- 8 - 
 
 
              6. Improved habitat, predator control, large game preserves

 and the buck law resulted in a marked increase in deer populations. As 
 late as 1920 the deer estimate for the National Forests of Utah was 13,000

 as compared with 125,000 at the present time. 
 
              7. About 1930 it was recognized that deer were overstocking

 their winter ranges in certain localized places. This came as a distinct

 shock. Such dainty, beautiful creatures couldn't overgraze a range. They

 were delicate feeders, just took a leaf here and there and then from the

 rugged, inaccessible areas only. Too many deer?   Impossible. 
 
              8. Rangers and officials of the State Game Department rec-

 ognized that sooner or later something would have to be done to control

 numbers on certain wintering grounds. Damage claims from ranchers, 
 farmers and gardeners were focusing attention to the problem. But the 
 State was without authority to do anything; not only sentiment but law 
 made the female immune from the gun, no matter what depredations she 
 might commit. 
 
              9. In 1930 the State Fish and Game Department and the Forest

 Service each assigned a man to big game studies, particularly to problem

 areas where winter range was the limiting factor. 
 
             10. In 1932, effort to change the buck law failed. 
 
             11. In 1934, the legislature created a Board of Big Game 
 Control and gave it jurisdiction over State game preserves and the right

 to set seasons and bag limits for big game when they were damaging their

 range and private property. The board to consist of one representative 
 each from the Utah State Fish and Game Department, the Utah Wildlife 
 Federation, the Utah Cattle and Horse Growers Association, the Utah Wool

 Growers Association and the Forest Service. 
 
             12. With this setup, we figured the battle was won. Any 
problem could be handled fair to any faction. The two men, State and 
Forest Service, would report their findings to the Board and "presto,"

adjustments in numbers would be made. The sportsmen would be pleased 
because it gave them more hunting; the sentimentalist wouldn't crab 
because it would take only the surplus and insure the welfare of a per- 
manent number; and the stockmen would be satisfied because they want game

but managed game. The State Game Department would be happy because it 
increased hunting and license fees, and put deer herds on a management 
basis. The Forest Service would be satisfied as it would limit numbers 
to what the range would support, leaving watershed and range values still

intact. Everything was set. Utah would be on the map as the leaders in 
buckskin management.