W. H. 1940. Territorial behaviour and populations of small mammals in southern Michigan. Univ. Mich. LIus. Zool. Misc. Publ. 45. 58 p. Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York. Chapman, D. W. 1962. Effects of logging upon fish resources of the West Coast. J. Forest. 60:533-537. Clawson, M., R. B. Held, and C. H. Stoddard. 1960. Land for the future. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. 570 p. Cole, G. F. 1957. A preliminary report on antelope-range relationships in central Montana. 10th Annul Meeting Amer. Soc. Range Manage. Proc. 10 p. Costello, D. F. 1956. Factors to consider in the evaluation of vegetation condition. J. Range Manage. 9:73-74. Cotner, M. L. 1963. Controlling pinyonjuniper on Southwestern rangelands. Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rep. 210. 28 p. Dambach, C. A. 1945. Some biologic and economic aspects of field border man- agement. 10th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 169-184. Dambach, C. A. 1948a. The relative importance of hunting restrictions and land use in maintaining wildlife populations in Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 48(6~:209-229. Dambach, C. A. 194Sb. New lessons from old plantings. J. Soil Water Conserv. 3~4~: 165-169. Dasmann, R. F. 1964. Wildlife biology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 231 p. Davey, S. P. 1967. The role of wildlife in an urban environment.32d N. Amer. Wildl. & Natur. Resour. Conf. Trans. p. 50-60. Davison, V. E. 1941. Shrubs for wildlife on farms in the southeast. U.S. Dep. Agr. Leafl. No. 200. 8 p.

OCR for page 92
144 Land Use and Wildlife Resources Davison, V. E. 1945. Wildlife values of the lespedezas. J. Wildl. Manage. 9~1~: 1-9. Day, A. 1966. Wildlife habitat management as a means of increasing recreation on public lands. U.S. Burl Land Manage. Rep. 73 p. (mimeo). Dixon, J. S. 1934. A study of the life history and food habits of mule deer in California. Calif. Fish & Game 20: 1-146. Driscoll, R. S. 1967. Managing public rangelands. U.S. Dep. Agr. Inform. Bull. 315. Drury, W. H., Jr. 1966. Birds at airports. In A. L. Nelson and A. Stefferud (ad.), Birds in our lives. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 561 p. Edminster, F. C.1941. Wildlife management through soil conservation on farms in the northeast. U.S. Dep. Agr. Farmers' Bull. 1868. 53 p. Edminster, F. C., and R. M. May. 1951. Shrub plantings for soil conservation and wildlife cover. U.S. Dep. Agr. Circ.887. 68 p. Einarsen, A. S. 1948. The pronghorn antelope and its management. Wildlife Man- agement Institute, Washington, D.C. 238 p. Erickson, A. W. 1965. The brown-grizzly bear in Alaska. Alaska Dep. Fish & Game, F.A. Proj. W-6-3-5, Work Plan F. Errington, P. L. 1945. Some contributions of a fifteen-year local study of the northern bobwhite to a knowledge of population phenomena. Ecology Monogr. 15~1~: 1-34. Ferber, A. E. 1958. Windbreaks in conservation farming. U.S. Soil Conserv. Serv. Misc. Publ.759.22 p. Ferret, C. M., and H. R. Leach. 1950. Food habits of the pronghorn antelope of California. Calif. Fish & Game 36~1~:21-26. Fox, A. C. 1942. Windbreaks and their value to wildlife. Soil Conserv. 7(10):259- 260. Gambel, E. L. 1967. Greenspan provisions of the cropland adjustment program. 54th Annul Mtg. Ass. So. Agr. Workers.5 p. Gates, I. M., and G. E. Ostrom. 1966. Feed grain program related to pheasant pro- duction in Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage.30~3~:612-617. George, J. L. 1966. Farmers and birds, p.396403. In A. L. Nelson and A. Stefferud (ed.), Birds in our lives. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 561 p. Good, E. E., and C. A. Dambach. 1943. Effect of some land use practices on breed- ing birds in Ohio. J. Wildl. Manage.7 :291-297. Graham, E. H. 1941a. Wildlife management as a part of soil conservation. U.S. Soil Conserv. Serv. Misc. Publ. 23.50 p. Graham, E. H. 1941b. Legumes for erosion control and wildlife. U.S. Dep. Agr. Misc.Publ.412.153p. Graham, E. H. 1942. Grasses for soil and wildlife conservation. Soil Conserv. 7(10~: 244-247, 250. Graham, E. H. 1944. Natural principles of land use. Oxford University Press, New York. 274 p. Graham, E. H. 1947. The land and wildlife. Oxford University Press, New York. 232p. Griffith, G. K. 1962. Guidelines for antelope management. Interstate Antelope Conf. Trans. p. 102-114. Hanson, H. C. 1965. The giant Canada goose. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 226 p. Hawbecker, A. C., and R. M. Bond. 1942. Wildlife increased by erosion control practices. Soil Conserv. 7(10): 255-256.

