certain authority over game on licensed shooting preserves. 
 
      On a shooting preserve the state delegetes to the licensee the task
Of 
 
prodncing game on his land and also of limiting hIs ovn kill IV means of
togs. 
 
The latter 1I in lieu of the state's usual attempt to do the same thing IV

 
seasons and bag limits.   he oontinmation of the arra-    nt ts centipgAt

 
pon satisfactor7 performa=e of the delegated task, as determned 1 period

 
reports and inspections. The net revalt is that the lineuma is given an 
 
incentive to do constructive work, in exchang for umisual privileges, and

 
without any actual transfer of omerahip or ultimabe responsibility. 
 
      That prevents th extension of this same principle to public landowners

 
who now have no authority over their own game, and are nov impeded in their

 
efforts to do constructive work by the delays incident to cooperative effort?

 
      Me proposal is. of course, at thiW stage a theoretioal one, but one
possibly 
 
worth serious discussion and later a local try-out. Many important details,
sash 
 
as allocation of rovemes and costs, are not here dissussed. 
 
esa-,eratins WIS.. It was pointed out in the first report that the 
 
then-prevailing ratio between plblic outlass for game m    mnt operations
and 
 
outlays for game management research was probably 100:1 or greater. 
 
      Dawing the past year game research has grown by $30,000 (nine land-grant

 
colleg units administered by the U. 8. Biological Svrvey), but game operations

 
htve probably increased in equal proportion. 
 
      It would be conservative to estimate that hf of the operatia   budget

 
was used up in flnerngs due primarily to lack of facts and lack of trained

 
experienced men to apply thuem 
 
      If mo, then the diversion of fands from operations to research mould,
vp 
 
to the point that research agencies know how to use the, be profitable.