A History of the Daniel Boone National Forest 1770 - 1970

With the proclamation of the Cumberland National Forest early in 1937, the Forest Supervisor promptly initiated action to develop a wildlife program on the National Forest land in cooperation with the State of Kentucky.

A series of meetings were developed between the Forest Supervisor and his staff, and the Director, Division of Game and Fish, Kentucky Department of Conservation and his staff for the purpose of developing a cooperative program on land already acquired and to be acquired by the Federal Government in Kentucky.

As an initial step, a Memorandum of Understanding was developed and signed by representatives of both agencies on August 8, 1940. As a measure of the importance placed on this agreement, the following officials signed for their agencies: For the U.S. Forest Service — R.W. Evans, Regional Forester, Region 7; for the Commonwealth of Kentucky — Keene Johnson, Governor, Commonwealth of Kentucky, J. Dan Talbott, Commissioner of Finance, Charles Finnell, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Conservation, James Brown, Director, Division of Game and Fish, Kentucky, Department of Conservation. It is significant that the name of the Forest Supervisor does not appear on this agreement, although he was responsible for the on-the-ground administration of the work to be carried on under this agreement.

The initial project selected for the cooperative program was the establishment of the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area of 10,687 acres in McCreary County, occupying nearly the entire drainage of Beaver Creek. A Wildlife Management Plan, covering the five-year period, 1941-1945, was drawn up and, on October 12, 1940, was signed not only by the Forest Supervisor, but also by the District Ranger and the Assistant District Ranger of the Laurel Ranger District, in addition to the signature of approval by Regional Forester Evans, on October 17, 1940. Signing for the State of Kentucky was Director James Brown of the Division of Game and Fish, Kentucky Department of Conservation. Here was the first specific working agreement for a designated area.

At the time of the initiation of this project a study to determine the wildlife population of the area showed the following estimated wildlife population: whitetail deer, 0; wild turkey, 0; ruffed grouse, 40; squirrel, grey and fox, 100; cottontail rabbit, 50; raccoon, 5; quail, 100 and oppossum, 20. This appears to have been a rather thin and meager wildlife population for a management area of approximately 17 square miles. An estimate of the habitat cover types on the area indicates that over 3,000 acres were in mature timber, the remainder cutover area of various ages including about 150 acres of old abandoned fields.

Among the provisions of the plan were: no hunting on the area during the first five years; entry on the area to be permitted only by permit issued by the Ranger; a habitat inventory; an initial stocking with deer and wild turkey; the initiation of cultivated food plots in a portion of the old field; a marking of the boundary by paint and by signs; a cooperative attempt to consolidate Government ownership by acquiring two privately owned tracts of 18 acres and 67 acres respectively within the boundaries prescribed for the management area, and clearing the area of grazing livestock, particularly hogs, cows and goats, belonging to local residents.

Correspondence and records available indicate that during the five years covered by this particular agreement, there was little activity on the ground and the area remained a Wildlife Management Area in name only.

At the end of the five-year period, on April 9, 1945, a new Memorandum of Understanding, replacing that of August 8, 1940, was drawn up and executed by the Forest Supervisor for the Forest Service and by the Director, Division of Game and Fish for the State of Kentucky. This document was much more specific, having some 26 points enumerated. Probably the most noteworthy feature of this new document is contained in the second paragraph which read, "Recognized the Forest Service as the agency responsible for the protection and management of the Government-owned land and wildlife habitat thereon, and recognized the Division of Game and Fish as the agency responsible for the protection and management of the resident wildlife population."

Early in May of 1946, the State Division of Game and Fish assigned a Resident Manager, Frederick C. Hardy, a biologist in the employ of the Department, to the management area to represent the state and to make various studies of wildlife species and habitat. A review of Resident Manager Hardy's report at the end of the calendar year of 1946, indicates that during that year a total of 21 whitetail deer, 10 raccoon and four wild turkey were released on the area. The boundary of the management area had been revised to enclose a total of approximately 16,000 acres, including some privately owned which the state had agreed to acquire and resell to the Forest Service. By the end of the year this outstanding ownership within the new boundary, which now included 17,317 acres, had been fully consolidated with the exception of the Freeman tract which fronted on the Cumberland River. Since the owner had definitely refused to sell this tract the state had purchased all wildlife rights on the tract for a period of 10 years. This report for the calendar year of 1946 also included a statement by Area Manager Hardy that considerable damage had resulted to the food plots he had established from the trampling and grazing of domestic livestock. From the standpoint of habitat management, he reported that he and the District Ranger had selected several sites for clear-cutting to provide habitat for wildlife. This report also indicates that although it had been planned to exclude hunting from the area, this practice was still continued and still permitted on the area as Area Manager Hardy reported interviewing fourteen squirrel hunters having a bag of 40 squirrels of which 83 percent were grey squirrels and 17 percent fox squirrels.

