Find information on spaces, staff, and services.
Reprinted from JOURNAL oF FoRESTRY Vol. XXXII, No. 7, October, 1934 Notes on German Game Management, Chiefly in Bavaria and Baden. By Ward Shepard. Senate Committee on Wild Life Resources, 1934. Of the several documents so far ap- pearing under the aegis of the Senate Committee, this is the briefest and most valuable. It is a digest of field observa- tions made by the author for the Biolog- ical Survey and the Carl Schurz Founda- tion, incidental to his study of German forestry. It deals entirely with forest game, but creates, at least in my mind, a pressing desire for an equally pithy analysis of farm game. With such a com- panion study before us, we should have a rounded picture of this thing called game management, which is done all over Germany, and talked about all over Amer- ica, as a matter of ancestral habit. On state forests the hunting is done by forest officers, hence the economic return from game crops comes only from the sale of meat, and is less than one per cent of all forest revenues. On com- munal and private lands, however, both the hunting and the meat are sold. Small holdings, in order to hunt, must pool their game and entrust its management to the commune. It is only on large private estates that the owner shoots and manages his own game, subject to state seasons but not kill limits. In its net trend this system contravenes the usual assumption that "game in Ger- many is private property." It seems to be very much public property, but is managed for public revenue rather than for public recreation. On small holdings, at least, the public asserts its ownership almost to the exclusion of the private landowner. I see little for us to copy in German game economics except the com- pulsory pooling of management on small acreages, and the delegation of responsi- bility for details, subject to state inspec- tion, on large ones. Our present "farm codperatives" and "shooting preserve laws" seem to be taking us in this gen- eral direction. In the biology of game cropping, how- ever, the Germans offer us many a point- er, the most striking of which is their ex- perience with sex ratios in deer. Under a buck-doe ratio of 1:6, the roe deer in the Black Forest deteriorated in both weight and antlers, but under a revised ratio of 1:1.5, supplemented by deliberate culling of inferior individuals, weights have in- creased 20 per cent and antlers have im- proved. Most American deer herds are drifting toward low buck ratios. We "cull" the best, rather than the worst. Would it not be a wise precaution to measure the result? Yet no state, except perhaps Michigan, is doing so. Of our several attempts to "study" deer, only one or two have even attempted to formulate a normal sex and age composition for deer herds. The deer food situation, in relation to population density and forest damage, throws a flood of light on our current problems. The pure-conifer silviculture prevailing in Germany for a century has made artificial winter-feeding a universal necessity. Hardwood plantings, whether for timber or for deer-browse, must be fenced to survive, even under moderate deer densities. Likewise clover meadows planted for deer must be fenced and can be opened only at intervals. Stripping of sprucebark by deer is a widespread trouble ascribed to unbalanced nutrition. Felled conifers of all species are prompt- ly stripped by deer. On the Kaibab or in Jackson's Hole we would call these symp- toms of radical overstocking, but the moderate densities of the German herds indicate that they are merely symptoms