1412
Thunder B
.;uttings. at. l'
subject to h ~
The area
Moose winter browsing patterns on clear-cutting§ in northern Ontario
G. D. HAMILTON.t P. D. DRYSDALE, 2
D. L. EULER
Ontario ,\-finistry ofNatural R']soarces, Wildlife Branch, Toronto, On/., Canada.H7A JW3
R:ceived October 3, 1979
1
1
a
1
Present address: Department of Biology. Lakehead University. Thunder Bay, Ont., Canada P7B 5El.
•
2
Present address: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
0. Box 323, Red Lake, Ont., Canada POV 2MO.
3 Vozeh. G. E., and H. G. Cumming. 1960. A moose popula•
tion census and winter browse survey in Gogama District 7 On. tario. Unpublished report to the Ontario Department o~· Lands
and For\!sts, Gogama District. Ontario.
It
ever, increased demand for wood and greater
mechanization have produced extensive clearcuttings whose value as moose· range is unknown.
Peek et al. (1976) recommended cuttings approximately 80 ha in size to provide good moose habitat.
Telfer (1974) suggests that clear-cuttings up to
1.3 km 2 may be used by moose, but clear-cuttings
larger than this are probably not heavily utilized
until the stand has grown sufficiently to provide
shelter(lO to 15 years).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between distance from cover and
browsing by moose during winter. An understanding of this relationship can allow logging operations
to be planned to maximize their benefit to moose.
I
t
In the
ried out
moose pr
plots wer
Plots we
between
separate!
tallied b
browsed
regardin~
each stu
dance zc
much le5
The study area
Field work for this study was conducted in May and June of
1975 and 1976 on three cutovers (designated Dog River-6, i. and
8) selected from the Great Lakes Paper Company's Dog River
licence o.rea. This 3100 km:: r~gion is centered at approximately
latitude 4~11 1 and longitude 90"05'. about 105 km northwest of
0008-4301/80/081412-05$01.00/0
© 1980 National Research Council of Canada/Conseil national de recherches du Canada
___ .,
j
!
:
G. D., P. D. DRYSDALE et D. L. EULER. 1980. Moose winter browsing patterns on
clear-cuttings in northern Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 58: 1412-1416.
·
Les patterns de broutage ont ete etudi~s 5=hez des Qrignaux (Alces alces) dans trois forets
deboisees du nord de !'Ontario, durant le printemps et l'cHe, en 1975 et en 1976. Les trois surfaces
etudiees etaient deboisees depuis 5 ou 6ans et mesuraient de 24 a525 ha. Les patterns de broutage
ont cte determines par rexamen de surfaces de 2m x 4 m espacees les unes des autres de 25m le
long d"itineraires-echantitlons pre-etabli5. La distance entre chacune des surfaces et Ia foret non
coupee a cte calcul~e partir de cartes grande echelle. II ne semble pas y a voir de correlation
entre cette distance et l'abondance du brout; l'acti• :.~ c!e broutage est independante de Ia
repartition de la nourriture. En 1975, 95% de toute l'activite de brourage etait concentree amains
de 80 m de Ia zone boisee. L'utilisation du paturage a ete plus grande en 1976, s'etendant meme
jusqu'a 260m de Ia zone boisee dans l'une des aires. Ni l'abondance de Ia nourriture. ni
l'epaisseur de la neige (memejusqu 'a 75 ern) ne semblent influencer Ia repartition des orignaux.
[Traduit par lejournal]
Introduction
!v1oose populations are strongly influenced by
forestry practices through manipulation of their
habitat (Bergerud and :Manuel 1968; Telfer 1974).
Past work on moose-forest interactions described
known favourable habitats for moose (Peek et al.
1976; Vozeh and Cumming 19603 ; Prescott 1968;
LeResche et al. 1974). Those studies indicated that
moose prefer areas which offer a wide variety of
piant·type;; and age-classes with both mature conifer stands for cover and ooen areas for food.
Logging operations in "ontario have generally
produced good moose range. In recent years, how-
I
Average
is i8.7 em {
grounJrea1
Svcmon ~1
to develop
entire mon
Average 1
moose/km· 1
cords from ·
were shot r;~
least 10 me .
reported st !'
