Mr. Aldo Leopold 
 
 
          I feel that the information we are supplying to you from pheasant

plantings, pheasant cover, etc. will hardly seem to you worth while in pro-

portion to the time we have kept you waiting for our replies. Nevertheless,

our intentions were the best. 
 
 
 
          I have been working on the map of pheasant distribution and find,
as 
I knew to begin with, that we are decidedly lacking in data and first-hand
6b- 
servations, both as to cover and pheasant abundance; also such distribution

data as is available does not seem to lend itself very well to your scheme
of 
indicating, by counties, the "scattered" and "established"
ranges of the pheasants 
in Michigan. 
 
          I think the reason for this is that Michigan pheasant status is
now 
far beyond the early "colonization" state; and while "established"
and "scattered" 
may be the best terms to use in mapping pheasant distribution in Wisconsin
or 
any other state just getting started, your classification does not apply
so well 
to Michigan where the birds are already established in the suitable cover
in such 
counties as Manistee and Oceana, although such counties should evidently
be listed 
as "scattered" rather than as "established'range." Likewise
other counties, in 
relation to the best pheasant counties, would rate as "scattered range,"
even 
though the pheasant is definitely established in local areas in these counties.

 
          I am enclosing a copy of a map which I have prepared in an attempt
to 
show which part of the state has a fairly solid blocking of pheasant territory

and a fair pheasant population, and the areas in which the numbers of birds
and 
extent of cover are so limited that we can perhaps refer to it as "scattered'

range. Actually a few scattered birds are still present in the uncolored
areas. 
 
          A large part of Oakland county, the southeastern part of Lenawee
and 
large areas in other counties at the Indiana line are perhaps deserving of
being 
rated as "scattered range," as are also such counties as Huron
and Oceana. Also 
Kalamazoo, Barry, Gratiot, and Genesee have large areas which are actually

"scattered range." A large part of Montcalm county is as good or
better than 
much of the upper third of Kent county, and hence the difficulty of rating
by 
counties. 
 
          In brief I found it very difficult to use county lines in trying
to 
map which areas are the better stocked pheasant areas and which have few
pheasants. 
In attempting to cross hatch on your map of pheasant distribution as directed,

I ran into considerable difficulty, much shifting and changing, but finally

ended up about where you had it, with the exception perhaps of removing Huron,

Bay, Saginaw, Gratiot,and Isabella from the established range (or important
range) 
and classing them as scattered. 
 
          I considered trying to show the scattered pheasant distribution
in the 
 
 
-2- 
 
 
October 2. 1930