FOREST ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL

As a nation we have gained world recognition for our ability to utilize our resources. In forestry our greatest accomplishments have been in the mechanization of harvest methods and in improvements in forest products. The renewal of this resource has been our greatest neglect. Though the end of the 19th Century marked the beginning of the conservation movement, it was not until a half century later that the force of economics through the demands of a growing population made forest re-establishment more than just a desire. Conservation in itself is a Utopian concept which requires other motivating forces to make it a reality. In the post-war years, and as late as the early 195O's, stocked land in the Pacific Northwest could be purchased for less than the cost of planting; the economic incentive was lacking. Only with sustained yield management and increased land values was there a balance in favor of true values. With greater effort placed on forest regeneration there was an increased need for methods of reducing losses to wildlife. The history of forest wildlife damage research, therefore, parallels that of forest land management; after rather austere beginnings, development became predominantly a response to economics. It was not until 1950 that the full time of one scientist was assigned to this important activity. The development of control methods for forest animal damage is a relatively new area of research. All animal life is dependent upon plants for its existence; forest wildlife is no exception. The removal of seed and foliage of undesirable plants often benefits the land managers; only when the losses or injuries are in conflict with man's interest is there damage involved. Unfortunately, the feeding activities of wildlife and the interests of the land managers are often in conflict. Few realize the breadth, scope, and subtilities associated with forest wildlife damage problems. There are not only numerous species of animals involved, but also a myriad of conditions, each combination possessing unique facets. It is a foregone conclusion that an understanding of the conditions is essential to facilitate a solution to any given problem. Though there are numerous methods of reducing animal damage, all of which have application under some situations, in this discussion emphasis will be placed on the role of chemicals and on western problems. Because of the broadness and complexity of the problem, generalizing is necessary and only brief coverage will be possible. However, an attempt will be made to discuss the use and limitations of various control methods.

ANIMAL POPULATION ECOLOGY AND CONTROL FUNDAMENTALS

Expensive, extensive and apparently lethal control measures have been applied against many species of pest vertebrates and invertebrates for decades. In spite of this, few pests have been annihilated, and in many cases the stated goals have become progressively more modest, so that now we speak of saving foliage or a crop, rather than extermination. It is of interest to examine the reasons why animals are so difficult to exterminate, because this matter, of course, has implications for the type of control policy we pursue in the future. Also, it has implications for the problem of evaluating comparatively various resource management strategies. There are many biological mechanisms which could, in principle, enhance the performance of an animal population after control measures have been applied against it. These are of four main types: genetic, physiological, populationa1, and environmental. We are all familiar with the fact that in applying a control measure, we are, from the pest's point of view, applying intense selection pressure in favor of those individuals that may be preadapted to withstand the type of control being used. The well-known book by Brown (1958) documents, for invertebrates, a tremendous number of such cases. Presumably, vertebrates can show the same responses. Not quite so familiar is the evidence that sub-lethal doses of a lethal chemical may have a physiologically stimulating effect on population performance of the few individuals that happen to survive (Kuenen, 1958). With further research, we may find that this phenomenon occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Still less widely recognized is the fact that pest control elicits a populational homeostatic mechanism, as well as genetic and physiological homeostatic mechanisms. Many ecologists, such as Odum and Allee (1950, Slobodkin (1955), Klomp (1962) and the present author (1961, 1963) have pointed out that the curve for generation survival, or the curve for trend index as a function of last generations density is of great importance in population dynamics.