The cut<
the better c ! ·
poorly dra J ·
on rolling 1 I
this area \' j
consisting
chantable
0.04 hato 1
trees/ha. ; !'
leaving rel
a 76-ha pc
1969-197( I
origin. Tr j
blocks cle j
outwash ·
depressio 1
left \\ithin 1
All cute!
plowed in
Dog R.-8.
trunk roaa l
must be c (
traveUedt l
HAMILTON,
a
f
(Betttla paF
=
•
'·'.'
rocks \Zvlt~
were humo
zone·of the
jack pine (1
v.:ith mixtu:
AND
HAMILTON, G. D .• P. D. DRYSD.-\U!., and D. L. EuLER. 1980. Moose winter browsing pattern$ on
clear-cuttings in northern Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 58: 1412-1416.
Winter browsing patterns by moose (Alces a/cesj were studied on three cutovers in northern
Ontario during spring and summer of 1975 and 1976. The three cutovers were 5 io 6 years old and
ranged from 24 to 525 ha in area. Browse patterns were determined by examining 2m x 4 m plots
spaced at 25 rn intervals along selected cruise line3. The Jistancc from cover for each plot was
calculated from large sca!e maps. No correlation was fou;td between distance from cover and
browse abundance, and moose browsing was independent of food distribution. In 1975. it was
found that 95% of all browsing activity was confined to within 80 m of cover. Browse use tended to
be greater in 1976, with significant use extending as far as 2\SQ m from cover in one cutover. Food
abundance and snow depths up to 75 em apparently did not determine moose distribution.
1
d:!t=-l15i!.5 ·J'
Omarh' Ministr.v of.Vamrul Resources, P.O. B:JX 5000, Th:mdt-r Bay, Olll .. Canac{.l P7C 5Gb
This r
I
I
the bro ..·
tributior
the effe~
i
1413
HAMILTON ET AL.
a,.,.
ta :~~~
~
..
p
R
;tnJ.:r Bay, Ontario. It exhibits a great variety of clear·:mgs. and sustains a s>.'bstantial moose population which is
'!c.:t to heavy hunting.
.
. : ·: :tre:l is charact~::rized 'JY flat to rotting glacial and aeolian
. · ·-!i" ove;-lying Arche~n acid igneol!s and m:.:tamOiflhic
·• ,;;..s (Zoltai 1960; Pye and Fenwick 1963).. Soils on the cutovcrs
,·:·c humoferric podzols, typical of the Upper English River
. ·ne of the Boreal Region (Rowe 1972). The forest cover was
..:k pine (Pinus bank.siana) and black spruce (Picea man·ana)
• ::h mixtures of aspen (Populus tremuloides'j·and white birch
b'· wla papyrifera).
.-\ verage annual precipitation for U psula. about 40 km distant,
r- 78.7 em (Environment Canada Weather Office). Snow on the
:..:•\1und reached maximum depths of73 em on March 3, 1975, and
~n ..:m on March 15, 1976. A moderate to heavy snow crust began
:,, develop about March 1, 1975, and continued through the
::rttire month. During 19761ittle or no crust developed.
Average moose density for the area was estimated to be 0.23
:noose/km 2 and hunter density roughly 0.2 hunters/kmi. Re.:ords from voluntary jaw returns showed that at least 9 moose
'-\ere shot in the vicinity of Dog R.-6.and 7 in 1974. In 1975, at
kast lO moose were taken frc- m the same area. Six moose were
reported shot in the Dog R.-8 area in 1974, and 2 in 1975.
The cutovers studied were originally treed with jack pine gn
the better drained sites and with black spruce on the lower, more
poofly drained portions. Dog R.-6 is 61 ha in area and is located
\Hl rolling loess deposits of silt and very fine sand. In ea:dy 1970
this area was clear-cut, but many residual "io:;Iands" were left,
:onsisting mostly of aspen with some white birch and unmer~hantable black spruce. These islands ranged in size from
0.04 ha to 1.05 ha and had tree densities ranging from 217 to 1900
treesfha. In addition, portions d the ~ were partially cut.
lt!aving relatively opett· aspen stands. The Dog R.-7 study area is
a 76-ha portion of a much larger area (about 525 ha) clear-cut in
1969-1970. It is flat, with deep glacial till ofunmod!fied moraine
origin. The Dog R.-8 area is 24 ha in size, and is one of three
blocks clear-cut in early 1970. It is situated at the edge of a glacial
outwash plain and has genc:rally smooth relief~ with a s!ight
depression in the southwest quadrant. No islands of trees were
left within Dog R.-7 and 8.