It is interesting to note that in a letter written on December 5, 1946, from the Forest Supervisor to the District Ranger of the Laurel District, the question of law enforcement was discussed at some length. It was pointed out that under Kentucky law any fine imposed for game law violation on the area would be divided 40 percent to the County Attorney prosecuting the case and 60 percent to the Game and Fish Fund. The Forest Supervisor was pointing out to the Ranger that it might be an incentive to the County Attorney to prosecute cases of game law violation on the area and contact to this end should be made. Area Manager Hardy's report also indicates that trespass by free-running dogs continued to be a major problem.

Early in 1947, Area Manager Hardy reports that the grazing livestock situation was intensifying as he reports observing a total of 50 hogs, 20 head of sheep and five of cattle on the area. The Forest Supervisor continued his correspondence with the Regional Forester in an attempt to determine whether or not any of the Federal laws would permit the closure of the area to domestic livstock to the extent that violations could be prosecuted in the Federal Court. From the correspondence it appeared that the Regional Forester was reluctant to support such action.

It appears that the new Memorandum of Understanding, signed on April 9, 1945, was not sufficiently specific to suit either agency. On April 8, 1947, a document headed as a modification of that Memorandum was signed by Forest Supervisor H.L. Borden and Director of Game and Fish Earl Wallace. This new document covered relatively the same ground as the previous one and, in addition, highlighted the following points: the Division accepted primary responsibility for enforcing game and fish laws on the area, and the Division of Game and Fish was to erect no structures without first securing the approval of the Forest Supervisor.

The record indicates that the Forest Supervisor continued his efforts with the Regional Forester to find some manner which which he could close the management area to entry by people, particularly those carrying firearms, and to grazing livestock to the extent that violations could be prosecuted in Federal Court. In August of 1949 the Forest Supervisor of the Cumberland National Forest was advised definitely by the Regional Forester, Region 7, that the Forest Supervisor could not close the management area to entry by individuals, either with or without firearms, under Public Law 410 which had been investigated for this purpose. He also advised the Forest Supervisor that Regulation T-9(I) did not support closure to grazing of public land under the administration of the Forest Service in this particular case. From the report it is apparent that local livestock owners continued to graze the management area with increasing frequency as in November, 1951, the District Ranger of the Laurel District reports that he had identified six local residents as having a total of 66 head of hogs and three goats grazing on the management area and also reported that one local resident, whom he had contacted requesting that he remove his livestock, complained to him that deer on the management area were becoming destructive of the crops of local farmers.

In summary during the period of 1940 to 1951, accomplishments of this cooperative venture had been mostly of a learning nature to both agencies involved. Both had learned that neither had legislation available to them whereby they could close the management area to unauthorized entry either by people or livestock. They had also learned that while the Forest Supervisor and the Director of Game and Fish in Frankfort might be very much in agreement, it did not follow that their local representatives on the ground were always as well coordinated.

For example in August of 1947, one incident which occurred somewhat strained the cooperative relationship between the two agencies. It appears that the State Division of Game and Fish had released three tame black bear on the management area. These bear, apparently lonesome for human company, had made their way to some of the nearby farms where one of the local fire wardens attempted to capture one of them which he and others had chased up a tree. Getting a rope around the bear's neck, he proceeded to strangle him, whether by accident or intent is unknown. Although the state threatened legal action against the fire warden, there's no record that charges were preferred. In the correspondence Supervisor Borden of the Cumberland National Forest pointed out that this fire warden was only a cooperator over which the Forest Service had no legal control, except when the warden was actually employed on a National Forest fire.

Another of these bears travelled as far south as the community of Pine Knot, south of Stearns. His first adventure with the local community came one evening when he showed up at a tent meeting. Needless to say, the meeting broke up promptly with people scattered in all directions.

Not discouraged by this unfriendly reception, this particular bear again tried to become acquainted with the local folks. This time he appeared at the door of a local barber shop. The customers, as well as the local barber shop loafers, vacated the shop promptly through a back window and took refuge on the roof while the bear took full possession of the barber shop. The wife of the State Wildlife Biologist, Mrs. Fred Hardy, lured the bear out of the shop with a cracker. This bear was removed to a more remote part of the Forest.

