KING RANCH 
                                 KI NG SVI LL~, ,TEXAS 
ROBT. J. KLEZROAMR., PRES.                                              
R.M.KLESERGCHM. 
                                RICHARD M. KLB.RG,J RSEC*Y 
 
                                  February 24, 1947 
 
 
 
 
           Doctor Aldo Leopold 
           424 University Farm Place 
           The University of Wisconsin 
           Madison, Wisconsin 
 
           Dear Doctor Leopold: 
 
                      Thanks very much for your nice letter of February 14;

           both Mr. Kleberg and I are indeed happy that you enjoyed your

           recent visit to the King Ranch. It was a great privilege for 
           us to be with you in the field if only for two days, but we hope

           that you will find it possible to visit us many more times and

           for longer periods in the future. 
 
                      Enclosed are two photographs of a "tree-dozer"
used 
           to open dense thickets for benefits to both livestock and game,

           and another picture of a sub-soil plow which takes out low brush

           with minimum disturbance to the turf. I have also enclosed an

           article on the ranch's wildlife program by Mr. J. G. Burr and

           two articles on livestock. 
 
                      I do not have any good pictures of deer and turkeys

           but have requested some from Mr. Busfield as the enclosed copy

           of a letter indicates. 
 
                      If you will kindly send a list of other pictures which

           you could use, I will do my best to supply them. 
 
                      Please do not take my remarks at the Norias dinner

           too seriously; I certainly will not stop writing although those

           last two papers in the Journal of Wildlife Management (April)

           contained sentences which stimulated Errington to rather sharp

           coment. I realize that the presentation of both papers left 
           something to be desired; they were completed aboard an army 
           transport and later efforts to elaborate and qualify the galley

           proofs were stymied by lead and pencil shortages. In quoting 
           the papers, however, Errington intentionally or otherwise fol-

           lowed a course which in recent years perhaps appears too often

           in his writings; i.e., he cited contrary evidence which he could

           discredit and ignored that which could not be dismissed easily.

 
                      As you have said, minor differences between workers

           at opposite ends of the range of a species are to be expected

           and I find no significant differences between Errington's field

           observations and my own. Our field data, in other words, are in

           essential agreement. Like not a few other field men however, I

           question a number of the conclusions which Errington draws from

           his field data. His early work on quail, for example, is in