All cutQvers were located on roau systems which are not
plowed in winter. Snowmobile access would be feasible only on
Dog R.-8, which was located a short distance from a plowed
trunk road. During the fall hunting season, however; Dog R.-7
must he considered to be the most accessible, with a· welltravelled bush road located on its long axis.
1V!ethod~
p
R
c
I:
In the early summer of 1975, a preliminary survey was carried I)Ut to determine distribution. relative abundance, and
moose preference of potentia! browse plants. Small (2 m x 2 m)
plots were used so that a large area could be sampled quickly.
Plots were spaced at 25-m intervals along lines chosen to run
between points'identifiable on aerial photos. All stems emerging
separately frtJm ~ound. level and over 75 em in height were
tallied by species. Pellet groups and the number of stems
browsed were also recorded, while descriptive notes were made
regarding site type and plot location. As a result of this survey,
each study area was divided into high and low browse abundance ~ones. In general, lowland and poorly drained areas had
much less available browse than did the better drained sites.
This mapping was then used to help locate th~ transects for
the browsing survey which followed. Since a nonrandom distribution of low abundance zones within a cutover could mask
the effects of distance from cover, food availability was kept
ti
---"
-
relatively constant by concentrating the browsing transects in
high abundance areas. Towards the same end, ""indicator..
plants were selected each year on the basis of high moose
preference. high abundance, and even distribution. In 1975.
indicator pl:.tnts far Dog R.-o anJ 7 were willow (Salix spp.) .
cht:rry tPrunus spp.), am! a!'pen. and scrvic~:berry !A'n!'lwzchier spp.) was included with ~he above for Dog R.-8. In 1976.
indicator plants for all three study areas were willow, cherry,
and serviceberry .
Sampling for the browsing survey was carried out on 2 m x
4 m plots, again spaced at 25-m intervals along lines chosen to
run between points identifiable on aerial photos. Larger plots
were chosen to reduce the number of"nils." i.e. plots on which
there were no preferred stems available to moose. In 1975. the
intensity of browsing activity on each plot was noted. considering only indicator plants. Plots having preferred stems were
tallied according to the estimated percentage of the available
twigs browsed. Since no preliminary survey was carried out in
1976, indicator plants had to be determined from the brov.sing
survey. Accordingly, all stems available, and the number
browsed, were tallied by species. Pellet groups were a!so noted
in both years. Sampling effort ranged from 193 plots on 10
transects on Dog R.-8 (1975) to 812 plots on 48 transects on Dog
R.-7 (1976).
Detailed. large-scale (1: 3960) maps of each study area were
produced with the use of aerial photos. Forest Resources Inventory base maps, a sketchmaster, and a pantograph. Accurate
map locations of cruise lines and study'plots. were obtained by
measurement of distance and direction and by taking note of
significant landmarks in the field. Distance-from-cover values
for each plot were calculated from the maps with the use of
calipers.
·
An attempt to define cover quantitatively was made f.or Dog
R.-6. Three sets of criteria defining the nature of covt!r were
compared. The most basic definition used was that of solid
(uncut) forest edge, •·c" cover. Next," B'' cover was defined as
any aggregation of trees having a density of 400 trees/ha or
greater. and an area of at least 0.2 ha. This included most islands
and partially cut edges. The most liberal definition used incluued
islands down to 0.04 ha in area with densities as low as 200
tree~/ha ("A" cover). These last criteria allowei:i aggregations
as small as a clump of about 25 aspens.
Utilization patterns with respect to distance from cover \Vere
constructed using each definition in turn. and compared with
results obtained from the other two study areas (where there was
litt!e difficulty defining the effective edge· of the cutover). Kendall's dtstribution-free test for independence (Hollander and
Wolfe 1973) was used to te~t for independence of food availability (frequency of plots having indicator plants available} and
moose browsing activity (frequency use uf p~ots having indicator plants available) as distance from cover increased.