A second incident which emphasized and highlighted the futility of trying to prevent trespass on the management area by individuals carrying firearms was presented about 1949. While public relations contacts had been made by both agencies, both individual and group, in an attempt to discourage trespass on the area with firearms, one resident of Greenwood proclaimed repeatedly that he would go through the area with a firearm any time he wanted to. This appears quite a typical and characteristic reaction of the local Kentuckians of that time. Records of the area recite the case which points up the difficulty of legal action in local courts for trespass with a firearm. A local resident by the name of John Hyden was apprehended on the Beaver Creek Management Area in possession of a loaded firearm. Mr. Hyden was directed by the local conservation officer to appear before the McCreary County Court at Whitley City. Mr. Hyden failed to meet this appointment. The local conservation officer, Viola Owens, then appeared before the Grand Jury which returned a true bill and ordered Mr. Hyden to stand trial before the Circuit Court. For the second time Mr. Hyden chose not to appear. This time he was cited for contempt of court and fined $100. Mr. Hyden was brought before the Court and gave the Circuit Court Clerk his check for one hundred dollars, but at the same time he told the Clerk not to process the check as it was not good, but to hold the check until the next term of court. There is no record that Mr. Hyden ever made this check good or that the court took further action against him for these violations.

Following is a news item from the Courier Journal of April 22, 1951, prepared by Burt Monroe, Wildlife and Outdoor Writer for that newspaper. This news item pretty well summarizes what has been done to date on the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area and indicates an optimism as to the value of future operation of this area.

"Outcome of Beaver Creek Plan to Have A Great Influence on Future Hunting in State, By Burt Monroe, The future of the hunting in Kentucky of such game as white-tailed deer and wild turkeys can well be hinged on the final success of the Cooperative Beaver Creek Management Plan. And the outlook is bright.

"The story of the long negotiations and efforts to bring about a cooperative management for the management of wildlife on Cumberland National Forest land goes back to the summer of 1937 when the U.S. Forest Service opened negotiations with the Kentucky Division of Game and Fish.

"From the standpoint of consolidated public ownership, the Beaver Creek watershed on the Laurel Ranger District was considered the area of greatest promise. A brief history of the area is sufficient to show that the choice was a wise one.

"The early settlers depended in no small measure upon game animals as a source of food. This was particularly true in Southeastern Kentucky which had relatively little to offer in the way of tillable soils.

"Reports handed down from early settlers indicate that large populations of deer, turkey, grouse and squirrels were found at the time for settlement. Heavy hunting had, for all practical purposes, eliminated the deer as early as 1880. Turkeys persisted longer and were hunted as late as 1910. Severe winters during the years 1908-1911, together with uncontrolled hunting, were sufficient to remove the few remaining birds from the region.

"Ruffed grouse and squirrel populations here do not vary greatly. Grouse are scarce. Squirrels are hunted regularly and heavily, but in spite of this maintain themselves in reasonable numbers.

"Black bear and beaver were once present, but apparently never in large numbers. These fur-bearers became exterminated in the area about the time the war was fought between the states.

"The experimental area of 17,317 acres is typical Cumberland plateau formation. Deeply cut canyons have been carved by Beaver Creek and its tributaries in the soft limestone cap rock formation which maintains a uniform elevation of between 1,000 feet and 1,100 feet in this section. Ridges vary from broad to narrow, usually nearly level or gently sloping to the abrupt edge of cliffs.

"A large lumber mill on the property for several years cut the higher grade of timber which included large pine, hemlock, white oak, poplar, and other choice species. But now 20 years or more have elapsed since the last cutting of timber by this mill and now the ridges carry a stand of advanced pine and hardwoods.

"On April 9, 1945, Earl Wallace, director of the Division of Game and Fish, and H.L. Borden, supervisor for the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, signed an agreement which combined the efforts of these two agencies to restore, protect, and manage the wildlife resources on the Cumberland National Forest in such manner as to return to the public fuller use and enjoyment of this valuable resource. Work has begun in earnest and is now continuing with the aid of Pittman-Robertson projects headed by Federal Aid Coordinator Don Strode.

"Responsibilities for the parts of the program are divided. The Forest Service will be responsible for habitat, physical improvements, education, grazing privileges, occupancy, mining, fire protection and issue of campfire permits. The Division of Game and Fish will be responsible for the protection of game and fish, posting and maintenance of boundaries, planting game, water development, clearings and plantings, and fact finding and experimentation. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be the recognized research agency."

