-2- 
 
 
nests in northern Wisconsin, in the name of "timber stand improvement."
To be 
sure, the tree was dead, and according to the rules, constituted a fire risk.

 
Scp. Most species of shootable non-migratory game have at least a fighting

chance of being saved through that process of purposeful manipulation of
laws and 
environment called management. However great the blunders, delays, and confusion

in getting management of game species under way, it remains true that powerful

motives of local self-interest are at work in their behalf. European countries,

through the operation of these motives, have saved their resident game. It
is an 
ecological probability that we will evolve ways to do so. 
 
      The same cannot be said, however, of those species of wilderness game
which 
 do not adapt themselves to economic land-use, or of migratory birds which
are 
 owned in common, or of non-game forms classed as predators, or of rare plJnt

 associations which must compete with economic plants and livestock, or in
general 
 of all wild native forms which fly at large or have only an esthetic and

 scientific value to man. These, then, are the special and immediate concern
of 
 this inventory. 
 
      Like game, these forms depend for their perpetuation on protection
and a 
 favorable environment.  Tey need "management" (i.e., perpetuation
of good habitat) 
just as game does, but the ordinary motives for providing it are lacking.
They 
are the tkreatened element in "outdoor America, "-the crux of conservation
policy* 
The new organizations which have now assumed the name "wild life"
instead of 
"game," and which aspire to implement the wild life movement, are
I thihk obligated 
to focus a substantial part of their effort on these threatened forms. 
 
Inventory. This is a proposal, not only for an inventory of threatened forms
in 
each of their respective places of survival, but an inventory of the information,

techniques, and devices applicable to each species in each place, and of
local 
human agencies capable of applying them. Much information exists, but it
is 
scattered in many minds and documents. Many agencies are or would be willing
to 
use it, if it were laid under their noses. If for a given problem no information

exists, or no agency exists, that in itself is useful inventory. 
 
      For example, certain ornithologists have discovered a remnant of the
Ivory- 
 billed Woodpecker-a bird inextricably interwoven with our pioneer tradition--the

 very spirit of that "dark and bloody ground" which has become
the locus of the 
 national multure. It is known that the Ivory-bill requires as its habitat
large 
 stretches of virgin hardwood. The present remnant lives in such a forest,
owned 
 and held by an industry as reserve stumpage. Cutting may begin, and the
Ivory-bill 
 may be done for, at any moment. The Park Service has or can get funds to
buy 
 virgin forests, but it does not know of the Ivory-bill or its predicament.
It is 
 absorbed in the intricate problem of accommodating the public which is mobbing
its 
 parks. When it buys a new park, it is likely to do so in some " scenic"
spot, 
 with the general objective of making room for more visitors, rather than
with the 
 specific objective of perpetuating some definite thing to visit, Its wild
life 
 program is befogged with the abstract concept of inviolate sanctuary. Is
it not 
 time to establish particular parks (or equivalent) for particular "natural

 wonders" like the Ivory-bill? You may say, of course, that one rare
bird is no 
 park project--that the Biological S urvey should buy a refuge, or the Forest

 Service a National Forest, to take care of the situation. Whereupon the
question 
 bounces back: the Survey hes only duck money; the Forest Service would have
to cut. 
 But is there anything to prevent the three possible agencies concerned from
getting 
 together and agreeing whose job this is, and while they are at it, a thousand

 other jobs of like character? And how much each would cost? And just what
needs