The River of the Mother of God: and other Essays by Aldo Leopold

Game Methods: The American Way [1931]

Game Methods: The American Way [1931] In this article published in American Game in 1931, Leopold tackles one of the most contentious issues underlying the American Game Policy, the policy's preference for the American tradition of public ownership of wildlife with compensation to the landowner for use of his land, in contrast with the European system of individual ownership. An influential group ofAmerican sportsmen had just organized the More Game Birds in America Foundation to propagate game through private ownership and captive breeding, thus posing a direct challenge to the system Leopold advocated. While the game policy resolved the issue in concise, diplomatic language, Leopold here presents a more extended, personal, and artful defense of his position. The game policy adopted by the 1930 American Game Conference begins with this assertion: With rare exceptions, the landholder is not yet practicing management. There are three ways to induce him to do so: 1. Buy him out, and become the landowner. 2. Compensate him directly or indirectly for producing a game crop and for the privilege of harvesting it. 3. Cede him the title to the game, so that he will own it and can buy and sell it just as he owns, buys, and sells his poultry. The first way is feasible on cheap lands, but prohibitive elsewhere. The second is feasible anywhere. The third is the English system, and incompatible with American tradition and thought. It is not considered in this report. The Game Breeder, in a recent editorial asks the committee which drafted the policy to explain what it means by "incompatible with American tradition." 156 Game Methods 157 Captain Percy R. Creed, in his "Rambling Thoughts of a Perverted Britisher," also takes humorous exception to some recent discussion of "the abuses of the European Game System." This paper is to express a personal view of what the policy means in its references to the European practices. In no degree does it commit the other members of the committee, or any person or group. No comparison of American and European practices is worth while unless it first contrasts the biological and economic circumstances obtaining in the two continents. Just how do economics and biology condition the problem of game conservation in America and Europe? Our definition must begin with present and prospective human population densities. Europe has many people but little land. America has much land but comparatively few people. To supply any given proportion of the population with anygiven amount ofgame, Europe must raise a denser stand ofgame per acre, and hence practice a more intensive form ofgame management , than America. This is the first theorem which conditions our problem. To illustrate: The Scottish moors support about one grouse per three acres on the average, and one per acre as a maximum. This is a very dense stand, obtainable only through intensive management. The Wisconsin sand plains support about one grouse per 40 acres. This is a very thin stand, occurring "naturally" without any management at all. Section (b) of the chart illustrates the contrast. A crude or extensive system of game management would raise the Wisconsin grouse density to (let us say) one per eight acres, or five times the present stand. On the other hand, a complete or intensive system of game management would doubtless raise the Wisconsin grouse density to that of Scotland, or 20-40 times the present stand. As nearly as we now know, disease would frustrate any attempt to raise the density higher than this in either place. We are working, therefore, between an upper and a lower limit set by biological nature and economic accident. Art cannot raise the upper limit. Delay can depress the lower and exterminate the species. The two limits constitute the upper and lower edge of our game policy "slate." The two limits are far apart. Between them lie a wide range of choices. The denser the stand, the larger the proportion of it which may be safely killed. In fact, in Scotch grouse stands nearing the upper limit of density, it is imperative to kill two-thirds. If our present stand permits of a forty-fold increase, our present kill could be raised much more than fortyfold . Section (c) of the graph would indicate 160-fold. 158 Game Methods 200 100 Populations of People & Grouse in Scotland (.) & Wisconsin IIzllln Relation to Intensity of Management Aldo Leopold 3-23-31 213 per sq. mi...