In the spring of 1953, Supervisor Borden retired and was succeeded by Supervisor Robert Collins. In the resulting reanalysis and realignment of the program of the Cumberland National Forest, the wildlife resources of the forest were designated for increased emphasis, as a base for a new program of leadership in the field of wildlife in Kentucky, to be undertaken by the entire Forest staff and Rangers. The history of the establishment and operation of the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area was reviewed in detail and it was decided that activities of this type should be extended over more area of the National Forest.

In keeping with this concept in 1954, the Supervisor of the Cumberland National Forest approached the Director of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources as to the desirability of establishing additional management areas on the center and northern portion of the Cumberland National Forest as a base for the stocking of wild turkey and deer in those portions of the Forest. As a result of these discussions and the agreement of the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources with this concept, a new broad cooperative agreement was drawn up in 1955 between the Forest Service and the State of Kentucky. This new agreement pertained to all wildlife activities on the Cumberland National Forest and outlined the cooperative relationship between the Forest Service and the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. This new agreement, which superseded all previous agreements and amendments, was to be effective immediately on its signature by representatives of both agencies. It covered, in general, the same ground as previous agreements, but it emphasized strongly close cooperation on all wildlife matters pertaining to all portions of the Cumberland National Forest. One point of this agreement, insisted upon by the Regional Office of the Forest Service, stated that all questions of disagreement between the Director, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Forest Supervisor, Cumberland National Forest, be referred to the Regional Forester. To some extent this weakened the hand of the Forest Supervisor of the Cumberland National Forest in his dealings with the state.

As a second step in implementing the new concept of increased emphasis and wildlife leadership on the part of the National Forest, a new five-year wildlife management plan for the entire Cumberland National Forest was prepared by the Forest staff in close consultation with the biologists of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources who fully concurred in the finished plans. This plan, while similar in many respects to the plan for the previous five years, was a milestone from the standpoint that it emphasized that, for wildlife habitat purposes, timber cutting in small blocks up to 10 acres in size, would be given preference over individual tree selection silviculture. Here was joint recognition for the first time of the value of clear-cutting in small blocks in the culled-over hardwood stands of the Cumberland as a desirable wildlife habitat measure. The areas to be so cut were selected jointly by the Ranger and a State Wildlife Biologist. This program, which had been tried out experimentally on the Beaver Creek Management Area, was set up to be applied Forest-wide on the Cumberland National Forest.

In 1955 the Director, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, concurred with the Forest Supervisor in the desirability of establishing additional wildlife management areas as a base primarily for the stocking of wild turkey which, at that time, were being trapped in Western Kentucky and moved to Eastern Kentucky for stocking. After considerable reconnaissance, both by the Rangers and staff of the Cumberland in company with the biologists of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, two areas were selected for the new management areas. One was the Sky Bridge Wildlife Management Area of approximately 9,000 acres of National Forest ownership in Wolfe and Powell counties. The second area selected was the Mill Creek Wildlife Management Area of approximately 10,000 acres in Jackson County. These were established, marked and signed that same year. With the establishment of these areas and including the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area, a total of 36,000 acres or approximately 8 percent of the ownership of the Cumberland National Forest was committed to a program of wildlife protection, research and cooperative management.

In establishing these areas as a part of the cooperative program, the Forest Service set up four primary objectives which were: to provide conditions favorable to the build-up of a nucleus of a big game herd and to insure the perpetuation and increase of wild turkey on the National Forest; to develop wildlife habitat management information which would insure as near optimum habitat conditions for wildlife as is possible, compatible with other recognized uses; to insure continuing coordination with the Kentucky Division of Fish and Wildlife Resources in matters pertaining to the management of the wildlife resources of the Cumberland National Forest; and to provide tangible wildlife projects as focal points of interest to individuals and groups within and adjacent to the National Forest as a means of securing their cooperation and assistance in the job of building up the wildlife resource.

The Supervisor, staff and Rangers of the Cumberland National Forest realized after analysis of the previous 10 years that something other than business as usual must happen in the field of wildlife if reasonable progress was to be made.

As a basis of justification for these new wildlife management areas, an analysis of the activities on the Beaver Creek Management Area over the previous 10 years was made to determine what might be expected on the new areas. The analysis indicated as follows: during the previous 10 years a total of 106 whitetail deer and 41 wild turkey had been released on the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area as basic stock. During the last ten years a total of 70 openings of various sizes, totalling 350 acres, had been developed, seeded to game food plants and cultivated, or been maintained by mowing; the result of these management activities appeared to be most rewarding — a deer drive on a portion of the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area during the winter of 1954-55 yielded data that indicated an average population of whitetail deer of approximately one deer per 27 acres for the entire management area, studies indicated a total deer population on the management area itself of 500 deer with an additional 500 deer produced by the herd which had spread to surrounding areas and the wild turkey population was estimated at 100 birds scattered in several flocks throughout the area.