Results and discussion
Although browse availability was fairly uniform
throughout the cutovers (Fig. 1), most moose
browsing took place within 80 m of cover (Figs. 2~
3, 4A). A two by two con~ingency table showed
highly significant differences (P < 0.01) between
plot browsing frequencies within 80 m versus those
beyond 80 m. No relationship was found. however,
between browsing activity and distance from cover
within the 80 m periphery (Kendall test). Food
availability was not correlated with distance from
•
CAN. J. ZOOL. VOL. 58. 19SO
1414
browsing p
A
~~-
t~ndencv t~
~reased
1-.:4-7S :i7S-7!1
a
300
DISTANCE
FROM
COVER
I m)
c
Relationships between distance from"' cover and
availability of preferred browse stems near Thunder Bay, Ontario. (Data from 2m x 2m plots, all cutovers combined,
19i4-1975.)
FIG. 1.
0
DISTANCE
FROM
COVER
:;.
Im l
'-\':
·,ij
1974-7S
FIG. 4. Di~nce from cover ·:ompared \\ith percentage of ~f
plots (having ~ems availableJ which were used by moose. Dog :~
R.-6. (A) Cover having a minimum area of o.o.; ha and minimum ,~
density of100 rrees/ha. (B) Cover ha.ving minimum area of0.5 ha ~
and 400 tr~es.;ba. {C) Cover consisti!1g of continuous uncut ·....~
boreal forest.
-~
~
117S-7!
u.
0
tances were calculated \t.ithout considering the
presence
of islands or selectively cut portions. The
>
(.)
z
result shO\\.'S virtually unlimited browsing disw
tances. and no strong relationship benveen moose
browsing activity and distance from cover. This
pattern is clearly inconsistent with that found on
Dog R.-7 and 8 (Figs. 2 and 3). which were essentiaTiy .. dean·~ clear-cuttings. By defining cover to
include items as small as a group of 25 trees, a
100
pattern similar to the other two cutovers emerges
DISTANCE FROM COVER I m )
(Fig. 4A). This strongly suggests that even small or
FIG. 2. Distance from cover compared with percentage of
sparse aggregations of trees affected moose beplots (having stems available) which were used by moose, Dog
havior in the same manner as heavy forest cover.
R.-7.
During the secon.u \vinter (1975-1976) moose
utilization of the three study areas \Vas generally
1974-7S
~
greater (Table 1). On Dog R.-7 especially. there
were either more moose present or at least more
w
tJ)
moose-days spent. as indicated by both browsed
;:::)
stems and pellet group numbers. Although there
1L.
0
was still apparent a declining trend in use frequency
>
(.)
with increased distance from cover on Dog R.-7 and
zw
6, utilization extended much farther (Figs. 2 and
;:::)
0
4A). These data suggest that population density
w
a:
may have been an important factor influencing
u.
d
II).• •lift
..v
'CX): '
"
·~
...
e(iO
400
..,
-·
--.!
~
·~
=~
~
·;!
;£
·~
··~
.....
~.
···~
:4
·~
~
~
...,,
~
·~
·tt
~
31
1·~
·-~
..-t1
~.~
·~~
TABLE 1. Indi~ of v.inter
moose utilization compared between
197+-1975 and 1975-1976
DISTANCE
FROM
COVER
lm>
3. Distance from cover compared with percentage of
,plots (having .stems available) which were used by moose, Dog
R.-8.
St~
FIG.
a e r and overall moose browsing activity was inwndent of food availability (Kendall test).
;:some insight can be gained into what a moose
considers to be cover by examining the data from
Dog R.-6. Figure 4C depicts browsing activity relative to distance from uncut boreal forest, i.e. dis-
('
cl
\i
-
browsed.1
ha
~
a•.Clilab1e
plots us~dt
Pellet groupsi
hat
Study
area
197+19i5*
19751976t
19'14-1975
19751976
1974- 19i51975 1976
DogR.-6
Dog R.-7
Dog R.·8
69.9
98.1
.22:!.4
48.3
18.7
1:!.5
17.1
30.9
35.1
16.5
16.6
1~.6
0.0
*Plots 2m :·· ; c.
tPiots 2 m :·· 4 ;':).
6.0
5.6
20.7
58.5
3.8
·.;.