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife Hedge, A. M., and A. A. Klingebiel. 1957. The use of soil maps, p. 400-411. In Soils. The yearbook of agriculture 1955. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hervey, D. F. 1961. Improving sagebrush ranges: progress report of the Great Divide Experimental Range. Colo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Gen. Ser.761. 10 p. Hill, R. R.1956. Forage, food habits, and range management of the mule deer. 145 In W. P. Taylor (ed.), The deer of North America. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 668 p. Hoover, M. D.1962. Water action and water movement in the forest, p. 31-80. In Forest influences. FAG Forest. and Forest Prod. Stud. No. 15. Food and Agri- culture Organization, Rome. Hoover, R. L., C. E. Till, and S. Ogilvie. 1959. The antelope of Colorado. Colo. Game Fish Dep. Tech. Bull. No. 4. Hubbard, R. L. 1962. The place of browse seeding in game range management. 27th N. Amer. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. Trans. p. 394-401. Huss, D. L. 1964. A glossary of terms used in range management. American Society for Range Management, Denver, Colo. Hyatt, S. W. 1966. Sagebrush control: costs, results, and benefits to the rancher. J. Range Manage. 19(1 ~ :4243. Hyder, D. F., and F. A. Sneva. 1958. Herbage response to sagebrush spraying. J. Range Manage. 9~1~:34-38. Jackson, A. S. 1962. A pattern to population oscillations of the bobwhite quail in the lower plains grazing ranges of northwest Texas. S.E. Ass. Game Fish Comm., 16th Annul Conf. Proc., p. 120-126. Johns, W. 1965. Where the livestock, but not the antelope, can play. Conserv. News 30~20~:7-10. Johnson, E. A. 1952. Effect of farm woodland grazing on watershed values in the southern Appalachian Mountains. J. Forest.50: 109-113. Julander, O. 1951. Utah's big game, livestock, and range relationship research project. J. Range Manage. 4:330-334. Julander, O. 1955. Deer and cattle relations in Utah. Forest. Sci. 1: 13Q-139. Julander, O. 1958. Techniques in studying competition between big game and livestock. J. Range Manage. 11: 18-21. Julander, O. 1962. Range management in relation to mule deer habitat and herd productivity in Utah. J. Range Manage. 15:278-281. Julander, O., and D. E. Jeffrey. 1964. Deer, elk and cattle range relations on sum- mer range in Utah. 29th Wildl. ~ Natur. Resour. Conf. Trans. p. 404-413. Julander, O., and W. L. Robinette. 1950. Deer and cattle range relationships on Oak Creek range in Utah. J. Forest. 48:410415. Julander, O., W. L. Robinette, and D. A. Jones. 1961. Relation of summer range condition to mule deer herd productivity. J. Wildl. Manage. 25:54-60. Kell, W. V. 1938. Strip cropping, p. 634-645. In Soil & men. The yearbook of agriculture 1938. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Kirsch, L. 1964. The value of soil bank lands to breeding prairie grouse. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.5 p. Komarek, R. 1966. A discussion of wildlife management, fire, and the wildlife landscape, p.177-194. In 5th Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. Tall Timbers Re- search Station, Tallahassee, Fla.