These results on the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area, despite the difficulties with enforcing closure to livestock, with trespass by local residents, and with a large population of free-running dogs, indicated that wildlife management area activities were still reasonably productive.

In field examinations in 1955 and 1956, both the Forest Service personnel and the biologists of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources could identify indications of the beginning of browsing damage by the deer populations. As a result, it was decided by the Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission to open a deer season, in effect on the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area and the area immediately surrounding lt. This was done in the fall of 1956, with outstanding results as far as hunter success is concerned. It was estimated that at least 3,000 hunters descended on the Beaver Creek Management Area and areas immediately adjacent for four days. Hunter success ratio was high and the deer brought out were large and healthy and it appeared that the management area was well on its way. However, by the third year of such hunting it was obvious that the deer population had been severely reduced but, so firmly had the popularity of the Beaver Creek Management Area become fixed in the minds of the deer hunters that they continued to flock there each fall in great numbers, even though their success ratio dwindled drastically. As new areas and counties were opened to deer hunting, the hunting pressure on the Beaver Creek area gradually diminished, but the damage was done and the small remaining population has taken many years to recover, and has never recovered, at the present time, to the level which it had at the time the season was opened. Part of this, of course, was due to the low breeding level of the herd. Another reason for lack of recovery of the deer herd on the Beaver Creek Management Area has been excessive poaching, through night hunting, and a continued high population of free-running dogs. Despite efforts to the contrary these two factors appear to be the most serious deterrent to maintaining a high huntable population of deer on the National Forest.

In 1960, five years following the initial establishment, both the Sky Bridge Wildlife Management Area and the Mill Creek Wildlife Management Area were discontinued and the area again opened to public hunting and use. While both deer and wild turkey have established a basic breeding population in those areas, due to the factors enumerated above concerning the Beaver Creek Area, they have never attained what would be considered a highly satisfactory population from the standpoint of hunting.

By 1955, the efforts of the personnel of the Daniel Boone National Forest, both by participation in meetings of sportsmen's groups, by newspaper publicity, and by individual participation in various types of hunts and other activities, had established a reputation in Kentucky of being favorable to wildlife and the use of wildlife as recreation. At that time, the only area on which hunting with a longbow and broadhead arrow could be legally done was a Federal cooperative waterfowl refuge in Western Kentucky between the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers where Lake Barkley is now located.

Sportsmen's groups in Louisville, Lexington and other points in Eastern Kentucky were clamoring for additional areas where they could have access to deer hunting with a longbow without the long travel to Western Kentucky. As a result of contact with these groups, as well as a desire to see the wildlife population of the Cumberland National Forest serve as many different types of recreation uses as possible, Forest Supervisor Collins requested permission to speak briefly to the Commission of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources at their August meeting. This permission was graciously granted and Forest Supervisor Collins, accompanied by the president of the State Target Archery Association and by the president of the State Bow Hunters Association, met with the Commission of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and presented a statement outlining the basis of bow hunting, its utilization of the deer herd for a sport for additional people at a relatively low cost in number of animals to be taken and, in general, recommended that an area on the Cumberland National Forest, in the vicinity of Mount Victory, bounded on the north by Ky-192, bounded on the south by Lake Cumberland, bounded on the east by Buck Creek and bounded on the west by the Rockcastle River be set up as an additional bow hunting area in Kentucky. At the close of the presentation, Commission members asked a few questions and then asked the group to remain outside while they conferred. Within a few minutes the Chairman of the Commission came out and said that the Commission had voted to grant the request and that such a bow hunting area would be set up.

The recommended area was visited by a large number of bow hunters from Louisville, Lexington and other parts of Eastern Kentucky throughout the fall bow-hunting season with excellent success. Fortunately, the state president of the Bow Hunters Association was able to bag a buck weighing nearly 300 pounds on this area of the National Forest. Needless to say, the interest of the Forest Service in securing this additional bow hunting area and the success of the bow hunters in the state did much to give the Forest Service a favorable image in the field of wildlife resources in Kentucky which, it is gratifying to say, the Forest Service still enjoys.

The reevaluation of the overall programs of the Cumberland National Forest, made at the time of the change of Forest Supervisors in May of 1953, included a general objective of bringing to the people of Kentucky a better understanding of the Cumberland National Forest and the place it occupied in the overall natural resource picture of the State.