·~
•;,(
......
by
pie. Suppm
the: level o
~arrying cE
plots were 1
On Dog]
increased I=
and m any
low. The p
ho\vever. v
dear trend
tance (Fig.
tially expla
-.ample. Th
lowenougt
may have b
individual c
Since sn
may travel
meet their
"now deptl
lmly after a
l1J be aroun
nwose sou,
.r.:ached 7.f.
muined in<
l.trgdy co1
i Bcrgerud
Unpubli:
:nui~ate th
.:ontinued ·
until late F
-.5 em. ~!1
lt.J75-1976
l Environrn
lt!ss. moos
..:utoverth'
:hat snow
moose mo·
.:rust cone
h11Wever, r
nat ely. col
.tl the ti1nl"'
r\.md ab
.. 'msiderat
't..:ms per:
·' ithin 80 r
:. 1lnd this
\~dues wer
'u-;pect si~
'"'I··'-'•-""0 80
;,trly wher
,imilar.
A need
-
_j
14
HAMILTON ET .-\L
1415
ar
·c(
ea
th
ta
ar.
BE
l
DE
r
l
He
!
-1 LE
]
I
..!Me
I
s
0
.. ; )\\sing patterns. As moose density goes up, the
11 ~..kncy to move farther from cover may be in. · .·:tsed by negative social interactions. for exam-·. Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that even
; !'-' kvel of use seen on Dog R.-7 was far below
...·,: 1-rying capacity (e.g. only 35% of the available
:·· . ,ts were used).
· On DogR.-8, there was no clear inrUcation of an
1:1-.:reased presence of moose in the second winter,
, ·1J in any case. overall use remained relatively
;,l\1:, The pattern of utilization was quite different,
h•w:ever, with browsing detected to 180m, and no
..:1-:ar trend in browsing frequency within this dis:.!nce (Fig. 3). Perhaps these findings can be par! inlly explained by normal variation within a small
-.ample. That is, the level of use on this cutover was
h 1W enough that the differences in browsing activity
·nay have been due to differences in habits between
individual animals.
Since snow hampers moose movements, Moose
· may travel only as far as necessary into a cutover to
meet their browsing requirements. The effects of
"now depth: ho\vever, apparently come into play
unly after a critical level is reached, usually thought
to be around 75 em. According to des Meules (1964)
moos-e SQ,ught coniferous cover when snow depths
reached 76-86 em. In Newfoundland. moose remained in open cutovers until the regeneration was
largely covered by snow in February or March
( Bergerud and 11anuell968).
Unpublished aerial survey data for 1975-1976
indicate that moose in the Dog River study area
continued to use the borders oflarge clear-cuttings
until late February, when snow depths approached
75 em. More snow fell during the winter of
1975-1976 and more accumulated on the ground
{Environment Canada Weather Office); nevertheless, moose browsing was evident farther into the
cutover than in 1974-1975. Itisdifficulttoconclude
that snow depth was the major factor influencing
moose movement patterns into cutover areas. The
crust condition which developed in March 1975,
however, may have been very important. Unfortunately, collaborating observations were not made
at the time.
Food abundance was probably not an important
consideration. The average number of browse
stems per plot was at least as great beyond 80 mas
within 80 m of cover, yet use dropped sharply beyond this point in 1974-1975. Actual nutritional
values were not compared, but there is no reason to
suspect significant differences between, for example, 20-80 m vs. 80+ m from forest edges, particularly when soil types and drainage patterns were
similar.
A need to avoid hunters and animal predators
·•
--
may motivate moose to avoid bro\vsing far from
horizontal cover. Chance encounter is the most
important strategy employed by hunters. and according to .\fcch (1970'. is used by timber wolves
(Canis £,tpus) as well. .-\ ITh)\)Se standing fur from
any tree group is more easily detected, and wilt
have greater difficulty in reaching the· relative
safety of the edge than a moose near cover. Deciduous trees and heav·y shrub growth can function
as escape cover, which helps to explain the apparent attractiveness ·to moose of even small deciduous islands.
The fact that Peek (1971) believed clear-cuttings
up to 260 ha in area \vould be used by moose may be
a reflection of that population's unhunted status.
Mortality of healthy adults due to wolves was probably also minimal. since white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus t:irginianus) were present. and they
probably bore the brunt of wolf predation (Prescott
1974). In the Dog River area. the road systems are
heavily hunted, deer are absent. and wolves are
major predators.
Another reason for keeping close to forest edges
may be the desire to avoid exposure to wind. \Vind
flo.w next to tree islands or edges would be turbulent and less chilling than wind flow in the center of
a large clear-cutting (~loen 1973). ~1cNir:ol and .