OCR for page 92
146 Land Use and Wildlife Resources K~xchler, A. W. 1964. The potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, New York. Lack, D. 1954. The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford University Press, Cambridge, England. 134 p. Lay, D. S. 1956. Effects of prescribed burning on forage and mast production in southern pine forests. J. Forest.54:582-584. Lay, D. S. 1957. Browse quality and the effects of prescribed burning in southern pine forests. J. Forest.55:342-347. Leach, H. R., and A. L. Hensley. 1954. The sage grouse in California with special reference to food habits. Calif. Fish & Game 40~4~:385-394. Leedy, D. L. 1940. Natural pheasant production in relation to agricultural land-use. Ph.D. Thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus. (Dies. Abstr. 33: 115-124.) Leedy, D. L. 1949. Ohio pheasant nesting surveys based on farmer interviews. J. Wildl. Manage. 13~3~: 274-286. Leedy, D. L., and E. H. Dustman. 1947. The pheasant decline and land-use trends, 1941-1946. 12th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 479490. Lehmann, V. W. 1953. Bobwhite population fluctuations and vitamin A. 18th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 199-246. Leithead, H. L. 1950. Field methods used to demonstrate range conservation. J. Range Manage. 3:95-99. Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 481 p. Line, L. 1964. The bird worth a forest fire. Audubon Mag. 66:370-375. Longhurst, W. M., A. S. Leopold, and R. F. Dasmann, 1952. A survey of California deer herds. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Bull. No. 6. Lull, H. W. 1959. Soil compaction on forest and range lands. Forest Serv. Misc. Publ. No. 768. Marshall, W. H. 1953. A survey of farm-game habitat restoration programs in fif- teen states. 18th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p.390411. McAtee, W. L. 1941. Plants useful in upland wildlife management. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., U.S. Dep. Interior Conserv. Bull. 7. 50 p. Miller, J. P., and B. B. Powell. 1942. Game and wild-fur production and utilization on agricultural land. U.S. Dep. Agr. Circ. 636. 58 p. Mohler, L. L., J. H. Wampole, and E. Fichter. 1951. Mule deer in Nebraska Na- tional Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 15: 129-160. Morris, M. S., and J. E. Schwartz. 1957. Mule deer and eLk food habits on the Na- tional Bison Range. J. Wildl. Manage. 21~2~:189-193. Murie, O. J. 1951. The elf of North America. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa. 376 p. Nelson, B. A. 1953. Pheasant habitat improvement in South Dakota. 32d Annul Western Ass. State Game Fish Comm. Conf. Proc. p. 123-126. Nunns, F. K. 1958. The classification of rural land, p. 362-370. In Land. The yearbook of agriculture 1958. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Orell, 3. L. 1964. Private responsibilities for resources. 29th N. Amer. Wildl. & Natur. Resour. Conf. Trans. p. 10-16. Parker, K. W. 1954. Application of ecology in determination of range condition and trend. J. Range Manage. 7: 14-21. Parker, K. W., and S. C. Martin. 1952. The mesquite problem on southern Arizona ranges. U.S. Dep. Agr. Circ. 908.

OCR for page 92
Influence of Land Management on Wildlife 147 Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Brooks, Denver. 341 p. Pechanec, J. F., A. P. Plummer, J. H. Robertson, and A. C. Hull, Jr. 1944. Eradica- tion of big sagebrush. U.S. Forest Serv. Intermountain Forest Range Exp. Sta. Res.PaperNo.10. Pechanec, J. F., G. Stewart, A. P. Plummer, J. H. Robertson, and A. C. Hull. 1954. Controlling sagebrush on rangelands. U.S. Dep. Agr. Farmers' Bull. 2072. 36 p. Pickford, G. D., and E. H. Reid. 1943. Competition of elf and domestic livestock for summer range forage. J. Wildl. Manage. 7~3~:328-332. Plummer, A. P., D. R. Christensen,and S. B. Monson. 1965. Job completion report of game forage revegetation project. Utah State Fish & Game Dep. Inf. Bull. No. 65-10. Read, R. A. 1957. Effects of livestock concentration on surface soil porosity within shelterbelts. J. Forest. 55 :529-530. Renner, F. G., and B. W. Allred. 1962. Classifying rangeland for conservation planning. U.S. Dep. Agr., Soil Conserv. Serv., Agr. Handb. No. 235. Rhoades, E. D., et al. 1964. Water intake on sandy range as affected by 20 years of differential cattle stocking rates. J. Range Manage. 17: 185-190. Ridd, M. F. 1965. Area-oriented multiple use analysis. U.S. Forest Serv. Inter- mountain Forest Exp. Sta. Res. Paper No. 21, 14 p. Riley, C. V. 1952. An evaluation of reclaimed coal strip-mined lands as wildlife habitat. Ph.D. Thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus. (Dies. Abstr. 18:740- 743,1958.) Robinette, W. L., O. Julander, J. S. Gashwiler, and J. G. Smith. 