It was decided that this was to be accomplished, not only by news releases, but by active participation in the programs and activities of the various conservation-oriented organizations and activities of the state. It was agreed that such a program should be spearheaded by the Forest Supervisor personally, to lend emphasis to the dedication of the National Forest to the principles and actions recommended.

A review of the activity of the Cumberland National Forest in this field indicated that to that time they had consisted largely of championing the causes of Federal acquisition of timber lands, forest fire control and timber management, all logical programs of the relatively new and growing National Forest.

A staff discussion of conditions in Eastern Kentucky indicated that probably the two most critical areas of need were in the field of watershed management and the development of wildlife population and programs. It was pointed out that one of the jobs of the Forest Service should be to instill in the minds of the people of the area that wildlife, as well as timber, was a renewable resource which responded to protection and management. At that time there was no legal deer hunting in Eastern Kentucky and wild turkey populations were small and scattered with no open hunting season. It appeared that the wildlife resources was one of the more fruitful resources of the National Forest in need of highlighting to the general public.

The initial step for the National Forest was to undertake the reinforcement and strong support of the wildlife program of the Division of Fish and Game of the State Department of Conservation. Meetings between administrators and staffs of both organizations were initiated promptly which resulted in a new and strengthened overall understanding of the objectives of both agencies which was incorporated in a new overall cooperative agreement. Features of this overall cooperative agreement included participation of wildlife biologists in the planning of silvicultural operations on the entire National Forest, and in the timber management training of Cumberland National Forest personnel.

Another development was a new five-year wildlife management plan for the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area that recognized the desirability of clear-cutting in small blocks for a dual advantage of improving wildlife habitat and of securing regeneration of the more desirable forest species.

While these developments were in progress, Forest Supervisor Collins was utilizing every opportunity to present the economic and recreational potential of the forest lands of Kentucky, which occupy nearly one half of the land area of the state, to the newly organized State Rural Development Committee, of which he was a member. As a means of highlighting this potential, which appeared to make little impression on the sociological and agriculturally oriented members of the State Committee, he prepared and presented at one of the early state-wide meetings a paper entitled, Deer Values. This presentation outlined in detail the potential of the deer herd for increase under conditions of proper habitat development and protection from poaching and the packs of free-running dogs which were present throughout the area. It further detailed the hunter use which would be supported by such a population and the economic return which could accrue to the people of the forested counties of Eastern Kentucky. It pointed out that, with the hunter pressure which could be supported on a sustained basis, using success ratio common in other deer hunting states and current travel and commodity prices, a return of $5,280 per deer killed by bow hunters and of $1,200 deer killed by gun hunters could be expected by the people of counties supporting such deer population.

The paper further applied these results to conditions in McCreary County, one of the more depressed counties of the Cumberland National Forest, which had been reported by the University of Kentucky's Bureau of Business Research as having a per capita income of $446 in 1952. With results based on a desirable harvest of 25 percent of a managed deer herd, a potential return to the people of the county of nearly $2 million annually was indicated.

These dollar results were further confirmed by a study conducted by the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission in 1965, on their Catoosa Wildlife Management Area which indicates an average expenditure of $1,390 per deer killed by hunters in the area. Similar studies in other states have indicated the values developed above to be conservative.

As a follow-up on this paper, an article written by Supervisor Collins and based on its content was published in the Happy Hunting Grounds Magazine of the League of Kentucky Sportsmen. This article attracted much attention and favorable comment from outside the state as well as within, and aided in establishing the Cumberland National Forest in a favorable position concerning wildlife activities in Kentucky. Favorable comment was received from Deputy Chief M.M. Nelson of the U.S. Forest Service which gave encouragement to the Cumberland staff that they were on the right tract.

Beginning about 1958, the desirability of a special area of the National Forest, on which deer hunters would be limited to the use of muzzle-loading firearms for hunting during the gun season, and could use crossbows as well as longbows during the bow season, was proposed to the state representatives during the annual Wildlife Management Coordination Meeting. After considering all aspects of the proposal, Commissioner Missor Clark of the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, recommended to the Fish and Wildlife Commission of Kentucky that such an area be authorized.

With the approval of the Commission the problem of selection of a suitable area confronted both agencies. After a study of possible locations for a block of National Forest land of sufficient size that was available, and at the same time supported a suitable habitat of wildlife and isolation for this type of hunting, an area of over 7,000 acres adjacent to the Licking River in Bath and Menifee Counties was proposed by State Biologist Harold Barber who was the principal coordinator between the state and the National Forest. The Forest Service agreed, the Commission passed the necessary regulations and the area of over 10 square miles of hardwood forest land was established as the Primitive Weapons Area as of July, 1962.