Gil ben ( l978J sho\ved that moose used residual
islands as a wind break and appeared to derive
benefits from shallower snow depths on the lee
sides of residual cover stands. It is interestinsz to
note in this regard that the \\inter of 1974--1975 ~vas
slightly colder than tht' follov.:ing one. (The mean
Thunder Bay temperature. December through
February. was- IO.o=C vs. -8.3=c in 1975-1976.)
rviean \\ind speeds \t.·ere nearly identical but it may
be assumed that wind chill was more severe during
the first winter.
Clearly moose browsing pat~erns within large
clear-cuttings are variable. and bet\Veen-year differences can be large. Snow depths and food
supplies found here did not appear to be determining. factors; predator pressure. intraspecific interactions. and the crust condition of the snow were
probably more important. Although there is not
likely an ultimate limit to the distance moose will
move from cover to feed. definite declining trends
in use were shown to exist at greater distances.
This problem cou!d be alleviated by controlling
clear-cutting widths and (or) leaving patches of
cover within cutover boundruies. ·
Acknowledg2ments
The authors gratefully ackno\vledge the assistance of :-.1essrs. D. Fraser. I. Thompson, and J.
11c~icol. Ontado ).finistry of ~atural Resources.
'"()'~.·
\J,
•
1416
','
CAN. J. ZOOL. VOL. 58. 1980
and Mr. D. Welch,. Great Lakes Forest Research
·centre, Sault Ste. Marie, for critically reviewing an
earlier draft of this paper. We would also ·like to
.
'J
R . T'tmmt:rmann an d R"· ,::,tt:rans,-\.1,
~
,. I • 0 nthe::.n~
n..
tario ~iinistry of Natural Resources, for .guidance
and support during the study.
BERGERUD, A. T., and F. MANUEL 1968. Moose"' damage to
balsam fir-white birch forest in central Newfoundland. J.
Wildl. Manage. 32(4): 729-746.
DES MEULES, P. 1964. The influence of snow on the behavior of
moose. Paper presented at 1964 N.E. Fish and Wild!. Conf.,
Hartford, Connecticut.
HoLLASDER. M., and D. A. WOLFE. 1973. Nonparametric
. statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons. Toronto.
J LERESCHE. R. E., R. H. BISHOP, and J. W. COADY. 1974.
Distribution and habitats of moose in Alaska. Nat. Can. lOi:
143-178.
_!McNicoL. J. G., and F. F. GtLBEIU. 1978. Late winter bedding
practices of moose in mixed upland cutovers. Can. Field-Nat.
92: 189-192.
MecH. L. D. 1970. The wolf. The Natural History Press. Garden City. ...
MoEN, A. N. 1973. Wildlife ecology. W. H. Freeman. San
Francisco.
JPEE:.K, J. M. l9i1. Moose habitat 'il.!!e;.;riun and relationship t0
forest management in northeastern Minnesota. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Minnesota. Minneapolis.
..;PEEK. J. M., D. L. URICH. a:td R. J. MACKIE. 1976. Moose
habitat selection and relationships to forest management in
· northeastern Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. No. 48.
PRESCOTT. W. H. 1968. A study of winter concentration areas
and food habits of moose in Nova Scotia. M.Sc. Thesis.
Acadia University, Wolfville.
.
- - 1974. Interrelationships of moose and deer of the genus
Odocoileus. Nat. Can. 101: 493-504.
PYE. E. G .• and K. G. FENWICK. 1963. Lac des Isles sheet. Ont.
Dept. Mines Prelim. Geol. Map. No. P 187.
Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest regions ofCanada. Department of the
Environment. Canadian Forestry Service. Publ. No. 1300.
.f TELFER, E. S. 1974. Logging as a factor in wildlife ecology in the
boreal forest. For. Chron. 50: 186-189.
ZoLTAt, S. C. 1960. Thunder Bay surficial geology. Ont. Dep.
Lands For. Map No. 5265.
Remc
..
0
.
'·
:;
Breed
mainly 1
...
~fTected
~
true for
use the
well asf,
breed ({
.-
-
rii~)ries t
ity.
Male
~·unction
·-
.5'
~··
•
where n
Bendel1
th.1m 19t
'·\ere oc
d.e\vis J
:.ears w
..:upied f
1
~nately
.....
.•
...
-·
...'
,;
h
)~ar. ~t~
hud mer
'Pring til
-.ults sug