1952. Winter mor- tality of mule deer in Utah in relation to range condition. J. Wildl. Manage. 16:289-299. Rogers, G. E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colo. Game, Fish Parks Dep. Tech. Publ. No. 16. Rosene, W., Jr. 1950. Quail studies on a river floodplain. J. Soil Water Conserv. 5~3~: 111-114. Rosene, W., Jr. 1952. Care and maintenance of bicolor lespedeza. Soil Conserv. 17~7~: 151-153. Rosene, W., Jr. 1956. An appraisal of bicolor lespedeza in quail management. J. Wildl. Manage. 20~2~: 104-110. Sampson, A. W., and B. S. Jesperson. 1963. California range and brushlands browse plants. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Serv. Manual 33. 162 p. Sandfort, W. W. 1952. Ring-necked pheasant production in north-central Colorado. M.S. Thesis. Colorado A&M College, Fort Collins. (Unpublished.) Sayers, W. B. 1966. To tell the truth, 25 years of Amencan Forest Products In- dustries, Inc. J. Forest. 64~10~:657-663. Scott, R. F. 1965. Problems of multiflora rose spread and control. 30th N. Amer. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. Trans. p.360-378. Skeete, G. M. 1966. Can ranchers adjust to fluctuating forage production? J. Range Manage. 19: 258-262. Smith, A. D. 1950. Sagebrush as a winter feed for deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 14(3): 285-289. Smith, A. D. 1959. Adequacy of some important browse species in overwinter- ing of mule deer. J. Range Manage. 12(1): 8-13. Smith, D. R. 1961. Competition between cattle and game on eLk winter range. Univ. Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bu11.377.

OCR for page 92
148 Land Use and Wildlife Resources Smith, J. G., and O. Julander. 1953. Deer and sheep competition in Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 17: 101-112. Society of American Foresters. 1964. Forest terminology. 3d ed. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C. 35 p. Stearns, F. W. 1967. Wildlife habitat in urban and suburban environments. 32d N. Amer. Wildl. & Natur. Resour. Conf. Trans. p. 61-69. Steen, M. O. 1950. Road to restoration. 15th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 356- 362. Stevens, D. R. 1966. Range relations of elk and livestock, Crow Creek Drainage, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 30~2~:349-363. Stoddard, H. L. 1931. The bobwhite quail; its habits, preservation, and increase. C. Scribner's Sons, New York. 559 p. Stoddart, L. A., and A. D. Smith. 1955. Range management, 2d ea., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. Swanson, C. V., and C. F. Yocum. 1958. Upland game-bird populations in relation to cover and agriculture in southeastern Washington. 23d N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 277-290. Taylor, W. P. 1934. Significance of extreme or intermittent conditions in distribu- tion of species and management of natural resources, with a restatement of Liebig's Law of Minimum. Ecology 15:374-379. Taylor, W. P., and H. K. Buechner. 1943. Relationship of game and livestock to range vegetation in Kerr County, Texas. The Cattleman (Starch). True, G. H., Jr., and B. Glading. 1946. Catchment and other devices for supplying water for wildlife in California. 26th Annul Western Ass. State Game & Fish Comm. Conf. Proc. p. 156-160. Twiss, R. H. 1969. Conflicts in forest landscape management. J. Forest. 67: 19-23. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1960, 1965. Historical statistics of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1962. Major uses of land and water. Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 13, p. 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1965. Soil and water conservation needs. U.S. Dep. Agr. Misc. Publ. 971. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1967. Agricultural Conservation Program, sum- mary fiscal year 1966. Agr. Stabilization and Conserv. Service. 133 p. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1960. Project twenty-twelve: A long-term pro- gram for our public lands. U.S Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Forest Service. 1965. Timber trends in the United States. U.S. Dep. Agr. Forest. Res. Rep. No. 17. Van Dersal, W. R., and E. H. Graham.1946. The land renewed. Oxford University Press, New York. 110 p. Wandell, W. N. 1948. Agricultural and wildlife values of habitat improvement plantings on the Illinois Black Prairie. 13th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p. 256-270. Wilbert, D. E. 1963. Some effects of big sagebrush control on eLk distribution. J. Range Manage. 16~2~: 74-78. Workman, D. R., K. R. Tefertiller, and C. L. Leinweber. 1965. Profitability of aerial spraying to control mesquite. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. MP-784. 12 p. Yoakum, J. 1962. Interstate antelope range-its research and management needs. Interstate Antelope Conf. Trans. p. 52-58.