The normal publicity through news releases, and by an article in the League of Kentucky Sportsmen Magazine, Happy Hunting Grounds, was given this action. The area was a great success with muzzle-loading hunters from all parts of the state travelling to the area as well as increasing numbers from Ohio and other states in succeeding years as information pertaining to this area was disseminated. These hunters came to hunt small game and wild turkey as well as deer and to enjoy living again the days of Daniel Boone with flintlock rifles, buckskin hunting shirts, tomahawks, powder horns and knives. A number of national sportsmen's magazines have carried articles on the area, sending special feature writers to hunt and photograph as a basis for their writing. In February of 1963, Michael Hudoba gave the area two paragraphs in his Sports Afield column, Report from Washington.

During the period of study prior to the establishment of this area some biologists voiced a fear that the number of deer killed by muzzle-loading firearms would be insufficient to control the deer herd within the capacity of the habitat. A study of hunter's success ratio on this area with muzzle-loading weapons indicated that, for that particular year, hunter success was two and one-half times as great on the Primitive Weapons Area as was the hunter's success ratio with modern repeating weapons on the National Forest land outside. The hunting ability and marksmanship of the muzzle-loading weapon hunter has repeatedly proved to be at least equal to that of the modern equipped hunter on the area surrounding the Primitive Weapons Area.

Apparently there had been some question in the minds of the game biologists as to the effect on the deer herd of permitting the use of crossbow's during the deer season. A study of the situation during the first four years of operation of the Primitive Weapons Area was summed up by Game Biologist Harold Barber at the 1966 Annual Wildlife Coordination Meeting in his statement that, "Crossbows are not proved to be the potent deer killers that they have been reported." He recommended that crossbows be made legal hunting weapons elsewhere in the state.

When established, this was the only such area in the United States set aside for free wilderness type hunting with muzzle-loading firearms, either flint lock or percussion. It is further unique in that the hunter may use rifle, shotgun with ball or buckshot, or a pistol. Crossbows must have a minimum pull of 80 pounds and use barbless broadhead arrows at least seven-eights inches in width.

While hunting with crossbows has not been heavy, a number of crossbow hunters have hunted the area each year with a success ratio proportionate to that of the longbow hunters. It is believed that as of 1970, this was the only such area in the United States where deer could be hunted legally with a crossbow. Crossbow hunters have travelled long distances to hunt on this area. It is known that at least four such hunters travelled from New Jersey to spend the week at crossbow hunting on the Primitive Weapons Area.

In general, the success of this area, whose name was changed to Pioneer Weapons Area to conform more closely to the change in name of the forest, is a real tribute to the cooperative wildlife program on the Cumberland National Forest. It emphasizes the sincere desire of both the Forest Service and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources to provide a maximum of public use and sport by their management and administration of the game population.

As another part of the program of the Cumberland National Forest of emphasizing the wildlife resource by doing, District Ranger Everett Towle, of the Somerset District on which the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area is located, organized a joint law enforcement expedition against deer poaching. Based on reliable information obtained from his field work-crews that at least seven deer had been poached from the National Forest on his District during the previous week, Ranger Towle believed that the time for action had come. With the cooperation of Division Superior Buchanan the Kentucky Division of Fish and Wildlife Resources, a cooperative effort was made to apprehend deer poachers on and near the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area on the night of October 23, 1964. A total of 13 State Conservation officers and eight Forest officers were formed into field teams of two Conservation Officers and one Forest officer equipped with a two-way radio. One Forest officer was placed on Buck Knob Lookout Tower as a radio relay center and to observe lights of poachers' cars approaching the general area and to guide the Conservation officer teams to them.

The operation was most successful. Although only one party of poachers were apprehended under conditions which supported prosecution, several other parties of poachers were observed in the general area. This operation accomplished among other things — it definitely discouraged widespread poaching of deer in the vicinity of the Beaver Creek Management Area for the rest of the year; it proved that the Forest officers of the Cumberland National Forest and the State Conservation officers could work together successfully in combating the poaching evil, and it definitely established that widespread poaching of deer was taking place on the National Forest, and particularly on the Beaver Creek Wildlife Management Area.

The Cumberland National Forest continued to participate actively in state-wide natural resource meetings. Two of those meetings the Forest Supervisor presented papers on wildlife subjects.

In the Third Annual Conservation Congress on October 17-18, 1963, Forest Supervisor Collins represented the Forest Service by presentation of a paper entitled, Forestry and Recreation Resources of Kentucky, in which he emphasized both fish and wildlife as a renewable resource, within the reach of every county in the state through protection and habitat management, which could enhance both the recreation attraction and the economic level of local people.

At the First Governor's Conference on Forestry on February 27-28, 1964, again Forest Supervisor Collins represented the Cumberland National Forest on the program by the presentation of a paper entitled, The Relation of Forest Management to the Wildlife Resource. Here again was emphasized the potential of the wildlife resource for both recreation and economic return. The place of sound silviculture, employing clear-cutting in small blocks, in the development of desirable habitat for deer, wild turkey and small game, was presented in detail.

By 1965, the results of active participation by the Cumberland National Forest in behalf of the wildlife resource of Kentucky, and its potential benefits for the people, were beginning to become evident. News stories of wildlife and of hunting were frequently centered around the Cumberland National Forest. The wildlife program of the Cumberland National Forest and its hunting potential had been highlighted in news items and stories in national sporting magazines.

The crowning confirmation of the recognition of the Cumberland National Forest in the field of wildlife in Kentucky came when the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, at their 30th annual meeting in Paducah, in July of 1965, selected the Forest Supervisor of the Cumberland National Forest to be the recipient of the Governor's State Conservation Award of Forest Conservationist of the Year for 1965. This recognition of the Forest Service wildlife effort over a 10-year period was most gratifying to the personnel of the Cumberland National Forest.

Another activity of the cooperative wildlife management program on the Cumberland National Forest was that of put-and-take trout fishing which proved most popular to the public. A joint study of the trout fishing use of Rock Creek during the summer of 1965, produced some revealing information for the Forest Program of translating wildlife use into terms of economic returns. This study indicated that for the period of May through October, 1965, a total of 3,782 trout fisherman had expended over 15,000 man hours of fishing time on Rock Creek. Considering the travel time to reach the area, and that many of the fishermen came from locations far outside the county, an average total cost per trip of $10 was assigned. Capitalizing this value at 4 percent, this stream had produced a revenue from fisherman expenditures equal to a capital investment of over $900,000 which could be considered the value of the Rock Creek Fishery to the local economy.

The study also gave an indication of efficiency of this put-and-take operation as it indicated that 82 percent of the total number of trout stocked in Rock Creek in 1965, had been harvested during the six-months period of the study.

The Forest made every effort to utilize information of this kind to indicate the value of the natural resources of forest land to the local community terms of dollars and cents.

As a part of the overall program of highlighting the wildlife resource of the Forest, it was recognized that in Kentucky more hunters seek squirrel than all other species of game combined. Squirrel hunting is traditional for Kentuckians and, therefore, it appeared most appropriate to utilize this custom to focus public attention on the wildlife resource of the National Forest.

While many of the people are squirrel hunters, few understand the relationships between population abundance and the mast crop. In like fashion few understand that timber can be harvested, thinned and otherwise managed without reducing materially the overall squirrel population of the county or area. As the Forest had encountered some objection to harvesting hardwoods, this appeared to be an excellent opportunity to inform squirrel hunters of some of these facts of life. In April of 1966, the name of the Cumberland National Forest had been changed to the Daniel Boone National Forest. In June of 1966, the Forest published an attractive booklet entitled, Squirrel Hunting on the Daniel Boone National Forest.

Initially distribution of this booklet was selective, the first copies going to presidents of fish and game clubs, county judges, county clerks, officers of wildlife organizations and similar people who normally receive complaints of National Forest management program. The response was most gratifying. One of the outstanding compliments came from a wildlife research biologist of the Department of the Interior who wrote, "I have read many popular accounts of squirrel hunting and a few on squirrel management. This booklet is the best account of forest management designed to maintain high squirrel populations that I have ever read. It is presented in a simple, straight-forward manner and all of the context is based on sound basic biology of the squirrel and his needs. Congratulations. We hope that this bulletin will get in the hands of every Forester and squirrel hunter in the South."

This publication, in the preparation of which the biologists of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources contributed materially, has served the Forest Service well and should continue to do so for many years to come.

Enumerated above are some of the actions of the Cumberland National Forest in providing leadership in Kentucky in the utilization of the potential of the wildlife resource of the half of Kentucky that is forest land. Every effort was made to emphasize that wildlife was only one of the resources of forest land and that, when managed under the principles of multiple use, its contributions can be made without materially reducing the contribution from the other resources of forest land.